Bible Translations Site Map - Robinson World Websites
Bible Translations Site Map - Robinson World Websites
Bible Translations Site Map - Robinson World Websites
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> <strong>Site</strong> <strong>Map</strong><br />
1. Main Page<br />
2.Whole <strong>Translations</strong> with the Divine Name and other info<br />
3. New Testaments with Info<br />
4. Angels as Gods<br />
5. Is That In The <strong>Bible</strong>-<strong>Bible</strong> Anomalies<br />
6. Apologetics forum<br />
7. Top Ten <strong>Bible</strong> And Religion Lists<br />
8. The Comma Johanneum and the Trinity<br />
9. Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
10. More Alleged Contradictions<br />
13. What a Difference a Word Makes in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
16. Science and Religion-Albert Einstein<br />
18. The New Testament In An Improved Version-Newcome-Gospel of John-Online (Gospel of John<br />
only)<br />
21. <strong>Bible</strong> Theology and the Word "HELL"<br />
22. An Inclusive Version-The Feminist <strong>Bible</strong><br />
23. My Vicious Letter from the International Standard Version <strong>Bible</strong><br />
24. Who Was King James?/King James the Fop<br />
25. The King James(Authorized) Version <strong>Bible</strong>-Is it the Best?<br />
26. <strong>Bible</strong> Links<br />
29. The Message-A <strong>Bible</strong> in Contemporary Language by Eugene Peterson<br />
36. 1975 and a History of the End Times<br />
37. My <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
38. <strong>Bible</strong> News and Amusements<br />
39. The New International Readers Version-Rewriting the <strong>Bible</strong> to fit your Philosophy<br />
40. Defending the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
42. Smoke and Mirrors-Tactics Used by Opposers to Sway Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
43. The Prince of Egypt<br />
44. 9 out of 10 "Christians" don't know how to answer Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
48. The Seven Deadly Sins and Other Lists that aren't in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
49. <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and the word "SOUL".<br />
50. <strong>Bible</strong> Study Articles<br />
51. Why We Need Different <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong><br />
52. Trinitarian Bias in the Holy <strong>Bible</strong>(Chart)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/SITEMAP.HTM (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:08 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> <strong>Site</strong> <strong>Map</strong><br />
53. The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity<br />
54. More Trinitarian Bias in the Certain <strong>Bible</strong> Versions(Chart)<br />
55. The Triplepoint Theory of the Trinity<br />
57. Facts and Links on the Book of Mormon<br />
58. The Forgotten Trinity-James R. White tries to Explain the Unexplainable<br />
59. My Response to Kevin Quick's Attack on the NWT<br />
60. My Response to Andy Bjorklund and his attack on the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
61. Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity<br />
62. John 1:1 and the Word/Wisdom of God<br />
63. The Misunderstood Jehovah and the Ridiculous Notion that his name means "Mischief"<br />
64. Proskuneo and Worship/Obeisance/Homage of Jesus and others.<br />
65. Jesus Christ the Firstborn/PRWTOTOKOS of all creatures.<br />
66. Did the Book of Mormon Plagiarize the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
68. Conversations on the Trinity<br />
69. More Conversations on the Trinity<br />
71. Conversations on the Trinity Part 3<br />
72. Conversations on the Trinity Part 4<br />
73. Conversations on the Trinity Part 5<br />
75. A Reply to Jehovah's Witnesses and the Symbol of the Cross<br />
76. A Reply to "Only Begotten Son" or "Only Son."<br />
77. Conversations on the Trinity Part 6<br />
78. The Majority Text/Byzantine Text vs the Modern Critical Text<br />
With Another Look at the King James Version<br />
81. A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus"<br />
83. A Reply to CARM and the use of I AM @ John 8:58<br />
84. Conversations on the Textus Receptus (Received Text)<br />
85. Colossians 2:9 and the "divine quality."<br />
86. Was Constantine the Great a Pagan or a Christian?<br />
87. Recommended Books<br />
90. Johannes Greber and John 1:1c<br />
91. A Chart of Lesser Scriptures used in Support of the Trinity Doctrine<br />
92. Comprehensive List of Occurences of the Divine Name in the NT<br />
93. Is the Holy Spirit a Force ot the 3rd Person of the Trinity?<br />
94. 50 Answer to 50 Questions to ask Jehovah's Witnesseses<br />
96. Hebrew and Greek Transliteration Chart<br />
97. Rhodes vs Jehovah-Is it Jehovah, Yahweh, or just plain LORD?<br />
98. Elohim, Echad and the 3 Angels of Mamre<br />
99. An Online Response to a Kevin Quick Defender and "Just Believe."<br />
100. Answering yet Another Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses by the Available Light Web-<strong>Site</strong><br />
101. Ezra Abbot on Luther's <strong>Bible</strong> and the Comma Johanneum<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/SITEMAP.HTM (2 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:08 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> <strong>Site</strong> <strong>Map</strong><br />
102. Is Jesus Jehovah-Heb 1:10/Ps 102 etc<br />
103. Is Jesus Jehovah Pt. 2/<strong>Bible</strong> Innerancy and the Mindset of Opposers<br />
104. Colwell's Rule of <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong>-What is the best New Testament?<br />
105. Let's Read My Email Updated<br />
106. The Biblical view of Only True God/TON MONON ALHQINON QEON<br />
107. On Cults, Jesus as Michael the Archangel, and His being raised in the spirit.<br />
109. On the NIV, the Insertion of the word "other", soul, hell, analusai etc.<br />
110. The ARCHE at Rev 3:14-Beginning or Ruler/Source?<br />
111. Should kolasin be translated *cutting-off* or *punishment* at Matthew 25:46?<br />
112. Ezra Abbot on the Construction of Titus 2:13.<br />
113. Notes by Ezra Abbot on the Construction of Titus 2:13.<br />
114. Answers to 65 questions every Jehovah's Witness should be asked using the NWT-A Catholic<br />
Perspective<br />
115. Answers to 65 questions every Jehovah's Witness should be asked using the NWT-A Catholic<br />
Perspective-Pt. 2<br />
120. The LORD said to my lord: The Use and Abuse of Adoni in <strong>Bible</strong> Versions<br />
121. An Open Letter to James White Regarding his "Germans, JWs, and John 1:1"<br />
122. Sheol and the Mis-abuse of the word Hell in <strong>Bible</strong> Versions-(with Chart)<br />
123. Is Jesus the Angel of the Abyss (Abaddon/Apollyon)?<br />
124. John 1:3, 4, Punctuation, Staircase Parallelism and Caris.<br />
125. Questions from Hrh on the words "Other","Firstborn" the Spirit, Trinity and Heaven, Lord etc.<br />
127. Is Organization Necessary for True Believers? Updated<br />
128. Timeline of <strong>Bible</strong> Translation History (will be constantly updated).<br />
129. On the Construction of Romans 9:5 by Ezra Abbott<br />
130. My Response to Lynn Lundquist's "The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
133. A Reply To: Edwin Jardinel's WHY I USE AND PREACH FROM KJV BIBLE<br />
135. Frequent Words in the Greek Scriptures-A Lexical Aid<br />
136. The Biblical view of Only True God-Part 2-Now with Additions in RED<br />
137. Radio Station KKLA (Living By The Word Ministries) and their Dishonest Examination of My<br />
Research and the New <strong>World</strong> Translation140. Conversations on the Trinity-Part 7<br />
141. Why was the Watchtower Society Listed amongst the United Nations Non-Governmental<br />
Organizations (NGO)?<br />
141. JW's, Pedophiles...and Selective Discrimination and Hysteria<br />
142. Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?-An Answer to Tentmaker.org<br />
143. A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
144. What They Don't Tell You-On Dateline, Apostates, and the Gay Agenda<br />
145. Pagan Wedding and Birthday Traditions-Can They Be Compared?- An Examination of this topic as<br />
introduced by Greg Stafford in his book, "Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesseses<br />
146. Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ: On Matthew 1:23 and Immanuel; John<br />
20:28; Men as gods; Psalms 45:6; Colossians 2:9; the Divine Name in the LXX, the worship of Jesus,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/SITEMAP.HTM (3 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:08 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> <strong>Site</strong> <strong>Map</strong><br />
John 1:1, etc.<br />
147. Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ: On Matthew 1:23 and Immanuel; John<br />
20:28; Men as gods; Psalms 45:6; Colossians 2:9; the Divine Name in the LXX, the worship of Jesus,<br />
John 1:1, etc.Part 2<br />
148. A Reply to James Stewart's Review of Rolf Furuli's book on <strong>Bible</strong> Translation and the NWT<br />
149. Which <strong>Bible</strong> Best Retains Most of the Original Wording Prior to the Emendations (Corrections)<br />
made to the Hebrew Text<br />
150. More on the Spirit and Quoting-A Response to Guy Bearman<br />
151. <strong>Bible</strong> Versions and the "Once Saved Always Saved" Theology<br />
152. The CARM Anti-Tract<br />
153. Answering Jay Hess in Support of Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
154. On Homosexuality in the <strong>Bible</strong>: A Response to Peter J. Gomes' The Good Book<br />
155. Are the Online George Howard Letters Genuine or Fake, and how many times can the NWT-NT's<br />
use of the Divine Name be traced back to the OT?<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/SITEMAP.HTM (4 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:08 AM]
How Theology and Bias affect <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions<br />
What they don't tell<br />
you! Explore the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> as you never<br />
have before.<br />
· <strong>Site</strong> <strong>Map</strong><br />
· On Matthew 1:23,<br />
Colossian 2:9; John 20:28<br />
and the word "Worship" in<br />
the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
· On the NIV, the insertion<br />
of the word "other" etc<br />
· Prototokos and Col. 1:15<br />
· Ezra Abbot on Martin<br />
Luther and the 3 Heavenly<br />
Witnesses<br />
· "Adoni" and <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Versions<br />
· Understanding Greek<br />
Texts<br />
· Response to Andy<br />
Bjorklund on the NWT<br />
· What a Difference a Word<br />
Makes in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
· Read My Email<br />
(Constantly Updated)<br />
· A Mis- understood<br />
Jehovah<br />
· Who Put That in the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>? (Warning!)<br />
· On Prototokos/Col 1:15<br />
· 1John 5:7,8 and the 3<br />
Witness Bearers<br />
· <strong>Bible</strong> Links<br />
· Proskuneo/ Wosrhip and<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong><br />
· New Testament<br />
Breakdown<br />
· <strong>Bible</strong> News &<br />
Amusements<br />
· A Reply to Stauros and<br />
the Cross<br />
· <strong>Bible</strong> Hebrew Archives<br />
· The Message New<br />
Testament<br />
· <strong>Bible</strong>s I Own<br />
· Tactics Used by Opposers<br />
· E-mail Me<br />
· <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and<br />
Proverbs 8:22<br />
How Theology and Bias affects <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
The King James(Authorized)Version·The Tetragrammaton · A Reply to James<br />
Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom · <strong>Bible</strong> Versions and the Divine Name ·<br />
Hell in the <strong>Bible</strong>?· Conversations on the Trinity · Conversations on the Textus<br />
Receptus· John 8:58/EGW EIMI<br />
The word "Soul" in the <strong>Bible</strong> · King James the Fop · The Biblical view of Only<br />
True God-Part II<br />
What is the Best New Testament?<br />
50 years ago respected textual critic Ernest Cadman Colwell<br />
created an apparatus of 64 scriptures to determine which is the best<br />
New Testament. I created a chart using the same criteria...and the<br />
results will surprise you!! click here for more<br />
Which is the Best Old Testament?<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> best retains the original wording prior to the<br />
emendations (corrections) made to the Hebrew text.<br />
Is your mainstream <strong>Bible</strong> ripping you off?<br />
Again...the results will surprise you!!click here for more<br />
Visit the Book Store<br />
Buy scanned and Xerox copies of Newcome's 1808 Corrected<br />
New Testament, George Barker Steven's NT, Weigall's "The<br />
Paganism in our Christianity," Machen's NT Greek for Beginners,<br />
plus more, for only $9.95. Used copies of Goodspeed's <strong>Bible</strong>, and<br />
the Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> also available. click here for more<br />
On the Construction of Romans IX:5<br />
[From the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and<br />
Exegesis for 1881.] Now complete, sans Notes A & B<br />
Written by Ezra Abbott click here for more<br />
Jesus: GOD or the Son of God?<br />
A new book by Brian Holt, available at<br />
http://www.tellway-publishing.com<br />
This is a wonderful book with 366 pages of an easy to understand<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/index.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:13 AM]
How Theology and Bias affect <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions<br />
· Apologetics Forum<br />
· <strong>Bible</strong> Study Articles<br />
· JW's United<br />
· Conversations on the<br />
Trinity Part 3<br />
· Conversation on the<br />
Trinity Part 4<br />
· Parousia<br />
· Do we need Different<br />
Versions?<br />
· 3 Wise Men or<br />
Astrologers?<br />
· Interlinear <strong>Bible</strong><br />
· New International readers<br />
Version<br />
· Did the Book of Mormon<br />
Plagiarize the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
· TON MONON ALHQINON<br />
QEON<br />
/False Gods<br />
· The Two Babylons<br />
· Lists from the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
· Lists People think are in<br />
the <strong>Bible</strong> but Aren't<br />
· A Response to<br />
Monogenes at Jn 1:18<br />
· B-Greek<br />
· Greek Theology Archives<br />
· American Standard<br />
Version<br />
·News and Business Links<br />
· Greek Lexicon<br />
· Jesus as Michael the<br />
Archangel<br />
· Trinity Triple Point Theory<br />
· Search The Revised<br />
Standard Version<br />
· King James the Fop<br />
· International Standard<br />
Version<br />
· Why Different Versions?<br />
· Boobyer on Jesus as<br />
THEOS<br />
· NWT Advantages<br />
· The NIV and Interpolations<br />
· An Inclusive Version<br />
· 1975 and other<br />
Speculations<br />
· More Alleged<br />
Contradictions<br />
· Einstein's Science and<br />
Religion<br />
· European List of NT's with<br />
the Divine Name/ YHWH<br />
· Blue Letter <strong>Bible</strong><br />
· Johannes Greber and the<br />
Opposers who Love him<br />
· Win A Free <strong>Bible</strong><br />
· <strong>Bible</strong> Gateway<br />
· Latin Vulgate<br />
· Prince of Egypt<br />
· Hebrew Names Version<br />
· Search the NRSV<br />
· Westcott/Hort text with<br />
NA26 variants<br />
analysis of the Trinity going through all the books of the NT one<br />
by one.<br />
For more Book Recommendations, click here<br />
The Tetragrammaton YHWH/JHVH<br />
Is it Yahweh, Jehovah, or just plain LORD?<br />
Why Does Ron Rhodes hate the name? click here<br />
The ARCHE at Rev. 3:14-Ruler or Beginning?<br />
The BADG has given more weight to Christ being a created being.<br />
Was the genitive construction a factor? click here<br />
John 1:1-The Most Talked about Scripture<br />
Was the Word "a god", "God" or "divine"?<br />
Is Logos a substitution for Sophia/Wisdom?click here<br />
For KKLA Radio misrepresentation of this page, click here<br />
To purchase Newcome's 1808 Revised New Testament for $7.95<br />
on CD-Rom-click here.<br />
The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
My response to Lynn Lundquist's book on the topic that was sent<br />
to every Kingdom Hall in America.<br />
As posted on JW United. click here<br />
John 1:3,4-<strong>Bible</strong> Versions and Punctuation<br />
Is "without Him nothing was made that was made" wrong?<br />
also, Staircase Parallelism, Agency and Caris click here<br />
My Nasty Letter from the INTERNATIONAL STANDARD<br />
VERSION<br />
From the publishers<br />
"In regards to your puerile insistence on the 'Divine Name'"...click<br />
here<br />
Colossians 2:9 and QEIOTHS vs QEOTHTOS<br />
The Fullness of the "Deity" or "divine quality?"<br />
The NASB against the NWT- an online reply to Mark McFall"<br />
click here<br />
The King James Version-Is it the Best?<br />
Can you understand what you are reading?<br />
"Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing."click here<br />
Matt 25:46-How Should kolasin be translated ?<br />
"Eternal Punishment/Torment" or "Cutting -Off"!<br />
What is the lexical/Biblical evidence? click here<br />
Trinitarian Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong><br />
Trinitarian differences in different versions.<br />
A chart with differences in translations of certain scriptures like<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/index.htm (2 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:13 AM]
How Theology and Bias affect <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions<br />
· Works/Salvation<br />
· On Elohim, Echad and the<br />
3 angels of Mamre<br />
· Is Jesus Jehovah?<br />
· Germans, Jw's and John<br />
1:1-A Reply<br />
· Frequent words used in<br />
the NT-A Lexical Aid<br />
· My Response to Kevin<br />
Quick Ministries' Attack on<br />
the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
· Ezra Abbott on Romans<br />
9:5<br />
· KJV Questions Answered<br />
· Universalism, <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Versions, and the word<br />
PAS/PANTAS<br />
· KKLA, Rob Bowman, and<br />
Misrepresenting the NWT<br />
· William Loader on John<br />
1:1c<br />
· Col 1:16 and the Partitive<br />
Genitive<br />
Read Gods Word the Holy<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Daily<br />
Use more than one<br />
Translation<br />
Pick up Lexicons and<br />
Strong's Concordance with<br />
Hebrew and Greek<br />
Dictionary<br />
Familiarize yourself with<br />
the original languages by<br />
going to The Unbound<br />
<strong>Bible</strong><br />
You can Fax me anything of<br />
Biblical interest at 707 988<br />
0235<br />
John 1:1;Acts 20:28 etc click here<br />
King James the Fop<br />
The truth behind the character of the King and the making of the<br />
Authorized Version.<br />
A great article by Global Insights. click here<br />
The Majority Text/Byzantine Text vs the Modern Critical<br />
Text<br />
With Another Look at the King James Version<br />
An introduction to Textual Criticism. click here<br />
The New <strong>World</strong> Translation vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
Making comparisons and answering the charges of bias<br />
click here for more<br />
Ezra Abbot on the Construction of Titus 2:13<br />
Shall we translate, "the appearing of our great God and Saviour<br />
Jesus Christ"? or, "the appearing of the glory of the great God and<br />
our Saviour Jesus Christ"?<br />
click here for more<br />
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
Answering the Atheists<br />
Scripture by Scripture click here<br />
Another Trinity Bias Chart<br />
Differences in Zech 12:10; Jn 8:58; Eph 5:5;<br />
Col 1:15; Rev 3:14 etc click here<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> Version Do You Use Most?<br />
Do you use the most? Is it the NWT, NIV, KJV, NAB, ESV, RSV,<br />
NEB, REB, NJB, NLT, NASB, NJPS, HCSB, NKJV? click here<br />
to vote<br />
In Memory of Jabec Bellehumeur<br />
Please Don't Drink and Drive<br />
...by his mother, Joan Brown click here<br />
On a quick note: "These various readings, though very numerous, do not in<br />
any degree affect the general credit and integrity of the text: the general<br />
uniformity of which, in so many copies, scattered through almost all countries<br />
in the known world, and in so great a variety of languages, is truly<br />
astonishing, and demonstrates both the veneration in which the scriptures<br />
were held, and the great care which was taken in transcribing them. Of the<br />
150,000 various readings which have been discovered by the sgacity and<br />
diligence of collators, not one tenth, nor one hundredth part, make any<br />
perceptible, or at least any material variation in any sense. Introduction to the<br />
New Testament in an Improved Version Upon the basis of Archbishop<br />
Newcome's New Translation 1808<br />
<strong>World</strong> English <strong>Bible</strong> · Newcome Version Online · <strong>Bible</strong> Resources · English/Greek Word Search · Recommended Books · JW Media · Steven T Byington · Search<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/index.htm (3 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:13 AM]
How Theology and Bias affect <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions<br />
the NASB · Search the KJV · Search the NIV · Search the Darby Version · Search the Young Literal Version · Search the Douay Version· Jehovah in the NT·<br />
More YHWH in the NT·New Revised Standard Version · Nestle Greek Text · Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> · 50 Answers to 50 Questions to Ask Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
·Jehovah's Witnesses United · The Name of God YeHoWaH which is Pronounced as it is Written by Gerard Gertoux<br />
Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> · NKJV · Contemporary English Version · NET <strong>Bible</strong> · New American <strong>Bible</strong> ·Rolf Furuli's Book on Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/index.htm (4 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:13 AM]
Are the George Howard Letters Regarding the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Genuine?<br />
Are the Online George Howard Letters Regarding the<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation Genuine?<br />
How Many of the 237 Occurences of "Jehovah" in the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures (NT) are<br />
Traceable back to the Old Testament (OT)?<br />
Website: Professor Howard’s original article and the two letters reproduced below are<br />
clear that what be wrote was a "theory". His theory is that the writers of the New Testament<br />
retained the Tetragrammaton whenever they quoted extracts from the Old Testament that<br />
contained it.<br />
The Letters:<br />
JW publications sometimes cite Professor George Howard (J. of Biblical Literature, Volume<br />
96, 1977) in a way that makes it seem that he agrees with the introduction of the<br />
Tetragrammaton (YHWH) into the New Testament. For example see:<br />
* The Kingdom Interlinear Translation, 1985 pp. 1137-1138;<br />
* Reasoning from the Scriptures 1985, pp. 194-195. The Watchtower 1978 May 1 pp. 9-10.<br />
Professor Howard’s original article and the two letters reproduced below are clear that<br />
what be wrote was a "theory". His theory is that the writers of the New Testament retained<br />
the Tetragrammaton whenever they quoted extracts from the Old Testament that contained<br />
it. This theory applies to references in the NT from the OT. It has no relevance to most of the<br />
237 instances where the JW translators inserted "Jehovah" into their NT.<br />
The University of Georgia<br />
College of Arts & Sciences<br />
June 5, 1989<br />
Bob Hathaway<br />
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624<br />
Dear Mr. Hathaway:<br />
My conclusions regarding the Tatragrammaton and the New Testament are:<br />
1) the N.T. writers might have used the Tetragrammaton in their Old Testament<br />
quotations, and 2) it is possible (though less likely) that the Tetragrammaton<br />
was used in a few stereotype phrases such as "the angel of the Lord."<br />
Otherwise it probably was not used at all. I disagree with the Jehovah Witness<br />
translation that uses Jehovah many times. This goes beyond the evidence. I do<br />
not believe Jesus Christ is Jehovah. If the Jehovah Witnesses teach this (I’m<br />
not aware of most of their theology) they are off the mark.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
George Howard<br />
Professor<br />
The University of Georgia<br />
January 9, 1990<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ghoward.htm (1 of 13) [5/25/2003 3:45:24 AM]
Are the George Howard Letters Regarding the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Genuine?<br />
Steven Butt<br />
P.O. _____<br />
Portland, ME 04104<br />
Dear Mr. Butt:<br />
Thank you for your letter of 3 January 1990. I have been distressed for<br />
sometime about the use the Jehovah’s Witnesses are making of my publications.<br />
My research does not support their denial of the deity of Christ. What I tried<br />
to show was that there is evidence that the Septuagint <strong>Bible</strong>s used by the<br />
writers of the New Testament contained the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. I argued<br />
that it is reasonable to assume that the NT writers, when quoting from the<br />
Septuagint, retained the Tetragrammaton in the quotations. This does not<br />
support the JW’s insertion of "Jehovah" in every place they want. To do this<br />
is to remove the NT from its original "theological climate." My opinion of the<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation (based on limited exposure) is that it is odd. I suspect<br />
that it is a Translation designed to support JW theology. Finally, my theory<br />
about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues<br />
disagree with me (for example Albert Pietersma). Theories like mine are<br />
important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and<br />
implications. Until they are proven (and mine has not been proven) they should<br />
not be used as a surety for belief.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
George Howard<br />
So what exactly is wrong with these letters attributed to George Howard?<br />
First off, the very first publication mentioned, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation, 1985 pp. 1137-1138<br />
admitted that George Howard thought this was a theory. There was no effort to quell this fact, but we<br />
have been misrepresented as promoting the opposite.<br />
Secondly, are we to believe that one of the world's leading researchers on the _Tetragrammaton_, cannot<br />
even spell it (see Tatragrammaton)? Yes, it could have been a spelling error, but what was posted was not<br />
a scan of Howard's supposed letter, the author should have included a [sic], indicating that the quoted<br />
passage containing the error, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally. Obviously,<br />
the person who posted this was unaware of this misspelling.<br />
Also, we have not used Howard as a "surety for belief" since the NWT-NT was released 27 years prior to<br />
his landmark article.<br />
Next, we are now to believe that George Howard had "limited exposure" to the New <strong>World</strong> Translation.<br />
This, despite the fact that Howard admitted 13 years prior that the NWT had published fragments of<br />
P.Fouad 266 in 1950, and that Howard had used this same <strong>Bible</strong> to transcribe these fragments in his _The<br />
Oldest Greek Text of Deuteronomy_ HUCA 42, 125-31 in 1971 (see JBL 96/1 1977 pp. 63-83). Howard<br />
evidently had the NWT in his possession for many decades prior to this posted letter. "Limited Exposure"<br />
indeed!!<br />
It seems the author of these letters was unaware that Howard used the NWT so extensively in his<br />
research.<br />
Interestingly, we have an embarrassing contradiction in the letters above. In letter One, Howard admits to<br />
denying the deity of Christ ["I do not believe Jesus Christ is Jehovah"] and is completely unaware of our<br />
stand on this, but then in letter Two expresses grief that his statements might be used to buttress this<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ghoward.htm (2 of 13) [5/25/2003 3:45:24 AM]
Are the George Howard Letters Regarding the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Genuine?<br />
belief, when it was he that stated:<br />
"Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were<br />
unsure whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures were<br />
brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them.<br />
Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later<br />
Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian<br />
centuries." George Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March<br />
1978), 15<br />
We may have used this quote, but not in the way this information was either fed by the poster to Howard<br />
(or Pseudo-Howard).<br />
Next, once we remove Howard's stipulations that the NT might have used the Divine Name in its OT<br />
quotations, and that the NT might have used it in a "few stereotype phrases" [see letter above] and the<br />
"OT paraphristic allusions" and the "traditional phrases" he ponders about in his JBL 1977 article, then,<br />
how often really, does the NWT go "beyond the evidence?"<br />
Let us examine each occurrence, wherein I utilized the cross-references the Treasury of Scriptural<br />
Knowledge, Green's Literal Version (both as supplied by E-Sword), and other resources as stated:<br />
MATTHEW<br />
1:20 "angel of the Lord" used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for<br />
"angel of YHWH."<br />
1:24 Ex. 40 "angel of the Lord" used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "angel of YHWH."<br />
2:13 "angel of the Lord" used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for<br />
"angel of YHWH."<br />
2:15 Hos. 11:1; Ex. 4:22; Nu. 24:8<br />
2:19 "angel of the Lord" used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for<br />
"angel of YHWH."<br />
3:3 Is. 40:3<br />
4:4 Dt. 8:3<br />
4:7 Dt. 6:16<br />
4:10 Dt. 6:13<br />
5:33 Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2<br />
21:9 Psa. 118:26<br />
21:42 Psalm 118:22, 23<br />
22:37 Deut. 6:5<br />
22:44 Psa. 110:1<br />
23:39 Psa. 118:26<br />
27:10 Zech. 11:12, 13<br />
28:2 "angel of the Lord" used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for<br />
"angel of YHWH."<br />
It should be noted here that George Howard's own _Hebrew Gospel of Matthew_ has the "Divine Name<br />
in Shem-Tob's Matthew" 16 times, the NWT has it only 18 times, and each accounted for using<br />
non-Witness references. By comparison, the Sacred Name Restored <strong>Bible</strong> [or the Restoration of the<br />
Original Sacred Name <strong>Bible</strong>] has it 55 times here, and 1437 times in the entire NT, as opposed to the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ghoward.htm (3 of 13) [5/25/2003 3:45:24 AM]
Are the George Howard Letters Regarding the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Genuine?<br />
NWT's 237 times. Is it possible that the accusations above were directed to this <strong>Bible</strong> instead?<br />
MARK<br />
1:3 Mal. 3:1; Isa. 40:3<br />
5:19 Psa_66:16; Isa_38:9-20; Dan_4:1-3, Dan_4:37 TSK ;No-21st Cent NT<br />
11:9 Psa. 118:26<br />
12:11 Psalm 118:22, 23<br />
12:29 Deut. 6:4<br />
12:29 Deut. 6:4<br />
12:30 Deut. 6:4, 5<br />
12:36 Psa. 110:1<br />
13:20 Isa. 1:9; Zec. 13:8<br />
LUKE<br />
1:6 "commandment of the Lord," used 16 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "commandment of YHWH."<br />
1:9 Exo_30:8, Num_16:40; 1Ch_23:13; 2Ch_26:16; 2Ch_29:11 "temple of the Lord," used 16 times in<br />
NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for "temple of YHWH."<br />
1:11 "angel of the Lord" is used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "angel of YHWH."<br />
1:15 "eyes of the Lord" is used 10 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "eyes of YHWH."<br />
1:16 "Lord their God" is used 38 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for<br />
"eyes of YHWH."<br />
1:17 Mal. 4:5, 6; 1Ch_29:18; 2Ch_29:36; Psa_10:17, Psa_78:8, Psa_111:10; Amo_4:12;<br />
1:25 Gen_21:1, Gen_21:2, Gen_25:21, Gen_30:22; 1Sa_1:19, 1Sa_1:20, 1Sa_2:21, 1Sa_2:22<br />
1:28 Jdg_6:12; Isa_43:5; Jer_1:18, Jer_1:19 [See also 2 Sam 7:3; 2 Chr. 15:2; 20:17]<br />
1:32 2Sa_7:11-13; Psa_132:11 "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in<br />
NASB/ESV/NRSV as a dynamic equivalent substitute for YHWH God.<br />
1:38 2Sa_7:25-29; Psa_116:16<br />
1:45 Gen. 18:4; 21:1 NWT<br />
1:46 1 Sam. 2:1-10 N/Aland; Psa_34:2, Psa_34:3, Psa_35:9, Psa_103:1, Psa_103:2; Isa_24:15,<br />
Isa_24:16, Isa_45:25, Isa_61:10; Hab_3:17, Hab_3:18<br />
1:58 Rth_4:14-17; Psa_113:9<br />
1:66 Gen_39:2; Jdg_13:24, Jdg_13:25; 1Sa_2:18, 1Sa_16:18; 1Ki_18:46; Psa_80:17; Psa_89:21<br />
1:68 "Lord God of Israel" common OT appellation, used 48 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a dynamic<br />
equivalent substitute for YHWH God of Israel. Gen_9:26, Gen_14:20; 1Ki_1:48;<br />
1Ch_29:10,1Ch_29:20; Psa_41:13, Psa_72:17-19, Psa_106:48<br />
1:76 Mal. 3:1<br />
2:9 "angel of the Lord" is used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "angel of YHWH."<br />
2:9 "glory of the Lord" is used 35 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "glory of YHWH."<br />
2:15 Exo_3:3; Psa_111:2<br />
2:22 Lev_12:2-6 (see verse 7)<br />
2:23 "law of the Lord" is used 18 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for<br />
"law of YHWH."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ghoward.htm (4 of 13) [5/25/2003 3:45:24 AM]
Are the George Howard Letters Regarding the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Genuine?<br />
2:23 Ex. 13:2<br />
2:24 "law of the Lord" is used 18 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for<br />
"law of YHWH."<br />
2:26 Psa_2:2, Psa_2:6; Isa_61:1<br />
2:39 "law of the Lord" is used 18 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for<br />
"law of YHWH."<br />
3:4 Isa_40:3-5<br />
4:8 Deut. 6:13<br />
4:12 Deut. 6:16<br />
4:18 Isa. 61:1, 2<br />
4:19 Isa. 61:1, 2<br />
5:17 Power emanates from YHWH (see Ex. 4:21; 14:31; 15:6; 32:11; Num. 11:23; 14:17; Dt. 8:18; 2<br />
Ki. 17:36; 1 Chr. 29:11; 2 Chr. 20:6; Ps. 21:13; 59:11; Is. 8:11; Jer. 16:21; 32:17; Amos 1:8; Nah. 1:3;<br />
10:27 Deu_6:5, Deu_10:12, Deu_30:6<br />
13:35 Psa_118:26; Isa_40:9-11<br />
19:38 Psa. 118:26<br />
20:37 Ex. 3:6; Gen_17:7, Gen_28:13, Gen_32:9;<br />
20:42 Psa. 110:1<br />
JOHN<br />
1:23 Isa_40:3-5<br />
6:45 Isa. 54:13<br />
12:13 Psa. 118:26<br />
12:38 Isa. 53:1<br />
12:38 Isa. 53:1<br />
ACTS<br />
1:24 Num_27:16; 1Sa_16:7; 1Ch_28:9, 1Ch_29:17; Psa_7:9, Psa_44:21; Pro_15:11; Jer_11:20,<br />
Jer_17:10, Jer_20:12<br />
2:20 "day of the LORD" is used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "day of YHWH."<br />
2:21 Joel 2:28-32<br />
2:25 Psa_16:8-11<br />
2:34 Psa. 110:1<br />
2:39 "LORD our God" is used 96 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "YHWH our God."<br />
2:47 Ps. 115:14 NWT<br />
3:19 "presence of the LORD" is used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "presence of YHWH."<br />
3:22 Deut. 18:15-16, 19<br />
4:26 Psa. 2:1, 2<br />
4:29 Isa_37:17-20, Isa_63:15; Lam_3:50, Lam_5:1; Dan_9:18<br />
5:9 Allusion to "spirit of the Lord" used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "spirit of YHWH."<br />
5:19 "angel of the Lord" is used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "angel of YHWH."<br />
7:31 Exo_3:3, Exo_3:4; Ex. 3:6, 15<br />
7:33 Exo_3:5; Jos_5:15<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ghoward.htm (5 of 13) [5/25/2003 3:45:24 AM]
Are the George Howard Letters Regarding the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Genuine?<br />
7:49 1Ki_22:19; Psa_11:4; Jer_23:24<br />
7:60 Ezr_9:5; Dan_6:10<br />
8:22 Deu_4:29, Deu_4:30; 2Ch_33:12, 2Ch_33:13; Isa_55:6, Isa_55:7; Amo_5:6<br />
8:24 Gen_20:7, Gen_20:17; Exo_8:8, Exo_10:17, Exo_12:32; Num_21:7; 1Sa_12:19, 1Sa_12:23;<br />
1Ki_13:6; Ezr_6:10, Ezr_8:23; Job_42:8;<br />
8:25 "word of the Lord," is used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "word of YHWH."<br />
8:26 "angel of the Lord" is used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "angel of YHWH."<br />
8:39 "spirit of the Lord" is used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "spirit of YHWH."<br />
9:31 "fear of the Lord" is used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "fear of YHWH."<br />
10:33 Deu_5:25-29; 2Ch_30:12; Pro_9:10;<br />
11:21 Isa_59:1 "hand of the Lord," is used 35 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "hand of YHWH."<br />
12:7 "angel of the Lord" is used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "angel of YHWH."<br />
12:11 Allusion to "angel of the Lord" used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "angel of YHWH."<br />
12:17 Psa_66:16, Psa_102:20,Psa_102:21, Psa_107:21, Psa_107:22, Psa_116:14, Psa_116:15,<br />
Psa_146:7<br />
12:23 "angel of the Lord" is used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "angel of YHWH."<br />
12:24 Allusion to "word of the Lord," is used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic<br />
equivalent substitute for "word of YHWH."<br />
13:2 Deu_10:8; 1Sa_2:11; 1Ch_16:4, 1Ch_16:37-43<br />
13:10 Gen_18:19; 2Ch_17:6; Hos_14:9<br />
13:11 "hand of the Lord" is used 35 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "hand of YHWH."<br />
13:12 Allusion to YHWH as teacher at Ps. 25:4; 27:11; 86:11; 94:12; 119:12, 33, 64, 108; Is. 2:3; Mic.<br />
4:2<br />
13:44 "word of the Lord," is used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "word of YHWH."<br />
13:47 Isa_42:6, Isa_49:6, Isa_60:3; Psa_22:27-29, Psa_67:2-7, Psa_72:7, Psa_72:8, Psa_96:1,<br />
Psa_96:2, Psa_98:2, Psa_98:3, Psa_117:1, Psa_117:2; Isa_2:1-3, Isa_24:13-16, Isa_42:9-12, Isa_45:22,<br />
Isa_52:10, Isa_59:19, Isa_59:20; Jer_16:19; Hos_1:10; Amo_9:12; Mic_4:2, Mic_4:3, Mic_5:7;<br />
Zep_3:9, Zep_3:10; Zec_2:11, Zec_8:20-23; Mal_1:11<br />
13:48 "word of the Lord," is used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "word of YHWH."<br />
13:49 "word of the Lord," is used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "word of YHWH."<br />
14:3<br />
14:23<br />
15:17 Amos 9:11, 12; Psa_22:26, Psa_22:27, Psa_72:17-19; Isa_2:2, Isa_2:3, Isa_11:10; Isa_19:23-25,<br />
Isa_24:15, Isa_24:16, Isa_49:6, Isa_49:7, Isa_66:18-21; Jer_16:19; Hos_2:23; Joe_2:32; Mic_4:1,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ghoward.htm (6 of 13) [5/25/2003 3:45:24 AM]
Are the George Howard Letters Regarding the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Genuine?<br />
Mic_4:2, Mic_5:7; Zec_2:11, Zec_8:20-23; Mal_1:11<br />
15:17 See above<br />
15:35 "word of the Lord," is used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "word of YHWH."<br />
15:36 "word of the Lord," is used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "word of YHWH."<br />
15:40 "grace of the Lord" an allusion to Ezr. 9:8 and Ps. 84:11<br />
16:14 Isa_50:5<br />
16:15<br />
16:32 "word of the Lord," is used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "word of YHWH."<br />
18:21<br />
18:25 "way of the Lord," is used 10 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "way of YHWH."<br />
19:20 "word of the Lord," is used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute<br />
for "word of YHWH."<br />
21:14 1Sa_3:18; 2Sa_15:25, 2Sa_15:26; 2Ki_20:19<br />
ROMANS<br />
4:3 Gen. 15:6<br />
4:8 Psa. 32:1, 2; Isa_53:10-12<br />
9:28 Isa. 10:22, 23<br />
9:29 Isa. 1:9<br />
10:13 Joel 2:32<br />
10:16 Isa. 53:1<br />
11:3 1 Kg. 19:10<br />
11:34 Isa. 40:13<br />
12:11 Allusion to "serve the Lord," used 26 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "serve YHWH."<br />
12:19 Deut. 32:35; Psa_94:1-3; Nah_1:2, Nah_1:3<br />
14:4 Deu_33:27-29; Psa_37:17, Psa_37:24, Psa_37:28<br />
14:6 Exo_12:14, Exo_12:42<br />
14:6 Exo_16:25<br />
14:6 Exo_16:25; Isa_58:5<br />
14:8 Ps. 146:2 NWT<br />
14:8 Ps. 116:15 NWT<br />
14:8<br />
14:11 Isa. 45:23<br />
15:11 Psa. 117:1<br />
1 CORINTHIANS<br />
1:31 Jer. 9:24<br />
2:16 Isa_40:13, Isa_40:14; Jer_23:18<br />
3:20 Psa. 94:11<br />
4:4 Psa_130:3, Pro_21:2<br />
4:19<br />
7:17<br />
10:9 Exo_17:2, Exo_17:7, Num_21:5; Deu_6:16; Psa_78:18, Psa_78:56, Psa_106:14<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ghoward.htm (7 of 13) [5/25/2003 3:45:24 AM]
Are the George Howard Letters Regarding the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Genuine?<br />
10:21 Jehovah is depicted with a cup 26 times in the OT 27 times from Ps. 16:5 to Hab. 2:16<br />
10:21 "table of the Lord" used 2 times at Mal. 1:7, 12 in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "table of YHWH."<br />
10:22 Jehovah is depicted as "jealous" 31 times in the OT between Ex. 20:5 and Zec. 8:2<br />
10:26 Psa 24:1<br />
11:32 Deu_8:5; Job_5:17, Job_5:18, Psa_94:12, Psa_94:13, Psa_118:18; Pro_3:11, Pro_3:12; Jer_7:28;<br />
Zep_3:2<br />
14:21 Deu_28:49; Isa_28:11, Isa_28:12; Jer_5:15<br />
16:7 Pro_19:21; Jer_10:23<br />
16:10 Allusion to "work of the Lord" used 5 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "work of YHWH."<br />
2 CORINTHIANS<br />
3:16 Exo_34:34; Deu_4:30, Deu_30:10; Lam_3:40; Hos_3:4, Hos_3:5<br />
3:17 Allusion to "spirit of the Lord" used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "spirit of YHWH."<br />
3:17 Allusion to "spirit of the Lord" used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "spirit of YHWH."<br />
3:18 Allusion to "glory of the Lord" used 35 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "glory of YHWH."<br />
3:18 "Spirit of the Lord" (NKJV, NLT) is an allusion to "spirit of the LORD used 23 times in NKJV OT<br />
as a dynamic equivalent substitute for "spirit of YHWH." *<br />
6:17 Isa. 52:11 Nestle-Aland<br />
6:18 [2 Sam 7:17; Amos 3:13 Nestle-Aland]<br />
8:21 Prov. 3:4 (see verse 5)<br />
10:17 Jer. 9:24 [Jer. 10:17 Nestle-Aland]<br />
10:18 Pro_21:2<br />
GALATIANS<br />
3:6 Gen 15:6<br />
EPHESIANS<br />
2:21 Exod. 26:1-37; 1Ki_6:7; Psa_93:5; Eze_42:12 Allusion to "in the Lord," used 70 times in<br />
NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for "in YHWH."<br />
5:17 Deu_4:6; 1Ki_3:9-12; Job_28:28; Psa_111:10, Psa_119:27; Pro_2:5, Pro_14:8, Pro_23:23;<br />
Jer_4:22<br />
5:19 Psa_95:2, Psa_105:2<br />
6:4 Psa_71:17; Psa_71:18, Psa_78:4-7; Pro_4:1-4, Pro_19:18, Pro_22:6, Pro_22:15, Pro_23:13,<br />
Pro_23:14, Pro_29:15, Pro_29:17; Isa_38:19<br />
6:7 Allusion to "slave [servant] of the Lord," used 21 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic<br />
equivalent substitute for "servant of YHWH."<br />
6:8 Psa. 24:5<br />
COLOSSIANS<br />
1:10 Mic. 4:5<br />
3:13 Jer. 31:34 NWT<br />
3:16 Psa_28:7, Psa_30:11, Psa_30:12, Psa_47:6, Psa_47:7, Psa_63:4-6, Psa_71:23, Psa_103:1,<br />
Psa_103:2, Psa_138:1<br />
3:22 Allusion to "fear of the Lord," used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "fear of YHWH."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ghoward.htm (8 of 13) [5/25/2003 3:45:24 AM]
Are the George Howard Letters Regarding the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Genuine?<br />
3:23 Psa. 9:1 NWT<br />
3:24 Gen_15:1; Rth_2:12; Pro_11:18<br />
1 THESSALONIANS<br />
1:8 Allusion to "word of the Lord," used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "word of YHWH."<br />
4:6 Deu_32:35; Job_31:13, Job_31:14; Psa_94:1, Psa_140:12; Pro_22:22, Pro_22:23; Ecc_5:8;<br />
Isa_1:23, Isa_1:24<br />
4:15 Allusion to "word of the Lord," used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "word of YHWH."<br />
5:2 Allusion to "day of the LORD" used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "day of YHWH."<br />
2 THESSALONIANS<br />
2:2 Allusion to "day of the LORD" used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "day of YHWH."<br />
2:13 Deu_33:12; Jer_31:3; Eze_16:8<br />
3:1 Allusion to "word of the Lord" used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "word of YHWH."<br />
2 TIMOTHY<br />
1:18 Psa_130:3, Psa_130:4 An allusion to "the day of the LORD" as mentioned 23 times in the<br />
NASB/ESV/NRSV<br />
2:19 Num. 16:5, 7<br />
2:19 Num. 16:5, 7<br />
4:14 Psa. 62:12<br />
HEBREWS<br />
2:13 Isa. 8:18<br />
7:21 Psa_110:4<br />
8:2 Exo_28:1, Exo_28:35<br />
8:8 Exo_24:3-11, Exo_34:10,Exo_34:27, Exo_34:28; Deu_5:2, Deu_5:3, Deu_29:1, Deu_29:12<br />
8:9 Exo_24:3-11, Exo_34:10,Exo_34:27, Exo_34:28; Deu_5:2, Deu_5:3, Deu_29:1, Deu_29:12<br />
8:10 Jer. 31:31-34<br />
8:11 Jer. 31:31-34<br />
10:16 Jer_31:33, Jer_31:34<br />
10:30 Deut. 32:35, 36<br />
12:5 Prov. 3:11, 12<br />
12:6 Prov. 3:11, 12<br />
13:6 Psa. 118:6<br />
JAMES<br />
1:7 TSK from verse 5: 1Ch_22:12; 2Ch_1:10; Pro_2:3-6; Isa_55:6, Isa_55:7; Jer_29:12; Jer_29:13<br />
1:12 Exo_20:6; Deu_7:9; Neh_1:5; Psa_5:11<br />
2:23 Gen. 15:6; Isa. 41:8<br />
2:23 Gen. 15:6; Isa. 41:8<br />
3:9 1Ch_29:10,1Ch_29:20; Psa_34:1, Psa_63:4, Psa_145:1, Psa_145:21<br />
4:10 1Sa_2:9; Job_22:29; Psa_27:6, Psa_28:9, Psa_30:1, Psa_113:7, Psa_147:6<br />
4:15 2Sa_15:25, 2Sa_15:26<br />
5:4 Isa. 1:9; 5:9<br />
5:10 Isa_39:8; Jer_26:16; Allusion to "name of the Lord" used 105 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ghoward.htm (9 of 13) [5/25/2003 3:45:24 AM]
Are the George Howard Letters Regarding the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Genuine?<br />
a dynamic equivalent substitute for "name of YHWH."<br />
5:11 Job_42:10-17<br />
5:11 Job_42:10-17<br />
5:14 Allusion to "name of the Lord" used 105 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "name of YHWH."<br />
5:15 Isa_33:24 (see verse 22)<br />
1 PETER<br />
1:25 Isaiah 40:6-8<br />
3:12 Psa. 34:12-16<br />
3:12 Psa. 34:12-16<br />
2 PETER<br />
2:9 Job_5:19; Psa_34:15-19;<br />
2:11 Psa_103:20, Psa_104:4; Dan_6:22<br />
3:8 Psa. 90:4<br />
3:9 Psa. 130:5, 6; Hab. 2:3 Baptist Study <strong>Bible</strong> (see verse 2)<br />
3:10 Allusion to "day of the LORD" used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent<br />
substitute for "day of YHWH."<br />
3:12 "day of the LORD" a common OT appellation, used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a dynamic<br />
equivalent substitute for "day of YHWH."<br />
JUDE<br />
5 Exo. 12:51 Baptist Study <strong>Bible</strong><br />
9 Zech. 3:2<br />
14 Deu_33:2; Job_19:25-27; Psa_50:3-5; Dan_7:9, Dan_7:10; Zec_14:5<br />
REVELATION<br />
1:8 Isa 41:4<br />
4:8 Isa 6:3<br />
4:11 Deu_32:4; 1Ch_16:28, 1Ch_16:29; Neh_9:5; Job_36:3; Psa_29:1, Psa_29:2, Psa_68:34; Psa_96:7,<br />
Psa_96:8<br />
11:17 Gen 17:1, "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a<br />
dynamic equivalent substitute for YHWH God.<br />
15:3 Gen 17:1, "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a<br />
dynamic equivalent substitute for YHWH God.<br />
15:4 Psa_22:23, Psa_86:9;<br />
16:7 "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a dynamic<br />
equivalent substitute for YHWH God.<br />
18:8 Jer_50:31, Jer_50:34; "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV<br />
as a dynamic equivalent substitute for YHWH God.<br />
19:6 "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a dynamic<br />
equivalent substitute for YHWH God.<br />
21:22 Psa. 77:18 "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a<br />
dynamic equivalent substitute for YHWH God.<br />
22:5 "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a dynamic<br />
equivalent substitute for YHWH God.<br />
22:6 Dan. 3:28; 6:22 "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a<br />
dynamic equivalent substitute for YHWH God.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ghoward.htm (10 of 13) [5/25/2003 3:45:24 AM]
Are the George Howard Letters Regarding the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Genuine?<br />
As we can see, there is but a handful of occcurences of the Divine Name in the NWT-NT that I feel<br />
cannot be in some way directed back to the OT, though, to be fair, occurences of "the Lord" or "God" in<br />
regards to the Deity can be tied to YHWH in the OT, especially since we know that that all extant copies<br />
of the LXX and the Hebrew OT that the Christian writers used the Divine Name instead of a surrogate.<br />
The evidence shows that the OT has "relevance to most of the 237 instances where the JW translators<br />
inserted 'Jehovah' into their NT". YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) not only fulfills the lexical and semantic<br />
requirements of KURIOS, but acts as a gender-inclusive and meaning based alternative to the<br />
ambiguous, male-oriented term "lord", two moves that are all the rage in <strong>Bible</strong> translation circles today.<br />
Detractors need to remember that their most of their <strong>Bible</strong>s remove the Divine Name almost 7000 times<br />
from the OT, despite the overwhelming evidence that it belongs there.<br />
For more see http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/ntstudies/tetragram.htm<br />
Opposer Clark: You can write to Professor Howard and confirm the letters if you like. You<br />
can go to the website at www.adam.com.au/bsett/ for further information from the scholar<br />
who has reproduced the letters.<br />
I have indeed queried George Howard about the letters attributed to him, but this attempt was sabotaged<br />
by Mr. Clark by making sure Howard's mailbox was inundated with more of the same fanaticism that<br />
produced these missives in the first place. [It would have been interesting to see exactly what was written<br />
to Howard by Hathaway and Butt to prompt this type of defense, if it is indeed genuine.]<br />
I have also asked the owner [I mean "scholar"] of the website quite some time ago for confirmation in the<br />
form of an original scan of the above 2 contradictory letters. To date, I have received no reply. Forgery<br />
and hysteria, or the genuine article, which is it? I will leave that up to you.<br />
What of Pietersma objection? Please note the following:<br />
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1998-09/27824.html<br />
RE: Divine name in NT<br />
From: Rolf Furuli<br />
Date: Tue Sep 29 1998 - 18:25:16 EDT<br />
>Subject: Re: tetragram/kyrios<br />
>To: ioudaios<br />
>In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 20 Oct 1994 16:17:02 EDT from<br />
><br />
><br />
>If I understand it correctly, Al Pietersma's argument regarding theTetragram<br />
>in the Septuagint is that it was not an invention of the original<br />
>translators. Al believes that the Tetragram was inserted by later scribes.<br />
>I'm not as convinced of Al's thesis as Larry is (Al and I have discussed<br />
>this on several occasions), but if he is right, this is not to suggest that<br />
>early Christians were not influenced by copies of the Greek Scriptures which<br />
>contained the Tetragram. Several examples of the pre-Christian Greek <strong>Bible</strong><br />
>contain the Tetragram. And, as I recall, there is no pre-Christian copy of<br />
>the LXX which reads Kyrios where the Tetragram appears in the Hebrew. At<br />
>least when I did my original research on this in 1977 this was the case.<br />
><br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ghoward.htm (11 of 13) [5/25/2003 3:45:25 AM]
Are the George Howard Letters Regarding the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Genuine?<br />
Dear Wes,<br />
There is an exchange relating to this subject between Larry Hurtado and<br />
myself on the tc-list from last week (tc-list Syriac pipi and hehe).<br />
Regarding Pietersma`s thesis, I would like to mention that in july 1998, at<br />
the Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the<br />
Septuagint and Cognate studies, in Oslo, I heard Emanuel Tov give a lecture<br />
about the DSS fragments of the "LXX", where he concluded that Pietersma`s<br />
thesis was wrong. Pietersma was present. The evidence that the<br />
tetragrammaton was not present in the original LXX as Pietersma claims, is<br />
that the tetragrammaton in old Hebrew characters occurs in 8HevXIIgr with<br />
TWi in the dative case (See E. Tov, 1990, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll<br />
from Nahal Hever, 1990 pp 59,77). This should not be possible if<br />
Pietersma«s hypothesis was correct.<br />
No new "LXX" fragment with the tetragrammaton has been discovered since<br />
Howard«s research. This means that all "LXX" manuscripts from the second<br />
and first centuries BCE and from the first century CE either have the<br />
tetragrammaton in old Hebrew or in Aramaic characters or as the phonetic<br />
transcription IAW. The word KURIOS as a substitute for the tetragrammaton<br />
is nonexistent before the second century CE.<br />
Because of his scholarly background and experience we should always listen<br />
when Larry Hurtado speaks, and he disagrees with Howard`s view that the<br />
divine name occurred in the NT autographs. Let me however submit some food<br />
for thought by pointing out two lines of evidence supporting Howard:<br />
(1) Howard`s argument is simple: We find the tetragrammaton in some form in<br />
all "LXX" fragments before the second century CE. In the manuscripts from<br />
the second century we find KS with a horizontal stroke above (nomina<br />
sacra). Thus the text has been changed. In the NT manuscripts from the<br />
second century we also find KS with a horizontal stroke. Such an<br />
abbreviation could not have been in the autographs, so the text of the NT<br />
has also been changed. Ana analogous with the case of the "LXX", the change<br />
in the NT was from the tetragrammaton to KS.<br />
The corroborating evidence comes from Syriac manuscripts. In Codex<br />
Syriaco-Hexaplaris, published by Henricus Middeldorph in 1835, we find<br />
MARYA ("the Lord", technical word for God) in 4 kings 18: 6 (and other<br />
places) in the text and PIPI in the marigin. In Isaiah 1:2 we find MARYA<br />
in the text and YHYH in the marigin. Paul of Tella made this strictly<br />
literal Syriac translation around 600 CE on the basis of Origen`s Hexapla,<br />
which had the tetragrammaton in the main text.<br />
In the Syriac manuscripts Codex Ambrosianus we find HEHE in the marigin<br />
and in the London Codex<br />
British Museum Add. 14.442. we find PIPI in the marigin. Because we find<br />
PIPI and YHYH in the marigin of Codex Syriaco-Hexaplaris which is based on<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ghoward.htm (12 of 13) [5/25/2003 3:45:25 AM]
Are the George Howard Letters Regarding the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Genuine?<br />
the Hexapla with the tetragrammaton in the main text, the occurrence of<br />
PIPI and HEHE in the other two important Syriac manuscripts suggest that<br />
they also are based on Greek manuscripts with the tetragrammaton in the<br />
main text. The abbreviations PIPI and HEHE naturally goes back to the<br />
tetragrammatons in Aramaic and old Hebrew script respectively. If this<br />
argument holds, the consequence is that other Greek manuscripts with the<br />
tetragrams than the DSS fragments circulated from the first or second<br />
centuries CE onward.<br />
(2) The word KURIOS in the NT MUST translate two different Hebrew (or<br />
Aramaic) words.<br />
Take a look at Matt 4:7 and John 21:7, both reading (hO) KURIOS.<br />
If the beloved disciple in John 21:7 had said "It is ADONAY" (Hebrew) or<br />
"It is MARE" (Aramaic), he could have been construed to mean: "It is God<br />
Almighty". It is obvious that the same original word was not used both in<br />
Matt 4:7 and John 21:7. To substantiate this I quote three versions. In<br />
Syriac the technical reference to God is MARYA ("the Lord"), and this is<br />
the word we find in the Peshitta of Matt 4;7. In John 21:4, however, we<br />
find MARAN ("our Lord"). In Ethiopic (Ge«ez) the technical reference to<br />
God is «EGZI«ABHER ("the Lord of the land"), and we find this word in<br />
Matt 4:7. In John 21:4 we find «EGZI« ENA("our lord") In the<br />
Arabic manuscript Sinai 69 from the 11th century CE we find RABBAKA<br />
WA-ILAKAKA ("your Lord and your God") in Matt 4:7 but RABBUNA ("our Lord")<br />
the in John 21:7 (In the second instance of hO KURIOS in the verse we find<br />
AL-RABB ("the Lord").<br />
What is the basis of the same kind of differentiation of the Versions<br />
between (hO) KURIOS in Matt 4:7 and John 21:7? Is it manuscript evidence or<br />
just common sense? Any author writes to be understood, and it is very<br />
confusing to use hO KURIOS in both verses (There are scores of similar<br />
cases). This also argues for Howard`s view that KS in the earliest NT<br />
manuscripts does not go back to an original KURIOS (where God is denoted)<br />
but rather to the tetragrammaton in some form.<br />
Regards<br />
Rolf<br />
Rolf Furuli<br />
Lecturer in Semitic languages<br />
University of Oslo<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@ca.tc<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ghoward.htm (13 of 13) [5/25/2003 3:45:25 AM]
A Review of Peter Gomes' _The Good Book_. Can Homosexuality Be Defended Biblically?<br />
A Review of Peter Gomes' The Good Book. Can Homosexuality Be Defended Biblically?<br />
Peter J. Gomes is a Baptist clergyman who preaches for Harvard University’s Memorial Church, and who also teaches at<br />
the university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In the last several year this professor has produced the controversial release,<br />
The Good Book: Reading the <strong>Bible</strong> with Mind and Heart (1996).<br />
"The design of this book is to neutralize the Scriptures of their doctrinally demanding thrust, thus<br />
accommodating the ancient volume to the inclinations of modern society." Wayne Jackson, M.A.<br />
Gomes states:<br />
"In the case of the <strong>Bible</strong> and homosexuality in contemporary American culture, the tragic dimensions of this<br />
biblically sanctioned prejudice among the most devout and sincere people of religious conviction are all the<br />
greater because NO CREDIBLE CASE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY CAN BE MADE FROM THE<br />
BIBLE unless one chooses to read scripture in a way that simply sustains the existing prejudice against<br />
homosexuality and homosexuals." P. 147 The Good Book, Avon Books, New York, NY, 1998<br />
Peter J. Gomes<br />
Reason?<br />
"Given the appeal to the <strong>Bible</strong> in the case against homosexuality, one would assume that the <strong>Bible</strong> has much<br />
to say on the subject. It has not. The subject of homosexuality is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments,<br />
nor in the Summary of the Law. No prophet discourses on the subject. Jesus<br />
himself makes not mention of it, and homosexuality does not appear to be of much concern to those early<br />
churches with which Saint Paul and his successor were involved." P. 147<br />
Reply: The Ten Commandments, the Law, the prophets, Jesus, and Paul were practically silent on matters pertaining to<br />
necrophilia, pederesty, ephebophilia, sado-masochism, drug abuse, zoophilia, fetishism, transvestism, paraphilia,<br />
voyeurism, exhibitionism, telephone scatalogia, frotteurism, autogynephilia, klismaphilia, coprophilia, gender identity<br />
disorder, hypoxyphilia, autoerotic asphyxiation, bondage, partialism, urophilia and all manner of vices. When<br />
relationships were discussed, it was relegated to relationships between men and women (husband and wife) only. In the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, only heterosexual relationships are recognized as approved. So, when the Ten Commandments and Jesus Christ talk<br />
about adultery and divorce, it was with the man and woman in view, and thus, gay relationships were excluded.<br />
"Let fornication and uncleanness of every sort or greediness not even be mentioned among YOU, just as it<br />
befits holy people." Eph. 5:3 NWT<br />
The book adds:<br />
"...the word _homosexuality_ itself is an invention of the late nineteenth century and does not occur in any of<br />
the original manuscripts from which the English <strong>Bible</strong> is descended." pp. 147, 148<br />
"All Paul knew of homosexuality was the debauched pagan expression of it. He cannot be condemned for that<br />
ignorance, but neither should his ignorance be an excuse for our own."<br />
Reply: This naturally follows that a word "invented" a century ago was not in any Greek manuscripts, since the modern<br />
term was "invented" to describe a sexual preference long in existence.<br />
The word _heterosexuality_ was first used in the 1890's, but from this I cannot argue that heterosexual sex was not in<br />
discussion or on the minds of men 2000 years ago.<br />
Let us look at it another way. Jesus does not mention "idolatry." In fact, is it proper to condemn idolatry since all the<br />
ancients really knew of the idolatry are the pagan practises of it?<br />
Additionally, the <strong>Bible</strong> virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms as "foot" or<br />
"thigh" for the genitals, and using other euphemisms to describe coitus, such as "he knew her."<br />
To state that Paul only knew of homosexuality (if we are allowed to use that word) was from paganism, then this actually<br />
militates against any point that Gomes is trying to make. Does this not tell you that the early Christians, in fact, all of<br />
God's people in the past, did not have any homosexuals within their ranks.<br />
The endeavor that we should all labor under is to BE JUST LIKE THEM:<br />
"It demands that I write to you and encourage you to continue your fight for the Christian faith that was<br />
entrusted to God's holy people once for all time." Jude 3 God's Word <strong>Bible</strong><br />
True, as is written in Gomes' book, "David's sin of adultery with Bathsheba does not make all heterosexual expressions<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/gomes.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:35 AM]
A Review of Peter Gomes' _The Good Book_. Can Homosexuality Be Defended Biblically?<br />
sinful," but at least "adultery" did make it in the 10 commandments, and it made it to the lips of Jesus Christ. Biblically,<br />
adultery is just as sinful as homosexuality as it falls outside God's requirements, but it was also more prevalent among<br />
God's people, thereby deserving a more frequent in the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
The repercussions that followed from David's sins are famous, and this trickles over in our lives also. Adultery often<br />
results in unwanted pregnancies, broken families and violence. Similarly, homosexuals die at an earlier age, have more<br />
partners resulting in more heartbreak, contract more sexually transmitted diseases, and have a higher rate of suicide.<br />
Frighteningly, homosexuals also abuse more children:<br />
"homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles, it is estimated that<br />
approximately 80 percent of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males.”<br />
[Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate<br />
(Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press), p. 114, cited in "The Problem of Pedophilia]<br />
God's ordinances against both adultery and same-sex relationships act as a protection, against ourselves, and against other<br />
helpless victims.<br />
The closest we have to any other mention of a sexual union outside the human male-female norm is that of the angels with<br />
the women on earth.<br />
"The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they<br />
chose." Gen. 6:2<br />
This abnormal cohabitation brought about the hybrid Nephilim (v.4) which necessitated the annihilation of the entire<br />
human race, save one family:<br />
"The LORD regretted that he had ever made men on the earth, and he was grieved to the heart. So the LORD<br />
said, 'I will blot the men that I have created off the face of the ground...for I regret that I ever made them."<br />
Genesis 6:6, 7<br />
Marriage outside the divinely instituted male/female standard held dire consequences for mankind, and the breakdown of<br />
the family unit is often regarded as one of the conditions that caused the fall of the early Empires:<br />
"This was the sin which had swept like a cancer through Greek life and which, from Greece, invaded Rome.<br />
We<br />
can scarcely realize how riddled the ancient world was with it. Even so great a man as Socrates practiced it;<br />
Plato’s dialogue “The Symposium” is always said to be one of the greatest works on love in the world, but its<br />
subject is not natural but unnatural love. Fourteen out of the first 15 Roman Emperors practiced unnatural<br />
vice. At this very time Nero was emperor. He had taken a boy called Sporus and had had him castrated. He<br />
had then married him with a full marriage ceremony and took him home in procession to his palace and lived<br />
with him as wife. . .<br />
In this particular vice in the time of the Early Church the world was lost to shame; and there can be little<br />
doubt that that was one of the main causes of its degeneracy and the final collapse of its civilization. Paul<br />
continued in his teachings to offer something which today’s supporters of the homosexual lifestyle refuse to<br />
do. “And that is what some of you were,” Paul wrote. Notice the past tense. The Christians he was addressing<br />
had indeed been involved in all of the sins he mentioned, including homosexuality. But now they were<br />
different. Why? Paul answers: “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of<br />
the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God.”" William Barclay, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians.<br />
Heterosexuality is the foundation of mankind, and the hope of its continuance:<br />
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one<br />
flesh."<br />
Gen. 2:24<br />
Man, in his reproducible state, gives glory to the Giver of Life, Jehovah God. It is not mere chance that in the same<br />
chapter that tells of the wonderments of our Creator, also condemns the practise of male on male sexual relationships:<br />
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the<br />
things that are made..." Romans 1:20 Goodspeed<br />
Us humans, since we are made in God's image (Gen. 1:26), glorify God in the fact that we can PROCREATE, and in<br />
doing so, this reflects mightily of YHWH's creatorship. By denying Him that and purposely working against His<br />
guidelines, those ones even "deserve to die." (Romans 1:32 Goodspeed)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/gomes.htm (2 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:35 AM]
A Review of Peter Gomes' _The Good Book_. Can Homosexuality Be Defended Biblically?<br />
We are in effect "little creators" standing on the shoulders of the Almighty Creator, Jehovah.<br />
According to Gomes in The Good Book,<br />
"... the word abomination does not usually describe something intrinsically evil, such as rape or theft, but<br />
something that is ritually impure, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation." (Gomes,<br />
154)<br />
Or, as one Gomes supporter adds in regards to this word:<br />
"This means that homosexual sex is ritually unclean, or that it should not be used in religious practices.<br />
Nowadays, few people would consider sex to be a part of religious practice."<br />
Is this really true though of the word "abomination?"<br />
"There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him: Haughty eyes,<br />
a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are<br />
swift in running to mischief, A false witness that uttereth lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren."<br />
Proverbs 6:16<br />
"For the perverse is an abomination to Jehovah." Proverbs 3:32<br />
"For my mouth shall utter truth; And wickedness is an abomination to my lips." Proberbs 8:7<br />
"A false balance is an abomination to Jehovah; But a just weight is his delight...They that are perverse in<br />
heart are an abomination to Jehovah; But such as are perfect in their way are his delight." Prov. 11:1, 20<br />
"Lying lips are an abomination to Jehovah. Prov. 12:22<br />
"The way of the wicked is an abomination to Jehovah; But he loveth him that followeth after<br />
righteousness...Evil devices are an abomination to Jehovah; But pleasant words are pure." Prov. 15:9, 26<br />
"Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to Jehovah." Prov. 16:5<br />
"He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination<br />
to Jehovah." Prov. 17:15<br />
"He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, Even his prayer is an abomination." Prov. 28:9<br />
Idols are an abomination at Isaiah 44:19<br />
"And one hath committed abomination with his neighbor's wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his<br />
daughter-in-law; and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father's daughter."<br />
Eze. 22:11<br />
To limit this word as only something "ritually unclean" is a case of "special pleading," something indicative of Gomes'<br />
attempts to Biblicize and normalize homosexuality.<br />
"Where are the men that came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them." Genesis 19:5 ASV<br />
Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, Gomes writes:<br />
"This particular form of the Hebrew verb 'to know' is rarely used in a sexual sense." p. 151<br />
This form is also a well known Hebrew idiom and euphemism that was not lost on Hebrew experts:<br />
"While Lot was entertaining his guests with the greatest hospitality, the people of Sodom gathered round his<br />
house, “both old and young, all people from every quarter” (of the town, as in Jer_51:31), and demanded,<br />
with the basest violation of the sacred rite of hospitality and the most shameless proclamation of their sin<br />
(Isa_3:9), that the strangers should be brought out, that they might know them. yada is applied, as in<br />
Jdg_19:22, to the carnal sin of paederastia, a crime very prevalent among the Canaanites (Lev_18:22.,<br />
Lev_20:23), and according to Rom_1:27, a curse of heathenism generally." Keil & Delitzsche Commentary<br />
This form is used elsewhere in Genesis, at Gen. 4:1:<br />
"And the man knew his wife Eve. And she conceived and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man with the help of<br />
Jehovah." LITV<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/gomes.htm (3 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:35 AM]
A Review of Peter Gomes' _The Good Book_. Can Homosexuality Be Defended Biblically?<br />
"And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived." Gen. 4:17 ASV<br />
"And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son." Gen. 4:25 ASV<br />
Josephus adds to the Sodom & Gomorrah account:<br />
"The Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenance, and this to an extraordinary degree...they<br />
resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence." [The Works of Josephus, Chap. 11,<br />
#3, Book 1, Hendrickson Publication 1987, p. 40]<br />
This force and violence would include "sodomitical practices." [Josephus as quoted in A Commentary on the<br />
Epistle of Jude, Richard Wolf, p. 75]<br />
As Wayne Jackson writes in his review:<br />
"This volume is filled with reckless charges, sweeping generalizations, and invalid arguments. It is utterly<br />
bereft of scholarly acumen.<br />
Of late, Gomes has been a frequent guest on the talk-show circuit, and his book has received laudatory<br />
reviews in the popular press. This is to be expected from media that disregard the authority of the <strong>Bible</strong>, and<br />
seek justification for hedonistic lifestyles."<br />
Lastly, it is no mere coincidence that any and all references to homosexual relationships in the <strong>Bible</strong> are negative. We<br />
cannot reasonably regard this negativity as accidental.<br />
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX<br />
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against<br />
nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men<br />
with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due." Romans<br />
1:26, 27 ASV<br />
As a response to this, the book The X-Rated <strong>Bible</strong> by Ben Edward Akerly, quotes Alfred Kinsley who says:<br />
"An unnatural sex act is a sex act which would be impossible to perform." p. 42<br />
Can we brush this aside so easily though? No, since this was something already in practice at the time, it was therefore<br />
then not an impossible act to perform. Kinsley's permissive definition is not in line with that of the <strong>Bible</strong>. Consider it from<br />
another angle. It is physically possible to perform sexual acts with animals, vegetables, corpses. Can we honestly admit<br />
that these are "natural?" To the mindset that would use Kinsley's dictum to defend their own practices, it has to be.<br />
To also cast aside Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality because "the Biblical authors do not manifest the same<br />
understanding of that reality as we have today" is not fruitful either. It is never explained in the many pro-biblio<br />
homosexual references how the modern practice differs so greatly from the ancient practice, and neither was God<br />
concerned with any possible evolution of this lifestyle. The Biblical canon was closed in the 1st century, and the limited<br />
references hostile to homosexuality at that time was all that was deemed necessary for God's people throughout eternity.<br />
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction." 2 Tim. 3:16 NASB<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/gomes.htm (4 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:35 AM]
Answering Jay Hess in support of Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
Reply to "Witnessing to the Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
in a passive yet effective way"<br />
Hess: "...loyal J-Ws reject the reasonings of outsiders as being illogical. The only thoughts<br />
they accept as being *logical* are the teachings of their directors and they have been<br />
conditioned to doubt even their own thinking abilities. The more loyal they are, the stronger<br />
they believe their directors are the channel of God, and therefore the more likely they are to<br />
resist this confrontational method. Only a rare, disloyal J-W who trusts his own thinking<br />
abilities, will respond positively to this standard approach.<br />
Reply: I am amused by comments like this. What religious bigotry! Besides the condescending insults,<br />
Hess builds a strawman to buttress his points, which I will deconstruct below.<br />
Many detractors, like Ron Rhodes, Walter Martin, James White acknowledge that JW's have a better<br />
knowledge of the <strong>Bible</strong> than most nominal Christians. When faced with this though, the common<br />
response is similar to the one above by Hess, bringing a human face to our superior relationship with<br />
God's word, instead of focusing on the drought faced in their own circles. The members of nominal<br />
churches are biblically illiterate, and should be an embarrassment to any anti-JW author.<br />
According to Barna.org, "The most commonly used verse of the <strong>Bible</strong> in evangelistic conversations and<br />
preaching is John 3:16. Two-thirds of the population (63%) has no idea what "John 3:16" refers to, much<br />
less has the ability to quote that verse. However, 24% of adults know that it is a verse from the <strong>Bible</strong> that<br />
addresses salvation. Among born again Christians, 50% were aware of this."<br />
53% of "born again" Christians reject the belief in absolute truth, and 32% of this same group rejects the<br />
infallibility of the <strong>Bible</strong>. 28% of Born-againers believe that Jesus sinned and didn’t rise from the dead,<br />
47% say Satan is not living being-only a symbol for evil...much more could be said, but this should<br />
suffice.<br />
Instead of dealing with this obvious cancer in their own ranks, they try to recruit new members on the<br />
backs of people like Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
I am reminded of a classic joke that will help me illustrate the superior teaching methods of JW's:<br />
There was a fellow who was walking along a very high bridge one day. He looked and to his<br />
astonishment, another gentleman had crawled over the railing and was standing preparing to<br />
jump. The gentleman who saw this fellow ready to jump came up to him and said, "Please,<br />
don't jump! Let's talk." The other fellow started to leap and the gentleman walking across<br />
the bridge grabbed hold of his belt and held him there. He said, "Please don't jump. I am a<br />
Christian. I want to help you." The other fellow over his shoulder said, "I am a Christian<br />
too." The first fellow said, "Well, I am a Protestant and we believe in God's grace. God will<br />
forgive you, even right here. You don't even need a priest to be here. You can be forgiven."<br />
The other fellow said, "Well, I'm a Protestant, too." The first fellow said, "I happen to be a<br />
Reformed Protestant." The other one said, "I am too." "What denomination are you?" The<br />
fellow on the bridge answered, "I am a member of the Free Will Church of the Holy<br />
Trinity." "This is amazing," the first fellow said. "I am a member of that church too." Then<br />
the fellow holding on to the belt of the gentleman said, "Are you a member of the northern<br />
branch or southern branch?" The fellow said, "The southern branch." The guy holding on<br />
pushed him and said, "Die you heretic!"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jayhess.htm (1 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:45:54 AM]
Answering Jay Hess in support of Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
It may be a joke, but it is indicative of the argumentative nature that surrounds the churches of<br />
Christendom. One does not need to look far and find disagreements on<br />
pre-millenialism/post-millenialism, divine election and/or predestination, the word/faith movement or<br />
even whether the King James Version is the only Word of God:<br />
"That evangelicals, all claiming a biblical norm, are reaching contradictory theological<br />
formulations on many of the major issues they are addressing suggests the problematic<br />
nature of their present understanding of theological interpretation. To argue that the <strong>Bible</strong> is<br />
authoritative, but to be unable to come to anything like agreement on what it says (even with<br />
those who share an evangelical commitment) is self-defeating. " quoted in EXEGETICAL<br />
FALLACIES by D. A. Carson p.18<br />
Like us or hate us, but you have to admit that Jehovah's Witnesses are a unified body, and that they can<br />
out-scripture the average church-goer. What you need to ask is WHY! We will not abandon this to join<br />
an ignorant and fractured body. We are a progressive people, and going back to this type of<br />
indecisiveness is a form of degeneration [and NO, Mr. Hess, Greg Stafford is NOT a JW in good<br />
standing].<br />
Hess: It is easier to lead the J-Ws to affirm doctrines they are supposed to believe than it is<br />
to persuade them of doctrines they refuse to believe and have been taught to refute....They<br />
will already believe that True worship is essential. You will only ask a few very logical<br />
questions that can only be answered with "Yes" or "No". No matter which answer they<br />
choose, you will not debate or even try to persuade. You will not even need to give them a<br />
hint as to the right answer. The principle underlying all these presentations is Jesus'<br />
statement "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other .<br />
. .” (found at Luke 16:13; Matthew 6:24). While this was said in reference to the love of<br />
money it applies to human masters as well. A person may imagine he can serve two masters<br />
but Jesus explained eventually one will be forced to choose between the two and thus, in<br />
effect, love one and hate the other. The J-Ws, without realizing it, serve two masters, the<br />
Watchtower directors and "Jehovah" (their preferred name for God - see Psalm 83:18).<br />
Reply: Hess, though, never really proves here how it is that we "serve the Watchtower directors" at the<br />
exclusion of the other, which is what the Scriptures he provides imply. True, we have our "leaders" that<br />
provide spiritual guidance, but, this is Scriptural:<br />
"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority." Heb 13:17 REB<br />
"Remember your leaders, who spoke God's message to you." Heb 13:7 REB<br />
"Greet all your leaders and all God's people." Heb 13:24 REB<br />
Were the first century Christians guilty of serving two masters?<br />
After all, did not Paul say "Imitate me" (1 Cor. 11:1)? Were not the Israelites instructed to follow Moses,<br />
even above the rejection of this from pious others? They were not "serving two masters" in the sense<br />
indicated at Matthew 6:24 because that Scripture was never meant to be taken this way. Money<br />
(Mammon) was something that worked in opposition to righteousness, as 1Tim. 6:10 says, "For the love<br />
of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and<br />
pierced themselves with many griefs." NASB<br />
Therefore we have a contrast, like the one at 1 Cor. 10:21, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the<br />
cup of demons as well; you cannot have a share at the Lord's table and the demons' table as well." NJB<br />
The Nelson Study <strong>Bible</strong> adds:<br />
"No one can serve two masters because a time will come when they make opposing<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jayhess.htm (2 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:45:54 AM]
Answering Jay Hess in support of Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
demands. Jesus advises us to invest our future with Him by giving of ourselves; mammon<br />
encourages us to collect material objects for our present enjoyment."<br />
Part of investing our future with Jesus is by becoming part of the structured ekklesia that he instituted:<br />
"The foundation of the ekklesia are clear in the Synoptic gospels. Jesus formed a group of<br />
disciples and followers. Of these disciples, He demanded personal attachment to Himself,<br />
even at the cost of seperation from friends and family indeed,...This group received from<br />
Him the mission to gain other followers who would grant him the same personal<br />
allegiance...Against this background the use of the word ekklesia (congregation, church) in<br />
Mt. 16:18 is clearly identified with this group which Jesus himself formed and which He<br />
commanded to to be continued by His disciples after His departure." Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
by John McKenzie, p. 134.<br />
Part of the functions of this ekklesia was the excommunication of certain members, a practise that was<br />
"instituted by our Lord (Matt. xviii. 15, 18)" [Smith's <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary]. Are we in a church that is<br />
adhering to Christ's demands on us, or are we setting our own bar of what is proper servitude to Jesus,<br />
and then using that to determine whether others are deprived of our unique "thinking abilities." Truly, it<br />
is Jay Hess, and others of like-mind that have decided in their own mind that they are the "channel of<br />
God" by determining that others that do not think like them could not possibly be.<br />
If by the term "serving" Hess denotes some fanatical devotion, then exactly how is this proven? The<br />
Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses would never admit to serving any so-called "director",<br />
and never would such be asked for.<br />
“The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired<br />
as are those of Paul and the other <strong>Bible</strong> writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) " [February 15, 1981, page 19]<br />
Just recently, Milton Henschel, one of Hess's "Watchtower directors" passed away. When I mentioned<br />
this to my wife, she did not even know who this was. When I mentioned that he was once president of<br />
the Watchtower Society, she asked me who it was now. I did not know. Yet, I live in a part of the USA<br />
that builds monuments and names streets after religious leaders like John Wesley, the Reverend Billy<br />
Graham, and the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. But only the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses are singled out for "serving two masters" by Hess's definition. I regularly talk religion to<br />
church-going people that are ignorant of the contents of the <strong>Bible</strong>, and will only puppet what their pastor<br />
tells them to believe...but only the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses are singled out for<br />
"serving two masters" by Hess's definition.<br />
Here is another example of creating confusion due to ignorance of the facts and issues involved.<br />
From http://www.biblicalanswers.net/w2jw_charter.html<br />
Hess: "The JWs have always insisted the name "Jesus" is just another name for Michael the<br />
archangel.<br />
Unknown to most JWs, the Watchtower's official charter teaches that all JWs must worship<br />
Jesus, that is, Michael the archangel. The 1944 amendment stated the purpose of their<br />
organization was for the "worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus". Thus this charter<br />
amendment advocated angel- worship.<br />
Although in 1954 they officially dropped their belief in worshiping Jesus, today they still<br />
claim this charter amendment fulfilled biblical prophecy and brought their organization into<br />
a "holy" and right relationship with God (see the References: note below). The<br />
Watchtower's primary organizational doctrine is that their directors ("the faithful and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jayhess.htm (3 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:45:54 AM]
Answering Jay Hess in support of Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
discreet slave" from Matthew 24:45), were appointed by Jesus in 1919 to be the channel of<br />
true religion on earth with the authority to tell mankind what they should believe. Ever since<br />
1919 (including 1944!), if they were to teach something incorrect, God would still approve<br />
of them and they would still be in line to become earth's heavenly rulers. The Watchtower<br />
organization has always taught that idolatry, including angel-worship, is false worship,<br />
causing one to be disapproved by God.<br />
Do you see the conflict?"<br />
Reply: Now, Hess obviously does not know of two very important things. 50 years ago, the word<br />
"worship" was commonly used in the existing <strong>Bible</strong>s in regards to humans and others:<br />
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded<br />
that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him." KJV<br />
"The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me,<br />
and I will pay thee all." Matthew 18:26<br />
It was in general use of the language at that time. The _Book of Common Prayer_ has the groom<br />
promising his bride, "with my body I thee worship" as he places the ring on her finger.<br />
Even the New <strong>World</strong> Translation 1950 - 1970 editions says at Hebrews 1:6, "And let all God's angels<br />
worship him [Jesus]." There was no conflict here as this was in keeping with the usage of the word in the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, and in common use a half-century ago. Bullinger admits that this word means "to do reverence or<br />
homage to ANY ONE." p. 903, Bullinger's Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek<br />
New Testament.<br />
So to say that there is "worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus" is likened to what God's people did in<br />
the days of the Davidic kings:<br />
"And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their<br />
heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the king." 1 Chron. 29:20 ASV<br />
So common was the word "worship" that the King James Version NT renders this word as such from a<br />
variety of Greek words, such as DOXA, EUSEBEW, QERAPEUW, QRHSKEIA, LATREUW,<br />
NEWKOROS, PROSKUNEW, SEBAZOMAI, and SEBOMAI.<br />
"The most frequent use of the term, PROSKUNEW [worship] (60 uses in the NT), in its<br />
many LXX uses can describe reverence or respect given to a variety of figures where no<br />
deification of the recipient seems implied." The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian<br />
Worship, p. 188, by Larry. W Hurtado (see also proskuneo.htm and jason1.htm )<br />
We even have an angel receiving worship at Joshua 5:14:<br />
"So He said, "No, but as Commander of the army of the LORD I have now come."<br />
And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and said to Him, "What does my<br />
Lord say to His servant?"" NKJV<br />
An angel receiving worship with absolutely no dire consequences involved? Isn't this the basis of Hess's<br />
entire attack? Why, most nominal Christian theologians teach that the angel of the LORD is none other<br />
than God or Jesus:<br />
Genesis 16:7 "And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the<br />
wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. (d) Which was Christ, as appears in (Genesis<br />
16:13,18:17)." Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> 1599<br />
"Who is this angel of the LORD? The earliest church fathers and most conservative<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jayhess.htm (4 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:45:54 AM]
Answering Jay Hess in support of Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
evangelical <strong>Bible</strong> scholars agree that the angel of the LORD is no one other than Jesus<br />
Christ, the Word of God, the second person of the God–head."<br />
http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/gen16v7.html<br />
Speaking of the Angel of the LORD at Genesis 16, the<br />
NKJV Baptist Study Edition states:<br />
“That this is a theophany, or, more precisely, a Christophany, an appearance of the<br />
pre-incarnate Christ is confirmed…”<br />
The NKJV MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong> adds:<br />
“the Angel of the LORD…is often identified as the pre-incarnate Christ.”<br />
The NIV Ryrie Study <strong>Bible</strong> notes:<br />
“the angel of the O.T. is a preincarnate appearance of the Second Person of the Trinity.”<br />
"Gen 16:7 -<br />
The angel of the Lord - That Jesus Christ, in a body suited to the dignity of his nature,<br />
frequently appeared to the patriarchs, has been already intimated." Adam Clarke<br />
Commentary<br />
"'The Angel [or Messenger] of the Lord' is a problematic figure. The ambiguous Hebrew<br />
phrase is best translated without the indefinite article, that is, 'an angel [messenger] of<br />
Yahweh' (as do the Septuagint or NJV; cf. Matt. 1.20; 2.13, 19; 28.2;Acts 8.26). Later<br />
Christian theology tended to see the preincarnate Christ in this figure (hence the definite<br />
article), but the phrase probably referred vaguely to any mediator sent by God." p. 28, The<br />
Oxford Companion to the <strong>Bible</strong> by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan. Oxford<br />
University Press, New York NY, 1993.<br />
"the angel of the LORD is...the LORD himself in earthly manifestation" p. 18 The New<br />
Oxford Annotated <strong>Bible</strong> with Apocrypha-RSV [See also Bullinger's Companion <strong>Bible</strong>,<br />
Dake's Annotated <strong>Bible</strong>]<br />
"The question still remains, Who is theophanic angel [Angel of Yahweh]? To this many<br />
answers have been given, of which the following may be mentioned: (1) This angel is<br />
simply an angel with a special commission; (2) He may be a momentary descent of God into<br />
visibility; (3) He may be the Logos, a kind of temporary preincarnation of the second person<br />
of the Trinity." ISBE<br />
So, let's see!!! Hmmm. If God is to be worshipped, and Jesus is God...and Jesus/God is also this very<br />
angel, then, isn't this angel-worship? "Do you see the conflict?" The anti-JW who is loyal to his own<br />
religious doctrines will always be ignorant of the facts involved and create an embarrassing and<br />
contradictory situation for himself. You see what happens when you draw a line in the sand that you are<br />
crossing yourself? I have not even delved into the painful fact that many others, including trinitarians<br />
have insisted that Jesus is/or could be Michael the archangel, and have done so for hundreds of years (see<br />
wilson.htm ).<br />
Now, I can run off on a tangent and create a conspiracy wherein modern bibles have changed the<br />
language used in the above cases (they have, and you can check the above Scriptures in the NASB and<br />
NIV), but that would not be profitable or honest, and it would betray a lack of scholarship and knowledge<br />
of the <strong>Bible</strong>. Unfortunately, that did not stop Hess.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jayhess.htm (5 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:45:54 AM]
Answering Jay Hess in support of Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jayhess.htm (6 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:45:54 AM]
The CARM Tract and Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
On January 11, CARM supporters will be distributing a tract attacking Jehovah's Witnesses, and this will<br />
be done by attaching them to windshields in shopping mall parking lots. What follows is an answer to<br />
this missive.<br />
1) The CARM tract says:<br />
The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach:<br />
-Their church organization is the prophet of God.<br />
Truth: The tract references the 1972 Watchtower, where the term “prophet” is used in quotation marks,<br />
meaning that it is used in a quasi-sense. This expression is used in the same way as it us used of Billy<br />
Graham in<br />
the book, "A Prophet With Honor: The Billy Graham Story" by William Martin.<br />
This is meant to designate Graham as a man with special moral and Biblical insight, but no one would<br />
ever<br />
address him as “Prophet” in the sense of “Seer,” and similarly, Jehovah’s Witnesses, not then, nor now,<br />
have ever<br />
addressed any other brother, Elder, etc., as “prophet,” as this would be deemed inappropriate.<br />
In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses have gone out of their way to state that they are not Prophets in the sense of<br />
Seer:<br />
"It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any degree, but merely to give<br />
below what seems to us rather likely to be the trend of events--giving also the reasons for<br />
our expectations." March 1,1904 Watchtower<br />
"Someone may ask, Do you, then, claim infallibility and that every sentence appearing in<br />
"The Watch Tower" publications is stated with absolute correctness? Assuredly we make no<br />
such claim and have never made such a claim. What motive can our opponents have in so<br />
charging against us? Are they not seeking to set up a falsehood to give themselves excuse<br />
for making attacks and to endeavor to pervert the judgments of others?" Zion's Watchtower<br />
and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 September 1909.<br />
Early on in this publication the reader is invited to "examine each point carefully ...compare<br />
the argument with the Scriptures cited, and view the same in the light of present day events<br />
which are discernible to all eyes, and upon this evidence reach a conclusion." Page 13<br />
"The <strong>Bible</strong> is the only true source of knowledge upon which man can base a hope for the<br />
future...Nothing, then but an understanding and appreciation of the Word of God can lead<br />
man into the right way and unfold to him visions of the blessings that are to come." Page 68<br />
"Millions Now Living will never die", Joseph F. Rutherford<br />
"Many students have made the grievous mistake of thinking that God has inspired men to<br />
interpret prophecy. The holy prophets of the Old Testament were inspired by Jehovah to<br />
write as his power moved upon them. The writers of the New Testament were clothed with<br />
certain power and authority to write as the Lord directed them. However, since the days of<br />
the apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy, nor has any man been<br />
inspired to interpret prophecy." "Prophecy" (Brooklyn: Watchtower <strong>Bible</strong> and Tract Society,<br />
1929), page 61-62<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/carmtractjw.htm (1 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:46:08 AM]
The CARM Tract and Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
"IT is not the prerogative of the WatchTower, nor of any forming a part of the 'servant'<br />
class, to announce its judgment; but it is their duty to call attention to God's judgments as<br />
they are written, and this must be done as a warning." "Vindication", 3 vols (Brooklyn:<br />
Watchtower <strong>Bible</strong> and Tract Society, 1931-1932)<br />
"This pouring out of God's spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses does<br />
not mean that those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that<br />
the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without<br />
mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower <strong>Bible</strong> and Tract Society is<br />
inspired and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing so... But we<br />
confess with the Scriptures that the day of such inspiration passed long before 1870, as the<br />
apostle Paul showed it would .... Inspired speaking and writing passed away with the last of<br />
the twelve apostles, by whom the gifts of the spirit were imparted to others. Yet God is still<br />
able to teach and lead us. While confessing no inspiration for today for anyone on earth, we<br />
do have the privilege of praying to God for more of his holy spirit and for his guidance of us<br />
by the bestowal of his spirit through Jesus Christ." Manner of Inspiring the <strong>Bible</strong>, The<br />
Watchtower, 15 May 1947, 157-158 under the sub-heading, "No Such Inspiration Today"<br />
"The Watchtower is founded on the very pinnacle of reliable wisdom, namely, God's Word<br />
the <strong>Bible</strong>...because its words find their foundation in God's Word ... However the<br />
Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic. It invites<br />
careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures. Its purpose is to<br />
aid others to know Jehovah and his purposes toward mankind, and to announce Christ's<br />
established kingdom as our only hope." "Name and purpose of the Watchtower", 15 August<br />
1950, 262-26<br />
"Since today we have the complete inspired Scriptures God is not giving any more inspired<br />
visions or dreams. However, Jehovah's people today are seeing the fulfillment of many of<br />
the inspired visions and dreams that God's servants had in ancient times, and they are even<br />
having a share in the fulfillment of the prophecy, "your sons and your daughters will<br />
certainly prophesy. (Joel 2:28) Not that these prophesy in the sense of foretelling events<br />
under inspiration, but rather in that they are making public proclamation of the inspired<br />
dreams and visions long ago recorded." Watchtower Jan 1, 1971.<br />
"In his day, Ezekiel spoke words that were directly inspired by Jehovah. Today, we speak<br />
words from Jehovah's inspired Word, the <strong>Bible</strong>." "Messengers of Godly Peace Pronounced<br />
Happy", The Watchtower, 1 May 1997, p 22, par. 14<br />
“Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible.”(December 15, 1896,<br />
page 306)<br />
“The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired<br />
as are those of Paul and the other <strong>Bible</strong> writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been<br />
necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)” (February 15,<br />
1981, page 19)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/carmtractjw.htm (2 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:46:08 AM]
The CARM Tract and Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
2) The CARM tract says:<br />
The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach:<br />
-Jesus returned invisibly in 1914.<br />
Jesus gave us signs to shown when he would return (see Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21), and the<br />
Christian<br />
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses feel that the Biblical description of total war, famine, earthquakes,<br />
and<br />
diseases point to a time when the First <strong>World</strong> War set all these things in motion in a heightened state.<br />
What CARM does not tell you is that Protestant leaders have for many many years in the past predicted<br />
Christ’s<br />
return, and the end of the world.<br />
Martin Luther predicted the end for the 16th century, John Wesley predicted it for 1836. There are many<br />
such<br />
instances of this (see http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/1975.htm ). CARM is relying on your<br />
ignorance<br />
of Church history to make the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses look bad.<br />
For more references, read:<br />
Robin Bruce Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis-Apocalypticism in the Wake of the Lutheran Reformation<br />
Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End—Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages, Published 1979<br />
Festinger, Riecken and Schaeter, When Prophecy Fails.<br />
Isaac Massey Haldeman, The Signs of the Times<br />
The Weekly Evangel, April 10, 1917<br />
Soothsayers of the Second Advent by Alnor<br />
The Last Days are Here Again-A History of the End Times by Richard Kyle<br />
Apocalypses by Weber<br />
3) The CARM tract says:<br />
The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach:<br />
-Blood transfusions are sinful.<br />
There has been a Biblical prohibition against the ingestion of blood throughout all stages of human<br />
existence:<br />
"It ought to be observed, that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his<br />
posterity, and repeated to<br />
the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been<br />
revoked, but, on the<br />
contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of<br />
perpetual<br />
obligation."-Benson's Notes, 1839, Vol. I, p. 43.<br />
We are only now beginning to appreciate the wisdom behind this, as non-blood alternatives that higher<br />
medicine<br />
is well aware of offers safer alternatives, alternatives not frought with blood-borne diseases, such HIV or<br />
Hepatitus.<br />
"Today, about 25% of tranfusion-free procedures are on people who are not Jehovah's<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/carmtractjw.htm (3 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:46:08 AM]
The CARM Tract and Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
Witnesses, but who choose the option for health or personal reasons. This is emerging<br />
medicine...The day may come<br />
when blood transfusions are a thing of the past."<br />
Tom Wixon<br />
Manager, Marketing & Public Relations<br />
Desert Regional Medical Center<br />
John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital<br />
CARM however, would rather keep you from this knowledge, they would rather turn you away from<br />
safer medicine in order to further their own devious agenda. For more, see<br />
http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm<br />
4) The CARM tract says:<br />
The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach:<br />
-The Holy Spirit is God’s impersonal active force.<br />
And this is supported by Non-JW reference works and Non-JW <strong>Bible</strong>s:<br />
Spirit, “primarily denotes "the wind" (akin to pneo, "to breathe, blow"); also "breath;" then, especially<br />
"the spirit,"<br />
which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful.” Vine’s Dictionary<br />
“In the OT, Heb. Ruah means first of all wind and breath, but also the human spirit in the<br />
sense of life<br />
force and even personal energy.” Eerdman’s Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> (see also Brown Driver<br />
Brigg’s<br />
Lexicon)<br />
"Spirit is the principle of life and vital activity. The spirit is the breath of life (Gn 6:17; 7:15,<br />
22; BS<br />
38:23; WS 15:11, 16; 16:14). The breath is the breath of God, the wind, communicated to<br />
man by divine<br />
inspiration....The spirit of Yahweh or the spirit of God (Elohim) is a **force** that has<br />
unique effects<br />
upon man...and the spirit of Yahweh is a **force** which operates the works of Yahweh the<br />
savior and<br />
the judge. The spirit of Yahweh is often the **force** which inspires prophecy (Nm 11:17<br />
ff; 24:2; 2 S<br />
23:2; 1 Ch 12:18; Is 61:1; Mi 3:8; Ezk 2:2; 3:12, 14, 24; 8:3; 11:1, 5, 24; 37:1; 43:5; Ne<br />
9:30; Zc 7:12).<br />
The prophet is a man of the spirit (Ho 9:7)." Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> by John L. McKenzie,<br />
S.J.<br />
“wind, air in motion…breath…an influential principle, a pervading influence…”<br />
Perschbacher’s The New<br />
Analytical Greek Lexicon<br />
“a movement of air, blast…God’s power and agency.” Thayer’s Greek Lexicon<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/carmtractjw.htm (4 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:46:08 AM]
The CARM Tract and Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
“blowing, breathing…”, etc BAGD Lexicon<br />
To sum up, lexically, the spirit is primarily an impersonal force (like wind or breath)<br />
What can we learn from other <strong>Bible</strong>s? The New International Version for instance will translate pnuema<br />
as<br />
“Spirit” with a capital letter "S" when it wants to bring to the readers mind that it is talking about a<br />
person, but it<br />
will also translate the same word without capitals to denote a force.<br />
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they<br />
are life.”<br />
John 6:63 NIV<br />
It is interesting when <strong>Bible</strong> translations differ on when to capitalize, and whether to use other words.<br />
“Life is spiritual. Your physical existence doesn't contribute to that life. The words that I have spoken to<br />
you are<br />
spiritual. They are life.” John 6:63 God’s Word Translation<br />
“The breath of God and the life of God is in these words of Jesus.” Robertson’s Word Pictures in the<br />
New<br />
Testament John 6:63<br />
Take another example:<br />
Genesis 1:2<br />
"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." King James Version<br />
"a mighty wind swept over the waters." New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"a divine wind sweeping over the waters." New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"and the power of God was moving over the water." Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
Fortman says,<br />
"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old<br />
Testament writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics and<br />
in Acts as a divine<br />
force or power." The Triune God, pp. 6, 15<br />
5) The CARM tract says:<br />
The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach:<br />
-Only their church members will be saved.<br />
CARM references the 1979 WT, p.30, which says nothing to effect that CARM claims it says. It goes to<br />
show<br />
that “God’s Word shows that he has ever had just one visible agency directing his work on earth.”<br />
The Reasoning book really says,<br />
“Both those who lived in harmony with God’s righteous ways and people who, out of<br />
ignorance, did unrighteous things will be resurrected.” Pp. 339, 340<br />
Make no mistake, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they have true faith, and this makes them no different<br />
than other<br />
faiths, like Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox, etc., that feel the same way. The fact that CARM calls The<br />
Christian<br />
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses a “CULT” is clearly an indication that they feel that only they have<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/carmtractjw.htm (5 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:46:08 AM]
The CARM Tract and Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
true<br />
faith, and we do not.<br />
Jehovah’s Witnesses do SAVE a lot more money though, since unlike many nominal churches, they do<br />
not<br />
demand their members pay TEN PERCENT OF THEIR ENTIRE INCOME. Did you know this?<br />
6) The CARM tract says:<br />
The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach:<br />
-Jesus was an angel who became a man.<br />
Actually, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was simply “an angel who became a man.” They<br />
believe<br />
that he was the greatest of all angels, one set apart from the rest by designation ARCHangel. This is a<br />
view<br />
shared by the great Reformers, Adam Clarke, and Matthew Henry (see<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wilson.htm )<br />
However, it should be noted that the <strong>Bible</strong>s and commentators that CARM would support promote the<br />
idea that<br />
Jesus is an angel:<br />
Speaking of the Angel of the LORD at Genesis 16, the NKJV Baptist Study Edition states:<br />
“That this is a theophany, or, more precisely, a Christophany, an appearance of the<br />
pre-incarnate Christ is confirmed…”<br />
The NKJV MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong> adds:<br />
“the Angel of the LORD…is often identified as the pre-incarnate Christ.”<br />
The NIV Ryrie Study <strong>Bible</strong> notes:<br />
“the angel of the O.T. is a preincarnate appearance of the Second Person of the Trinity.”<br />
7) The CARM tract says:<br />
The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach:<br />
-Jesus did not rise from the dead physically.<br />
“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” 1 Corinthians 15:50<br />
“if anyone be not born of Water and Spirit, he cannot enter the KINGDOM of God.” John 3:5 Diaglott<br />
“Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to<br />
God;<br />
being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” 1 Peter 3:18<br />
8) The CARM tract says:<br />
The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach:<br />
-There is no Trinity.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> repeatedly states God’s oneness, never His threeness.<br />
“Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD.” Deut. 6:4 KJV<br />
". . . it is a remarkable fact, that no single passage or verse ofthe Old or New Testament is<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/carmtractjw.htm (6 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:46:08 AM]
The CARM Tract and Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
received as an<br />
assured proof-text of the trinity by the unanimous consent of all Trinitarian writers: some<br />
ground their faith on one passage, some on another." A Religious Encyclopædia: or<br />
Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, Based on the<br />
Real-Encyklopädie of Herzog, Plitt, and Hauck."<br />
Of further note is that the <strong>Bible</strong> is silent on the word “Trinity”, and its explanation/definition.<br />
9) The CARM tract says:<br />
The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach:<br />
-Good works are necessary for the forgiveness of sins.<br />
Rather, The Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses say:<br />
“Jas. 2:14, 26, RS: “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not<br />
works? Can his faith save him? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart<br />
from works is dead.” (A person does not earn salvation by his works. But anyone who<br />
has genuine faith will have works to go with it—works of obedience to the commands of<br />
God and Christ, works that demonstrate his faith and love. Without such works, his faith is<br />
dead.)” Reasoning book, under Salvation<br />
I hope the above will aid those who have been victims to the lies and half-truths distributed by CARM,<br />
and other<br />
hostiles. Contact your local Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses at the Kingdom Hall in your<br />
neighborhood<br />
for a reasoned, Biblical explanation of their Scriptural faith.<br />
“Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen.” Isaiah 43:10<br />
American Standard Version<br />
Reaction, December 31, 2002:<br />
Kevin: Heinz responded to the tract's comment about JWs and blood<br />
transfusions. The tract says that JWs believe: "Blood transfusions are sinful." Heinz says in response:<br />
"There has been a Biblical prohibition against the ingestion of blood throughout all stages of human<br />
existence." He then quotes an 1839 work called "Benson's Notes," Vol. 1, p. 43: "It ought to be observed,<br />
that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites, in<br />
a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has<br />
been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation."<br />
It should be noted that Heinz has here merely stolen this quote from the Watchtower Society's<br />
publications.<br />
Reply: The CARM tract quoted the Watchtower publications 10 times, even incorrectly, but it is _I_ that<br />
will feel the wrath of Kevin, QUOTE-THIEF that I am. Benson only mentioned the obvious, and perhaps<br />
he STOLE this from Sir Isaac Newton, who said much the same thing.<br />
Or perhaps, they are echoing what the <strong>Bible</strong> states, that through the 3 primary stages of the people of<br />
God, Pre-Mosaic (Genesis 9:4), Mosaic (Leviticus 17:10-14) and Christian (Acts 15:20, 29), there has<br />
been a prohibition on blood. I guess I STOLE that from the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/carmtractjw.htm (7 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:46:08 AM]
The CARM Tract and Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
Kevin: Aside from noting Heinz's dependence on the Watchtower Society, all<br />
the while making it seem as if he is doing some actual independent<br />
research of his own,<br />
Reply: My reply to Slick's Warning Tract was meant to brief, since the original tract was brief. What I<br />
posted is not anything new, and I never promoted it as such.<br />
Kevin: Heinz does not seem at all focused on the<br />
point. The <strong>Bible</strong> itself doesn't say anything about "ingesting"<br />
blood, unless Heinz is using "ingesting" to mean "eating."<br />
Reply: From http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=ingestion :<br />
1 entry found for ingestion.<br />
Entry: absorption<br />
Function: noun<br />
Definition: taking in<br />
Synonyms: assimilation, consumption, digestion, drinking in, exhaustion, fusion, imbibing,<br />
impregnation, incorporation, ingestion, inhalation, intake, osmosis, penetration, reception, retention,<br />
saturation, soaking up, suction, taking in<br />
Concept: consuming/using<br />
Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)<br />
Copyright © 2002 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.<br />
Basically, eating provides us with the same function as nourishment and sustenance for life.<br />
"In practicing transfusion one can only imitate the example of nature which, in order to nourish the fetus<br />
in the uterus of the mother, makes a continuous transfusion of the blood of the mother into the body of<br />
the infant through the umbilical vein. In performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a<br />
shorter road than ordinary--that is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food<br />
which only turns to blood after several changes."<br />
G. W. Crile; Hemorrhage and Transfusion: An Experimental and Clinical Research; 1909, D. Appleton<br />
and Company: 153<br />
Kevin: But how<br />
would that refute the criticism against the Watchtower Society? It<br />
wouldn't, since transfusing blood is not at all the same as eating<br />
blood. So why does Heinz make this point in response to a comment<br />
about the Watchtower Society's position on blood transfusions?<br />
Please note that even Heinz's source (Benson's Notes by means of the<br />
Watchtower Society's publication) speaks only about "eating blood."<br />
Apparently Heinz, like all other Watchtower Witnesses, has no<br />
response when it comes to providing biblical evidence against blood<br />
transfusions.<br />
Reply: In <strong>Bible</strong> times, people were killed using swords, clubs, spears, etc. When the command was given<br />
"Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 20:13 KJV) and "put your sword back into its place" (Matt 26:52 NRSV), these<br />
ancient methods were those that immediately came to mind in <strong>Bible</strong> times. But this does not mean death<br />
by means of a machine gun is now permissible simply because such a method was not explicit in<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/carmtractjw.htm (8 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:46:08 AM]
The CARM Tract and Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
Scripture. The same goes for the Biblical command to abstain from blood.<br />
Kevin: This says nothing about the Watchtower's position<br />
regarding prohibiting certain blood components and allowing others.<br />
Nor have we even mentioned the details involved in the various<br />
changes to the Watchtower's blood policy and how they went from<br />
banning all fractions to allowing all but four components.<br />
Reply: Primary components are obviously "blood," and can even be categorized<br />
as "food." Therefore banning its use is soundly derived from Scripture. Additonally, our creator allows<br />
fractions to be passed between circulatory systems and that non-cellular fractions do not seem to be<br />
classed as a "food", this gives evidence that perhaps they<br />
are not to be included in the ban.<br />
According, in the <strong>Bible</strong>, blood is "life", it is sacred and thus belongs to Jehovah.<br />
It is also clear that while all animals were placed "in man's hand", he was still not allowed to use the<br />
blood. Humans were not given the authority to use this blood as they wished. All blood from all souls<br />
was sacred. We can conclude that any use of blood by man outside of God's expressed Scriptural<br />
approval was unacceptable.<br />
Langston places himself in a dangerous predicament concerning the isssue of God's Sovereignty. When<br />
was given a vegetable diet for nourishment and sustenance, Jehovah retained for Himself the Tree of<br />
Knowledge to attest His Sovereignty. When the way was opened up to use meat for nourishment and<br />
sustenance, he retained a portion thereof also, the blood-to attest that He alone is the Sovereign Giver of<br />
Life.<br />
Langston therefore puts himself in a satanic/adversarial position by trying to "open up our eyes" and see<br />
that this form [blood tranfusions] of nourishment/sustenance/food "is good," "pleasant" and "to be<br />
desired to make one wise." Genesis 3:4-6<br />
Kevin: But Heinz did not stop here. He went on to write: "We are only now<br />
beginning to appreciate the wisdom behind this, as non-blood<br />
alternatives that higher medicine<br />
is well aware of offers safer alternatives, alternatives not frought<br />
with blood-borne diseases, such HIV or Hepatitus."<br />
Interesting. I wonder why it is the Watchtower Society that has had<br />
to change their position and allow all blood components but four?<br />
Reply: Primary components are obviously "blood," and can even be categorized<br />
as "food." Therefore, the banning of their use is soundly derived from Scripture. Also, since Jehovah<br />
allows fractions to be passed between circulatory systems and the fact that non-cellular fractions do not<br />
seem to be classed as a "food" both give evidence that perhaps they<br />
are not to be included in the ban.<br />
Kevin: Why has the Society had to give in to their previously "wise"<br />
position and change it?<br />
Reply: The book _Blood-An Epic History of Medicine and Commerce_ by Douglas Starr, p. xiv, has this<br />
to say:<br />
"The <strong>Bible</strong> mentions blood more than 400 times: 'The life of the flesh is in the blood,' says Leviticus,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/carmtractjw.htm (9 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:46:08 AM]
The CARM Tract and Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
equating blood with life itself. Blood is considered so holy in the Old Testament that the Law specifically<br />
forbids its consumption, which is why Jehovah's Witnesses, who interpret the <strong>Bible</strong> literally, refuse<br />
transfusions."<br />
However, if we apply the Biblical mandate STRICTLY, then all blood should be refused.<br />
The Society's position is that the matter of blood fractions is not directly resolved in<br />
Scripture and so this decision is *outside* any definite doctrinal or theological decision by the Society.<br />
Therefore the Witnesses' precise stand is that blood is sacred and not to be used for<br />
nourishment/sustenance/food," primary components definitely are "blood" according to Scripture. This<br />
category as "food" is explicitly "Scriptural" and thus primary components are not to be<br />
taken into our body. However, science and logic dictates that fractions do not fall under the category of<br />
"food/nourishment/sustenance" or considered "so holy" by Jehovah. Since this modern knowledge<br />
creates a "grey area" concerning the classification as food/nourishment/sustenance, it is wisely left for<br />
individuals to make that determination for themselves. This is a loving provision that should be<br />
applauded, but instead, is again used against JW's by those seeking to further their own devious agenda.<br />
It is a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of scenario. It is another form of persecution.<br />
Additionally, Acts 15:29 also demands that we abstain from fornication (porneia), which many struggle<br />
as to what is to be included within that range. Here again, there may be some "grey areas" and all groups<br />
decide as to what it is to be included on the concept of porneia. So any "policy change" is really a<br />
clarification of what should be included in the group (blood/haima). The Encyclopedia Britannica,<br />
Micropedia II (1974) p. 89 defines the 4 major blood components as _plasma, red blood cells<br />
(erythrocytes), white blood cells (leucocytes), and platelets (thrombocytes)_. In recent years fractions<br />
and extracts have been synthesized from these components: Immunoglobulins, coagulation factors,<br />
albumin, stem cells, interleucines etc. Are these to be included with the 4 major components? We don't<br />
know because these factors did not exist as products in Biblical times, and therefore the answer has been<br />
that the use of these components is a matter of individual conscience. This does not mean that anyone has<br />
authorised the use of these components, but rather that they have pointed out that they represent a "grey<br />
area" where each individual must decide.<br />
Kevin: Heinz ends by quoting a medical professional, Tom Wixon, who<br />
wrote: "Today, about 25% of tranfusion-free procedures are on people<br />
who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, but who choose the option for<br />
health or personal reasons. This is emerging medicine...The day may<br />
come when blood transfusions are a thing of the past.<br />
This really is meaningless...." yada yada yada<br />
Reply: I hope what I have submitted above above will clear some heads and misconceptions. JW's are<br />
pioneers in this area, and the world will again owe them a debt of gratitude for paving the way for safer<br />
medicine. Dinosaurs like Langston and Slick will try to keep you in the dark ages of medicine, with no<br />
hope of triumph over and above blood-borne diseases. Tom Wixon has contacted me personally and gave<br />
me permission to use this quote, as he did Dr. Laura, ending with the statement, "Let's put this canard to<br />
rest."<br />
Another recent statement backs him up:<br />
"Blood products are useful but carry their own set of risks,...Thus whenever we can avoid using them, we<br />
should - not only in Jehovah's Witness patients, but in every patient." USC Health-Quarterly, Spring<br />
2000 vol. 12 no.1<br />
I will have more on this in the future on one of my sites.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/carmtractjw.htm (10 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:46:08 AM]
The CARM Tract and Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
Thank you for your time.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/carmtractjw.htm (11 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:46:08 AM]
Is Once Saved Always Saved Eternal Security/Salvation Scriptural?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Versions and OSAS<br />
Is "Once Saved Always Saved" Eternal<br />
Security/Salvation Scriptural?<br />
According to the <strong>Bible</strong>, Christians can:<br />
● drift away (Heb. 2:1) NIV<br />
● stray (Mt. 18:12,13) NWT<br />
● wander away from the faith (1 Tim. 6:10,21)<br />
● deviate from the truth and overturn the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:18) HCSB<br />
● lose your saltiness (Lk. 14:34,35) NRSV<br />
● stumble (Mk. 14:27,29) NKJV<br />
● turn away from grace (Gal. 5:4) <strong>Bible</strong> in Basic English<br />
● believe for a time, and in time of trial fall away. (Lk. 8:13) Darby<br />
● stumble and fall (Mt. 24:10) Wesley NT<br />
● stray from these things, turn aside to fruitless discussion (1 Tim. 1:5,6) NASB<br />
● turn back to their old ways of living and not go along with Jesus after that (Jn. 6:66) New Life<br />
● have your faith shipwrecked (1 Tim. 1:19) Recovery Version<br />
● leave the right path and wander off to follow the path of Balaam (2 Pet. 2:15) NJB<br />
● be like a branch that is thrown away and dries up (Jn. 15:6) Beck<br />
● fall over stumbling blocks (Jn. 16:1) C.B. Williams<br />
● turn away, become Satan's follower (1 Tim. 5:15) Heinz Casirrer New Covenant<br />
● desert from the faith (1 Tim. 4:1) Barclay<br />
● turn their hearing away from the truth and turned aside to myths (2 Tim. 4:4) Concordant<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
develop an evil unbelieving heart that pulls away from the living God (Heb. 3:12) International<br />
English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
fall away from the faith so that it won't be possible to bring you back (Heb. 6:6) NIrV<br />
turn away from him who warneth us from heaven (Heb. 12:25) Worrell NT<br />
become lukewarm and get spit out of the mouth of Christ (Rev. 3:15,16) 21st Century NT<br />
to be hurt by the second death (Rev. 2:10,11) Byington<br />
have God take away your rights to the Tree of Life and the holy city (Rev. 22:19) Unvarnished<br />
NT/Gaus<br />
be led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. (2 Pet. 3:17) KJV<br />
be carried away with strange varieities of teachings (Heb. 13:9)<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/osas.htm [5/25/2003 3:46:23 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> Best Retains Most of the Original Wording<br />
Prior to the Emendations (Corrections) made to the<br />
Hebrew Text<br />
E. W. Bullinger, in Appendix #33 of The Companion <strong>Bible</strong>, lists 18 emendations made by the Sopherim<br />
to the Hebrew Text.<br />
"These emendations were made at a period long before Christ, before the Hebrew text had obtained its<br />
present settled form, and these emendations affect the Figure called Anthropopatheia."<br />
Anthropopatheia: "or Condescension...Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings,<br />
irrational creatures, or inanimate things." Bullinger, Figures of Speech<br />
Does your <strong>Bible</strong> give you the primitive original reading? Or are you reading a later corrected text? Let's<br />
find out:<br />
[Original text readings are exactly as written by E.W. Bullinger, or close to the KJV rendering where<br />
Bullinger is absent; any Scripture reading that starts with "ftn.," indicates that this is a footnote reading,<br />
a marginal note and not part of the main text.]<br />
Emendations to the Torah<br />
Genesis 18:22<br />
"And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood<br />
yet before the LORD."<br />
But the original text reads:<br />
"but Jehovah stood yet before Abraham."<br />
Here the Sopherim felt that it was demeaning to Jehovah to say that He stood before Abraham, so they<br />
changed it to read otherwise.<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading<br />
as for Jehovah, he was<br />
Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
still standing before<br />
Abraham<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong><br />
but, Yahweh was yet<br />
standing before Abraham<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English<br />
but Jehovah still stood<br />
before Abraham<br />
ftn. Abraham still stood<br />
before Jehovah<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Yahweh remained in<br />
Abraham's presence<br />
while Abraham was still<br />
New American Standard Version<br />
standing before the<br />
LORD.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (1 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:52 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research<br />
(PTY) Ltd<br />
King James Version<br />
Revised Standard Version<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
New International Version<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT<br />
English Standard Version<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society<br />
New Revised Standard Version<br />
New King James Version<br />
Young's Literal Version<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
YHWH still stood before<br />
Abraham<br />
The LORD remained<br />
standing before Abraham<br />
ftn. but the LORD<br />
remained standing before<br />
Abraham<br />
the LORD remained<br />
standing before Abraham<br />
but the LORD remained<br />
with Abraham<br />
but Abraham stood yet<br />
before the LORD.<br />
but Abraham still stood<br />
before the LORD.<br />
but Abraham remained<br />
standing before the<br />
LORD.<br />
but Abraham still stood<br />
before the LORD<br />
while Abraham<br />
remained standing<br />
before the LORD.<br />
while Abraham<br />
remained standing<br />
before the LORD.<br />
but Abraham still stood<br />
before the LORD<br />
Abraham is yet standing<br />
before Jehovah<br />
Abraham remained yet<br />
standing before Jehovah<br />
Abraham remained<br />
standing before the<br />
LORD<br />
Numbers 11:15<br />
"And if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray Thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in<br />
Thy sight; and let me not see my wretchedness."<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"And if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray Thee, our of hand, if I have found favour in<br />
Thy sight; and let me not see thy evil."<br />
The Sopherim made the change as they did not want to ascribe evil to God.<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (2 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:52 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation ftn. your calamity<br />
let me not look upon my<br />
calamity<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> let me not see my grief,<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English let me not see my misfortune<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
be spared the sight of my<br />
misery<br />
New American Standard Version it is too burdensome for me.<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture<br />
Research (PTY) Ltd<br />
Let me not see my evil<br />
King James Version it is too heavy for me.<br />
Revised Standard Version the burden is too heavy for me.<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
so that I need no longer face<br />
this distress<br />
New International Version do not let me face my own ruin<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT<br />
let me see no more of my<br />
trouble<br />
English Standard Version the burden is too heavy for me.<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society<br />
let me see no more of my<br />
wretchedness<br />
New Revised Standard Version do not let me see my misery<br />
New King James Version<br />
do not let me see my<br />
wretchedness<br />
Young's Literal Version<br />
let me not look on mine<br />
affliction.<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby<br />
I won't have to<br />
that I may not behold my<br />
wretchedness<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
endure your cruelty<br />
any longer<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
spare me this trouble afflicting<br />
me<br />
Numbers 12:12<br />
"Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his<br />
mother’s womb."<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"Let her not be as one dead, of whom our flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his<br />
mother’s womb."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (3 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:52 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
The text was altered to avoid including Aaron in this comment about their flesh being ‘half consumed.’<br />
This was thought to be a derogatory comment toward a High Priest such as Aaron.<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation ftn. our flesh whose flesh<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> ftn. our flesh its flesh<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English our flesh ftn. his flesh<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> its flesh<br />
New American Standard Version whose flesh<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research (PTY) Ltd our flesh<br />
King James Version of whom the flesh<br />
Revised Standard Version of whom the flesh<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong> its flesh<br />
New International Version its flesh<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT his flesh<br />
English Standard Version whose flesh<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society his flesh<br />
New Revised Standard Version whose flesh<br />
New King James Version whose flesh<br />
Young's Literal Version his flesh<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby whose flesh<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV its flesh<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> whose flesh<br />
Emendations to the Prophets (NEVI'IM)<br />
I Samuel 3:13<br />
"For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth;<br />
because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not."<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth;<br />
because his sons cursed God, and he restrained them not."<br />
The Sopherim softened this text due to a mistaken sense of reverence.<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation calling down evil upon God ftn. for themselves<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (4 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:52 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> cursing God<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English insulting God<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> cursing God<br />
New American Standard Version curse on themselves<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture<br />
Research (PTY) Ltd<br />
cursed Elohim<br />
King James Version made themselves vile<br />
Revised Standard Version blaspheming God ftn., for themselves<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong> its flesh<br />
New International Version ftn., blasphemed God<br />
made themselves<br />
contemptible<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT blaspheming God<br />
English Standard Version blaspheming God<br />
ftn., blaspheming for<br />
themselves<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society committed sacrilege<br />
New Revised Standard Version blaspheming God ftn., for themselves<br />
New King James Version made themselves vile<br />
Young's Literal Version making themselves vile<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby made themselves vile<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
spoken evil things against<br />
me<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> blasphemies against God ftn., to them<br />
2 Samuel 12:14<br />
"Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD<br />
to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die."<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"thou has greatly blasphemed the Jehovah."<br />
Here the Sopherim made a change so that the esteemed king David would not be seen as having<br />
blasphemed Jehovah.<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong><br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (5 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:52 AM]<br />
you have unquestionably treated<br />
Jehovah with disrespect<br />
thou hast greatly blasphemed<br />
Yahweh<br />
ftn., treated the enemies<br />
of Jehovah with<br />
disrespect<br />
ftn., greatly blasphemed<br />
the enemies of Y.
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
New American Standard Version<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture<br />
Research (PTY) Ltd<br />
King James Version<br />
Revised Standard Version<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
New International Version<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT<br />
English Standard Version<br />
you did treat Jehovah with<br />
contempt<br />
you have outraged Yahweh by<br />
doing this<br />
you have greatly scorned<br />
YHWH<br />
you have utterly scorned the<br />
LORD<br />
you have utterly spurned the<br />
LORD<br />
ftn., you have shown utter<br />
contempt for the LORD<br />
you have openly spurned the<br />
LORD<br />
you have utterly scorned the<br />
LORD<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society ftn. spurned the LORD<br />
New Revised Standard Version<br />
New King James Version<br />
Young's Literal Version<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (6 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:52 AM]<br />
you have utterly scorned the<br />
LORD<br />
you have shown such contempt<br />
for the LORD<br />
you have given occasion<br />
to the enemies of the<br />
LORD to blaspheme<br />
thou hast given great<br />
occasion to the enemies<br />
of the LORD to<br />
blaspheme<br />
ftn. the enemies of the<br />
LORD<br />
you have made the<br />
enemies of the LORD<br />
show utter contempt<br />
ftn. the enemies of the<br />
LORD<br />
you have spurned the<br />
enemies of the LORD<br />
ftn. scorned the enemies<br />
of the LORD<br />
you have given great<br />
occasion to the enemies<br />
of the LORD to<br />
blaspheme<br />
thou hast caused the<br />
enemies of Jehovah<br />
greatly to despise by this<br />
thing<br />
thou hast given great<br />
occasion to the enemies<br />
of the Jehovah to<br />
blaspheme
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
you have shown your contempt<br />
for the LORD<br />
ftn. the enemies of the<br />
LORD<br />
2 Samuel 16:12<br />
"It may be that the LORD will look on mine affliction, and that the LORD will requite me<br />
good for his cursing this day."<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"Jehovah will behold with His eye."<br />
Bullinger: "This was thought to be to anthropomorphic, and so was altered, and the alteration<br />
recorded."<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
Perhaps Jehovah will<br />
see with his eye<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Yahweh will behold<br />
with his eye<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English<br />
Perhaps Jehovah will look upon<br />
my wretched state<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Perhaps Yahweh will look on<br />
my wretchedness<br />
New American Standard Version<br />
Perhaps the LORD will look on<br />
my affliction<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture<br />
YHWH does look on my<br />
Research (PTY) Ltd<br />
affliction<br />
King James Version<br />
the LORD will look on mine<br />
affliction<br />
Revised Standard Version<br />
the LORD will look upon my<br />
affliction<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Perhaps the LORD will look<br />
upon my affliction<br />
New International Version the LORD will see my distress<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT<br />
the LORD will look on my<br />
affliction<br />
English Standard Version<br />
the LORD will look on the<br />
wrong done to me<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society ftn., eye<br />
Perhaps the LORD will look<br />
upon my punishment<br />
New Revised Standard Version<br />
the LORD will look on my<br />
distress<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (7 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:52 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
New King James Version<br />
Young's Literal Version<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
the LORD will look on my<br />
affliction<br />
Jehovah doth look on mine<br />
affliction<br />
Jehovah will look on mine<br />
affliction<br />
Perhaps the LORD will notice<br />
my misery<br />
Perhaps the LORD will mark<br />
my sufferings<br />
2 Samuel 20:1<br />
"And there happened to be there a man of Belial, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri,<br />
a Benjamite: and he blew a trumpet, and said, "We have no part in David, neither have we<br />
inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to his tents, O Israel."<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"‘We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to<br />
his gods, O Israel"<br />
Bullinger: "One of the emendations of the Sopherim by which they transposed the middle two letters of<br />
the primitive text and made it read 'tents' instead of 'gods.'"<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation every one to his gods ftn. to his tents<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong><br />
ftn. every one to his<br />
gods<br />
Every man to his home<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English to your homes<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> Every man to his tents<br />
New American Standard Version every man to his tents<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research<br />
(PTY) Ltd<br />
each one to his tents<br />
King James Version every man to his tents<br />
Revised Standard Version every man to his tents<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong> every man to his tent<br />
New International Version every man to his tent<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT every man to his tents<br />
English Standard Version every man to his tents<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society Every man to his tent<br />
New Revised Standard Version Everyone to your tents<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (8 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:52 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
New King James Version every man to his tents<br />
Young's Literal Version each to his tents<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby every man to his tents<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
Men of Israel, let's go<br />
home!<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> Every man to his tent<br />
I Kings 12:16<br />
"So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the People answered the king<br />
saying, ‘What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to<br />
your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David.’ So Israel departed unto their<br />
tents."<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"to your gods, O Israel"<br />
Bullinger: "The original text was 'to your gods', because the sin was apostasy from Jehovah's worship in<br />
Jerusalem.<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation to your gods ftn., to your tents<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> to your homes<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English to your homes<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> to your tents<br />
New American Standard Version to your tents<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research<br />
(PTY) Ltd<br />
to their tents<br />
King James Version to your tents<br />
Revised Standard Version to your tents<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong> to your tents<br />
New International Version to your tents<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT to your tents<br />
English Standard Version to your tents<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society to your tents<br />
New Revised Standard Version to your tents<br />
New King James Version to your tents<br />
Young's Literal Version and Israel goeth to its tents<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby to your tents<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (9 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
People of Israel, let's go<br />
home!<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> to your tents<br />
1 Kings 21:10<br />
"And set two men, sons of Belial, before him to bear witness against him, saying, ‘Thou<br />
didst blaspheme God and the king.’ And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may<br />
die.’"<br />
The original text was emended to read ‘bless’ instead of ‘blaspheme.’ Thankfully, this time, the King<br />
James translators discovered the change and rendered it correctly.<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation you have cursed God ftn., blessed<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> thou hast reviled God<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English you cursed God ftn. you blessed<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> you have cursed God<br />
New American Standard Version You cursed God<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research You have blasphemed<br />
(PTY) Ltd<br />
Elohim<br />
King James Version Thou didst blaspheme God<br />
Revised Standard Version you have cursed God<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong> having cursed God<br />
New International Version<br />
he has cursed both God and<br />
the king<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT you have cursed God<br />
English Standard Version you have cursed God<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society you have reviled God<br />
New Revised Standard Version you have cursed God<br />
New King James Version you have blasphemed God<br />
Young's Literal Version Thou hast blessed God<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby thou didst curse God<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV of cursing God<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> cursing God<br />
1 Kings 21:13<br />
The same situation as in 1 Kings 21:10.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (10 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Jeremiah 2:11<br />
"Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? But My people have changed<br />
their glory for that which doth not profit."<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? But My people have changed My<br />
glory for that which doth not profit."<br />
Bullinger explains that this change as being made out of a mistaken idea of reverence.<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation exchanged my glory ftn., its<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> have changed my glory ftn. his glory<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English changed its glory<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> exchanged their Glory<br />
New American Standard Version<br />
My people have changed<br />
their glory<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research<br />
have changed My esteem<br />
(PTY) Ltd<br />
King James Version<br />
my people have changed<br />
their glory<br />
Revised Standard Version<br />
my people have changed<br />
their glory<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong> changed their glory<br />
New International Version ftn., my exchanged their Glory<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT changed their glory<br />
English Standard Version changed their glory<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society<br />
My people has exchanged<br />
its glory<br />
New Revised Standard Version changed their glory<br />
New King James Version changed their glory<br />
Young's Literal Version<br />
My people hath changed<br />
its honour<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby changed their glory<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
my people have<br />
exchanged me<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> exchanged their glory<br />
Ezekiel 8:17<br />
"For they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke Me to anger: and,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (11 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
lo, they put the branch to their nose."<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"... For they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke Me to anger:<br />
and, to, they put the branch to My nose."<br />
"This is one of the 18 emendations of the Sopherim, by which they record their change of 'aphphi (My<br />
nostrils), of the primitive text, to 'aphpham (their nostrils), in order to remove what was though to be an<br />
indelicate and derogatory Anthropomorphism." Bullinger<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
they are thrusting out<br />
the shoot to my nose<br />
ftn., their nose<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> branch to my nose ftn., their<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English<br />
they are sending bad air<br />
at my nose<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> branch to their nostrils<br />
New American Standard Version<br />
they are putting the twig<br />
to their nose<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research they are putting the<br />
(PTY) Ltd<br />
branch to My nose<br />
King James Version<br />
they put the branch to<br />
their nose<br />
Revised Standard Version<br />
they put the branch to<br />
their nose<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong> branch to my nose<br />
New International Version<br />
putting the branch to<br />
their nose<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT against my very nostrils<br />
English Standard Version ftn., or my<br />
put the branch to their<br />
nose<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society ftn. goad Me to Fury<br />
thrust the branch to their<br />
nostrils<br />
New Revised Standard Version<br />
putting the branch to<br />
their nose<br />
New King James Version<br />
put the branch to their<br />
nose<br />
Young's Literal Version<br />
they are putting forth the<br />
branch unto their nose!<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby<br />
put the branch to their<br />
nose<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (12 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Emendations to the Minor Prophets<br />
Look how they insult<br />
me in the most<br />
offensive way possible!<br />
holding twigs to their<br />
noses<br />
Hosea 4:7<br />
"As they were increased, so they sinned against Me: therefore will I change their glory into<br />
shame."<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"As they were increased, so they sinned against Me: My glory they have they changed into<br />
shame."<br />
Another instance where the Sopherim displayed a mistaken sense of reverence toward God.<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong><br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
New American Standard Version<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture<br />
Research (PTY) Ltd<br />
My own glory they have<br />
exchanged for mere<br />
dishonor<br />
my glory...did they<br />
exchange<br />
My esteem they have<br />
changed<br />
ftn., their own glory I will<br />
exchange<br />
ftn., their glory I will<br />
change into shame<br />
I will substitute contempt<br />
for your honors<br />
they have bartered their<br />
Glory for Shame<br />
I will change their glory<br />
into shame<br />
King James Version<br />
therefore will I change<br />
their glory into shame<br />
Revised Standard Version<br />
I will change their glory<br />
into shame<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
exchanging their glory for<br />
shame<br />
New International Version ftn., my they exchanged their Glory<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT<br />
they have exchanged their<br />
glory<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (13 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
English Standard Version<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society<br />
New Revised Standard Version<br />
New King James Version ftn., my glory<br />
Young's Literal Version<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
I will change their glory<br />
into shame<br />
I will change their dignity<br />
to dishonor<br />
they changed their glory<br />
into shame<br />
I will change their glory<br />
into shame<br />
Their honour into shame I<br />
change<br />
I will change their glory<br />
into shame<br />
I will turn your honor into<br />
disgrace<br />
their dignity I shall turn<br />
into dishonour<br />
Habakkuk 1:12<br />
"Art Thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O<br />
LORD, Thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, Thou hast established<br />
them for correction."<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"Art Thou not from everlasting, O Jehovah my God, mine Holy One? who diest not. ..."<br />
This change was made as "...it was considered offensive to say this ["who diest not"] of Jehovah; ..."<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
Jehovah...my Holy One, you do<br />
not die<br />
ftn., we shall not die<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Yahweh, my God...thou diest<br />
not<br />
ftn. we shall not die<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English<br />
Jehovah...God of my<br />
devotion...you will not die<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Yahweh...my holy God, who<br />
never dies<br />
New American Standard Version<br />
O LORD, my<br />
God...we will not die<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture O YHWH my Elohim...You do<br />
Research (PTY) Ltd<br />
not die<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (14 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
King James Version<br />
Revised Standard Version<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong> LORD, my holy God, immortal<br />
New International Version<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT O LORD,...Thou diest not!<br />
English Standard Version<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society<br />
New Revised Standard Version<br />
New King James Version<br />
Young's Literal Version<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
O LORD, My holy God...You<br />
never die<br />
O LORD, my God...You shall<br />
not die<br />
You are my God, holy and<br />
eternal.<br />
LORD, my God...who is<br />
immortal<br />
O LORD my God...we<br />
shall not die<br />
O LORD my God...we<br />
shall not die<br />
O LORD, my<br />
God...we will not die<br />
O LORD my God...we<br />
shall not die<br />
ftn., Heb. "we," a<br />
change made by a<br />
pious scribe<br />
ftn. MT We<br />
O LORD, my<br />
God...We shall not die<br />
O Jehovah, my<br />
God...We do not die<br />
Jehovah, my God...We<br />
shall not die<br />
ftn. we shall not die<br />
Zechariah 2:8<br />
"For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath He sent me unto the nations which<br />
spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of His eye."<br />
The original text read:<br />
"... After the glory hath He sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth<br />
you toucheth the apple of Mine eye."<br />
It was considered derogatory and too anthropomorphic to speak of God as having an eye in a literal<br />
sense.<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
he that is touching you<br />
ftn., his eyeball<br />
is touching my eyeball<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (15 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong><br />
touches the pupil of<br />
mine eye<br />
ftn., apple of his eye<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English the apple of his eye<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
touches the apple of<br />
My eye<br />
New American Standard Version the apple of His eye<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research touches the apple of<br />
(PTY) Ltd<br />
My eye<br />
King James Version the apple of his eye<br />
Revised Standard Version the apple of his eye<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
touches the apple of<br />
my eye<br />
New International Version the apple of his eye<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT the apple of his eye<br />
English Standard Version the apple of his eye<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society ftn., Heb "My" his own eye<br />
New Revised Standard Version<br />
touches the apple of<br />
my eye<br />
ftn. Heb his eye<br />
New King James Version<br />
touches the apple of his<br />
eye<br />
Young's Literal Version<br />
Is coming against the<br />
daughter of His eye.<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby<br />
Anyone who strikes<br />
the apple of his eye<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
you strikes what is<br />
most precious to me.<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> the apple of his eye<br />
Malachi 1:12<br />
"But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, ‘The table of the LORD is polluted; and the fruit<br />
thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.’"<br />
The original text read:<br />
"But ye have profaned Me, in that ye say, ‘The table of the Jehovah is polluted; and the fruit<br />
thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.’"<br />
Another change made due to a mistaken sense of reverence, and the idea that Jehovah cannot be<br />
profaned.<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (16 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
you men are profaning<br />
me<br />
ftn., 'him' or 'it'<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> ye are profaning me<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English you have profaned it<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> but you have profaned it<br />
New American Standard Version But you are profaning it<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research but you are profaning<br />
(PTY) Ltd<br />
me<br />
King James Version But ye have profaned it<br />
Revised Standard Version But you profaned it<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
you behave profanely<br />
toward me<br />
New International Version but you profaned it<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT you are defiling it<br />
English Standard Version but you profaned it<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society you profane it<br />
New Revised Standard Version but you profane it<br />
New King James Version but you profane it<br />
Young's Literal Version ye are polluting it<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby but ye profane it<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV But you dishonor me<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> but you profaned me<br />
Malachi 3:9<br />
"Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed Me, even this whole nation."<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"Ye have cursed Me with a curse: for ye have robbed Me, even this whole nation."<br />
Bullinger states: "The Sopherim say that they altered the letter (Mem = M) into (Nun = N), thus making<br />
it passive instead of active, and detaching it from the rest of the sentence. This was done to avoid a<br />
supposed irreverence."<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
with the curse you are<br />
cursing me<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong><br />
with a curse ye have been<br />
cursing,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (17 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English N/A<br />
ftn. with the curse you are<br />
cursed, and me<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> a curse lies on you<br />
New American Standard Version<br />
You are cursed with a<br />
curse<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research<br />
(PTY) Ltd<br />
You have cursed Me<br />
with a curse<br />
King James Version<br />
Ye are cursed with a<br />
curse<br />
Revised Standard Version<br />
You are cursed with a<br />
curse<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong> you are indeed accursed<br />
New International Version you are under a curse<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT<br />
with a curse are you<br />
accursed<br />
English Standard Version<br />
You are cursed with a<br />
curse<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society<br />
you are suffering under a<br />
curse<br />
New Revised Standard Version<br />
You are cursed with a<br />
curse<br />
New King James Version<br />
You are cursed with a<br />
curse<br />
Young's Literal Version<br />
With a curse ye are<br />
cursed!<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby<br />
Ye are cursed with a<br />
curse<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV A curse is on all of you<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> there is a curse on you all<br />
Emendations to the Writings (KETHUVIM)<br />
Psalm 10:3<br />
"For the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD<br />
abhorreth."<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"For the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, And the covetous man blasphemeth, yea,<br />
abhorreth Jehovah."<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (18 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation he has disrespected Jehovah<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> hath blasphemed Yahweh<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English<br />
a wrongdoer loftily insults<br />
Jehovah<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
by his blasphemies the<br />
grasping spurns Yahweh<br />
New American Standard Version<br />
the greedy man curses and<br />
spurns the LORD<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture<br />
Research (PTY) Ltd<br />
King James Version<br />
the greedy one cursed and<br />
despised YHWH<br />
Revised Standard Version<br />
curses and renounces the<br />
LORD<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong> curse and scorn the LORD<br />
New International Version reviles the LORD<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT curses and rejects God<br />
English Standard Version renounces the LORD<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society reviles and scorns the LORD<br />
New Revised Standard Version<br />
curse and renounce the<br />
LORD<br />
New King James Version renounces the LORD<br />
Young's Literal Version He hath despised Jehovah<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby he contemneth Jehovah<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
the greedy curse and reject<br />
the LORD<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
they curse and revile the<br />
LORD<br />
Psalm 106:20<br />
"Thus they changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass."<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"Thus they changed My glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass."<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
whom the LORD<br />
abhorreth<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation they exchanged my glory ftn., their glory<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (19 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> exchanged my glory ftn., their glory<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English ftn., his glory changed their glory<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
they exchanged their<br />
glory<br />
New American Standard Version<br />
they exchanged their<br />
glory<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research<br />
they changed My esteem<br />
(PTY) Ltd<br />
King James Version they changed their glory<br />
Revised Standard Version<br />
they exchanged the glory<br />
of God<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
they exchanged their<br />
glorious God<br />
New International Version<br />
they exchanged their<br />
Glory<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT they changed their glory<br />
English Standard Version<br />
they exchanged the glory<br />
of God<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society<br />
they exchanged their<br />
glory<br />
New Revised Standard Version<br />
They exchanged the glory ftn. Heb exchanged their<br />
of God<br />
glory<br />
New King James Version they changed their glory<br />
Young's Literal Version And change their Honour<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby they changed their glory<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
they exchanged the glory<br />
of God<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
they exchanged their God<br />
for...<br />
ftn., Heb, their glory<br />
Job 1:5<br />
"And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified<br />
them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number<br />
of them all for Job said, ‘It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their<br />
hearts.’ Thus did Job continually."<br />
Here the Sopherim changed the word ‘cursed’ to ‘bless’ in the Hebrew text, but the translators of the<br />
King James Version corrected it in the English version. The same is true of three other verses in the book<br />
of Job: Job 1:11; 2:5 and 2:9).<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (20 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation cursed God in their heart ftn., have blessed<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> cursed God in their hearts ftn., to bless<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English cursed God in their hearts<br />
ftn., sinned and blessed<br />
God<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> in their hearts blasphemed<br />
New American Standard Version cursed God in their hearts<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture cursed Elohim in their<br />
Research (PTY) Ltd<br />
hearts<br />
King James Version<br />
and cursed God in their<br />
hearts<br />
Revised Standard Version cursed God in their hearts<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
blasphemed God in their<br />
hearts<br />
New International Version cursed God in their hearts<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT cursed God in their thoughts<br />
English Standard Version cursed God in their hearts ftn., bless<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society<br />
blasphemed God in their<br />
hearts<br />
New Revised Standard Version cursed God in their hearts<br />
New King James Version cursed God in their hearts ftn. blessed<br />
Young's Literal Version<br />
yet blessed God in their<br />
heart<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby cursed God in their hearts<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
have sinned by insulting<br />
God<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> have sinned against God<br />
Job 7:20<br />
"I have sinned; what shall I do unto Thee, O Thou Preserver of men? Why hast thou set me<br />
as a mark against Thee, so that I am a burden to myself?"<br />
The original text reads:<br />
"I have sinned; what shall I do unto Thee, O Thou Preserver of men? Why hast thou set me<br />
as a mark against Thee, so that I am a burden unto Thee?"<br />
Not believing that any mere man could be a ‘burden’ to God, this Scripture was emended by the<br />
Sopherim.<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (21 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading<br />
so that I should<br />
Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
become a burden to<br />
you<br />
ftn., myself<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong><br />
have I become unto<br />
thee a burden<br />
ftn., unto myself<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English<br />
have me as a load to<br />
carry<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
why should I be a<br />
burden to you<br />
New American Standard Version<br />
so that I am a burden to<br />
myself<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research<br />
(PTY) Ltd<br />
I am a burden to You<br />
King James Version I am a burden to myself<br />
Revised Standard Version<br />
Why have I become a<br />
burden to thee<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong> take away my guilt<br />
New International Version<br />
have I become a<br />
burden to you?<br />
ftn. I have become a<br />
burden to myself<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT<br />
I am become a burden<br />
to thee<br />
English Standard Version<br />
have I become a<br />
burden to you?<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society a burden to myself<br />
New Revised Standard Version<br />
why have I become a<br />
burden to you?<br />
New King James Version ftn., You a burden to myself<br />
Young's Literal Version a burden to myself<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby a burden to myself<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
Am I so great a burden<br />
to you?<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
become a burden to<br />
you<br />
ftn., Heb me<br />
Job 32:3<br />
"Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer,<br />
and yet had condemned Job."<br />
The original text read:<br />
"Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (22 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
and yet had condemned God."<br />
Condemning God was considered derogatory, so the above was changed so that the condemnation was<br />
directed towards Job.<br />
Which <strong>Bible</strong> version bears the correct reading?<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Original Reading Emended Reading<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
they proceeded to<br />
pronounce God wicked<br />
ftn., Job<br />
Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> condemned God ftn., Job<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English putting God in the wrong ftn. putting Job<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> putting God in the wrong<br />
New American Standard Version<br />
and yet had condemned<br />
Job<br />
The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture<br />
Research (PTY) Ltd<br />
pronounced Elohim wrong<br />
King James Version<br />
and yet had condemned<br />
Job.<br />
Revised Standard Version<br />
declared Job to be in the<br />
wrong<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong> condemned Job<br />
New International Version<br />
ftn., and so had condemned<br />
refute Job<br />
God<br />
Smith & Goodspeed's AT put God in the wrong<br />
English Standard Version<br />
declared Job to be in the<br />
wrong<br />
Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society condemned Job<br />
New Revised Standard Version<br />
ftn. had put God in the<br />
wrong<br />
had declared Job to be in<br />
the wrong<br />
New King James Version yet had condemned Job<br />
Young's Literal Version and condemn Job<br />
The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby and [yet] condemned Job<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
this made it appear that<br />
God was in the wrong<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> let God appear wrong<br />
ftn., had not proved Job<br />
wrong<br />
2 Chronicles 10:16<br />
"every man to your tents, O Israel"<br />
The original text reads:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (23 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
"... every man to your gods, O Israel: ..."<br />
This is a repeat of the emendation made in 2 Samuel 20:1 and 1 Kings 12:16. See above.<br />
Of the 21 charts above, the New <strong>World</strong> Translation ranked the highest, only twice relegating the<br />
original reading to the footnotes. Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> and The Scriptures-Institute for<br />
Scripture Research (PTY) Ltd, came in second. The worst offender was Young's Literal Translation, with<br />
the King James Version, New KJV, Darby and the New American Standard Version following closely<br />
behind.<br />
The mainstream Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s (New American, New Jerusalem, Good News-Catholic Edition) were<br />
more accurate than the mainstream Protestant <strong>Bible</strong>s.<br />
Back To Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/emendations.htm (24 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:53 AM]
My Review of James Stewart's Review of Rolf Furuli's book, The Role of Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
A Reply to James Stewart's, A book on translation?<br />
Webmaster: The following is my review of James Stewart's review of Professor Furuli's book, The Role of Theology<br />
and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation. The reason for a review of this review is that it posted in many places in order to<br />
undermine Jehovah's Witnesses, the New <strong>World</strong> Translation, and anyone who dares come to its defense. This was<br />
posted initially on amazon.com, and then used by permission on other sites with an anti-JW agenda. It should be<br />
noted that of the ten reviews listed of this book on amazon for Furuli's book, this was the only negative one.<br />
James Stewart: If you are looking for a book on The Role of Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation, (in my opinion)<br />
you won't find it here. This book claims to be, "...a philological and linguistic approach to the issues, rather than a<br />
theological one."(Page xvii)<br />
On page 155, Mr. Furuli states,<br />
As we proceed with our discussion, we should keep in mind that the following section of this chapter (or any other<br />
part in this book) is not written to defend the renditions of the NWT or the arguments behind them.<br />
Again on page 292 he states,<br />
There is therefore, a need for literal <strong>Bible</strong> translations with extensive footnotes and appendices, so as to inform the<br />
reader of the different choices that have been made on his or her behalf. Because the NWT is just such a translation,<br />
it was chosen as the object of our study.<br />
Mr. Furuli does state in note 8 on page xvii, "Any work will, to a certain extent, be colored by the author's theology,<br />
this is of course also the case with this book." This is too weak of an admission. What you find is a book that should<br />
have been entitled 'New <strong>World</strong> Translation Defended.' This book picks out three books critical of the New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation to refute. These three books are Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and The Gospel of John by Robert M.<br />
Bowman, Jr.; The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament [Out of print] by R.H. Countess; and So Many Versions [Out<br />
of print] by S. Kubo and W.F. Specht.<br />
Considering the author's claims of providing an objective analysis, it is surprising that he attempts to refute books<br />
that are critical of the New <strong>World</strong> Translation.<br />
Reply: Well, the book IS subtitled "With a special look at the New <strong>World</strong> Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses." The<br />
Introduction explains further:<br />
"The <strong>Bible</strong> translation chosen as the object of study in this book is The New <strong>World</strong> Translation. As of<br />
1996, 91 million copies have been printed in 16 languages. It is quite different from the mainline<br />
translations in its dynamic renderings of Greek and Hebrew verbs, in its many novel renderings of<br />
traditional and familiar terms, and in its renderings of passages traditionally used as evidence for the<br />
trinity doctrine. It is extremely literal, closely following the sentence structure of Hebrew and Greek, but<br />
at the same time has several elegant, idiomatic renderings. The quality of the translation, however, is<br />
widely disputed. Thus we have an ideal situation for study: A modern, literal <strong>Bible</strong> translation that, more<br />
than any other translation, is accused of being dogmatic, biased and at times even dishonest. A study of<br />
this translation and of the criticisms brought against it will throw light on how theology and bias<br />
influence <strong>Bible</strong> translation and the readers dependence upon the translators." p. xvi<br />
Didn't Mr. Stewart read this??<br />
James Stewart: This book is just a Jehovah's Witness apologetic. In the description of the author, it does not state that<br />
he is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
Reply: I own hundreds of books on <strong>Bible</strong> translation, and <strong>Bible</strong> theology. Few, and I mean few authors actually list<br />
the demomination that they belong to. They will, however, list their credentials, just as Rolf Furuli has:<br />
"The Author: Rolf Furuli has earned his B.A. and mag.art degrees from the University of Oslo, Norway,<br />
with an emphasis on Hebrew. He has also studied Accadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Greek, Latin,<br />
Middle Egyptian, Syriac and Ugaritic, and has done postgraduate studies in applied linguistics and<br />
semantics. At present he is a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo, and is also working<br />
on a project where the Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong>, the Dead Sea Scrolls and ancient inscriptions are studied with the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/stewart.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 3:47:07 AM]
My Review of James Stewart's Review of Rolf Furuli's book, The Role of Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
goal of redefining the verbal system of classical Hebrew."<br />
Why should he be held to a different standard than other academic works? Is it because Stewart works under the<br />
assumption that any author that is a member of a mainstream church will not have biased thoughts clouded by<br />
theology, and that anyone who is a JW is naturally a liar and cannot work beyond his commitment to "Mother" or the<br />
"Borg?" Judging from his comments below, prejudice is hard to dismiss.<br />
James: On pages XV and 45, he states that translation is interpretation. On page 27, he criticizes the TEV for some of<br />
its translations of SARX stating, ...thus, the interpreting is done for the reader, when it should be done by the reader.<br />
But didn't he say that translation is interpretation (rhetorical question)?<br />
Reply: The difference is the level of interpretation involved, as is pointed out even in other books:<br />
"The dynamic equivalence translator tends to be relatively unrestrained in his theologizing. What a<br />
formal equivalence [Literal] translator generally does only as a matter of necessity [hence Rolf's<br />
"interpretation" on pp. xv and 45], the dynamic equivalence translator often does as a matter of choice."<br />
[See page 27 of Rolf's book]<br />
P. 70, Accuracy of Translation-The Primary Criterion of Evaluating <strong>Bible</strong> Versions with Special<br />
Reference to the New International Version.<br />
As explained, "human nature" is not the meaning of SARX. "It is not demanded by the context; it is an expression of<br />
the translators views." AND THEN, Professor Furuli goes on to equate this meaning of "interpretation" as<br />
"paraphrase", all of this still on page 27. Did the reviewer even read the entire book?<br />
James: Again on page 31, he states, Idiomatic translations convey words that represent the interpretations of the<br />
translators. Literal translations convey concepts that the readers can interpret. But didn't he say that translation is<br />
interpretation (rhetorical question)?<br />
Reply: There is a point that Stewart failed to grasp in reading this book. The reader takes part in the interpretation<br />
process.<br />
As explained by Professor Duthie:<br />
"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the <strong>Bible</strong> who are trying to appreciate to learn the<br />
Hebrew or Greek languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 'gloss' translation,<br />
especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG,<br />
DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and How to Choose Between Them by<br />
Alan S. Duthie [emphasis his]<br />
"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages, we suggest either a very literal<br />
version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version [Kingdom {Interlinear<br />
Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your <strong>Bible</strong> Wisely, Duthie<br />
With a literal translation as the NWT, the reader becomes the Dynamic Equivalent translator or Paraphraser, and<br />
hence, becomes the interpreter. The reader though loses out on this when he resorts to using a <strong>Bible</strong> like the TEV,<br />
CEV, the Message, etc. He is not given the opportunity to think for himself how the passage should be interpreted,<br />
but has allowed himself to be spoon-fed by a borg-like, mother-like translator. Others have no problem seeing this.<br />
Speaking of the NIV, Radmacher and <strong>Bible</strong> translator Zane Hodges write:<br />
"It [the NIV] is trying to do the work of a commentary. Yet this is really not a translator's task. A version<br />
of the <strong>Bible</strong> cannot try to eliminate the need for elaborations of meaning which commentators provide,<br />
or for the information found in <strong>Bible</strong> dictionaries. Here the NIV oversteps its proper role." P. 40, The<br />
NIV Reconsidered, by Earl Radmacher and Zane C. Hodges<br />
Robert L. Thomas, Professor of New Testament-The Master's Seminary, states:<br />
A certain degree of interpretation is unavoidable, no matter how hard the translator tries to exclude it.<br />
Yet a<br />
characteristic of formal equivalence is its effort to avoid interpretation as much as possible by<br />
transferring directly from the surface structure of the source language to the surface structure of the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/stewart.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 3:47:07 AM]
My Review of James Stewart's Review of Rolf Furuli's book, The Role of Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
receptor language. By omitting the step of analysis that is built into the D-E approach, interpretation can<br />
be excluded to a much higher degree. Since D-E intentionally incorporates interpretation, it<br />
obviously has a significantly higher degree of interpretation than formal equivalence and is in a<br />
much stronger sense a system of hermeneutics than is formal equivalence.<br />
P. 6, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE: A METHOD OF TRANSLATION OR A SYSTEM OF<br />
HERMENEUTICS?<br />
Perhaps it is time for James Stewart to get on the same page.<br />
James: On page 42, he states that Nida & Taber's translation (interpretation) of Eph. 1:4 is forced upon the reader.<br />
But this is a two-edged sword. The New <strong>World</strong> Translation of Eph. 1:4 is forced upon the reader.<br />
Reply: The reference here is regarding the words PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU, which the NWT-1950, NRSV,<br />
NKJV, NAB, Byington, NASB, Perschbacher, KJV, Zerwick, Douay, Thayer's, Robertson, BAGD, HCSB,<br />
Lattimore, RSV, LITV, MKJV, ESV, YLT, render "foundation of the world," the NWT-1984, Thayer's, Strong's,<br />
BAGD and Rotherham render "founding of the world," while Moffatt and the New Berkeley Version prefer "before<br />
the world was founded." But Nida & Taber recommended the translation of "(God) creates the world." Now tell me,<br />
honestly, which one is *forced.* The DE translator has very little use for word-study, and discourages its target<br />
audience away from lexical references:<br />
"The 1986 work by de Waard and Nida does refer to standard tools of lexicography, but it casts them in<br />
a negative light. Traditional bilingual dictionaries are labeled as deficient because they depend almost<br />
entirely on<br />
"glosses," i.e. surface structure transfer of meanings. The same authors criticize<br />
Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker for being very unsystematic and in failing to cover the ranges of meaning<br />
of individual words. It is evident from these criticisms that the analysis step in the D-E process covers<br />
the same ground that has traditionally been covered by exegesis, an exegesis based on principles of<br />
interpretation that compose the field of hermeneutics." Page 5 DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE: A<br />
METHOD OF TRANSLATION OR A SYSTEM OF HERMENEUTICS?<br />
James: The largest problem with all of this is that he is contradicting his organization! In The Watchtower, 7/1/73,<br />
page 402, it stated,<br />
Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the <strong>Bible</strong>, is<br />
not a sealed book.<br />
And, in The Watchtower, 10/1/67, page 587, it stated,<br />
Thus the <strong>Bible</strong> is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to<br />
individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the <strong>Bible</strong>. For this reason, the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
cannot be properly understood without Jehovah's visible organization in mind.<br />
Reply: So...what is it? Is he or is he not a JW apologist? If the above, according to Stewart, proves that Furuli is<br />
"contradicting his organization" then he is not a JW, and your entire review was in vain.<br />
When we look at the context of the above quotes, we get the following from the WT67:<br />
"All the Law or Torah that Jehovah inspired Moses to write was for this theocratic organization of Israel.<br />
So were all the other books that now comprise the Hebrew Scriptures, or the “Old Testament” as some<br />
persons refer to them. But over fifteen centuries later, Paul, himself an Israelite and an apostle of Jesus<br />
Christ, wrote concerning these books that make up three-quarters of our <strong>Bible</strong>: “For all the things that<br />
were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the<br />
comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.” (Rom. 15:4) By this, Paul meant that the <strong>Bible</strong>, as an<br />
instruction book for the theocratic organization of Israel, had now become a book of instructions for the<br />
organization of the Christian congregation.<br />
As the canon of books of God’s Word was expanded and the Christian Greek Scriptures were added to<br />
complete the <strong>Bible</strong>, each book was written directly to the Christian congregation or to a member of the<br />
Christian congregation in its behalf."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/stewart.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 3:47:07 AM]
My Review of James Stewart's Review of Rolf Furuli's book, The Role of Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
I can agree with those comments, can't you.<br />
The WT73 goes on to quote"<br />
"For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the<br />
deep things of God." (1 Cor. 2:10)<br />
It seems to me that most fundamental and mainstream Christian groups make the same claim, often at the point of<br />
deriding other groups to prop their supposed superiority:<br />
"if you present the <strong>Bible</strong> verses to them, they will not hear them. They are not capable of hearing them.<br />
They do not have the Holy Spirit living inside them to bring that understanding."<br />
http://home.earthlink.net/~defender/de01018.htm<br />
"The Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to glorify Jesus—an indication that they do not have the Holy Spirit."<br />
http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/cultofjw.htm<br />
"The unsaved cannot really grasp spiritual teachings because they are not born again and do not have the<br />
Holy Spirit within to teach them these things."<br />
http://www.gracenet.org/gnhtml/PEBhtml/PEB1.html<br />
From a Catholic Website:<br />
"We have found, in our own personal experiences, that Baptists and other so-called fundamentalists are<br />
among the least receptive to the fullness of the Gospel message, because they labor under the false<br />
impression that they, alone among Christians, adhere to the basic doctrines set forth in the <strong>Bible</strong>."<br />
http://members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/bibletruth.html<br />
"This [the NWT] has obviously been changed to support their belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,<br />
but not God the Son. At this point you have to ask yourself, why do they do this? The answer is that they<br />
are not saved and do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them."<br />
http://associate.com/ministry_files/The_Reading_Room/False_Teaching_n_Teachers_3/What_Is_A_Cult.shtml<br />
"Unfortunately, the pope does not teach rightly. He teaches contrary to God's Word, thus revealing that<br />
he disobeys God, whose Word proclaims that the Holy Spirit is given ONLY to those that OBEY God."<br />
http://www.localline2.com/~nicholas/page6.htm<br />
Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses are often talking out of both sides of their mouths.<br />
Even Radmacher and Hodges, quoted above, admit that Evangelicals have a superiority complex:<br />
"In today's evangelical world, biblical scholars are the new class of 'priests' who hold in their hands the<br />
'secret' knowledge which the average lay person cannot himself comprehend. To be told that a translation<br />
is done by a large array of evangelical scholars may impart to that translation an aura of authority that it<br />
does not actually deserve."<br />
p. 23, The NIV Reconsidered<br />
Members of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses know what is meant by the WT67 and WT73:<br />
*** km 12/84 1 What Does the <strong>Bible</strong> Mean to You? ***<br />
To great masses of people not professing Christianity, the <strong>Bible</strong> is, at best, nothing more than the<br />
sayings of perceptive men who possessed above-average intelligence. In each case, the attitude of people<br />
toward the <strong>Bible</strong> has reflected their estimation of its value.<br />
WHAT IT MEANS TO US<br />
3 How do we view the <strong>Bible</strong>? We have “accepted it, not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is,<br />
as the word of God.” (1 Thess. 2:13) We know its contents represent divine wisdom that is “able to<br />
discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Heb. 4:12) Applying its counsel will ‘equip us for every<br />
good work.’ (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) Its value cannot be measured in material riches. (Prov. 3:13-15) To us, it<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/stewart.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 3:47:07 AM]
My Review of James Stewart's Review of Rolf Furuli's book, The Role of Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
is a guide in all affairs of life. Truly, we ‘love it.’-Ps. 119:97, 105.<br />
Our criticism of mainstream Christianity is not as harsh as theirs is of us (see above quotes). We would not lower<br />
ourselves to using derogatory terms such as "cult."<br />
James: One glaring deficiency in this book is no discussion of the concepts of 'marked' and 'unmarked' meanings of<br />
words. This is fundamental to any book on translation. If you want to read a real book on <strong>Bible</strong> translation, Mr.<br />
Furuli<br />
references two books I would highly recommend. They are "The Theory and Practice of Translation by" E.A. Nida &<br />
C.R. Taber published by Leiden: Brill, 1974 and From One Language to Another by J. de Waard & E.A. Nida<br />
published by Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986.<br />
Reply: It would have been nice if James would have expanded on how deficient Professor Furuli's book is in this<br />
regard, and how the host of other books on <strong>Bible</strong> translation have remarked on this. The accusation is made, and left<br />
open. The end.<br />
Perhaps more reading into "presuppositional pools" and how many are incorporating a later theology into an earlier<br />
text is demanded.<br />
At any rate, Stewart's review is unfair and discriminatory. Incorporating quotes from old Watchtowers into a work<br />
that is not a Watchtower magazine apologetic is unwarranted, especially when it really had nothing to do with the<br />
subject at hand. It was just a chance for Stewart to appeal to a myopic mindset hell-bent on placing JW's in a bad<br />
light, thereby creating a distinction of superiority for others, in that, "We would never say such a thing." All in all, it<br />
was inappropriate, and frankly, disturbing. In doing this he has placed himself into the realm of pseudo-scholarship as<br />
we have seen in Walter Martin, Ankerberg & Weldon, Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, Ron Rhodes, and a host of<br />
others.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/stewart.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 3:47:07 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus<br />
Christ<br />
On Matthew 1:23 and Immanuel; John 20:28; Men as gods; Psalms 45:6; Colossians 2:9; the<br />
Divine Name in the LXX, the worship of Jesus, John 1:1, etc.<br />
Unless other wise stated, all Scriptures will be from the American Standard Version 1901<br />
Jason: Before I begin sharing some important matters of the <strong>Bible</strong>, I would first like to get some things out on the table.<br />
Let me say, first,<br />
that there are many things about Jehovah’s Witnesses that I admire. Your zeal and involvement in your organization are<br />
unequaled by most other religious groups. Also your interest in the <strong>Bible</strong> is commendable. I know that most Jehovah’s<br />
witnesses spend several hours each week studying the <strong>Bible</strong>. Also you and I have many things in common. I and other<br />
Christians share your concern about religious apostasy in much of Christendom, your teaching against evolution, and<br />
your belief in the coming battle of Armageddon, when God will destroy the forces of Satan and then establish on earth His<br />
kingdom in which there will be universal peace and righteousness. But Rather than discussing many different teachings, I<br />
would like suggest that we consider what is the most important issue; the heart of the matter, He being the person of<br />
Christ.<br />
You and I both believe that Jesus Christ was a perfect man and that He is a distinct person from God the Father. However,<br />
you teach<br />
that before His earthly life, Christ was a spirit creature, Michael the archangel, who was created by God and became the<br />
Messiah at His baptism. According to the Watchtower publication Let God Be True(p.33), Jesus is “a mighty one,<br />
although not almighty as Jehovah God is.” According to John 1:1 in the The New <strong>World</strong> Translation, Christ is “a god”<br />
but not “the God.” So in other words, you teach that Jesus “was and is and always will be beneath Jehovah” and that<br />
“Christ and God are not coequal” (The Watchtower, 15 April 1957)<br />
Dose the <strong>Bible</strong> teach these statements, or dose it teach the Christ is God? This, and I assume that you agree, is an<br />
extremely important question.<br />
I would like to bring to your attention the following points for you to consider and pray about.<br />
1. Several <strong>Bible</strong> verses specifically affirm the deity ( deity means to be God) of Christ. In Matthew 1:23, Christ is called<br />
“Immanuel,” which means “God with us.” When Thomas touched the wounds of the risen Lord, he said, “My Lord and<br />
my God!”(John 20:28). There is no basis whatsoever for saying, as some Jehovah’s Witnesses say, that Thomas was<br />
referring to Jesus when he said “my Lord” but was referring to God the Father when he said “my God.” Instead, Thomas<br />
called Christ his Lord and his God, and interestingly Christ did not correct him.<br />
Reply: If the statement "my Lord and my God" was indeed referring to the Father, then there is no need<br />
for correction, is there?<br />
John 20:28 reads, O KURIOS MOU KAI O QEOS MOU. The KURIOS/Lord here is in the nominative<br />
form, while the vocative form KURIE is used mainly in direct address. Yes, there is such a thing as the<br />
"Nominative for the Vocative," but as Edwin Abbott, in his Johannine Grammar puts it:<br />
"The Egyptian Papyri use KURIE freely, but never, so far as alleged, hO KURIOS vocatively. Thus, a<br />
great mass of evidence from all extant Greek [shows] that, had the vocative been intended, KURIE<br />
would have been employed. This is confirmed by the Latin versions, which have 'dominus.'" 94 sec.,<br />
2049<br />
Let us find some of these occurences of the vocative KURIE with the possessive MOU (using primarily<br />
Brenton's LXX:<br />
Judges 4:18 "And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said to him, Turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me,<br />
fear not."<br />
1 Samuel (1 Kings LXX) 25:24 "And she fell before David...even to his feet, and said, On me, my lord,<br />
be my wrong"<br />
2 Samuel (2 Kings LXX) 7:18, 19, "And king David came in, and sat before the Lord, and said, Who am<br />
I, O Lord, my Lord, and what is my house, that thou hast loved me hitherto? Whereas I was very little<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (1 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
before thee, O Lord, my Lord"<br />
see also 2 Samuel 7:20, 22, 25, 28, 29; 14:19, 19; 1 Kings 1:13, 17, and many others.<br />
The question needs to be asked, since the vocative KURIE with the possessive MOU was not uncommon<br />
in direct address, it seems odd NOT to employ it at John 20:28. The argument is strong that Jesus was<br />
NOT being addressed here, especially as the vocative KURIE was also used in the Gospel of John at<br />
4:11, 15, 19, 49; 5:7; 6:34, 68; 9:36, 38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5, 8, 22;<br />
20:15; 21:15, 16, 20, 21.<br />
[There is another subcategory not usually mentioned, the Nominative of Exclamation, which according<br />
to Daniel Wallace, "will not be used in direct address. It is a primitive use of the language where<br />
emotion overrides syntax." see Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 59, 60]<br />
Would we even be discussing this if someone else was thus addressed?<br />
Consider 1 Samuel 20:12 "And Jonathan said unto David, O LORD God of Israel." KJV, Douay, Revised<br />
Webster<br />
or "And Jonathan said unto David, OYahweh Elohim of Israel" (Restored Name KJV).<br />
No one would ever argue that David was God, but if ever there was a movement to think so, this verse<br />
would be used as a proof-text.<br />
I have already dealt with this argument in depth already at 50 Questions and 65 Questions, so I will try<br />
another liine of reasoning here. Officially, Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem with Jesus being the<br />
"God" referred to in this Scripture, and we can see that looking at their book, Reasoning from the<br />
Scriptures:<br />
"There is no objection to referring to Jesus as "God," if this is what Thomas had in mind.<br />
Such would be in harmony with Jesus' own quotation from the Psalms in which powerful<br />
men, judges, were addressed as "gods." (John 10:34, 35, RS; Ps. 82:1-6) Of course, Christ<br />
occupies a position far higher than such men. Because of the uniqueness of his position in<br />
relation to Jehovah, at John 1:18 (NW) Jesus is referred to as "the only-begotten god." (See<br />
also Ro, By.) Isaiah 9:6 (RS) also prophetically describes Jesus as "Mighty God," but not as<br />
the Almighty God. All of this is in harmony with Jesus' being described as "a god," or<br />
"divine," at John 1:1 (NW, AT).<br />
The context helps us to draw the right conclusion from this. Shortly before Jesus' death,<br />
Thomas had heard Jesus' prayer in which he addressed his Father as "the only true God."<br />
(John 17:3, RS) After Jesus' resurrection Jesus had sent a message to his apostles, including<br />
Thomas, in which he had said: "I am ascending . . . to my God and your God." (John 20:17,<br />
RS) After recording what Thomas said when he actually saw and touched the resurrected<br />
Christ, the apostle John stated: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the<br />
Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31, RS)<br />
So, if anyone has concluded from Thomas' exclamation that Jesus is himself "the only true<br />
God" or that Jesus is a Trinitarian "God the Son," he needs to look again at what Jesus<br />
himself said (Joh 20 vs. 17) and at the conclusion that is clearly stated by the apostle John<br />
(Joh 20 vs. 31)."<br />
Powerful men were indeed addressed as Gods in the <strong>Bible</strong>:<br />
Exodus 4:16, "And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he shall be<br />
to thee a mouth, and thou [Moses] shalt be to him as God."<br />
"It is as if Moses would be a god, or God, to Aaron, giving him the words to say, inspiring<br />
him as God would inspire a prophet. The whole process had now been removed one step.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (2 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
Instead of God speaking to Moses and Moses telling the people, Aaron would be the speaker<br />
for a while. But God was still going to work through Moses." NET <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Exodus 7:1, "And Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made thee as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy<br />
brother shall be thy prophet."<br />
Dake's Annotated <strong>Bible</strong> here says "Elohim is thus used of men who were to act in God's<br />
place before men."<br />
Bullinger adds in his Companion <strong>Bible</strong>, "Elohim=one appointed by oath. Elohim is thus<br />
used of those so given and appointed."<br />
The Wycliffe <strong>Bible</strong> Commentary states, "Moses was given divine authority over Pharoah"<br />
"he was to act in this business as God's representative, to act and speak in His name and to<br />
perform things beyond the ordinary course of nature. The Orientals familiarly say of a man<br />
who is eminently great or wise, 'he is a god' among men." Jamieson, Fausset, Brown's<br />
Commentary Critical and Explanatory<br />
on the Whole <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"I have made thee a god to Pharaoh - That is, my representative in this affair, as magistrates<br />
are called gods, because they are God's vicegerents. He was authorized to speak and act in<br />
God's name, and endued with a divine power, to do that which is above the ordinary course<br />
of nature." John Wesley's Explanatory Notes<br />
on the Whole <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"The word ‘elohim is used a few times in the <strong>Bible</strong> for humans (e.g., Pss 45:6; 82:2), and<br />
always clearly in the sense of a subordinate to GOD—they are his representatives on earth.<br />
The explanation here goes back to 4:16. If Moses is like God in that Aaron is his prophet,<br />
then Moses is certainly like God to Pharaoh. Only Moses, then, is able to speak to Pharaoh<br />
with such authority, giving him commands." NET <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"For that he was "made a god to Pharaoh," means that he was furnished with supreme<br />
authority and power, whereby he should cast down the tyrant's pride. Nor did God take<br />
away anything from Himself in order to transfer it to Moses; since He so communicates to<br />
His servants what is peculiar to Himself as to remain Himself in His completeness. Nay,<br />
whenever He seems to resign a part of His glory to His ministers, He only teaches that the<br />
virtue and efficacy of His Spirit will be joined with their labors, that they may not be<br />
fruitless. Moses, therefore, was a god to Pharaoh; because in him God exerted His power,<br />
that he should be superior to the greatness of the king. It is a common figure of the Hebrews,<br />
to give the title of God to all things excellent, since He alone reigns over heaven and earth,<br />
and exalts or casts down angels, as well as men, according to His will." Calvin's<br />
Commentary<br />
"The word Elohim, as the Hebrews remark, whether applied to God, or to men, or to angels,<br />
signifies judicial power." -- Grotius in Pol. Syn. (as quoted In Calvin's Commentary)<br />
Note on Exodus 18:15: "As a judge Moses is speaking for God; but as the servant of<br />
Yahweh Moses’ words will be God’s words. The psalms would later describe judges as<br />
“gods” because they made the right decisions based on God’s Law."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (3 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
So you see, men who were given authority, could be called "God." John is using a way of speaking at<br />
verse 20:28 that qualifies<br />
QEOS by the use of MOU. Therefore, Jesus is QEOS to Thomas in a relative sense as the Father is<br />
QEOS to Jesus (John 20:17; cf. Ex 4:16, 7:1 where Moses is God to Pharaoh and Aaron).<br />
Exodus 21:6, "then his master shall bring him unto God ["judges" New International Version]"<br />
"Others have made a stronger case that it refers to judges who acted on behalf of God; see<br />
C. Gordon, “
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
1 Samuel 2:25 "If one man sin against another, God shall judge him" ASV<br />
"If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him" KJV<br />
Psalm 45:6, "Thy throne [King Solomon], O God ["the Messianic king", Brown Driver &Briggs], is for<br />
ever and ever: A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom."<br />
The NASB Zondervan Study <strong>Bible</strong> (see also NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong>) has this footnote:<br />
"O God. Probably the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed<br />
regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as "god." The Davidic king<br />
(the LORD's anointed 2 Sam. 19:21), because of his special relationship with God, was<br />
called at his enthronement the 'son' of God (see 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 28:6; cf. 89:27). In<br />
this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his 'splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is<br />
not unthinkable that he was called 'god' as a title of honor (cf. Is 9:6). Such a description of<br />
the Davidic king attains its fullest meaning when applied to Christ, as the author of Hebrews<br />
does (Heb 1:8,9). (The pharoahs of Egypt were sometimes addressed as 'my god' by their<br />
vassal kings in Canaan, as evidenced by the Amarna letters...Such was the language used<br />
with respect to kings (see note 21:4). It here gains added significance in the light of God's<br />
covenant with David (see 89:4, 29, 36; 132:12; 2 Sam 7:16). In Christ the Son of David, it is<br />
fulfilled."<br />
The New American <strong>Bible</strong> reads here in the footnote:<br />
"The king in courtly language, is called 'god,' i.e., more than human, representing God to<br />
the people."<br />
The Interpreters <strong>Bible</strong> comments:<br />
"In the ancient world kings were commonly accorded divine titles as viceregents of deity or<br />
as belonging to a superhuman class."<br />
The NET <strong>Bible</strong> states:<br />
"O God. The king is clearly the addressee here, as in vv. 2-5 and 7-9. Rather than taking the<br />
statement at face value, many prefer to emend the text because the concept of deifying the<br />
earthly king is foreign to ancient Israelite thinking (cf. NEB “your throne is like God’s<br />
throne, eternal”). However, it is preferable to retain the text and take this statement as<br />
another instance of the royal hyperbole that permeates the royal psalms. Because the<br />
Davidic king is God’s vice-regent on earth, the psalmist addresses him as if he were God<br />
incarnate. God energizes the king for battle and accomplishes justice through him. A similar<br />
use of hyperbole appears in Isa 9:6, where the ideal Davidic king of the eschaton is given<br />
the title “Mighty God” (see the note on this phrase there). Ancient Near Eastern art and<br />
literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening<br />
in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows:<br />
“No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of<br />
man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (see M. Lichtheim, Ancient<br />
Egyptian Literature, 2:67). Ps 45:6 and Isa. 9:6 probably envision a similar kind of response<br />
when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king’s<br />
enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself."<br />
See also http://biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430&version=kjv<br />
To The Hebrews, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor <strong>Bible</strong>, pp.20-21,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (5 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
follows this line if thought:<br />
"Psalm 45 was a poem addressed to a king, not to God.The king, whom God had blessed,<br />
was urged to gird on his sword in glory and ride victoriously (Ps.45:3-4). His enemies were<br />
destined to fall before his sharp arrows (Ps.45:5). In the Psalm the king was also addressed<br />
with reference to his throne and his scepter, but the words could be understood as addressed<br />
to God. Since the author of Hebrews wanted to use this royal Psalm, he had to deal with this<br />
difficulty in some way, just as commentators do today. He seems to have handled the<br />
problem by speaking in reference to the Son, just as he had spoken in reference to the angels<br />
(1:7) just before. Then, in reference to the Son he spoke of God's throne and the Son's<br />
kingdom. Next, in the following verse, he continued to deal with the Son in direct address as<br />
indicated by the Psalm quotation. It seems more likely that the author of Hebrews sensed a<br />
difficulty here than he intentionally confused the Son with God. For the author, the Son was<br />
the first-born,the apostle of God,the reflection of God's glory, and the stamp of his<br />
nature(1:3,6), but he was not God himself."<br />
The Oxford <strong>Bible</strong> Commentary, on p. 380 states:<br />
"The text is in disorder in a number of places, hence the different renderings by modern<br />
Eng. versions, The meaning of v. 6 has been hotly debated. The most natural way of taking<br />
the Hebrew is as NRSV, with the king addressed as God. Because this would be unique in<br />
the OT (although the future king of Isa 9:6 is called 'mighty god'), alternative ways of<br />
interpreting the Hebrew have been sought. The NRSV marg. is one possibility, another is<br />
'Your throne is everlasting like that of God'."<br />
B.F. Wescott acknowledged (see his "The Epistle to the Hebrews"), the Psalm is a reference to an earthly<br />
King (probably Solomon), so if this verse requires that Jesus be God Almighty, then we have no choice<br />
but to conclude that Solomon was also God Almighty.<br />
Psalm 58:1 "Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of<br />
men?" King James<br />
"Do you indeed speak righteousness, O gods? Do you judge uprightly, O sons of men?" New American<br />
Standard<br />
Psalm 82:1, "God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth among the gods."<br />
Check out the cross-references of the following <strong>Bible</strong>s, as they point between Psalm 82:1 and the human<br />
judges in Exodus:<br />
The Interpreters <strong>Bible</strong> Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9; 1 Sam 2:25<br />
New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong>-Zondervan Study <strong>Bible</strong> Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 28<br />
NASB Reference Edition Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 28<br />
Dake's Annotated Study <strong>Bible</strong> KJV Psalm 82:1>Ex. 7:1; 21:6; 22:8, 28 (with footnote, "Heb. elohim,<br />
Gods. It is used of earthly judges who represent him.")<br />
New International Version Study <strong>Bible</strong> ftn, Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8<br />
Companion <strong>Bible</strong> KJV Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 28 (with footnote, "gods, Elohim: used of earthly<br />
judges as representing Him...Hence Moses is so spoken.")<br />
What does all this mean for John 20:28?<br />
"Thomas, unlike Judas, had come to recognize the one who was to be the "God" of the<br />
Coming Age, replacing Satan, the "God" of this present age (2 Cor. 4:4). Thomas had not<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (6 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
suddenly arrived at a revolutionary new belief that Jesus was ,'very God of very God." There<br />
was nothing in the Old Testament concerning Jesus' Messiahship which predicted that an<br />
eternal immortal being was to become a human person as the promised King of Israel.<br />
Nevertheless the human king could on rare occasions be addressed as "God" as in Psalm<br />
45:6, where he is also given the title "lord" (v. 11). Both "Lord" and "God" are Messianic<br />
titles, and appropriately used by John who wrote his whole book to convince us to believe<br />
that Jesus was the Messiah (John 20:3 1).<br />
Reality struck home to the skeptic Thomas when he recognized that it was the resurrected<br />
Jesus through whom God was going to restore the fortunes of Israel. Thus Jesus became<br />
"God" to Thomas in a way parallel to the sense in which Moses had enjoyed the status of<br />
"God" in the presence of Pharaoh: "The Lord [had] said to Moses, 'See, I make you God to<br />
Pharaoh"' (Exod. 7: 1). These titles of high honor bestowed on God's human instruments did<br />
not infringe upon the strict monotheism of the Old Testament." The Doctrine of the Trinity,<br />
Anthony Buzzard, p. 86<br />
Additonally:<br />
"But let me give another view. Karl Rahner, the eminent Roman Catholic<br />
theologian,considers that there are reliable applications of "theos" to Christ in six texts<br />
(Romans ix.5f; John i.1,18,xx.28; 1 John v.20; and Titus ii.13). Rahner, however,<br />
immediately goes on the say that in none of these instances is "theos" used in such a manner<br />
as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as "ho Theos",<br />
that is, the Supreme God.<br />
Now obviously the very few New Testament passages-possibly only one-which without<br />
question call Jesus "God" outright do not exhaust the linguistic evidence. Notwithstanding,<br />
and in comparison with the frequency with which this form of christological confession is<br />
still required in the christian churches, is not it's rarity in the New Testament surprising?<br />
Would it, in fact, be unfair to press the point with the following query? If the New<br />
Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as "God", is the<br />
almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?<br />
JESUS AS "THEOS" IN THE NEW TESTAMENT G.H.BOOBYER (THE JOHN<br />
RYLANDS BULLETIN.VOL50.1967/8)<br />
But what of Matthew 1:23, and the word "deity." Does "deity" mean to be "god?"<br />
www.dictionary.com explains it as:<br />
de·i·ty (d-t) n., pl. de·i·ties.<br />
1.A god or goddess.<br />
2. a.The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.<br />
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has: deity \de-e-te, da-\ n, pl -ties 1 : divinity 2 2 cap : god 1 3 : a god<br />
or goddess<br />
www.yourdictionary.com has:<br />
1 a : the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY b capitalized : GOD 1, SUPREME BEING<br />
2 : a god or goddess<br />
3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful<br />
This is why even the Unitarian New Testament in an Improved Version Upon the Basis of Archbishop<br />
Newcome's New Translation with A Corrected Text, 1808 [A Revision of Archbishop Newcome's New<br />
Testament, taken over by the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (7 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge] also uses "deity" at this verse.<br />
By these definitions, the humans as gods mentioned can be considered deity, as well as the angels:<br />
[See Exodus 3:2, 14-16 cf. Acts 7:30-32; Gen 16:13, 21:17; 22:15,16; 31:11, 13, Jg 6:12, 13, 14, 20, 21,<br />
22, 23; 13:6, 21; Deut 5:24; Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23; Psalm 8:5; 97:7; 138:1.]<br />
Consider the deity of Moses in the following article Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God By Michael<br />
S. Heiser:<br />
"First, the presumed (traditional) argument actually does nothing to advance Jesus’ claim for<br />
deity, laid down earlier in verse 30 (“I and my Father are one”), for it amounts to Jesus<br />
claiming “I can call myself the son of God just like other men had the title<br />
Elohim.” The point here is that the alleged humans in Psalm 82:1b and 6a were still men,<br />
despite their designation as Elohim . One wonders where the power is in such an equation.<br />
Was Jesus merely arguing for a non-ontological title? This is hardly what He was asserting.<br />
This is no more an argument for the deity of Jesus than one could make for the deity of<br />
Moses from Exodus 4:16 and 7:1, where he is called an Elohim."<br />
For Matthew 1:23 The use of the titular name Imanuel had its earlier fulfillment is someone other than<br />
Jesus Christ:<br />
"Both the context of Isaiah 7 and the use of "Immanuel" two more times in chapter 8 (vv. 8,<br />
10) raise the distinct possibility that the sign had a near fulfillment that affected Ahaz<br />
directly. Such a possibility is supported by the two verses immediately after 7:14 that tell us<br />
that the boy will still be young when Ahaz's enemies-the kings of Samaria and<br />
Damascus-will lose their power (a prediction fulfilled in 732 b.c.). The birth of a boy who<br />
would serve as a sign to Ahaz appears to be closely linked to the birth of Isaiah's son<br />
Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:1-4. Both Immanuel in 7:15-16 and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in<br />
8:4 are young children when Damascus and Samaria collapse. And in 8:8 the two boys may<br />
be identified as Isaiah addresses Immanuel as if he were already present in Jerusalem. Verse<br />
10 contains another occurrence of "Immanuel" in the words "God is with us." The prophet<br />
was challenging Ahaz to trust God, who was "with" his people just as he had promised to be<br />
with them constantly. In Numbers 14:9 Joshua and Caleb had urged the Israelites to<br />
acknowledge that the Lord was with them and to begin the conquest of Canaan, but just like<br />
Ahaz the people chose the path of unbelief with its tragic consequences. An earlier king of<br />
Judah, Abijah, believed that God was with his people as they faced the numerically superior<br />
army of Jeroboam. Abijah's faith was honored as the Lord gave him a resounding victory (2<br />
Chron 13:12-15)." -- Elwell, Walter A. "Entry for 'Immanuel'". "Evangelical Dictionary of<br />
Theology".<br />
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Dictionaries/BakerEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T366.<br />
1997.<br />
Was one of Isaiah's sons also God? Of course not!<br />
Harris, in his Jesus As God, has this long, technical, and interesting statement:<br />
"Matthew 1:23 is the first of Matthew's "formula citations" and reflects the LXX version of<br />
Isaiah 7:14, to which the evangelist has added O ESTIN KTL. The issue is whether MEQ<br />
HMWN O QEOS should be translated "God with us" or "God is with us," that is, whether<br />
MEQ HMWN is attributive and functions as an adjective or is predicative and functions as<br />
an adverb. It should be observed immediately that both of the above translations are<br />
feasible, for in both Hebrew (GKC §141f) and Greek (N. Turner, Syntax 294-98, 309-10)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (8 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
the copula may be omitted.<br />
That Matthew attaches special significance to the name EMMANOUHL is incontestable: he<br />
has included in his citation of Isaiah 7:14 a line (KAI KALESOUSIN...EMMANOUHL)<br />
which was not directly germane to his purpose of showing that the virginal conception and<br />
the birth of Jesus were the fulfillment of Scripture; in addition, he has added a translation of<br />
the Hebrew expression El Imanuw-'el that the LXX had simply transliterated.<br />
In arguing in favor of the translation "God with us," J. C. Fenton notes the inclusio in<br />
Matthew 1:23 and Matthew 28:20 (MEQ hHMWV hO QEOS-EGW MEQ hUMWN EIMI)<br />
and equates the EGW of 28:20 with the hO QEOS of 1:23: "Matthew is saying that Jesus is<br />
God" (81). But one may recognize the presence of inclusio without drawing Fenton's<br />
conclusion. The Messiah Jesus is now always with his obedient disciples (28:20) because<br />
God once deigned to visit his people in this Messiah (1:23). Is it likely that Matthew, whose<br />
favorite designation for Jesus is hUIOS QEOU would preface his Gospel with hO QEOS as<br />
a christological title?<br />
Fenton also emphasizes that in Matthew META + the genitive almost always means "in the<br />
company of" rather than "in favor of" and therefore is more readily applicable to the Son<br />
than the Father (81). In the nature of the case, most uses of META in the Gospels denote a<br />
literal "being with," but one should not overlook its figurative use "of aid or help be with<br />
someone, stand by, help someone of God's help" (BAGD 509a, citing [with a "cf."] Matt.<br />
1:23). Perhaps the closest verbal parallel in the NT to MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS is found in<br />
2 Corinthians 13:11: hO QEOS ... ESTAI MEQ hUMWN. In both texts (EINAI) META<br />
denotes divine aid and favor.<br />
Whereas the MT of Isaiah 7:14 reads the third-person singular qara (referring to the child's<br />
mother) and the LXX the second-person singular KALESEIS (referring to Ahaz), Matthew<br />
has the impersonal third-person plural KALESOUSIN "they (= people) will call him<br />
(Immanuel)." If these people are the followers of Jesus, "Immanuel" could here be portrayed<br />
as the post-Easter christological confession of the church, comparable to Thomas's<br />
confession, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28) . It is unnecessary, however, to restrict this<br />
confession to a post-Easter setting when QEOS became an occasional title of Jesus. For<br />
when, during the public ministry of Jesus, people glorified God that he had intervened in<br />
human history to bring physical or spiritual healing through Jesus, they were in effect giving<br />
Jesus the name "Immanuel"-in the person of Jesus "God is with us" to save. For<br />
instance, the crowd at Nain who had witnessed Jesus' raising of the widow's son "glorified<br />
God" with the words "God has visited his people" (Luke 7:16), which is equivalent to saying<br />
"Jesus is Immanuel" (cf. also Luke 1:68-69).<br />
In favor of the translation "God is with us," it is true that the translation of El Imanuw-'el<br />
that Matthew supplies, MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS simply reproduces the word order of the<br />
Hebrew, but if hO QEOS were in fact a title of Jesus, one might have expected the<br />
translation to be either hO MEQ hHMWN QEOS or hO QEOS MEQ hHMWN (or the more<br />
correct Greek hO QEOS hO MEQ HMWN). That is, word order suggests that MEQ<br />
hHMWN is predicative rather than attributive, functioning as an adverb rather than as an<br />
adjective.<br />
There are only three occurrences of El Imanuw-'el in the OT, all in Isaiah. Twice the LXX<br />
translates the expression by (KURIOS) hO QEOS (Isa. 8:8, 10), and once it transliterates the<br />
phrase (Isa. 7:14). Matthew cites the transliteration found in Isaiah 7:14, but when he<br />
chooses to add a translation he uses the rendering found in Isaiah 8:8, 10 where, according<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (9 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
to BDB 769a, El Imanuw-'el is a "declaration of trust and confidence, with us is God!" That<br />
is, the meaning of MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS seems almost indistinguishable from hO<br />
QEOS -hUPER hHMWN (cf. Rom. 8:31).<br />
There are therefore strong reasons for believing that in Matthew 1:23 MEQ hHMWN hO<br />
QEOS signifies that in Jesus God is present, to bring salvation to his people rather than that<br />
Jesus, as hO QEOS is personally present with his people. Matthew is not saying,<br />
"Someone who is 'God' is now physically with us," but "God is acting on our behalf in<br />
the person of Jesus."" pp. 257, 258 Jesus as God-The New Testament Use of Theos in<br />
Reference to Jesus by Murray J. Harris<br />
2. In Colossians 2:9 it clearly confirms the deity of Christ when it states that in Him “all the fullness of the Deity lives in<br />
bodily form”<br />
Now in looking at The New <strong>World</strong> Translation, you’ll find that it renders Colossains 2:9 “In Him all the fullness of the<br />
Devine Quality dwells bodily” Now according to Greek scholars,“Divine Quality” is an incorrect translation. “Divine<br />
Quality” would be a correct translation of the Greek word theiotes. But the Greek word that was used in this verse is<br />
actually the genitive form of theotes, a stronger word that means “deity divinity” (Bauer-Ardnt-Gingrich-Danker,<br />
Greek-English lexicon, p. 358) or as Thayer’s (a well known Greek scholar) older Greek-English lexicon rightly says, “the<br />
state of being God, Godhead.”(p.288) So what the apostle Paul is stating to the Colossians is not merely God’s Quality<br />
but God’s very Nature, God Himself, dwells in Jesus. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and<br />
forever.(Hebrews 13:8)<br />
Reply: It is not that Greek scholars universally reject "divine quality" (they don't), but more to the truth,<br />
it is that YOUR Greek apologists reject it.<br />
From http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1999-06/31691.html<br />
"deity" ought NOT, I think, to be categorized as a proper noun here, EVEN if one holds<br />
monotheistic assumptions; -THS nouns in Greek, like -TAS nouns in Latin, are abstracts<br />
based upon an adjective and refer to<br />
quality rather than entity; thus QEOTHS should be understood to mean "what it is be be a<br />
god" or "the quality of being a god." One may then go on, if one wishes, and apply that in<br />
monotheistic terms, as "what it is to be God" or "the quality of being God"--but it is still<br />
erroneous, in my opinion, to equate this with QEOS or KURIOS in the sense of a name. We<br />
tend in English to use the term "the Deity" as an equivalent of "God." I simply do not think<br />
that, even with the article, hH QEOTHS is used like that in Greek. Consequently I think that<br />
in Col 2:9 the<br />
meaning is rather that "in him dwells bodily the entire fullness of 'what it is to be a god.'"<br />
One may then, if one<br />
chooses, understand that monotheistically, but even so, I think, one ought to realize that the<br />
Greek text is not talking about a divine person as a divine person but about the quality of<br />
being a god.<br />
Carl W. Conrad<br />
Department of Classics, Washington University<br />
In line with this, we have other <strong>Bible</strong>s that do not use "Deity" or "Godhead" at Col. 2:9.<br />
See also http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/fbf/fulness.html<br />
The following works also have some interesting comments regarding Colossians 2:9:<br />
"1. The word "Deity" or "Godhead" is a translation of the Greek word theotes. In A Greek<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (10 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, the classic lexicon of the ancient Greek language, it<br />
is translated as " divinity, divine nature. " In making their case, Liddell and Scott cite Greek<br />
authors Plutarch and Lucian, and also reference Heliodorus and Oribasius using the phrase<br />
dia theoteta ="for religious reasons." The Greek word occurs only once in the <strong>Bible</strong>, so to<br />
try to build a case for it meaning "God" or "Godhead" (which is an unclear term in itself) is<br />
very suspect indeed. Standard rules for interpreting Scripture would dictate that the way<br />
Paul used theotes in Colossians would be the same way the Colossians were used to hearing<br />
it in their culture. There is no reason to believe that Paul wrote to the Colossians expecting<br />
them to "redefine" the vocabulary they were using. Christ was filled with holy spirit<br />
"without measure," and God him authority on earth to heal, cast out demons, forgive sins,<br />
etc. Thus, it makes perfect sense Scripture would say that Christ had the fullness of the<br />
"divine nature" dwelling in him. In fact, the same thing is said about every Christian (2 Pet.<br />
1:4).<br />
2. The word "fullness" demonstrates that the verse is speaking of something that one could<br />
also have just a part of. It makes no sense to talk about the "fullness" of something that is<br />
indivisible. God is indivisible. We never read about "the fullness of God the Father" because<br />
by definition, God is always full of His own nature. Therefore, the verse is not talking about<br />
Christ being God, but about God in someway providing Christ with "fullness." What this<br />
verse is saying is made clear earlier in Colossians: "God was pleased to have all his fullness<br />
dwell in him" (Col. 1: 19). That is true. John 3:34 adds clarification: "For the one whom<br />
God has speaks the words of God, for God gives the spirit without limit."<br />
3. The fact that Christ has "all the fullness" of God does not make him God. Ephesians says<br />
that Christians should be filled with "all the fullness of God," and no one believes would<br />
make each Christian God.<br />
4. If Christ were God, it would make no sense to say that the fullness of God dwelt in<br />
because, being God, he would always have the fullness of God. The fact that Christ could<br />
have the fullness of God dwell in him actually shows that he was not God. 2 Peter 1:4 says<br />
that by of God's great and precious promises we "may participate in the divine nature."<br />
Having "divine nature" does not make us God, and it did not make Christ God. The note on<br />
I Peter in the NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong> is almost correct when, referring to the divine nature, it<br />
states: " We are, indwelt by God through His Holy Spirit" (we would say "holy spirit,<br />
referring to God's gift. Likewise Christ, who was filled with holy spirit without limits, had<br />
the fullness of "Deity."), dwelling in him.<br />
5. The context is a key to the proper interpretation of the verse. The Colossians had lost their<br />
focus on Christ (see Col. 1:15-20 above). Colossians 2:8 shows that the people were danger<br />
of turning to "hollow and deceptive philosophy" rather than being focused on Christ. What<br />
could philosophy and traditions offer that Christ could not? The next verse is a reminder that<br />
there is no better place to turn for answers and for truth than to Christ, in whom all fullness<br />
of God dwells. There is nothing in the context here that would warrant believing Paul is<br />
writing about the Trinity. He is simply saying that if you want to find God, look to Christ. ,<br />
Christ himself had said he was "the Way" and "the Truth, " and that " no man comes to the<br />
Father, except through me." pp. 513, 514<br />
One God & One Lord by Mark H. Graeser, John E. Less and John W. Schoenheit.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (11 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
And from Jesus-God or the Son of God by Brian Holt:<br />
"Trinitarians believe this verse means God came down and dwelled in a body, that is,<br />
Christ's body. The Twentieth Century New Testament says, "For in Christ the Godhead in<br />
all its fullness dwells incarnate." Does Paul mean what these translations appear to say?<br />
Notice the next words from The Twentieth Century New Testament: "and, by your union<br />
with him, you also are filled with it." (Colossians 2:10) So we can see that, yes, the<br />
'Godhead in all its fullness dwells incarnate' in Christ, but we also were filled with it too!<br />
Does this mean we are God in bodily form? The New <strong>World</strong> Translation reads "because it is<br />
in him that all the Fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily" signifying that it is not God<br />
that dwells in Christ but God's qualities. Jesus could then say, "he that has seen me has seen<br />
the Father " (See John 14:9.)<br />
The reader might find it interesting to note this is not the first time Paul said someone was<br />
filled with 'all the fullness of God.' Notice Ephesians 3:19:<br />
"That ye might be filled with all the fullness of God"-King James Version<br />
"and so be filled to the full with God himself"-Twentieth Century New Testament<br />
"that you may be filled up with all the fullness of God"-The New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God"-New International Version<br />
'And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself" -The Living <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Inasmuch as no one would argue Paul was saying we are God since 'all the fullness of God<br />
dwells in us,' why say Christ is God because all the fullness of God dwells in him? It seems<br />
Paul was stating Christ was full of God's divine qualities, of which he tells us we should be<br />
too.<br />
The context around this verse, besides the fact verse 10 says Christians will also be filled<br />
with the fullness of God, also confirms this verse is not saying Jesus is God. For instance,<br />
Colossians 1:19 says, "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him (Christ)."<br />
Was Paul saying all of the fullness of God was in Christ because Christ was God or that the<br />
fullness of God was in Christ because it pleased God (note: a separate person from Christ) to<br />
have His fullness dwell in Christ? The New English <strong>Bible</strong> says it was "by God's own<br />
choice" His fullness dwelt in Christ. Thus, far from proving Jesus is God because all the<br />
fullness of God dwells in him, we see all the fullness of God dwells in Christ only because it<br />
pleased the Father to do so. As the New Testament in Modern English states, "It was in him<br />
that the full nature of God chose to live." If God had to make a choice as to whether or not<br />
all His fullness would dwell in Jesus, then Jesus is obviously not God. Touted by some as<br />
the strongest evidence for Jesus being God, we find it is quite flimsy. This verse is not<br />
saying Christ is God." pp. 97, 98<br />
From the New Testament in an Improved Version Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New<br />
Translation with A Corrected Text, 1808 [A Revision of Archbishop Newcome's New Testament, by the<br />
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge] adds at Colossians 2:9:<br />
"All those blessings which proceed from the Godhead, and wherewith we are filled, dwell in Christ,<br />
truly and substantially."<br />
Take the words of Erasmus, regarding Scripture, and apply it to God and Christ:<br />
"These holy pages will sum up the living image of His mind. They will give you Christ<br />
Himself, talking, healing, dying, rising, the whole Christ in a word; they will give Him to<br />
you in an intimacy so close that He would be less visible to you if He stood before your<br />
eyes."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (12 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
Jesus was not physically the Scriptures themselves, but they portrayed what he was. Jesus was not God<br />
Himself, but he gave God to us in an intimacy so close....<br />
We miss the beauty of these words if we read a later theology into them.<br />
Jason: Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,<br />
but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in<br />
appearance of a man, He humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross.<br />
Philipians 2:5-8 For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in him Colossians 1:9<br />
Reply: This has already been dealt with at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim7.htm<br />
No need to repeat it here, but I will add the following from Martin Werner, D.D. Professor Ordinarius of<br />
the University of Bern:<br />
"The Pauline portrait of Christ corresponds to the apocalyptic concept of the heavenly<br />
Messiah as Prince of the Angels and an angelic being. The eternity of the unchanging being<br />
of God was not attributed to Christ by Paul. The pre-existent Christ also, as a creature, 'had<br />
come into being', and could, accordingly, be set forth as the Second Adam on analogy with<br />
the First Adam, who had been created (1 Cor. xv, 45). The preexistent Christ did indeed<br />
exist in 'divine form'; but Paul himself had expressly denied that, despite this, 'equality with<br />
God', in the strict sense, could be asserted, i.e. an equality which would render the Christ<br />
essentially different from all other creatures, not only from men, but also from the angels<br />
(Phil. ii, 6). Paul attributed the 'image of God', not only to Christ (2 Cor. iv, 4), but also to<br />
man (1 Cor. xi, 7). This Christ had, as man had, in common with Adam in the creation<br />
narrative of Gen. i, 27. Paul in naming Christ, as did others in the New Testament, the 'Son<br />
of God , did not exceed the late Jewish doctrine of angels. In Enoch vi, 2 the angels are<br />
designated 'sons of heaven', as they are in many places in the Old Testament. It was not only<br />
in the statement of 1 Cor. viii, 6, that 'through him' all things exist, that Christ, according to<br />
the contemporary mode of thought, was exalted essentially as God over the angels. The<br />
conception of Christ as the agent of creation paralleled in a certain manner the other<br />
statements of Paul in which, in conformity with late Jewish thought, the direction and<br />
government of the world were ascribed to certain angelic-powers and the Law of Sinai given<br />
to the people of Israel, not by God, but by angels. The exaltation of the Heavenly Christ to<br />
cosmic significance here was clearly related to that late Jewish speculation which<br />
increasingly assigned divine functions to mediators of a celestial kind. This tendency, to<br />
render God completely transcendental, established itself firmly in the doctrine of angels<br />
which was so comprehensively developed in late Judaism." p. 122 The Formation of<br />
Christian Dogma<br />
Jason: Jesus is Lord<br />
Stephen called Jesus “Lord” (Acts 7:59-60), and we are to confess<br />
Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3) “Lord” in these verses is<br />
the Greek word Kyrios, which is the same word used for Jehovah in the<br />
Septuagint ( the Greek version of the Old Testament.) And I would also like<br />
to add that the Septuagint predates Christ by several years. Just from that<br />
small bit of information, doesn’t seem rather evident that Christ the Lord<br />
(Kyrios) is Jehovah God?<br />
Reply: The above information is not really correct. All manuscripts of the Septuagint contained the<br />
Divine Name right up to the middle of the 2nd century AD. ALL OF THEM. In fact, there is a picture of<br />
one at http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/requests/3522.htm<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (13 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
ALL extant copies up to the middle of the 2nd century CE contained the Divine Name.<br />
Here is a list of LXX mss that contain the Divine Name:<br />
1) 4Q LXX Lev (b)<br />
2) LXX P.Fouad Inv. 266<br />
3) LXX VTS 10b<br />
4) LXX VTS 10a<br />
5) LXX IBJ 12<br />
6) LXX P. Oxy. VII 1007<br />
and there are 4 others Aquila's (2), Symmachus, and Ambrosian (of a later date).<br />
You see, there are limitations to Jesus being "Lord", as he was made "Lord."<br />
"God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Acts 2:36<br />
Also, from Phillipians 2:9-11:<br />
"every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."<br />
Jesus is "Lord" only insofar as he was made such by someone higher than he (John 14:28).<br />
We confess Jesus as "Lord" only insofar as this gives glory to someone higher than him.<br />
Again, Professor Werner has something to add regarding the use of "Lord."<br />
"A peculiar situation in this connection is constituted by the use by Paul and the Primitive<br />
Christians of the Christological title of Kyrios. This title had long been considered, without<br />
proper evidence, simply as a transference of the Septuagint name for God to Christ. It was<br />
accordingly, overlooked that while Paul did indeed apply sayings of the Septuagint<br />
concerning the Kyrios to Christ, there is not one instance of his having done this where the<br />
saying referred to God (ho theos), an exception which cannot be accidental. The truth is that<br />
the invocation and designation of Christ by Kyrios prove themselves to be a particular<br />
instance of the general, but too-long-neglected, fact that late Judaism and Primitive<br />
Christianity designated and invoked the angels as kyrioi.<br />
The transference of the title of Kyrios to the angels is already evident in the designation of<br />
God as the 'Lord of Lords', i.e. of the Kyrioi. In 4 Ezra 'Lord' is 'the term repeatedly used for<br />
the angels. On the other hand, the Apocalyptist, in converse with the angel of revelation,<br />
calls himself his 'servant , as Paul did himself in relation to Christ.,<br />
In the Christian apocalyptic literature this transference of the title of Kyrios to the angels<br />
was preserved, as is seen in the Shepherd of Hermas, the Ascensio Jesaiae, the Apocalypse<br />
of Sophonias 5 and the Apocalypse of Abrahams<br />
In this connection certain clear examples from the New Testament may be cited. In Acts x, 3<br />
f. Cornelius addresses the angel which appears to him as Kyrie, and with the same address<br />
Peter answers the anonymous voice from heaven in Acts x, 13 f, Particularly notable is the<br />
passage of Acts ix, 5. Herein Paul does not at first recognise the glorified Jesus, who appears<br />
to him on the way to Damascus, and he has to ask, 'Who art thou?' However, he addresses<br />
the heavenly appearance, which was still unknown to him, without further ado with Kyrie.<br />
It was clear to him from the first that he had to do with a heavenly being (and certainly not<br />
with God himself, who never thus appeared in late Judaism). To such a being appertained in<br />
any case the address of Kyrie. Thus certain New Testament evidence is provided of the fact<br />
that the title of Kyrios had become a designation for<br />
a particular class of angels in the in the heavenly hierarchy. The title in this sense is<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (14 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
frequently met in the New Testament<br />
'Kyriotes', e.g. Eph. i, 21; Col- i, 16; Jude 8; 2 pet. ii, 10. In the New Testament this<br />
expression generally does not designate any other than a class of angels. In these terms 1<br />
Con viii, 5 is to be understood, this being a passage in which Paul speaks of the many<br />
Kyrioi. These were in fact closely related to the many gods, over against whom Paul set<br />
Christ as the one Kyrios, with whom the faithful ought naturally alone to seek to deal. This<br />
passage, accordingly, provides effective evidence of the connection between the late Jewish<br />
and primitive Christian teaching about the Christ and the apocalyptic doctrine of angels.<br />
Among the many Kyrioi-angels was one who was marked out in a peculiar manner by God<br />
as the 'Chosen' for the office of the Christ and the world-ruler of the final epoch. Within the<br />
range of his own late-Jewish apocalyptic thought, Paul meant nothing different from that<br />
which incidentally appears in other forms in the late Jewish Apocalypse of Enoch and, later<br />
with variations, in the Christian Ascensio Jesaiae. In Enoch lxi, 10 the Christ is ranked,<br />
without qualification, among the hosts of angels, and he is, primarily, named together with<br />
the angels of lordship' (angeloi tes kyriotetos); but he is also 'the Chosen', who will ascend<br />
the Throne of God as the judge of the <strong>World</strong>, and is entitled to worship. Finally, reference<br />
must also be made to a peculiar instance in the speech of Stephen in Acts vii, 30 ff. Herein<br />
the angel (angelos), which appeared to Moses on Sinai, is identified with the Kyrios as the<br />
pre-existing Christ. The ascription of the title of Kyrios to Christ thus constitutes a<br />
remarkable piece of evidence indicative of the fact that, in terms of the Primitive Christian<br />
conception, related as it was to the apocalyptic doctrine of the Messiah, Christ was a high<br />
heavenly being of angelic kind." pp. 123, 124, The Formation of Christian Dogma<br />
Jason: Several verses show that the Christ of the New Testament is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. For example, Isaiah<br />
wrote about Jehovah in Isaiah 6:1-6, and John, in John 12:31-41 says Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory and spoke of<br />
Him.<br />
Reply: John 12:38 refers to the "arm of Jehovah" at Isaiah 53:1. Here, along with Is 40:10, we have the<br />
"arm of Jehovah" as being the Messiah and differentiated from his Father, Jehovah. In fact, at Isaiah<br />
53:10, it says,<br />
"Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief."<br />
Bruise who? Himself? Please! We can look at Jesus and see God's glory, because it was given to him.<br />
"And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are<br />
one." John 17:22<br />
We should also reflect God's glory, as we are to be "imitators of God." (Eph 5:1)<br />
Jason: In Exdous 34:14 it is clear that we are to worship no one but Jehovah. But in Hebrews 1:6 the angels worship<br />
Christ.<br />
Reply: Let us take a look at how the word for "worship" at Exodus 34:14, which is shachah (Strong's<br />
7812), is used elsewhere, according to the KJV:<br />
Ge 23:7 And Abraham stood up, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself to<br />
the people of the land, even to the children of Heth.<br />
Ge 23:12 And Abraham bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] down himself before<br />
the people of the land.<br />
Ge 42:6 And Joseph was the governor over the land, and he it was that sold to all the people of the land:<br />
and Joseph's brethren came, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] down themselves<br />
before him with their faces to the earth.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (15 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
Ge 43:28 And they answered, Thy servant our father is in good health, he is yet alive. And they bowed<br />
[the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] down their heads, and made obeisance.<br />
Ge 47:31 And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed [the same Hebrew<br />
word used at Exodus 34:14] himself upon the bed's head.<br />
Ge 48:12 And Joseph brought them out from between his knees, and he bowed [the same Hebrew word<br />
used at Exodus 34:14] himself with his face to the earth.<br />
Ex 18:7 And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance [the same Hebrew word used<br />
at Exodus 34:14], and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare; and they came into the tent.<br />
Ru 2:10 Then she (Ruth) fell on her face, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14]<br />
herself to the ground (to Boaz).<br />
1Sa 25:23 And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before David on<br />
her face, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] herself to the ground,<br />
1Sa 25:41 And she arose, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] herself on her<br />
face to the earth, and said, Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my<br />
lord.<br />
2Sa 1:2 It came even to pass on the third day, that, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul with<br />
his clothes rent, and earth upon his head: and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth,<br />
and did obeisance [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14].<br />
2Sa 9:6 Now when Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, was come unto David, he fell<br />
on his face, and did reverence [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14]. And David said,<br />
Mephibosheth. And he answered, Behold thy servant!<br />
2Sa 9:8 And he bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself, and said, What is thy<br />
servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?<br />
2Sa 14:4 And when the woman of Tekoah spake to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did<br />
obeisance [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14], and said, Help, O king.<br />
2Sa 14:22 And Joab fell to the ground on his face, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus<br />
34:14] himself, and thanked the king: and Joab said, To day thy servant knoweth that I have found grace<br />
in thy sight, my lord, O king, in that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant.<br />
2Sa 14:33 So Joab came to the king, and told him: and when he had called for Absalom, he came to the<br />
king, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself on his face to the ground before<br />
the king: and the king kissed Absalom.<br />
2Sa 15:5 And it was so, that when any man came nigh to him to do him obeisance [the same Hebrew<br />
word used at Exodus 34:14], he put forth his hand, and took him, and kissed him.<br />
2Sa 18:21 Then said Joab to Cushi, Go tell the king what thou hast seen. And Cushi bowed [the same<br />
Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself unto Joab, and ran.<br />
2Sa 18:28 And Ahimaaz called, and said unto the king, All is well. And he fell [the same Hebrew word<br />
used at Exodus 34:14] down to the earth upon his face before the king, and said, Blessed be the LORD<br />
thy God, which hath delivered up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord the king.<br />
2Sa 24:20 And Araunah looked, and saw the king and his servants coming on toward him: and<br />
Araunah went out, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself before the king on<br />
his face upon the ground.<br />
1Ki 1:16 And Bathsheba bowed, and did obeisance [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14]<br />
unto the king. And the king said, What wouldest thou?<br />
1Ki 1:23 And they told the king, saying, Behold Nathan the prophet. And when he was come in before<br />
the king, he bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself before the king with his face<br />
to the ground.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (16 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
1Ki 1:31 Then Bathsheba bowed with her face to the earth, and did reverence [the same Hebrew word<br />
used at Exodus 34:14] to the king, and said, Let my lord king David live for ever.<br />
1Ki 1:47 And moreover the king's servants came to bless our lord king David, saying, God make the<br />
name of Solomon better than thy name, and make his throne greater than thy throne. And the king bowed<br />
[the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself upon the bed.<br />
1Ki 1:53 So king Solomon sent, and they brought him down from the altar. And he came and bowed<br />
[the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself to king Solomon: and Solomon said unto him, Go<br />
to thine house.<br />
1Ki 2:19 Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king<br />
rose up to meet her, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself unto her, and sat<br />
down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king's mother; and she sat on his right hand.<br />
2Ki 2:15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The<br />
spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used<br />
at Exodus 34:14] themselves to the ground before him.<br />
2Ki 4:37 Then she went in, and fell at his feet, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus<br />
34:14] herself to the ground, and took up her son, and went out.<br />
1Ch 21:21 And as David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and went out of the<br />
threshingfloor, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself to David with his face<br />
to the ground.<br />
1Ch 29:20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the<br />
congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped [the<br />
same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] the LORD, and the king.<br />
2Ch 24:17 Now after the death of Jehoiada came the princes of Judah, and made obeisance [the same<br />
Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] to the king. Then the king hearkened unto them.<br />
Pr 12:25 Heaviness in the heart of man maketh it stoop [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14]:<br />
but a good word maketh it glad.<br />
Even using another word for worship does not lessen the impact of my point:<br />
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel"<br />
My point is cemented when we realize that the Septuagint used the Greek word PROSKUNEW here, the<br />
same word used at Hebrews 1:6.<br />
This is why many <strong>Bible</strong>s do not even use the word "worship" at Hebrews 1:6. For example:<br />
"Let all the angels of God pay him homage." New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"And may all the angels of God pay homage to him." God's New Covenant, Heinz Cassirer<br />
"Let all God's angels pay him homage." Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"And let them bow before him -- all messengers of God" Young's Literal Translation<br />
"And let all the angels of God adore him." Douay<br />
"And let all the angels of Elohim do homage to him." Urim-Thummim Version<br />
"And all the angels of God must now kneel before Him." Power New Testament<br />
"Let all God's angels pay him homage." Schonfield's The Original New Testament<br />
"And let all God's angels bow before him." Goodspeed's An American Translation<br />
"Now let all the messengers of God honour him." The Complete <strong>Bible</strong>, Ferrar Fenton<br />
"Let all God's angels pay him homage." New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"And let all the angels of God adore him." Confraternity Version<br />
"Prostrate yourself before him, all you angels." 21st Century New Testament<br />
"Before him shall bow all messengers of God." Unvarnished New Testament<br />
"Let all the angels of God bow down before him." 20th Century New Testament<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (17 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
"And let all God's angels adore him." Kleist & Lilly New Testament<br />
"And let all the messengers of God pay homage to him." Newcome's Corrected Version<br />
"PROSKUNEW-to kiss, to do reverence or homage by kissing the hand; in NT to do<br />
reverence or homage by prostration,...to pay divine homage, worship, adore." The New<br />
Analytical Greek Lexicon by Wesley J. Perschbacher<br />
"from and a probable derivative of (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his<br />
master's hand); ; v<br />
AV-worship 60; 60<br />
1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence<br />
2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with<br />
the forehead as an expression of profound reverence<br />
3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in<br />
order to express respect or to make supplication<br />
3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank<br />
3a1) to the Jewish high priests<br />
3a2) to God<br />
3a3) to Christ<br />
3a4) to heavenly beings<br />
3a5) to demons" Thayer's Greek Lexicon (who is NOT an Unitarian)<br />
Jehovah is given worship that is unique to him alone. It is the kind of worship that also entails serving. If<br />
you do a boolean search on the words "worship" and "serve" in the <strong>Bible</strong>, the only favorable<br />
connotations are to Jehovah alone. This is why serving other gods was enough to arouse God to anger<br />
(Deut 7:4; 11:16, 17; Josh 23:16; 1 Kings 9:6 etc.)<br />
Jason: In Isaiah 44:6 Jehovah is called the first and the last, but in Revelation 22:13 Christ is the first and the last. Since<br />
there can not be two firsts or two lasts, is it not clear that Jehovah and Christ must both be God?<br />
Reply: I have already dealt with this at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/50questions.htm<br />
Jason: Attributes of Christ show that he is God. Jesus Christ knows all things(John 1:48; 2:25; 6:64; 16:30; 21:17) He is<br />
eternal(Micah5:2), all-powerful(Matthew 28:18; Hebrews 1:3) sinless(John 8:46) and unchanging (Hebrews 13:8) Since<br />
only God possesses attributes, this indicates that Christ possesses deity.<br />
Reply: We can exclude John 1:48; 2:25; 6:64, since neither one of these says anything about Jesus<br />
knowing all. John 16:30, for instance, is a good one:<br />
"Now know we that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we<br />
believe that thou camest forth from God."<br />
Jesus' knowledge was evidence that he came FROM God:<br />
"This is why we believe that you came from God." John 16:30 Simple English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Jesus "can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing" (John 5:19), as the Father GIVES<br />
him knowledge and revelation (Rev 1:1).<br />
But Jesus was even then, limited in the knowledge given to him:<br />
"But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the<br />
Father only." Matthew 24:36<br />
"But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the<br />
Father." Mark 13:32<br />
If Jesus was one third of God, and the Father was another third of God, how is it possible that Jesus was<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (18 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
ignorant of what another part of his Godhead was doing. If Jesus was simply ignorant in his "human<br />
nature," then how can he, according to you (see John 20:28 above) be Almighty God in his human nature<br />
at the same time? How can he, according to the creeds, be "fully God and fully man" at the same time<br />
and still not know any more than the angels? Is it perhaps that he was NOT God, but a representative of<br />
God who was simply given the power of agency?<br />
Does Micah 5:2 prove that he is eternal? The Hebrew, which uses the same words here for mere<br />
humans, does not bear this out. That is why many <strong>Bible</strong>s do not render this in the extreme as the King<br />
James Version does:<br />
"whose origins go back to the distant past, to the days of old." New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"someone whose family goes back to ancient times." Contemporary English Version<br />
"whose family line goes back to ancient times." Good News <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago." God's Word<br />
"whose comings forth, have been from of old, from the days of age-past time." Rotherham<br />
"his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity." YLT<br />
"whose origin is from of old, from ancient days." Revised Standard Version<br />
"whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" New International Version and English Standard<br />
Version<br />
"one whose origins are from the distant past." New Living Translation<br />
"whose origin is from of old, from ancient times." New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"whose roots are back in the past, in days gone by." New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
etc.<br />
I have more on this at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/email.htm<br />
Do Matthew 28:18 and Hebrews 1:3 say that Jesus is "all-powerful?"<br />
"And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven<br />
and on earth." Matthew 28:18<br />
Here Jesus is GIVEN all authority. Someone who is "all-powerful" does not need to be given anything.<br />
"who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by<br />
the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty<br />
on high."<br />
If this Scripture is indeed saying that Jesus is "all-powerful", it is interesting that he only gets to sit on<br />
God's right hand, instead of in his stead.<br />
The angels sit at God's right hand (1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chron 18:18), and it is often a position of favor (1<br />
Kings 2:19; Psalm 45:9) for royalty, but not one that is the ultimate power.<br />
Is sinlessness an indicator of deity? You quoted John 13:8, but it does not say here that only God<br />
cannot sin.<br />
In fact, it is the human ideal to one day be sinless: "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever<br />
sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him." 1 John 3:6<br />
Does this mean we are also God?<br />
Does Hebrews 13:8 prove that Jesus is God?: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and<br />
for ever."<br />
But yet, Hebrews 5:8 states, "though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he<br />
suffered."<br />
How can Jesus LEARN anything if he was always the same? If Jesus was MADE Lord (Acts 2:36) then<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (19 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
that implies a time when he wasn't. If Jesus was GIVEN authority (Matt 28:18), then that implies a time<br />
when he did not have it. If Jesus was GIVEN a name (Php 2:9-11), then that implies a time when he did<br />
not have it.<br />
If we look at Hebrews 13:8 as a proof-text for his deity, then it falls flat. If we look at it from a proper<br />
perspective, then the meaning becomes clear.<br />
"No doubt the old teachers believed in the unchangeableness of Jesus Christ; but that fact is<br />
not represented as the subject of their faith, which would be irrelevant and somewhat flat.<br />
The emphatic point of the statement is Christ. They lived and died in the faith that Jesus is<br />
The Christ - the Messiah. The readers were tempted to surrender this faith and to<br />
return to Judaism which denied Jesus's messiahship (comp. Heb_10:29). Hence the writer<br />
says, “hold fast and imitate their faith in Jesus as the Christ. He is ever the same. He must be<br />
to you, today, what he was to them, yesterday, and will be forever to the heavenly hosts -<br />
Christ. Rend. therefore “Jesus is Christ.” Observe that our writer rarely uses the formula<br />
Jesus Christ. In Heb_10:10 it occurs in a passage in which the messianic mission of Jesus<br />
is emphasized (see Heb_10:5, Heb_10:9), and in Heb_13:21, in a liturgical formula. The<br />
temptation to forsake Jesus as Messiah is treated in the next verse." Vincent's Word Study<br />
God's purpose via His Son will never change.<br />
Jason: Certain Works of Christ show that he is God. Jesus Christ has the power to forgive sins(Mark 2:5-7; Ephesians<br />
1:7) control nature (Matthew 8:26) give eternal life(John 10:28; 17:2) and judge the world(John 5:22, 27). Since only<br />
God can do these things, dose it not follow that Christ is God?<br />
Reply: I see that you are working under the assumption that God does not or either cannot delegate<br />
authority.<br />
John 5:22, 27 says, "Nor does the Father himself judge anyone. He has given his Son the full right to<br />
judge...And he has given the Son the right to judge" TEV<br />
Since Jesus was GIVEN the right to judge, this indicates a transfer of power which the Son did not<br />
previously have.<br />
When Jesus forgave a man of his sins, the people understood that this was a transfer of power.<br />
"When the people saw it, they were afraid, and praised God for giving such authority to people." Matt<br />
9:8 TEV<br />
Then Jesus passed on this authority to forgive sins to his apostles (John 20:22, 23). It does not make them<br />
God.<br />
Jason: Christ received worship. Christ is worshiped by angels(Hebrews 1:6)and by man(Matthew 14:33) and yet only<br />
Jehovah is to be worshiped (Exodus 34:14). Christ Himself said that worship is due to God alone(Matthew 4:10) and yet<br />
he accepted worship. If Christ in his preexistent state were the archangel Michael, how could He have received worship,<br />
since angels are not allowed to receive worship(Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9)? If Christ were not God, then worship of him<br />
would be idolatrous.<br />
Reply: I have answered the "worship" angle above, and the worship of angels has already been handled<br />
by me at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim7.htm<br />
See also http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wilson.htm<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (20 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus Christ<br />
More to on page 2...........<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason1.htm (21 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and the Deity of Jesus<br />
Christ-Part 2<br />
On Matthew 1:23 and Immanuel; John 20:28; Men as gods; Psalms 45:6; Colossians 2:9; the<br />
Divine Name in the LXX, the worship of Jesus, John 1:1, etc.<br />
Back to Page 1<br />
Unless other wise stated, all Scriptures will be from the American Standard Version 1901<br />
"When the Grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes before the grammarian<br />
is through." A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical<br />
Research, p. 389<br />
Jason: Now one of the most troubling things to me in Watchtower theology is the rendering of John 1:1. You say “Christ<br />
the Word is ‘a god’ according to John 1:1 in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation.” Your translators say the small “g” from the<br />
word god is required because the Greek word used for God (theos) is not preceded by a definite article “the”(ho).<br />
(Should you believe in the Trinity? P. 26)<br />
What the Greek Really Says<br />
You are right in saying that in John 1:1 the Greek word for God is not preceded by a definite article. However, good<br />
Greek scholarship agrees that this dose not mean it should be translated “god” with a small “g.” The definite article is<br />
omitted because of a somewhat technical rule of Greek grammar.<br />
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t know all that much about Greek grammar, but I do understand enough to know what<br />
these Greek scholars are talking about, and have enough faith in God that he would inspire these men to translate the<br />
Greek manuscripts correctly. Now what Greek scholars say is that a definite predicate nominative (theos) that precedes a<br />
verb dose<br />
not have to have the definite article(ho). The order of Greek words in the last clause of John 1:1 is “God was the Word”<br />
(theos en ho logos). The subject of the sentence is “the Word,” the verb is “was,” and the predicate nominative is “God.”<br />
Usually the predicate nominative follows the verb, but in this case it precedes it; and since it precedes the verb no article<br />
is necessary. I know that it is very hard to understand, and I tried to give you the best understanding possible.<br />
When a Greek writer wanted to stress the quality of the person or thing that was in the predicate nominative case, he<br />
would put it before the verb rather than after it. This is what John did to stress the fact that the Word (Christ) possesses<br />
the qualities of Godhood. This fundamental principle of Greek grammar supports the deity of Christ and gives no support<br />
whatsoever to the translation “The Word was a god.” The intent of John could be rendered in English, “The Word was<br />
fully God.”<br />
Reply: I pressed Jason for more information of this rule, he replied:<br />
"The rule I was talking about is actually explained in the Letter its self. I know its kind of<br />
hard to catch, but the rule is that the definite predicate nominative (Theos,God) that<br />
precedes the verb (En, was) dose not have to have the definite article (Ho, the). You see in<br />
the actual Greek the verse is rendered "God was the word" (Theos en ho logos) Therefore<br />
no definite article is needed. Also an interesting thought, is that "God" which is a definite<br />
predicate nominative, can't be preceded by an indefinite article "a." You can look that up in<br />
any college English text book. Also for the "rule" we were talking about in Greek grammar;<br />
look up reference to that in Thayer's Greek-English lexicon. I specifically give you Thayer<br />
as a reference, because he himself did not believe Jesus was God, and did not believe the<br />
bible was completely accurate, yet translates just what it says in the Greek, not changing it<br />
to mold to his believe. That might help you a little I hope =). But im Glad you have decided<br />
to write back a rebudle to my letter. Rarely do I see witnesses scrutinize what I send them<br />
with an actual letter back to me. Im very interested to see what you can get out of God's<br />
word to argue what iv said. Very good brother, God bless you."<br />
I initially replied:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (1 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:44 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
"I think you are being too harsh on Thayer. Despite the ad hominem attack on Thayer, that<br />
what is called 'Thayer's Lexicon', is mostly the work of Lutherans Wilke and Grimm in<br />
Greek and Latin, which were translated into English by Joseph Henry Thayer, who was a<br />
Congregationalist and NOT an Unitarian [see: George Huntston Williams, The Harvard<br />
Divinity School, Boston, The Beacon Press, 1954, p. 147 and The Encyclopedia Americana,<br />
1956, Vol. 26, p. 490.]<br />
Are you referring to Colwell's rule of grammar ["God" which is a definite predicate<br />
nominative, can't be preceded by an indefinite article "a?"]<br />
I just finished reading the reference in Thayer's Greek Lexicon, and it mentions nothing of<br />
this rule of grammar, that I can see. Perhaps you can be more specific, or give me a<br />
reference I can work with. Sorry to be troublesome, but I am presently working on your<br />
response, and this information will help me out."<br />
Jason replied:<br />
>>You know what, maybe I was mistaken about the reference to the rule, I was just going<br />
off of memory. Let me go through my notes and get back to you on that. Sorry about that.<br />
Also, just to let you know, you can be as troublesome as you'd like. You need to be very<br />
assertive and scrutinize everything when studying the bible. So any mistakes you come<br />
across, let me know.<br />
...Here, I don't have this book myself, but im sure it would be in here, try looking at "Dana<br />
and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament" because there is a section in<br />
there that talks about Theos with and with out the article on page 139. I hope that helps.<br />
I appreciate that candor. Since Thayer was not forthcoming, I decided to take a look at Dana and<br />
Mantey's grammar on page 139:<br />
"vi. The use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of QEOS is highly instructive. A<br />
study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Geden's Concordance convinces one<br />
that without the article QEOS signifies divine essence, while with the article divine<br />
personality is chiefly in view. There is keen discernment in Webster's statement. published<br />
as far back as 1864:<br />
'QEOS occurs without the article (1) where the Deity is contrasted with what is human, or<br />
with the universe as distinct from its Creator, or with the nature and acts of evil spirits, (2)<br />
when the essential attributes of Deity are spoken of, (3) when operations proceeding from<br />
God are appropriated to one of the three Divine Persons, (4) when the Deity is spoken of as<br />
heathens would speak, or a Jew who denied the existence of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.<br />
But the article seems to be used (1) when the Deity is spoken of in the Christian point of<br />
view, (2) when the First Person of the blessed Trinity is specially designated, unless its<br />
insertion is unnecessary by the addition of PATHR or some distinctive epithet (op. cit., p.<br />
29).'<br />
This analysis is doubtless more exact and detailed than the facts will support, but it certainly<br />
shows admirable discrimination. Surely when Robertson says that QEOS as to the article,<br />
"is treated like a proper name and may have it or not have it" (R. 761), he does not mean to<br />
intimate that the presence or absence of the article with QEOS has no special significance.<br />
We construe him to mean that there is no definite rule governing the use of the article<br />
with QEOS so that sometimes the writer's viewpoint is difficult to detect, which is entirely<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (2 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:44 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
true. But in the great majority of instances the reason for the distinction is clear. The use of<br />
QEOS in Jn. 1:1 is a good example. PROS TON QEON points to Christ's fellowship with<br />
the person of the Father; QEOS HN O LOGOS emphasizes Christ's participation in the<br />
essence of the divine nature. The former clearly applies to personality, while the latter<br />
applies to character. This distinction is in line with the general force of the article. It may be<br />
seen even in the papyri, as O FWS EK FWTOS, QEOS ALHQINOS, 0 Light of light, true<br />
God, where the emphasis is clearly on God's character rather than His personality (Milligan:<br />
op. cit., p. 134).<br />
vii. The articular construction emphasizes identity; the anarthrous construction emphasizes<br />
character. If the student will turn to Rom. 8:1ff. and apply this principle, be will find how<br />
illuminating it becomes in actual interpretation. It is certain that one engaged in exegesis<br />
cannot afford to disregard the article. The New Testament justifies the observation of<br />
Buttmann that "the use of the article has everywhere its positive reason" (Bt. 88)."<br />
Dana and Mantey go on to confirm on page 141 that "There are no 'rules' for the use of the definite article<br />
in Greek..."<br />
We have an interesting statement though on pages 148 and 149:.<br />
"The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence.<br />
In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, EMPORION D HN TO CWRION, and the place was a<br />
market, we have a parallel case to that we have in John 1:1, KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS, and<br />
the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the<br />
place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article was also<br />
used with QEOS. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in<br />
QEOS." pp. 148, 149<br />
Again, we have an excellent example of how we can translate John 1:1c with Xenophon's Anabasis, "the<br />
place was a market, i.e., the Word was a god. But notice how the language becomes confused:<br />
"Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God." This is not an even parallel at all.<br />
A truthful and equivalent statement SHOULD be, "Neither was the place the only market, nor was the<br />
word the only God." The reasons for this strange turn of language is made quite clear in the following<br />
sentence, where he wants to implicate "the other persons of the Trinity."<br />
When Dana & Mantey speak of the "essence of divine nature" they are mentioning something of import<br />
to their target audience, but the idea and words are foreign to the Johannine prologue.<br />
Additionally, you stated that your "Greek Scholars" make assumptions that the predicate nominative in<br />
John 1:1c is definite.<br />
This is referring to Colwell's rule of grammar:<br />
"A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have<br />
the article when it precedes the verb. . . . The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one<br />
of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite<br />
noun. The absence of the article [before theos] does not make the predicate indefinite or<br />
qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context<br />
demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement<br />
cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the<br />
confession of Thomas [John 20:28, "My Lord and my God"]. (E. C. Colwell, "A Definite<br />
Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature,<br />
LII (1933), 12-21. Cf. also B. M. Metzger, "On the Translation of John 1:1," Expository<br />
Times, LXIII (1951-52), 125 f., and C. F. D. Moule, The Language of the New Testament,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (3 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:44 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
Inaugural Lecture, delivered at Cambridge University on May 23, 1952, pp. 12-14.)"<br />
If you want to download the free efax viewer at http://www.efax.com, you can download this entire<br />
article from me at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jehovahbible/files/Colwell.efx<br />
It is somewhat ironic that one of Jehovah's Witnesses like myself is probably the first person to make this<br />
entire article available online.<br />
There are problems with Colwell's Rule, and NO Greek scholar today worth his salt would defend it. The<br />
following is from an online conversation between Robert Hommel and Professor Jason Beduhn:<br />
"The problem arises when Colwell himself - and many who followed him - affirmed the<br />
consequent of his Rule - that is, "Anarthrous pre-copulative PNs are usually definite." His<br />
perfectly valid descriptive Rule was inverted to become a logically invalid and inductively<br />
falsifiable prescription for translation. Colwell did not define the converse of his Rule in his<br />
article, but he begins to assume it, and finally overtly applies it to John 1:1c.<br />
When most scholars refer to Colwell's rule, they rightly quote the Rule as stated - and it is a<br />
valid rule (and useful in the field of textual criticism). However, when they commit the<br />
logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, and then apply the result to John 1:1, they are,<br />
indeed, creating an "imaginary rule.""<br />
http://www.republika.pl/arekwis/doktryna/trojca/hommelvsbeduhn.html<br />
Dr.J.Beduhn and R.Hommel: A Discussion upon the translation of John 1:1c.<br />
(occurring Jan/Feb, 2002 on Christian Apologetics Research Ministry JW discussion board)<br />
or http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/beduhn_hommel.htm<br />
Donald E. Hartley Th.M, Ph.D also has an interesting article on this at<br />
http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/topics/colwell.htm entitled<br />
Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns:<br />
Third, Colwell appears to be responsible, because of his application to John 1:1, for laying<br />
the groundwork of a logical blunder. Colwell’s rule “Definite predicate nominatives that<br />
precede the verb usually lack the article” came to be seen as “Anarthrous predicate<br />
nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite.” We have affirmed, based on our<br />
study, that Colwell’s original rule is valid but the converse of his rule is inductively<br />
falsifiable. In fact our study confirms that within the NT as a whole, this semantic category<br />
(definiteness) is certainly not the expected nuance of the construction, and not the<br />
predominant sense when it comes to singular count nouns as well. Thus this converse is<br />
neither true of the whole nor of its parts. So although definiteness is a possible semantic<br />
category, it is certainly not the probable one regarding anarthrous constructions. In addition,<br />
although the converse of Colwell’s rule is not formally illogical, it is inductively falsifiable.<br />
Fourth, Colwell seems to have misunderstood what a definite semantic to the noun entailed<br />
linguistically. His improper method of prescription, based on his analysis, led him to<br />
commit a category mistake by foisting a se-mantic upon a certain group of nouns<br />
(pre-copulative PNs) that he failed to appreciate on their own terms. Because of this, and<br />
apparently without considering the ramifications of what the semantic suggested, he applied<br />
it to John 1:1c and argued against the indefinite or qualitative sense. But this was an<br />
improper use of his own rule, for his rule was only to be applied post hoc to nouns clearly<br />
understood to be definite from context. But here is where the prob-lem of his method shows<br />
up starkly. Because John 20:28 has the articular qeov", he assumes that its pre-copulative<br />
anarthrous occurrence bears the same semantic. But this is simply an example of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (4 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:44 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
pigeonholing a noun into a semantic box based completely on the semantics born out in a<br />
separate construction. Count nouns can bear different nuances without the article than it can<br />
with the article—Colwell has not properly understood this principle. In short he begged the<br />
question by making his rule prescriptive rather than descriptive of the majority of cases<br />
involving definite nouns preceding the copulative verb.<br />
There are also debates on the ineffectiveness of Colwell's Rule and the superiority of the NWT rendering<br />
at:<br />
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/ with even more at http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/metzcolw.htm and<br />
http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/colwell.htm<br />
Murray Harris relates according to this rule:<br />
"b. Evaluation of the Rules<br />
(1) There can be no doubt that the formulation of these rules that cover NT usage<br />
represented a significant advance on the three general observations concerning the use of the<br />
article with predicate nouns that are found in the older NT grammars (e.g., Robertson,<br />
Grammar 767-68), viz., (a) that predicate nouns tend to be anarthrous; (b) that predicate<br />
nouns that are generic are anarthrous; 52 and (c) that predicate nouns in convertible<br />
propositions are articular.<br />
With this said, one should not overlook the definite limitations of the rules.<br />
(2) Colwell himself notes ("Rule" 16-17, 17 n. 12) that the rules do not apply to<br />
constructions where there is an ellipsis of the copula or to qualitative nouns. And it is clear<br />
from the last two rules that proper names (2c) and predicate nominatives in relative clauses<br />
(2d) are themselves exceptions to the principal exceptions (viz., 2a and 2b). Examples that<br />
fitted any of these four categories were not included in Colwell's statistical analysis.<br />
(3) It must remain uncertain whether the inference Colwell drew from his study may stand,<br />
viz., that a predicate noun which precedes the copula "is indefinite in this position only<br />
when the context demands it" ("Rule" 21). In fact the reverse would seem to be the case, as<br />
Colwell himself first stated it: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be<br />
translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article;<br />
if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun<br />
in spite of the absence of the article" ("Rule" 20). The difficulty is simply this. How can one<br />
determine the definiteness of a noun which is anarthrous? For example, is PROFHTHS<br />
definite or indefinite in Mark 11:32 and John 4:19? The only indisputable datum about an<br />
anarthrous noun is that it lacks the article. Particularly in the application of rule 2b-often<br />
referred to as "Colwell's rule"-a considerable element of subjectivity comes into play and<br />
there is the constant danger of arguing in a circle by assuming from the context that a<br />
particular anarthrous predicate noun is definite and then finding in its placement before the<br />
copula the confirmation of its definiteness. Whether in the subject or predicate, an articular<br />
noun is definite with regard to what is signified. An anarthrous noun in the subject or<br />
predicate, on the other hand, may be either indefinite or definite, but the presumption ought<br />
to be that it is either (1) indefinite (since Greek has, in the article, a means of making<br />
definiteness unambiguous), until it has been shown to be definite from the context (both<br />
immediate and general), or (2) qualitative, whatever be its state of definiteness. This leads<br />
me to affirm that one may not infer (as is often done) from rule 2b that anarthrous predicate<br />
nouns which precede the verb are usually definite. Indeed, such nouns will usually be<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (5 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:44 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
qualitative<br />
in emphasis."<br />
Jesus as God, Murray Harris, pp. 311, 312<br />
According to Rodney J. Decker:<br />
"Definiteness is assumed, not proven by the rule. It is not valid to use the rule to establish<br />
definiteness....The converse of the rule may not be assumed. That is, it is not true that because a predicate<br />
noun precedes a copulative verb, it is therefore definite." The entire article can be downloaded by<br />
clicking here.<br />
Professor Furuli adds:<br />
"Contrary to what Bowman says, Colwell himself laid the foundation for the misuse of his<br />
rule by applying it to John 1:1 (See page 21 of Colwell's JBL article.) Bruce M. Metzger,<br />
"The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today 10.1 (April 1953), pp. 65-85,<br />
also must share some of the responsibility for the general abuse of the rule. He stated that<br />
the translators of the NWT, by translating "the Word was a god," overlooked entirely "an<br />
established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering ... and the Word was<br />
God." Metzger is a respected scholar who has done much good work with the Greek text of<br />
the NT. His words may have been written because of his theological differences with<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses. I think he would have expressed himself more cautiously today.<br />
However, such inaccurate statements are still used as authoritative, for instance, by Robert<br />
Countess, The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and<br />
Reformed, 1982), p. 53."<br />
P. 215 n.31 The Role Of Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
What it comes down to is that Colwell's Rule says if a definite predicate noun precedes the copulative,<br />
then it tends to be anarthrous. It is wrong to deduce from this, "if an anarthrous predicate noun precedes<br />
the copulative, then it tends to be definite." This is the erroneous conclusion of Colwell himself, and host<br />
of others have followed suit. It is like saying that if a man is a citizen of North Carolina, then he is a<br />
citizen of the United States, which is true, but false if we use this to prove the converse, that if a man is a<br />
citizen of the United States, then he is also a citizen of North Carolina.<br />
Walter Martin even goes so far as to misquote Colwell's Rule:<br />
"Colwell's rule clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (Theos-God) never takes<br />
an article when it precedes the verb." Kingdom of the Cults, 1977, 75<br />
What Colwell said was that it usually lacks the article, and then submits 15 instances that are exceptions:<br />
Lu 4:41; John 1:21; 6:51; 15:1; 2 Pet 1:17; Rom 4:13; 1 Cor 9:1, 2; 11:3, 25; 2 Cor 1:12; 3:2, 17; Rev<br />
19:8; 20:14 (see Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 18).<br />
Further recommended reading is Paul Stephen Dixon's article: "The Significance of the Anarthrous<br />
Predicate Nominative in John" from the Faculty of the Dept. of New Testament Literature and<br />
Exegesis-Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1975;<br />
Philip B. Harner's Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1, JBL 92 (1973), pp.<br />
75-87; and Professor Rolf Furuli's The Role of Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation.<br />
I have another article dealing with this at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htm and<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/kkla.htm<br />
According to Harner's study, John has 53 examples of anarthrous predicate nominatives occuring before<br />
the verb, 26 of them being indefinite, with possibly 11 more being indefinite.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (6 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:44 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
When we use count nouns (nouns that can be counted, as opposed to ones that cannot, like "flesh" or<br />
"love"), we also arrive at an interesting conclusion.<br />
The following chart shows pre-verbal singular count nouns, as in, and excluding John 1:1c, as rendered<br />
in the NIV:<br />
We must remember that the Greek does NOT have an indefinite article ("a"), but they are deemed<br />
necessary when translating into English.<br />
The RED indicates Qualitativeness according to Dixon's Thesis, "The Significance of the Anarthrous<br />
Predicate Nominative In John."<br />
The BLUE indicates "Probably Qualitative, but Possibly Definite" according to Dixon.<br />
Scripture<br />
NIV Rendering with the<br />
definite article<br />
NIV Rendering with<br />
indefinite article<br />
No article rendered<br />
John 1:49 You are the King of Israel Beck's <strong>Bible</strong>, WEB<br />
John 3:29<br />
The bride belongs to the<br />
bridegroom<br />
John 4:19<br />
Sir...I can see that you are<br />
a prophet<br />
John 5:10 It is the Sabbath<br />
John 5:27 he is the Son of Man<br />
Young's, Rotherham,<br />
Montgomery<br />
John 6:70 one of you is a devil<br />
John 8:33 We are Abraham's descendants<br />
John 8:34<br />
everyone who sins is a<br />
slave to sin<br />
John 8:37 you are Abraham's descendants<br />
John 8:42 If God were your Father<br />
John 8:44 He was a murderer<br />
John 8:44 for he is a liar<br />
John 8:48 you are a Samaritan<br />
John 8:54 you claim as your God<br />
John 9:17 He is a prophet<br />
John 9:24 this man is a sinner<br />
John 9:25 he is a sinner<br />
John 9:28 you are this fellow's disciple<br />
John 10:1 the man who...is a thief<br />
John 10:2<br />
The man who enters by the<br />
gate is the shepherd of his<br />
sheep<br />
Young's, Rotherham, 20h<br />
Century NT<br />
John 10:13 he is a hired hand<br />
John 10:36 I am God's Son<br />
John 12:6 he was a thief<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (7 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:45 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
John 18:35 Am I a Jew?<br />
John 18:37 You are a king then?<br />
John 18:37 I am a king<br />
John 19:21 claimed to be king of the Jews<br />
John 3:29 is rendered indefinitely as "The [one] having the bride a bridegroom is." The Nestle Greek<br />
Text with a Literal English Translation by the Reverend Alfred Marshall D. Litt.<br />
John 5:10 is rendered with the indefinite article in the Good News <strong>Bible</strong>, Beck's <strong>Bible</strong>, God's Word,<br />
Emphatic Diaglott, Kleist & Lilly NT, Weymouth's NT, and Young's Literal Translation.<br />
John 5:27 is rendered with the indefinite article in the <strong>World</strong> English <strong>Bible</strong>, Kleist & Lilly NT, Smith &<br />
Goodspeed's An American Translation, Emphatic Diaglott, Revised Version-Improved and Corrected.<br />
John 10:2 is rendered with the indefinite article in the Weymouth NT (ftn.), Barclay's NT, Revised<br />
Version-Improved and Corrected, and the Emphatic Diaglott.<br />
As we can see, most of the above examples can make a claim for indefiniteness. They are even more<br />
indefinite than the ones labelled qualitative.<br />
Qualitativeness does not rule out indefiniteness, just like indefiniteness does not rule out qualitativeness.<br />
We simply cannot get away from the fact that the majority of <strong>Bible</strong> translations and versions have<br />
translated the above in the indefinite, not in the qualitative. John 4:19 was not translated "prophet-like,"<br />
but "a prophet." John 6:70 was not translated "devil-like" or "devilish," but "a devil" despite the fact that<br />
the New International Version is a dynamic equivalent version.<br />
Not only is it that "the predicate nominative describes the class to which the subject belongs" (See Greek<br />
Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace, p. 41), but anarthrousness often proves that you are not the<br />
only one in that class.<br />
At Mark 1:3, Wuest says of "The Voice" [FWNH], "no definite article in the Greek text. The Baptist was<br />
not the only mouthpiece of God sent to Israel." (P. 13, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament,<br />
Kenneth Wuest)<br />
On Anabasis, 1:4:6, EMPORION D HN TO CWRION, and the place was a market, Dana & Mantey's<br />
Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament state that the place was not the only market. How does<br />
this usage compare with the above list?<br />
At John 1:49, though Jesus was uniquely THE King of Israel, he was not the only one to bear that title.<br />
He can although, bear the traits of a king.<br />
The bridegroom at John 3:29 is modified by the present active verb ECWN (echon).<br />
At John 4:19, Jesus was not the only prophet.<br />
The Sabbath at John 5:10 was not the only such sabbath.<br />
At John 5:27, though Jesus was uniquely THE Son of Man, he was not the only one who can claim that<br />
title.<br />
Judas, at John 6:70 was not THE devil, or the only slanderer in the <strong>Bible</strong>, and he certainly shared the<br />
qualities/traits of Satan without actually being the devil.<br />
John 8:33 is modified by the possessive construction.<br />
In John 8:34, the indicated slave was not the only such slave....and so on.<br />
At John 1:1c, Jesus was not the only God mentioned in the <strong>Bible</strong>, and he was not THE God. He did share<br />
the qualities/traits of God.<br />
"Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (8 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:45 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about<br />
someone." Appendix 1950 edition NWT<br />
Note the appendix in the NWT 1984 Ed., where they said that the translations "a god" do so<br />
"because the Greek word (the·os') is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb<br />
and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os'. The God with<br />
whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression, that<br />
is, the·os' preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os'. Careful translators<br />
recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality,<br />
whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality<br />
about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine"<br />
or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a<br />
certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same<br />
as God himself.<br />
In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding<br />
the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these<br />
places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to<br />
bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted<br />
before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is<br />
inserted before the anarthrous in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The<br />
Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering."<br />
The above chart also attests that their translation, as that of the Revised Version-Improved and Corrected,<br />
Belsham, Priestley, etc, are superior.<br />
The following excerpt is from William Loader, PhD in his excellent book:<br />
"The Word was 'God'<br />
The gospel begins with the words, 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with<br />
God and the Word was theos (`God').' 'The Word was theos' must not be isolated and<br />
made into a simple equation: the Word<br />
was God. Grammatically this is a possible translation, but not the only one. The<br />
statement's meaning, and so its translation, must be determined by its context. It could also<br />
be translated: 'the Word was a god' or 'the Word was divine'. Grammatical considerations<br />
alone fail to decide the question, since all three translations can be<br />
defended on grammatical grounds.<br />
The Word was God?<br />
Against the first of these interpretations ('the word was God') is the fact that the<br />
author has just said that the Word was 'with' God.<br />
If 'Word' means little more than 'words', then it would be conceivable that the author could<br />
say: God's words were with him; they are, as his words, part of God himself, in that sense,<br />
they are God. Dupont comes near to this in claiming that the Logos concept refers not to a<br />
person but to God's communication of himself. But the<br />
author goes on to speak of the Word as a person as distinct from God, so that this must be<br />
assumed also in the opening verses.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (9 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:45 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
Nor is it likely that the author intends to his opening statement to make a gradual approach<br />
to what he wishes to say, so that 'the Word was with God' is merely a step along the way to<br />
the statement, 'the Word was God' which is repeated in 1:2.<br />
The Word was a God?<br />
The other two translations fit the context more smoothly at one level. Yet their evaluation<br />
cannot take place without our making assumptions about the author's wider frame of<br />
reference. In particular it is unlikely, given his context within the Christian community and<br />
its roots in Judaism, that he would mean that there is more than one God. Langbrandtner<br />
reckons with this as the positions of the redactor, whereas the Grundschrift had thought of<br />
Jesus more as an extension of God into the world, but such a view on the part of the redactor<br />
is unlikely and unsupported elsewhere. It is true, on the most natural reading of the text,<br />
that there are two beings here:<br />
God and a second who was theos but this second is related to God in a manner which<br />
shows that God is the absolute over against which the second is defined. They are not<br />
presented as two equal gods.<br />
The Word was divine?<br />
This leads us to consider the third translation, 'divine', the equivalent of theios suggested<br />
already by Origen, and represented often by the phrase 'Gott con Art' or 'God of a kind'.<br />
Should the author have been concerned to say the Word was divine. why did he write theos<br />
and not the more usual adjective, theios? The order of 1:1c and lack of the article may be<br />
idiomatic in relation to the use of predicate nouns, as Colwell suggests, or it may, in<br />
addition,<br />
reflect an emphasis on quality shared without exact reciprocity. This would suggest that the<br />
focus here lies not on the person, but on the quality or nature of the Word. Schnackenburg<br />
points to 1 John 5:20 ('We know that the Son of God has come and has given us<br />
understanding, so that we may know the truth and we are in the truth, in his Son, Jesus<br />
Christ. He is the true God and eternal life') and understands the use of theos for Jesus as<br />
expressing that in him God reveals himself and that he has the same nature as the Father.<br />
What was 'was'?<br />
But what does 'nature' or 'quality' mean in this context? The New English <strong>Bible</strong> translates,<br />
'what God was, the Word was.' It still leaves open the question: and what and how was that?<br />
Brown is right in pointing out that we are dealing with the languase of doxology here. Can<br />
we go beyond Bultmann's statement that here is paradox? Is,<br />
as Haenchen argues, the anarthrous theos another indication of subordination of the Son to<br />
the Father in the gospel? It would be easy to read 1:l in isolation as a statement that the<br />
Logos had once been with, indeed been part of God and had ceased to be so, a kind of<br />
emanation, but passages such as 17:5,24 and those considered at the beginning of this<br />
discussion indicate much more of a personal relationship of union andlove. The claim of<br />
shared originality ('in the beginning') and the absence of any notion of the Son Logos as, for<br />
instance, 'firstborn' or 'first created' being, normally associated with Wisdom/Logos<br />
tradition, is astounding. It is no surprise that such statements provoke cbristological<br />
reflection in subsequent centuries. But our task must be to interpret as far as<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (10 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:45 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
possible their meaning within the gospel without reading back into the text later attempts at<br />
a solution.<br />
The nature of the relationship of Son and Father in the fourth gospel must rest on more than<br />
1:1 and its grammatical interpretation. The term, theos, is applied similarly to Jesus in 1:l8<br />
and comes in the confession of Thomas in 20:28. But the issue is much wider than the use of<br />
theos even in the prologue and presents itself as a repeated focus of contention, as the Son<br />
makes his claims and the Jews make counterclaims accusing him of ditheism, an accusation<br />
constantly repudiated. But we return first to the prologue as presupposition and<br />
prelude to the gospel.<br />
Analogous relationship In Logos Wisdom Torah tradition<br />
It is widely recognised that the motif, Word, Logos, belongs within a tradition of thought<br />
reaching back to such passages as Prov 8:22-31 and reflecting speculalation about wisdom<br />
or logos as the highest heavenly power in God's service. One strand of this tradition<br />
identifies heavenly wisdom with Torah, Law, and so personifies Torah.<br />
In this stream, Torah is God's and in that sense is God. It is not thought of literally as a<br />
person distinct from God, as we have it in the fourth gospel, but remains a personification.<br />
Closer to the notion of wisdom or the logos as a person is the stream which finds expression<br />
in Hellenistic Judaism (Wisdom, Philo). This belongs within a wider tendency Judaism to<br />
speak of the highest beings under God, sometimes to the extent that the kind of<br />
interchangeability already present in the Old Testement between the angel of the Lord and<br />
the Lord, which Justin later exploited so fully as a christological argument extended to other<br />
high beings, including the Logos. Incipiant gnosticism doubtless heightened this tendency.<br />
It, too, used the Sophia/Logos speculation. In Philo the logos is not only portrayed as a<br />
person, the highest heavenly being in the service of God, but can also be called theos, a<br />
second god (De Somn. I 229f; Leg. All. III 207f; Qu. Gen. II 62). This is all the more<br />
interesting since Philo clearly does not understand this as compromosing monotheism,<br />
which he stoutly defends. Rather the bearing of God's name seems related to the<br />
bearing of God's power and functions."<br />
The Christology of the Fourth Gospel-Structures and Issues, Page 155 by William Loader, Ph.D. and<br />
New Testament Lecturer for the Perth Theological Hall, Australia, teacher at Murdoch University as a<br />
member of the Perth College of Divinity<br />
Even if we opt for a qualitative-only view, then "the Word was a God" is still superior to the definite<br />
rendering "the Word was God."<br />
"Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom is by<br />
prefacing the noun with 'a.'" -- Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous<br />
Predicate Nominative in John" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 47.<br />
Jason: I would like to also point out, too, that even your New <strong>World</strong> Translation dose not always follow its no article-small<br />
g rule. For example, in John 1:6, 12, 12, the word God dose not have the article in the Greek, but it dose have a capital G<br />
in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation. It is correct to use the capital in those verses, but it is inconsistent with the New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation of John 1:1.<br />
Reply: You had stated above, which I have placed in bold lettering:<br />
"Your translators say the small “g” from the word god is required because the Greek<br />
word used for God (theos) is not preceded by a definite article “the”(ho). (Should you<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (11 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:45 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
believe in the Trinity? P. 26)"<br />
The Trinity brochure makes no such statement here. This is completely fabricated. What the translators<br />
have done is show the same contrast that the Greek text makes<br />
The book, The Elements of New Testament Greek, by J.W. Wenham adds an interesting comment on this<br />
though:<br />
"In ancient manuscripts which did not differentiate between capital and small letters, there<br />
would be no way of distinguishing between QEOS ('God') and QEOS ('god'). Therefore as<br />
far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: QEOS ESTIN hO<br />
LOGOS, which would mean either, 'The Word is a god', or, 'The Word is the god'. The<br />
interpretation of John i. i will depend upon whether or not the writer is held to believe in<br />
only one God or in more than one god. It will be noticed that the above rules for the special<br />
uses of the definite article are none of them rigid and without exceptions. It is wiser<br />
not to use them as a basis for theological argument until the student has reached an<br />
advanced stage in the knowledge of the language."<br />
Interesting comments, though they do ignore qualitativeness and the earlier use of QEOS/theos for<br />
representatives of God.<br />
Jason: You might also be interested in noting that in John 13:3 the word God occurs twice, each time with a capital G. But<br />
in the Greek the first occurrence of the word dose not have the definite article (ho,) and the second occurrence dose. Since<br />
both obviously refer to the same person- God the Father- it would again be wrong to assume that the no article-small g<br />
has<br />
any validity in Greek grammar.<br />
Reply: John 13 does not necessitate the distinction as is the case with John 1:1. I cannot rightfully say<br />
that the man was with the prophet, and the man was the prophet, but I can say he was a prophet, or<br />
qualitatively, he was prophet-like.<br />
Jason: Another point I would like to bring out is that without the article, theos signifies divine essence, whereas with the<br />
article theos suggest divine personality (see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 139).<br />
Also theos is a definite noun and therefore cannot have the indefinite article “a”.<br />
Reply: Theos is not a definite noun in John 1:1c, or else it would have been rendered with a definite<br />
article. If you are assuming definiteness for it here, then you are making the same mistake Colwell did,<br />
and you are now a Sabbellianist. The anarthrous QEOS/theos in John 1:1c is there to make a distinction<br />
between the articular QEOS at John 1:1b and John 1:2. If the <strong>Bible</strong> writers wanted a definite QEOS, then<br />
they could have added the definite article, as they have done elsewhere. There is no grammatical rule<br />
saying that the one word QEOS is by nature definite.<br />
Take for instance:<br />
John 10:33,<br />
"The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou,<br />
being a man, makest thyself a god." Revised Version-Improved and Corrected<br />
“Claim to be a god.”—New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
“Makest thyself a god.”—John Bowes, 1870.<br />
“[M]akest thyself a god.”—Samuel Sharpe, 1881.<br />
“Make Yourself out to be a god.”—Ferrar Fenton, 1909.<br />
“[M]akest thyself ‘a god’ not ‘God’ as in C[ommon].V[ersion, KJV]., otherwise the definite article<br />
would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses,— ‘gods..[.] gods,’ where the title<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (12 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:45 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
is applied to magistrates, and others, because in a certain sense they are God’s representatives. Compare<br />
also Acts 28. 6; 2 Cor. 2. 4.”—Robert Young, Concise Commentary, in loc. cit.<br />
“[F]or making a mortal like yourself into a god.”—Andy Gaus, The Unvarnished New Testament, 1991.<br />
Acts 12:22,<br />
"And the people shouted, saying, The voice of a god, and not of a man." ASV<br />
"And the people shouted, "The voice of a god, and not of man!"" RSV<br />
Acts 28:6,<br />
"Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had<br />
looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a<br />
god." KJV<br />
"they changed their minds and said he was a god." NIV<br />
There are many such instances in the LXX (Septuagint) also, as in Exodus 7:1; Judges 6:31; 1 King<br />
18:27; Psalm 5:4, etc. (See Brenton's Translation).<br />
Jason: It is important to keep in mind that when John 1:1 states that “the Word was God,” it dose not mean “Jesus is God<br />
the Father” or “Jesus is the Trinity.” The Watchtower booklet “The Word”-Who is he? according to John(p.6) makes the<br />
error of trying to suggest that this is what non-Jehovah’s Witnesses mean by their translation “The Word was God.” But<br />
this is not the case at all. As already shown, this clause stresses the divine quality of the Word. John is telling us that in the<br />
beginning the Word existed, was with God the Father, and possesses full deity.<br />
Reply: John 1:1 does not tell us that at all. In fact, if you are trying to argue that the theos (QEOS) in<br />
John 1:1c is definite, and the QEOS in John 1:1b is the Father, then you are equating the LOGOS with<br />
the Father, therefore making them the same. I have no problem with Jesus having the qualities of His<br />
Father, but having the qualities and traits of another does not make you equal or one in substance/essence<br />
to them.<br />
Jason: You should also know too that there are verses clearly referring to Christ in which the word God dose have the<br />
definite article (the), therefore showing that Jesus is “the God,” that is, Jehovah. (Matthew 1:23, for example, which states<br />
that Jesus is Immanuel, in the Greek is rendered, “With us is the God.” Jesus is therefore the Jehovah God.)<br />
Reply: We have already discusssed Matthew 1:23 in the previous page, proving of course that this verse<br />
cannot be used to prove that Jesus is Jehovah.<br />
But simply using a definite article in the Greek does not prove what you claim.<br />
Satan is hO QEOS (THE god) at 2 Cor. 4:4.<br />
King Solomon is hO QEOS (THE god) at Psalm 45:6 LXX.<br />
The Judges at Ex 21:6; 22:8 that we have talked about earlier are hO QEOS LXX.<br />
Even the "stomach" is hO QEOS (THE god) at Phil 3:9.<br />
Jason: You say Christ is “a god,” according to John 1:1 of the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-one who was created by Jehovah.<br />
How could Christ be “a god” when Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says there is no God before Him or after Him? No god would<br />
ever be created by Jehovah because, as he stated, “Before meno God was formed, and after me there continued to be<br />
none” (NWT).<br />
John 1:1 says that the Word (Christ) was with God. And yet Deuteronomy 32:39 Jehovah says, “There is no god besides<br />
Me.” If Christ was not God but “a god,” the Deuteronomy 32:39 is contradicted. I have heard the argument by several<br />
Jehovah’s Witnesses, that in the <strong>Bible</strong> many people can be referred to as “a god” and still not be God Almighty. They say<br />
the same goes for Jesus. To an extent, that is true. But the question is are they a true god or a false god. In Corinthians<br />
8:4-6 states, “ So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that<br />
there is not God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many<br />
“gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live;<br />
and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” Notice that it says<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (13 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:45 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
there“is but one God, the Father” and also says there “is but one Lord, Jesus Christ” but yet both titles are used<br />
interchangably for both God the Father and Jesus throughout the New Testament.<br />
Also John 17:3 states, “Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you<br />
sent” So therefore, the fact that there are many “gods” and many “lords” dose not make them true. But to say Jesus<br />
Christ is a separate god from the Father would be to say that he is false, because Corinthians8:4-6 and John 17:3 clearly<br />
state there is only “One True God”.<br />
Reply: The false god/true god argument has been handled elsewhere on my site. See<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/alethinos.htm and<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/sam.htm<br />
Other than that, all I have to add is that the Father pretty much EXHAUSTS all the uses of QEOS/theos<br />
in the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
All other uses of QEOS that might be applied to Jesus falls under heavy scrutiny, even amongst<br />
Trinitarians. If you people cannot agree on whether John 1:1, 18; Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, etc., apply the<br />
title GOD to Christ, then why should I accept these Scriptures as proof of anything?<br />
"When we consider further the fact ...that Christ is nowhere called God in any<br />
unambiguous passage by any writer of the New Testament and that it is nowhere recorded<br />
that he ever claimed this title, we cannot reasonably regard this abstinence from the use of<br />
the term as accidental. "<br />
Ezra Abbot, ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. by Ezra Abbott from the Journal of the<br />
Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis for 1881<br />
"Direct evidence that Jesus was divine, they argue, can no longer be found in the New<br />
Testament; and here, I believe, they are quite correct; all the texts in which Jesus appears to<br />
be called 'God' are subject to textual or exegetical ambiguity."<br />
P. 52, God Incarnate, Story of Belief, by Anthony Harvey, University Lecturer in Theology and Fellow<br />
of Wolfson College, Oxford<br />
Jesus was MADE Lord, and GIVEN that title, thereby expressing the limitation of his bearing it.<br />
Again, it is the Father that exhausts the title of THE GOD (hO QEOS) by the Apostle John:<br />
"In the New Testament, however, the term 'God' (ho theos) in practice always means the<br />
Father."<br />
Does God Exist? Hans Kung, p. 685<br />
"In fact, for the author of the hymn, as for the Evangelist [John] only the Father was 'God'<br />
(ho theos; cf. 17:3); 'the Son' was subordinate to him."<br />
Ernst Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 109<br />
Jason: Isaiah and the Colossians<br />
Im sure you are aware that Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus Christ the “mighty God.” No doubt you, like other Jehovah’s Witnesses,<br />
have a ready answer for this verse. You explain that Christ is the “mighty god” but not “the Almighty.” You say that<br />
Christ is the mighty, never the Almighty, and that Jehovah is the Almighty God, never the mighty. However, Jeremiah<br />
32:18 shows that Jehovah is the mighty one. Therefore, since Christ is the mighty God (Jeremiah 32:18), they are both<br />
God. They both posses full deity.<br />
Reply: I have already dealt with Isaiah 9:6 at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/kkla.htm and<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/50questions.htm<br />
Jason: What about Colossians 1:15-17? Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to this passage to support their teaching that Christ<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (14 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:45 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
was created by Jehovah (e.g., Let God Be True, p. 35). This is based primarily on the words “the firstborn of all creation”<br />
in verse 15. However, if this verse were teaching that Jesus Christ is the first created being made by Jehovah, the word<br />
“first-created”<br />
would have been used of Christ, not the word “firstborn.” These are two different words in the Greek, two different<br />
meanings. “First-created” is protoktistos, and “firstborn” is prototokos. Colossains 1:15 dose not use the word<br />
protoktistos, “first-created.” Instead it uses prototokos. This latter word means an heir, a begotten one, the first in rank.<br />
The teaching of Colossains 1:15, then, is that Christ is first in rank above all creation; He is the heir of all things. He is<br />
prior to all creation and superior over it as the Lord. Your New <strong>World</strong> Translation adds the word “other” four times in<br />
Colossains 1:15-17, so that the passage states that Christ created “all other things,” that is, everything except Himself.<br />
However, there is no basis for adding the word “other.” It dose not occur in the Greek manuscripts. The translators of the<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation admit this by putting the word “other” in brackets. Obviously this is done in order to comply with<br />
the assumption that firstborn means first-created. But, as we’ve seen, this is not the meaning of firstborn, and therefore is<br />
also wrong to add the word “other.” There is no verse in the entire <strong>Bible</strong> that states that Christ was created by Jehovah!<br />
Some might raise a question about Revelation 3:14. This passage, wrongly translated by the New <strong>World</strong> Translation “ the<br />
beginning of the creation of God,” should be rendered “the source [or origin] of God’s creation.” The Greek word for<br />
source or origin is arche. This is consistent with the statement in Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3 that all things were made<br />
by or had their origin in Jesus Christ. Since all things were made by Jehovah (Hebrews 3:4), both persons possessing this<br />
omnipotent (all-powerful) creative power are God with full deity.<br />
Reply: The above has been handled ad nauseum on my web-site. See<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/hrh.htm and<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/firstborn.htm and<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wilson2.htm and<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/sam.htm and<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/prototokos.htm and<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/arche.htm and<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/john13.htm<br />
What is interesting though, is your comment,<br />
"Some might raise a question about Revelation 3:14. This passage, wrongly translated by<br />
the New <strong>World</strong> Translation “ the beginning of the creation of God,” should be rendered<br />
“the source [or origin] of God’s creation.”<br />
This quote is actually NOT from the NWT, but rather the exact translation as it stands in the New<br />
American Standard Version, the King James Version, Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong>, the American<br />
Standard Version, the English Revised Version, the New King James Version, the Douay <strong>Bible</strong>,the<br />
Modern Language <strong>Bible</strong>-New Berkeley Version, the Worrell New Testament, the Revised Webster<br />
Version, the Montgomery Version, etc. Are you saying that these Trinitarian <strong>Bible</strong>s wrongly translate<br />
Revelation 3:14 so as to imply that Christ is a created being? Interesting! See more at<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/arche.htm.<br />
Your additonal references to Philippians 2:6 have been handled at<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim7.htm<br />
On the created Christ, I highly recommend the book Christology and the Trinity: An Exploration by<br />
Edgar Foster.<br />
Back to First Page<br />
Back To Main<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (15 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:45 AM]
Jason's Challenge-The <strong>Bible</strong> and Deity of Christ<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jason.htm (16 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:45 AM]
Online Reply to a Letter on the Holy Spirit-Active Force or Third Person of the Trinity?<br />
The Holy Spirit-Active Force or the 3rd Person of the Trinity?<br />
A Reply to http://members.tripod.com/~swampantiques/letter-1.html<br />
In light of what is taught about the Holy Spirit, and comparing it to what is taught about Satan, would<br />
someone please "logically" answer the following questions:<br />
(1) How does being called a manslayer (in a spiritual sense) make Satan a "person," but being a lifegiver (in<br />
the same spiritual sense) makes the Spirit "an active force"? (2 Cor.3:7 )<br />
Reply: It is interesting that the author uses 2 Cor 3:7 to try an make his point, since this scripture<br />
mentions neither Satan or the holy spirit. It (and the surrounding context) does say something quite<br />
interesting though: "But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the<br />
children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance,<br />
which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?" NKJV<br />
Did you notice how the "ministry of the Spirit" is viewed in the same vein as the impersonal "ministry of<br />
death." The "ministry of death" is the law of Moses, and the "ministry of the Spirit" is "Paul descriptive<br />
term for the New Covenant." MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NKJV<br />
(2) How does being a liar (in a spiritual sense) make Satan a "person, "but being the "spirit of truth" (in the<br />
same spiritual sense) makes the Spirit "an active force"? (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:3)<br />
(3) How is it that when Satan "leads" (1 Chr. 21:1) it makes him a "person," but when the Holy Spirit<br />
"leads" he is just an "active force"?<br />
(4) How is it that when Satan speaks it makes him a "person," (Job 1:9) but when the Spirit speaks it still<br />
makes him "an active force"? (Matt.10:20; 1 Tim.4:1;)<br />
(5) Why is it that personal pronouns are ascribed to Satan because he is a "person," yet personal pronouns<br />
are used of the Spirit and the Watchtower still calls him an "an active force"?<br />
Reply: Well, what then, do the words SATAN and SPIRIT mean?<br />
"<br />
a Greek form derived from the Aramaic (Heb., Satan), "an adversary," is used (a) of an<br />
angel of Jehovah in Num. 22:22 (the first occurrence of the Word in the OT); (b) of men,<br />
e.g., 1 Sam. 29:4; Ps. 38:20; 71:13; four in Ps. 109; (c) of "Satan," the Devil, some<br />
seventeen or eighteen times in the OT; in Zech. 3:1, where the name receives its<br />
interpretation, "to be (his) adversary," RV (see marg.; AV, "to resist him").<br />
In the NT the word is always used of "Satan," the adversary (a) of God and Christ, e.g.,<br />
Matt. 4:10; 12:26; Mark 1:13; 3:23,26; 4:15; Luke 4:8 (in some mss.); 11:18; 22:3; John<br />
13:27; (b) of His people, e.g., Luke 22:31; Acts 5:3; Rom. 16:20; 1 Cor. 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor.<br />
2:11; 11:14; 12:7; 1 Thess. 2:18; 1 Tim. 1:20; 5:15; Rev. 2:9,13 (twice),24; 3:9; (c) of<br />
mankind, Luke 13:16; Acts 26:18; 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 12:9; 20:7. His doom, sealed at the<br />
Cross is foretold in its stages in Luke 10:18; Rev. 20:2,10. Believers are assured of victory<br />
over him, Rom. 16:20.<br />
The appellation was given by the Lord to Peter, as a "Satan-like" man, on the occasion when<br />
he endeavored to dissuade Him from death, Matt. 16:23; Mark 8:33.<br />
"Satan" is not simply the personification of evil influences in the heart, for he tempted<br />
Christ, in whose heart no evil thought could ever have arisen (John 14:30, 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb.<br />
4:15); moreover his personality is asserted in both the OT and the NT, and especially in the<br />
latter, whereas if the OT language was intended to be figurative, the NT would have made<br />
this evident. See DEVIL.<br />
Spirit: "<br />
primarily denotes "the wind" (akin to pneo, "to breathe, blow"); also "breath;" then,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/spirit.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:48:58 AM]
Online Reply to a Letter on the Holy Spirit-Active Force or Third Person of the Trinity?<br />
especially "the spirit," which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful. The NT<br />
uses of the word may be analyzed approximately as follows:<br />
"(a) the wind, John 3:8 (where marg. is, perhaps, to be preferred); Heb. 1:7; cp. Amos 4:13,<br />
Sept.; (b) the breath, 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 11:11; 13:15; cp. Job 12:10, Sept.; " Vine's<br />
Expository Dictionary<br />
Vines does believe in the third person of the Trinity (as the 7th definition of RUAH), but notice that<br />
even he is forced to give impersonality as the PRIMARY definition of SPIRIT. (see footnote below)<br />
In the OT, Heb. Ruah means first of all wind and breath, but also the human spirit in the<br />
sense of life force and even personal energy. Eerdmans Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> (see also<br />
Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon)<br />
What do others say?<br />
"Spirit is the principle of life and vital activity. The spirit is the breath of life (Gn 6:17; 7:15,<br />
22; BS 38:23; WS 15:11, 16; 16:14). The breath is the breath of God, the wind,<br />
communicated to man by divine inspiration....The spirit of Yahweh or the spirit of God<br />
(Elohim) is a **force** that has unique effects upon man...and the spirit of Yahweh is a<br />
**force** which operates the works of Yahweh the savior and the judge. The spirit of<br />
Yahweh is often the **force** which inspires prophecy (Nm 11:17 ff; 24:2; 2 S 23:2; 1 Ch<br />
12:18; Is 61:1; Mi 3:8; Ezk 2:2; 3:12, 14, 24; 8:3; 11:1, 5, 24; 37:1; 43:5; Ne 9:30; Zc 7:12).<br />
The prophet is a man of the spirit (Ho 9:7)." Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> by John L. McKenzie,<br />
S.J.<br />
To sum up, lexically, the spirit is an impersonal force (like wind or breath) while Satan is always used to<br />
denote a person. These very important points will help us to understand the rest.<br />
It should be added, that in the <strong>Bible</strong>, even eagles speak (Rev 8:13).<br />
(6) Can the Holy Spirit be Grieved? (Eph. 4:30) Is this not a attribute of personality?<br />
Reply: Do not the "stones cry out" (Luke 19:40)? Do not the "wages cry out" (James 5:4 Revised<br />
English <strong>Bible</strong>)? Is this not a attribute of personality?<br />
(7) Can the Holy Spirit "teach?" (John 14:26) Is this not an attribute of personality?<br />
Reply: Even your "right hand" teaches in the <strong>Bible</strong> (Ps 45:4). Is this not an attribute of personality?<br />
(8) Can the Holy Spirit "see"<br />
Reply: In the <strong>Bible</strong>, even the blind can see with "eyes of your understanding" by means of " the spirit of<br />
wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him." Eph 1:17, 18<br />
As we can see, the <strong>Bible</strong> employs terms that are descriptive, and often personifies the impersonal.<br />
Sheol/Hell has a mouth and can swallow people (Numbers 16:30), it has ropes (2 Samuel 22:6), and it<br />
has soul (Isaiah 5:14).<br />
"Sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire" (Gen 4:7 KJV). Here SIN is given desire, it lies<br />
and it is referred to as "HIS."<br />
Blood cries out (Gen 4:10).<br />
Names can rot (Pr 10:7)<br />
Desire gives birth (Jas 1:15)<br />
"Hell is naked" (Job 26:6 KJV)<br />
Mountains give birth (Is 55:12)<br />
A man of wisdom will see God's name (Mic 6:9)<br />
God's name is near (Ps 75:1)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/spirit.htm (2 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:48:58 AM]
Online Reply to a Letter on the Holy Spirit-Active Force or Third Person of the Trinity?<br />
The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as "kings." (Ro 5:14, 17, 21;<br />
6:12) He writes of sin as "receiving an inducement," 'working out covetousness,' 'seducing,' and 'killing.'<br />
(Ro 7:8-11)<br />
Please explain where I went wrong when using the same"logic" in the following!<br />
I could say that Satan is not a person because In Acts 5:3 he "fills" people.<br />
Reply: Does Satan indeed fill people in this scripture? No, it says that he fills your heart. What does that<br />
mean? Take note of how the following versions translate this passage:<br />
Why do you let Satan take control of you and make you lie TEV<br />
Why was it that Satan put into your heart to lie Lattimore<br />
How is it that Satan exercised control over your heart Wuest<br />
Why has Satan taken such possession of your heart AT<br />
How did Satan get you to lie Message<br />
Why has Satan filled your heart to lie&.ftn, Ananias and Sapphira were satanically inspired in contrast<br />
to Barnabas Spirit-filled gesture. NKJV MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong><br />
(Notice here that filling is akin to inspiration).<br />
One unique aspect of spirit is that it can be "poured out." (see Prov 1:23; Is 29:10; 32:15; 44:3; Ez 39:29;<br />
Joel 2:28, 29; Zech 12:10; Acts 2:17, 18, 33; 10:45)<br />
Show me where Satan can do the same thing?<br />
I could say that Jehovah is also not a person because in Eph. 3:19 he is spoken of as "filling" people.<br />
Reply: Remember, only the spirit is spoken of as being "poured out." So what does Ephesians 3:19<br />
mean? "You will be filled with the fullness of life and power that comes from God." New Living<br />
Translation<br />
I could say that because Jesus is not a person because in Romans 6:3 people can be "baptized" into him!<br />
Reply: What does "baptized" into him" mean? "This does not refer to water baptism. Paul is actually<br />
using the word "baptized" in a metaphorical sense, as we might in saying someone was immersed in his<br />
work, or underwent baptism of fire when when experiencing some trouble." NKJV MacArthur Study<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
A look at the surrounding context will clear this up.<br />
Other <strong>Bible</strong>s say "initiated into Christ Jesus" Unvarnished NT<br />
"we were baptized to become one with Christ" New Living Translation<br />
I could say that Jehovah is not a person because in (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38; and Heb. 1:9 people can be<br />
"anointed" with him!<br />
Reply: But is that what it really says?<br />
Luke 4:18, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the<br />
poor." In this scripture we are not anointed with Jehovah, but with his spirit.<br />
Acts 10:38, "how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power" Again, there is nothing about<br />
being anointed with the person of Jehovah, but again, with his spirit.<br />
Hebrews 1:9, "Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows"<br />
In this scripture we are not anointed with the person of Jehovah, but with figurative oil. This scripture<br />
runs parallel to Isaiah 61:3 where people are called "trees of righteousness."<br />
So, there is nothing in the above mentioned scriptures that says we are anointed with the person of<br />
Jehovah. Remember, it is his spirit that is poured out.<br />
The Watchtower would also have us believe that just because the Spirit "Spoke" does not "prove" that he<br />
was a Person because when he "spoke" it was through humans or angels. Does this in some way prove that<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/spirit.htm (3 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:48:58 AM]
Online Reply to a Letter on the Holy Spirit-Active Force or Third Person of the Trinity?<br />
the Spirit is not a real person? If so, did you know that the same thing could be said of Satan? Do you know<br />
that the Devil spoke through Serpents? (Gen. 3:1)and thru through man? (1 Sam. 28:2-20) Do you believe<br />
that it would be blasphemy to say that Jehovah is not God?<br />
Reply: As we have seen above, the spirit is breath. In the <strong>Bible</strong> it is associated with "breath" and even<br />
"nostrils." (Gen 7:22; Job 27:3; 32:8; 33:4; 34:14; Is 42:5; Jn 20:22) When I speak, breath comes out of<br />
my mouth. This is my spirit, not a separate personage.<br />
That is why in the <strong>Bible</strong> the holy spirit is often associated with non-persons (see 1Jn 5:8; 2Cor 6:6; 1<br />
Thess 1:5; Mt 3:11; Acts 11:24; 13:52).<br />
Would it be blasphemy to say that Jehovah is not a real person? Would it be blasphemy to say that Jesus<br />
was not a real person? I assume that your answers would be yes. Now, consider this: Would Satan do all in<br />
his power to cause you to lose your eternal life. And the <strong>Bible</strong> tells us that blasphemy against the Holy<br />
Spirit would not be forgiven. (Matt. 12:31-33)<br />
Reply: Well, since God's spirit is his breath, and the <strong>Bible</strong> is God-breathed (theopneustos, 2315...you will<br />
notice that this word comes from the word SPIRIT/PNUEMA) at 2Tim 3:16, then sinning against holy<br />
spirit implies something else than sinning against 1/3 of God.<br />
Since spirit is neuter, even the King James <strong>Bible</strong> calls the spirit an "it" (see Rom 8:16, 26). Spirit can<br />
even be portioned out (see 2Kings 2:9).<br />
Now I will indeed admit that there can be more to the word spirit. Spirit can be a temperament or a<br />
disposition. That is why the <strong>Bible</strong> can speak of "the spirit of Cyrus" (2 Chron 36:22; Ezra 1:1), and "the<br />
spirit of Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria" (1Chron 5:26), "the spirit of Jacob" (Gen 45:27), of David<br />
(1Sam 30:12), and the "spirit of Zerubbabel" (Hag 1:14).<br />
There are of course spirit persons, like God (John 4:24) and angels, but as we can see, the same meaning<br />
is used, "Who maketh his angels winds" Heb 1:7. That God is spirit stands as the antithesis of flesh (cf.<br />
Heb. 11:27, 1Cor 15:50). To worship God means to worship in "spirit and truth." Again, see that "spirit"<br />
is compared to something impersonal as "truth."<br />
It is by examining the entire <strong>Bible</strong> that we do discern between "spirit of truth and the spirit of error."<br />
1John 4:6 RSV<br />
Many point out that by applying words and titles equally to Jehovah and Jesus makes them the same<br />
person, and then a Trinity, then why....:<br />
Why is the holy spirit never worshipped?<br />
In the introduction of their letters to the churches, none of the New Testament writers identifies himself<br />
with the holy spirit as he does with God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Why is this if they are part<br />
of the same being?<br />
Why does Paul never send greetings from the holy spirit, only God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ?<br />
Why do visions of heaven NOT include the person of the holy spirit?<br />
Why is the holy spirit never called the First and the Last?<br />
Why doesn't the holy spirit have a name?<br />
Why isn't the holy spirit a king?<br />
Why is theos/elohim never applied to the holy spirit?<br />
Why is the holy spirit never called a saviour?<br />
Why is the holy spirit given liquidity?<br />
"Many words associated with God's spirit give it the attributes of a liquid, which by<br />
definition cannot refer to a person. This liquid language is consistent with the spirit being<br />
His presence and power. We are baptized (literally 'dipped') with and in it like water (Matt.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/spirit.htm (4 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:48:58 AM]
Online Reply to a Letter on the Holy Spirit-Active Force or Third Person of the Trinity?<br />
3:11; Acts 1:5). We are all made to 'drink' from the same spirit, as from a well or a fountain<br />
(1Cor. 12:13). It is written in our hearts like ink (2 Cor 3:3). We are 'anointed' with it, like<br />
oil (Acts 10:38; 2 Cor 1:30; 1 John 2:27). We are 'sealed' with it as with melted wax (Eph.<br />
1:14). It is 'poured out' on us (Acts 10:45; Rom. 5:5). It is 'measured' as if it had volume (2<br />
Kings 2:9; John 3:34-KJV). We are to be filled with it (Acts 2:4; Eph. 5:18). This 'filling' is<br />
to capacity at the new birth and to overflowing as we act according to its influence." One<br />
God & One Lord by Graeser/Lynn/ Schoenheit, p.598<br />
Fortman says, "The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid<br />
evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented<br />
in the Synoptics and in Acts as a divine force or power." The Triune God, pp. 6, 15<br />
"Another text has God's 'Spirit' as His agent in creation. Because they may have been<br />
considered substitute phrases for God Himself, Judaism never made them separate 'Persons'<br />
as Christianity did. However, it is virtually certain that this late Judaistic tendency to<br />
hypostasize [i.e. to symbolize a concept in a concrete form] had a great influence on the<br />
development of the Christian teaching of the three 'Persons' of God."<br />
p. 38, The Christian Conspiracy, by Dr Moore<br />
I suspect that the writer of the above linked site did not get a response due to the *spirit* in which his<br />
letter was written, The WTS realizes that "God gave them a *spirit of stupor*, eyes that they should not<br />
see." Romans 11:8 ASV<br />
So is it blasphemy to say that the holy spirit is not a person, one third of a Triune deity (when this is not<br />
borne out in the Scriptures)...or is it blasphemous to compare the spirit, breath and inspiration of God to<br />
Satan the Devil to buttress your point?<br />
**Vines (p. 241) uses scriptures like Genesis 1:2 to prove that the Spirit is the 3rd person of the Trinity. But does it<br />
really? Take note of how other Trinitarians have rendered this scripture:<br />
"a mighty wind swept over the waters." New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"a divine wind sweeping over the waters." New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"and the power of God was moving over the water." Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
Question:<br />
"he uses "spirit" as defining wind etc when speaking of the spirit YET he will not admit that JEHOVAH is<br />
only some wind will he???? remember its the same exact word being used when the bible says GOD IS<br />
SPIRIT. so by hectors (wt) logic again a flaw.<br />
There is no flaw here at all, and you missed the whole point of your missed point. The word SATAN<br />
deals primarily and only with person(s). The word Spirit/RUAH/PNEUMA does not primarily deal with<br />
any kind of person.<br />
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. Jn 4:24<br />
You said I could not say that God is a wind. But there are similarities that you are missing. Like wind,<br />
God is invisible (Col 1:15; 1Tim 1:17; Heb. 11:27), as opposed to the physical or material nature of<br />
man(John 1:18; 3:6).<br />
When God says he is Spirit (or "a Spirit" KJV, Beck, NWT), he is speaking of his nature (1Cor 15:44).<br />
That is why Williams NT has "God is a spiritual being."<br />
[Another way to harmonize this is by comparing John 4:24 PNEUMA O QEOS with O<br />
QEOS AGAPH at 1 John 4:8, 16. "God is spirit" and "God is Love" are similar in that O<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/spirit.htm (5 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:48:58 AM]
Online Reply to a Letter on the Holy Spirit-Active Force or Third Person of the Trinity?<br />
QEOS ( the God) is the subject, since it is articular (it has the article "the") and PNEUMA<br />
and AGAPH are not. In each case the predicate nominative, "spirit" or "love" is what some<br />
call "qualitative," in the above cases expressing nature (like "John is a pussycat" or "Bill is<br />
divine"). It describes a quality of hO QEOS (c.f. 1John 1:5). In this sense PNEUMA<br />
functions similar to an adjective. These types of constructions in John have bearing on how<br />
we interpret Jn 1.1]<br />
Let me explain the impersonality of holy spirit another way. 2Peter 1:21 states: "For not by the will of<br />
man was prophecy carried on at any time, but, being carried on by holy spirit, holy men of God speak."<br />
Concordant Literal NT<br />
Now read 2Tim 3:16 as a parallel: "Every scripture is God-breathed." Literal English Translation by<br />
Alfred Marshall<br />
So we can see that the activity of the holy spirit is equivalent to the activity of God's breath or power,<br />
hence a force.<br />
That is why the Unvarnished NT can say, "And suddenly down from the sky came the rush of a driving<br />
wind of violent force and filled the whole house...and they were all filled with holy breath." Acts 2<br />
"HOLY SPIRIT, the mysterious power or presence of God in nature or with individuals and<br />
communities, inspiring them or empowering them with qualities they would not otherwise possess. The<br />
term spirit...denotes "wind", "breath", and by extension the life-giving element." Harper Collins<br />
Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>, p. 432<br />
Remember, a person, whether it be an angel, Satan, or Jehovah cannot be poured out. They are not given<br />
the liquidity of the holy spirit.<br />
However, Jesus can breathe on someone, and they can receive holy spirit, "And when he had said this, he<br />
breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit." Jn 20:22 ASV<br />
Question:<br />
"Dear bro smith: I enjoyed your reply to the web critic on the question of the personality of the Holy<br />
Spirit-provides great answers. Regarding the pouring out of the holy spirit as evidence of its<br />
non-personality, this<br />
critic might refer to phillipians 2:17 and 2 tim 4:6 where paul uses similar language. I know this is<br />
different-obvious metaphor,but how would you answer this attemt to compare these references?<br />
Reply: In Tim and Phil the word used for POUR is Strong's Ref. # 4689 spendo which means " to pour<br />
out as a libation, i.e. (figuratively) to devote (one's life or blood, as a sacrifice) ('spend')"<br />
This is why the American Standard Version has:<br />
2Tim 4:6 For I am already being offered, and the time of my departure is come.<br />
Phil 2:17 Yea, and if I am offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you<br />
all<br />
It is also used in Mark 4:31.<br />
In Acts, a different word is used for POUR as with the holy spirit is Strong's Ref. # 1632 ekcheo which<br />
means " to pour forth; figuratively, to bestow: KJV--gush (pour) out, run greedily (out), shed (abroad,<br />
forth), spill."<br />
It is also used at Matt 9:17 (wine), Matt 23:35 (blood),<br />
So we see, that it is the spirit again that is given true liquidity.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/spirit.htm (6 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:48:58 AM]
Online Reply to a Letter on the Holy Spirit-Active Force or Third Person of the Trinity?<br />
Punkish/Guy did bring something interesting to my attention that Vine's uses to promote the personality<br />
of the holy spirit. "The full title with the article before both pneuma and hagios..."the Spirit the Holy,"<br />
stresses the character of the Person, e.g., Matt. 12:32; Mark 3:29..."<br />
But is this really so? I collected these examples from the LXX and the Greek NT:<br />
Dan 9:20 TOU OROUS TOU AGIOU The holy the mountain<br />
Ex 26:33 ANA MESON TOU AGIOU KAI ANA MESON TOU AGIOU The holy place and the holy<br />
place<br />
Is 63:15 TOU OIKOU TOU AGIOU The holy the house<br />
Ps 104:42 TOU LOGOU TOU AGIOU The holy the word<br />
Acts 4:30 TOU ONOMATOS TOU AGIOU The holy the name<br />
Acts 6:13 TOU TOPOU TOU AGIOU The holy the place<br />
Rev 21:2 THN POLIN THN AGIAN The holy the city<br />
Rev 21:10 THN POLIN THN AGIAN The holy the city<br />
Rev 22:19 THS POLEWS THS AGIAS The holy the city<br />
As we see, this is quite a stretch, for no one would really consider the above instances examples of<br />
something stressing the character of the Person.<br />
More on this at page 2.<br />
LB: Oh come on, how can a force be grieved? It has to be a person.<br />
Reply: According to Scripture an inanimate force can be grieved.<br />
2Ki. 13:21: "but he did not grieve (ELUPHSE) the spirit of his son Ammon." LXX Did Ammon have<br />
another part of his essence/substance that was grieved?<br />
Job 31:39: "If too I grieved (ELUPHSA) the heart of the owner of the soil." And, Lam.1:22: "My heart is<br />
grieved (LUPEITAI)." LXX<br />
Esau's pagan wives were "a bitterness of spirit" to Isaac and Rebekah.(Gen. 26:35) Young, Rotherham,<br />
KJV mg.<br />
Additionally, other *things* are said to have *emotions*: "hearts" (Job 31:39, Lam.1:22), "God's name"<br />
(Lev. 24:11), "nations" (Isa. 23:12, LXX), "Armies" (1Ki. 17:10 Al.).<br />
From an opposer:<br />
2 Cor 13:14, "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy<br />
Spirit be with you all."<br />
Are you upset because this verse wasn't included in the beginning of the lettter, but rather the end?<br />
How does a JW read this verse and have fellowship with an "active force"?<br />
Reply: "Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee?" Ps 94:20<br />
"what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with<br />
darkness?" 2 Cor 6:14<br />
"have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Eph 5:11<br />
Obviously, it is Biblically possible to have FELLOWSHIP with impersonal things.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/spirit.htm (7 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:48:58 AM]
Online Reply to a Letter on the Holy Spirit-Active Force or Third Person of the Trinity?<br />
Email Me<br />
For more go to: http://members.aol.com/hector3001/spiritresearch.htm<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/spirit.htm (8 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:48:58 AM]
A Response to Guy Bearman, and his attack on my person<br />
More on the Spirit, and Quoting-A Response to<br />
Accusations by Guy Bearman<br />
The purpose of this page is to address certain accusations made in public against me recently by Guy<br />
Bearman, concerning my use of quotes and the personality of the holy spirit, and in so doing I hope to<br />
demonstrate the poor reasoning that seems to follow:<br />
As posted elsewhere...<br />
Punkish/Guy did bring something interesting to my attention that Vine's uses to promote the personality<br />
of the holy spirit. "The full title with the article before both pneuma and hagios..."the Spirit the Holy,"<br />
stresses the character of the Person, e.g., Matt. 12:32; Mark 3:29..."<br />
But is this really so? I collected these examples from the LXX and the Greek NT:<br />
Dan 9:20 TOU OROUS TOU AGIOU The holy the mountain<br />
Ex 26:33 ANA MESON TOU AGIOU KAI ANA MESON TOU AGIOU The holy place and the holy<br />
place<br />
Is 63:15 TOU OIKOU TOU AGIOU The holy the house<br />
Ps 104:42 TOU LOGOU TOU AGIOU The holy the word<br />
Acts 4:30 TOU ONOMATOS TOU AGIOU The holy the name<br />
Acts 6:13 TOU TOPOU TOU AGIOU The holy the place<br />
Rev 21:2 THN POLIN THN AGIAN The holy the city<br />
Rev 21:10 THN POLIN THN AGIAN The holy the city<br />
Rev 22:19 THS POLEWS THS AGIAS The holy the city<br />
As we see, this is quite a stretch, for no one would really consider the above instances examples of<br />
something stressing the character of the Person.<br />
Replied by Guy, in my absence, on another board:<br />
> Guy> (minor point) I've dropped the moniker<br />
> "Punkish" since this was posted<br />
> on Heinz's site. To be honest, I didn't see the<br />
> point in responding. But<br />
> since he wishes to misrepresent the discussions and<br />
> his own website (!) I<br />
> will respond. Yes, the primary meaning of "spirit"<br />
> is "breath" and doesn't<br />
> have a person attached to it (in terms of wind -<br />
> this is the exception: a<br />
> person breathes, while you would not call the breath<br />
> itself a "person",<br />
> humanly speaking.) In the case above, we are<br />
> discussing God. Heinz's reply<br />
> changes the focus from spirit to created things. The<br />
> divine Spirit is not a<br />
> thing (Hebr 9:14) That's a red herring, folks.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/guy.htm (1 of 9) [5/25/2003 3:49:14 AM]
A Response to Guy Bearman, and his attack on my person<br />
> Observe how he does not deal<br />
> with the quoted verses first (eg Mark 3:29) That is<br />
> not exegesis.<br />
><br />
Reply: The point of Vine's bringing up verses, like Mark 3:29, was that this, plus the others mentioned,<br />
was to prove that the resumptive use of the article (Mark 3:29 has TO PNEUMA TO hAGION) "stresses<br />
the character of the person." Vine's was using this to prove that the holy spirit is a person. My list showed<br />
that the resumptive use of the article does nothing of the kind. I finally realized that don't you fully<br />
understand many of these arguments. In fact, I find that when discussions turn technical, you become<br />
quiet, or feel the need to leave due to illness, only to see you pop up elsewhere. Perhaps this is all beyond<br />
you?<br />
> If we look up the meaning of "holy" (Vine's complete<br />
> Expository Dictionary<br />
> pp307-308) we find something interesting. In every<br />
> case, it defines the<br />
> calling, the being, or the practise of, a *person*<br />
> (with the exception of<br />
> 'things' ie that which is created, BUT the Holy<br />
> Spirit is eternal cf Hebr<br />
> 9:14 hence this is excluded) - as a separation to<br />
> God (something a person<br />
> does.) It is predicated of God, as the absolutely<br />
> Holy One, it is used of men<br />
> and things, in terms of consecration. (A thing<br />
> cannot consecrate itself, but<br />
> a person can, and can also consecrate things made -<br />
> yet the Spirit of the<br />
> LORD is not made.) Vine's lists the interesting<br />
> point that a `saint is the<br />
> temple of God figuratively - a temple is not a<br />
> person but a saint is! Why<br />
> didn't Heinz mention this?<br />
><br />
Reply: The question should be, "what is the point of mentioning this?" Despite the attempts at<br />
capitalization in some <strong>Bible</strong>s, Hebrews 9:14 does not refer to THE holy spirit, the third person of God.<br />
Of Hebrews 9:14, Vincent's Word Study says:<br />
"Heb 9:14 -<br />
Through the eternal spirit DIA PHEUMATOS AIWNIOU. For the rend. an. through = by<br />
virtue of. *Not the Holy Spirit*, who is never so designated, but Christ's own human spirit:<br />
the higher element of Christ's being in his human life, which was charged with the eternal<br />
principle of the divine life. Comp. Rom_1:4; 1Co_15:45; 1Pe_3:18; Heb_7:16. This is the<br />
key to the doctrine of Christ's sacrifice. The significance and value of his atonement lie in<br />
the personal quality and motive of Christ himself which are back of the sacrificial act."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/guy.htm (2 of 9) [5/25/2003 3:49:14 AM]
A Response to Guy Bearman, and his attack on my person<br />
Robertson's Word Pictures adds:<br />
"Through the eternal Spirit (dia pneumatos aioniou). *Not the Holy Spirit*, but Christs own<br />
spirit which is eternal as he is. There is thus a moral quality in the blood of Christ not in that<br />
of other sacrifices."<br />
The New American <strong>Bible</strong> also says at Hebrews 9:14, "this expression does not refer either to the holy<br />
Spirit or to the divine nature of Christ."<br />
The anarthrous PNEUMATOS is not referring to an individual here, but has a spiritual significance (See<br />
PNEUMATOS in Perschbacker's Analytical Lexicon).<br />
This is why the CEV has at Heb. 9:14:<br />
"But Christ was sinless, and he offered himself as an eternal and spiritual sacrifice to God.<br />
That's why his blood is much more powerful and makes our consciences clear."<br />
It does not even mention the Spirit here.<br />
Nothing else you have written above proves anything else either, as it really does not make any sense.<br />
> Vine's does continue to list things similar to<br />
> Heinz's list but this is<br />
> secondary in meaning. (eg "the holy place"). Why has<br />
> Heinz begged the<br />
> question here? He pre-assumes that the Holy Spirit<br />
> is not a person, then<br />
> applies this to the definitions.<br />
><br />
Reply: Again, I really don't think you understand the issue here. Vine's claim was that the resumptive use<br />
of the article, as in "the Spirit the Holy" was proof of personality. "The holy place" he mentions on page<br />
307 was not an example of this, in fact, in his list it was often anarthrous. It was not a parallel to my<br />
examples above, which actually DO destroy this theory.<br />
> We must also look at HOW the Holy Spirit acts in<br />
> Scripture, not just the<br />
> basic meaning. We find the Spirit does things (Gen<br />
> 1:2, Job 33:4) related to<br />
> creation, and resurrection (Romans 8:11) and<br />
> salvation (conversion, John 3)<br />
> we find we can act towards the Spirit and He reacts<br />
> (eg grief, blasphemy)<br />
> that would not be relevant if the Spirit was a<br />
> non-person (how would a<br />
> non-person be blasphemed/grieved and know it was,<br />
> and react accordingly??? cf<br />
> Mark 3:29). Finally, Heinz has at least one thing<br />
> wrong in his list - (most<br />
> of this list is irrelevant) do JWs check up on what<br />
> apologists write or not?<br />
> (In case someone checked the list, Psalm 104 is<br />
> Psalm 105 in modern bibles.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/guy.htm (3 of 9) [5/25/2003 3:49:14 AM]
A Response to Guy Bearman, and his attack on my person<br />
> This is specific to the Septuagint or LXX)<br />
><br />
Reply: But sir, I was quoting the LXX. It would be nonsense for me to point someone to a Scripture in<br />
the LXX text that was one chapter away. This however demonstrates the level of Guy's accusations, time<br />
and again. Most of his counter-points should not even be qualified with a reply.<br />
The Spirit is involved in creation, but Genesis 1:2 and Job 33:4 do not help you. Genesis 1:2 says<br />
"a mighty wind swept over the waters." New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"a divine wind sweeping over the waters." New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"and the power of God was moving over the water." Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
Job 33:4 actually uses God's spirit as a parallel to "the breath of the Almighty." It is like a worker using<br />
electricity to perform powerful deeds. This does not make the electricity a person though, does it?<br />
"The Spirit brooding over the primeval waters (Gn. 1:2) and creating man (Gn. 2:7), the<br />
Spirit who garnishes the heavens (Jb 26:13), sustains animal life and renews the face of the<br />
earth (Ps. 54:30), is the ruah ('breath,' 'wind') of God, the outgoing divine energy and<br />
power." The New <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary, J. D. Douglas (1962), page 531.<br />
Thanks to the poetic structure of the semitic language, inanimate things are often given personality, like<br />
Death, Sin, blood, etc. This though, does not make them persons.<br />
Let me give an example here. Literally, Ezra 1:1 speaks of the "spirit of Cyrus." Yet, the New<br />
International Version uses the expression "the heart of Cyrus" instead. We can do the same thing in<br />
relation to God's spirit. If the spirit was grieved, it was actually God feeling bad, his heart was made<br />
heavy with sorrow.<br />
At Daniel 7:15, Daniel was grieved in his spirit (KJV), yet the New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> simply says that he<br />
was "deeply disturbed."<br />
Also Isaiah 54:6 has "grieved in spirit" (KJV) where the NJB simply has "grief-stricken."<br />
And "his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel" (KJV) simply means "could bear Israel's suffering no<br />
longer." NJB Judges 10:16<br />
"Why is thy heart grieved" (KJV) simply means "Why are you so sad." NJB 1 Samuel 1:8<br />
As a parallel to this, God's heart can also be grieved:<br />
"It repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."<br />
Genesis 6:6 ASV (See also 1 Samuel 2:33; Ezek. 13:22)<br />
The heart can be grieved, the spirit can be grieved, the heart can also be happy (Judges 18:20), glad (Eccl<br />
7:3), upright (Job 33:3), it can rejoice (Proverbs 23:16) etc., yet despite these personal emotions, no one<br />
would say that the heart is a person. Besides meaning "power" and "breath," spirit can also point to our<br />
dispositions and temperament, as was the case with King Cyrus.<br />
><br />
> Guy> The fact is, Heinz has been shown again and<br />
> again what is wrong with his<br />
> website, and while correcting broken links he won't<br />
> correct things factually<br />
> wrong.<br />
Reply: Guy has never actually corrected anything, besides typos and broken links though. Guy suffers<br />
from a superiority complex in thinking that he is always right, and I am always wrong. I believe that Guy<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/guy.htm (4 of 9) [5/25/2003 3:49:14 AM]
A Response to Guy Bearman, and his attack on my person<br />
is sincere, but he is not actually aware of his own arrogance, something we see alot of in JW-bashers.<br />
Guy> For instance, he uses Buzzard - who does not<br />
> believe in the pre<br />
> existance of Christ - as a means of *arguing* His<br />
> pre existance! He also<br />
> admits Buzzard is 'bad' ie his arguments are, so why<br />
> use them at all?<br />
Reply: Well, let us nip this in the bud, once and for all. Here is how this went down.<br />
Back about Feb 2002, Guy wrote:<br />
"For instance, on your page you sometimes quote the<br />
unitarian Buzzard (eg on Proverbs 8, as part of your John 1.1 page),<br />
and I've pointed that out to you on AOL that he denies the preexistance<br />
of Christ, and have you removed these quotes? How about the<br />
previous debate we had, where I asked for Colwell's definition<br />
of "definite" and you give one closer to what Professor BeDuhn says<br />
(who seems to deny the personality of the pre existant Word), and a<br />
reading of Colwell (from the quotes given by Harner!) disagrees with<br />
what you wrote! Please, Heinz, how convincing is this?<br />
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BiblicalChristianity/message/994<br />
And then from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BiblicalChristianity/message/1016<br />
"Punkish> This is amazing. Buzzard doesn't believe in the pre<br />
existance of Christ. In order for your argument to be parallel,<br />
Heinz, Paul would have had to quote an atheist. How can you use<br />
Buzzard as the MEANS of your argument *defending* the pre-existance<br />
of Christ?"<br />
Now, I did not want to have to do this, but you leave me no choice here. My use of Buzzard's quote on<br />
my John 1:1 page was NOT about pre-existence at all. I have never even mention pre-existence in any<br />
argument on this page. It was not for this purpose at all. I used Buzzard's paraphrase of John 1:1, as I<br />
used many other renditions of this verse, including many of whom I do not even agree with. You simply<br />
set up a straw man, only to knock it down and claim victory for yourself. I was embarrassed for you then,<br />
I am embarrassed for you now. Time after time you have brought things up that are completely irrelevant<br />
to anything being discussed. Again, you have shown yourself inept at handling yourself here, including<br />
your reference to Colwell, of which you simply do not understand complicated things. You "asked for<br />
Colwell's definition<br />
of 'definite'."<br />
Colwell does not give a *definition of "definite".*<br />
He doesn't need to. If you don't know what "definite" is before you read his article, then you are not<br />
going to get anything out of it anyways. I am constantly puzzled as to why you bring these things up, and<br />
this only hastened my departure from your group. Instead of educating yourself further in these matters,<br />
here you are, 8 months later, claiming victory over a battle that only existed in your mind. That is one<br />
cheaply bought trophy.<br />
As for your hangup on JW's quoting anyone, I do not however have to agree with anyone in toto to quote<br />
them in certain aspects. To demand such holds me to a standard that is not required of anyone else.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/guy.htm (5 of 9) [5/25/2003 3:49:14 AM]
A Response to Guy Bearman, and his attack on my person<br />
Does the Apostle Paul, though quoting the pagan Aratus, agree with him totally (see Acts 17:28)?<br />
To demonstrate how inept your reasoning is, you replied in our Buzzard posts:<br />
>>Yes, Aratus did share a _similar_ worldview to Paul - they both<br />
believed God exists!
A Response to Guy Bearman, and his attack on my person<br />
would in reading the <strong>Bible</strong> itself. As we noted regarding Rule of Thumb 20, scholars have<br />
prejudices like everyone else, and these prejudices can color their understanding of certain<br />
biblical texts in a way that the weight of the evidence will prove to be wrong."<br />
What They Don't Tell You-A Survivor's Guide to Biblical Studies, pp. 128, 129, under the heading,<br />
"RULE OF THUMB 24: While a scholar may be correct on some matters, this does not mean he is<br />
correct on all matters."<br />
Scholar Edgar Foster puts it succintly and to the point:<br />
"By saying certain scholars or theologians corroborate the Witness view, I do not mean to<br />
imply that theologians discussed in this work consciously agree with Jehovahs Witnesses or<br />
even purposely do so. Nor do I think that these thinkers share the same Weltanschauung as<br />
that of Jehovahs Witnesses. This type of consensus is neither realistic nor necessary. Those<br />
who expect Jehovahs Witnesses to only cite authorities who agree in toto with the<br />
Witnesses are<br />
manifesting a unique form of bias that is not shown toward more orthodox writers."<br />
See http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/christology.htm<br />
I will finish off with a quote from E.H. Broadbent where the much beloved group, the Waldenses and the<br />
Albigenses, did the same thing<br />
"They considered that in all times and in all forms of churches there were enlightened men<br />
of god. They therefore made use of the writings of Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom,<br />
Bernard of Clairvaux and others, not accepting, however, all they wrote, but only that<br />
which corresponded with the older, purer teaching of Scripture." The Pilgrim Church, p.120<br />
Oh, and BTW, I do promote Anthony Buzzard's books on my website, and I consider him a friend,<br />
without having to agree with him 100%.<br />
Big<br />
> words, no action! From someone who abandons<br />
> discussions on the AOL message<br />
> board? Not once, but twice! I have many witnesses<br />
> to this.<br />
Reply: Am I married to the AOL board? I will abandon any board that is lacking in intelligence.<br />
For instance, here is one post, which, like many others, was simply copied and pasted from another site at<br />
http://gwest59.tripod.com/ChristIsLord/id28.html<br />
Subject: Re: THE BIBLE VS THE WATCHTOWER<br />
Date: 11/18/2001 12:44 PM Pacific Standard Time<br />
From: Hector3001<br />
Message-id: <br />
http://gwest59.tripod.com/ChristIsLord/id28.html<br />
>>The sentences in italics are quotes from the website
A Response to Guy Bearman, and his attack on my person<br />
Reply: Lie #1. I cannot find this this quote in my RFTS on page 205. It actually says, "A key factor is<br />
that the Witnesses really believe that the <strong>Bible</strong> is God's Word and that what it contains is there for our<br />
instruction. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11) So they do not resort to philosophical arguments<br />
to evade its clear statements of truth or to justify the way of life of people who have abandoned its moral<br />
standards."<br />
RFTS pages 328, 332-33;<br />
"Scripture alone is insufficient in learning the things of God."<br />
Reply: Lie#2: Again, this quote does not exist. What it really says: "The <strong>Bible</strong> tells about a man who<br />
held a prominent position but who was humble enough to acknowledge his need for help in<br />
understanding <strong>Bible</strong> prophecy. That help was provided by a member of the Christian congregation.-Acts<br />
8:26-38; compare other<br />
references to Philip in Acts 6:1-6; 8:5-17.<br />
Of course, if a person reads the <strong>Bible</strong> but does not apply it in his life, it does him little good. If he<br />
believes it and acts on it, he will associate with God's servants in regular congregation meetings. (Heb.<br />
10:24, 25) He will also join with them in sharing the "good news" with other people.-1 Cor. 9:16; Mark<br />
13:10; Matt. 28:19, 20."<br />
RFTS page 328;<br />
"Without the Watchtower Society and its vast literature, people are incapable of ascertaining the true<br />
meaning of the Scripture."<br />
Reply: Lie #3: This quote does not exist here.<br />
RFTS page 328;<br />
"People are not to think for themselves in interpreting Scripture. They are to submit their minds to the<br />
Watchtower Society."<br />
Reply: Lie#4, this quote does not exist.<br />
RFTS pages 194-95;<br />
"References to the Father in the New Testament Should be denoted as "Jehovah"<br />
Reply: Another quote that does not exist here.<br />
RFTS pages 408-09;<br />
"Christ was the "firstborn of all creation" and was created billions of years ago."<br />
Reply: Lie #5: This quote does not exist here.<br />
RFTS page 218;<br />
"Christ was created as the Archangel Michael."<br />
Reply: Lie#6, it does not say this here, but for more, go to<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wilson.htm<br />
RFTS 408-09;<br />
"It was through this angel (Christ) that all other things in the universe were created."<br />
Reply: Lie # (I am actually losing count:)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/guy.htm (8 of 9) [5/25/2003 3:49:14 AM]
A Response to Guy Bearman, and his attack on my person<br />
It does not say this here.<br />
So tell me Guy, why would I persist amongst such slanderous evil? Why is lying promoted and even<br />
celebrated amongst your precious AOL group? Does the end really justify the means? Satan is happy<br />
with people like this (John 8:44), so why should I cast pearls before his swine? Oh, that is not to say I<br />
might "slum" from time to time, but eventually, we are judged by the company we keep.<br />
Finally:<br />
Guy: He also knows I'm unwell continually, so why he<br />
> assumes I'm up to creating a<br />
> webpage is beyond me. I'll try though. I have<br />
> 'threatened' to expose his<br />
> arguments and have done so.<br />
Reply: You are extremely active for someone who is "unwell continually." You are on the AOL boards,<br />
you were co-moderator of Biblical Christianity when I left, you are now one of the moderators of another<br />
WatchtowerTheology board, you are on the JohnOneOne board, Mona Clark's board, and now evidently,<br />
the Jehovah's Witnesses Gathering board. And who knows how many other boards. Guy, your words run<br />
hollow to me as you are the most active continually unwell person I know. If there is a will, there is a<br />
way. Or perhaps, you lack the Spirit to do so.<br />
In the meantime, don't prop yourself up at my expense in public. Other than this page, I don't talk about<br />
you....ever.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/guy.htm (9 of 9) [5/25/2003 3:49:14 AM]
Wedding Traditions and Birthdays-Examining their Origins<br />
Pagan Wedding and Birthday Traditions-Can They Be<br />
Compared?<br />
An Examination of this topic as introduced by Greg Stafford in his book, "Three Dissertations on the Teachings of<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses"<br />
The booklet The Facts on Halloween, pp. 8, 17 says: "Since Halloween itself originated with paganism, it is hardly<br />
surprising that is customs are related to pagan belief."<br />
It then breaks down certain Halloween practices steeped in paganism that seem to parallel those of the practices<br />
surrounding the celebration of Jesus' birth (the involvement of the Druids, the worship of the Sun-God). Later, this<br />
publication states,<br />
"Based on our discussion to date, we can see that Halloween symbolism and activities today, although<br />
technically removed from their ancient practices, nevertheless retain the underlying associations for<br />
which they were intended. In other words, the very act of dressing or costuming oneself heralds back to<br />
the original purpose for which this was done...Can we truly align ourselves innocently with something<br />
traditionally and currently involved with the occult and be certain we will never be affected in any<br />
manner? In other words, in merely participating in Halloween, are we ignorantly skirting the<br />
territory of the devil?" [Emphasis mine]<br />
If other nominal Christian groups and individuals, even ones normally hostile to Jehovah's Witnesses like Ankerberg<br />
and Weldon can find fault with the pagan sources of Halloween, should we not examine Birthdays for the same<br />
things, even if we celebrate them ignorantly? Can we also compare this the wedding customs that many Witnesses<br />
cherish. I will be examining these two areas and making comparisons over the next few pages. This exploration will<br />
also include an examination of some of the statements in a recent book by Greg Stafford entitled, "Three<br />
Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses."<br />
Greg Stafford points out that, while Jehovah's Witnesses are quick to point out that the pagan origins of celebrations<br />
such as Birthdays, he knows of "no Jehovah's Witness would even think twice about partaking of a wedding<br />
cake...the wearing of veils and wedding rings, customs that are surrounded by superstition"...and are "associated<br />
with pagan customs." Page 207<br />
First, I will point out the origins of Birthdays and its customs, which will then be followed by an examination of<br />
Wedding origins and its customs. The reader will be able to determine the difference, and appreciate the wisdom<br />
behind these decisions.<br />
As the Awake of 1981 12/22 12 states:<br />
"Does that mean that Christians cannot have anything to do with any custom that might have originated<br />
in false religious rites? No. A great many common practices may have had such origins. But when<br />
features of the custom, as carried over into modern-day practice, go contrary to <strong>Bible</strong> principles, then<br />
true Christians must conscientiously refuse to participate."<br />
Birthdays: Not until men first charted the stars thousands of years ago, and linked their fates with events in the sky,<br />
did personal birthdays down to the hour of birth become important. To know ones' moment of birth meant that a<br />
horoscope could be drawn up. The horoscope was considered critical to a good and happy life.<br />
"The keeping of birthday records was important in ancient times principally because a birth date was<br />
essential for the casting of a horoscope," The Lore of Birthdays, Ralph and Adelin Linton.<br />
Writes Linda Rannells Lewis in Birthdays, "Birthdays have been celebrated for thousands of years. In<br />
early civilizations, where the development of a calendar made an organized reckoning of birth dates<br />
possible, the horoscopes of ruling monarchs, their successors and rivals had to be cast with care and<br />
birthday omens meticulously examined, for the prospects of the mighty would affect the prospects of<br />
the entire society. By the time of Ptolemy V this practice was well established: 'Ptolemy, the ever<br />
living, the beloved of Ptah, the son of the two Brother-Gods, was born on the fifth day of the month<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/birthdays.htm (1 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:49:36 AM]
Wedding Traditions and Birthdays-Examining their Origins<br />
DIOS, and this day was, in consequence, the beginning of great prosperity and happiness of all living<br />
men and women" (p. 12).<br />
Ptolemy V was an ancient Egyptian king. It was common in his day for kings and rulers to have their horoscopes<br />
made by astrologers and their birthdays were considered very important omens of the future.<br />
Lewis continues, "In Egypt households of the same period birthdays were celebrated similarly. A part<br />
of the family budget was set aside to buy birthday garlands and animals for sacrifice, just as we might<br />
plan to spend a certain sum for balloons, party hats, and an ice cream cake" (pages 12-13).<br />
As with much that is new, the rich and prominent were the first to enjoy birthday celebrations. Egypt's<br />
Pharaohs ordered businesses to close on their birthdays and gave enormous feasts for their hundreds of<br />
servants. Cleopatra gave Antony a birthday dinner with gifts so plentiful that some party goers arrived<br />
poor and left wealthy.<br />
http://www.openhere.com/holidays/birthday/history.htm<br />
Celebrating of birthdays was common amongst neighboring pagan nations also, but it was completely foreign to the<br />
people of God.<br />
"The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of NT origin. The day of Christ's<br />
birth cannot be ascertained from the NT, or, indeed, from any other source. The fathers of the first three<br />
centuries do not speak of any special observance of the nativity."-Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological,<br />
and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1981 reprint), by John McClintock and James<br />
Strong, Volume II, page 276.<br />
"Of all the holy people in the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet<br />
on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day on<br />
which they were born into this world below."-The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1911), Volume<br />
X, page 709 (quoting Origen Adamantius of the third century).<br />
"Most of the Christmas customs now prevailing in Europe, or recorded from former times, are not<br />
genuine Christian customs, but heathen customs which have been absorbed or tolerated by the Church. .<br />
. . The Saturnalia in Rome provided the model for most of the merry customs of the Christmas<br />
time."-Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh, 1911), edited by James Hastings, Volume III,<br />
pages 608, 609.<br />
But, God inspired the prophet Jeremiah to write,<br />
"Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: Thus saith the LORD,<br />
LEARN NOT THE WAY OF THE HEATHEN, and be not dismayed at the signs of the heaven<br />
(astrology!); for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the CUSTOMS OF THE PEOPLE ARE<br />
VAIN..." (Jeremiah 10:1-3).<br />
Celebrating birthdays was a particularly Egyptian custom. God plainly commands His people,<br />
"YOU SHALL NOT COPY THE PRACTICES OF THE LAND OF EGYPT where you dwelt...nor<br />
shall you follow their laws" (Leviticus 18:3 New Jewish PS-Tanakh).<br />
Most of the customs God mentioned in Leviticus 18 were sexual practices common among the heathen, and<br />
common in the world around us, today. But verse 3 of this chapter, where God specifically says we are not to do<br />
"copy the practices of the land of EGYPT," clearly shows that the celebrations of BIRTHDAYS, so common in<br />
Egypt, was among the prohibitions stated by Jehovah God. As the Nelson Study <strong>Bible</strong> states here, the fear was that<br />
the "Israelites would be tempted to imitate the Canaanites physically, culturally, and religiously" as they had been<br />
when they were dominated by the Egyptians.<br />
Charles Ryrie adds here, "The standards of God's people were not to be dictated by the practices of Egypt or Canaan<br />
but by the Lord Himself." Ryrie Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NIV<br />
He then cross-references to Deut 18:9, which says, "When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do<br />
not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there." NIV<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/birthdays.htm (2 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:49:36 AM]
Wedding Traditions and Birthdays-Examining their Origins<br />
The Companion <strong>Bible</strong>, Rainbow Study <strong>Bible</strong> KJV, Life Application Study <strong>Bible</strong> NASB, New Inductive Study <strong>Bible</strong><br />
NASB, Hebrew-Greek Word Study, Prophecy Study <strong>Bible</strong>, The NASB Reference Edition <strong>Bible</strong>, Barnes Notes <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Commentary, New <strong>World</strong> Translation-Reference Edition, the NASB Study <strong>Bible</strong> (Zondervan) and the MacArthur<br />
Study <strong>Bible</strong> all cross-references Jeremiah 10:2 right back to Lev 18:3, as mentioned above:<br />
"After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do." Egypt, where birthdays comes from. The<br />
NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong> cross-references it with Lev 20:23 stop<br />
Ryrie's NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong> acknowledges my intent in using Jeremiah by stating that there is a three-fold contrast<br />
regarding idolatry, the first of which is as stated:<br />
"Heathen worship attached great importance to the sun, moon and stars."<br />
NAB, Jeremiah 10 footnote, "signs of the heavens: phenomena in the sky superstitiously regarded by the pagans as<br />
dire omens."<br />
REB Oxford Study <strong>Bible</strong>, under the heading, "The folly of idolatry and of other 'ways of the nations'", Jeremiah 10<br />
footnote, "'Omens' were connected with the prohibited worship of astral deities."<br />
NKJV Nelson Study <strong>Bible</strong>, Jeremiah 10 footnote, "The signs of heaven were astral deities (8:1-3)."<br />
RSV Oxford Annotated <strong>Bible</strong>, Jeremiah 10 footnote, "Signs of the heavens (eclipses, astrological observations)"<br />
Then too we have the disturbing connection of birthdays with human sacrifices. In 2Maccabees 6:7 there is the<br />
reference to the monthly celebration of the birthday of Antiochus IV, during which the Jews were forced to partake<br />
of the sacrifices. Josephus (Wars of the Jews, vii. 3. 1) refers to Titus’ celebration of his brother’s and father’s<br />
birthdays by slaughtering Jewish captives.<br />
Could this be why the celebration of Birthdays was shunned by God's people in <strong>Bible</strong> times?<br />
"The celebration of the anniversary of an individual's birth, though customary among the ancients, was<br />
originally frowned upon by the Christians," notes William S. Walsh in his book Curiosities of Popular<br />
Customs. Historian Walsh goes on to quote from early Christian writings on the subject, saying: "Thus<br />
Origen, in a homily on Leviticus xii 2, assures his hearers that 'none of the saints can be found who ever<br />
held a feast or a banquet upon his birthday, or rejoiced on the day when his son or his daughter was<br />
born. But sinners rejoice and make merry on such days."'<br />
"The annual celebration of a person's birth probably originated in Egypt, where the birthdays of rulers<br />
and gods were celebrated with feasts. The early Christians did not celebrate birthdays at all."<br />
Encyclopedia of Days<br />
http://www.shagtown.com/days/birthday.html<br />
"The ancient world of Egypt, Greece, Rome and Persia celebrated the birthdays of gods, kings, and<br />
nobles...Although the ancient Israelis kept records of the ages of their male citizens, there is no<br />
evidence that they had any festivities on the anniversary of the birth date" (Encyclopedia Americana<br />
1991).<br />
"Christians of the first century did not celebrate the festival honoring the birth of Jesus-for the same<br />
reason they honored no other birthday anniversary. It was the feeling at that time by all Christians that<br />
the celebration of all birthdays (even the Lord's) was a custom of the pagans." Dr. John C. McCollister's<br />
The Christian Book of Why<br />
To early Christians astrology was associated with Eastern religions, Roman Stoicism and the twisted thinking of the<br />
Gnostics. Christians wanted no part of that!<br />
But you may think, what is wrong with astrology and horoscopes? After all, many nominal Christians participate in<br />
this practice.<br />
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, 'All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to<br />
Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to ‘unveil’ the future.<br />
Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of<br />
clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last<br />
analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/birthdays.htm (3 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:49:36 AM]
Wedding Traditions and Birthdays-Examining their Origins<br />
respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone' (CCC 2116).<br />
The pagan world was dominated by belief in astrology. Pagans believed that the stars were divinities, or<br />
that they were controlled by divinities. Apollo was the god of the sun, his sister Diana was the goddess<br />
of the moon, and the known planets were named after gods as well (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and<br />
Saturn). Because of this common pagan belief, the Old Testament contains repeated injunctions against<br />
star-worship (Deut. 4:19, 17:3; 2 Kgs. 17:16, 21:3–5, 23:4; Jer. 8:2, 19:12–13; Zeph. 1:4–6).<br />
In the New Testament age, astrologers taught that all things were in the grip of Fate, which could assign<br />
one destiny to one man and another destiny to another. Fate was extremely powerful and sometimes<br />
was even said to rule the gods. However, what destiny Fate would assign to a man could be determined<br />
by reading the stars.<br />
Today some Christians are influenced by revived paganism in the form of the New Age movement.<br />
Some even suggest that Christianity originally held many occult beliefs, such as astrology. But the early<br />
Christians, like the early Jews, were vehemently opposed to astrology, even attributing it to demonic<br />
origin.<br />
The Church Fathers were willing to impose strong sanctions against astrology to protect their flocks. In<br />
A.D. 120, the noted mathematician Aquila Ponticus was excommunicated from the Church at Rome for<br />
astrological heresies."<br />
From http://www.catholic.com/library/Astrology.asp<br />
Astrology cannot be combined with Christian belief in any way. It is condemned explicitly in the <strong>Bible</strong> (Isaiah.<br />
47:13-14), and implicitly in passages condemning divination and worshipping the heavens (Deut. 4:19, 17:3,<br />
18:9-12; 2 Kings 17:16; Jer. 10:2; Acts 7:42). Attributing special meaning to planetary positions honors celestial<br />
bodies over God and is a rejection of God's command to seek His advice (Is. 8:19-20; Dan. 2:27-28).<br />
Thus,<br />
"In the <strong>Bible</strong> there is no instance of birthday celebrations among the Jews themselves," points out<br />
M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopædia, adding: "In fact, the later Jews at least regarded birthday<br />
celebrations as parts of idolatrous worship."<br />
"The notion of a birthday festival was far from the ideas of the Christians of this period in general."<br />
[The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries (New York, 1848),<br />
Augustus Neander (translated by Henry John Rose), p. 190.] "The later Hebrews looked on the<br />
celebration of birthdays as a part of idolatrous worship, a view which would be abundantly confirmed<br />
by what they saw of the common observances associated with these days." [The Imperial<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>-Dictionary (London, 1874), edited by Patrick Fairbairn, Vol. I, p. 225.]<br />
Of course, astrology may not have been the only connection known to early Christians. Birthdays had strong<br />
connections with pagan religions that are less noticeable today.<br />
"The custom of commemorating the day of birth is connected . . . in its content, with certain primitive<br />
religious principles," Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.<br />
What principles?<br />
Spiritism, for one.<br />
http://www.birthdayexpress.com/bexpress/planning/BirthdayCelebrations.asp<br />
"History of Birthdays<br />
Before humans had a way of keeping time, no one paid much attention to the anniversary of important<br />
events, such as birthdays. Only when ancient peoples began taking notice of the moon's cycles, did they<br />
pay attention to the changing seasons and the pattern that repeated itself over and over. Eventually, the<br />
first calendars were formulated in order to mark time changes and other special days. From this<br />
tracking system came the ability to celebrate birthdays and other significant anniversaries the same day<br />
each year.<br />
Evidence of birthday observances dates back before the rise of Christianity. In pagan cultures, people<br />
feared evil spirits - especially on their birthdays. It was a common belief that evil spirits were more<br />
dangerous to a person when he or she experienced a change in their daily life, such as turning a year<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/birthdays.htm (4 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:49:36 AM]
Wedding Traditions and Birthdays-Examining their Origins<br />
older. As a result, birthdays were merry occasions celebrated with family and friends, who surrounded<br />
the person of honor with laughter and joy in order to protect them from evil. Instead of gifts, most<br />
guests brought positive thoughts and happy wishes for the upcoming year. However, if well-wishers did<br />
bring gifts, it was considered an especially good influence for the birthday person."<br />
"The Greeks believed that everyone had a protective spirit or daemon who attended his birth and<br />
watched over him in life. This spirit had a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the<br />
individual was born. The Romans also subscribed to this idea. They called the spirit the genius. This<br />
notion was carried down in human belief and is reflected in the guardian angel, the fairy godmother and<br />
the patron saint."-The Lore of Birthdays,p. 8, by Ralph and Adelin Linton.<br />
"The various customs with which people today celebrate their birthdays have a long history. Their<br />
origins lie in the realm of magic and religion. The customs of offering congratulations, presenting gifts<br />
and celebrating - complete with lighted candles - in ancient times were meant to protect the birthday<br />
celebrant from the demons and to ensure his security for the coming year... Down to the fourth century,<br />
Christianity rejected the birthday celebration as a pagan custom." [Schwbische Zeitung, April 3/4,<br />
1981, p. 4.]<br />
If the Christians of the first-century refused to celebrate their own birthdays, it falls on us to follow that same<br />
pattern.<br />
True Christians should "fight on for the faith which once and for all God has given to his people." Jude 3 TEV<br />
These are the ones prophesied in Zephaniah 3:9, where Jehovah "will restore to the peoples a pure language." NKJV<br />
The Psalmist asks, "Who shall ascend into the hill of Jehovah? And who shall stand in his holy place?" The answer?<br />
"He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart." Psalm 24:3, 4, cf. Matthew 5:8<br />
Additionally, much that is taken for granted in birthday celebrations today retains the flavor of ancient religious<br />
rites.<br />
"The custom of lighted candles on the cakes started with the Greeks," say the Lintons. "Philochorus [an<br />
ancient Greek historian] records that on the sixth day of each month, the birthday of Artemis, [the<br />
fertility] goddess of the moon and the hunt, honey cakes round as the moon and lit with tapers were<br />
placed on the temple altars of this goddess."<br />
What do the candles mean?<br />
"Birthday candles, in folk belief, are endowed with special magic for granting wishes . . . Lighted tapers<br />
and sacrificial fires have had a special mystic significance ever since man first set up altars to his gods.<br />
The birthday candles are thus an honor and tribute to the birthday child and bring good fortune," notes<br />
the same source.<br />
How about the traditional greeting "Happy Birthday"? Says The Lore of Birthdays:<br />
"Birthday greetings and wishes for happiness are an intrinsic part of this holiday. . . . originally the idea<br />
was rooted in magic. The working of spells for good and evil is the chief usage of witchcraft. One is<br />
especially susceptible to such spells on his birthday, as one's personal spirits are about at the time. . . .<br />
Birthday greetings have power for good or ill because one is closer to the spirit world on this<br />
day."-Page 20.<br />
Birthdays play a major role even in modern Satanism.<br />
The Satanic <strong>Bible</strong> (Anton Szandor LaVey, (Air) Book of Lucifer – The Enlightenment, Avon Books, 1969, Ch XI,<br />
Religious Holidays, p. 96) has the following to say about Birthdays:<br />
‘Why not really be honest and if you are going to create a god in your image, why not create that god as<br />
yourself." Every man is a god if he chooses to recognize himself as one. So, the Satanist celebrates his<br />
own birthday as the most important holiday of the year. After all, aren’t you happier about the fact that<br />
you were born than you are about the birth of someone you have never even met? Or for that matter,<br />
aside from religious holidays, why pay higher tribute to the birthday of a president or to a date in<br />
history than we do to the day we were brought into this greatest of all worlds?<br />
Despite the fact that some of us may not have been wanted, or at least were not particularly planned,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/birthdays.htm (5 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:49:36 AM]
Wedding Traditions and Birthdays-Examining their Origins<br />
we’re glad, even if no one else is, that we’re here! You should give yourself a pat on the back, buy<br />
yourself whatever you want, treat yourself like the king (or god) that you are, and generally<br />
celebrate your birthday with as much pomp and ceremony as possible."<br />
"The birthday is the most important holiday a member of the Church of Satan can celebrate, as outlined<br />
by Anton Szandors LaVey in The Satanic <strong>Bible</strong>. Satanists believe that the most important being is<br />
themselves, so the day when they first breathe is the best day among all others." Exquisitor<br />
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Birthday<br />
What did Satan tell Eve? "You will be like God!" Gen. 3:5 NRSV<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses have long recognized the selfishness behind celebrating birthdays:<br />
"Additionally, birthday celebrations tend to give excessive importance to an individual, no doubt one<br />
reason why early Christians shunned them. (Ecclesiastes 7:1)" sj 17-18<br />
"A birthday party, however, is a day set aside regularly, each year, to honor a human. Could not such a<br />
procedure easily result in excessive adulation of sinful creatures? (Rom. 3:23) When the apostle John<br />
fell down to worship before a sinless heavenly angel who had shown to John visions of future events,<br />
the angel cautioned: "Be careful! Do not do that! All I am is a fellow slave of you and of your brothers .<br />
. . Worship God." (Rev. 22:9) Are not we today even more inclined toward adulation of created<br />
persons?" Awake 76 7/8 27-8<br />
Satan also told Eve, "You surely will not die!" Genesis 3:4. Another lie.<br />
Commenting on Genesis 40:20, Dr. Adam Clarke observes:<br />
"The distinguishing [of] a birthday by a feast appears from this place to have been a very ancient<br />
custom. It probably had its origin from [the] notion of the immortality of the soul, as the<br />
commencement of life must appear of great consequence to that person who believed he was to live for<br />
ever."<br />
How much more evidence is needed before we completely discard this selfish and destructive practice?<br />
Some though, like Greg Stafford, have used the pagan background of certain wedding customs accepted by JW's as<br />
an allowance for the celebration of birthdays amongst Christians. But is this a fair comparison?<br />
Weddings:<br />
"In the same light, I know of no Jehovah's Witnesses who would think twice about partaking of a<br />
wedding cake even though this practice is associated pagan customs. In ancient times, the cake was a<br />
symboly of fertility. After the bread or cake was broken the bride was the first one to eat it, so as to<br />
preserve her fertility. Thereafter those partaking would do so as a gesture of 'good luck' for the married<br />
couple.... The same is true for the wearing of veils and wedding rings, customs that are surrounded by<br />
superstition. For example, the wearing of the ring on the third finger...of the left hand was done because<br />
ancient customs believed it had a vein running straight to the heart. In some ancient cultures the ring<br />
was also thought to protect its wearer from evil spirits...In ancient times veils of various colors,<br />
especially red and yellow were used to ward of evil spirits. The fact that this tradition is pagan in origin<br />
does not of itself make it unfit for Christians..." Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses, Greg Stafford, p. 207<br />
I have a few problems with the above statement, as it is used as a pretext to delve into the unscriptural celebrations<br />
of Birthdays, as mentioned above. For instance, are veils at weddings truly pagan in origin?<br />
Veils:<br />
Speaking of marriages in the <strong>Bible</strong>, the Harper-Collins <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary says:<br />
"The bride wore her finest clothes, many jewels (Isa. 61:10), and a veil (Gen. 29:23-25; Song of Sol.<br />
4:1)."<br />
The book, Insight on the Scriptures expands on this:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/birthdays.htm (6 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:49:36 AM]
Wedding Traditions and Birthdays-Examining their Origins<br />
"She decked herself with ornaments and jewels, if she was able to do so (Isa 49:18; 61:10; Re 21:2),<br />
and then covered herself with a light garment, a form of veil, that extended from head to foot. (Isa 3:19,<br />
23) This explains why Laban could so easily practice a deception on Jacob so that Jacob did not know<br />
that Laban was giving him Leah instead of Rachel. (Ge 29:23, 25) Rebekah put on a head covering<br />
when she approached to meet Isaac. (Ge 24:65) This symbolized the subjection of the bride to the<br />
bridegroom-to his authority.-1Co 11:5, 10."<br />
Pagan origin indeed?!<br />
While the yellow and red veils were worn to ward of evil spirits in pagan circles, we can hardly condemn them,<br />
especially as the <strong>Bible</strong> mentions them about 55 times. It simply has strong Biblical grounding:<br />
"Today, prior to a Jewish wedding ceremony, it is the groom who ritually "veils the bride". This reason<br />
for this tradition goes back to the marriage of Jacob to Leah (the older sister) when he thought he was<br />
marrying Rachel (the younger sister) whom he loved." HISTORICAL WEDDING TRADITIONS<br />
AND OTHER TRIVIA, 1997-2002, Kendricks Designer Images<br />
At best we have overlapping traditions, with the pagan custom not leading us to an occultic function or an heathen<br />
deity.<br />
We can thus dismiss veils as a pagan device in honor of any deity or custom deemed abominable in the <strong>Bible</strong>, and<br />
henceforth remove it as a comparison to birthdays.<br />
Rings: The <strong>Bible</strong> has little mention of rings, though Hosea 2, which is called the "most developed form" of "marital<br />
metaphor in the OT" [Eerdman's Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>, p. 200] describes the unfaithful Jewish bride as someone<br />
who "has decked herself with her ring and jewelry" [Hosea 2:13 NRSV, no less effective if it is a nose-ring or<br />
earring].<br />
Even if the <strong>Bible</strong> does not directly mention wedding rings, it is plain that Jehovah's servants could wear rings. (Job<br />
42:11, 12; Luke 15:22)<br />
It is true that, "the wearing of the ring on the third finger...of the left hand was done because ancient customs<br />
believed it had a vein running straight to the heart" but this is only one historical aspect of the ring.<br />
"THE ENGAGEMENT AND WEDDING RINGS<br />
Like the cake, the wedding ring also has its origins in early Roman times. During this period, Gold was<br />
a highly valued substance, and the wedding ring was made of gold as a symbol of eternal love and<br />
commitment. Some of these had a key carved onto them, as it was thought that the bride could use this<br />
to unlock her husband's heart. The engagement ring, however, has an entirely different history. In 860<br />
A.D, Pope Nicholas the first stated that a gold ring was to be the official statement of a couple's<br />
decision to marry. The gold was intended to signify the financial sacrifice on the part of the groom.<br />
This ring later became known as the 'engagement ring'. During the 15th century, it became tradition that<br />
the engagement ring should contain a diamond, as the diamond's hardiness was meant to symbolise that<br />
the bonds of marriage would last forever."<br />
http://www.bridalnet.com.au/tradition_01.htm<br />
That many ancients thought that the third finger was connected to the heart is true, but this was also a view held by<br />
physicians of the time. It might also be mentioned as a silly romantic notion, but I have yet to see evidence that this<br />
symbol of commitment had any strong religious association with a pagan deity or occult practice.<br />
From w72 p.63:<br />
"It is thus seen that the precise origin of the wedding ring is uncertain. Even if it were a fact that pagans<br />
first used wedding rings, would that rule such out for Christians? Not necessarily. Many of today's<br />
articles of clothing and aspects of life originated in pagan lands. The present time divisions of hours,<br />
minutes and seconds are based on an early Babylonian system. Yet, there is no objection to a Christian's<br />
using these time divisions, for one's doing so does not involve carrying on false religious practices."<br />
We can also dismiss rings as a pagan device in honor of any deity or custom deemed abominable in the <strong>Bible</strong>, and<br />
thereby removing it as a comparison to birthdays.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/birthdays.htm (7 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:49:36 AM]
Wedding Traditions and Birthdays-Examining their Origins<br />
Wedding Cakes: Wedding cakes were indeed used as a symbol of fertility, and many wedding traditions are full of<br />
fertility symbols. This is only to be expected, since this was the original divine purpose weddings, a view shared by<br />
pagans also.<br />
"God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.'" Gen 1:28<br />
The wedding cake traditions have of course changed over time:<br />
"The Ancient Romans would bake a cake made of wheat or barley and break it over the bride's head as<br />
a symbol of her fertility. It became tradition to pile up several small cakes, one on top of the other, as<br />
high as they could, and the bride and groom would kiss over the tower and try not to knock it down. If<br />
they were successful, it meant a lifetime of prosperity.<br />
This is of course a little different from the tradition of today, which was refined in the 17th century.<br />
In the 1660s, during the reign of King Charles II, a French chef was visiting London and observed the<br />
cake piling ceremony. Appalled at the haphazard manner in which the British stacked baked goods,<br />
often to have them tumble, he conceived the idea of transforming the mountain of bland biscuits into an<br />
iced, multi-tiered cake sensation."<br />
There are many references in the <strong>Bible</strong> of God's people eating cakes (1 Ki 17:13; 19:6; 2Ki 20:7 etc), but we can<br />
hardly compare this to certain wedding customs, such as throwing rice and the bridal toss, which would give glory to<br />
the "god of Good Luck" (Is 65:11 NWT). Weddings are festive occasions where food and wine are shared by all<br />
sorts of people, and this is how the Kingdom is described:<br />
Matt 22:2 "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son." NASB (cf.<br />
Matt 22:11)<br />
We certainly do not want to be compared to "the things that demons teach...men with seared consciences who forbid<br />
people to marry and insist on abstinence from certain kinds of food that God created." 1 Tim 4:3 Goodspeed<br />
The hope that a couple could conceive held a higher importance in <strong>Bible</strong> times as it does today. Barrenness was<br />
considered a social disgrace as children provided valuable security and were viewed as essential links to continue<br />
each family’s lineage and honor. Barrenness was so hated and spurned, it was often referred to as a curse. Hence, it<br />
is common to find fertility customs associated with certain wedding practices.<br />
That there is an overlap in some wedding customs and traditions was long recognized. In the Song of Solomon 3:11<br />
and Revelation 12:1 we have "crowns" used as part of the Biblical wedding imagery, yet this was also the case with<br />
pagans:<br />
"Marriage, too, decks the [pagan] bridegroom with its crown." Tertullian (c. 211, W), 3.101. [As quoted<br />
in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David W. Bercot, Editor]<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses have been careful to only partake in celebration, like weddings, that show a divine and Biblical<br />
origin, and to reject birthdays, as they bear origins leading back to pagan deities and occultic backgrounds. This has<br />
been the dividing line used. Though accepting weddings as a divine institution, they have even been careful to warn<br />
of certain customs, like rice-throwing and the bridal-toss, for fear of breaking the commandment at Exodus 20:3,<br />
and giving honor to the gods of good luck, such as the Aramean Gad, and the unknown god Meni. [See footnote<br />
Isaiah 65:11 in the New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>]<br />
While breaking cakes over the heads of the bride and groom may have signified "good luck," let's face it, no one<br />
really breaks cakes today.<br />
What many overlook is the importance that marriages and weddings play in the <strong>Bible</strong>, and how this compares to our<br />
relationship with the Creator.<br />
Consider the following from Smith's <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary:<br />
"The bridegroom prepared himself for the occasion by putting on a festive dress, and especially by<br />
placing on his head a handsome nuptial turban. (Psalms 45:8; Solomon 4:10,11) The bride was veiled.<br />
Her robes were white, (Revelation 19:8) and sometimes embroidered with gold thread, (Psalms<br />
45:13,14) and covered with perfumes! (Psalms 45:8) she was further decked out with jewels. (Isaiah<br />
49:18; 61:10; Revelation 21:2) When the fixed hour arrived, which was, generally late in the evening,<br />
the bridegroom set forth from his house, attended by his groomsmen (Authorized Version<br />
"companions," (Judges 14:11) "children of the bride-chamber," (Matthew 9:15) preceded by a band of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/birthdays.htm (8 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:49:36 AM]
Wedding Traditions and Birthdays-Examining their Origins<br />
musicians or singers, (Genesis 31:27; Jeremiah 7:34; 16:9) and accompanied by persons hearing<br />
flambeaux, (Jeremiah 25:10) 2 Esdr. 10:2; (Matthew 25:7; Revelation 18:23) and took the bride with<br />
the friends to his own house. At the house a feast was prepared, to which all the friends and neighbors<br />
were invited, (Genesis 29:22; Matthew 22:1-10; Luke 14:8; John 2:2) and the festivities were protracted<br />
for seven or even fourteen days. (Judges 14:12; Job 8:19) The guests were provided by the host with<br />
fitting robes, (Matthew 22:11) and the feast was enlivened with riddles, (Judges 14:12) and other<br />
amusements. The last act in the ceremonial was the conducting of the bride to the bridal chamber,<br />
(Judges 15:1; Joel 2:16) where a canopy was prepared. (Psalms 19:5; Joel 2:16) The bride was still<br />
completely veiled, so that the deception practiced on Jacob, (Genesis 29:23) was not difficult. A newly<br />
married man was exempt from military service, or from any public business which might draw him<br />
away from his home, for the space of a year, ( 24:5) a similar privilege was granted to him who was<br />
’betrothed. ( 20:7)"<br />
There is rejoicing, there is happiness, the festivities are long and are enjoyed by all. The same is true for those who<br />
have Jehovah as their husbandly owner (Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 3:14). God's relationship with his wife can be used as<br />
an example of the commitment and the adoration expected from a husband towards his wife. This relationship bears<br />
a typical connection to the inexhaustible love that God through Christ has towards those he calls his own (see Eph.<br />
3:18, 18). This theme is even better developed at Ephesians 5:21-27.<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses realize this relationship. For us, a celebration of the marriage union is a celebration of the<br />
family unit, and exemplifies our relationship with Jehovah God. Why, our first commercial in years was a<br />
celebration of the family (see http://www.jw-media.org/edu_videos/default.htm )<br />
The wedding celebration, with all its quirks, becomes a way for Jehovah's Witnesses to celebrate the family, to<br />
celebrate God's marital arrangement. It is a celebration of the US (and the hope of procreating more of US), not the<br />
ME. This makes it the anti-Satanism.<br />
Above all though, it is a celebration of LOVE.<br />
"Clothe yourselves with love, for it is a perfect bond of union." Col 3:14 NWT<br />
"Rejoice with the wife of your youth." Prov 5:18 NWT<br />
"A man's greatest treasure is his wife-she is a gift from the LORD." Proverbs 18:22 CEV<br />
We do not have this positive praise Biblically with the celebrations of birthdays, or the self. Rather, "It's selfish and<br />
stupid to think only of yourself and to sneer at people who have sense." Prov 18:1 CEV<br />
There is little that is positive to be associated with anything having to do with birthdays from a Biblical, common<br />
sense, historical, pagan and satanic perspective.<br />
A common objection to the above statement from many, including Mr. Stafford is, "who really makes any such<br />
association today?"<br />
Greg Stafford has been a great defender of the Divine Name "Jehovah" and would argue against the disappearance<br />
of the Name from public view. Yet, most people who purchase a <strong>Bible</strong> translation from the local store will more<br />
than likely either buy a New International Version, a King James Version, a New King James Version, a New<br />
Living Translation, a New American <strong>Bible</strong>, a New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong>, a New Revised Standard Version, a<br />
Good News Translation, a Contemporary English Version etc. All these <strong>Bible</strong>s have removed the Divine Name [the<br />
KJV has it a scant 4 times, at Ex. 6:3; Ps 83:18; Is. 12:2; 26:4] so it is fair to say that most people who own a <strong>Bible</strong><br />
today do not associate the name YHWH with the God of the Scriptures. Who really makes such an association<br />
today? This ignorance amounts to negligence on the part of translators and bespeaks of the apathy of those who are<br />
unwilling to investigate its origins.<br />
Ignorance may be bliss, but it should never be accomodated. The same goes for our investigations of certain<br />
customs.<br />
"Try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead expose<br />
them." Ephesians 8:10, 11<br />
"Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good." 3 John 11<br />
"Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." Romans 12:9<br />
"What harmony has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has<br />
the temple of God with idols? 2 Corinthians 6:15<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/birthdays.htm (9 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:49:36 AM]
Wedding Traditions and Birthdays-Examining their Origins<br />
(The Common Edition New Testament by Timothy E.Clontz)<br />
By Heinz Schmitz<br />
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br />
Addition: It should be noted that the same groups that do NOT make such association are not the mindset that we<br />
should be pandering to. Barna.org gives us an indication of their thought processes:<br />
http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=92&Reference=D<br />
"Given the statement "the <strong>Bible</strong> is totally accurate in all that it teaches," strong agreement with that<br />
view ranged from four out of five among those who attend a charismatic or Pentecostal church down to<br />
just one out of five Episcopalians. Nationally, less than half of all adults (41%) believe the <strong>Bible</strong> is<br />
totally accurate in all it teaches.<br />
Most Americans do not accept evangelism as a personal responsibility: only one-third (32%) claim they<br />
have an obligation to share their religious faith with those who believe differently. Acceptance of that<br />
responsibility was most widely adopted by those who attend Pentecostal churches (73%) and least<br />
widely accepted among Episcopalians (12%) and Catholics (17%).<br />
The notion that Satan, or the devil, is a real being who can influence people's lives is regarded as<br />
hogwash by most Americans. Only one-quarter (27%) strongly believes that Satan is real while a<br />
majority argues that he is merely a symbol of evil. Mormons are the group most likely to accept the<br />
reality of Satan's existence (59%) while Catholics, Episcopalians and Methodists are the least likely<br />
(just one-fifth)."<br />
http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PageCategory.asp?CategoryID=7<br />
"Almost two out of three adults (62%) know that the Book of Isaiah is in the Old Testament. One out of<br />
ten people (11%) believe it is in the New Testament. One out of four (27%) don’t know. (1994)<br />
12% of adults believe that the name of Noah’s wife was Joan of Arc. (The <strong>Bible</strong> does not provide her<br />
name.) (1997)<br />
One out of six people (16%) believe that one of the books in the New Testament is the Book of<br />
Thomas, written by the apostle Thomas. Another one-third of the population are not sure whether or not<br />
there is such a book in the New testament of the <strong>Bible</strong>. (1994)"<br />
http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PageCategory.asp?CategoryID=6<br />
"A majority of all born again Christians reject the existence of the Holy Spirit (52%). (2001)<br />
More than two out of every five adults (43%) believe that Jesus Christ lived on earth He committed<br />
sins. (2001)<br />
Across ethnicity, 46% of Hispanics, 43% of whites, and 38% of blacks agree with the idea that "when<br />
He lived on earth, Jesus Christ was human and committed sins, like other people." (2001)<br />
One out of four people (22%) believe that Jesus Christ never got married because he was a priest and<br />
priests did not marry. (1994)<br />
Nearly three out of five adults (58%) say that the devil, or Satan, is not a living being but is a symbol of<br />
evil. (2001)<br />
45% of born again Christians deny Satan's existence. (2001)<br />
Nearly seven out of ten Catholics (68%) say the devil is non-existent, compared to 60% of Protestant<br />
mainline church attenders, 51% of Baptists and 50% of Protestant non-mainline church attenders who<br />
agree that Satan is only a symbol of evil. (2001)<br />
Men emerge as slightly more likely than woman to believe that Satan is just a symbol of evil (61% to<br />
55%, respectively). (2001)"<br />
Why would you want to ingratiate ourselves to such an ignorant lot. The thing that separates Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
from other faiths is our need to "make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine." 1 Thess. 5:21<br />
I feel it is wrong to exploit the weaknesses of nominal xtianity to buttress our own position.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/birthdays.htm (10 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:49:37 AM]
Wedding Traditions and Birthdays-Examining their Origins<br />
Back to Home<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/birthdays.htm (11 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:49:37 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
A Reply to<br />
James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
at http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html<br />
and http://www.tektonics.org/jwsandjesus.html<br />
"My lord has wisdom like that of an angel of God-he knows everything that happens in the land." 2 Sam<br />
14:20 NIV<br />
Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the American Standard Version (ASV) 1901<br />
JPH: In order to support the traditional Christian view of the relationship of Jesus to the Father, we must<br />
understand the background for certain claims about the nature and identity of Jesus in the New Testament.<br />
Reply: Should we try to find support for the traditional [Trinitarian] view, or the view "which God<br />
entrusted to his people once and for all." Jude 3, NEB<br />
"Inasmuch as their individual salvation depends on holding faith, which involves receiving<br />
and believing Christian dogma, they find it very difficult to ask themselves how doctrine<br />
developed. If it developed historically, can it be what it must be in order to be a faith<br />
capable of saving us, the 'faith once delivered to the saints'?<br />
It is a simple and undeniable fact historical fact that several major doctrines that now<br />
seem central to the Christian faith-such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of<br />
the deity of Christ-were not present in a full and well-defined, generally accepted form<br />
until the fourth of fifth centuries. If they are essential today-as all of the orthodox creeds<br />
and confessions assert-it must be because they are true. If they are true, then they must<br />
always have been true; they cannot have become true in the fourth or fifth century. But if<br />
they are both true and essential, how can it be that the early church took centuries to<br />
formulate them?"<br />
Heresies, p. 20, by Harold O.J. Brown<br />
"The Christology of the apologies, like that of the New Testament, is essentially<br />
subordinationist. The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of the<br />
Old Testament. . . .What we find in these early authors, then, is not a doctrine of the Trinity.<br />
. . .Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinationist." Grant,<br />
Robert McQueen (b.1917-d.?). Gods and the One God. 1st ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster<br />
Press, c1986), pp. 109, 156, 160. BL785 .G69 1986 / 85-011443.<br />
Instead of a developed Catholic theology that Holding is clinging to desperately, would not the first<br />
realization of Christianity naturally be the best, as opposed to a later one that is tainted and<br />
homogenized?<br />
"It follows from this premise that any 'development' of Christianity must be seen as a decline." p. 68, The<br />
Real Jesus, Luke Timothy Johnson<br />
Starting with an incorrect a priori assumption is never a way one must conduct research.<br />
JPH: Proverbs 8:22-30 "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I<br />
was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was<br />
brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled,<br />
before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest<br />
part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the<br />
face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:<br />
When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed<br />
the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight,<br />
rejoicing always before him..."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (1 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
This passage is one of several in the Old Testament (see Ps. 58:10, 107:42; Job 11:14) in which abstract<br />
qualities are<br />
personified, following an Ancient Near Eastern tradition of personification. (Derek Kidner, The Wisdom of<br />
Proverbs, Job and<br />
Ecclesiastes, 44.) Here, and in other parts of Proverbs, Wisdom "makes claims for herself which are<br />
elsewhere made only by,<br />
or for, God."<br />
Reply: Here JPH quotes from the KJV. Another alternative rendering that must strongly be considered is<br />
from the Revised Standard Version:<br />
"The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I<br />
was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was<br />
brought forth ["I was born" New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>], when there were no springs abounding<br />
with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth ["I<br />
came to birth" NJB]; before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of<br />
the world. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face<br />
of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the<br />
deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his<br />
command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a<br />
master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always."<br />
Are these verses only personified abstract qualities? Let us take a look at JPH's proof-texts, starting with<br />
Ps 58:10:<br />
"Sooner than your pots can feel the heat of thorns, whether green or ablaze, may he sweep them away!"<br />
This verse, and the ones before them give examples of what some are likened to. I don't see<br />
personification here.<br />
Ps 107:42: "The upright see it and are glad; and all wickedness stops its mouth."<br />
Again, no personification here. It simply is another way of saying that "the wicked are stricken silent."<br />
NLT<br />
Job 11:14: "If iniquity is in your hand, put it far away, and let not wickedness dwell in your tents."<br />
Again, this is not really a parallel personification to Wisdom, is it? It basically means to "leave all<br />
iniquity behind you." NLT<br />
Where do we any of these supposed examples talking, as Wisdom does?<br />
Additionally, where does Wisdom make claims only reserved for God, if Wisdom is "created", "born"<br />
and given "birth" to?<br />
The Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole <strong>Bible</strong> Jamieson, Fausset, Brown<br />
"(1) Though described as with God, wisdom is not asserted to be God."<br />
JPH: I found Stafford a very amusing read in ways because although he has some hints about Wisdom, he<br />
doesn't see the connection and how it refutes his view of Jesus -- most likely because he has no view at all<br />
into the intertestamental literature that founded the "crucial conceptual category" that the NT writers put<br />
Jesus into. In this light, I found much of Stafford's material quite irrelevant. The question, "Is Jesus<br />
Jehovah?" doesn't require a yes or no answer from our side. Wisdom covers this -- Jesus may have been<br />
going around as "Jehovah" (Yahweh) at times in the OT, using that name in his pre-incarnate dealings, but<br />
Proverbs 8, as we show in the linked essay, would suggest that there isn't a one-to-one correspondence.<br />
Reply: I find Holding's review of Stafford's book *amusing*, as he absolutely ignores the EVIDENCE,<br />
and even misrepresents his findings. Why is the birth imagery in Stafford simply glossed over in JPH's<br />
article?<br />
In Ps 139:13 we have the psalmist saying that God "knit me together in my mother's womb." Job 10:11<br />
has Job saying to God "clothe me with skin and flesh, and weave me of bone and sinew."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (2 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
"The process of gestation in both cases is described metaphorically in terms of a craft.<br />
Furthermore, significantly for our structural study is the fact that in Ps 139:13 [qanah]<br />
parallels [sakhak, 'weave together'], which is the same situation we have here in Prov<br />
8:22-23. While the usual meaning of the root qanah is >>to buy or acquire,
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
Is Wisdom used only ONE WAY in the <strong>Bible</strong>? No (see below)! What does 2 Enoch 33:4 really say?<br />
"There is no counselor and no successor, only myself, eternal, not made by hands. My unchanging<br />
thought is (my ) counselor, and (my) word is my deed. And my eyes behold all things. If I turn my face<br />
away, then all falls into destruction; but if I look at it, then all is stable."<br />
There is no mention of Wisdom as advisor here at all! The closest mention of wisdom is the preceding<br />
verse where we have God using wisdom to write books.<br />
God here is not made by hands, yet Wisdom in Prov 8 is pictured as a handiwork of God.<br />
Wisdom was not His advisor, His thoughts were. The above should give one pause as to the lengths some<br />
people will go to, to buttress an errant theology.<br />
Though not mentioned in JPH's article, Bauckham then goes on to assert, according to 1 Enoch 84:2, 3,<br />
(and Wisdom 9:4, 10) that Wisdom is sitting besides God's throne, and that this is "not parallel to the<br />
depictions of exalted angels."<br />
Firstly, my copy of Enoch 84 says nothing of the kind, and it is described as difficult, as Bauckham's<br />
translation of it is stated as a scribal "emendation." [1 Enoch, A New Translation by E. Isaac] Secondly,<br />
Wisdom 9 is sufficient however as one sitting by God's throne, but Bauckham completely ignores Enoch<br />
3, where we have the "exalted" angel Metatron, "the lesser YHWH", contradicting this professor, as he<br />
has special privileges in relation to God's position, for he is the "Prince of the Divine Presence."<br />
See Footnote 2<br />
In line also with the Lamb sharing the throne of God (Rev 22:1, 3, cf. 1 Chron 29:23), Metatron also<br />
becomes enthroned (1 Enoch 55:4; 61:8; 62:1-5; 69:29; 3 Enoch 10:1-3; 16:1).<br />
But back to our subject, wisdom can have many connotations, but not in Prov 8:22-30.<br />
"The portrayal of Wisdom in 1.20-33 and ch. 8 is not the same as in the instructions. She is<br />
no longer spoken of in the third person, but is herself a speaker: apart from the short<br />
introductions which set the scene (1.20-21; 8:1-3). the whole of these two long poems<br />
consist of her words, which she delivers in public. Instead of being a shadowy if important<br />
figure, she now appears as a fully fledged character." The Composition of the Book of<br />
Proverbs, p. 35, R, N Whybray<br />
Following this we have "15 ways *wisdom* is used" according to Dake's Annotated <strong>Bible</strong>:<br />
1) Human education (Acts 7:22)<br />
2) Man's wisdom (1 Cor. 1:19-22; 2:1-13)<br />
3) Human philosophy and religion (Col. 2:23; 1 Cor. 3:19; 2 Cor. 1:12; Gal 1:14)<br />
4) Earthly, sensual, devilish wisdom (Jas. 3:14-16)<br />
5) Prophetic anointing (Lk. 11:49)<br />
6) Godly training (Lk. 2:40, 52)<br />
7) Anointing to speak (Lk. 21:15; Acts 6; 1 Cor. 2:7)<br />
8) Ministerial ability (Eph. 1:8, 17; 3:10; Col 1:19, 28)<br />
9) Christ the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24, 30; Col. 2:3; 3:16)<br />
10) Divine gift of wisdom (1 Cor. 12:8)<br />
11) Divine attribute of God (Rom. 11)<br />
12) Heavenly wisdom (Jas. 3:17-17, 33)<br />
13) Spirit of revelation (2 Pet. 3:15)<br />
14) Ability of Christ (Mt. 12:42; 13:54)<br />
15) Native insight (Rev. 13:18; 17:9)<br />
Again, it is unreasonable to think there was a time when God did not possess wisdom. He did not need to<br />
acquire it, or even aspects of it at a later time.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (4 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
JPH: A "created" interpretation of qanah is based on false suppositions. Note how qanah is used in other<br />
passages where the context admits no such meaning:<br />
Gen. 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have<br />
gotten a man from the LORD.<br />
Gen. 25:10 The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth: there was Abraham<br />
buried, and Sarah his wife.(cf. 33:19, 47:20, 50:13, where others qanah land, obviously not<br />
"creating" it)<br />
Lev. 25:15 According to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy<br />
neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee:<br />
1 Kings 16:24 And he bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver, and built<br />
on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built, after the name of Shemer, owner of<br />
the hill, Samaria.<br />
All of these should provivde substantial object lessons that merely quoting English versions is a hazardous<br />
exercise! Now that said, what of qanah? It is not "created"; the word for that is bara in the creation account.<br />
As noted, Vawter sees Wisdom as an "outside acquisition" of an independent being, a view neither<br />
Trinitarians nor JWs can accept. No one sees God getting Wisdom or Jesus on cash or credit! But there are<br />
cites that show that qanah is concerned with the "possession" aspect of the interchange process, rather than<br />
the "transaction" aspect:<br />
Gen. 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor<br />
of heaven and earth:<br />
Prov. 1:5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding<br />
shall attain unto wise counsels:<br />
Prov. 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my<br />
mouth.<br />
Clearly "wisdom" is not something we create or acquire from outside; we cultivate our own attributes from<br />
within.<br />
Reply: We do not create persons called Wisdom, because we are not creators. Jehovah, as being perfect<br />
in wisdom, has no need to cultivate it. Proverbs 4:5 parallels "wisdom" with "understanding," clearly the<br />
personified Wisdom is not referred to here. Holding's article also completely ignores the LXX translation<br />
of this word.<br />
The LXX (Septuagint), the very first translation of the Holy Scriptures, made several centuries before<br />
Christ, and was used by him and by the Apostles, had a variety of words it could have used for Qanah at<br />
Prov 8:22 [for instance KTAOMAI, LAMBANW, DECOMAI], but it settled on one. The Greek word<br />
for "Created" is EKTISEN (#2936). It is used at Mark 13:19; 1Tim 4:3 and Revelation 10:6. The<br />
Septuagint uses this word only once in Proverbs, and that is at chapter 8 verse 22. This is how this word<br />
(qanah) was understood by the Jews and early Christians in this verse.<br />
Bullinger states in his Companion <strong>Bible</strong>: "Heb. kanah. Occurs 86 times in O.T.; rendered 'possess' only<br />
four times...Sept. and Syr. render it 'created.'"<br />
From a footnote on the NET translation of Proverbs 8:22 found at www.bible.org:<br />
“There are two roots in Hebrew, one meaning ‘to possess,’ and the other meaning ‘to<br />
create.’ The older translations did not know of the second root, but suspected in certain<br />
places that a meaning like that was necessary (e.g., Genesis 4:1; 14:19; Deuteronomy 32:6).<br />
Ugaritic confirmed that it was indeed another root. The older versions have the translation<br />
‘possess’ because otherwise it sounds like God lacked wisdom and therefore created it at the<br />
beginning. They wanted to avoid saying that wisdom was not eternal. Arius liked the idea of<br />
Christ as the wisdom of God and so chose the translation ‘create.’ Athanasius translated it,<br />
‘constituted me as the head of creation.’ The verb occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (5 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
meaning of ‘to acquire’; but the Greek and the Syriac versions have the meaning ‘create.’<br />
Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses<br />
(‘appointed,’ ‘given birth’) argue for the translation of ‘create’ or ‘establish’ (R. N.<br />
Whybray, ‘Proverbs 8:22-31 and Its Supposed Prototypes,’VT 15 [1965]: 504-14; and W.<br />
A. Irwin, ‘Where Will Wisdom Be Found?’ JBL 80 [1961]: 133-42).” Many translators<br />
render qanahas “created.”.<br />
“Gesenius gives as the primary meaning of qanah: ‘to get, to gain, to obtain, to acquire.’ Davies gives it<br />
the meaning of ‘to form or make, to get or acquire, to gain or buy.’ Strong defines qanah as ‘to erect, i.e.,<br />
to create; by extension to procure, especially by purchase.’ ” —The Great Debate, by Robert Wagoner<br />
The following passages translate in the KJV, the word “qanah” as buy, bought or buyer.<br />
Gen. 25:10<br />
33:19<br />
39:1<br />
47:19,22,23<br />
49:30<br />
50:13<br />
Exodus 15:16<br />
21:2<br />
Leviticus 22:11<br />
25: 15,28,30,44,45,50<br />
27:24<br />
Deuteronomy 28:68<br />
32:6<br />
Joshua 24:32<br />
Ruth 4:4,5,9,10<br />
2 Samuel 12:3<br />
24:24<br />
1 Kings 16:24<br />
2 Kings 22:6<br />
1 Chron. 21:24<br />
Nehemiah 5:16<br />
Proverbs 20:14<br />
Ecclesiastes 2:7<br />
Isaiah 24:2<br />
43:24<br />
Jeremiah 13:2,4<br />
32:7,8,9,,15,25,43,44<br />
Ezekiel 7:12<br />
Zechariah 11:5<br />
13:5<br />
The following places render “qanah” as obtain, gained, get or gotten.<br />
Gen 4:1 (acquired, NJB)<br />
Psalms 74:2<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (6 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
78:54<br />
Proverbs 1:5 (acquire, NJB)<br />
4:5,7 (acquire, NJB)<br />
15:32<br />
16:16<br />
17:16 (buy, NJB)<br />
18:5, 22<br />
23:23 (purchase, NJB)<br />
Isaiah 11:11<br />
It is rendered as “cause” (making, Young's Literal) at Ezekiel 8:3<br />
It is rendered “redeemed”(bought, NIV) at Nehemiah 5:8<br />
It is rendered “possessed’ or “possessor” at:<br />
Genesis 14:19, 22 and Psalm 139:13<br />
As we can seen “qanah” always indicates something that was not previously possessed.<br />
C.F. Burney, in his article, stated:<br />
"[T]he verb kana [Burney's spelling] always seems to possess the sense ‘get, acquire’, never<br />
the sense ‘possess, own’ simply, apart from the idea of possessing something which has<br />
been acquired in one way or another. This clearly appears from examination of the<br />
usages of the verb in Hebrew, and through comparison of the cognate languages.…To this<br />
evidence for the Hebrew usage of the verb hnq it is important for our purpose to add the<br />
proper name Elkana, which can hardly mean anything else than ‘(He whom) God has<br />
begotten or created’….Whether kana here has the sense ‘beget’ or ‘create’ is<br />
ambiguous….In face of this evidence we must surely conclude that the ground-meaning of<br />
kana is that of acquiring something not previously possessed, which may be done by<br />
buying or making it, in the case of a child by begetting it, in the case of wisdom by<br />
accumulating it through mental application. (emphasis added)."<br />
Surely, to contend that Almighty God had to acquire wisdom by mental application, is at variance with<br />
the data given to us about Him in His Word.<br />
The Hebrew qanah as created can be viewed in passages like the following:<br />
Genesis 4:1: “And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, “I have<br />
gotten [qanah] a man with the help of Jehovah.”—ASV.<br />
Genesis 14:19: “[A]nd he [Melchizedek] blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High,<br />
Creator [qanah, margin, “or, Possessor”] of heaven and earth.”—NIV.<br />
Genesis 14:22: “But Abram said to the king of Sodom, ‘I have raised my hand to the LORD God Most<br />
High, Creator [qanah] of heaven and earth.”—NIV.<br />
Deuteronomy 32:6: “[I]s this the way you repay the LORD foolish and unwise people? Is he not your<br />
Father, your Creator [qanah, “he-created you”—The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament,<br />
John R. Kohlenberger III] who made and formed —NIV.<br />
JPH: Ecclesiasticus 1:1-4 All wisdom cometh from the Lord, and is with him for ever. The sand of the sea,<br />
and the drops of the rain, And the days of eternity who shall number? The height of the heaven and the<br />
breadth of the earth And the deep and wisdom, who shall search them out? Wisdom hath been created<br />
before all things, And the understanding of prudence from everlasting.<br />
The book of Ecclesiasticus was written by Jesus the son of Sirach in about 100 B.C. It describes Wisdom as<br />
having been "created before all things," as being "from everlasting" and as comparable to "the days of<br />
eternity." In this we are in harmony with the Trinitarian view of Jesus as created or generated by the Father<br />
eternally, that is, finding his source in the Father and having no existence apart from Him, yet also having<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (7 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
existed eternally as God does.<br />
Reply: There are several problems with the above. One, Wisdom is not said to be "from everlasting," in<br />
Ecclesiasticus, that statement was reserved for Prudence. This is also something we see in the<br />
Pseudepigrapha. In a note on the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, Edited by James H. Charlesworth, he<br />
states,<br />
"Special attention is given to Wisdom (sophia). Wisdom is personified and represented as<br />
the instrument of creation (3:19; 4:7, 38; 12:36). Wisdom is not eternal, however, since<br />
God is her father (4:38) and creator (5:3)."<br />
The Prayers cross-reference Prov 8:22.<br />
Two, even if it was, AIWN(ios)(a)(ion) here does not always mean "everlasting." It actually means<br />
"age," or "a long time."<br />
This is can be borne out by considering how other versions treat this. The Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> has at<br />
verse 4, "Wisdom was first of all created things, intelligent purpose has existed from the beginning." The<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> has, "Wisdom was created before everything, prudent understanding from remotest<br />
ages."<br />
JPH is echoing the same sentiment as Robert Bowman in his Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, p.<br />
61:<br />
"Thus [Proverbs] 8:23 says, 'From everlasting I was established...' (NASB); the phrase from<br />
everlasting is the same phrase used of God in Psalm 90:2, where the JW's recognize that<br />
God is being described as having no beginning."<br />
The problem here is that God is Creator in regards to everlasting [olam] (Isaiah 40:28).<br />
Everlasting/olam is used twice at Ps 90:2, whereas, elsewhere it is used only once for created beings. It is<br />
used of the forefathers (Joshua 24:2) and the prophets (Jer 28:8). The NASB tells us how the olam here<br />
should be used, if Bowman would only have completed the verse:<br />
"From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth." NASB<br />
Other versions of Proverbs 8:23 bear out the limitations in regards to olam where created beings are<br />
concerned:<br />
"From of old" New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"I was formed in earliest times." Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Ages ago" NRSV<br />
"I was made in the very beginning." TEV<br />
"In times long past" NEB etc<br />
Three, it is an oxymoron to say something is created, but has existed from all time. We have no Biblical<br />
parallel to compare this phenomenal contradiction with.<br />
Also ignored is the connection with Wisdom/Sophia and the connection with angels.<br />
Former Priest and author, Tom Harpur writes that Jewish wisdom literature at the time of Christ spoke of<br />
the descent and ascent of Wisdom:<br />
"..it is possible to say that the hypostasized Wisdom of late Jewish writing 'is an anonymous<br />
heavenly redeemer figure' very similar to those in both Greco-Roman and Christian thought.<br />
At the same time, Jewish theologizing about angels also made use of the descending and<br />
ascending pattern for figures of redemption. In Isaiah 63 it was the 'angel of [God's]<br />
presence' who 'saved' the Israelites-and 'in his love and pity...redeemed them.' Dozens of<br />
similar instances can be found throughout the Old Testament. Talbert also cites numerous<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (8 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
instances in extra-Biblical writings in which archangels descend in human form. Some of<br />
the language used of these angelic redeemers is actually paralleled in the fourth Gospel: in<br />
the Testament of Abraham, for example, the archangel comes down and tells the patriarch<br />
'everything which he has heard from the Most High,' while in another work an archangel,<br />
the 'firstborn of every creature,' descends to earth and 'tabernacles' among men. In all these<br />
writings there is the taking of bodily form, the successful struggle with evil, and the final<br />
ascent of the heavenly being. Moreover, in some cases the angel and Wisdom traditions<br />
merge with each other and with the concepts of the Logos and the first-born son...the<br />
themes of pre-existence, descent and glorious ascent are found in Philippians 2:6-10, and<br />
those of descent and exaltation in Romans 1:3-4, while in Galatians 4:4 there is a clear<br />
reference to Christ as an angel: 'You have received me as an angel of God, even as Christ<br />
Jesus.'In teaching about Christ as pre-existent, 'the image of the invisible God, the first-born<br />
of every creature [by whom] all things were created' (Col. 1:15), clearly Paul is describing<br />
not the historical Jesus whose profile we can discern, however dimly, in the Gospels, but<br />
with a figure cast in the Wisdom literature speculation-that is, with a mythological<br />
construct."<br />
For Christ's Sake, pp. 108, 109<br />
The mythological construct is in accord with JPH's acknowledgement that cultures also had their<br />
Wisdom traditions, and the Jews have borrowed this language (as they have with the words hades and<br />
tartarus) and made it their own.<br />
The Dictionary of Demons and Deities states, under Wisdom:<br />
"Philosophers such as the author of the Book of Wisdom took great care not to lose the<br />
mythological connection which made for good literature, and also attracted those who<br />
adopted a view of the divine world which retained its plurality while placing Israel's God at<br />
the top. Christians were no doubt indebted to a two-deity system which reckoned with a<br />
major god with whom a minor, mediating deity was associated. The minor deity could be<br />
identified as Yahweh (with El Elyon being the high god; Deut 32:8, 9 with note in BHS), as<br />
the Son of Man (Dan 7:13, 14) or as the archangel Michael (Dan 12:1). The old<br />
mythological tradition and the two-deity system helped early Christians in their attempt to<br />
define the nature and function of Christ."<br />
Even the suggestion that Wisdom is merely God's attribute does not provide a means of escape.<br />
Scholar Frances Young observes in talking of Wisdom,<br />
"Interestingly enough, some of the names of those concretely envisaged beings, the<br />
archangels, suggest the personification of divine attributes; Gabriel - might of God, Phanuel<br />
- face of God."<br />
From Two Roots or a Tangled Mass-The Myth of God Incarnate<br />
In a review of *Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence*, by Gieschen, the<br />
following comments are made:<br />
"Gieschen's conclusions are (1) that angelomorphic traditions "were profoundly employed in<br />
earliest extant expressions of Christology," (2) that Angel of the Lord traditions in<br />
particular were very important in contributing to the linking of angelomorphic figures<br />
intimately identified with YHWH (i.e., the Angel, the Glory, the Name, the Word,<br />
Wisdom) to the fleshly Jesus who had ascended and was now enthroned," (3) that early<br />
Christians combined various antecedent traditions in formulating their Christology, and (4)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (9 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
that traditions about the invisibility of God were important contributors to the development<br />
of angelomorphic traditions and to early Christology. Overall, Gieschen contends that<br />
angelomorphic traditions "were some of the oldest and most significant traditions that<br />
inspired the Christology which we now find in early Christian literature, including the New<br />
Testament." Indeed, Gieschen holds that "the central root" from which various early<br />
christological traditions developed (e.g., Wisdom/Spirit/Name/Glory/Son of<br />
Man/Image/Anthropos Christologies) is "the angelomorphic tradition in which the Angel of<br />
the Lord is God appearing in the form of a man.""<br />
http://www.bookreviews.org/Reviews/9004108408.html<br />
Metzger makes an interesting point:<br />
"The dividing line between Wisdom the woman and God can grow hazy. Without the<br />
introductory verses to Proverbs 1:22-33 one might easily assume that the speaker is not<br />
Wisdom but God! Theologians have observed that Wisdom functions as a mediator between<br />
God and humanity...Wisdom's mediating role may have answered a spiritual need earlier<br />
fulfilled by the king (see Ps. 72:1; 1 Kings 8:22-53)." Oxford Companion to the <strong>Bible</strong>,<br />
(under Wisdom)<br />
That Wisdom often looks indistinguishable from God is also echoed in other works that find it hard to<br />
tell between God's angel and God Himself. But the language of this use of agency is quite common.<br />
A.R. Johnson in a monograph entitled The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, states<br />
the following regarding this form of speech:<br />
"In Hebrew thought a patriarch’s personality extended through his entire household to his wives, his sons<br />
and their wives, his daughters, servants in his household and even in some sense his property. The "one"<br />
personality was present in the "many" who were with him. In a specialized sense when the patriarch’s as<br />
lord of his household deputized his trusted servant as his malak (i.e. his messenger or angel) the man was<br />
endowed with the authority and resources of his lord to represent him fully and transact business in his<br />
name. In Semitic thought this messenger-representative was conceived of as being personally-and in his<br />
very words-the presence of the sender" (Christology and The Angel of the LORD by John Cunningham).<br />
Consider the following few examples:<br />
An angel spoke out of the bush, yet it was God speaking through the angel. In this same event, God gave<br />
Moses the law and specifically the Ten Commandments. It says in Exodus 20:1-17:<br />
"I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou<br />
shalt have no other gods before me." ASV<br />
But, it was actually God speaking through the angel. Stephen again verifies this in Acts 7:53:<br />
"You received the law as transmitted by angels, but you did not observe it." NAB<br />
The law was given to Moses through the angels. As a matter of fact, the whole episode on Mount Sanai<br />
was God speaking through the angels. Act 7:38 states:<br />
"This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai,<br />
and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us." ASV<br />
In Deuteronomy 29:1-6 we have Moses is speaking to Israel, but then, he is speaking in the first person<br />
as God.<br />
"These are the words of the covenant which Jehovah commanded Moses to make with the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (10 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made with them in<br />
Horeb. And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that Jehovah<br />
did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto<br />
all his land; the great trials which thine eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders: but<br />
Jehovah hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.<br />
And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxed old upon you,<br />
and thy shoe is not waxed old upon thy foot. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk<br />
wine or strong drink; that ye may know that I am Jehovah your God."<br />
These verses start off with Moses speaking as himself and ends with Moses speaking as God in the first<br />
person. But it is God speaking through Moses to Israel. There are many examples in the <strong>Bible</strong> of this<br />
custom of speech.<br />
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is<br />
regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is<br />
regarded as having been committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish<br />
Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder<br />
The idea is that God gives His authority to His representatives. This idea is pivotal in the understanding<br />
of Jesus because Jesus will be God’s representative par excellence, and Jesus will speak on behalf of<br />
God. To illustrate the point of God giving His authority to His representatives, take note of the following:<br />
"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the<br />
place which I have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke<br />
him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him. ["He is my<br />
representative" NLT; "My power is around him" Fenton; "My authority rests in him" REB;<br />
"I am giving him complete authority" CEV]<br />
But if thou shalt indeed hearken unto his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an<br />
enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries." (Exodus 23:20-22<br />
ASV).<br />
YHWH’s authority resides in this angel. The angel is God’s representative and thus has the authority of<br />
God, but the angel is not God. If we apply this concept to our understanding of Jesus, then this will<br />
provide some clarification. Jesus represents God on earth and will thus speak for God and have His<br />
authority to forgive sins and to judge.<br />
"For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I<br />
should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49).<br />
"and he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man." (John 5:27).<br />
"And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven<br />
and on earth." (Matthew 28:18)<br />
"Now is come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ"<br />
(Revelation 12:10).<br />
" But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins...when the multitudes<br />
saw it, they were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority unto men."(Matthew 9:6-8).<br />
Jesus is representing God to the people. He is speaking on behalf of God. He is God's Word.<br />
This is not a new concept, Moses said exactly this about the future Messiah in Deuteronomy 18:18:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (11 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
"I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put my<br />
words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."<br />
He is God's word, like others were before him. Under "word" in the Harper Collins <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary:<br />
"Prophets hear and speak what the Lord has spoken to them (Isa. 1:2; 6:8-10), for they are<br />
primarily recipients and transmitters of the word of the Lord (Jer. 1:2). The NT...usage can<br />
be seen as a development of the OT.<br />
Under Word in McKenzie's <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary:<br />
"The word of God in the OT refers most frequently to the word of the prophet."<br />
Interestingly, Metzger's comments above make mention of 1 Kings 8, which states,<br />
"But will God in very deed dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens<br />
cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded!" ASV<br />
Jehovah far transcends containment by anything he has created. The destructive power that results from<br />
gazing at God (Ex 33:20) is echoed at 3 Enoch 3 22B:5, 6:<br />
"What does YHWH, the God of Israel, the glorious king, do? The great God, mighty in<br />
power, covers his face...otherwise the heaven of Arabot would burst open in the middle,<br />
because of the glorious brilliance, beautiful brightness, lovely splendor, and radiant praises<br />
of the appearance of the Holy One, blessed be he."<br />
We cannot see God, and as a loving result, he is invisible to us. (1 Tim 1:17; John 1:18; Col 1:15)<br />
So he sends a lesser Jehovah, Jesus Christ, whom we can see, just as he has sent his angels in the past.<br />
When we again, through the view of angelic agency, consider the Wisdom literature and the<br />
Pseudepigrapha, we are given an insight long ignored:<br />
Wisdom 10:18 "She brought them over the Red Sea, and led them through deep waters"<br />
RSV<br />
Compare:<br />
Exodus 14:19 "Then the angel of God who went before the host of Israel moved and went<br />
behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them." See<br />
also Num 20:16 RSV<br />
Ex 23:20,21 "Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way and to bring you<br />
to the place which I have prepared. Give heed to him and hearken to his voice, do not rebel<br />
against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him. [Compare 3<br />
Enoch 12:5]<br />
Wisdom 10:19 "but she [Wisdom] drowned their enemies,and cast them up from the depth of the sea."<br />
Compare:<br />
Rev 7:1 "After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four<br />
winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree."<br />
Wisdom 10:13 "When a righteous man was sold, wisdom did not desert him, but delivered<br />
him from sin. She descended with him into the dungeon."<br />
Compare:<br />
Daniel 3:25 "He answered, "But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and<br />
they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the<br />
gods...Nebuchadnez'zar said, 'Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (12 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set at nought the<br />
king's command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except<br />
their own God.'"<br />
Dan 6:22 "Then Daniel said to the king, 'O king, live for ever! My God sent his angel and<br />
shut the lions' mouths, and they have not hurt me, because I was found blameless before<br />
him; and also before you, O king, I have done no wrong.'"<br />
“Then wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people, but she found no dwelling-place. So<br />
wisdom returned to her place and she settled permanently among the angels.” 1 Enoch 42:1, 2<br />
Compare:<br />
"So the Logos (Word) became flesh and dwelt among us." (John 1:14)<br />
Even when discussing Philo, many have realized that his writings on Wisdom/Logos can be best<br />
understood with an angelology in view.<br />
In her "Logos and Its Function in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria: Greek Interpretation of Hebrew<br />
Thought and Foundations of Christianity: Part One," Marian Hillar writes:<br />
"The Angel of the Lord, Revealer of God:<br />
Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture (Gen. 31:13;<br />
16:8; etc) by an angel of the Lord (Somn. 1.228-239; Cher. 1-3). The Logos is the first-born<br />
and the eldest and chief of the angels.<br />
Intermediary Power:<br />
The fundamental doctrine propounded by Philo is that of Logos as an intermediary power, a<br />
messenger and mediator between God and the world.<br />
And the father who created the universe has given to his archangel and most ancient Logos a<br />
pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separate that which had been created<br />
from the Creator. And this same Logos is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on<br />
behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the<br />
ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Logos rejoices.... saying<br />
"And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and you" (Num. 16:48); neither being uncreated<br />
as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a<br />
hostage, as it were, to both parties (Her. 205-206)."<br />
From the Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman:<br />
"Philo, as far as I know, ascribed no 'condescension' to his Logos, for he considered him a<br />
creature, or, at least, an emanation, as well as his companion Angel. He speaks of him as a<br />
second God (vid. Euseb. Præp. Ev. vii. 13, p. 323, ed. 1688); as an Archangel between God<br />
and man, neither increate nor a creature, an intercessor with God, a messenger from Him<br />
(Quis hæres, p. 509), as the first-born Son, His Viceroy (de Agricult. p. 195), the created<br />
idea or plan, the [kosmos noetos] on which the visible world was made (de Opif. mund. p. 5,<br />
Quis hæres, p. 512). There is nothing then in him which needs explanation when he speaks<br />
of the Almighty and His two ministering attendants; but if a writer such as Irenæus uses<br />
language of a like character, he must be interpreted, not by Philo, but by other statements of<br />
his own and by the doctrine of his brother theologians. Indeed, when closely inspected, the<br />
doubtful language of this great Father explains itself."<br />
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/arianism/section10.html<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (13 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
From A Dictionary of Angels, by Gustav Davidson:<br />
"In Enoch II, 33, wisdom is hypostasized. God orders wisdom, on the 6th day of Creation,<br />
'to make man of seven substances.' In Reider, The Book Of Wisdom, wisdom is the 'assessor<br />
on God's throne,' the instrument or divine agent (i.e. angel) 'by which all things were<br />
created.' [Cf. the Logos of Philo.] According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, 'Angel,' the term<br />
'angel of the Lord' finds a 'counterpart in the personification of wisdom in the Sapiential<br />
books, and in at least one passage (Zachariah 3:1) it seems to stand for that Son of Man<br />
whom Daniel (Daniel 7:13) saw brought before the Ancient of Days." p. 312,<br />
The belief that Michael the Archangel was the same as the Word/Wisdom, was carried over by Philo of<br />
Judea who, ‘identified the Logos with the archangel Michael.’ (Formation of Christian Dogma, Professor<br />
Martin Werner, page 133)<br />
"The counterpart of this is afforded by an identification of Christ with the archangel Michael, an<br />
identification which is made in the Shepherd of Hermas. ... According to the early Christian writing Of<br />
The Threefold Fruits, Christ, as one of the seven archangels of God, was created ‘from fire’ and exalted<br />
to the status of ‘Son.’" (Formation of Christian Dogma,<br />
Professor Martin Werner, page 135)<br />
FIRST OXFORD LECTURE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTOLOGY<br />
by Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis:<br />
"1. Most discussion of the LOGOS has, understandably focused on Philo. I don't want to get<br />
embroiled in the highly sophisticated world of Philo, except to say that there is a steadily<br />
increasing body of opinion that, in actual fact his ideas are very Jewish in origin if not in<br />
expression. His use of LOGOS/LOGOI language is best understood as an adaptation to<br />
a Hellenistic idiom of the peculiarly Jewish language of angels.<br />
Long before Philo, Greek speaking Jews had used Logos language as an alternative to Angel<br />
of LORD. As Jarl Fossum has pointed out, a key passage in this respect in Ezekiel the<br />
Tragedian's Exagoge 96-99. In this passage Moses' encounter with the burning bush is retold<br />
and where the biblical account (Exodus 3) has the Angel of the LORD in the bush, Ezekiel<br />
has a divine Logos. Logos language, then, is Angel of the Lord language, (cf. also Wisdom<br />
of Solomon 18:15f, reworking 1Chron 21:16.<br />
2. Similarly, though Wisdom has had her own independent history within Israelite culture,<br />
she has already been identified with the Angel of the LORD long before early Christianity.<br />
This is clear from Sirach 24:4 where Wisdom takes up the position of the Angel of the<br />
LORD in the cloud of Exodus 14:19 and Wisdom of Solomon 9:1-2, 18:15-16 where<br />
Wisdom, Logos and Angel of the Lord are equated.<br />
Wisdom and Logos, then, both point to the importance of angelic categories as the common<br />
denominator in Jewish mediatorial speculation."<br />
"In the 19th century the Berlin Old Testament student, who was also editor of a church newspaper and an<br />
ecclesiastical politician, Ernest Wilhelm Hengstenberg, in his many-volumed work on the Christology of<br />
the Old Testament, concentrated upon the Early Christian identification of Christ with the angelic figures<br />
of the Old Testament, particularly the archangel Michael." (Formation of Christian Dogma, Professor<br />
Martin Werner, page 137)<br />
"In the Primitive Christian era there was no sign of any kind of Trinitarian problem or<br />
controversy, such as later produced violent conflicts in the Church. The reason for this<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (14 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
undoubtedly lay in the fact that, for Primitive Christianity, Christ was . . . a being of the high<br />
celestial angel-world, who was created and chosen by God for the task of bringing in, at the<br />
end of the ages, . . . the Kingdom of God." The Formation of Christian Dogma, pages 122,<br />
125. "Finally, we bring back for our readers a brief note on Col. 1:15.<br />
JPH concludes:<br />
Our friend "Heinz" declared to a reader that Col. 1:15 was in a partitive genitive which made Christ the<br />
"firstborn" of creation out to be a part of that creation. This would in no sense eliminate an idea of Christ as<br />
an eternal creation of the Father, but even so, as Helyer points out ("Arius Revisited," JETS Mar.<br />
1998)there are actually four possible interpretations of the genitive here: 1) partitive (preferred by the<br />
Arians and the JWs); 2)comparitive (which would exclude Christ from the creation; 3) place (defines the<br />
sphere of Christ's rule over creation) or 4) objective (relates to the action of the "firstborn" upon the<br />
creation). Helyer notes that option 1) is excluded by virtue of a) the hoti clause of v. 16 and the pro panta of<br />
v. 17, which clearly exclude Christ from the realm of created things; b) the language of eikon in v. 15 and<br />
pleroma in v. 19, which includes Christ in the full deity; c) the parallels to the Wisdom tradition, in which<br />
Wisdom is not a creation as the rest of creation, but is eternally begotten; d) that the partitive would<br />
emphasize the -tokos aspect of prototokos (firstborn), something paralleled in the NT only in Luke 2:7.<br />
Helyer therefore opts for the objective genitive as the intent of the passage."<br />
Reply: Does the "hoti clause of v. 16 and the pro panta of v. 17" "clearly exclude Christ from the realm<br />
of created things"?<br />
The clause at verse 16 says, hOTI EN AUTWi EKTISQH TA PANTA, which Barclay's NT renders, "For<br />
he is the agent by whom all things were created."<br />
The 21st Century NT has "It was he that formed all other things in heaven...all came into existence as a<br />
result of him and by means of him."<br />
The reason the above <strong>Bible</strong>s have a different view of this is because Helyer has ignored the passivity of<br />
the verbs involved.<br />
The verb EKTISQH ("were created") is passive, hence the subject and object are reversed from the active<br />
voice. The "him" of AUTWi cannot be the subject because it is part of an adverbial phrase headed by the<br />
preposition EN ["by means of']. Thus, the TA PANTA ["all things"] was created by an unnamed EN, the<br />
PRWTOTOKOS. Who created all things EN ["by means of"] Christ?<br />
In verses 12 and 13 the Father is the subject, and in v. 13, it is the Father who has delivered us. In v. 14,<br />
the Father is still the subject while the Son is the intermediate agent identified by the EN clause (EN<br />
hWi). Verse 15 concentrates on the indirect agent of v. 14, that the indirect agent is EIKWN ["image"]<br />
and PRWTOTOKOS ["firstborn"], and in verse 16, the Son is indirect agent again because of the EN<br />
AUTWi ["for he is the agent by whom" Barclay].<br />
stop<br />
The conclusion is that the Father is creator and he creates "EN", or "by means of" the Son. Passive verbs<br />
and prepositions are used in those verses also in Hebrews 1:2 and John 1:3, and describe Jesus as an<br />
intermediate agent.<br />
The concept of *time* is prominent in Col 1:15 - 18 with temporal words like PRWTOTOKOS ( a<br />
temporal word), ARXH (v. 18) and that he is PRO (before) TA PANTA (v.17). It was the Father's<br />
purpose (v.18) that the Son be prominent (PRWTEUWN) in all things because of being temporally first,<br />
as Paul's use of language shows.<br />
Also ignored is the use of EK, or lack of, in regards to Jesus.<br />
E. Lohse, "A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon", (The Hermeneia Series) p.<br />
50, note 125 says: "It should be noted that EN (in), DIA (through), and EIS (for) are used, but not EK<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (15 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
(from). 'From whom are all things' ( EX hOU TA PANTA) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He is and<br />
remains the creator, but the pre-existent Christ is the mediator of creation."<br />
The Son is never called "creator", but he is what Robertson calls "the intermediate agent" According to<br />
Robertson (Grammar p. 820) the source (direct agent) is most commonly expressed by the Greek<br />
preposition hUPO ("by"), and sometimes by APO ("from") and EK ("out of"). The intermediate agent is<br />
often identified by DIA ("through"). Matthew 1:22 points this out nicely: "All this took place because<br />
what was spoken [aorist passive participle] by [ hUPO] the Lord through [DIA] the prophet must be<br />
fulfilled [aorist passive subjunctive]." Here "the Lord" is the source and "the prophet" is the intermediate<br />
agent. In John 1:3 we read " Through (DIA) him all things were made." In Colossians 1:16 we read: "For<br />
by (EN) him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones<br />
or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by (DIA) him and for (EIS) him. " Please note<br />
that the verbs are passive and note the use of prepositions. In the verse we find the preposition EN ("in,"<br />
"by means of"). This preposition governs AUTW ("him," in the dative case). Most of the 74 occurrences<br />
in the NT of EN AUTWi in the dative case are locative, that is, they refer to something or someone being<br />
in some place. Only one of the examples points to a source. In the last part of verse 16 we find the<br />
preposition DIA which governs AUTOU in the genitive case. This is the typical marking of an<br />
intermediate agent, so this must be the proper way to view the Son in this context. God is the source of<br />
the passive verbs which speak about creation, and that the Son is the intermediate agent? In Colossians<br />
1:12 "the Father" is mentioned, and he is active through verse 20. This is seen in verse 19 where God is<br />
the implied subject for the verb, and it is particularly evident in verse 20, because here both the source<br />
(God) and the intermediate agent (Jesus) are mentioned. It is said that the reconciliation is "through"<br />
(DIA) Jesus and "to" (EIS) God. The same thought is expressed in verse 22. The implied source<br />
(grammatical subject) of the active verb "reconciled" is "God." The intermediate agent is Jesus, for it is<br />
said that reconciliation occurred "by means of" (EN) his fleshly body and "through" (DIA) his death.<br />
Even Robert H Countess, though no friend of the NWT, had the following interesting remarks:<br />
"Even though Liddell-Scott state that the radical sense of DIA is 'through' there can be<br />
produced instances where the genitive appears to be causal and the accusative to signify<br />
agency. In general this writer would observe that the so-called causal uses of DIA seem to<br />
be inextricably linked with agency (i.e. 'by' or 'through').<br />
For example, one lexicon cites as causal John 1:3-DI AUTOU EGENETO. [cf. Col.<br />
1:16-TA PANTA DI AUTOU KAI EIS AUTON EKTISTAI.] God apparently worked<br />
*through* the Son in creating all things and, therefore, the Son Himself in some sense<br />
*caused* or created. Another example given is Acts 3:18- O DE QEOS A<br />
PROKATHGGEILEN DIA STOMATOS PANTWN TWN PROFHTWN. Here the mouth<br />
of all the prophets is the channel or medium *through which* God announced beforehand<br />
the sufferings of Christ. The prophets indeed *caused* the message to be proclaimed but<br />
only inasmuch as their mouths had been selected as channels or media for the divine<br />
communication." THANK GOD FOR THE GENITIVE, Robert H. Countess, p. 118, JETS,<br />
Spring 1969<br />
It is interesting that even Countess has to concede that Christ is the agent of creation, and, as a parallel,<br />
uses Acts 3:18, denoting a separate body/being as agent.<br />
All of this works well with Proverbs 8:22-30, where we have the created angel Wisdom/Jesus, helping<br />
his creator in the creation of the earth, standing beside him as a "master workman."<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (16 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
*Ftn. 1: "The personal commitment and pattern of life of contemporary religious groups orthodox<br />
Christianity calls deeply heretical, such as Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses, frequently shame<br />
the orthodox churches. The missionary zeal of both Mormons and Witnesses, for example, is precisely<br />
what one ought to be able to expect from orthodox Christians of they really believe in the truth of the<br />
doctrines to which their credal and confessional positions formally commit them."<br />
*Ftn. 2 Being that it is such a brief book, it cannot anticipate nor deal with all the evidence thoroughly.<br />
As one reviewer puts it:<br />
"For example, given Bauckham's thesis, how does divine identity explain the subordination of the Son to<br />
the Father, a notion found throughout the New Testament? Also, how does divine identity account for the<br />
counter or ambiguous evidence? In particular, Bauckham admits the exaltation of the Son of Man in 1<br />
Enoch runs counter to the way Jews distinguished God from all other created beings. Perhaps more<br />
problematic is the mysterious and allusive Angel of the Lord, a figure with whom Bauckham does not<br />
deal. Another question needing some clarification has to do with the reasons early Christians included<br />
Jesus within the unique identity of Israel's God. Obviously, creative scriptural exegesis played an<br />
important role in how these early theologians envisaged Jesus and expressed their faith. But what caused<br />
them to read the texts in such a way? Finally, Bauckham writes that the inclusion of Jesus within the<br />
identity of God was radically novel and "almost unprecedented in Jewish theology" (p. 4). Yet it remains<br />
unclear what Bauckham thinks the precedents are or the reason why there had to be precedents at all."<br />
It appears JPH has written a review of my article, but has not bothered to contact me, or link back to me,<br />
so neither will I. His sub-heading pokes fun at my name Heinz (57 Varieties), something that is<br />
disturbing and inappropriate in an text aimed at defending the word of God in a Christian manner (see 1<br />
Peter 3:15). This is something I had noticed in his emails to me also. It is sad that ad hominem jabs must<br />
be taken by those who cannot control their emotions while failing to admit defeat.<br />
His criticisms lie in certains words, of which I take the normal definition. Words pertaining to Jesus take<br />
on a magical transformation in the mind of the brain-washed trinitarian. Anything that contradicts their<br />
understanding of Christ and God must be incorporated into their view of the godhead. The 3 men at<br />
Genesis 18 must be understood to be YHWH, as must Wisdom, as must any "intermediate agent",<br />
"mediators" and even "angel of the LORD", though as I have shown here, this is impossible.<br />
The trinitarian godhead is so crowded that it would embarrass the average Hindu.<br />
JPH also does not realize that it was trinitarian theologians that first made the Jesus/Archangel Michael<br />
connection, a connection that adds to the Wisdom as an angel separate, distinct, a subordinate being other<br />
than YHWH.<br />
Trinitarians have to invent words, such as "triune," "uniplural," and of course, "trinity" to make up for the<br />
Biblical absence of any clear representative to their view of God. Even the words "subordinate" and<br />
"ONE" must be redressed to meet the theological requirement of a God of substances and essences<br />
reminiscient to a bowl of Jello.<br />
Words must be redefined to meet theological requirements, and this can be seen as early as Jerome, who<br />
changed qanah to "possessed" in Prov 8:22 as a response to Arius, though it was clearly understood as<br />
"created" or "made" by the ANF.<br />
"Only-begotten" at John 1:18 has been changed to "God the only Son" (NAB, NRSV) in various <strong>Bible</strong>s,<br />
though we have absolutely no mss that bear such a reading.<br />
"Firstborn" at Col 1:15 has been changed to "primacy" [NEB, REB], even "Producer" [Fenton] in various<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (17 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>s.<br />
"The beginning of God's creation" at Rev 3:14 has been changed to "beginner" [Fenton], "originator"<br />
[HCSB] or "source" [NEB, NAB] despite the fact that translators with out a trinitarian bias, like the<br />
Jewish Schonfield states that "Clearly, John the Elder himself believed that the heavenly Christ was a<br />
created being, as did the early Christians" at this Scripture.<br />
I am sorry that JPH is confined to the prison of words that trinitarians find themselves chained to, words<br />
that often bear the opposite meaning to those commonly understood by men now, and of ages past.<br />
The simple fact is, Jesus/Wisdom was made/created the same way that Adam/human beings were<br />
made/created:<br />
"Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning" [Prov 8:22 NJB] compare Wisdom 10:1, "It was<br />
Wisdom who protected the first man to be fashioned, the father of the world, who had been created all<br />
alone." [NJB]<br />
Addition to Christ as creative agent:<br />
"In this connexion the truth which we have already seen acquires new significance, that the<br />
world, it is true, was created THROUGH--DIA--the Son, but not by--hUPO--the Son, that it<br />
has been created IN Him and unto Him, but that He Himself is never called the Creator. It<br />
has pleased God the Creator to create the world in the Son, through the Son, and unto the<br />
Son. The fact that between the Creator and the Creation there stands the Mediator of<br />
creation means that the world is an act of the freedom of God, that it does not proceed from<br />
the Logos" (Emil Brunner, Dogmatics I, page 308).<br />
-Webmaster<br />
Addition to Angel as Wisdom:<br />
"Purpose of Angelic Appearances<br />
Aquinas in a few passages indicates what the purpose of angelic appearances is. In Ia 51, 2<br />
ad 1 he says that the purpose of angelic conversation is to "give evidence of that intellectual<br />
companionship which men expect to have with them in the life to come," and in the Old<br />
Testament, "as a figurative indication that the Word of God would take a human body." In Ia<br />
51, 3 ad 1 & 2 he claims that angels appear so that spiritual properties and works may be<br />
manifested more fittingly than by men. In all cases, the purpose of the appearances of angels<br />
is to inform humankind of divine realities, and so to lead people to God.<br />
Hence Angels propose the intelligible truth to men under the likeness of sensible things and<br />
strengthen the human mind by an intellectual operation. In this twofold action consists<br />
angelic illumination of men. By adding to the human understanding to pierce the mysteries<br />
of being, the pure intelligences enable it to derive greater truth from the species abstracted<br />
from sensible things. Thus men rise with angelic assistance to a more perfect knowledge of<br />
God drawn from a knowledge of his creation (p. 322).<br />
Angelic power is truly cosmic in its range according to the Thomistic account. On every<br />
level in the heirarchy of created being, angelic agency has a proper function to fulfill in<br />
accordance with the designs of divine wisdom. Although creativity cannot belong to them<br />
[since only God can create from nothing] angels are nevertheless the chief ministers<br />
employed by God in the governance of the universe, in securing His own glory and in<br />
distributing His goodness to all creation. Everywhere there is a gracious adaptation to the<br />
capacity of the various orders of nature to participate in the divine likeness which all things<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (18 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom<br />
desire in their proper way (p. 328)."<br />
James Collins, The Thomistic Philosophy of<br />
the Angels, a Dissertation,<br />
(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1947)<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sophia.htm (19 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
JW's, Pedophiles...and Selective Discrimination and<br />
Hysteria<br />
Who is really "SILENT?"<br />
Read my thoughts on Dateline, Apostate Web-sites, and Silent Lambs...and has Silent Lambs owner Bill<br />
Bowen collaborated with a Pornographer to promote his web-site?<br />
See also http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/2122827332/7163532856.htm<br />
1 Cor 5:9-13 "I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; But actually, I wrote to you<br />
not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a<br />
reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one." NASB<br />
How Reliable are the Views of Dissidents? By Dr. Rodney Stark (in .pdf format)<br />
New!!Abortion Clinics Do Not Report Statutory Rape:<br />
An undercover investigation reveals that abortion clinic workers know what statutory rape is and the<br />
laws requiring them to report it. Yet most of the time, they say nothing. By Karla Dial<br />
One book reports of a leader in a congregation that had for some time sexually abused children, and<br />
though the elders in the congregation knew, nothing was said about it. The above description would lead<br />
some opposers to view this with Jehovah's Witnesses in view, but this was written regarding an<br />
Evangelical Pastor, not JW's. See The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by Johnson and VanDoren, p.<br />
140.<br />
The fact that there are pedophiles anywhere, in any churches, including those of Jehovah's Witnesses is<br />
indeed lamentable. But what is also lamentable is that many think that this story is indigenous to JW's<br />
alone. It is not, despite the emails I receive that speak of a "pedophile paradise" or that pedophiles are<br />
running amuck in Kingdom Halls everywhere, when it really only amounts to a few high profile cases<br />
latched upon by opposers of JW's.<br />
To accuse JW's, and JW's alone of this is simply the product of a twisted and bigotted imagination. Any<br />
sins committed by individual members cannot even compare to the wholesale sexual deviance of the<br />
members of the mainstream churches.<br />
I know that in my own area, these crimes are generally perpretrated by members of other churches, but<br />
this fact is generally not made known. The reason for this is as follows:<br />
"Differences of power and size go far towards explaining what we know, or think we know,<br />
about differences in the conduct of small and large religious groups. If we observe that small<br />
groups are likely to have scandals involving sexual misconduct, particularly involving<br />
children, we might suggest that this type of misbehavior is a cult characteristic, and that<br />
would lead us to propose theories about the pernicious nature of leadership in these settings.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (1 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:31 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
But numerous recent scandals have taught us that sexual abuse is a common difficulty in all<br />
religious groups and denominations, including the largest and most respected, and some of<br />
the most outrageous instances of abuse by mainstream clergy occured in the 1970s and early<br />
1980s, when the cults were drawing such intense fire.<br />
As always, the media reacted very differently to the churches and the cults. Stories of<br />
sexual deviance meshed precisely with public expectations of cult leaders. But they seemed<br />
improbable and atypical for established clergy, so that rumors would be such more likely to<br />
be investigated and published in the context of the small groups than the large. Also, while<br />
nothing was to be lost by offending the members of a quirky local commune, it took a brave<br />
editor to run a story attacking a mainstream denomination, which could respond with an<br />
advertising boycott or a venomous letter-writing campaign. Hence, the "pedophile priest"<br />
scandals in the mainstream churches were largely kept from public view for decades, until<br />
the explosion of public concern in the mid-1980s. And though financial manipulation and<br />
tax evasion have attracted less notoriety than sexual issues, the same principles apply to<br />
reporting ecclesiastical misdeeds in these other areas: larger and more powerful groups are<br />
let off more easily than the small and unpopular."<br />
Mystics and Messiahs, by Philip Jenkins, p. 15<br />
23,720 websites hostile to Jehovah's Witnesses, and counting&..<br />
Media bias even enters into the discussions regarding the problems with Catholic Priests:<br />
Defining the Catholic Church's Scandal<br />
By Stuart Shepard, correspondent<br />
The Catholic Church has been rocked by scandal recently, but is the problem properly defined as<br />
"pedophilia," or could it be something less politically correct?<br />
The newspapers are full of stories on scandal in the Catholic Church. Priests sexually involved with<br />
young boys betrayed trust. But some argue the language chosen by many pundits reveals media bias and<br />
hypocrisy.<br />
Focus on the Family psychologist Dr. Bill Maier said "pedophilia" is often the wrong word to use.<br />
"The American Psychiatric Association describes (pedophilia) as sexual activity with a pre-pubescent<br />
child, generally age 13 years or younger," Maier said.<br />
But, he noted, most of the recent allegations against Catholic priests involve teen-age boys.<br />
"Technically, if we have a man having sex with an adolescent boy, that would be considered<br />
homosexuality, not pedophilia."<br />
While quick to add that in no way mitigates the gravity of the situation, the fact that many in the media<br />
have called it something other than homosexuality is revealing.<br />
Andrew Dibley, a chiropractor in Indiana and a Catholic, believes the media is engaging in Catholic<br />
bashing.<br />
"I think that they do not want to be seen as homophobic," Dibley said. "They have always, in my<br />
opinion, championed the cause of homosexuals."<br />
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality,<br />
agreed, contending "the media is anti-religious, but pro-gay."<br />
He compared the media's handling of the Boy Scouts with its treatment of the Catholic Church.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (2 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:31 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
"They are shocked at the Catholic Church scandal, but they also denounce a policy of the Boy Scouts to<br />
prevent and to avoid such a crisis."<br />
He said if the Boy Scouts give in to the pressure, they will wind up in the same predicament.<br />
Even the Washington Blade a newspaper for homosexuals argues that pedophilia is not the correct<br />
term, but stopped short of calling it homosexuality.<br />
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0020332.html see also http://www.frc.org/get/is02e3.cfm<br />
"One-third of Episcopal Priests Gay? A homosexual lay delegate at an Episcopal convention<br />
said 33 per cent of Episcopal priests are lesbian or gay (2/24 Chr. News). He said: "They<br />
have lied to their bishop, they have lied to their congregations, and they have lied to<br />
themselves." He said, "They have had to lie to answer the call to the priesthood."" --CC<br />
http://www.llano.net/baptist/nv087.htm#One-third<br />
The upshot of all this is [in interview form]<br />
"...Mainstream organized religions often have the same problems (e.g. child abuse, misused<br />
funds) as some new religious sects, yet the former get off the hook. Although there may be<br />
some outcry about the specific incidents, no one in the mainstream uses these occcurences to<br />
smear organized religions as a whole....generally, if (say) a rabbi sins, he is seen as a bad<br />
rabbi, not as proofs of the evils of Judaism; if a 'cult leader' sins, that is proof of the evils of<br />
cults. Jews (and other mainstream believers) buy newspapers and will complain if their<br />
religion is abused; whereas cults are not seen as a serious constituency."<br />
You Are Being Lied To/Russ Kick editor, p. 288<br />
The bashing and media assault of certain groups is also indicative of their organizational structure and<br />
record-keeping. Protestant groups like the Baptists abhor the structure as what we see in the Catholic or<br />
JW organizations. Therefore, scandals in churches like the Baptists will remain localized, instead of<br />
national. One of the more extreme cases was one of Tony Leyva, a Pentecostal minister who had abused<br />
hundreds of boys in the 1980's, yet his case is NEVER mentioned in any case study of sex-abuse in the<br />
Churches.<br />
"There is no Catholic case comparable to that of three brothers, all Baptist ministers, all<br />
facing simultaneous of child molestation, although this case too enjoyed only local<br />
notoriety."<br />
Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests, p. 12,<br />
All churches struggle as to what to do with pedophiles who reach out spiritually.<br />
From http://www.shasta.com/sphaws/pastors.html<br />
"Clerical Sexual Misconduct...including "pedophilia"...IS NOT just a Catholic problem. In<br />
fact, if anything, it is more of a Protestant problem, as show by these quotes from the<br />
Catholic League link:<br />
Jenkins asks us to consider why there is no such term as "pastor pedophilia"? It is not for<br />
lack of pastors involved in sexual abuse, rather it has much to do with the way the issue of<br />
pedophilia has been "framed" by our social constructionists. For example, who ever heard of<br />
[Protestant Pastor XXXXX. ED NOTE: Decided to conceal name on my page. It's on the<br />
Catholic League link. SPH]<br />
In the 1980s, [Protestant Pastor XXXXX] had abused perhaps one hundred boys in several<br />
southern states, but few of us ever learned of it. [Protestant Pastor XXXXXX] had the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (3 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:31 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
distinction of being a Pentecostal minister and was, therefore, not within the "frame" of<br />
those who were busy constructing reality. The same is true of the three brothers, all Baptist<br />
ministers, who were charged with child molestation in the 1990s: the public learned little<br />
about this highly unusual series of cases because it was not deemed worthy of dissemination<br />
by those fixated on Catholic scandals....<br />
Notwithstanding the difficulties that such data comparisons hold, the available information<br />
on clergy sexual misconduct shows that the problem is bigger among Protestant clergy.<br />
For example, the most cited survey of sexual problems among the Protestant clergy shows<br />
that 10 percent have been involved in sexual misconduct and "about two or three percent"<br />
are "pedophiles." With regard to the "pedophile" problem, the figure for the Catholic clergy,<br />
drawn from the most authoritative studies, ranges between .2 percent to 1.7 percent. Yet we<br />
hear precious little about these comparative statistics.<br />
I am not acting from the position of trashing Protestants with this information. Rather, I am<br />
acting more from a sense of relief...relief that Clerical Sexual Misconduct IS NOT really just<br />
a Catholic problem. (No, please don't confuse this statement with a perceived callousness<br />
towards Protestant clergy or, especially, their victims.)"<br />
From Catholic <strong>World</strong> News, Date: 29-Jun-00:<br />
British Methodists To Welcome Pedophiles Into Their Churches<br />
LONDON (CWNews.com) - The British Methodist Conference on Wednesday announced<br />
plans to welcome<br />
pedophiles into their churches without alerting other members of the congregation in order<br />
to create a "community<br />
of love, forgiveness, and reconciliation" for offenders.<br />
The Conference had decided some time ago not to allow sex offenders to hold office in the<br />
church and to insist they were chaperoned at all times when they might be near children.<br />
And a working party set up in 1999 on Wednesday urged to the Conference's meeting in<br />
Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, to accept that it was more appropriate to talk of sex offenders<br />
as "recovering" rather than "recovered" or "cured."<br />
However, their report also noted that 25 percent of convicted sex offenders attended prison<br />
chapels while serving<br />
their sentences and that a large proportion wanted to continue in faith on their release. It<br />
would be wrong, the report said, to turn them away.<br />
From smh.com National News:<br />
Anxious Anglicans in a flap over sex claims<br />
By Kelly Burke, Religious Affairs Writer<br />
The Anglican Church moved into top gear yesterday on a mission of damage control over<br />
the escalating Governor-General controversy.<br />
Bishops across the nation were busy composing statements for tomorrow's services to ease<br />
the anger and confusion of parishioners.<br />
Sydney churchgoers will get the full version of Archbishop Peter Jensen's pastoral letter,<br />
released on Wednesday.<br />
"Morale is at an all-time low," said one Sydney Diocese insider.<br />
"Procedures might be in place now to handle sex abuse, but we all know that in the past<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (4 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:31 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
these things haven't always been handled very well. There's a feeling that nobody knows<br />
who's going to be next ... what awful<br />
incident that happened 50 years ago might suddenly surface."<br />
The Archbishop of Adelaide, the Most Rev Ian George, issued a plea to South Australian<br />
Anglicans yesterday to come forward if they had been victims of sexual misconduct or<br />
abuse within the church.<br />
The Archbishop of Melbourne, the Most Rev Peter Watson, posted the diocese's sexual<br />
harassment protocol principals on the Internet. The Bishop of Tasmania, the Right Rev John<br />
Harrower, did the same.<br />
On Thursday, the Anglican Primate, the Archbishop of Perth, the Most Rev Peter Carnley,<br />
admitted that the Governor-General controversy and his handling of sex abuse cases while<br />
archbishop of Brisbane in the 1990s<br />
had "damaged the public standing" of the Anglican Church.<br />
A spokesman for the Primate confirmed yesterday that Dr Carnley's statement, which also<br />
expressed deep regret at the pain and suffering caused by sex abuse in the church and wider<br />
community, would be distributed in churches across Western Australia for Sunday services.<br />
Policies on reporting abuse allegations vary among religious denominations<br />
By PETER SMITH, The Courier-Journal, Lousville Kentucky, Sunday, February 4, 2001<br />
Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, seven other religious denominations surveyed by The<br />
Courier-Journal expect their clergy to report all suspected child abuse in states where they<br />
are required to by law.<br />
The approach among religions varies in states that do not mandate reporting.<br />
Even in reporting states, variations are possible. For example, Kentucky and Indiana require<br />
citizens to report suspected child abuse. Indiana allows no exceptions. Kentucky allows<br />
exceptions for clergy-penitent and attorney-client privilege.<br />
Roman Catholic Church: Policies vary by diocese. The archdioceses of Louisville and<br />
Indianapolis require priests to report suspected child abuse in all circumstances except when<br />
they learn of it in confession. Even in that setting, priests can counsel someone confessing a<br />
crime to go to a counselor or police. Archdiocese of Indianapolis spokeswoman Susan<br />
Schramm knew of no instance where that exception conflicted with Indiana law.<br />
Southern Baptist Convention: Churches are self-governing, so regional bodies do not dictate<br />
policies. However, the Kentucky Baptist Convention trains staff and volunteers to recognize<br />
and report suspected child abuse to authorities, according to Wendy Dever, preschool and<br />
children's associate for the convention.<br />
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): Policies vary by regional governing body but are often<br />
shaped to follow state law. Pastors in the Louisville-based denomination are forbidden to<br />
reveal anything told them in confidence. The church does not make an explicit exception for<br />
suspected child abuse but pastors can violate confidentiality when there is a "risk of<br />
imminent bodily harm to any person."<br />
Rabbinical Assembly (Conservative Judaism): Congregations are self-governing, but rabbis<br />
are expected to do everything to protect an abuse victim, including calling authorities. "One<br />
doesn't need a specific secular mandate that says protect somebody in trouble," said Rabbi<br />
Joel Meyers, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (5 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:31 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: Policies are determined by regional governing<br />
bodies but often follow state law on who is required to report, according to the Rev. Lowell<br />
Almen, secretary of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.<br />
United Methodist Church: The church does not have a policy that requires clergy to report<br />
suspicions of child abuse, but clergy training emphasizes that laws often mandate reporting.<br />
If a pastor learns of abuse in a confidential setting such as a counseling session, "that's a<br />
decision a pastor would make on a case-by-case basis," Robert Kohler, assistant general<br />
secretary of the Division of Ordained Ministry.<br />
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons): Church leaders are instructed to<br />
call a denominational help line if abuse issues arise in the congregation. Those staffing the<br />
phone line include professional counselors as well as lawyers who advise local ministers on<br />
their state's laws. "The law of the land must be obeyed," said a statement from the<br />
Latter-day Saints public affairs department. "If a report is required, help line personnel assist<br />
the local church leader . . . as who should make the report -- whether . . . a family member,<br />
whether the perpetrator can be persuaded to self-report, etc."<br />
No religious denomination contacted has even considered what some Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
are demanding of their church: that congregations be told of pedophiles in their midst.<br />
[The official JW policy is "without equal in the religious comunity, see<br />
http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/2122827332/7163532856.htm ]<br />
But many churches bar sex offenders from working with children, according to Dever of the<br />
Kentucky Baptist Convention.<br />
And they increasingly conduct criminal background checks of potential pastors, youth<br />
workers and other volunteers.<br />
"Small churches have a hard time with that, because they know everybody," Dever said.<br />
"But we really don't know everybody. We live in 2001. We have to be concerned about<br />
this."<br />
Staff writer Megan Woolhouse contributed to this story.<br />
PRIESTS, PEDOPHILIA AND PREACHERS, from "AS I SEE IT" Volume 5, Number 7, July 2002,<br />
compiled and edited by Doug Kutilek (http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly)<br />
"Having held Romes latest scandal up to the light for examination, let us now turn the light<br />
on ourselves. We profess to have the light of Scripture in its purity, uncorrupted by human<br />
tradition. We profess to follow the teachings of the <strong>Bible</strong> alone (sola scriptura). We<br />
profess to have the Holy Spirit living within us as our Divine Teacher, Illuminator, and<br />
Guide. These things being claimed, and rightly so, there is far less excuse for any<br />
Rome-like conduct among fundamentalists. And yet it is tragically common; I dare<br />
say, practically the rule.<br />
If I were to sit down and write a list of all the fundamentalist preachers, pastors,<br />
evangelists and professors known to me in my limited experience who jumped (not fell<br />
as though it were a passive act) into sexual immorality (usually adultery, but in at<br />
least a few cases involving homosexuality or pedophilia), it would be a very long and<br />
very troubling list.<br />
And just like Rome, in many cases the scandals were covered up and the pernicious<br />
deeds concealed (for the sake of the church), leaving the perpetrator unrepentant,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (6 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:32 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
unpunished, and free to move on to another ministry, as though ones conduct had no<br />
bearing on qualifications for the ministry. Rather than concealing the sin and shielding the<br />
sinner, Paul gives explicit instructions: Do not entertain an accusation against an elder,<br />
unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so<br />
that the others may take warning. (I Timothy 5:19, 20)<br />
I think of one appalling instance from the 1970s--a noted long-standing professor in a <strong>Bible</strong><br />
college undeniably engaged in homosexual activity with a student who came to him for<br />
counseling. To save face for the college and the individual, a cover story (in plain English,<br />
a public lie) was fabricated to the effect that the individual was leaving the college to<br />
complete a doctorate degree (which of course never happened--he stayed in town, and in his<br />
church, undisciplined, and merely got alternate employment as a public school teacher).<br />
Or the notorious case from the 1980s of a now-dead Chicago-area pastor whose son, known<br />
by his father to be guilty of repeated acts of adultery while on staff at his fathers church,<br />
was sent off to pastor a church in Texas, where he repeated and multiplied his adulteries<br />
until publicly exposed. (The father himself was known to be scandalously involved for<br />
decades in an adulterous relationship, and yet a large number of fundamentalist preachers<br />
came to his defense when his sin was exposed publicly after repeated private admonitions in<br />
the spirit of Matthew 18:15-18 proved fruitless.)<br />
And there is the (to me) infuriating case of a famous national ministry in which a prominent<br />
teacher/writer/editor has been removed for adultery at least twice and yet each time<br />
ultimately restored to a high profile place. When is enough enough?<br />
We who profess to have the truth and to follow it are solemnly bound to live up the standard<br />
we profess, if we wish to honor God and maintain any degree of credibility with the world.<br />
Let Romes scandal humble us, and lead us to carefully examine ourselves. There is no<br />
room here for us to gloat or boast or sneer. Let us rather beware (see Galatians 6:1)."<br />
There are, of course other news stories that you will never hear of:<br />
Special Bulletin - From http://www.reformation.com/<br />
Welcome! Catholic sex scandals dominate the news. Are we next?<br />
A sample of our own scandals is below:<br />
ALL denominations - 312 instances<br />
Baptist Ministers - 59 instances<br />
"<strong>Bible</strong>" Church Ministers (fundamentalist/evangelical) - 150 instances<br />
Episcopalean Ministers - 31 instances<br />
Lutheran Ministers - 22 instances<br />
Methodist Ministers - 25 instances<br />
Presbyterian Ministers - 10 instances<br />
various Church Ministers - 13 instances<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (7 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:32 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has<br />
nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church. Sin and<br />
abusive behavior know no ecclesial or other boundaries." Rt. Rev. William Persell, Bishop<br />
of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, Good Friday Sermon, 2002.<br />
From http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=17865<br />
"Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of<br />
the worst involve non-Catholics. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals<br />
aplenty, as have Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah´s Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Hare<br />
Krishnas -- and the list goes on. One Canadian Anglican (Episcopal) diocese is currently on<br />
the verge of bankruptcy as a result of massive lawsuits caused by decades of systematic<br />
abuse, yet the Anglican church does not demand celibacy of its clergy.<br />
However much this statement contradicts conventional wisdom, the "pedophile priest" is not<br />
a Catholic specialty. Yet when did we ever hear about "pedophile pastors"?"<br />
ABUSE SCANDALS DIFFER FOR CATHOLICS, PROTESTANTS<br />
as reported in the High Point Enterprise April 2002<br />
"The flood of sex abuse allegations against priests this year has focused attention on the<br />
Roman Catholic Church, but Protestants denominations have also faced sex scandals<br />
involving clergy over the years. In fact, while data are sketchy, at least one expert believes<br />
the incidence of clergy molesting young children may be about as frequent-or in frequent-in<br />
Protestantism as it is in Catholicism.<br />
Others have found Protestant scandals have a tendancy to surface in cases where male<br />
ministers are counselling women or teen-age girls, while the allegations against priests have<br />
frequently involved underage males. Penn State historian Philip Jenkins argued in his 1996<br />
book, "Pedophiles and Priests," that both secular and Catholic media exaggerate the extent<br />
of Catholic cases involving minors, while downplaying Protestant abuse. For instance, the<br />
Rev. Robert Eckert of Grand Rapids, Mich., a minister in the African Methodist Episcopal<br />
Church, was sent to prison in 2000 for sexual involvement with a 15-year-old girl who<br />
worked as his baby sitter - but the case recieved rekatively little attention.<br />
Jenkins, an Episcopalian, thinks a 1992 survey from the Chicago Archdiocese is more<br />
representative of the true picture in Catholicism.<br />
Among 2,252 priests serving over four decades, 39 priests (1.7 percent) apparently abused<br />
minors. Only one abuser could be termed a pedophile under the strict, clinical definition of<br />
the word.<br />
"I am prepared to be convinced that Catholics have a bigger problem" than Protestants,<br />
Jenkins said, but nobody has good data, partly because Protestant groups are too numerous.<br />
"I certainly haven't seen anything, and I'm looking hard." Minneapolis psychologist Gary<br />
Schoener agreed.<br />
"There are no real scientific data" on Protestants, he said. Since 1974, his Walk-In<br />
Counseling Center has been consulted on more than 2,000 cases of clergy sexual<br />
misconduct of all types, two-thirds of them with Protestants."<br />
From Jewsweek: Grappling with Sexual Abuse in the Orthodox Community:<br />
April 15, 2002<br />
"Orthodox pedophiles?<br />
For years, most people in the Orthodox world assumed their religious way of life and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (8 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:32 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
tight-knit communities insulated them from problems rocking the larger world, like sexual<br />
abuse.<br />
There is still a great deal of resistance to discussing the issue, and a lingering feeling among<br />
many victims and advocates that Orthodox institutions are more concerned with protecting<br />
the reputations of men accused of sexual abuse than with believing or helping victims.<br />
But fueled by a combination of factors recent scandals, a growing cadre of Orthodox<br />
psychotherapists in whom Orthodox Jews feel comfortable confiding, and American<br />
society's growing openness about sensitive social problems that sense of insularity is<br />
eroding both among the fervently and centrist Orthodox communities.<br />
Just as it has begun to acknowledge that there are Orthodox child abusers and Orthodox<br />
drug addicts, the community is gradually coming to grips with the fact that it, too, has sexual<br />
abusers in its midst. ....<br />
In addition, there is a historic Jewish tendency, particularly acute in the Orthodox world, to<br />
keep quiet about sensitive issues for fear of publicly scandalizing the community.<br />
Many Orthodox Jews also fear that embarrassing information could jeopardize future<br />
wedding matches for individuals and their families.<br />
Another obstacle is that the many demands of an Orthodox lifestyle and the fact that<br />
Orthodox Jews must live within walking distance of synagogue make Orthodox<br />
communities tight-knit. That can make it hard for a victim to come forward, particularly if<br />
the abuser is prominent or well-liked." From http://www.jewsweek.com/society/080.htm<br />
Also from Jewsweek:<br />
The case of Rabbi Baruch Lanner, an Orthodox Union official who was accused of<br />
molesting more than 20 teenage girls over a period of 30 years, was a watershed event in<br />
forcing the centrist Orthodox world to begin dealing more seriously with sexual abuse.<br />
What many people found most disturbing about the Lanner case were the allegations that<br />
victims' complaints<br />
had gone unheeded.<br />
The National Conference of Synagogue Youth Special Commission investigating the O.U.'s<br />
handling of the Lanner case reported that it had received evidence of four occasions where<br />
some leaders were "put on direct and<br />
specific notice of serious sexual misconduct by Lanner, but did not remove him from his<br />
position with NCSY."<br />
See also http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63807-2002Jun28.html<br />
More cases:<br />
13-year-old girl raped in church Kissimmee Methodist Church<br />
March 21 2000<br />
Russian Orthodox Church-Leader, Jeremiah Hitt (AKA Jonathan Hitt)<br />
Profile: Convicted on eight counts of indecency with a child in 1999. Victim: teen-aged boy. The<br />
punishment will be up to ten years in prison. A civil case is still pending.<br />
Hitt's colleague, Benedict Greene, founder of the Blanco monastery pled guilty of similar charges in<br />
2000.<br />
http://www.pokrov.org/phitt.html<br />
1989: <strong>Bible</strong> School teacher Stanley Cummings sentenced to more than 2,000 years in prison after<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (9 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:32 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
conviction on 60 counts of child molestation and sexual exploitation of minors. Cummings molested,<br />
sodomised, photographed and tape recorded beating his victims whom he met through his church.<br />
1989: Foster parent Reverend Robert Schultz, 52, who had been honoured for his voluntary services to<br />
the community was sentenced to 30 years after confessing to acts described as 'horribly perverse' on<br />
foster children in his care.<br />
1989: Baptist minister William Hendricks, 50, pleaded guilty to sexual assault on his 7 year old girl<br />
victim whom he molested on consecrated ground.<br />
Pentecostal evangelist Antonio S Martinez 'married' a 12 year old girl whose grandmother forced her into<br />
the arrangement. He first assaulted her when she was 11. He was found guilty of aggravated sexual<br />
assault after taking her to a doctor to ask why she wasn't pregnant. (1989)<br />
1989: Christian Childcare worker Heath Turner, employed by First United Methodist Church convicted<br />
of sexually abusing a child in his care with toy boat, finger, and ice.<br />
1990: Pentecostal Minister D Stenhouse from Solihull sent to jail after admitting five charges of<br />
indecently assaulting boys aged 12 to 15.<br />
There were six girls abused by Rev Francis Haight, Baptist leader, sentenced to 20 years (1989).<br />
1991: Evangelist preacher Alan Bradley of Skipton convicted of indecent behaviour. Caught by police<br />
after revealing himself to young girls.<br />
Baptist Minister Ashby Breneman (1991) gets 18 yrs for molesting six boys at a Christian Youth Camp.<br />
On July 22, 1999, a Melbourne factory hand, Earl Ross Blennerhasset, 27, was found guilty of trying to<br />
steal a young girl from a Seventh Day Adventist Church. A Melbourne court heard Blennerhasset had<br />
been listening to a sermon minutes before asking the 12-year-old girl to go to the toilets with him ...<br />
A similar incident occurred in a Methodist Church at Kissimmee in the US, where it was revealed a<br />
13-year-old girl had been raped while awaiting choir practice ... During the Blennerhasset trial it was<br />
revealed the girl was released as soon as she started screaming. But this appeared not to be the case at the<br />
Kissimmee church, which claimed some 2000 members ... The girl told police she had arrived early for<br />
practice at the First United Methodist Church and was standing alone near some vending machines.<br />
A man allegedly approached the girl as a church service was about to begin and asked what she was<br />
waiting for. She told him she was waiting for choir practice and turned away.<br />
It was then that the man grabbed her and, like Blennerhasset, dragged her into a men's toilet. The girl was<br />
then raped police told reporters ... "Our hearts are broken," Senior Pastor Grant Siegfried said in the Sun<br />
Sentinel on March 21, 2000. "Our first concern is our children and youth. We have a lot of safety<br />
measures in place. "We may have to hire security guards ..."<br />
Rev. Thomas Streitferdt, 59, a Pastor in charge of the 700-member True Church of God in Harlem, was<br />
charged with rape and sodomy of two young sisters (ages 14 and 16) in his congregation.<br />
1991: 62 yr old Sunday School teacher sentenced to 10 years for sexually assaulting numerous children<br />
who attended Sunday School classes.<br />
1991: Baptist Minister Rev. Robert Burton charged after admitting long-term serious sexual abuse of his<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (10 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:32 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
six and eight year old stepsons.<br />
1991: Pentecostal Religious teacher who already had convictions for indecency against chldren was<br />
allowed to teach bible classes at a Cornwall church and used his position to sexually assault an 8 year old<br />
boy who attended his classes.<br />
1991: Minister Alfred Gatehouse 62, sentenced to 10 years for sodomy and soliciting paid sex with<br />
teenage girls.<br />
1991: Baptist Minister Larry Bernard 45, sentenced to 7 years for molesting a boy of 14.<br />
San Gabriel Valley Tribune 6/18/88<br />
Rev. Randall Wayne Brewer, a youth minister of Faith Community Church in West Covina, Calif., is<br />
charged with 3 counts of oral copulation with a Redlands teenager who said he was bribed and molested<br />
after being befriended at home <strong>Bible</strong> studies in 1985. The youth, now 17, testified that Brewer gave him<br />
$200 from a church checking account for running naked<br />
across an empty church hallway in a game called chicken. "I was told to tell everyone that I got the<br />
money for doing work at the church."<br />
Samuel David Allen (AKA Symeon or "Brother" Symeon or Michael)<br />
Profile: Samuel David Allen joined the Holy Order of MANS in the late 1960s before they claimed to be<br />
Orthodox. In 1989 while on parole for child molestation and registered as a sex offender, Mr. Allen<br />
broke the parole by attending church services out of his county at Holy Trinity Cathedral (OCA) in San<br />
Francisco. He was chrismated at Holy Trinity Cathedral on November 17, 1990. The offenses for which<br />
Mr. Allen received a fifteen year prison term were committed on November 29, 1990, and December 6,<br />
1990 in Marin County. Mr. Allen was also accused of molesting several children at Holy Trinity<br />
Cathedral. "Brother Sam" was good friends with Holy Order of MANS leader, David Finkelstein, who<br />
appeared in court on his behalf in 1991. http://www.pokrov.org/pallen.html<br />
Youth minister arrested for teen sex<br />
May 2000<<br />
A former youth minister at a US Baptist church and school was charged in May 2000 with having sex<br />
with a 17-year-old girl who was a member of his youth group.<br />
Timothy John Dougherty, 29, was charged in Jacksonville, Florida, with having unlawful sex with a<br />
minor. Dougherty faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted of violating a state law that prohibits anyone<br />
24 or older from having sex with 16 and 17 year olds.<br />
Police said the relationship began about two years ago when the First Coast Baptist Church and Christian<br />
School group visited Jamaica. Investigators said they were alerted by the girl's father and have since<br />
gathered love letters the two allegedly exchanged.<br />
The Associated Press reported that Dougherty was married and had children ...<br />
A few more newspaper clippings from a list of many hundreds:<br />
Christian televangelist William Wasmus of Church of the Living Savior: had sex with children and<br />
video-taped it on church equipment. (Columbus, Ohio, 1994)<br />
Christian Pentecostal evangelist Mario Leyva: sodomized more than 100 little boys. (Columbus, Georga,<br />
1990)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (11 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:32 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
Washington Post 5/13/88<br />
U.S. Rep. Floyd Flake, pastor of Allen African Methodist Episcopal Church in New York, and a first<br />
term Democrat, is accused of harassing a church assistant into leaving her job because she ended a sexual<br />
affair with her.<br />
Thelma M. Singleton-Scott complained that a panel of "elders" at the 4,000-member church held a<br />
"kangaroo court" review of the charges in January. She is now demanding back wages and Flake's ouster<br />
as pastor. She said that the church bishop was involved in offering her hush money.<br />
Christian Chaplan assistant Steven Ritchie: raped a six-year-old girl. (Fort Lewis, Washington, 1990)<br />
Father Emmanuel Koveos<br />
Profile: Emmanuel Koveos was a Greek Orthodox Priest with the GOA. In 1997 while a priest, "Father"<br />
Koveos molested a young girl in his parish while giving her Greek language lessons. Koveos was<br />
convicted by the courts. After an uproar over his working as a chanter in a Massachusetts parish, the<br />
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese finally announced Koveos defrocked in January, 2000.<br />
http://www.pokrov.org/pkoveos.html<br />
Christian Evangelist Dom McCary: sodomized four little boys. (Chattanooga, Tennessee, 1992)<br />
Christian Lutheran James Allen Weller: molested several children, some as young as ten years old.<br />
(Redwood, City, California, 1991)<br />
Florida Times-Union 5/13/88 and 6/9/88<br />
Rev. Joe Marino, host of Christian talkshow "Inner Visions" in Jacksonville, Fla., and youth<br />
minister/counselor at Beaches Chapel in Neptune Beach, plead no contest to custodial sexual battery and<br />
soliciting sex from a 16 year old member of his church. Other charges were dropped. The abuse was<br />
disclosed after a victim from the church had attempted suicide.<br />
A British Moslem man ritually killed his daughter in 1989 by saying Bismilla and then slitting her throat<br />
and allowing her to bleed to death because she had declared that she was to convert to Christianity after<br />
she had been enticed into a meeting held by Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
1989: Baptist minister Henry Waters, convicted of sexually abusing young boys whose souls he claimed<br />
would be 'saved' through his 'sex instruction'.<br />
1989: Salvation Army Captain Jack Holcomb, 50, pleaded guilty to unlawful intercourse with a 14 year<br />
old girl Salvation Army member.<br />
Christian deacon Henry Meinholz: raping and suffocating to death a 13-year-old girl. (Kingston,<br />
Massachusetts, 1991)<br />
Christian Reverend Lloyd David of First Christian Fellowship: child pornography and sexual abuse of<br />
teen-age boys. (Waukegan, Illinois)<br />
A Duval county minister, Rev. Roy Lynn Gaskins of Edgewood Heights Baptist Church, was accused of<br />
forcing a 13 year old boy at gunpoint to have sex.<br />
New York Times 6/10/88<br />
Former Mormon missionary Arthur Gary Bishop, 36, was executed on June 10th in Utah for killing 5<br />
boys (ages 4-13) for sexual gratification, saying he was "misled by Satan."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (12 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:32 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
Kenneth Lasky (AKA Father Konan, Father Kenneth, Kenneth Laskovsky)<br />
Profile: Father "Konan" was a monk in a Michigan monastery (ROCOR) where he was convicted of<br />
repeatedly raping and having oral sex with two of the boys who lived there. One of the victims was the<br />
adopted son of the monastery's abbot, Father Gabriel Loynes. http://www.pokrov.org/plasky.html<br />
Christian Reverend Virgil Carpenter of <strong>Bible</strong> Missionary Church: sodomized a nine-year-old girl.<br />
(Ontario, Oregon)<br />
Christian Presbyterian minister Bruce Brigden: molested 11 girls, some as young as four years old (Alva,<br />
Oklahoma)<br />
Father John Liadis (John Michael Liadis)<br />
Profile: According to court documents from 1989, John Liadis: did knowingly commit a lewd and<br />
lascivious act on or in the presence of a child under the age of sixteen years, to-wit: [victim's name<br />
omitted] born January 29th, 1974, by touching...in violation of Florida statute 800.04.<br />
http://www.pokrov.org/pliadis.html<br />
Kansas City Times 6/1/88<br />
Barry L. Deaton was charged with taking indecent liberties with a child for abducting a 14 year old girl<br />
from a gathering of Youth for Christ of Greater Kansas City.<br />
1988: Born Again Christian Tate who works for a religous magazine, confesses to seducing ten year old<br />
girl.<br />
Christian Reverand Richard Jones of Family Life Church: molested boys and told them the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
sanctioned the abuse (Park Hills, Missouri, 1994)<br />
Tampa Tribune 5/31/88<br />
Rev. Cleveland "Rapper" Mack, 24, of Tampa. Fla., was charged with sexually abusing 2 young boys<br />
during "<strong>Bible</strong> lessons", including a charge of sexual battery which carries a possible death sentence. He<br />
struck a boy in the face when he tried to flee.<br />
1989 A 'devout Christian; and a Sunday School teacher, Scott Williams, 29, admitted to raping a 13 year<br />
old girl and strangling and beating her to death.<br />
1989: Christian Evangelist Darlene Jackson, 33, starved her 4 year old daughter to death to exorcise her<br />
of evil spirits. She was sentenced to 7 years.<br />
Christian youth minister Keith Geren of Wayside Baptist Church charged with child molestation.<br />
(Miami, Florida, 1994)<br />
[Little Rock Arkansas] Gazette 6/10/88<br />
Rev. J.D. Henderson, 51, of Russellville, Ark., was convicted of molesting twin 6 year old girls, and<br />
sentenced to 4 years in prison. Henderson is an ordained Free will Baptist minister.<br />
In 1989, Minister Bernard Ponder 46, already on probation for the sexual abuse of boys now accused of<br />
sexually abusing a deaf boy.<br />
1989: Salvation Army member sexually abuses 14 year old girl whom he met at Sunday School. Jailed at<br />
York Crown Court.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (13 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:32 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
Chapel child care volunteer (1989) charged with 50 counts of child molestation, kidnapping, child abuse<br />
and other offences at Spring Valley church. A former youth minister was convicted of molesting<br />
teenagers at the church in the early 1980s.<br />
Father Benedict Greene (AKA Samuel A. Greene)<br />
Profile: Benedict Greene is the founder of Christ of the Hills Monastary in Blanco, Texas. Greene and<br />
Jeremiah Hitt were indicted of indecency with a child in 1999. Charges stated that they sexually abused a<br />
religious student at their monastery.<br />
http://www.pokrov.org/pgreene.html<br />
[Rome] Daily Sentinel 5/28/88<br />
Rev. Leon Dupree, 47, pastor of Lily of the Valley Church of God in Christ in Rochester, NY, is charged<br />
with first degree sexual assault and first degree burglary of a 26 year old woman. She said he was armed<br />
with a hammer and struck her with a screwdriver. Dupree was convicted of second degree manslaughter<br />
in a 1978 drunken driving fatality and served time in state<br />
prison.<br />
Christian Fundamentalist school operator Reverand Duane Smith: molesting children (Laporte, Indiana,<br />
1992)<br />
Arizona Republic 7/2/88, Phoenix Gazette 7/1/88<br />
Rev. James Anthony Colyn, 39, former pastor of the Glendale (Az.) <strong>Bible</strong> Baptist Church, received a<br />
SENTENCE of seven and a half years in prison. Colyn was described by police as a "sexual predator"<br />
who molested a teenage girl who asked him for counseling because she was being abused by her<br />
stepfather.<br />
Christian Mormon Sunday-school teacher John Midgett: molesting 8 girls, some only five years old.<br />
(California)<br />
Oregonian 6/1/88<br />
Todd S. Clark, 26, and Ralph W. Gantt, 26, both former youth leaders of the Royal Rangers boys'<br />
program at First Assembly of God church, Albany Oregon, were INDICTED for sexual abuse and<br />
sodomy of young boys. Hamilton Spectator (Canada) 7/9/88 Rev. Peter O'Hanley, 37, a priest from<br />
Fredericton, Ontario, was SENTENCED on July 8 to 3 months in jail after<br />
PLEADING guilty to sexual exploitation and abuse of three teenage boys.<br />
Christian Reverend Jon Walker of Springfield Baptist Church: molested a 13 year old girl (California).<br />
Los Angles Times 7/2/88<br />
Gilbert Crowell, 27, commander of the Salvation Army in Burbank and an ordained minister with a wife<br />
and 3 children, was CONVICTED on July 1 of molesting 3 girls inside the Army's office. He was<br />
convicted of 4 misdemeanor counts of child molestation and two counts of battery but was acquitted by a<br />
jury of 7 related charges.<br />
Rev. Pangratios Vrionis (AKA Metropolitan Pangratios of the Archdiocese of Vasiloupolis, Queens,<br />
New York or Demetrios Vrionis)<br />
In 1968 Father Vrionis was a GOA priest in Pennsylvania. He was apparently suspended and defrocked<br />
for "disobedience," and at the same time he was also charged with rape of two teen-aged boys by<br />
Dauphin county, Pennsylvania. After serving his sentence, Vrionis founded a children's school and his<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (14 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:32 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
own Orthodox Jurisdiction in Queens, New York (the Archdiocese of Vasilupolis).<br />
http://www.pokrov.org/pvrionis.html<br />
Christian Reverand James Randazzo of Spiral of Friends Church: drug use and child molestation<br />
(Molina, Colorado, 1989, brough to justice in 1992).<br />
Scrantonian Tribune 6/29/88<br />
Rev. Ronald Terry Litz, 50, of Riverside, Penn., SENTENCED to 2-5 years in jail for morals offences in<br />
Luzerne, Co., was SENTENCED in June to 6-23 months in the Northumberland Co. Prison on similar<br />
charges. He PLEADED guilty Feb. 4 to 3 counts of corrupting the morals of minors. Litz, former pastor<br />
of the Danville Apostolic Church, molested 2 boys at a church camp. His sentences are concurrent.<br />
1988: Congregational Church Minister Ian Garvock 45, of Lanarkshire found guilty of raping a four year<br />
old girl in park. Judge said "The offence was an appalling one of a very severe kind with incalcuable<br />
consequences to the young child.<br />
Christian minister and evangelist Tony Alamo reciently went to prison for tax evasion. During his trial it<br />
was discovered that he had "married" two fifteen-year-old children and was abusing them.<br />
That's just a small sample from a vast collection. Missing from the above are the killings, maimings, and<br />
assorted inhuman atrocities Christians have inflicted upon American citizens in the past five years. Also<br />
missing are the tens of hundreds of Christian Catholic priests convicted of molesting children.<br />
Hamilton Spectator 6/30/88<br />
Rev. Russel Nicolle, 50, an Anglican minister from Elliot Lake, Ontario, RECEIVED 8 months in jail for<br />
"repulsive, disgusting and degraded" sexual abuse of a 12 year old and 16 year old boy. Judge M.C.<br />
DiSalle said he "seriously breached" his position of trust as rector of St. Peter the Apostle Anglican<br />
Church.<br />
1988: Massive child porn ring smashed when police officers arrested a church official and siezed cache<br />
of indecent video tapes magazines and child pornography photos in a raid on a church in London.<br />
1985: Rev. John Gargano 67 convicted of 14 counts of rape, sodomy, sexual abuse and child<br />
endangerment. His four victims, who were repetitively abused said that the minister represented himself<br />
to them as the angel Gabriel.<br />
Scranton Times 7/14/88<br />
Rev. Thomas J. Hunt, former pastor of East Benton United Methodist Church, of Scranton, New York,<br />
was ARRESTED for molesting a young boy. Rev. Hunt already faces TRIAL for sex crimes against a<br />
young girl.<br />
Art Phillips, 43, of Arizona, was arrested in March and arraigned in April for fondling a 15-year-old girl<br />
and "solicitation to commit commercial sexual exploitation of a minor" (read: he wanted to take nude<br />
photos of her). Phillips is a Mormon sunday school teacher.<br />
1983: Methodist Choirmaster admits repetitive abuse of five year old girl but is only cautioned by police.<br />
Parents begin private prosecution but Crown Prosecution Service stymie them.<br />
Rev. Carey Mavor, an Arizona Methodist, pleaded guilty to 1 count of continuous sexual abuse and 2<br />
counts of lewd acts with a child under 14.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (15 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:32 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
In 1984, Methodist Minister Edgar Ford , 69, admitted to running a mailing list of 100 'young things' and<br />
housewives who wanted to pose for amateur and professional photographers' that he had taken<br />
photographs of housewives and models himself and that on one occasion he did submit to being<br />
photographed by a lady whilst they were both nude.<br />
1988: Church of England Vicar Michael Walter, already having served time for indecently assaulting<br />
little boys yet allowed to continue his clerical career by the church, is found guilty of further assaults on<br />
children.<br />
Rev. Wilputte Alanson Sherwood admitted recently to having sex with 1,800 males since 1984, at least<br />
22 of whom were under 18. He also kept records and videotapes of the sexual encounters. He was<br />
sentenced July 29 by Superior Court and was on PAID LEAVE until then. Also from Arizona.<br />
Philadelphia Inquirer 6/27/88<br />
Richard J. Wagner, 26, a volunteer youth leader at the Warminister Hts. Community Church in<br />
Philadelphia, was CHARGED with assaulting a 14 year old boy and 3 others between the ages of 7 and<br />
15 years of age, all part of the church youth program.<br />
In California, Rev. Richard Allen Henry, 47, was sentenced to 8 years in state prison for having sex with<br />
4 boys, all brothers, over a 6 year period. The Los Angeles archdiocese -- get this -- told the court not to<br />
imprison a "broken man" and unsuccessfully, praise Dobbs, offered to pay for treatment if probation was<br />
granted.<br />
Sarasota Herald-Tribune 6/30/88<br />
Rev. John Paul Marlow, pastor of Gospel Tabernacle, Inc. of Bradenton, Florida is ACCUSED of<br />
assaulting, battering and raping a member of his congregation. Pamela and John R. McLean charged<br />
Marlow with assaulting her when she sought psychological and religious counseling. They seek damages<br />
of $5,000 plus medical costs and lost wages.<br />
Rev. Maurice McInerney was charged with sexually abusing an incest survivor who had trusted him to<br />
counsel her. McInerney has been relieved of his duties but IS STILL RECEIVING HIS SALARY.<br />
Journal Tribune 7/15/88<br />
Rev Jonathan Hamlin, 24, of Vicksburg, Miss., was CHARGED with shooting his live in girlfriend, Lula<br />
Sims, and burying her on July 3 hours before giving a Sunday sermon.<br />
Rev. Mike Williams, 47, also of Colorado, was charged with SPANKING a man during a counseling<br />
session. He was acquitted of similar charges last year.<br />
Dallas Times Herald 6/29/88<br />
Rev. Gregory Charles Goben, a 28 year old Southern Baptist minister, was termed the "Village Rapist."<br />
The minister of Outreach Baptist Church in suburban Garland, married with 2<br />
sons, is CHARGED with a series of sexual assaults in the Village Apartment area of North Dallas.<br />
Goben, who has a masters degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, is linked to 4 sexual assaults, 1<br />
aggravated sexual<br />
assault and a charge of attempted burglary. That attacks all involved break-ins in which the assailant<br />
wore a ski mask and tied the victims' hands.<br />
1985: Methodist minister Emyr Owen a homosexual later found to possess a collection of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (16 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:32 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
sado-masochistic pornography was imprisoned by Chester Crown Court for secretly cutting the genitals<br />
off corpses of his parishoners which were placed in his care for burial and for threatening to murder a<br />
four year old girl.<br />
In Illinois, Rev. David Stalzer was REINSTATED to his parish despite a civil lawsuit accusing him of<br />
sexual misconduct with a minor.<br />
Today's Sunbeam [Salem N.J.] 7/1/88<br />
A new book "On Thin Ice" by Roy Howard Beck, former investigative writer for the United Methodist<br />
Reporter, claims knowledge of "outlandish behavior by ministers" around the country. "Caught in the act<br />
of bizarre moral actions involving sex, violence and finances were television evangelists, mainline<br />
preachers, bishops, well-known charismatic leaders, revered small<br />
church pastors--Pentecostals, liberals and conservatives alike." Beck says moral turpitude by ministers<br />
cannot be excused because "they do a lot of good." He writes: "What people do along the way is just as<br />
important as what happens in the end. How many times have we watched as a person's legacy is reduced<br />
after one finds out about the people who were crushed or<br />
hurt along the way."<br />
FIVE priests from Belleville, Illinois were removed from the ministry (exception, not the rule) due to<br />
allegations, investigations etc. of sexual misconduct.<br />
1986: Minister Richard Kearney found guilty of molesting 4 boys over a 5 year period. One victim said<br />
he had been abused 20 times and another said he was molested whilst under Confirmation instruction by<br />
Kearney.<br />
Rev. Kevin Sullivan, of Decatur, Illinois, is being sued. Why? Because he impregnated Susan Hertel and<br />
then encouraged her to have an abortion.<br />
In Indiana, Rev. Raymond Weber is being sued. He allegedly used LSD and alcohol to seduce a teenage<br />
boy.<br />
Also in Indiana, deacon A.V. Ballenger was convicted of fondling a 7-year-old girl in Sunday school<br />
class and sentenced to 8 years in prison.<br />
In Iowa, the pastor of the Wesleyan Church is accused of placing an ad under the name "Diamond<br />
Dreams" and agreeing to sex for $150 with an undercover officer while DRESSED IN DRAG. Rev.<br />
Jennfrey Dean McKelvey quit his job after his arrest.<br />
In Kentucky, Rev. Earl Bierman attempted to seduce two boys by telling them all about other<br />
parishioners' confessions of sexual aberrations. He pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of 6 boys and was<br />
sentenced to 20 years.<br />
Rev. Ronald D. Provost of Barre, Massachusetts was convicted for taking over 100 nude photos of boys.<br />
He refused to apologize to the victims' families, and the mother of one boy said that the diocese has<br />
"expressed no concern at all."<br />
C. Eric Lincoln, a Methodist minister, is charged with assault, attempted rape and battery of a woman at<br />
Duke University, where Lincoln is a professor emeritus.<br />
Donald J. Heydens, a priest in Grand Rapids, Michigan, admitted to molesting 5 girls. The girls claimed<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (17 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:32 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
that Heydens submitted them to repeated assaults over a period of one year.<br />
Rev. Wilson Smart molested or had sexual contact with 31 boys since 1950. His Helena, Montana<br />
diocese has encouraged parishoners not to sue but instead accept church counseling.<br />
In lovely New Mexico, Rev. David Holley gets up to 275 years in prison for molesting 8 boys.<br />
A third priest, Rev. Edward Pipala, was removed from a Hudson Valley, NY pastorate for accusations of<br />
sex abuse. He has ADMITTED to turning the parish boys' club into a sex club he called "The Hole," at<br />
which he provided beer to 30-50 minors and engaged in anal and oral sex and masturbation, all under an<br />
oath of secrecy (and threat of excommunication, I'll bet).<br />
Martin Louis, a priest of the Cleveland, Ohio diocese, was sentenced to 25 years in prison. A woman<br />
testified that he molested her when she was 10 following her first communion. He repeatedly raped her,<br />
threatening her with hell and telling her that this was what all priests do (Possibly, but not probably).<br />
I have not even gone into the myriads of allegations of sexual abuse by Catholic Priests. At any rate, the<br />
incidents involving Jehovah's Witnesses are dwarfed by those of mainstream faiths, it is just easier to<br />
pick on the little ones.<br />
According to NY Times, Sunday August 11, 2002, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of<br />
Denver had the following to say regarding Jehovah's Witnesses who were "no different from many other<br />
insular religions that aspire to theological and moral purity" that: "Groups that tend to be very tight-knit<br />
and ingrown historically have a higher incidence if sexual abuse and incest."<br />
This fallacy does not (a) account though for the higher incidence of cases amongst mainstream faiths,<br />
and (b) the media silence of many other smaller and close-knit groups. What it comes down to is one or<br />
two groups who are unfairly targetted by the media. It is comparable to the anti-Semitism described in<br />
Jenkin's book on Pedophilia:<br />
"If a newspaper accurately describes the dishonest or criminal activitiy of an individual who is Jewish,<br />
that would not of itself be anti-Semitic. It would however be grossly anti-semitic if the paper repeatedly<br />
described the criminal activities of Jews without noting the similar role of other ethnic groups, and<br />
further proposed that this form of criminality was peculiarly characteristic of Jews or arose from features<br />
of the Jewish religion or ethnicity."<br />
Pedophiles and Priests, p. 13, Philip Jenkins (Oxford University Press)<br />
This is nothing new.<br />
"During the latter years of the nineteenth century, the climate for the new sects became chillier as the<br />
news media became more sensational in tone, finding rich material in the religious fringe... In the first<br />
decade of the new century, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle successively declared war upon Christian Science,<br />
the Emmanuel Movement, and the Watch Tower Society<br />
The media found a continuing stream of ludicrous and scandalous material in various sects, some of<br />
which recalled the great days of communal expansion...Apart from depicting cult leaders as cranks, news<br />
stories also reinforced images of sexual excess and immorality." Mystics and Messiahs, pp. 42, 43<br />
It is hate, it is discrimination, pure and simple, by those who seek to profit off the allegations of others<br />
and further prejudice a public that is already hostile to Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
The WTS Letter to Dateline<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (18 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:32 AM]
JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria<br />
Back To Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo.htm (19 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:32 AM]
Accusation, Agendas and Pedophilia<br />
What They Don't Tell You!<br />
Warning:Extreme Language from Opposers Below!!<br />
Dateline Transcript:<br />
Ms. E. GARZA: So I called my elders and I said, `Look, I'm taking it to the<br />
police.'<br />
LARSON: What did they say?<br />
Ms. E. GARZA: `Don't. Or else.'<br />
LARSON: Or else what?<br />
Ms. E. GARZA: That's what I said. I said, `Or else what?' And he said, `Just<br />
don't.' I said, `What? I'll be disfellowshipped if I take it to the police?<br />
Is that what's going to happen to me?' And he said, `Yes. You will be<br />
disfellowshipped.' And I was just, like, `What? You're going to disfellowship<br />
me for being raped, yet the guy who raped me is still a Jehovah's Witness?'<br />
And they said, `Don't. Don't take it to the police. You will be condemned by<br />
God.'"<br />
Reply: My reactions to statements like these are: "Who talks like this?!"<br />
I have been a JW most of my life, and the above statements are absolutely foreign to me. They are simply<br />
not true, or at least, quite embellished. If something like this happened to my child, I, the PARENT will<br />
go to the proper authorities, the Police. I will not leave it in the hands of religious elders to that for me. It<br />
is my duty as a parent to protect my child, something these parents were unable to do.<br />
"In addition to making a report to the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the elders may<br />
be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the<br />
authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to<br />
report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so. In the<br />
United States, reporting requirements vary from state to state. It can be quite a challenge to<br />
keep abreast of the reporting requirements, but our Legal Department makes every effort to<br />
do so."<br />
http://www.jw-media.org/releases/default.htm?content=bbc020509.pdf<br />
Nothing is holding anyone from reporting crimes to the authorities, except their own misapplied fears.<br />
Thanks to the Dateline program, we now have more victims. JW school-children will no doubt be teased,<br />
harassed, if not beaten for this. We had a similar situation in Russia, when Ray Franz's book was posted<br />
online there in Russian, in order to fuel the persecution and killings of brothers there.<br />
You see, when a priest or clergyman commits a felony or makes a mistake, it comes down to him being a<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo2.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:51:44 AM]
Accusation, Agendas and Pedophilia<br />
bad priest. When this happens with JW's, even in smaller numbers, to the public, it is symptomatic of all<br />
JW's.<br />
[I am also receiving reports that brothers are being sent pictures of mutilated and naked babies in their<br />
email box. This action is the product of a sick and twisted mind...the mind of a JW opposer.<br />
SunshineConcern writes to tell me that Jesus would not have acted as I did (?), yet she will take sides<br />
with the same individuals who perpetuate this garbage.]<br />
This whole pedophile problem could have been averted if, the perpretator was reported to the authorities,<br />
not by the elders or the WTS, but by either the victims families, or the family of the perp. Amazingly,<br />
NONE of those who were the closest to the situation reported these fiends, but saw fit to blame this on<br />
elders who were only trying to help, albeit poorly. This of course also hearkens to the "shift the blame<br />
mentality" prevalent in society today.<br />
No one gets disfellowshipped/excommunicated for reporting crimes to the authorities, no one!<br />
The hysteria will continue, and Bill Bowen and the apostate sites that support him will have made "Silent<br />
Lambs" the new "Protocols of the Elders" of JW's, accusations blown out of proportion, selectively<br />
designed to fuel the public's disdain for JW's that already exists.<br />
Dateline also made it a point, that one accuser was reinstated and in field service. However he is doing<br />
11 years jail time. The basis of his imprisonment was that he admitted in court that he molested the girl,<br />
however, he claimed he only touched her inappropriately and didn't have sex with her. He got a much<br />
longer sentence for this type of crime than is usual, a sentence that, from what I am told, would not have<br />
been posssible had it not been for his initial confession to the elders. Once you shake the bottle up to see<br />
what is really inside, things are not as clear as hoped.<br />
Anti-JW websites have been having a field-day with this, yet their reasoning in this matter is<br />
contradictory. They have often attacked us in the past for "shunning" certain members. This Biblically<br />
required mandate is called excommunication or disfellowshipping (click here for more.)<br />
Now they are upset because JW's did NOT shun THESE members with sexual problems.<br />
<strong>Site</strong>s like the Freeminds and the Watchtower Observer defend Ex-JW's who are gay, and Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses are painted as homophobic. In fact, the Observer compares JW's to Dr. Laura.<br />
When I heard the term "pedophile paradise", I realized that I had heard this term before, it was from<br />
apostate Kent Steinhaug (caution: Extreme Language Warning)<br />
Scroll Down...<br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo2.htm (2 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:51:44 AM]
><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
Accusation, Agendas and Pedophilia<br />
To: ,,<br />
Subject: Hi there, moron!<br />
From: "Kent Steinhaug" <br />
Date: Thu, Nov 15 2001 1:15:36 AM +0100<br />
Cc: "Watchtower-Observer" <br />
Also, I'm sure you enjoy the fact that all the assholes inside the pedophile paradise is being<br />
exposed. I'm convinced you feel that's an awful attach on your "christian" way of life as well<br />
- being an asshole who protects child molesters and pedophiles - supports these bastards to<br />
go around knocking doors - finding more victims to abuse!<br />
Also, I'm sure you are happy to know the AidAfrique is my next target to expose. They<br />
cooperate, as you know, with womens Liberation, Governments, UN, Military - you name it.<br />
And, don't let us forget the JW running for president in Africa!<br />
You really should publish this mail as well, and I guess you will do as you use to. Edit my<br />
mail to look different than I wrote it.<br />
But I'm sure you will leave this sentence un-edited:<br />
You're still a pathetic moron!<br />
Still laughing my ass off!<br />
Kent<br />
,,,<br />
Subject: RE: Hi there, moron!<br />
From: "Frank" <br />
Date: Wed, Nov 14 2001 7:44:51 PM -0500<br />
Cc: "Watchtower-Observer" <br />
Who is this moron, Kent? He sounds like he’s a cut below the average JW ignorant ass-hole.<br />
Seems like the JWs are coming in two flavors now. The militarist, “My God is better than<br />
your God,” child-fondling cretin whose attachment to the Borg is so thin they don’t mind<br />
breaking with them and actually having actual social intercourse with apostates. There’s one<br />
type. Then there’s the other flavor. And this is the meeting-going, suit wearing,<br />
watchtower-reading, song-singing, “My God is better than your god,” dip-shit who is barely<br />
self-aware and hasn’t the sense to pour piss out of a shoe: the typical boot-licking,<br />
anti-thinking, mote-loving, scripture out of context quoting, Jehovah’s Witness pig-dog. I<br />
thing Heinz 57 is one of the former. But is there more to this story?<br />
Francois<br />
[As you can see, a dog really does return to his own vomit, Prov 26:11; 2 Peter 2:22]<br />
Reply: According to the above, even I am a pedophile, because he "thinks" it, [I have never solicited any<br />
emails with the above 2 men from the Observer] which goes to show you that the numbers used by<br />
JW-Haters in regards to pedophiles amongst JW's are completely inflated.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo2.htm (3 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:51:44 AM]
Accusation, Agendas and Pedophilia<br />
If, as Bowen claims, the JW's are a "pedophile paradise*" then any group that protects and defends Gays<br />
must also be seen as such.<br />
[*Pedophile Paradise*:This kind of language is quite common amongst those with an agenda:<br />
See http://kosnoff.com/construction/ and http://www.skeptictank.org/utahpedo.htm which both refer to<br />
Salt Lake City (Mormons) as "Pedophile Heaven." There are no more pedophiles amongst Mormons than<br />
there are any other segment of the population. Anti-Roman tirades would describe it as a "pornographers<br />
paradise." (Marcus, The Other Victorians, pp. 62-63)<br />
The term "Silencing of the Lambs" was also used of Catholics (Pedophiles and Priests, p. 56)by those<br />
hostile to these groups. This type of language is sensational and tends to stigmatize certain groups, often<br />
beyond repair.]<br />
The Observer, and Freeminds are both pro-Gay, and yet, it is from this demographic that child-abuse<br />
rates are highest.<br />
Kevin Bishop, from North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) says “Scratch the<br />
average homosexual and you will find a pedophile,” said Bishop in an interview with the Electronic<br />
Mail & Guardian ( June 30, 1997)<br />
The Gay Report,published by homosexual researchers Jay and Young in 1979, revealed that 73 percent<br />
of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger. [K. Jay<br />
and A. Young, The Gay Report (New York: Summit Books, 1979), p. 275.]<br />
Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population, they constitute about a third<br />
of child molesters. [K. Freund and R.I. Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual<br />
Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital<br />
Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443, cited in "The Problem of Pedophilia," op. cit. Also, K. Freund and R.I.<br />
Watson, "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10<br />
(Fall 1984): 197, cited in NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality)<br />
Fact Sheet.]<br />
Further, as noted by the Encino, Calif.-based National Association for Research and Therapy of<br />
Homosexuality (NARTH),<br />
“since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles,<br />
it is estimated that approximately 80 percent of pedophilic victims are boys who have been<br />
molested by adult males.”<br />
[Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality<br />
Debate<br />
(Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press), p. 114, cited in "The Problem of Pedohilia]<br />
Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D., conducted a content study of the personal ads<br />
in the Advocate, the “national gay and lesbian newsmagazine,” and discovered that “chickens,” a<br />
common term for underage boys sought for sex, were widely solicited. Many of the advertisements in the<br />
magazine solicited boys and teens from within a larger pool of prostitution ads, which constituted 63<br />
percent of all personal ads.32 The authors also note a statement from a book review by homosexual<br />
activist Larry Kramer that the work,<br />
“like much canonized male homosexual literature, involves sexually predatory white men on<br />
the prowl for dark-skinned boys to gratify them.”<br />
[Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., "A Content Analysis of ‘The Advocate,’" unpublished manuscript p. 18,<br />
quoted in "Pedophilia: The Part of Homosexuality They Don’t Want You to See,"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo2.htm (4 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:51:44 AM]
Accusation, Agendas and Pedophilia<br />
"Larry Kramer’s Reading List," The Advocate, January 24, 1995, p. 99, cited in "Status Report,"<br />
The Reisman & Johnson Report of Partner Solicitation Characterisitics as a Reflection of More Sexual<br />
Orientation and the Threat to Children, First Principles Press, January 1995.]<br />
"The homosexual rights movement has tried to distance itself from pedophilia, but only for<br />
public relations purposes. In fact, homosexual activists around the world are working<br />
aggressively to lower the age of sexual consent for children and to normalize sex with<br />
children. They are accomplishing their goal through legislation, psychiatry, the courts,<br />
academia, and the entertainment industry." Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia by Frank<br />
V York and Robert H.Knight<br />
A homosexual activist writing under the name of Michael Swift, quoted by Frank York and Charles and<br />
Donna McIlhenny in When the Wicked Seize a City (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers,<br />
1993), pp. 212-213, stated:<br />
"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams<br />
and vulgar lies. … Your sons shall become our minions to do our bidding. They will be<br />
recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us."<br />
Need I say more?<br />
Are we going to see an accurate reporting of this? No!<br />
"It’s not hard to speculate why the media have been squeamish. The church is steadfast in its<br />
doctrine of sexuality, so there is nothing like a whiff of hypocrisy to make the media wolves<br />
ravenous. But reporting negatively about homosexuality sours the stomach, because in the<br />
elite media, homosexuals are a protected class. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that these<br />
same outlets were scorching the Boy Scouts for their firm resolve against hiring<br />
homosexuals as Scout leaders."<br />
http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/departments/a0021237.html<br />
If JW's or Catholics relaxed their policies against homosexuals, this will be applauded by the media, and<br />
certain other agendaized groups. If these same homosexuals start preying on the children, it will be<br />
reported as a serious problem for that respective church. A Catch-22 really.<br />
See also http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0020332.html and http://www.frc.org/get/is02e3.cfm<br />
Bill Bowen, owner of Silent Lambs, when asked in an email message by me if he would also include<br />
other faiths (see http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/pedo.htm) on his website, especially as the<br />
numbers of abuse therein are higher, he declined. He was only interested in providing "an outreach to<br />
victims of child molestation and abuse within the Jehovah's Witness community." Yet his statements of a<br />
"pedophile paradise" belie his claims of being "fair to JW's" and reveals a devious agenda that is<br />
promoted and praised by the very ones whose words are filled with the profanity and hatred in the letters<br />
above. It is comparable to the anti-Semitism described in Jenkin's book on Pedophilia:<br />
"If a newspaper accurately describes the dishonest or criminal activitiy of an individual who is Jewish,<br />
that would not of itself be anti-Semitic. It would however be grossly anti-semitic if the paper repeatedly<br />
described the criminal activities of Jews without noting the similar role of other ethnic groups, and<br />
further proposed that this form of criminality was peculiarly characteristic of Jews or arose from features<br />
of the Jewish religion or ethnicity."<br />
Pedophiles and Priests, p. 13, Philip Jenkins (Oxford University Press)<br />
It is hate, it is discrimination, pure and simple, by those who seek to profit off the allegations of others.<br />
Email:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo2.htm (5 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:51:44 AM]
Accusation, Agendas and Pedophilia<br />
Sunshineconcern-Because states vary on whom they require to report allegations of child molestation<br />
does not mean they vary on whether people can always encourage victims to report for themselves. This<br />
is the point you stubbornly refuse to even discuss, let alone reason on it logically or even answer the<br />
simple questions I have asked you throughout our conversation relevant to the issue. Your reaction is<br />
more like those who want to dodge a point rather than objectively analyze a real concern. This is not how<br />
Jesus reacted to the cries of victims.<br />
Reply: Ma'am, I ain't Jesus. At least I did not have to stoop to lying as you have (let's face it, you are not<br />
really a JW [as you have claimed]). The point of my webpages on this topic is to show that people like<br />
you are discriminatory in your handling of the facts.<br />
If someone, like Bill Bowen for instance, creates a web site or prints newsletters decrying the criminal<br />
activities of one or a few JW's, that is not discriminatory. If however he only reports these activities only<br />
as they pertain to JW's as a whole, and repeatedly so, without noting similar activities of other groups,<br />
religious or otherwise, that is hate literature. It is anti-JW, and smacks of the tactics used by Hitler in<br />
order to perpetuate the already deep-seated hatred people have for Jehovah's Witnesses. It is highly<br />
inflammatory to describes JW's as a "pedophile paradise" when similar activities by others groups<br />
actually dwarf those of JW's. Pedophiles are predators and you will find them wherever there is access to<br />
children. That cases were handled badly is the same accusation across the board everywhere. The fact<br />
remains that no one chopped of the dialing fingers of the people closest to the situation....the victims<br />
families, and those of the perpetrator. If someone touched my child, nothing would prevent from going to<br />
the Police...NOTHING!! Would I be disfellowshipped for doing so? Absolutely not! Even IF (and that is<br />
a big IF) that were a threat, I still would go to the authorities. It would be unconscionable NOT to.<br />
><br />
> It is inexcusable that we do not encourage all victims of serious crime like child molestation to report it<br />
to the police, regardless of what state they happened to be victimized in.<br />
><br />
I agree, but this problem is ecumenical, and not derivative of JW's. All churches have failed in this<br />
regard, and it really has only been in the last 20 years that all organizations, religious or secular, have<br />
better educated themselves as to the issues involved.<br />
It is not a JW problem, unless you want to see it that way. The problem is entirely of your own making.<br />
"If the world is not be represented as a jumble of of random and chaotic events, then they<br />
must be identified (i.e., named, identified related to other events known to the audience).<br />
This process-identification and contextualization-is one of the most important through<br />
which event are 'made to mean' by the media." Stuart Hall, Policing the Crisis [1978]<br />
To do this, things are framed in a certain context. Frames are "cultural combinations and<br />
constructions that put selected phenomena into comprehensible and consumable focus"<br />
which means, for JW's and Catholics, that these frames are "highly selective...which<br />
emphasizes certain aspects of the cases to the exclusion of others and concentrates on these<br />
instances rather than others that could equally well have been chosen." Pedophiles and<br />
Priests, p. 6, Philip Jenkins<br />
The predatory nature of pedophiles will ensure their presence in areas where they will have access to<br />
children, areas where they can enjoy their trust, and what better arena than the religious one:<br />
"Child Molesters are predators who will often use a church to find victims. Churches<br />
typically have a very trusting atmosphere regarding teachers and our children. In today's<br />
society with morals breaking down at an astronomical rate, we find this occuring more<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo2.htm (6 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:51:44 AM]
Accusation, Agendas and Pedophilia<br />
frequently than ever before. Your children could be in danger, even at church. The last thing<br />
you want to do is stay at home because of the potential problem, so we are attempting to<br />
offer a solution to churches to assist with this situation.<br />
Do not be fooled. Child molesters are some of the best actors in the world. This is HOW<br />
they obtain their victims and prevent being caught. They can pretend to be Christians and<br />
will even join evangelism training in order that other adults do not suspect their true<br />
motives." http://www.baptist-church.org/predator.html<br />
This is sad, but hardly indigenous to ONE group.<br />
Has Bill Bowen (of Silent Lambs) collaborated with a Pornographer?<br />
Written by a non-JW:<br />
"Plot Thickens: SilentLambs Now Has Silent Partner<br />
Approximately one month ago, it was discovered that William Bowen, president and<br />
founder of child advocacy group SilentLambs Inc., had entered into a partnership with a<br />
German citizen, who agreed to host and translate the group's website into the German<br />
language.<br />
German supporters of SilentLambs were shocked at this news, since Bowen's German<br />
partner is a former Jehovah's Witness who is known to own pornographic websites, in<br />
addition to websites that publish anti-Watchtower material of questionable accuracy.<br />
Conscientious supporters of SilentLambs were disillusioned by Bowen's weak response<br />
when this fact became public knowledge. Bowen's response did not seem to indicate<br />
surprise with his partner's business activities, nor did he seem overly concerned with having<br />
his child advocacy group linked with a known pornographer.<br />
Bowen initially indicated that he planned to proceed with the partnership. However, Bowen<br />
now says that the German version of the SilentLambs website will not be hosted by the<br />
same ISP that hosts the two pornographic websites referenced above. It seems that Bowen<br />
hopes that it will be assumed from this switch in ISPs that he is no longer partners with the<br />
pornographer.<br />
However, SilentLambs supporters strongly suspected that the move to a different ISP is<br />
nothing more than misdirection intended to deceive supporters, with the German<br />
pornographer continuing to provide financing, and working behind the scenes as a silent<br />
partner."<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
heinzschmitz@canoemail.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pedo2.htm (7 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:51:44 AM]
The Watchtower and the United Nations<br />
Why was the Watchtower Society Listed amongst the United Nations<br />
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO)?<br />
In 1991, one of the legal corporations of the WTS registered with the United Nations as an NGO for the<br />
sole purpose of getting access to the extensive library of the United Nations. This enabled a writer who<br />
received an identification card, to enter the library, to enter the library for research purposes and to obtain<br />
information that has been used in writing articles in our journals about the United Nations. There was<br />
nothing secret about it.<br />
At the time of the initial application, no signature was required on the form. Years later, unbeknown to<br />
the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, the United Nations published "Criteria for Association",<br />
stipulating that affiliated NGO's are required to support the goals of the UN.<br />
After learning of the situation, our membership as NGO was withdrawn and the ID card was returned.<br />
From a reader: The WT says that the UN is the unclean thing and its not to be touched.<br />
Reply: That is not really true. The <strong>Bible</strong> and the WTS says that of Babylon the great, not the government<br />
(that is why the NWT cross-references 2 Cor 6:17 with Revelation 18). What the WTS has actually<br />
pooh-poohed is that the UN is mankinds last hope, or "God's kingdom on earth."<br />
To defend other JW's, the Watchtower has also recently filed with the European Court, in order to protect<br />
our rights under the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. see<br />
http://www.jw-media.org/rights/european_court.htm<br />
The original principles and goals expressed in the UN charter are: to maintain international peace and<br />
security; to suppress acts of aggression that threaten world peace; to encourage friendly relations among<br />
nations; to protect the fundamental freedoms of all peoples without discrimination based on race, sex,<br />
language, or religion; and to achieve international cooperation in solving economic, social, and cultural<br />
problems."<br />
There isn't anything here which compromises our beliefs as Christians? Many JW's sign documents<br />
which state that we will protect the constitution or laws of the country he resides in, because there is no<br />
Christian conflict in protecting the stated principles of these governments.<br />
God is going to use the UN to destroy false religion so why shouldn't we use it to promote religious<br />
freedom and human rights as long as we do not join it. We can promote it's "ideals" without promoting it<br />
as a replacement for God's Kingdom.<br />
The Society has also stated:<br />
"Registration papers filed with the United Nations that we have on file contain no statements that conflict<br />
with our Christian beliefs."<br />
Additionally, the WTS has previously called the UN objectives "nobel." Also, there is no conflict<br />
between the WTS's purpose and the Charter's allowance for governments to take military action. The<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> clearly states that God himself has given these governments the authority to "carry the sword" and<br />
we do not deny that authority (Rom.13:4). At the same time God requires Christians to personally reject<br />
warfare. (Matt 26:52)<br />
A 1994 UN brochure gives evidence to the fact that there was beginning to be a change in the official<br />
requirements for participation and an NGO. On page six we find this statement: "A new relationship<br />
between the UN and NGOs is now being created. We have seen this new relationship begin to mature.<br />
NGOs are taking on important new responsibilities."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ngo.htm (1 of 3) [5/25/2003 3:52:12 AM]
The Watchtower and the United Nations<br />
Then we find the current Criteria for Association of NGOs describing the work of NGOs using language<br />
that Witnesses clearly cannot agree with; encouraging political participation, strengthening and support<br />
of the UN System etc. Also, in the latest NGO brochure we find that there was in fact an official change<br />
in the relationship and requirements of NGOs. ()<br />
Quoting from the brochure:<br />
"After three years of negotiation, ECOSOC reviewed its arrangements for consultation with<br />
NGOs in July 1996. One outcome was ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, which revised the<br />
arrangements for NGO consultation with ECOSOC....A second outcome...Decision<br />
1996/297, which recommended that the General Assembly examine, at it 51st session, the<br />
QUESTION OF THE PARTICIPATION OF NGOS IN ALL AREAS OF WORK OF THE<br />
UN...Subsequently, in the General Assembly Working Group looking into the<br />
STRENGTHENING OF THE UN SYSTEM a sub-group on NGOs was formed."<br />
The above clearly confirms exactly what the WTS has said: That *after* they applied for NGO status<br />
there was a change in the language of the "Criteria for Association." When this was brought to their<br />
attention they *immediately* withdrew their participation.<br />
In a nutshell: The WTS applied for a library card at the UN. After they had received this card, the<br />
requirements for holding this card changed, so they returned it. Everything was done properly, despite<br />
what our enemies say regarding the matter.<br />
From a reader:<br />
****There is [sic] any reason to get this library card to get access to the books because the<br />
UN has what is called “Depository Library”. In these places, you may found nearly all the<br />
books that you may found at the UN library. This libraries are around the world and what<br />
you need is a library card because these libraries are often found in public libraries or<br />
university libraries. But there is any political policy or other weird thing to apply for this<br />
library card.<br />
Reply: Certainly, all the available information is not available at the depository libraries, contrary to<br />
some opposers claims. Looking closely, the WTS did not say that they registered as an NGO just to get a<br />
library card for the "main library." They also wanted to gain access to research material at the UN<br />
"library facilities" or the "extensive library of the UN." This library system includes more than just the<br />
Dag Hammarskjold library. It includes DPI photo, film and audio libraries, access to the NGO Resource<br />
Center which offers current UN documents, access to selected meetings, briefings, seminars,<br />
conferences, film screenings, and language courses. Are all these resources accesible with out an NGO<br />
pass? Probably not!<br />
Why have access to the UN's public information anyways? JW's are often the brunt of violations of the<br />
UN's charter of Rights and Freedoms. According the Encyc;. Americana 2000, Jehovah's Witnesses have<br />
faced more persecution in the 20th Century than any other religious group, save the Jews. But when we<br />
take steps to protect our members, even this is demonized by those that hate us and make an issue out of<br />
all this. THIS IS ANOTHER FORM OF PERSECUTION. See:<br />
http://www.jw-georgia.org/eng/rights/00sep08UN.htm<br />
http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webeurcountries/GEORGIA?OpenDocument<br />
http://www.ihf-hr.org/appeals/981023.htm<br />
http://www.cacianalyst.org/July_18_2001/July_18_2001_News_Bites.htm<br />
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Abuses/Chronology.asp<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ngo.htm (2 of 3) [5/25/2003 3:52:12 AM]
The Watchtower and the United Nations<br />
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k2/pdf/czech.pdf<br />
http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord1998/vol5/romaniatr.htm<br />
http://www.ips.org/rights/news/nup051299_11.htm<br />
and many many more.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ngo.htm (3 of 3) [5/25/2003 3:52:12 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
Refuting Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by<br />
ALL?<br />
An Answer to Tentmaker.org<br />
"For as IN ADAM all die, even so IN CHRIST all shall be made alive." 1 Cor 15:22 (NKJV)<br />
Gary A: "There is only one translation which had the audacity to put into print that which<br />
many Christian teachers, pastors, and commentators imply and that is the Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses New Testament. What orthodoxy adds in their commentaries, the Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses' put directly into the text. Their translation reads,<br />
"And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw men of all sorts to me."<br />
Yet it is rather peculiar that in their Interlinear Translation, the word "sorts" does not<br />
appear in their word-for-word translation. Therefore, we can conclude that they did not get<br />
"sorts" from the Greek. They got it from their twisted theology, just like every other<br />
denomination which refuses to believe that Jesus is indeed the Savior of the whole world.<br />
Some will say that "PANTAS" (transliterated: pantas, all) which is a masculine accusative<br />
plural adjective from "PAS" (transliterated: pas) does not really mean all mankind. Well let<br />
us see. The Expositor's Greek Testament on page 504 in Volume 3 renders it "The universe<br />
in its widest sense regarded as a collective whole." Professor John Eadie, professor of<br />
Biblical Literature in the United Presbyterian Divinity Hall renders it, "The universe, the<br />
whole that exists, all things, whether they be things on earth, or in heaven." (Taken from<br />
Commentary of the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians, page 52, 73) Dr. J.B. Lightfoot D.D.,<br />
D.C.L., L.L.D. speaking of the phrase "ta panta" says, "The whole universe or things,<br />
material as well as spiritual, shall be restored to harmony to God." (St. Paul's Epistles to<br />
the Colossians and Philemon, page 160 by Dr. Lightfoot) "Ta panta is the existing all, the<br />
totality of things [The universe, Alford-R], panta would be all that actually is." (Winer's<br />
Grammar p.105) I think mankind certainly falls within the parameter of the universe, don't<br />
you think?<br />
Reply: Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains Volume 1 By: Louw<br />
& Nida says of PAS, PASA and PAN, "a totality of kinds or sorts-'every kind of,' 'all sorts of.'"<br />
"Everything belonging, in kind, to the class designated by the noun, every kind of, all sorts of..." BDAG<br />
p. 784<br />
This lexicon gives the following as some examples:<br />
Mt. 4:23,<br />
QERAPEUWN PASAN NOSON KAI PASAN MALAKIAN EN TW LAW<br />
"healing every disease and every infirmity among the people." Revised Standard Version (RSV)<br />
"curing every sort of disease and every sort of infirmity among the people." NWT<br />
"curing all kinds of disease and ailments among the people." New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> (NJB)<br />
Mt. 23:27,<br />
PASHS AKAQARSIAS<br />
"all uncleanness" RSV<br />
"every sort of uncleanness" NWT<br />
"every kind of corruption" NJB<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (1 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
Acts 13:10,<br />
W PLHRHS PANTOS DOLOU KAI PASHS RADIOURGIAS<br />
"full of all deceit and all recklessness" RSV<br />
"full of every sort of fraud and every sort of villainy" NWT<br />
"full of all kinds of evil tricks" Today's English Version (TEV)<br />
1 Cor. 6:18,<br />
PAN AMARTHMA O EAN POIHSH ANQRWPOS EKTOS TOU SWMATOS ESTIN<br />
"Every sin, whatever a man may do, is outside the body"<br />
"Every other sin that a man may commit is outside his body" NWT<br />
"ALL other sins a man commits are outside his body" New International Version (NIV)<br />
Eph. 4:19,<br />
PAREDWKAN TH ASELGEIA EIS ERGASIAN AKAQARSIAS PASHS EN PLEONEXIA<br />
"every kind of uncleanness" RSV<br />
"uncleanness of every sort with greediness." NWT<br />
Eph. 5:3,<br />
PORNEIA DE KAI AKAQARSIA PASA H PLEONEXIA MHDE ONOMAZESQW EN UMIN<br />
"But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting<br />
among saints." RSV<br />
"Let fornication and uncleanness of every sort or greediness not even be mentioned among YOU" NWT<br />
Titus 1:16,<br />
QEON OMOLOGOUSIN EIDENAI TOIS DE ERGOIS ARNOUNTAI BDELUKTOI ONTES KAI<br />
APEIQEIS KAI PROS PAN ERGON AGAQON ADOKIMOI<br />
"They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for<br />
any good deed." RSV<br />
"They publicly declare they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable<br />
and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort." NWT<br />
Vine's Dictionary says of PAS, "Used without the article it means 'every,' every kind or variety."<br />
The UBS Greek New Testament Dictionary says of PAS, PASA, PAN, gen. PANTOS, PASHS,<br />
PANTOS "without the article *each*...*every kind of.*"<br />
None of the above examples have a definite article with PAS, and neither does John 12:32 or Romans<br />
5:18.<br />
The argument that Gary puts forth for TA PANTA, has no bearing on the argument.<br />
Let us take a look at some examples of PAS et al in Scripture to see how it holds up. Many think "all" as<br />
is commonly referred to in the <strong>Bible</strong> is "all, with no exceptions." This is clearly refuted by many of the<br />
following verses, as taken here from Rotherham <strong>Bible</strong>:<br />
Matt 10:22 "And ye will be hated by all (PANTWN), because of my name." Those IN Christ will not<br />
really be hated by ALL, only those in opposition to them.<br />
Matt 12:31 "All (PASA) sin and profane speaking, shall be forgiven unto men,-but, the speaking<br />
profanely of the Spirit, shall not be forgiven"<br />
"ALL" here in Matthew 12:31 is used with an exception---the exception of blasphemy against the spirit.<br />
Matt 21:22 "And, all (PANTA) things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."<br />
Does ALL THINGS include evil things?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (2 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
Matt 26:33 "Now Peter, answering, said unto him-Though, all (PANTES), shall find cause of stumbling<br />
in thee, I, shall never find cause of stumbling."<br />
The ALL here does not include Peter.<br />
Matt 27:25 "And all (PAS) the people, answering, said-His blood be upon us and upon our children!"<br />
The ALL here does not include Jesus' disciples.<br />
Mark 1:5 "and there were going out unto him all (PASA) the Judaea country and all (PANTES) they of<br />
Jerusalem, and were being immersed by him in the Jordan river, openly confessing their sins"<br />
Not everyone in Judaea and Jerusalem were actually baptized, but only those from those regions in the<br />
immediate vicinity.<br />
Mark 3:28 "Verily, I say unto you-All (PANTA) things shall be forgiven unto the sons of men,-the sins<br />
and the profanities wherewithal they shall profane"<br />
That would be ALL except sins against the spirit (Mark 3:29, Matthew 12:31; Luke 12:10.)<br />
Mark 5:20 "And he departed, and began proclaiming, in the Decapolis, how many things Jesus had done<br />
for him,-and, all (PANTES), were marveling."<br />
All, except his enemies, like the Pharisees.<br />
Luke 2:1 "Now it came to pass, in those days, that there went forth a decree from Caesar Augustus, for<br />
all (PASAN) the inhabited earth to be enrolled"<br />
"All" the inhabited earth was not registered by Caesar. Caesar did not rule the entire world.<br />
Luke 3:6 "And all (PASA) flesh shall see the salvation of God."<br />
"All" here pertains only to Jews and Gentiles that will hear the message of salvation.<br />
Luke 21:29 "See the fig-tree, and all (PANTA) the trees"<br />
ALL the trees here excludes the fig-tree.<br />
Acts 2:17 "And it shall be, in the last days saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon<br />
all (PASAN) flesh; And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy..."<br />
Here, again, "ALL" is used in a more restricted sense. The Spirit will hardly be poured out upon "ALL<br />
flesh" PASAN SARKA, since this verse refers exclusively to those IN Christ in the upper room.<br />
Rom 9:6 "not all (PANTES) they who are of Israel, the same are Israel."<br />
There are different kinds of ALL here. Some are Jews, some are Gentiles.<br />
1 Cor 10:33 "Even as I please all (PANTA) men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of<br />
many, that they may be saved."<br />
Paul did not please "all men", as some men put him in prisons and wanted him dead. But he could say he<br />
pleased all kinds of men.<br />
2 Cor 3:2 "Our letter, ye, are, inscribed in our hearts, noted and read by all (PANTWN) men"<br />
Did ALL men really read Paul's letter?<br />
Php 2:21 "For, they all (PANTES), their own things do seek, not the things of Christ Jesus"<br />
The ALL here refers to those outside the faith, not those IN Christ.<br />
Col 1:20 "And, through him, fully to reconcile all (TA PANTA) things unto him."<br />
I think it is safe to say that Satan and his demons are exempt here, even though PANTA is used with the<br />
definite article (TA PANTA).<br />
1 Tim 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all (PANTWN) evil" KJV, but ASV has "For the love of<br />
money is a root of all kinds of evil." The ASV is accurate, as the love of money is NOT the roots of ALL<br />
evil, but many types of evil.<br />
2 Tim 1:15 "You are aware of the fact that all (PANTES) who are in Asia turned away from me, among<br />
whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes."--NASB<br />
Not ALL the people in Asia turned away, though alot of them did. This passage refers specifically to<br />
certain Christians.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (3 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
Let us look at all uses of TA PANTA in the NWT:<br />
Mark 4:11 "And he proceeded to say to them: "To YOU the sacred secret of the kingdom of God has<br />
been given, but to those outside all things (TA PANTA) occur in illustrations."<br />
Acts 17:25 "And he proceeded to say to them: "To YOU the sacred secret of the kingdom of God has<br />
been given, but to those outside all things (TA PANTA) occur in illustrations"<br />
Romans 8:32 "He who did not even spare his own Son but delivered him up for us all, why will he not<br />
also with him kindly give us all other things (TA PANTA)?"<br />
[The NWT in Romans 8:32 has added the "other," for the reason that the Scripture differentiates the Son,<br />
who was already given, with "all other things." Nothing is lost though by removing the "other."]<br />
Romans 11:36 "Because from him and by him and for him are all things (TA PANTA). To him be the<br />
glory forever. Amen."<br />
1 Cor 8:6 "there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things (TA PANTA) are"<br />
1 Cor 8:6 "and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things (TA PANTA) are, and we<br />
through him."<br />
1 Cor 12:6 "and there are varieties of operations, and yet it is the same God who performs all (TA<br />
PANTA) the operations in all persons (EN PASIN)." [Here the Greek does not use TA PANTA for "all<br />
persons."]<br />
1 Cor 15:27, 28 "For [God] "subjected all things (PANTA) under his feet." But when he says that 'all<br />
things (PANTA) have been subjected,' it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected<br />
all things (TA PANTA) to him. But when all things (TA PANTA) will have been subjected to him, then<br />
the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things (TA PANTA) to him, that<br />
God may be all (PANTA) things to everyone (PASIN)." [Interesting use of PANTA here. The Father is<br />
excluded from PANTA, even TA PANTA.]<br />
Gal 3:22 "But the Scripture delivered up all things [TA PANTA] together to the custody of sin"<br />
All (The All) are under custody of sin...yet it is only the anarthrous PANTAS [John 12:32..in other words<br />
"all sorts of"] that are drawn to Jesus' as Savior.<br />
Eph 1:10, 11 "for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, namely, to gather all things<br />
(TA PANTA) together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. [Yes,] in<br />
him, in union with whom we were also assigned as heirs, in that we were foreordained according to the<br />
purpose of him who operates all things (TA PANTA) according to the way his will counsels"<br />
"Paul goes on to speak, not of the world as a whole, but of those who respond to God's call." NIV Study<br />
<strong>Bible</strong><br />
Eph 1:23 "to the congregation, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things (TA<br />
PANTA) in all (PASIN)."<br />
We see here that the TA PANTA (The All)in vss 10,11 refers to the congregation.<br />
Eph 3:9 "and should make men see how the sacred secret is administered which has from the indefinite<br />
past been hidden in God, who created all things (TA PANTA)."<br />
Eph 4:10 "The very one that descended is also the one that ascended far above all the heavens, that he<br />
might give fullness to all things (TA PANTA)."<br />
Or, "In order to fill the whole universe" NIV, CB Williams NT, NLT, Goodspeed, REB etc.<br />
Eph 4:15 "But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things (TA PANTA) into him who is the<br />
head, Christ."<br />
Or, "So shall we fully grow up into Christ." REB<br />
Php 3:8 "Why, for that matter, I do indeed also consider all things (TA PANTA) to be loss on account of<br />
the excelling value of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord."<br />
Php 3:21 "who will refashion our humiliated body to be conformed to his glorious body according to the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (4 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
operation of the power that he has, even to subject all things (TA PANTA) to himself."<br />
Col 1:16, 17 "because by means of him all [other] things (TA PANTA) were created in the heavens and<br />
upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships<br />
or governments or authorities. All [other] things (TA PANTA) have been created through him and for<br />
him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things (PANTWN) and by means of him all [other] things (TA<br />
PANTA) were made to exist."<br />
Again, an interesting use of ALL here in the Greek text. His pre-existence ("he is before all things") is<br />
not as definite as his part in creation. But the NWT also uses "other" for TA PANTA as well, since all the<br />
verb pertaining to creation are passive. Or, as Barclay's NT puts it, "For he is the agent by whom all<br />
things were created, in heaven and upon earth, visible and invisible, spiritual powers and beings, whether<br />
they be thrones or lordships or authorities or powers. He is the agent and the goal of all creation. He<br />
exists before everything *else,* and everything *else* holds together in him."<br />
The 21st Century NT has "It was he that formed all other things in heaven...all came into existence as a<br />
result of him and by means of him."<br />
Col 1:20 "and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things (TA PANTA) by making peace<br />
through the blood"<br />
I think it is safe to say that Satan is excluded by ALL here. Romans 8:21 says, "that the creation itself<br />
also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of<br />
God." Believers will be those "children" (see John 1:12).<br />
Col 3:8 "But now really put them all (TA PANTA) away from YOU, wrath, anger, badness, abusive<br />
speech, and obscene talk out of YOUR mouth."<br />
1 Tim 6:13 "In the sight of God, who preserves all things (TA PANTA) alive." The footnote in the NWT<br />
says "who brings all things to life," see also NIV.<br />
This verse could be used to promote Universalism, if it wasn't for the previous Scripture, "Fight the fine<br />
fight of the faith, get a firm hold on the everlasting life for which you were called and you offered the<br />
fine public declaration in front of many witnesses." If we will all achieve universal salvation, then why<br />
do we need to fight for anything, why do we need to firmly hold on to eternal life"<br />
Heb 1:3 "he sustains all things (TA PANTA) by the word of his power"<br />
Heb 2:8 "'All things (TA PANTA) you subjected under his feet.' For in that he subjected all things (TA<br />
PANTA) to him [God] left nothing that is not subject to him."<br />
Heb 2:10 "For it was fitting for the one for whose sake all things (TA PANTA) are and through whom all<br />
things (TA PANTA) are, in bringing many sons to glory"<br />
Rev 4:11 "You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power,<br />
because you created all things (TA PANTA)."<br />
The main reason for posting the above was to show that the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Committee was<br />
careful in their use of ALL, and the differing forms of it, and I think they handled it quite well.<br />
But Gary adds,<br />
"Let's face it, the image of Jesus that the church is portraying to the world is an utter<br />
failure. This Jesus says He has all power and authority given to Him, that He loves the<br />
whole world and died for it, and yet He will consign the greatest part of humanity to<br />
sufferings which would make Hitler's holocaust more humane than God's behavior. And we<br />
are surprised that the world does not find the image of Jesus which the church is presenting<br />
desirable. If this Jesus loses most of mankind this time around, how can anyone be certain<br />
He will fare better on the other side of the grave?"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (5 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
Reply: Gary also has used this quote, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways,"<br />
says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways,<br />
and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)<br />
Does God indeed promise Universal Salvation?<br />
"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those<br />
who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who<br />
find it are few." Matt 7:13, 14 RSV<br />
Is the "few" here the "one" you were hoping for in our conversation Gary? Does it apply to Satan alone?<br />
The Greek word here, oligos, is also used at Matt 9:37, "Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is<br />
plentiful, but the laborers are few" and Matt 15:34, "And Jesus said to them, "How many loaves have<br />
you?" They said, "Seven, and a few small fish." RSV<br />
Even looking at other occurrences, it usually seems to denote a small, but plural number.<br />
In Matthew 13:30 Jesus in a parable said, "Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I<br />
will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat<br />
into my barn.'" RSV<br />
Here unbelievers and believers are spoken of as weeds and wheat. Two classes!<br />
In Matthew 13:49 Jesus said, "So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate<br />
the evil from the righteous." RSV<br />
Again, two classes are mentioned - unbelievers and believers spoken of as the evil and the righteous.<br />
In Matthew 25:32 Jesus said that following His parousia, "Before him will be gathered all the nations,<br />
and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." RSV<br />
Here believers and unbelievers are differentiated by the terms "sheep" and "goats." The sheep will enter<br />
into God's kingdom (vs. 34) and inherit eternal life (vs. 46). The goats go into eternal punishment (vs.<br />
46). Again, two classes.<br />
2 Thess. 1:9, "They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of<br />
the Lord and from the glory of his might." RSV<br />
Rev. 21:8, "As for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers,<br />
idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second<br />
death." RSV<br />
God should never be compared to the evils of Hitler, who gave no one a chance at salvation. It was<br />
enough for Hitler to kill you simply if you were born into a certain race or religion. No claims of loyalty<br />
to him or his cause would have warranted your salvation. God, lovingly, does give eternal life to those<br />
knowing him, and His Son (John 17:3).<br />
Gary: "The following scriptures present a strong case of universal salvation in ALL English<br />
translations including those that contain the concept of a Hell of everlasting punishment:<br />
1 Tim. 2:1-7; 1 Tim. 4:9-11; Rom. 5:18-21; Rom. 11:25-36; 1 Cor. 15:20-28; Eph. 1:7-11;<br />
Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:12-23; Heb. 2:5-10; Heb. 9:23-26; John 3:35,35; John 12:32,33; 1<br />
John 3:8; Rom. 8:20,21; Rev. 5:13; Isa. 25:6-8; Phil. 3:21; John 12:47; Gal. 3:8; John<br />
3:17; Psalm 138:4; 2 Cor. 5:14-20; 1 Cor. Chapter 13 all especially verse 8; Psalm<br />
22:27,29; Psalm 65:2-4; John 1:9-13; Psalm 66:3,4; Gen. 18:18; 1 Tim. 4:9-11; and many<br />
dozens more."<br />
Reply: Well, let us take a look at all these:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (6 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
1 Tim 2:1-7, "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and<br />
thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may<br />
lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is<br />
acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to<br />
the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and<br />
men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which<br />
was borne at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling<br />
the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth." RSV<br />
All the occurrences of ALL here are anarthrous, remember:<br />
"Used without the article it means 'every,' every kind or variety." Vine's<br />
"Without the article *each*...*every kind of.*" UBS Greek New Testament Dictionary<br />
This is why Bishop J.W.C. Wand can render it "all sorts of men" in his New Testament Letters and "all<br />
classes of men" in The Epistles of Paul in Modern English by George Barker Stevens, Ph.D., D.D.<br />
Ryrie says of "who desires all men to be saved" that it is "An expression of God's wish, not His decree."<br />
NIV Ryrie Study <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Weymouth adds Bishop Ellicott's words in a footnote here saying, "All mankind to be saved]<br />
Redemption is universal yet conditional; all may be saved, yet all will not be saved, because all will not<br />
conform to God's appointed conditions."<br />
1 Tim 4:9-11 "The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and<br />
strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men,<br />
especially of those who believe. Command and teach these things."<br />
The "all men" is PANTWN ANQRWPWN, which is again, anarthrous.<br />
Remember:<br />
"Used without the article it means 'every,' every kind or variety." Vine's<br />
"Without the article *each*...*every kind of.*" UBS Greek New Testament Dictionary<br />
This is rendered wonderfully by George Barker Stevens in his The Epistles of Paul in Modern English as<br />
"Our hope in God's salvation, which is freely offered to all; but is realized by those who believe IN<br />
Christ."<br />
What is really interesting is the way that 1 Timothy ends. Not only do we have an admonishment to fight<br />
the fine fight of the faith (6:12), but we "are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous,<br />
thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life<br />
which is life indeed. O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and<br />
contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as<br />
regards the faith." 6:18-21 RSV<br />
How can we "miss the mark" if we are all destined to be saved? Why should store up treasures by good<br />
works if everyone will be universally saved anyways?<br />
Rom. 5:18-21<br />
First, let us look at Romans 5:12:<br />
"For this cause,-just as, through one man, sin into the world entered, and through sin,<br />
death,-and, so, unto all men death passed through, for that all had sinned."<br />
Death here did not really spread to ALL men, as it did not spread to Adam. It spread FROM Adam to all<br />
men.<br />
Rom 5:18-21 says, "Hence then, as through one fault, the sentence was unto all (PANTAS)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (7 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
men unto condemnation, so, also, through one recovery of righteousness, the decree of<br />
favour is unto all (PANTAS) men for righteous acquittal unto life; For, just as, through the<br />
disobedience of the one man, sinners, the many were constituted, so, also, through the<br />
obedience of the one, righteous, the many shall be constituted-<br />
Law, however, gained admission, in order that the fault might abound, but, where the sin<br />
abounded, the favour greatly superabounded:<br />
In order that-just as sin reigned in death, so, also, favour, might reign through righteousness<br />
unto life age-abiding, through Jesus Christ our Lord."<br />
Reply: Again, the PANTAS here lacks the definite article.<br />
Remember:<br />
"Used without the article it means 'every,' every kind or variety." Vine's<br />
"Without the article *each*...*every kind of.*" UBS Greek New Testament Dictionary<br />
Also, the ALL here is qualified by the use of the word POLLOI, the MANY.<br />
As it stated in the International English <strong>Bible</strong>, "through the obedience of one man, many people will be<br />
made righteous."<br />
The next chapter of Romans tells us that there are two possibilities, not one universal one.<br />
"For the wages of sin is death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus our Lord." NIV<br />
So eternal life is a gift that must first be received, and it is given to those IN Christ.<br />
Is it fair though, to have all mankind suffer because of the misdeeds of one?<br />
Was it fair for the Hebrews to be denied the Promised Land<br />
Romans 11:25-36:<br />
Rom 11:25 "For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you<br />
will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until<br />
the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;<br />
Rom 11:26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The Deliverer will come<br />
from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob."<br />
Rom 11:27 "This is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins."<br />
Rom 11:28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the<br />
standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;<br />
Rom 11:29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.<br />
Rom 11:30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy<br />
because of their disobedience,<br />
Rom 11:31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to<br />
you they also may now be shown mercy.<br />
Rom 11:32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.<br />
Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How<br />
unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!<br />
Rom 11:34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?<br />
Rom 11:35 Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again?<br />
Rom 11:36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory<br />
forever. Amen." NASB<br />
Reply: Will ALL Israel (v. 26) really be saved? The scribes and Pharisees won't! "Matt 5:20 says "For I<br />
say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter<br />
the kingdom of heaven."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (8 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
These Scriptures are a reference to Isaiah 59:20, where it says, "'The Redeemer will come to Jerusalem,'<br />
says the LORD, 'to buy back those in Israel WHO HAVE TURNED FROM THEIR SINS.'"<br />
NLT [Emphasis Mine] Again, we see a qualification to those ALL being saved.<br />
Does "fullness of the Gentiles" indicate that ALL people will be saved? Thayer's has on PLHRWMA,<br />
"Etymologically, it has a passive sense...In the NT the body of believers, as that which is filled with the<br />
presence, power, agency, riches of God and of Christ."<br />
Wand's translation puts it nicely, "to allow time for the non-Jews to *make up their number* and achieve<br />
their goal."<br />
Acts 15:14 says, "Simeon has declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a<br />
people for his name." AKJV<br />
God TAKES OUT of the Gentiles a people for His Name, he does not take out ALL.<br />
Next: 1 Cor. 15:20-28: Discussed above<br />
Next: Eph. 1:7-11<br />
"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses,<br />
according to the riches of his grace that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and insight he<br />
has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set<br />
forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in<br />
heaven and things on earth. In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been<br />
destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his<br />
counsel and will." NRSV<br />
Reply: The ALL THINGS here (TA PANTA) is qualified by the following Scriptures:<br />
"And you also became God's people WHEN YOU HEARD THE TRUE MESSAGE, THE GOOD<br />
NEWS THAT BROUGHT YOU SALVATION. You believed in Christ, and God put his stamp of<br />
ownership on you." Ephesians 1:13 TEV<br />
You see, when reading these Scriptures, you cannot make broad assumptions without looking at the<br />
context. For instance, when you read "In Christ" this lets you know that this does not include those who<br />
are IN ADAM (1 Cor 15:22). I was once IN ADAM, but when responded to the True Message, I became<br />
IN CHRIST.<br />
Next: Phil. 2:9-11<br />
"Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every<br />
(PAN) name; that in the name of Jesus every (PAN) knee should bow, of things in heaven<br />
and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every (PASA) tongue should confess<br />
that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."<br />
Reply: Was Jesus GIVEN a Name above even God's Name?<br />
So the ALL here is being used in a qualified way, so it can read:<br />
"God...gave him the name which is above all other names." New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> or<br />
"God...gave him the name that is greater than any other name." Good News <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Every knee should bow, IN the name of Jesus. We certainly would not see Satan and his demons bowing,<br />
would we? All those IN Christ will bow to him.<br />
Col. 1:12-23: Discussed above<br />
Click here and here for more.<br />
Heb. 2:5-10: "Thou didst make him for a little while lower than the angels, thou hast<br />
crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.' Now in<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (9 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. As it is, we do<br />
not yet see everything in subjection to him." RSV<br />
Reply: This verse, like all verses that make mention of this subjection under Jesus' feet is expanded upon<br />
at Ephesians 1:10, 11: "And this is his plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the<br />
authority of Christ--everything in heaven and on earth. Furthermore, because of Christ, we have received<br />
an inheritance from God, for he chose us from the beginning, and all things happen just as he decided<br />
long ago." Eph 1:10-11 (NLT)<br />
God will bring everything together under Him, when the tent of God is with mankind, but only after we<br />
see "a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared." Rev 21:1-4<br />
This will happen only after certain destruction, and in the meantime, "see to it, brothers and sisters, that<br />
none of you has an unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another<br />
daily...so that one of you may be hardened by sins deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ, if<br />
indeed we hold firmly till the end our original conviction." Hebrews 3:12-14 TNIV<br />
Again, a little context tells us that there is a struggle for salvation, and nothing is assured. Paul made this<br />
abundantly clear when even he, the greatest of the saints, said at 1 Cor 9:27, "I beat my body and make it<br />
my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize." (NIV) If<br />
there was truly a doctrine of universal salvation, why did Paul not embrace it?<br />
Heb. 9:23-26: Whatever you may think of these passages, it has all been numbed by quoting the<br />
following verses at Hebrews 9:27, 28: "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face<br />
judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a<br />
second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." (NIV) Those IN<br />
CHRIST will have salvation, those not IN CHRIST will face judgment.<br />
John 3:35,36: These verses do not support universal salvation, quite the opposite in fact:<br />
"The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand. He who believes in the<br />
Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of<br />
God rests upon him."<br />
John 12:32,33: See above<br />
1 John 3:8: "He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this<br />
purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil."<br />
NKJV<br />
Reply: No universalism here, especially in light of the following:<br />
"If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.<br />
But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of<br />
Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin."<br />
1 John 1:6-7 (NKJV) Again, salvation rests on fellowship IN Christ.<br />
Rom. 8:20,21: "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him<br />
who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage<br />
of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." (NKJV)<br />
Reply: Does "the creation" mean everyone will be delivered? It is difficult to be dogmatic about it, as<br />
even BDAG shows, "The mng. [meaning] of KT [KTISIS] is in dispute in Ro 8:19-22, though the pass.<br />
is usually taken to mean the waiting of the whole creation *below* the human level (animate and<br />
inanimate)." That is one interpretation, though, if we want humans referred to here also, then we must<br />
move ahead, where we again see a limitation in vss. 28-30:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (10 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
"And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of *those who love God* and<br />
are *called according to his purpose* for them. For God knew *his people* in advance, and he *chose<br />
them* to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn, with many brothers and sisters. And<br />
*having chosen them, he called them to come to him.* And he gave them right standing with himself,<br />
and he promised them his glory." (NLT)<br />
Again, would not this "chosen" group of the creation represent those IN Christ?<br />
Rev. 5:13: "And then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and<br />
in the sea. They also sang: "Blessing and honor and glory and power belong to the one<br />
sitting on the throne and to the Lamb forever and ever." (NLT)<br />
Reply: Every creature seems to include the fishes and insects, so this verse, like many others in<br />
Revelations, must be taken in a figurative way where there is no possibility of certain things happening.<br />
The BDAG says of KTISIS, that it can be a "system of established authority that is the result of some<br />
founding action, governance system, authority system."<br />
This works well with what we read in verse 10, where we have the elect reigning over earthly ones,<br />
chosen from "every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation." Rev 5:9 ASV<br />
Hence, all sorts of men......see above<br />
Isa. 25:6-8: "On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all<br />
peoples, a banquet of aged wine-- the best of meats and the finest of wines. On this<br />
mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all<br />
nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears<br />
from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth. The LORD has<br />
spoken." (NIV)<br />
Reply: If we look at the preceding chapter, it tells us, "The earth is defiled by its people; they have<br />
disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse<br />
consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt. Therefore earth's inhabitants are burned up, and very<br />
few are left." Isaiah 24:5-6, cf. Rev 21:3, 4 (NIV)<br />
This parallels what the book of Revelations tells us, that after Armageddon, the great day of God the<br />
Almighty, where the wicked are removed and the only people left on earth, are those that can truly say,<br />
"Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is Jehovah, we have waited<br />
for him; we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation." Isa. 25:9 Darby<br />
Who exactly has waited/hoped on Jehovah? Has everyone on earth made known his name and renown?<br />
(Is 26:8) No indeed, and this is why "Yahweh emerges from his dwelling to punish the inhabitants of the<br />
earth for their guilt." Isa. 26:21 NJB<br />
Again, no universal salvation here.<br />
Phil. 3:21: "who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to<br />
the body of his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things<br />
unto himself." Revised Version IC-Parkinson<br />
Reply: Have you even read this entire chapter? Let us take a look at a few verses previous. Paul talks<br />
about his "pressing on" towards the goal of salvation, knowing he has not attained it yet (vss. 13, 14, and<br />
then, "Many people live like enemies of the cross of Christ. I have often told you about them, and it<br />
makes me cry to tell you about them now. In the end, they will be destroyed. They do whatever their<br />
bodies want, they are proud of their shameful acts, and they think only about earthly things. But our<br />
homeland is in heaven." Phil 3:18-20 (NCV)<br />
Jesus may have the power to bring everything under his control, but he uses this power on those "who<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (11 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
work out" their "salvation with fear and trembling," "children of God without fault in a crooked and<br />
depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe." Php 2:13-15 NIV<br />
Again, two classes of people, those that are wicked, and the "all people/things" that will survive the<br />
coming destruction.<br />
John 12:47: "And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I<br />
did not come to judge the world but to save the world." (NKJV)<br />
Reply: The Universalist application of this verse is refuted by the following passage, "He who rejects<br />
Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge<br />
him in the last day."<br />
John 12:48 (NKJV) The Son will not judge the world, but his Father will, based on our rejection or<br />
acceptance of Christ.<br />
Gal. 3:8: "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith,<br />
preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be<br />
blessed." (NKJV)<br />
Reply: This, again, applies to Christians, as verse 14, tell us "that the blessing of Abraham might come<br />
upon the Gentiles IN CHRIST Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Gal<br />
3:14 (NKJV)<br />
John 3:17: "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it." NLT<br />
Reply: Again, reading the following passage clears up any confusion, as was the case with John 12:47<br />
above:<br />
"There is no judgment awaiting those who trust him. But those who do not trust him have already<br />
been judged for not believing in the only Son of God." John 3:17-18 (NLT)<br />
Psalm 138:4: "All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the<br />
words of thy mouth." KJV<br />
Reply: This prophetic verse has a millennial application. "This prophecy will not be fulfilled until the<br />
millenial reign of Christ." See footnote Ps 72:8 Ryrie Study <strong>Bible</strong><br />
There will, of course be a time when all will praise God, but not before He "shall break in pieces and<br />
consume all" the kingdoms of the world. Dan 2:44 KJV<br />
2 Cor. 5:14-20. These Scriptures only back my claim, that those IN CHRIST take part in the new<br />
creation, and this salvation has stipulations, "Wherefore Come ye out from among them, and be ye<br />
separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father,<br />
And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Cor 6:17 ASV<br />
1 Cor. 13 all especially verse 8. No universalism here either.<br />
Psalm 22:27,29: "All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto Jehovah; And all<br />
the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee...All the fat ones of the earth shall eat<br />
and worship: All they that go down to the dust shall bow before him, Even he that cannot<br />
keep his soul alive." ASV<br />
Reply: Another apocalyptic prophecy, much like the one at Psalm 37:8, "For evil-doers shall be cut off;<br />
But those that wait for Jehovah, they shall inherit the land." ASV<br />
When the evil-doers are done away with, then all the earth will be ones that have waited on Jehovah.<br />
Psalm 65:2-4: "O You who hear prayer, To You all men come. Iniquities prevail against me;<br />
As for our transgressions, You forgive them. How blessed is the one whom You choose and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (12 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
bring near to You To dwell in Your courts. We will be satisfied with the goodness of Your<br />
house, Your holy temple." NASB<br />
Reply: The above talks of the one God chooses. Hence, there are those whom God does not choose, and<br />
it for these that the Psalmist can say at Ps 69:27, 28 "Add iniquity to their iniquity, And may they not<br />
come into Your righteousness. May they be blotted out of the book of life And may they not be recorded<br />
with the righteous." There is no Universalism in the book of Psalms.<br />
John 1:9-13: There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every<br />
[PANTA] man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world<br />
did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.<br />
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God,<br />
even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the<br />
flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." NASB<br />
Reply: The ALL/PANTA here is anarthrous, remember:<br />
"Used without the article it means 'every,' every kind or variety." Vine's<br />
"Without the article *each*...*every kind of.*" UBS Greek New Testament Dictionary<br />
In other words, all sorts of men can receive the light of Christ, as long as they receive him.<br />
Psalm 66:3,4: "Say to God, "How awesome are your deeds! So great is your power that<br />
your enemies cringe before you. All the earth bows down to you; they sing praise to you,<br />
they sing praise to your name." (NIV)<br />
Reply: If Satan is walking on earth (Job 1:7), and is certainly an enemy, will he also bow before God and<br />
become a recipient of this universal salvation? Let us be reasonable. Looking further on in Psalms, we<br />
read, "God, arise and defend yourself. Remember the insults that come from those foolish people all day<br />
long. Don't forget what your enemies said; don't forget their roar as they rise against you always." Psalms<br />
74:23 (NCV)<br />
Gen. 18:18: "seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the<br />
nations of the earth shall bless themselves by him?" RSV<br />
Reply: "God's original blessing on all mankind (Gen 1:28) would be restored and fulfilled through<br />
Abram and his offspring." NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong> Gen 12:2-3<br />
But it will be Abraham's spiritual descendants who bear this fulfillment in its greatest form:<br />
"Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." So you see that it is men of<br />
faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by<br />
faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So<br />
then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith." Gal 3:6-10 RSV<br />
1 Tim. 4:9-11; and many dozens more."<br />
Reply: This one was already used above.<br />
As we have seen though, the use of ALL in the <strong>Bible</strong> has its limitations based in the Greek. Having<br />
checked every occurrence of ALLOS and hETEROS (usually rendered OTHER, as in ALL OTHER) in<br />
the Greek text, and I could not find any occurrence of these words alongside PAS/PANTA. Obviously,<br />
the target audience for the Greek knew of the limitations of this word.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> does NOT advocate Universal Salvation, but a God who will render Justice and will save small<br />
remnant. When God destroyed the world in Noah's time, only eight persons survived (1 Peter 3:20).<br />
When the Israelites wandered the wilderness for 40 years, only Joshua and Caleb were guaranteed entry<br />
into the Promised Land (Numbers 14:29, 30). And again, at the end of the age, only a few are promised<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (13 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
life:<br />
"Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction,<br />
and many are they that enter in thereby. For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto<br />
life, and few are they that find it." Matt 7:13, 14 ASV<br />
"And one said unto him, Lord, are they few that are saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in by<br />
the narrow door: for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able." Luke 13:23, 24<br />
ASV<br />
The OLIGOS (few) mentioned here is not the ONE, as has been explained to me, but it is in the plural<br />
form, OLIGOI.<br />
Other occurrences of this word are at Matthew 9:37, "the laborers are few."<br />
Matt 22:14, "For many are called, but few chosen."<br />
1 Pet 3:20, "when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,<br />
wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water."<br />
Consider also the following that speak against Universalism, from the ASV:<br />
Matt 5:5, "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."<br />
Luk 13:26, 27, "then shall ye begin to say, We did eat and drink in thy presence, and thou didst teach in<br />
our streets; and he shall say, I tell you, I know not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of<br />
iniquity."<br />
Romans 9:27, "And Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand<br />
of the sea, it is the remnant that shall be saved."<br />
Gal. 5:2-4 "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen<br />
away from grace."<br />
Lk. 8:13 "Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have<br />
no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away."<br />
Rev 21:8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who<br />
practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This<br />
is the second death."<br />
1 Tim 1:19, 21: "holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have<br />
shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to<br />
Satan to be taught not to blaspheme."<br />
Gal 6:8,9 "The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one<br />
who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing<br />
good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up."<br />
Rom 2:7 "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give<br />
eternal life."<br />
Jn. 5:29 "Those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be<br />
condemned"<br />
Heb. 6:6 "and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they<br />
crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."<br />
2 Pet. 1:10: "Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if<br />
ye do these things, ye shall never stumble."<br />
2 Pet. 3:17: "Ye therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware lest, being carried away<br />
with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own stedfastness."<br />
"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."<br />
(Mt. 10:22).<br />
"Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (14 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will<br />
give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who<br />
overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death." (Rev. 2:10,11).<br />
"We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first." (Heb.<br />
3:14).<br />
"By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have<br />
believed in vain." (1 Cor. 15:2).<br />
"But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight,<br />
without blemish and free from accusation—if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not<br />
moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been<br />
proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant." (Col. 1:22,23).<br />
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither<br />
the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor<br />
thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1<br />
Cor 6:9-10).<br />
"the path of the wicked is doomed." Ps 1:6 NJB<br />
There is a frequent Old Testament phrase which is gow we should view the KOLASIN at Matt 25:46:<br />
*shall be cut off from his people*"<br />
Let us take a look at those scriptures:<br />
Gen 17:14, "And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul<br />
shall be cut off from his people. He hath broken my covenant."<br />
Ex 30:33, 38, "Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, he<br />
shall be cut off from his people...Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereof, he shall be cut<br />
off from his people."<br />
Lev 7:20, 21, 25, 27, "But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain<br />
unto Jehovah, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people... And when<br />
any one shall touch any unclean thing, the uncleanness of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean<br />
abomination, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which pertain unto Jehovah, that<br />
soul shall be cut off from his people... For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an<br />
offering made by fire unto Jehovah, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his<br />
people...Whosoever it be that eateth any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people."<br />
Num 9:13. "But the man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, that<br />
soul shall be cut off from his people."<br />
see also Ex 9:15; 12:15, 19; 31:14; Lev 17:4, 9, 14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:17, 18; 22:3; 23:29; Num 15:30, 31;<br />
19:13, 20; Deut 12:29; 19:1; 2Sam 7:9 etc<br />
Biblically, the antithesis of life is...death. See Num 35:31; Deut 30:15, 19; Jg 16:30; 2Sam 15:21; Ps<br />
78:50; Prov 12:28; 13:14; 14:27; 18:21; Jer 8:3; 21:8; 52:34; Jn 5:24; Rom 5:10, 17, 21; 6:4, 10; 7:10;<br />
8:6, 38, 1Cor 3:22; 2Cor 2:16; 4:11,12; Php 1:20; 1Jn 3:14;<br />
5:16; Rev 2:10; 12:11.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> has always held out one hope to the opposite of another:<br />
Prov 11: 19 He that is stedfast in righteousness shall attain unto life; And he that pursueth evil<br />
doeth it to his own death.<br />
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus our Lord.<br />
"For evil-doers shall be cut off; But those that wait for Jehovah, they shall inherit the land." Ps 37:9<br />
That there are differing viewpoints of salvation should not surprise us, as it was foretold, "Behold, the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (15 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
Answering Universalism-What does the <strong>Bible</strong> mean by ALL?<br />
days come, saith the Lord Jehovah, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a<br />
thirst for water, but of hearing the words of Jehovah." Amos 8:11 ASV<br />
-BT&V Webmaster<br />
Eze. 33:12-19 -- "Therefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, The righteousness of the righteous<br />
man will not save him when he disobeys, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to<br />
fall when he turns from it.<br />
The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness.<br />
If I tell the righteous man that he will surely live, but then he trusts in his righteousness and does evil,<br />
none of the righteous things he has done will be remembered; he will die for the evil he has done.<br />
And if I say to the wicked man, You will surely die, but he then turns away from his sins and does what<br />
is just and right -- if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows<br />
the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the sins he has<br />
committed will be remembered against him; he will surely live.<br />
Yet your countrymen say, "The way of the Lord is not just." But it is their way that is not just. If a<br />
righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, he will die for it.<br />
And if a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he will live by<br />
doing so."<br />
Back To Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/pas.htm (16 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
Radio Station KKLA (Living By The Word Ministries) and their Improper<br />
Examination of a List on My <strong>Site</strong>, and the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
"Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom is by prefacing<br />
the noun with 'a.'" -- Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in<br />
John" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 47.<br />
Daniel Wallace, speaking of Mark Noll, in his book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind talks about<br />
how<br />
"American evangelicals have decided to chuck their brains for the sake of the party line, or<br />
for experience, or for emotionalism, etc. But the history of Christianity up through last<br />
century was of a different ilk. The Church felt that at least some of its number should be<br />
scholars--men and women who dedicated their minds to God, who cultivated the life of the<br />
mind. The fact that conspiracy theories about <strong>Bible</strong> translations are getting readily accepted<br />
in several circles indicts evangelicalism. To be blunt, this trend is symptomatic of the<br />
dumbing down of Christians in this country. Evangelicals are increasingly holding down the<br />
anti-intellectual fort, without engaging in serious debate with others."<br />
The above critique might seem harsh, but we will soon see why this is brought to the fore.<br />
In January 2002 the Radio station KKLA (Living By The Word Ministries) talked of a list of translations<br />
of John 1:1c on my web-page ( http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htm ). Interestingly, no<br />
one from the radio station made any efforts to contact me.<br />
First, I want to point out that the list on my web-page was to provide various and different interpretations<br />
of John 1:1c, with an emphasis on the non-traditional rendering. The Recovery <strong>Bible</strong> certainly does not<br />
support my view, as is quite evident by their traditional rendering of this verse, and the frequent<br />
references to the "Triune Jehovah," in their footnotes. I also take issue with some of the other renderings.<br />
It was not intended to promote renderings exactly equivalent to the NWT, the list is there as examples of<br />
translations that do not render John 1:1c traditionally, except for the one, the group that Rob Bowman at<br />
KKLA called an "aberrant sect", the Recovery <strong>Bible</strong> by Living Streams Ministry. [Interestingly, I<br />
included them because they were very Trinitarian, yet they are discarded as "aberrant" even though their<br />
New Testament is extremely similar to most mainstream <strong>Bible</strong>s in use.]<br />
This list does not support the NWT 100%, it is there to show people that some do not render John 1:1c in<br />
the traditional manner. I can't believe that this program wasted alot of time on something that the source<br />
was never intended to do. This could easily have been cleared up if anyone, just one person from the<br />
radio program had actually bothered to contact me.<br />
I would instead have hoped that the substance of the program was on the grammatical possibility of other<br />
renderings of John 1:1c, but it turned out to be a focus on the lack of biographical data on the translators<br />
and a few misspellings in foreign languages.<br />
The source of many of my quotes are from someone who is NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses. He is an<br />
author that is known by everyone involved with this debate on KKLA Radio. He has given me<br />
permission to use these quotes that he has collated on the condition that I not use his name. This source<br />
is listed on my page (<strong>Bible</strong> Museum and Biblical Research Foundation), and was not hidden.<br />
I now see why he wanted anonymity.<br />
From the tone of the accusations made, there is a witch-hunt mentality involved with anyone who<br />
translates John 1:1c similar to that in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation (hereafter, NWT). Is it any coincidence<br />
that Witch/Wicca Hunter Craig Hawkins is involved? There are scholars that do agree with the NWT, but<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (1 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
for fear of being attacked, have decided to remain silent. Greg Stafford brings up a good point at<br />
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/hommel1.htm<br />
"the very fact that you would have to ask me for such a list shows that 1) you have not<br />
thoroughly investigated this issue, and 2) you are therefore speaking out of order, making<br />
dogmatic claims about what scholars say about the passage prior to having checked into the<br />
history of this passage, as understood by NON-Trinitarians. At any rate, I will here give a<br />
partial list, as I do not have time to list the over 80 scholars that I have on file as endorsing<br />
the translation "a G-god."<br />
1) "a god" - A. N. Jannaris, Ph.D, author of An Historical Greek Grammar and Lecturer on<br />
Post-Classical and other Greek dialects at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland (in ZNW<br />
2 [1901], 24-25).<br />
2) "a God" - Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages<br />
of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and<br />
Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ<br />
[Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37).<br />
3) "a God" - Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower,<br />
1809], 156).<br />
4) "a god" - Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the<br />
Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74).<br />
5) "a God" - Herman Heinfetter, author of Rules for Ascertaining the Sense Conveyed in<br />
Ancient Greek Manuscripts, Objections to Bishop Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek<br />
Article, and An Enquiry Respecting the Punctuation of Ancient Greek (in A Literal<br />
Translation of the Gospel According to St. John on Definite Rules of Translation, and an<br />
English Version of the Same, 6th ed. [London: Evan Evans, 1864]).<br />
6) "a God" - Robert Young, LL.D. (in his Concise Commentary on the Holy <strong>Bible</strong> [Grand<br />
Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54).<br />
7) "a God" - Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the<br />
University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903],<br />
16).<br />
8) "a god" - William Loader, Ph.D. and New Testament Lecturer for the Perth Theological<br />
Hall, Australia, teacher at Murdoch University as a member of the Perth College of Divinity,<br />
and author of several books and journal articles (in The Christology of the Fourth Gospel:<br />
Structure and Issues [Peter Lang 1992], 155). Loader refers to "a god" as the "most natural<br />
reading of the text."<br />
Other translations throughout the past two centuries could be cited, but I am through doing<br />
the work you should have done on your own, prior to making the claims you make about<br />
how scholars understand this verse. Or are you only interested in what Trinitarian scholars<br />
have to say?"<br />
I have not even mentioned Professor Jason Beduhn's support of the reading "a god." [Though I do own<br />
some of the listed translations, I have personally found that the BULK of the other translators were easily<br />
found doing a search on the internet.] Again, why not contact me? If they wanted to find out more, why<br />
not come to me, the person who posted this list. The reason? They really weren't interested in answers. If<br />
looking through the Fuller Library proved a waste, then the next logical step would for normally have<br />
been to write to me. Obviously, those involved with this objection were really not that interested in<br />
culling this information for themselves. Case in point, they were not able to trash my list of variant<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (2 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
translations of John 8:58, it was merely dismissed as "another list." After having heard of the use of my<br />
list, I have also had my phone number, fax number and mailing address forwarded to those involved, and<br />
to date, I still have not been contacted. Had I actually wanted to submit a series of quotes that hands<br />
down supported the NWT rendering, I would have used Stafford's list, as stated above.<br />
Rob Bowman, who was on the show, has had numerous debates with Greg Stafford in the past. The list<br />
that Stafford offers was placed on the internet on a website that should be quite well-known to Bowman,<br />
This list WAS offered in support of the NWT's rendering, but instead, Bowman completely ignored<br />
these references and placed all of his evidence on the weaker points on my list that to some extent, had<br />
no bearing on the subject he was discussing. Shame on you for misleading your radio audience!<br />
This witchhunt reminds me of James White (who incidentally had no problem finding the Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses German quotes on John 1:1c in the KIT ) at http://aomin.org/GERM_JWS.html and found that<br />
they belonged to the following groups:<br />
Baptist, Liberal, or Unitarian. He goes on to say.<br />
"Jehovah's Witnesses are experts at quoting individuals that come from completely different<br />
perspectives and world-views in such as way as to make it sound as if they (the person being<br />
quoted) support or lend credence to the Watchtower's teachings. This is clearly seen here.<br />
None of these scholars are classically Arian in their theology." For my rebuttal, go to<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/germans.htm<br />
All I can do here is answer with a resounding "DUH!!!" The <strong>Bible</strong>s I mainly carry with me, and use often<br />
are the RSV, NJB and I have a beautiful Vine's Expository Edition of the NKJV I use out in service. I am<br />
aware that none of these translators are JW's. What good would it do me if I only quoted JW's. Mormons<br />
are notorious for quoting other Mormons, which they fail to see as ineffective as other Mormons would<br />
naturally have a similar bias. If I can't quote from Unitarian and Liberal <strong>Bible</strong>s simply because they are<br />
Unitarians and Liberals, and I can't quote from Trinitarian <strong>Bible</strong>s, as James White seems to suggest,<br />
because we do not share similar worldviews, then we are forced to use only the NWT. This is silly!<br />
Those who expect Jehovah’s Witnesses to only cite authorities who agree 100% with the Witnesses<br />
manifest a unique form of bias that is not shown toward evangelical writers.<br />
Also, instead of dealing with the evidence, the people at KKLA and Living By The Word Ministries have<br />
harped on the spelling errors of the non-English sources on this list, this of course, coming from the same<br />
site that cannot spell the English word 'Deity" correctly, even in big bold letters, (see Jehovah’s<br />
Witnesses and the *Diety* of Jesus Christ by Angel Arellano Jr. Make Sure of All Things - A Christian<br />
Outreach to Jehovah’s Witnesses at http://64.177.177.176/new_page_29.htm which I am sure will be<br />
changed after this post is read.) Is Angel discussing Jesus' inclusion into the Godhead, or is he promoting<br />
a divine weight-loss program?<br />
This radio station has brought Robert Bowman on board in helping out with the JW apologetics. On his<br />
site, he states as one of his Criteria for Evaluating and Choosing a Translation<br />
(http://www.atlantaapologist.org/q2.html) as,<br />
"Interdenominational vs. denominational. Generally, a translation committee representing<br />
several denominations rather than a single church or denomination will tend to have less<br />
theological biases. High: all except the NAB and NJB."<br />
Nothing is going to dethrone the supremacy of certain <strong>Bible</strong>s like the NASB and NIV in the minds of<br />
those like Bowman. The NAB (New American <strong>Bible</strong>), for example, had FIVE Protestants on the<br />
translating committee, yet this same <strong>Bible</strong> was given a black eye from Bowman for NOT being<br />
interdenominational. I wonder, how many Catholics were on the NIV and NASB translation committees?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (3 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
These facts were clearly overlooked by Bowman because he really didn't care. Bowman though wants<br />
full biographical data on all other <strong>Bible</strong>s that translate differently from the traditional so it can be<br />
discovered what the translators motives were for translating a certain clause as they did. I have heard this<br />
before, but it is not quite true. The NWT's translation of John 1:1c has been accused of as promoting<br />
"polytheism" even though JW's are not polytheists. People like Bowman don't like any other possible<br />
alternative and must label them negatively. They must be of his (Protestant/Evangelical) mindset for<br />
them to be right. Protestant Evangelicals suffer from a superiority complex that is recognized by others,<br />
despite the fact that its members (as well most of nominal Christianity) are lazy and ignorant when it<br />
comes to the <strong>Bible</strong> (a fact that was addressed by Bowman on his site at<br />
http://www.apologeticsresctr.org/siren_song.htm). Getting back to the Catholics, I once asked Bowman<br />
if Jesuit John L. McKenzie, S.J. was a good source to use on the Trinity. He answered back "NO!" The<br />
reason being is that McKenzie is a bit more realistic when it comes to viewing the Trinity as a Church<br />
doctrine, not a Biblical one. When looking at a list of <strong>Bible</strong> Translators that translate John 1:1c<br />
differently than the mainstream <strong>Bible</strong>s, Rob Bowman had this to say in an email:<br />
"Nearly every public and university library in the country has copies of the KJV, NKJV,<br />
NIV, NRSV, NASB, and so forth.<br />
The scholars that we can cite in support of our exegesis of such biblical texts as John 1:1<br />
and 8:58 include most of the renowned scholars specializing in that portion of the <strong>Bible</strong>, in<br />
this case, scholars who have specialized in the study of John’s writings. No introduction is<br />
needed to names such as C. K. Barrett, F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Leon Morris, and James<br />
Montgomery Boice to those at all familiar with contemporary New Testament studies. I’m<br />
embarrassed for you when you think a list with names like Lant Carpenter, Robert Harvey,<br />
J. L. Tomanek, and Charles A. L. Totten in any way enhances the credibility of your<br />
position." Click here for full email.<br />
What is wrong with Bowman's list of scholars? First, he picks what he thinks is the weakest scholars on<br />
my list, and then for his own, chooses scholars who are not only Trinitarian, but Evangelical, just like<br />
Bowman, as if this makes them unbiased. Bowman touts the strengths of inter-denominational <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
(http://www.atlantaapologist.org/q2.html) but he is not as accommodating with scholars as he is with<br />
translators.<br />
Professor Jason Beduhn, when given a series of negative quotes on the NWT from those of Bowman's<br />
ilk, responded thusly (attributed to Beduhn in an online forum):<br />
"does anyone besides me see the common denominator of all of these scholars? They are all<br />
members of religious schools attached to specific denominations of Christianity. I have no<br />
reason to question the integrity of any of these gentlemen. On the contrary, I am sure they<br />
have perfect integrity in their primary commitment, namely their religious beliefs. Isn't it<br />
fair to presume that their affiliations already testify to their theological commitments? I<br />
would imagine that these gentlemen read the bible in line with those commitments, and I<br />
would not fault them for that; that is their prerogative, and I am sure they are supported in<br />
this by their institutions. Anyone who wants the Presbyterian or Catholic or Evangelical<br />
reading of the bible, I would urge you to consult with such experts. If, however, you want an<br />
objective assessment of bible translation, don't ask theologians, ask secular bible scholars at<br />
public universities. Our jobs are not on the line if we seem to contradict church dogma, and<br />
we are not in the business of apologetics or polemics. We are historians and linguists trying<br />
to find out what was said and what was meant in ancient texts. I wouldn't expect you to turn<br />
to us for spiritual guidance. But if you want to know what the original Greek of the NT can<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (4 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
and cannot mean, we have the training and self-discipline to provide it without special<br />
pleading. That's no proud boast; that's a comment on the kind of education we value in a<br />
nation committed to the separation of church and state (for the protection of both), and on a<br />
profession which will let no unexamined claim stand unchallenged....<br />
None of the major modern translations have been accomplished by groups of linguists<br />
working with the same methods employed in the translation of Homer or Plato. Instead,<br />
every translation committee has consisted of denominationally-affiliated bible scholars,<br />
most of whom had theological commitments which, when push came to shove, superseded a<br />
strictly linguistic approach. The kinds of considerations that are made by these committees<br />
concerning the meaning and proper translation of a verse simply do not occur in secular<br />
translation work. There is always a concern for the theological implications of the words.<br />
The Lockman foundation and the NIV committee openly avowed their primarily theological<br />
concerns in their translation work. The RSV/NRSV editors have gone so far as to modify<br />
translations to please specific denominational groups. The RSV/NRSV committee has, over<br />
the years, included a handful of "non-trinitarian" scholars, but this was simply part of the<br />
RSV editors' goal to make the RSV THE <strong>Bible</strong> of the English speaking world, and the tiny<br />
minority of dissenting voices within the committee could have little impact on the finished<br />
product."<br />
In fact, a <strong>Bible</strong> made by Protestant/Evangelicals is no guarantee of an accurate translation, quite the<br />
opposite in fact. They have all removed the Divine Name from their <strong>Bible</strong>s. They might take a lesson<br />
here from the New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
The reason for the "Word was God" rendering is that Evangelical Protestants are us much slaves to<br />
tradition as the Catholics are.<br />
"People who adhere to 'Sola Scriptura' ['we follow the <strong>Bible</strong> only'] (as they believe) often<br />
adhere in fact to a traditional school of interpretation of 'Sola Scriptura.' Evangelical<br />
Protestants can be as much slaves of tradition as Roman Catholics or Greek Orthodox<br />
Christians; only they don't realize it is tradition."<br />
F.F. Bruce, in correspondence, June 13, 1981, as quoted in *Our Fathers Who Aren't In<br />
Heaven* by Anthony Buzzard, p. 33<br />
Protestants are merely Catholics in disguise, a Romish religion without the Mitre.<br />
Moving away from the traditional though is their peculiar way of dealing with John 1:18. Let's look at<br />
John 1:18 in the newly released Today's New International Version, "No one has ever seen God, but the<br />
one and only Son, who is himself God..." This is simply a perverse and corrupted translation, as there are<br />
absolutely NO MANUSCRIPTS IN EXISTENCE that have both God (QEOS, theos) AND Son (hUIOS)<br />
together with only-begotten (MONOGENHS, monogenes) [there is not one single example in the GNT<br />
of an adjective being substantivized when it precedes a noun of the same inflection].<br />
The Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version, New<br />
Century Version, New International readers Version, New Evangelical Translation, etc., have all done<br />
the same.<br />
Suddenly, the NWT looks like a model others should follow. If very learned men can make such<br />
demonstrably bad decisions when translating, then this does not speak well of the learning institutions<br />
they are a part of, nor does it bode well for the religious denominations they are representing.<br />
I might add, that had the predicate nominative in John 1:1c been anything else BUT QEOS, we would<br />
not even be discussing it. The NWT translation would be universally considered correct.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (5 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
Bowman adds,<br />
"The bottom line is this: If we limit ourselves to known, bona fide scholars whose<br />
credentials we can check and prove to be academically respectable and whose exegesis of<br />
the texts in question supports our position, we will have a very long list of scholars indeed,<br />
from a wide variety of religious perspectives. We don’t need translations, commentaries, or<br />
other works by unknown individuals to show that our position is scholastically tenable. On<br />
the other hand, in many cases, you do. It’s just that simple." Click here for full email.<br />
The Protestant Evangelist superiority complex rears its ugly head again. Professor Beduhn adds to his<br />
above comment:<br />
"The "broad spectrum" (of scholars) you refer to is in fact very safely in the mainstream of<br />
modern Christianity. Now I think it safe to say that you assume modern mainstream<br />
Christianity to be correct and "true" Christianity, and a tiny minority like the JWs to be in<br />
error. But imagine if the situation were reversed. Imagine that your "true" Christianity was<br />
the minority, and the huge majority to have followed a wrong turn somewhere down the<br />
road to "error." This is just a hypothetical situation. In such a situation, any claim based on<br />
numbers, on majority rule, would have no meaning for you. It's pretty nice to speak with the<br />
confidence that you are in the majority isn't it? But has it ever occurred to you that in<br />
attacking the JWs and insisting that they give up their "different" beliefs and conform to<br />
your "true" beliefs and "correct" translations that you are pressuring them to do precisely<br />
what you would never do: yield in your faith, your truth, to the pressure of the outside<br />
world? I have often been struck by this irony."<br />
The radio show also used A.T. Robertson in support of their theological stance in regards to John 1:1.<br />
Again, un-beknownst to many, here we have yet another scholar with an anti-JW bias. Dr. Robertson, in<br />
the early thirties, went on a smear campaign against A. E. Knoch's Concordant Version of the NT. to<br />
accomplish this, he lied. He falsely accused the Concordant Version as " propaganda for Russellism"<br />
(Jehovah's Witnesses, as they were then known). This kind of accusation was meant to devastate, as<br />
JW"s were universally persecuted and vilified for various reasons. One of these recriminations is that we<br />
are, in the minds of the religious majority, the new arch-heretics, the new Arians. To A. T. Robertson,<br />
attaching the "Russellite" label was to produce the same effect as the racial and sexually demeaning slurs<br />
hurled about by those who consider themselves superior. It was meant to damage the reputation of a man<br />
and his <strong>Bible</strong>. See UNSEARCHABLE RICHES, SEPTEMBER, 1931 BEING THE FIFTH NUMBER<br />
OF VOLUME TWENTY-TWO.<br />
Let us though look at Bowman's list of <strong>Bible</strong>s that we should consult, as they are readily available in any<br />
University Library: KJV, NKJV, NIV, NRSV, NASB<br />
All these <strong>Bible</strong>s have one thing in common, they are Protestant <strong>Bible</strong>s, and they have all removed the<br />
Divine Name (YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah), thereby blurring the distinction between Father (Isaiah 64:8)<br />
and Son (John 3:16). Only the KJV has "Jehovah" a scant 4 times out of the textually required 6828<br />
times. Everyone agrees that Colwell was a better textual critic than he was a grammarian. When he<br />
created an apparatus on determining the best New Testament, his results were quite surprising. The KJV<br />
was on the bottom of the list. He says,<br />
"No scholar today employs this text for any scholarly purpose except as he may use it in<br />
writing the history of the Greek New Testament. The King James version is undoubtedly the<br />
most inaccurate English New Testament in common use today...The King James stands at<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (6 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
the bottom of the list also in regard to three spurious passages selected as tests (Mk 16:9-20;<br />
Jn 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7-8)." pp. 99, 100<br />
This would also include the NKJV. When others were compared to his apparatus, the NWT succeeded<br />
the NIV, NASB and NRSV as more accurate. In fact, it reigned supreme. Click here for more.<br />
I am now going to do something KKLA did not have the guts to do, and that is deal with the evidence.<br />
I want to concentrate on is Hawkins comment. Craig Hawkins’s claims that the “a god” translation of<br />
John 1:1 would get a failing grade in a modern university Greek course, such as the one at UC Irvine<br />
where he studied.But exactly how are these students taught?<br />
Before we go into the following, we have to remember that the Trinity, as it is known today, did not exist<br />
in the first century.<br />
"You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the <strong>Bible</strong>. St<br />
Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor<br />
does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly equal to<br />
his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest).<br />
"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is<br />
one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth<br />
century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the<br />
nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- Encyclopedia<br />
Americana (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.<br />
Knowing this, we can move on.<br />
Consider the following from Mounce's Basic's of Biblical Greek ( a good first year grammar).<br />
Going on to page 28, where it discusses the Definite Article, as an example of a subject and predicate<br />
nominative, it gives "John is a man."<br />
But when we move on to John 1:1, to phrase it similarly (the Word was a god) is considered "Arianism"<br />
and outside the framework of "Orthodoxy." But let us look at how they import a later theology into this<br />
verse: "Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with<br />
the person of 'God' (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine<br />
attributes of God that the Father has: lack of article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father." [Emphasis<br />
theirs]<br />
Mounce is aiming for a qualitative (divine attributes) exegesis of the passage. The problem is that he has<br />
to import the words "person" and "Father," neither of which are in the text. An honest examination with<br />
quality in view SHOULD read, "Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the the Word<br />
(Jesus Christ) with the 'God.' That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine<br />
attributes God has: lack of article tells us that Jesus Christ is not God."<br />
Unfortunately, first year NT Greek students, are not allowed to think outside the confines of orthodoxy.<br />
Any questioning of this would maybe have resulted in a "failing grade ."<br />
Let us move on to Dana & Mantey's Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.<br />
"The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence.<br />
In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, EMPORION D HN TO CWRION, and the place was a<br />
market, we have a parallel case to that we have in John 1:1, KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS, and<br />
the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the<br />
place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article was also<br />
used with QEOS. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in<br />
QEOS." pp. 148, 149<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (7 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
Again, we have an excellent example of how we can translate John 1:1c with Xenophon's Anabasis, "the<br />
place was a market, i.e., the Word was a god. But notice how the language becomes confused:<br />
"Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God." This is not an even parallel at all.<br />
A truthful and equivalent statement SHOULD be, "Neither was the place the only market, nor was the<br />
word the only God." The reasons for this strange turn of language is made quite clear in the following<br />
sentence, where he wants to implicate "the other persons of the Trinity."<br />
Let us look at another grammar, the ever popular Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace.<br />
On page 41, explaining the semantics and exegetical significance of the subject - predicate nominative<br />
construction (in John 1:1c, the LOGOS (the Word) is the subject, as it has the article, and QEOS (God) is<br />
the predicate nominative, which, according to Wallace, means that it is "approximately the same as the<br />
subject, and is joined to it by an equative verb." [Emphasis his] He also points out that "the predicate<br />
nominative describes the class to which the subject belongs."<br />
So far, so good, I agree. The Word belongs to a class called "God." Just like the place was not the only<br />
market (see above), the word was not the only god. There are others also.<br />
But notice the jab that he takes (and this is not the only one) at the Witnesses.<br />
Wallace says,<br />
"The assumption that the grammatical equative verb bears the same force as the<br />
mathematical equal sign is one of the fundamental flaws in the thinking of Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses regarding the deity of Christ. On John 1:1, c.f. their booklet, Should You Believe<br />
in the Trinity? (New York: Watchtower <strong>Bible</strong> and Tract Society, 1989), where it is argued<br />
that since John 1:1b states that "the Word was with God," John 1:1c cannot mean "The<br />
Word was God"; "Someone who is 'with' another person cannot be the same as that other<br />
person" (27). This argument seems to assume that all S-PN constructions are of the<br />
convertible type."<br />
Do you see the problem here? Truth is, the Witnesses do not view John 1:1c as equative on the grounds<br />
that the LOGOS and QEOS are joined by an equative verb, they view the Word and the anarthrous God<br />
as equative because the preceding clause (John 1:1b) tells us that the Word was WITH the articular God.<br />
None of Wallace's examples have a Scripture where one subject is said to be with another. Why,<br />
because, to my knowledge, there are none. Our stance does not "assume that all S-PN constructions are<br />
of the convertible type," as the discussion here only centered around John 1:1.<br />
We get our view from examining the context, not only one single clause.<br />
Moving on to Page 267, Wallace again, erroneously goes on the attack against the NWT by using a quote<br />
from Countess. He says, "The grammatical argument here that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often,<br />
those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that<br />
the term is anarthrous" and from there goes on to quote Countess, who also assume this. This is simply<br />
not true. Note the appendix in the NWT 1984 Ed., where they said that the translations "a god" do so<br />
"because the Greek word (the·os') is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb<br />
and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os'. The God with<br />
whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression, that<br />
is, the·os' preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os'. Careful translators<br />
recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality,<br />
whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality<br />
about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine"<br />
or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (8 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same<br />
as God himself.<br />
In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding<br />
the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these<br />
places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to<br />
bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted<br />
before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is<br />
inserted before the anarthrous in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The<br />
Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering."<br />
The base their translation of "a god" NOT solely on the grounds that it is anarthrous, but that is<br />
anarthrous AND that it is a predicate nominative that precedes the verb, as well as being used in a<br />
context of with God. So the rest of the examples of the anarthrous QEOS that Wallace uses to make his<br />
point (as does Countess) is actually based on a strawman argument and does not accurately represent our<br />
position. Compare any other <strong>Bible</strong> that translates John 1:1c with a quality in view and you will see that<br />
they also do not apply this to John 1:6, 18 etc.<br />
As Dixon says, "Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom<br />
is by prefacing the noun with 'a.'" -- Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate<br />
Nominative in John" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 47.<br />
When Robert Countess was corrected by Nelson Herle in a letter dated December 10, 1997, Countess<br />
compared him to "a son of a bi&%hing ba$&ard that shovels me $%it." This, coming from a man who is<br />
known to sign off his letters "Sincerely, in the ONLY Savior, who as the Second Person of the<br />
Ontological Trinity died to save the Elect from their sins, the Lord and Savior-God Jesus Christ.<br />
The reason for this profane outburst from Countess is the same we would expect from a criminal who has<br />
been cornered and exposed for what he is, a liar.<br />
Wallace also makes the following misleading statement on p. 269:<br />
"The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he<br />
could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father." [Emphasis<br />
his] {Bowman and Hawkins insisted on the same thing.}<br />
That's not true. John uses the term "Father" well over 100 times in his Gospel, so he was not scared to<br />
use this term. He could simply have said "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with the God the<br />
Father, and the Word was God the Son." However, he did not. He did however tell us that Jesus could be<br />
God-like, Divine, or a god (John 1:1c), which as he explains, was also a term used for humans Judges or<br />
perhaps angels (John 10:34 cf. Psalm 82:1).<br />
Let us now move on to David Alan Black's "It's Still Greek to Me-An Easy to Understand Guide to<br />
Intermediate Greek [Second Printing, 1999]," he employs Colwell's Rule (which is now considered<br />
useless in regards to John 1:1) to pull for a definite classification of the predicate nominative. Why?<br />
Because to him, "the other persons of the Trinity are implied in QEOS." p. 79<br />
Again, it is 4th century theology written back into John 1:1.<br />
Majority Text advocate, Wilbur Pickering, in his translation of the New Testament, has this footnote at<br />
John 1:1:<br />
"The New <strong>World</strong> Translation (of the JW's) renders "a god". They defend their choice<br />
because the noun 'God' occurs without the definite article [again, not completely true, see<br />
above...but do you see how this lie perpetuates?], and the absence of the article in Greek has<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (9 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
the effect of the indefinite article in English - hence 'a god'. However, another frequent use<br />
of the absence of the definite article (in Greek) is to emphasize the quality inherent in the<br />
noun - in this case 'God'. Grammatically, the construction is ambiguous, so those who wish<br />
to deny the deity of Christ will naturally translate 'a god'. Since John will make himself<br />
perfectly clear that Christ is very God, we take that it is here emphasizing that inherent<br />
quality."<br />
Pickering is a bit more allowable, though he also makes a few mistakes. Those that render "a god" do not<br />
wish to deny the deity of Christ, as they properly wish to promote the deity of the Father. Of the<br />
thousands of occurrences of the word GOD in the <strong>Bible</strong>, how many of them refer to someone other than<br />
the Father? Of the scant few references to Christ (and even these are debatable) how many others refer to<br />
Prophets, Judges, Angels, etc.? Jehovah, our God and Father pretty much exhausts all the references to<br />
Deity in the <strong>Bible</strong>. Hence, it is the holy Scriptures, and even Jesus himself, that deny that Christ is "very<br />
God."<br />
Jesus said, "I seek not mine own glory." John 8:50 Why can't we help him in this quest?<br />
That John will make himself perfectly on Jesus is very God is a gross overstatement.<br />
"When we consider further the fact ...that Christ is nowhere called God in any<br />
unambiguous passage by any writer of the New Testament and that it is nowhere recorded<br />
that he ever claimed this title, we cannot reasonably regard this abstinence from the use of<br />
the term as accidental. "<br />
Ezra Abbot, ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. by Ezra Abbott from the Journal of the<br />
Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis for 1881. Pickering statement is a reflection of his theology,<br />
as he immediately thereafter refers to Jesus as "Jehovah the Son," a term never used in the <strong>Bible</strong>. In fact,<br />
Jehovah was given many titles in the <strong>Bible</strong>, but "Son" was never one of them. Jehovah though, is the<br />
Father (Isa 64:8).<br />
Moving along, Murray J. Harris's "Jesus as God" makes the following comment,<br />
"from the point of view of grammar alone, QEOS HN hO LOGOS could be rendered 'the<br />
Word was a god,' just as, for example, if only grammatical considerations were being taken<br />
into account, UMEIS EK TOU PATROS TOU DIABOLOU ESTE (John 8:44) could mean<br />
'You belong to the father of the devil.'"<br />
Again, this is unfair. Murray himself, in the footnote admits that "John 1:1 is unique with regards to its<br />
construction" but he compares it with the genitive of apposition and also the resumptive use of the article<br />
in John 8:44, which are often awkward when rendered literally (see John 2:21; 14:26 etc). We must<br />
differentiate between a possible translation and a probable one. "The Word was a god" is not only<br />
possible, but also probable, and it, unlike the traditional "The Word was God" actually gives us a<br />
qualitative translation that tells us that Jesus is not the Father.<br />
Did you get that? All of the above would defend "the word was God" as the best translation, but yet they<br />
argue, as Wallace does, that the force of the construction in John 1:1 is most likely to emphasize the<br />
nature and quality of the Word, which is something the NWT translation does, and the NASB does not.<br />
As Dixon says, "Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom<br />
is by prefacing the noun with 'a.'"<br />
The bashing from those with influence does not end here. The Nelson NKJV Study <strong>Bible</strong> furthers the<br />
error, by again, attacking Jehovah's Witnesses as "cultists" right in its footnote.<br />
The following is posted online by Paul S. Dixon at<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (10 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/97-08/0168.html<br />
"This morning I purchased the new Nelson Study <strong>Bible</strong>. This is what I found on p. 1756<br />
regarding the translation of Jn 1:1c:<br />
'The best understanding of the translation, however, as recognized by Greek scholars, is that<br />
since theos is a predicate and precedes the noun logos and a verb, it is natural for it to<br />
occur here without the article.'<br />
Zounds! Colwell's error revisited. This statement clearly reflects the erroneous thinking<br />
whereby the converse of Colwell's rule is affirmed. Only if one assumes that QEOS is<br />
definite here can one appeal to Colwell's rule. But, then that would be begging the question.<br />
The question is, what is the significance of the anarthrous predicate construction here? It is<br />
qualitative, both because of the immediate context where QEOS is set in contrast to the<br />
qualitative SARZ in a similar construction in v. 14, and because of the normal significance<br />
of the construction in John. Furthermore, if QEOS in 1:1c were definite, then this<br />
definiteness would point to the preceding TON QEON identifying the LOGOS with God the<br />
Father. Would this not be Sabellianism and a denial of the trinity?<br />
Carl Conrad adds at http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/97-08/0169.html:<br />
"Methodologically, however, the last sentence bothers me: it seems to imply that we should<br />
judge the meaning and intent of the Greek text in terms of what later becomes a recognized<br />
heresy and in terms of what is later declared to be right theology. I would think that one<br />
ought to determine first what the Greek text CAN mean, and only then go on to make a<br />
judgment about whether that accords with this or that theological position. That is to say, I<br />
would think that right theology derives from a right reading of the text, not a right reading of<br />
the text from right theology."<br />
A theology derived through conflict and won at the edge of the sword should not be the determining<br />
factor of a clause should be translated. The text should be translated from the writers view, one of Jewish<br />
monotheism.<br />
Bowman also made the assumption on the Radio, that if John 1:1c was rendered qualitatively (for<br />
instance, "the Word was divine") then this is trinitarian, as the qualitative rendering is what trinitarians<br />
are arguing for. Or as Bowman had written:<br />
"Inasmuch as this may be a fair statement, at least from one perspective, these<br />
middle-ground renderings cannot be viewed as providing legitimacy for the “a god”<br />
rendering. Think of it this way. Let’s say you’re right and<br />
these are “middle ground” renditions. We may say, then, that “God” is the “right-wing”<br />
rendering and “a god” is the left-wing rendering. I assume you would not agree that the<br />
middle-ground rendering “divine” is support for the right-wing rendering “God.” Right?<br />
Well, by the same reasoning, the rendering “divine” cannot be support for the left-wing<br />
rendering “a god.” "If “divine” means “a spiritual being of some exalted status,” then yes,<br />
“of<br />
course” Jesus can be described as “divine” within a Jehovah’s Witness doctrinal<br />
framework. However, if “divine” means “having the same essence and nature as God,” then<br />
no, Jesus cannot be described as “God” consistently<br />
with Jehovah’s Witness theology. So, to answer your question, Jesus could be “a god” but<br />
not be “divine” if “a god” meant that he were a being of godlike characteristics but “divine”<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (11 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
meant a being of the same nature and<br />
essence as God."<br />
Since I am to limit myself to Evangelical only sources, D.A. Carson, in his book "The King James<br />
Version Debate" on p. 64 (paperback edition) posts a chart (similar to the one here) where he gives a<br />
checkmark for those renderings that "directly ascribe deity to Christ." He gives an "x" to those that do<br />
not. Carson gives an "x" to the NWT's rendering of John 1:1, as well as Moffatt's and Goodspeed's (the<br />
Logos/Word was divine). In fact, he castigates Moffatt and Goodspeed as those with "liberal<br />
propensities."<br />
Speaking of Moffatt's translation, Daniel Wallace says "'divine' is acceptable only if it is a term that can<br />
be applied to true deity." But the word "divine" does not alone mean "true" or "fully" deity, does it?<br />
Wallace adds,<br />
"However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal!<br />
Thus 'divine' could be misleading in a modern translation."<br />
It is only misleading to Wallace, who in his own translation, the NET <strong>Bible</strong>, mistranslates John 1:1c as<br />
"the Word was fully God."<br />
I think the weight is on the side of Jehovah's Witnesses as far as "divine" is concerned. What Bowman,<br />
and others fail to realize is that "divine" and "a god" are both qualitative, and both renderings are very<br />
comfortable with each other.<br />
When we translate the <strong>Bible</strong>, we must NOT import into it a later Nicean or Cappadocian view of God,<br />
but we must translate as 1st Century Christians with strong Jewish roots.<br />
Robert Bowman's inability to deal with Scriptures as translated by other scholars is evident when you<br />
examine some of the statements made by him in the past. In the CRI Journal-CRJ0049A, Bowman writes<br />
of the NWT:<br />
"There are nine texts where Jesus is definitely called God (Isa. 9:6; John 1:1, 18; 20:28;<br />
Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 5:20; possible also Acts 20:28). Of these,<br />
four are translated so that Jesus is not called God at all (Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb 1:8; 1 Pet.<br />
1:1). Two are rendered so that he is 'a god' or 'god' (John 1:1, 18)."<br />
This is where Bowman, like Ron Rhodes, seriously fail as an apologist. I have many people writing to<br />
me puppetting what these men say, and they are devastated to learn that the accusations made are simply<br />
not true. Both of these men seem to experience a certain type of myopia when it comes to translating the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>. They cannot see beyond the NASB or the NIV. Their view of the world does not go beyond the<br />
confines of Evangelicals. Examine these:<br />
Isaiah 9:6<br />
"Mighty God, Eternal Father." New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
"Wonder-Counsellor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace." Byington's The <strong>Bible</strong> in Living<br />
English<br />
"A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince." Moffatt's The <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like...." New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father...."Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Great Leader, Time's Father, the Prince of Peace." The Complete <strong>Bible</strong> in Modern English by Ferrar<br />
Fenton<br />
"his name is called the Messenger of great counsel." Brenton's LXX<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (12 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
"divine hero, father of spoil, prince of peace" Isaiah 1:12 Old Testament Library-A Commentary by Otto<br />
Kaiser<br />
There can be no complaint of the above rendering in the NWT, but why do other <strong>Bible</strong>s not render it so?<br />
Isaiah 9:4 makes a reference to the Midian's defeat at the hands of the Judge Gideon. Mentioning him<br />
here is no coincidence, as Jesus is the greater Gideon, and all judgement will be committed to him (John<br />
5:22). Now, Judges were also called "God," not only at Psalm 82:1, but also at Exodus 21:6 ("then his<br />
master must take him before the judges ["God" footnote]" NIV; "then his master shall bring him to God"<br />
NASB) and Exodus 22:8 ("the owner of the house must appear before the judges ["God" footnote]" NIV;<br />
"then the master of the house shall come near unto God" ASV).<br />
Romans 9:5<br />
"...Christ, who is God over all, forever praised. Amen." New International Version<br />
"...God, who is over all, [be] blessed forever. Amen." NWT<br />
"May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen" New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"God, who is over all be blessed for ever." Revised Standard Version<br />
"Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all!" Moffatt<br />
"May God, who rules over all, be praised forever!" Good News <strong>Bible</strong>/TEV<br />
"God who is over all be blessed forever." Smith&Goodspeed's An American Translation<br />
"God who is over all be forever praised." NIV footnote<br />
"May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen" Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever!" Contemporary English Version<br />
"He who is over all, God, blessed unto the ages." Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"God is over everyone, Praise Him forever." Simple English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"God be blessed who is above all things forever." Unvarnished NT/Andy Gaus<br />
God who is over all be blessed forever." New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"God is over everyone, Praise Him forever." International English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Many many others translate it similar to the NASB, "and of whom is the Christ according to the flesh,<br />
who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen" which also does not contain a reference to Christ's deity.<br />
By translating this properly, we maintain the proper focus of this verse.<br />
"Some editors punctuate this verse differently and prefer the translation, 'Of whom is Christ<br />
according to the flesh, who is god over all.' However, Paul's point is that God who is over all<br />
aimed to use Israel, which had been entrusted with every privilege, in outreach to the entire<br />
world through the Messiah." Romans 9:5 footnote, New American <strong>Bible</strong> w/Revised New<br />
Testament and Revised Psalms<br />
For more info on this scripture click here and here.<br />
Also http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/translation/romans95.htm<br />
So again, Christ is NOT "definitely God" at Romans 9:5.<br />
Titus 2:13<br />
"our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." New International Version<br />
"of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ." NWT 1950<br />
"of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ." New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (13 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
"of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." American Standard Version<br />
"of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." King James Version<br />
"of the great God and our Saviour." Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> margin<br />
"of the great God and our Saviour." New English <strong>Bible</strong> margin<br />
"of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus." Moffatt<br />
"the magnificent God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus." 21st Century NT<br />
"the great God and our Savior." New Revised Standard Version margin<br />
"the great God and our Savior." Revised Standard Version margin<br />
"our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." Contemporary English Version margin<br />
"great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ." Concordant Literal NT<br />
"the great God and our Savior Christ Jesus." Rotherham<br />
"the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" Worrell New Testament<br />
"the great God and our Savior" New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong> margin<br />
"the Great God, and of our Deliverer Jesus Christ" The Original New Testament, Schonfield<br />
"our Great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah" Jewish NT<br />
"our great God and our Savior Jesus Messiah." The Power New Testament-Revealing Jewish Roots<br />
"the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" Catholic Douay <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" Good News <strong>Bible</strong> margin<br />
Again, the consensus is that Christ is NOT "definitely God" at Titus 2:13.<br />
For more info click here, and here.<br />
(Let me know if the Fuller library fails to find any of these!)<br />
Hebrews 1:8<br />
"But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever." New International Version<br />
"God is your throne forever." NWT 1950<br />
"God is your throne forever and ever." Smith&Goodspeed's An American Translation<br />
"God is thy throne" Revised Standard Version margin<br />
"God is thy throne" Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews [Macmillan And Co., NY, 1903]<br />
"God is your throne forever and ever." Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English<br />
"God is your throne" New Revised Standard Version margin<br />
"It is God who is your throne for ever and ever." God's New Covenant-A New Testament Transl., by<br />
Heinz W. Cassirer<br />
"God is thy throne" New English <strong>Bible</strong> margin<br />
"Your throne is God for an age of ages." Unvarnished NT<br />
"Thy throne is God" 21st Century NT<br />
"Thy throne is God" American Standard Version margin<br />
"God is your Kingdom" Good News <strong>Bible</strong> margin<br />
"Great Prince, your throne is for ever and ever" The Complete <strong>Bible</strong> in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton<br />
"God is thy throne" Moffatt<br />
As to the Nominative for the Vocative use "Your throne, O God," the New American <strong>Bible</strong> says in the<br />
footnote here,<br />
"O God; the application of the name 'God' to the Son derives from the preexistence<br />
mentioned in vv. 2-3; the psalmist already used the it of the Hebrew king in the court style<br />
of the original. See the note on Ps 45, 7 [which says, "The king in courtly language, is called<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (14 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
'god,' i.e., more than human, representing God to the people."]"<br />
Once more, the consensus is that Christ is NOT "definitely God" at Hebrews 1:8.<br />
2 Peter 1:1<br />
"the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" NIV<br />
"the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ" ASV<br />
"the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" KJV<br />
"of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ" Revised Standard Version margin<br />
"our God and the savior Jesus Christ" New American <strong>Bible</strong> margin<br />
"the righteousness of our God and of our Savior Jesus Christ" International English <strong>Bible</strong>-God Chaser's<br />
Extreme NT<br />
"the righteousness of our God and our Savior, Jesus Christ" Literal Translation of the HOLY BIBLE by<br />
Jay P. Green Sr.<br />
"of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ" New Revised Standard Version margin<br />
"the righteousness of our God and of our Savior Jesus Christ" Simple English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." Wesley's NT<br />
"the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ" Third Millenium <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" Kleist & Lilly New Testament and Lamsa's <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"of our God and our Savior Jesus Christ" Webster <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"our God and our Saviour" God's New Covenant by Heinz W. Cassirer<br />
"of God and of Jesus our Master." Schonfield's Original New Testament<br />
"of our God and of our Deliverer Yeshua the Messiah" Jewish New Testament<br />
"of our God, and the Saviour, Jesus Christ" Concordant Literal New Testament<br />
"share the faith that God in his justice has equally allotted to us; as well as that of our Saviour Jesus<br />
Christ." 21st Century NT<br />
Again, the consensus is that Christ is NOT "definitely God" at 2 Peter 1:1, especially as he differentiates<br />
between God and Jesus in the following Scripture, "Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the<br />
knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord." NIV<br />
Couple this with how the Epistles are usually started, we have to come to the honest conclusion that<br />
Jesus was not called God at 2 Peter 1:1:<br />
"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God" Romans 1:1<br />
NIV<br />
"Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,... Grace and peace to you from God our<br />
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 1:1-3 NIV<br />
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,... Grace and peace to you from God our Father and<br />
the Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Corinthians 1:1-3 NIV<br />
"Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father...Grace and<br />
peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" Galatians 1:1-3 NIV<br />
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,...Grace and peace to you from God our Father and<br />
the Lord Jesus Christ."<br />
Ephesians 1:1-3 NIV<br />
"Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Php 1:2 NIV<br />
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,...We always thank God,<br />
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you" Col 1:1-3 NIV<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (15 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
"To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" 1 Thess 1:1 NIV<br />
"To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ...Grace and peace to<br />
you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thess 1:1,2 NIV<br />
"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our<br />
hope,...Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord." 1 Tim 1:1,2<br />
"Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord." 2 Tim 1:2<br />
"Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ...Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ<br />
Jesus our Savior." Titus 1:1-4 NIV<br />
"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Phm 1:3 NIV<br />
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in<br />
these last days he has spoken to us by his Son..." Heb 1:1 NIV<br />
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" James 1:1 NIV<br />
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" 1 Pet 1:3 NIV<br />
"our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3 NIV<br />
"Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in<br />
truth and love." 2 John 1:3 NIV<br />
Granville Sharp had other recommendations besides Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 also. He stated that 2<br />
Timothy 4:1 should be translated, " I charge (thee,) therefore, before Jesus Christ, the God and Lord..."<br />
while our <strong>Bible</strong>s have, "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus..." NASB<br />
He stated 1 Timothy 5:21 be translated, "before Christ Jesus, the GOD and LORD. and (before) the elect<br />
angels," whereas we instead have "in the presence of God, and of Christ Jesus, and the his chosen angels"<br />
NASB.<br />
He stated that 2 Thess. 1:12 be rendered, "to the grace of Jesus Christ, our God and Lord," while our<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>s have "the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." NASB<br />
He stated that Php 3:3 should be rendered "who worship the spirit of our God" instead of "we who<br />
worship by the Spirit of God." NIV<br />
Granville Sharp was merely an extremist who looked in the NT for instances where Jesus COULD be<br />
named God. While many complain of the "lack of scholarship" of the translators of the NWT, Granville<br />
Sharp had none to speak of either, yet his rule is embraced and unquestioned where Titus 2:13 and 2<br />
Peter 1:1 are rendered in many <strong>Bible</strong>s. (see Remarks on the Uses of the Definite Article [ISBN<br />
0-9626544-4-2] pp. 43-54<br />
1 John 5:20<br />
"We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him<br />
who is true. And we are in him who is true--even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal<br />
life." NIV<br />
The NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong> (also NASB Study <strong>Bible</strong>/Zondervan) footnote,<br />
"Him who is true. God the Father. He is the true God. Could refer to either God the Father<br />
or God the Son."<br />
What do others say?<br />
"it should be noted that precisely in St. John's First Epistle [O QEOS] ho theos, "the true<br />
God" so often certainly means the Father that it must be understood of the Father throughout<br />
the Epistle, unless we are to suppose that some incomprehensible change has taken place in<br />
the subject referred to by O QEOS." Theological Investigations, Vol. 1 by Karl Rahner,<br />
Third printing: 1965, pages 136, 137. Compare John 17:3<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (16 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
"houtos: as a climax to vv.18-20 the ref[erence] is almost certainly to God the real, the true,<br />
opp[osite of] paganism(v.21.)"- "A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament,<br />
Zerwick/Grosvenor, Rome Biblical Institue, 1981.<br />
"[1 John 5:]20f. Christ has revealed the one true God, the source of eternal life(cf. 5:12; Jn<br />
17:3, 20:31). 'This is the true God' does not refer to Jesus as Stauffer thinks(Theology of the<br />
NT.(English translation 1955), 114)." G. Johnston, Peake's Commentary on the <strong>Bible</strong>,<br />
Thomas Nelson and Sons, reprint of 1964.<br />
"Conclusion: Although it is certainly possible that houtos["this one"] refers back to Jesus<br />
Christ, several converging lines of evidence points to "the true one," God the Father, as the<br />
probable antecedent. This position, houtos = God, is held by many commentators, authors of<br />
general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the<br />
matter."-M. Harris, "Jesus as God, The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus,"<br />
Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992, p.253.<br />
"We are also aware that the Son of God came and gave us discernment so that we know who<br />
is true, so we are one with him who is true, Jesus Christ the Son of the God who is true."<br />
21st Century NT<br />
Once more, the consensus is that Christ is NOT "definitely God" at 1 John 5:20<br />
John 1:1<br />
See Stafford's comments above.<br />
As to capitalization of the word "God" KKLA radio has made the following accusation and used it<br />
against Jehovah's Witnesses on another one of their programs, listed online besides the above program. It<br />
was mentioned that the NWT does not capitalize some instances of theos/God, though the ancient<br />
manuscripts used all capitals.<br />
Now, there are ancient manuscripts called Uncials, and they wrote in only capitals. For instance, in uncial<br />
script, Satan is called, "O QEOS TOU AIWNOS/THE GOD OF THE AGE." Yet, most <strong>Bible</strong>s, like the<br />
NASB, HCSB, Smith&Goodspeed will not capitalize theos here, even though it is articular, and in all<br />
capitals. Uncial manuscripts capitalized EVERYTHING, every word and every letter. It was not a<br />
doctrinal statement, and should never be used for a defense in such a way. To do this would be careless.#<br />
John 20:28<br />
"My Master, and my God" 20th Century NT.<br />
Why did this NT render it thusly? Consider the construction"<br />
O KURIOS MOU KAI O QEOS MOU/the Lord of me the God of me. Has anyone checked other<br />
occurences of the same type of construction?<br />
Mt 12:47, H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you<br />
49 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU/the mother of me and the brothers of me<br />
Mark 3:31, H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI AUTOU/the mother of him and the brothers of him<br />
32 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you<br />
34 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU/the mother of me and the brothers of me<br />
Mk 6:4 TH PATRIDI AUTOU KAI EN TOIS SUGGENEUSIN AUTOU/the father of him and the<br />
relatives of him<br />
7:10 TON PATERA SOU KAI THN MHTERA SOU/the father of you and the mother of you<br />
Lk 8:20 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of thee and the brothers of thee<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (17 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
Lk 8:21 MHTHR MOU KAI ADELFOI MOU/mother of me and brothers of me<br />
Jn 2:12 H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI [AUTOU] KAI OI MAQHTAI AUTOU/the mother of<br />
him and the brothers of him and the disciples of him<br />
Jn 4:12 OI UIOI AUTOU KAI TA QREMMATA AUTOU/the sons of him and the cattle of him<br />
Acts 2:17 OI UIOI UMWN KAI AI QUGATERES UMWN/the sons of you and the daughters of you<br />
Rom 16:21 TIMOQEOS O SUNERGOS MOU KAI LOUKIOS KAI IASWN KAI SWSIPATROS OI<br />
SUGGENEIS MOU/Timothy the fellow-worker of me of me and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater the<br />
kinsmen of me.<br />
1 Thess. 3:11 QEOS KAI PATHR HMWN KAI O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS/God and Father of us and<br />
the Lord of us Jesus.<br />
2 Thess. 2:16 O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS CRISTOS KAI [O] QEOS O PATHR HMWN/the Lord of<br />
us Jesus Christ and the God the Father of us<br />
1 Tim. 1:1 QEOU SWTHROS HMWN KAI CRISTOU IHSOU THS ELPIDOS HMWN/God savior of<br />
us and Christ Jesus the hope of us<br />
2 Tim 1:5 TH MAMMH SOU LWIDI KAI TH MHTRI SOU/the grandmother of thee Lois and the<br />
mother of thee Eunice<br />
Heb 8:11 EKASTOS TON POLITHN AUTOU KAI EKASTOS TON ADELFON AUTOU/each one the<br />
citizen of him and each one the brother of him<br />
Rev 6:11 OI SUNDOULOI AUTWN KAI OI ADELFOI AUTWN/the fellow-slaves of them and the<br />
brothers of them<br />
This same construction usually refers to TWO different people.<br />
"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the<br />
man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of<br />
what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the<br />
other." Augustine in "Tractate CXXI"<br />
Acts 20:28 ("possible also")<br />
Bowman has a knack for picking the most ambiguous texts as "proof" of his theology. But, I guess, you<br />
must, if that is all you have. This is the Scripture where Ron Rhodes says in his 'Reasoning from the<br />
Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses' the following regarding the NWT's rendering of the verse at Acts<br />
20:28, "The New <strong>World</strong> Translation rendering of this verse GOES AGAINST ALL LEGITIMATE<br />
TRANSLATIONS OF SCRIPTURE" (p. 86).<br />
The NWT renders this, "shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his<br />
own [Son]."<br />
The NIV says, "Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood."<br />
But what do others say?<br />
"care for the church of God, which he has bought for himself at the price of the blood of his own One."<br />
William Barclay<br />
"be the shepherds of the church of God, which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." Revised<br />
Standard Version<br />
"Be shepherds of the church of God, which he made his own through the sacrificial death of his Son."<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son." New Revised Standard<br />
Version<br />
"to feed the church of God that he bought with the blood of his own Son" New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (18 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
"Be like shepherds to God's church. It is the flock that he bought with the blood of his own Son."<br />
Contemporary English Version<br />
"Tenderly care for God's congregation, which he acquired by the blood of his own Son." 21st Century<br />
NT<br />
See also The Concordant Literal New Testament, The Translator's New Testament, The Holy <strong>Bible</strong> in<br />
Modern English, by Ferrar Fenton and the Darby, Rotherham and Alfred Marshall footnotes.<br />
Acts 20:28 has also suffered at the hands of "orthodox" corruptors of Scripture (see The Orthodox<br />
Corruption of Scripture by Bart Ehrman, pp. 87-88, which has many <strong>Bible</strong>s and manuscripts reading<br />
"Lord" instead of "God." The same could be said for John 1:18<br />
I will make a prediction. Bowman will reject all the above, and will dwell on the weaker points and<br />
weaker translators. But the evidence is hard to ignore, and the facts are, that many in the lists above<br />
were/are Trinitarians and excellent grammarians. Perhaps they suffered some form of dementia, or it was<br />
overlooked by the committee. Of course I am being facetious, but this is the view I get when Walter<br />
Martin (Kingdom of the Cults) merely brushes off the New English <strong>Bible</strong>'s rendering of "a god" at John<br />
10:34 as a simple "mistranslation." There MUST have been something wrong, right?. Adherents of<br />
Martin, Rhodes and Bowman are dumbfounded when presented with the evidence that they failed to<br />
provide. Why this silence? We can discuss the <strong>Bible</strong> together, but JW's have an unfair advantage as we<br />
can go beyond what our pastors tell us.<br />
Case in point, consider Bowman's misuse of mss evidence:<br />
"JWs argue that "Jehovah" was used in the original LXX and NT manuscripts, and that the<br />
versions which used kurios were produced after the first century by apostate scribes. They<br />
base this claim on some pre-NT manuscripts of the LXX containing the divine name<br />
which have been discovered in this century.<br />
It is unnecessary here to discuss all the pros and cons of this theory. Several recent studies<br />
have been done which show that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the divine<br />
name was used in the original LXX, though everyone admits that some (not many) copies<br />
of the LXX did use it." http://www.mvcf.com/bible/religion_beliefs/cache/cri/crj0031a.html<br />
This is simply a lie. ALL extant copies up to the middle of the 2nd century CE contained the Divine<br />
Name.<br />
Here is a list of LXX mss that contain the Divine Name:<br />
1) 4Q LXX Lev (b)<br />
2) LXX P.Fouad Inv. 266<br />
3) LXX VTS 10b<br />
4) LXX VTS 10a<br />
5) LXX IBJ 12<br />
6) LXX P. Oxy. VII 1007<br />
and there are 4 others Aquila's (2), Symmachus, and Ambrosian (of a later date).<br />
"We know that the the Greek <strong>Bible</strong> text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not<br />
translate the Divine Name by Kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was<br />
retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the<br />
divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood anymore". (Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza,<br />
Oxford, 1959, p.222)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (19 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
The LXX you use probably comes from the Alexandrian mss dated hundreds of years after Christ.<br />
In fact, you will be hard-pressed to find any manuscript before the 4th century that used the word kyrios<br />
or theos. You see, they were all abbreviated.<br />
For more see click here and go to http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/ntstudies/tetragram.htm and<br />
http://www.divinename.net/<br />
Bowman: "Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we know our union with<br />
God is secure "owing to the _spirit_ which he gave us" (3:24). The next sentence (4:1) in the<br />
NWT reads, "Beloved ones, believe not every _inspired expression,_ but test the _inspired<br />
expressions_ to see whether they originate with God..."<br />
(4:1a; emphases added). One would never suspect from this rendering that "inspired<br />
expression" translates the same Greek word (_pneuma_) as was translated "spirit" in 3:24<br />
(see also 4:2,3,6). John's whole point is that although the Spirit's presence in us gives us<br />
assurance of God's love, we are not to believe every "spirit" that claims to be from God, but<br />
test them by the teachings which their prophets espouse, "because many false prophets have<br />
gone out into the world" (4:1b). The NWT obscures this point of God's Word in order to<br />
avoid its implication that His "Spirit" is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic<br />
"spirits" are personal entities and not impersonal forces, as JWs recognize).<br />
The same doctrinal bias is seen in 1 Timothy 4:1 where the NWT reads, "However, the<br />
_inspired utterance_ says...." A straightforward "the spirit says" would too obviously imply<br />
the personality of the "spirit.""<br />
Reply: 1 John 4:1-3 An American Translation by Smith & Goodspeed,<br />
"Dear friends, do not believe every inspired utterance, but test the utterances to see whether they<br />
come from God, for many false prophets have come out into the world.<br />
You can tell the Spirit of God in this way: every inspired utterance that acknowledges that Jesus Christ<br />
is come in human form is from God,<br />
and any inspired utterance that does not acknowledge Jesus does not come from God: it is the<br />
inspiration of the Antichrist."<br />
1 Timothy 4:1 The New Testament by Monsignor Ronald A. Knox,<br />
"We are expressly told by inspiration that, in later days, there will be some who abandon the faith,<br />
listening to false inspirations"<br />
Are these men showing a "doctrinal bias?"<br />
Commenting on 1 Cor 12:10, David Aune writes:<br />
"The term 'spirits' in the phrase might more appropriately be understood as 'prophetic<br />
utterances' or 'revelations of the Spirit,' on analogy with the use of the term 'spirit'<br />
(PNEUMA) in 2 Thess 2:2, 1 John 4:1; and particularly 1 Cor 14:12" (Prophecy in Early<br />
Christianity, page 220).<br />
Marion Soards (re: 1 Cor 12:10) "has generated considerable discussion among interpreters" (1<br />
Corinthians, page 260) when he cites Gordon Fee, who thinks that PNEUMA there refers to a Christian<br />
"making inspired assessments of inspired utterances" which Soards concludes is "exegetically grounded<br />
and judicious" (260).<br />
Consider what the online LSJ observes about the semantic range of PNEUMA:<br />
pneu=ma, atos, to/, (pne/w) blast, wind, first in Anaximen.2, o(/lon to\n ko/smon p. kai\<br />
a)h\r perie/xei: freq. in Trag., etc., a)ne/mwn pneu/mata pa/ntwn Aesch. PB 1086 (anap.), cf.<br />
au=Aesch. PB 1047 (anap.); qala/ssas . . pneu/mati la/brw| IDEM=Aesch. Pers. 110(lyr.);<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (20 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
pneuma/twn e)pombri/a| IDEM=A.Fr.300.3; te/ws de\ kou/fois pneu/masin bo/skou Soph.<br />
Aj. 558; pneu/masin qalassi/ois e)cwsqe/ntes Eur. Cycl. 278 (but pnoh/ is commoner in<br />
Poets; Hom. uses pnoih/); pneu/mata a)ne/mwn Hdt. 7.16.a/; to\ p. kath/|ei Thuc. 2.84; kata\<br />
pru/mnan i(/statai to\ p. IBID=au=Thuc. 2.97=lr; to\ p. lei=on kai\ kaqesthko\s labei=n<br />
Aristoph. Frogs 1003; to\ p. e)/latton gi/gnetai IDEM=Aristoph. Kn. 441; ei) foro\n p. ei)/h<br />
Xen. Hell. 6.2.27; kata\ pneu=ma sth=nai tou= a)/rrenos to leeward of him,<br />
Arist.HA560b14; but kata\ p. prosio/ntes down wind, IBID=au=Arist. HA 535a19;<br />
pneu/matos a)nei/lhsis, e)kpu/rwsis, Epicur. Ep.2pp.44,45 U.; as an element, air,<br />
Corp.Herm.1.9, au=Corp.Herm. 1.16=lr; to\ p. to\ peri\ th\n yuxh/n Plot.2.2.2, cf.<br />
Porph.Sent.29.<br />
2. metaph., qalerwte/rw| p. with more genial breeze or influence, Aesch. Seven 708(lyr.);<br />
lu/sshs p. ma/rgw| IDEM=Aesch. PB 884(anap.); ai)doi/w| p. xw/ras with air or spirit of<br />
respect on the part of the country, IDEM=Aesch. Supp. 29(anap.); p. tau)to\n ou)/pot' . . e)n<br />
a)ndra/sin fi/lois be/bhken the wind is constantly changing even among friends, Soph. OC<br />
612; p. sumfora=s Eur. IT 1317; o(/tan qeou= soi p. metabalo\n tu/xh| IDEM=Eur. Her. 216.<br />
II. breathed air, breath, sa/lpigc brotei/ou pneu/matos plhroume/nh Aesch. Eum. 568;<br />
au)lw=n, lwtou= p., Eur. Ba. 128(lyr.), ti=Eur. Phoen. 787 (lyr., pl.); p. a)pe/rrhcen bi/ou the<br />
breath of life, Aesch. Pers. 507; p. a)pw/lesen IDEM=Aesch. Seven 984 (lyr.); p. a)/qroison<br />
collect breath, Eur. Phoen. 851; p. a)fei=nai, a)nei=nai, meqei=nai, to give up the ghost,<br />
IDEM=Eur. Hec. 571, ti=Eur. Orest. 277, ti=Eur. Tro. 785 (anap.); p. deimai/nwn lipei=n<br />
IDEM=Eur. Supp. 554; p. . . dusw=des h)fi/ei Thuc. 2.49; pneu/matos diarroai/ the<br />
wind-pipe, Eur. Hec. 567; ta\s tou= p. dieco/dous a)pofra/tton Plat. Tim. 91c (v. pneu/mwn<br />
); pneu/matos r(w/mh Plu.2.804b: prov., a)/nqrwpo/s e)sti p. kai\ skia\ mo/non S.Fr.13.<br />
2. breathing, respiration, freq. in Hp., p. pukno/n, a)raio/n, e)ktei=non, katepei=gon, ti=Hp.<br />
Epid.2.3.7; p. pukno/teron ti=Hp. Acut.16; p. prosko/pton checked, difficult breathing,<br />
Aph.au=Hp. Acut. =lr; p. a)/shmon indistinct, feeble breathing, Epid.au=Hp. Acut. 6.7.8; p.<br />
bhxw=des ti=Hp. Coac.622; p. mete/wron shallow breathing, Epid.au=Hp. Coac. =lr; to\ p.<br />
e)/xein a)/nw to be out of breath, Men.23, cf. Sosicr.1; to\ p. a)nh/negkan recovered their<br />
breath, Hp.Prorrh.2.12 (so without to\ p. ti=Hp. Aph.2.43); but a)nafe/rousin . . klai/onta/ te<br />
kai\ e)s ta\s r(i=nas a)ne/lkonta to\ p. they sob . . , IDEM=Hp.Hebd.51.<br />
b. pl., of the air imagined as filling the veins, pneuma/twn a)polh/yies a)na\ fle/bas<br />
IDEM=Hp.Acut.(Sp.)au=Hp. Hebd. 7,al.<br />
3. flatulence, in pl., Eub.107.9, Arist.Pr. 948b25, Dsc.2.112, D.L.6.94.<br />
4. breath of life, p. zwh=s LXXGe.6.17, au=LXX Ge. 7.15, cf. Plut. Per. 13,etc.; p. e)/xein<br />
retain life, Plb.31.10.4; living being, e)gw\ *ni/nos pa/lai pot' e)geno/mhn p. Phoen.1.16; ou)<br />
p. pa/nta bro/teia soi\ (sc. *plou/twni) ne/metai; IG14.769 (Naples).<br />
5. that which is breathed forth or exhaled, odour, w)= qei=on o)dmh=s p. Eur. Hipp. 1391;<br />
p. baru\ a)fiei=sa, of a tree, Plu.2.647b.<br />
6. Gramm., breathing with which a vowel is pronounced, IBID=au=Plu. 1009e (pl.),<br />
A.D.Adv.147.18; p. dasu/, yilo/n, IDEM=A.D.Pron. 78.6, ti=A.D. Adv.148.9.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (21 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
III. divine inspiration, a)/gria . . pneu/mata qeufori/hs AP6.220.4 (Diosc.); ei) mh/ ti qei=on<br />
. . e)nh=n p. th=| yuxh=| Pl.Ax.370c; to\ i(ero\n kai\ daimo/nion e)n mou/sais p. Plu.2.605a;<br />
kaqaro\n di/kaion . . p. qeou= swth=ros BMus.Inscr.1062(Cyrene, ii A. D.).<br />
IV. the spirit of God, p. qeou= LXXGe.1.2, etc.: freq. in NT, to\ p. to\ a(/gion<br />
Ev.Marc.3.29,al.<br />
2. spirit of man, ei)/t' e)sti\ tou=to p. qei=on ei)/te nou=s Men.482.3: in NT, opp. yuxh/, 1<br />
Ep.Thess.5.23, cf. Ep.Rom.8.2; tw=| p., opp. tw=| sw/mati, 1 Ep.Cor.5.3; also, opp.<br />
gra/mma, Ep.Rom.2.29.<br />
V. spiritual or immaterial being, angel, Ep.Hebr.1.14, Apoc.1.4; ta\ a)/xranta p., ta\ kaka\ p.,<br />
Iamb.Myst.3.31; p. ponhro/n, yeude/s, LXX Jd.9.23, 3 Ki.au=LXX Jd. 22.21, cf.<br />
Act.Ap.19.12, au=Act.Ap. 19.15=lr, Apoc.16.14, Porph.ap.Eus.PE4.23, etc.; a)la/lou kai\<br />
kakou= p. ou)=sa plh/rhs (sc. h( *puqi/a) Plu.2.438b.<br />
VI. Rhet., sentence declaimed in one breath, Hermog.Inv.3.10,au=Hermog. Inv. 4.4,al.<br />
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (p. 126) says: 'By this the Apostle intends a spiritual<br />
suggestion, pretended prediction, utterance of a prophet.' (Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976)<br />
Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament states: 'By spirit. By prophetic utterances of individuals in<br />
Christian assemblies, claiming the authority of divine revelations.' (1957, Vol. IV, p. 63)<br />
Consider also these variations:<br />
"Spirit" NASB Romans 8:6<br />
"spiritual" NKJV Romans 8:6<br />
"mystically" NASB Rev. 11:8<br />
"Spiritually" KJV Rev. 11:8<br />
"symbolic" NAB Rev. 11:8<br />
"prophetically" NRSV Rev. 11:8<br />
In John 3:8 PNUEMA is mentioned twice in the same scripture. The first time it is translated "wind", the<br />
second time "spirit".<br />
"the spirit of his mouth" KJV, NWT 2 Thess 2:8<br />
"the breath of his mouth" NASB<br />
Moving along:<br />
Bowman: "prepositions do have recognizable functions and meanings and cannot be<br />
translated in whatever manner one chooses.<br />
In violation of this, the NWT translates the simple preposition "in" (Greek, _en_) with<br />
unnecessary variations which often obscure or alter the meaning of the passage. This is<br />
illustrated in 1 John 5:20 where the NWT reads in part, "And we are in union with the true<br />
one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ." Reading this translation, one would never suspect<br />
that _in union with_ and _by means of_ translate the same simple Greek preposition. There<br />
is no sound reason for this variation.<br />
Reply: What pray tell, does being "In Christ" or "in the true one" mean to a modern reader? Bowman<br />
makes the fallacy that only an extremely literal or word-for-word translation will convey accurately the<br />
author's words through 2 milleniums.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (22 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
"He[the translator] thinks that as long as he keeps the "same" words he cannot be too far<br />
wrong with the meaning. Instead, what he has done is not translation at all- he has put a<br />
new, and therefore wrong message in the bible. Whenever this happens, the problem has<br />
become very serious indeed." Norman Mundhenk, What Translation are you Using, The<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Translator, Oct 1974, pp 419,420<br />
For instance, in 1Samuel 24:3 the NWT uses the phrase "ease nature" while the original has "cover his<br />
feet". Is this is a mistranslation? After all the New <strong>World</strong> Translation is supposed to be literal <strong>Bible</strong>. But<br />
other literal <strong>Bible</strong>s such as the NKJV and the NASB also do not use the words "cover his feet". They use<br />
"relieve himself." This follows the original meaning better and it is an improvement.<br />
No one is trying to obscure anything. Thayer's Lexicon under EN has,<br />
"ingrafted as it were in Christ, in fellowship and union with Christ, with the Lord...Since<br />
such union with Christ is the basis on which actions and virtues rest, the expression is<br />
equivalent in meaning to by virtue of special fellowship or union with Christ."<br />
See also Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 372-75 and BDAG under _EN_ (4c)<br />
The Good News <strong>Bible</strong> has at 1 John 5:20,<br />
"We live in union with the true God - in union with his Son Jesus Christ."<br />
An American Translation by Smith & Goodspeed has, "we are in union with him who is true, through<br />
his Son Jesus Christ."<br />
The Charles B. Williams New Testament has, "We are in union with the True One, through his Son<br />
Jesus Christ."<br />
The Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech has, "We are in union with the True One - that is, we<br />
are in union with his Son Jesus Christ." See also 21st Century NT.<br />
The Contemporary English Version uses the term "because of" here at 1 John 5:20, and Barclay uses<br />
"indissolubly bound."<br />
The Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> frequently uses similar terms in place of "the simple preposition "in" (Greek,<br />
_en_)" so obviously, there is sound reason for this variation. You just never bothered looking beyond<br />
your own prejudice Rob.<br />
Bowman: In Colossians 1:16-20 the word "other" is added four times in the NWT to make<br />
it appear that Christ is part of creation. Paul is thus made to say that "all [other] things" were<br />
created in and for Christ, as if Christ were one of the created things. It is, of course,<br />
legitimate for translators to add the word "other" where this does not change the meaning<br />
but simply makes for smoother English (e.g., Luke 11:41-42; 13:2,4). In Colossians 1:16-20,<br />
however, adding "other" substantially changes the meaning.<br />
Reply: First, if you look at Col 1 from another angle, the insertion of the word "other" actually<br />
EXCLUDES Christ from the creative process in these Scriptures.<br />
You people are so busy complaining about the NWT, that you never actually stopped to think if you<br />
should.<br />
With <strong>Bible</strong>s like the RSV adding the word "other" about 100 times, is Bowman sure that the "meaning"<br />
has not changed?<br />
The NIV has been criticized for adding the word *other* at 1Cor 6:18, as this changes the meaning and<br />
adds the translators theology on the matter.<br />
Let us take a look at that: "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that<br />
committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." ASV<br />
The RSV, NIV, NJB, Smith & Goodspeed have "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (23 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence.<br />
commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."<br />
Consider Luther's translation of Romans 3:28 where he adds the word *alone* to the word *faith.* The<br />
NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong> says here, "When Luther translated this passage, he added the word 'alone,' which,<br />
though not in the Greek, accurately reflects the meaning." You cannot condemn one version, and then<br />
have your people praise another for doing exactly the same thing. You cannot have it both ways.<br />
Why doesn't Bowman speak the same way about the NIV, NKJV, NET <strong>Bible</strong>, etc. regarding the<br />
insertion of the word "over" in Col. 1:15?. "The firstborn 'over' all creation". Is the word "over" in the<br />
Greek text here? Why doesn't the NASB say "over" as well? And doesn't that totally change the meaning<br />
of this verse away from what it would have meant the other 30+ times this genitive clause "The firstborn<br />
of...." is used in scripture in both the N.T. and LXX Greek? That is a partitive genitive, making Jesus a<br />
part of the group mentioned in the genitive inflection, the creation?.<br />
#Careless also was the radio station's explanation of Colossians 1:15 and 16. There was no explanation at all of the<br />
partitive genitive (for more click here and here, and here) but with the reading of Colossians 1:16, as it is in the NASB,<br />
"BY Him all things were created" leading the listener to conclude the Jesus is the active creator of all things. The problem<br />
is that all the verbs pertaining to Christ as creating are passive, not active. (For more click here) This passivity is just what<br />
we would expect from someone who was a Master Worker, besides Jehovah helping him create, as the <strong>Bible</strong> says at<br />
Proverbs 8:22-30.<br />
This use of language was never explained at all to the listening audience, and in the midst of this rhetoric they have lost the<br />
full force of what the Apostle was trying to convey.<br />
"He is a likeness of the unseen God, born before any creature, for it was through him that everything was created." Smith<br />
and Goodspeed's An American Translation<br />
"Of all creation, he was first to be produced, in fact it was he that formed all other things...all came into existance as a<br />
result of him and by means of him." 21st Century NT<br />
The bottom line is this, the NWT, like all <strong>Bible</strong>s, is not a perfect translation, though it is a very good one.<br />
It has been praised by those who do not have a religious affiliation to promote. It has been dumped on, of<br />
course, by Protestant/Evangelicals, not realizing that they are promoting a weakness of God as it pertains<br />
to divine providence in the process.<br />
If you feel comfortable using the NASB and KJV, then use it. But don't do so at the cost of undermining<br />
God's Word in another translation.<br />
"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the <strong>Bible</strong> who are trying to appreciate<br />
to learn the Hebrew or Greek languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or<br />
'gloss' translation, especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the<br />
NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG, DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, <strong>Bible</strong><br />
<strong>Translations</strong> and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie<br />
"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages, we suggest either a<br />
very literal version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version<br />
[Kingdom {Interlinear Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your <strong>Bible</strong> Wisely,<br />
Duthie<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kkla.htm (24 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]
A Reply To: Edwin Jardinel's WHY I USE AND PREACH FROM KJV BIBLE<br />
A Reply To: Edwin Jardinel's WHY I USE AND PREACH FROM KJV BIBLE<br />
By Webmaster<br />
Unless Otherwise Stated, All Scriptures Are From The King James Version<br />
1. It supports the fact that God's words are preserved forever. Psalm<br />
12:6-7. Other versions such as the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, etc. have changed<br />
the meaning of the context making you think that in verse 7 the context is God's people<br />
instead of God's words.<br />
Reply: I also believe in divine providence, but can this scripture support it. The KJV has "thou shalt<br />
preserve them" while the NIV has "you will keep us safe." When the Jews first translated the Scriptures<br />
into Greek (LXX), they used the term HMAS which is also used at Matt 6:13, "lead US not into<br />
temptation." The KJV translators realized this, and in the 1611 edition, they put these words in the<br />
footnote: "Heb. him, i. every one of them."<br />
2. It supports the fact that Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. He is both God and man. I<br />
Tim.3:16.<br />
Reply: The reading in the KJV may have the support of most of the later Greek manuscripts, but the<br />
oldest manuscripts, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and even the scriptures cited during the Trinitarian<br />
controvery surrounding the Nicene Council did not have this scripture at their disposal. The latter would<br />
surely have used it had it actually existed at that time. The following is a chart giving support AGAINST<br />
QEOS/Theos/God at 1 Tim 3:16.<br />
Period<br />
Sources that Do Not Support Major English Versions that<br />
KJV Reading do not Support the KJV Reading<br />
254 A.D. Origen Douay - Rheims <strong>Bible</strong><br />
362 A.D. Victorinus-Rome English Revised Version<br />
3-4 Century Sahidic Coptic American Standard Version<br />
3-4 Century Boharic Coptic J.N.Darby Version mg<br />
325 A.D. Nicene Council Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong><br />
367 A.D. Hilary Revised Standard Version<br />
4th Century Codex Sinaiticus New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong><br />
4th Century Gothic mss New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
4th Century Ambrosiaster New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
401 A.D. Latin Vulgate New International Version<br />
403 A.D. Epiphanus Good News <strong>Bible</strong><br />
412 A.D. Pelagius Phillips N.T.<br />
430 A.D. Augustine New International Version<br />
5th Century Codex Alexandrinus Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
5th Century Armenian text New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
420 A.D. Jerome 20th Century N.T.<br />
428 A.D. Theodore 21st Century N.T.<br />
5th Century Codex Ephraimi <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv_25questions.htm (1 of 10) [5/25/2003 3:53:34 AM]
A Reply To: Edwin Jardinel's WHY I USE AND PREACH FROM KJV BIBLE<br />
434 A.D. Eutherius Contemporary English Version<br />
444 A.D. Cyril Jewish New Testament<br />
5th Century Cyril to Ps Oecumenius International English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
5th Century Bezae Cantabrigiensis The Original New Testament<br />
566 A.D. Liberatus New Revised Standard Version<br />
6th Century Codex Claromontanus English Standard Version<br />
Harclean Syriac Holman Christian Standard <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Palestinian Syriac Modern Language <strong>Bible</strong><br />
6th Century Ethiopian (Platt&Praetorius) New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
6th Century Ethiopic Rome Concordant Literal N.T.<br />
9th Century ms G (012) Westcott Hort Greek Text<br />
9th Century Ardmachanus Latin Nestle Greek Text<br />
9th Century Augiensis Latin Nestle Aland Greek Text<br />
9th Century Bodleianus Latin United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies Gk Text<br />
9th Century Boernerianus Latin New Living Translation<br />
10th Century ms 33 An American Translation<br />
10th Century Monza Latin New Century Version<br />
11th Century Lectionary 599 English Revised Version<br />
ms 365 Unvarnished New Testament<br />
ms 2127 William Barclay N.T.<br />
12th Century Colbertinus Latin Lamsa's Holy <strong>Bible</strong><br />
13th Century ms 442 Weymouth New Testament<br />
13th Century Harleianus/Lodiniensus Williams New Testament<br />
13th Century Demidovianus Latin The Complete <strong>Bible</strong>/Fenton<br />
13th Century Divionensis Latin The Common <strong>Bible</strong><br />
14th Century ms 61 Smith&Goodspeed <strong>Bible</strong><br />
17th Century Isaac Newton NET <strong>Bible</strong><br />
But what does it really mean for God to be manifest in Christ Jesus anyways? Consider the following<br />
scriptures:<br />
Romans 1:18-20 says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all<br />
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because<br />
that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.<br />
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being<br />
understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they<br />
are without excuse."<br />
God is "manifest" in his very creation, and by looking at that creation, we see what God is like. The<br />
Greek word for manifest, phaneroo, means "to make visible, clear, manifest." (Vine's)<br />
Since Jesus was the very first of God's creation (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14) and he had "the glory as of the only<br />
begotten of the Father" then God was manifest in him also. John 1:14<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv_25questions.htm (2 of 10) [5/25/2003 3:53:34 AM]
A Reply To: Edwin Jardinel's WHY I USE AND PREACH FROM KJV BIBLE<br />
It only makes sense to have John 1:18 say,<br />
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the<br />
Father, he hath declared him."<br />
The Son, like the rest of creation, reveals to us the unrevealable God.<br />
In fact, a closer look at the word "manifest" in the KJV seems to indicate a revealing of certain<br />
impressions with certain connotations, and often times something previously unrevealable.<br />
For instance, Jesus' life after his ascension is revealed in us Christians:<br />
2 Cor 4:10,11, "Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life<br />
also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered<br />
unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal<br />
flesh."<br />
Mark 4:22 "For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret,<br />
but that it should come abroad."<br />
We cannot physically see glory in any embodied form, but we can see it revealed to us in Jesus' miracles:<br />
John 2:11, "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth<br />
his glory; and his disciples believed on him."<br />
We cannot physically see "deeds" in any embodied form, but we can see it in the light of truth:<br />
John 3:21, "But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made<br />
manifest, that they are wrought in God."<br />
We cannot physically see "God's works" in any embodied form, but we can see it in our actions:<br />
John 9:3 "Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works<br />
of God should be made manifest in him."<br />
Jesus will manifest himself to us, by showing us Christians what he is like:<br />
John 14:21 "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and<br />
he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself<br />
to him."<br />
We cannot physically see "God's name" (Ps 83:18) in any embodied form, but we can learn of it, thanks<br />
to Jesus:<br />
John 17:6 "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the<br />
world"<br />
We cannot physically see "the works of the flesh" in any embodied form, but we can see it in our actions:<br />
Gal 5:19 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication,<br />
uncleanness, lasciviousness..."<br />
When we read "God manifest in the Flesh" it means we cannot physically see God (John 1:18; Ex 33:20)<br />
but we can see what he is like by looking at Jesus. Translator Barclay made an interesting statement<br />
about John 1:1<br />
"When John said 'The Word was God' he was n o t saying that Jesus is identical with God,<br />
he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in<br />
Jesus we perfectly see what God is like" (The Icily Study <strong>Bible</strong>- The Gospel of John vol.1)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv_25questions.htm (3 of 10) [5/25/2003 3:53:34 AM]
A Reply To: Edwin Jardinel's WHY I USE AND PREACH FROM KJV BIBLE<br />
3. It supports the fact that Jesus is born of a virgin. Isaiah 7:14. Other versions have "young<br />
woman" such as NRSV, REB.<br />
Reply: Most modern versions that I have looked at still render it "virgin" or "maiden." I agree with the<br />
rendering of "virgin" or "maiden" though "young woman" cannot be argued against from a grammatical<br />
point of view. For more, click here.<br />
4. It supports the fact that Joseph is not Christ's real father. Luke 2:23. KJV stated "Joseph"<br />
but other version such as the NIV has "The child's father".<br />
Reply: The NIV is following the reading of the oldest manuscripts here, which do not contain the name<br />
"Joseph" here. But let us not assume that the NIV has no mention of Joseph as the earthly father of Jesus.<br />
"Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" John 6:42 NIV<br />
5. It supports the fact that Christ is eternal and has no beginnings. Micah 5:2.<br />
Reply: The same words used in Micah 5:2 are used for others who are not God. The psalmist could<br />
remember qedem AND olam (Ps 77:5).<br />
To Jehovah, OLAM and QEDEM are consistent with the time of Rahab and Creation, "Awake, awake,<br />
put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou<br />
not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon? Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters<br />
of the great deep; that hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over? Is 51:9, 10<br />
KJV<br />
It does not have to mean eternity.<br />
6. It supports the fact that Jesus existed in the Old Testament times. Daniel 3:25. Other<br />
versions such as the NIV, NASB, NWT, have stated "a son of the gods" but the KJV stated<br />
"The Son of God".<br />
Reply: In question 19 you object to Jesus as an angel, yet 3 verses later at Daniel 3:28, it reads,<br />
"Nebuchadnezzar spake and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath<br />
sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and have<br />
yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God."<br />
Is Jesus an Angel by the KJVO mindset?<br />
King Nebuchadnezzar was a Babylonian who had many gods, he was not accepting Jesus Christ as his<br />
savior at this or any other point of his existence.<br />
It is interesting to note that the word "god" used by the King to denote pagan gods in verse 28, is the<br />
same word used in verse 25.<br />
7. It supports the fact that redemption and forgiveness of sins is through the blood of Jesus<br />
Christ. Colossians 1:14. Other versions omitted the words "through his blood".<br />
Reply: This reading is not even in the Majority (Byzantine text-type) of manuscripts. It actually seem to<br />
be native to the Textus Receptus and the Clementine Vulgate, which is why we also have it in the older<br />
Catholic versions, like the Douay and Knox. It is simply an interpolation of Ephesians 1:7, which all<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>s have: "through his blood, we gain our freedom, the forgiveness of our sins." New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
8. It supports the fact that Christ is God and will be the one to judge at the "Judgment Seat<br />
of Christ". Other versions have "God's judgment seat" (NIV) and "Judgment seat of God"<br />
(NASB, NRSV).<br />
Reply: If God the Father "hath committed all judgment unto the Son...And hath given him authority to<br />
execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man," (John 5:22,27) then it follows that both can Judge,<br />
especially as it all reverts back to the Father anyways, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv_25questions.htm (4 of 10) [5/25/2003 3:53:34 AM]
A Reply To: Edwin Jardinel's WHY I USE AND PREACH FROM KJV BIBLE<br />
delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father." 1 Cor 15:24<br />
However, the above criticism by you is not really based on fact, as all <strong>Bible</strong>s speak of the "Judgment Seat<br />
of Christ" anyways at 2 Cor 5:10.<br />
On an interesting sidenote, the KJV already realizes that Judges can be God.<br />
1 Sam 2:25<br />
"If one man sin against another, God [Strong's #430] shall judge him" ASV<br />
"If one man sin against another, the judge [Strong's #430] shall judge him" KJV<br />
Ex 21:6<br />
"Then his master shall bring him unto the judges [Strong's #430]" KJV<br />
"then his master shall bring him unto God [Strong's #430]" ASV<br />
9. It supports the fact that faith in Christ is a requisite to baptism<br />
in water. Acts 8:37. Other versions have the entire verse missing.<br />
Reply: The verse in itself is not objectionable, however I cannot find any other occurences of the term<br />
TON IHSOUN CRISTON as we have it at Acts 8:37. This is one reason why we know it was added to<br />
the later manuscripts. The reading that we have in the KJV is missing from P74, P75, Aleph, A,B,C, 33,<br />
81, 614, vg, syr(p)(h), cop(sa)(bo), and the Ethiopic mss.<br />
We though have many other instances in the book of Acts where faithful followers were baptized in<br />
Christ. Acts 2:38; 8:12, 16; 10:48; 19:5.<br />
10. .It supports the Biblical fact that there are so called "science" but are false teachings. I<br />
Tim.6:20. An example of this is the Evolution Theory which many people call "science" but<br />
is a false teaching. The NKJV replaced the word "science" with "knowledge".<br />
Reply: The NKJV does NOT replace it with "knowledge", but "contradictions."<br />
The Greek word here is ANTIQESEIS (Antitheseis), which even, KJV and TR advocate Jay P. Green<br />
translates as "opposing theories" in his translation of the TR (Textus Receptus). Strong's Concordance<br />
(which is respected KJVO advocates) fives this meaning for 477, "opposition, i.e. a conflict (of<br />
theories)." It does not even mention "Science."<br />
11. It supports the fact that a heretic must be rejected, not just a divisive person. Titus 3:10.<br />
Other versions replaced the word "heretic" with the word "divisive". Such is favorable to<br />
the ecumenical because they will only reject those who will cause division in their unity but<br />
won't reject the heretic.<br />
Reply: An heretick IS a divisive person. It comes from a word meaning "to choose" (See Matthew<br />
12:18) Other <strong>Bible</strong>s, including Catholic ones also have "heretic" (see Catholic Douay Rheims <strong>Bible</strong>).<br />
12. It supports the fact that believers must STUDY the Word of God carefully with an<br />
analytical mind in order to have a proper understanding of God's word. II Tim.2: 15. Other<br />
versions omitted the word "study". This is the only verse in the NT where the word "study" is<br />
being commanded.<br />
Reply: The word "study" as it is used in the KJV simply has a different meaning than it does today" as<br />
even my word for word TR gives the right meaning, "Be eager." This is borne out by the use of the same<br />
word in the KJV at 1 Thess 4:11 "and that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to<br />
work with your hands, even as we charged you"<br />
This should be proof enough that we need not be shackled to 400 year old English anymore, lest we<br />
ascertain the wrong meaning, as Edwin has done.<br />
13. It supports the fact that men must teach the truth and must not corrupt the Word of God.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv_25questions.htm (5 of 10) [5/25/2003 3:53:34 AM]
A Reply To: Edwin Jardinel's WHY I USE AND PREACH FROM KJV BIBLE<br />
II Cor.2:17. Other versions changed the word "corrupt" to "peddle"(NIV), "peddlers"<br />
(NRSV), "peddling" (NASB).<br />
Reply: The American Standard Version also has "corrupt," but it seems both meaning can be used.<br />
Strong's has "from kapelos (a huckster); to retail, i.e. (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively)." My<br />
word for word TR gives "hawking" as the correct meaning, but the KJV seems to follow more closely the<br />
Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s and the Latin Vulgate, "adulterantes verbum Dei."<br />
14. It is harmonious to the biblical fact that Mary had other children by Joseph because of<br />
the word firstborn". Jesus is the firstborn of Mary in her virginity and did not remain to be a<br />
perpetual virgin. Other versions have omitted the word "firstborn" in Matt.1:25.<br />
Reply: This is a strawman argument as the older Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s (of which the KJV is greatly indebted)<br />
also had "firstborn" here (Lat. primogenitum).<br />
15. It supports the doctrine of the Trinity. I John 5:7.<br />
Reply: The Greek text underlying the King James Version comes to us thanks to Erasmus. Let us now<br />
take the words of Erasmus himself regarding this text:<br />
"That in the Greek, only these words are found: for there are three that bear record, the<br />
spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.<br />
That this passage is so cited by Cyril in the 14th book of his Thesaurus, and that an orthodox<br />
father, as he was, would infallibly have cited the whole passage against the Arians, if he had<br />
found it in any copies of his time.<br />
That the same may be said of Augustin, who also cites it thus against Maximinus the Arian,<br />
although he omits nothing to establish the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, and<br />
although he pretends that the spirit, the water, and the blood, signify the Father, the son and<br />
the Holy Ghost.<br />
That Beda cites the passage in the same manner as Augustin.<br />
That the controverted words are not in a manuscript of the Minor Friers of Antwerp, which<br />
he had examined.<br />
That indeed the authority of Jerom is urged on this occasion; but that this father seems to<br />
complain, in a preface which is prefixed to the Catholic Epistles, not of the Greek<br />
manuscripts, but of those who translated the Greek Testament into Latin; and that at present<br />
the words, which, as he complains, were omitted, are not to be found in the Greek<br />
manuscripts, but only in some of the Latin ones.<br />
But whence could Jerom discover this error of the translators? It must have been by the help<br />
of the Greek copies. But these Greek copies either were or were not comformable to our<br />
version. If they varied, as well as the Latin versions, by what indications can we show which<br />
is the best reading which he censures was publicly used in the Church. If this were not the<br />
case, I know not what can be made of the following words: Sed tu, virgo Christi,<br />
Eustochium, dum a me impensius Scripturae veritatem inquiris, meam quodammodo<br />
senectutem invidorum dentibus corredendam exponsis, quie me falsarium corruptoremque<br />
sacrarum pronunciant Scripturarum. For who would have called him a forger and a<br />
falisifier, unless he changed the common reading of the place. If Cyril amongst the Greeks<br />
did read what we read now in our Greek manuscripts, if Augustin and Beda did read so, or if<br />
they fouind both the one and the other reading, I see not what reason Jerom could give to<br />
prove that his way of reading was the true one. Some will say, This text furnisheth us with a<br />
strong argument against the Arians. But first, since it is certain that the manner of reading<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv_25questions.htm (6 of 10) [5/25/2003 3:53:34 AM]
A Reply To: Edwin Jardinel's WHY I USE AND PREACH FROM KJV BIBLE<br />
this passage hath varied amongst the Greeks and Latins, we cannot object it to them,<br />
because they will have the same right to claim that reading which favors them. But let it be<br />
supposed that the passage is incontestable, since what is said of the testimony of the water,<br />
the blood, and the spirit, that they are one (unum sunt, or rather that they amount to one,<br />
hEIS TO hEN EISI), relates not to an unity of nature, but to an uniformity of testimony,<br />
could the Arians, think we, be so stupid as not to interpret in the same manner what is said<br />
of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit? especially since the orthodox explain in the same<br />
way a passage in the Gospel of St. John; since Augustin rejects not this interpretation, when<br />
he disputes with Maximinus the Arian; and since the interlineary gloss explains it thus;<br />
Unum sunt, id est, de eadem re testantur. This is not the way to establish the faith, but to<br />
make it suspected, by trusting to such weak surmises. Perhaps it would be better to use our<br />
pious endeavors to become one with God and with Christ, than to discuss, with an<br />
over-curious zeal, how the Son differeth from the Father, and how the Holy Ghost from the<br />
one and the other. In truth, I see not how we can prove what the Arians denied, except by<br />
satisfactory arguments. In a word, this whole passage, being obscure, can be of small service<br />
for the confutation of heretics, &c.<br />
But not to dissemble anything, one single Greek manuscript hath been discovered in<br />
England, wherein what is wanting in other manuscripts is found thus: "hOti TREIS EISIN<br />
OI MARTUROUNTES hEN TW OURANW, PATHR, LOGOS, KAI PNEUMA, KAI<br />
OUTOI OI TREIS hEN EISIN. KAI TREIS EISIN MARTUROUNTES hEN TH GH,<br />
PNEUMA, UDWP, KAI AIMA hEIS THN MARTURIAN TWN ANQRWPWN, &c., yet, I<br />
know not by what accident, what is in our Greek copies is not repeated here, KAI OI TREIS<br />
hEIS TO hEN EISIN, and these three agree in one. From this English manuscript we have<br />
supplied what is said to be deficient in our copies, that no one might take occasion to<br />
calumniate us; although I suspect that this manuscript hath been corrected and accomodated<br />
to some of our [Latin] copies. I have consulted two Latin manuscripts of very great antiquity<br />
in the library of St. Donatian at Bruges. Neither of them have the testimony of the Father,<br />
the Word, and the Spirit; and in one of them were no the words in earth; there was only<br />
There are three who bear record, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood. In two manuscripts of<br />
Constance, after the testimony of the Water, the Blood, and the Spirit, were added these<br />
words; as in heaven there are three, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and three are one.<br />
There was neither testimonium dant, nor the pronoun hi. In a manuscript which I had from<br />
the public library of the University of Basel, there was not the testimony of the Spirit, the<br />
Water, and the Blood; Paulus Bombasius, at my request, copied out this passage from a very<br />
old manuscript in the Vatican Library. which had not the testimony of the Father, the Word,<br />
and the Spirit; and with this manuscript agree the edition of Aldus."<br />
Jortin's Life of Erasmus, Vol. II. pp. 230-233<br />
If the Reformers can see the spuriousness of this verse (click here for Martin Luther's comments etc.), a<br />
verse that is grossly under-represented in the manuscript evidence on every scale (Majority and ancient),<br />
a verse that is rejected especially by those who would embrace its theological value, then we should also<br />
reject this verse as highly troublesome and dangerously agendaized.<br />
16. It proves the truth that Jesus is God and is coming again. Rev.11:17. Other versions<br />
omitted "art to come".<br />
Reply: This addition to the KJV is not even highly favored by those who hold highly the<br />
Byzantine/Majority text-type (it is not included in the Hodges-Fartad Majority Text).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv_25questions.htm (7 of 10) [5/25/2003 3:53:34 AM]
A Reply To: Edwin Jardinel's WHY I USE AND PREACH FROM KJV BIBLE<br />
Nothing is lost, as even the New <strong>World</strong> Translation shows us:<br />
"'I am the Al'pha and the O·me'ga,' says Jehovah God, 'the One who is and who was and who is coming,<br />
the Almighty.'"<br />
The Lord God can come and execute judgement through his agent, Christ Jesus.<br />
"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by [dia, through] Jesus Christ according to my<br />
gospel." Romans 2:16<br />
17. It proves the fact that Christ is going to defeat and conquer the kingdoms of this world<br />
and such kingdoms will become His kingdoms. Revelation 11:15 talks about the kingdoms of<br />
this world, (plural) not the Kingdom of God (singular).<br />
Reply: The Textus Receptus is a family text of the larger Byzantine text type. This reading is not in the<br />
majority (Byzantine) text and of course, it is not in the older manuscripts which all read BASILEIA not<br />
BASILEIAI.<br />
"Note the difference here between the AV translation, "the kingdoms of the world," and the<br />
more accurate ASV rendering of Kingdom, singular, as in the Greek text. The whole world<br />
now appears to be under one powerful universal government." Wycliffe <strong>Bible</strong> Commentary.<br />
However, nothing is lost with either reading. It is this kind of nit-picking that leads one to become as the<br />
following:<br />
"He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy,<br />
strife, railings, evil surmisings" 1 Tim 6:4<br />
18. It proves that Jesus is not just a man, rather He is God who became man as you read I<br />
John 4:3 and relate it with John 1:1-3, and verse 14.<br />
Reply: Or rather it proves that the scribes of the KJV text added what was already mentioned in verse 2,<br />
"every inspired utterance that acknowledges that Jesus has come in human form [flesh] comes from God"<br />
An American Translation by Smith&Goodspeed<br />
This no more makes him the Almighty as does the earlier spirits that came in human form (Gen 6:2; 19:1,<br />
5; Josh 5:14, 15).<br />
19. It proves the fact that Jesus is not an archangel as the "Jehovah Witnesses" cult<br />
believes. But He is God who chose to become man and to have the nature of man as the<br />
phrase in Heb.2:16 says, "...took on him the seed of Abraham". Compare with Heb.2:14, 17;<br />
5:4, Phil.2:7). Other versions has the leaning that Jesus just helps the descendants of<br />
Abraham.<br />
Reply: Actually it is the KJV that has helped Jesus to the position of an angel (despite the fact that the<br />
KJV has actually added words in Hebrews 2:16...notice the words in italics, they are not in any Greek<br />
text). Where the Hebrew text uses ADONI of Jesus at Psalm 110:1, it capitalizes this word (Lord) as it<br />
refers to Jesus. This same word is used 195 times of others, but when it refers to Christ, it is capitalized.<br />
The KJV capitalizes this word THREE other times, at Joshua 5:14; Judges 6:13 and Daniel 12:8, each<br />
time referring to an angel, who is also considered to Jesus.<br />
The angel at Joshua 5:14 is also capitalized in the NIV and Young's Literal Translation.<br />
The MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong>, which uses the New King James Version, mentions in the footnote at<br />
Judges 6:13 of the Hebrew word used, "Heb. adoni, used of man." But at Joshua 5:14 it says in the<br />
footnote, "The Lord Jesus Christ in a pre-incarnate appearance (Christophany). He came as the Angel<br />
(Messenger) of the Lord, as if he were a man (cf. the one of 3 'angels,' Gen 18)."<br />
Is this something new. No! The King James translators quoted from the Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> extensively. It had<br />
a great impact on them. In fact, the KJV 1611 cross-references Joshua 5:14 with Acts 7:33. The Geneva<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv_25questions.htm (8 of 10) [5/25/2003 3:53:34 AM]
A Reply To: Edwin Jardinel's WHY I USE AND PREACH FROM KJV BIBLE<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> mentions in the footnote at Acts 7:30,<br />
"Now he calleth the Sonne of God an Angel of the great counsell, and therefore straight wayes after hee<br />
sheweth him, saying to Moses, I am the God of thy Fathers."<br />
John A. Lees, The International Standard <strong>Bible</strong> Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3,<br />
page 2048 states:<br />
"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support<br />
for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the<br />
attributes ascribed to him in Dnl .<br />
Protestant Reformer JOHN CALVIN said regarding "Michael" in its occurence at<br />
Daniel 12:1:<br />
"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of<br />
Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing<br />
forward for the defense of his elect people."<br />
J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. Myers (Grand<br />
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369<br />
20. It supports the fact that the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer will not lead him to do<br />
or speak anything or pray something out of his mind or without proper understanding. The<br />
Charismatic and the Pentecostals today claim that when one is filled with the Spirit, he can<br />
pray without understanding it. But such practice is unscriptural. (II Tim.1:7, I Cor.14:15,<br />
Mark 12:30).<br />
Reply: All <strong>Bible</strong>s clearly tell us that "speaking in tongues" was understandable speech:<br />
"and they all became filled with holy spirit and started to speak with different tongues, just as the spirit<br />
was granting them to make utterance...each one heard them speaking in his own language." Acts 2:4-7<br />
NWT<br />
And the <strong>Bible</strong> teaches that this will stop:<br />
"Love never fails. But whether there are gifts of prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there<br />
are tongues, they will cease."-1 Cor. 13:8. NWT<br />
What the KJV has done is paraphrase a word like NOUS as "understanding."<br />
Let us compare 2 different versions of 1 Cor 14:15:<br />
"What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding [NOUS] also: I will<br />
sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding [NOUS] also." KJV, ASV<br />
"What should I do then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also; I will sing praise<br />
with the spirit, but I will sing praise with the mind also." NRSV<br />
Edwin is condemnatory of the other <strong>Bible</strong>'s use of "mind" where he thinks "understanding" is correctly<br />
stated in the KJV. But the Greek word NOUS also occurs in Romans 1:28; 7:23, 25; 11:34; 12:2; 14:5; 1<br />
Cor 1:10; 2:16; Eph 4:17, 23; Col 2:18; 2 Thess. 2:2; 1 Tim. 6:5; 2 Tim 3:8; Titus 1:15 and Rev. 17:9,<br />
where the KJV uses the word "mind."<br />
21. It shows us that the <strong>Bible</strong> is harmonious because it teaches that Jesus is the bright and<br />
MORNING STAR according to Rev.22:16 (KJV) but Lucifer is "Son of the morning"<br />
according to Isaiah 14:12 (KJV). However other versions have Satan also called "Morning<br />
Star" in Isaiah 14:12.<br />
Reply: And the KJV calls both Jesus AND Satan a "Lion" (1 Peter 5:8 & Rev 5:5). It is interesting that<br />
you bring this up, in light of the above, as "Stars are sometimes used as symbols for angels. Job 38:7<br />
alludes to the sons of God (angels) as morning stars. Similarly, in Rev. 1:20 the seven stars of the vision<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv_25questions.htm (9 of 10) [5/25/2003 3:53:34 AM]
A Reply To: Edwin Jardinel's WHY I USE AND PREACH FROM KJV BIBLE<br />
are identified as angels of the seven churches. This is probably also the sense of Dan. 8:10, where the<br />
little horn caused some of the "host of heaven" and the stars to fall to the earth (cf. Isa. 14:12-13; Rev.<br />
12:4). Jude 13 calls certain apostates in the Church "wandering stars" (cf. the unfaithful angels in 1<br />
Enoch)." Eerdman's Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>, p. 1250<br />
22. It supports the truth that God is glorified in the church founded BY Christ Jesus, not in<br />
the churches founded by men, Eph.3:21.<br />
Reply: This is somewhat misleading, as NO <strong>Bible</strong> uses the word "men" here. The <strong>Bible</strong> record clearly<br />
tells us otherwise (see 1 Thess 1:1; 2:14; 2 Thess 1:1).<br />
23. It supports the fact that a newly born again person must grow by God's word. I Peter<br />
2:2. Other versions such as the Today's English Version (TEV) mentioned that one must<br />
grow to be saved.<br />
Reply: Let us take a look then: "Be like newborn babies, always thirsty for the pure spiritual milk, so that<br />
by drinking it you may grow up and be saved." TEV<br />
"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby" KJV<br />
The Greek text, including the one used by the KJV, the Textus Receptus, reads thus: "as newborn babes,<br />
the soul-nourishing pure milk desire, that by it you may grow." TR (Jay P Green)<br />
But the Greek text the TEV uses has the words "hEIS SWTHRIAN" (into salvation).<br />
The KJV added "of the word" and the TEV was actually more faithful to its Greek text.<br />
The KJV actually paraphrased here.<br />
What does all this mean? A variety of <strong>Bible</strong> translations and version can help us to understand better<br />
God's written word. A word that was not given to us in the English (or the KJV old English), but in<br />
Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The King James Version is a remarkable historical achievement, and every<br />
home should have one. But to deny the use of all others and condemn them as *heretical,* *corrupt,* or<br />
*perVersions* is anti-God, anti-<strong>Bible</strong>....and anti-KJV. Notice here was the translators of the KJV had to<br />
say:<br />
"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very<br />
meanest [poorest] translation of the <strong>Bible</strong> in English, set forth by men of our profession,<br />
(for we have seen none of theirs of the whole <strong>Bible</strong> as yet) containeth the word of God, nay,<br />
is the word of God."<br />
The Translators to the Reader, preface of the 1611 King James Version.<br />
Every <strong>Bible</strong> is the Word of God. Read God's Word, the Holy <strong>Bible</strong> daily.<br />
For more on the King James <strong>Bible</strong>, click here, and here.<br />
Search the King James Version w/Apocrypha<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
hector3001@aol.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv_25questions.htm (10 of 10) [5/25/2003 3:53:34 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
My Response to Lynn Lundquist's<br />
"The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures"<br />
"A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if then I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I<br />
am a master, where is my fear? saith Jehovah of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name." Malachi<br />
1:6, American Standard Version<br />
Lynn Lundquist has undergone a major work (at http://www.tetragrammaton.org) addressing, and<br />
criticizing the New <strong>World</strong>'s Translation insertion/addition/interpolation/substitution/restoration of the<br />
Divine Name "Jehovah" in the New Testament. I will try as best as I can to this ot this voluminous work<br />
by Lundquist. I realize also that Greg Stafford and Hal Fleming have also responded. I am privy to what<br />
Brother Fleming has written, but not Brother Stafford. I hope there will be no overlapping, and any that<br />
is would be quite unintentional.<br />
Also, we will see, that by Lundquist's criteria of accuracy, few <strong>Bible</strong>s would pass his test of accuracy in<br />
regard to Divine Names and titles.<br />
P. 23 After quoting Wilbur Pickering's statement on the negligence of copyists lengthening or<br />
shortening as they please, Mr. Lundquist goes on to say,<br />
"As ones who love and respect God's written word, we would strongly denounce any<br />
attempt to alter Scripture. We would correctly demand a faithful reproduction of God's<br />
revelation by both the scribal copyists in early centuries and a translator's rendering of the<br />
text into another language today."<br />
This is one tactic Lundquist uses to undermine the addition of the Divine Name in the NWT-NT,<br />
especially as the Name does not appear in the earlier Alexandrian mss.<br />
Choosing Pickering's statement is an interesting choice, as he is an advocate of the later Byzantine text as<br />
opposed to the earlier Alexandrian texts, and points out that most errors were introduced into the mss<br />
within the first two centuries.* (See The New Testament Text, p. 108)<br />
Commenting on Pickering, D.A. Carson points out,<br />
"Errors were not added one per generation, generation by generation, but wholesale, as it<br />
were." The King James Version Debate, p. 115<br />
It is this dramatic "wholesale" error/change that I will try to focus on, and the reasons, whether<br />
theological or even, anti-semitic, that I will bring up later.<br />
P. 51 Lundquist:<br />
"It is particularly interesting to note the variety of English words used by the New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation for the 714 occurences of the word Kyrios throughout the Christian Greek<br />
Scriptures."<br />
Of these, some examples are: Lord, Jehovah, master, sir, owners, and in one situation, God.<br />
The word Kyrios and the Hebrew equivalent, adon, has always held a variety of meanings, as the<br />
following helps us to realize from Vine's Dictionary of <strong>Bible</strong> Words:<br />
"<br />
properly an adjective, signifying "having power" (kuros) or "authority," is used as a noun,<br />
variously translated in the NT, "'Lord,' 'master,' 'Master,' 'owner,' 'Sir,' a title of wide<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (1 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
significance, occurring in each book of the NT save Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used<br />
(a) of an owner, as in Luke 19:33, cp. Matt. 20:8; Acts 16:16; Gal. 4:1; or of one who has<br />
the disposal of anything, as the Sabbath, Matt. 12:8; (b) of a master, i.e., one to whom<br />
service is due on any ground, Matt. 6:24; 24:50; Eph. 6:5; (c) of an Emperor or King, Acts<br />
25:26; Rev. 17:14; (d) of idols, ironically, 1 Cor. 8:5, cp. Isa. 26:13; (e) as a title of respect<br />
addressed to a father, Matt. 21:30, a husband, 1 Pet. 3:6, a master, Matt. 13:27; Luke 13:8, a<br />
ruler, Matt. 27:63, an angel, Acts 10:4; Rev. 7:14; (f) as a title of courtesy addressed to a<br />
stranger, John 12:21; 20:15; Acts 16:30; from the outset of His ministry this was a common<br />
form of address to the Lord Jesus, alike by the people, Matt. 8:2; John 4:11, and by His<br />
disciples, Matt. 8:25; Luke 5:8; John 6:68; (g) kurios is the Sept. and NT representative<br />
of Heb. Jehovah ('Lord' in Eng. versions), see Matt. 4:7; Jas. 5:11, e.g., of adon, Lord, Matt.<br />
22:44, and of Adonay, Lord, Matt. 1:22; it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Pet. 1:25."<br />
And McKenzie's Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> under the heading, "Lord:"<br />
"The use of kyrios in the Synoptic Gospels...is also a designation of God in quotations from<br />
the LXX or as a substitute for the name of God, and in the common profane sense of<br />
owner or master." p. 517<br />
Of further note is the lexical evidence pointing to Kyrios as YHWH:<br />
"In the NT, likewise, KURIOS, when used as a name of God...most usually corresponds to<br />
hwhy Jehovah, and in this sense is applied." A Greek and English Lexicon to the New<br />
Testament, by J. Parkhurst, revised ed. of 1845, p. 347<br />
A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament by J.H. Thayer, 1889 ed., p.365 says inder<br />
Kurios: "c. This title is given a. to God, the ruler of the universe (so the Sept. for adonai,<br />
eloah, elohim, Jehovah and Jah)."<br />
A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddel and Scott, 1968 ed., on p. 1013, under Kurios: "B....4.<br />
O KURIOS, = Hebr. Yahweh, LXX Ge. II. 5, al."<br />
This is what we should remember. When asked as to why he defends the NWT, even when it uses<br />
"Jehovah" in the NT, Professor Jason Beduhn replies that it is merely a substitute, much like most <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
substitute "LORD" for YHWH in the OT.<br />
The Divine Name certainly falls within the dictionary, lexical (see above) and semantic range of<br />
Lord/Kyrios, and that is why many other versions/translations have seen fit to also include the Name in<br />
their NT's. See http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/yhwh.htmand<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/jhvh.htm<br />
I have printed out about 500 pages of material from your site, Mr. Lundquist, and frankly I would have<br />
been more impressed if you had addressed your concerns against mainstream <strong>Bible</strong>s that have allowed<br />
tradition, and not the Hebrew to influence their decision in this regard. To me, the crime and focus<br />
should be on those who have removed this Name 6828 times, not on those who seek to restore it. But<br />
more on this further down.<br />
P. 82<br />
All Hebrew versions trace their source to ancient Greek manuscripts of the Christian Greek<br />
Scriptures. (The only exception is J 9 which comes from the Latin Vulgate.) Inasmuch as<br />
these versions were published in the 16th century and later, we are able to verify the Greek<br />
text used as their source. In 223 instances, the Greek word Kyrios (), rather than the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (2 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
Tetragrammaton, is found in the Greek text. The Tetragrammaton used in these Hebrew<br />
translations was never derived from hwhy in the Greek text.<br />
The Greek texts and many modern <strong>Bible</strong> versions in circulation now are based on an eclectic text. Daniel<br />
Wallace is heavily involved with the NET <strong>Bible</strong>, and though he uses the Nestle-Aland Greek text, he<br />
disagrees with it in about 500 places. Wallace calls this position reasoned eclecticism. When the<br />
NWBTC committee deviated from their source text (W/Hort), this was not to supplant this text and<br />
neither were they saying that the Hebrew versions were consistently more accurate, just as Wallace<br />
would never say that the later Byzantine or TR text is consistently better, but there are instances where<br />
they are useful. For the NWT to include the Tetragrammaton from these versions is, based on the facts,<br />
reasoned eclecticism.<br />
We realize that the Name does not appear in the two major Alexandrian texts, and we do not hide that<br />
fact, as seen from our production of the Westcott and Hort Text. We also know, as seen above, that the<br />
Divine Name falls within the semantic, lexical and dictionary range of Kyrios. In fact, each subsequent<br />
release of Nestle-Aland's Greek text allows for more readings from a later tradition, thus moving away<br />
from the older Alexandrian text. Most Greek manuscripts in existence are of the later Byzantine tradition<br />
(also called the Majority Text) that contain many embellishments in certain areas as opposed to the older<br />
Alexandrian text. Where do these come from? The debate rages on.<br />
Is relying on Versions for how we translate the Divine Name solely an NWT practice. No it is not. Take<br />
note:<br />
"In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators<br />
adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as "LORD".." New<br />
International Version Preface<br />
The RSV, NRSV and the Good News <strong>Bible</strong> read much the same, along with note indicating an incorrect<br />
understanding of the ancient LXX.<br />
Most others appeal to tradition, not on any text, for their exclusion of the Divine Name.<br />
Yet it seems that the NWT is always unfairly singled out in its zeal to promote the name of the almighty<br />
God Jehovah.<br />
P.86, 91 and 104<br />
...our understanding of the limit of inspiration leads us to a single conclusion. No<br />
supplementary information can be added to the inspired revelation of the Christian Greek<br />
Scriptures beyond that which was written by the inspired Christian writers themselves. This<br />
is the reason why we categorically dismiss the writings of Joseph Smith, the Gnostic<br />
Gospels, or even the early non-canonical writings of the Christian congregation as being<br />
outside the limit of inspiration.<br />
To accept late Hebrew translations as a higher authority than the best preserved Greek<br />
manuscripts from which they were translated violates our understanding of the canon of the<br />
Christian Greek Scriptures. The New <strong>World</strong> Translation cites only 12 Greek manuscripts<br />
and eight early versions in support of the Greek word Kyrios ( Kuvrio") in the 237 Jehovah<br />
passages. On the other hand, the United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies' Greek New Testament actually cites<br />
754 Greek manuscripts, 86 versions, and 149 lectionaries in support of the Kyrios passages<br />
within the Christian Greek Scriptures. In all, there are a total of over 5,000 extant Christian<br />
Greek manuscripts.<br />
We fully acknowledge that the transmission of the Sacred Scriptures was under the careful<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (3 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
plan and supervision of Jehovah. Nonetheless, there was an apparent randomness in the<br />
method he used to preserve these texts. The accuracy of the various texts which have been<br />
safeguarded, and their geographical location which made preservation possible, were<br />
random events. On the other hand, removal of all traces of the Tetragrammaton would, of<br />
necessity, have been a deliberate and planned undertaking. It would represent a statistically<br />
impossible series of events for t he<br />
Tetragrammaton to have been removed from copies of the original writings, leaving no trace<br />
of that heresy today.<br />
I think the question that everyone SHOULD be asking, is why has the Divine Name, used in the Hebrew<br />
text 6828 times, more than all other divine titles put together, and more than any other name,...<br />
completely disappeared?<br />
Regarding the Hebrew versions, one scholar writes"<br />
"Supposing a Christian scholar were engaged in translating the Greek Testament into<br />
Hebrew, he would have to consider, each time the word Kurios occured, whether there was<br />
anything in the context to indicate its true Hebrew representative; and this is the difficulty<br />
which would arise in translating the N.T. into all languages if the title Jehovah had been<br />
allowed to stand in the [LXX]." Synonyms of the Old Testament, Girdlestone, p. 43<br />
Moving along though, any discussion on textual criticism inevitably involves including the Ante-Nicene<br />
Fathers (hereafter, ANF). How did they feel about God's name?<br />
"God has no name, for everything that has a name is related to created things." Aristides (c.<br />
125, E) 9.264<br />
"He has many virtues as are distinctive to a God who is called by no proper name." Justin<br />
Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.165<br />
"To the Father of all, there is no name given" Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.190<br />
"As to the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe,... if anyone dares to say that<br />
there is a name, he raves with hopeless madness." Justin Martyr (c. 160, E) 1.183<br />
"God cannot be called by any proper name. For names are given to mark out and distinguish<br />
various subject matters, because these matter are many and diverse. However, no one<br />
existed before God who could give Him a name, nor did He Himself think it right to name<br />
Himself. For He is one and unique... On this account, He said to Moses, "I am the Being."<br />
By the participle *being,* He taught the difference between the God who is and the gods<br />
who are not.<br />
Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.281<br />
"If we name Him, we do not do so properly." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E) 2.464<br />
"The name of God the Father had been published to no one." Tertullian (c. 198, W) 3.682<br />
"Neither must we ask for a name of God. God is His name. We have no need of names when<br />
a multitude are to be separated into individuals...To God, who is alone, the name "God" is<br />
the whole. Mark Minucius Felix (c. 200, W) 4.183<br />
"We say the name Sabaoth, Adonai, and the other names treated with so much reverence<br />
among the Hebrews, do not apply to any ordinary created things. Rather, they belong to a<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (4 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
secret theology concerning the Framer of all things." Origen (c. 248, E), 4.407<br />
"Christians in prayer do not even use the precise names that divine scriptures applies to<br />
God." Origen, 4.653<br />
"God's own name also cannot be declared, for He cannot be conceived....For the name is the<br />
significance of whatever thing can be comprehended from a name." Novatian, 5.615<br />
"Neither must you ask the name of God. God is His name. Where a multitude is to be<br />
distinguished by the appropriate characteristics of names, there is a need of names.<br />
However, to God - who alone is - belongs the whole name of God." Cyprian 5.467<br />
Here, despite the fact that the Name occurs so many times in the Hebrew text, there is evident hostility<br />
towards the name. Is it because of the Name's association with the Jews the early Christians were trying<br />
to disassociate and distinguish themselves from?<br />
"the Torah is not the itself the name of God but the explication of the Name of God. To him (the<br />
Kabbalist] meant exactly what it meant for Jewish tradition, namely the tetragrammaton YHWH. And<br />
this is the true meaning of "God's Torah." on The Meaning of the Torah/On the Kaballah and Its<br />
Symbolism, by Gershom Scholem, p.42<br />
The Jews and the Name were solidly bound together. Perhaps, this is why the ANF were not only hostile<br />
to the Name, but to the people of the Name.<br />
"In Christian sources, the charge of Jewish hate is unrelieved. St. Justin (A.D. 100-65), in<br />
his Dialogue with Trypho, returns again and again to the point. On one occasion he<br />
confronts Trypho the simple declaration, 'You hate and (wherever you have the power), you<br />
kill us." Tertullian (c. A.D. 155-c. 222) labels Jews 'the seed-plot of all calumnies against<br />
us;' and in the early fourth century, Emperor Constantine (A.D. 306-37) said, 'Let us have<br />
nothing to do with the most hostile Jews.'<br />
Taken from many available accusations, these few samples convey the seriousness of the<br />
charge. The answer has been made that the accusers, having entertained few relations with<br />
real Jews, constructed a theological abstraction having little relation to reality."<br />
What did this lead to?<br />
"In steering a course between the extremes of Judaeo-Christianity and the anti-Judaism of<br />
Marcion and the Gnostics, that Church had to prove to the gentiles - and to the Jews - that it<br />
was the true Israel, that Judaism was a pretender that refused to abdicate a lost kingdom -<br />
and all this from Judaistic sources....Exegetical disputes inevitably arose between the<br />
apologists and the rabbinate. The latter accused the former of mutilating the text of the<br />
Septuagint...and replaced it with several new Hebrew translations. Christian<br />
polemicists countered with charges of textual suppressions by the Jews." Anguish of<br />
the Jews, Edward Flannery, p. 32<br />
Do you see that the fighting between the two factions initially involved allegations of textual corruption?<br />
The move away from Judaism, the formation of a new religion and the great apostasy foretold in the NT<br />
was enough fuel to create "wholesale" changes in the text. This was helped in part by the abbreviations of<br />
divine names and titles. You recommend the Book, The Jesus Papyrus by Carston Thiede, which says:<br />
"With the first Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, YHWH acquired the visible form<br />
of an abbreviation - initially, because the Hebrew consonants were inserted in the Greek<br />
text wherever "God" appeared. This custom was continued into the Middle Ages and had its<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (5 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
variations, which made the abbreviating nature of the exercise more obviousv - such as<br />
writing only the first letter of the Hebrew word yod, doubling to to look like a twinfold z<br />
and drawing a horizontal bar throught the middle of both letters. A find from Qumram<br />
dating from the period just before the 'birth' of the first Christian texts documents the use of<br />
Greek rather than Hebrew letters to abbreviate God's unpronouncable name.<br />
In a fragmentary Greek papyrus scroll discovered in Cave 4 - Pap4QLXXLev b, with parts<br />
of Leviticus - "God" is written neither with the full Greek word theos nor with the Greek<br />
translation of Adonai, kyrios ('Lord'), but with the Greek vowels alone (!) iota/alpha/omega,<br />
to souund something like Ya-oh or Ya-ho. In brief, by the time the first Christians wrote<br />
their own Greek manuscripts rather than copying Old Testament texts, they were already<br />
accustomed to the concept of contracting the name and title of God. We do not know if<br />
kyrios was already contracted as this earliest stage, the period of the scrolls. It could have<br />
been abbreviated in Greek consonants (KS) or with the Hebrew tetragrammaton or with the<br />
Greek vowels IAO. But we have no direct Christian manuscript evidence of this word dating<br />
from this period. However, if the identification and reconstruction of 7Q4 as 1 Timothy 3:16<br />
- 4:3 is any indication of standard practice, the word 'God' itself, theos, was apparently not<br />
abbreviated, nor was another extant nomen sacrum...Let us suppose then, that the first<br />
(Jewish)-Christian scribes initially did what they had always done as Jews, resisting the<br />
temptation - if temptation it was - to break with the traditional practice.<br />
As we see above, in fact, as we see often, divine titles are usually abbreviated. But the Divine Name is<br />
substituted for a circumlocution. We will come back to this later.<br />
Let us continue on with Thiede, and let's take note of the following "wholesale" change:<br />
"Suddenly, however, all of this changed.<br />
Almost at a stroke, at the beginning of the second phase of transmission, the phase of the<br />
codex. 'holy names' were being abbreviated in Christian papyri....this was also the period<br />
when Jews and Christians were becoming estranged, beginning with the killing of St.<br />
James...This was the moment for the scribes to make a statement - a statement of faith. It<br />
was no longer necessary to show diplomatic or missionary consideration for Jewish<br />
sensitivities. Christian documents could begin to assert unequivocally the divinity of Jesus.<br />
It was a final step, from oral preaching via the more cautious scroll documents to the boldly<br />
unambiguous handwritten signs in the oldest codex and its successors: Jesus Christ is Lord<br />
and God." p. 143<br />
From reading your book, you seem to think the removal of the Divine Name must be a gradual change,<br />
but as we see above, by Thiede's and Carson's comments, the changes took place abruptly. Couple this<br />
anti-semitism with the neo-Platonic thought rampant amongst the ANF (Plato's trinity included a<br />
NAMELESS 'ONE') and you have enough of a push for change. The one thing that I have learned while<br />
studying textual criticism, is that corruption happened almost immediately. As you said:<br />
"For a heresy of this magnitude to take place so soon after the Apostles' deaths is most<br />
difficult to believe?"<br />
Exactly how many mss do we actually have that can be dated within one generation of the Apostles?<br />
Very few, and even they are disputed.<br />
G. D. Kilpatrick states in his Etudes de Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme that between the periods 70-135<br />
C.E. that there were three major changes in the transmission of the text. The change from scroll to codex,<br />
the tetragrammaton was replaced by Kyrios and nomina sacra (sacred names) were abbreviated. See pp.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (6 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
221, 222<br />
You have provided a list of manuscripts, a list that is also available to anyone who has the Nestle-Aland<br />
or UBS Greek text. But even the oldest and most reliable of these are centuries removed from the<br />
autographs.<br />
You and I can both agree that it is heresy to remove the name from the OT, but yet that did not stop later<br />
LXX copyists from removing it, and it did not prevent Jerome from removing it in his Vulgate. As we<br />
have seen above, the ANF, as representing the mindset of the post 1st century Christian, simply did not<br />
like the Name.<br />
Again, as is your habit, you repeat:<br />
"We fully acknowledge that the transmission of the Sacred Scriptures was under the careful<br />
plan and supervision of Jehovah. Nonetheless, there was an apparent randomness in the<br />
method he used to preserve these texts. The accuracy of the various texts which have been<br />
safeguarded, and their geographical location which made preservation possible, were<br />
random events. On the other hand, removal of all traces of the Tetragrammaton would, of<br />
necessity, have been a deliberate and planned undertaking. It would represent a statistically<br />
impossible series of events for t he<br />
Tetragrammaton to have been removed from copies of the original writings, leaving no trace<br />
of that heresy today."<br />
We have to look at preservation from the viewpoint of history as a whole. For over 1000 years all we<br />
have had was the divine Name-less Latin Vulgate. There were no vernacular versions or translations, and<br />
the penalty for owning one was death. Our oldest manuscripts were not even discovered until after the<br />
dark ages. It is evident that Jehovah WAITED until nearly our day to reveal his <strong>Bible</strong> in its oldest form.<br />
The message of the <strong>Bible</strong> though has not changed.<br />
Can changes happen in a short period of time in regards to <strong>Bible</strong> translation? Yes.<br />
In the 1400's we had no English <strong>Bible</strong> versions, yet 100 years later, there were several. In the 19th<br />
Century, <strong>Bible</strong>s containing the Divine Name Jehovah were quite common, but not so a century later. 100<br />
years ago, Versions were largely Formal Equivalent (literal), now they are largely Dynamic Equivalent<br />
(meaning-for-meaning, thought-for-thought, paraphrase).<br />
On pages 158-160 you address your displeasure with the New American Standard Version policy on not<br />
translating the Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures, yet you still end this chapter with a diatribe<br />
against the NWT.<br />
Simply doing the math leads me to the conclusion that removing the name over 6800 times is far more<br />
serious than adding it over 200 times.<br />
I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the New American Standard Version or Lockman<br />
Foundation and had spent any time writing lengthy polemics against them?<br />
I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the New Revised Standard Version or the National<br />
Council of Churches or Oxford and had spent any time writing lengthy polemics against them?<br />
I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the New King James Version or Nelson book<br />
publishers and had spent any time writing lengthy polemics against them?<br />
I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the New International Version or Zondervan and had<br />
spent any time writing lengthy polemics against them?<br />
I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the New Living Translation or Tyndale publishers and<br />
had spent any time writing lengthy polemics against them?<br />
I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the New American <strong>Bible</strong> and their publishers and had<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (7 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
spent any time writing lengthy polemics against them?<br />
I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the English Standard Version or Crossway and had<br />
spent any time writing lengthy polemics against them?<br />
I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the Contemporary English Version and their publishers<br />
and had spent any time writing lengthy polemics against them?<br />
I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> and Oxford University Press<br />
and the Churches that sponsored this in the UK and had spent any time writing lengthy polemics against<br />
them?<br />
I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of New Century Version and had spent any time writing<br />
lengthy polemics against them?<br />
I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of The Message and had spent any time writing lengthy<br />
polemics against their publishers? etc., etc., etc., ...<br />
I think I already know the answer. According to you, the above <strong>Bible</strong> are wrong 6828 times, the NWT is<br />
wrong only 237 times, in other words, the NWT is almost 97% more correct (by your criterion) than the<br />
above versions, yet all your energy has been directed against the NWT, which leads to the inescapable<br />
conclusion that you have a devious agenda in mind, an agenda directed against Jehovah's Witnesses and<br />
the NWT. (This explains why your book is available from web-sites hostile to Jehovah's Witnesses)<br />
There is another way of looking at the above though. The above translated as they have, for the sake of<br />
their target audience, and the same can be said for the NWT. Where the Zondervan (NIV and NASB)<br />
Study <strong>Bible</strong>s have extensive (and often helpful) footnotes, yet these same footnotes fail to even capitalize<br />
LORD where it refers to YHWH in the OT. On the other hand, the NWT has supplied its target audience<br />
with a Reference edition and an interlinear (AT NO CHARGE YET) explaining the facts in regards to<br />
the Greek text used. There is not attempt to hide our translation philosophy in this regard, quite the<br />
opposite in fact.<br />
To top this off, the WTS also prints the KJV, ASV, Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English, and had<br />
distributed the Jerusalem, New English, Good News and New American <strong>Bible</strong>s (amongst others) in order<br />
to promote study and comparisons between various versions with differing styles and theories of<br />
translation. It has been my experience that my brothers use and own more versions and translations than<br />
any other religious group.<br />
Then there is the fact that many of the <strong>Bible</strong>s listed above are "meaning-based" translations, and even the<br />
most literal use some form of Dynamic Equivalence. The NASB is touted as the most literal, yet it<br />
chooses the dynamic equivalent "LORD" in place of the divine name in the OT. The inclusion of the<br />
divine name in the NT certainly counts as a meaning based equivalent, especially in light of the fact that<br />
YHWH falls within the dictionary, lexical and semantic range of Kyrios.<br />
Another note needs to be made in regards to the embellishment of Jesus' status in the NT, which has<br />
happened so much that it is now difficult to know exactly how many times the words "Jesus" and<br />
"Christ" actually appear. Take note:<br />
NIV Jesus = 1226 Christ = 499<br />
KJV Jesus = 943 Christ = 522<br />
NASB Jesus = 881 Christ = 493<br />
NRSV Jesus = 1088 Christ = 45<br />
RSV Jesus = 926 Christ = 534<br />
Darby <strong>Bible</strong> Jesus = 904 Christ = 507<br />
Young's Literal Version Jesus = 932 Christ 529<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (8 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
Wesley N.T. Jesus = 951 Christ = 497<br />
God's Word Jesus = 1504 Christ = 516<br />
New Living Translation Jesus = 1404 Christ = 536<br />
Douay Jesus = 932 Christ = 534<br />
ASV Jesus = 883 Christ = 501<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> in Basic English Jesus = 905 Christ = 496<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>/TEV Jesus = 1543 Christ 502<br />
New Century Version Jesus = 1846 Christ 604<br />
NKJV Jesus = 941 Christ = 530<br />
How do we get from 883 occurences of the name "Jesus" (American Standard Version) to 1846 in the<br />
NCV. It seems I have already mapped out your next project, Mr. Lundquist.<br />
This is not a recent phenomenon.<br />
Here are a few ancient examples:<br />
John 19:40, "They took the body of Christ" to "they took the body of God"<br />
Luke 2:26 changed to "Christ, namely God." Old Latin ff<br />
Luke 9:20 "the Christ of God" changed to "Christ, God" Coptic<br />
Mark 3:11 "You are the Son of God" changed to "You are God, the Son of God." MS69<br />
Luke 7:9 "when Jesus heard this" changed to "when God heard this" 124<br />
Luke 8:28 "Jesus, Son of the highest God" changed to "Jesus, the highest God" 2766<br />
Luke 20:42 "the lord said to my lord" changed to "God said to my God" Persian Diatesseron<br />
2 Peter 1:2 changed to "in the knowledge of God, our Lord Jesus" P72<br />
Jude 5 changed to "Jesus" or "the God Christ" who saved the people from Egypt P72<br />
Gal 2:2 "Son of God" changed to "God the Son" MS1985<br />
Acts 20:28 "church of God" changed to "church of the Lord" or "church of the Lord and God" various<br />
1 Cor 10:5, "God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness" changed to "Christ"<br />
MS81<br />
Rom 14:10, "we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God." changed to "judgment-seat of<br />
Christ" 048, 0209 Byz etc<br />
Matt 24:36, "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son,<br />
but the Father only." The Byx mss omit "neither the Son." Interestingly, the Codex Siniaticus originally<br />
had "neither the Son", but was removed by a later scribe...and then was restored by yet another scribe.<br />
The New Testament manuscripts were not produced impersonally by machines capable of<br />
flawless production. They were copied by hand, by living, breathing human beings who<br />
were deeply rooted in the conditions and controversies of their day. Did the scribes'<br />
polemical context influence the way they transcribed sacred Scriptures? The burden of<br />
the present study is that they did....."<br />
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by B. Ehrman, p. 3<br />
In fact, the early scribes were more prone to omit than they were to add.<br />
P45 has 28 additions, but 63 omissions.<br />
P46 has 55 additions and 167 omissions.<br />
P47 has 5 additions and 18 omissions.<br />
P66 has 14 additions and 19 omissions.<br />
P72 has 16 additions and 29 omissions.<br />
P75 has 12 additions and 41 omissions.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (9 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
These changes did not stop early on:<br />
"When an intentional change affects the meaning of the passage, there is a demonstrable<br />
tendency to move the meaning in the direction of the orthodoxy of the time, not away from<br />
it. By 'demonstrable' I mean that even within the Byzantine tradition, the later witnesses are<br />
inclined to change things in favor of giving more titles to Christ, not fewer"<br />
D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, p. 62<br />
It must be remembered that these intentional scribal changes were made by those in the orthodox<br />
position, not by fringe "heretical" groups.<br />
But even here again, allegations went the other way.<br />
"The number of deliberate alterations made in the interests of doctrine is difficult to assess.<br />
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Eusebius, and many other Church Fathers<br />
accused the heretics of corrupting the Scriptures in order to have support for their special<br />
views. In the mid-second century Marcion expunged his copies of the Gospel according<br />
to Luke of all references to the Jewish background of Jesus. Tatian's Harmony of the<br />
Gospels contains several textual alterations which lent support to ascetic or encratic views.<br />
Even within the pale of the Church one part often accused the another of altering the text of<br />
the Scriptures. Ambrosiaster, the fourth-century Roman commentator on the Pauline<br />
Epistles, believed that where the Greek manuscripts differed on any important points from<br />
the Latin manuscripts which he was accustomed to use, the Greeks 'with their presumptuous<br />
frivolity' had smuggled in the corrupt reading."<br />
The footnote reads:<br />
"Such changes prove that the autographs of the books of the New Testament were no<br />
longer in existence, otherwise an appeal would have been made directly to them. Their<br />
early loss is not surprising, for during persecutions the toll taken by imperial edicts aiming<br />
to destroy all copies of the sacred books of Christians must have been heavy. Furthermore,<br />
simply the ordinary wear and tear of the fragile papyrus, on which at least the shorter<br />
Epistles of the New Testament had been written (see the reference to CARTHS in 2 John,<br />
vs. 12), would account for their early dissolution. It is not difficult to imagine what would<br />
happen in the course of time to one much-handled manuscript, passing from reader to<br />
reader, perhaps from church to church (see Col. iv. 16), and suffering damage from the<br />
fingers of eager if devout readers as well as from climatic changes." The Text of the New<br />
Testament, 3rd Edition, by Bruce M. Metzger, p.201<br />
So here (and further above) we have allegations of corruption from all circles. Some of this even being<br />
influenced by anti-semitism. [Eldon Jay Epp follows this anti-Semitic conclusion on the book of Acts in<br />
the Western Text in his Theological Tendency, pp. 165-71; see also D.C. Parker's Codex Bezae: An Early<br />
Christian Manuscript and Its Text, pp. 189-92 and 279-86. These anti-Semitic tendencies have also been<br />
suggested for the papyri in H. Eshbaugh's Textual Variants and Theology: A Study of the Galatians Text<br />
of Papyrus 46, JSNT 3 (1979) 60-72; and Mikael C. Parsons A Christological Tendency in p75, JBL 105<br />
(1986) 463-79].<br />
Couple this with the fact that early Christian scribes were zealous to promote a cetain viewpoint, and you<br />
have a dangerous mixture:<br />
The scribe of P66 made nearly five hundred corrections to his own manuscript....the early<br />
Christians did not necessarily treat the NT text as a 'sacred' text - i.e., as a fixed, written,<br />
canonized text, sacred to the very letter...By contrast, the Jews had come to regard the OT<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (10 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
text with deep reverence and therefore copied it with extreme fidelity." p. 6, Early<br />
Manuscripts and Modern <strong>Translations</strong> of the New Testament, by Philip Wesley Comfort.<br />
"The story of the manuscript tradition of the New Testament is the story of progression from<br />
a relatively uncontrolled tradition to a rigorously controlled tradition....The general nature of<br />
the text in the earliest period has long been recognized as 'wild,' 'uncontrolled,' 'unedited.'"<br />
Colwell, Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program, pp 195, 166n3<br />
"The plain fact of the matter is that early Christians did not take nearly the pains with their<br />
Scriptures that the Jews did with theirs; and this is evidenced not only by the Christians<br />
handling of the New Testaments documents but also in their handling of the LXX." D.A.<br />
Carson, The King James Only Controversy, p.116<br />
"In the earliest time of our tradition, one can as a scribe still deal relatively freely with the<br />
text of an author....Circumstances change fundamentally from the ninth century on. The<br />
demands on exactness and discipline become incomparably higher in a scribal tradition<br />
carried on chiefly by monks." B. Aland, "Neutestamentliche Textfortschung und<br />
Textgeschichte" NTS 36 (1990) 339-40<br />
The textual/corruptional debate continues to this day. A growing number of people feel that the later<br />
Byzantine text (Majority text) is a truer form of the autograph (pointing to the many corruptions of the<br />
Alexandrian texts), while the other side feels the older Alexandrian text is truer to the autographs,<br />
because of age. The supporters of the Byzantine text that the King James is part of, want to preserve<br />
scriptures that defend the belief that "God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Tim 3:16) and the hard-core<br />
Textus Receptus defenders want to preserve the trinitarian formula in the Comma Johanneum (1 John<br />
5:7).<br />
The supporters of the Alexandrian text realize that while there are corruptions in the older text, the above<br />
examples are cases of even clearer corruption. Again, the debate rages on. The differences between the<br />
two text-types are judged to be between 60-85%. I believe they are closer, as many involve word order<br />
and embellishments in titles belonging to Jesus. But if you are arguing for preservation, and the majority<br />
of texts preserved are of a later date, then the inescapable conclusion lies in the fact the God must have<br />
preserved and preferred the later text over the older ones, which lies at odds with your argument. Again,<br />
it should be noted to others that these difference do not affect the overall message of the <strong>Bible</strong>, and it is<br />
this message, that was preserved by God.<br />
The Divine Name and the LXX<br />
You repeat the statement that the LXX used the divine name, but only when it was used for Jews, not for<br />
Christians. The problem with this is, when Jesus was reading from the LXX, it was one made for Jews.<br />
There were no Christians then making copies of the LXX, as there were no Christians then, period. We<br />
also have nothing in the writings of the Apostles indicating that were members of the EKKLHSIA<br />
involved in the copying of the LXX. In fact, all copies of the LXX in the first century were made by<br />
Jews, for Jews, and were doubly enjoyed by Jewish Christians.<br />
"My research is accomplishing just this, documenting and discussing this divine name's<br />
surprisingly frequent appearance in Christian copies of originally Jewish onomastica<br />
of the LXX, in definitely two and possibly up to four classical authors, in ecclesiatical<br />
sources, and in the Mishnah. Taken together, this evidence indicates that some Jews<br />
continued to use and indeed pronounce this Greek form of the divine name in the<br />
Greco-Roman period, and this helps provide a background for understanding the name's<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (11 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
appearance in 4QLXX Levb." Presentation by Frank Shaw, Univ of Cincinnati at the 1999<br />
SBL/AAR conference<br />
This leads to my next question. If later copies by an apostate church can remove the Tetragrammaton<br />
from the LXX without any hint of discussion among the ANF of this heresy, then why is it so hard to<br />
admit that this could have happened with the later copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures? Is it because<br />
we don't want to see it? Is it because we are trying to promote a later teaching of the Trinity?<br />
On a side note, there is no indication that later copies of the LXX made by Christians were better, in fact,<br />
quite the opposite seems to be the case. Origen, after discussing several Apocryphal books in the LXX,<br />
made this statement:<br />
"And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies<br />
in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current<br />
among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be<br />
untampered with, and free from forgery." The Ante-Nicene Fathers, IV, 387<br />
P. 301<br />
"We can only assume that the New <strong>World</strong> <strong>Bible</strong> Translation Committee was aware of the<br />
Nomina Sacra, yet chose not to bring this material into their textual apparatus to establish<br />
the presence of the Tetragrammaton in a limited 237 instances within the Christian<br />
Scriptures. The great number of occurrences of Nomina Sacra (surrogates) within the text of<br />
the Christian Scripture Greek manuscripts would preclude such an attempt. Any appeal to<br />
the Nomina Sacra with the intent of establishing the presence of the divine name in the<br />
Christian Greek Scriptures would, of consequence, identify the person of Christ with<br />
Jehovah. If it were to be argued that the Nomina Sacra in the form of k—"— (for kuvrio") is<br />
a derivative of hwhy, then it could be forcefully argued—with a large number of examples<br />
of k—"— referring to Jesus—that the inspired Christian writers used hwhy of Jesus<br />
himself."<br />
There is a very big difference between Nomina Sacra (which were not really surrogates as much as they<br />
were abbreviations) and the use of actual substitutions (surrogates, circumlocutions, Paleo-Hebraic<br />
letters) in regards to the Divine Name. It is because of the use of circumlocutions for the Divine Name<br />
(which as you know was even used in Shem Tob's Matthew) that differentiates, and therefore elevates it<br />
above the abbreviated Nomina Sacra. The same Nomina Sacra that held words like "Man/human"<br />
(ANQRWPOS), Israel, David and mother also as sacred. I do not know of any occurences of the Nomina<br />
Sacra as being substituted for Hashem, Name, PIPI, or even as we have discovered, a triangle.<br />
Your argument is what happens when we fall into the trap of partitioning the <strong>Bible</strong> into the Old and New<br />
Testaments, when we really should be arguing from within the corpus of the entire <strong>Bible</strong>. If the name<br />
"Jesus" indeed replaces "Jehovah", then why exactly the name "Jesus?" Why simply another "Joshua?"<br />
Why another Jesus Barabbas? Why another Jesus ben Sirach?<br />
When we take the <strong>Bible</strong> as a whole, without the man-made division, the name YHWH reigns supreme,<br />
and no other name can touch it.<br />
From "Hallelujah in the Christian Greek Scriptures:<br />
"It is also interesting to note that the divine name [ALLHLOUIA] was not removed from<br />
these four verses [Rev 19:1, 3, 4 and 6]. To anyone familiar with the language background<br />
during the second and third centuries C.E., these four occurences of the word hallelujah<br />
were obviously a reference to Jehovah. Why then, if there had been a heresy aimed at<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (12 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
removing his name, were these verses overlooked?"<br />
You yourself acknowledge that Jerome was aware of the Name, and that the earlier copies of the LXX<br />
contained it. Yet later copies of the LXX that had removed the Name, as had Jerome's Vulgate, still<br />
contained the word ALLHLOUIA at Psalms 135, 136, 146, 147, 147, 149, 150 and 3 Macc 7:13, Tobit<br />
13:18. The reason for this is due to the fact that translators and copyists are generally less hostile to the<br />
Name if it is part of another word or name. This is why translators, even of English versions that do not<br />
consistently use the Name, will use it as part of a place name at Gen 22:14 [Jehovah-jireh]; Ex 17:16<br />
[Jehovah-nissi]; Jg 6:24 [Jehovah-shalom] and Ezek 48:35 [Jehovah-shammah]. And then there are the<br />
common names of persons that contain parts of the Divine Name, like Jehoaddah, Jehoaddan, Jehoahaz,<br />
Jehoash, Jehohanan, Jehoiachin, Jehoiada, Jehoiakim, Jehoiarib, Jehonadab, Jehonathan, Jehoram,<br />
Jehoshabeath, Jehoshaphat, Jehosheba, Jehoshua, Jehozabad, Jehozadak etc. It would be ridiculous to<br />
have to rename these, as for example, TheLORDshaphat.<br />
Is the NWT consistent in its use of the Hebrew Versions?<br />
No, and why should they be? The Greek texts in use today, be it the Nestle Aland or the United <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Societies, Von Soden's etc., construct a critical apparatus, whereby certain scriptures in, lets say,<br />
Vaticanus or Siniaticus are accepted or rejected based on what is deemed accurate or corrupted. Even the<br />
two Majority Texts in publication (Hodges-Farstad vs. <strong>Robinson</strong>-Pierpont) disagree over 200 times.<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Translators even pick and choose what scriptures they accept or reject in those texts. As we have<br />
seen, Professor Wallace rejects the Nestle Aland text 500 times in his NET <strong>Bible</strong>. Let us take on<br />
example. Had we faithfully followed Shem Tob's Matthew, then the NWTTC could have rejected any<br />
mentioned of the Father Son and holy spirit at Matt 28:19. However, Shem Tob's reading of this text and<br />
omission of the three was rejected as inferior. One important mss, Codex Alexandrinus, reads the word<br />
"firstborn" at Revelation 1:18, thereby watering down one of your favorite chapters as a "proof-text" for<br />
the deity of Christ. This reading was rejected by the NWTTC, W/Hort, UBS etc., as an inferior reading.<br />
The Hebrew versions simply do not have any critical apparatus, so it was necessary, and required, to<br />
accept and reject many occurences of the Divine Name, whereby creating our own apparatus, in a sense.<br />
Westcott and Hort do not use every scripture as it is laid out in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, and neither does<br />
the NWTTC need to use faithfully every occurence of YHWH or the varying occurences of Adon from<br />
the Hebrew versions, especially since the Hebrew versions are not the base text, but are used as<br />
exemplars for proof that it could be done in some circumstances. As we have seen above, bias can play a<br />
part as to how a translator might view a certain chapter. When a Hebrew version has, "Sanctify the Christ<br />
as Jehovah in your heart," (1 Peter 3:15) we realize that the translators bias (since some do come from<br />
the Trinitarian <strong>Bible</strong> Society) also play a part. What is commendable though is that the NWT Reference<br />
Edition does not hide this fact, and includes this reading in the margin. This leads to another question<br />
though.<br />
Are there Scriptures used of Jehovah that apply to Jesus, and does that make them the same or<br />
equal?<br />
This is something Yes, there certainly circumstances in the <strong>Bible</strong> where Jesus and Jehovah have<br />
scriptures applied to each other. This kind of adaption is not uncommon, and dangerous if exegeted<br />
consistently by your average "evangelical Protestant."<br />
Let us compare 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chron 21:1:<br />
2 Sam reads, "And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against<br />
them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah." ASV<br />
1 Chron reads, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel." ASV<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (13 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
Are we here to conclude, by the argument mentioned in Lynn's book, that Jehovah and Satan are the<br />
same person or equal?<br />
In the book of Job we have the same situation ("and comforted him concerning all the evil that Jehovah<br />
had brought upon him" Job 42:11 ASV, when we know it was Satan).<br />
The book "Alleged Discrepancies in the <strong>Bible</strong>" by John W. Haley had this comment:<br />
"It is consistent with Hebrew modes of thought that whatever occurs in the world, under the<br />
overruling providence of God, what he suffers to take place, should be attributed to his<br />
agency."<br />
The Jews obviously understood this.<br />
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is<br />
regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is<br />
regarded as having been committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish<br />
Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder<br />
GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish<br />
halachic law as follows: "One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger<br />
[the Shaliach] is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of<br />
the one who sent him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier<br />
times the messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 18).<br />
Furuli adds:<br />
"He, therefore, can fill any position in the God's universe, and represent his Father in any<br />
purpose. This is something to keep in mind when we are looking at the various quotes that<br />
are applied to Jesus. As we consider how the NT quotes the OT, we must stress that an<br />
"ontological" identity between the persons mentioned in the quotes is not at all obvious." p.<br />
195, Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation by Rolf Furuli<br />
Professor Furuli then goes on to point out some examples of this. In Hosea 11:1 the reference is to Israel,<br />
but the same words are later applied to Jesus at Matt 2:15. In Jeremiah Rachel is described as weeping<br />
over her sons, but this is later applied to the children of Bethlehem.(Mt 2:17, 18) Paul applied Habakkuk<br />
1:5, 6 in his sermon at Acts 13:40, 41, but the earlier application was to the Chaldeans, the later was not.<br />
"Then there is the identification of John the Baptist with the prophet Elijah. Malachi 4:5<br />
prophecied that Elijah the prophet would come before the great and fear-inspiring day of<br />
YHWH. Jesus quoted these words in Matthew 17:12 and said that "Elijah has already<br />
come." Verse 13 tells us that the disciples perceived that he spoke about John the baptist. In<br />
Matthew 11:14 Jesus states the matter clearly, 'He himself is Elijah who is destined to<br />
come." There can hardly be a more way to express ontological identity that to say John the<br />
baptist is Elijah! But this is not what is meant, because John was neither the resurrected nor<br />
the re-incarnated Elijah. But John did the same work as Elijah, under circumstances which<br />
were comparable to<br />
those of Elijah." Furuli, p 195<br />
Buchanan puts it nicely:<br />
"Like other scholars of his time, the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament<br />
passage out of context and attributing it to the Messiah. For example in LXX Deut 32:43, in<br />
which the object of worship for the sons of God according to the Proto-Massoretic text was<br />
Israel, the author of Hebrews applied it to the first-born, namely Jesus (1:6). Since the term<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (14 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
"first-born" could be applied either to Israel (Exod 4:22) or to the Messiah, the author made<br />
the shift. By the same logic, since the "Lord" was a title of respect used both for God and for<br />
kings, such as Jesus, he may also have made the shift here to apply to Jesus the durability of<br />
God in contrast to the temporal nature of the angels. If this were the case, then Jesus would<br />
also have been thought of as a sort of demiurge through whom God created the heaven and<br />
the earth.as well as the ages (1:2, 10). In either case it does not mean that Jesus was<br />
believed to be God or was addressed as God."<br />
Hebrews 1:10 Anchor <strong>Bible</strong>/Buchanan<br />
A Trustworthy Greek Text, P. 140:<br />
"We are told that the Greek text of the Christian Scriptures is trustworthy for faith. Do we<br />
accept these Scriptures as published in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, or do we<br />
acknowledge the alternate wording of the New <strong>World</strong> Translation in these 237 instances as<br />
having precedence over the Greek text?"<br />
In my vehicle I always have a copy of the Revised Standard Version, and I often have a little pocket-size<br />
RSV in my shirt pocket. To me, the RSV is a trustworthy <strong>Bible</strong> for faith, even though, it has wrongly<br />
removed the Name from the Hebrew text 6828 times. The WTS also provides and prints other <strong>Bible</strong>s that<br />
have also removed the Name, at the same time, we acknowledge what you are unwilling to do, that<br />
YHWH falls within the dictionary, lexical and semantic range of Lord/kyrios. It seems that Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses, and others, have a healthier view of preservation and inspiration. We even print the King<br />
James Version, which, as a 50's Awake magazine points out, contains 50,000 errors. Yet we still deem<br />
this version trustworthy enough to print it.<br />
"It should be pointed out that providential preservation is not a necessary consequence to of inspiration.<br />
Preservation of the Word of God is promised in Scripture, and inspiration and preservation are related<br />
doctrines, but they are distinct from each other, and there is a danger in making one the necessary<br />
corollary of the other. The Scriptures do not do this. God, having given the perfect revelation by verbal<br />
inspiration, was under no special obligation to see that man did not corrupt it."<br />
The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism, by Harry A. Sturz, p. 38<br />
A Note for all Opposers of the New <strong>World</strong> Translation:<br />
Professor Alan S. Duthie once wrote that the NWT was no more "full of heresies" than any other version.<br />
Yet, considering the constant attacks on it, in print, and on the web, opposers are involved in an<br />
diabolical task...they are providing fodder for atheists and Muslims in their constant attack on the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
The New <strong>World</strong> Translation has not changed the message of God. The New International Version has not<br />
changed the message of God despite having homosexuals working on it. Johannes Greber has not<br />
changed the message of God, despite his new-ageism. Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s have not changed the message of<br />
God, despite what Baptists are telling me. The sign at the Watchtower headquarters reads, "Read God's<br />
Word, the Holy <strong>Bible</strong> daily," it does not say to only read a certain version. Perhaps we should all be<br />
promoting a return to the <strong>Bible</strong> rather than promoting an agendaized partisan opposition against a certain<br />
group. God has obviously blessed the NWT with a distribution of 100 million copies worldwide, as he<br />
has also blessed the myriads of copies of other versions. Let us simply take comfort in that fact, instead<br />
of attacking it.<br />
-Webmaster<br />
Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the<br />
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my<br />
memorial unto all generations. ASV<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (15 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]
My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures<br />
You must tell the Isrealites this, that it is JEHOVAH the God of their forefathers, the God of Abraham,<br />
The God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, who has sent you to them. This is my name forever; this is my title in<br />
every generation." The New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. by Ezra Abbott<br />
[From the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis for 1881.]<br />
We shall understand better the passage to be discussed, if we consider its relation to what precedes and<br />
follows and the circumstances under which it was written.<br />
In the first eight chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle has set forth the need and the value of<br />
the gospel as "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jews first, and also to<br />
the Greek." In view of the present blessings and the glorious hopes of the Christian believer, he closes<br />
this part of the Epistle with an exultant song of triumph.<br />
But the doctrine of Paul was in direct opposition to the strongest prejudices of the Jews and their most<br />
cherished expectations. It placed them on a level, as to the conditions of salvation, with the despised and<br />
hated Gentiles. The true Messiah, the king of Israel, the spiritual king of men, had come; but the rulers of<br />
their nation had crucified the Lord of glory, and the great mass of the people had rejected him. They had<br />
thus set themselves in direct opposition to God. They had become ANAQEMA APO TOU CRISTOU,<br />
outcasts from the Messiah and his kingdom. Christians, a large majority of them Gentiles by birth, were<br />
now the true Israel. No rite of circumcision, no observance of the Jewish Law, was required, as the<br />
condition of acceptance with God and the enjoyment of the Messianic blessings; no sacrifice but<br />
self-sacrifice; the only condition was faith, as Paul uses the term, - a practical belief and trust in Christ,<br />
and thus in God revealed in his paternal character; a faith that carried with it the affections and will<br />
PISTIS DI AGAPHS ENERGOUMENH.<br />
How could these things be? How was this gospel of Paul to be reconciled with the promises of God to the<br />
"holy nation"? how with his justice, wisdom and goodness" Had God cast off his people, "Israel his<br />
servant, Jacob his chosen, the seed of Abraham his friend"? These are the great questions which the<br />
Apostle answers in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of this Epistle. The first five verses are to be<br />
regarded as conciliatory introduction to his treatment of this subject, on which he had so much to say that<br />
was not only hard for the unbelieving Jews, but for Jewish Christians, to understand and accept.<br />
The unbelieving Jews regarded the Apostle as an apostate from the true religion and as an enemy of their<br />
race. Five times already he had received from them forty stripes save one; he had been "in perils from his<br />
own countrymen" at Damascus, at Antioch in Pisidia, at Iconium and Lystra, at Thessalonica, Beroea,<br />
and Corinth, - often in peril of his life. By a great part of the believing Jews, he was regarded with<br />
distrust and aversion. (See Acts xxi. 20, 21) His doctrines were indeed revolutionary. Though he was<br />
about to go to Jerusalem to carry a liberal contribution from the churches in Macedonia and Achaia to the<br />
poor Christians in that city, he expresses in this Epistle great anxiety about the reception he should meet<br />
with (anxiety fully justified by the result), and begs the prayers of the brethren at Rome in his behalf<br />
(Rom. xv. 30-32). As the Jews hated Paul, they naturally believed that he hated them.<br />
These circumstances explain the exceedingly strong asseveration of his affection for his countrymen and<br />
of his deep sorrow for their estrangement from God, with which this introduction begins. So far from<br />
being an enemy of his people, he could make any sacrifice to win them to Christ. They were his brethren,<br />
his kinsmen, as to the flesh. He gloried in sharing with them the proud name of Israelite. He delights to<br />
enumerate the magnificent privileges by which God had distinguished them from all other nations, - "the<br />
adoption, and the glory, and the giving of the Law, the covenants, the temple service, and the promises."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (1 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
Theirs were the fathers; and, from among them, as the crowning distinction of all, the Messiah was born,<br />
the supreme gift of God's love and mercy not to the Jews alone, but to all mankind. All God's dealings<br />
with his chosen people were designed to prepare the way, and had prepared the way, for this grand<br />
consummation. How natural that, when, in his rapid recital of their historic glories, the Apostle reaches<br />
this highest distinction of the Jews and greatest blessing of God's mercy to men, he should express his<br />
overflowing gratitude to God as the Ruler over all; that he should "thank God for his unspeakable gift"! I<br />
believe that he has done so, and that the fifth verse of the passage that we are considering should be<br />
translated, "whose are the fathers and from whom is the Messiah as to the flesh: he who is over all, God,<br />
be blessed forever. Amen," or "he who is God over all be blessed forever. Amen." The doxology springs<br />
from the same feeling and the same view of the gracious providence of God which prompted the fuller<br />
outburst at the end of the eleventh chapter, where, on completing the treatment of the subject which he<br />
here introduces, the Apostle exclaims: "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!<br />
How unsearchable are his judgments and untraceable his ways!...For from him, and through him, and to<br />
him, are all things: to him be (or is) the glory forever. Amen."<br />
I believe there are no objections to this construction of the passage which do not betray their weakness<br />
when critically examined; and that the objections against most of the other constructions which have<br />
been proposed are fatal.<br />
The passage is remarkable for the different ways in which it has been and may be punctuated, and for the<br />
consequent variety of constructions which have been given it. The Greek is as follows:-<br />
KAI EX WN O CRISTOS TO KATA SARKA O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS<br />
AIWNAS AMHN.<br />
It grammatically admits of being punctuated and construed in at least seven different ways<br />
1. Placing the comma after SARKA, and also after QEOS, we may translate the last clause, "who (or he<br />
who) is God over all, blessed forever."<br />
2. Putting the second comma after PANTWN instead of QEOS, "who (or he who) is over all, God,<br />
blessed for ever."<br />
3. With a comma after PANTWN and also after QEOS, "who (or he who) is over all, God, blessed<br />
forever."<br />
4. Placing a comma after O WN, and also after QEOS,-"He who is, God over all, blessed forever." See<br />
Wordsworth's note, which, however, is not consistent throughout; and observe the mistranslation at the<br />
end of his quotation from Athanasius (Orat. cont. Arianos, i./ 24, p. 338).<br />
[ftn., Perhaps I ought to add here as a curiosity a construction proposed in the Record newspaper, in an<br />
article copied in Christian Opinion and Revisionist for March 22, 1882, p. 222. The writer would<br />
translate, "Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God. Blessed be he forever!<br />
Amen."]<br />
5. Placing a comma after SARKA and a colon after PANTWN, the last part of the verse may be<br />
rendered: "amd from whom is the Messiah as to the flesh, who (or he who) is over all: God be blessed for<br />
ever. Amen.<br />
6. Placing the comma after SARKA, QEOS may be taken as predicate, thus: "he is who over all is God,<br />
blessed for ever"; so Professor B. H. Kennedy, D.D., Canon of Ely; or thus, "he who was over all being<br />
(literally, was) God, blessed for ever." So Andrews Norton.<br />
7. With a colon after SARKA, O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS may be taken as the subject, and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (2 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
EULOGHTOS as predicatem with the ellipses if EIH or ESTIN, making the last part of the verse a<br />
doxology, thus: "he whois over all, God, be blessed (or is to be praised) for ever"; or "God, who is over<br />
all, be blessed (or is to be praised) for ever."<br />
I pass over other varieties of translation and interpretation, depending on the question whether<br />
PANTWN is to be taken as masculine or neuter, and on the wider or narrower application of the word in<br />
either case.<br />
In Nos. 1-4 inclusive, it will be seen that the O WN, with all that follows, including the designation<br />
QEOS, is referred to CRISTOS; in Nos. 6 and 7, O WN introduces an independent sentence, and QEOS<br />
denotes God, the Father. No. 5 refers the first part of the sentence in debate to O CRISTOS, the last part<br />
to god.<br />
The question of chief interest is whether in this passage the Apostle has called Christ God. Among<br />
those who hold that he has done so, the great majority adopt one of the other of the constructions<br />
numbered 1 and 2; and it is to these, and especially to No. 2, followed both in King James's version and<br />
the Revised Version (text), that I shall give special attention. Among those who refer the last part of the<br />
sentence to God, and not Christ, the great majority of scholars adopt either No. 5 or No. 7. I have already<br />
expressed my preference for the latter construction, and it is generally preferred by those who find here a<br />
doxology to God.<br />
I. We will first consider the objections that have been urged against the construction which makes the<br />
last part of the sentence, beginning with O WN, introduce a doxology to God. I shall then state the<br />
arguments which seem to me to favor this construction, and at the same time to render the constructions<br />
numbered 1 to 4 each and all untenable. Other views of the passage will be briefly noticed. Some<br />
remarks will be added on the history of its interpretation, though no full account of this will be attempted.<br />
1. It is objected that a doxology here is wholly out of place; that the Apostle is overwhelmed with grief<br />
at the Jewish rejection of the Messiah and its consequences, and "an elegy or funeral discourse cannot be<br />
changed abruptly into a hymn." He is, indeed, deeply grieved at the unbelief and blindness of the great<br />
majority of his countrymen; but his sorrow is not hopeless. He knows all the while that "the word of God<br />
hath not failed," that "God hath not cast off his people whom he foreknew," that at last "all Israel shall be<br />
saved"; and nothing seems to me more natural than the play of mingled feelings which the passage<br />
presents, - grief for the present temporary alienation of his countrymen from Christ, joy and thanksgiving<br />
at the thought of the priceless blessings of which Christ was the minister to man and in which his<br />
countrymen should ultimately share.<br />
Flatt, Stuart, and others put the objection in a very pointed form. They represent a doxology as making<br />
Paul say, in effect: "The special privileges of the Jews have contributed greatly to enhance the guilt and<br />
punishment of the Jewish nation; God be thanked that he has given them such privileges!" But they<br />
simply read into the passage what is not there. There is nothing in the context to suggest that the Apostle<br />
is taking this view of the favor which God has shown the Jewish nation. He is not denouncing his<br />
countrymen for their guilt in rejecting the Messiah, and telling them that this guilt and its punishment are<br />
aggravated by the privileges they have abused. So tender is he of their feelings that he does not even<br />
name the cause of his grief, but leaves it to be inferred. He is assuring his countrymen. who regarded him<br />
as their enemy, of the sincerity and strength of his love for them. They are his brethren: the very name<br />
"Israelite" is to him a title of honor; [see ch. xi. I; 2 Cor. xi.22] and he recounts in detail, certainly not in<br />
the manner of one touching a painful subject, the glorious distinctions which their nation had enjoyed the<br />
favor of God. Calvin, who so often in his commentaries admirable traces the connection of thought, here<br />
hits the nail on the head: "Haec dignitatis elogia testimonia sunt amoris. Non enim solemus adeo benigne<br />
loqui, nisi de iis quos amamus."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (3 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
[ftn., The view which I have taken accords with that of Dr. Hodge. He says: "The object of the Apostle in<br />
the introduction to this chapter, contained in the first five verses, is to assure the Jews of his love and of<br />
his respect for their peculiar privileges." Comm. on the Ep. to the Romans, new ed. (1864), note on ix. 4,<br />
p. 469; see also p. 463.]<br />
At the risk of being tedious, I will take some notice of Dr. Gifford's remarks in his recent and valuable<br />
Commentary to the Romans.<br />
[ftn., With the paragraphs which follow compare the additional comments in Essay XVII., p. 415f.]<br />
He says: "Paul's anguish is deepened by the memory of their privileges, most of all by the thought that<br />
their race gave birth to the Divine Saviour, whom they have rejected." But in Paul's enumeration of the<br />
privileges of the Jews he has in view not merely their persent condition, but their whole past history,<br />
illuminated as it had been by light from heaven. Will it be seriously maintained that Paul did not regard<br />
the peculiar privileges which the Jewish nation had enjoyed for so many ages as gifts of God's goodness<br />
for which eternal gratitude was due? But "his anguish is deepened most of all the thought that their race<br />
gave birth to the Divine Saviour whom they have rejected"!<br />
[ftn., The last four words were added by Dr. Abbot subsequently, for reasons apparent, p.415]<br />
Paul's grief for his unbelieving countrymen, then, had extinguished his his gratitude for the inestimable<br />
blessings which he personally owed to Christ: it had extinguished his gratitude for the fact that the God<br />
who rules over all had sent his Son to be Saviour of the world! The dark cloud which hid the light just<br />
then from the mass of countrymen, but which he believed was soon to pass away, had blotted the sun<br />
from the heavens. The advent of Christ was no cause for thanksgiving: he could only bow his head in<br />
anguish, deepened most of all by the thought that the Messiah had sprung from the race to which he<br />
himself belonged.<br />
"His anguish is deepened by the memory of their privileges." Paul does not say this; and Dr. Gifford<br />
quite sure that this way in which these privileges presented themselves to his mind? May we not as<br />
naturally suppose that the thought of God's favor to his people in the past, whom he had so often recalled<br />
from their wanderings, afforded some ground for the hope that they had not stumbled so as to fall and<br />
perish, but that their present alienation from Christ, contributing, as it had done, in the over-ruling<br />
providence of God, to the wider and more rapid spread of the gospel among the Gentiles, was only<br />
temporary? If we let Paul be his own interpreter instead of reading unnatural thoughts between the lines,<br />
we shall take this view. "God hath not cast off HIS PEOPLE, whom he foreknew," "whose is the<br />
adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the promises." "A hardening in part hath befallen Israel,"<br />
but only "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and so (or then) all Israel shall be saved." It is not<br />
for nothing that "theirs are the fathers"; that they had such ancestors as Abraham, "the friend of God,"<br />
and Isaac, and Jacob. "As touching the gospel, they are enemies for the sake of the Gentiles, but as<br />
touching the election," as chosen people of God, "they are beloved for the father's sake." "If the first fruit<br />
is holy, so is the lump; and, if the root is holy, so are the branches." "God doth not repent of his of his<br />
calling and his gifts." "God hath shut up all [Jews and Gentiles] unto disobedience, that he might have<br />
mercy upon all." For the ancient prophecy is now fulfilled: the Deliverer hath come out of Zion; and "he<br />
shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." "O the depth of riches," etc. Such were the thoughts which the<br />
past privileges of the Jews, in connection with the advent of Christ, as we see from the eleventh chapter<br />
of this Epistle, actually suggested to the mind of Paul.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (4 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
[ftn., This appreciative recapitulation of the distinctions of the Jewish people would also serve to check<br />
the tendency of the Gentile Christians to self-conceit, and would lead them to recognize the important<br />
part of the despised Hebrews in the drama of the world's history. It would virtually say to them, "Glory<br />
not over the branches; but if thou gloriest, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." (Rom. xi. 18)<br />
Can we, then, reasonably say that, when, in his grand historic survey and enumeration of the distinctive<br />
privileges of the Jews, the Apostle reaches the culminating point in the advent of the Messiah, sprung<br />
from that race, a devout thanksgiving to God as the beneficent ruler over all is wholly out of place?<br />
Might we not rather ask, How could it be repressed?<br />
We may then, I conceive, dismiss the psychological objection to the doxology, on which many have<br />
laid great stress, as founded on a narrow and superficial view of what we may reasonably suppose to<br />
have been in the Apostles mind. And I am happy to see that so fair-minded and clear-sighted a scholar as<br />
Professor Dwight takes essentially the same view of the matter. (See Journ. Soc. Bibl. Lit., etc., as above,<br />
p. 41)<br />
2. A second objection to a doxology here is founded on the relation of the first five verses of the<br />
chapter to what follows. A doxology, it is thought, unnaturally breaks the connection between the sixth<br />
and what precedes.<br />
This argument is rarely adduced, and I should hardly have thought it worthy of notice, were it not that<br />
Dr. Dwight seems to attach some weight to it, thought apparently not much. (See as above, p. 41 f.)<br />
The first five verses of the chapter, as we have seen, are a conciliatory introduction to the treatment of a<br />
delicate and many-sided subject. This treatment begins with the sixth verse, which is introduced by the<br />
participle DE, "but." Whether the last part of verse 5 is a doxology to God, or simply the climax of the<br />
privileges of the Jews, the DE cannot refer to what immediately precedes. In either case, it refers to what<br />
is implied in verses 2 and 3, and meets the most prominent objection to the doctrine set forth by the<br />
Apostle in the preceding part of the Epistle. The thought is, The present condition of the great mass of<br />
my countrymen is indeed a sad one, and not the Jews as a nation, but Christians, are true people of God;<br />
but it is not as if the promises of God have failed. (Comp. iii.3,4) This simple statement of the connection<br />
of verse 6 with what precedes seems to me all that is needed to meet the objection. The argument that a<br />
doxology is inconsistent with the Apostle's state of mind has already been answered.<br />
3. A third objection, urged by many, is founded on the alleged abruptness of the doxology and the<br />
absence of any mention of God in what precedes. Some also think that a doxology here would need to be<br />
introduced by the participle DE.<br />
I cannot regard this objection as having any force. It is quite in accordance with the habit of Paul thus to<br />
turn aside suddenly to give expression to his feelings of adoration and gratitude toward God. See Rom. i.<br />
25; vii. 25 (where the genuineness of DE is very doubtful); 2 Cor. ix. 15, where note the omission of DE<br />
in the genuine text; 1 Tim. i. 17, where the doxology is suggested by the mention of Christ. The<br />
doxology xi. 36, as has already been noticed (p. 334) is completely parallel in thought. Far more abrupt is<br />
the doxology 2 Cor. xi. 31, O QEOS KAI PATHR TOU KURIOU IHSOU OIDEN O WN<br />
EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS AIWNAS OTI OU YEUDOMAI, where the ascription of praise is interposed<br />
between OIDEN and OTI in an extraordinary manner.<br />
It is very strange that it should be urged as an argument against the doxology that God is not mentioned<br />
in the preceding context. The name does not occur, but almost every word in verses 4 and 5 suggest the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (5 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
thought of God. So, to a Jew, the very name "Israelites"; so "the adoption and the glory and the giving of<br />
the Law and the covenants and the service and the promises"; and so, above all O CRISTOS, the<br />
Anointed of God, the Messiah: as to the flesh, sprung from the Jews; but, as to his holy spirit, the Son of<br />
God, the messenger of God's love and mercy, not to the Jews alone, but to all the nations of the earth.<br />
That the mention of Christ in such a connection as this should bring vividly to the mind of the Apostle<br />
the thought of GOD and his goodness, and thus lead to a doxology, is simply in accordance with the<br />
conception of the relation of Christ to God which appears everywhere in the Epistle, and in all his<br />
Epistles. While Christ, DI OU TA PANTA, is the medium of communication of our spiritual blessings,<br />
Paul constantly views them in relation to God, EX OU TA PANTA, as the original Author and Source.<br />
The gospel is "the Gospel of God," "a power of God unto salvation"; the righteousness which it reveals is<br />
"a righteousness which is of God"; it is God who has set forth Christ as ILASTHRION, who<br />
"commendeth his love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," who "spared not<br />
his own Son, but freely gave him for us all"; it is "God who raised him from the dead"; "what the Law<br />
could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful<br />
flesh, and on account of sin," has done; the glory to which Christians are destined, as sons and heirs of<br />
God and joint heirs with Christ, is "the glory of God"; in short, "all things are of God, who hath<br />
reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ," and "nothing shall separate us from the love of God,<br />
which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."<br />
Though no one can doubt that Paul was full of love and gratitude to Christ, so that we might expect<br />
frequent ascriptions to him of praise and glory, it is a remarkable fact that there is no doxology or<br />
thanksgiving to Christ in any of his Epistles except those to Timothy, the genuineness of which has been<br />
questioned by many modern scholars. These Epistles, at any rate, present marked peculiarities of style<br />
and language, and, if written by Paul, were probably written near the close of his life. And in them there<br />
is but one doxology to Christ, and that not absolutely certain, on account of the ambiguity of the word<br />
KURIOS (2 Tim. iv. 18); while the thanksgiving is a simple expression of thankfulness (1 Tim. i. 12),<br />
CARIN ECW, gratias habco (not ago). One reason for this general absence of such ascriptions of Christ<br />
on the part of the Apostle seems to have been that habit of mind of which I have just spoken, and which<br />
makes it a priori more probable that the doxology in Rom. ix. 5 belongs to God. But this is a matter<br />
which will be more appropriately treated in another place.<br />
As to the DE, which Schultz insists would be necessary, one needs only to look fairlay at the passage to<br />
see that it would be wholly out of place; that a doxology to God involves no antithetic contrast between<br />
God and Christ, as Schultz and some others strangely imagine. Now does DE, as a particle of transition,<br />
seem natural here, much less required. It would make the doxology too formal.<br />
4. It is urged that "O WN, grammatically considered, is more easily and naturally construed in<br />
connection with CRISTOS than as the subject of a new and doxological clause." (See Dr. Dwight's<br />
article, as above, pp. 24, 25.)<br />
Much stronger language that this is often used. Dr. Hodge, for example, assuming that O WN must be<br />
equivalent to OS ESTI, says the interpretation which refers the words to Christ in the only one "which<br />
can, with the least regard to the rules of construction, be maintained." (Comm. in loc., p. 472.)<br />
Dr. Dwight, whose article is in general so admirable for the fairness, clearness, and moderation of its<br />
statements, has expressed himself here in such a way that I cannot feel perfectly sure of his meaning. He<br />
says, speaking of the connection of O WN with O CRISTOS, "This construction of O WN, in cases<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (6 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
similar to that which is here presented, is the almost universal one, both in the New Testament and in<br />
other Greek." If "cases similar to that which is here presented" means cases which in which O WN (or<br />
any participle with the article) is preceded by a noun to which it may easily be joined, while it also<br />
admits of being regarded as the subject of an independent sentence, and it is affirmed that, in such<br />
grammatically ambiguous cases, it almost invariably does refer to the preceding subject, - the argument<br />
is weighty, if the assertion is true. But not even one such case has ever, to my knowledge, been pointed<br />
out. Till such a case, or, rather, a sufficient number of such cases to serve as the basis of a reasonable<br />
induction, shall be produced, I am compelled to consider the statement as resting on no evidence<br />
whatever. Yet that this is what is meant by "similar cases" seems necessarily to follow from what is said<br />
further on (l.c., p. 24) about "the peculiarity of Rom. ix. 5." Cases in which O WN, grammatically<br />
considered, can only refer to a preceding subject are certainly not "similar cases to that which is here<br />
presented," in which, as Dr. Dwight admits, "there is, at the most, only a presumption in favor of this<br />
construction of the clause against the other" (l.c., p. 25).<br />
But, if Dr. Dwight's statement means, or is intended to imply, that O WN with its adjuncts, or, in<br />
general, the participle with the article, almost universally forms a descriptive or a limiting clause<br />
referring to a preceding subject, while its use as the independent subject of a sentence is rare, the<br />
assertion is fatally incorrect. The latter use is not only very common, but in the New Testament, at least,<br />
is more frequent than the former. We have (a) O WN, or OI ONTES, in the nominative, as the subject of<br />
an independent sentence, Matt. xii. 30; Mark xiii. 16 (text. rec.); Luke vi. 3 (t.r., Tisch.); xi. 23; John iii.<br />
31; vi. 46; viii. 47; ix. 40; Acts xxii. 9; Rom. viii. 5, 8. Contra (b), referring to a preceding subject, and<br />
forming, as I understand it, an appositional clause, John i. 18; iii. 13 (text. rec.); (Acts v. 17); 2 Cor. xi.<br />
31; Rev. v.5 (t.r.); a limiting clause, John xi. 31; xii. 17; Acts xi. 1. To these may be added 2 Cor. v. 4,<br />
Eph. ii. 13, where the clause is in apposition with or describes HMEIS or UMEIS, exrpessed or<br />
understood; and perhaps John xviii. 37 (PAS O WN, K.T.L.).<br />
[The examples of O WN and other participles with PAS belong, perhaps, quite as properly under (a).<br />
Without PAS, the O WN, K.T.L. is the subject of the sentence, and the meaning is the same; PAS only<br />
strengthens the O WN. See Kruger, Gr. Sprachlehre, 5te Aufl. (1875), / 50, 4, Anm. 1.]<br />
It is uncertain whether Col. iv. 11 belongs under (a) or (b). See Meyer in loc. For the examples of WN,<br />
I have relied on Bruder's Concordance, p. 255, No. VI. But as there is nothing peculiar in the use of this<br />
particular participle with the article so far as the present question is concerned, I have, with the aid of<br />
Bruder, examined the occurrences of the participle in general, in the nominative, with the article, in the<br />
Gospel of Matthew, the Epistle to the Romans, and the First Epistle to the Corinthians. I find in Matthew<br />
eighty-six examples of its use (a) as the subject, or in very few cases (nine) as the predicate, of a verb<br />
expressed or understood, and only thirty-eight of its use (b) in a descriptive or limiting clause, annexed to<br />
a preceding subject; in the Epistle to the Romans, twenty-eight examples of the former kind against<br />
twelve of the latter, one of these being a false reading.<br />
[In this reckoning, to prevent any cavil, I have included under (b) all the examples of PAS O or PANTES<br />
OI, of which there are eight in Matthew, two in Romans, and one in 1 Cor.; also, the cases of the article<br />
and participle with OU or UMEIS as the subject of the verb, expressed or understood, of which there are<br />
four in Matthew and seven in Romans. I have not counted on either side Rom. viii. 33, 34, and ix. 33: the<br />
first two, translated according to the text of the Revised Version, belong under (a), according to its<br />
margin, under (b); Rom. ix. 33, if we omit PAS, with all the critical editors, would also belong under (a).]<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (7 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
In general, it is clear that the use of the participle with the article as the subject of an independent<br />
sentence, instead of being exceptional in the New Testament, is far more common that its use as an<br />
attributive. Nor is this strange; for O WN properly signifies not "who is," but "he who is." The force of<br />
the article is not lost.<br />
["Participles take the article only when some relation already known or especially noteworthy (is qui,<br />
quippe qui) is indicated, and consequently the idea expressed by the participle is to be made more<br />
prominent."-Winer, Gram. 7te Aufl., /20, 1, b. a. c. p. 134, Thayer).]<br />
While in some of its uses it may seem interchangeable with OS ESTI, it differs in this: that it is generally<br />
employed either in appositional or in limiting clauses; while OS with the finite verb is appropriate for the<br />
latter. For examples of the former, see John i. 18, xii. 17; of the latter, Rom. v. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 4. To<br />
illustrate the difference by the passage before us: if O WN here refers to O CRISTOS, the clause would<br />
be more exactly translated as appositional, not "who is," etc., but "he who is God over all, blessed<br />
forever," implying that he was well known to the readers of the Epistle as God, or at least marking this<br />
predicate with special emphasis; while OS ESTIN would be more appropriate if it were simply the<br />
purpose of the Apostle to predicate deity of Christ, and would also be perfectly unambiguous.<br />
There is nothing, then, either in proper meaning of O WN or in its usage which makes it more easy and<br />
natural to refer it to O CRISTOS than to take it as introducing an independent sentence. It is next to be<br />
observed that there are circumstances which make the latter construction easy, and which distinguish the<br />
passage from nearly all others in which O WN, or a participle with the article, is used as an attributive. In<br />
all other instances in the New Testament of this use of O WN or OI ONTES in the nominative, with the<br />
single exception of the parenthetic insertion in 2 Cor. xi. 31 (see above, page 341), it immediately<br />
follows the subject to which it relates. The same is generally true of other examples of the participle with<br />
the article. (The strongest cases of exception which I have noticed are John vii. 50 and 2 John 7.) But<br />
here O WN is separated from O CRISTOS by TO KATA SARKA, which in reading must be followed by<br />
a pause, - a pause which is lengthened by the special emphasis given to the KATA SARKA by the TO;<br />
and the sentence which precedes is complete in itself grammatically, and requires nothing further<br />
logically; for it was only as to the flesh that Christ was from the Jews.<br />
[If O CRISTOS were placed after KATA SARKA, the ambiguity would not, indeed, be wholly removed,<br />
but it would be much more natural to refer the O WN to Christ than it is now. Perhaps the feeling of this<br />
led Cyril of Alexandria to make this transposition as he does in quoting the passage against the Emperor<br />
Julian, who maintained that "neither Paul dared to call Christ God, nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark,<br />
ALL O CRHSTOS IWANNHS." (See Cyril cont. Julian. lib. x. Opp. v. pars ii. b. pp. 118 a, 148 e;<br />
though he usually follows the order of the present Greek text.]<br />
On the other hand, as we have seen above, the enumeration of blessings which of the advent of Christ,<br />
naturally suggests an ascription or praise and thanksgiving to God as the Being who rules over all; while<br />
a doxology is also suggested by the AMHN at the end of the sentence.<br />
[In fifteen out of the eighteen instances in the N.T., besides the present, in which AMHN at the end of a<br />
sentence is probably genuine, it follows a doxology; namely, Rom. i. 25, xi. 36, xvi. 27; Gal. i. 5; Eph.<br />
iii. 21; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17, vi. 16; 2 Tim. iv. 18; Heb. xiii. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 11, v. 11 (2 Pet. iii. 18);<br />
Jude 25; Rev. i. 6, vii. 12. Contra, Rom. xv. 33; Gal. vi. 18 (Rev. i. 7).]<br />
From every point of view, therefore, the doxological construction seems easy and natural. The ellipsis of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (8 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
the verb ESTI or EIH in such cases is simply according to rule. The construction numbered 6 above is<br />
also perfectly easy and natural grammatically (see 2 Cor. I. 21, v. 5; Heb. iii.4).<br />
The naturalness of a pause after SARKA is further indicated by the fact that we find a point after this<br />
word in all our oldest MSS. that testify in the case, - A,B,C,L,- and in at least eight cursives, though the<br />
cursives have been rarely examined with reference to their punctuation.<br />
[The MSS. Aleph, D, F, G, cannot be counted one side or the other; respecting K, we have no<br />
information. For a fuller statement of the facts in the case, see Note A at the end of the essay.]<br />
It has been urged, that, if the writer did not intend that O WN should be referred to Christ, he would<br />
have adopted another construction for his sentence, which would be exposed to no such<br />
misapprehension. But this argument is a boomerang. Mr. Beet in his recent Commentary on the Epistle to<br />
the Romans (2d ed., p. 271 f.) well says, on the other hand:-<br />
"Had Paul thought fit to deviate from his otherwise unvarying custom, and to speak of Christ as God,<br />
he must have done so with a serious and set purpose of asserting the divinity of Christ. And, if so, he<br />
would have used words which no one could understand. In a similar case, John i. 1, we find language<br />
which excludes all doubt. And in this case the words OS ESTIN, as in i. 25, would have given equal<br />
certainty....Moreover, here Paul has in hand an altogether different subject, the present position of the<br />
Jews. And it seems to me much more likely that he would deviate from his common mode of expression,<br />
and write once "God be blessed" instead of "to God be glory," than that, in a passage which does not<br />
specially refer to the nature of Christ, he would assert it in language which may either mean this or<br />
something quite different."<br />
Many writers, like Dr. Gifford, speak of that construction which refers O WN, etc., to Christ as "the<br />
natural and simple" one, "which every Greek scholar would adopt without hesitation, if no doctrine were<br />
involved." It might be said in reply, that the natural and simple construction of words considered apart<br />
from the doctrine it involves, and with reference to merely lexical and grammatical considerations, is by<br />
no means always the true one. For example, according to the natural construction of the words UMEIS<br />
EK TOU PATROS TOU DIABOLOU ESTE (John viii. 44), their meaning is, "you are from the father of<br />
the devil"; and probably no Greek scholar would think of putting any other meaning on them, if no<br />
question of doctrine were involved. Again, in Luke 11. 38, "she gave thanks unto God, and spake of him<br />
to all of them that were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem." How unnatural, it may be said, to refer<br />
the "him" to any subject but "God," there being no possible antecedent mentioned in this or the three<br />
preceding verses. But I do not make or need to make this reply. We have already considered the<br />
grammatical side of the question, and have seen, I trust, that the construction which makes O WN, etc.,<br />
the subject of a new sentence is perfectly simple and easy. I only add here that the meaning of words<br />
often depends on the way they are read, - on the pauses, and tones of voice. (If we could only have heard<br />
Paul dictate this passage to Tertius!) And it is a matter of course that, when a person has long been<br />
accustomed, from whatever cause, to read and understand a passage in a particular way, any other mode<br />
of reading it will seem to him unnatural. But this impression will often be delusive. And it does not<br />
follow that a mode of understanding the passage which was easy and natural in the third and fourth<br />
centuries, or even earlier, when it had become common to apply the name QEOS to Christ, would have<br />
seemed the most easy and natural to the first readers of the Epistle. I waive here all considerations of<br />
doctrine and call attention only to the use of language. When we observe that everywhere else in this<br />
Epistle the Apostle has used the word QEOS of the Father in distinction from Christ, so that it is virtually<br />
a proper name, that this is also true of the Epistles previously written - those to the Thessalonians,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (9 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
Galatians, Corinthians, how can we reasonably doubt that, if the verbal ambiguity here occasioned a<br />
momentary hesitation as to the meaning, a primitive reader of the Epistle would naturally suppose that<br />
the word QEOS designated the being everywhere else denoted by this name in the Apostle's writings, and<br />
would give the passage the construction thus suggested?<br />
[It is used in the first eight chapters about eighty-seven times, and so in the verse which immediately<br />
follows the one under discussion.]<br />
But this is a point which will be considered more fully in another place.<br />
The objection that, if we make the last clause a doxology to God, "the participle WN is superfluous and<br />
awkward," will be noticed below under No. 6.<br />
5. It is further urged that TO KATA SARKA requires an antithesis, which is supposed to be supplied<br />
by what follows. Some even say that KATA SARKA must mean "according to his human nature," and<br />
therefore requires as an antithesis the mention of the divine nature of Christ. But the proper antithesis to<br />
KATA SARKA is KATA PNEUMA, not KATA THN QEOTHTA, which there is nothing in the phrase<br />
itself to suggest: KATA SARKA, as will at once appear on examining the cases of its use in the New<br />
Testament, does not refer to a distinction of natures, but often denotes a physical relation, such, for<br />
example, as depends on birth or other outward circumstances, in contrast with a spiritual relation. We<br />
need only to refer to the third verse of this very chapter, which certainly does not imply that Paul or his<br />
"kinsmen KATA SARKA" had a divine nature also. The phrase KATA SARKA undoubtably implies an<br />
antithesis" "as to the flesh," by his natural birth and in his merely outward relations, the Messiah, the Son<br />
of David, was from<br />
the Jews, and in this they might glory; but as Son of God, and in his higher, spiritual relations, he<br />
belonged to all mankind. It was not to the Apostles purpose to describe what he was KATA PNEUMA,<br />
as he was speaking to the peculiar distinctions of the Jews. Indeed, the antithesis to KATA SARKA is<br />
very often not expressed (see, for example, Rom. iv. 1, ix. 3; 1 Cor. i. 26, x. 18; 2 Cor. v. 16; Eph. vi. 5;<br />
Col. iii. 22), so that Alford judiciously says: "I do not reckon among the objections the want of any<br />
antithesis to KATA SARKA, because that might well have been left to the readers to supply." We have<br />
an example strikingly parallel to the present in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (c. 32),<br />
first adduced, so far as I know, by Dr. Whitby, in his Last Thoughts, which at least demonstrates that, in<br />
a case like this, the expression of an antithesis is not required. Speaking of the high distinctions of the<br />
patriarch Jacob, Clement says: "For from him were all the priests and Levites that ministered to the altar<br />
of God; from him was the Lord Jesus as to the flesh (TO KATA SARKA); from him were kings and<br />
rulers and leaders in the line of Judah." See also Iren. Haer. iv. 4 / 1: EX AUTWN GAP TO KATA<br />
SARKA O CRISTOS EKARPOFORHQH, KAI OI APOSTOLOI (mistranslated in the Ante-Nicene<br />
Christian Library); and Frag. xvii. ed. Stieren, p. 836: EK DE TOU LEVI KAI TOU IOUDA TO KATA<br />
SARKA, WS BASILEUS KAI IEPEUS, EGENNHQH [O CRISTOS].<br />
The eminent Dutch commentator, Van Hengel, maintains in an elaborate note on this passage, citing<br />
many examples, that the form of the restrictive phrase used here, TO KATA SARKA, with the neuter<br />
article prefixed, absolutely requires a pause after SARKA, and does not admit, according to Greek usage,<br />
of the expression of an antithesis after it, so that the following part of the verse must be referred to God.<br />
(Comp. Rom. i. 15; xii. 18.) He represents his view as supported by the authority of the very<br />
distinguished Professor C. G. Cobet of Leyden. who as a master of the Greek language has perhaps no<br />
superior among European scholars.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (10 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
[See Van Hengel, Interp. Ep. Pauli ad Rom., tom. ii. (1859), pp. 348-353, and pp. 804-813. Speaking of<br />
his citations, he says (p. 350), "Allatorum unum alteremque mecum communicavit COBETIUS noster, se<br />
multo plura, quibus interpretatio mea confirmaretur, suppeditare posse dicens." {See p. 432 sq.}]<br />
It may be true that Greek usage in respect to such restrictive expressions, when TO or TA is prefixed,<br />
accords with the statement of Van Hengel, indorsed by Cobet. In my limited research I have found no<br />
exception. The two passages cited by Meyer in opposition (Xen. Cyr. 5, 4, 11; Plat. Min. 320 C.) seem to<br />
me wholly irrelevant: the former, because we have MEN with the TO EP EMOI, which of course<br />
requires an antithetic cluase with DE; the latter, because the essential element in the case, the TO or TA,<br />
does not stand before KATA TO ASTU. But I must agree with Dr. Dwight (l.c. p. 28) that Van Hengel's<br />
argument is not conclusive. On the supposition that O WN, etc., refers to Christ, we have not a formal<br />
antithesis. such as would be excluded by Van Hengel's rule, but simply an appositional, descriptive<br />
clause, setting forth the exalted dignity of him who as to the flesh sprang from the Jews. I cannot believe<br />
that there is any law of the Greek language which forbids this.<br />
We may say, however, and it is a remark of some importance, that the TO before KATA SARKA, laying<br />
stress on the restriction, and suggesting an antithesis which therefore did not need to be expressed,<br />
indicates that the writer has done with that point, and makes a pause natural. It makes it easy to take the<br />
O WN as introducing an independent sentence, though it does not, as I believe, make it necessary to do<br />
so.<br />
I admit, further, that, if we assume that the conception of Christ as God was familiar to the readers of the<br />
Epistle, and especially, if we suppose that they had often heard him called so by the early preachers of<br />
Christianity, the application of the O WN, etc., to Christ here would be<br />
natural, and also very suitable to the object of the Apostle in this passage. I am obliged to say, however,<br />
that this is assuming what is not favored by Paul's use of language or by the record of the apostolic<br />
preaching in the Book of Acts.<br />
On the other hand, there was not need of such an appendage to O CRISTOS. We have only to consider<br />
the glory and dignity with which the name of the Messiah was invested in the mind of a Jew, and the still<br />
higher glory and dignity associated with O CRISTOS in the mind of a Christian, and especially in the<br />
mind of Paul.<br />
6. It is further objected that, in sentences which begin with a doxology or an ascription of blessing,<br />
EULOGHTOS (or EULOGHMENOS) always precedes the subject; and that "the laws" or "rules of<br />
grammar" (Stuart, Alford) require that it should do so here to justify the construction proposed. Luke i.<br />
68, 2 Cor. i. 3, Eph. i. 3, 1 Pet. i. 3; and so EULOGHTOS and EULOGHMENOS precede in a multitude<br />
of places in the Septuagint. (See Trommius's<br />
Concordance and Wahl's Clavis librorum Vet. Test. apocryphorum.)<br />
Great stress has been laid on this objection by many; but I believe that a critical examination will show<br />
that it has no real weight.<br />
We will begin by considering a misconception of the meaning of O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS which has<br />
led to untenable objections against the doxological construction, and has prevented the reason for the<br />
position of EULOGHTOS from being clearly seen. It has been assumed by many that the phrase is<br />
simply equivalent to "the Supreme God" (so Wahl, s.v. EPI, omnibus superior,<br />
omnium summus), as if the Apostle was contrasting God with Christ in respect to dignity, instead of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (11 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
simply describing God as the being who rules over all.<br />
[Wahl gives a more correct view of the use of EPI in his Clavis libr. Vet. Test. apocr. (1853), p. 218, col.<br />
1, C. b., where EIMI EPI with the genetive is defined, praesum alieni rei, moderor s. administro aliquam<br />
rem. Comp. Grimm's Lexicon Gr.-Lat. in libros N.T., ed. 2da, s.v. EPI, A. i. 1. d. p. 160, col. 2; Rost and<br />
Palm's Passow, vol. 1. p. 1035, col. 1, 3; and the references given by Meyer and Van Hengel in loc. See<br />
Acts viii. 27; Gen. xliv. 1; Judith xiv. 13, EIPAN TW ONTI EPI PANTWN AUTOU; 1 Macc. x. 69,<br />
TON ONTA EPI KOILHS SURIAS.]<br />
This misunderstanding of the expression occasioned the chief difficulty felt by De Wette in adopting the<br />
construction which places a colon or a period after SARKA. It seemed to him like "throwing Christ right<br />
into the shade," without any special reason, when we should rather expect something said in antithesis to<br />
TO KATA SARKA, to set forth his dignity; though he admits that<br />
this objection is removed, if we accept Fritzsche's explanation of the passage.<br />
[De Wette, Kurze Erklarung des Briefes and die Romer, 4te Aufl. (1847), p. 130.]<br />
On this false view is founded Schultz's notion (see above) that DE would be needed here to indicate the<br />
antithesis. On it is also grounded the objection of Alford, Farrar, and others, that the WN is "perfectly<br />
superfluous," as, indeed, it would be, if that were simply the meaning intended. To express the idea of<br />
"the God over all," "the Supreme God," in contrast with a being to whom the term "God" might indeed<br />
be implied, but only in a lower sense, we should need only O EPI PANTWN QEOS, - a phrase which is<br />
thus used numberless times in the writings of the Christian Fathers; see, for examples, Wetstein's note on<br />
Rom. ix. 5. But, as I understand the passage, the WN is by no means superfluous. It not only gives an<br />
impressive fulness of to the expression, but converts what would otherwise be a mere epithet of God into<br />
a substantive designation of him, equivalent to "the Ruler over All," on which the mind rests for a<br />
moment by itself, before it reaches the QEOS qualified by it; of QEOS may be regarded as added by way<br />
of apposition or more precise definition. The position of this substantive designation of QEOS, between<br />
the article and its noun, gives it special prominence. Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 7, OUTE O FUTEUWN ESTIN TI<br />
OUTE O POTIZWN ALL O AUXANWN QEOS; Addit. ad Esth. viii. 1. 39, O TA PANTA<br />
DUNASTEUWN QEOS, cf., 11. 8, 35, Tisch.; O PANTWN DESPOZWN QEOS, Justin Mart. Apol. i.<br />
15; O POIHTHS TOUDE TOU PANTOS QEOS, ibid. i. 26. In expressions of this kind, the definite<br />
article fulfils, I conceive, a double function; it is connected with the participle or other adjunct which<br />
immediately follows it, just as it would be if the substantive at the end were omitted; but, at the same<br />
time, it makes that substantive definite, so that the article in effect belongs to the substantive as well as<br />
the participle. Thus, O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS is equivalent to O QEOS O WN EPI PANTWN in<br />
everything except the difference of prominence given to the different parts of the phrase in the two<br />
expressions. In the latter, O QEOS is made prominent by its position: in the former, prominence is given<br />
to the particular conception expressed by O WN EPI PANTWN, "the Ruler over All."<br />
[If this account is correct, it follows that neither of the renderings which I have suggested above as<br />
expressing my view of the meaning represents the original perfectly. Nor do I perceive that the English<br />
idiom admits a perfect translation. If we render "he who is over all, God, be blessed for ever," we make<br />
the word "God" stand in simple apposition to "he who is over all," which I do not suppose to be the<br />
grammatical construction. If, on the other hand, we translate, "he who is God over all be blessed for<br />
ever," we lose in a great measure the effect of the position of the WN EPI PANTWN before QEOS.]<br />
Let us now look for a moment at the connection of thought in the passage before us, and we shall see this<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (12 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
distinction is important. The Apostle is speaking of the favored nation to which it is his pride to belong.<br />
Its grand religious history of some two thousand years passes rapidly before his mind, as in a panorama.<br />
Their ancestors were the patriarchs, - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Theirs were "the adoption, and the<br />
glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the temple service, and the promises." But God's<br />
choice and training his "peculiar people," and the privileges conferred upon them, were all a providential<br />
preparation for the advent of the Messiah, whose birth from among the Jews was their highest national<br />
distinction and glory; while his mission as the founder of a spiritual and universal religion was the<br />
crowning manifestation of God's love and mercy to mankind. How could this survey of the ages of<br />
promise and preparation, and the great fulfilment in Christ, fail to bring vividly before the mind of the<br />
Apostle the thought of God as the Being who presides over all things, who cares for all men and controls<br />
all events?<br />
[Erasmus has well presented the thought of the Apostle: "Ut enim haec omaia quae commemorat de<br />
adoptione, gloria, testamentis, legislatione, cultibus, ac promissis, deque patribus, ex quibus Christus<br />
juxta carnem ortus est, declaret non fortuito facta, sed admirabili Dei providentia, qui tot modis<br />
procuravit salutem humani generis, non simpliciter dicit Deus, sed is qui rebus omnibus pracest, omnia<br />
suo divino consilio dispensans moderansque, cui dicit deberi laudem in omne aevum, ob insignem erga<br />
nos charitatem, cui maledicebant Judaei, dum Filium unicum blasphemiis impeterent." Note in loc., in his<br />
Opp. vi. (Lugd Bat. 1705), col. 611.<br />
So Westcott and Hort, in their note on this passage in vol ii. of their Greek Testament, remarking on the<br />
punctuation which places a colon after SARKA as "an expression of the interpretation which implies that<br />
special force was intended to be thrown on EPI PANTWN by the interposition of WN" observe: "This<br />
emphatic sense of EPI PANTWN (cf. i. 16; ii. 9 f., iii. 29 f.; x. 12; xi. 32, 36) is fully justified if St Paul's<br />
purpose is the suggest that the tragic apostasy of the Jews (vv. 2, 3) is itself part of the dispensations of<br />
'Him who is God over all.' over Jew and Gentile alike, over past present and future alike; so that the<br />
ascription of blessing to him is a homage to his divine purpose and power of bringing good out of evil in<br />
the course of the ages (xi. 13-16; 25-36)." Dr. Hort remarks that "this punctuation alone seems adequate<br />
to account for the whole of the language employed, more especially when it is considered in relation to<br />
the context."]<br />
Because this conception is prominent in his mind, he places the O WN EPI PANTWN first in the<br />
sentence. A recognition of this fact removes all the difficulty about the position of EULOGHTOS. There<br />
is no "law of grammar" bearing on the matter, except the law that the predicate, when it is more<br />
prominent in the mind of the writer, precedes the subject. In simply exclamatory doxologies, the<br />
EULOGHTOS, or EULOGHMENOS comes first, because the feeling that prompts its use is<br />
predominant, and can be expressed in a single word. But here, where the thought of the overruling<br />
providence of God<br />
is prominent, the O WN EPI PANTWN must stand first in the sentence, to express that prominence; and<br />
the position of EULOGHTOS after it is required by the very same law of the Greek language which<br />
governs all the examples that have been alleged against the doxological construction of the passage. This<br />
thought of God as the Ruler of All reappears in the doxology at the end of the eleventh chapter (xi. 36),<br />
where the Apostle concludes his grand Theodicy: "For from him and through him and to him are ALL<br />
THINGS: to him is the glory forever! Amen." Compare also Eph. i. 11, cited by Mr. Beet: "foreordained<br />
according to the purpose of him who worketh ALL THINGS after the counsel of his will"; and so in<br />
another doxology (1 Tim. i. 17) suggested by the mention of Christ, the ascription is, TW BASILEI<br />
TWN AIWNWN,-"to the King OF THE AGES."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (13 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
[This seems to me the true rendering rather than "to the King eternal," though eternity is implied. Comp.<br />
Rev. xv. 3, Westcott and Hort; Sir. xxxvi. 22 (al. xxxiii. 19); Tob. xiii. 6, 10; Ps. cxliv. (cxlv) 13; Clem.<br />
Rom. Ep. ad. Cor. cc. 35, 3; 55, 6; 61, 2; Const. Apost. vii. 34; Lit. S. Jac. c. 13. So Ex. xv. 18, KURIOS<br />
BASILEUWN TWN AIWNWN, as cited by Philo, De Plant. Noe, c. 12, bis (Opp. i. 336, 337, ed.<br />
Mang.), De Mundo, c. 7 (Opp. ii. 608), and read in many cursives MSS.; Joseph. Ant. i. 18, / 7,<br />
DESPOTA PANTOS AIWNOS. Contra, Test. xii. Patr., Ruben, c. 6.]<br />
I prefer on the whole, to take PANTWN as neuter; but much might be said in favor fo the view of<br />
Fritzsche, whose note on this passage is especially valuable. He, with many other scholars, regards it as<br />
masculine: "Qui omnibus pracest hominibus (i.e. qui et Judaeis et gentilibus consulit Deus, der ueber<br />
allen Menschen waltende Gott) sit celebratus perpetuo, amen." (C.F.A. Fritzsche, Pauli ad Rom. Epist.<br />
tom. ii. {1839} p. 272.) He refers for the PANTWN to Rom. x. 12, xi. 32, iii. 29.<br />
We may note here that, while the Apostle says WN OI PATERES, he does not say WN, but EX WN O<br />
CRISTOS. He could not forget the thought which pervades the Epistle, that the Messiah was for all men<br />
alike. Nor does he forget that, while by natural descent, KATA SARKA, Christ was "from the Jews," he<br />
was KATA PNEUMA, and in all that constituted him the Messiah, "from GOD," who anointed him with<br />
the Holy Spirit and with power," who "made him both Lord and Christ," who marked him out as his<br />
"Son" by raising him from the dead (Acts xiii. 33; Rom. i. 4), and setting him at his right hand in the<br />
heavenly places, and giving him to be the head over all things to the Church (Eph. i. 20-22), - that<br />
Church in which there is no distinction of "Greek and Jew," "but Christ is all in all."<br />
That such words as EULOGHTOS, EULOGHMENOS, MAKARIOS, and EPIKATARATOS should<br />
usually stand first in the sentence in expressions of benediction, macarism, and malediction, is natural in<br />
Greek for the same reason that it is natural in English to give the first place to such words as "blessed,"<br />
"happy," "cursed." It makes no difference, as a study of the examples will show, whether the expressions<br />
be optative, as is usually the case with EULOGHTOS, ESTI being understood.<br />
[I believe that EULOGHTOS in doxologies is distinguished from EULOGHMENOS as laudandus from<br />
laudatus; and the doxology in Rom. ix. 5 is therefore strictly a declarative, not an optative one. The most<br />
literal and exact rendering into latin would be something like this:<br />
"Ille qui est super omnia Deus laudandus (est) in aeternum!" Where the verb is expressed with<br />
EULOGHTOS (as very often in the formula EULOGHTOS EI), it is always, I believe, in the indicative.<br />
Here I must express my surprise that Canon Farrar (The Expositor, vol. ix. p. 402; vol. x. p. 238) should<br />
deny that Rom. 1. 25 and 2 Cor. xi. 31 are "doxologies." What is a doxology but a pious ascription of<br />
glory or praise? If OS ESTIN EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS AIWNAS, AMHN, Rom. i. 25, is "not a<br />
doxology at all" on account of the ESTIN, then Matt. vi. 13 (text rec.) and 1 Pet. iv. 11 are, for the same<br />
reason, not doxologies.]<br />
The ellipsis of the substantive verb gives rapidity and force to the expression, indicating a certain glow of<br />
feeling. But in Greek as in English, if the subject is more prominent in the mind of the writer, and is not<br />
overweighted with descriptive appendages, there is nothing to hinder a change of order, but the genius of<br />
the language rather requires it.<br />
The example commonly adduced of this variation in the case of EULOGHTOS is Ps. lxvii. (Heb.<br />
lxviii.) 20, KURIOS O QEOS EULOGHTOS, EULOGHTOS KURIOS HMERAN KAQ HMERAN,<br />
where we find EULOGHTOS in both positions. This peculiarity is the result of a misconstruction and<br />
perhaps also of a false reading (Meyer) of the Hebrew. The example shows that the position of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (14 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
EULOGHTOS after the subject violates no law of the Greek language; but, on account of the repetition<br />
of EULOGHTOS, I do not urge it as a parallel of Rom. ix. 5. (See Dr. Dwight as above, p. 32 f. and cf.<br />
Essay XVII. p. 436 below.) On the other hand, the passage cited by Grimm (see as above, p. 34) from the<br />
Apocryphal Psalms of Solomon, viii. 41, 42, written probably about 48 B.C., seems to me quite to the<br />
purpose: -<br />
AINETOS KURIOS EN TOIS KRIMASIN AUTON EN STOMATI OSIWN, KAI SU<br />
EULOGHMENOS, ISRAHL UPO TON AIWNA.<br />
[See O.F. Fritzsche, Libri apoc. V.T. Gr. (1871), p. 579, Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorum (1869), p. 14.]<br />
Here in the first line, AINETOS precedes, because the predicate is emphatic; but in the second, the<br />
subject. SU, precedes, becuase it is meant to receive emphasis. I perceive no antithesis or studied<br />
chiasmus here. The sentence is no more a "double" or "compound" one than Gen. xiv. 19, 20; 1 Sam.<br />
xxv. 23, 33; Ps. lxxi. (lxxii) 18, 19; Tob. xi. 13, 16 (Sin.); Judith xiii. 18; Orat. Azar.. 2; and I see no<br />
reason why the fact that the clauses are connected by KAI should affect the position of EULOGHTOS<br />
here more than in those passages, - no reason why it should affect it at all.<br />
Another example in which the subject precedes EPIKATARATOS and EULOGHMENOS in an<br />
optative or possibly a predictive sentence is Gen. xxvii. 29, O KATARWMENOS SE EPIKATARATOS,<br />
O DE EULOGWN SE EULOGHMENOS. Here the Greek follows the order of the Hebrew, and the<br />
reason for the unusual position in both I suppose to be the fact that the contrast between O<br />
KATARWMENOS and O EULOGWN naturally brought the subjects into the foreground. It is true that<br />
in Rom. ix. 5, as I understand the passage (though others take a different view), there is not antithesis, as<br />
there is here; but the example shows, that, when for any reason the writer wishes to make the subject<br />
prominent, there is no law of the Greek language which imprisons such a predicate as EULOGHMENOS<br />
at the beginning of the sentence.<br />
Another example, in a declarative sentence, but not the less pertinent on that account (the verb not<br />
being expressed), is Gen. xxvi. 29), according to what I believe to the true reading, KAI NUN SU<br />
EULOGHTOS UPO KURION, where the SU being emphatic, as is shown in the corresponding order in<br />
Hebrew, stands before EULOGHTOS. Contrast Gen. iii. 14; iv. 11; Josh. ix. 29 (al. 23). This reading is<br />
supported by all the uncial MSS. that contain the passage, - namely, I. Cod. Cotton. (cent. v.), III. Alex.<br />
(v.), X. Coislin. (vii.), and Bodl. (viii. or ix.) ed. Tisch. Mon. Sacr. Ined., vol. ii. (1857), p. 234, with at<br />
least twenty-five cursives, and the Alpine edition, also by all the ancient versions except the Aethiopic,<br />
and the Latin, which translates freely, against the KAI NUN EULOGHMENOS SU of the Roman<br />
edition, which has very little authority here.<br />
[The statement above about the reading of the ancient versions in Gen. xxvi. 29 lacks precision. The<br />
versions made already from the Hebrew, of course, do not come under consideration. Of those made<br />
from the Septuagint, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Old Slavic (Cod. Ostrog.) support SU<br />
EULOG.; the Aethiopic, EULOG, SU; the Old Latin has perished; and the Coptic, As I am informed by<br />
Professor T.O. Paine, omits the last clause of the verse.]<br />
Still another case where in a declarative sentence the usual order of subject and predicate is reversed,<br />
both in the Greek and the Hebrew, is 1 Kings ii. 45 (al. 46), KAI O BASILEUS SALWMWN<br />
EULOGHMENOS, the ellipsis being probably ESTAI. Here I suppose the reason for the exceptional<br />
order to be the contrast between Solomon and Shimei (ver. 44).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (15 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
It is a curious fact that MAKARISTOS, a word perfectly analoguos to EULOGHTOS, and which<br />
would naturally stand first in the predicate, happens to follow the subject in the only instances of its use<br />
in the Septuagint which come into comparison here, - namely, Prov. xiv. 21; xvi. 20; xxix. 18. The<br />
reason seems to be the same as in the case we have just considered: there is a constrast of subjects. For<br />
the same reason EPIKATARATOS follows the subject in Wisd. xiv. 8 (comp. ver. 7).<br />
These examples go to confirm Winer's statement in respect to contrasted subjects. And I must here<br />
remark, in respect to certain passages which have been alleged in opposition (see Dr. Dwight as above, p.<br />
36), that I can perceive no contrast of subjects in Gen. xiv. 19, 20; 1 Sam. xxv. 32, 33; or in Ps. lxxxviii.<br />
(lxxxix.) 53, where the doxology appears to have no relation to what precedes, but to be rather the formal<br />
doxology, appended by the compiler, which concludes the Third Book of the Psalms (comp. Ps. xl. (xli.)<br />
14).<br />
It may be said that none of the examples we have been considering is precisely similar to Rom. ix. 5.<br />
But they all illustrate the fact that there is nothing to hinder a Greek writer from changing the ordinary<br />
position of EULOGHTOS and kindred words, when from any cause the subject is naturally more<br />
prominent in his mind. They show the principle of the rule which governs the position may authorize or<br />
require a deviation from the common order. I must further agree with Meyer and Ellicott on Eph. i. 3,<br />
and Fritzsche on Rom. ix. 5, in regarding as not altogether irrelevant such passages as Ps. cxii. (cxiii) 2,<br />
EIH TO ONOMA KURIOU EULOGHMENON, where, though EIH precedes, as a copula it can have no<br />
emphasis; and the position of EULOGHMENON is determined by the fact that the subject rather than the<br />
predicate here naturally presents itself first to the mind. The difference between such a sentence and<br />
EULOGHMENON TO ONOMA KURIOU is like that in English between "May the name of the Lord be<br />
blessed" and "Blessed be the name of the Lord." It is evident, I think, that in the latter sentence the<br />
predicate is made more prominent, and in the former the subject; but if a person does not feel this, it<br />
cannot be proved. Other examples of this kind are Ruth ii. 19; 1 Kings x. 9; 2 Chron. ix. 8; Job i. 21;<br />
Dan. ii. 20; Lit. S. Jac. c. 19; Lit. S. Marci, c. 20, a. (Hammond, pp. 52, 192). In Ps. cxii. (cxiii.) 2 and<br />
Job i. 21, the prominence given to the subject is suggested by what precedes.<br />
I will give one example of the fallacy of merely empirical rules respecting the position of words.<br />
Looking at Young's Analytical Concordance, there are, if i have counted right, one hundred and<br />
thirty-eight instances in which, in sentences like "Blessed be God," "Blessed are the meek," the word<br />
"blessed" precedes the subject in the common English <strong>Bible</strong>. There is no exception to this usage in the<br />
Old Testament or the New. "Here," exclaims the empiric, "is the law of the language. To say 'God be<br />
blessed' is not English." But, if we look into the Apocrypha, we find that our translators have said it, -<br />
namely, in Tobit xi. 17; and so it stands also in the Genevan version, though the Greek reads<br />
EULOGHTOS O QEOS. Why the translators changed the order must be a matter of conjecture. Perhaps<br />
it was to make a contrast with the last clause of the sentence.<br />
There is a homely but important maxim which has been forgotten in many discussions of the passages<br />
before us, that "circumstances alter cases." I have carefully examined all the examples of doxology or<br />
benediction in the New Testament and the Septuagint, and in other ancient writings, as the Liturgies, in<br />
which EULOGHTOS or EULOGHMENOS precedes the subject; and there is not one among them<br />
which, so far as I can judge, justifies the assumption that, because EULOGHTOS precedes the subject<br />
there, it would probably have done so here, had it been the purpose of Paul to introduce a doxology. The<br />
cases in which a doxology begins without a previous enumeration of blessings, but in which the thought<br />
of the blessing prompts an exclamation of praise or thanksgiving, - "Blessed be God, who" or "for he"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (16 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
has done this or that, - are evidently not parallel. All the New Testament doxologies with EULOGHTOS,<br />
and most of those in the Septuagint, are of this character.<br />
[See Luke i. 68; 2 Cor. i. 23; Eph. i. 3; 1 Pet. i. 3. Gen xiv. 20, xxiv. 27; Ex. xviii. 10; Ruth iv. 14; 1 Sam.<br />
xxv. 32, 39; 2 Sam. xviii. 28; 1 Kings i. 48, v. 7, viii. 15, 56; 2 Chron. ii. 12, vi. 4; Ezra vii. 27; Ps. xxvii<br />
(Sept.) 6, xxx. 22, lxv. 20, lxxi. 18, cxxiii. 6, cxliii 1, Dan. iii. 28 Theodot., 95 Sept.]<br />
In these cases, we perceive at once that any order would be strange. The expression of the feeling, which<br />
requires but one word, naturally precedes the mention of the ground of the feeling, which often requires<br />
very many. But there is a difference between EULOGHTOS and EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS AIWNAS.<br />
Where it would be natural for the former to precede the subject, it might be more natural for the latter to<br />
follow. In the example adduced by Dr. Dwight in his criticism of Winer (see as above, pp. 36, 37), it is<br />
evident that EULOGHTOS more naturally stands first in the sentence; at the end, it would be abrupt and<br />
unrhythmical. But I cannot think that a Greek scholar would find hard or unnatural in the sentence if it<br />
read, O DIATHRHSAS TON EAUTOU TOPON AMIANTON EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS AIWNAS,<br />
AMHN.<br />
To make the argument from usage a rational one, examples sufficient in number to form the basis of an<br />
induction should be produced in which, in passages like the present, EULOGHTOS precedes the subject.<br />
Suppose we should read here, EULOGHTOS O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS hEIS TOUS AIWNAS, we<br />
instantly see that the reference of hEIS TOUS AIWNAS becomes, to say the least, ambiguous, the "for<br />
ever" grammatically connecting itself with the phrase "he who is God over all" rather than with<br />
"blessed." If, to avoid this, we read EULOGHTOS hEIS TOUS AIWNAS O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS,<br />
we have a sentence made unnaturally heavy and clumsy by the interposition of hEIS TOUS AIWNAS<br />
before the subject, - a sentence to which I believe no parallel can be produced in the whole range of<br />
extant doxologies. Wherever EUOLOGHTOS precedes, the subject directly follows. These objections to<br />
the transposition appear to me in themselves a sufficient reason why the Apostle should have preferred<br />
the present order. But we must also consider that any other arrangement would have failed to make the<br />
particular conception of God, which the context suggests, as the Ruler over All. If, then, the blessings<br />
mentioned by the Apostle suggested in his mind the thought of God as EULOGHTOS hEIS TOUS<br />
AIWNAS, in view of that overruling Providence which sees the end from the beginning, which brings<br />
good out of evil, and cares for all men alike, I must agree with Winer that "the present position of the<br />
words is not only altogether suitable, but even necessary." (Gram., 7te Aufl., /61. 3. e.p. 513; p. 551<br />
Thayer, p. 690 Moulton.) Olshausen, though he understands the passage as relating to Christ, well says:<br />
"Ruckert's remark that EULOGHTOS when applied to God, must, according to the idiom of the Old and<br />
New Testament, always precede the noun, is of no weight. Kollner rightly observes that the position of<br />
words is altogether [everywhere] not a mechanical thing, but determined, in each particular conjuncture,<br />
by the connexion and by the prupose of the speaker."<br />
[Olfhausen, Bibl. Comm. on the N.T., vol. iv., p. 83, note, Kendrick's trans. The remark cited from<br />
Ruckert belongs to the first edition of his Commentary (1831), Ruckert changed his view of the passage,<br />
and adopted the construction which makes the last part of the verse a doxology to God.]<br />
7. The argument founded on the notion that the Apostle here had in mind Ps. lxvii. (lxviii.) 20, and was<br />
thereby led to describe Christ as QEOS EULOGHTOS hEIS TOUS AIWNAS, is one which, so far as I<br />
know, never occurred to any commentator, ancient or modern, before the ingenious Dr. Lange. Its<br />
weakness has been so fully exposed by Dr. Dwight (as above, p. 33, note) that any further notice of it is<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (17 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
unnecessary.<br />
8. The argument for the reference of the O WN, etc., to Christ, founded on supposed patristic authority,<br />
will be considered under IV., in connection with the history of the interpretation of the passage.<br />
II. I have thus endeavored to show that the construction of the last part of the verse as a doxology suits<br />
the context, and that the principal objections urged against it have little or no weight.<br />
But the construction followed in the common version is also grammatically unobjectionable; and if we<br />
assume that the Apostle and those whom he addressed believed Christ to be God, this construction<br />
likewise suits the context.<br />
How then shall we decide the question? If it was an ambiguous sentence in Plato or Aristotle, our first<br />
step would be to see what light was thrown on the probabilities of the case by the writer's use of language<br />
elsewhere. Looking then at the question from this point of view, I find three reasons for preferring the<br />
construction which refers the last part of the verse to God.<br />
1. The use of the word EULOGHTOS, "blessed," which never occurs in the New Testament in reference<br />
to Christ. If we refer EULOGHTOS to God, our passage accords with the doxologies Rom. i. 25; 2 Cor.<br />
i.3; xi. 31; and Eph. i.3. In Rom. i.25, we have EULOGHTOS hEIS TOUS AIWNAS, as here; and 2 Cor.<br />
xi. 31, "The God and Father (or God, the Father) of the Lord Jesus knows - he who is blessed for ever! -<br />
that I lie not," strongly favors the reference of the EULOGHTOS to God.<br />
[For the way in which the Rabbinical writers are accustomed to introduce doxologies into the middle of a<br />
sentence, see Schoettgen's Horae Hebraicae on 2 Cor. xi. 31.]<br />
It alone seems almost decisive. The word EULOGHTOS is elsewhere in the New Testament used in<br />
doxologies to God (Luke i. 68; 1 Pet. i. 3); and in Mark xiv. 61, O EULOGHTOS, "the Blessed One," is<br />
a special designation of the Supreme Being, in accordance with the language of the later Jews, in whose<br />
writings God is often spoken of as "the Holy One, blessed be He!"<br />
I have already spoken (see above) of the rarity of doxologies to Christ in the writings of Paul, the only<br />
instance being 2 Tim. iv. 18, though here Fritzsche (Ep. ad Rom. ii. 268) and Canon Kennedy (Ely<br />
Lectures, p. 87) refer the KURIOS to God. Doxologies and thanksgivings to God are, on the other hand,<br />
very frequent in his Epistles. Those with EULOGHTOS are given above; for those with DOXA, see<br />
Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27; Gal. i. 5; Eph. iii. 21; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 16. (Comp. DOXAZW, Rom, xv. 6, 9.)<br />
Thanksgivings, with CARIS first, Rom. vi. 17, vii. 25 (Lachm., Tisch., Treg., WH.); 2 Cor. ii. 14;<br />
EUCAPISTW, Rom. i. 8; 1 Cor. i. 4 (14), xiv. 18; Eph. i. 16; Phil. i. 3; Col. i. 3, 12; 1 Thess. i. 2, ii. 13; 2<br />
Thess. i. 3, ii. 13; Philem. 4. Note especially the direction, "giving thanks always for all things in the<br />
name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father," Eph. v. 20; comp. Col. iii. 17, "do all in the<br />
name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." These facts appear to me to<br />
strengthen the presumption founded in the usage of EULOGHTOS, that in this passage of ambiguous<br />
construction the doxological words should be referred to God rather than through Christ.<br />
It may be of some interest to observe that, in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Christians, -<br />
probably the earliest Christian writing that has come down to us outside the New Testament, - there are<br />
eight doxologies to God; namely, cc. 32, 38, 43, 45, 58, 61, 64, 65, and none that clearly belong to<br />
Christ. Two are ambiguous; namely cc. 20, 50, like Heb. xiii. 21, 1 Pet. iv. 11, which a majority of the<br />
best commentaries refer to God as the leading subject; see Dr. Dwight as above, p. 46. The clear cases of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (18 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
doxologies to Christ in the New Testament are Rev. i. 6; 2 Pet. iii. 18 (a book of doubtful genuineness),<br />
and Rev. v. 13, "to Him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb"; comp. vii. 10. But our concern is<br />
chiefly with the usage of Paul.<br />
The argument from the exclusive use of the word EULOGHTOS in reference to God has been<br />
answered by saying that EULOGHTOS also applied to man; and Deut. vii. 14, Ruth ii. 20, and 1 Sam.<br />
xv. 13 are cited as examples of this by Dr. Gifford. But he overlooks the fact that EULOGHTOS is there<br />
used in a totally different sense; namely, "favored" or "blessed" by God, or to pray that he may be so, and<br />
to address a doxology to him, are very different things. [See Essay XVII. p. 437.]<br />
Note further that EULOGHMENOS O ERCOMENOS EN ONOMATI KURION, Ps. cxvii. (cxviii.)<br />
26, applied to Christ in Matt. xxi. 9 and the parallel passages, is not a doxology. Comp. Mark xi. 10;<br />
Luke i. 28, 42.<br />
On the distinction between EULOGHTOS and EULOGHMENOS, see Note B, at the end of this<br />
article.<br />
2. The most striking parallel to O WN EPI PANTWN in the writings of Paul is in Eph. iv. 5, 6, where<br />
Christians are said to have "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all<br />
(O EPI PANTWN), and through all, and in all." Here it is used of the one God, expressly distinguished<br />
from Christ.<br />
3. The Apostle's use of the word QEOS, "God," throughout his Epistles. This word occurs in the<br />
Pauline Epistles, not including that to the Hebrews, more than five hundred times; and there is not a<br />
single clear instance in which it is applied to Christ. Alford, and many other Trinitarian commentators of<br />
the highest character, find no instance except the present. Now, in a case of ambiguous construction,<br />
ought not this uniform usage of the Apostle in respect to one of the most common words to have great<br />
weight? To me it is absolutely decisive.<br />
It may be said, however, that Paul has nowhere said that Christ is not God; and that, even if he has not<br />
happened to give him this title in any other passage, he must have believed him to be God, and therefore<br />
might have so designated him, if occasion required.<br />
[See Dr. Dwight's Essay, as above, pp. 25, 30, 43.]<br />
As to the statement that Paul has nowhere expressly affirmed that Christ was not God, it does not<br />
appear that, supposing him to have believed this, he ever had occasion to say it. It is certainly a<br />
remarkable fact that, whatever may have been the teaching of Paul concerning the nature of Christ and<br />
the mode of his union with God, it appears, so far as we can judge from his writings, to have raised no<br />
question as to whether he was or was not God, jealous as the Jews were of the divine unity and disposed<br />
as the Gentiles were to recognize many gods besides the Supreme.<br />
It is important to observe, in general, that in respect to the application to Christ of the name "God"<br />
there is a very wide difference between the usage not only of Paul, but of all the New Testament writers,<br />
and that which we find in Christian writers of the second and later centuries. There is no clear instance in<br />
which any New Testament writer speaking in his own person, has called Christ God. In John i. 18, the<br />
text is doubtful; and, in 1 John v. 20, the hOUTOS more naturally refers to the leading subject in what<br />
precedes, - namely, TON ALEQINON, - and is so understood by the best grammarians, as Winer and<br />
Buttman, and by many eminent Trinitarian commentators. [See Essay XVIII. Note C. sub fin.] In John i.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (19 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
1, QEOS is the predicate not of the historical Christ, but of the antemundane Logos. The passages which<br />
have been alleged from the writings of Paul will be noticed presently.<br />
[On John xx. 28 and Heb. i, 8,9, which do not belong to the category we are now considering, I simply<br />
refer for the sake of brevity, to Norton's Statement of Reasons, etc., new edition (1856), p. 300 ff., and<br />
the note of E.A., or to the note of Lucke on the former passage, and of Professor Stuart on the latter. On 2<br />
Peter i. 1, see Huther.]<br />
But it may be said that, even if there is not other passage in which Paul has called Christ God, there are<br />
many in which the works and attributes of God are ascribed to him, and in which he is recognized as the<br />
object of divine worship; so that we ought to find no difficulty in supposing that he is here declared to be<br />
"God blessed for ever." It may be said in reply, that the passages referred do not authorize the inference<br />
which has been drawn from them; and that, if they are regarded as doing so, the unity of God would seem<br />
to be infringed. A discussion of this subject would lead us out of the field of exegesis into the tangled<br />
thicket of dogmatic theology: we should have to consider the questions of consubstantiality, eternal<br />
generation, the hypostatic union, and the kenosis. Such a discussion would here be out of place. But it is<br />
certainly proper to look at the passages where Paul has used the clearest and strongest language<br />
concerning the dignity of Christ and his relation to the Father, and ask ourselves whether they allow us to<br />
regard it as probable that he has here spoken of him as "God over all, blessed for ever," or even as "over<br />
all, God blessed for ever."<br />
In the Epistles which purport to be written by Paul there is only one passage beside the present that in<br />
which any considerable number of respectable scholars now suppose that he has actually called Christ<br />
God; namely Titus ii. 13. Here the new Revised Version, in the text, makes him speak of "our great God<br />
and Saviour Jesus Christ." But the uncertainty of this translation is indicated by the marginal rendering,<br />
"the great God and our Saviour"; and, in another paper, I have stated my reasons for believing the latter<br />
construction was preferred by a large majority of the American Company of Revisers, and it has the<br />
support of many other eminent Trinitarian scholars. Surely, so doubtful a passage cannot serve to render<br />
it probable that Christ is called "God blessed for ever" in Rom. ix. 5.<br />
Acts xx. 28 has also been cited, where, according to the textus receptus, Paul, in his address to the<br />
Ephesian elders, is represented as speaking of "the Church of God, which he purchased with his own<br />
blood." This reading is adopted by the English Revisers in their text, and also by Scrivener, Alford, and<br />
Westcott and Hort; but its doubtfulness indicated by the marginal note against the word "God," in which<br />
the Revisers say, "Many ancient authorities read *the Lord*." Here, again, the marginal reading is<br />
preferred by the American Revisers, as also by Lachmann, Tregelles, Green, Davidson, and Tischendorf.<br />
I have given my reasons for beleiving this is the true reading in an article in the Bibliotheca Sacra for<br />
April, 1876 [see Essay XV.]. And, although Westcott and Hort adopt the reading *God,* Dr. hort well<br />
remarks that "the supposition that by the precise designation TOU QEOU, standing alone as it does here,<br />
with the article and without any adjunct, St. Paul (or St. Luke) meant Christ is unsupported by any<br />
analogies of language." Calling attention to the fact that the true text has the remarkable form, DIA TOU<br />
AIMATOS TOU IDIOU, he would understand the passage, "on the supposition that the text is<br />
incorrupt," as speaking of the Church of God which he purchased "'through the blood of his own,' i.e., as<br />
being his Son's.""This conception," he remarks, "of the death of Christ as a price paid by the Father is in<br />
strict accordance with St. Paul's own language elsewhere (Rom. v. 8; viii. 32). It finds related expression<br />
in the Apostolic Constitutions in language evidently founded on this passage (ii. 57. 13; 61. 4; vii. 26. 1;<br />
viii. [11. 2] 12.18; 41. 4)." On the supposition that QEOU is the true reading, the passage has been<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (20 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
understood in a similar manner not merely by Socinian interpreters, as Wolzogen and Enjedinus, but by<br />
Erasmus (in his Paraphrase), Pellican*, Limborch (though he prefers the reading KURION), Milton (De<br />
Doctrina Christiana, Pars 1. c. v. p. 86, or Eng. trans. p. 148 f.), Lenfant and Beausobre as an alternative<br />
interpretation (Le Nouveau Test., note in loc.), Doederlein (Inst. Theol. Christ., ed. 6ta, 1797, / 105, Obs.<br />
4, p. 387), Van der Palm (note in his Dutch translation), Granville Penn (The Book of the New Covenant,<br />
London, 1836, and Annotations, 1837, p. 315), and Mr. Darby (Trans. of the N.T., 2nd ed. [1872]).<br />
[* "Erga congregationem dei quae vobis oscitanter curanda non est, ut quam deus adeo charam habuit, ut<br />
unigenite sui sanguine eam paraverit." Comm. in loc., Tiguri, 1537, fol.]<br />
Dr. Hort, however, is disposed to conjecture that UIOU dropped out after TOUIDIOU "at some very<br />
early transcription, affecting all existing documents." Granville Penn had before made the same<br />
suggestion. It is obvious that no argument in support of any particular construction of Rom. ix. 5 can be<br />
prudently drawn from such a passage as this.<br />
A few other passages, in which some scholars still suppose that the name God is given to Christ by<br />
Paul, have been examined in the paper on Titus ii. 13 (see Essay XVIII notes to pp. 440, 447; also Dr.<br />
Dwight, as above, p. 44).<br />
Let us now look at the passages in which Paul has used the most exalted language respecting the person<br />
and dignity of Christ, and ask ourselves how far they afford a presumption that he might here describe<br />
him as "God blessed for ever."<br />
The passage in this Epistle most similar to the present is ch. i. vv. 3, 4, where Christ is said to be " born<br />
of the seed of David as to the flesh," but "declared to be the Son of God with power as to the spirit of<br />
holiness by his resurrection from the dead," or, more exactly, "by the resurrection of the dead." Here the<br />
antithesis to KATA SARKA is supplied. It is not, however, KATA THN QESTHTA, or KATA QEIAN<br />
FUSIN but KATA PNEUMA AGIWSUNHS, "as to his holy spirit,"- his higher spiritual nature,<br />
distinguished especially by the characteristic of holiness. There are many nice and difficult questions<br />
connected with this passage which need not be here discussed; I will only say that I see no ground for<br />
finding in it a presumption that the Apostle would designate Christ as "God blessed for ever." Some,<br />
however, suppose that the title "Son of God" is essentially equivalent to QEOS, and that the resurrection<br />
of Christ as an act of his own divine power is adduced here as a proof of his deity. I do not find the first<br />
supposition supported by the use of the term in the Old Testament or in the New (see John x. 36); and, as<br />
to the second, it may be enough to say that it contradicts the uniform representation of the Apostle Paul<br />
on the subject, who everywhere refers his resurrection to the power of "God the Father." See Gal. i. 1;<br />
Eph. i. 19,20; Rom. iv. 24, vi. 4; viii 11, x.9; 1 Cor. vi. 14, xv. 15; 2 Cor. iv. 14, xiii. 4; 1 Thess. i 10;<br />
Acts xiii. 30-37, xvii. 31.<br />
Another striking passage is Phil. ii. 6-11, where the Apostle says that Christ, "existing in the form of<br />
God, counted not the being on an equality with God* a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking<br />
the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men."<br />
[Or, as the Rev. Dr. B. H. Kennedy, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge, translates<br />
it, "the being like God"; compare Whitby's note on the use of ISA. See Kennedy's Occasional Sermons<br />
preached before the University of Cambridge, London, 1877, p. 62, or Ely Lectures (1882), p. 17 f.]<br />
Without entering into any detailed discussion of this passage, it may be enough to remark that being in<br />
the form of God, as Paul uses the expression here, is a very different thing from being God; that the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (21 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
MORFH cannot denote the nature or essence of Christ, because it is something of which he is<br />
represented as emptying or divesting himself. The same is true of the TO EINAI ISA QEW, "the being<br />
on an equality with God," or "like God," which is spoken of as something which he was not eager to<br />
seize, according to one way of understanding hARPAGMON, or not eager to retain, according to another<br />
interpretation.<br />
[See Grimm's Lexicon Novi Testamenti, ed. 2da (1879), s.v. MORFH, for one view; for another, Weiss's<br />
Biblische Theol. des N.T. /103 c,p. 432 ff., 3te Aufl. (1880)]<br />
The Apostle goes on to say that, on account of this self-abnegation and his obedience even unto death,<br />
"GOD highly exalted him and gave him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus<br />
every knee should bow . . . and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of<br />
God the Father." I cannot think that this passage, distinguishing Christ as it does so clearly from God,<br />
and representing his present exaltation as a reward bestowed upon him by God, renders it at all likely that<br />
Paul would call him " God blessed for ever."<br />
We find a still more remarkable passage in the Epistle to the Colossians, I i. 15-20, where it is affirmed<br />
concerning the Son that "he is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him<br />
were all things created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or<br />
powers; all things have been created through him and unto him; and he is before all things, and in him all<br />
things consist [or hold together]. And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the<br />
first-born from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence [more literally, become first].<br />
For it was the good pleasure [of the Father] that in him should all the fulness dwell; and through him to<br />
reconcile all things unto himself." In this passage, and in Col. ii. 9, 10, where the Apostle says of Christ<br />
"in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in him ye are made full, who is the head of<br />
all principality and power," we find, I believe, the strongest language which Paul has anywhere used<br />
concerning Christ's position in the universe and his relation to the Church. I waive all question of the<br />
genuineness of the Epistle. Does, then, the language here employed render it probable that Paul, would,<br />
on occasion, designate Christ as "over all, God blessed for ever"?<br />
Here, certainly, if anywhere, we might expect that he would call him God; but he has not only not done<br />
so, but has carefully distinguished him from the being for whom he seems to reserve that name. He does<br />
not call him God, but "the image of the invisible God" (Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4, and 1 Cor. ix. 7). His agency<br />
in the work of creation is also restricted and made secondary by the use of the prepositions EN and DIA,<br />
clearly indicating that the conception in the mind of the Apostle is the same which appears in the Epistle<br />
to the Hebrews, i. 3; that he is not the primary source of the power exerted in creation, but the being<br />
"through whom God made the worlds, "DI OU APOIHSEN TOUS AIWNAS; comp. also 1 Cor. viii. 6,<br />
Eph. iii. 9 (though here DIA IHSOU CRISTOU is not genuine), and the well-known language of Philo<br />
concerning the Logos.<br />
[Philo calls the Logos the "Son of God," "the eldest son," "the first-begotten," and his representation of<br />
his agency in creation is very similar to that which Paul here attributes to "the Son of God's love" (ver.<br />
13). He describes the Logos as the "image of God, through whom the world was framed," EIKWN<br />
QEOU, DI OU, K.T.L. (De Monarch, ii. 5, Opp. ii. 225 ed. Mangey); "the instrument, through which [or<br />
whom] the world was built." ORGANON DI OU K.T.L. (De Cherub. c. 35, Opp. i. 162, where note<br />
Philo's distinction between TO UF OU, TO EX OU, TO DI OU, and TI DI O); "the shadow of God,<br />
using whom as an instrument he made the world" (Legg. Alleg. iii. 31, Opp. i. 106). In two or three<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (22 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
passages he exceptionally applies the term QEOS to the Logos, professedly using it in a lower sense (EN<br />
KATA CRHSEI). and making a distinction between QEOS, without the article, "a divine being," and hO<br />
QEOS, "the Divine Being." (See De Somn. i. 38, Opp. i. 655, and comp. Legg. Alleg. iii. 73, Opp. i. 128,<br />
1. 43.) In a fragment preserved by Eusebius (Praep. Evang. vii. 13, or Philonis Opp. ii. 625) he names the<br />
Logos hO DEUTEROS QEOS, "the second [or inferior] God," distinguished from "the Most High and<br />
Father of the universe," "the God who is before [or above, PRO] the Logos." So he applies the term to<br />
Moses (comp. Ex. vii. 1), and says that it may be used of one who "procures good (TO AGAQON) for<br />
others," and is "wise." De Mut. Nom. c. 22, Opp. i. 597, 598; see also De Mos. i. 28, Opp. ii. 105<br />
[misprinted 108], where Moses is called OLOU TOU EQNOUS QEOS KAI BASILEUS; Quad det. pot.<br />
insid. c. 44, Opp. i. 222; De Migr. Abr. c. 15, Opp. i. 449; Legg. Alleg. i. 13, Opp. i. 151; Quod omn.<br />
prob. liber., c. 7. Opp. ii. 452; De Decem. Orac., c. 23, Opp. ii. 201. But, though he speaks of the Logos<br />
in language as exalted as Paul uses concerning the Son, he would never have dreamed of calling him O<br />
WN EPI PANTWN QEOS EIS<br />
TOUS AIWNAS.]<br />
Neither Paul or any other New Testament writer uses the preposition UPO, "by," in speaking of the<br />
agency of the Son or Logos in creation. The designation "first-born of all creation" seems also a very<br />
strange one to be applied to Christ conceived of as God. Some of the most orthodox Fathers of the fourth<br />
and fifth centuries, as Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and<br />
Augustine, were so perplexed by it that they understood the Apostle to be speaking here of the new<br />
spiritual creation*; and the passage has been explained as relating to this by some eminent modern<br />
interpreters, as Grotius, Wetstein, Ernesti, Noesselt, Heinrichs, Scleiermacher, Baumgarten-Crusius,<br />
Norton, - though, I believe, erroneously.<br />
[See Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 214 ff. {p. 148 ff. 7th ed.}]<br />
But I shall not here discuss the meaning of PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS. I would only call<br />
attention to the way in which the Apostle speaks of the good pleasure of God, the Father, as the source of<br />
Christ's fulness of gifts and powers. "For it was the good pleasure [of God] that in him should all the<br />
fulness dwell" (ver. 19).<br />
[hO QEOS or hO PATHR must be supplied as the subject of EUDOKHSEN; comp. ver. 20, and<br />
Lightfoot's note. So Meyer, De Wette, Alford, Eadie, and the great majority of expositors.]<br />
This declaration explains also Col. ii. 9; comp. Eph. iii. 19, iv. 13, John i. 16. See also John xiv. 10, iii.<br />
34 (?).<br />
It thus appears, I think, first, that there is no satisfactory evidence that Paul has elsewhere called Christ<br />
GOD; and, secondly, that in the passages in which he speaks of his dignity and power in the most exalted<br />
language he not only seems studiously to avoid giving him this appellation, but represents him as<br />
deriving his dignity and power from the being to whom, in distinction from Christ, he everywhere gives<br />
that name, - the "one God, the Father."<br />
We have considered the strongest passages which have been adduced to justify the supposition that<br />
Paul might apply this title to Christ. I have already intimated that they do not seem to me to authorize this<br />
supposition. But, admitting for the sake of argument that we must infer from these and other passages<br />
that he really held the doctrine of the consubstantiality and co-eternity of the Son with the Father, and<br />
that on this account he would have been justified in calling him God, this does not remove the great<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (23 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
probability that he has so designated him, incidentally, in Rom. ix. 5, in opposition to a usage of the term<br />
which pervades all his writings. The question still forces itself upon us, What was the ground of this<br />
usage ? Why has he else-where avoided giving him this title. In answering this question here, wishing to<br />
avoid as far as possible all dogmatic discussion and to confine myself to exegetical considerations, I shall<br />
not transgress the limits of recognized orthodoxy. The doctrine of the subordination of the Son to the<br />
Father, in his divine as well as his human nature, has been held by a very large number, and, if I mistake<br />
not, by a majority of professed believers in the deity of Christ. The fourth and last Division or "Section"<br />
of Bishop Bull's famous Defensio Fidei Nicaenae is entitled De Subardina~ tione Filii ad Patrem, ut ad<br />
sui originem ac principium. He maintains and proves that the Fathers who lived before and many, at<br />
least, of those who lived after the Council of Nice unequivocally acknowledged this subordination<br />
(though the post-Nicene writers were more guarded in their language), and that on this account, while<br />
calling the Son QEOS and QEOS EK QEOU, as begotten from the substance of the Father, they were<br />
accustomed to reserve such titles as O QEOS used absolutely, EIS QEOS and O EPI PANTWN or EPI<br />
PASI QEOS for the Father alone. The Father alone was "uncaused," "unoriginated," "the fountain of<br />
deity" to the Son and Spirit.<br />
["The ancient doctors of the church," as Bishop Pearson remarks, "have no stuck to call the Father 'the<br />
origin, the cause, the author, the root, the fountain, and the head of the Son,' or the whole Divinity."<br />
Exposition of the Creed, chap. i. p. 38, Nichol's ed.]<br />
Now the word QEOS was often used by the Fathers of the second and later centuries not as a proper, but<br />
as a common name; angels, and even Christians, especially in their beatified state, might be and were<br />
called QEOI. It had also a metaphorical and rhetorical use, quite foreign from the style of the New<br />
Testament.<br />
[For proof and illustration of what has been stated, see Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, 2d ed., vol<br />
iii. Addit. Note D, "On the Use of the Words QEOS and deus"; Statement of Reasons, 12th ed., pp. 113,<br />
114 note , 120 note, 300 f., 314, 319 f., 365 note, 468; Sandius, Intepretationed Paradoxae (1669), p. 227<br />
ff.; Whitston's Primitive Christianity Reviv'd, vol. iv. p. 100 ff.; LeClerc (Clericus), Ars Critica, Pars. II<br />
Sect. 1. c. 111., vol. i. p. 145 ff., 6th ed., 1778; Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement od<br />
Alexandria, by John [Kaye], Bp. of Lincoln, 1835, p. 253; Bretschneider, Handbuch der Dogmatik, 4te<br />
Aufl. (1838), i. 596, note 333.]<br />
All this made it easy and natural, especially for the Fathers who were converts from heathenism, to apply<br />
the title in a relative, not absolute, sense to the Son, notwithstanding the pre-eminence which they<br />
ascribed to the Father. We find traces of this loose use of the name in Philo, as I have observed (see p.<br />
369, note). But there is no trace of such a use in the writings of Paul. The points, then, which I would<br />
make are these : that, even granting that he believed in the deity of the Son as set forth in the Nicene<br />
Creed, he yet held the doctrine of the subordination of the Son so strongly in connection with it that we<br />
cannot wonder if on this account he reserved the title QEOS<br />
exclusively for the Father; and that the way in which he has expressed this subordination, and the way in<br />
which he has used this title, render it incredible that he should in this single instance (Rom. ix. 5) have<br />
suddenly transferred it to Christ, with the addition of another designation, "blessed for ever," elsewhere<br />
used by him of the Father alone.<br />
I do not see how any one can read the Epistles of Paul without perceiving that, in speaking of the<br />
objects of Christian faith, he constantly uses QEOS as a proper name, as the designation of the Father in<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (24 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
distinction from Christ. See, for example, Rom. i. 1-3, "the gospel of God, which he had<br />
before promised . . . concerning his Son"; ver. 7, "God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ"; ver. 8, "I<br />
thank my God, through Jesus Christ"; ver. 9, "God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel<br />
of his Son"; and so all through the Epistle; 2 Cor. v. i8, 19, "All things are of God, who reconciled us to<br />
himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ<br />
reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses"; Eph, v. 20, "giving thanks<br />
always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God, even the Father"; though among the<br />
heathen there are gods many and lords many (1 Cor. viii. 6), "to us there is one God, the Father, from<br />
whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we<br />
through him"; Eph. iv. 5, 6, There is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is<br />
over all, and through all, and in you all"; "For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men,<br />
[himself] a man, Christ Jesus"; v. 21, "I charge thee before God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels";<br />
Titus iii. 4-6, "God our Saviour" poured out upon us the Holy Spirit "through Jesus Christ our Saviour."<br />
Observe how strongly the subordination of the Son is expressed in passages where his dignity and<br />
lordship are described in the loftiest strain: Eph. i. 16-23, "- in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus<br />
Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of<br />
him;...that ye may know what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according<br />
to the working of the strength of his might which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the<br />
dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule, and authority, and<br />
power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to<br />
come: And he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to<br />
the Church"; 1 Cor. iii. 22, 23, "all things are yours and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's"; xi. 3, "the<br />
head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God"; xv.<br />
24, "Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father"; vv. 27, 28,<br />
"But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that He is excepted who did subject all<br />
things unto him. And when all things have been subjected unto him, THEN shall the Son also himself be<br />
subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all."<br />
Can we believe that he who has throughout his writings placed Christ in such a relation of subordination<br />
to the Father, and has habitually used the name GOD as the peculiar designation of the Father in<br />
distinction from Christ, who also calls the Father the one God, the only wise God (Rom. xvi. 27), the<br />
only God (1 Tim. i. 17), and the God of Christ, has here, in opposition to the usage elsewhere uniform of<br />
a word occurring five hundred times, suddenly designated Christ as "over all, God blessed for ever"? At<br />
least, should not the great improbability of this turn the scale, in a passage of doubtful construction?<br />
4. There is another consideration which seems to me to render it very improbable that Paul has here<br />
deviated from his habitual restriction of the name God to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."<br />
If he has spoken of Christ in this passage as "God blessed for ever," he has done it obiter, as if those<br />
whom he addressed were familiar with such a conception and designation of him. But can this have been<br />
the case with the Roman Church at so early a stage in the development of Christian doctrine?<br />
It is the view of many Trinitarians that the doctrine that Christ is God was not explicitly taught in the<br />
early preaching of the Apostles. We find no trace of such teaching in the discourses of Peter or of<br />
Stephen in the Book of Acts, and none in those of the Apostle Paul (the passage Acts xx. 28 has already<br />
been examined), as we find none in the Synoptic Gospels, which represent the instruction concerning<br />
Christ given by the Apostles and their companions to their converts.<br />
["There is nothing in St. Peter's sermon upon the Pentecost which would not, in all probability, have been<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (25 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
acknowledged by every Ebionite Christian down to the time when they finally disappear from history.<br />
Yet upon such a statement of doctrine, miserably insufficient as all orthodox would now call it, three<br />
thousand Jews and proselytes were, without delay, admitted to the Sacrament of Baptism....We must<br />
carefully bear in mind what was St. Peter's object. It was to convince the Jews that Jesus Christ was the<br />
great appointed Teacher whom God had sent, - the true spiritual Prince whom they were to obey. The<br />
Apostle felt that, if they acknowledged these great truths, everything else would follow in due time." T.<br />
W. Mossman, B.A., Rector of Torrington. A history of the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ, etc., London<br />
1873, pp. 192, 190. (Gess naively asks, "Wie durfte man von dem galilaischen Fischer, welcher der<br />
Wortfuhrer der junger Gemeinde war, eine befriedigende Dogmatik erwarten?" Christi Person und Werk,<br />
II i. 13. See also Dr. John Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, Book III. Chap. V. (vol. ii. p.<br />
151 ff, 5th ed.).]<br />
Nor does it appear in the so called Apostles' Creed. When we consider further the fact already mentioned<br />
above (see p. 364), that Christ is nowhere called God in any unambiguous passage by any writer of the<br />
New Testament and that it is nowhere recorded that he ever claimed this title, we cannot reasonably<br />
regard this abstinence from the use of the term as accidental.<br />
[I speak of the historical Christ, which is the subject of Rom. ix. 5. The unique prologue of John's<br />
Gospel, in which the Logos or Word is once called QEOS (i. 1, comp. v.18 in the text of Tregelles and<br />
Westcott and Hort), cannot reasonably be regarded as parallel to the present passage. This is candidly<br />
admitted by Schultz, who has most elaborately defended the construction which refers the last part of<br />
Rom. ix. 5 to Christ. He says, "Nach unseren Pramissen versteht sich von selbst, das wir nicht etwa<br />
daraus, das der LOGOS QEOS gennant wird, Beweise ziehen wollen fur die Zulassigkeit des Namens<br />
QEOS fur den verklarten Jesus." (Jahrbucker fur deutsche Theol., 1868, xiii. 491.) I of course do not<br />
enter here into the difficult questions as to what was precisely John's conception of the Logos, and in<br />
what sense he says "the Word became flesh," language which no one understands literally. We must<br />
consider also the late date of the Gospel of John as compared with the Epistle to the Romans.]<br />
In reference to the early apostolic preaching in particular, many of the Christian Fathers, and later<br />
Trinitarian writers, have recognized a prudent reserve in the communication of a doctrine concerning<br />
Christ and the application of a title to him which would have provoked vehement opposition on the part<br />
of the unbelieving Jews, which would have been particularly liable to be misunderstood by the Gentiles,<br />
and must have required much careful explanation to reconcile it with the unity of God and the humanity<br />
of Christ.<br />
[For superabundant quotations from the Christian Fathers confirming the statement made above,<br />
notwithstanding a few mistakes, see Priestley's History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ, Book<br />
III. Chap. IV.-VII. (vol. p. 86 ff., ed. of 1786). Or see Chrysostom's Homilies on the Acts, passim. How<br />
this doctrine would have struck a Jew may be seen from Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho.]<br />
We nowhere find either in the Acts or the Epistles any trace of the controversy and questionings which<br />
the direct announcement of such a doctrine must have excited. The one aim of the early apostolic<br />
preaching was to convince first the Jews, and then the Gentiles, that Jesus, whose life and teaching were<br />
so wonderful, whom God had raised from the dead, was the Messiah, exalted by God to be a Prince and a<br />
Saviour.<br />
To acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, or Jesus as Lord, which is essentially the same thing, was the one<br />
fundamental article of the Christian faith.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (26 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
[See Neander, History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles, Book I.<br />
Chap. II. Comp. Matt. xvi. 16; Mark viii. 29; Luke ix. 20; John vi. 9, xx. 31; Acts ii. 36, v. 42, viii. 5, ix.<br />
20, 22, xvii. 3, xviii. 5, 28; Rom. x. 9, nota bene; 1 Cor. xii. 3; 2 Cor. iv. 5; 1 John iv. 2, v. 1.]<br />
Much, indeed, was involved in this confession; but it is now, I suppose, fully established and generally<br />
admitted that the Jews in the time of Christ had no expectation that the coming Messiah would be an<br />
incarnation of Jehovah, and no acquaintance with the mystery of the Trinity.<br />
[See the art. Messias, by Oehler, in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie der prot. Theol. und Kirsche, ix. 437 ff.,<br />
or in the new ed., vol. ix. (1881), p. 666 ff.; Ferd. Weber, System der altsynagogalen palastin. Theol.<br />
(1880), p. 146 ff., 339ff. Passages from the Rabbinical writings are sometimes adduced by commentators<br />
on Rom. ix. 5 in which the name Jehovah, or Jehovah our righteousness, is said to be given to the<br />
Messiah. but the irrelevance of these citations has been repeatedly exposed; see Fritzsche, Ep. ad Rom. ii.<br />
269, note; Weber, ut supra, p. 342. Weber says, "Und wenn Baba bathra 75b gesagt wird, der Messias<br />
werde nach dem Namen Jehova's () gennant, so stehen an dieser Stelle in gleicher Beziehung die<br />
Gerechten und Jerusalem." Comp. Jer. xxiii. 6 with xxxiii. 16, and on this passsage see Oehler, Theol.<br />
des A.T. ii. 263; Rhiem, Messianic Prophecy, p. 262, note 36; Schultz, Alttest. Theol. 2te Aufl. (1878), p.<br />
740. On Isa. ix. 6, see Schultz, p. 727; Hitzig, Vorlesungen uber bibl. Theol., u.s.w. (1880), p. 206 ff.,<br />
and the commentators, as Gesenius, Knobel, Ewald, Cheyne. That the Memra da Yeya or "Word of<br />
Jehovah" is not identified in the Targums with the Messiah is certain. See Smith's Dict. of the <strong>Bible</strong>, art.<br />
"Word," vol. iv. p. 3557b, Am. ed., and Weber, ut supra, p. 339. It is time that the book Zohar, which<br />
figures so conspicuously in Schoettgen, Bertholdt, and other writers, but is now proved to be a<br />
pseudograph of the thirteenth century, should cease to be quoted as an authority for Jewish opinions in<br />
the time of Christ. See Ginsburg, The Kabbala (London, 1865). p. 78 ff., espec.p. 90 ff. One who is<br />
disposed to rely on Hengstenberg's Christology in relation to this subject should compare the review of it<br />
by Dr. Noyes in the Christian Examiner (Boston) for January, May, and July, 1836.]<br />
Such being the state of the case, it seems to me that, on the supposition that the Apostles were fully<br />
enlightened in regard to the mystery of the Trinity and the hypostatic union, the only tenable ground to<br />
be taken is that they wisely left these doctrines to develop themselves gradually in "the Christian<br />
consciousness." As Dr. Pye Smith remarks, "The whole revelation of the Christian system was given by<br />
an advancing process. It cannot therefore, be a matter of surprise that the doctrine concerning the person<br />
of the Messiah was developed gradually, and that its clear manifestation is to be found in the latest<br />
written books of the New Testament." (Ut Supra, p. 155.) Canon Westcott observes, "The study of the<br />
Synoptics, of the Apocalypse, and of the Gospel of John in succession enables us to see under what<br />
human conditions the full majesty of Christ was perceived and declared, not all at once, but step by step,<br />
and by the help of the old prophetic teaching." (Introd. to the Gospel of John in the so-called "Speaker's<br />
Commentary," p. lxxxvii.) Canon Kennedy even says: "I do not think that any apostle, John or Peter or<br />
Paul, was so taught the full MUSTHERION QEOTHTOS as that they were prepared to formulate the<br />
decrees of Nicaea and Constantinople, which after three hundred years and more, of the Trinitarian<br />
exegesis, which was completed after six hundred years or more. But they, with the other evangelists,<br />
guided by the Holy Spirit, furnished the materials from which those doctrines were developed." (Ely<br />
Lectures, p. xix.)<br />
Taking all the facts into consideration, is it probable that at this early day the Jewish Christians and<br />
Gentile believers at Rome, who needed so much instruction in the very elements of Christianity, were<br />
already so fully initiated into the mysterious doctrine of the deity of Christ that the application of the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (27 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
term God to him, found in no Christian writing that we know of till long after the date of this Epistle,<br />
could have been familiar to them? Accustomed to the representation of him as being distinct from God,<br />
would they not have been startled and amazed beyond measure by finding him described as "over all,<br />
God blessed for ever"? But if so, if this was a doctrine and a use of language with which they not<br />
familiar, it is to me wholly incredible that the Apostle should have introduced it abruptly in this<br />
incidental manner, and have left it without remark or explanation.<br />
Dr. Hermann Schultz, whose elaborate dissertation on Rom. ix.5 has already been referred to. admits that<br />
if EPI PANTWN QEOS was used here to designate the LOGOS, the eternal Son of God,-in other words,<br />
if QEOS was used here in reference to the nature of Christ,-"the strict monotheism of Paul would<br />
certainly require an intimation that the honor due to God alone was not trenched upon" (beeintrachtigt).<br />
[Schultz, Jahrbucker f. deutsche Theol., 1868, xiii. 484]<br />
The expression he maintains, describes "the dignity conferred on him by God" : the QEOS here is<br />
essentially equivalent to KURIOS. "The predicate QEOS must be perfectly covered by the subject<br />
CRISTOS, i.e. the Messianic human King of Israel."<br />
[This view of Schultz appears to be that of Hofmann (Der Schriftbeweis, 2te Aufl, 1857 i 143) and Weiss<br />
(Bibl. Theol. d. N.T., 3te Aufl. 1880, p. 283, note 5), as it was formerly of Ritschl (Die Entstchung der<br />
Alkath Kirche, 2te Aufl., 1857, p. 79 f.). This is the way, also, in which the old Socinian commentators<br />
understood the passage, as Socinus, Crell, Schlichting, Wolzogen. They did not hesitate to give the name<br />
"God" to Christ any more than the ancient Arians did, understanding it in a lower sense, and referring<br />
especially in justification of this to John x. 34-36, and various passages of the Old Testament. So it<br />
appears to have been taken by some of the Ante-Nicene, who referred the last clause of the verse to<br />
Christ, as probably by Novatian, who quotes the passage twice as proof that Christ is Deus (De Regula<br />
Fidei or De Trin. cc. 13, 30), but who says, "Dominus et Deus constitutus esse reperitur" (c. 20); "hoc<br />
ipsum a Patre proprio consecutus, ut omnium et Deus esset et Dominus esset" (c. 22); "omnium Deus,<br />
quoniam omnibus illum Deus Pater praeposuit quem genuit" (c. 31). So Hippolytus (Cont. Noet. c. 6)<br />
applies the verse to Christ, and justifies the language by quoting Christ's declaration, "All things have<br />
been delivered to me by the Father." He cites other passages in the same connection, and says, "If then all<br />
things have been subjected unto him with the exception of him who subjected them, he rules over all, but<br />
the Father rules over him."]<br />
But these concessions of Schultz seem to me fatal to his construction of the passage. If QEOS, used in<br />
the metaphysical sense, describing the nature of Christ, would confessedly need explanation, to guard<br />
against an apparent infringement of the divine unity, would not Paul's readers need to be cautioned<br />
against taking it in this sense, - the sense which it has everywhere else in his writings? Again, if Paul by<br />
QEOS here meant only KURIOS, why did he not say KURIOS, this being his constant designation of the<br />
glorified Christ (comp. Phil. ii. 9-11)?<br />
This leads me to notice further the important passage, 1 Cor. viii. 6, already quoted (see above, p. 373). It<br />
has often been said that the mention here of the Father as the "one God" of Christians no more excludes<br />
Christ from being God and from receiving this name.<br />
[See, e.g., Chrys. De incomprehens. Dei nat. Hom. v. c. I, Opp. i. 48I f. (509), ed. Montf.: EI GAP TO<br />
ENA LEGESQAI QEON TON PATERA EKBALLEI TON UION THS QEOTHTOS, KAI, TO ENA<br />
LEGESQAI KURION TON UION EKBALLEI TON PATERA THS KURIOTHTOS.]<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (28 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
But, in making this statement, some important considerations are overlooked. In the first place, the title<br />
"god" is unquestionably of far higher dignity than the title "lord"; and because godship includes lordship,<br />
with all the titles that belong to it, it by no means follows that lordship includes godship, and has a right<br />
to its titles; in other words, that one who is properly called a lord (KURIOS), as having servants or<br />
subjects or possessions, may therefore be properly called a god (QEOS). In the second place, the lordship<br />
of Christ is everywhere represented not as belonging to him by nature, but as conferred upon him by the<br />
one God and Father of all. This lordship is frequently denoted by the figurative expression, "sitting on the<br />
right hand of God."<br />
[See Knapp, De Jesu Christo ad dextram Dei sedente, in his Scripta varii Argumenti, ed, 2da (1823), i.<br />
39-76.]<br />
The expression is borrowed from Ps. cx., so often cited in the New Testament as applicable to Christ, and<br />
particularly by Peter in his discourse on the day of Pentecost, who after quoting the words, "The Lord<br />
[Jehovah] said unto my Lord [Adoni], 'Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool,'"<br />
goes on to say, "Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God hath MADE him both Lord<br />
and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts ii. 35, 36). It is he to whom "all authority was given in<br />
heaven and on earth," whom "God exaltedwith his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour"; "the God of<br />
our Lord Jesus Christ...put all things in subjection under his feet and gave him to be head over all things<br />
to the Church"; "gave unto him the name which is above every name,...that every tongue should confess<br />
that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father." Such being Paul's conception of the relation of<br />
Christ to God, is it not the plain meaning of the passage that, while the heathen worship and serve many<br />
beings whom they call "gods" and "lords," to Christians there is but one God, the Father, - one being to<br />
whom they give that name, "from whom are all things" and who is the object of supreme worship; and<br />
one being "through whom are all things," through whom especially flow our spiritual blessings, whom<br />
"God hath made both Lord and Christ," and whom Christians therefore habitually call "the Lord"? The<br />
fact that this appellation of Christ, under such circumstances, does not debar the Supreme Being from<br />
receiving the name "Lord" obviously affords no countenance to the notion that Paul would not hesitate to<br />
give to Christ the name "God." As a matter of fact, "the Lord" is the common designation of Christ in the<br />
writings of Paul, and is seldom used of God, except in quotation from, or references to the language of<br />
the Old Testament.<br />
["On the meaning of KYRIOS in the New Testament, particularly on the manner in which this word is<br />
employed by Paul in his Epistles," see the valuable article of Professor Stuart in the Biblical Repository<br />
(Andover) for October, 1831, i. 733-776. His view is that the KURIOTHS which Christ as the Messiah is<br />
a designated dominion.]<br />
There, in the Septuagint, KURIOS is used of God sometimes as a proper name, taking the place of<br />
Jehovah (Yahweh) on account of a Jewish superstition, amd sometimes as an appellative.<br />
Glancing back now for a moment over the field we have traversed, we mat reasonably say, it seems to<br />
me, first, that the use of EULOGHTOS, elsewhere in the New Testament restricted to God, the Father, -<br />
in connection with the exceeding rarity, if not absence, of ascriptions of praise and thanksgiving to Christ<br />
in the writings of Paul and their frequency in reference to God, - affords a pretty strong presumption in<br />
favor of that construction of this ambiguous passage which makes the last clause a doxology to the<br />
Father; secondly that some additional confirmation is given to this reference by the EIS QEOS KAI<br />
PANTWN, O EPI PANTWN in Eph. iv. 6; and, thirdly, that the at first view overwhelming presumption<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (29 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
in favor of the construction, founded on the uniform restriction of the designation QEOS, occurring more<br />
than five hundred times, to God, the Father, in the writings of Paul, is not weakened, but rather<br />
strengthened, by our examination of the language which he elsewhere uses respecting the dignity of<br />
Christ and his relation to God. And, though our sources of information are imperfect, we have seen that<br />
there are very grave reasons for doubting whether the use of QEOS as a designation of Christ belonged to<br />
the language of Christians anywhere at so early a period as the date of this Epistle (cir. A.D. 58).<br />
Beyond a doubt, all the writers of the New Testament and the early preachers of Christianity believed<br />
that God was united with the man Jesus Christ in a way unique and peculiar, distinguishing him from all<br />
other beings; that his teaching and works and character were divine; that God had raised him from the<br />
dead, and exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour; that he came, as the messenger of God's love and<br />
mercy, to redeem men from sin, and make them truly sons of God; that "God was in Christ reconciling<br />
the world unto himself." But no New Testament writer has defined the mode of this union with God.<br />
How much light has been thrown upon the subject by the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople,<br />
Ephesus and Chalcedon, and the so-called Athanasian creed, is a question on which there may be<br />
differences of opinion. The authority of councils is another question. But it has been no part of my<br />
object, in discussing the construction of the passage before us, to argue against the doctrine of the Nicene<br />
Creed. My point is simply the use of language at the time when this Epistle was written. The questions of<br />
doctrine and language are, of course, closely connected, but are not identical. It seems to me that a<br />
believer in the deity of Christ, admitting the fact that we have no clear evidence that the "mediator<br />
between God and men" was ever called "God" by any New Testament writer, or an very early preacher<br />
of Christianity, may recognize therein a wise Providence which saved the nascent Church from<br />
controversies and discussions for which ot was not then prepared.<br />
III. We will now consider some other constructions of the passage before us. (See above, p. 335.)<br />
1. I refrain from discussing in detail the comparative merits of Nos. 1 and 2. The advocates of No. 1<br />
observe correctly that it describes Christ as only EPI PANTWN QEOS, which they say would identify<br />
him with the Father. But if the Father is "God over all," and Christ is also "God over all," the question<br />
naturally arises how the Father can be "the God over all," unless the term "God" as applied to Christ is<br />
used in a lower sense. The answers to this question would lead us beyond the sphere of exegesis, and I<br />
pass it by. Meyer thinks that, if we refer the O WN to Christ, this is the most natural construction of the<br />
words; and it seems to have been adopted by most of the ancient Fathers who have cited the passage, at<br />
least after the Council of Nicaea, and in nearly all the generally received modern translations, from<br />
Luther and Tyndale downwards.<br />
2. Construction No. 2 aims to escape the difficulty presented by No. 1, but involves some ambiguities.<br />
Does the sentence mean, who is over all (Jews as well as Gentiles), and who is also God blessed for ever<br />
(so Hofmann, Kahnis, Die Luth. Dogm. i. 453 f.)? or does it mean, celui qui est elevé sur toutes choses,<br />
comme Dieu béni éternellement as Gudet translates it (Comm. ii. 256), contending that iwl EPI<br />
PANTWN is not to be connected with QEOS, but with WN, though he had before translated,<br />
inconsistently it would seem, lui qui est Dien au-dessus de toutes choses béni éternellement<br />
(pp. 248, 254). Lange finds in the last clause a quotation from the synagogical liturgy, together with a<br />
strong Pauline breviloquence, the ellipsis in which he supplies in a manner that must always hold a high<br />
Place among the curiosities of exegesis. He says, however, that every exposition is attended with great<br />
difficulties. I cannot discover that "God blessed for ever, as a kind of compound name of the Supreme<br />
Being, occurs in Jewish liturgies or anywhere else.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (30 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
3. Construction No. 3 is defended particularly by Gess, who maintains, in opposition to Schultz and<br />
others, that QEOS here nicht Christi Machtstellung sondern seine Wesenheit bezeichnet. (Christi Person<br />
und Werk 207.) But on this supposition he admits that the connecting of QEOS with O WN EPI<br />
PANTWN would present a serious difficulty. The care with which Paul elsewhere chooses his<br />
expressions in such a way that the supreme majesty of the Father shines forth would be given up. Meyer<br />
thinks that the punctuation adopted by Morus and Gess makes die Rede noch zerstuckter, ja<br />
kurzathmiger, than construction No. 5. But this is rather a matter of taste and feeling. The objections<br />
which seem to me fatal to all the constructions which refer the name QEOS here to Christ have been set<br />
forth above, and need not be repeated. If the view of Westcott and Hort is correct, the construction of this<br />
passage adopted by Hippolytus (Cont. Noet. c. 6) agrees with that of Gess in finding three distinct<br />
affirmations in the clause beginning with O WN, in opposition to those who would read it<br />
MONOKWLWS. But the passage in Hippolytus is obscure. See below under IV.<br />
4. Under No. 4 I have noticed a possible construction, for which, as regards the essential point, I have<br />
referred to Wordsworth's note in his N. T. in Greek, new ed., vol. ii. (1864). He translates in his note on<br />
ver. 5: He that is existing above all, God Blessed for ever, and remarks:<br />
"There is a special emphasis on O WN. He that is; He Who is the being One; JEHOVAH. See John i. i8;<br />
Rev. i. 4,8; iv. 8; xi. 17; xvi. 5, compared with Exod. iii. 14, EGO EIMI O WN. And compare on Gal. iii.<br />
20." He Who came of the Jews, according to the flesh, is no other than O WN, the BEING ONE,<br />
JEHOVAH. We have an assertion of His Existence from Everlasting in O WN. He mistranslates the<br />
last part of Athanasius, Orat. cont. Arian. i. § 24, p. 338, thus: "Paul asserts that He is the splendour of<br />
His Father's Glory, and is the Being One, over all, God Blessed for ever. In his note on vv. 4, 5, on the<br />
other hand, he translates the present passage: Christ came, Who is over all, God Blessed for ever.<br />
There is some confusion here. The verb EIMI may denote simple existence; it may (in contrasts) denote<br />
real in distinction from seeming existence; it may be, and commonly is, used as a mere copula,<br />
connecting the subject with the predicate. As applied to the Supreme Being in Exod. iii. 14 (Sept.), Wisd.<br />
Sol. xiii. I, etc., O WN, He who Is, describes him as possessing not on1y real, but independent and<br />
hence eternal existence. This latter use is altogether peculiar. To find it where WN is used as a copula, or<br />
to suppose that the two uses can be combined, is purely fanciful and arbitrary. It was not too fanciful and<br />
arbitrary, however, for some of the Christian Fathers, who argue Christ's eternal existence from the use<br />
of WN or O WN (or qui est) in such passages as John i. 18; iii. 13 (T.R.); vi. 46: Rom. ix. 5; Heb. i. 3. So<br />
Athanasius, as above ; Epiphanius, Ancorat. C. 5; Gregory of Nyssa, Adv. Eunom. lib. x., Opp. (1638) ii.<br />
680-4582; Pseudo-Basi1, Adv. Ennom. iv. 2, Opp. i. 282 (399); Chrysostom, Opp. i. 476 f., viii. 87, ed.<br />
Montf.; Hilary, De Trin. xii. 24; cf. Cyril. Alex. Thes. i. 4. So Proclus of Constantinople, Ep. ad Armen.<br />
de Fide, c. 14, quoting Rom. ix. 5, says: EIPEN AUTON ONTA, INA ANARCON BRONTHSH, "he<br />
spoke of him as being, that he might declare in thunder his existence without beginning. (Migne, Patrol.<br />
Gr. lxv. 872c.)<br />
5. The construction, from whom is the Messiah as to the flesh, he who is over all: God be blessed for<br />
ever! has found favor with some eminent scholars (see below under IV.), and deserves consideration. If<br />
adopted, I think we should understand O WN EPI PANTWN not as meaning he who is superior to all<br />
the patriarchs" (Justi and others), which is tame, and would hardly be expressed in this way; nor he who<br />
is over all things, which, without qualification, seems too absolute for Paul; but rather, "who is Lord of<br />
all (Jews and Gentiles alike), comp. Acts x. 36 ; Rom. x. 12, xi. 32; who, though he sprang from the<br />
Jews, is yet, as the Messiah, the ruler of a kingdom which embraces all men. (See Wetstein's note, near<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (31 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
the end.) The natural contrast suggested by the mention of Christ's relation to the Jews KATA SARKA<br />
may justify us in assuming this reference of PANTWN, which also accords with the central thought of<br />
the Epistle. The doxology, however, seems exceedingly abrupt and curt; and we should expect O QEOS<br />
instead of QEOS as the subject of the sentence, though in a few cases the word stands in the nominative<br />
without the article. Grimm compares QEOS MARTUS, I Thess. ii. 5, with MARTUS O QEOS, Rom. i.<br />
9; also 2 Cor. v. 19; Gal. ii. 6, vi. 7; Luke xx. 38(?). We should also rather expect EULOGHTOS to stand<br />
first in the doxology; but the position of words in Greek is so largely subjective, depending on the feeling<br />
of the writer, that we cannot urge this objection very strongly. The thought, so frequent in Paul, of God<br />
as the source, in contrast with, or rather in distinction from, Christ as the medium of the Messianic<br />
blessings, may have given the word QEOS prominence. (See above, p. 356 f., in regard to the position of<br />
the subject in contrasts.) Gess accordingly dismisses the objection founded on the position of<br />
EULOGHTOS, remarking, die Voranstellung von QEOS batte durch den Gegensatz gegen Christum ein<br />
zureichendes Motiv (ubi supra, p. 206). Still, on the whole, construction No. 7 seems to me much easier<br />
and more natural.<br />
6. The construction numbered 6 was, I believe, first proposed by Professor Andrews Norton, in his<br />
review of Professor Stuart's Letters to Dr. Channing. This was published in the Christian Disciple<br />
(Boston) for 1819, new series, vol. i. p. 370 ff.; on Rom. ix. 5, see p. 418 ff. The passage is discussed<br />
more fully in his Statement of Reasons, etc. (Cambridge and Boston), 1833, p. 147 ff.; new ed. (ster.<br />
1856), r. 203 ff., 470 ff., in which some notes were added by the writer of the present essay. There, after<br />
giving as the literal rendering, He who was over all was God, blessed for ever, Mr. Norton remarks :<br />
He who was over all,' that is, over all which has just been mentioned by the Apostle. Among the<br />
privileges and distinctions of the Jews, it could not be forgotten by the Apostle, that God had presided<br />
over all their concerns in a particular manner.<br />
There is no grammatical objection to this construction of the passage. (See above, p. 346, 1st paragr.) Mr.<br />
Norton, in translating vv. 4 and 5, uses the past tense in supplying the ellipsis of the substantive verb.<br />
This is done by other translators; e.g., Conybeare and Howson. It may be questioned, however, whether<br />
this is fully justified here. Canon Kennedy uses the present tense, but seems to take the same general<br />
view of the bearing of the passage as Mr. Norton. See his Occasional Sermons, pp. 64, 65, and Ely<br />
Lecturcs, pp. 88, 89.<br />
As regards this view of the passage, I will only say here that the thought presented in Mr. Norton's<br />
translation did not need to be expressed, as it is fully implied in the nature of the privileges and<br />
distinctions enumerated. (See above, p. 341.) Taking Professor Kennedy's rendering, I doubt whether the<br />
Apostle would have used this language in respect to the relation existing between God and the Jewish<br />
people at the time when he was writing. The Jews gloried in God as their God in a special sense (Rom. ii.<br />
17); but, in Paul's view, it was Christians, now, who rightfully gloried in God through our Lord Jesus<br />
Christ (Rom. v. 11; comp. iii. 29).<br />
7. I add a single remark, which might more properly have been made before. I have rendered O<br />
CRISTOS here not Christ, as a mere proper name, but the Messiah. Not only the use of the article, but<br />
the context, seems to me to require this. Westcott and Hort observe in regard to the word CRISTOS We<br />
doubt whether the appellative force, with its various associations and implications, is ever entirely lost in<br />
the New Testament, and are convinced that the number of passages is small in which Messiahship, of<br />
course in the enlarged apostolic sense, is not the principal intention of the word. (The N.T. in Greek, vol.<br />
ii., Introd., p. 317.)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (32 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
IV. We will now take notice of some points connected with the history of the interpretation of Rom. ix.<br />
5. The fullest account of this is perhaps that given by Schultz in the article already repeatedly referred to;<br />
but he is neither very thorough nor very accurate.<br />
The application of the passage by the Christian Fathers will naturally come first under consideration.<br />
The fact that the great majority of the Fathers whose writings have come down to us understood the last<br />
part of the verse to relate to Christ has been regarded by many as a very weighty argument in favor of<br />
that construction. I have had occasion to consider the value of this argument in connection with another<br />
passage. (See Essay XVIII., p. 445.) The remarks there made apply equally to the present case. The fact<br />
that the Fathers, in quoting a passage grammatically ambiguous, have given it a construction which<br />
suited their theology, does not help us much in determining the true construction. We must remember,<br />
also, the looser use of the term QEOS which prevailed in the latter part of the second century and later.<br />
(See above, p. 371 f.) Those in the second and third centuries who held strongly the doctrine of the<br />
inferiority of the Son, and the Arians in the fourth, like the Socinians at a later period, did not hesitate to<br />
apply the name God to Christ, and would find little difficulty in a construction of the passage which<br />
involved this. They might hesitate about the expression God over all; but, as we have seen, though<br />
natural, it is not necessary to connect the EPI PANTWN with QEOS.<br />
The specimen of patristic exegesis in the construction given to 2 Cor. iv. 4, where so many of the Fathers<br />
make the genitive TOU AIWNOS depend not on O QEOS, but TWN APISTWN (see Essay XVIII., u.s.),<br />
will be sufficient for most persons who wish to form an estimate of their authority in a case like the<br />
present. I will only ask further, taking the first examples that occur to me, how much weight is to be<br />
attributed to the judgment of Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Isidore of Pelusium,<br />
Gennadius, Theodorus Monachus, Joannes Damascenus(?), Photius, Ecumenius (or what passes under<br />
his name), and Theophylact, when, in their zeal for the freedom of the will, they explain PROQESIS in<br />
Rom. viii. 28 (TOIS KATA PROQESIN KLHTOIS), not as denoting the Divine purpose, but the purpose<br />
or choice of the subjects of the call? (Cyril of Alexandria gives the words both meanings at the same<br />
time.) What is the value of the opinion of Chrysostom, Joannes Damascenus, Ecumenius, and<br />
Theophylact, that DIA IHSOU CRISTOU in Rom. xvi. 27 is to be construed with STHRIZAI in ver. 25?<br />
Shall we accept the exegesis of Chrysostom and Theophylact when they tell us that in the injunction of<br />
Christ in Matt. v. 39 not to resist TW PONHRW TW PONHRW means the devil?<br />
Dean Burgon, in his article on New Testament Revision in the Quart. Rev. for Jan., 1882,* has given (p.<br />
54 if.) perhaps the fullest enumeration yet presented of ancient Christian writers who have referred the O<br />
WN, K.T.L. in Rom. ix. 5 to Christ. He counts up 55 illustrious names, forty of Greek writers, from<br />
Irenaeus in the latter part of the second century to John of Damascus in the eighth, and fifteen of Latin<br />
writers, from Tertullian at the beginning of the third century to Facundus in the sixth, who all see in<br />
Rom. ix. 5 a glorious assertion of the eternal Godhead of CHRIST.<br />
[Reprinted in The Revision Revised (London, 1883); see p. 212.]<br />
An examination of his list will show that it needs some sifting. Most of the Latin writers whom he<br />
mentions, as Augustine, knew little or nothing of Greek, and their authority cannot be very weighty in<br />
determining the construction of an ambiguous Greek sentence. Of his illustrious names, six are<br />
unfortunately unknown, being writers of whom, as Mr. Burgon mildly puts it, 3 have been mistaken<br />
for Athanasius, and 3 for Chrysostom. Another is the illustrious forger of the Answers to Ten Questions<br />
of Paul of Samosata, fathered upon Dionysius of Alexandria, certainly spurious, according to Cardinal<br />
Newman and the best scholars generally, and marked as pseudonymous by Mr. Burgon himself.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (33 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
Methodius should also have been cited as Pseudo-Methodius (see p. 391 f), and Caesarius as<br />
Pseudo-Caesarius. Among the other illustrious names, we find 6 of the Bishops at the Council of<br />
Antioch, A.D. 269. On looking at the names as they appear in Routh's Rell. Sacrae, ed. alt. (1846), iii.<br />
289, I regret my inability to recall the deeds or the occasion that made them illustrious, unless it is the<br />
fact that, as members of that Council, about half a century before the Council of Nicaea, they condemned<br />
the use of the term hOMOOUSIOS consubstantial, which was established by the latter as the test and<br />
watchword of orthodoxy.<br />
Next to the six bishops and ps.-Dionysius Alex. in Mr. Burgon's list of the illustrious Fathers who see<br />
in Rom. ix. 5 a glorious assertion of the eternal Godhead of Christ, we find Constt. App., that is, the<br />
Apostolical Constitutions, with a reference to vi. c. 26. He does not quote the passage. It reads as<br />
follows : Some of the heretics imagine the Christ [so Lagarde; or the Lord, Cotelier and Ueltzen] to be<br />
a mere man. . . ; but others of them suppose that Jesus himself is the God over all, glorifying him as his<br />
own Father, supposing him to be Son and Paraclete ; than which doctrines what can be more<br />
abominable? Compare Const. Apost. iii. 17: The Father is the God over all, O EPI PANTWN QEOS;<br />
Christ is the only-begotten God, the beloved Son, the Lord of glory. See also vi. 18.<br />
One is surprised, after this, to find that Mr. Burgon did not cite for the same purpose Pseudo-Ignatius ad<br />
Tars. cc. 2, 5, and ad Philip. c. 7, where it is denied emphatically that Christ is O EPI PANTWN QEOS;<br />
and also Origen, Cont. Cels. viii. 14, who says: Grant that there are some among the multtitude of<br />
believers, with their differences of opinion, who rashly suppose that the Saviour is the Most High God<br />
over all; yet certainly we do not, for we believe him when he said, The Father who sent me is greater<br />
than I. The very strong language which Origen uses in many other places, respecting the inferiority of<br />
the Son, renders it unlikely that he applied the last part of this verse to Christ. See, e.g., Cont. Cels. viii.<br />
15; De Princip. i. 3. §5; In Ioan. tom. ii. cc. 2, 3, 6; vi. 23 ; xiii. 25. Rufinus's Latin version of Origen's<br />
Commentary on Romans, which is the only authority for ascribing to Origen the common interpretation<br />
of this passage, is no authority at all. He, according to his own account of his work, had so transformed it<br />
by omissions, additions, and alterations, that his friends thought he ought to claim it as his own.<br />
[See his Peroratio at the end of the Epistle; Origenis Opp. iv. 688 f., ed. De Ia Rue. Mattaei remarks:<br />
Rufini interpretatio, quae parum fidei habet, in epistola ad Romanos, quod quihbet ipse intelligit, non tam<br />
pro Origenis opere, quam pro compendio Rufini haberi detet, quod haud dubie alia omisit, alia, sicut in<br />
ceteris libris, invito Origene admisit. Pauli Epp. ad Thess., etc. (Rigae, 1785), Praefatio, sig. b 2. See<br />
more fully to the same purpose Redepenning's Origenses, ii. 189 ff., who speaks of his "Ausscheidung<br />
ganzer Stucke, and Umgestaltung des Heterodoxen in der Trinitatslehre. See also Cave, Hist. Lit, art.<br />
Origenes.]<br />
It was in accordance with his professed principles to omit or alter in the works which he translated<br />
whatever he regarded as dangerous, particularly whatever did not conform to his standard of orthodoxy.<br />
His falsification of other writings of Origen is notorious. Westcott and Hort remark that in the<br />
Rufino-Origenian commentary on this verse there is not a trace of Origenian language, and this is one of<br />
the places in which Rufinus would not fail to indulge his habit of altering an interpretation which he<br />
disapproved on doctrinal grounds. They also remark, It is difficult to impute Origen's silence to accident<br />
in the many places in which quotation would have been natural had he followed the common<br />
interpretation.<br />
Origen should therefore be henceforth excluded from the list of Fathers cited in support of the common<br />
punctuation. It is even probable, as Westcott and Hort maintain, though not certain, that he and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (34 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
Eusebius gave the passage a different construction.<br />
[I have represented the eminent scholars named above as regarding it as probable though not certain that<br />
these Fathers understood the last clause as relating to God. Their note does imply that they are inclined to<br />
this view; but subsequent examination leads me to suppose that the words quoted were intended to apply<br />
to the Apostolic Constitutions and the Pseudo-Ignatius. Westcott and Hort also refer, for the application<br />
of the phrase O EPI PANTWN QEOS to the Father in distinction from Christ, to Melito p. 413 Otto,<br />
i.e., to his Apol. fragm. 2; comp. Routh, 1. 118, ed. alt.]<br />
As regards Eusebius, the presumption is perhaps even stronger than in the case of Origen. He has<br />
nowhere quoted the passage; but in very numerous places in his writings he uses O EPI PANTWN<br />
QEOS as a title exclusively belonging to the Father, and insists upon this against the Sabellians.<br />
[See, for example, De EccL Theol. i. 3, 7, 8, 11, 20; ii. i, 4, 5 (pp. 63 c, 65 a, 66 c, 70 d, 93 c, 104 a, 107<br />
c, d), and a multitude of other places, some of which are quoted in Wetstein's note. The apparent<br />
exception, Hist. EccL viii. II, TON EPI PANTWN QEON CRISTON EPIBOWMENOUS (ed. Vales.), is<br />
a false reading: Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Dindorf omit CRISTON on the authority of important<br />
MSS.; on the other hand Hernichen in his recent edition (1868) omits EPI PANTWN QEON and reads<br />
TON CRISTON simply.]<br />
I admit that these consideratiohs are not decisive; he and Origen may have given the passage an<br />
interpretation similar to that of Hippolytus; but, if they understood it to relate to Christ, it is certainly<br />
strange that they have nowhere quoted it in their numerous writings.<br />
The assumption that Irenaeus referred the last part of this verse to Christ must be regarded as doubtful.<br />
The only place where he has quoted it is Haer. iii. i6. (al. i8.)<br />
§ 3, where his text is preserved only in the Old Latin version, which of course cannot determine the<br />
construction which Irenaeus put upon the Greek. He does not quote it to prove that Christ is QEOS, - the<br />
Gnostics gave the name QEOS to their AEons, and also to the Demiurgus, but to prove the unity of the<br />
Christ with the man Jesus, in opposition to the Gnostics who maintained that the AEon Christ did not<br />
descend upon Jesus till his baptism. He had just before (~2) quoted Matt. i. 18 for this purpose (reading<br />
TOU DE CRISTOU); he now quotes Rom. 1. 3, 4; ix. 5; and Gal. iv. 4, 5, for the same purpose. His<br />
argument rests on the EX WN O CRISTOS TO KATA SARKA, and not on the last part of the verse, on<br />
which he makes no remark. Throughout his work against Heresies, and very often, Irenaeus uses the title<br />
the God over all as the exclusive designation of the Father.<br />
[Semler (Ep ad Griesbachium, 1770, p. 77 ff.; Antwort, etc. 1770, p. 45) and Whitby (Disq modestae, p<br />
125 f.) take the above view of this passage of Irenaeus. For the use of the designation God over all, see<br />
Iren. Haer. ii. 5 § 4; 6. (al.5.) § § 2, 3; 11. (al. 12.) § 1, bis; 13. (al. 18.)/8; 24. (al. 41.)/2; 28. (al. 49.)/8;<br />
iii. 8. /3; iv. 5. (al. 10.)/ 1; v. 18. § 1, and many other passages. (Cf. iv. 1. § 1.)<br />
The passage in which Hippolytus quotes Rom. ix. 5 (Cont. Noet. c. 6) has already been noticed. (See<br />
above, pp. 378, 383.) The Noetians and Patripassians, according to him, quoted the text to prove the<br />
identity of Christ with the Father. (Ibid cc. 2, 3.) He complains that they treat the words MONOKWLWS<br />
(or ,MONOKWLA); comp. Epiph. Haer lvii. 2. Westcott and Hort understand this to mean that they read<br />
all the words from KAI EX WN to AIWNOS as a single clause. Semler once took nearly the same view<br />
(Hist. Einl. zu S. J. Baumgarten's Unters. theol. Streitigkeiten, 1762, i. 217, n. 205), but was afterwards<br />
doubtful about it (ibid p. 236, n. 235). Fabricius in his note on the passage, and Salmond in his translation<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (35 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
of Hippolytus in the Ante-Nicene Christ. Library, ix. 53, give a very different explanation. To discuss the<br />
matter here would require too much space, but it seemed well to mention it. Possibly in Cont. Noet. c. 6<br />
EULOGHTOS is misplaced through the mistake of a scribe, and should stand before EIS TOUS<br />
AIWNOS.<br />
Dean Burgon refers also to Phil. 339, that is to the Philosophumena or Ref omit. Haer. x. 34, ad fin. But<br />
O KATA PANTWN QEOS there should not, I think, be alleged as a quotation of Rom. ix. 5 applied to<br />
Christ. Bunsen's easy emendation of the passage (Anal. Ante-Nic. i. 392 ; comp. his Hippolytus, 2d ed., i.<br />
413) seems to me the true reading, and is suppported by x. 33, ad init. (p. 334), where OUTOS MONOS<br />
KAI KATA PANTWN QEOS is distinguished from the Logos. Hippolytus could hardly have called<br />
Christ the God over all. (See p. 378, note)<br />
I note in passing that Tischendorf cites incorrectly for the reference of the O WN, etc., to Christ Meth.<br />
conviv 805 (Gall 3). The passage referred to is not from the Convivium, but from the discourse of the<br />
Pseudo-Methodius De Simeone ct Anna, c. 1, ad fin., where we have the mere expression THS<br />
ASTEKTOU DOWHS TOU EPI PANTWN QEOU SUGKATABASIN. This is also one of Dean<br />
Burgon's authorities; but, as the writer explains himself (c. 2, ad fin.), he seems to mean by the glory of<br />
the God over all not the glory of the Son considered by himself, but the glory of the whole Trinity. There<br />
is no quotation of Rom. ix. 5 here.<br />
The passage of Amphilochius (Gallandi vi. 409, or Migne xxxix. 101) which Tischendorf adduces, with a<br />
videtur; as a reference of Rom. ix. 5 to the Father, seems analogous to the above, and hardly proves<br />
anything on one side or the other.<br />
In the quotation of Rom. ix. 5 in the Antiochene Epistle to Paul of Samosata (see above, p. 388) it is<br />
probable that the six bishops make a slight pause at PANTWN. The subordination of the Son is very<br />
strongly expressed in the Epistle. Among other things it is said, To think that the God of the universe is<br />
called a messenger (AQQELON) is impious; but the Son is the messenger of the Father, being himself<br />
Lord and God. (Routh, ut supra, p. 294.)<br />
The Emperor Julian has already been referred to. (See above, p. 346, note.) He was as good a judge of<br />
the construction of a Greek sentence as Cyril of Alexandria, or any other of the Fathers, and quite as<br />
likely to interpret impartially. Well acquainted with the writings of the Christians, he could hardly have<br />
overlooked passages so frequently quoted in the controversies on the nature of Christ as Rom. ix. 5 and<br />
Tit. ii. 13. But he did not find the title QEOS given to Christ in these or any other places (e.g., I Tim. iii.<br />
16) in the writings of Paul.<br />
Among the orthodox Greek Fathers, Diodorus (of Antioch and Tarsus) and Photius appear to have<br />
understood the O WN, etc., to refer to God. The comment of Diodorus on this passage is preserved in the<br />
important Catena on the Epistle to the Romans published by Cramer from a MS. in the Bodleian Library<br />
(Cramer's Catenae in N.T., vol. iv., Oxon. 1844). The essential part of it reads : KAI TO MENISTON,<br />
EX WN O CRISTOS, TO KATA SARKA. EX AUTWN, FHSIN, O CRISTOS. QEOS DE OU<br />
MONWN AUTWN, ALLA KOINH EPI PANTWN ESTI QEOS. (p. 162.) This appears to mean, From<br />
them, he says, is the Messiah. But GOD belongs not to them alone, but is God over all men alike.<br />
Meyer, Tholuck, Philippi, and Schultz understand it as relating to the Father. I do not perceive that this<br />
reference is affected by the fact that Theodore of Mopsuestia, a pupil of Diodorus, who has borrowed<br />
much of the language of this comment, gives the last part a different turn: KAI TO DH MENISTON, EX<br />
AUTWN KAI O CRISTOS TO KATA SARKA, OS ESTI QEOS OU MONON AUTWN, ALLA<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (36 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
KOINH PANTWN. (Migne, Patrol Cr. lxvi. 833.) Had it been the purpose of Diodorus to express this<br />
meaning, he would probably have inserted ESTIN after QEOS DE or have written OS ESTIN. The<br />
omission of the article before QEOS creates no difficulty in taking QEOS as the subject of the sentence.<br />
It is often omitted in such a case by these later Greek writers.<br />
Diodorus, it will be remembered, was the founder of a comparatively rational, grammatico-historical, and<br />
logical school of interpretation, in opposition to the arbitrary exegesis of Scripture which had prevailed<br />
among the Fathers.<br />
The passage in Photius (Cont. Manich. iii. 14) appears to be unequivocal: He cries with a loud voice,<br />
whose are the covenants, and the laws (AI NOMOQESIAI), and the promises, and the holy serviccs (AI<br />
LATREIAI); and showing most clearly whence these things are and on whose providence they have<br />
depended [he adds] O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS AIWNOS. AMHN."<br />
So the laws and the holy services and the promises, in the observance of which the fathers pleased God,<br />
and from whom as to his humanity sprang the Messiah, are from the God over all, TOU EPI PANTWN<br />
QEOU. (Migne, Patrol. Gr. cii. i57.)<br />
Schultz, in the essay so often referred to (p. 480, note 2), says that Theodulus in loc. seems to refer the<br />
last part of our verse to God. He misapprehends the meaning of the passage in Theodulus, and does not<br />
observe that it is taken from Ecumenius.<br />
[ See Biblioth. max. vet Patrum, viii. 605, or the Monumenta S. Patrum Orthodoxographa of Grynaeus, ii<br />
1163.]<br />
The Enarratio in Ep. ad Romanos, which, in a Latin translation, passes under the name of Theodulus,<br />
does not belong to the presbyter or bishop in Ceole-Syria of that name, who died A.D. 492, but is a very<br />
late Catena. (See Cave.)<br />
A few words now respecting the Latin Fathers who have quoted Rom. ix. 5.<br />
Tertullian is the first. He quotes it once as below, and once (Prax. c. 15) with super omnia before deus.<br />
[After remarking that he never speaks of Gods or Lords, but following the Apostle, when the Father and<br />
Son are to be named together, calls the Father God and Jesus Christ Lord, he says " Solum autem<br />
Christum potero deum dicere, sicut idem apostolus. Ex quibus Christus, qui est, inquit, deus super omnia<br />
benedictus in aevum omne. Nam et radium solis seorsum solem vocabo; solem aütem nominans, cuius<br />
est radius, non statim et radium solem appellabo." (Prax. C. 13, ed. Oehler.) This accords with his<br />
language elsewhere : "Protulit deus sermonem . . . sicut radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, et sol radium.<br />
(Prax. c. 8.) " Cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio . . . nec separatur<br />
substantia, sed extenditur. (Apologet. C. 21.) " Pater tota substantia est; filius vero derivatio totius a<br />
portio; sicut ipse profitetur, Quia pater maior me est. (Prax. c. 9.) Sermo deus, quia ex deo. . . . Quodsi<br />
deus dei tanquam substantiva res, non erit ipse deus (AUTOQEOS), sed hactenus deus, qua ex ipsius<br />
substantia, ut portio aliqua totius. (Prax. c. 26.)<br />
Cyprian simply cites the passage to prove that Christ is deus (qui est super omnia deus benedictus in<br />
saecula), without remark.. (Testim. ii. 6.) Novatian has already been spoken of. (See above, p. 378, note.)<br />
I know of no trace of the reference of the last part of the verse to God among the Latin writers, except<br />
what may be implied in the language of the Pseudo-Ambrosius (Ambrosiaster), commonly identified<br />
with Hilary the deacon, in his commentary on the Epistle. He remarks : Si quis autem non putat de<br />
Christo dictum, qui est Deus, det personam de qua dictum est. De patre enim Deo hoc loco mentio facta<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (37 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
non est. This is repeated in the commentary of Rabanus Maurus (Migne, Patrol. Lat. cxi. col. 1482). The<br />
same in substance appears in the Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test, qu. 91, formerly ascribed to Augustine, and<br />
printed in the Benedictine edition of his works, Opp. III. ii. 2915, ed. Bened. alt. : Sed forte ad Patris<br />
personam pertinere dicatur. Sed<br />
hoc loco nulla est Paterni nominis mentio. Ideoque si de Christo dictum negatur, persona cui competat<br />
detur. (This work is generally ascribed to the Hilary mentioned above.) The writer seems to have heard<br />
of those who interpreted the passage of God; and, relying apparently upon the Latin version, he meets<br />
their interpretation of the Greek with a very unintelligent objection.<br />
The Greek Fathers in Mr. Burgons list who have not already been mentioned are the following :<br />
Athanasius, Basil, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Theodorus Mops., Eustathius, Eulogius,<br />
Theophilus Alex. , Nestorius, Theodotus of Ancyra, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gelasius Cyz., Anastasius<br />
Ant., Leontius Byz., Maximus. Of the Latins, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, Victorinus, the Breviarium,<br />
Marius Mercator, Cassian, Alcimus Avit., Fulgentius, Ferrandus.<br />
"Against such a torrent of Patristic testimony, says Mr. Burgon, "it will not surely be pretended that the<br />
Socinian interpretation, to which our Revisionists give such prominence, can stand.<br />
But to what does it all amount? Simply to the fact that a mass of writers, to the judgrnent of most of<br />
whom an intelligent scholar would attach very little weight in any question of exegesis, have followed<br />
that construction of an ambiguous passage which suited their theological opinions. Out of the whole list,<br />
the two, I suppose, who would be most generally selected as distinguished from the rest for sobriety and<br />
good sense in interpretation are Chrysostom and Theodoret. Yet both of them adopted that excessively<br />
unnatural, if not impossible, construction of 2 Cor. iv. 4 of which I have spoken above. (See p. 387.)<br />
The same general considerations apply to the ancient versions, some of which are ambiguous here, as<br />
Westcott and Hort remark, though the translators probably intended to have the last part of the verse<br />
understood of Christ.<br />
We will now dismiss the Fathers, and notice some facts belonging to the more recent history of the<br />
interpretation of our passage.<br />
[Literature.- The older literature is given by Wolf (Curae) and Lilienthal (Biblischer Archivarius, 1745).<br />
For the more recent, see Danz, and especially Schultz an the article so often referred to; also, among the<br />
commentators, Meyer and Van Hengel. E. F. C. Oertel (Christologie, Hamb. 1792, p. 216 ff.) gives a<br />
brief account of the controversy excited by Semler (1769,71); see also the works named by Schultz,<br />
especially Hirts Orient. u. exeg. Bibliothek, 1772, 1773. The name Bremer (Schultz, p. 463, note 2) is a<br />
misprint for Benner.]<br />
I take up the different constructions in the order in which they are numbered above, p. 335.<br />
The three most important recent discussions of the passage outside of the commentaries, before that of<br />
Dr. Dwight, are by Dr Hermann Schultz. in the Jahrbucher f. deutche Theol., 1868, pp. 462-506, who<br />
defends constructions Nos. 1-3, with a slight preference for No. 1 (p. 483) ; Dr. C. L. Wilibald Grimm, in<br />
Hilgenfelds Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1869, pp. 311-322, who adopts No. 5; and Pastor Ernst Harmsen,<br />
ibid., 1872, pp. 510-521, who adopts No. 7. There is a brief discussion of the passage by Dr. G. Vance<br />
Smith, Canon Farrar, and Dr. Sanday, in the Expositor for May, 1879, ix. 397-405, and Septembur, 1879,<br />
x. 232-238. There was a more extended debate in the Independent (New York) for Aug. 12, Oct. 14, 21,<br />
28, and Nov. 18, 1858, in which Dr. John ProudfIt (anonymously), the Rev. Joseph P. Thompson (the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (38 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
editor), Dr. Z. S. Barstow, and K A. took part.<br />
1-3. It would be idle to give a list of the supporters of Nos. 1-3, who refer the clause in question to Christ.<br />
Among the commentators, perhaps the more eminent and best known are Calvin, Beza, Hammond,<br />
LeClerc, Limborch, Bengel, Michaelis, Koppe, Flatt, Tholuck, Olshausen, Stuart, Hodge, Philippi, Lange<br />
(with Schaff and Riddle), Hofmann, Weiss, Godet, Alford, Vaughan, Sanday (very doubtfully), Gifford.<br />
That the Roman Catholic commentators, as Estius, Klee, Stengel, Reithmayr, Maier, Beelen, Bisping (not<br />
very positively), Jatho, Klofutar (188o), should adopt this explanation, is almost a matter of course. This<br />
construction of the verse is accepted by all the Fratres Poloni, who did not hesitate to give the name God<br />
to Christ, and to worship him, recognizing of course the supremacy of the Father, to whom they applied<br />
the name God in a higher sense; so<br />
Socinus. Opp. ii. 581, 582, 600 a; cf. ii. 377 f.; John Crell, in loc. Opp. i. 147 ; also Respons. ad Grotium,<br />
Opp. iv. 230 b; De Uno Deo Patre, p. 23 a; De Deo ejusque Attrib. p. 35 b; Eth. Christ. p. 348 a;<br />
Schlichting (Lat. Slichtingius), Comm. post. i. 254; Wolzogen, Opp. i. 710, 712 ; ii. 301 ; iii. 5 ; Sam.<br />
Przipcovius or Przpkowsky in loc, p. 51. So also the Racovian Catechism, §§159, 160.<br />
[Socinus speaks of the punctuation and construction proposed by Erasmus, a believer in the deity of<br />
Christ, which makes the O WN, etc., a doxology to God, the Father, and says: "Non est ulla causa, cur<br />
haec interpretatio, vel potius lectio et interpunctio Erasmi rejici posse videatur; nisi una tantum, quam<br />
Adversarii non afferunt; neque enim illam ammadverterunt. Ea est, quod, cum simplex nomen<br />
Benedictus idem significat quod Benedictus sit, semper fere solet anteponi ei, ad quem refertur, perraro<br />
autem postponi."<br />
Some of those who are shocked at what they call "Socinian glosses" might perhaps learn a lesson of<br />
candor and fairness from this heretic.]<br />
With a singular disregard of these historical facts, Dean Burgon holds up his hands in holy horror at the<br />
marginal renderings of the Revised New Testament at Rorn. ix. 5, ascribed to some modern Interpreters,<br />
and stigmatizes them as the Socinian gloss! (Quart. Rev., Jan., 1882, p. 54 [Revision Revised].) The<br />
Italics are his. He seems throughout his article to imagine himself to be writing for readers who will take<br />
an opprobrious epithet for an argument. The real "Socinian gloss" is adopted, and the arguments for it are<br />
repeated, as we have seen, by the latest prominent defender of the construction which Mr. Burgon<br />
himself maintains. Among English commentators, compare Macknight on the passage.<br />
A slight qualification or supplement of the above statement is, however, required. Schlichting, though he<br />
does not object to the common construction, misled by Erasmus, is inclined to suspect the genuineness of<br />
the word QEOS. It is important, in reference to the history of the interpretation of this passage, to<br />
observe that the statement of Erasmus, in regard to the omission of this word in the quotations by some<br />
Fathers, led many astray; among others, Grotius, who also incorrectly represents the word God as<br />
wanting in the Syriac version. Schoettgen misrepresented the case still worse, saying, by mistake of<br />
course, "Hoc verbum quamplurimi Codices, quidam etiam ex Patribus, non habent."<br />
Schlichting also suggests, as what venire alicui in mentem posset, the somewhat famous conjecture of<br />
WN O for O WN, but rejects it. It was taken up afterwards, however, by a man far inferior in judgment,<br />
Samuel Crell (not to be confounded with the eminent commentator), in the Initium Ev. S. Joannis<br />
restitum (1726), published under the pseudonym of L.M. Artemonius. Its superficial plausibility seems to<br />
have fascinated many; among them Whitby (Last Thoughts), Jackson of Leicester (Annot. ad Novat p.<br />
341), John Taylor of Norwich, Goadby, Wakefield (Enquiry), Bishop Edmund Law (Wakefields<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (39 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
Memoirs, i. 447), Belsham (Epistles of Paul), John Jones, and David Schulz (so says<br />
Baurngarten-Crusius). Even Doddridge and Harwood speak of it as ingenious, and Olshausen calls it<br />
scharfsinnig. It is quite indefensible.<br />
Among the writers on Biblical Theology, Usteri (Paulin. Lthrbcgit, 5te Ausg., 1834, p. 324 1.) refers the<br />
clause in question to Christ, but strongly expresses his sense of the great difficulties which this involves.<br />
He is influenced especially by Ruckert (1831), who afterwards changed his mind. Messner (1856, p. 236<br />
f.) regards this reference as probable, though not certain; somewhat more doubtful is C. F. Schmid (2d<br />
ed., 1859, p. 540 f., or p. 475 f. Eng. trans.). Dorner in his recent work, System der Christi.<br />
Glaubenslehre (1879), i. 345, only ventures to say that the reference to Christ is the most natural.<br />
Schott, August Hahn, De Wette, Reuss, Ritschl, are sometimes cited as supporting this construction; but<br />
later they all went over to the other side. See below, under No. 7.<br />
For the most elaborate defences of the construction we are considering, besides those which have already<br />
been mentioned, one may consult Dr. John Pye Smiths Scripture Tcstimony to the Messiah, 5th ed.<br />
(1859), vol. ii. pp. 370-377, 401-405, and the commentaries of Flatt (from whom Professor Stuart has<br />
borrowed largely) and Philippi.<br />
4. Construction No. 4 has akeady been sufficiently noticed. (See above, p. 383.)<br />
5. The construction which puts a colon or a period after PANTWN, making the clause beginning with<br />
QEOS a doxology to God, seems to have been first suggested by Erasmus in the Annotations to his third<br />
edition of the Greek Testament<br />
(1522), repeated in the fourth (1527). In his later writings, and in the note in his last edition (1535), while<br />
recognizing the possibility of this construction, he gave the preference to No. 7.<br />
[Erasmi Opp., Lugd. Bat. I703 ff., vol. vi. 610 f. ; ix. 1002 f., 1045 f.]<br />
It was adopted by Locke in his posthumous Paraphrase, etc. (London, 1705, and often) : and of them, as<br />
to his fleshly extraction, Christ is come, he who is over all, God be blessed for ever, Amen. Lockes<br />
construction was preferred by Wetstein in the important note on the passage in his Greek Testament, vol.<br />
ii. (1752), and was adopted by Prof. L. J. C. Justi in Pauluss Memorabilieu, 1791 , St. i. pp. 1-26, treated<br />
more fully in his Vèrmischte Abhandlungen, 2te Samml., 1798, pp. 309-346; also by E. F. C. Oertel,<br />
Christologie (1792), p. 209 f. He has a pretty full discussion of the passage (pp. 195-218). So by G. L<br />
Bauer, Bibl. Theol. des N. T.:, Bd. iv. (1802), pp. 10-14, and by C. F. Ammon ; for though in his Bibl.<br />
Theol., 2te Ausg. (1801), pp. 220-222, he does not decide between constructions No. 5 and No. 7, he<br />
favors the former in his note on the passage in the third edition of Koppe on Romans (1824). J. J. Stolz<br />
adopts it in the fourth edition of his Uebersetzung des NT. (1804), and the third edition of his<br />
Erlauterungen (1808), iii. 170-191. He gives there an interesting extract from Semlers Hist. u. krit.<br />
Sammlungen uber die sogennanten Beweisstellen in der Dogmatik, St. ii. pp. 284-287. So De Wette in<br />
the text of the third edition of his German translation of the <strong>Bible</strong> (1839), though he gives constructions<br />
Nos. 1 and 7 as alternative renderings; in the note in the fourth and last edition of his commentary on the<br />
Epistle (1847), though undecided, he seems on the whole rather inclined to No. 7. This construction (No.<br />
5) is supported also by Baumgarten-Crusius, a scholar to be spoken of with high respect, in his Comm. on<br />
the Epistle (Jena, 1844), comp. his Grundzuge der bibl. Theol. (1828), p. 385 f., and his Exeget Schriften<br />
zum N.T. II. i. (Jena, 1844) p. 266, the latter cited by Ernesti. So by Schumann in his Christus (1852), ii.<br />
545, note; H. Fr. Th. L. Ernesti, Vom Ursprunge d. Sunde nach paulin. Lehrgehalte, i. (1855) pp.<br />
197-204 ; Märcker (cited by Meyer), whose work I have not seen; and Reuss, Les Epitres Pauliniennes<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (40 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
(1878), ii. 88.<br />
The best defence of this view, perhaps, is to be found in the article of Grimm, referred to above.<br />
6. On construction No. 6, see above, p. 385 f.<br />
7. Erasmus in his translation renders the words of the last part of our verse thus : et ii, ex quibus est<br />
Christus quantum attinet ad carnem, qui est in omnibus detis laudandus in secula, amen. His paraphrase<br />
seems a little ambiguous.<br />
[At Christus sic est homo, ut idem et Deus sit, non huius aut illius gentis peculiaris, sed universorum<br />
Deus, et idem cum patre Deus, qui (Christus? pater? or Pater cum Christo?) praesidet omnibus, cuiusque<br />
inscrutibili consilio geruntur haec omnia, cui soli . . . debetur iaus, etc. One suggestion of Erasmus is<br />
that the word God in the last clause may denote the whole Trinity.]<br />
But in the note in his last edition (1535), and in his later writings, he clearly indicates his preference for<br />
construction No. 7.<br />
[See especially his Apol. adv. monachos quosdam Hispanos(written in 1528), Opp. ix. IO43-47 : Ego<br />
coram Deo Profiteor mihi videri Paulum hoc sensisse, quod modo significavimus, nec hunc sermonem<br />
proprie ad Christum pertinere, sed vel ad Patrem, vel ad totam Trinitatem<br />
(col. 1045). Cump. Resp. ad Juvenem Gerontodidascalum (written 1532), col 1002: "ipsa res loquitor,<br />
verba Pauli nullum sensum evidentius reddere quam hunc: Deus, qui est super omnia, sit benedictus in<br />
secula. Cui precationi accinitur, Amen. See also above, under No. 5.]<br />
Bucer (or Butzer) in loc. (1536?), as quoted by Wetstein, suggests this construction as an alternative<br />
rendering. Curcellaeus (Courcelles) in his edition of the Greek Testament published in 1658 (also 1675,<br />
1685, 1699) notes that Quidam addunt punctum post vocem SARKA quia si id quod sequitur cum<br />
praecedentibus connecteretur, potius dicendum videatur OS ESTI, vel OS WN, quam O WN."<br />
Among thosc who have adopted or favored this construction are Whiston, in his Primitive Christianity<br />
Reviv'd, vol. iv. (1711), p. 13 ff. ; and Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,<br />
London, 1712, 3d ed., 1732, p. 85 ff. He gives also as admissible constructions No. 5 and No. 2, but<br />
places No. 7 first. He was, as is well known, one of the best classical scholars of his day, as well as one<br />
of the ablest metaphysicians and theologians. So John Jackson of Leicester, in his Annot. ad Novatianum<br />
(1726), p. 341,<br />
401<br />
though captivated by the specious but worthless conjecture of WN O; Wetstein, as an alternative<br />
rendering, but rather preferring to place the stop after PANTWN (see the end of his note) ; Semmler,<br />
Paraph. Ep. ad Rom. (1769), p. 114 ff., and in many other writings; on the literature of the Semler<br />
controversy, see the references given above, p. 396 n. Semler was not so well acquainted with the<br />
writings of the later as with those of the earlier Fathers, and in this part of the field of debate his<br />
adversaries had the advantage. But he gave a stimulus to a freer and more impartial treatment of the<br />
question. Eckermann adopted the construction we are now considering in the sccand edition (1795) of his<br />
Theologische Beytrage Bd. I. St. iii. pp. 160-162, though in the first edition he had opposed it.<br />
Coming now to the present century, we find this construction adopted by the commentators C. F.<br />
Boehme (Lips. I806), and H. E. G. Paulus, Des Apostels Paulus Lehr-Briefe an die Galater- und<br />
Romer-Christen (Heidelb. 1831), where he translates (p. 102) : Der uber alle (Juden und Heiden)<br />
seyende Gott sey gepriesen auf (alle) die Zeitalter hinaus by Professor J . F. Winzer of Leipzig in a<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (41 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
Programma on Rom. ix. 1-5 (Lips. 1832), which I have not seen, but find highly praised; and Karl<br />
Schrader, Der Apostel Paulus (1833), p. 75, and Theil iv. (1835), p. 355. He translates, Der uber Allem<br />
Seiende (der welcher uber Allem ist,) Gott, gelobt (sei gelobt) in Ewigkeit ! It is adopted in three<br />
commentaries of remarkable independence and ability which appeared in 1834, namely : those of<br />
Proffessor J. G. Reiche of Gottingen, whose note (Theil ii. pp. 268-278) is one of the fullest and best<br />
discussions of the passage, though he makes some mistakes about the Fathers; Professor Eduard Koellner<br />
of Gottingen ; and Dr. Conrad Glockler, whom Professor Stuart calls a Nicenian as regards his<br />
theological position. K. G. Bretschneider, in the fourth edition of his Handbuch der Dogmatik (1838), i.<br />
604 f., adopts the same construction, though in the earlier editions of this work he had referred the QEOS<br />
to Christ. He translates : Der Herr uber alles, Gott, sei gepriesen in Ewigkeit. In 1839, Professor L. J.<br />
Ruckert of Jena, in the second edition of his elaborate and valuable commentary (vol. ii. pp. 13-17),<br />
discusses the passage fully, and though in the first edition (1831) he had strenuously contended for the<br />
reference of the last part of the verse to Christ, now pronounces the construction which makes it a<br />
doxology to God far more probable. This year is also signalized in the history of the interpretation of<br />
our passage by the publication of vol. ii. of the commentary of Professor C. F. A. Fritzsche of Rostock,<br />
who discusses the passage in a masterly manner (ii. 260-275). His translation has been given above, p.<br />
354. In the fourth edition of his Greek Testament with a Latin version, published in 1839, Professor H.<br />
A. Schott of Jena adopted the punctuation and construction which make the clause beginning with O WN<br />
a doxology to God, though in previous editions he had followed the common construction. In his essay<br />
De Invocatione Jesu Christi Partie. I. (1843), p. 8, the highly esteemed commentator Dr, Friedriche<br />
Lucke, Professor at Gottingen, refers the last Part of our verse to God. Professor A. L. G. Krehl, of<br />
Leipzig, does the same in his Der Brief an die Romer ausgelegt,<br />
u.s.w. (1845), p. 322, though in an earlier work, Neutest. Handworterbuch (1843), art. Christus, p. 114,<br />
he had cited Rorn. ix. 5 in proof that Christ is called God.<br />
Baur, who makes the passage a doxology to God, has some valuable remarks upon it in his Paulus<br />
(1845), p. 624 f., 2te Aufl. (1866-67), ii. 263 f. ; comp. his Lehre von der Dreienigkeit (1841), i. 84, note,<br />
and Neutest. Theol. (1864), p. 194. Zeller agrees with him (Theol. Jàhrbucher, 1842, p. 55). So J. F.<br />
Rabiger, a believer in the divine nature of Christ, in his De Christologia Paulina contra Baurium<br />
Commentatio (1852), pp. 26-28.<br />
We may notice here the great commentators De Wette and Meyer. De Wette, not perfectly satisfied with<br />
any view, yet wavers between constructions Nos. 5 and 7 ; see abovc under No. 5. in his Bibl. Dogmatik,<br />
3te Aufl. (1831),<br />
p. 249, and in the second edition of his translation of the New Testament (1832), he had taken the name<br />
God here<br />
as a designation of Christ ; but in the third edition of his translation (1839) he makes it begin a doxology.<br />
Meyer in his Das N.T. griechisht mit einer neuen deutschen Ueberstezung (1829) followed the common<br />
construction; but in the first edition of his Comm. (1836), and all later editions, he makes the passage a<br />
doxology to God. His collaborator, Huther, maintains in his note on Titus ii. 13 that the name QEOS is<br />
not given to Christ in any of the New Testament Epistles.<br />
In 1855 appeared the first edition of Jowetts work on four of the Epistles of Paul (2d ed., 1859). He<br />
translates:<br />
God, who is over all, is blessed for ever. Amen. So Bishop Colenso, St Pauls Ep. to the Romans, etc.,<br />
London, 1861; Am. ed., New York, 1863.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (42 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
Ewald, Die Sendschreiben des Ap. Paulus, u. s. w. (1857), translates : der uber allen ist Gott sei gelobet<br />
in die ewigkeiten, Amen ! (p. 323 ; comp. p. 398 f.) See also his Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott, Bd. iii.<br />
(1874), p. 416, n. 3. Professor J. H. Scholten of Leyden, in his Dogmatices Christ. Initia, ed. 2da, Lugd.<br />
Bat. 1858, p. 193 f., adopts the same construction. So Athanase Coquerel, Christologie (Paris, 1858), i.<br />
76, note. So the celebrated Dutch commentator, Van Hengel, who in tome ii. of his Interpretatio (1859),<br />
pp. 343-360, discusses the passage very fully. He mentions some Dutch scholars that agree with him, as<br />
Vissering and Scheffer (Godgel. Bijdragen), whose writings I have not seen. The eminent Danish<br />
commentator, Dr.<br />
H. N. Clausen, Pauli Brev til Romerne fortolket (Copenhagen, i 863), p. 124, translates : Han som er<br />
over Alt, Gud, (eller, "Gud, som er over Alt") vaere priset i Evighed!" He is the author of Hermeneutik.<br />
The Germans spell his name Klausen.) Holtzmann, in his translation of the Epistle in Bunsens<br />
Bibelwerk (I864), vol. iv., gives the same construction to the passage ; and so Profess sor Willibald<br />
Bcyschlag of Halic, in his CIeristalo,gie des ~v: r., Berlin, i866, ~. 209 f.<br />
Professor R. A. Lipsius of Jena, in the Protestantentenp-Bibel Neuen Testamentes (1872-73), p. 572,<br />
translates : Der da<br />
ist uber Alles, Gott, sei gelobt in Ewigkeit"; p. 32 : Der uber Allen seiende Gott sei gelobt in Ewigkeit!<br />
His comment is (p. 97): "Der Gott, der uber allen (Volkern) waltet, sei dafur gepriesen, dass er aus Israel<br />
den Heiland (fur Alle) hervorgehen liess." The Rev. John H. Godwin, Hon. Prof. New Coll., Lond.,"<br />
and Congregational Lecturer, translates, God who is over all be praised for ever. Amen, and has a good<br />
note. (Ep. to Rom., London, 1873.) Professor Lewis Campbell, the editor of Sophocles, in the<br />
Contemporary Review for August, 1876, p. 484, adopts the rendering of Professor Jowett. The Rev.<br />
Joseph Agar Beet, Wesleyan Methodist, in a Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans of very marked<br />
ability (London, 1877, 2d ed., 1881), defends this view in an excellent note (pp. 267-272, 2d ed.). The<br />
same construction is followed in Herm. Bartelss Exeget Uebersetzung des Briefes, etc. (Dessau, 1878),<br />
which I mention because Professor Woldemar Schmidt of Leipzig, in a notice of the book (Theol.<br />
Literaturzeitung, 1879, No. 22), expresses his approval of this. C. Holsten, in an article in the Jahrbucher<br />
f. prot Theol., 1879, P. 683, translates : Der über allen Volkern waltende Gott (der doch Israels Volk so<br />
begnadet hat) sei gepriesen in Ewigkeit !<br />
Some of the best recent translations adopt this construction of the passage ; c.g. Het Nieuwe Testament,<br />
etc. (published by the authority of the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church), Amsterdam, 1868<br />
: Hij, die over alles is, God, zij geprezen tot in eenwigheid! and the versions by Dr. George R. Noyes<br />
(Boston, 1869), Hugues Oltramare (Genéve, 1872), Que celui qui gouverne toutes choses, Dieu, en soit<br />
beni éternellement! Carl Weizsackcr, Das N.T. uebersetzt, Tubingen, 1875, and Dr. Samuel Davidson,<br />
London, 1875. 2d ed. 1876.<br />
No one who knew the scholarship and the impartiality of the late Dr. Noyes will wonder that I have cited<br />
him here. A dispassionate, judicial spirit in the examination of such questions as the one before us is not<br />
the exclusive possession of the Dean of Chichester and of the Church" in distinction from the "the<br />
Sects," though there are many noble examples of it in the Church of England.<br />
Among critical editors of the Greek Testament who have placed a period after SARKA, making the<br />
passage a doxology to God, I may mention Harwood (1776), Lachmann (1831-50) Schott (4th ed., 1839),<br />
Tischendorf (1841-73), Muralt (1846-48), Buttman (1856-67), Aug. Hahn, assisted by his son G.L. Hahn<br />
(1861), Kuenen and Cobet (1861), and Westcott and Hort (1881) in their margin, representing the<br />
judgment of Dr. Hort.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (43 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5)<br />
To these authorities may be added the names of the grammarians Winer and Wilke. See Winer, Gram.,<br />
7te Aufl., 1867,// 61, 3, e., and 64, 2, b., pp. 513, 545, or 551, 586 Thayer, 690, 733 Moulton; and Wilke,<br />
Hermeneutik (1844), ii. 88.<br />
It is worthy of notice that many scholars who had already in their publications adopted or even strongly<br />
contended for the common construction of this passage, afterwards saw reason to change their minds.<br />
Such was the case with Eckermann, De Wette, Meyer, Ruckert, Bretschneider, Schott, Krehl, Hahn<br />
(perhaps both father and son); and it is so with Ritschl, as I am assured by a very intelligent student (the<br />
Rev. Alfred Gooding), who took full notes of his exegetical lectures on Romans in the semester of<br />
1879-80. I know of only one instance of a conversion in the opposite direction, that of Dr. G. V. Lechler,<br />
who, in the first edition of his Das Apost. u. das nachapost. Zeitalter (1851), pp. 38, 39, made the last part<br />
of the verse a doxology to God, but in the second edition (1857), p. 63 f. [and 3d ed. (1886), Eng. trans.,<br />
vol. ii. p. 27 f.], applies it to Christ. He expressly admits, however, as regards the two opposing views,<br />
that "sprachlich und logisch sind beide gleichberechtigt."<br />
"The awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socinians in their perversions of this passage." says<br />
the Scotch commentator Haldane, "more fully manifests the depravity of human nature, and the rooted<br />
enmity of the carnal mind against God, than the grossest works of the flesh.<br />
[Exposition of the Ep. to the Romans, Am. reprint of the fifth Edinburgh edition, p. 454.]<br />
The dishonest shifts, says Dean Burgon, by which unbelievers seek to evacuate the record which they<br />
are powerless to refute or deny, are paraded by our Revisionists in the following terms.<br />
[The Quarterly Review for January, 1882, p. 54 (see the Revision Revised, p. 211); see also the same for<br />
April, 1882, p. 370 (The Revision Revised, p. 353 f.)]<br />
(Here Mr. Burgon quotes the margin of the Revised Version at Rom. ix. 5, regarding these renderings as<br />
not entitledi to notice in the margin of the N. T. and their admission as a very grave offence.) SU TIS<br />
EI O KRINWN ALLOTRION OIKETHN, O KATHGWP TWN ADELFWN HMWN. (Rom. xiv. 4;<br />
Rev. xii. 10)<br />
In contrast with these utterances, not addressed to the reason of men, and not adopted to promote<br />
Christian charity or Christian humility, it is refreshing to read a discussion so calm, so clear, so fair, and<br />
so able as that of Professor Dwight.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (44 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:37 AM]
Important Moments in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation History<br />
Year <strong>Bible</strong>/Text Language Link<br />
2nd Temple Aramaic Targums Aramaic Info<br />
300bc-70ad Apocryphal Writings Search<br />
280 B.C. The Septuagint (LXX) Greek Download<br />
200bc-200ad Pseudepigrapha Writings Search<br />
170 A.D. Tatian's Diatessaron Syriac Read<br />
2nd Century Theodotion's LXX Greek<br />
2nd Century Aquila's LXX Greek<br />
2-3rd Century Symmachus Translation Greek<br />
200 A.D. Papyrus Bodmer 2, 14, 15 Greek<br />
200 A.D. Sahidic Old Testament Coptic<br />
240 c. Origen's Hexapla Various<br />
3rd Century Chester Beatty Papyrus 1,2,3 Greek<br />
4th Century Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) Greek<br />
4th Century Vatican Mss 1209 (B) Greek<br />
405 A.D. The Latin Vulgate/Jerome Latin Download<br />
5th Century Codex Alexandrinus (A) Greek<br />
5th Century Syriac Peshitta Aramaic Download<br />
5th Century Curetonian Syriac Old Syriac<br />
5th Century Codex Ephraemi Greek<br />
450 A.D. Ulfilas Gothic <strong>Bible</strong> Gothic Info<br />
5-6th Cent. Codex Bezae Greek/Latin<br />
6-11th Cent. Masoretic Text Hebrew<br />
8th Century Book of Kells Celtic Buy<br />
895 A.D. Cairo Codex Hebrew<br />
930 A.D. Aleppo Codex Hebrew<br />
950 A.D. Lindisfarne Gospels Latin<br />
9th Century Latin Vulgate-Clementine Edition Latin<br />
9th Century Cyril&Methodius Slavinoc <strong>Bible</strong> Slavonic<br />
9th Century King Alfred's translation (partial) O. English<br />
10th Century Aelfric translates Genesis-Judges O. English<br />
1008 A.D. Leningrad Codex Hebrew<br />
10-11 Cent. West Saxon Gospels Saxon Info<br />
10-11 Cent. Notker Labeo Job&Psalms Latin/German<br />
1180 A.D.c Waldenses Ancient Vaudois version Provencal<br />
1370 A.D. Psalter by Henry of Mugeln German<br />
13-14th Cent. Catalan <strong>Bible</strong> Spanish<br />
1380-82 Wycliffe <strong>Bible</strong> (Nicholas) English<br />
1384-90 Wycliffe <strong>Bible</strong> (J Purvey) English<br />
1385 A.D. Shem Tob's Gospel of Matthew Hebrew Buy<br />
1422 A.D. Alba <strong>Bible</strong> Spanish<br />
1456 A.D. Gutenberg <strong>Bible</strong> Latin see press<br />
1514-17 Polyglot <strong>Bible</strong> Various<br />
1516 A.D. Erasmus Greek NT Greek/Latin<br />
1518 A.D. Erasmus Greek NT-2nd Edition Greek<br />
1522 A.D. Erasmus Greek NT-3rd Edition Greek<br />
1522-34 Martin Luther's <strong>Bible</strong> German Download<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/biblehistory.htm (1 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:54:48 AM]
1525 A.D. Tyndale's Version English Buy<br />
1527 A.D. Erasmus Greek NT-4th Edition Greek<br />
1530-32 Brucioli Italian<br />
1537 A.D. Coverdale's Version English<br />
1537 A.D. Matthew <strong>Bible</strong> (from Coverdale) English<br />
1539 A.D. The Great <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1539-52 Taverner (from Matthew) English<br />
1550 A.D. Stephanus Greek Text Greek Download<br />
1555 A.D. J. du Tillet's Gospel of Matthew Hebrew<br />
1557-1602 Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> English Buy<br />
1565-1604 Theodore Beza's Greek NT Greek<br />
1568-1606 The Bishop's <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1575-79 Latin <strong>Bible</strong> of Tremellio and Junio Latin<br />
1582-1610 Douay-Rheims <strong>Bible</strong> English Download<br />
1610 A.D. Reina-Valera Spanish Download<br />
1611 A.D. King James Version English Download<br />
1633 A.D. Elzevir's Textus Receptus/Received Text Greek<br />
1637 A.D. Statenvertaling Dutch Download<br />
1640 A.D. Bay Psalm Book English Search<br />
1653 A.D. A Paraphrase/Annotation of N.T. by Hammond English<br />
1653 A.D. John Milton's Psalms English<br />
1657 A.D. Dutch Annot. On the Whole <strong>Bible</strong>/Haak English<br />
1661 A.D. Eliot Indian <strong>Bible</strong> Algonquin<br />
1681-91 Almeida Portuguese<br />
1685 A.D. New Testament with Paraphrase/R. Baxter English<br />
1690 A.D. Samuel Clarke <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1703 A.D. Paraphrase/Comm. On the N.T. by D Whitby English<br />
1718 A.D. The New Testament by Cornelius Nary English<br />
1724 A.D. The Common Trans. corrected by E. Wells English<br />
1729 A.D. New Testament in Grk and Eng. By Dav. Mace Grk/English<br />
1730 A.D. Annotations on the N.T./Robert Witham English<br />
1730 A.D. New Testament by William Webster English<br />
1745-90 John Wesley New Testament English Search<br />
1745 A.D. Primitive New Testament by W. Whiston English<br />
1752 A.D. Exposition of N.T. by John Guyse English<br />
1755 A.D. The Family Expositor by P. Doddridge English<br />
1761 A.D. An Interpretation of the N.T./John Heylin English<br />
1764 A.D. A New and Literal Translation/Purver English<br />
1764 A.D. New Testament collated w/Grk by Rich. Wynne English<br />
1765 A.D. New Trans. of New Testament by Sam. Palmer English<br />
1768 A.D. A Liberal Translation of the N.T./Ed. Harwood English<br />
1770 A.D. John Worsley New Testament English<br />
1773 A.D. Universal Family <strong>Bible</strong>/Henry Southwell English<br />
1774 A.D. Old Testament by Anselm Bayly English<br />
1775-77 Griesbach New Testament Text Greek<br />
1778 A.D. <strong>Bible</strong> in Verse/John Fellows English<br />
1790 A.D. The Four Gospels by George Campbell English<br />
1790-93 Scio <strong>Bible</strong> Spanish<br />
1791-95 G.Wakefield New Testament English<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/biblehistory.htm (2 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:54:48 AM]
1795 A.D. A New Literal Translation by J. MacKnight English<br />
1795 A.D. Thomas Haweis New Testament English<br />
1795 A.D. Samuel Clarke/Thomas Pyle New Testament English<br />
1796 A.D. William Newcome New Testament English<br />
1798 A.D. Nathaniel Scarlett New Testament English<br />
1799-1815 a Revised Translation & Interpretation/McRae English<br />
1808 A.D. Septuagint by Charles Thomson English<br />
1808 A.D. NT in an Improved Version/Newcome English Download<br />
1812 A.D. William Williams New Testament English<br />
1815 A.D. Gospels by Charles Thomson English<br />
1816 A.D. NT in an Improved Version/Newcome/Belsham English<br />
1816 A.D. William Thomson New Testament English<br />
1822 A.D. Abner Kneeland New Testament English<br />
1823 A.D. A New Family <strong>Bible</strong> by Boothroyd English<br />
1824 A.D. John Wilkins Revised Testament English<br />
1826 A.D. Alexander Campbell New Testament English<br />
1827 A.D. G.R. Noyes New Testament English<br />
1828 A.D. J.G. Palfrey New Testament English<br />
1830 A.D. Egbert Benson Epistles English<br />
1831 A.D. Lachmann's Greek Testament Greek<br />
1833 A.D. Webster's <strong>Bible</strong> English Download<br />
1833 A.D. The Sacred Writings by MacKnight/Campbell English<br />
1833 A.D. Rodolphus Dickinson New Testament English<br />
1833-37 G.R. Noyes Prophets English<br />
1834 A.D. Holy <strong>Bible</strong> by George Townsend English<br />
1835 A.D. Holy Writings of the 1st Christians/Caldecott English<br />
1836 A.D. G. Penn New Covenant English<br />
1841 A.D. Holy <strong>Bible</strong> with 20,000 emendations/Conquest English<br />
1841-72 Tischendorf's Greek Text-8 Editions Greek Download<br />
1842 A.D. A.C. Kendrick <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1842-50 Lachmann's Greek Testament-2nd Edition Greek<br />
1844 A.D. Holy <strong>Bible</strong> by T.J. Hussey English<br />
1845 A.D. Isaac Leeser O.T. English<br />
1848 A.D. Jonathan Morgan New Testament English<br />
1849-60 F.P. Kenrick <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1849 A.D. J.W. Etheridge New Testament English<br />
1849 A.D. Nathan Whiting New Testament English<br />
1850 A.D. Cone & Wyckoff New Testament English<br />
1851 A.D. Septuagint w/Apocrypha by Brenton Greek/English Buy<br />
1852 A.D. The New Testament from the Syriac/J.Murdock English<br />
1852 A.D. Hezekiah Woodruff New Testament English<br />
1854 A.D. Emphatic New Testament by John Taylor English<br />
1855 A.D. Andrews Norton Gospels English<br />
1855-71 Elberfelder German Search<br />
1856 A.D. The New Testament by Samuel Sharpe English<br />
1857 A.D. John Bengel New Testament English<br />
1857-72 Tregelles Greek Text Greek<br />
1858 A.D. Alexander Vance Old Testament English<br />
1858-64 Leicester Sawyer <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/biblehistory.htm (3 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:54:48 AM]
1861 A.D. Jewish School&Family <strong>Bible</strong>/A. Benisch English<br />
1861 A.D. Leonard Thorn New Testament English<br />
1862-64 American <strong>Bible</strong> Union New Testament (partial) English<br />
1862-98 Young's Literal Translation English Download<br />
1864 A.D. H.T. Anderson New Testament English<br />
1864 A.D. Emphatic Diaglott Greek/English Contact<br />
1865 A.D. Twofold New Testament/Thomas Green English<br />
1867 A.D. Inspired Version by Joseph Smith English<br />
1869 A.D. Henry Alford N.T. English<br />
1869 A.D. Robert Ainslie New Testament English<br />
1869 A.D. Nathaniel Folsom Gospels English<br />
1870 A.D. J. Bowes New Testament English<br />
1870 A.D. Gotch&Jacob Holy <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1871-90 J.N. Darby Translation English Download<br />
1873-80 Louis Segond French Download<br />
1875 A.D. John McLellan New Testament English<br />
1875 A.D. Samuel Davidson New Testament English<br />
1876 A.D. Julia Smith <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1878-1902 The Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong>/Rotherham English<br />
1880 A.D. Hermann Gollancz <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1881 A.D. The Greek Testament Englished/Crickmer English<br />
1881 A.D. Westcott and Hort Greek Text Greek Download<br />
1883 A.D. Cortes Jackson New Testament English<br />
1884 A.D. The Englishman's <strong>Bible</strong>/Thomas Newberrry English<br />
1884-86 A.D. New Covenant by J.W. Hanson English<br />
1885 A.D. Teaching & Acts of Jesus by W.D. Dillard English<br />
1885 A.D. Helen Spurrell Old Testament English<br />
1885-95 English Revised Version English<br />
1892 A.D. Biblia Innocentium by John Mackail English<br />
1893 A.D. Reina-Valera Spanish<br />
1894 A.D. F.H.A. Scrivener's Received Text/TR Greek Download<br />
1894-1905 Crampon French<br />
1893 A.D. John Peters and Edward Bartlett Scriptures English<br />
1895 A.D. Ferrar Fenton English<br />
1897 A.D. New Dispensation by Robert Weekes English<br />
1898 A.D. Epistles of Paul in Modern English/Stevens English<br />
1900 A.D. 20th Century New Testament English<br />
1901 A.D. American Standard Version English Download<br />
1902-13 Von Soden's Apparatus Greek<br />
1904 A.D. Worrell's New Testament English<br />
1905 A.D. Godbey New Testament English<br />
1910 A.D. Alexander Souter's Greek NT Greek<br />
1912 A.D. Weymouth's New Testament English Download<br />
1917 A.D. The Holy Scriptures/Jewish Publication Society English Search<br />
1922 A.D. James Moffatt <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1924 A.D. Centenary Version New Testament English<br />
1924 A.D. Montgomery New Testament English<br />
1926 A.D. Concordant Literal New Testament English Search<br />
1929 A.D. Westminster Version English<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/biblehistory.htm (4 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:54:48 AM]
1933 A.D. George M. Lamsa Translation English<br />
1934 A.D. Riverside New Testament/Ballantine English<br />
1935 A.D. An American Translation/Smith&Goodspeed English<br />
1937 A.D. Charles B. Williams New Testament English<br />
1938 A.D. The Book of Books/R.M. Wilson English<br />
1940 A.D. Spencer New Testament English<br />
1941 A.D. Confraternity <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1941 A.D. <strong>Bible</strong> in Basic English English Download<br />
1942 A.D. Nestle's Greek Text Greek<br />
1943 A.D. Jose Bover's Text Greek<br />
1945 A.D. Modern Language <strong>Bible</strong>/New Berkeley Version English<br />
1945 A.D. Nag Hammadi Library Discovered<br />
1945 A.D. New Testament by Monsignor Ronald A. Knox English<br />
1946-51 Revised Standard Version English Search<br />
1947 A.D. Swann New Testament English<br />
1947 A.D. New Testament Letters by J.W.C. Wand English<br />
1947 A.D. 1QIs Dead Sea Scrolls Greek<br />
1948 A.D. Augustinus Merk Text Greek<br />
1948 A.D. Letchworth Version English<br />
1950-63 Holy Name bible/Traina English<br />
1950-61 New <strong>World</strong> Translation English Contact<br />
1951-55 Kittel's Biblia Hebraica Hebrew<br />
1951-61 Simplified New Testament by Norlie English<br />
1956 A.D. Laubach's Inspired Letters of the N.T. English<br />
1956 A.D. Kleist&Lilly New Testament English<br />
1960 A.D. New Testament in Modern English/J.B.Phillips Search<br />
1960-71 New American Standard Version English Search<br />
1961 A.D. New Testament-Expanded Translation/Wuest English<br />
1961 A.D. Noli New Testament English<br />
1961 A.D. Dartmouth <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1962-82 New Testament by Richmond Lattimore English<br />
1965 A.D. The Amplified <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1966 A.D. Good News <strong>Bible</strong>/Today's English Version English<br />
1966 A.D. The Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1969 A.D. Kingdom Interlinear Translation Greek/English Contact<br />
1969 A.D. Barclay New Testament English<br />
1969 A.D. New Life New Testament/Ledyard English<br />
1970 A.D. The New American <strong>Bible</strong> English Search<br />
1970 A.D. Restoration of the Sacred Name <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1970 A.D. New English <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1972 A.D. The Living <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1972 A.D. Common <strong>Bible</strong>-RSV English<br />
1972 A.D. The <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English/S.T. Byington English<br />
1973 A.D. Cotton Patch Version English<br />
1973 A.D. Jewish Family <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1975 A.D. Word Made Fresh/Edington English<br />
1975 A.D. United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies Text Greek<br />
1976 A.D. Hodges-Farstad Majority Text Greek<br />
1976 A.D. An American Translation by William F. Beck Hebrew<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/biblehistory.htm (5 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:54:48 AM]
1977 A.D. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Hebrew<br />
1978 A.D. New International Version English Search<br />
1978 A.D. Simple English <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1979 A.D. King James Version II/Jay P Green Greek/English<br />
1979 A.D. New King James Version English Search<br />
1979 A.D. Nestle-Aland Greek Text Greek Download<br />
1980 A.D. Versified Rendering of the Gospels/Faw English<br />
1980-96 The Literal Translation of the Holy <strong>Bible</strong> English Search<br />
1983-88 New Century Version English<br />
1984 A.D. Inclusive Language New Testament English<br />
1985 A.D. The Original New Testament/Schonfield English<br />
1985 A.D. Tanakh-New Jewish P. Society English<br />
1985-91 Recovery Version English<br />
1985 A.D. New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1987-99 <strong>World</strong> <strong>Bible</strong> Translation English Download<br />
1989 A.D. Jewish New Testament English<br />
1989 A.D. Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> English<br />
1989 A.D. Heinz Cassirer New Testament English<br />
1989 A.D. McCord's New Testament English<br />
1989 A.D. New Revised Standard Version English Search<br />
1990 A.D. New Evangelical Translation English<br />
1991 A.D. Unvarnished New Testament by Andy Gaus English Buy<br />
1995 A.D. Contemporary English Version English<br />
1993 A.D. <strong>World</strong>wide English <strong>Bible</strong> English Search<br />
1993 A.D. The Five Gospels/Jesus Seminar English<br />
1993 A.D. The Message-New Testament English<br />
1994 A.D. 21st Century King James Version English Search<br />
1995 A.D. An Inclusive Version English<br />
1995 A.D. <strong>Robinson</strong>-Pierpont Majority Text Greek Download<br />
1995-98 New International readers Version English<br />
1995-2001 NET <strong>Bible</strong> English Download<br />
1996 A.D. Schocken <strong>Bible</strong>/Everett Fox English<br />
1996 A.D. Three Gospels/R. Price English Buy<br />
1996 A.D. God's Word <strong>Bible</strong> English Search<br />
1996 A.D. New Living Translation English Search<br />
1999 A.D. 21st Century New Testament English<br />
1999 A.D. Modern King James Version English Search<br />
1999 A.D. New Millenium <strong>Bible</strong>/Wallace English<br />
1999 A.D. <strong>World</strong> English <strong>Bible</strong> English Download<br />
1999 to… Original <strong>Bible</strong> Project English View<br />
2000 A.D. HCSB New Testament English Buy<br />
2000 A.D. International English <strong>Bible</strong> English Buy<br />
2000 A.D. New English Trans. of Septuagint/Pietersma English<br />
2001 A.D. English Standard Version English Buy<br />
Back to Main<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/biblehistory.htm (6 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:54:48 AM]
Is Organization Necessary for True Christianity?<br />
Is Organization Necessary for True Believers?<br />
Unless otherwise stated, all Scriptures are from the Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Is it "Just me and Jesus?"<br />
"I appeal to you my friends, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: agree among yourselves, and avoid<br />
divisions; let thee be complete unity of mind and thought."<br />
Ron Rhodes, in his book (pp 40-44) states:<br />
Where in 1 Corinthians 1:10 is there any reference or allusion to an organization?<br />
Where in 1 Corinthians 1:10 does it say unity is to be achieved by submission to such an<br />
organization.<br />
And then he points to Romans 14:2-5:<br />
"For instance, one person may have faith strong enough to eat all kinds of food, while<br />
another who is weaker eats only vegetables. Those who eat meat must not look down on<br />
those who do not, and those who do not eat meat must not pass judgement on those who do;<br />
for God has accepted them. Who are you to pass judgement on someone else's servant?<br />
Whether he stands or falls is his own Master's business; and stand he will, because his<br />
Master has power to enable him to stand. Again, some make a distinction between this day<br />
and that; others regard all days alike. Everyone must act on his own convictions."<br />
[The same question can be asked of Rhodes here. Where does Romans 14: 2-5 condemn<br />
organization?<br />
Where does Romans 14:2-5 say unity is NOT to be achieved by submission to such an<br />
organization?]<br />
Speaking of Romans 14:2-5, he asks, "Doesn't this passage indicate that it is acceptable for Christians to<br />
differ on certain religious issues?"<br />
The Ryrie Study <strong>Bible</strong> correctly states here, "Paul here discusses the proper attitude Christians should<br />
have toward each other in debatable areas of conduct (things which are not clearly stated to be wrong)."<br />
The dietary matters talked about at Romans 14 are not clearly stated religious issues. They are minor<br />
compared to the more important things (Col 2:16). These are not differences of doctrine.<br />
Adam Clarke on 1 Cor 1:10 also says, "On every essential doctrine of the Gospel all genuine Christians<br />
agree."<br />
Paul does clarify himself right at the end of this epistle to the Romans when he says, "I implore you, my<br />
friends, keep an eye on those who stir up quarrels and lead others astray, *contrary to the teaching<br />
(doctrine NKJV) you received. Avoid them." Romans 16:17<br />
My Oxford Study <strong>Bible</strong> then cross-references this to Gal 1:6-9, which states, " I am astonished to find<br />
you turning away so quickly from him who called you by grace and following a different gospel. Not<br />
that it is in fact another gospel; only there are some who unsettle your minds by trying to distort the<br />
gospel of Christ. But should anyone, even I myself or an angel from heaven preach a gospel other than<br />
the gospel I preached to you, let him be banned! I warn you again: If anyone preaches a gospel other<br />
than the gospel you received, let him be banned!"<br />
Banishment?! Which churches these days use this kind of authority? Which churches actually bother to<br />
excommunicate as the first century has done?<br />
Rhodes then points to 1 Cor 1:12; 6:13; 8:10; 10:25; 11:2-16; 14; 15 to prove the disunity was already<br />
prevalent in the 1st Century Church, as if to assume that this disunity is in fact very Christian.<br />
1 Corinthians 6:13, 8:10, and 10:25 again, deal with dietary matters, which we have dealt with above.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/organization.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:55:04 AM]
Is Organization Necessary for True Christianity?<br />
But what of 1 Cor 1:12?<br />
"What I mean is this, each of you is saying, 'I am for Paul,' or 'I am for Apollos'; 'I am for Cephas,' or 'I<br />
am for Christ.'" But does Paul give approval for this kind of division? Not if you read verses 10 and 13.<br />
Paul even goes so far as to that some were "on the way to destruction."<br />
This is the same Paul that says, "And I shall go on doing as I am doing now, to cut the ground from under<br />
those who would seize any chance to put their vaunted apostleship on the same level as ours." 2 Cor<br />
11:12<br />
This Paul was very assured of his leadership and control in the church, and did not suffer any opposition<br />
in this matter.<br />
1 Corinthians 11:2-16, (and chapters 14 and 15 for that matter) do not support Rhodes view, in fact, quite<br />
the opposite. 1 Cor 11:3 states, "every man has Christ for his head, a woman's head is man, as Christ's<br />
head is God." Here you have a structured organizational system. The following verses then go on to<br />
explain the woman's role in the church, and the regulations that she should follow. As you and I know,<br />
the Southern Baptist Convention is split due to opposition of the <strong>Bible</strong>'s view of women in the pulpit.<br />
Remember, this is the same Paul that said:<br />
"For the time will come when people will not stand sound teaching, but each will follow his own whim."<br />
2Tim 4:3<br />
Why? Ps 18:1 says "A solitary person pursues his own desire; he quarrels with every sound policy. The<br />
foolish have not interest in seeking to understand, but only in expressing their own opinions."<br />
There is no getting away from it, the pattern of the early church was one that stressed organization, and a<br />
far reaching organization at that. Paul could say that "We boast about you among the churches" (2 Thess<br />
1:4) as his leadership was felt through all the churches.<br />
Paul had written letters from himself to the different churches, and then he asked them to spread the<br />
epistle around to the other churches. (Col 4:16) Where does this happen today, unless you are part of a<br />
unified organization.<br />
Paul speaks of "our authority" (2 Cor 10:8) and with this authority he gave rules: "You know THE<br />
RULES we gave you in the name of the Lord Jesus." 1 Thess 4:4<br />
Heb 10:25 says "We should not stay away from our meetings"<br />
We are again admonished to "Agree together in the Lord" Php 4:2<br />
"The reason I left you behind in Crete was for you to get everything organised there."- Tit 1:5, The<br />
Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority." Heb 13:17<br />
"Remember your leaders, who spoke God's message to you." Heb 13:7<br />
"Greet all your leaders and all God's people." Heb 13:24<br />
"Acknowledge those who are working so hard among you, and are your leaders."<br />
The apostle Paul also pointed out that "God has organized the body" of Jesus Christ's anointed followers<br />
as it pleases Him. Hence, we should expect "God's congregation" to be well organized and to function<br />
peacefully, harmoniously.-1 Cor. 14:33; 12:24, The Riverside New Testament; 1 Tim 3:5.<br />
1. The Apostles speaking of INDIVIDUAL AND GROUPS OF CHURCHES:<br />
* "the church which was at Jerusalem" (Acts 8:1)<br />
* "the church that was at Antioch" (Acts 13:1)<br />
* "the church which is at Cenchrea" (Rom 16:1)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/organization.htm (2 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:55:04 AM]
Is Organization Necessary for True Christianity?<br />
* "the church of the Thessalonians" (1 Thess 1:1)<br />
* "the church of the Ephesians" (2 Tim 4:22)<br />
* "the churches of Galatia" (1 Cor 16:1)<br />
* "the churches of Judaea" (Gal 1:22)<br />
(thereby indicating they kept tabs on all of them.)<br />
2. ...but also spoke GENERICALLY FOR ALL CHURCHES:<br />
* "I will build my church, and the powers of death shall never conquer it." (Matt 16:18)<br />
* "tell it unto the church" (Matt 18:17)<br />
* "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth" (1 Tim 3:15)<br />
* "every church" (1 Cor 4:17)<br />
* "the church of God." (1 Cor 10:32)<br />
* "the churches of God." (1 Cor 11:16)<br />
* "the church" (Eph 1:22, 3:21, Phil 3:6)<br />
“The word ekklesia occurs in AA [Acts of the Apostles] 23 times. In no passage does it certainly mean<br />
anything except the local church, usually the church of Jerusalem, but also the local church of Antioch<br />
and other cities. The church of Jerusalem was the parent and the prototype of the other churches,<br />
and possible the first foundations were considered as expansions of the Jerusalem community.<br />
…The church of Jerusalem sends men to investigate conditions in other churches (AA 15:3) and<br />
itself in assembly makes decisions that are referred to it by other churches (AA 15:22).” P. 135<br />
Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>, by John L. McKenzie<br />
Is your church patterned after the church of the first century?<br />
Consider the following example, as taken from Will The Real Heretics Stand Up by David W. Bercot:<br />
"Another example illustrates both the brotherly love of Christians and their uncompromising<br />
commitment to Jesus as Lord. A pagan actor became a Christian, but he realized he had to<br />
change his employment because most plays encouraged immorality and were steeped in<br />
pagan idolatry. Furthermore, the theater sometimes purposefully turned boys into<br />
homosexuals so they could better play the roles of women on stage. Since this<br />
newly-converted actor had no other job skills, he considered establishing an acting school to<br />
teach drama to nonChristian students. However, he first submitted his idea to the leaders<br />
of his church for their counsel.<br />
The leaders told him that if acting was an immoral profession then it would be wrong to<br />
train others in it. Nevertheless, since this was a rather novel question, they wrote to<br />
Cyprian in nearby Carthage for his thoughts. Cyprian agreed that a profession unfit for a<br />
Christian to practice was also unfit for him to teach, even if this was his sole means of<br />
support.<br />
How many of us would be so concerned about righteousness that we would submit our<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/organization.htm (3 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:55:04 AM]
Is Organization Necessary for True Christianity?<br />
employment decisions to our body of elders or board of deacons? How many church leaders<br />
today would be so concerned about offending God that they would take such an<br />
uncompromising position?"<br />
As we can see, the early Church members submitted to the authority of its leaders.<br />
Who Keeps the Church Clean if it is just "Me and Jesus"<br />
The 1st century Church was actually very judicious, as the following from Smith's <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary:<br />
"Excommunication, as exercised by the Christian Church, is not merely founded on the natural right,<br />
possessed by all societies, nor merely on the example of the Jewish Church and nation. It was instituted<br />
by our Lord (Matt. xviii. 15, 18), amd it was practised and commanded by St. Paul (1 Tim. i. 20; 1 Cor.<br />
v. 11; Tit. iii.10). In the Epistles, we find St. Paul frequently claiming the right to exercise discipline over<br />
his converts (comp. 2 Cor. i. 23, xiii.10).<br />
...The Nature of Excommunication is made more evident by the acts of St. Paul than by any investigation<br />
of Jewish practice or of the etymology of words. We thus find,<br />
(1) that it is a spiritual penalty, involving no temporal punishment, except accidentally;<br />
(2) that it consists in seperation from the communion of the Church;<br />
(3) that its object is the good of the sufferer ( 1 Cor. v.5), and the protection of the sound members of the<br />
Church ( 2 Tim. iii. 17);<br />
(4) that its subjects are those who are guilty of heresy (1 Tim. i. 20), or gross immorality (1 Cor. v. 1);<br />
(5) that it is inflicted by the authority of the Church at large (Matt. xviii. 18), wielded by the<br />
highest ecclesiastical officer (1 Corinthians 5:3; Titus 3:10)<br />
(6) that this officer's sentence is promulgated by the congregation to which the offender belongs, (1<br />
Corinthians 5:4) in defence to his superior judgment and command, (2 Corinthians 2:9) and in spite of<br />
any opposition on the part of a minority, (2 Corinthians 2:6)<br />
(7) that the exclusion may be of indefinite duration, or for a period;<br />
(8) that its duration may be abridged at the discretion and by the indulgence of the person who has<br />
imposed the penalty, (2 Corinthians 2:8)<br />
(9) that penitence is the condition on which restoration to communion is granted, (2 Corinthians<br />
2:8)<br />
(10) that the sentence is to be publicly reversed as it was publicly promulgated. (2 Corinthians 2:10) "<br />
This point is re-iterated by the following:<br />
Excommunicaton<br />
"The permanent or temporary exclusion of a church member from fellowship within the<br />
community. This practice, specifically mentioned in Matthew's Gospel (Matt. 18:15-17) and<br />
the Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:6), served 2 purposes. First, it protects<br />
the community from the harmful influence of the sinner (1 Cor. 5:6-7). Second, it reminds<br />
the sinner of the sin (2 Cor. 2:7) in the hope that repentance (7:9) and redemption occur.<br />
Excommunication is never an individual or (2 Cor. 2:6) or judgmental activity (v.8) and it is<br />
not a withdrawal of concern for the sinner. It always has restoration as its ultimate goal.<br />
Although the term ‘excommunication’ does not appear in Scripture, the concept is clearly<br />
present. Matthew instructs the Church to treat unrepentant members like ‘a Gentile and a tax<br />
collector’ (Matt. 18:17), and Paul wants the guilty party delivered ‘over to Satan’ (1 Cor.<br />
5:5), i.e., delivered over to the realm of Satan, the world outside the Church.<br />
Church discipline, ending in excommunication, should only be used for serious matters such<br />
as blatant sexual sins (1 Cor. 5:1), unrepentance (Matt. 18:15-17), factiousness (Tit.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/organization.htm (4 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:55:04 AM]
Is Organization Necessary for True Christianity?<br />
3:10-11), and the propagation of heresy (Rom. 16:17). Sinners should be dealt with quickly<br />
and seriously for both the health of the community and the spiritual health of the offender.”<br />
p. 438, Eerdman’s Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
If you are not part of an organizational structure, who is enforcing the removal of the wicked from your<br />
church?<br />
Even the conservative publications like the NIV and NASB Study <strong>Bible</strong> have this to say in a footnote at<br />
1 Cor. 5:11-13,<br />
“Calling oneself a Christian who continues to live an immoral life is reprehensible and<br />
degrading, and gives a false testimony to Christ. If the true Christian has intimate<br />
association with someone who does this, the non-Christian world may assume that the<br />
church approves such immoral, ungodly living and thus the name of Christ would be<br />
dishonored. Questions would arise concerning of the Christian’s own testimony, …judge<br />
those who are within, The church is to exercise spiritual discipline over the professing<br />
believers in the church.”<br />
“REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.” 1 Cor 5:13 NASB<br />
(emphasis theirs)<br />
According to Dake's Annotated <strong>Bible</strong>, there are:<br />
"16 <strong>Bible</strong> reasons for excommunication:<br />
1. Refusing to make peace (Mt 18:15)<br />
2. Causing divisions (Rom 16:17)<br />
3. Fornication (1 Cor 5:11-13)<br />
4. Covetousness (1 Cor 5:11-13)<br />
5. Idolatry (1 Cor 5:11-13)<br />
6. Trouble Making (1 Cor 5:11-13)<br />
7. Drunkeness (1 Cor 5:11-13)<br />
8. Extortion (1 Cor 5:11-13)<br />
9. Refusal to Love God (1 Cor 16:22)<br />
10. Unbelief, infidelity (2 Cor 6:14)<br />
11. Backsliding (2 Cor 13:1, 2, 10)<br />
12. Disorderly conduct (2 Th. 3:6)<br />
13. Defying the truth (2 Th. 3:14)<br />
14. Denying faith (1 Tim. 1:19, 20)<br />
15. False teaching (1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 John 10)<br />
16. Being a heretic (Tit. 3:10, 11)"<br />
P. 179, footnote 1 Cor 5:13*<br />
Yet, excommunication, as a whole, is not practiced by the majority of nominal churches of today. This is<br />
because organization is pooh-poohed by many. It is "Just Me and Jesus." Fortunately, the early church<br />
did not trust each individual member to police themselves should they fall. The results today are<br />
disastrous.<br />
The latest Barna and Gallup research reveals the shocking but true statistics of how the<br />
church is being molded by or postmodern culture rather than vice-versa. 70% of Americans<br />
are members of a church, temple, or synagogue, however, only 31% attend weekly. It gets<br />
worse. Only 17% attend Sunday School weekly (1996), down from 23% in 1991.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/organization.htm (5 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:55:04 AM]
Is Organization Necessary for True Christianity?<br />
67% of the general population reject belief in absolute truth and also believe that all<br />
religions will equally get one to heaven if one is faithful (universalism). As alarming as this<br />
is, even more so is that 53% of "born again" Christians agree with this and reject the belief<br />
in absolute truth while 41% of the "born again population embrace the belief of<br />
universalism!<br />
20% of Americans identify themselves as New Age practitioners, 53% believe in ESP, 24%<br />
have practiced Transcendental Meditation, 34% believe in a New Age form of God, 36%<br />
read their horoscopes regularly and 26% believe that astrology is scientifically accurate (a<br />
recent Life Magazine poll indicated 48% believe that astrology is probably or definitely<br />
valid). Belief in reincarnation grew from 25% in 1992 to an astonishing 30% in 1996.<br />
Especially troubling is of the "born again" population: 28% believe that Jesus sinned and<br />
didn’t rise from the dead, 47% say Satan is not living being-only a symbol for evil...As you<br />
read the above incredible statistics remember that 84% of those polled identified themselves<br />
as "Christians."<br />
"Disunity is disobedience to the commandment of love, and it is the same thing as unbelief (1 John<br />
5:1-3). Church unity is not a "desirable feature" in the life of the Church; it is a condition of the Church's<br />
existence, a test of whether the Church is the Church. A divided Church is a contradiction of its own<br />
nature as Church; it is witnessing to falsehood. Its evangelism cannot be effective. Jesus prayed "that<br />
they all may be one, even as you, Father, are in unity with me and I with you, that they may also be in<br />
unity with us; that the world may know that you sent me" (John 17:21; cp. 17:23). If we took the New<br />
Testament point of view seriously, we should expect to find that the single most serious obstacle to the<br />
evangelization of the world is the disunity of "the churches." Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the<br />
Theology of the New Testament<br />
Is your church patterned after the church of the first century?<br />
See also http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/2122827332/3111312856.htm<br />
"The earthly church is the image of the heavenly." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.421<br />
God, the great designer (Ps 147:4), also had a structured organization in heaven. (Daniel 7:9,10; Psalms<br />
103:20,21; Isaiah 6:1-4; 40:26; Ezek 1:24-28; Rev 4:1-11; 14:6,7)<br />
God is the Almighty and has his Son at his right hand (Ps 110:1) who is "second in authority to God<br />
himself" footnote at Ps 110:1 NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
He has angels, an archangel (Jude 9), cherubim (Gen 3:24) seraphim (Is 6:2), kingdom and priests as<br />
co-rulers (Rev 5:10), elders (Rev 4:4) etc.<br />
Any reading of the Torah will impress anyone with the organizational structure of the pre-Christian<br />
congregation. It is only natural that this was carried over into the 1st century congregation (see above).<br />
It should not surprise one that the ante-Nicene congregation/church was also organizational.<br />
I Clement is a letter that was sent from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth around A.D. 95-96.<br />
Circa A.D. 107, Ignatius of Antioch wrote letters to several Churches. Seven of those letters are extant.<br />
They provide an invaluable insight into Church life at the beginning of the second century.<br />
"It is said, 'In the church, God has set apostles, prophets, teachers,' and all the other means<br />
through which the Spirit works. Those who do not join themselves to the church are not<br />
partakers of these things. Rather, they defraud themselves of life through their perverse<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/organization.htm (6 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:55:04 AM]
Is Organization Necessary for True Christianity?<br />
opinions and infamous behavior. For where the church is, there is the Spirit of God. And<br />
where the Spirit is, there is the church, and every kind of grace." Irenaeus (c. 180. E/W),<br />
1.458.<br />
J. L. von Mosheim wrote:<br />
"If . . . what no Christian can doubt, the apostles of Jesus Christ acted by a divine command<br />
and guidance, then that form of the primitive churches which they derived from the church<br />
of Jerusalem, erected and organized by the apostles themselves, must be accounted divine."<br />
-Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, Volume I, pages 67-8.<br />
"The pre-eminence of the church is its oneness. It is the basis of union. In this, it surpasses<br />
all other things and has nothing like or equal to itself." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195. E),<br />
2.555<br />
Do we see this kind of union in the churches of today? No:<br />
"That evangelicals, all claiming a biblical norm, are reaching contradictory theological<br />
formulations on many of the major issues they are addressing suggests the problematic<br />
nature of their present understanding of theological interpretation. To argue that the <strong>Bible</strong> is<br />
authoritative, but to be unable to come to anything like agreement on what it says (even with<br />
those who share an evangelical commitment) is self-defeating. " EXEGETICAL<br />
FALLACIES by D. A. Carson p.18<br />
Conclusion: People generally accept atheism so they can indulge their own selfish desires and ideals, the<br />
"Just Me and Jesus" Christian that adopts this faddish non-organizational stance is much the same, only<br />
dressed in a backwards collar. It is selfishness cloaked with the delusion of eternal security/salvation in<br />
the guise of a self-described "born-again" hysteria that enables them to block any intellectual intrusions<br />
into their emotional outcries of "I'm Saved!"<br />
"He who isolates himself pursues his desires; He disdains all competence. The fool does not desire<br />
understanding, But only to air his thoughts." Prov 18:1 Tanakh<br />
Comments on Hebrews 13:17:<br />
"The second mention of leaders in this chapter (v. 17) refers to the current leadership, whom the<br />
addresses<br />
are enjoined to OBEY" (Gordon, RP. Hebrews. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Page 172).<br />
"Leaders are to be OBEYED as those intent on presenting 'souls' (i.e., people destined for eternal life; see<br />
6:19) intact at the final judgment. Ready OBEDIENCE will make the leaders' task joyful; grudging<br />
compliance will make them sigh or grumble (v. 17c)" (Pfitzner, VC. Hebrews. Nashville: Abingdon<br />
Press, 1997. Page 202).<br />
"PEIQW, 'obey' (Jas. 3:3 of horses; 4 Macc. 10:13; 15:10; 18:1; 2 Clem. 17:5; Ep. Diog. 5:10; Ign. Rom.<br />
7:2 BIS; Bauer 3b; R. Bultmann in TDNT 6.3f; BD [Sec.] 187.6). PEIQESQE suggests continuous<br />
action"<br />
(Ellingworth, P. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Page 723).<br />
Some people are upset at the prospect that a church would excommunicate/disfellowship another<br />
member, and some Christians even put forth that doing such is not the same as "shunning."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/organization.htm (7 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:55:04 AM]
Is Organization Necessary for True Christianity?<br />
Let us though consider 1 Corinthians 5:<br />
"What I meant was that you should not associate with a person who calls himself a believer<br />
but is immoral or greedy or worships idols or is a slanderer or a drunkard or a thief. Don't<br />
even sit down to eat with such a person." 5:11 TEV<br />
Refusing to break bread with such a person is shunning. It is part of excomunication.<br />
The NIV and NASB Study <strong>Bible</strong> have this to say in a footnote at 1 Cor. 5:11-13:<br />
"If the true Christian has intimate association with someone who does this, the<br />
non-Christian world may assume that the church approves such immoral, ungodly living<br />
and thus the name of Christ would be dishonored. Questions would arise concerning of the<br />
Christian’s own testimony, …judge those who are within, The church is to exercise spiritual<br />
discipline over the professing believers in the church.”<br />
Again, Shunning is part of Excommunication.<br />
Charles Ryrie adds, "Paul says it is improper to have fellowship with a Christian who is under<br />
discipline." Ryrie Study <strong>Bible</strong>, NIV<br />
Also the NKJV Nelson Study <strong>Bible</strong> said that to be cut off from fellowship is "extremely painful to the<br />
offender." Matthew 18:15-17 footnote.<br />
The Wycliffe <strong>Bible</strong> Commentary adds to 1 Cor 5, "the brother under discipline was to be denied<br />
fellowship, and particularly were the believers not to eat with such a one, the most obvious act of<br />
fellowship."<br />
"Social contacts with such "a brother" are forbidden." Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament<br />
Shunning is part of the Biblical plan to restore another brother back to faith, and it does work.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/organization.htm (8 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:55:04 AM]
A Response to Jerry and his Mis-Abuse of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Questions from Hrh on the word "Other" in Colossians 1, the word<br />
"Firstborn" the Spirit, Trinity and Heaven etc.<br />
Webmaster: People like Jerry do not realize that their complaints against the NWT are completely<br />
fabricated. When these same complaints are held against other <strong>Bible</strong>s, they do not match up. Jerry is a<br />
prime example of those caught up in the anti_JW propaganda that is much too eagerly swallowed. All<br />
this could simply be avoided by investigating the issues for yourself as I have done, but you cannot force<br />
someone from believing what it is that they want, despite the facts.<br />
I've done my homework my friend. I know this because you did not answer direct questions or comment on<br />
half of what I sent you. So I'll shall try again.<br />
Also when answering questions please don't refer me to other passages in other bibles, and ask me why the<br />
change. You are defending the NWT so let's stick to the NWT. I have numbered my questions so we can<br />
stay together this time.<br />
Reply: Why, are you afraid of other <strong>Bible</strong>s. Is it because it is devastating to your attack on the NWT<br />
when other <strong>Bible</strong>s play the same game. Oh, BTW, you are not setting the rules here. I will use any<br />
Protestant and Catholic <strong>Bible</strong> at my disposal, but you may use the NWT if you wish. It is good also.<br />
Let's begin. In reference to Col l:15-17 your answer was all bibles insert the word "other" where translators<br />
feel it is needed. The KJV does it 67 times, the RSV 100 times, etc. Well this is true, but they do not use it<br />
in this passage. Now here is the first question.<br />
1. Why is the word "other" inserted in this passage. Again there are two words Paul could have used if he<br />
wanted to show that Jesus was another. First is Allos which means another of the same kind (#243 Strongs<br />
Con) Next is Heteres means another of a different kind (#2087-2088) By using brackets NWT<br />
acknowledges that it is not in Greek. There is no linguistic reason at all to insert this word here four<br />
times.... unless you are trying to support the presupposition that Jesus is not God.<br />
Reply: Col 1:20 says that Jesus will "reconcile all things unto himself." Will he also reconcile Satan<br />
unto himself? No! That is because there are exceptions to the word ALL/PAS/PANTA.<br />
Why doesn't the Greek text uses ALLOS or hETEROS here? Because "other" is a legitimate part of<br />
PAS/PANTA.<br />
In fact, had you bothered to investigate the additions of "other" in the RSV, KJV etc., you would have<br />
seen that it most often followed PAS/PANTA, just like it does in the NWT. [The New Living Translation<br />
adds the word "else" in verse 17, "He existed before everything else began"] In fact, I have gone so far as<br />
to check every occurence of ALLOS and hETEROS in the Greek text, and I could not find any occurence<br />
of these words alongside PAS/PANTA. Obviously, it was not common to do so, showing again, the<br />
superiority of the NWT.<br />
As we can see, the linguistic reason here is strengthened by the fact that Jesus here (verse 15) is the<br />
firstborn, a part of creation. More on this below:<br />
2. Why do the JWs interpret the word "first born" to mean first created. This is not correct because there is<br />
a Greek word for "First Created" and it was not used. The Greek for firstborn is proto with tikto:<br />
Firstborn. The Greek for first created would be proto with ktizo: first created. Paul did not use the second<br />
but the first. (3) Your comments please.<br />
Reply: Again, you are falling into the trap you did with ALLOS and hETEROS. Protoktizo was not in<br />
common use back in the first century, and would not be for a 100 to 200 years after Christ. Interestingly<br />
though, when this word was eventually used, it was used of Christ. John Patrick, in his Clement of<br />
Alexandria notes:<br />
"Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet refers to Wisdom<br />
as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and<br />
in another "First-begotten," to the Word." p.103,104, note 6.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hrh.htm (1 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:55:16 AM]
A Response to Jerry and his Mis-Abuse of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Volume 1 Faith, Trinity, Incarnation, by Harry Austryn Wolfson,<br />
2nd Edition, Revised:<br />
"Zahn casually remarks that Clement 'always makes a sharp distinction between the only<br />
uncreated God the Father and the Son or Logos who was begotten or created before the rest<br />
of creation.'...1. cf. Th. Zahn, "Supplementum Clementinium", (1884), 144, p. 204, 92<br />
"It is undoubtably with reference to this "coming forth" of the Logos prior to the creation of<br />
the world that Clement speaks of the Logos as "firstborn" [protogonos] and of wisdom,<br />
which he idtentified with the Logos, as the "first-created" [protoktistos]...30 Strom. VI, Ibid.<br />
V. 14., ibid. p 209<br />
The prototokos in Col 1:15 is a partitive genitive. Let us look at the Greek here, "hos estin eikOn tou<br />
theou tou aoratou, prOtotokos [firstborn] pasEs [of all] ktiseOs [creation]"<br />
All the words in red are genitives, but the ones we are interested in are the ones following prOtotokos.<br />
This means "firstborn" is in the genitive construction, hence we have the translation, "firstborn of." When<br />
checking this with other uses in the LXX (Septuagint), the outcome is devastating for Trinitarians, as<br />
"firstborn of" always indicates that the referent is part of the class or group it is joined to.<br />
For example: LXX Genesis 4:4 And Abel also brought of the first born of his sheep<br />
(This makes the firstborn a member, or part, of the sheep)<br />
LXX Exodus 11:5 And every first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharao that<br />
sits on the throne, even to the first-born of the woman-servant that is by the mill, and to the first-born<br />
of all cattle.<br />
(The firstborn of Pharoah is of the house of Pharoah, the firstborn of cattle was one of the cows, etc).<br />
There are no exceptions to this. Jesus, as the firstborn of creation, is a member of creation, he is a created<br />
being. For more click here, and here<br />
When the NIV translates Col 1:15 as "the firstborn over all creation," it is actually being dishonest and<br />
biased.<br />
see also An Examination of Colossians 1:15-20 by Mark Larson<br />
Next in reference to John 8:58 in the 1969 Kit the footnote reads, "This is not the Being, or the "I Am" at<br />
Exodus 3:14. Also in the 1985 Kit appendix 2F, page 1145 it reads, "Attempting to identify Jesus with<br />
Jehovah some say that "E-GOEI-MI is the equivalent of the Hebrew expression "I Am" which is used by<br />
God.<br />
4. Where is the NWT is the Hebrew expression "I Am" that was used by God? And if it is in Exodus 3:14<br />
5. Why was it changed to I shall prove to Be? If Jesus was not using the divine name used by God in<br />
Exodus 3:14 KJV "I Am", and if he was not claiming to be God in John 8:58/10:30-33<br />
Reply: The expression "I am" is indeed used by God, as it is also used of those who are not God. [Even<br />
in the NWT, looking up phrases like "I am Jehovah" will bring back a positive result]<br />
A few verses after Jesus' statement in John 8:58, a blind beggar also uses the words I AM/EGW EIMI.<br />
Does this make him God?<br />
Let me ask you a question. In Exodus 3:12 we have the same Hebrew words that we have in verse 14.<br />
But in verse 12, in most of the <strong>Bible</strong>s I own, it is translated "I will be." Yet, 2 verses later, it is translated<br />
"I AM. Why was it changed to I AM? It seems the NWT (and Moffatt etc) are the only ones consistent<br />
here. I have more on this already (click here), so there is no need to repeat everything here.<br />
6. What misunderstanding did they have about what it was Jesus said that led them to claim that he was<br />
making himself out to be God?<br />
Reply: In John 8, they never understood Jesus as claiming to be God. In John 10:30-33, Jesus quoted<br />
Psalm 82 where even Judges are called gods. Like Ryrie says of John 10:34, "Christ's point is that if the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hrh.htm (2 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:55:16 AM]
A Response to Jerry and his Mis-Abuse of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
O.T. uses the word "God" (Elohim) of men who were representative of God, then the Jews should not<br />
oppose Him for calling Himself the Son of God." If Jesus were really "Equal to God" as the Jews have<br />
wrongly claimed by making God his Father, then here would have been a great opportunity to explain the<br />
Trinity to an unbeleiving nation. But what does he do? He answers, "The Son can do nothing of himself,<br />
but what he seeth the Father doing. No explanation whatsoever of a Triune Deity. Amazing!<br />
7. Also, why did the soldiers fall to the ground in John 18:5-6?<br />
Reply: "As Jesus said to them, 'I am he,' they retreated and fell to the ground." NAB<br />
Maybe they tripped over each other, the <strong>Bible</strong> does not explain, but it was probably for the reason<br />
mentioned in the NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong>, "They came to arrest a peasant, but they were met in the dim light by<br />
a majestic person."<br />
Jesus uses EGW EIMI 5 times in John 8, yet no one ever lost their footing. Does this mean that we<br />
should read into this that Jesus was claiming to be God the Son, the second person of a triune deity?<br />
Don't be silly.<br />
We should be thankful that Jesus was not the Almighty, as then they would have died (Ex 33:20). Even<br />
when Moses was approached in Exodus 3, it was actually an angel doing all the talking (see verse 2 and<br />
Acts 7:30).<br />
God said he raised Jesus from the dead in Acts 17:3l, and Jesus said in John 2:19-21 that he would do it,<br />
and in Romans 8:ll the Holy Spirit raised Jesus.<br />
8. Who raised Jesus? If the three are not one<br />
9 Which two lied?<br />
Reply: The Spirit is not a person.<br />
"Spirit is the principle of life and vital activity. The spirit is the breath of life (Gn 6:17; 7:15,<br />
22; BS 38:23; WS 15:11, 16; 16:14). The breath is the breath of God, the wind,<br />
communicated to man by divine inspiration....The spirit of Yahweh or the spirit of God<br />
(Elohim) is a **force** that has unique effects upon man...and the spirit of Yahweh is a<br />
**force** which operates the works of Yahweh the savior and the judge. The spirit of<br />
Yahweh is often the **force** which inspires prophecy (Nm 11:17 ff; 24:2; 2 S 23:2; 1 Ch<br />
12:18; Is 61:1; Mi 3:8; Ezk 2:2; 3:12, 14, 24; 8:3; 11:1, 5, 24; 37:1; 43:5; Ne 9:30; Zc 7:12).<br />
The prophet is a man of the spirit (Ho 9:7)."<br />
Fortman says,<br />
"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old<br />
Testament writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics and<br />
in Acts as a divine force or power." The Triune God, pp. 6, 15<br />
God did raise Jesus with His spirit, as he does all things with His power.<br />
That is why the Good News <strong>Bible</strong> can call the Spirit of God the "power of God." Gen 1:2.<br />
But what of John 2:19-21?<br />
"As with His usage of parables, Jesus' cryptic statement most likely was designed to reveal the truth to<br />
His disciples but conceal its meaning from unbelievers who questioned Him (Matt. 13:10, 11). Only<br />
after his resurrection, however, did the disciples understand the real significance of this statement (v.22;<br />
cf. Matt. 12:40). Importantly, through the death and resurrection of Christ, temple worship in Jerusalem<br />
was destroyed (cf. 4:21) and reinstituted in the hearts of those who were built into a spiritual temple<br />
called the church (Eph. 2:19-22)."<br />
-footnote at John 2:19, NKJV MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Says A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hrh.htm (3 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:55:16 AM]
A Response to Jerry and his Mis-Abuse of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: 'And in three days I will raise it up.' He did not mean that he will<br />
raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11)."-(New York,<br />
1932), Vol. V, p. 183.<br />
We have the prophet Ezekiel doing the same thing in Ezekiel 43:3, "I came to bring the city [Jerusalem]<br />
to ruin," that is, by predicting its destruction. Ezekiel actually did not destroy Jerusalem; but by<br />
prophecying it, he could speak of himself as doing it in a predictive sense. (cf. Jeremiah 1:10.) Similarly,<br />
the Father resurrected his Son, but Jesus could speak of doing so in a prophetic sense.<br />
Now there three in the <strong>Bible</strong> called God. First is the Father (2 Peter 1:17) Next the son John 1:1, Isaiah<br />
9:6, John 5:18/10:30, and the Holy Spirit Acts 5:3,5. Before we get on active force again, please remember<br />
you cannot lie to an active force only a personality. You cannot lie to a table, chair, book or an active force,<br />
only a personality. Peter recognized the Holy Spirit as a person (Acts 13:2) Also, you cannot quote an<br />
active force.<br />
Reply: Can you quote the <strong>Bible</strong>? Is the <strong>Bible</strong> a person? Is not the <strong>Bible</strong> given to us via God's spirit? (2<br />
Pet 1:21). The scriptures are "God-breathed", theopneustos which comes from the word Pneuma/spirit.<br />
Can you lie/play falsely to the Scriptures and the Law? Yes, but does that make it a person?<br />
"God's Word lives, and is active...it can judge thoughts and purposes of the heart." Heb 4:12 Beck.<br />
Scriptures can speak to us...it say things (see John 7:38, 42; Rom 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; Gal. 4:30; 1Tim.<br />
5:18; Jas 4:5). Does this make it a person, or a force that impacts our lives?<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> is a book of the Sacred Name. The Name that you can give thanks to (Ps 106:47; 138:2), a<br />
Name that is blessed (Ps 113:2; 145:1), a Name that is praised (Ps 113:3; 135:3; 148:13; 149:3), a Name<br />
that is given glory (Ps 115:1), a Name that you can sing to (Ps 135:3), a Name that is exalted (Ps 34:3), a<br />
Name that saves ((Ps 54:1), a Name that is feared (Ps 61:5), a Name that is loved (Ps 69:36). The Name<br />
is part of God, just as is his breath/spirit. You cannot think of one without the other.<br />
Does this make it a person though? "A record was written before him of those who feared him and had<br />
respect for his name." Mal 3:16 Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
The Law, ...your Heart<br />
Is the spirit God in Acts 5:3-4? Let us see what it says:<br />
"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of<br />
the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in<br />
thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto<br />
God." ASV<br />
Do you notice that the last part is directed towards Peter when it says, "thou has not lied unto men?" See,<br />
they lied to Peter, who was "filled with holy spirit" Acts 4:8<br />
And when they lied to Peter, they lied to God. Later on, in the same chapter, we have a similar situation<br />
in vss 38 and 39 where these words were directed towards Peter and the disciples, "Refrain from these<br />
men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: but if it is of<br />
God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God."<br />
Peter and his men were not God, but representative standing in place of God, and when something is<br />
done against them, it is done against God. "Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own eye." Zech<br />
2:8 New Jewish Publication Society/ Tanakh That is why the Scofield Study <strong>Bible</strong> cross-references Acts<br />
5:4 to Scriptures like Numbers 16:11, 1Samuel 8:7 and 1 Thess 4:8 which says, " Therefore he that<br />
rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you." ASV<br />
The OT condemns polytheism and declares that God is one and is to be worshipped and loved as such.<br />
(Deut. 6:4,5/ Isaiah 45:21)<br />
10. Please explain to me how there are three called God in the <strong>Bible</strong>, but only one God. Either its the<br />
Trinity or the JWs are guilty of polytheism.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hrh.htm (4 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:55:16 AM]
A Response to Jerry and his Mis-Abuse of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Reply: Actually, in the <strong>Bible</strong>, prophets are called God (Ex 4:16; 7:1), as are Judges (Ex 21:6; 22:8; Ps<br />
82:1) as are kings (Ps 45:6) as are angels (Ps 8:5; 97:7; 138:1). Even Satan is referred to as God (2 Cor<br />
4:4). But we obviously do not refer to these as God. That is why the <strong>Bible</strong> uses the term "almighty," a<br />
term never used of Jesus Christ or any of the others mentioned above.<br />
Jane Schaberg writes: "The term 'ELOHIM' is applied to Melchizedek five times in 11Q Melchizedek,<br />
and Philo calls Moses QEOS" (Jane Schaberg, The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit: The Triadic<br />
Phrase in Matthew 28:19b_,page 8).<br />
"The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question<br />
whether Christ was an angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an<br />
angel, rank as God. The explanation which was offered by the supporters of the<br />
Angel-Christology was that Christ, according to his nature, was a high angel, but that he was<br />
named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The word 'God' did mean, in the first<br />
place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the beings who served this<br />
deus verus [Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods' implies<br />
reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus represented.<br />
Consequently in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28), not only angels, but even men could be<br />
called 'gods' [cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:7, 9; Ps. 82:6, 7; John 10:34, 35] without according them<br />
the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius [260-330 C.E.] had thought in this way2 ... 2<br />
Latantius, inst. Epitome [The Epitome Of The Divine Institutes], 37."<br />
-Martin Werner, The Formation Of Christian Dogma, p. 140.<br />
"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred<br />
an honourable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His<br />
Son] is far more worthy of this honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John<br />
10:34] is in Psalm lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the<br />
Most High; where God expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically<br />
abuse the authority and power for their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for<br />
every evil action ... Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of<br />
gods, be- cause they are God's ministers for governing the world. For the same reason<br />
Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world<br />
... In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them<br />
authority."<br />
-John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 419, 20.<br />
In the New International Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> (Editor J.D. Douglas & Merrill C Tenney) page 1070<br />
under "worship" says to prostrate, do obeisance In your (69 & 85) Kit when translating the word "worship"<br />
is translated "did obeisance" every time for Jesus, and the exact same word says worship toward Jehovah.<br />
ll. What happened to the word for word translation promise in the foreword of both books?<br />
The fact is Jesus was worshipped as God many times according to the Gospel accounts, and he always<br />
accepted such worship as appropriate.<br />
Jesus accepted worship from Thomas (John 20:28), the angels (Hebrews l:6) the wise men (Matt 2:ll), a<br />
leper (Matt 8:2, a ruler (Matt 9:18), a blind man (John 9:38), an anonymous woman (Matt 15:25; Mary<br />
Magdalene (Matt 28:9, and his diciples (Matt 28:l7) In the book of Rev, God the Father (4:l0) and Jesus<br />
Christ (5:ll-l4) are clearly portrayed as receiving the exact same worship.<br />
12. Who do you honestly think is wrong here, Jesus or the JWs?<br />
In Hebrew l:6 Jehovah said let all God's angels do obeisance to him (Now we know what that means) And<br />
in Luke 4:8 Jesus said, "It is Jehovah your God you must worship and it is him alone you must render<br />
sacred service.<br />
13. How do you explain this?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hrh.htm (5 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:55:16 AM]
A Response to Jerry and his Mis-Abuse of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Now let's read Rom 14:11 Jehovah says "to me every knee will bend down and every tongue will make<br />
open knowledgement to God. I think both of us will agree this is worship. So let's read Phil. 2:10,ll.<br />
Imagine that!! It says the exact same thing about Jesus.<br />
14. Your comments please.<br />
Reply: Have you ever really bothered to check out the meanings of these words. We will start of the with<br />
the Hebrew equivalent, Shachah. Ex 34:14 says, " for thou shalt worship (shachah) no other god: for<br />
Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" ASV<br />
However, this same word for worship, shachah [proskuneo, LXX], was also often used of mere men of<br />
honor (see Gen 23:7, 12; 33:3; 43:28; 1 Sam 24:8; Ruth 2:10; 1 Kings 1:31; 2 Kings 4:37; Esther 3:2, 5<br />
etc.), and angels (Jos 5:14; Num 22:31; Gen 18:2; 19:1).<br />
In the Greek, according to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary, PROSKUNEO means "to make<br />
obeisance, do reverence to...It is used of an act of homage or reverence to God(John 4:24)...to<br />
Christ(Matt 2:2)...to a man(Matt 18:26)...to the Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of<br />
the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to demons(Rev 9:20)...to idols(Acts 7:43)."<br />
Remember, the LXX uses this word when it comes to shachah. It simply means that the word does not<br />
hold the same connotations as it does today.<br />
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV<br />
"And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and<br />
worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV<br />
Here, king David is given the same worship as Jehovah.<br />
Even the American Standard Version mentions at Matt. 2:2, "The Greek word denotes an act of<br />
reverence, whether paid to man (see chap. Matt. 18:26) or to God (see chap. Matt. 4:10)'" ?<br />
So it is necessary for <strong>Bible</strong> versions to make a distinction, as they all do (see Matt 18:26).<br />
Is the Kingdom Interlinear Translation discriminatory in its inconsistency. I checked this with other<br />
interlinears that I own. My NKJV/Majority Text has "obeisance" at Matt 18:26, but "worship" at Heb<br />
1:6. My Marshall/Nestle Interlinear has the same thing in the same places. It appears that they, like the<br />
translators of the KIT gave "as literal a translation as possible" and "as nearly as possible word for word"<br />
renderings. (see forward KIT).<br />
See also NEB, Young, Byington, NJB, Goodspeed, Newcome, REB, 20th Cent, Schonfield,<br />
Confraternity, Douay and Kleist&Lilly etc<br />
In Ephesians 4:4-6 Paul said there is one hope.<br />
15. How can the JWs have two, one for the l44,000 and one for the JWs.<br />
Reply: Eph 4:4 says "even as also ye were called in one hope **of your calling**"<br />
The entire scripture gives a different spin on this, because the "one hope" pertains to the one we are<br />
called for. Try this from another direction. The scripture right after this says that there is, "one Lord, one<br />
faith, one baptism," but 2Cor 4:13 says, "we have the same kind of faith as the psalmist had when he<br />
said, 'I believed in God, and so I speak.'" New Living Translation (cf. Ps 116:10)<br />
The psalmist was not baptized, the psalmist did not accept Jesus Christ as his saviour, in fact, the<br />
psalmist "David never ascended into heaven." Acts 2:34 NLT<br />
But we all worship the same God, all have the hope of life eternal.<br />
Also in verse 5 it reads one Lord. In Isaiah l0:33 Jehovah is the {true} Lord. But in Luke 2:ll reads Jesus is<br />
{the} Lord. 16. If there are two Lords why didn't they say "A" Lord in Luke 2:ll? Ver 6 reads "one God",<br />
the JWs have two.<br />
Reply: Reply: JW's do not have 2 gods, as we are one of the few that actually recognize the Biblical use<br />
of the word "God." (see above)<br />
Luke 2:11 OTI ETECQH UMIN SHMERON SWTHR OS ESTIN CRISTOS KURIOS EN POLEI<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hrh.htm (6 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:55:16 AM]
A Response to Jerry and his Mis-Abuse of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
DAUID<br />
As you can see, there is actually no article here in the Greek by Lord (KURIOS), it is supplied by the<br />
translators of <strong>Bible</strong> versions (you will notice that the article *the" is often supplied in brackets).<br />
As far as the OT goes, the scripture that is definintely applied to Christ (Psalm 110:1) uses the word<br />
adoni, a form of the word that is never used of YHWH, but only humans and angels. Click here for more.<br />
As for the word Lord in the Greek, it is used (a) of an owner, as in Luke 19:33, cp. Matt. 20:8; Acts<br />
16:16; Gal. 4:1; or of one who has the disposal of anything, as the Sabbath, Matt. 12:8; (b) of a master,<br />
i.e., one to whom service is due on any ground, Matt. 6:24; 24:50; Eph. 6:5; (c) of an Emperor or King,<br />
Acts 25:26; Rev. 17:14; (d) of idols, ironically, 1 Cor. 8:5, cp. Isa. 26:13; (e) as a title of respect<br />
addressed to a father, Matt. 21:30, a husband, 1 Pet. 3:6, a master, Matt. 13:27; Luke 13:8, a ruler, Matt.<br />
27:63, an angel, Acts 10:4; Rev. 7:14; (f) and as a title of courtesy addressed to a stranger, John 12:21;<br />
20:15; Acts 16:30.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> has many references to a "lord and king" that refer to human kings. (See 1 Sam 24:8; 26:15,<br />
17, 19; 29:8; 2 Sam. 2:7; 3:21; 4:8; 9:11; 13:33; 14:9 etc). And why not, as they sit on Jehovah's throne<br />
(1 Chron 29:23). Like Jesus, they were GIVEN authority.<br />
But isn't the term used for both the Father and the Son?<br />
Consider the following verses:<br />
Rom. 15:6<br />
"you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"<br />
2 Cor. 1:3<br />
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"<br />
2 Cor. 11:31<br />
"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus"<br />
Eph. 1:3<br />
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"<br />
Eph. 1:17<br />
"...the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"<br />
1 Pet. 1:3<br />
"...the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"<br />
These verses present a few problems:<br />
God the Father is Lord. But when one Lord is the God of another who is also Lord, then they are not the<br />
same, or even equal.<br />
If Jesus is subordinate to God only as to his "human nature," then this contradicts the above verses, for<br />
there Jesus, in his divine state, has someone who is God to him.<br />
Also it reads "One Father", Jesus is all eternal Father and Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6. And in Isaiah l0:21<br />
Jehovah is called a "Mighty God". Imagine that!! They both are God, Lord, Father, when Paul said there is<br />
only one. In latter part of verse 6 reads "who is over all and through all and in all" But if you read Matt<br />
28:18 Jesus said "All" authority (not half) has been given me in Heaven and on the Earth. Either you have<br />
one of each or you have a lot of contradictions.<br />
17. Your comments please.<br />
Reply: And you forget the optimum word here. It is the word GIVEN. Almighty God does not need to be<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hrh.htm (7 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:55:16 AM]
A Response to Jerry and his Mis-Abuse of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
GIVEN anything. By handing over all authority to Christ, he, as Michael, can oust Satan from the<br />
heavens (Rev 12:7-12).<br />
"And I heard a great voice in heaven, saying, Now is come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom<br />
of our God, and the authority of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuseth<br />
them before our God day and night."<br />
But he eventually hands it back to God, who is excepted from the word "ALL."<br />
1 Cor 15:24-28 says, "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father; after<br />
destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies<br />
under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For God has put all things in subjection under his<br />
feet. But when it says, All things are put in subjection under him, it is plain that he is excepted who put<br />
all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected<br />
to him who put all things unto him, that God may be everything to everyone." RSV<br />
As for Isaiah 9:6, read how it is used in other <strong>Bible</strong>s:<br />
"Wonder-Counsellor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace." Byington<br />
"A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince." Moffatt<br />
"in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like...." New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father...."Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"great leader, time's father"...Fenton<br />
Why, because this verse has an earlier reference to a human king, like King Hezekiah, the son of<br />
Ahaz; or to Hezekiah initially and Christ finally. Note what some from former years have said regarding<br />
this account:<br />
"Hezekiah, who was very unlike his father Ahaz. This passage<br />
is acknowledged, not only by Christians, but by the Chaldee<br />
interpreter, to relate in the same manner, but in a more<br />
excellent sense, to the Messiah––(Annotationes ad vetus et<br />
Novum Testamentum, by Hugo Grotius, a Dutch Arminian,<br />
1583-1645).<br />
"In several places of his Expositions and Sermons, he [LUTHER]<br />
maintains that the epithets belong, not to the person of<br />
Christ, but to his work and office. He understands [ale;<br />
Strongs 410] in the sense of power or ability, citing for his<br />
authority Deut. Xxviii. 32, where, as in about four other<br />
places, the expression occurs of an action's being or not<br />
being "in the power of the hand,"––(Scripture Testimony to the<br />
Messiah, Third ed. Lond. 1837, 3 vol., by Dr. J.P. Smith [it<br />
should fairly be noted that Dr. Smith disapproves of Luther's<br />
rendering])<br />
"The word la [ale] here used is applicable, not only to God,<br />
but to angels and men worthy of admiration. Whence it does<br />
not appear, that the Deity of Christ can be effectually<br />
gathered from this passage."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, SASBOUT<br />
[as quoted in Concession, by Wilson])<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hrh.htm (8 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:55:16 AM]
A Response to Jerry and his Mis-Abuse of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"The words of Isaiah, Deus fortis, "strong God," have been<br />
differently interpreted. It is evident, that the term God is<br />
in Hebrew applied figuratively to those who excel – to angels,<br />
heroes, and magistrates; and some render it here, not God, but<br />
brave or hero."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, Esromus Rudingerus [as<br />
quoted in Concessions, by Wilson])<br />
"It is evident that la [ale] properly denotes strong,<br />
powerful, and is used in Ezek. Xxxi. 11, of king<br />
Nebuchadnezzar, who is called... "the mighty one of the<br />
heathen."––(Scholia in Vetus Testamentum. Lips. 1828-36, 6<br />
vol, E.F.C. Rosenmuller [Prof. of the Arabic Language at<br />
Leipzig; d. 1836])<br />
...and, do you really think both of them are the Father, as you have stated above? If you do, then you are<br />
a Sabellianist, not a trinitarian.<br />
While you are in the 28 Chapter read verse 9, then turn to Acts 2:38 and read.<br />
18. Why didn't it say Jehovah?<br />
There is something else that bothers me, that Rom l0:13. Now read Acts 4:10-12, If both names are equally<br />
important 19. Why are they not listed together? Unless he is the same.-given name 20. Please comment.<br />
Reply: Because Jesus was GIVEN a better name. "Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave<br />
unto him the name which is above every name." Php 2:9<br />
Almighty God does not need to be exalted, he does not need to be given a name above all others.<br />
You see, in the past, you can do things in a prophet's name (1 Ki 21:8) or in a king's name (1 Sa 25:9),<br />
but unlike these, including the angels, "he hath inherited a more excellent name than they." Heb 1:4<br />
Jn 17:2 just as you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all you gave<br />
him. NAB<br />
Jn 17:11 And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you.<br />
Holy Father, keep them in yourname that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are.<br />
NAB<br />
We don't need to know that Almighty God is better than the angels, for that is already understood.<br />
Almighty God does not need to inherit anything, for that is understood.<br />
Let's move along to Rev l:4 it speaks of the one who is, and who was and who is coming. Now read verse<br />
8. I am the Alpha and the Omega says Jehovah God "the one who is and who was and who is coming the<br />
Almighty." Now back up to verse 7 and it says he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him,<br />
and those who pierced him.<br />
21. Who pierced the Almighty? In verse 17,18 reads I am the first and the last, verse l8 and the living one,<br />
and I became dead. So this is Jesus. Could this explain the one "who was" in verse 8? So let's get this<br />
straight Jehovah is the Alpha & Omega (I know you know what that means), and Jesus is the First and last<br />
in ver 17,18.<br />
22. Who is speaking in Rev 22:14?<br />
You know now that I'm thinking about it you have two of everything else you might as well have two first<br />
and last!!<br />
Reply: Well, let us take a closer look at this.<br />
In verse 4, we have John talking, until verse 7, which ends with "Amen."<br />
Verse 7 refers to Jesus, and it ends with "Amen."<br />
Verse 8 we have the Lord God talking, but then, in verse 9, it starts off with John talking again.<br />
To confuse things even further, all this was sent via an angel. (Rev 1:1).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hrh.htm (9 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:55:16 AM]
A Response to Jerry and his Mis-Abuse of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Jesus is "the first and the last" with reference to his death and resurrection."<br />
All references to Jesus as being the "first and the last" have this limitation. Let us take a look? "I am the<br />
first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18 (Actually, one of the oldest<br />
manuscripts that we have (A) has the word "firstborn" here.<br />
"These things saith the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]" Rev. 2:8<br />
"Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead" Rev 1:5 See also Romans 14:9 and<br />
Col 1:18.<br />
Just a few more questions. In verse 3 it reads, "But the throne of God (Jehovah), and of the lamb (Jesus)<br />
will be in the city and his slaves will render him sacred service. Ver 4 and they will see his face.<br />
23. Should this have read their throne, and see their faces? According to previous passages both are<br />
coming (ver 12,13 & Jesus in ver 20) According to Matt 25:31 the son of man arrives in his glory (Isaiah<br />
42:9) and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Now back in Rev. 22:3 it reads,<br />
"the throne of God"<br />
24. Do we now have two thrones?So back to Rev 22:3,4<br />
25. Who is on the throne? Now verse 4 and they will see his face, and his name (singular) will be on their<br />
foreheads. Well guess what? Read Rev l4:l now you've got two names on one forehead!!! Unless......they<br />
are the same God. This reminds me.<br />
Reply: Rev 22:3 actually mentions THREE different parties, God, the Lamb, and the servants. When the<br />
name is mentioned, we can exclude the other 2. as it is definitely the Lord God that is the referent (see<br />
verse 5), which is a term (i.e. Lord God) never used of Christ (the Lamb) or his slaves (servants).<br />
Do we have 2 thrones? Yes we do. Remember that the Jewish kings sat on Jehovah's throne (1 Chron<br />
29:23) and that Jesus would be at God's right hand, "thus he is made second in authority to God himself."<br />
Footnote at Ps 110:1 NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Jesus gets his glory from the Father (John 1:14), and we share in that glory (John 17:22), but are to<br />
acknowledge that "Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Everything eventually comes<br />
back to the Father.<br />
Remember too that Jesus, God's agent, his hands the kingdom BACK to God the Father (1 Cor 15:24) so<br />
in this way, we can speak of both of them as coming.<br />
Jesus, as agent, represents God in such a way that he hold a functional equality with him.<br />
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is<br />
regarded as the person himself. Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is<br />
regarded as having been committed by the principle."<br />
The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder (click here for<br />
more)<br />
Question? Why is it that the person of the holy spirit is never pictured in the visions of heaven?<br />
26. Why would Jesus say your treasure is in heaven (Matt 6:l9-21, Mark l0:21, Luke 12:33/l8:22 if only<br />
l44,000 are going to heaven?<br />
Reply: Matt 6:9 says, "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." NAB<br />
So what does the heavenly hope have to do with earth? Those in heaven are to rule over those on earth<br />
(Rev 5:10).<br />
One last question<br />
27. Did you know that Jesus and Jehovah have their own individual angel Rev 22:6,l6?<br />
Reply: So does Satan (Rev 12:9) and Michael (Rev 12:7). Angel simply means "messenger."<br />
Why does the person of the holy spirit not have any of his own individual angels?<br />
I know you like to sign off with l Cor l:27, But I like 2 Cor 4: 3-7, please notice verse (5) also 2 Tim 3:l6<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hrh.htm (10 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:55:16 AM]
A Response to Jerry and his Mis-Abuse of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Reply: I like those scriptures also, but when is the last time you knocked on our door to preach "Jesus<br />
Christ as Lord", to "give us the light of the knowledge of God in the face of Christ?" NIV<br />
Jesus said he seeks not his own glory, but he honors his Father (John 8:49, 50). When have you really<br />
honored the Father?<br />
"every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."<br />
Php 2:11 ASV<br />
When is the last time you had done this?<br />
Isaiah 64:8 says, "O Jehovah, thou art our Father." ASV<br />
But do you really honor the Father? Mal 1:6 says, "A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if<br />
then I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I am a master, where is my fear? saith Jehovah of hosts<br />
unto you, O priests, that despise my name." ASV<br />
When is the last time you honored his great and holy name?<br />
"For the Name of Jehovah I proclaim, Ascribe ye greatness to our God! The Rock! --perfect<br />
[is] His work, For all His ways [are] just; God of stedfastness, and without iniquity:<br />
Righteous and upright [is] He. It hath done corruptly to Him; Their blemish is not His sons',<br />
A generation perverse and crooked! To Jehovah do ye act thus, O people foolish and not<br />
wise? Is not He thy father--thy possessor? He made thee, and doth establish thee." Deut 32<br />
Young's Literal Version<br />
"Let them praise the name of Jehovah; For his name alone is exalted; His glory is above the earth and the<br />
heavens." Ps 148:13 American Standard Version<br />
"I will protect those who know my name." Psalm 91:14 NRSV<br />
There is no salvation Jerry, without the Name!<br />
"a book of remembrance was written before him, for them that feared Jehovah, and that thought upon<br />
his name." Mal 3:16 ASV<br />
hector3001@aol.com<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hrh.htm (11 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:55:16 AM]
John 1:3, Punctuation and Staircase Parallelism<br />
John 1:3, 4, Punctuation, Staircase Parallelism and Caris.<br />
"What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of men." New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
..."and without Him nothing was made that was made." New King James <strong>Bible</strong><br />
I often have people writing to me and quoting John 1:3 as it is rendered in the New King James Version,<br />
in order to prove to me that Jesus was creator. As it is written, in the NKJV, it certainly seems to say that,<br />
but once we read it in the New American <strong>Bible</strong> above, we get quite another picture. Going along with the<br />
NAB, is the 20th Century NT, NRSV, NAB, NJB, JB, NEB, BBE, HCSB ftn., RSV ftn., RV ftn.,<br />
Weymouth ftn, ASV ftn, Anchor <strong>Bible</strong>, Fenton, Schonfield, Lattimore, Translator's New Testament,<br />
Funk/Hoover and Rotherham."<br />
John 1:3 cannot be used to promote a certain dogmatism, as a rule of hermeneutics is that no ambiguous<br />
text can be a proof text.<br />
So what happened with John 1:3? As the NAB says in its footnote,<br />
"WHAT CAME TO BE, while the oldest manuscripts have no punctuation here, the<br />
corrector of Bodmer P75, some mss, and the ANF take this phrase with what follows, as<br />
staircase parallelism. Connection with verse 3 reflects 4th century anti-Arianism."<br />
Has this verse been corrupted to quell a certain doctrine (Arianism) as the NAB claims?<br />
The Anchor <strong>Bible</strong> has this reading, "That which had come to be in him was life, and this life was the<br />
light of men" as opposed to the other reading we have in the NKJV. To support their reading, Raymond<br />
E. Brown writes,<br />
"These lines are sometimes divided in another way, thus: 3b and apart from him there came<br />
to be not a thing which came to be./4 In him was life.' In such a division, the clause 'which<br />
came to be' - instead of beginning in vs. 4 - completes vs. 3. This alternate division is found<br />
in the Clementine Vulg.; and according to Mehlmann, 'De mente,' it was Jerome's own<br />
division (except for one instance). But De la Potterie, 'De interpretatione,' insists that<br />
Jerome changed to this division only about A.D. 401 for apologetic reasons. Most<br />
modern commentators use the division we have chosen in our translation; Barrett and<br />
Haenchen are exceptions. In an attempt to prove our division is the most ancient Boismard,<br />
p. 14, gives an impressive list of patristic writers who used it; and he suggests that the above<br />
alternate translation was introduced only in the 4th century as anti-Arian apologetics."<br />
JR Michaels, in his commentary on John, also writes:<br />
"But the overwhelming evidence of ancient manuscripts and church fathers is that in the<br />
early centuries hO GEGONEN was read as the beginning of v. 4, not the conclusion of v. 3"<br />
(John, 25).<br />
Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament has this to say:<br />
"It is doubtful also whether the relative clause "that hath been made" (o gegonen) is a part of<br />
this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect<br />
active indicative of ginomai. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before<br />
Chrysostom all began a new sentence with o gegonen. The early uncials had no<br />
punctuation.<br />
Bruce Metzger, while stating that none of the arguments are conclusive, does put forth the following in<br />
his Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/john13.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:55:30 AM]
John 1:3, Punctuation and Staircase Parallelism<br />
"Should the words O GEGONEN be joined with what goes before or with what follows?<br />
The oldest manuscripts (P66, P75, Aleph, A [Codex Alexandrinus] B [Vatican Manuscript<br />
1209]) have no punctuation here, and in any case the presence of punctuation in Greek<br />
manuscripts, as well as in versional and patristic sources, cannot be regarded as more than<br />
the reflection of current exegetical understanding of the meaning of the passage.<br />
A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene writers<br />
(orthodox and heretical alike) who took O GEGONEN with what follows. When, however,<br />
in the fourth century Arians and the Macedonian heretics began to appeal to the passage to<br />
prove that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things, orthodox writers<br />
preferred to take O GEGONEN with the preceding sentence, thus removing the possibility<br />
of heretical use of the passage.<br />
The punctuation adopted for the text [O GEGONEN as part of verse 4] is in accord with<br />
what a majority regarded as the rhythmical balance of the opening verses of the Prologue,<br />
where the climactic or 'staircase' parallelism' seems to demand that the end of the line<br />
should match the beginning of the next. (For discussion in support of taking O GEGONEN<br />
with what follows, see K. Aland, "Uber die Beduetung eines Punktes. (Eine Untersuchung<br />
zu Joh. 1, 3 4)." in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of<br />
Kenneth Willis Clark, ed. by Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs (=Studies and Documents,<br />
XXIX; Salt Lake City, 1967), pp. 161<br />
-187 (an expanded form of the study appeared in Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche<br />
Wissenschaft, LIX [1968], pp. 174-209), and Ed. L. Miller, Salvation-History in the<br />
Prologue of John. The Significance of John 1:3/4 (Leiden, 1989), pp. 17-44."<br />
Note how all the early Fathers took this<br />
verse and how it is when we get closer to Nicaea, the sentiment changes. These stats<br />
can all be derived from the Nestle Aland 27th edition.<br />
"What came to be through him was life, ..."and without Him nothing was made<br />
and this life was the light of men." NAB that was made." New King James <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Naassenes II/III<br />
Theodotus (ac. to Cl) II<br />
Valentinians(ac.to Ir) 160<br />
Diatessaron II<br />
Ptolemy II<br />
HeracleonII<br />
Theophilus 180<br />
Perateni III<br />
Irenaeus 202<br />
Clement 215<br />
Tertullian 220<br />
Hippolutus 235<br />
Origen 254 Adamantius 300<br />
Eusebius 339 Alexander 373<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/john13.htm (2 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:55:30 AM]
John 1:3, Punctuation and Staircase Parallelism<br />
Ambrosiaster IV Ephraem 373<br />
Hilary 367 Didymus 398<br />
Athanasius 373 Epiphanus 403<br />
Cyril (Jerusalem) 386 Chrysostom 420<br />
Epiphanus 403 Jerome 420<br />
Nonnus 431<br />
Pseudo Ignatius V<br />
We can see from the above that the closer one gets to Trinitarian controversy surrounding Nicaea, the<br />
more the punctuation changes in favor of showing Jesus as creator. The change is evidently theological,<br />
promoting a certain doctrine. It does not reflect the ancient text.<br />
What is "Staircase Parallelism?" Let's start with Verse 1, with the punctuation as supplied the W/Hort<br />
Greek Text:<br />
EN ARCH HN O LOGOS, KAI<br />
O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON, KAI<br />
QEOS HN O LOGOS<br />
Now let us try verses 3 and 4:<br />
PANTA DI AUTOU EGENETO, KAI<br />
CWRIS AUTOU EGENETO OUDE EN.<br />
O GEGONEN EN AUTW ZWH HN,<br />
KAI H ZWH HN TO FWS TWN ANQRWPWN<br />
Verse 5:<br />
KAI TO FWS EN TH SKOTIA FAINEI,<br />
KAI H SKOTIA AUTO OU KATELABEN<br />
Or, in English,<br />
In the beginning was the Word, and<br />
the Word was toward the God,<br />
and god was the Word.<br />
All (things) thru him came-to-be, and<br />
apart from him came-to-be nothing not but one (thing).<br />
which has come to be in him life was, and<br />
the life was the light of the men;<br />
and the light in the darkness is shining<br />
and the darkness it not overpowered.<br />
It only makes sense here to leave "what has come to be" as part of verse 4.<br />
What this leaves us with, is to focus on the agency of the LOGOS/Word through the use of<br />
CWRIS/Caris.<br />
On page 793 (volume I, Louw-Nida's Greek-English Lexicon ) under semantic domain 89.120, this<br />
source makes this observation about XWRIS Jn 1:3:<br />
"It would be wrong to restructure Jn 1:3 to read 'he made everything in all creation,' for in<br />
the Scriptures God is spoken of as the Creator, but the creation was done 'through the<br />
Word.' If one must restructure Jn 1:3, it may be possible to say 'he was involved in<br />
everything that was created' or 'he took part in creating everything.'<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/john13.htm (3 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:55:30 AM]
John 1:3, Punctuation and Staircase Parallelism<br />
Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament says:<br />
All things (panta). The philosophical phrase was ta panta (the all things) as we have it in 1<br />
Corinthians 8:6; Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16. In verse 1:10 John uses o kosmoß (the<br />
orderly universe) for the whole. Were made (egeneto). Second aorist middle indicative of<br />
ginomai, the constative aorist covering the creative activity looked at as one event in<br />
contrast with the continuous existence of hn in verses 1,2. All things "came into being."<br />
Creation is thus presented as a becoming (ginomai) in contrast with being (eimi). By him (di<br />
autou). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is<br />
John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 1:2)<br />
names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that<br />
"the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him<br />
and unto him" (Colossians 1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here<br />
enunciates. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary<br />
source (ex ou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di ou).<br />
Without him (cwriß autou).<br />
Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of CWRIS in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or<br />
co-operation) of one."<br />
BAGD has "without, or apart from=apart from someone's activity or assistance"<br />
In this way, the <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English handles it superbly, "Everything was made by his agency." Jn 1:3<br />
Even Origen acknowledged this,<br />
"And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of the days He spoke to<br />
us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages, "<br />
showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when<br />
the ages were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage<br />
also, THROUGH [DIA] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger<br />
and greater than He. And who else could this but the Father?"<br />
Origen's Commentary on John, ANF 10, Book 2, chap. 6, p. 328<br />
The assistance of whom though? Why, by His created Wisdom, Jesus Christ himself:<br />
"The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago..<br />
Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.<br />
When there were no depths, I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with<br />
water.<br />
Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills was I brought forthwhen<br />
he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil.<br />
When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,<br />
when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep,<br />
when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command,<br />
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,<br />
then I was beside him, like a master worker, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before<br />
him always." Prov 8:22-30 NRSV<br />
Many do not usually like it when you connect this verse with Jesus, but the parallels are too<br />
overwhelming to be ignored. Check out the cross-references of the following <strong>Bible</strong>s, as they point<br />
between Wisdom and the Logos.<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong>: John 1:1-> Prov 8:22-25<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/john13.htm (4 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:55:30 AM]
John 1:3, Punctuation and Staircase Parallelism<br />
New Scofield Study <strong>Bible</strong>/KJV: Prov 8:22-> John 1:1; Prov 8:30->John 1:1, 2<br />
Nelson Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NKJV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3, 18<br />
Oxford Annotated <strong>Bible</strong>/RSV: John 1:3->Prov 8:27-30; Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3<br />
NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong>: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3<br />
MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NKJV: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3<br />
Zondervan NASB Study <strong>Bible</strong>: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3<br />
New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong> Reference Edition: Prov 8:30->John 1:2,3<br />
Geneva Study <strong>Bible</strong>: Prov 8:22-John 1:1<br />
Matthew Henry: John 1-5->Prov 8:22<br />
John Wesley: John 1:1-> Prov 8:23<br />
Harper Collins Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NRSV: John 1:1->Prov 8:22<br />
Ryrie Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NIV: John 1:1->Prov 8<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>: John 1:1->Wisdom; Prov 8:22, 23-> John 1:1-3<br />
Vine's Expository Reference <strong>Bible</strong>/NKJV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3<br />
Prophecy Study <strong>Bible</strong>/KJV by Tim LaHaye: Prov 8:22->John 1:1; Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3<br />
NIV Rainbow Study <strong>Bible</strong>: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3<br />
Men's Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NIV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3<br />
Nestle-Aland 27th Edition: John 1:1->Prov 8:22; Prov 8:22->John 1:1,2<br />
Oxford Study <strong>Bible</strong>/REB: Prov 8:22->John 1:1-3; John 1:1-18->Wisd. 9:1-4:8; Ecclus 24:1-12<br />
Even Jesus acknowledges that he is this Wisdom:<br />
"Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles; and some of them<br />
they shall kill and persecute; that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of<br />
the world, may be required of this generation" Luke 11:49 ASV<br />
But in a parallel account we read, "Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and<br />
scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues,<br />
and persecute from city to city" Matthew 23:34 ASV<br />
Even Paul states confirms Jesus as Wisdom, "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." 1 Cor<br />
1:24 ASV<br />
It should be considered a very important point that Jesus is here, in the Johannine prologue, referred to as<br />
"the Word." This gives us an indication as to why Jesus was also referred to as God/a god/Divine/deity in<br />
"the Word was God." ASV<br />
As God's Word, or mouthpiece, he represents God in every way.<br />
In the <strong>Bible</strong>, Angels were representatives of God, and yet are referred to as GOD.<br />
Let us see what happened to Hagar in Genesis 16. Verse 7 says, "And the angel of Jehovah found her by<br />
a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur." The angel then conversed with<br />
her.<br />
Then it goes on to say, "And she called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou art a God that<br />
seeth. For she said, Have I even here looked after him that seeth me?"<br />
The context clearly says that it was an angel that spoke to her, but her reaction is that Jehovah God spoke<br />
to here.<br />
Let us go to Judges 13 where again, the angel of Jehovah spoke to Manoah and his wife. Verse 21 and 22<br />
says, "But the angel of Jehovah did no more appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he<br />
was the angel of Jehovah. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen<br />
God."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/john13.htm (5 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:55:30 AM]
John 1:3, Punctuation and Staircase Parallelism<br />
Angels were allowed to appear in behalf of God, and even use his name.<br />
Take Exodus 3:2, "And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a<br />
bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed." But further<br />
on down this angel speaks, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the<br />
God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God." Look at what this angel<br />
further says, " I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath<br />
sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,<br />
Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent<br />
me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."<br />
Even God admits that angels can bear his name, "Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the<br />
way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto<br />
his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him." Ex 23:20<br />
Angels represented God, appeared as God, and were everything that God was to those who saw them. It<br />
is more than interesting that the word angels means, "messenger." They were the word(s) of God.<br />
This did not stop with Angels, it also worked with humans as representatives of God.<br />
Judges were representatives of God, as in 1 Sam 2:25:<br />
"If one man sin against another, God shall judge him" ASV<br />
"If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him" KJV<br />
The king of Israel sat on Jehovah's throne (1 Chron 29:23) and as such, was God to the people (Ps 45:6,<br />
7). "O god: the king in courtly language, is called "god," i.e., more than human, representing God to the<br />
people." Ps 45:7 footnote New American <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Jehovah made Moses "God to Pharoah." Ex 4:16; 7:1.<br />
To go against Moses was to go against God. (Number 16:11; Ex 16:8).<br />
To act against the apostles was to act against God (Acts 5:39).<br />
There is something called the Schaliach Principle which I have explained elsewhere on this site, and I<br />
will repeat here:<br />
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is<br />
regarded as the person himself. Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is<br />
regarded as having been committed by the principle."<br />
The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder<br />
GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic<br />
law as follows:<br />
"One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach]<br />
is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who<br />
sent him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the<br />
messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 18).<br />
George Buchanan also appears to take this position in his commentary on Hebrews (Anchor<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> series). Buchanan notes that<br />
"a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power of<br />
attorney for the one who sent him" (Buchanan 7). He then adds "The New Testament<br />
apostles were apostles of Jesus, and Jesus was an apostle of God. It is against this<br />
background that Jesus, in the same context, could say both, "He who has seen me has seen<br />
the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).<br />
What does this all mean?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/john13.htm (6 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:55:30 AM]
John 1:3, Punctuation and Staircase Parallelism<br />
"When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was n o t saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was<br />
saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we<br />
perfectly see what God is like” Barclay<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/john13.htm (7 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:55:30 AM]
Is Abaddon/Apollyon a demon, devil or Jesus Christ?<br />
Abaddon/Apollyon-Demonic Devil or Angelic Christ?<br />
"And they had as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, but<br />
in Greek he has the name Apollyon."<br />
Who really is Abaddon/Apollyon mentioned at Revelation 9:11?<br />
The New Life Study Testament lists Abaddon/Apollyon as one of "Satan's names." p. 104<br />
The Nelson Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NKJV says, "The angel of the bottomless pit is demonic and controls the<br />
demonic locusts." Interestingly, it then contradicts itself by saying, "If this angel serves God, this is<br />
another instance where the activity of Satan or his demons is under the Lord's sovereign control (see 2<br />
Cor. 12:7, 9)."<br />
Why is there a tendency to view the angel at Rev 9 in a bad light?<br />
In Rev 9:1 the angel is described as a star fallen from heaven, hence it is thought of as "a fallen angel"<br />
(see Oxford Annotated Study <strong>Bible</strong>/RSV). However, stars/angels are also referred to in Revelation as<br />
fallen (Rev 6:13; 8:10), but without the sinister connotations applied to them.<br />
The confusions lies in that very little is written concerning Abaddon/Apollyon. Can Jesus be tied to<br />
Abaddon/Apollyon? Consider the following:<br />
1) Abaddon, or better, Apollyon, means Destroyer.<br />
James 4:12 says "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and destroy."<br />
NASB Here the Judge is able to destroy, yet God "hath given all judgment unto the Son." Jn 5:22 ASV<br />
Many commentarians believe that the Angel of the LORD (malak YHWH) is Jesus, yet the "Angel of the<br />
LORD" destroys 185,000 men. (2 King 19:3, 5)<br />
The NIV and Young's Literal Version both capitalize adoni at Ps 110:1 and Joshua 5:14, because they<br />
believe that they both refer to Christ. Yet the angel at Jos 5:14 is a captain of God's army "to take charge<br />
of the battle on earth." NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong> (Sounds like a Destroyer to me)<br />
2)The angel Abaddon is given a key ot the abyss (Rev 9:1),<br />
Jesus also has a key to the abyss Hades. (Rev 1:18)<br />
3)The demons at Luke 8:31 entreat JESUS not to command then to depart into the abyss. It seems Jesus<br />
had authority over this part of their destiny.<br />
4)Keys "is used in the NT to denote power and authority of various kinds." Thayer<br />
If the Abaddon is a demon (as many incorrectly assume), then why does he hurl Satan into the abyss<br />
(Rev 20:1, 2), and bound him for 1000 years. Abaddon here seems to defeat Satan, but then so does Jesus<br />
in Rev 19:13, 19.<br />
5)If Abbadon/Apollyon was really a demon, why is he given a key to lock up, and then eventually<br />
release/cast out Satan and the other demons (Rev 20:1-3)?<br />
Did not Jesus say....<br />
"But the teachers of the law from Jerusalem said that he (Jesus) was possessed by Beelzebub, and that it<br />
was only by means of the ruler of the demons that he cast out demons. So he called them over, and using<br />
metaphors asked them: 'How can Satan cast out Satan?'" Mark 3:22, 23, 21st Century NT<br />
It simply does not make sense to have one evil angel keeping all the other evil angels suppressed for a<br />
certain time, only to eventually release them, especially as, Apocryphally, God is called, "You who close<br />
and seal the Abyss with your fearful and glorious name." (Prayer of Manasseh, 3) cf. Ex 23:20-22<br />
6)Interestingly, my NIV Ryrie Study <strong>Bible</strong> cross-references the angel of Rev 20:1 with Jesus at Rev 1:18.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abaddon.htm (1 of 3) [5/25/2003 3:55:41 AM]
Is Abaddon/Apollyon a demon, devil or Jesus Christ?<br />
It then cross-references the angel with the key to the abyss at Rev 9:1 with Jesus at Rev 1:18, and then, it<br />
cross-references Abaddon at Rev 9:11, with Rev 9:1.<br />
Now my NASB Reference Edition 1971 cross-references Luke 8:31 (see above) to Rev 9:11. Rev 9:11 is<br />
then cross-referenced BACK to Luke 8:31 and Rev 9:1, 2. Rev 9:1 is cross-referenced to Luke 8:31, and<br />
to Jesus again at Rev 1:18<br />
My Nelson Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NKJV cross-references the angel at Rev 20:1 to Jesus at Rev. 1:18 and the angel<br />
of the abyss at Rev 9:1. It then adds more confusion to its footnote at 9:11 by cross-referencing this same<br />
angel at 9:1 with Jesus statement at Luke 8:31.<br />
The Prophecy Study <strong>Bible</strong>/KJV by Tim LaHaye cross-references Rev 9:11 to Rev 20:1.<br />
The it cross-references Jesus at Luke 8:31 to Rev 20:1.<br />
The Leadership Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NIV by Zondervan cross-links Rev 9:1 and verse 11 back and forth to each<br />
other, then it cross-references 9:1 to Jesus at Luke 8:31.<br />
The Baptist Study Edition cross-references Rev 9:1 with Rev 9:11 and also to Jesus at Luke 8:31.<br />
The Novum Testamentum Graece/Nestle-Aland 27th Edition cross-references Jesus at Luke 8:31 with<br />
Abaddon at Rev 9:11.<br />
The Life Application Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NLT mentions that the angel in 9:1 is possibly "Christ" or a "good<br />
angel." The Mens Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NIV cross-references Rev 9:11 to 9:1, and then to Luke 8:31. The Full<br />
Life Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NIV cross-references Rev 9:11 to Luke 8:31.<br />
Commenting on Revelation 9:11, The Interpreter’s <strong>Bible</strong> says: “Abaddon, however, is an angel not of<br />
Satan but of God, performing his work of destruction at God’s bidding.”<br />
The Geneva Study <strong>Bible</strong> adds at Revelation 9:1<br />
"(2) That is, that the angel of God glittering with glory, as a star fallen from heaven. He may<br />
be Christ, who has the keys of hell by himself and by princely authority, #Re 1:18 or some<br />
inferior angel who has the same key entrusted to him and holds it ministerially, or by office<br />
of his ministry, here and #Re 20:10 so the word "falling" is taken; #Ge 14:10, 24:46, Heb<br />
6:6."<br />
It seems to make sense to apply the language in regards to the angel in Rev 9 to Jesus, as many in the<br />
past have even tied Jesus to Michael and one of the Angels of the LORD (Jehovah), malak YHWH.<br />
etalk99 says: It's intriguing that the following quotes from Aid to <strong>Bible</strong> Understanding<br />
CONTRADICTS the above.<br />
MICHAEL... The only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the <strong>Bible</strong> (Michael<br />
p.1152)<br />
GABRIEL... The only holy angel other than Michael named in the <strong>Bible</strong> (Gabriel<br />
p.612)<br />
Gabriel is a holy angel, & IF JESUS is 'Michael' & 'Abaddon' & 'Apollyon',<br />
then Michael & Gabriel are NOT the only holy angels named in the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Reply: The Aid book and the Insight book do not mention Apollyon as a holy angel for the same reason<br />
they do not mention Jehovah as a holy angel. Consider:<br />
Apollyon is a name derived from the pagan god Apollo (which also means Destroyer), not that they were<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abaddon.htm (2 of 3) [5/25/2003 3:55:41 AM]
Is Abaddon/Apollyon a demon, devil or Jesus Christ?<br />
the same, but the name carried some semantic value. Also, Tartarus is a <strong>Bible</strong> name borrowed from<br />
paganism, again, to display the semantic in the meaning, not to imply that they were the same.<br />
What am I saying? The angel in Exodus 3:2-15 was called Jehovah, not that he was Jehovah, or that we<br />
should go around calling angels by that name, but that the angel was representative of the task he was<br />
performing.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abaddon.htm (3 of 3) [5/25/2003 3:55:41 AM]
The word Hell and Sheol in the King James <strong>Bible</strong> and other versions.<br />
The Occurences of Sheol in the Old Testament-And what it says about<br />
"A little child is in this red-hot oven. Hear how it screams to come out! See how it turns and twists itself<br />
about in the fire! It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet on the floor. You<br />
can see on the face of this little child what you see on the faces of all in hell--despair, desperate and<br />
horrible!" from the Children's Apostle<br />
On further investigation though, we learn that the above amounts to nothing more than a propagandist<br />
scare-tactic of the worst kind. Consider the OT uses of the word Sheol, where we get our Hell from in<br />
most common versions:<br />
Scripture KJV Douay NWT NIV MLB/NBV Fenton NLT Brenton<br />
Genesis 37:35 grave hell sheol grave grave grave die Hades<br />
Genesis 42:38 grave hell sheol grave death's realm grave grave Hades<br />
Genesis 44:29 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave grave<br />
Genesis 44:31 grave hell sheol grave grave grave grave grave<br />
Num 16:30 pit hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades<br />
Num 16:33 pit hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades<br />
Deut 32:22 hell hell sheol realm of death underworld pit grave hell<br />
1 Sam 2:6 grave hell sheol grave grave grave grave grave<br />
2 Sam 22:6 hell hell sheol grave grave grave grave death<br />
1 Kings 2:6 grave hell sheol grave grave grave die grave<br />
1 Kings 2:9 grave hell sheol grave grave grave death grave<br />
Job 7:9 grave hell sheol grave underworld grave die grave<br />
Job 11:8 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave underworld hell<br />
Job 14:13 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave dead* grave<br />
Job 17:13 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades<br />
Job 17:16 pit pit sheol death Sheol grave grave Hades<br />
Job 21:13 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave grave<br />
Job 24:19 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave death N/A<br />
Job 26:6 hell hell sheol death Sheol grave underworld hell<br />
Psalm 6:5 grave hell sheol grave grave grave grave Hades<br />
Psalm 9:17 hell hell sheol grave Sheol pit grave Hades<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sheol.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:55:52 AM]
The word Hell and Sheol in the King James <strong>Bible</strong> and other versions.<br />
Psalm 16:10 hell hell sheol grave realm of the dead grave grave hell<br />
Psalm 18:5 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave N/A<br />
Psalm 30:3 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades<br />
Psalm 31:17 grave hell sheol grave realm of the dead grave grave Hades<br />
Psalm 49:14 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades<br />
Psalm 49:14 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades<br />
Psalm 55:15 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades<br />
Psalm 86:13 hell hell sheol grave lower world beyond grave death hell<br />
Psalm 88:3 grave hell sheol grave death's portals grave death Hades<br />
Psalm 89:48 grave hell sheol grave grave grave grave Hades<br />
Psalm 116:3 hell hell sheol grave grave grave grave hell<br />
Psalm 139:8 hell hell sheol depths underworld grave dead grave<br />
Psalm 141:7 gravk hell sheol grave grave nil nil pit<br />
Prov 1:12 grave hell sheol grave dead-realm grave grave Hades<br />
Prov 5:5 hell hell sheol grave hell grave grave grave<br />
Prov 7:27 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave hell<br />
Prov 9:18 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave hell<br />
Prov 15:11 hell hell sheol death Sheol grave death hell<br />
Prov 15:24 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave hell<br />
Prov 23:14 pit hell sheol death Sheol grave death death<br />
Prov 27:20 hell hell sheol death Sheol grave death hell<br />
Prov 30:16 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave N/A<br />
Eccl 9:10 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades<br />
Cant. 8:6 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave grave<br />
Isa 5:14 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave# hell<br />
Isa 14:9 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave dead hell<br />
Isa 14:11 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave nil Hades<br />
Isa 14:15 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave dead hell<br />
Isa 28:15 hell hell sheol grave Sheol pit grave Hades<br />
Isa 38:10 grave hell sheol death grave grave dead grave<br />
Isa 38:18 grave hell sheol grave grave grave dead grave<br />
Isa 57:9 hell hell sheol grave Sheol hell dead hell<br />
Eze 31:15 grave hell sheol grave realm of the dead grave grave Hades<br />
Eze 31:16 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades<br />
Eze 31:17 hell hell sheol grave realm of the dead grave grave hell<br />
Eze 32:21 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades<br />
Eze 32:27 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades<br />
Hosea 13:14 grave death sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sheol.htm (2 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:55:52 AM]
The word Hell and Sheol in the King James <strong>Bible</strong> and other versions.<br />
Hosea 13:14 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades<br />
Amos 9:2 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave dead hell<br />
Jonah 2:2 hell hell sheol grave Sheol nil dead hell<br />
Hab 2:5 hell hell sheol grave grave grave death grave<br />
* often "place of the dead*<br />
# its predecessor, the Living <strong>Bible</strong>, has "Hell" here.<br />
A Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> (1914), edited by William Smith, sates: "Hell . . . is the word generally and<br />
unfortunately used by our translators to render the Hebrew Sheol. It would perhaps have been better to<br />
retain the Hebrew word Sheol, or else render it always by 'the grave' or 'the pit'. . . . In the N[ew]<br />
T[estament], the word Hades, like Sheol, sometimes means merely 'the grave' . . . It is in this sense that<br />
the creeds say of our Lord 'He went down into hell,' meaning the state of the dead in general."<br />
Collier's Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) says: "Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply<br />
to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word 'hell,' as understood today, is not a<br />
happy translation." Better versions simply transliterate the word into English as "Sheol."<br />
The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1971, Vol. 11, p. 276): "Sheol was located somewhere 'under' the earth. .<br />
. . The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor<br />
punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and the bad alike, tyrants and saints,<br />
kings and orphans, Israelites and gentiles-all slept together without awareness of one another."<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> record shows that Sheol refers to mankind's common grave, despite the changes it has taken in<br />
the minds of many others.<br />
" For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a<br />
reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.... Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might;<br />
for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol (Hell, Douay/Brenton) whither<br />
thou goest. (Ec 9:5, 10 ASV)<br />
If Hell is such a bad place that is over looked by the Devil, then why is it in front of God?<br />
"Sheol (hell, KJV/Douay) and Abaddon are before Jehovah: How much more then the hearts of the<br />
children of men!" Prov 15:11 ASV<br />
"Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven,<br />
thou art there: If I make my bed in Sheol (hell, KJV/Douay), behold, thou art there." Ps 139:7,8 ASV<br />
[See also Amos 9:1, 2]<br />
If Hell is such a bad place that is over looked by the Devil, then why did Job pray to go there?<br />
"Oh that thou wouldest hide me in Sheol (hell, KJV/Douay), That thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy<br />
wrath be past, That thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!" Job 14:12-15.<br />
Throughout the <strong>Bible</strong>, Sheol is often associated with death , not some afterlife. (1Sa 2:6; 2Sa 22:6; Ps<br />
18:4, 5; 49:7-10, 14, 15; 88:2-6; 89:48; Isa 28:15-18; also compare Ps 116:3, 7-10 with 2Co 4:13, 14.) It<br />
is "the land of darkness" (Job 10:21) and a place of silence. (Ps 115:17)<br />
Not something you expect from a place that constantly lit by fire where people are tortured continuously<br />
Regarding the word "Sheol," Brynmor F. Price and Eugene A. Nida noted: "The word occurs often in the<br />
Psalms and in the book of Job to refer to the place to which all dead people go. It is represented as a dark<br />
place, in which there is no activity worthy of the name. There are no moral distinctions there, so 'hell'<br />
(KJV) is not a suitable translation, since that suggests a contrast with 'heaven' as the dwelling-place of<br />
the righteous after death. In a sense, 'the grave' in a generic sense is a near equivalent, except that Sheol<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sheol.htm (3 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:55:52 AM]
The word Hell and Sheol in the King James <strong>Bible</strong> and other versions.<br />
is more a mass grave in which all the dead dwell together. . . . The use of this particular imagery may<br />
have been considered suitable here [in Jonah 2:2] in view of Jonah's imprisonment in the interior of the<br />
fish."-A Translators Handbook on the Book of Jonah, 1978, p. 37.<br />
When asked why the NIV (New International Version) translated Sheol as "grave," Kenneth Barker gave<br />
this answer, "Sheol frequently occurs in synonymous parallelism with Hebrew qeder, which clearly<br />
means grave....more recent studies support the NIV."<br />
The Accuracy of the NIV, p. 34<br />
Back to Hell page<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
hector3001@aol.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sheol.htm (4 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:55:52 AM]
A Reply To "Germans, JW's, and John 1:1"<br />
An Open Letter to James White Regarding his<br />
"Germans, JWs, and John 1:1"<br />
To James White.<br />
On one of your web-pages, you try to discredit anyone who would translate John 1:1c as "a god." You<br />
narrow in on a few examples, but it appears to me that you use the same tactics that the King James Only<br />
people use, to buttress your point. Let us continue:<br />
You: "So what does all of this mean? It seems to be important that we cannot find any scholar who<br />
actually believes that the <strong>Bible</strong> is the Word of God and is inspired and consis-tent with itself that renders<br />
John 1.1 as "a god." We have found spirit mediums that do so, and Unitarians who have to use someone<br />
else's translation as a basis upon which they make "corrections"."<br />
Reply: The problem with this statement is that it is not true. You have simply checked only a handful of<br />
German translators, and stopped at that. If you were really interested in finding more, you could have.<br />
You also wrote though: "None of these scholars are classically Arian in their theology. Dr. Schneider<br />
was a Baptist." Does this mean, according to you, that Baptists do not believe the "<strong>Bible</strong> is the Word of<br />
God and is inspired and consis-tent with itself "?<br />
[The others he is referring too are considered "Liberal."]<br />
Are you saying that only those with the highest regard for scripture would translate John 1:1c as you<br />
would like?<br />
Consider Dr. Bratcher, the main translator behind the Good News <strong>Bible</strong>/Today's English Version (which<br />
now does translate John 1:1 as "the Word was God") in Faith for the Family reported that at the<br />
Southern Baptist Life Commission seminar, Dallas, Texas, 1981, Bratcher made this statement:<br />
"Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the <strong>Bible</strong> is inerrant and<br />
infallible ... To invest the <strong>Bible</strong> with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to<br />
transform it into a false god." (Faith for the Family, Greenville: Bob Jones University, Sept. 1981)<br />
Further quotes from Bratcher's speech were printed in the Baptist Press report written by Dan Martin,<br />
news editor, and printed in the Baptist Courier:<br />
"Often in the past and still too often in the present to affirm that the <strong>Bible</strong> is the Word of God implies<br />
that the words of the <strong>Bible</strong> are the words of God. Such simplistic and absolute terms divest the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
altogether of its humanity and remove it from the relativism of the historical process. No one seriously<br />
claims all the words of the <strong>Bible</strong> are the very words of God. If someone does so it is only because that<br />
person is not willing thoroughly to explore its implications. ...<br />
"The Word of God is not words; it is a human being, a human life ... Quoting what the <strong>Bible</strong> says in the<br />
context of its history and culture is not necessarily relevant or helpful--and may be a hindrance in trying<br />
to meet and solve the problems we face. ..<br />
"We are not bound by the letter of Scripture, but by the spirit. Even words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic in<br />
the thirties of the first century and preserved in writing in Greek, 35 to 50 years later, do not necessarily<br />
wield compelling authority over us today. The focus of scriptural authority is not the words themselves.<br />
It is Jesus Christ as the Word of God who is the authority for us to be and to do.<br />
"As a biblical scholar, I view with dismay the misuse of scriptures by fundamentalists; as ... Christians<br />
we listen with alarm to the simpleminded diagnoses and the simplistic panaceas proposed with smug<br />
selfassurance by Moral Majority people intent on curing the evils of this age." (The Baptist Courier, Apr.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/germans.htm (1 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:56:02 AM]
A Reply To "Germans, JW's, and John 1:1"<br />
2, 1981; the Courier is the South Carolina SBC state paper.)<br />
In conclusion he said;<br />
"We are given authority by the Lord the Spirit to speak and to act, but we can never know in advance that<br />
we are doing the will of God. It is the height of presumption and arrogance to say, `I know this is God's<br />
will, and I am doing it.' No greater responsibility; no higher privilege is given to us than to hear and<br />
obey."<br />
These statements caused quite a stir among conservative Christians, so much so that the American<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Society began losing financial support.<br />
Then there is the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version (again, reading<br />
"the Word was God), both of which come under considerable influence from Bruce Metzger.<br />
The same Bruce Metzger that cut out 40% of inspired scripture to give us the Readers Digest Condensed<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
The same Bruce Metzger who said of Deuteronomy: "It's compilation is generally assigned to the seventh<br />
century B.C., though it rests upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses' time."<br />
The same Bruce Metzger who said of Daniel: "Most scholars hold that the book was compiled during the<br />
persecutions (168-165 B.C.) of the Jewish people by Antiochus Epiphanes."<br />
The same Bruce Metzger who said of John: "Whether the book was written directly by John, or indirectly<br />
(his teachings may have been edited by another), the church has accepted it as an authoritative<br />
supplement to the story of Jesus' ministry given by the other evangelists."<br />
The same Bruce Metzger who said of James: "Tradition ascribes the letter to James, the Lord's brother,<br />
writing about A.D. 45, but modern opinion is uncertain, and differs widely on both origin and date."<br />
The same Bruce Metzger who said of the Old Testament:<br />
"The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. ...<br />
The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early<br />
as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the<br />
earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised<br />
Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time<br />
before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form. ... The process by which<br />
the Jews became 'the people of the Book' was gradual, and the development is shrouded in the mists of<br />
history and tradition. ... The date of the final compilation of the Pentateuch or Law, which was the first<br />
corpus or larger body of literature that came to be regarded by the Jews as authoritative Scripture, is<br />
uncertain, although some have conservatively dated it at the time of the Exile in the sixth century. ...<br />
Before the adoption of the Pentateuch as the Law of Moses, there had been compiled and edited in the<br />
spirit and diction of the Deuteronomic 'school' the group of books consisting of Deuteronomy, Joshua,<br />
Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in much their present form. ... Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long<br />
period of time."<br />
There is much more that could be added on Metzger, but this should suffice, except for the fact that you,<br />
James White, had also used his research for your book, The King James Only Controversy, while<br />
obviously differing on some views.<br />
The RSV is considered by many to be a "Liberal" version, which is why they had public burnings of it in<br />
the early 50's (see In Discordance of Scripture).<br />
Martin Luther was an evil person, (<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/germans.htm (2 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:56:02 AM]
A Reply To "Germans, JW's, and John 1:1"<br />
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html) but no one is complaining<br />
about his rendering of John 1:1!<br />
The American Standard Version is hailed as probably one of the most accurate versions of the <strong>Bible</strong>, yet<br />
there were Unitarians involved in its translation (Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot). Should we discard it?<br />
Even the King James Version comes under attack, as some believe the translators were influenced by<br />
the Socinians (Unitarians) because of their referring to the holy spirit as an "it" (John 1:32; Romans 8:16,<br />
26; I Peter 1:11). See Emery H. Bancroft, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961;<br />
revised edition], pp. 147-8)<br />
J.B. Phillips (whose version certainlly does not shy away from the deity of Christ), as I am told by KJV<br />
advocates, has an autobiography detailing his necromancy and communication with the dead.<br />
Did you see that I make mention of the KJVO people. You have written a good book on the King James<br />
Only debate, yet you employ their tactics to make your point.<br />
I am now going to take some of your words, and use them properly. Most of the time a translation that<br />
differs from the NWT<br />
"is just as valid and reliable as the one found in the AV itself, and frequently, it is more clear and<br />
understandable. When differences are examined in a context of seeking to understand the reasons for the<br />
differences, rather than in one of fear and emotion, we learn more about the Word and the original intents<br />
of the authors. This is how Christian dialogue and discussion should take place. Whenever you encounter<br />
a supposed "change" in the <strong>Bible</strong>'s text take the time to look carefully at the available information. You<br />
will discover that there are reasons for the differences, and that there is no rationale at all for running to<br />
theories of conspiracies or evil intentions..." The King James Only Controversy, James White, p. 146<br />
There is much available information out there, and the conclusion is that the NWT rendering has much<br />
going for it. Consider:<br />
Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"<br />
Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god<br />
Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god"<br />
Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was"<br />
Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"<br />
Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"<br />
"In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal]<br />
[Word] was a god." John 1:1 21st Century NT Literal<br />
Belsham N.T. 1809 the Word was a god<br />
Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god"<br />
J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"<br />
George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"<br />
James L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"<br />
Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"<br />
Madsen, 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"<br />
Becker, 1979, [a God/god was the Logos/logos]<br />
Stage, 1907, [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].<br />
Bohmer, 1910, [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being]<br />
Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]<br />
Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]<br />
Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/germans.htm (3 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:56:02 AM]
A Reply To "Germans, JW's, and John 1:1"<br />
Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was<br />
the Word/word].<br />
John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"<br />
Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"<br />
Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"<br />
Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>: "Jn 1:1 should<br />
rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'<br />
Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. "a God"<br />
Lant Carpenter, LL.D "a God"<br />
Andrews Norton, D.D. "a god"<br />
Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church "a God"<br />
Couple this with others who have chosen an alternative rendering focusing on the quality of the Logos,<br />
and we have a very strong case:<br />
Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine<br />
Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god<br />
New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"<br />
Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine<br />
International English <strong>Bible</strong>, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better<br />
translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek<br />
word]<br />
Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>, "and the Message was Deity"<br />
Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]<br />
International <strong>Bible</strong> Translators N.T. 1981<br />
In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity.<br />
Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"<br />
Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"<br />
Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"<br />
Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature<br />
Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"<br />
Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos<br />
Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine<br />
Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was<br />
Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One<br />
Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it<br />
was what God was<br />
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, [the Word was of divine kind]<br />
Haenchen, 1980, [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]<br />
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, [He was with God and in all like God]<br />
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"<br />
William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And the Word was divine."<br />
Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University,<br />
1943, "And the Word was Divine"<br />
For a fuller expanded list of various translations of John 1:1 see<br />
hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htm<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/germans.htm (4 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:56:02 AM]
A Reply To "Germans, JW's, and John 1:1"<br />
Do I agree with the 100 % world-views of all the above translators? No! Just like I do not agree<br />
completely with the world-view of the translators of the other <strong>Bible</strong>s the WTS prints and distributes, like<br />
the ASV, KJV, Byington, NEB, JB, NAB, TEV or others like the RSV or Phillips...but I could never in<br />
good conscience tell people to stop using them.<br />
White: We've also found German scholars who try to differentiate between the Father and the Son by<br />
coming up with unusual translations of John 1.1, though none of these would identify Jesus as some kind<br />
of created being like Michael the Archangel -<br />
Reply: That is because John 1:1 was not written to support such a view. But let us take a look at what<br />
some have written:<br />
Methodist Adam Clarke: And the Word was God.] Or, God was the Logos: therefore no subordinate<br />
being, no second to the Most High, but the supreme eternal Jehovah.<br />
But regarding the occurrence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10, he remarks:<br />
"By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume commentary<br />
-- not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon Press, vol. 6, page 952).<br />
John Wesley in his version also translates, "the Word was God," but notice what he says:<br />
Chapter XII<br />
A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of<br />
these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 For the children - The meaning<br />
seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater<br />
deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your<br />
salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time,<br />
probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.<br />
Wesley on Daniel 10:21<br />
Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes<br />
of the earth desert or oppose it.<br />
The Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> also follows the traditional rendering of John 1:1, but note what it says at Da 12:1<br />
"And at that {a} time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy<br />
people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since<br />
there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that<br />
shall be found written in the book.<br />
(a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's<br />
coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning<br />
Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel."<br />
You: Hopefully you will be able to share these life-changing truths with the next follower of the<br />
Watchtower Society who knocks at your door.<br />
Reply: And therein lies the rub. You have to wait for me to knock on YOUR door because your lazy and<br />
re-active theology bars you from knocking on mine. Can you imagine if Jesus only sat and waited for<br />
someone to call on him!<br />
"Be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." 2 Tim 4:5<br />
NASB<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/germans.htm (5 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:56:02 AM]
A Reply To "Germans, JW's, and John 1:1"<br />
If I may, I am going to employ your words in closing, but suit them to fit the NWT, rather than the KJV:<br />
*The anti-NWT movement is a human tradition. It has no basis in history. It has no foundation in fact. It<br />
is internally inconsistent, utilizing circular reasoning at its core, and involves the use of more double<br />
standards than almost any system of thought I have ever encountered.*<br />
I like you, also "fully believe the Word of God is inerrant," but arguing against the NWT contradicts your<br />
claim. Like Professor Duthie says, "It is no more 'full of heresies' than any other translation." [p. 103,<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> And How To Choose Between Them, The Paternoster Press]<br />
Until you realize this Mr. White, then you are only providing fodder for atheists who also argue for the<br />
corruption of the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Go to John 1:1 Page<br />
Go to Johannes Greber Page<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/germans.htm (6 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:56:02 AM]
The LORD said to my lord and the use of ADONI in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
The LORD said to my lord...<br />
Adoni and the Divine Title<br />
The MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NKJV states of Psalm 110.1, "Using this passage, Christ also declared His<br />
deity in the Gospels (Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42-43) by arguing that only God could have been<br />
lord to King David."<br />
Ron Rhodes puppets this argument also. In his Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
on p. 162 he writes: "Ask the JW's: Did you know that the same word used for "Lord" (adonai) in Ps.<br />
110:1 of Jesus Christ is also used of the Father numerous times in Scripture…?" The argument is<br />
basically a lie, because the word in Psalm 110 is not adonai, but adoni, which is never a reference to<br />
Deity and always (195 times) a reference to someone who is not God.<br />
Anthony Buzzard writes:<br />
"Psalm 110:1 provides a major key to understanding who Jesus is. The Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong><br />
carefully distinguished the divine title adonai, the Supreme Lord, from adoni, the form of<br />
address appropriate to human and angelic superiors. Adoni, 'my lord,' 'my master' on no<br />
occasion refers to the deity. ...The difference is one which depends on the Hebrew vowel<br />
points. It is clear that the distinction between adonai and adoni has been faithfully preserved<br />
since ancient times. The translators of the LXX in the 3rd century BC attest to a careful<br />
distinction between the forms of adon used for divine and human reference by translating<br />
adoni as ho kurios mou, 'my lord.'"<br />
The Doctrine of the Trinity-Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound, p. 47<br />
Finding this very interesting, I decided to test it out myself. Below you will see all, if not most evidences<br />
of adoni straight from your own <strong>Bible</strong>. I will start off with the King James Version (KJV) and then split<br />
off with other popular versions. The results are quite telling:<br />
KJV<br />
Gen 23:6 Hear us, my lord: thou art a mighty prince among us.<br />
Gen 23:11 Nay, my lord, hear me: the field give I thee.<br />
Gen 23:15 My lord, hearken unto me: the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver; what is that betwixt me and thee?<br />
bury therefore thy dead.<br />
Gen 24:12 And he said O LORD God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew<br />
kindness unto my master Abraham.<br />
Gen 24:14 thou hast shewed kindness unto my master.<br />
Gen 24:18 And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink.<br />
Gen 24:27 Blessed be the LORD God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his<br />
truth: I being in the way, the LORD led me to the house of my master's brethren.<br />
Gen 24:35 And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly<br />
Gen 24:36 And Sarah my master's wife bare a son to my master when she was old: and unto him hath he given all that he<br />
hath.<br />
Gen 24:37 And my master made me swear<br />
Gen 24:39 And I said unto my master, Peradventure the woman will not follow me.<br />
Gen 24:42 O LORD God of my master Abraham<br />
Gen 24:44 my master's son<br />
Gen 24:48 my master Abraham<br />
Gen 24:49 deal kindly and truly with my master<br />
Gen 24:65 And the servant had said, It is my master<br />
The rest I will present in chart form comparing different versions:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/adoni.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:56:19 AM]
The LORD said to my lord and the use of ADONI in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Scripture KJV NIV NWT Young's RSV NJPS CEV TEV NASB<br />
Gen 31:35 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T sir lord<br />
Gen 33:8 lord lord lord lord lord lord master N/T lord<br />
Gen 33:13 lord lord lord lord lord lord master N/T lord<br />
Gen 33:14 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
Gen 33:15 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
Gen 39:8 master master master lord master master master master master<br />
Gen 42:10 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Gen 43:20 sir sir lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Gen 44:5 lord master master lord lord master N/T master lord<br />
Gen 44:7 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Gen 44:18 lord lord master lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Gen 44:19 lord lord master lord lord lord N/T sir lord<br />
Gen 44:20 lord N/T master lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
Gen 44:22 lord lord master lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
Gen 44:24 lord lord master lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
Gen 47:18 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Gen 47:25 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Ex 21:5 master master master lord master master N/T master master<br />
Ex 32:22 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
Num 11:28 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Num 12:11 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Num 32:25 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Num 32:27 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
Num 36:2 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir N/T lord<br />
Jos 5:14 Lord Lord lord Lord lord lord N/T sir lord<br />
Jg 4:18 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir master<br />
Jg 6:13 Lord sir lord lord sir lord N/T sir lord<br />
Ruth 2:13 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
1 Sa 1:15 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
1 Sa 1:26 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
1 Sa 22:12 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty sir lord<br />
1 Sa 24:10 lord master lord lord lord N/T N/T N/T lord<br />
1 Sa 25:24 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
1 Sa 25:25 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
1 Sa 25:26 lord master lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
1 Sa 25:27 lord master lord lord lord lord N/T sir lord<br />
1 Sa 25:28 lord master lord lord lord lord N/T sir lord<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/adoni.htm (2 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:56:19 AM]
The LORD said to my lord and the use of ADONI in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
1 Sa 25:29 lord master lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
1 Sa 25:31 lord master lord lord lord lord N/T sir lord<br />
1 Sa 25:41 lord master lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
1 Sa 26:17 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
1 Sa 26:18 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T sir lord<br />
1 Sa 26:19 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T Majesty lord<br />
1 Sa 29:8 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T sir lord<br />
1 Sa 30:13 master master master lord master master N/T master master<br />
1 Sa 30:15 master master master lord master master Majesty master master<br />
2 Sa 1:10 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty sir lord<br />
2 Sa 3:21 lord lord lord lord lord Majesty N/T Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 9:11 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 11:11 lord lord lord lord lord Majesty N/T N/T lord<br />
2 Sa 13:32 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 13:33 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
2 Sa 14:9 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 14:12 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 14:15 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 14:17 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T sir lord<br />
2 Sa 14:18 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 14:19 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 14:22 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 15:15 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 15:21 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 16:4 lord lord lord lord lord Majesty N/T Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 16:9 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 18:31 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 18:32 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty sir lord<br />
2 Sa 19:20 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T sir lord<br />
2 Sa 19:27 lord lord lord lord lord Majesty N/T Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 19:28 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 19:30 lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 19:35 lord lord lord lord lord Majesty N/T Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 19:37 lord lord lord lord lord Majesty N/T Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 24:3 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 24:21 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Sa 24:22 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T Majesty lord<br />
1 Ki 1:13 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T Majesty lord<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/adoni.htm (3 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:56:19 AM]
The LORD said to my lord and the use of ADONI in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
1 Ki 1:17 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
1 Ki 1:18 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
1 Ki 1:20 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
1 Ki 1:21 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
1 Ki 1:24 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
1 Ki 1:27 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T Majesty lord<br />
1 Ki 1:31 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty lord lord<br />
1 Ki 1:36 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty N/T lord<br />
1 Ki 1:37 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T Majesty lord<br />
1 Ki 2:38 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
1 Ki 3:17 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
1 Ki 3:26 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
1 Ki 18:7 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T sir master<br />
1 Ki 18:10 lord master lord lord lord lord N/T N/T master<br />
1 Ki 20:4 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty lord lord<br />
2 Ki 2:19 lord lord master lord lord lord N/T sir lord<br />
2 Ki 4:16 lord lord master lord lord lord N/T sir lord<br />
2 Ki 4:28 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
2 Ki 5:3 lord master lord lord lord Master N/T master master<br />
2 Ki 5:18 master master lord lord master master N/T N/T master<br />
2 Ki 5:20 master master master lord master master N/T master master<br />
2 Ki 5:22 master master master lord master master master master lord<br />
2 Ki 6:5 master lord master lord master master sir sir master<br />
2 Ki 6:12 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Ki 6:15 master lord master lord master master sir sir master<br />
2 Ki 6:26 lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Ki 8:5 lord N/T lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Ki 8:12 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
2 Ki 10:9 master master lord lord master master N/T N/T master<br />
2 Ki 18:23 lord master lord lord master master N/T N/T master<br />
2 Ki 18:24 master master lord lord master master N/T N/T master<br />
2 Ki 18:27 master master lord lord master master N/T N/T master<br />
1 Chr 21:3 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
1 Chr 21:23 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord<br />
2 Chr 2:14 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
Is 36:8 master master lord lord master master N/T N/T master<br />
Is 36:9 master master lord lord master master N/T N/T master<br />
Is 36:12 master master lord lord master master N/T N/T master<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/adoni.htm (4 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:56:19 AM]
The LORD said to my lord and the use of ADONI in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Dan 1:10 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord<br />
Dan 10:16 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir N/T lord<br />
Dan 10:17 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T master lord<br />
Dan 10:19 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T sir lord<br />
Dan 12:8 Lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Zech 1:9 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Zech 4:4 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Zech 4:5 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Zech 4:13 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Zech 6:4 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord<br />
Ps 110:1 Lord Lord Lord Lord lord lord Lord lord Lord<br />
N/T= "Not Translated"<br />
All the above scriptures use adoni, and none of them refer to Deity. It is interesting that it is this form of<br />
"lord" that is used of Jesus, in Psalm 110:1. There are two other scriptures that are often applied to Jesus,<br />
and these are highlighted at Joshua 5:14 and Daniel 12:8.<br />
Notice how the highly trinitarian CEV (Contemporary English Version), uses the term "lord" only once,<br />
and it is at Ps 110:1. Others have capitalized "Lord" at Psalm 110:1 knowing that it applies to Jesus, and<br />
others have felt the need to do so also at Jos 5:14, and Dan 12:8, as these might also apply to the angelic<br />
Christ.<br />
The following are all the occurences that I have found in the LXX of TW KURIW MOU, which again,<br />
bear out interesting results, in that this expression is not used for YHWH (as the following, in brackets,<br />
gives the referent).<br />
Ps 109: 1(110:1) O KURIOS TW KURIW MOU<br />
"The Lord said to my lord, 'Sit at my right hand..." Pietersma (David, speaking)<br />
Ps 153:1 KAI TIS ANAGGELEI TW KURIW MOU AUTOS KURIOS AUTOS EISAKOUEI<br />
"But who will report to my lord? The Lord himself, he listens." Pietersma (David)<br />
1 Chron 21:3 KURIOU MOU TOU BASILEWS BLEPONTES PANTES TW KURIW MOU PAIDES<br />
INA TI ZHTEI O KURIOS MOU<br />
"may the eyes of my lord the king see it" Thomson (David)<br />
1 Sam 24:7 TW KURIW MOU TW CRISTW KURIOU EPENEGKAI CEIRA MOU EP' AUTON OTI<br />
CRISTOS KURIOU ESTIN OUTOS<br />
"And David said to his men, The Lord forbid it me, that I should do this thing to my lord the anointed of<br />
the Lord" Brenton (Saul)<br />
1 Sam 25:26 KAI NUN KURIE ZH KURIOS KAI ZH H YUCH SOU KAQWS EKWLUSEN SE<br />
KURIOS TOU MH ELQEIN EIS AIMA AQWON KAI SWZEIN THN CEIRA SOU SOI KAI NUN<br />
GENOINTO WS NABAL OI ECQROI SOU KAI OI ZHTOUNTES TW KURIW MOU KAKA<br />
"those that seek evil against my lord, become as Nabal" Brenton (David)<br />
1 Sam 25:27 TW KURIW MOU KAI DWSEIS TOIS PAIDARIOIS TOIS PARESTHKOSIN<br />
TW KURIW MOU<br />
1 Sam 25:28 POIHSEI KURIOS TW KURIW MOU OIKON PISTON OTI POLEMON KURIOU O<br />
KURIOS MOU POLEMEI<br />
1 Sam 25:30 KAI ESTAI OTI POIHSEI KURIOS TW KURIW MOU PANTA OSA ELALHSEN<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/adoni.htm (5 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:56:19 AM]
The LORD said to my lord and the use of ADONI in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
AGAQA EPI SE KAI ENTELEITAI SOI KURIOS EIS HGOUMENON EPI ISRAHL<br />
1 Sam 25:31 KAI OUK ESTAI SOI TOUTO BDELUGMOS KAI SKANDALON TW KURIW MOU<br />
EKCEAI AIMA AQWON DWREAN KAI SWSAI CEIRA KURIOU MOU AUTW KAI AGAQWSEI<br />
KURIOS TW KURIW MOU KAI MNHSQHSH THS DOULHS SOU AGAQWSAI AUTH<br />
[ 27. And now this present which thy servant hath brought unto my lord, let it be given unto the young<br />
men that follow my lord. 28. Forgive, I pray thee, the trespass of thy handmaid: for Jehovah will<br />
certainly make my lord a sure house, because my lord fighteth the battles of Jehovah; and evil shall not<br />
be found in thee all thy days. 30. And it shall come to pass, when Jehovah shall have done to my lord<br />
according to all the good that he hath spoken concerning thee, and shall have appointed thee prince over<br />
Israel, 31. that this shall be no grief unto thee, nor offence of heart unto my lord, either that thou hast<br />
shed blood without cause, or that my lord hath avenged himself. And when Jehovah shall have dealt well<br />
with my lord, then remember thy handmaid. (David)] ASV<br />
2 Sam 1:10 AUTOU KAI ENHNOCA AUTA TW KURIW MOU WDE<br />
"I have brought them hither to my lord." Brenton (David)<br />
2 Sam 18:28 EN TW KURIW MOU TW BASILEI<br />
"against my lord the king" Brenton (David)<br />
2 Sam 19:29 TW KURIW MOU TW BASILEI<br />
"before my lord the king." Brenton (David)<br />
1 Kings 18:13 H OUK APHGGELH SOI TW KURIW MOU<br />
"Has it not been to thee my lord" Brenton (Elijah)<br />
Isaiah 36:8 TW KURIW MOU TW BASILEI<br />
"make an agreement with my lord the king of the Assyrians" Brenton (self-explanatory)<br />
Judith 11:5 KAI OUK ANAGGELW YEUDOS TW KURIW MOU<br />
"I will say nothing false to my lord this night. NRSV (Holofernes)<br />
Judith 12:14 EIMI EGW ANTEROUSA TW KURIW MOU OTI PAN O ESTAI<br />
"Who am I to refuse my lord? NRSV (Holofernes)<br />
Gen 24:14 TW KURIW MOU ABRAAM *<br />
"my master Abraam." Brenton (self-explanatory)<br />
Gen 24:36 KAI ETEKEN SARRA H GUNH TOU KURIOU MOU UION ENA TW KURIW MOU<br />
And Sarrha my master's wife bore one son to my master after he had grown old; and be gave him<br />
whatever he had. Brenton<br />
Gen 24:39 EIPA DE TW KURIW MOU MHPOTE OU POREUSETAI<br />
And I said to my master, Haply the woman will not go with me. Brenton<br />
Gen 24:44 TW KURIW MOU ABRAAM<br />
and she shall say to me, Both drink thou, and I will draw water for thy camels, this shall be the wife<br />
whom the Lord has prepared for his own servant Isaac; and hereby shall I know that thou hast wrought<br />
mercy with my master Abraam. Brenton<br />
Gen 32:5 KAI ENETEILATO AUTOIS LEGWN OUTWS EREITE TW KURIW MOU<br />
And there were born to me oxen, and asses, and sheep, and men-servants and women-servants; and I sent<br />
to tell my lord Esau, that thy servant might find grace in thy sight. Brenton<br />
Gen 32:6 KAI APESTEILA ANAGGEILAI TW KURIW MOU<br />
And there were born to me oxen, and asses, and sheep, and men-servants and women-servants; and I sent<br />
to tell my lord Esau, that thy servant might find grace in thy sight.<br />
Brenton<br />
Gen 32:19 APESTALKEN TW KURIW MOU HSAU KAI IDOU AUTOS OPISW HMWN<br />
Thou shalt say, Thy servant Jacob's; he hath sent gifts to my lord Esau, and lo! he is behind us.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/adoni.htm (6 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:56:19 AM]
The LORD said to my lord and the use of ADONI in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Brenton (18)<br />
Again, we see that every time TW KURIW MOU is used, it is used in reference to lesser beings, never to<br />
deity. Is it any wonder that the <strong>Bible</strong> says:<br />
"The Lord God will make him a king, as his ancestor David was." Luke 1:32 TEV<br />
Sit at My Right Hand:<br />
To better understand Jesus inferiority to YHWH (Jehovah/Yahweh), we must look at the phrase in Psalm<br />
110:1, "Sit at my right hand." Many say that this implies equality, but can this be proven scripturally?<br />
The NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong> has this to say:<br />
"The place of honor beside a king (see 45:9; 1 Kings 2:19); thus he is made second in authority to God<br />
himself."<br />
It is interesting that the 2 scriptures used by the above study <strong>Bible</strong> mention queens. Since trinitarians<br />
argue that Psalm 110:1 affirms Jesus' deity, are then we also to assume that the above 2 scriptures affirm<br />
the queen's kingship?<br />
The Conclusion:<br />
"...those who actually companied with Jesus found him fully and naturally a man. He did not seem to<br />
them to be some indeterminate person from some halfway land in which human and divine were<br />
intermingled; he did not seem to them a kind of Greek demigod, neither fully human or fully divine; he<br />
did not seem to them to be so divine as to be inhuman." p.15, Jesus As They Saw Him, by William<br />
Barclay<br />
We can see with the frequent references to Psalm 110:1, that the early Christians did not expect 1/3 of the<br />
Trinity to appear. What they did expect was a man, an agent of YHWH.<br />
Psalm 110:1 is quoted by: Jesus: Matt. 22:44; Matt. 26:64; Mark 12:36; Mark 14:62; Mark 16:19; Luke 20:42, 43; Luke<br />
22:69; Rev 3:21.<br />
Peter: Acts 2:33-34, Acts 5:31. I Pet. 3:22.<br />
Stephen: Acts 7:55-56.<br />
Paul: Rom 8:34; I Cor. 15:25; Eph 1:20; Eph 2:6 Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; Heb 1:13 Heb 8:1; Heb. 10:12-13; Heb. 12:2.<br />
"For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on<br />
my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. Let all the house of Israel therefore<br />
know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified." Acts<br />
2:34-36 ASV<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/adoni.htm (7 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:56:19 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
Answers to 65 questions every Jehovah's Witness should be asked using the<br />
NWT<br />
A reply to http://www.webshowplace.com/question/65quest.html<br />
Click here to go to 50 Questions Answered<br />
It appears that gene854 is Catholic, or at least sympathetic to them, so my answers will approach the issues from that<br />
angle.<br />
All MY answers, unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the following Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s: NJB (New Jerusalem<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>), NAB (New American <strong>Bible</strong>), Spencer (New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Francis Aloysius<br />
Spencer, 1940), K&Lilly (The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek by Kleist and Lilly, 1956) and references<br />
to McKenzie are to the Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>, Touchstone, 1995, and references to NWDC are from the New <strong>World</strong><br />
Dictionary to the New American <strong>Bible</strong>, 1970) all of which bear the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur giving them the<br />
approval of the Catholic Church.<br />
Gene: These questions have been put together using information from many different sources. All verses<br />
are from the NWT so that the translation of these verses cannot be questioned by Jehovah's Witnesses. If<br />
the Watchtower Society decides to change any of these verses (like they did with Heb 1:6), then the obvious<br />
question for the individual Jehovah's Witness is why did the WTS change their own <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Reply: Most <strong>Bible</strong>s I know make changes with each revision, like the Good News <strong>Bible</strong>, New<br />
International Version, New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong>, King James etc. The above complaint is obviously<br />
a reference to proskuneo in Heb 1:6. It is rendered "Let all the angels of God worship him" in the<br />
Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, but changed to "Let all the angels of God pay him homage" in the New Jerusalem<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>. This is not the only Catholic <strong>Bible</strong> that has done this. The Confraternity Version had "And let all<br />
the angels of God adore him", but when it was updated in the New American <strong>Bible</strong>, it read, "Let all the<br />
angels of God worship him."<br />
So, to paraphrase, "the obvious question for the individual Catholic is why the Church change their own<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>?"<br />
1.The WTS claims it uses the <strong>Bible</strong> as it's "supreme authority". Where in the <strong>Bible</strong> does anyone count<br />
their time in preaching on a slip of paper and are assigned record cards of activity, determining this as a<br />
"gauge to their spirituality"? Where in the <strong>Bible</strong> are Pioneers, Auxiliary Pioneers, District Overseers,<br />
Circuit Overseers, Bethelites, and Kingdom Halls?<br />
Reply: The reader will notice that some of these questions are a little puerile. This is almost like asking<br />
why I carpool, as the ancients did not. God's people in <strong>Bible</strong> times were generally meticuluos about<br />
keeping records, hence the recorders, genealogies, etc (Mt 1; Lk 3; 2 Sam 8:16; 2Ki 18:37; 1Chr 4:22;<br />
2Chr 34:8; Ezra 4:15; 6:2; Heh 12:22; Esther 6:1; Is 8:2;<br />
Ex 38; Numbers 1:19; Jg 20:15 etc). JW's are a relatively small number of who are trying to fulfill the<br />
great commission (Mt 28:19, 20; 24:14) and the most effective of way of doing that is in an organized<br />
manner. (2Tim 4:5, Col 3:23)<br />
2.To what was Jesus referring to by the term "this temple" in Jn 2:18-19? In Jn 2:21 John clearly states<br />
that when Jesus used the term "this temple", he was referring to his body. If what the WTS teaches about<br />
Jesus' body after his death is correct, then how do you explain these verses?<br />
Reply: "As with His usage of parables, Jesus' cryptic statement most likely was designed to reveal the<br />
truth to His disciples but conceal its meaning from unbelievers who questioned Him (Matt. 13:10, 11).<br />
Only after his resurrection, however, did the disciples understand the real<br />
significance of this statement (v.22; cf. Matt. 12:40). Importantly, through the death and<br />
resurrection of Christ, temple worship in Jerusalem was destroyed (cf. 4:21) and reinstituted in<br />
the hearts of those who were built into a spiritual temple called the church (Eph. 2:19-22).<br />
-footnote at John 2:19, NKJV MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong><br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (1 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
Or as the New American <strong>Bible</strong> states in the footnote, "This saying about the destruction of the temple<br />
occurs in various forms (Mt 24, 2; 27, 40; Mk 13:2; 15, 29; Lk 21, 6; cf. Acts 6, 14). Mt 26, 61 has" I can<br />
destroy the temple of God..."; see the note there. In Mk 14, 58, there is a metaphorical contrast with a<br />
new temple....here it is symbolic of Jesus resurrection and the resulting community...*In three days*: an<br />
Old Testament expression for a short, indefinite period of time; cf. Hos 6, 2" Italics mine. Sorry, no<br />
mysterious Trinity here.<br />
3.If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal "active force", why does he speak directly and refer to himself as<br />
"I" and "me" in Acts 13:2?<br />
Reply: "Spirit is the principle of life and vital activity. The spirit is the breath of life (Gn 6:17; 7:15, 22;<br />
BS 38:23; WS 15:11, 16; 16:14). The breath is the breath of God, the wind, communicated to man by<br />
divine inspiration....The spirit of Yahweh or the spirit of God (Elohim) is a **force** that has unique<br />
effects upon man...and the spirit of Yahweh is a **force** which operates the works of Yahweh the<br />
savior and the judge. The spirit of Yahweh is often the **force** which inspires prophecy (Nm 11:17 ff;<br />
24:2; 2 S 23:2; 1 Ch 12:18; Is 61:1; Mi 3:8; Ezk 2:2; 3:12, 14, 24; 8:3; 11:1, 5, 24; 37:1; 43:5; Ne 9:30;<br />
Zc 7:12). The prophet is a man of the spirit (Ho 9:7)." Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> by Catholic Scholar, John<br />
L. McKenzie, S.J.<br />
As we can see, the spirit is breath. In the <strong>Bible</strong> it is associated with "breath"<br />
and even "nostrils." (Gen 7:22; Job 27:3; 32:8; 33:4; 34:14; Is 42:5; Jn 20:22) When I speak,<br />
breath comes out of my mouth. This is my spirit, not a separate person. click here for more<br />
4.Col 1:16, in talking about Jesus, says that"... All [other] things have been created through<br />
him and FOR HIM". If Jesus were Michael the Archangel at the time of creation, would an<br />
angel have created all things for himself? Isa 43:7 says God created "everyone ... for my<br />
OWN glory ..."<br />
Reply: But the <strong>Bible</strong> does not says he created all things FOR HIMSELF (AUTON) but FOR HIM<br />
(AUTOU). The NAB links this scripture and the surrounding ones with Prov 8, 22-31; Wis 7, 22-8, 1;<br />
and Sir 1, 4, so lets take a look at those.<br />
"Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works." Pr 8:22 NJB<br />
"Then I was beside him as his craftsman, and I was his delight day after day." Pr 8:30 NAB<br />
"For she [Wisdom] is an aura of the might of God and a pure effusion of the glory of the Almighty." Wis<br />
7:25 NAB<br />
"Before all things wisdom was created" Sir 1:4 NAB<br />
The NJB has an interesting comment here at Prov 8, "Wisdom's creation by God was on a different plane<br />
to all his other works, Wisdom almost seems to be a distinct personality, sharing in God's activity, and<br />
his agent in the world. The concept given here will be used in the NT to express Christ's relationship to<br />
his Father."<br />
So here we see that Christ/Wisdom was a created being who was God's agent in creation. The NAB even<br />
says in a footnote at Col 1:16, 17 that "Christ (though not mentioned by name) is preeminent and<br />
supreme as God's agent in the creation of all things"<br />
God was happy with Jesus/Wisdom (his delight). Jesus is part of God's glory (John 1:14), and we get to<br />
share in that glory, "I have given them the glory you gave me, that they may be one as we are one." John<br />
17:22 NJB<br />
5.The WTS claims that Ezekial's prophecy of the Jews returning to their land is fulfilled in<br />
their organization. Ezek 36:24, 28 says "and I will take you out of the nations and collect<br />
you together out of all the lands and bring you in upon your own soil" and "You will<br />
certainly dwell in the land that I gave to your forefathers, and you must become my people<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (2 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
and I myself shall become your God." If this is fulfilled in the Watchtower organization,<br />
then how are they returning to the land of CANAAN as promised to the forefathers? Ps<br />
105:8-11<br />
6.Consider also what is said concerning those who fulfill this prophecy. Ezek 36:22 says,<br />
"Therefore, say to the house of Israel, this is what the sovereign Lord Jehovah has said:<br />
'not for your sakes I am doing [it] 0 house of Israel but for my holy name, which you have<br />
PROFANED among the nations where you have come in." Since the WTS claims that it is<br />
spiritual Israel and fulfils these prophecies in Ezekial, how do Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
believe they have profaned God's name among the nations?<br />
Reply: To understand typography you need to understand that, Biblically, it need not encompass the<br />
minutest details of one type to another. For instance, Jesus is called the "last Adam," but that does not<br />
mean that Jesus will eventually sin and fall. Scriptures pertaining to King Solomon (Ps 45:6) have been<br />
later applied to Jesus (Heb 1:8), but that does not mean that Jesus will marry many wives and worship<br />
their gods.<br />
"The Church also is the new Israel and the new Jerusalem, the people of God and the city of God."<br />
McKenzie p. 904<br />
7.Since the WTS prohibits the use of blood transfusions, why does it permit the infusion of albumin,<br />
clotting factors, and gamma globulins, all of which are derived from human blood? Since Acts 15:29 clearly<br />
refers to the old Jewish law of not EATING blood (Gen 9:4, Lev 3:17, Deut 12:16), and since the WTS has<br />
changed its teachings so many times on major issues like organ transplantation, the definition of<br />
"generation", the year of Armageddon, etc, etc, and simply calls these changes "New Light", how can you<br />
be sure they won't some day change their teachings on blood transfusions and refer to the change as "New<br />
Light" also?<br />
Reply: The prohibition on blood was there before the Jewish system (Gen 9:4), during it (Le 17:3, 4 etc),<br />
and after it, in Christian times (Acts 15:28, 29). In this regard, the following is found in The Chronology<br />
of Antient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir<br />
Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): "This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter than<br />
the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and<br />
therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles<br />
were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of<br />
abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on<br />
the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the<br />
dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or<br />
false Gods, and from fornication."-Italics his.<br />
We should try to view “abstain” as Jehovah God does. God allows plasma proteins to be passed from a<br />
pregnant woman’s blood to the separate blood system of her unborn child. There are of course, no<br />
Biblical laws against childbirth. White blood cells (leukocytes) appear in milk and animal meat, yet there<br />
are no Biblical sanctions against drinking milk or eating meat. Acts 15:28, 29 explicitly states that we<br />
should *abstain* from blood just as we would from fornication (PORNEIA). I think we can tell the<br />
difference between an illicit sexual act of penetration compared to a stolen kiss. You will find that the<br />
changes that we have had in regards to medicine reflects the changes that have been made in medicine.<br />
Our basic doctrines have not changed, at least not to the effect as it has in Vatican II (are there still<br />
people in Hell because they ate meat on Fridays)? The Protestant and Catholic Churches have all made<br />
changes.<br />
8.Does Prov 4:18 really justify an organization replacing doctrines and failed prophecies with new<br />
doctrines and prophecies, or does it simply contrast the benefit to the "righteous" of obeying a wise father<br />
(Prov 4:10-19)? False teachings can be called "false words" and Prov 13:5 says, "A false word is what the<br />
righteous hates..." When the WTS changes a teaching to something that is totally different, is it like a light<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (3 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
that is getting brighter and<br />
brighter or more like having one false light (word) completely turned off and a totally different light turned<br />
on? Do you think the WTS would be critical of any other organization that changed its teachings as many<br />
times on as many different issues over the last 100 years as the WTS has?<br />
Reply: Does Prov simply have filial connotations, or a wider application? The New American bible has<br />
this to say about it, "The way of Wisdom leads directly to life (10-13); it is a light that grows brighter<br />
(18). The wise man is bound to shun (14-17) the dark and violent path of the wicked (19)." It appears to<br />
me that the further we can work our way away from the *dark and violent path* of the Catholic past, the<br />
better we are off.<br />
9.Regarding Jesus' return to earth, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it occurred in l914 as an invisible<br />
return. That event is described in Zechariah 14:4, which states, "... and his feet will actually stand in that<br />
day upon the mountain of the olive trees which is in front of Jerusalem on the east." If Jesus has no body<br />
and if his return was invisible, how do you explain this verse?<br />
Reply: If he is really standing "upon the mountain of the olive trees which is in front of Jerusalem on the<br />
east," then how will every eye see him, as you feel they literally must (see 20)? The book of contains<br />
"symbolic visions" (NAB forward/Zech.) and therefore should not be taken literally.<br />
10.Paul said, "... for as often as you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the<br />
death of the Lord, until he arrives." (1Cor 11:26). If Christ arrived in 1914, why do<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses continue to partake of the bread and wine? Shouldn't they have<br />
stopped in 1914?<br />
Reply: Because the ELQH/erchomai of 1Cor 11:26 is not the PAROUSIA (presence) of Matt. 24:3. The<br />
word that is used in 1Cor is also used in the Lord's Prayer at Matt. 6:10, "Your kingdom *come*, your<br />
will be done on earth as it is in heaven." NAB<br />
Jesus started ruling in heaven at the beginning of his PAROUSIA, but God's will has not yet completely<br />
been done on earth.<br />
Revelations tells us that the Kingdom Rule will come at the same time as trouble for the earth, so it is<br />
imperative that we seperate the two, like the <strong>Bible</strong> does (Rev 12:10, 12).<br />
Now, if Popes are infallible, and Gregory I, who was Pope from 590-604 C.E., predicted that the end of<br />
the world was imminent in a letter he wrote to Ethelbert, a European monarch, then why are we still<br />
here? (Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End—Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages, Page 64,<br />
Published 1979.)<br />
11.Since the WTS claims "apostolic succession", can it trace its roots all the way back to<br />
Christ (Mt 16:18)? If so, who was it that "passed the torch of God's spirit" to C. T. Russell<br />
when he founded the organization? What was the name of this individual or individuals?<br />
Reply: Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim "apostolic succession." In fact, you will even find them quoting<br />
Jesuit John McKenzie, who wrote: "Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession<br />
of church authority."-The Roman Catholic Church (New York, 1969), p. 4.<br />
12.The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as "... and the Word was WITH God, and the word was a god."<br />
How can the Word (Jesus) be "a god' if God says in Deut 32:39, "See now that I -- I am he,<br />
and there are NO gods together with me..."?<br />
Reply: But yet the <strong>Bible</strong> talks of others as gods, such as Moses (Ex 4:16; 7:1), angels (Ps 8:5; 97:7;<br />
138:1) and King Solomon (Ps 45:6). Deut 32 must be read in its historical context, which includes<br />
strange gods (v. 16), new gods (v. 17) and obviously, idols (v. 37).<br />
The NAB-St. Joseph's Edition in a footnote at John 1:1 says that, "The Roman writer Pliny mentions the<br />
Christians of Asia Minor as singing hymns of Christ as *a god.*<br />
The NAB also says at Ps. 45:7/Heb. 1:8, "The king in courtly language, is called 'god,' i.e., more than<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (4 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
human, representing God to the people."<br />
Though they of course believe in a Trinity, the NWDC candidly admits, "In the New Testament, the<br />
Greek Theos with the article (The God) means the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (see Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor.<br />
1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; etc.). Thus God is almost the name of the first person of the blessed Trinity. Without the<br />
article, God designates the divinity, and so is applicable to the pre-existing Word (Jn. 1:3). The term God<br />
is applied to Jesus in only a few texts, and even their interpretation is under dispute (Jn. 20:28; Rom. 9:5;<br />
Tit. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1)."<br />
13.The WTS teaches that the 144,000 of Rev 7:4 is to be taken literally. If chapter 7 of<br />
Revelation is to be taken literally, where then does the <strong>Bible</strong> say that the 144,000 will<br />
come from? See Rev 7: 5-8.<br />
Reply: <strong>Bible</strong> scholar E. W. Bullinger says of it: "It is the simple statement of fact: a definite number in<br />
contrast with the indefinite number in this very chapter."<br />
The number, while antithetical to the countless Great Crowd, uses the 12 tribes to denote that it is indeed<br />
the New Israel (as the tribes do not completely match the old Israel).<br />
14.Since the WTS currently rejects most of the teachings of its founder, Charles Taze Russell (who was<br />
president of the organization from 1879-1916), and since they also reject "judge" Joseph Franklin<br />
Rutherford, who succeeded Russell as president from 1916-1942, how can you be sure that in 25 more<br />
years, the WTS won't reject the current president, Milton Henschel (1992-present), as they did Russell and<br />
Rutherford? What kind of confidence can you have in an organization that rejected its founder and first two<br />
presidents for the first 63 years of its existence - over 50% of the time they have existed?!<br />
Reply: Who said we rejected MOST of their teachings? Did not Russell/Rutherford reject the Trinity,<br />
Hellfire, Immortality of the Soul etc, so it is special pleading to say that we reject *most* of what they<br />
taught, in fact, you will find the opposite is probably the case. As with most of the info that I am<br />
gathering from you Gene, I am noticing that they start with a false premise, and then lead off from there.<br />
We do reject some minor details (as seen in 18 below), but then the Catholic Church has seen fit to reject<br />
some of its teachings via the Vatican Councils. Tell me Gene, why have some Popes rejected other<br />
Popes?<br />
15.If there is no conscious awareness after death, how could the "spirits in prison", who lived during the<br />
time of Noah, be preached to by Christ after His death (I Pet 3:18-20) and howcould the good news be<br />
"declared even unto the dead" (I Pet 4:5-6)?<br />
Reply: What does 1 Peter 3:19, 20 mean? "and in the spirit, he went to preach to the spirits in prison.<br />
They refused to believe long ago, while God patiently waited to receive them, in Noah's time, when the<br />
ark was being built. In it only a few, that is eight souls, were saved through water." NJB<br />
A comparison of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 with Genesis 6:2-4 shows that these spirits were angelic sons of<br />
God that had materialized and married in Noah's day. At 1 Peter 3:19, 20 the Greek word for "spirits" is<br />
PNEUMASIN, while the word rendered "souls" is YUCAI.<br />
We have seen above from McKenzie what the Catholic view of the SPIRIT is, but what of the SOUL?<br />
"The word *soul* is used in English <strong>Bible</strong>s to translate the Hb nepes. The translation is unfortunate; soul<br />
in common speech reflects a complex of ideas which go back to Gk philosophy as refined by madieval<br />
scholasticism...[and in the NT] the Greek concept of psyche as a distinct spiritual principle is usually read<br />
into the term, and thus the concept of salvation and eternal life may become Platonic rather than<br />
biblical." Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> by John L. McKenzie pp 836-839<br />
What is the meaning of 1 Peter 4:6? "For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that<br />
though judged in to the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God." RSV Catholic Edition<br />
The NAB footnote here is unsure as to the meaning, so it would not be wise to place too much emphasis<br />
that even the top Catholic exegetes cannot figure out. But if we look at the spirits as disobedient angels,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (5 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
the preaching would not have benefited physically dead humans because, as Ecclesiastes 9:5 says, they<br />
"know nothing," and Psalm 146:4 adds that at death a person's "plans perish." But Ephesians 2:1-7, 17<br />
does refer to persons who were dead spiritually and who came to life spiritually because they accepted<br />
the gospel.<br />
16.Since the WTS has received "new light" regarding the 1914 generation, and completely changed their<br />
views on this, does this mean that all the former Witnesses who were disfellowshipped years ago for the<br />
same view the organization is now teaching will automatically be accepted back into fellowship again?<br />
Were these ex-Witnesses in fact disfellowshipped for what is now taught as "the Truth"?<br />
Reply: This is a fantasy of JW-Haters. Disfellowshipping occurs not because of differences of opinion,<br />
but of rebellion, sexual miscinduct and a lack of humility. "Expel the wicked man from your midst." 1<br />
Cor 5:13 NAB<br />
"We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises, the Scriptural<br />
basis for which is already in the hands of our readers in the six volumes of<br />
SCRIPTURE STUDIES. We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our<br />
interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely<br />
laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt<br />
in respect to them." -- "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion's Watch Tower and<br />
Herald of Christ's Presence, 1 January 1908, reprint, 4110.<br />
Now, I am more interested in the Priests that have NOT been excommunicated despite the sexual<br />
scandals that have ravaged the Church of late.<br />
17.If there are 144,000 spirit anointed people who have a heavenly hope, and a great crowd of people who<br />
have another hope of everlasting life on paradise earth, why does Paul say that<br />
there is only ONE hope (Eph 4:4), instead of two?<br />
Reply: Eph 4:4 says "even as also ye were called in one hope **of your calling**"<br />
The entire scripture gives a different spin on this, because the "one hope" pertains to the one we are<br />
called for. Try this from another direction. The scripture right after this says that there is, "one Lord, one<br />
faith, one baptism," but 2Cor 4:13 says, "we have the same kind of faith as the psalmist had when he<br />
said, 'I believed in God, and so I speak.'" New Living Translation (cf. Ps 116:10)<br />
The psalmist was not baptized, the psalmist did not accept Jesus Christ as his saviour, in fact, the<br />
psalmist "David did not ascended into heaven." Acts 2:34 K/Lilly<br />
But yet we all worship the same God, all have the hope of life eternal.<br />
18.On pgs. 66, 69, 211, 423, 560, 648, and 719 of Jehovah's Witnesses--Proclaimers of God's Kingdom,<br />
reference is made to The Finished Mystery, which was the 7th of the Studies in the Scriptures series<br />
published by the WTS in 1917 (pg 66, 719), and was the major publication of the WTS at that time. On pgs.<br />
88, 648, and 651, a picture of this book appears, complete with the winged disk symbol of the Egyptian sun<br />
god Ra on its front cover. Is it true that The Finished Mystery taught that Christ was the Almighty of Rev<br />
1:8 (pg 15), that Christ established a "Church" (pg 17), that Christ returned invisibly in 1874 (pg 54, 60,<br />
68). that the Holy Spirit has a personality (pg 57), that the great pyramid of Giza was God's stone witness<br />
and was used to predict the year of Armageddon (pg 60), that Armageddon would definitely occur in the<br />
spring of 1918 (pg 62), that Christ was crucified (pg 68), that Leviathan of the <strong>Bible</strong> refers to the steam<br />
locomotive (pg 85), and that Michael is the Pope of Rome and the angels are his bishops (pg 188)?<br />
According to "current" WTS teachings, Christ returned invisibly in 1914 and in 1918 chose the WTS as his<br />
earthly organization because they were the only ones teaching "the Truth". If this was so, then Jesus would<br />
have known the teachings of the WTS as put forth in The Finished Mystery, published in 1917. Do you<br />
really think that Jesus would have chosen an<br />
organization which taught so many things that were not correct according to "current" WTS teachings and<br />
are no longer taught as "the truth"?<br />
Reply: The difference between JW's and Catholics is that we can and have discarded the nuisances of the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (6 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
past, while the Roman church has simply revelled in them. Cardinal John Henry Newman says:<br />
"The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions<br />
with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy<br />
water, asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal<br />
vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage.., are all of pagan or sanctified by their adoption into the<br />
Church." Cardinal John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 373<br />
We do not apply infallibility to our actions, in fact, quite the opposite:<br />
"We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding<br />
former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good<br />
reason for the change,-in fact, it is important that we should be willing to<br />
unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth. . . . It is our duty<br />
to "prove all things."-by the unerring Word,-"and hold fast to that which is<br />
good." -- "The Ten Virgins," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's<br />
Presence, October 1879, reprint, 38.<br />
Perhaps we should do what Pope Stephen did to Pope Formosus, who dug up his corpse and put him<br />
back on trial, and then after finding him guilty, have his remains tortured and dismembered. Vicars of<br />
Christ indeed!<br />
I am not even going to venture into the Catholic involvement in Hitler's plan, there have been many<br />
books of late that have covered that, but I will quote Catholic historian Paul Johnson on his comment of<br />
JW's during Nazi era Germany,<br />
"Except for a few individuals, the clergy were hardly ever imprisoned for long. Of 17,000<br />
Evangelical pastors, there were never more than fifty serving long terms at any one time. Of<br />
the Catholics, *one* bishop was expelled from his diocese, and another got a short term for<br />
currency offences....Only the free sects stuck to their principles enough to merit outright<br />
persecution. The bravest were the Jehovah's Witnesses, who proclaimed their outright<br />
doctrinal opposition from the beginning and suffered accordingly. They refused any<br />
cooperation with the Nazi state which they denounced as totally evil. The Nazis believed<br />
they were part of the Jewish-Marxist conspiracy. Many were sentenced to death for refusing<br />
military service and inciting others to do likewise; or they ended in Dachau or lunatic<br />
asylums. A third were actually killed; ninety-seven per cent suffered in one for or another.<br />
They were the only Christian group which aroused Himmler's admiration: in September<br />
1944 he suggested to Kaltenbrunner that, after victory, they should be resettled in the<br />
conquered plains of Russia." p. 489, A History of Christianity<br />
It is sad that we are still being persecuted online by the likes of people like Gene854.<br />
19.In Jn 20:28, John refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy". This translates literally<br />
as "the Lord of me and THE God of me". Why does Jesus, in Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for having come to<br />
this realization? If Jesus really wasn't the Lord and THE God of Thomas, why didn't Jesus correct him for<br />
making either a false assumption or a blasphemous statement?<br />
Reply: Who says that Jesus cannot be a Lord, when Acts 2:36 says that God *MADE* him Lord, and<br />
how can he not be a god when John 1:18 calls him an "only-begotten God" (Spencer). But we know from<br />
the context of Jn 20:28 that Jesus calls his Father "my God." (v. 17) How can almighty God Jesus have a<br />
God...and one that is greater than him yet? (14:28) So let us look at Jn 20:28:<br />
O KURIOS MOU KAI O QEOS MOU and compare it with Mt 12:49 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI<br />
ADELFOI MOU.<br />
What does this mean? "In native [not translation] KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects two<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (7 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
substantives of personal description in regimen [i.e. both or neither have articles] and the first substantive<br />
alone is modified by the personal pronoun in the genitive or repeated for perspicuity [Winer<br />
147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in view."<br />
Possessive pronoun repeated for perspicuity -<br />
Mt 12:47, H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you<br />
49 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU/the mother of me and the brothers of me<br />
Mark 3:31, H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI AUTOU/the mother of him and the brothers of him<br />
32 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you<br />
34 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU/the mother of me and the brothers of me<br />
Mk 6:4 TH PATRIDI AUTOU KAI EN TOIS SUGGENEUSIN AUTOU/the father of him and the<br />
relatives of him<br />
7:10 TON PATERA SOU KAI THN MHTERA SOU/the father of you and the mother of you<br />
Lk 8:20 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of thee and the brothers of thee<br />
Lk 8:21 MHTHR MOU KAI ADELFOI MOU/mother of me and brothers of me<br />
Jn 2:12 H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI [AUTOU] KAI OI MAQHTAI AUTOU/the mother of<br />
him and the brothers of him and the disciples of him<br />
Jn 4:12 OI UIOI AUTOU KAI TA QREMMATA AUTOU/the sons of him and the cattle of him<br />
Acts 2:17 OI UIOI UMWN KAI AI QUGATERES UMWN/the sons of you and the daughters of you<br />
Rom 16:21 TIMOQEOS O SUNERGOS MOU KAI LOUKIOS KAI IASWN KAI SWSIPATROS OI<br />
SUGGENEIS MOU/Timothy the fellow-worker of me of me and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater the<br />
kinsmen of me.<br />
1 Thess. 3:11 QEOS KAI PATHR HMWN KAI O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS/God and Father of us and<br />
the Lord of us Jesus.<br />
2 Thess. 2:16 O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS CRISTOS KAI [O] QEOS O PATHR HMWN/the Lord of<br />
us Jesus Christ and the God the Father of us<br />
1 Tim. 1:1 QEOU SWTHROS HMWN KAI CRISTOU IHSOU THS ELPIDOS HMWN/God savior of<br />
us and Christ Jesus the hope of us<br />
2 Tim 1:5 TH MAMMH SOU LWIDI KAI TH MHTRI SOU/the grandmother of thee Lois and the<br />
mother of thee Eunice<br />
Heb 8:11 EKASTOS TON POLITHN AUTOU KAI EKASTOS TON ADELFON AUTOU/each one the<br />
citizen of him and each one the brother of him<br />
Rev 6:11 OI SUNDOULOI AUTWN KAI OI ADELFOI AUTWN/the fellow-slaves of them and the<br />
brothers of them<br />
[Heb 1:7 is a LXX quote and is therefore translation Greek.]<br />
As we can see, everytime this same construction is used, it is refering to TWO different people. NO<br />
EXCEPTIONS!!<br />
"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and<br />
acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched,<br />
he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other." Augustine in "Tractate CXXI"<br />
"It is extremely significant that on the one occasion where there is no argument, in the case of Thomas,<br />
the statement is not a theological proposition but a lovers cry; it is not the product of intellectual<br />
reasoning but of intense personal emotion." p. 33, Jesus As They Saw Him, by William Barclay<br />
Some have taken Thomas's exclamation as directed towards the Father, hence you have, "My Master, and<br />
my God" as in the 20th Century NT.<br />
Winer , as does Beza, thinks it is simply an exclamation, not an address. (see G.B. Winer, A Grammar of<br />
the Idiom of the New Testament, 1872, p. 183<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (8 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
Brown reads it as "my divine one" The Gospel According to John, 1966<br />
Fortna finds a problem with the high Christology of v.28 and the more primitive messianism of v.31. (see<br />
The Gospel of Signs, 1970, pp. 197, 198<br />
Burkitt paraphrases it as "It is Jesus himself, and now I recognize him as divine."<br />
While I may not agree with Harris on everything, he does say, "Although in customary Johannine and<br />
NT usage (O) QEOS refers to the father, it is impossible that Thomas and John would be personally<br />
equating Jesus with the Father, for in the immediate historical and literary context Jesus himself has<br />
explicitly distinguished himself from God his Father." p. 124<br />
John Martin Creed, as Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, observed: "The adoring<br />
exclamation of St. Thomas 'my Lord and my God' (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to<br />
Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ<br />
himself to Mary Magdalene (v. Joh 20:17): 'Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my<br />
Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'"<br />
The translator Hugh J. Schonfield doubts that Thomas said: "My Lord and my God!" And so in a<br />
footnote 6 on John 20:28 Schonfield says: "The author may have put this expression into the mouth of<br />
Thomas in response to the fact that the Emperor Domitian had insisted on having himself addressed as<br />
'Our Lord and God', Suetonius' Domitian xiii."—See The Authentic New Testament, page 503.<br />
AS Margret Davies says in her book RHETORIC AND REFERENCE IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL,<br />
125-126,<br />
"Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words was hotly debated by early church<br />
theologians who wanted to use it in support of their own christological definitions. Those<br />
who understood "My Lord' to refer to Jesus, and 'my God' to refer to God[the Father], were<br />
suspected of heresy in the 5th cent CE. Many modern commentators have also rejected that<br />
interpretation and instead they understand the confession as an assertion that Jesus is both<br />
Lord and God. In doing so they are forced to interpret 'God' as a reference to LOGOS. But it<br />
is perfectly for Thomas to respond to Jesus' ressurection with a confession of faith both in<br />
Jesus as lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the confession in this way<br />
actually makes much better sense in the context of the 4th gospel. In 14:1 beleif in both God<br />
and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which Thomas is particularly singled out.... If we<br />
understand Thomas's confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20:31<br />
becomes an anti-climax."<br />
Does Jn 20:28 say what trinitarians think it says? No. There is nothing there that talks of Jesus as being<br />
God the Son, the second person of a consubstantial Trinity.<br />
"For any Jew or Greek in the first century A.D. who was acquainted with the OT in Greek,<br />
the term QEOS would have seemed rich in content since it signified the Deity, the Creator<br />
of heaven and earth, and also could render the ineffable sacred name, Yahweh, the<br />
covenantal God, and yet was able of exremely diverse application, ranging from the images<br />
of pagan deities to the One true God of Israel, from heroic people to angelic beings.<br />
Whether one examines the Jewish or the Gentile use of the term QEOS up to the end of the<br />
1st century A.D., there is an occasional application of the term to human beings who<br />
perform divine functions or display divine characteristics." Harris' Jesus as God, p.270<br />
Don Cupitt describes the relationship between God and Jesus as "something like that between King and<br />
ambassador, employer and omnicompetent secretary, or Sultan and Grand Vizier. Christ's is God's right<br />
hand man; all God does he does through Christ, and all approach to God is through Christ. All traffic,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (9 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
both ways, between God and the world is routed through Christ." The Debate about Christ, p. 30<br />
This reminds me of a scripture at II Kings 18:28 in the LXX, which reads:<br />
"And Achimaaz cried out and said to the king, Peace. And he did obeisance to the king with<br />
his face to the ground, and said, Blessed be the Lord thy God, who has delivered up the men<br />
that lifted up their hand against my lord the king." (Brenton)<br />
Here we have Achimaaz bowing before the king, and exclaiming thanks to YHWH. No one here<br />
supposes that David is almighty God, and there is nothing strange about this type of vocalizing. Yet<br />
when Thomas does it, it carries all kinds of heavy theological baggage that was never intended in the<br />
framework of 1st Century Christianity.<br />
"...those who actually companied with Jesus found him fully and naturally a man. He did not<br />
seem to them to be some indeterminate person from some halfway land in which human and<br />
divine were intermingled; he did not seem to them a kind of Greek demigod, neither fully<br />
human or fully divine; he did not seem to them to be so divine as to be inhuman." p.15,<br />
Jesus As They Saw Him, by William Barclay<br />
"The NT designation of Jesus as QEOS bears no relation to later Greek speculation about substance and<br />
natures." O. Cullman's Christology of the New Testament as quoted in Harris' Jesus as God, p.289.<br />
If Thomas was actually calling Jesus hO QEOS and hO KURIOS--it is strange that Thomas used the<br />
nominative forms of KURIOS and QEOS instead of the vocative. So it still seems that Theodore of<br />
Mopsuestia could have been correct. The Father may well be the referent in John 20:28.<br />
Do you remember and earlier conversation Jesus had with Thomas (and Phillip)? It was at John 14:5-9,<br />
and at verse 8 Philip said to Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father." and Jesus replied, "Anyone who has seen<br />
me has seen the Father." NJB<br />
Nobody, including Trinitarians or Catholics believe that Jesus is his own Father. After all, verse 28 of the<br />
same chapter has Jesus saying, "The Father is greater than I." Thomas, after realizing like Paul, that it<br />
was "God the Father who raised Him from the dead," finally saw in Jesus the one way to approach the<br />
Father, just like Jesus was earlier trying to show to him. "No one comes to the Father, but by me." Jn<br />
14:6 Spencer<br />
20.If Christ will not have a visible return to earth, then how will he be seen by "ALL the tribes of the earth"<br />
(Mt 24:30), and by "EVERY eye" (Rev 1:7) when he returns? How can Christ "APPEAR" a second time<br />
(Heb 9:28) if he will not have a visible return to earth?<br />
Reply: But you said above (9) that he was returning on the mountain of the olive trees in front of<br />
Jerusalem. How will every eye and all tribes of the earth see him then?<br />
McKenzie,s Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>, "Parousia (Gk parousia, "presence" or "arrival") ...In the Synoptic<br />
Gospels the Parousia is described as the coming of the Son of Man in glory (the glory of the Father) with<br />
the angels (Mt 16:27; 25:31; Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26), as a coming on the clouds with power and glory (Mt<br />
24:30; 26:64; Mk 13:26; 14:62; Lk 21:27, omitted in Lk 22:69). The Parousia will be preceded by signs<br />
in the heavens...The coming will be like a flash of lightning (Mt 24:27; Lk 17:24); this image no doubt<br />
refers primarily to the sudden and unannounced appearance of the Son of Man, but it also suggests the<br />
brilliance of his appearance. He will come in the manner in which he ascended into heaven (AA 1:11).<br />
He takes his throne in the heavens (Mk 25:31)."<br />
Did you notice that he is coming on the clouds...in glory...brilliance etc. It seems to me that Jesus' return<br />
will be something invisible to the naked eye. "He will come in the manner in which he ascended" and<br />
then McKenzie takes us to Acts 1:11, but if we read just before that it says, "he was lifted up before their<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (10 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
eyes, and a cloud took him out of their sight." K/Lilly<br />
21.In Rev 19:1, where does it say that the great crowd will be?<br />
Reply: A great crowd (multitude) is a term used to describe *many*, even if they are evil in intent (Matt<br />
26:47). It is not exclusive to those as described in Rev 7. See also Matt 4:25; 8:1, 18; 14:4; 15:30; 19:2;<br />
20:29; 1Kings 20:13; 28; 2 Chron 13:8; 20:2; Is 16:14 etc.<br />
22.If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, how could he: Be referred to as "he"and "him" in Jn<br />
16:7- 8 and Jn 16:13-14; Bear witness (Jn 15:26); Feel hurt (Isa 63:10); Be blasphemed against (Mk 3:29);<br />
Say things (Ezek 3:24, Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, and Heb 10:15-17): Desire (Gal 5:17); Be outraged (Heb<br />
10:29); Search (I Cor 2:10); Comfort (Acts 9:31); Be loved (Rom 15:30); Be lied to and be God (Acts<br />
5:3-4)?<br />
Reply: In the <strong>Bible</strong>, even the blind can see with "eyes of your understanding" by means of " the spirit of<br />
wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him." Eph 1:17, 18<br />
As we can see, the <strong>Bible</strong> employs terms that are descriptive, and often personifies the impersonal.<br />
Sheol/Hell has a mouth and can swallow people (Numbers 16:30), it has ropes (2 Samuel 22:6), and it<br />
has soul (Isaiah 5:14).<br />
"Sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire" (Gen 4:7 KJV). Here SIN is given desire, it lies<br />
and it is referred to as "HIS."<br />
Blood cries out (Gen 4:10).<br />
Names can rot (Pr 10:7)<br />
A man of wisdom will see God's name (Mic 6:9)<br />
God's name is near (Ps 75:1)<br />
The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as "kings." (Ro 5:14, 17, 21;<br />
6:12) He writes of sin as "receiving an inducement," 'working out covetousness,' 'seducing,' and 'killing.'<br />
(Ro 7:8-11)<br />
Wisdom speaks (Prov 8)....see spirit.htm<br />
...but is the spirit God according to Acts 5:3, 4?<br />
Let us see what it says:<br />
"Peter said, Ananias, how can Satan have so possessed you that you should lie to the Holy Spirit, and<br />
keep back part of the price of the land? While you still owned the land, wasn't it yours to keep, and after<br />
you had sold it wasn't the money yours to do with as you liked? What put this scheme into your mind?<br />
You have been lying, not to men, but to God." NJB<br />
Do you notice that the last part is directed towards Peter when it says, "You have been lying not to men?"<br />
See, they lied to Peter, who was "filled with holy spirit" Acts 4:8<br />
And when they lied to Peter, they lied to God. Later on, in the same chapter, we have a similar situation<br />
in vss 38 and 39 where these words were directed towards Peter and the disciples, "What I suggest<br />
therefore, is that you leave these men alone and let them go. If this enterprise, this movement of theirs, is<br />
of human origin, it will break up of its own accord; but if it does in fact come from God, you will be<br />
unable to destroy them. Take care not to find yourself fighting against God." Peter and his men were not<br />
God, but representative standing in place of God, and when something is done against them, it is done<br />
against God." NJB "Whoever touches you touches the apple of my eye." Zech 2:12 NJB<br />
Acts 5 works quite well with 1 Thess 4:8 which says, "anyone who rejects this is rejecting not, but God,<br />
who gives you his Holy Spirit." NJB<br />
23.What is the correct spelling of God's proper name, "Yahweh" or "Jehovah"? If Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
maintain that "Yahweh" is more proper, why do they misspell it "Jehovah"? If the name of God is so<br />
important, then should you not only pronounce it correctly, but spell it correctly too?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (11 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
Reply: JW's also maintain, like many others, that Jesus was called Yeshua, yet but a few purists really<br />
call him that. The Catholic Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> at Ps 83:18 says that God is Yahweh, the Living<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>-Catholic Edition says it is Jehovah, and the Catholic New American <strong>Bible</strong> says it is LORD! It<br />
seems WE are not the ones with the problem. To see what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about<br />
*Jehovah* and more info on the pronunciation of his Name, click here.<br />
24.Jn 1:3 says that Jesus created "all things", but in Isa 44:24, God says that he "by myself created the<br />
heavens and the earth" and asks the question "Who was with me?" when the heavens and the earth were<br />
created. How can this be since if Jesus had been created by God, then he would have been with God when<br />
everything else was created?<br />
Reply: All questions and no answers, aren't you? :) John 1:3 does not say that Jesus created all things. "<br />
All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made." ASV<br />
The New Oxford Annotated <strong>Bible</strong>-NRSV, and others have linked/cross-referenced Proverbs 8:22-30 with<br />
John 1:3, where it describes the created Wisdom/Jesus as a master workman beside God as he is creating.<br />
Click here for more.<br />
The use of the terms, "alone", "who was with me" and "by myself" does not necessarily mean what you<br />
would like it to mean, especially where a king is concerned:<br />
Look at Daniel 4:30 and Isaiah 63:3. Daniel 4:30 has been translated in the following ways:<br />
1) "The king reflected and said, 'Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built.' " NASV.<br />
2) "The king was saying, 'Great Babylon! Imperial palace! Did I<br />
not build it alone.' " —Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> ("JB").<br />
3) "The king spake and said, Is this not Babylon the great, - which I myself have<br />
built," — J.B. Rotherham ("RO")<br />
4) "The king was answering and saying: "Is this not Babylon the Great, that I myself have<br />
built".— NWT.<br />
Was Nebuchadnezzar really the only person in Babylon who took part in the construction and building of<br />
the whole city by himself? Or, was the construction during his time, accomplished by his authority, his<br />
word and no other's?<br />
Isaiah 63:3 proclaims: "I [Jehovah] have trodden the wine press alone of the peoples there was no man<br />
with me." (ASV) Did Jehovah personally punish the peoples and nations that had offended Him? Who<br />
was it exactly that destroyed 185,000 men in Sennacherib's army? It was Jehovah's angel acting on the<br />
word of Jehovah. (2 Kings 19:35, 36) Did Jehovah personally punish Babylon or did He use the Medes<br />
and Perians to accomplish His will? (Daniel 5:26-28, 30-31) All these acts were done by Jehovah's<br />
permission and authority; and by His alone, but it was others who carried it out.—Ezekiel. 36:33, 36.<br />
25.If the soul is the body, why does Jesus make a distinction between the body and the soul in Mt 10:28?<br />
Reply: Who says the soul is the body?<br />
"The LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life,<br />
and so man became a living being." Gen 2:7 NAB<br />
"The Lord God formed man out of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and<br />
man became a living soul." Gen 2:7 Douay<br />
Souls are living people, not just the vessels (bodies) they are carried in.<br />
The book Catholicism, by Richard P. McBrien tells Catholics under the caption *Biblical Views,*<br />
"Unlike the Greeks, who look upon a human being as an incarnated spirit, the Hebrews regarded the<br />
human person as an animated body. We do not have a soul and a body, we are soul and body....The idea<br />
of immortality of the soul, on the other hand, is not developed in the writings of the later Old Testament<br />
period nor in the New Testament. The notion of immortality reflects a world view different from the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (12 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>'s anthropology. Indeed, it is more akin to Greek philosophy (i.e., the human person as embodied<br />
spirit) than to the Hebrew mentality (i.e., the human person as animated body)." p. 159 Italics theirs<br />
26.In Col 1:15-17, the NWT inserts the word "other" 4 times even though it is not in the original Greek<br />
(See Gr- Engl Interlinear). Why is the word "other" inserted? How would these verses read if the word<br />
"other" had not been inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the <strong>Bible</strong>? See Prov 30:5-6.<br />
Reply: All <strong>Bible</strong>s add the word *other.* THE RSV-Catholic Edition has added this word 100 times.<br />
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." (NAB) The word *other* here is not in the Greek. Now,<br />
Prov 30: 5-6 is best applied to the 3 Heavenly Witnesses in early Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s at 1 John 5:7,8.<br />
As late as 1897 a papal decree was issued forbidding the faithful to doubt the “comma Johanneum.” In<br />
part it said:<br />
“Secretariat of the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Concerning the<br />
authenticity of the text of 1 John V. 7. (Wednesday, Jan. 12, 1897).<br />
“In a General Congregation of the Holy Roman Inquisition . . . the following doubtful<br />
question was presented:<br />
“‘Whether we may safely deny, or even treat as a matter of doubt, the authenticity of that<br />
text (1 John V. 7). . . ’<br />
“All things having been most diligently examined and weighed, and the opinion of the Lords<br />
Consultors having been taken, the aforesaid Most Eminent Cardinals gave out ‘the answer is<br />
in the negative.’ On Friday the 15th of the aforesaid month and year, in the usual audience<br />
granted to reverend father the lord Assessor of the Holy Office, after that he had made an<br />
exact report of the aforesaid proceedings to our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, His<br />
Holiness approved and confirmed the resolution of these Most Eminent Fathers . . . ”—Acta<br />
Sanctae Sedis, vol. 29. 1896-7. p. 637.<br />
Pope Leo, in 1902 re-established a commission to study the Comma more closely. Because the report<br />
was unfavorable to the earlier decree it had to be put aside, but the pope continued to be worried by the<br />
situation right up to his death. Some Roman Catholic scholars began to ignore the decree. Dr. Vogels<br />
omitted the text from his Greek Testament published in 1920. Others were at first more cautious. In the<br />
Roman Catholic Westminster Version of the New Testament published in 1931 the footnote to 1 John<br />
5:7, 8 after calling attention to its omission in the original text continues,<br />
“Until further action be taken by the Holy See it is not open to Catholic editors to eliminate<br />
the words from a version made for the use of the faithful.”<br />
But in the same version republished as one volume in 1947 the interpolation is omitted, editor Cuthbert<br />
Lattey citing the Greek text published by Jesuit scholar A. Merk, which also omits it.<br />
Since the Confraternity Version of a half a century ago, Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s do not contain this spurious<br />
verse, but ALL Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s before that time had it. Jerome did not include it in his Vulgate, it was<br />
added in the Clementine Edition of the Vulgate centuries later. "What does scripture say about adding<br />
words to the <strong>Bible</strong>? See Prov 30:5-6."<br />
27.In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word "other" even though it doesn't appear in the original Greek (See<br />
Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for inserting this word?<br />
Reply: Do you even know what you are talking about? The same word is used in the Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>,<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, Good News <strong>Bible</strong> Catholic Edition, Living <strong>Bible</strong> Catholic Edition, and Monsignor<br />
Ronald A. Knox's version.<br />
Is the word "Jehovah" a name? See Exo 6:3, Ps 83:18, and Isa 42:8. How would the verse read if the word<br />
"other" had not been inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the <strong>Bible</strong>? See Prov 30:5-6.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (13 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
Reply: Again, see the Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s above. I might suggest a bit more research to avoid this type of<br />
embarrasment in the future.<br />
If Christians are persecuted for the sake of Jehovah's name, why did Christ tell the first Christians that they<br />
would be persecuted for the sake of his (Jesus') name, instead of Jehovah's (Mt 24:9, Mk 13:13, Lk<br />
21:12,17, Jn 15:21, and Acts 9:16)? If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say,<br />
"There is salvation in no one else; for there is not another name [vs 10 Jesus Christ] under heaven that has<br />
been given among men, by which we must get saved"? If the teachings of the WTS are correct, would this<br />
not have been the logical place for God to have used the name "YHWH" or "Jehovah"?<br />
Reply: Any lexicon will tell you that the Greek word for NAME (Onomo) also means *Authority*.<br />
Notice how the 2 words interchange:<br />
Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among<br />
men by which we must be saved." RSV<br />
Mt 9:8 When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such<br />
authority to human beings. NAB<br />
Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.<br />
RSV-Catholic Edition<br />
Jn 17:2 just as you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all you gave<br />
him. NAB<br />
Jn 17:11 And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you.<br />
Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are.<br />
NAB<br />
Php 2:11 And for this God raised him high and gave him the name which is above all other names. NJB<br />
The Almighty God does not need to be given a NAME, he has one, and he uses it 6828 times in the OT<br />
alone. Jesus is GIVEN a NAME, but we are never told what that NAME is. The only obvious conclusion<br />
is that the NAME is the equivalent to AUTHORITY.<br />
Now all of Gene's efforts is supposed to plant in the readers mind the idea that God is a Trinity. But have<br />
all Catholics embraced this belief as Biblical and reasonable?<br />
"After a long resistance to a seperate liturgical development on Gallic soil, the Feast of the Trinity was<br />
inaugarated by the Avignon Pope John XXII only in 1334 for the Church as a whole. It is a feast on<br />
which even in Catholic Churches it is frequently possible to hear either a scarcely intelligible explanation<br />
of traditional teaching or a deafening silence. There is a story about a Bavarian parish priest who<br />
announced to his congregation on the Feast of the Trinity that this was so great a mystery, of which he<br />
understood nothing, that there would unfortunately be no sermon. Actually in both the Catholic and the<br />
Protestant churches sermons explicitly on the Trinity are very rare....<br />
Is it not more understandable, more illuminating, than the many speculations of later times - often very<br />
remote from the New Testament and little more than pure philosophizing - on the one divine nature<br />
(physis, ousia, essence, substance) in the three divine persons (hypostases, subsistences, prosopa,<br />
relations)? ...Might not preaching too, perhaps be better if it were based on what is said in Scripture about<br />
this God who forms with Jesus a unity in the Spirit? Catholic scholar Hans Kung, Does God Exist, pp.<br />
699, 701<br />
I agree, let's step away from the Catholic traditions that gave us these teachings, and let's go back to the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Since the word "Jehovah" didn't appear until at least the 12th century, and since the term "Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses" wasn't used by the WTS until the early 1930's, doesn't this mean that the first century Christians<br />
were not known as "Jehovah's Witnesses"?<br />
Reply: *Jehovah*, as well as *Jesus* are anglicized forms of earlier names for these. The letter J was the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (14 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
last letter introduced into the English alphabet. Catholics seem to prefer *Yahweh* which is a<br />
supra-literal form of the Divine Name. Other options are *Yahowah, Yahoweh* etc. All of God's people<br />
people are Jehovah's/Yahweh's Witnesses. "You yourselves are my witnesses-it is Yahweh who<br />
speaks-my servants whom I have chosen." Is 43:10 Catholic Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> For more click here<br />
Since the Catholic church claims St. Peter as their first pope, then why is never called *pope*? Why is<br />
there no mention of *Catholic" anything in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
28.The WTS makes the claim, "Like the Primitive Christian Community - the religious publication<br />
'Interpretation' stated in July 1956: 'In their organization and witnessing work, they [Jehovah's Witnesses]<br />
come as close as any group to approximating the primitive Christian community..."- Jehovah's Witnesses-<br />
Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, pg 234, and on pg 677 of the same book, a caption appears titled "Like the<br />
early Christians". Do<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses pray the "Our Father" (Mt 6:9-13), ...<br />
Reply: Why is it, that outside of the mention of the model prayer in the gospels, the primitive Christian<br />
community did not repeat the "Our Father?" (see Acts 1:24; 8:15; Rom 1:9 etc etc etc)<br />
McKenzie has this to say on Prayers, "The allusions to prayer in the epistles show a variety of objects of<br />
prayer: a safe journey (Rm 1:10), the salvation of the Jews (Rm 10:1), deliverance from enemies (Rm<br />
15:31), spiritual strength (Eph 3:14-17), for various spiritual goods (Eph 6:18-20)...."etc. The Lord's<br />
Prayer was an example of the things we should ask for. It was not intended for meaningless repetition.<br />
What does it say right before the "Our Father?" "Don't recite the same prayer over and over again as the<br />
heathen do, who think prayers are answered only by repeating then again and again." Matt 6: 7, 8 Living<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>-Catholic Edition<br />
break bread together (celebrate the Eucharist) frequently (1Cor 10:16-17, 1Cor 11:26-27),<br />
Reply: Where does it say in these scriptures that we should do this every Sunday or even every day? The<br />
original Eucharist was held on the Passover...which is once a year.<br />
come together on Sunday to break bread (Acts 20:7),<br />
Reply: Jesus 'broke bread' when food was being shared at a meal even before the Last Supper. (Mark<br />
6:41; 8:6) The bread used by the Jews at that time was not what many people are accustomed to today.<br />
When eating it, they would often break or tear off a piece.<br />
confirm the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:15-17, 19:5-6, Heb 6:2, 2Tim 1:6), ordain<br />
(appoint) priests (elders) through the laying on of hands (Acts 6:5-6, 13:2-3), pray to Jesus (Mt 11:28, Acts<br />
7:59-60, 1Cor 16:22-23, Rev 22:20), anoint the sick with oil (Mk 6:12-13, Jas 5:14),<br />
Reply: The footnote in the NAB at Jas 5:14 states that "oil was used for medicinal purposes in the<br />
ancient world." Are part of your requirements for 1st Century Christians that we wear sandles also? Acts<br />
7:59 and Mt 11:28 mention coming and calling to Jesus, not praying. The laying on of hands often<br />
implies the passing on of gifts of the spirit. This was something that was to end in this way (1Cor 13:8).<br />
often kneel down to pray (Acts 9:40, 20:36, 21:5, Lk 22:41),<br />
Reply: Sure, why not. But they also stood to pray (Mk 11:25).<br />
consider themselves to be witnesses of Christ (Acts 1:8, 10:39, 13:31),<br />
Reply: Yes.<br />
have deacons (1Tim 3:8, 10, 12),<br />
Reply: Yes, the greek word used here means "one who serves." "In a metaphorical sense the word may<br />
be translated minister or servant." McKenzie p. 182<br />
The Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-Catholic Edition translates this as "church helper."<br />
fast from than Jesus Christ (Acts 4:10-12),<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (15 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
Reply: I don't understand this question. Fasting is not mentioned here.<br />
celebrate Pentecost (Acts 2:1, 20:16, 1Cor 16:8), have special people that look after widows and orphans<br />
(Acts 6:1-4, Jas 1:27), occaisionally drink wine (1Tim 5:23)? If not, then how can Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
consider themselves to be like the primitive Christian community?<br />
Reply: Pentecost was the festival of the harvest that took on spiritual significance AFTER it was Jewish<br />
celebration. I celebrate the Christian harvest work all the time. (Mt 9:37, 38; 13:30)<br />
29.In Rev 14:13, how can the dead be "happy" and find "rest", if there is no conscious awareness after<br />
death?<br />
Reply: Actually, it is the <strong>Bible</strong> that tells us this "For the living at least know that they will die! But the<br />
dead know nothing; they don't even have their memories. Whatever they did in their lifetimes - loving,<br />
hating, envying - is long gone....Whatever you do, do well, for in death, where you are going, there is no<br />
working or planning or knowledge or understanding." Eccl 9:5, 10 Living <strong>Bible</strong> Catholic Edition<br />
[Because Christendom has a problem with this, the footnote in this <strong>Bible</strong> says, "These statements are<br />
Solomon's discouraged opinion, and do not reflect a knowledge of God's truth on these points." What<br />
arrogance!]<br />
So what is a dynamic equivalent of the above scripture? "At last the time has come for his martyrs to<br />
enter his full reward." Living <strong>Bible</strong> Catholic Edition<br />
"Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on" New Living Translation<br />
"Happy are the dead who die in the faith of Christ!" New English <strong>Bible</strong>-Ecumenical<br />
"Blessed are the dead who from this time die as Christians." Williams NT<br />
"From now on, the Lord will bless everyone who has faith in him when they die." Contemporary English<br />
Version<br />
Why are they blessed/happy? "For you died to this world, and now you have entered with Christ into the<br />
secret life of God. When Christ, who is your life, comes again for all the world to see, then all the world<br />
will see that you too share his glory." Col 3:3 Barclay's NT<br />
Hardly an eerie other-wordly experience.<br />
30.Is it true that the WTS's prophecy that Armageddon will come before "the end of the<br />
generation of 1914" (You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth, pg 154), is no longer<br />
taught as "the Truth"? If so, then does this mean that this teaching of the WTS, which they<br />
have taught as "the Truth" for decades, was really a false teaching? Since the WTS claims<br />
that they are the "one channel that the Lord is using during the last days of this system of<br />
things" (Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, pg 626) and that the<br />
governing body is "the mouthpiece of Jehovah God", does this mean that God changed His<br />
mind about this teaching and the definition of "generation"? Is it possible that God could<br />
change His mind? Has the WTS ever changed their mind before about a teaching that they<br />
once taught as "the Truth"? The WTS has taught that Armageddon was going to occur in:<br />
1914 - The Time Is At Hand, 1888 (1911 ed.), pg 101; Zion 's Watchtower, 1/15/1892, pg22<br />
1918 - The Finished Mystery, 1917, pg 62, 485<br />
1925 - Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920, pg 89-90, Watchtower, 7/15/24, pg 211<br />
WWII - Watchtower, 9/15/41, pg 288<br />
1975 - Kingdom Ministry, 6/69, pg 3; AWAKE!, 10/8/68, etc.<br />
Before the end of the generation of 1914 - You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth, pg 154; A<br />
WAKE} 10/8/95, pg 4<br />
Since the WTS claimed that their teaching that Armageddon would come before "the end of<br />
the generation of 1914" was "Jehovah's prophetic word" (WT, 5/15/84, pg 6) and "the<br />
Creator's promise" (AWAKE! 10/8/95. 9/22/95, 9/8/95, etc. pg 4), therefore speaking "in<br />
the name of God" (Deut 18:22), then according to Deut 18:20- 22, doesn't this mean that the<br />
WTS is truly a modern day false prophet? See Mt 7:15, 24:11, Mk 13:22, 2Pet 2:1, 1Jn<br />
4:1, Rev 19:20,20:10.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (16 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
Reply: Well, you missed out on a few things that I will clear up for you. The preceding words in your<br />
snipped quote from the Proclaimers Book stated that they do NOT claim infallibility (unlike the Catholic<br />
Church, who is also a *false Prophet* according to your criteria..see below). The Awake 10/8/95<br />
mentioned no such thing, in fact, the page referenced was on Single Parenthood. I also can't find<br />
anything for 9/22/95, 9/8/95<br />
But what of the Catholic Church? Early Church fathers Hilarianus and Hippolytus predicted the end in<br />
500 A.D.(Paula Fredriksen-Tyconius and Augustine on the Apocalypse). But there is more:<br />
● In the 5th century, the Council of Ephesus decided the millenium had already begun.<br />
● Pope Gregory I, 590-604 C.E., predicted the imminent end of the world.<br />
● Spanish Monk Beatus predicts it for 800 A.D.<br />
● Aelfric, the Abbott of Eynsham predicts it for the year 1000.<br />
● Abbo of Fleury, the French Abbott predicts it for predicts it for 994/996.<br />
● Richard of St. Vaast leads a pilgrimage for the predicted end in 1033.<br />
● 1184 is the target date for the return of the Antichrist according to many...<br />
● and again in 1345-1385<br />
● Joachim of Fiore(1135-1202) used the New Testament and the Trinity to proclaim the coming of<br />
the anti-christ in 1260 A.D. This was greatly endorsed by the Catholic Church, and his writings<br />
had influenced Catholics for many years.<br />
● Speaking of the Trinity, the Church Father who first coined the term, Tertullian was a Montanist(a<br />
deeply apocalyptical sect).<br />
● Jean de Roquetaillade announced it for 1366<br />
● Roman Catholic, Arnald of Villanova, predicted the appearance of the Antichrist in 1378<br />
It seems that Catholic are just as much "false prophets" as you claim JW's are!<br />
"Apocalyptic speculations were more widespread than once believed. They were embraced not only by<br />
the people on the margins of society, but also by its more secure members. Indeed, apocalytpic thinking<br />
formed an important component of the madieval mentality." p. 24, The Last Days Are Here Again by R.<br />
Kyle. But there were many others as well:<br />
● The Taborites predict it for 1420.<br />
● Hans Hut announced the end for1528<br />
● Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa announced it for 1533<br />
● Melchior Hoffman announced it for 1593<br />
● The Fifth Monarchists predicted between 1655-57<br />
● A Lutheran named Adam Nachenmoser announced it for 1635<br />
● Lutheran leader, Andreas Osiander announced it for 1672<br />
● Jan Matthys announced for 1534<br />
● Archbishop of York and Primate of England, Edwin Sandys (1519-1588) proclaimed the imminent<br />
end<br />
● John Wycliffe announced it for 1379<br />
● One of the first Baptist groups, The Anabaptists believed that the Millenium would occur in 1533<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (17 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Reformer John Foxe believed the last days would start in 1600. He was shared in this view by<br />
Robert Pont<br />
The Father of Protestantism himself, Martin Luther taught Christ would return by 1564.<br />
New England Minister Jonathan Edwards predicts 1866<br />
The Puritans predict it for 1700<br />
Emanuel Swedenborg predicts the end for 1757<br />
Anglican rector Thomas Beverly predict 1697<br />
Anglican rector John Mason for 1694<br />
Pierre Jurie predicts the end for 1689<br />
Sir Walter Raleigh, Hugh Broughton and Thomas Brightman thought it would not be until 1700<br />
Christopher Columbus said the world was going to end in 1656<br />
Deacon William Aspinwall (General Court) predicts the end for 1673<br />
Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly announced it for 1789<br />
The Shakers announced it for 1792<br />
Lavater announced it for 1795<br />
Some Christian believers in Russia thought that Peter the Great was the Anti-Christ in the 1660's.<br />
Historic Jews in the 17th century believed that the Messiah would come in the year 1648.<br />
John Napier announced it for 1688 or 1700<br />
John Cummings of the Scottish National Church, predicted Jesus would return in 1865.<br />
Isaac Newton announced it for about another 90 years in his day<br />
Richard Brothers announced it for 1795<br />
Reverend M. Baxter (Church of England) predicts it for 1868<br />
Scottish National Church official, the "Reverend" John Cumming (1807-1881) proclaimed<br />
"Redemption draweth Nigh" in 1867<br />
In 1832 Pope Gregory XVI indicated that the time of the "plague of locusts<br />
(Revelation 9:3)" had arrived in his Encyclical "Mirari vos arbitramur."<br />
Pat Robertson announced it for 2007(in a novel)<br />
Chuck Smith, Pastor of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa proclaimed it for 1981<br />
Tommy Hicks, a noted evangelist, received visions of the end in 1961<br />
Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, predicted the world's end in the 19th. Century.<br />
Elizabeth Claire Prophet announced it for 1989<br />
Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California predicted the Rapture in 1981.<br />
Hon-Ming Chen predicted Christ's return on March 31, 1998.<br />
Methodist Joanna Southcott(1750-1814 announced she was the Bride of the Lamb and began to<br />
seal the 144,000<br />
Early in the 20th century, Dr. Isaac M. Haldeman, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in New York<br />
City, predicted that the Antichrist would appear before the Jews return to Palestine<br />
Assemblies of God official, Thomas M. Chalmers, announced it for the early 1920's<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (18 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
● Pentecostal leader, Lester Sumrall predicts 1985<br />
● Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth, predicted the Rapture would occur in 1988.<br />
● Nationally syndicated TV show host (Prophecy in the News), J.R. Church predicted the rapture for<br />
1988.<br />
● David Webber and Noah Hutchings of the Southwest Radio Church (SRC) announced it for "1981<br />
or '88"<br />
● Salem Kirban - <strong>Bible</strong> prognosticator, predicted "the Rapture" would take place in 1989.<br />
● Benny Hinn predicted the Rapture would occur in 1993.<br />
● Irish Bishop James Ussher's prediction was for 1996.<br />
● Dr. Jack van Impe has speculated that the end will come between September 1999 and 2000.<br />
● Grant Jeffrey predicts it for October 9, 2000<br />
● Texe Marrs predicts it for 2000 (Storming toward Armageddon, 1992)<br />
● Philip B. Brown has stated that the millennial reign of Christ will begin April 6, 2008.<br />
Dr. Harold Camping, president of Family Radio, expected the end of the world in 1994.<br />
Is Christianity a religion completely awash with false prophets, or are they, like the anxious followers of<br />
Jesus in the 1st century, simply and anxiously awaiting for the incoming Kingdom promised to them<br />
(Acts 1:6)?<br />
31.If the name Jehovah is so important, then why is it never used in the entire Greek New Testament? If<br />
men edited out the proper name of God, "YHWH", when they copied the New Testament, as only the WTS<br />
claims, thereby altering God's word, then how can we have confidence in ANY of the New Testament?<br />
Should we discard the New Testament or the WTS as unreliable?<br />
Reply: It is Scholars that have determined that the name was removed. Professor George Howard has<br />
done extensive study on the Divine Name in the New Testament and has this to say:<br />
"The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the<br />
surrogates KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and<br />
the Lord Christ, and in many passages made it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the<br />
Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure<br />
whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures were brought into<br />
even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them. Thus it may be<br />
that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later Christological<br />
and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries." George<br />
Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 15<br />
"We know that the the Greek <strong>Bible</strong> text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for<br />
Jews did not translate the Divine Name by Kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with<br />
Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the<br />
Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not<br />
understood<br />
anymore".<br />
(Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p.222)<br />
When did they remove the name? In a commentary on the manuscript P Fouad 266, Professor G.<br />
D. Kilpatrick, on talking about the period between 70-135 C.E. said that 3 important changes<br />
were made in this period. The change from scroll to Codex, the Tetragrammaton was replaced by<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (19 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
KYRIOS and abbreviations were introduced for divine names. See Etudes de Papyrologie Tome<br />
Neuvieme 1971 pp. 221,222<br />
32.If Jesus was executed on a torture stake, with both hands together over his head, as only the WTS<br />
teaches, why does Jn 20:25 say "... unless I see in his hands the print of the nailS...", indicating that there<br />
was more than one nail used for his hands? Two nails would have been used if he was crucified on a cross.<br />
Reply: And the parallel account at Luke 24:39 mentioned hands AND his feet.<br />
The Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by M'Clintock and Strong,<br />
comments:<br />
'Much time and trouble have been wasted in disputing as to whether three or four nails were used in<br />
fastening the Lord. Nonnus affirms that three only were used, in which he is followed by Gregory<br />
Nazianzen. The more general belief gives four nails, an opinion which is supported at much length and<br />
by curious arguments by Curtius. Others have carried the number of nails as high as fourteen.'-Volume<br />
II, page 580. For more, click here.<br />
33.Can Jehovah's Witnesses hold and discuss openly with other Witnesses opinions that differ from<br />
orthodox WTS teachings? If no, why not?<br />
Reply: Why would you be a JW if you did not agree with their teachings?<br />
34.The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" as "is" in almost every instance in the New Testament (Mt<br />
26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate the same<br />
Greek word as "means" in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the<br />
translation of the word "esti"? If the NWT were consistent and translated the Greek word "esti" as "is" in<br />
these verses, what would these verses say? Why did so many of Jesus' disciples leave him when he told<br />
them they must eat his body in order to have eternal life? See Jn 6:25-69, Mt 26:26-28.<br />
Reply: Actually, the Greek word ESTIN occurs almost 1000 times in the NT, and it is rendered as<br />
"means" about 49% of the time in the NWT, not just in the few isolated cases as mentioned above.<br />
"Means" falls within the allowable lexical range of meaning for this word, as is evident in Matthew 1:23<br />
in most versions.<br />
"The broken bread is a symbol of Christ's body." NASB Zondervan Study <strong>Bible</strong>, 1Cor 1:24 ftn.<br />
35.Rev 20:10 says, "And the Devil... the wild beast and the false prophet [already were]; and they will be<br />
tormented day and night forever and ever". Where will the Devil, the wild beast, and the false prophet be<br />
"tormented day and night forever and ever"? Likewise, Rev 14:9-11 says, "... If anyone worship the wild<br />
beast... he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur... And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and<br />
ever..." Where could "anyone" be "tormented... forever and ever"?<br />
Reply: Rev 14 doesn't really say that though, does it? It is the figurative "smoke" that lasts forever, in<br />
other words, the lingering after-effects, the memory will last forever. Fire and Sulphur is used to<br />
extinguish something forever, to remove them completely. So when the <strong>Bible</strong> says, " And hell and death<br />
were cast into the pool of fire," we know that God will get rid of them forever. Rev 20:14 Douay<br />
As for *torment,* we see that the people on earth will be tormented by the 2 prophets (Rev 11:10), so the<br />
word does not have the meaning that you are hoping to get from this. The same basic Greek word is used<br />
to apply to a jailer, certainly NOT the endless torture of a later apostate teaching.<br />
36.Jesus Christ is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 9:6 ("For there has been a child born to us, there has<br />
been a son given to us... And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God..."). Jehovah is<br />
referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 10:20-21. How can this be if there is only ONE God?<br />
Reply: The Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> and the New English bible were directed by representatives of the<br />
Catholic and Protestant churches in the UK. The NEB uses "God-like" at Is 9:6, but uses "God their<br />
champion" at Is 10:20, 21. The REB has "Mighty Hero" at Is 9:6, but the Is 10:20, 21 has "God their<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (20 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
strength." Incidentally, the NAB renders them differently also.<br />
A close parallel with this scripture can be found at Ezekiel 31:11, where the "mighty ONE" (Hebrew<br />
El/God the same word used at Is 9:6), RSV Catholic Edition, is used of a human king (probably<br />
Nebuchadnezzar).<br />
37.If the WTS claims they are not "inspired" but does refer to themselves as "God's spirit-directed<br />
Prophet", what is the difference? Is there such a thing as an "uninspired prophet"? Why would anyone be<br />
part of a religious organization which claimed that their teachings were NOT inspired?<br />
Reply: For one thing, where does it say that they are "God's Spirit-directed Prophet?" They do they say<br />
they are "God's spirit-directed organization." Is this a stretch? As far the spirit goes, there is nothing here<br />
that Trinitarians haven't said before. Most people feel their Church organization is Spirit-directed, and<br />
this is borne out in the <strong>Bible</strong>:<br />
Scofield, "the Church, which is Christ's body, formed by the baptism with the Holy Spirit." [ftn at Eph 3]<br />
cf. Eph 1:13; 2:22; 3:5, 19; 1Pet 2:5; 1 Cor. 2:10; John 14:26,Matt. 18:20.<br />
Harper <strong>Bible</strong> Commentary, "The Spirit is the Church.<br />
What of the ANF:<br />
"It is said, 'In the church, God has set apostles, prophets, teachers," and all the other means through<br />
which the SPIRIT works. Those who do not join themselves to the church are not partakers of these<br />
things. Rather, they defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behavior.<br />
For where the church is, there is the SPIRIT of God. And where the SPIRIT of God is, there is the<br />
church, and every kind of grace." Irenaeus (c.180, E/W), 1.458.<br />
38.In the NWT, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" () is used in reference to God, it is translated as<br />
"worship" (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in reference to Jesus,<br />
it is translated as "obeisance" (Mt 14:33, 28:9,28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even though it is the same<br />
word in the Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). Especially compare the Greek word "prosekunhsan" used with<br />
reference to God in Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, and 19:4 and used with reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9,<br />
and 28:17. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If the NWT was consistent in translating "proskuneo"<br />
as "worship", how would the verses above referring to Christ reads.<br />
Reply: Well, let us see how other <strong>Bible</strong>s have been translating this word?<br />
Scripture Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> New J. <strong>Bible</strong> New English <strong>Bible</strong> Kleist/Lilly N.W.T.<br />
Matt 14:33 fell bowed fell prostrated Obeisance<br />
Matt 28:9 kneeling Homage prostrate prostrated Obeisance<br />
Matt 28:17 Worship fell down prostrate adored Obeisance<br />
Heb 1:6 Homage Homage homage adore Obeisance<br />
John 4:20 Worship Worship Worship Worship Worship<br />
Rev 5:14 Worship Worship Worship Worship Worship<br />
Rev 7:11 Worship Worship Worship Worship Worship<br />
Rev 11:16 adoration Worship Worship Worship Worship<br />
Rev 19:4 Worship Worship Worship Worship Worship<br />
The accusations against the NWT are quite unfair, as other Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s follow suit in a similar<br />
fashion. What does PROSKUNEO mean? According to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary<br />
PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence to...It is used of an act of homage or reverence<br />
to God(John 4:24)...to Christ(Matt 2:2)...to a man(Matt 18:26)...to the Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (21 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to demons(Rev 9:20)...to idols(Acts 7:43)." See<br />
Above.<br />
Is PROSKUNEO the highest form of worship? According to Roman Catholic Theology it is not. The<br />
highest form is LATREUO(Latin Latria). In the RC Church this distinction is necessary as only God<br />
recieves LATREUO and the Blessed Virgin Mary can receive a lesser form of worship(such as dalia).<br />
For more on Latria and Dalia see the Catholic Encyclopedia at:<br />
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm<br />
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm<br />
The NWT consistently renders LATREUO as "sacred service" while Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s only make a<br />
distinction between LATREUO or PROSKUNEO when they are mentioned together. click here for more<br />
39.The NWT translates the Greek word "kyrios" ( Gr - lord) as "Jehovah" more than 25 times in the New<br />
Testament (Mt 3:3, Lk 2:9, Jn 1:23, Acts 21:14, Rom 12:19, Col 1:10, lThess5:2, 1Pet 1:25, Rev 4:8, etc.).<br />
Why is the word "Jehovah" translated when it does not appear in the Greek text? Why is the NWT not<br />
consistent in translating kyrios (kurion) as "Jehovah" in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1. and<br />
Rev 22:21 (see Gr- Engl Interlinear)?<br />
Reply: Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s like the New American <strong>Bible</strong> translate the Hebrew word YHWH 6828 times as<br />
LORD. Why is the word "LORD" translated when it does not appear in the Hebrew text. Why are<br />
Catholics not consistent in translating YHWH in other <strong>Bible</strong>s, like the New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> as compared<br />
to the NAB? (see Hb-Engl Interlinear...or simply the other objections I have already listed several times<br />
above). The NWT is not the first nor the last <strong>Bible</strong> to follow this practise, which is quite common<br />
amongst missionary translations. Click here and here for more. The Catholic Magazine Rivista Biblica<br />
had an interesting article on this. Click here for more.<br />
40.The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" () as "I am" every time it appears<br />
(Jn 6:34, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.), except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as "I have<br />
been". What is the reason for the inconsistency in this translation? If "ego eimi" was<br />
translated in Jn 8:58 the same way it is translated in every other verse in which it appears,<br />
how would Jn 8:58 read? See Exo 3:14.<br />
Reply: Is this really native to the NWT? Let us look at the use of EGW EIMI in context:<br />
Version John 8:12 John 8:18 John 8:24 John 8:28 John 8:58 John 9:9<br />
NWT I am I am I am [he] I am [he] I have been I am [he]<br />
AT I am I am I am I am I existed I am<br />
New Living Trans I am I am I am I am [he] I existed I am<br />
Williams I am N/A I am I am I existed I am<br />
Beck I am N/A I'm I am I was I'm<br />
Lamsa I am N/A I am I am he I was I am he<br />
Simple English I am I am I am I am I was alive I'm<br />
Moffatt I am N/A I am I am I have existed I am<br />
NASB Reference<br />
Edition 1960-73<br />
I am I am I am He I am He<br />
I am...<br />
ftn: I have been<br />
I am<br />
Five Gospels I am N/A I am I am I existed It's me<br />
Living <strong>Bible</strong> I am I am I am I am I was in existence I am<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (22 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked<br />
Kleist&Lilly NT I am I am I am he I am he I am here and I was I am<br />
20th Century NT I am N/A I am I am I was I am he<br />
21st Century NT I am I am I am I am came into being I am<br />
As you can see, the NWT is not alone in this way, and the reason for this can be explained better by<br />
going to egweimi.htm. If we simply look up the words in Strong's, we get "I" for ego [1473], and "I<br />
exist...am, have been." Notice too that the chart points to John 9:9 where a blind beggar says the same<br />
words, egw eimi, as Jesus did in John 8:58. Does this also make him the YHWH of Ex 3:14?<br />
On to Page 2<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions.htm (23 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
Answers to 65 questions every Jehovah's Witness should be asked using the<br />
NWT- Pt 2<br />
Back to Page 1<br />
A reply to http://www.webshowplace.com/question/65quest.html<br />
41.In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is "coming quickly", says of himself," I am the Alpha and the<br />
Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one who "became dead,<br />
but, look! I am living forever and ever", refers to himself as the first and the last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of<br />
God, says, "...I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end .,.". God is also referred to as the<br />
"first" and the<br />
"last" in Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this be since by definition of these words there can only be one<br />
first and one last?<br />
Reply: Revelation 22:12-13 does not have Jesus speaking, but his Father, God. In fact, this verse is<br />
speaking of Jehovah in Isaiah 40:10, but referring to his son, the Arm of Jehovah.<br />
" Behold, the Lord Jehovah will come as a mighty one, and his arm will rule for him: Behold, his reward<br />
is with him, and his recompense before him." ASV<br />
I am not alone in this. The following references agree with me by noting the relevance of Isaiah 40:10 to<br />
Revelation 22:12 in the marginal references:<br />
· The Nestle-Aland Greek Text (27th edition).<br />
· The Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
· The New American <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
· The New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong> (1973, reference edition)<br />
Compare that with Isaiah 53:1, 5, " Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of<br />
Jehovah been revealed?...But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities;<br />
the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." [see also John 12:38]<br />
Here, along with Is 40:10, we have the "arm of Jehovah" as being the Messiah and differentiated from his<br />
Father, Jehovah. Remember, Jehovah is the Father (Is 64:8), which, according to Trinitarian theology, the<br />
Son cannot be. When you take the entire book of Revelation into consideration, the conclusion that Jesus<br />
is the Lord God is not even possible. Jesus cannot be the very God who is *his* God (Rev. 1:6; 3:2;<br />
3:12). The Father's superiority to Christ is shown in the very first verse of Revelation, where Christ is<br />
described as one who was *given*<br />
knowledge by God. Then come the aforementioned verses where the Father is described as Christ's<br />
God. Finally, in recognition of this, in chapter 15 vs 3 we find Christ joining Moses as they sing a song<br />
of *praise* to his God and Father, who Christ himself calls "the Almighty."<br />
But why do they both bear the title "first and the last, beginning and the end?"<br />
Well, how have others in the past viewed this?<br />
"Principium Christus, quia ipse inchoavit perficienda; finis<br />
Christus, quia ipse perficit inchoata"; [that is] "Christ is<br />
the beginning, because he himself commenced the work to be<br />
accomplished; Christ is the end, because he accomplished the<br />
work begun."--(Fulgentius (the Latin Father), Ad Transimundum,<br />
Lib. II. c. 5; in Migne's Patrol. Tom. LXV. vol. 250, C. [as<br />
quoted by Snedeker, ibid])<br />
The First and the Last<br />
"Attend well to the comfortable words of your heavenly Master,<br />
whom God has appointed to be the original Lord, the continual<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (1 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
Preserver, and at last the righteous Judge of<br />
mankind"--(Thomas Pyle, M.A., Paraphrases on the Acts, the<br />
Epistles, and the Revelation, New edit. Oxford, 1817 [quoted<br />
in Concessions, by John Wilson])<br />
"...the first, that is, chief in dignity, having much greater<br />
power than any one before possessed...the last, that is, the<br />
most despised of men, Isa. liii. 3; having been betrayed,<br />
mocked, beaten, scourged, and even condemned to be punished as<br />
a slave"--(Hugo Grotius, Annotationes ad Vetus et Novum<br />
Testamentum. [quoted in Concessions])<br />
"Christ is called, in the Apocalypse, chap. i. 17, the first<br />
and the last; and this expression, if taken in the same sense<br />
as that in which it is used, Isa. xli.4; xliv.6; xlviii. 12,<br />
may denote Christ's eternal Godhead. Yet it is not absolutely<br />
decisive; for the meaning of chap. i.17 may be, "Fear not; I<br />
am the first (whom thou knewest as mortal), and the last (whom<br />
thou now seest immortal), still the same, whom thou knewest<br />
from the beginning." The same explanation may be given of<br />
chap. ii. 8, where the expression, the first and the last,<br />
again occurs, and is used in connection with Christ's<br />
resurrection from the dead.--(J.D. Michaelis: Introduction to<br />
the New Test., vol. iv. pp. 539-40. [as quoted in<br />
Concessions])<br />
All of these examples show that there have even been trinitarians who have not viewed these titles as<br />
denoting any ontological oneness of identity between Christ and the Father. The last example, by<br />
Michaelis, is especially interesting, because he realizes that the title "first and last" was being applied to<br />
Christ in reference to his death and resurrection. This is how I view it, though in a slightly different<br />
manner, namely, that Christ is the first to be resurrected by the Father directly, and last to be so<br />
resurrected. All references to Jesus as being the "first and the last" have this limitation. Let us take a<br />
look? "I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18 "These things saith<br />
the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]" Rev. 2:8<br />
"Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead" Rev 1:5 See also Romans 14:9 and<br />
Col 1:18.<br />
Can you really believe that God can die? I cannot. Hab 1:12, (before the scribal changes/ Tiqqune<br />
Sopherim) reads, "Art not thou from everlasting, O Jehovah my God, my Holy One? you do not die." see<br />
also New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>. I believe that almighty God cannot be confined by his own creation. Since<br />
God created life, and death is a by-product of life, this would be included. The bible never speaks of only<br />
Jesus' human-self/human nature/second nature dying. This is a 5th century Cappadocian thought read<br />
back into the scriptures.<br />
42.Jesus uses the phrase "Truly I say to you,..." over 50 times in the <strong>Bible</strong>. In the NWT, the comma is<br />
placed after the word "you" every time except in Lk 23:43, where the comma is placed after the word<br />
"today". Why is the comma placed after "today" instead of after "you" in this verse? If the translation of this<br />
phrase in Lk 23:43 was consistent with the translation of this phrase in all the other verses in which it<br />
appears (see concordance), and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (2 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
the comma was placed after the word "you", how would it read?<br />
Reply: The above statement is neither accurate or fair. The original languages did not have commas, so it<br />
is left up to the translator to determine where to put the comma. In the book How To Enjoy The <strong>Bible</strong> by<br />
E. W. Bullinger, it states, "The word 'verily'[truly] points us to the solemnity of the occasion, and to the<br />
importance of what is about to be said. The solemn circumstance under which the words were uttered<br />
marked the wonderful faith of the dying malefactor; and the Lord referred to this by connecting the word<br />
'to-day' with 'I say.' 'Verily, I say unto to thee this day.' This day, when all seems lost, and there is no<br />
hope; this day, when instead of reigning I am about to die. This day, I say to thee, 'Thou shalt be with me<br />
in paradise.'<br />
'I say unto thee this day' was the common Hebrew idiom for emphasizing the occasion of making a<br />
solemn statement(see Deut. iv. 26, 39, 40; v. 1; vi. 6; vii.11; viii. 1; 11, 19; ix. 3; x. 13; xi. 2, 8, 13, 26,<br />
27, 28, 32; xiii. 18; xv. 5; xix. 9; xxvi. 3, 16, 18; xxvii. 1, 4, 10; xxviii. 1, 13, 14, 15; xxix. 12; xxx. 2, 8,<br />
11, 15, 16, 18, 19; xxxii. 46). p. 48 5th ed. 1921<br />
See also Syriac versions of the <strong>Bible</strong>, along with Rotherham, Concordant Literal NT and The Riverside<br />
New Testament.<br />
Greg Stafford, in his book "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended. Elihu Books," makes an excellent point with<br />
regards to the "precise wording of the text." He says on page 552 that "Luke 23:43 is the only instance<br />
apart from Luke 23:34 where a verb of speech is used with semeron and where hoti does not separate it<br />
from that verb."<br />
Below is the Vatican Manuscript 1209 (one of the oldest surviving mss) and they have placed the comma<br />
similarly to the NWT.<br />
Other sources:<br />
Tines men houtos anaginoskousin* _Amen lego soi semeron*_ kai hypostizousin* eita epipherousin,<br />
hotiet' emou ese e to paradeiso._("Some indeed read this way: 'Truly I tell you today,' and put a comma;<br />
then they add: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'"--Hesychius of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (3 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E. Greek text found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol.<br />
93, columns 432, 1433.<br />
Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to hin' e to legomenon toiouton* eita to,
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
being if ALL things came into existence through him? If Jesus was a created being, then<br />
according to Jn 1:3, Jesus would have had to create himself.<br />
Reply: I think we already dealt with this scripture above. Jn 1:3 uses the words "apart from" in reference<br />
to Jesus (Spencer). In looking at the Greek word here for "apart from" CWRIS, Thayer's Greek Lexicon<br />
says of its occurence in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or co-operation) of one."<br />
In this way, the <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English handles it superbly, "Everything was made by his agency." Jn 1:3<br />
Jn 1:3 also uses the words *through him.*<br />
Origen acknowledged this, "And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of the<br />
days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages,<br />
" showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when the ages<br />
were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage also, THROUGH [DIA]<br />
the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else<br />
could this but the Father?"<br />
Origen's Commentary on John, ANF 10, Book 2, chap. 6, p. 328<br />
The Kleist&Lilly NT often use the term *ambassador* for Jesus, and most Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
cross-reference John 1:3 with the created Wisdom (an earlier description of Christ) of Prov 8:22-30 that<br />
aided God in creation.<br />
44.If the great crowd is to have everlasting life on paradise EARTH, why does IThess 4:17 say, "...we the<br />
living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to MEET THE LORD IN THE<br />
AIR; and thus we shall always be with the Lord"?<br />
Reply: Verse 7 refers this to those who were *called,* which is exactly what we believe. Verse 16 says<br />
that he is an archangel, but I doubt if you believe that.<br />
45.If Christians are persecuted for the sake of Jehovah's name, why did Christ tell the first Christians that<br />
they would be persecuted for the sake of his (Jesus') name instead of Jehovah's (Mt 24:9, Mk 13:13, Lk<br />
21:12, 17, Jn 15:2 and Acts 9:16)?<br />
Reply: Jesus never said we would be persecuted for the sake of his name "instead of Jehovah," but we<br />
have already seen above that Jesus was GIVEN a name/authority, and we also know that Jesus, like other<br />
kings, "took his seat on Yahweh's throne." 1Chron 29:23 NJB<br />
When we are persecuted for Jesus, this falls to Jehovah also.<br />
46.In Mt 1:23, who is Matthew referring to here that has been given the name which means "With Us Is<br />
God"?<br />
Reply: Simply naming someone Imanuel does not make him God anymore than naming someone Jehu<br />
(meaning "Jehovah is He") makes someone Jehovah.<br />
47.The <strong>Bible</strong> says that ONLY God is our savior (Hos 13:4, Isa 43:11,45:21, etc.). How can it be then, that<br />
the <strong>Bible</strong> repeatedly says that Jesus Christ is our savior (Lk 2:11, Phil 3:20. Tit 2:13, 3:6, 2Pet 1:1, 2:20,<br />
3:18, etc.)?<br />
Reply: For the same reason Jehovah raised up saviours in the past:<br />
"And when the Israelites cried out to the LORD, he raised for them a savior, Othniel, son of Caleb's<br />
younger brother, Kenaz." Judges 3:9, 15 NAB<br />
"...he raised for them a savior, the Benjaminite Ehud" Judges 3:15<br />
"Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their adversaries, who distressed them: and in the time<br />
of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest from heaven; and according to thy manifold<br />
mercies thou gavest them saviours who saved them out of the hand of their adversaries." Neh 9:27<br />
Why, the very name "Jesus" points to God as the source of salvation. It means "Jehovah Is Salvation"<br />
and thus honors the Father as the Saviour to whom even the Son looked.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (5 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> as a whole thus makes it clear that there is but one Saviour, Jehovah God. All others who have<br />
rightly been called saviours, including Jesus Christ, are not rival saviours. Rather, they were willing to be<br />
used by Jehovah God in this capacity. Hence, those desiring to gain divine approval must acknowledge<br />
that salvation proceeds from the Father through his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.<br />
"This is good and pleasing to God our Saviour; who will everyone to be saved, and come to the<br />
knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, there is also one mediator between God and the human<br />
race, Christ Jesus, himself human." 1Tim 2:3-5 NAB<br />
48.Referring to Isa 14:9-17, if there is no conscious awareness after death, how could Sheol "... become<br />
agitated at you in order to meet you on coming in..." (v.9), how could the souls in Sheol "... speak up and<br />
say to you..." (v.10-11), how could the souls in Sheol when "...seeing you will gaze even at you; they will<br />
give close examination even to you, [saying,] This this the man'..." (v. 16-17), and how would you be aware<br />
that this was happening?<br />
Reply: According to my Catholic Dictionary, Sheol is the underworld, grave, or death. Now think about<br />
it...How can Death become agitated? It is quite obvious that the context is not meant to be taken literally,<br />
but figuratively. Isaiah also says that "Hell is licking its chops in anticipation" Living <strong>Bible</strong> Catholic<br />
Edition (51:4), but we know, like the above statement in chapter 14, that this is a figurative statement, not<br />
a literal one.<br />
49.Heb 3:1 refers to "holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling". In Mk 3:35, Jesus says, "Whoever<br />
does the will of God, this one is my brother..." Therefore, according to the <strong>Bible</strong>, whoever does the will of<br />
God is a brother of Jesus and a partaker of the heavenly calling. How can this be if the Watchtower Society<br />
teaches that only 144,000 people go to heaven?<br />
Reply: Perhaps it would be wise to quote the entire scripture at Mark 3:35, "Whoever does the will of<br />
God is my brother and sister and mother. The previous scriptures dealt with Christ's fleshly family, this<br />
one heals with his "spiritual family" (see NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong>).<br />
50.Heb 11:16, in speaking about some of the faithful people of the Old Testament (Abel, Noah, Abraham,<br />
etc.) says, "But now they are reaching out for a better [place], that is, one belonging to heaven..." and,"...<br />
their God for he has made a city ready for them." The footnote on the word "city" refers to HEAVENLY<br />
Jerusalem of Heb 12:22 and Rev 21:2. How can this be since according to the teachings of the Watchtower<br />
Society, the only<br />
people who will go to heaven are the 144,000 spirit anointed who have been chosen from people who lived<br />
after Christ died?<br />
Reply: God has indeed made a city ready for them, the "new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven<br />
from God." Rev 21:2 NJB<br />
They can now look toward a theocratic kingdom government which is a spiritual one that will envelope<br />
the whole earth. I do notice that many who hold this exclusive heavenly view often ignore scriptures like<br />
John 3:13, Acts 2:34, Psalm 37:9, 11, 22, 27, 29, 34; Isaiah 45:18, Jeremiah 27:5, Matthew 5:5, Proverbs<br />
2:21, Psalm 115:16 (cf. Isaiah 66:22), John 10:16, Luke 2:32 (cf. Revelation 5:10, as in:if the ones are in<br />
heaven are to rule over the earth, then there must be persons on earth), Genesis 1:28 (cf. Isaiah 55:11).<br />
"What we are waiting for, relying on his promises, is the new heavens and the **new earth**, where<br />
uprightness will be at home." 2Peter 3:13 NJB<br />
51.In Lk 24:36-39 and in Jn 20:26-27, Jesus showed his disciples the wounds in his body as proof of his<br />
resurrection. If Jesus' body had been destroyed by God after he died, how could Jesus show the disciples his<br />
body which had the wounds in his hands, feet, and side and claim that he is not just a spirit, "because a<br />
spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you behold that I have" (Lk 24:39)?<br />
Reply: Now think about it. Why did Jesus even have to show the wounds in his body if he was the same<br />
bodily Jesus? The truth is, Jesus kept showing up in bodies that were unrecognisable to his followers. He<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (6 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
appeared to Mary at John 20:14, but "she did not realize it was Jesus." NJB<br />
We have the same thing happening in Luke 24:16, "their eyes were prevented from recognising him."<br />
NJB<br />
Jesus materialised into bodies just like the angels of old had done (Gen 19:1-3).<br />
So why did he make the above statement about spirits not having flesh? Because, in the minds of those in<br />
the 1st century, spirits often denoted demonic activity (see Luke 4:33; 8:29; 9:39, 42).<br />
Jesus had to reassure them that he was not a demon spirit.<br />
52.If Christ was created by God and was the wisdom of God (Prov 8:1-4, 12, 22-31), then before Jesus<br />
would have been created, God would have had to have been without wisdom. How is it possible that God<br />
could have ever been without wisdom?<br />
Reply: Actually, it has been primarily Catholics that have tuoted Jesus as Wisdom. see wisdom.htm. I<br />
can just as easily turn this around and ask, why, if God always had wisdom, does the Catholic <strong>Bible</strong> say<br />
that Yahweh created wisdom (NJB) at the above scriptures. Obviously, it is a different wisdom, a<br />
personified one, because in Prov 8...Wisdom speaks...and talks of its enjoyment with Yahweh its creator.<br />
53.Rev 7:11 says that "before the throne" is in heaven where "all the angels were standing". Rev 14:2-3<br />
says "And I heard a sound out of heaven ... And they were singing as if a new song before the throne ...".<br />
Rev 7:9 says,"... look, a great crowd ... standing before the throne...". Rev 7:14-15 says, "...There are the<br />
ones that come out of the great tribulation ... That is why they are before the throne of God ..." Therefore, if<br />
"before the throne " means in heaven (Rev 7:11, 14:2-3), and the "great crowd" is "before the throne" (Rev<br />
7:9, 7:14-15), where does that mean that the great crowd will be?<br />
Reply: Well let us take an inventory of all things before the throne. 7 burning lamps (7 spirits of God), a<br />
sea of glass, 4 living creatures, 24 elders (Rev 4), a golden altar (Rev 8:3), the 144,000 (Rev 14), the<br />
dead (Rev 20:12). There seems to be alot going on before the throne. A good lexicon like Thayers and<br />
BAGD tells us that *before*, enopion, often means, *in the sight or presence of.* That is why the<br />
EARTH is "before God" (Gen 6:11), as is Moses' father-in-law (Ex 18:12), the tribes of Israel with<br />
Joshua (Josh 24:1), Bethel (Jg 21:2) etc etc.<br />
54.In Lk 20:37-38, how could Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be "all living to him (God)", since they all died<br />
hundreds of years before Jesus said this?<br />
Reply: The context of this scripture talks about the resurrection. If as you claim, nobody really dies but<br />
their soul lives on, then what need is there of a resurrection? To God, the resurrection is such a sure<br />
thing, that all are then living to him. But this view does not contradict scripture where it shows that<br />
people and souls actually DO DIE. (Eccl 9:5, 10; Ps 146:4; Ezek 18:4; Rom 6:23)<br />
55.If the soul dies when the body dies, how could the "souls" of Rev 6:9- 11, who were of those who had<br />
been "slaughtered" (i.e., killed), cry out "with a loud voice, saying: 'Until when Sovereign Lord ..."?<br />
Reply: The following scriptures say that the sun turned black and the moon became like blood, the stars<br />
fell to earth and the sky was divided...all of which we know can't happen. The NAB got it right when it<br />
says in the footnote, "Symbolic rather than literal description of the cosmic upheavals..."<br />
56.In Mt 28:19, Jesus tells his disciples to baptize "people of all the nations ...in the name of the Father and<br />
of the Son and of the holy spirit". Why would the disciples be instructed to baptize in the name of anybody<br />
or anything who was not God? Do Jehovah's Witnesses follow the command of Jesus and baptize "in the<br />
name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit"?<br />
Reply: As was stated above, Name/ONOMA often denotes authority. If a policeman tells you to stop *in<br />
the name of the law,* would you suppose the Law is a person or God?<br />
57.If the human soul IS the person, how could the soul go out of a person (Gen 35:18) or come back into a<br />
person (1 Kings 17:21)?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (7 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
Reply: My Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s often translate SOUL as LIFE, in fact, the NAB uses BREATH at these 2<br />
scriptures, which captures the thought quite nicely, don't you think?<br />
58.The Watchtower Society teaches that the earth will never be destroyed or depopulated. How can it be,<br />
then, that God says in Isa 51:6,"... the earth itself will wear out, and its inhabitants will die like a mere<br />
gnat...", and that Jesus says in Mt 24:35, "Heaven and earth will pass away...", and that John says in Rev<br />
21:1 that he saw"... a new heaven and a NEW earth, for the former heaven and the FORMER earth had<br />
passed away, and the sea is NO MORE."?<br />
Reply: Again, I ask you to think about, why will the heavens, God's dwelling place (1Kings 8:30; Ps<br />
115:16), need destroying? The footnote in the NAB says that they are symbols. I think you are placing<br />
too much literalism into the symbolism that the <strong>Bible</strong> often uses.<br />
59.Referring to Lk 12:4-5, what would be left of a person after they were killed that could be thrown into<br />
Gehenna?<br />
Reply: According to the NAB, Gehenna (Mt 5:29, 30 ftn) means total destruction. The second death<br />
(Rev 20:6, 14).<br />
60.Who or what does the spirit of Christ (Phil 1:19, Gal 4:6, Rom 8:9) refer to? In Gal 4:6, how is it<br />
possible that the spirit of Christ could come into our hearts? How is it possible that the spirit of CHRIST<br />
could reside in someone? If what the Watchtower Society teaches is true, how could Paul make this<br />
statement if Christ was a spirit person residing in heaven?<br />
Reply: Who are what does the spirit of Jacob (Gen 45:27) wisdom (Ex 28:3) jealousy (Num 5:14) Pul<br />
king of Assyria and Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria (1 Chron 5:26) the Philistines (2 Chron 21:16)<br />
Cyrus (2 Chron 36:22) etc, refer to? The spirit can often denote a temperament, and why would we not<br />
want the mild temperament of Jesus.<br />
61.In Jn 8:56, Jesus says, "Abraham your father rejoiced greatly in the prospect of seeing my day, and he<br />
saw it and rejoiced". Since Abraham died hundreds of years before Jesus said this, how could Jesus say that<br />
Abraham "saw it and rejoiced", if there is no conscious awareness after death?<br />
Reply: Perhaps you should read your own <strong>Bible</strong>. The NAB says here in the footnote, "This seems a<br />
reference to the birth of Isaac (Gn 17, 7; 21, 6), the beginning of the fulfillment of promises about<br />
Abraham's seed."<br />
62.In Jn 6:51, Jesus says that a person must eat "of this bread" in order to "live forever", and that "the<br />
bread that I give IS my flesh". In Jn 6:63, Jesus says "... Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and<br />
drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves." In Jn 6:54-55, Jesus says, "He that feeds on my flesh and<br />
drinks my blood has everlasting life..." and "... for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." Do you<br />
partake of the flesh of Christ, as Jesus commanded, in order to have life in yourself and in order to live<br />
forever?<br />
Reply: Interestingly, the NAB says in a footnote at v. 63, "probably not a reference to the eucharistic<br />
body of Jesus but to the supernatural and natural." This is not to say that these Catholics do not believe<br />
there might be a tie in somewhere, but let us look closely at these words. Verse 34 has, "Jesus said, I am<br />
the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst."<br />
NAB<br />
You are simply missing out on the beautiful symbolism provided by the bread. "Why spend your money<br />
on what is not bread." Is 55:2 NAB<br />
When Jesus told Simon to "feed my sheep" (Jn 21:17) are we to take this literally? No, but we are to long<br />
for spiritual milk. (1Pet 2:2)<br />
63.In Acts 17:31 Paul says, "Because he has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in<br />
righteousness by a MAN whom he has appointed, and he has furnished a guarantee to all men in that he has<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (8 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
resurrected him from the dead". Did Paul believe that the future judge of the world, Jesus Christ, would be<br />
an immortal MAN or an invisible spirit creature?<br />
Reply: Since you are taking everything supra-literally, does this also mean that during the judgement<br />
hour that he will also be a *Lamb* (Rev 6:16), and that the Lamb is also their shepherd (Rev 7:17), a<br />
rider of the white horse (Rev 6:2). But the reasonable conclusion is that Jesus is the archangel Michael:<br />
Michael has authority over the angels (Rev.12:7) and so does Jesus Christ (Mat.16:27; 25:31; 2Thes.1:7).<br />
Michael leads the angels to defeat Satan and hurl him to earth (Re 12:7). So does Jesus. (Re 19:13,19).<br />
At 1Thes.4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel.<br />
The Greek for 'with an archangel's voice' is literally 'EN FWNHi ARXAGGELOU', in the oblique dative<br />
case. In all other occurrences of this idiom in the Greek New Testament it describes the voice of the<br />
subject in the clause.<br />
See: BAG, page 878, [FWNH/phone - 1. Voice]<br />
All these references have 'phone' (FWNH) in an oblique case, genitive or dative, thus signifying not just a noise, but a<br />
voice.<br />
+ [Re 5:2] NWT And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice:<br />
[ EN FWNHi (dat.) MEGALH (WH)]<br />
+ Re 14:7 (cf 9)] NWT saying in a loud voice: [ LEGWN EN FWNHi (dat.)<br />
MEGALH (WH) ]<br />
+ Joh 5:28] NWT Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in<br />
which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice [ AKOUSOUSIN<br />
THS FWNHS (gen.) AUTOU (WH) ]<br />
+ 1Th 4:16 ] NWT because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with<br />
a commanding call, [ EN KELEUSMATI (WH) ] with an archangel's voice [ EN<br />
FWNHi (dat.) ARXAGGELOU (WH) ] and with God's trumpet, and those who are<br />
dead in union with Christ will rise first.<br />
+ Ac 9:7 ] NWT (not referenced in BAG) Now the men that were journeying<br />
with him were standing speechless, hearing, indeed, the sound of a<br />
voice, [ AKOUONTES MEN THS FWNHS (gen.) (WH) ] but not beholding any man<br />
>>>>>>><br />
See also: Lu 4:33; Rev 5:2; 7:2; 10:3; 14:7,9,15,18;19:17; Ac 7:60.<br />
What about Heb 1:5, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I<br />
begotten thee?" The main point of Hebrews 1 is to elevate Jesus above the angels (an elevation that an<br />
Almighty would not need). Hence the ARCH in ARCHangel.<br />
If the title "archangel" also applied to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel's voice" would not<br />
be appropriate.<br />
Jesus has been given authority by his Father to raise the dead. (Jn.5:25,26).<br />
But the voice of the archangel also raises the dead (1Thes. 4:16; cf Dan.12:2).<br />
Michael is called "the great prince" (Dan. 12:1).<br />
Christ is called a "princely ruler" and "prince of peace" (Isa.9:6).<br />
In Daniel chapter 7, there is a prophecy about the march of world powers to the end of the age. At the<br />
climax of that prophecy we read that "someone like a son of man" was "given rulership and dignity and<br />
kingdom," and that one is Jesus Christ. (Dan.7:13, 14) In another prophecy Daniel wrote that reached<br />
down to "the time of the end" (Dan.10:13;11:40) Michael would stand up: "And during that time Michael<br />
will stand up." (Da 12:1) In Daniel's prophecy, 'standing up' frequently refers to the action of a king,<br />
either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as King. (Dan.11:2-4,7,16,20,21)<br />
Michael's "standing" indicates a ruler and supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since<br />
Jesus is Jehovah's/Yahweh's appointed King.<br />
Both prophecies deal with the same time and the same event...thus the conclusion is obvious.<br />
Satan is abyssed by an *angel* for a thousand years. (Rev.20:1, 2, 10)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (9 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
The demons identified Christ as the one who was to hurl them into the "abyss" (Mt 8:29).<br />
The nations are destroyed by Jesus and *his* army of angels. (Rev.12:12; 17:16, 17; 19:11-16)<br />
Jesus is also prophesied as the seed that is to crush Satan's head (Gen.3:15), but yet Michael with "his<br />
angels" who does this in Revelation 12.<br />
And yet, did not angels appear as men (Gen 18:3; cf. Heb 13:1).<br />
This is not just a JW teaching:<br />
John A. Lees, The International Standard <strong>Bible</strong> Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3,<br />
page 2048 states:<br />
"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ,<br />
finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel<br />
in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl .<br />
Protestant Reformer JOHN CALVIN said regarding "Michael" in its occurence at<br />
Daniel 12:1:<br />
"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of<br />
Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing<br />
forward for the defense of his elect people."<br />
J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T.<br />
Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.<br />
WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER, DOCTOR OF DIVINITY, stated:<br />
There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the<br />
best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the <strong>Bible</strong> representations of Michael<br />
agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I),<br />
and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--William L. Alexander,<br />
ed., A CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, originally edited by John Kitto,<br />
3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158<br />
From Brittanica.com:<br />
"Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology, which had already played a role in<br />
Rome in the early 2nd century--namely, the so-called angel-Christology. The descent of the<br />
Son to Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who<br />
became man in Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael.<br />
In the old angel-Christology the concern is already expressed to preserve the oneness of<br />
God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all<br />
paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is<br />
moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim--i.e.,<br />
defending the idea of the oneness of the Christian concept of God against all reproaches that<br />
Christianity introduces a new, more sublime form of polytheism."<br />
http://mamma66.mamma.com/Search?eng=MSN&cb=Mamma&dest=http%3A%2F%2<br />
Fwww.britannica.com%2Fbcom%2Feb%2Farticle%2F1%2F0%252C5716%252C1083<br />
01%2B3%252C00.html&engid=599&af=0&qtype=0&qw=angel+christology&idx=0<br />
A <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary published by Logos International, an evangelical<br />
Protestant outfit, says:<br />
"Michael ... in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish<br />
nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of the angelic army. So exalted are the position and<br />
offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." -- INTERNATIONAL<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (10 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
BIBLE DICTIONARY -- ILLUSTRATED (Plainfield, NJ, Logos Internatioanl, 1977), p. 35<br />
Regarding the occurence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10, Methodist<br />
commentator ADAM CLARKE remarked:<br />
"By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume<br />
commentary -- not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon<br />
Press, vol. 6, page 952).<br />
LANGE"S COMMENTARY calls the figure here(Rev 12:7-10) "the warlike form of<br />
Christ." J.P. Lange's COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, s.v. Rev. 12:7<br />
AN EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE, produced by 27 different scholars, says of<br />
Michael:<br />
"It is even itself probable that the Leader of the hosts of light (in Rev. 12:7-9) will be no<br />
other than the Captain of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.... Above all, the<br />
prophecies of Daniel, in which the name Michael first occurs, may be said to decide the<br />
point." -- publ. in Hartford, CT, 1910, by the Scranton Co., vol. 6, p.882<br />
Matthew Henry Commentary:<br />
Concerning Revelation 12:9 in Henry’s unabridged and concise commentaries.<br />
2. The parties-Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the<br />
other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all<br />
his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to<br />
the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their<br />
salvation.<br />
Verses 7-11 The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to<br />
his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom<br />
of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful<br />
followers; and Satan and his instruments.<br />
Concerning Daniel 10 in Henry’s unabridged commentary.<br />
Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but<br />
injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but<br />
an archangel of the highest order, 1 Th. 4:16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the<br />
archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the<br />
angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5.<br />
John Wesley:<br />
Chapter XII<br />
A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning<br />
the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 For the<br />
children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some<br />
deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael<br />
your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of<br />
Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time<br />
of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.<br />
Wesley on Daniel 10:21<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (11 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes<br />
of the earth desert or oppose it.<br />
Geneva Study <strong>Bible</strong>:<br />
Da 12:1<br />
12:1 And at that {a} time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the<br />
children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since<br />
there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered,<br />
every one that shall be found written in the book.<br />
(a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and<br />
trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here<br />
calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.<br />
Da 10:1310:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty<br />
days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there<br />
with the kings of Persia. (h) Meaning Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence, and<br />
did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if<br />
God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church.<br />
(i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of<br />
his love he sends forth double power, even<br />
Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels.<br />
"The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm<br />
the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the<br />
Logos, has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage. Hofmann<br />
(Schriftbeweis i., p. 296) objects to this explanation, and says, 'in this case it is impossible to<br />
imagine why the Archangel should be mentioned as fighting with the dragon, and not the<br />
child that was caught up to the throne of God.' But we have already replied to this in the<br />
commentary, where we said, 'if Michael be Christ, the question arises why Michael is<br />
mentioned here instead of Christ'. The answer to this is, that the name Michael [Who is like<br />
God?, that is, 'Who dares to claim that they are like God?'] contains in itself an intimation<br />
that the work referred to here, the decisive victory over Satan, belongs to Christ, not as<br />
human, but rather as divine [compare 1 John iii. 8]. Moreover, this name forms a<br />
connecting link between the Old Testament and the New. Even in the Old Testament,<br />
Michael is represented as the great prince, who fights on<br />
behalf of the Church (Dan. xii. 1).' The conflict there alluded to was a prediction and<br />
prelude of the one mentioned hero. The further objections offered by Hofmann rest upon<br />
his very remarkable interpretation of chap. xii., which is not likely to be adopted by any who<br />
are capable of examining for themselves."<br />
—Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the<br />
Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel<br />
publication).<br />
Paul says, 'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,<br />
with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" and the dead<br />
in Christ will rise first.' I Thes. iv. 16. From this text it appears<br />
that when the Lord shall descend with a shout, his voice will be that of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (12 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
the Archangel, or head Messenger; therefore the Lord must be that head<br />
Messenger. This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the<br />
Archangel; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be raised by his<br />
voice. He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming,<br />
and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and<br />
they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming,<br />
in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come<br />
forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they<br />
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John v. 26,<br />
28, 29.<br />
Brown's dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> on the words Michael, and Angel says, that both these words do<br />
sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel. Wood's Spiritual Dic- tionary<br />
teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown's does. The former was a Calvinist, the<br />
latter a Methodist. Buck in his Theological Dictionary says, under the article Angel, d) that Christ is in<br />
scripture frequently called an Angel.[1] Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert<br />
that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.<br />
Doc- tor Coke, a Methodist bishop, in his notes on the <strong>Bible</strong>, acknowledges that Christ is sometimes<br />
called an Angel. See his notes of that passage where the Angel of the Lord spake to the people at<br />
Bochim. Winchester has taught the same doctrine in the 152 page of the first volume of his lectures on<br />
the prophecies. Whitefield, in his sermon on the bush that burnt and was not consumed, says that the<br />
Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush was Christ. Pool, in his Annotations, explains those passages<br />
where the Lord appeared to the Patriarchs under the character of an Angel, as referring to Jesus Christ.<br />
Bunyan makes the pilgrim ascribe his deliverance from Apollyon to Michael. He says, "Blessed<br />
Michael helped me." Pilgrim's Progress, Cincinnati edition, page 54. Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New<br />
Testament, on Rev.<br />
xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it<br />
as his opinion.<br />
Doctor Watts in his [G]lories of Christ, page[s] 200, 201, 202, 218, 223, and 224, teaches the same<br />
doctrine. Watts, Dodridge and some others have called this Angel of the covenant, or Angel of God's<br />
presence Christ's human soul, whom they think was the first Being that God ever created. I agree with<br />
them that Christ is the first Being that God created, but I cannot see the propriety of calling the<br />
pre-existent Christ a human soul, seeing he did not descend from humans but existed before the human<br />
family was created.<br />
Thomas Scott, in his notes on the <strong>Bible</strong>, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her<br />
mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that<br />
appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was<br />
Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii<br />
throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7.<br />
Clement of Alexandria, 153—193—217 C.E. explains:<br />
Formerly the older people [the Israelites] had an old covenant, and the law disciplined the<br />
people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but the fresh and new people [the Christians]<br />
has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear turned into love,<br />
and that mystic angel is born—Jesus.—The Instructor, Book I, chapter VII (7); ANF, Vol.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (13 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
II, p. 224.<br />
Hippolytus, 170—236 C.E.:<br />
"And lo, Michael." and Who is Michael but the angel assigned to the people? As (God) says<br />
to Moses. "I will not go with you in the way, because the people are stiff-necked; but my<br />
angel shall go with you.—Scholia On Daniel, 13; ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 190. (Compare,<br />
Exodus 14:19; 23:20, 3; 32:34; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Insight On The Scriptures, Volume 2, p.<br />
816, paragraph 9.)<br />
Melito, 160-170-177 C.E.: (estimated dates of composition):<br />
He who in the law is the Law; among the priests, Chief Priest; among kings, the Ruler;<br />
among prophets, the Prophet; among the angels, Archangel; in the voice of the preacher, the<br />
Word; among spirits, the Spirit; in the Father, the Son; in God, God; King for ever and ever.<br />
(bold italics added)—On Faith; ANF, Vol. VIII (8), pp. 756-7.<br />
In Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning The Shepherd of Hermas, of the 2nd or 3rd<br />
century:<br />
In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God's<br />
inner council, and who is regularly described as 'most venerable', 'holy' and 'glorious'. This<br />
angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas<br />
saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael...Christ's<br />
pre-existence, was generally taken for granted, as was His role creation as well as<br />
redemption. This theme, which could point to Pauline and Johannine parallels, chimed in<br />
very easily with creative functions assigned to Wisdom in later Judaism...There is evidence<br />
also...of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel ... Of a doctrine of the Trinity<br />
in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church's triadic formula left its<br />
mark everywhere—pp. 94-5.<br />
(see also Eerdman's Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>)-The Shepherd of Hermas was so near and dear to the<br />
ante-Nicene Fathers that many of them considered it canonical scripture.<br />
64.The WTS teaches that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will not reside with Christ in his heavenly kingdom.<br />
How then do you explain Mt 8:11 in which Jesus says," But I tell you that many from eastern parts and<br />
western parts will come and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the<br />
heavens"?<br />
Reply: Again, you are looking for something literal when it should be figurative. In a parallel account,<br />
the NAB footnote calls it a parable (Luke 13:22-30) and it figuratively shows the Gentiles reclining at a<br />
table of salvation that was originally reserved for Jews.<br />
65.Every true Christian would agree that we should follow the commands of God. In Mk 9:7,<br />
God the Father commands us to listen to Jesus. Do you follow this command and listen to<br />
Jesus? After all, Jesus died for your personal sins (1Jn 2:2, 1Pet 2:24). Jesus tells us to go<br />
directly to him (Mt 11:28-30), and the Father commanded us to listen to Jesus. Why?<br />
Because JESUS gives us everlasting life (Jn 10:28), and so that JESUS will enter our<br />
house and be with us and give us the right to sit on his throne (Rev 3:20- 21). Do you pray<br />
to Jesus as Paul and the early Christians did (1Cor 1:2)? Do you partake of the flesh of<br />
Christ as Jesus commanded (Jn 6:51)? If not, then are you following the command of the<br />
Father who said "Listen to him"?<br />
Reply: You make it sound as if the literal denial of the eucharistic transubstantiation is indigenous to<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (14 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
JW's.<br />
The verses at John 6 are much disputed amongst scholars who also don't see it with canabalisitic<br />
overtones.<br />
Leon Morris: "The objections already urged [against a eucharistic interpretation] remain. The very<br />
strength of the language is against it. The eating and drinking spoken of are the means of<br />
bringing eternal life (v. 54), and they are absolutely unqualified. Are we to say that the one thing<br />
necessary for life is to receive the sacrament? Again, "flesh" is not commonly used with reference to the<br />
sacrament. In every other New Testament passage referring to it the word is "body"<br />
"I am not contending that there is no application to the sacrament. But I very strongly doubt whether this<br />
is the primary meaning. It seems much better to think of the words as meaning first of all the<br />
appropriation of Christ" (Morris, Leon. _John_ [The New ICC]. Page 377).<br />
"The concept of Jesus as the Bread of Life can be related not alone to Jewish thought but to other<br />
cultures of the nearer and remoter East. The most remarkable parallel to John 6, however, is found in an<br />
utterance of Rabbi Hillel, son of Gamaliel III . . . He astonished his contemporaries by saying, 'there shall<br />
be no Messiah for Israel, for they have already eaten him in the days of Hezekiah' " GRB Murray,<br />
"Theology in the Fourth Gospel" p. 98.<br />
Jewish translations of the Talmud into English render the word for "have eaten" as "enjoy."<br />
"The means to life, accordingly, is not eating and drinking communion elements, but believing is the<br />
means of inwardly accepting the suffering death of the Passover Lamb who gave his life for the sin of the<br />
world" (Borchert, 272).<br />
"This is my body: That Jesus is speaking FIGURATIVELY should be clear. The bread SYMBOLIZES<br />
his body, just as Jesus speaks figuratively of being a gate, a shepherd, or a vine (see John 10:7, 11;<br />
15:1)." Evans' NIB Commentary on Luke, page 321.<br />
The transubstantiation was a bone of contention for hundred of years, as this ancient poem goes to show:<br />
A Roman Miracle<br />
A pretty maid, a Protestant, was to a Catholic wed;<br />
To love all <strong>Bible</strong> truths and tales, quite early she`d been bred.<br />
It sorely grieved her husband's heart that she would not comply,<br />
And join the Mother Church of Rome and heretics deny.<br />
So day by day he flattered her, but still she saw no good<br />
Would ever come from bowing down to idols made of wood.<br />
The Mass, the host, the miracles, were made but to deceive;<br />
And transubstantiation, too, she`d never dare believe.<br />
He went to see his clergyman and told him his sad tale.<br />
"My wife is an unbeliever, sir; you can perhaps prevail;<br />
For all your Romish miracles my wife has strong aversion,<br />
To really work a miracle may lead to her conversion."<br />
The priest went with the gentleman-he thought to gain a prize.<br />
He said, "I will convert her, sir, and open both her eyes."<br />
So when they came into the house, the husband loudly cried,<br />
"The priest has come to dine with us!" "He`s welcome," she replied.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (15 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-A Catholic Perspective.<br />
And when, at last, the meal was o'er, the priest at once began,<br />
To teach his hostess all about the sinful state of man;<br />
The greatness of our Savior`s love, which Christians can`t deny,<br />
To give Himself a sacrifice and for our sins to die.<br />
"I will return tomorrow, lass, prepare some bread and wine;<br />
The Sacramental miracle will stop your soul's decline."<br />
"I`ll bake the bread," the lady said. "You may," he did reply,<br />
"And when you`ve seen this miracle, convinced you`ll be, say I."<br />
The Priest did come accordingly, the bread and wine did bless.<br />
The lady asked, "Sir, is it changed?" The priest answered, "Yes,<br />
It`s changed from common bread and wine to truly flesh and blood;<br />
Begorra, lass, this power of mine has changed it into God!"<br />
So having blessed the bread and wine, to eat they did prepare.<br />
The lady said unto the priest, "I warn you to take care,<br />
For half an ounce of arsenic was mixed right in the batter,<br />
But since you have its nature changed, it cannot really matter."<br />
The priest was struck real dumb-he looked as pale as death.<br />
The Bread and Wine fell from his hands and he did gasp for breath.<br />
"Bring me and my horse!" the priest cried, "This is a cursed home!"<br />
The lady replied, "Begone; tis you who shares the curse of Rome."<br />
The husband, too, he sat suprised, and not a word did say.<br />
At length he spoke,"My dear," said he, "the priest has run away;<br />
To gulp such mummery and tripe, I`m not for sure, quite able;<br />
I`ll go with you and we`ll renounce this Roman Catholic fable."<br />
-Author Unknown<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Back to 65 Questions Pt. 1<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/65questions2.htm (16 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II<br />
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13.<br />
[From the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1881]<br />
The Greek reads as follows: PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS<br />
DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN IHSOU CRISTOU (or CRISTOU IHSOU).<br />
Shall we translate, "the appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ"? or, "the appearing of the<br />
glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"?<br />
It was formerly contended by Granville Sharp, and afterwards by Bishop Middleton, that the absence of<br />
the Greek article before SWTHROS in Tit. ii. 13 and 2 Pet. i. I, and before QEOU in Eph. v. 5, is alone<br />
sufficient to prove that the two appellatives connected by KAI belong to one subject.<br />
[ftn. Sharp applied his famous rule to 2 Thess. i. 12, but Middleton thinks that this text afford no certain<br />
evidence in his favor. Winer disposes of it summarily as merely a case in which KURIOU is used for O<br />
KURIOU taking, in a measure, the character of a proper name. In 2 Thess. i. 11, O QEOS HMWN<br />
denotes God in distinction from "our Lord Jesus" (ver. 12); it is therefore unnatural in the extreme to take<br />
this title in the last clause of the very same sentence (ver. 12) as a designation of Christ. We may then<br />
reject without hesitation Granville Sharp's construction, which in fact has the support of but few<br />
respectable scholars.<br />
As to I Tim. v. 21 and 2 Tim. iv. 1, it is enough to refer to the notes of Bishop Middleton and Bishop<br />
Ellicott on the former passage. Compare the remarkable various readings in Gal. ii. 20, adopted by<br />
Lachmann and Tregelles (text), but not by Tischendorf or Westcott and Hort, - EN PISTEI ZW TH TOU<br />
QEOU KAI CRISTOS.<br />
In Eph. v. 5, EN TH BASILEIA TOU CRISTOU KAI QEOU, the CRISTOU and QEOU are regarded as<br />
being distinct by a large majority of the best commentators, as De Wette, Meyer, Olshausen, Meier,<br />
Holzhausen, Flatt, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Ewald, Schenkel, Braune and Riddle (in<br />
Lange's Comm., and Prebendary Meyrick in "the Speaker's Commentary" (1881).<br />
In the Revised New Testament, the construction contended for so strenuously by Middleton in Eph. v. 5,<br />
and Sharp in 2 Thess. i. 12, has not been deemed worthy of notice.]<br />
"It is impossible," says Middleton in his note on Tit. ii. 13, "to understand QEOU and SWTHROS<br />
otherwise than of one person." This ground is now generally abandoned, and it is admitted that,<br />
grammatically, either construction is possible. I need only refer to Winer, Stuart, Buttman, T.S. Green,<br />
and S.G. Green among the grammarians, and to Alford, Ellicott, Bishop Jackson, and other recent<br />
commentators.<br />
[ftn. See Winer. Gram. 19, 5, Anm. I, p. 123, 7te Aufl (p. 130 Thayer's trans., p. 162 Moulton); Stuart,<br />
Bibl. Repos. April, 1834, vol. iv. p. 322 f.; A. Buttman, Gram. 125, 14-17, pp. 97-100, Thayer's trans.;<br />
T.S. Green, Gram. of the N.T. Dialect (1842), pp. 205-219, or new ed.(1862), pp. 67-75; S.G. Green,<br />
Handbook to the Gram. of the Greek Text., p. 216; and Alford on Tit. 11. 13. Alford has some good<br />
remarks on the passage, but I find no sufficient proof of his statement that SWTHR had become in the<br />
N.T. "a quasi proper name."]<br />
It will be most convenient to assume, provisionally, that this view is correct; and to consider the<br />
exegetical grounds for preferring one construction to the other. But as some still think that the omission<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abbott_sharp.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:57:25 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II<br />
of the article, though not decisive of the question, affords a presumption in favor of the construction<br />
which makes TOU MEGALOU QEOU a designation of Christ, a few remarks upon this point will be<br />
made in Note A, at the end of this paper. It may be enough to say here that QEOUhas already an<br />
attributive, so that the mind naturally rests for a moment upon TOU MEGALOU QEOU as a subject by<br />
itself; and that the addition of IHSOU CRISTOU to SWTHROS HMWN distinguished the person so<br />
clearly from TOU MEGALOU QEOU, according to Paul's constant use of language, that there was no<br />
need of the article for that purpose.<br />
The question presented derives additional interest from the fact that, in the recent Revision of the English<br />
translation of the New Testament, the English Company have adopted in the text the first of the<br />
constructions mentioned above, placing the other in the margin; while the American Company, by a large<br />
majority, preferred to reverse these positions.<br />
I will first examine the arguments of Bishop Ellicott for the construction which makes TOU MEGALOU<br />
QEOU an appellation of Christ. They are as follows:-<br />
"(a) EPIFANEIA is a term specially and peculiarly applied to the Son, and never to the Father." The facts<br />
are these. In one passage (2 Tim. 1. 10) the word EPIFANEIA is applied to Christ's first advent; in four to<br />
his second advent (2 Thess. ii. 8; 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8); and as EPIFANEIA denotes a visible<br />
manifestation, it may be thought that an EPIFANEIA of God, the Father, "whom no man hath seen nor<br />
can see," could not be spoken of.<br />
But this argument is founded on a misstatement of the question. The expression here is not "the<br />
appearing of the great God," but "the appearing of the glory of the great God," which is a different thing.<br />
When our Saviour himself had said, "The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his<br />
angels" (Matt. xvi. 27, comp. Mark viii. 38), or as Luke expresses it, "in his own glory and the glory of<br />
the Father, and of the holy angels" (ch. ix. 26), can we doubt that Paul, who had probably often heard<br />
Luke's report of these words, might speak of "the appearing of the glory" of the Father, as well as of<br />
Christ, at the second advent?<br />
[ftn, Even if the false assumption on which the argument were correct, that is, if the expression here used<br />
were THN EPIFANEIAN TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN IHSOU CRISTOU, the<br />
argument would have little or no weight. The fact that EPIFANEIA is used four times of Christ in<br />
relation to the second advent would be very far from proving that it might not be so used of God, the<br />
Father, also. Abundant examples may be adduced from Jewish writers to show that any extraordinary<br />
display of divine power, whether exercised directly and known only by its effects, or through an<br />
intermediate visible agent, as an angel, might be called an EPIFANEIA, an "appearing" or<br />
"manifestation" of God. The word is used in the same way in heathen literature to denote any supposed<br />
divine interposition in human affairs, whether accompanied by a visible appearance of the particular<br />
deity concerned, or not. See Note B.]<br />
This view is confirmed by the representations of the second advent given elsewhere in the New<br />
Testament, and particularly by 1 Tim. vi. 14-16. The future EPIFANEIA of Christ was not conceived of<br />
by Paul as independent of God, the Father, and more than his first EPIFANEIA or advent, but as one<br />
"which in his own time the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who only<br />
hath immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man hath seen nor can see, shall show"<br />
(DEIXEI). The reference is to the joint manifestation of the glory of God and of Christ at the time when,<br />
to use the language of the writer to the Hebrews (i. 6), he again bringeth [or shall have brought] his<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abbott_sharp.htm (2 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:57:25 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II<br />
first-begotten into the world, and saith, Let all the angels of God pay him homage."<br />
[ftn. "See also Acts iii. 20: "-and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even<br />
Jesus."]<br />
That God and Christ should be associated in the references to the second advent, that God should be<br />
represented as displaying his power and glory at the EPIFANEIA of Christ, accords with the account<br />
given elsewhere of the accompanying events. The dead are to be raised at the second advent, a glorious<br />
display of divine power, even as Christ is said to have been "raised from the dead by the glory of the<br />
Father" (Rom. vi. 4). But it is expressly declared by Paul that, "as Jesus died and rose again, even so shall<br />
GOD, through Jesus, bring with him them that have fallen asleep" (1 Thess. iv. 14; comp. Phil. iii. 21);<br />
and again, "GOD both raised the Lord, and he will raise up us by his power" (1 Cor. vi. 14). There is to<br />
be a general judgement at the second advent; but Paul tells us that "God hath appointed a day for which<br />
HE will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he hath ordained" (Acts xvii. 31), or, as it is<br />
elsewhere expressed, "the day in which He will judge the secrets of men, through Jesus Christ." (Rom. ii.<br />
16, comp. ver. 5, 6); and that "we shall stand before the judgement seat of GOD" (Rom. xiv. 10). So the<br />
day referred to is not only called "the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. i. 8, v. 5; 2 Cor. i. 14), or "the day of<br />
Christ Jesus" (Phil. i. 6), or "the day of Christ" (Phil. 1. 10, ii. 16), but "the day of GOD" (2 Pet. iii. 12).<br />
Here, as throughout the economy of salvation, there is EIS QEOS O PATHR EX OU TA PANTA KAI<br />
HMEIS EIS AUTON KAI EIS KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS DI OU TA PANTA (1 Cor. viii. 6).<br />
It appears to me, then, that Bishop Ellicott's "palmary argument," as he calls it, derives all its apparent<br />
force from a misstatement of the question; and when we consider the express language of Christ<br />
respecting his appearing in the glory of his Father, the express statement of Paul that this EPIFANEIA of<br />
Christ is one which God, the Father, will show (1 Tim. vi. 15), and the corresponding statement of the<br />
writer to the Hebrews (i. 6, when he bringeth," etc.); when we consider that in the concomitants of the<br />
second advent, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgement of men, in which the glory of Christ will<br />
be displayed, he is everywhere represented as acting, not independently of God, the Father, but in union<br />
with him, as his agent, so that "the Father is glorified in the Son," can we find the slightest difficulty in<br />
supposing that Paul here describes the second advent as an "appearing of the glory of the great God and<br />
our Saviour Jesus Christ"?<br />
(b) Bishop Ellicott's second argument is "that the immediate context so specially relates to our Lord." He<br />
can only refer to ver. 14, "who gave himself for us," etc. The argument rest on the assumption, that when<br />
a writer speaks of two persons, A and B, there is something strange or unnatural in adding a predicate to<br />
B alone. If it is not instantly clear that such an assumption contradicts the most familiar facts of language,<br />
one may compare the mention of God and Christ together in Gal. 1. 3, 4, and 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6, and the<br />
predicate that in each case follows the mention of the latter. The passage in Galatians reads: "Grace to<br />
you and peace from God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might<br />
deliver us to God," etc.<br />
(c) The third point is "that the following mention of Christ's giving Himself up for us, of His abasement,<br />
does fairly account for St. Paul's ascription of a title, otherwise unusual, that specifically and<br />
antithetically marks His glory." - "Otherwise unusual"! Does Bishop Ellicott mean that "the great God" is<br />
an unusual title of Christ in the New Testament? But this is not an argument, only an answer to an<br />
objection, which we shall consider by and by. It is obvious what is said in ver. 14 can in itself afford no<br />
proof or presumption that Paul in what precedes has called Christ "the great God." He uses similar<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abbott_sharp.htm (3 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:57:25 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II<br />
language in many passages (e.g. those just cited under b from Gal. i. 3, 4, and 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6), in which<br />
Christ is clearly distinguished from God.<br />
(d) The fourth argument is "that MEGALOU would seem uncalled for if applied to the Father." It seems<br />
to me, on the contrary, to have solemn impressiveness, suitable to the grandeur of the event referred to. It<br />
condenses into one word what is more fully expressed by the accumulation of high titles applied to God<br />
in connection with the same subject in 1 Tim. vi. 14-16, suggesting that the event is one which the power<br />
and majesty of God will be conspicuously displayed. The expression "the great God" does not occur<br />
elsewhere in the New Testament, but it is not uncommon in the Old Testament and later Jewish writings<br />
as a designation of Jehovah. See Note C, p. 456<br />
(e) Bishop Ellicott's last argument is that "apparently two of the ante-Nicene (Clem. Alexand. Protrept. 7<br />
[ed. Pott.] and Hippolytus quoted by Words.) and the great bulk of post-Nicene writers concurred in this<br />
interpretation."-As to this, I would say that Clement of Alexandria does not cite the passage in proof of<br />
of the deity of Christ, and there is nothing to show that he adopted the construction which refers the TOU<br />
MEGALOU QEOU to him.<br />
[Winstanley well remarks, in his valuable essay on the use of the Greek article in the New Testament, the<br />
"the observation of Whitby that Clem. Alex. quotes this text of St. Paul, when he is asserting the divinity<br />
of Christ, if it mean that he quotes it as an argument, or proof, is a mistake. Clemens is all along speaking<br />
of a past experience only, and therefore begins his quotation with a former verse, H CARIS TOU<br />
QEOU...etc., and then proceeds TOUTO ESTIN TO SWMA KAINON [I omit the quotation], etc., so that<br />
his authority inclines the other way; for he has not appealed to this text, though he had it before him,<br />
when he was expressly asserting the divinity of Christ, as QEOS, and O QEOS LOGOS, but not as O<br />
MEGAS QEOS." (Vindication of certain passages in the Common English Version of the N.T., p. 35f.,<br />
Amer. ed., Cambridge 1819.)<br />
The supposition of Wordsworth and Bishop Jackson that Ignatius (Eph. c. 1) refers to this passage has, as<br />
far as I can see, no foundation.]<br />
Hippolytus (De Antichristo, c. 67), in an allusion to the passage, uses the expression EPIFANEIAN TOU<br />
QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN of Christ, which may seem to indicate that he adopted the construction<br />
just mentioned. But it is to be observed that he omits the THS DOXHS, and the MEGALOU, and the<br />
IHSOU CRISTOUafter SWTHROS HMWN, so that it is not certain that if he had quoted the passage fully,<br />
instead of merely borrowing some of its language, he would have applied all the terms to one subject. My<br />
principal reason for doubt is, that he has nowhere in his writings spoken of Christ as O MEGAS QEOS,<br />
with or without HMWN, and that it would hardly have been consistent with his theology to do this,<br />
holding so strongly as he did the doctrine of the subordination of the Son.<br />
It is true that many writers of the fourth century and later apply the passage to Christ. At that period, and<br />
earlier, when QEOS had become a common appellation of Christ, and especially when he was very often<br />
called "our God" or "our God and Saviour," the construction of Tit. ii. 13 which refers the QEOU to him<br />
would seem the most natural. But the New Testament use of language is widely different; and on that<br />
account a construction which would seem most natural in the fourth century, might not even suggest<br />
itself to a reader in the first century. That the orthodox Fathers should give to an ambiguous passage the<br />
construction which suited their theology and the use of the language in their time was almost a matter of<br />
course, and furnishes no evidence that their resolution of the ambiguity is the true one.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abbott_sharp.htm (4 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:57:25 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II<br />
The cases are so numerous in which the Fathers, under the influence of dogmatic bias, have done<br />
extreme violence to very plain language, that we can attach no weight to their preference in the case of a<br />
construction really ambiguous, like the present. For a notable example of such violence, see 2 Cor. iv. 4,<br />
EN OIS O QEOS TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU ETUFLWSEN TA NOHMATA TWN APISTWN, where fear of<br />
Gnosticism or Manichaeism, Iranaeus (Haer. iii. 7, / 1; comp., iv. 29 (al. 48), / 2), Tertullian (Adv. Marc.<br />
v. 11), Admantius or Pseudo-Origen (De recta in Deum fide, sect. ii. Orig. Opp. i. 832), Chrysostom,<br />
Theodoret, (Ecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, Primasius, Sedulius Scotus, Haymo, and others make<br />
TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU depend on APISTWN instead of O QEOS, a construction which we should<br />
hardly hesistate to call impossible.<br />
[ftn., For many of these writers see Whitby, Diss. de Script. Interp. secundum Patrum Commentarios, p.<br />
275 f. Alford's note on this passage has a number of false references, copied without acknowledgement<br />
from Meyer, and ascribes this interpretation (after Meyer) to Origen, who opposes it (Opp. iii 497, ed. De<br />
la Rue).]<br />
I have now considered all the arguments of Bishop Ellicott, citing them in full in his own language. It<br />
seems to me that no one of them has any real weight; and that a consideration of his "palmary argument,"<br />
which is the onemainly urged by the advocates of his construction of the passage, really leads to the<br />
opposite view. The same is trus also, I conceive, of his reference to the expression "the great God."<br />
But there is a new argument which it may be worth while to notice. In the English translation of the<br />
second edition of his Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N.T. Greek, Cremer has added to the article QEOS a<br />
long note on Tit. ii. 13 which is not in the German original, and has made other alterations in the article.<br />
He here contends that TOU MEGALOU QEOU refers to Christ. He gives up entirely the argument from<br />
the want of the article before SWTHROS, on which he had insisted in the German edition. Nor does he<br />
urge the argument from the sense of EPIFANEIA. His only arguments are founded on assertion that ver.<br />
14 "by its form already indicates that in ver. 13 only one subject is presented" - an argument which has<br />
already been answered (see p. 443, under b), and to which, it seems to me, one cannot reasonably attach<br />
the slightest weight - and the fact that ver. 14 contains the expression LAON PERIOUSION, "a peculiar<br />
people," an expression used in the O.T. to denote the Jewish nation as the chosen people of God. The<br />
argument rests on the assumption that because in ver. 14 that Apostle has transferred this expression to<br />
the church of Christ, "the great God" in ver. 13 must be taken as a predicate of Christ.<br />
The case seems to me to present no difficulty, and to afford no ground for such an inference. The relation<br />
of Christians to God and Christ is such that, from its very nature, the servants of Christ are called the<br />
servants of God, the church of Christ the church of God, the kingdom of Christ the kingdom of God (1<br />
Pet. ii. 9, 10).<br />
[ftn., Comp. Clement of Rome, I Ep. ad Cor. c. 64 (formerly 58): "May the All-seeing God and Master of<br />
Spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ and us through him for a peculiar people<br />
(EIS LAON PERIOUSION), grant," etc.]<br />
If Christians belong to Christ, they must also belong to God, the Father, to whom Christ himself belongs<br />
(1 Cor. iii. 23, "ye are Christ's and Christ is God's"). To infer, then, that because in ver. 14 Christians are<br />
spoken as Christ's peculiar people, the title "great God" must necessarily be understood as applied to him<br />
in ver. 13 is a very extraordinary kind of reasoning.<br />
Such are the arguments which have been urged for the translation, "the appearing of the glory of our<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abbott_sharp.htm (5 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:57:25 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II<br />
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." Let us now consider what is to be said for the construction which<br />
makes TOU MEGALOU QEOU and IHSOU CRISTOU distinct subjects.<br />
In the case of a grammatical ambiguity of this kind in any classical author, the first inquiry would be,<br />
What is the usage of the writer respecting the application of the title in question? Now this consideration,<br />
which certainly is a most reasonable one, seems to me here absolutely decisive. While the word QEOS<br />
occurs more than five hundred times in the Epistles of Paul, not including the Epistle to the Hebrews,<br />
there is not a single instance in which it is clearly applied to Christ.<br />
[ftn., The passages in the writings of Paul in which the title QEOS has ever been given to Christ are very<br />
few, and are all cases of very doubtful construction or doubtful reading. Alford finds it given to him only<br />
in Rom. ix. 5; but here, as is well known, many of the most imminent modern scholars make the last part<br />
of the verse a doxology to God, the Father. So, for example, Winer, Fritzsche, Meyer, De Wette, Ewald;<br />
Tischendorf, Kuenen and Cobet, Buttmann, Hahn (ed. 1861); Professor Jowett, Professor J.H. Godwin,<br />
Professor Lewis Campbell of the University of St. Andrews, the Rev. Dr. B. H. Kennedy, Regius<br />
Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Hort. Of the other passages, Eph. v. 5 and 2<br />
Thess. i. 12 have already been considered. In 1 Tim. iii. 16 there is now a general agreement among<br />
critical scholars that OS EFANERWQH and not QEOS EFANERWQH is the true reading. In Col. ii. 12,<br />
the only remaining passage, the text is uncertain; but if we adopt the reading TOU MUSTHRION TOU<br />
QEOU CRISTOU, the most probable construction is that which regards CRISTOU as in apposition with<br />
MUSTHRION, which is confirmed by Col. i. 27. This is the view of Bishop Ellicott, Bishop Lightfoot,<br />
Wieseler (on Gal. i.1), and Westcott and Hort. Others, as Meyer, Huther, and Klopper, translate "the<br />
mystery of the God of Christ" (comp. Eph. i. 3, 17, etc.). Steiger takes CRISTOU as in apposition with<br />
TOU QEOU, and thus Christ here called God; but to justify his interpretation the Greek should rather be<br />
CRISTOU TOU QEOU (comp. De Wette).<br />
The habitual, and I believe uniform, usage of Paul corresponds with his language 1 Cor. viii. 6.<br />
Here and elsewhere I intentionally pass by the question whether Paul's view of the nature Christ and his<br />
relation to the Father would have allowed him to designate Christ as O MEGAS QEOS KAI SWTHROS<br />
HMWN. This would lead to a long discussion of many passages. My argument rests on the undisputed<br />
facts respecting his habitual use of language.]<br />
In the case then of a question between two constructions, either of which is grammatically possible,<br />
should we not adopt that which accords with a usage of which we have five hundred examples, without<br />
one clear exception, rather than that which is on opposition to it? The case is made still stronger by the<br />
fact that we have here not only QEOU, but MEGALOU QEOU.<br />
Even if we do not regard the Pastoral Epistles as written by Paul, and confine our attention to them only,<br />
we reach the same result. Observe how clearly God, the Father, is distinguished in 1 Tim. i. 1,2; ii. 3-5; v.<br />
21; vi. 13-16; 2 Tim. i. 2, 8, 9; iv. 1; Tit. 1, 3 (comp. for the KAT EPITAGHN 1 Tim. i. 1, Rom. xvi. 26),<br />
4; iii. 4-6. Observe, particularly, that the expression "God our Saviour" is applied solely to the Father,<br />
who is distinguished from Christ as our Saviour; God being the primal source of salvation, and Christ the<br />
medium of communication, agreeably, to the language of Paul, 2 Cor. v. 18, TA DE PANTA EK TOU<br />
QEOU TOU KATALLAXANTOS HMAS EAUTW DIA CRISTOU; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6. See 1 Tim. i. 1; ii.<br />
3-5; iv. 10; Tit. i. 1-4; iii. 4-6; compare also Jude 25. Such being the marked distinction between QEOS<br />
and CRISTOS in other passages of these Pastoral Epistles, should we not adopt the construction which<br />
recognizes the same here?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abbott_sharp.htm (6 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:57:25 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II<br />
An examination of the context will confirm the conclusion at which we have arrived. I have already<br />
shown that the title "God our Saviour" in the Pastoral Epistles belongs exclusively to the Father. This is<br />
generally admitted; for example by Bloomfield, Alford and Ellicott. Now the connection of ver. 10 in<br />
which this expression occurs, with ver. 11 is obviously such, that if QEOU denotes the Father in the<br />
former it must in the latter. Regarding it then as settled that QEOU in ver. 11 denotes the Father (and I<br />
am not aware that it has ever been disputed),* is it not harsh to suppose that the QEOU in ver. 13, in the<br />
latter part of the sentence denotes a different subject from the QEOU in ver. 11 at the beginning of the<br />
same sentence?<br />
[ftn., *It should be questioned, all doubt will probably be removed by a comparison of the verse with Tit.<br />
iii. 3-7 and 2 Tim. i. 8, 9.]<br />
It appears especially harsh, when we notice the beautiful correspondence of<br />
EPIFANEIANin ver. 13 with the EPEFANH of ver. 11. This correspondence can hardly have been<br />
undesigned. As the first advent of Christ was an appearing or visible manifestation of the glory of God,<br />
as well as of Christ.<br />
To sum up: the reasons for which are urged for giving this verbally ambiguous passage the construction<br />
which makes "the great God" a designation of Christ, are seen, when examined, to have little or now<br />
weight; on the other hand, the construction adopted in the common English version, and preferred by the<br />
American Revisers, is favored, if not required, by the context (comparing ver. 13 with ver. 11); it<br />
perfectly suits the references to the second advent in other parts of the New Testament; and it is<br />
imperatively demanded by a regard to Paul's use of language, unless we arbitrarily assume here a single<br />
exception to a usage of which we have more than five hundred examples.<br />
I might add, though I would not lay much stress on the fact, that the principal ancient versions, the Old<br />
Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Harclean Syriac, the Coptic, and the Arabic, appear to have given the<br />
passage the construction which makes God and Christ distinct subjects. The Aethiopic seems to be the<br />
only exception. Perhaps, however, the construction in the Latin versions should be regarded as somewhat<br />
ambiguous.<br />
Among the modern scholars who have agreed with all the old English versions (Tyndale, Coverdale,<br />
Cranmer, the Genevan, the Bishop's <strong>Bible</strong>, the Rhemish, and the Authorized) in preferring this<br />
construction are Erasmus, Calvin, Luther, Grotius, LeClerc, Wetstein, Moldenhawer, Michaelis, Benson,<br />
MacKnight, Archbishop Newcome, Rosenmuller, Heinrichs, Schott, Bretschneider, Neander (Planting<br />
and Training of the Christian Church, <strong>Robinson</strong>'s revised trans., p. 468,) De Wette, (and so Muller in the<br />
3d ed. of De Wette, 1867), Meyer (on Rom. ix. 5), Fritzsche (Ep. ad Rom. ii. 266 ff.), Grimm,<br />
Baumgarten-Crusius (N.T. Gr. ed. Schott, 1839), Krehl, H. F. T. L. Ernesti (Vom Ursprunge der Sunde,<br />
p. 235 f.), Schumann (Christus, 1852, ii. 580, note), Messner (Die Lehre der Apostel, 1856, p. 236 f.),<br />
Huther, Ewald, Holtzmann (in Bunsen's Bibelwerk, and with more hesitation in his Die Pastoralbriefe,<br />
1880), Beyschlag (Christol. des N.T., 1866, p. 212, note), Rothe (Dogmatik, II. i. (1870), p. 110, note 3),<br />
Conybeare and Howson, Alford, Fairbarn, with some hesitation (The Pastoral Epistles, Edin. 1874, pp.<br />
55, 282-285), Davidson, Prof. Lewis Campbell (in the Comtemp. Rev. for Aug., 1876), Immer (Theol. d.<br />
N.T., 1877, p. 393). W.F. Gess (Christi Person und Werk, Abth. II. (1878), p. 330), in opposition to the<br />
view expressed in his earlier work, Die Lehre von der Person Christi (1856), p. 88 f., Reuss (Les Epitres<br />
Pauliniennes, Paris, 1878, ii. 345), Farrar (Life and Work of St. Paul, ii. 536, cf. p. 615, note 1); and so<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abbott_sharp.htm (7 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:57:25 AM]
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II<br />
the grammarians Winer and T.S. Green (comp. his Twofold N.T.). In the case of one or two recent<br />
writers, as Pfleiderer and Weizsacker, who have adopted the construction, there is reason to regard them<br />
as influenced by their view on the non-Pauline authorship of the Epistle, disposing them to find in its<br />
Christology a doctrine different from that of Paul.<br />
Very many others, as Heydenreich, Flatt, Tholuck (Comm. zum Brief an die Romer, 5te Ausg., 1856, p.<br />
482), C. F. Schmid (Bibl. Theol. des N. T., 2te Aufl., p. 540), Luthardt, leave the matter undecided. Even<br />
Bloomfield, in the Addenda to his last work (Critical Annotations, Additional and Supplementary, on the<br />
N.T., London, 1860, p. 352), after retracting the version given in his ninth edition of the Greek<br />
Testament, candidly says: "I am ready to admit that the mode of interpreting maintained by Huther and<br />
Al[ford] completely satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence; that it is both structurally<br />
and contextually quite as probable as the other, and perhaps more agreeable to the Apostle's way of<br />
writing."<br />
The view of Lange (Christliche Dogmatik, Heidelb. 1851, ii. 161 f.), Van Hengel (Interp. Ep. Pauli ad<br />
Romanos, ii. 358, note), and Schenkel (Das Christusbild der Apostel, 1879, p. 357), that IHSOU<br />
CRISTOU is here an apposition to THS DOXHS, the words which precede (TOU MEG. QEOU KAI<br />
SWT. HMWN) being referred to the Father, has little to commend it that it may be passed over without<br />
discussion.<br />
[ftn., The punctuation in the margin in Westcott and Hort's N. T. in Greek is also intended to represent<br />
this view.] Click here to go to Part 2...Ezra Abbot's Notes<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abbott_sharp.htm (8 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:57:25 AM]
.<br />
Ezra Abbot's Notes on the Construction of Titus II. 13<br />
On the Construction of Titus 2:13<br />
Note A. (see p. 440.)<br />
On the omission of the Article before SWTHROS HMWN.<br />
[From the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1881]<br />
Go to Previous Article here.<br />
Middleton's rule is as follows: "When two or more attributives joined by a<br />
copulative or copulatives are assumed of [assumed to belong to] the same person or<br />
thing, before the first attributive the article is inserted; before the remaining<br />
ones it is omitted.<br />
By attributes he understands adjectives, participles, and nouns which are<br />
"significant of character, relation, or dignity."<br />
He admits that the rule is not always applicable to plurals (p. 49); and. again,<br />
where the attributes "are in their nature plainly incompatible." "We cannot<br />
wonder," he says, "if in such instances the principle of the rule has been<br />
sacrificed to negligence, or even to studied brevity....The second article should<br />
in strictness be expressed; but in such cases the writers knew that it might be<br />
safely understood" (pp. 51,52).<br />
The principle which covers all the cases coming under Middleton's rule, so far as<br />
that rule bears on the present question, is, I believe, simply this: The definite<br />
article is inserted before the second attributive when it is felt to be needed to<br />
distinguish different subjects; but when the two terms connected by a copulative<br />
are shown by any circumstance to denote distinct subjects, the article may be<br />
omitted, for the excellent reason that it is not needed.*<br />
[ftn., See the remarks (by Andrews Norton) in the American edition of Winstanley's<br />
Vindication of Certain Passages in the Common Eng. Version of the N. T., p. 45ff.;<br />
or Norton's Statement of Reasons, etc., 2d ed. (1856), pp. 199-202.]<br />
Middleton's rule, , with its exceptions, applies to the English language as well<br />
as the Greek. Webster (Wm.) remarks in his Syntax and Synonyms of the Greek<br />
Testament -<br />
"In English, the Secretary and Treasurer means one person; the Secretary and the<br />
Treasurer means two persons. In speaking of horses, the black and white horse<br />
means the piebald, but the black and the white horse mean two different horses."<br />
(pp. 35, 36)<br />
But this rule is very often broken when such formal precision of expression is not<br />
felt to be necessary. If I should say, "I saw the President and Treasurer of the<br />
Boston and Albany Railroad yesterday," no one, probably, would doubt that I spoke<br />
of two different persons, or (unless perhaps Mr. G. Washington Moon) would imagine<br />
that I was violating the laws of the English language. The fact that the two<br />
offices referred to are generally or always in such corporations held by different<br />
persons would prevent any doubt as to the meaning. Again, the remark that "Mr. A.<br />
drove out to-day with his black and white horses" would be perfectly correct<br />
English and perfectly unambiguous if addressed to onw who knew that Mr. A. had<br />
only four horses, two of them black and the other two white.<br />
Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus "cast<br />
out all those that were selling and buying in the temple," TOUS PWLOUNTAS KAI<br />
AGORAZONTAS. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are described as<br />
both selling and buying. In Mark, the two classes are made distinct by the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra.htm (1 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:57:40 AM]
Ezra Abbot's Notes on the Construction of Titus II. 13<br />
insertion of TOUS before AGORAZONTAS; here it is safely left to the intelligence<br />
of the reader to distinguish them.<br />
In the case before us, the omission of the article before AGORAZONTAS seems to me<br />
to present no difficulty, - not because SWTHROS is made sufficiently definite by<br />
the addition of HMWN (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called<br />
"our Saviour," H DOXA TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN, standing alone, would<br />
most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the<br />
addition of IHSOU CRISTOU to SWTHROS HMWN changes the case entirely, restricting<br />
the SWTHROS HMWN to a person or being who, according to Paul's habitual use of<br />
language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as O QEOS,<br />
so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity.<br />
So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression KATA THN CARIN TOU QEOU HMWN KAI KURIOU would<br />
naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required before<br />
KURIOU if two were intended; but the simple addition of IHSOU CRISTOU to KURIOU<br />
makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of<br />
the article.<br />
But the omission of the article before the second of two subjects connected by KAI<br />
is not without effect. Its absence naturally leads us to conceive of them as<br />
united in some common relation, while the repetition of the article would present<br />
them to the mind as distinct subjects of thought. The differences between the two<br />
cases is like the differences between the expressions "the kingdom of Christ and<br />
God" and "the kingdom of Christ and of God" in English. The former expression<br />
would denote one kingdom, belonging in some sense to both; the latter would permit<br />
the supposition that two distinct kingdoms were referred to, though it would not<br />
require this interpretation. The repetition of the preposition, however, as of the<br />
article, brings the subjects seperately before the mind. In the present case, the<br />
omission of the article before SWTHROS, conjoining the word closely with QEOU, may<br />
indicate that the glory spoken of belongs in one aspect to God and in another to<br />
Christ (comp. Eph. v. 5); or that the glory of God and the glory of Christ are<br />
displayed in conjunction (comp. 2 Thess. i. 12, KATA THN CARIN TOU QEOU HMWN KAI<br />
KURIOU '1. X.; Luke ix. 26).<br />
There may still be another reason for the omission of the article here before<br />
SWTHROS HMWN, or perhaps I should say, another effect of its absence.<br />
It is a recognized principle that the omission of the article before an<br />
appellative which designates a person tends to fix the attention on the quality or<br />
character or peculiar relation expressed by the appellative, while the insertion<br />
of the article tends to throw into the shade the inherent meaning of the term, and<br />
to give it the force of a simple proper name. For example EN TW UIW would simply<br />
mean "in (or by) the Son," or "his Son"; but the omission of the article (EN UIW)<br />
emphasizes the significance of the term UIOS-by one who is a Son," and in virtue<br />
of what the designation expresses is far above all "the prophets." (Comp. T. S.<br />
Green, Gram. of the N. T., 2d ed., pp. 47 f., 38 f.) So here the meaning may be,<br />
"the appearing of the glory of the great God and a Saviour of us," one who is our<br />
Saviour, "Jesus Christ"-essentially equivalent to "of the great God and Jesus<br />
Christ as our Saviour" (comp. Acts xiii. 23); the idea suggested being that the<br />
salvation or deliverance of Christians will be consummated at the second advent,<br />
when Christ "shall appear, to them that wait for him, unto salvation." Comp. Phil.<br />
iii. 20, 21, "For our citizenship is in heaven, from whence also we wait for a<br />
Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, EX OU KAI SWTHRA APEKDECOMEQA KURION IHSOUN<br />
CRISTON, who shall change the body of our humiliation,"etc.; Rom. viii. 23, 24,<br />
xiii. 11; 1 Thess. v. 8, 9; Heb. ix. 28; 1 Pet. i. 5. The position of SWTHROS HMWN<br />
before IHSOU CRISTOU, as well as the absence of the article, favors this view;<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra.htm (2 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:57:40 AM]
Ezra Abbot's Notes on the Construction of Titus II. 13<br />
comp. Acts xiii. 23; Phil. iii. 20, and contrast Tit. i. 4.<br />
The points which I would make, then, are that the insertion of the article before<br />
SWTHROS was not needed here to show that the word designates a subject distinct<br />
from TOU MEGALOU QEOU; and that its absence serves to bring out the thoughts that,<br />
in the event referred to, the glory of God and that of Christ are displayed<br />
together, and that Christ then appears as Saviour, in the sense that the salvation<br />
of Christians, including what St. Paul calls "the redemption of the body," is then<br />
made complete. There are conceptions which accord with the view which the Apostle<br />
has elsewhere presented of the second advent.<br />
But as many English writers still assume that the construction of Tit. ii. 13 and<br />
similar passages has been settled by Bishop Middleton, I will quote in conclusion<br />
a few sentences, by way of caution from one of the highest authorities on the<br />
grammar of the Greek Testament, Alexander Buttman. He says:-<br />
"It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or<br />
to the N. T., to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception, the inquiry<br />
when with several substantives connected by conjunctions the article is repeated,<br />
and when it is not. ...From this fact alone it follows, that in view of the<br />
subjective and arbitrary treatment of the article on the part of individual<br />
writers (cf. /124, 2) it is very hazardous in particular cases to draw important<br />
inferences affecting the sense or even of a doctrinal nature, from the single<br />
circumstance of the use or omission of the article; see e.g. Tit. ii. 13; Jude 4;<br />
2 Pet. i.1 and the expositors of these passages." (Gram. of the N. T. Greek, /<br />
125, 14; p. 97, Thayer's trans.)<br />
Note B. (See p. 441 n.*)<br />
The Use of EPIFANEIA and Kindred Terms with Reference to God.<br />
It has already been observed that the expression used In Tit. ii. 13 is not<br />
EPIFANEIAN TOU MEGALOU QEOU but EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU, and that<br />
the reference of the title " the great God " to the Father accords perfectly with<br />
the representation elsewhere in the New Testament that the glory of God, the<br />
Fathert, as well as of Christ, will be displayed at the second advent. This<br />
reference, therefore, presents no difficulty.<br />
But the weakness of the argument against it may be sti1l further illustrated by<br />
the use of the term EPIFANEIA and kindred expressions in Josephus and other Jewish<br />
writings. It will be seen that any extraordinary manifestation of divine power,<br />
whether exerted directly or through an Intermediate agent, is spoken or as an<br />
EPIFANEIA of God.<br />
I. For example, the parting of the waters of the Red Sea is described as the<br />
"appearing" or "manifestation" of God." MWUSHS DE ORWN THN EPIFANEIAN TOU QEOU,<br />
K.T.L. (Joseph. Ant. ii. 16. § 2.)<br />
2. Speaking of the journey through the wilderness, Josephus says : "The cloud was<br />
present, and, standing over the tabernacle, signified the appearing of God," THN<br />
EPIFANEIAN TOU QEOU (Ant. iii. 14. § 4.)<br />
3. Josepbus uses both H PAROUSIA TOU QEOU and H EPIFANEIA [TOU QEOU] in reference<br />
to a miraculous shower of rain (Ant. xviii. 8. (al. 10) § 6).<br />
So a violent thunder storm, which deterred the army of Xerxes from attacking<br />
Delphi, is described by Diodorus Siculus as H TWN QEON EPIFANEIA (Bibl. Hist. xi.<br />
14). Comp. Joseph. Ant. xv. 11. (al. 14)§ 7, where , H EPIFANEIA TOU QEOU is used<br />
in a simIlar way. Observe also how, in Herod's speech (Ant. xv. 5. (al. 6) § 3),<br />
angels are spoken of as bringing God EIS EPIFANEIAN to men.<br />
4. In reference to the miraculous guidance of Abraham's servant when sent to<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra.htm (3 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:57:40 AM]
Ezra Abbot's Notes on the Construction of Titus II. 13<br />
procure Rebecca as a wife for Isaac, the marriage is said to have been brought<br />
about UPO QEIAS EPIFANEIAS, where we might say, "by a divine interposition."<br />
(Joseph. Ant.i. 16. § 3.)<br />
5. After giving an account of the deliverance of Elisha from the troops sent by<br />
Ben-hadad to arrest him, which were struck with blindness, Josephus says that the<br />
king "marveled at the strange event, and the appearing (or manifestation) and<br />
power of the God of the Israelites (THN TOU QEOU ISRAHLITHS EPIFANEIAN KAI<br />
DUNAMIS), and at the prophet with whom the Deity was so evidently present for<br />
help." (Ant. ix. 4. § 4.) Elijah had prayed that God would "manifest" (EPIFANEIA)<br />
his power and presence (PAROUSIA). (Ibid. § 3.)<br />
6. In Josephus, Ant. v. 8. §§ 2, 3. the appearance of an angel sent by God is<br />
described as "a sight of God," EK THS OYESQE TON QEON...TOU QEOU AUTOIS ORAQHNAI.<br />
7. In 2 Macc. iii. 24, in reference to the horse with the terrible rider, and the<br />
angels that scourged Heliodorus, we read, O TWN PNEUMATWN KAI PASHS EXOUSIAS<br />
DUNASTHS EPIFANEIAN MEGALHN EPOIHSEN, and In ver. 30. TOU PANTOKRATOROS<br />
EPIFANENTOS KURIOU, the Almighty Lord having appeared," and farther on, ver. 34.<br />
Heliodorus is spoken of as having been "scourged by him, UP AUTOU, i.e. the Lord,<br />
according to the common text, retained by Grimm and Keil. But here for UP AUTOU,<br />
Fritzsche reads EX OURANOU, which looks like a gloss (comp. ii. 21,EX OURANOU<br />
GENOMENAS EPIFANEIAS).<br />
8. The sending of a good angel is described as an EPIFANEIA TOU QEOU, 2 Macc. xv,<br />
27, comp. vv. 22, 23. Observe also that in 2 Macc. xv, 34 and 3 Macc. v. 35 TON<br />
EPIFANH KURION or QEON does not mean "the glorious Lord (or God) " as it has often<br />
been misunderstood, but EPIFANHS designates God as one who manifests his power in<br />
the deliverance of his people, a present help in time of need, " the interposing<br />
God (Bissell). Compare the note of Valesius (Valois) on Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii.<br />
6. § 2.<br />
9. See also 2 Macc. xii, 22 EK THS TOU TA PANTA EFORWNTOS EPIFANEIAS GENOMENHS EP'<br />
AUTOUS; comp. 2 Macc. xi. 8, 10, 13.<br />
10. "They made application to him who...always helpeth his portion [his people]<br />
MET' EPIFANEIAS 2 Macc. xiv. 15.<br />
11. In 3 Macc. v. 8, we are told that the Jews "besought the Almighty Lord to<br />
rescue them from imminent death META MEGALOMEROUS EPIFANEIAS," and again, ver. 51,<br />
"to take pity on them META EPIFANEIAS." The answer to the prayer is represented as<br />
made by the intervention of angels (vi. 18).<br />
In ch. i. 9, God is spoken of as having glorified Jerusalem EN EPIFANEIA<br />
MEGALOPREPEI.<br />
12. In the Additions to Esther, Text B, vii. 6 (Fritzsche, Libr. Apoc.<br />
V. T. p. 71), the sun and light in Mordecai's dream are said to represent the<br />
EPIFANIA TOU QEOU "appearing" (or manifestation) "of God" in the deliverance of<br />
the Jews.<br />
13. In the so-called Second Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, c. 12,<br />
§ 1, we read: "Let us therefore wait hourly [or betimes, Lightf.] for the kingdom<br />
of God in love and righteousness, because we know not the day of the appearing of<br />
God, THS EPIFANEIAS TOU QEOU." The TOU QEOU, employed thus absolutely must, I<br />
think, refer to the Father, according to the writer's use of language. This<br />
consideration does not seem to me invalidated by c. 1, § 1, or by the use of<br />
EPIFANEIA in reference to Christ, c. 17; but others may think differently.<br />
The use of the term EPIFANEIA in the later Greek classical writers corresponds<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra.htm (4 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:57:40 AM]
Ezra Abbot's Notes on the Construction of Titus II. 13<br />
with its use as illustrated above. Casaubon has a learned note on the word in his<br />
Exercit. ad. Annales Eccles. Baronianas II. xi., Ann. I., Num. 36 (p, 185, London,<br />
1614), in which be says: " Graeci scriptores EPIFANEIA appellaut apparitionem<br />
numinis quoquo tandem modo deus aliquis suae praesentiae signum dedisse<br />
crederetur." (Comp. his note on Athanaeus, xii. II. al. 60.) Wesseling in his note<br />
on Diodorus Siculus, i. 25, repeats this, and adds other illustrations from<br />
Diodorus, namely; iii. 62; iv. 82 [v. 62?]; xi. 14; and xiv. 69 (a striking<br />
example). See also the story of the vestal virgin in Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. ii. 68<br />
(cf. 69), and of Servius Tullius, ibid., iv. 2. Other examples are given by<br />
Elsner, Obss. Sacr. on 2 Pet. i. 16, and by the writers to whom he refers. But it<br />
is not worthwhile to pursue this part of the subject further here. One who wishes<br />
to do so will find much interesting matter in the notes of the very learned<br />
Ezechiel Spanheim on Callimachus, Hymn. in Apoll. 13, and in Pallad. 101, and in<br />
his Dissertationes de Praestantia et Usu Numismatum antiquorum, ed. nova, vol. i.<br />
(London, 1706), Diss. vii., p. 425 sqq.<br />
I will only add in conclusion: If Paul could speak of the first advent of Christ<br />
as an EPIFANEIA of the grace of God (see EPEFANH, Tit. ii. 11; iii. 4), can we, in<br />
view of all that has been said, regard it as in the least degree strange or<br />
unnatural that he should speak of his second advent as an<br />
EPIFANEIA of the glory of God?<br />
Note C. (See p. 444)<br />
On the Expression, TOU MEGALOU QEOU.<br />
There is no other passage in the New Testament in which this expression occurs,<br />
the reading in the "received text" in Rev. xix. 17 having very slender support.<br />
But the epithet "great" is so often applied to God in the Old Testament and later<br />
Jewish writings, and is so appropriate in connection with the display of the<br />
divine power and glory in the event referred to, that it is very wonderful that<br />
the use of the word here should be regarded as an argument for the reference of<br />
the QEOS to Christ on the ground that "God the Father did not need the exalting<br />
and lauditory epithet MEGAS," as Usteri says (Paulin. Lehrbegriff, 5te Aufl., p.<br />
326). It might be enough to answer, with Fritzsche, "At ego putaveram, Deum quum<br />
sit magnus, jure etiam magnum appelari" (Ep. ad Rom. ii. 268). But the following<br />
references show how naturally Paul might apply this designation to the Father:<br />
Deut. viii. 21 (Sept. and Heb.), x. 17; 2 Chron. ii. 5(4)l Neh. i. 5, vii. 6, ix.<br />
32, Ps. lxxvii. 13, lxxxvi. 10; Jer. xxxii. 18, 19; Dan. ii. 45, ix. 4; Psalt.<br />
Sal. ii. 33; 3 Macc. vii. 2. Comp. TOU MEGISTOU QEOU, 3 Macc. i. 16, iii. 11, v.<br />
25, vii. 22, "the great Lord," Ecclus. xxxix. 6, xlvi. 5; 2 Macc. v. 20, xii. 15.<br />
So very often in the Sibylline Oracles. I have noted thirty-one examples in the<br />
Third book alone, the principal part of which was the production of a Jewish<br />
writer in the second century before Christ.<br />
Though all will agree that God, the Father, does not "need" exaltating epithets,<br />
such epithets are applied to him freely by the Apostle Paul and other writers of<br />
the New Testament. For example, he is called by Paul "the incorruptible God," "the<br />
living God," "the invisible God," "the living and true God," "the blessed God,";<br />
and since there is no other place in which the Apostle has unequivocally<br />
designated Christ as QEOS, much less QEOS with a high epithet, it certainly seems<br />
most natural to suppose that O MEGAS QEOS here designates the Father. The Bishop<br />
of London (in the "Speakers Commentary") appeals to 1 John v. 20, where he assumes<br />
that Christ is designated as "the true God." But he must be aware that this<br />
depends on the reference of the pronoun OUTOS, and that many of the best<br />
expositors refer this to the leading subject of the preceeding sentence, namely,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra.htm (5 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:57:40 AM]
Ezra Abbot's Notes on the Construction of Titus II. 13<br />
TON ALHQINON ; so, e.g., Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Michaelis, Lucke, De Wette,<br />
Meyer, Neander, Huther, Dusterdieck, Gerlach, Bruckner, Ewald, Holtzmann, Braune,<br />
Haupt, Rothe, C. F. Schmid, Gess, Reuss, Alford, Farrar, Westcott, and Sinclair<br />
(in Ellicott's N. T. Comm.); and so the grammarians Alt, Winer, Wilke, Buttman,<br />
and Schirlitz; comp. also John xvii. 3. So doubtful a passage, and that not in the<br />
writings of Paul, but John, can hardly serve to render it probable that Paul has<br />
here applied the designation O MEGAS QEOS to Christ rather than to God, the<br />
Father.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/ezra.htm (6 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:57:40 AM]
Should kolasin be translated *cutting-off* or *punishment* at Matthew 25:46?<br />
KAI APELEUSONTAI OUTOI EIS KOLASIN AIWNION OI DE DIKAIOI<br />
EIS ZWHN AIWNION Matthew 25:46 NA26<br />
Should kolasin be translated cutting-off or punishment?<br />
Unless otherwise indicated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901<br />
Ankerberg/Weldon say: "*Punishment,* kolasin, is translated *cutting off* [In the New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation] in order to escape the text's teaching or eternal punishment and to support their theology of<br />
annihilation of the wicked or conditional immortality."<br />
They then provide the two differing translations:<br />
"And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life." NWT<br />
(the Norwegian Church <strong>Bible</strong> of 1978/75 has "evig avskjaerelse" ["everlasting cutting off"] in the first<br />
case and "for frykt virker hemmende" ["because fear causes restraint"] in the<br />
second case.)<br />
"These will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life."<br />
What nominal Christians hope this means is that *everlasting punishment* should be read as *eternal<br />
torment in a fiery hell.* But is this actually the case?<br />
The Greek word for *punishment/cutting off* is KOLASIS, which comes from the greek word<br />
KOLAZO which means to cut off or prune. The Emphatic Diaglott also uses the phrase "cutting off" and<br />
it gives the explanation that most versions confuse KOLASIN with BASINOS conveying the meaning of<br />
"torment". It goes on further to say that KOLAZOO "which signifies ,1. to cut off, as lopping off<br />
branches of trees, to prune, 2. To restrain, to repress.....3, to punish, to chastise. To cut off an individual<br />
from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment." p.106<br />
The Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament (A.T. Robertson) has this<br />
to say:<br />
"Eternal punishment (kolasin aiwnion). The word kolasin comes from kolazw, to mutilate or prune.<br />
Hence those who cling to the larger hope use this phrase to mean age-long pruning that ultimately leads<br />
to salvation of the goats, as disciplinary rather than penal."<br />
Interestingly, The New Testament in Modern English, By Ferrar Fenton, and Rotherham's Emphasized<br />
Version has "into a long correction."<br />
Those who own a copy of Young’s Analytical Concordance will see from it (page 995) that<br />
the definition of the word kolasis is "pruning, restraining, restraint."<br />
The Classic Greek Dictionary - Sixteenth Edition 1962, by George Ricker Berry, Ph D<br />
The Late Professor of Semitic Languages at Colgate University and University of Chicago<br />
had, "kolazw - To prune, retrench: ... metaph. ... confine: then to chastise, correct, punish."<br />
At http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2849&version=nas<br />
"Kolazo - from kolos (dwarf)<br />
Definition<br />
1. to lop or prune, as trees and wings<br />
2. to curb, check, restrain<br />
3. to chastise, correct, punishment<br />
4. to cause to be punished<br />
Here are the glosses given for KOLAZW in Liddel and Scott:<br />
1) "check" or "chastise" (the desires); passive: "to be corrected";<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kolasin.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:57:55 AM]
Should kolasin be translated *cutting-off* or *punishment* at Matthew 25:46?<br />
"chastened." 2) "chastise, punish" (someone), "use" your proud words "in<br />
reproving them"; middle: "get" a person "punished"; passive: "to be<br />
punished"; of divine "retribution"; "suffer injury." 3) of a drastic method<br />
of checking the growth of the almond-tree. 4) passive: "to be badly in need<br />
of."<br />
Here are the glosses for KOLASIS<br />
1) "checking the growth of" trees, especially almond trees. 2)<br />
chastisement, correction"; of divine "retribution.">><br />
Vine's has "kolazo (2849) primarily denotes 'to curtail, prune, dock'"<br />
Thayer's has "1. prop. to lop, prune, as trees, wings."<br />
We see from the lexical evidence that kolazo means "to Prune or to lop" is one of the original primary<br />
meanings of the Greek word.<br />
Why are we so overly vengeful, when we do indeed know that the unrighteous will not get any reward;<br />
they will indeed get "eternal punishment" in the sense that "These will suffer the *punishment of eternal<br />
destruction*" (NRSV) as 2 Thessalonians 1:9.<br />
Commenting on this, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D. has this to say:<br />
"Eternal Punishment." Christ's solemn declaration: "They will go away into eternal<br />
punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt 25:46) is generally regarded as the clearest<br />
proof of the conscious suffering the lost will endure for all eternity. Is this the only legitimate<br />
interpretation of the text? John Stott rightly answers: "No, that is to read into the text what is not<br />
necessarily there. What Jesus said is that both the life and the punishment would be eternal, but<br />
he did not in that passage define the nature of either. Because he elsewhere spoke of eternal life<br />
as a conscious enjoyment of God (John 17:3), it does not follow that eternal punishment must be<br />
a conscious experience of pain at the hand of God. On the contrary, although declaring both to be<br />
eternal, Jesus is contrasting the two destinies: the more unlike they are, the better."34<br />
Traditionalists read "eternal punishment" as "eternal punishing," but this is not the meaning of<br />
the phrase. As Basil Atkinson keenly observes, "When the adjective aionios meaning<br />
'everlasting' is used in Greek with nouns of action it has reference to the result of the action, not<br />
the process. Thus the phrase 'everlasting punishment' is comparable to 'everlasting redemption'<br />
and 'everlasting salvation,' both Scriptural phrases. No one supposes that we are being<br />
redeemed or being saved forever. We were redeemed and saved once for all by Christ with<br />
eternal results. In the same way the lost will not be passing through a process of punishment for<br />
ever but will be punished once and for all with eternal results. On the other hand the noun 'life'<br />
is not a noun of action, but a noun expressing a state. Thus the life itself is eternal."35<br />
A fitting example to support this conclusion is found in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, where Paul,<br />
speaking of those who reject the Gospel, says: "They shall suffer the punishment of eternal<br />
destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." It is<br />
evident that the destruction of the wicked cannot be eternal in its duration, because it is difficult<br />
to imagine an eternal, inconclusive process of destruction. Destruction presupposes annihilation.<br />
The destruction of the wicked is eternal–aionios, not because the process of destruction<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kolasin.htm (2 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:57:55 AM]
Should kolasin be translated *cutting-off* or *punishment* at Matthew 25:46?<br />
continues forever, but because the results are permanent. In the same way, the "eternal<br />
punishment" of Matthew 25:46 is eternal because its results are permanent. It is a punishment<br />
that results in their eternal destruction or annihilation."<br />
http://www.intowww.org/bible/death6.htm<br />
He goes on to say,<br />
"The Meaning of "Punishment." Note should also be taken of the word "punishment" used to<br />
translate the Greek word kolasis. A glance at Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek<br />
Testament shows that the word was used at that time with the meaning of "pruning" or "cutting<br />
down" of dead wood. If this is its meaning here, it reflects the frequent Old Testament phrase<br />
*shall be cut off from his people*"<br />
Let us take a look at those scriptures:<br />
Gen 17:14, "And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul<br />
shall be cut off from his people. He hath broken my covenant."<br />
Ex 30:33, 38, "Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, he<br />
shall be cut off from his people...Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereof, he shall be cut<br />
off from his people."<br />
Lev 7:20, 21, 25, 27, "But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain<br />
unto Jehovah, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people... And when<br />
any one shall touch any unclean thing, the uncleanness of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean<br />
abomination, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which pertain unto Jehovah, that<br />
soul shall be cut off from his people... For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an<br />
offering made by fire unto Jehovah, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his<br />
people...Whosoever it be that eateth any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people."<br />
Num 9:13. "But the man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, that<br />
soul shall be cut off from his people."<br />
see also Ex 9:15; 12:15, 19; 31:14; Lev 17:4, 9, 14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:17, 18; 22:3; 23:29; Num 15:30, 31;<br />
19:13, 20; Deut 12:29; 19:1; 2Sam 7:9 etc<br />
Hence, is it any wonder that <strong>Bible</strong> translators choose the alternative reading with the best evidence<br />
internally, "And these will go into agelasting [cutting off] [restraint], but the righteous into agelasting<br />
life." 21st Century NT<br />
Interestingly, we read in this scripture what should be the antithesis of everlasting life, which is of<br />
course, everlasting death (not some medieval notion of living souls suffering torment). Biblically, the<br />
antithesis of life is...death (not eternal torment). See Num 35:31; Deut 30:15, 19; Jg 16:30; 2Sam 15:21;<br />
Ps 78:50; Prov 12:28; 13:14; 14:27; 18:21; Jer 8:3; 21:8; 52:34; Jn 5:24; Rom 5:10, 17, 21; 6:4, 10; 7:10;<br />
8:6, 38, 1Cor 3:22; 2Cor 2:16; 4:11,12; Php 1:20; 1Jn 3:14;<br />
5:16; Rev 2:10; 12:11.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> has always held out one hope to the opposite of another:<br />
Prov 11: 19 He that is stedfast in righteousness shall attain unto life; And he that pursueth evil<br />
doeth it to his own death.<br />
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.<br />
"For evil-doers shall be cut off; But those that wait for Jehovah, they shall<br />
inherit the land." Ps 37:9<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kolasin.htm (3 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:57:55 AM]
Should kolasin be translated *cutting-off* or *punishment* at Matthew 25:46?<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
Click here for more Ankerberg/Weldon complaints on the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kolasin.htm (4 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:57:55 AM]
H ARCH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU...Is Christ a Created Being or the<br />
H ARCH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU...Is Christ a Created Being or the<br />
Ruler/Source of Creation!<br />
Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901<br />
The words "of" or "of the" is characteristic of genitive phrases.Greek has five<br />
cases—nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and vocative. How a word is<br />
spelled can vary depending on the case in which it is used. In Greek as well<br />
as in English the genitive case can mean a number of different relations or<br />
connections that the word in the genitive case has to the person or thing<br />
that it modifies.<br />
Wherever in scripture, both the NT and the Septuagint OT, arche is followed<br />
by a genitive phrase "of the ...", that which is called the "arche" is a<br />
always a member of the group referred to in the genitive phrase.<br />
But Ankerberg/Weldon quote Metzger as saying ,<br />
"Actually, the word ARCHE, translated "beginning" carries with it the Pauline idea<br />
expressed in Colossian 1:15-18, and signifies that Christ is the origin, or primary source, of<br />
God's creation (compare also John 1:3, "Apart from him not one thing came into<br />
existence)."<br />
We can see that Metzger's theory has been put into motion by the change of the RSV's "the beginning of<br />
God's creation" to "the origin of God's creation" in the New RSV. Other <strong>Bible</strong>s in recent times have<br />
followed this faddish move, as we will see in the list below.<br />
There are three other scriptures that use the words *beginning/ARCH* and *creation/ KTISEWS*<br />
(which are also genetive constructions).<br />
Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them."<br />
Mark 13:19. "For those days shall be tribulation, such as there hath not been the like from the beginning<br />
of the creation which God created until now, and never shall be."<br />
2Peter 3:4 "Where is the promise of his coming? for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things<br />
continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."<br />
Let us see how faithfully these have been rendered:<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Version Mark 10:6 Mark 13:19 2 Peter 3:4 Revelations 3:14<br />
New Revised Standard Version beginning beginning beginning Origin<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong> beginning beginning N/A* origin<br />
New International Version beginning beginning beginning ruler<br />
Contemporary English Version beginning N/A N/A source<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong> beginning beginning beginning source<br />
New English <strong>Bible</strong> beginning beginning N/A source<br />
Ferrar Fenton beginning beginning beginning beginner<br />
Holman Christian Standard beginning beginning beginning Originator<br />
Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> beginning beginning began source<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> beginning N/A beginning Principle<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> beginning beginning N/A source<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/arche.htm (1 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:59:59 AM]
H ARCH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU...Is Christ a Created Being or the<br />
Williams NT beginning beginning beginning origin<br />
Beck beginning beginning first Origin<br />
James Moffatt Translation beginning beginning beginning origin<br />
Amplified <strong>Bible</strong> beginning beginning beginning origin/beginning<br />
/author<br />
Jewish New Testament beginning beginning beginning ruler<br />
Wuest's Expanded NT beginning N/A beginning originating source<br />
God's Word NT beginning beginning beginning source<br />
New Life New Testament beginning beginning beginning<br />
the one who<br />
made everything<br />
LITV Jay P Green beginning beginning beginning Head<br />
Simple English <strong>Bible</strong> beginning beginning beginning Source<br />
Smith & Goodspeed beginning beginning beginning origin<br />
* Left untranslated<br />
As we can see, there is a particular bias at play here in regards of the inconsistency of translating this<br />
expression as it relates to Christ.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong>s that have not allowed bias to change the meaning of beginning/creation with the genetive are<br />
as follows: King James Version, New King James Version, Revised Version, American Standard<br />
Version, Aitken <strong>Bible</strong>, Tyndale's <strong>Bible</strong>, Geneva <strong>Bible</strong>, Douay, New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong>, New<br />
<strong>World</strong> Translation, Kleist & Lilly, Confraternity, Worrell NT, Webster <strong>Bible</strong>, the Message, Lattimore<br />
NT, Montgomery NT, Schonfield, 20th Century, Darby, 21st Century, Emphatic Diaglott, Weymouth<br />
NT, Revised Standard Version etc.<br />
Perhaps it is this genetive construction that has prompted the BAGD , A Greek-English Lexicon of the<br />
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker (Editor),<br />
William F. Arndt (Translator), F. Wilbur Gingrich, to make some changes in their revision, the BDAG.<br />
On page 138 that the interpretation that ARXH means that<br />
Christ was created at Rev 3:14 has been upgraded from poss. [possible] to prob. [probable].<br />
It cites the JTS article "Christ as ARCH of Creation,"<br />
by C.F.BURNEY, JTS XXVII. Burney considers the Hebrew ReSHit [beginning]<br />
in detail and concludes strongly against ARCH as "source":<br />
"Another New Testament allusion to Prov. viii 22 in reference to Christ is found in Rev. iii<br />
14 H ARXH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU, [the beginning of the creation of/by God] a title<br />
of the risen Christ which Dr Swete and Dr Charles have not a shadow of authority for<br />
limiting in meaning to 'the Source of God's Creation'. There is every reason to suppose that<br />
ARXH is here used with all the fullness and meaning which St Paul extracts from ReSHiT<br />
... "<br />
The BAGD/BDAG reference also cites Job 40:19 ARCH, speaking of Behemoth "He {is} ARCH [a<br />
beginning, first] of the ways of God". Behemoth was certainly not the source or "first cause" of God's<br />
ways, but rather was one of them, or a partitive genitive.<br />
The primary meaning of ARCH at Rev. 3:14 admits that Christ is a part of creation. It is for theological<br />
considerations that "source" and "first cause" are translated for ARCH, re: Alford:<br />
"The mere word ARCH would admit the meaning that Christ is the first created being; see<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/arche.htm (2 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:59:59 AM]
H ARCH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU...Is Christ a Created Being or the<br />
Gen [49].3; Deut. [21].17; and Prov. [8].22." - Alford's Greek New Testament."<br />
This is not something that Alford personally believes and he Alford borrows meanings for ARCH from<br />
the apocryphal Wisdom and The Gospel of Nicodemus. Now if others could just be as honest.<br />
As Jewish translator Hugh J. Schonfield (The Original New Testament) states at Rev 3:14 in a footnote,<br />
"Clearly, John the Elder himself believed that the heavenly Christ was a created being, as did the early<br />
Christians."<br />
Let us consider other examples of this to better explain it.<br />
Examples from the LXX: Gen. 10:10<br />
And the beginning (arche) of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of<br />
Shinar.<br />
Babel, Erech, Accad and Calneh were PART of Nimrod's kingdom.<br />
Gen. 49:3 Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of<br />
dignity, and the excellency of power:<br />
Rueben was the beginning, the first one of/PART of Jacob's generative strength.<br />
Deuteronomy 11:12 A land which the LORD thy God careth for: the eyes of the LORD thy God are<br />
always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the year.<br />
The beginning of the year was the first PART of the year.<br />
Deuteronomy 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a<br />
double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.<br />
The firstborn was the beginning, the first one/PART of his generative strength.<br />
Ruth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out<br />
of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.<br />
The beginning was the first PART of the harvest.<br />
2 Samuel 21:9 And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill<br />
before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the<br />
first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.<br />
21:10 And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the<br />
beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the<br />
air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night.<br />
The beginning was the first PART of the harvest.<br />
2 Kings 17:25 And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the LORD:<br />
therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which slew some of them.<br />
The beginning was the first PART of their dwelling there.<br />
Daniel 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew<br />
thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/arche.htm (3 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:59:59 AM]
H ARCH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU...Is Christ a Created Being or the<br />
The beginning was the first PART of the supplication.<br />
Examples from the NT:<br />
Matthew 24:8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.<br />
The beginning was the first PART of the sorrows.<br />
Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to<br />
this time, no, nor ever shall be.<br />
The beginning was the first PART of the world.<br />
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;<br />
The beginning was the first PART of the gospel according to Mark.<br />
Mark13:8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be<br />
earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of<br />
sorrows.<br />
The beginning was the first part of the sorrows.<br />
John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and<br />
his disciples believed on him.<br />
The beginning was the FIRST miracle among the miracles of Jesus.<br />
Phillipians 4:15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed<br />
from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.<br />
The beginning was the first PART of the gospel.<br />
Hebrews 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast<br />
unto the end;<br />
The beginning of their confidence was PART of their confidence.<br />
These examples and the ones in the chart clearly demonstrate the manner in which the phrase<br />
"beginning of the creation" at Revelation 3:14 should be understood. As in all the other Biblical<br />
examples the "arche" is a part "of the ...". This demonstrates that Christ is a PART, the FIRST part of the<br />
creation of God.<br />
Although "arche" can mean ruler, it must be noted that John NEVER uses "arche" in this manner. He<br />
consistently uses "arche" in the sense of "beginning".<br />
It should be noted as well that among the times "arche" is used to designate "ruler" in the NT 11 times,<br />
10 of those occurences the word appears in the plural or is signified to be understood as a plural by the<br />
word "every" or "all" along with it. Once, in Luke 20:20 it is used in a 'genitive' phrase and is a PART of<br />
that which is signified by the genitive.<br />
Can the word "arche" can mean "source" or "cause?"<br />
This claim however can not be substantiated in the Septuagint (LXX) or NT. We do not have any<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/arche.htm (4 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:59:59 AM]
H ARCH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU...Is Christ a Created Being or the<br />
examples (except for attempts to do so with Rev 3:14) within the <strong>Bible</strong> where "arche" can be shown to<br />
clearly mean "cause" or "source".<br />
Again, we have to keep in mind, again, that John NEVER used "arche" except in the sense of<br />
"beginning". The <strong>Bible</strong> has other words for "ruler" (archon), and "source/cause/author" (rhiza or aitios).<br />
We simply cannot find where"arche" is used in the sense of "author" or "source".<br />
So, the evidence clearly shows that the Apostle John considered Jesus Christ to be a "creation" of God.<br />
It is interesting that Metzger parallels Rev 3:14 with Col 1:15-18, which also has a genetive construction.<br />
Everytime the phrase, "the firstborn of" is used, it is used as part of a group. If it is "the firstborn of"<br />
Israel (Ex. 6:14), it is one of the sons of Israel, if it is "the firstborn of" Pharoah (Ex. 11:5) it is a member<br />
of the house of Pharoah, if it is "the firstborn of" beasts(Ex. 13:15) then it is an animal also. Why then<br />
should this rule be changed as it applies to "the firstborn of" creation? For more click here.<br />
In dealing with an objection similar to Metzger's, the following was pointed out on B-Greek:<br />
"In any event, you invoke what is said in Col. 1:15-18 and John 1:1-3 as support for your<br />
view that Christ created all things. However, Colossians 1:15 uses a term (PRWTOTOKOS)<br />
that could, just as with ARCH, invoke temporal notions with respect to Christ's being. But,<br />
putting that aside as an accepted area of dispute, in verse 16 the passive verb EKTISQH is<br />
used in reference to what someone else did EN AUTWi (= Christ). This could not<br />
grammatically be construed as an instance where it is said that Christ created all things, but<br />
where it is said that all things were created "in him" by someone else.<br />
The same is true of EKTISTAI in verse 17, where we also find DI' AUTOU, which, together<br />
with the passive verbs, clearly involves the idea of agency, namely, Christ as the medium or<br />
instrument through which someone else created (this concept of mediation does recall what<br />
is said of Wisdom in Proverbs 8, regardless of who/what we think Wisdom might be, there).<br />
This is significant for we also find this construction in John 1:1-3, to which you also refer.<br />
When we compare these texts with 1Cor 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2-3 it is hard, if not reasonable<br />
impossible, to escape the conclusion that God created through Christ.<br />
Significantly, in Revelation 3:14 we find that Christ is the hH ARCH THS KTISEWS<br />
**TOU QEOU**. Thus, even if we accepted "source" for ARCH, here, it is still hH KTISIS<br />
TOU QEOU, and, hence, shows that the position of creator belongs to someone other than<br />
hH ARCH, namely, the God mentioned.<br />
So, if a temporal beginning is not meant for Christ's being in this verse, as the first of God's<br />
creation (which is *strikingly* similar to what we read in the LXX of Proverbs 8 [KURIOS<br />
EKTISE ME ARCHN hODWN AUTOU EIS ERGA AUTOU]), then it would seem to me<br />
that "ruler" would be a better fit; however, we are then confronted with the fact that where<br />
ARCH has the meaning of "ruler," in the NT it is always accompanied by words denoting<br />
authority, power, etc., as Wes pointed out and which BAGD suggests."<br />
Metzger also complains about the NWT's use of *by God* rather than *of God* in Revelation 3:14. He<br />
is right about the wording of *by God* usually requiring a preposition (like UPO for instance), but Rev<br />
3:14 is different in that the last 4 words, THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU, are all genetive.<br />
Subscribe to jehovahbible<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/arche.htm (5 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:59:59 AM]
H ARCH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU...Is Christ a Created Being or the<br />
Powered by groups.yahoo.com<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/arche.htm (6 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:59:59 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses<br />
On Cults, Jesus as Michael the Archangel, His being raised in the spirit, and the sorry state of<br />
*Orthodoxy*!<br />
Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901<br />
Mr Hansen's page on Dr Wilson's is at http://www.jehovahswitnessesandthetruth.com/7ways.html<br />
Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses are a "cult," that is, they believe they are right and that all others are wrong<br />
and will not be saved unless they become Jehovah's Witnesses, too.<br />
All strands of Christianity have minor variations. What unites Christians, however, is our belief in Jesus as<br />
the unique and divine Son of God. This gives us a sense of unity with all Christians as brothers and sisters<br />
despite differences in history and style.<br />
It is typical of cults, however, to see themselves as the only right way of serving God, and the only ones<br />
who will be saved when God judges mankind. In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, they systematically<br />
proselytize people who attend Christian churches, categorizing Christendom as "false religion," "the<br />
Harlot," and "Babylon the Great."[1]<br />
Reply: This reminds me of a comment I read in the book, "True for you, but Not for Me" by Copan. In it<br />
he writes, "The Hindu philosopher Swami Vivekenanda came to Chicago in 1893 to address the <strong>World</strong>'s<br />
Parliament of Religons. He told the delegates, 'We [Hindus] accept all religions to be true,' and '[it] is a<br />
sin to call a man [a sinner].' What a problematic and self-contradictory view! The swami calls someone a<br />
sinner - because that person has called another a sinner. If the exclusivist is a sinner for calling all people<br />
sinners, then the Hindu is just as much a sinner for calling the exclusivist a sinner." p.34<br />
JW's are called a cult by those who have arrogantly elevated themselves above JW's. In doing so, the<br />
opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses are spreading hatred and bigotry against them. This is especially<br />
troubling as JW's also view Jesus as "the unique and divine Son of God."<br />
Dr Wilson condemns JW's for saying that they are the only right way of serving God, yet the whole point<br />
of his article is to show that Wilson is right and JW's are wrong. You can't have it both ways, sorry.<br />
If we take a look at say, Bob Larson's Book of Cults, we realize that according to mainstream<br />
evangelicals, there are many many cults. According to the criteria set out in this book, five american<br />
presidents are cultists, as is Isaac Newton and other prominent people. People write to me to tell me that<br />
Catholicism is a cult, as is Islam and the Eastern religious cults. This accounts for most of the world's<br />
population. Evidently, anyone is a cultist if they simply don't believe the same as you. The word "cult" is<br />
so overused it has completely lost its power.<br />
I have been tracking fundamentalists Baptists online for awhile, and people might be interested in what<br />
they are thinking. Fundamentalist David Cloud on the Gideons as posted by Baptist John Henry:<br />
"Another foundational problem with the Gideons is their ecumenism. They go to all sorts of<br />
unscriptural churches, including modernistic Protestant ones, such as United Methodist,<br />
Presbyterian Church USA, and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, that are affiliated<br />
with the <strong>World</strong> Council of Churches."<br />
Yet more by Baptist John Henry:<br />
"Dear Hinez, [sic]<br />
Independent fundamental local church Baptists do hold the only true saving faith<br />
(salvation by grace through faith in Christ apart from any works), but we are not the only<br />
ones that have this saving faith.<br />
Independent fundamental local church Baptists are, however, Christ's true churches<br />
whereas the Roman Catholic "Church", all Protestant "churches", Universal "Church", and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (1 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
cults [including SDA] are not."<br />
Mr Henry has a strong web presence, and it is difficult for him to admit that anyone else also shares "the<br />
only true saving faith."<br />
Also:<br />
"Now, when I was growing up, I heard that the Baptists were the only true faith because we<br />
went back past Peter, to John the Baptist, who baptized Jesus by immersion. Anybody that<br />
had not received believer's baptism by being dunked under the water, not some little<br />
sprinkling, had a defect."<br />
By Pastor Lanny Peters<br />
http://www.oakhurstbaptist.org/obc/Sermons/Sermon_2000_10_01_<strong>World</strong>Communion=.htm<br />
"It is not to be understood that each of these groups was entirely free from error or entirely<br />
embraced the truth. Through these groups can be traced the people called Baptists. In these<br />
groups is to be found the true church -- not in Catholicism.<br />
http://members.aol.com/libcfl/history.htm<br />
"Baptists did not come out of the Reformation under Martin Luther, for they were never a<br />
part of the Catholic Church. In fact Baptists were on the scene long before the Catholic<br />
Church ever came into existence. For those who are interested in studying more on this<br />
subject we highly recommend The Trail of Blood, by J. M. Carroll.<br />
We do not believe in a so-called "Universal Invisible Church." We believe that Jesus<br />
established a local, visible church, and we are sure that this is the only kind of true church<br />
that is in existence today.<br />
http://www.victorybaptist.org.uk/whatwebelieve.html<br />
"At another extreme, the follower of one faith approaches the other from a position of<br />
superiority. She/he assertively presents theirs as the only true religion. Other faiths,<br />
including the religion of the listener, may [sic] described as inferior, filled with errors, and<br />
even Satan-inspired. The proselytizer might state that the other will spend eternity being<br />
tortured in Hell unless they convert to the proselytizer's religion...."However, the implicit<br />
suggestion in Southern Baptist prayer guides is that 'others, including Christians, who<br />
do not practice the Christian faith as they do are not as Christian,' contended United<br />
Methodist Bishop C. Joseph Sprague, a member of the inter-faith council. 'That is insulting<br />
to us and conducive to real hurt.' With the recent defamation of synagogues and deaths<br />
attributed to hate crimes in the Chicago area, the bishop said, 'it's no stretch to look back at<br />
history and see cause and effect.' "<br />
"Sprague said the incident reflects the theological divide between Christians about<br />
evangelism. Evangelical Christians, like Southern Baptists, believe that salvation comes<br />
only by accepting Jesus Christ as savior. Others consider Christ as the decisive revelation<br />
and that believers witness their faith by living life 'with Jesus Christ as savior, living and<br />
proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ.' It is clear as the Southern Baptist leadership<br />
has communicated that they have a hold on truth, and others who do not agree are<br />
outside the fold of salvation,' the bishop said. 'That is offensive and theologically<br />
suspect...This raises deep historic wounds, particularly in the Jewish community. It is<br />
important for us as Christians to remember that this is still the century of the Holocaust.' "<br />
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chi_decl.htm<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (2 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
Of course, it is not only Baptists:<br />
"Is Evangelism the only true faith? It is the truest. The Lord decides [I'm a big believer in<br />
the absolute sovereignty of God] what is best for each of us and guides us to what food we<br />
can digest."<br />
http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?action=oct99_1&startwith=40<br />
"The Pentecostals of Clearwater is part of the United Pentecostal Church International,<br />
which has 2.6-million members around the world. Greg Bowe, 30, an analyst at an insurance<br />
and security firm, said he began attending a year ago "because it's the only true faith ... it<br />
doesn't cut things out of the <strong>Bible</strong>." "The spirit of God is like nothing else," he said about<br />
speaking in tongues. "It's a joy no amount of alcohol, money or drugs can give you."<br />
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/07/06/NorthPinellas/Congregation_is_thril.shtml<br />
"the only true Church of Christ is the Catholic Church."<br />
http://www.truecatholic.org/baltapx.htm<br />
"I would like to teach this week on the deity of Christ, and the truth concerning the Jesus<br />
only faith, which is the only true faith set forth by God's apostles and the old testament<br />
writings that firmly establish the oneness of God."<br />
http://truelightpentecostal.org/042902.html<br />
"The Slavophils thought that Russian people live by the Orthodox faith, which is the only<br />
true faith containing the entire<br />
truth... http://www.earlham.edu/archive/opf-l/May-2001/msg00043.html<br />
"it has Apostolic foundations and it has the Apostolic Succession. The Orthodox Church<br />
believes it is the only true Church which has kept all these distinctive marks."<br />
http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/ortho.htm<br />
Orthodox Church<br />
"Thinking (like so many others) that they are the One And Only True Church"<br />
http://www.godulike.co.uk/az.php?order=o<br />
You cannot condemn Jehovah's Witnesses for believing they have true faith, and at the same time<br />
embrace the same view for yourself. When you talk out of both sides of your mouth, you are simply<br />
blowing alot of hot air.<br />
JESUS CHRIST was accused of being a drunkard, a glutton, a Sabbath breaker, a false witness, a<br />
blasphemer of God, and a messenger of Satan. He was also accused of being subversive.—Matthew 9:34;<br />
11:19; 12:24; 26:65; John 8:13; 9:16; 19:12.<br />
After Jesus' death and resurrection, his disciples were likewise the target of serious accusations. One<br />
group of first-century Christians were dragged to the city rulers by people yelling: 'The men who have<br />
made trouble the whole world over have now come here.' (Acts 17:6 REB)<br />
Of Paul they said that he was a "pestilent mover of sedition among the Jews throughout the world" and<br />
accused of "a violation of the temple." (Acts 24:5, 6 Knox) It was these Christians "The only thing we<br />
do know about this sect is that there is universal opposition to it."—Acts 28:22 Barclay.<br />
It is obvious that this new group established by Jesus Christ was considered by some to be a religious<br />
group with radical views and practices that clashed with what was accepted in those days as "orthodox"<br />
or "mainstream." Their accusers were often prominent and respected members of the community, and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (3 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
this seems to have added weight to the allegations. Many believed the accusations against Jesus and his<br />
disciples. Yet, as you probably know, every one of these charges was false!<br />
How do we identify Jesus followers? Jesus said, "You must have love for one another. This is how<br />
everyone will know that you are my disciples." How has this love shown itself in "orthodox" or<br />
"mainstream" Xtianity. Let us see:<br />
Rwanda: The general secretary of the Catholic Institute for International Relations, Ian Linden, made the<br />
following admission in the journal The Month: "Investigations by African Rights in London provide one<br />
or two examples of local Catholic, Anglican and Baptist Church leaders being implicated by omission or<br />
commission in militia killings. . . . There is absolutely no doubt that significant numbers of prominent<br />
Christians in parishes were involved in killings." Sadly, fighting between so-called Christians continues<br />
to plague central Africa.<br />
As Daniel Defoe wrote in his work The True-Born Englishman: "And of all plagues with which mankind<br />
are curst, ecclesiastic tyranny's the worst."<br />
The Christian Century: "The earliest Christians did not serve in the armed forces. Roland Bainton notes<br />
that 'from the end of the New Testament period to the decade A.D. 170-180 there is no evidence<br />
whatever of Christians in the army.' . . . Only gradually did Christians abandon their opposition to<br />
military service . . . Once Augustine endorsed 'just war' as authorizing Christians' participation in military<br />
activities, 'just war' soon became whatever war their government engaged in."<br />
The article then exposes the real issue for Christians: "Can anyone seriously conceive of Jesus hurling<br />
hand grenades at his enemies, using a machine gun, manipulating a flamethrower, dropping nuclear<br />
bombs or launching an ICBM which would kill or cripple thousands of mothers and children? . . . If<br />
Jesus could not do this and be true to his character, then how can we do it and be true to him?"<br />
"Augustine's ['just war'] perversion of Christianity on this critical issue was the greatest calamity that<br />
ever befell the faith. It has cost Christians endless opportunities to witness for their central ethical<br />
principle: love your enemies and do good to them who despitefully use you. It may have done as much to<br />
hamper Christian evangelism as anything that has ever occurred."<br />
British Brigadier General Frank P. Crozier said of the situation during <strong>World</strong> War I: "The Christian<br />
Churches are the finest blood-lust creators which we have, and of them we made free use."<br />
That the position of the churches was indeed hypocritical was acknowledged by the late Protestant<br />
clergyman Harry Emerson Fosdick. He admitted: "Our Western history has been one war after another.<br />
We have bred men for war, trained men for war; we have glorified war; we have made warriors our<br />
heroes and even in our churches we have put the battle flags . . . With one corner of our mouth we have<br />
praised the Prince of Peace and with the other we have glorified war."<br />
The situation did not change during <strong>World</strong> War II. Friedrich Heer, a Roman Catholic professor of history<br />
at Vienna University, later acknowledged in his book God's First Love:<br />
"In the cold facts of German history, the Cross and the swastika came ever closer together,<br />
until the swastika proclaimed the message of victory from the towers of German cathedrals,<br />
swastika flags appeared round altars and Catholic and Protestant theologians, pastors,<br />
churchmen and statesmen welcomed the alliance with Hitler."—Page 247.<br />
"I bring you this stately matron named Christendom, returning bedraggled, besmirched, and<br />
dishonored from pirate raids in Kiao-Chow, Manchuria, South Africa, and the Phillipines,<br />
with her soul full of meanness, her pocket full of boodle, and her mouth full of pious<br />
hypocrisies. Give her soap and a towel, but hide the looking-glass."--Mark Twain, Speech<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (4 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
to the Red Cross<br />
"Then the Holy Inquisition was born...thousands of torn and mutilated heretics shrieking<br />
under the torture, and other thousands and thousands of heretics and witches burning at the<br />
stake, "always in the pleasant shade flung by the peaceful banner of the cross," as Satan<br />
remarked.<br />
And in the midst of these fearful spectacles, as an incidental matter, we had a marvelous<br />
nightshow, by the light of fitting and flying torches the butchery of Christian by Christian in<br />
France on Bartholomew's Day.--- Mark Twain<br />
Taking into account the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the violence surrounding the Councils,<br />
Christendom has become the most blood-thirsty of faiths<br />
For more go to http://www.mcauley.acu.edu.au/~yuri/ethics/war.html<br />
John Calvin had Michael Servetus killed for differences over doctrine, and Martin Luther was a vicious<br />
anti-semite and a tyrant. see<br />
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html<br />
See also http://www.world-hi.com/LeopoldsLettter.htm for an example of the racism in today's churches.<br />
"To bind eveything together and complete the whole, there must be love." Titus 3:10 REB<br />
Couple this with the gross ignorance that the members of "Christian churches" have towards the <strong>Bible</strong>,<br />
(see 50questions.htm#ignorance) then there is ample reason for JW's to "systematically proselytize<br />
people who attend Christian churches, categorizing Christendom as "false religion," "the Harlot," and<br />
"Babylon the Great."<br />
Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is the fully divine Son of God.<br />
Several heretical groups deny that Jesus is the fully divine, unique Son of God--Unitarians, Mormons,<br />
Christian Science, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses revive the ancient heresy put forward by<br />
Arius in the Fourth Century[2] and rejected by faithful Christians at the Council of Nicea.<br />
Reply: Regarding the Nicene Council and those that followed, Hans Kung in Christianity says,<br />
"The conciliar decisions plunged Chrisitianity into undreamed-of theological confusions<br />
with constant entanglements in church politics. They produced splits and sparked off a<br />
persecution of heretics unique in the history of religion. This is what Christianity became as<br />
it changed its nature from a persecuted minority to a majority persecuting others."<br />
The Nicene Council and the decisions surrounding it were marked by violence and death.<br />
(See "When Jesus Became God-The Epic Fight over Christ's Divinity in the Last Days of Rome" by<br />
Richard E. Rubenstein).<br />
Constantine was indifferent to the questions at hand.<br />
"Constantine, who treated religious questions solely from a political point of view, assured<br />
unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new profession of faith. In<br />
this way unity was achieved/ 'It was altogether unheardof that a universal creed should be<br />
instituted solely on the authority of the emperor, who as a catechumen was not even<br />
admitted to the mystery of the Eucharist and was totally unempowered to rule on the highest<br />
mysteries of the faith. Not a single bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing."<br />
[Walter Nigg, The Heretics, Heresy Throught the Ages, p127]<br />
For more go to Constantine.htm<br />
"Faithful Christians" indeed...<br />
"The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (5 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
official. The subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . .<br />
Finally, cart-loads of saints raised to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain<br />
old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, it was the most polytheistic<br />
religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This untenable<br />
contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt<br />
with by accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later<br />
Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view -<br />
Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. "<br />
"The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely<br />
on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must<br />
therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit<br />
from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages." -- The Doubter's Companion<br />
(John Ralston Saul)<br />
Wilson: For Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus is not fully God, but "a god."<br />
Reply: I really don't see why people harp on this as the <strong>Bible</strong> also calls Jehovah "a god." Deut 4:7. For<br />
what great nation is there, that hath a god so nigh unto them, as Jehovah our God is whensoever we call<br />
upon him? American Standard Version For more on John 1:1c and "a god" go to wisdom.htm.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> calls Jesus "God," but every time it does the context always shows that Jesus is less than the<br />
Eternal, Almighty God. Jesus is a "begotten god," he is "*with* The god" and he has a God (Jn 1:18; 1:1;<br />
Mt 27:46). The <strong>Bible</strong> always places Jesus as subject and less than Almighty! (Jn 14:28; 1Cor 15:28)<br />
Jesus has a God over him at every period of his existence. He always has a God above him (Mic.5:4,<br />
Jn.20:17, Rom.15:6, Rev.3:12).<br />
Before he came to earth Jesus was less than Almighty God, while he was<br />
on earth he was less than Almighty God and after he is in heaven and as<br />
high as he will ever get he is still less than Almighty God<br />
(1Cor.15:27,28, Eph. 1:17; 19-22). There is absolutely no support for any belief<br />
that makes Jesus equal or the same as the Almighty God YHWH at<br />
anytime in his existence.<br />
Wilson: They identify him as Michael the archangel.<br />
Reply: Is it just JW's that identify Jesus as Michael?<br />
John A. Lees, The International Standard <strong>Bible</strong> Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3,<br />
page 2048 states:<br />
"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ,<br />
finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel<br />
in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl.<br />
Protestant Reformer JOHN CALVIN said regarding "Michael" in its occurence at<br />
Daniel 12:1:<br />
"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of<br />
Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing<br />
forward for the defense of his elect people."<br />
J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T.<br />
Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.<br />
WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER, DOCTOR OF DIVINITY, stated:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (6 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the<br />
best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the <strong>Bible</strong> representations of Michael<br />
agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I),<br />
and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--William L. Alexander,<br />
ed., A CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, originally edited by John Kitto,<br />
3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158<br />
From Brittanica.com:<br />
"Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology, which had already played a role in<br />
Rome in the early 2nd century--namely, the so-called angel-Christology. The descent of the<br />
Son to Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who<br />
became man in Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael.<br />
In the old angel-Christology the concern is already expressed to preserve the oneness of<br />
God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all<br />
paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is<br />
moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim--i.e.,<br />
defending the idea of the oneness of the Christian concept of God against all reproaches that<br />
Christianity introduces a new, more sublime form of polytheism."<br />
http://mamma66.mamma.com/Search?eng=MSN&cb=Mamma&dest=http%3A%2F%2<br />
Fwww.britannica.com%2Fbcom%2Feb%2Farticle%2F1%2F0%252C5716%252C1083<br />
01%2B3%252C00.html&engid=599&af=0&qtype=0&qw=angel+christology&idx=0<br />
A <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary published by Logos International, an evangelical<br />
Protestant outfit, says:<br />
"Michael ... in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish<br />
nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of the angelic army. So exalted are the position and<br />
offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." -- INTERNATIONAL<br />
BIBLE DICTIONARY -- ILLUSTRATED (Plainfield, NJ, Logos International, 1977), p. 35<br />
Regarding the occurence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10, Methodist<br />
commentator ADAM CLARKE remarked:<br />
"By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume<br />
commentary -- not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon<br />
Press, vol. 6, page 952).<br />
LANGE"S COMMENTARY calls the figure here(Rev 12:7-10) "the warlike form of<br />
Christ." J.P. Lange's COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, s.v. Rev. 12:7<br />
AN EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE, produced by 27 different scholars, says of<br />
Michael:<br />
"It is even itself probable that the Leader of the hosts of light (in Rev. 12:7-9) will be no<br />
other than the Captain of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.... Above all, the<br />
prophecies of Daniel, in which the name Michael first occurs, may be said to decide the<br />
point." -- publ. in Hartford, CT, 1910, by the Scranton Co., vol. 6, p.882<br />
Matthew Henry Commentary:<br />
Concerning Revelation 12:9 in Henry’s unabridged and concise commentaries.<br />
2. The parties-Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the<br />
other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (7 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to<br />
the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their<br />
salvation.<br />
Verses 7-11 The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to<br />
his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom<br />
of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful<br />
followers; and Satan and his instruments.<br />
Concerning Daniel 10 in Henry’s unabridged commentary.<br />
Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but<br />
injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but<br />
an archangel of the highest order, 1 Th. 4:16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the<br />
archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the<br />
angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5.<br />
John Wesley:<br />
Chapter XII<br />
A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning<br />
the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 For the<br />
children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some<br />
deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael<br />
your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of<br />
Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time<br />
of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.<br />
Wesley on Daniel 10:21<br />
Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes<br />
of the earth desert or oppose it.<br />
Geneva Study <strong>Bible</strong>:<br />
Da 12:1<br />
12:1 And at that {a} time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the<br />
children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since<br />
there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered,<br />
every one that shall be found written in the book.<br />
(a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and<br />
trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here<br />
calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.<br />
Da 10:1310:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty<br />
days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there<br />
with the kings of Persia. (h) Meaning Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence, and<br />
did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if<br />
God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church.<br />
(i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of<br />
his love he sends forth double power, even<br />
Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (8 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
"The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm<br />
the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the<br />
Logos, has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage. Hofmann<br />
(Schriftbeweis i., p. 296) objects to this explanation, and says, 'in this case it is impossible to<br />
imagine why the Archangel should be mentioned as fighting with the dragon, and not the<br />
child that was caught up to the throne of God.' But we have already replied to this in the<br />
commentary, where we said, 'if Michael be Christ, the question arises why Michael is<br />
mentioned here instead of Christ'. The answer to this is, that the name Michael [Who is like<br />
God?, that is, 'Who dares to claim that they are like God?'] contains in itself an intimation<br />
that the work referred to here, the decisive victory over Satan, belongs to Christ, not as<br />
human, but rather as divine [compare 1 John iii. 8]. Moreover, this name forms a<br />
connecting link between the Old Testament and the New. Even in the Old Testament,<br />
Michael is represented as the great prince, who fights on<br />
behalf of the Church (Dan. xii. 1).' The conflict there alluded to was a prediction and<br />
prelude of the one mentioned hero. The further objections offered by Hofmann rest upon<br />
his very remarkable interpretation of chap. xii., which is not likely to be adopted by any who<br />
are capable of examining for themselves."<br />
—Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the<br />
Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel<br />
publication).<br />
Paul says, 'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,<br />
with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" and the dead<br />
in Christ will rise first.' I Thes. iv. 16. From this text it appears<br />
that when the Lord shall descend with a shout, his voice will be that of<br />
the Archangel, or head Messenger; therefore the Lord must be that head<br />
Messenger. This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the<br />
Archangel; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be raised by his<br />
voice. He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming,<br />
and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and<br />
they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming,<br />
in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come<br />
forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they<br />
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John v. 26,<br />
28, 29.<br />
Brown's dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> on the words Michael, and Angel says, that both these words do<br />
sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel. Wood's Spiritual Dictionary<br />
teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown's does. The former was a Calvinist, the<br />
latter a Methodist. Buck in his Theological Dictionary says, under the article Angel, d) that Christ is in<br />
scripture frequently called an Angel.[1] Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert<br />
that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.<br />
Doctor Coke, a Methodist bishop, in his notes on the <strong>Bible</strong>, acknowledges that Christ is sometimes called<br />
an Angel. See his notes of that passage where the Angel of the Lord spake to the people at Bochim.<br />
Winchester has taught the same doctrine in the 152 page of the first volume of his lectures on the<br />
prophecies. Whitefield, in his sermon on the bush that burnt and was not consumed, says that the Angel<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (9 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
that appeared to Moses in the bush was Christ. Pool, in his Annotations, explains those passages where<br />
the Lord appeared to the Patriarchs under the character of an Angel, as referring to Jesus Christ. Bunyan<br />
makes the pilgrim ascribe his deliverance from Apollyon to Michael. He says, "Blessed Michael helped<br />
me." Pilgrim's Progress, Cincinnati edition, page 54. Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on<br />
Rev.<br />
xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it<br />
as his opinion.<br />
Doctor Watts in his [G]lories of Christ, page[s] 200, 201, 202, 218, 223, and 224, teaches the same<br />
doctrine. Watts, Dodridge and some others have called this Angel of the covenant, or Angel of God's<br />
presence Christ's human soul, whom they think was the first Being that God ever created. I agree with<br />
them that Christ is the first Being that God created, but I cannot see the propriety of calling the<br />
pre-existent Christ a human soul, seeing he did not descend from humans but existed before the human<br />
family was created.<br />
E.W. Hengstenberg, in his Christologie des Alten Testaments und Kommentar uber die messianischen<br />
Weissagungen, Bd. iii. 2 Aufl. 1857 identifies the archangel Michael with the Logos-Christ.<br />
Thomas Scott, in his notes on the <strong>Bible</strong>, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her<br />
mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that<br />
appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was<br />
Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii<br />
throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7.<br />
"the influence of the late-Jewish speculation about the archangel Michael in the earlier<br />
period of Post-Apostolic Christianity helped to preserve the Angel-Christology: indeed it<br />
even provided new stimulus for the further development of Christology. In his day Wilhelm<br />
Bousset had already alluded to the fact, being the first to do so, in his writing about the<br />
'Antichrist'. The figure of the archangel Michael had perhaps already influenced Philo's<br />
speculation about the Logos, and Philo bad affected Christian authors of the Post-Apostolic<br />
period. in any case Philo did not identify the Logos with the Messiah, but with an<br />
archangel,s and he predicated to him that which was appropriate to the archangel Michael.<br />
Thus the late-Jewish speculation about Michael (which imparted Messianic traits to the<br />
archangel), the Philonic Logos-doctrine and the PostApostolic Logos-Christology appear in<br />
a sequence and indicate that the late-Jewish doctrine of angels was their common<br />
presupposition."<br />
Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 133<br />
Clement of Alexandria, 153—193—217 C.E. explains:<br />
Formerly the older people [the Israelites] had an old covenant, and the law disciplined the<br />
people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but the fresh and new people [the Christians]<br />
has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear turned into love,<br />
and that mystic angel is born—Jesus.—The Instructor, Book I, chapter VII (7); ANF, Vol.<br />
II, p. 224.<br />
Hippolytus, 170—236 C.E.:<br />
"And lo, Michael." and Who is Michael but the angel assigned to the people? As (God) says<br />
to Moses. "I will not go with you in the way, because the people are stiff-necked; but my<br />
angel shall go with you.—Scholia On Daniel, 13; ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 190. (Compare,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (10 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
Exodus 14:19; 23:20, 3; 32:34; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Insight On The Scriptures, Volume 2, p.<br />
816, paragraph 9.)<br />
Melito, 160-170-177 C.E.: (estimated dates of composition):<br />
He who in the law is the Law; among the priests, Chief Priest; among kings, the Ruler;<br />
among prophets, the Prophet; among the angels, Archangel; in the voice of the preacher, the<br />
Word; among spirits, the Spirit; in the Father, the Son; in God, God; King for ever and<br />
ever.—On Faith; ANF, Vol. VIII (8), pp. 756-7.<br />
In Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning The Shepherd of Hermas, of the 2nd or 3rd<br />
century:<br />
In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God's<br />
inner council, and who is regularly described as 'most venerable', 'holy' and 'glorious'. This<br />
angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas<br />
saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael...Christ's<br />
pre-existence, was generally taken for granted, as was His role creation as well as<br />
redemption. This theme, which could point to Pauline and Johannine parallels, chimed in<br />
very easily with creative functions assigned to Wisdom in later Judaism...There is evidence<br />
also...of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel ... Of a doctrine of the Trinity<br />
in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church's triadic formula left its<br />
mark everywhere—pp. 94-5.<br />
(see also Eerdman's Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>)-The Shepherd of Hermas was so near and dear to the<br />
ante-Nicene Fathers that many of them considered it canonical scripture.<br />
"For Justin the Logos-Christ was, therefore, the archistrategos, the highest angel-prince and<br />
leader of the angelic host." Werner, ibid. 135<br />
Scripture Proof: Michael has authority over the angels (Rev.12:7) and so does Jesus Christ (Mat.16:27;<br />
25:31; 2Thes.1:7).<br />
Michael leads the angels to defeat Satan and hurl him to earth (Re 12:7). So does Jesus. (Re 19:13,19).<br />
At 1Thes.4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel.<br />
The Greek for 'with an archangel's voice' is literally 'EN FWNHi ARXAGGELOU', in the oblique dative<br />
case. In all other occurrences of this idiom in the Greek New Testament it describes the voice of the<br />
subject in the clause.<br />
See: BAGD, page 878, [FWNH/phone - 1. Voice]<br />
All these references have 'phone' (FWNH) in an oblique case, genitive or dative, thus signifying not just a noise, but a<br />
voice.<br />
+ [Re 5:2] NRSV And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice:<br />
[ EN FWNHi (dat.) MEGALH (WH)]<br />
+ Re 14:7 (cf 9)] NRSV said in a loud voice: [ LEGWN EN FWNHi (dat.)<br />
MEGALH (WH) ]<br />
+ Joh 5:28] NRSV Do not astonished at this; for the hour is coming in<br />
which all those who are in their graves will hear his voice [ AKOUSOUSIN<br />
THS FWNHS (gen.) AUTOU (WH) ]<br />
+ 1Th 4:16 ] NWT because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with<br />
a commanding call, [ EN KELEUSMATI (WH) ] with an archangel's voice [ EN<br />
FWNHi (dat.) ARXAGGELOU (WH) ] and with God's trumpet, and those who are<br />
dead in union with Christ will rise first.<br />
+ Ac 9:7 ] NRSV (not referenced in BAGD) The men who were traveling<br />
with him stood speechless because they heard the voice, [ AKOUONTES MEN THS FWNHS (gen.) (WH) ] but saw no one.<br />
See also: Lu 4:33; Rev 5:2; 7:2; 10:3; 14:7,9,15,18;19:17; Ac 7:60.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (11 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
What about Heb 1:5, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I<br />
begotten thee?" The main point of Hebrews 1 is to elevate Jesus above the angels (an elevation that an<br />
Almighty would not need). Hence the ARCH in ARCHangel. For more click here.<br />
If the title "archangel" also applied to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel's voice" would not<br />
be appropriate.<br />
Jesus has been given authority by his Father to raise the dead. (Jn.5:25,26).<br />
But the voice of the archangel also raises the dead (1Thes. 4:16; cf Dan.12:2).<br />
Michael is called "the great prince" (Dan. 12:1).<br />
Christ is called a "princely ruler" and "prince of peace" (Isa.9:6).<br />
In Daniel chapter 7, there is a prophecy about the march of world powers to the end of the age. At the<br />
climax of that prophecy we read that "someone like a son of man" was "given rulership and dignity and<br />
kingdom," and that one is Jesus Christ. (Dan.7:13, 14) In another prophecy Daniel wrote that reached<br />
down to "the time of the end" (Dan.10:13;11:40) Michael would stand up: "And during that time Michael<br />
will stand up." (Da 12:1) In Daniel's prophecy, 'standing up' frequently refers to the action of a king,<br />
either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as King. (Dan.11:2-4,7,16,20,21)<br />
Michael's "standing" indicates a ruler and supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since<br />
Jesus is Jehovah's/Yahweh's appointed King.<br />
Both prophecies deal with the same time and the same event...thus the conclusion is obvious.<br />
Satan is abyssed by an *angel* for a thousand years. (Rev.20:1, 2, 10)<br />
The demons identified Christ as the one who was to hurl them into the "abyss" (Mt 8:29).<br />
The nations are destroyed by Jesus and *his* army of angels. (Rev.12:12; 17:16, 17; 19:11-16)<br />
Jesus is also prophesied as the seed that is to crush Satan's head (Gen.3:15), but yet Michael with "his<br />
angels" who does this in Revelation 12.<br />
Wilson: They believe he is God's first creation, and thus a creature rather than the Creator.<br />
Reply: It is the <strong>Bible</strong> that calls Jesus "the firstborn of all creation," "the beginning of God's creation," the<br />
"only-begotten Son" and links Jesus to the "created" Wisdom of Proverbs (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14; Jn 3:16;<br />
Prov 8:22-30 cf. Lu 11:47/1Cor 1:24 RSV).<br />
Wilson: The <strong>Bible</strong>, on the contrary, says of Jesus, "In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily<br />
form."<br />
Reply: Dr Wilson and others who use this scripture to buttress their views should be careful here. Since<br />
Trinitarians view the Godhead/Deity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then it would be impossible for all<br />
of them to live in Christ, as according to Trinitarian theology, Jesus is neither the Father not the Spirit.<br />
For more on Colossians 2:9 go to theotes.htm.<br />
Wilson: For Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus' resurrection was not physical but spiritual.[7] Like the angels, "he<br />
was obliged to materialize a body of flesh in order to make himself visible."[8] This is how Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses explain that Jesus' second coming--his second "presence," as they call it--"is unseen to natural<br />
human eyes."[9] True Christians believe that Jesus' resurrection was physical. The body was gone. He told<br />
his disciples. "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have<br />
flesh and bones as you see that I have."[10] True Christians also expect to see Jesus return in the same way<br />
he was taken up into heaven.[11]<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses deny Jesus' full divinity, his physical resurrection, and his visible return.<br />
Reply: We believe that all who dwell in heaven are spirit beings. The angelic "sons of God" at Gen 6:2<br />
are called "supernatural beings" TEV1, CEV or "heavenly beings" TEV2, New Jewish P.Society.<br />
"God is a spiritual being" Jn 4:24 Weymouth<br />
Paul said, "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (12 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
corruption inherit incorruption." 1Cor 15:50<br />
To counteract the problem that this scripture causes, the NASB Zondervan Study <strong>Bible</strong> (NIV Study<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>) says at 1Cor 15:50, "*Flesh and blood* stands for perishable, corrupt, weak, sinful human<br />
beings."<br />
If this is truly the case, then why does Jesus share in it also (Heb 2:14)?<br />
Instead of giving "flesh and blood" new meaning, how do different <strong>Bible</strong> versions translate the phrase<br />
SARX KAI AIMA/Flesh and Blood?<br />
At Matthew 16:17 "flesh and blood" is rendered as "man/men" by the Amplified <strong>Bible</strong>, REB, NIV, NIrV,<br />
Simple English <strong>Bible</strong> and Williams NT, "human/human being" by TEV, Barclay, God's Word, Living<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, REB and NLT and "person" by NCV and Deaf Version.<br />
At Gal 1:16 "flesh and blood" is rendered "human being" by Phillips, 21st Century NT, NEB, Simple<br />
English <strong>Bible</strong>, Barclay and New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, and "man/person" by the NIV, REB, NCV and Deaf<br />
version and God's Word.<br />
At Eph 6:12 "flesh and blood" is rendered "humans" by CEV,"human beings" by TEV and NIrV, men by<br />
the Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>, and people bt the New Life NT, NCV and Deak version.<br />
In fact, in 1Cor 15:50; Mt 16:17 and Eph 6:12 fleshly bodies are contrasted to spirit beings. Would it not<br />
be better to leave the meaning then as Williams NT puts it, "Our physical bodies cannot take part in the<br />
kingdom of God [w/footnote Lit., flesh and blood (bodies) so physical]."<br />
It is special pleading to try to associate the term "flesh and blood" with a negative connotation.<br />
Other Scripture Proofs for Jesus' Spiritual Ascension:<br />
"even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more." 2Cor 5:16<br />
"The bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world." Jesus gave up up his human body as a<br />
sacrifice.<br />
Paul explains that it is not the body that is resurrected, but rather, he likens their experience to the<br />
planting and sprouting of a seed, in that "God giveth it a body even as it pleased him." (1Co 15:35-40)<br />
"He was manifested in the body, vindicated in the spirit." 1Tim 3:16 NEB<br />
"We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Heb 10:10)<br />
Jesus gave up his body once for all time.<br />
"Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to<br />
God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" (1Peter 3:18)<br />
"The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit." (1 Cor<br />
15:45)<br />
Well, then, what happened to Jesus' fleshly body in the tomb? Did not the disciples find his it empty?<br />
Yes they did, because God removed Jesus' body. Why did God do this? It fulfilled what had been written<br />
in the <strong>Bible</strong>. (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:31) Thus God removed Jesus' body, even as he had done before with<br />
Moses' body. (Deuteronomy 34:5, 6) If the body had been left in the tomb, Jesus' disciples could not have<br />
understood that he had been raised from the dead, since at that time they did not fully appreciate spiritual<br />
things.<br />
It should be noted that when Jesus did materialize in a human body following his resurrection, he was<br />
often not recognized, indicating that he did not use the same body to materialize into.<br />
Thus Mary Magdalene at first thought that Jesus was a gardener. At other times his disciples did not at<br />
first recognize him. In these instances it was not his personal appearance that served to identify him, but<br />
it was some word or action that they recognized.-(John 20:14-16; 21:6, 7; Luke 24:30, 31; Matt. 28:16,<br />
17)<br />
Supposing that Jesus has his earthly human body in heaven. Since clergymen who insist that Jesus has<br />
his human body in heaven teach that he is also God himself, then we know what God looks like. He<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (13 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
looks exactly like Jesus when He was on earth; perhaps six feet tall with a Jewish nose and curly hair, a<br />
beard, sex organs, and weighing about 200 pounds. However, Jesus told the Jews: "And the Father that<br />
sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his<br />
form[morphé]." (John 5:37) The apostle John also said to Christians: "Beloved, now are we children of<br />
God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall<br />
be like him; for we shall see him even as he is." (1 John 3:2) John's words would ring false if Jesus had<br />
his human body with him in heaven, for then we would know what Christians will be like in heaven after<br />
their resurrection from the dead.<br />
If Jesus has his human body in heaven, then he must have his whole digestive system, and his faithful<br />
disciples, on going to heaven, would also have the same things. Jesus said to them: " I appoint unto you a<br />
kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom."<br />
(Luke 22:29, 30) But Jesus also said: "Whatever goes into the mouth passes through the stomach and<br />
discharges into the sewer" (Matt. 15:17, NJB) So now that there are physical human bodies in heaven,<br />
something that was never true of any heavenly being before Jesus' *bodily* resurrection, all of a sudden<br />
there is a need for a divine sewer system. See, when you think things through to their logical conclusions<br />
you eventually see the fallacy of orthodoxy as it is viewed by nominal Christianity.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> knows what it is talking about when it says "flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom"! (1<br />
Cor. 15:50) In explaining the annual Atonement Day (Yom Kippur) of the Jews, Paul proves that Jesus<br />
Christ did not take his fleshly body with him to heaven but left it behind as a human sacrifice. This is all<br />
the more evident when you consider sacrifices done before Christ's death.<br />
In Leviticus 16, on the yearly Atonement Day the high priest carried the blood of the sacrificial bull and<br />
the sacrificial goat into the Most Holy of the sacred tabernacle made by human hands. The skins, the<br />
flesh and the dung of the bull and goat had to be burned outside the camp and be completely disposed of.<br />
In the same way, Jesus disposed of his body.<br />
Here, now, is how God's own Word explains this, in Hebrews 9:11, 12, 24-26:<br />
"But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and<br />
more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet<br />
through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into<br />
the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. For Christ entered not into a holy place<br />
made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the<br />
face of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into<br />
the holy place year by year with blood not his own; else must he often have suffered since<br />
the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to<br />
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."<br />
More on page 2<br />
This page is brought to you by John C's persistence (http://www.geocities.com/jcostouros/jw2.html), who<br />
notes:<br />
JohnC: "When I wrote to him, I believed all along that our correspondence was private and at a basic level.<br />
Certainly, I did not think to create a dissertation to impress him or the internet public. However, that was<br />
not the case with Heinz. He chose to take parts of my letters and publish them in his web site."<br />
Reply: John, your emails to me, much like this one, consisted of copying and pasting someone else's<br />
material attacking the Jehovah's Witnesses. There is nothing private or basic about a long diatribe bigoted<br />
against a certain group.<br />
Go to Part 2 of this reply<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (14 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson.htm (15 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses-Pt. 2<br />
On the Trinity, Predictions, the word "other", Analusai (Php 1:23), Hell, Soul, the New International<br />
Version, Blood, etc<br />
Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901<br />
Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses deny the Christian teaching of the Trinity.<br />
In addition to denying the divinity of Jesus, Jehovah's Witnesses also deny the personhood of the Holy<br />
Spirit. ....While the <strong>Bible</strong> does not use the term "Trinity," the idea is clearly there. For example, Jesus<br />
directed that people be baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."<br />
Reply: A already have a page completely dealing with these supposed proofs of the *personhood* of the<br />
holy spirit at spirit.htm .<br />
In short,<br />
"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament<br />
writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics and in Acts as a divine force<br />
or power." The Triune God, Fortman pp. 6, 15<br />
As for Mt 28:19, 20 since when is being baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the<br />
Holy Spirit," supposed to be the same as saying that they are of the same substance and essence?<br />
McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though<br />
advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: "This text, however, taken<br />
by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their<br />
equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552) Why? Let us look at one reason.<br />
Using a singular form of NAME does not necessarily denote singularity.<br />
Genesis 5:2 "Male and female created he them: and blessed them, and called their NAME Adam, in the<br />
day when they were created."<br />
Here two distinct and separate individuals are called by one NAME.<br />
Genesis 48:6 "And thy issue, that thou begettest after them, shall be thine; they shall be called after the<br />
name of their brethren in their inheritance." All the brothers had<br />
different names although the text represents that by the singular, "name".<br />
It is interesting that the NIV and NEB distributes the term by translating it "names".<br />
Genesis 48:16: "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named<br />
on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a mulititude in the midst<br />
of the earth." Did Abraham and Isaac have the same name? Clearly, the singular term here "name" is<br />
used in a distributive sense.<br />
Mark 5:9: "Then Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ ‘My name is Legion,’ he replied, ‘For we are<br />
many.’" In this case one name was given to a plural number of distinct demons.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> clearly distinguishes between the name of the Father and the name of the Son.<br />
Proverbs 30:4 (NIV):" Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the<br />
hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of<br />
the earth? What is HIS NAME, AND THE NAME OF HIS SON? Tell me if you know!"<br />
Revelation 14:1 (NIV): "Then I looked, and theme before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion,<br />
and with him 144,000 who had HIS NAME AND HIS FATHER’S NAME written on their foreheads." It<br />
is quite obvious that the Father has one name and that the Son has another.<br />
To look for anything else in Matt 28:19 also ignores the "authority" that is placed within the lexical range<br />
of ONOMA itself.<br />
If simply mentioning the 3 together ensures triunity, then God, and the Son and the angels must be some<br />
mysterious triad, as they are mentioned together more often, (Matt 18:10,11; Matt 16:27; Matt 24:36; Mk<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (1 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
8:38; Mk 13:32; Luk 9:26; 12:8; Jn1:51; 1Cor 4:9, 10; 1Tim:21; Heb 1:6; Heb 2:9; 1Pet 3:22; Rev 14:<br />
21,22)<br />
..or even Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Gen 50:24; Ex 2:24; 3:6, 15,16; 4:5; 6:3, 8; 33:1; Lev 26:42; Num<br />
32:11; Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 27; 29:13; 2Kings 13:23; Jer 33:26; etc).<br />
Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses predicted the date of Jesus' return several times. When they were proved<br />
wrong, they covered it up.<br />
Reply: Wilson is deceitful here. If it was covered up, how did he find out about it? Fact is, anything<br />
Witnesses write are a matter of public record. We have nothing to hide, and we certainly do not claim<br />
infallibility.<br />
We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding<br />
former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good<br />
reason for the change,-in fact, it is important that we should be willing to<br />
unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth. . . . It is our duty<br />
to "prove all things."-by the unerring Word,-"and hold fast to that which is<br />
good." -- "The Ten Virgins," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's<br />
Presence, October 1879, reprint, 38.<br />
So does date-setting suggest cult activity?<br />
"Apocalyptic thinking has been highly adaptable,and, as a result, it has persisted through<br />
two thousand years of Western history. These two characteristics - elasticity and<br />
persistence- have marked end-time thinking in the West for nearly two millenia. Both the<br />
great minds and the rank and file of the Christian church have thought<br />
about how the world will end - often with strikingly different conclusions. Such apocalyptic<br />
expressions show no sign of abating; they are alive and well as we approach 2000." p. 185<br />
The Last Days Are Here Again- A History of the End Times by Richard Kyle<br />
What does Kyle mean? Consider the past:<br />
Early Church fathers Hilarianus and Hippolytus predicted the end in 500 A.D.(Paula Fredriksen-Tyconius<br />
and Augustine on the Apocalypse)<br />
Irish Bishop James Ussher's prediction was for 1996.<br />
Puritans Issac Watts, Joseph Mede and the Mathers in America were date-setters.<br />
The Father of Protestantism himself, Martin Luther taught Christ would return by 1564.<br />
Does that mean that all Protestants or Lutherans are false prophets? No, of course not, but they are by the<br />
reasoning of a certain few.<br />
German Reformer Philip Melanchton was a date-setter too, as was German theolgian Johann Alsted.<br />
Remember the booklet, "88 Reasons Why the Rapture will be in 1988" by Edgar Whisenant? Also<br />
"Christ Returns by 1988: 101 Reasons Why" by Colin Deal.<br />
Or the Korean Christians(Pentecostals) for October 1992?<br />
The most famous one was actually a Baptist....William Miller who predicted 1843.<br />
Wait...there's more<br />
● In the 5th century, the Council of Ephesus decided the millenium had already begun.<br />
● Pope Gregory I, 590-604 C.E., predicted the imminent end of the world.<br />
● Spanish Monk Beatus predicts it for 800 A.D.<br />
● Aelfric, the Abbott of Eynsham predicts it for the year 1000.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (2 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Abbo of Fleury, the French Abbott predicts it for predicts it for 994/996.<br />
Richard of St. Vaast leads a pilgrimage for the predicted end in 1033.<br />
1184 is the target date for the return of the Antichrist according to many...<br />
and again in 1345-1385<br />
Joachim of Fiore(1135-1202) used the New Testament and the Trinity to proclaim the coming of<br />
the anti-christ in 1260 A.D.<br />
Speaking of the Trinity, the Church Father who first coined the term, Tertullian was a Montanist(a<br />
deeply apocalyptical sect).<br />
Jean de Roquetaillade announced it for 1366<br />
Roman Catholic, Arnald of Villanova, predicted the appearance of the Antichrist in 1378<br />
The Taborites predict it for 1420.<br />
Hans Hut announced the end for1528<br />
Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa announced it for 1533<br />
Melchior Hoffman announced it for 1593<br />
The Fifth Monarchists predicted between 1655-57<br />
A Lutheran named Adam Nachenmoser announced it for 1635<br />
Lutheran leader, Andreas Osiander announced it for 1672<br />
Jan Matthys announced for 1534<br />
Archbishop of York and Primate of England, Edwin Sandys (1519-1588) proclaimed the imminent<br />
end<br />
John Wycliffe announced it for 1379<br />
One of the first Baptist groups, The Anabaptists believed that the Millenium would occur in 1533<br />
Reformer John Foxe believed the last days would start in 1600. He was shared in this view by<br />
Robert Pont<br />
New England Minister Jonathan Edwards predicts 1866<br />
The Puritans predict it for 1700<br />
Emanuel Swedenborg predicts the end for 1757<br />
Anglican rector Thomas Beverly predict 1697<br />
Anglican rector John Mason for 1694<br />
Pierre Jurie predicts the end for 1689<br />
Sir Walter Raleigh, Hugh Broughton and Thomas Brightman thought it would not be until 1700<br />
Christopher Columbus said the world was going to end in 1656<br />
Deacon William Aspinwall (General Court) predicts the end for 1673<br />
Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly announced it for 1789<br />
The Shakers announced it for 1792<br />
Lavater announced it for 1795<br />
Some Christian believers in Russia thought that Peter the Great was the Anti-Christ in the 1660's.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (3 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Historic Jews in the 17th century believed that the Messiah would come in the year 1648.<br />
John Napier announced it for 1688 or 1700<br />
John Cummings of the Scottish National Church, predicted Jesus would return in 1865.<br />
Isaac Newton announced it for about another 90 years in his day<br />
Richard Brothers announced it for 1795<br />
Reverend M. Baxter (Church of England) predicts it for 1868<br />
● Scottish National Church official, the "Reverend" John Cumming (1807-1881) proclaimed<br />
"Redemption draweth Nigh" in 1867<br />
● In 1832 Pope Gregory XVI indicated that the time of the "plague of locusts<br />
(Revelation 9:3)" had arrived in his Encyclical "Mirari vos arbitramur."<br />
● Pat Robertson announced it for 2007(in a novel)<br />
● Chuck Smith, Pastor of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa proclaimed it for 1981<br />
● Tommy Hicks, a noted evangelist, received visions of the end in 1961<br />
● Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, predicted the world's end in the 19th. Century.<br />
● Elizabeth Claire Prophet announced it for 1989<br />
● Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California predicted the Rapture in 1981.<br />
● Hon-Ming Chen predicted Christ's return on March 31, 1998.<br />
● Methodist Joanna Southcott(1750-1814 announced she was the Bride of the Lamb and began to<br />
seal the 144,000<br />
● Early in the 20th century, Dr. Isaac M. Haldeman, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in New York<br />
City, predicted that the Antichrist would appear before the Jews return to Palestine<br />
● Assemblies of God official, Thomas M. Chalmers, announced it for the early 1920's<br />
● Pentecostal leader, Lester Sumrall predicts 1985<br />
● Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth, predicted the Rapture would occur in 1988.<br />
● Nationally syndicated TV show host (Prophecy in the News), J.R. Church predicted the rapture for<br />
1988.<br />
● David Webber and Noah Hutchings of the Southwest Radio Church (SRC) announced it for "1981<br />
or '88"<br />
● Salem Kirban - <strong>Bible</strong> prognosticator, predicted "the Rapture" would take place in 1989.<br />
● Benny Hinn predicted the Rapture would occur in 1993.<br />
● Dr. Jack van Impe has speculated that the end will come between September 1999 and 2000.<br />
● Grant Jeffrey predicts it for October 9, 2000<br />
● Texe Marrs predicts it for 2000 (Storming toward Armageddon, 1992)<br />
● Philip B. Brown has stated that the millennial reign of Christ will begin April 6, 2008.<br />
Dr. Harold Camping, president of Family Radio, expected the end of the world in 1994.<br />
For more see 1975.htm<br />
Perhaps we are all cultists! After all, what is the dictionary definition of Cult but:<br />
cult \kelt\ n 1 : formal religious veneration 2 : a religious system; also : its adherents 3 :<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (4 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
faddish devotion; also : a group of persons showing such devotion cultist n<br />
(C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by<br />
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated<br />
To think that this kind of zeal for the last days is indigenous to Jehovah's Witnesses shows the same kind<br />
of ignorance of the <strong>Bible</strong> in people like Ralph Wilson, as we shall see...<br />
Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses deny Jesus' teaching about hell.<br />
Nobody likes to think about hell. But to twist Jesus' words to pretend he didn't teach it is dishonest. Jesus<br />
described hell (both hades and gehenna) as a place of "torment," of "agony" in the fire,[Luke 16:23 (NIV),<br />
describing the rich man in hades. ] where "the fire never goes out," and where "their worm does not die, and<br />
the fire is not quenched."[Mark 9:48 (NIV), describing gehenna. ] What does it matter that Jesus taught it?<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses pronounce that it is unloving and unjust for God to punish the wicked forever. Are<br />
they going to correct Jesus?<br />
Reply: Dr Wilson's "proof-texting" is quite interesting, and devastating. The New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
rightly calls this passage a "parable." The Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, in a footnote, says that it is a "parable in story<br />
form without reference to any historical personage." Why? First, v. 24 says that all it takes is for<br />
someone to "dip the tip of his finger to cool my tongue." Not a very hot place this hell is. Second, when<br />
we die, do we all go to Abraham's side (bosom)? Obviously, this illustration has deeper meaning.<br />
At Luke 16 in the NIV, where hades is translated as "hell." But did you know, that the very next time the<br />
NIV (New International Version) uses the Greek word hades, it translates it as "grave."<br />
(Acts 2:27, 31). At Matthew 5:22, gehenna is translated "hell" in the NIV. At 2Peter 2:4, tartarus is<br />
translated "hell" in the NIV. Earlier editions of the NIV also had son of destruction translated as "child of<br />
hell".<br />
Where the NASB has "accursed" at Galatians 1:8,9, the NIV has "eternally condemned". It sounds like<br />
the NIV wants to make sure that the <strong>Bible</strong> teaches hell-fire.<br />
It is unfortunate that the NIV will not translate Gehenna properly, even though it is a PROPER NAME.<br />
Most <strong>Bible</strong>s will do so elsewhere, as in *Valley of Ben Hinnom* in 2 Chronicles 28:3 and *Hinnom<br />
Valley* in Joshua 18:6, (both of which are actually Gehenna). The reason this is not done so is because<br />
the O.T. Gehenna does not have the ability to carry the same theological connotations as those in the NT<br />
like Matthew 5:22.<br />
What does the <strong>Bible</strong> actually say about Gehenna? Jeremiah 7:31: "They have built shrines of Topeth in<br />
the valley of Benhinnom [Gehenna], at which to burn their sons and daughters. That was no command<br />
of mine; indeed it never entered my mine."<br />
And again, can be hell be that hot if "their worm does not die?"[Mark 9:48 (NIV)] The <strong>Bible</strong> says of<br />
worms in Isaiah 14:11 "Thy pomp is brought down to Sheol (Hell Douay; grave NIV), and the noise of<br />
thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and worms cover thee."<br />
A parallel account of Mark 9 exists at Isaiah 66:24, "And they shall go forth, and look upon the dead<br />
bodies (carcasses, Young's Literal Version) of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm<br />
shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." So you<br />
see, the bodies/carcasses in Gehenna are dead, not suffering endlessly. Gehenna was nothing but landfill<br />
site (rubbish heap, Phillips NT) that was kept burning (see hell.htm) which came to prefigure the<br />
"second death." Even hell is cast into Gehenna, which serves to differentiate the two: "And death and hell<br />
were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." Rev 20:14 KJV, Douay, NIrV, Webster, Living<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, Confraternity.<br />
"It also represented death; then end of every human being is worms and maggots (Job 21:26; 25:6; Isa.<br />
14:11)." Eerdman's Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>, p.1389<br />
"The worm is an agent of destruction which often appears in metaphors describing the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (5 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
corruptibility and the mortality of the flesh....The worm which does not die (Is 66:24; Mk<br />
9:48) is a metaphor of *eternal death* rather than of some eternal punishment." Dictionary<br />
of the <strong>Bible</strong> by John L. McKenzie, p. 944<br />
Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses have not corrected Jesus nor the <strong>Bible</strong> as Hell has no place in it.<br />
The King James <strong>Bible</strong> contained the word "Hell" 54 times from Genesis to Revelation. The New<br />
King James <strong>Bible</strong> contains the word "Hell" 32 times and the American Standard Version and New<br />
American Standard <strong>Bible</strong> (both revisions of the KJV) only 13 times. There are many <strong>Bible</strong> translations<br />
which do NOT contain the word "Hell" even ONCE! The reason? It is not a Biblical term, it is not of<br />
God!<br />
"The talk of everlasting perdition is crazy. It is not Christianity."-Hvor gaar vi hen (Where Do We Go?),<br />
p. 119.<br />
Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses deny that a human being has an immortal soul at all. "If ... man does not have<br />
a soul but is a soul," they teach, "then there is no conscious existence after death. There is no bliss, and<br />
there is no suffering. All the illogical complications of the `hereafter' disappear." When a person dies, they<br />
believe, he (i.e., soul) goes to the grave. Those who are righteous will rise at the resurrection; the evil not<br />
will not return but be annihilated. Convenient, but certainly not what Jesus taught.<br />
Reply: Wilson seems to be confusing Greek philosophical thought with what the <strong>Bible</strong> teaches.<br />
"The word *soul* is used in English <strong>Bible</strong>s to translate the Hb nepes. The translation is<br />
unfortunate; soul in common speech reflects a complex of ideas which go back to Gk<br />
philosophy as refined by madieval scholasticism...[and in the NT] the Greek concept of<br />
psyche as a distinct spiritual principle is usually read into the term, and thus the concept of<br />
salvation and eternal life may become Platonic rather than biblical." Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
by John L. McKenzie pp 836-839<br />
In fact, it appears that many of the doctrines of "mainstream Christianity" seem to have importet pagan<br />
concepts and merely "christianized" them. Historian Will Durant was right when he said, "Christianity<br />
did not destroy paganism; it adopted it."<br />
For more on the Biblical view of the word "Soul" click here.<br />
Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses distort the <strong>Bible</strong>'s true meaning. Jehovah's Witnesses practice "proof-texting,"<br />
plucking out and isolating individual <strong>Bible</strong> verses from their context. Then they use them to prove some<br />
point which may have nothing whatsoever to do with the verse's original meaning. The <strong>Bible</strong> was not<br />
written to be understood by quoting little snippets, but by reading the whole context.<br />
Perhaps we should follow Wilson's example and simply not quote scriptures. Am I proof-texting? Well,<br />
let's see, the <strong>Bible</strong> does not mention a Trinity...<br />
"The New Testament does not actually speak of tri-unity. We seek this in vain in the triadic<br />
formulae of the N.T."—Kittles Theological Dictionary of the N.T.<br />
-Jesus never says he is God-<br />
St Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God.<br />
Nor does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly equal<br />
to his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest).<br />
-The <strong>Bible</strong> does not teach an immortal soul-<br />
D.R.G. Owen, "Body and Soul in the New Testament," In Readings and Christian Theology,<br />
ed. M.J. Erickson (Baker Book House, 1967), 86: "In Hebrew thought, as we have seen, the<br />
word translated 'Soul' regularly stands simply for the personal pronoun and means the self,<br />
and the phrase 'body and soul'...stands for the Hebrew idea that man is an 'animated body'<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (6 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
and not for the Greek view that he is an 'incarnated soul.'"<br />
-Regarding Hell-<br />
U.S. Catholic magazine: "There are in fact so many strong biblical, doctrinal, and logical<br />
arguments against the existence of a literal hell that this question naturally arises: Why do<br />
the churches teach it and why do people often believe it?"<br />
For more click here<br />
As you can see, the Witness's views are well grounded scholarly and Biblically. And unlike Dr Wilson,<br />
we are certainly not in it for the money (see http://www.joyfulheart.com/admin/donations.htm )<br />
Wilson: Another concern is the Jehovah's Witness' New <strong>World</strong> Translation of the Holy Scriptures.<br />
Translated by a committee of five, none of whom were trained in Hebrew and Greek, it changes the<br />
meaning of the Greek and Hebrew texts in order to support spurious Jehovah's Witness doctrines. For<br />
example, their translation of Colossians 1:16 reads, "By means of him all [other] things were created...."<br />
The word "other" is added so that Jesus would be seen as a created being, and not as the divine, uncreated<br />
Creator.<br />
Reply: Does the insertion of the word "other" indicate a lack a training in the original languages?<br />
The Revised Standard Version inserts the word "other" 100 times, the King James Version, 67 times, and<br />
the New Revised Standard Version New Testament 31 times. Here are some examples:<br />
Luke 21:29<br />
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV)<br />
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News <strong>Bible</strong> (TEV)<br />
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American <strong>Bible</strong>(NAB)<br />
Luke 11:42<br />
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)<br />
"and all the other herbs." TEV<br />
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version<br />
In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put<br />
it in there. Can they do that even without brackets?<br />
"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Christian Literature" by F. Blass and A.<br />
Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".<br />
The book Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> by Professor Rolf Furuli when talking about the word<br />
"other" in the Col. 1:16 in the NWT says, "This means that the brackets that NWT uses around OTHER<br />
may be removed, because the word OTHER is no addition or interpolation, but in a given context it is a<br />
legitimate part of PAS."<br />
Even the NIV has been strongly criticized for adding the word *other* at 1Cor 6:18, as this changes the<br />
meaning and adds the translators theology on the matter.<br />
The NIV has been criticized thusly in other Scriptures also:<br />
"It is surprising that translators who profess to have 'a high view of Scripture' should take<br />
liberties with the text by omitting words or, more often, by adding words that are not in the<br />
manuscripts."<br />
Chapter 12, The New International Version, The <strong>Bible</strong> in Translation by Bruce M. Metzger<br />
[Baker Academic, 2001]<br />
Consider Luther's translation of Romans 3:28 where he adds the word *alone* to the word *faith.* The<br />
NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong> says here, "When Luther translated this passage, he added the word 'alone,' which,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (7 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
though not in the Greek, accurately reflects the meaning." You cannot condemn one version, and then<br />
praise another for doing exactly the same thing. You cannot have it both ways.<br />
All <strong>Bible</strong>s add words, simply put. Have you ever noticed all those words in italics in the King James<br />
Version and the New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong>? Those are words that are not in the original text, yet<br />
there are thousands of them.<br />
Wilson: Philippians 1:22 in their translation reads "what I do desire is the releasing and the being with<br />
Christ," rather than "I desire to depart and be with Christ." Their strange, awkward rendering is intended to<br />
support a belief in "soul sleep," since this verse in its true form tells believers that they will be with Christ<br />
in heaven the very moment they die.<br />
Reply: I think you are referring to verse 23 and the word ANALUSAI.<br />
The Liddell Scott Greek Lexicon has as one of it's renderings into English, "releasing." Liddell Scott,<br />
page 112, Section I.2 gives this as a meaning of analusai. [ LJS9 I.2 "releasing", Gr., analy'sai; Lat.,<br />
dissol'vi]<br />
A careful reading of the Nestle Aland Greek text shows an interesting marginal note for Philippians 1:23.<br />
There is also a cross-reference from 1Thessalonians 4:17 pointing back to Philippians 1:23.<br />
SUNEXOMAI DE EK TWN DUO THN EPIQUMIAN EXWN EIS TO ANALUSAI KAI [1Th 4,17<br />
SUN XRISTW EINAI ] POLLW GAR MALLON KREISSON (NA27)<br />
1Th 4,17! EPEITA HMEIS OI ZWNTES OI PERILEIPOMENOI AMA SUN AUTOIS<br />
ARPAGHSOMEQA EN NEFELAIS EIS APANTHSIN TOU KURIOU EIS AERA KAI OUTWS<br />
PANTOTE [Ph 1,23! SUN KURIW ESOMEQA] (GRK)<br />
The context of 1Thessalonians clearly points to the "being with" the Lord Christ Jesus to the future<br />
parousia of Christ, at the resurrection.<br />
Greek Professor Gerald Hawthorne has this to say: "Interestingly, Paul now refrains from boldly saying,<br />
"I desire to die" (APOQNHSKEIN), preferring rather to use a euphemism (ANALUSAI) for death"<br />
(Word Commentary Vol. 43, P. 48). He adds that ANALUSAI can refer to "a ship 'being released from<br />
its mooring,' 'weighing anchor' and sailing off." (Ibid.)<br />
Vine's explains ANALUO as "to unloose, undo", and he explains it metaphorically as "...the unyoking of<br />
baggage animals". I think the NWT has handled this verse quite marvelously.<br />
Wilson: In their translation, Matthew 24:3 reads "What will be the sign of your presence" rather than "What<br />
will be the sign of your coming," to support their teaching that Christ's coming is an "invisible presence."<br />
Reply: "Presence" is truer to the lexical meaning of PAROUSIA. Any argument otherwise smacks of<br />
ignorance. For more on this go to parousia.htm<br />
Wilson: John 1:1 reads "the Word was a god," rather than "the Word was God," in an attempt to hide the<br />
full divinity of Christ. The New <strong>World</strong> Translation twists scripture to make it say what the Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses want it to say.<br />
Reply: But why have many other non-JW's done the same thing? Perhaps scripture twisting applies to<br />
the traditional rendering. "*The word was a god* is more literal, and an improvement over *The word<br />
was God*" says Professor Jason Beduhn, Northern Arizona University<br />
Department of Humanities Arts and Religion<br />
For much more, go to wisdom.htm<br />
Wilson seems to like the New International Version (NIV), and yet many questions are raised by others<br />
concerning this version, and its translators:<br />
"Once the committee got at its task, one discovered that his preparation was far too scanty.<br />
If one had written a PhD dissertation on each verse that was to be considered, he might have<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (8 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
been qualified to deal with all the questions that could be raised. The individual traits of<br />
each committee member quickly surfaced. One had a special<br />
talent for recalling where a particular form had occurred before. Another could offer his<br />
training in Akkadian and Ugaritic; another in Latin and Greek. The Old Testament<br />
specialists were sometimes not aware that a passage was also used in the New Testament."<br />
Jack Lewis, The New International Version, Restoration Quarterly 24, p. 3<br />
"Our conclusion is that the goal of accuracy frequently has been badly missed. In terms of<br />
style the NIV manifests many weaknesses, although very often it is extremely readable. But<br />
the number of stylistic problems is large, and the overall style seems to lack a certain<br />
cohesiveness. The lack of consistency in the NIV is also a major problem." The NIV<br />
Reconsidered by Radmacher/Hodges, p. 131<br />
"The NIV is not worthy of becoming the standard version of the English-speaking world. Its<br />
accuracy is suspect in too many ways." P. 70, Accuracy of Translation-The Primary<br />
Criterion of Evaluating <strong>Bible</strong> Versions with Special Reference to the New International<br />
Version<br />
Why? This same author goes on to say, "The dynamic equivalence translator tends to be<br />
relatively unrestrained in his theologizing. What a formal equivalence [Literal] translator<br />
generally does only as a matter of necessity, the dynamic equivalence translator often does<br />
as a matter of choice."<br />
Hardly glowing references for this very popular <strong>Bible</strong>. Even the KJV does not fare well:<br />
"No scholar today employs this text for any scholarly purpose except as he may use it in<br />
writing the history of the Greek New Testament. The King James version is undoubtably the<br />
most inaccurate English New Testament in common use today...The King James stands at<br />
the bottom of the list also in regard to three spurious passages selected as tests (Mk 16:9-20;<br />
Jn 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7-8)." pp. 99, 100 see colwell.htm<br />
Wilson: In a rather well-known distortion of scripture, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions on the<br />
basis that the ancient Jews were forbidden to eat the blood of animals (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 7:26-27; Acts<br />
15:29; etc.). It should be obvious to any reasonable person that eating blood (a pagan practice) has nothing<br />
to do with receiving someone's blood donated to save your life. Unfortunately, from this kind of scripture<br />
twisting, many lives have been lost.<br />
Reply: Listen to this pompous rhetoric. Wilson thinks that he has made such good points, but yet it<br />
displays all the ignorance of the <strong>Bible</strong> and the subject at hand that so resembles his kind. The prohibition<br />
on blood was there before the Jewish system (Gen 9:4), during it (Le 17:3, 4 etc), and after it, in<br />
Christian times (Acts 15:28, 29).<br />
In this regard, the following is found in The Chronology of Antient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac<br />
Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): "This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter than the days of<br />
Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the<br />
Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be<br />
circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things<br />
strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations,<br />
while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of<br />
abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from fornication."-Italics his.<br />
"It ought to be observed, that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his<br />
posterity, and repeated to the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (9 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
dispensation, has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the<br />
New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation."-Benson's Notes, 1839,<br />
Vol. I, p. 43.<br />
What of early Christians?<br />
In 177 C.E., in Lyons (France), when Christians were falsely accused of eating children, a woman named<br />
Biblis said: "How would such men eat children, when they are not allowed to eat the blood even of<br />
irrational animals?"-The Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, V, I, 26.<br />
Tertullian backed the prohibition of ingesting ANY kind of blood in his work Apology (IX, 13, 14):<br />
"Let your error blush before the Christians, for we do not include even animals' blood in our<br />
natural diet. We abstain on that account from things strangled or that die of themselves,<br />
that we may not in any way be polluted by blood, even if it is buried in the meat. Finally,<br />
when you are testing Christians, you offer them sausages full of blood; you are thoroughly<br />
well aware, of course, that among them it is forbidden; but you want to make them<br />
transgress."<br />
Minucius Felix made the same point: "For us it is not permissible either to see or to hear of human<br />
slaughter; we have such a shrinking from human blood that at our meals we avoid the blood of animals<br />
used for food."-Octavius, XXX, 6.<br />
Clement of Alexandria on Blood (Instructor 3.56.2ff)<br />
"To the nomad the horse is at once conveyance and sustenance; and the warlike youth of the<br />
Arabians (these are other nomads) are mounted on camels. They sit on breeding camels; and<br />
these feed and run at the same time, carrying their masters the whilst, and bear the house<br />
with them. And if drink fail the barbarians, they milk them; and after that their food is spent,<br />
they do not spare even their blood, as is reported of furious wolves. And these, gentler than<br />
the barbarians, when injured, bear<br />
no remembrance of the wrong, but sweep bravely over the desert, carrying and nourishing<br />
their masters at the same time.<br />
Perish, then, the savage beasts whose food is blood! For it is unlawful for men, whose body<br />
is nothing but flesh elaborated of blood, to touch blood. For human blood has become a<br />
partaker of the Word: it is a participant of grace by the Spirit; and if any one injure him, he<br />
will not escape unnoticed. Man may, though naked in body, address the Lord. But I approve<br />
the simplicity of the barbarians: loving an unencumbered life, the barbarians have<br />
abandoned luxury. Such the Lord calls us to be--naked of finery, naked of vanity, wrenched<br />
from our sins, bearing only the wood of life, aiming only at salvation" (Clment of<br />
Alexandria,<br />
Instructor 3.56.2ff).<br />
"For the apostle says, 'All other things buy out of the shambles, asking no questions,' with<br />
the exception of the things mentioned in the Catholic epistle of all the apostles, 'with the<br />
consent of the Holy Ghost,' which is written in the Acts of the Apostles, and conveyed to the<br />
faithful by the hands of Paul himself. For they intimated 'that they must of necessity abstain<br />
from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from<br />
fornication, from which keeping themselves, they should do well' " (Clement of Alexandria,<br />
Miscellanies 4.97.3ff).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (10 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
Scripturally though, is there a basis for distinguishing between "eating" blood and transfusing blood? Is<br />
killing someone with a *gun* not breaking God's law against murder, since the original law was only<br />
talking about stabbing, cutting or smashing, etc?<br />
Think about it, Acts 15:29 equates the prohibition on blood with the prohibition on fornication.<br />
"That ye abstain from...blood, ...and from fornication" Are we going to employ a BillClintonism and say<br />
that certain types of fornication are not really fornication...and then carry that forward and say certain<br />
ways of not ingesting blood does not fall within the perimeters of "abstaining"?<br />
Illustraton: A doctor tells a drunk not to "drink" any more alcohol or he will die. So the drunk goes home<br />
and hooks himself up to an IV to directly infuse the alcohol in his veins. Has the drunk followed the<br />
doctor's directions in this matter? Obedience to God is far more important than obeying a doctor, and<br />
beneficial too. Think of how many people have/and will be helped by the pioneering spirit of Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses in the area of higher medicine. Somebody called Dr Laura and spewed the same kind of<br />
rhetoric that you did about blood transfusions. Here is the response they received from some doctors:<br />
Subject: Non-Blood Transfusions<br />
Date: 1999-03-04<br />
RE: Your Caller Concerned About Father's Refusal of Blood<br />
Transfusion<br />
"I'm a long-time listener, fan, supporter and defender of all<br />
that you teach, preach (& nag). Today a man called you and voiced<br />
concern over his father, a JW who is facing surgery and will refuse a blood<br />
transfusion. After some personal chat with the man, you said you<br />
understood his feelings: he'd lost his wife and now stood to lose his father.<br />
The assumption his father was as good as dead without blood transfusion is a<br />
common one, but there's almost no truth to that anymore. At our hospitals, we have a<br />
Transfusion-Free Medicine & Surgery Program and the results are phenomenal. Outcomes<br />
are better and the hospital stays are shorter. We've eliminated the risks associated with blood<br />
transfusions (and there are many, ranging from the best known, AIDS, to Hepatitis C and<br />
other infections and complications).<br />
Our Palm Springs-area hospitals, part of the Tenet Healthcare Corp., are part of a<br />
network of Southern California facilities with this program. Included among them are our<br />
prestigious USC University Hospital and the USC/Norris Cancer Hospital. Hospitals and<br />
doctors all over the country are climbing aboard this bandwagon; I could introduce you to<br />
surgeons who haven't transfused blood in years.<br />
We're doing open heart, cancer, neuro, ortho (including total hip and knee<br />
replacement) neonatal and pediatric, gynecological and urological, transplant, and vascular<br />
surgeries successfully without blood transfusions. Much of this is due to advances in<br />
equipment and technology, and credit also goes to the JW population for their stand on<br />
blood which brought about these changes. Today, about 25% of tranfusion-free procedures<br />
are on people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, but who choose the option for health or<br />
personal reasons.<br />
This is emerging medicine. Your caller would have benefited from this<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (11 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
knowledge (his father probably already knows about it). The day may<br />
come when blood transfusions are a thing of the past.<br />
So, let's put this canard to rest."<br />
Tom Wixon<br />
Manager, Marketing & Public Relations<br />
Desert Regional Medical Center<br />
John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital<br />
Phone: (760) 323-6690<br />
Fax: (760) 323-6580<br />
Or Call:<br />
Bradford Ray<br />
Transfusion Free Medical & Surgery Coordinator<br />
Desert Regional Medical Center<br />
John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital<br />
Phone: (760) 323-6311<br />
Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that true religion remains "untainted by worldly politics and<br />
conflicts. It is neutral in time of war." As a result, they do not participate or serve in our government. Nor<br />
do they help defend our country and freedoms when threatened. Perhaps they forget faithful Daniel, who<br />
was prime minister of the Babylonian empire under several pagan kings, and the military leaders who<br />
followed Jehovah, such as David, Gideon, and Joshua in the Old Testament, and the centurions and soldiers<br />
who were believers in the New Testament.<br />
Reply: Daniel, David, Gideon and Joshua were Jews, not Christians.<br />
A scripture earlier applied to the Jewish Davidic king states, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A<br />
sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness:<br />
Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows." (or the New<br />
Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>'s genetival "Your throne is from God") Ps 45:6<br />
Can the scriptures say this about a human king? Yes, the Kings back in OT times sat on God's throne,<br />
"Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah as king" 1Chron 29:23<br />
Psalm 45:6, which was first applied to Solomon, was later applied to Jesus after his death (Heb 1:8).<br />
What I am trying to say is, like the Kings of old, I need no other ruler that is my head. Jesus is my King, I<br />
do not need any human ruling alternatives so that God can say to me, "Is there a limit to my power?<br />
Numbers 11:23 TEV<br />
We don't see anything Biblically that suggests soldiers or Centurions, after their conversion, kept to their<br />
older ways. In fact, if we look at history, we see the opposite:<br />
"A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of<br />
Marcus Aurelius [Roman emperor from 161 to 180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier;<br />
and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service."-The Rise of<br />
Christianity (London, 1947), E. W. Barnes, p. 333.<br />
"We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each<br />
through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,-our swords into ploughshares, and<br />
our spears into implements of tillage,-and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy,<br />
faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was<br />
crucified."-Justin Martyr in "Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew" (2nd century C.E.), The<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (12 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.; reprint of 1885 Edinburgh edition), edited by A.<br />
Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. I, p. 254.<br />
"They refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of<br />
the empire. . . . it was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty,<br />
could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes."-History of Christianity<br />
(New York, 1891), Edward Gibbon, pp. 162, 163.<br />
Why is this? "They are not of the world even as I [Jesus] am not of the world."John 17:16<br />
"Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king,<br />
withdrew again into the mountain himself alone." John 6:15<br />
Later, he told the Roman governor:<br />
"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my<br />
servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John<br />
18:36<br />
But why? Matthew 4 shows the devil trying to tempt Jesus, "Again, the devil taketh him unto an<br />
exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;<br />
and he said unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me."<br />
vv. 8, 9 Think about it! How could the devil offer Jesus the kingdoms of the world, if they were not in his<br />
control already? That is why the <strong>Bible</strong> says, "the whole world is under the rule of the evil one." 1John<br />
5:19 TEV<br />
Satan is also called "the ruler of this world" and "the god of this world" (John 14:30; 2Cor 4:4).<br />
Jas. 4:4: "Ye adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever<br />
therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God."<br />
For more on the early Christian view of war go to http://www.mcauley.acu.edu.au/~yuri/ethics/war.html<br />
Wilson: Jehovah's Witness teaching denies full Christian privileges to present-day believers.<br />
When the Jehovah's Witnesses began in the 1880s, they believed that a literal 144,000 people, and only a<br />
total of 144,000, would go to heaven (the "heavenly Kingdom class," they call it). That worked when they<br />
were a small sect. But as the movement grew, their cumulative numbers swelled to more than 144,000. In<br />
1965 we are told that less than 12,000 of this original 144,000 still remained alive. What about the next<br />
generation of Jehovah's Witnesses? They think of themselves as the "great crowd" of Revelation 7:9 who<br />
will rule with Christ on the earth.<br />
The problem is that the wonderful promises of the <strong>Bible</strong>--being born again by the Holy Spirit, the comfort<br />
of partaking of the Lord's Supper, and the joy of heaven--these promises are "already taken." Present-day<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses believe they will never experience them.<br />
How sad to have the most precious promises of the <strong>Bible</strong> be reserved for someone else. How sad to believe<br />
in a Jesus stripped of his deity, his physical resurrection, and his visible return. How sad to believe that you<br />
were born a generation too late to go to heaven when you die. How sad to read, "No one can see the<br />
kingdom of God unless he is born again," and know that doesn't mean you. To ponder "If anyone does not<br />
have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" and wonder if you are excluded. How sad.<br />
Reply: What is truly sad is how you *proof-text* what we write! Again, we must turn to the <strong>Bible</strong> for<br />
answers. What was God's original purpose for us humans and the earth?<br />
God told the first human pair, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it" Gen 1:28<br />
He backs this up at Isaiah 45:18, "For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed<br />
the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am<br />
Jehovah; and there is none else."<br />
God keeps his promises, as he solidified at Is 55:11, "so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my<br />
mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in<br />
the thing whereto I sent it."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (13 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
His original purpose was not to take us to heaven. The heavens are not for us, but they are for God, "The<br />
heavens are the heavens of Jehovah; But the earth hath he given to the children of men." Ps 115:16<br />
Why give us the earth, if we were meant to go to heaven? Why does he continue to promise us the earth:<br />
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." Mt 5:5<br />
"For evil-doers shall be cut off; But those that wait for Jehovah, they shall inherit the land [earth/<br />
ERETS, the same Hebrew word found at Genesis 1:1]. Ps 37:9<br />
"But the meek shall inherit the land [earth], And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace." Ps<br />
37:11<br />
"For such as are blessed of him shall inherit the land [earth]; And they that are cursed of him shall be cut<br />
off." Ps 37:22<br />
"The righteous shall inherit the land [earth], And dwell therein for ever." Ps 37:29<br />
"Wait for Jehovah, and keep his way, And he will exalt thee to inherit the land [earth]: When the wicked<br />
are cut off, thou shalt see it." Ps 37:34<br />
"I have made the earth, the men and the beasts that are upon the face of the earth, by my great power and<br />
by my outstretched arm; and I give it unto whom it seemeth right unto me." Jer 27:5<br />
"For the upright shall dwell in the land [earth], And the perfect shall remain in it." Prov 2:21<br />
Wilson has quoted John 3:3, "Except one be born anew [again], he cannot see the kingdom of God." But,<br />
10 verses later it says, "And no one hath ascended into heaven" In fact, we are told that King David never<br />
went to heaven, "For David ascended not into the heavens." Acts 2:34<br />
Jesus even alluded to John the Baptist as not being in heaven after his death, "Among them that are born<br />
of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is but little in the kingdom of<br />
heaven is greater than he."<br />
It seems like anyone who was born a generation too early was born too early to go to heaven. Is this sad<br />
though? Absolutely not. Only a few are really needed to go to heaven. Their purpose as "kings and<br />
priests for God, to rule the world." Anyone who is to "rule over the earth" (Williams NT) will<br />
undoubtably need someone to rule over. That is why the <strong>Bible</strong> differentiates between the limited 144,000<br />
and the great crowd (multitude) in Revelations 7, as <strong>Bible</strong> scholar E. W. Bullinger says of it: "It is the<br />
simple statement of fact: a definite number in contrast with the indefinite number in this very chapter." It<br />
only makes sense that the majority would stay on earth, the place that God has given unto men (Ps<br />
115:16). [Notice that Wilson wrongly attributes this ruling to the great crowd...it is obvious that he does<br />
not really know much of what JW's believe.] Commenting on Psalm 115:16, the Zondervan NASB Study<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> says, "The one [heavens] the exclusive realm of the exalted, all-sovereign God; the other [earth]<br />
the divinely appointed place for man, where he lives under God's rule and care, enjoys His abundant<br />
blessings and celebrates His praise."<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses have indeed changed their viewpoints on these matters, and others, "for it is not<br />
possible the Christian world should come so lately out of such thick anti-Christian and that perfection of<br />
knowledge should break forth at once." John <strong>Robinson</strong>, 1620 A.D. as quoted in the Pilgrim Church, by<br />
E.H. Broadbent, p.257<br />
Wilson, however, is promoting the same doctrines that were believed during the dark ages. It is his<br />
"orthodoxy" that has led to the darkest, most evil and bloodthirsty period in the history of man. We<br />
should embrace new light, because the time is now ready for it. The apocalyptic book Daniel backs me<br />
up on this, "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many<br />
shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." Dan 12:4<br />
"But the path of the righteous is as the dawning light, That shineth more and more unto the perfect day."<br />
Prov 4:18<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (14 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
Wilson's Christianity is the Christianity of the great apostasy foretold in Scripture. What is truly sad is<br />
the hold it has on the world. (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thess 2:3; Jude 8-11, 17-19; Acts 20:29, 30; 1 John 2:18; 2<br />
John 9, 10; 2 Timothy 2:16-19; 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 2 Peter 2:1, 3, 20-22 etc).<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wilson2.htm (15 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
The Biblical view of Only True God/TON MONON ALHQINON QEON<br />
Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901<br />
A Partial Reply to Sam Shamoun indicated to me that he did not write this, or parts of this.<br />
http://pionet.net/~cultrsch/biblical_monotheism_examined.htm<br />
The classic argument usually lies with a few scriptures, like John 17:3:<br />
"And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send,<br />
even Jesus Christ."<br />
Since Jesus Christ is also called God (a god) at John 1:1, the argument goes that Jesus must then be a<br />
"false god."<br />
The point that Trinitarians are hoping to further is that, since Jesus cannot be a false God, he must be the<br />
True God.<br />
Or as Sam Shamoun has sent to me,<br />
"It is our understanding that the <strong>Bible</strong> clearly teaches that Jesus is not a lesser god but the<br />
true God, Jehovah. The biblical data also teaches that there are more than one person who<br />
are addressed as the one true God, namely the Father and the Holy Spirit. (Cf. Jn. 17:3;<br />
Acts 5:3, 4) Yet, they are not three Gods but only one true God. (Cf. Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20)<br />
I will show how this arguments is damaging to Trinitarians, and insulting to the Biblical view of God,<br />
and the language it uses.<br />
When you really think about, these are diversionary, smoke and mirror tactics. It says, "Let's get you, the<br />
hoi polloi, to think about something that is never mentioned in the <strong>Bible</strong>, the Trinity, and focus on the<br />
deity of Jesus, as if this will make up for the other, rarely mentioned Father and Holy Spirit."<br />
One way they do this is to use the "True God vs False God" argument. I have dealt with the fallacies of<br />
this argument briefly, but at this time I will go deeper, thanks to a push by Sam.<br />
When we look into the <strong>Bible</strong>, we see that there is actually very little mention of "false gods."<br />
The King James Version never uses the expression once, the American Standard Version only uses it at<br />
Jeremiah 18:15. My RSV uses it several times in the apocryphal Letter of Jeremiah.<br />
The stuff Sam Shamoun sent to me makes much of what he thinks Stafford ignores in the BAGD, which<br />
says, "genuine, real . . . Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real." Stafford does not hide this,<br />
and if you take a closer look, it does not really say what you hope it says. The BAGD has italicized the<br />
word "real," and the reason for this is plain. The scriptures posted in lexicons, such as BAGD, Thayers,<br />
etc, to determine false gods are never directed to anything living. They almost always refer to a worthless<br />
idol, or something equally without any substance.<br />
That is why the RSV Annotated Study <strong>Bible</strong> says of the false gods, "Idols are helpless, useless, and not<br />
to be compared with celestial phenomena." (ftn. Letter of Jeremiah) You will be hard pressed to find an<br />
example lexically of a living being described as a false god.<br />
This does not rule out living beings as being false gods, but according the <strong>Bible</strong>, early Jewish and<br />
Christian thought, the true/false enigma is not as restrictive as Trinitarians wish.<br />
We have already mentioned John 17:3, where the "only true God" is distinguished FROM Jesus Christ.<br />
So damaging was this scripture to "Saint" Augustine, that he tried to change it so that "only true God"<br />
was read after "Jesus Christ" to make it sound like Jesus was the only True God.<br />
Couple this with 1 Cor 8:6, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as<br />
there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (1 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:18 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him."<br />
This scripture alone is disastrous to a Trinitarian, as Jesus is excluded from the term, "One God."<br />
In fact, if you take a look at QEOS as it is mentioned in the NT, the term is almost exclusively used of<br />
the Father. Trinitarian and Biblical theology both teach that Jesus cannot be the Father. So if Jesus is not<br />
the "One God" or "only True God," as he is clearly distinguished from him, then where does that leave<br />
him?<br />
Why would Jesus call the Father the ONLY true God, if in fact that Son and the holy spirit are also the<br />
ONLY true God? Why would the <strong>Bible</strong> call the Father the "one God" if the one God were really the<br />
Father, Son and holy spirit? Nowhere does the <strong>Bible</strong> call the Son or the holy spirit the true God or the<br />
one God, but both terms are used of the Father, and restricted to Him by His Son. (John 17:3)<br />
Does not the New Testament call Jesus a God/QEOS? Yes it does, but only with qualification. As<br />
Thayer's Lexicon states, "Whether Jesus is called God must be determined from Jn. i. 1; xx. 28; 1Jn. v.<br />
20; Ro. ix. 5; Tit. ii. 13; Heb. i. 8 sq.., etc.; the matter is still in dispute amongst theologians."<br />
Why, if we take the whole <strong>Bible</strong> in context should there be a dispute at all?<br />
Sam sent me that Moses is called a god at Exodus 4:16; 7:1, but notes,<br />
"Moses is called God since he is acting on God’s behalf as his spokesman and prophet, not<br />
that he was divine in any sense."<br />
But further down he states,<br />
"Hence, it seems likely that angels are being referred figuratively as gods in the same sense<br />
that Moses and the Israelite judges are viewed as gods, i.e. God's servants speaking on his<br />
behalf and faithfully doing his will"<br />
So...the angels are called God in the same sense as Moses, but yet, are not angels "divine?"<br />
Take note of Genesis 6:2:<br />
"supernatural beings" TEV1, CEV<br />
"heavenly beings" TEV2, New Jewish P.S.,<br />
"the sons of God" NRSV, NKJV, NWT<br />
"angels" LXX Codex Alexandrinus, Moffatt<br />
"sons of heaven" NAB<br />
Some might take me to task with the above scripture (like Rob Bowman who insists that all angels<br />
mentioned in the <strong>Bible</strong> bear some negative connotation, so they are false gods), as it is referring to angels<br />
in a negative light (see context), but with all the other scriptures referring to angels as gods (Ps 8:5; 97:7,<br />
and one that Sam missed, Ps 138:1), we see that it will take some work to always paint these beings<br />
negatively. When angels are specifically painted in a positive light, as in Judges 13:22, then Trinitarians<br />
need to change this angel to an uncreated, mysterious "angel of the LORD/malak YHWH".<br />
Historically though, those familiar with the Biblical way angels were portrayed, had no problem<br />
addressing angels as gods.<br />
Here is what the Dead Sea Scrolls give as to an insight of the early Jewish belief about Angels.<br />
"Praise him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the firmament of the highest heavens,<br />
all...and its wall, all its structure, its shape. The spirits of the holy of holies, the living 'gods',<br />
the spirits of eternal holiness above all the holy ones...The divine spirits surround the<br />
dwelling of the King of truth and righteousness; all its walls" (Vermes 226 [4Q403 I i,<br />
30-46]).<br />
"The figures of the 'gods' shall praise him, the most holy spirits...of glory; the floor of the<br />
marvelous innermost chambers, the spirits of the eternal gods, all...figures of the innermost<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (2 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:18 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
chambers of the King, the spiritual works of the marvelous firmament are purified with salt,<br />
spirits of knowledge, truth and righteousness in holy of holies, forms of the living 'gods,'<br />
forms of the illuminating spirits. All their works of art are marvelously linked,<br />
many-coloured spirits, artistic figures of the 'gods,' engraved all around their glorious bricks<br />
of splendour and majesty. All their works of art are living 'gods,' and their artistic figures are<br />
holy angels. From beneath the marvelous inner most chambers comes a sound of quiet<br />
silence: the 'gods' bless..."(Vermes 228 [4Q405 19ABCD]).<br />
The author here describes the Most Holy chamber of the Temple. In this chamber was were the Ark of<br />
the Covenant was kept. This is where Jehovah dwelled symbolically. Everything in the Most Holy was<br />
made of the finest gold. The <strong>Bible</strong> tells us that the Temple was ornamented with pictures of angels (1<br />
Kings 6:27-32). Therefore, this description of the "gods" ministering to the Almighty fits perfectly with<br />
the <strong>Bible</strong>. The curtain that separated the Holy from the Most Holy even has pictures of angels ("gods")<br />
woven into it (2 Chron. 3:14).<br />
"The 'gods' praise him when they take up their station, and all the spirits of the clear<br />
firmament rejoice in his glory...when the gods of knowledge enter by the doors of glory, and<br />
when the holy angels depart the realm, the entrance doors and the gates of exit proclaim the<br />
glory of the King...the fear of the King of 'gods' is awe-inspiring to all the 'gods,' and they<br />
undertake all his commissions by virtue of his true order" (Vermes 229 [4Q405 23i]).<br />
The War Rule says that "the host of warring 'gods' gird themselves for the Day of Revenge"<br />
(1QMXV, Vermes 121). We also find in the fragment titled by Vermes as The Song of<br />
Michael and the Just (4Q491 fr. II, Ma) an incomplete sentence that says that there is "a<br />
throne of strength in the congregation of 'gods' so that not a single king of old shall sit on it,<br />
neither shall their noble men...(Vermes 126). The one called Michael is also held as saying<br />
"I am reckoned with the 'gods' and my dwelling place is in the congregation of holiness" and<br />
"for I am reckoned with the 'gods,' and my glory is with the sons of the King" (Vermes 126).<br />
As D.S. Russell writes:<br />
"There is ample evidence to show that [the OT] conception of monotheism was held in<br />
conjunction with a belief in a spiritual world peopled with supernatural and superhuman<br />
beings who, in some ways, shared the nature, though not the being, of God" ( _The Method<br />
and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic_ P. 235).<br />
It is my position that Jesus, like the angels and Moses and King Solomon at Ps 45:6 is a "figurative<br />
God." The Catholic NAB footnote on Ps. 45:7 says that "the Hebrew king was<br />
called ELOHIM, "God," not in the polytheistic sense common among pagans, but as meaning "godlike,"<br />
or taking the place of God."<br />
Sam: Stafford is simply wrong when he asserts that "The angels are not true gods, nor are<br />
they false gods; rather, they are 'copies' (derivative images) of the true God, and receive<br />
their authority and power from Him in order to carry out His word..." (Stafford, J.W.D., p.<br />
200) They are neither true nor false, nor derivative copies but messengers created to do the<br />
will of God; no more, no less.<br />
Reply: But is not Jesus also a messenger of God?<br />
"He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." Jn 5:23 KJV<br />
"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine<br />
own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." Jn 5:30 KJV<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (3 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:18 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
"the Father hath sent me." Jn 5:36<br />
"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me" Jn 6:39 KJV<br />
" For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be<br />
saved." Jn 3:17 KJV<br />
"For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God" Jn 3:34 KJV<br />
etc etc etc.<br />
But yet we read that angels we also sent from God (Num 20:16; 1Chron 21:15; 2Chron 32:21 etc),<br />
amongst others.<br />
Everyone knows what John 1:1 says regarding Jesus, but few take into account the words PROS TON<br />
QEON (with/toward the God). Interestingly, according to my software, the only other time John uses the<br />
term PROS TON THEON is at John 13:3, "Jesus knew that the Father had given everything into His<br />
hands, that He had come from God, and that He was going back to God (PROS TON THEON)." HCSB<br />
The Catholic Kleist&Lilly NT translates "come from God" as "messenger from God." This same NT<br />
translates "sent from" as "ambassador" in regards to Jesus. I think this is very important.<br />
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as<br />
the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been<br />
committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey<br />
Wigoder<br />
Kittel's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" under "APOSTOLOS (XYL$) in Judaism"<br />
states: "A saying of the Rabbis was: 'The emissary of a King is as the King himself.'"–Vol. I, pg.416<br />
"Moses, Elijah, Elisha and Ezekiel are called MYXWL$ of God because there took place through them<br />
things normally reserved for God. Moses causes water to flow out of the rock; Elijah brings rain and<br />
raises a dead man; Elisha 'opens the mother's womb' and also raises a dead man; and Ezekiel receives the<br />
'key to the tombs at the reawakening of the dead' according to Ex. 37:1 ff...These four were distinguished<br />
by the miracles which God empowered them to perform and which He normally reserved for<br />
Himself."—Vol. I, pg. 419<br />
Jesus, as "coming from God/God's messenger" acts as God agent/ambassador, and therefore he is God to<br />
those he is bringing God's message to.<br />
Rienecker's "Linguistic Key to the Greek N.T." says at "Jn.1:6: APOSTELLO: Sent forth; pass...to send,<br />
to commission, to send as an authoritative personal representative." Significantly, on Jn. 7:29 he says:<br />
"To send as an authoritative representative."<br />
But what of Sam's sent objection coupled with his quote of Psalm 86?:<br />
""Among the gods there is none like you, O Jehovah; no deeds can compare with yours...<br />
For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you ALONE are GOD." Psalm 86:8, 10<br />
These passages make it difficult for anyone to believe that although Jehovah is the true God,<br />
there are gods of a lesser kind since Scripture clearly states that no gods have ever been<br />
formed at all."<br />
Reply: Next to Jehovah, there really are no other gods, for as Sam himself allows, the others are simply<br />
"figurative gods." These figurative or "functional gods" magnify the almighty God Jehovah. No one else<br />
in the <strong>Bible</strong> is called almighty, and Jehovah is the God of gods, "Oh give thanks unto the God of gods;<br />
For his lovingkindness endureth for ever." Ps 136: 2<br />
Let us not forget Sam's other sent position:<br />
The biblical data also teaches that there are more than one person who are addressed as the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (4 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:18 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
one true God, namely the Father and the Holy Spirit. (Cf. Jn. 17:3; Acts 5:3, 4) Yet, they are<br />
not three Gods but only one true God. (Cf. Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20)<br />
Is the holy spirit really called God at Acts 5:3, 4 though? Let us see what it says:<br />
"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of<br />
the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in<br />
thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto<br />
God." ASV<br />
Do you notice that the last part is directed towards Peter when it says, "thou has not lied unto men?" See,<br />
they lied to Peter, who was "filled with holy spirit" Acts 4:8<br />
And when they lied to Peter, they lied to God. Later on, in the same chapter, we have a similar situation<br />
in vss 38 and 39 where these words were directed towards Peter and the disciples, "Refrain from these<br />
men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: but if it is of<br />
God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God."<br />
Peter and his men were not God, but representative stand in place of God, and when something is done<br />
against them, it is done against God. "Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own eye." Zech 2:8<br />
New Jewish Publication Society/ Tanakh That is why the Scofield Study <strong>Bible</strong> cross-references Acts 5:4<br />
to Scriptures like Numbers 16:11, 1Samuel 8:7 and 1 Thess 4:8 which says, " Therefore he that rejecteth,<br />
rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you." ASV<br />
So we have only one true, almighty God, Jehovah, and he is the Father (Is 64:8), which, according to<br />
Trinitarian theology, the Son cannot be. And when we break it down, Stafford is correct in his assertion<br />
of almighty God being the archetype, and all others copies. Even Vine's points out in reference to the true<br />
tent as the, "the spiritual, antitypical tabernacle, Heb. 8:2; 9:24, not that the wilderness tabernacle was<br />
false, but that it was a weak and earthly copy of the heavenly."<br />
Origen knew of the correct way to understand the difference between true and false:<br />
Origen seemed to understand the use of alethinos in John 17:3, for in his Commentary on John he wrote:<br />
"God on the one hand is VERY God (autotheos, God of himself); and so the Savior says in<br />
His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; " but that all beyond<br />
the Very God is made God by participation in his divinity, and is not to be called simply<br />
God (with the article), rather God (without the article). And thus the first-born of all<br />
creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to himself divinity, is a being of more<br />
exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The<br />
God of gods, the Lord [Jehovah], hath spoken, and called the earth." [Ps. 136:2] It was by<br />
the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for the drew from God in generous<br />
measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His<br />
own bounty. The true God, then, is "THE GOD," and those who are formed after him are<br />
gods, images, as it were, of Him the Prototype.""<br />
Ante-Nicene Fathers (Eerdmans' reprint series) Book 2, p. 323)<br />
Does that make us henotheistic? After discussing Deut. 32:8 and Ps. 82:1-6, Ralph Smith poses the<br />
timely question: was Israel henotheistic or monotheistic? His answer is that Israel<br />
was monotheistic. But in what sense? Quoting G.E. Wright, Smith notes that monotheism (in this case)<br />
can be defined as: "the exclusive exaltation of the one source of all power, authority, and creativity" (<br />
_Old Testament Theology_. R. Smith. P. 232). By defining monotheism in this way, we allow room for<br />
others to be called gods (in that they are superhuman and supernatural) without compromising our<br />
monotheistic position.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (5 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:18 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
The Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> by Catholic Jesuit John L. McKenzie, S.J. God, p. 317,says<br />
"The unique character of Yahweh is the answer to the question about the monotheism of<br />
early Israel. Monotheism as a speculative affirmation is simply not found in the earlier<br />
books of the <strong>Bible</strong>; the affirmation presupposes a pattern of philosophical thinking which<br />
was foreign to the Israelite mind. Nor is there a clear and unambiguous denial of the reality<br />
of other Elohim before Second Isaiah in the 6th century. This does not mean that early Israel<br />
was polytheistic or uncertain about the exclusive character of Yahweh. They perhaps would<br />
have said that there are many Elohim but only one Yahweh, and would have denied to any<br />
Elohim the unique character which they affirmed of Yahweh."<br />
Sons of God as members of a class:<br />
Sam sent:<br />
Thus, Stafford’s reasoning is that the term "sons of God" must mean that angels are divine<br />
beings since this is the way Scripture uses the phrase "sons of"; to refer to membership or<br />
participation in a particular class. What Stafford failed to note is that although the phrase is<br />
used at times to denote participation in a given class, it is not always used in this sense.<br />
"As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, sons of Belial,<br />
surrounded the house... " Judges 19:22<br />
"The sons of Eli were sons of Belial, having no regard for Jehovah." 1 Samuel 1:12<br />
The Israelites are also addressed as the sons or children of God:<br />
"You are the children (Heb.- beney) of the LORD your God." Deut. 14:1 NIV<br />
"Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or<br />
counted. In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called<br />
‘sons of the living God.’ " Hosea 1:10 NIV<br />
This presumably being the case, JWs face further difficulties since Adam is another one who<br />
is addressed as God’s son:<br />
"... the son of Adam, the son of God." Luke 3:38 NIV<br />
Hosea is probably the only exception where you will see the term "sons of God" to someone other than<br />
angels. What Stafford printed in his book that Sam takes aim at are quotations from Gesenius and Sam<br />
Cooke. Stafford explains alot more that Sam let's on, including the following,<br />
"The description "sons of God" are given to the Israelites in Hosea 1:10. That this<br />
description has a much different meaning than when used of the angels is clear from the fact<br />
that the description in Hosea is figurative, relating to their newfound relationship<br />
with God, as oppsed to His rejection of them mentioned in the same verse. The angels in<br />
Genesis (6:4), Job (1:6; 2:1; 38:7) and the book of Psalms (89:6; compare 29:1) are not<br />
described as sons of God in such a context. Rather, they, as "sons of God," "take their<br />
situation before Jehovah" in the heavens (Job 1:6; 2:1), and witnessed the creation of the<br />
heavens and the earth (Job 38:7)." JWD2 pp. 114, 115<br />
This is why "sons of God" are the primary definition for angels in such publications like Eerdman's<br />
Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>, McKenzie's Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>, and the Oxford Companion to the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
(which also includes "gods" as another definition). You will find that this is not the case with Adam, or<br />
Israel or the other cases presented.<br />
Sam: Another major weakness in the argument is that it leaves JWs with a serious problem. In the Old<br />
Testament, Jehovah is pictured as the Light:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (6 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:19 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
"Jehovah is my light and my salvation... " Ps. 27:1<br />
"... for Jehovah will be your everlasting Light... Jehovah will be your everlasting Light..." Isaiah 60:19,<br />
20<br />
"... Though I sit in darkness, Jehovah will be my light." Mic. 7:8<br />
If as JWs assume that Jesus is not Jehovah, this implies that Jehovah is not the true light but a copy of<br />
the true one. Using Stafford’s reasoning, Jesus as the one true light is the one reality and source from<br />
which others can only reflect, but never possess. Therefore, since Jesus is the true light and Jehovah is<br />
not Jesus, then Jehovah’s light is not "true in the sense of the reality only possessed by the archetype<br />
alone," but one of its derivative copies. The only way to resolve this problem is to affirm that Jesus is<br />
Jehovah, since what is true of Jehovah is true of Jesus.<br />
Reply: This was written before Jesus time, where Jehovah was the only true light to contend with. The<br />
scriptures mentioned preceeded Jesus time on earth.<br />
Heb. 1:1 says that in times past, God was represented by prophets.<br />
Moses was a prophet who reflected God's glory:<br />
Interestingly, the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the <strong>Bible</strong> says this of Moses,<br />
"In the OT as well as the NT Moses is above all the mediator or revelation. Several times his<br />
most intimate relation with the LORD is emphasized (e.g., Exod 19:9.19; 20:18-21; 24:18;<br />
33:11.18-23; Num 12:7,8; Deut 5:20-28; Ps 103:7; Sir 45:5; cf. John 9:29; Acts 7:38; Heb<br />
8:5), evidently to emphasize that Moses' words and prescriptions really are the words and<br />
rules of the LORD himself. In connection with his role as a mediator of revelation, Moses is<br />
portrayed with superhuman traits (cf. also Deut 34:5; Sir 45:20. According to Exod 34:29-35<br />
the skin of Moses' face radiated after his meeting with the Lord on Mount Sinai (Exod<br />
34:29.30.35), i.e.his face was enveloped in a divine aura. By this nimbus Moses was<br />
legitimated as the true representative of the LORD (cf. Matt 17:2, Acts 6:15)."<br />
But according to Heb 1:1-3, it is now Jesus who is the reflection of God's glory...."glory as of the only<br />
begotten from the Father".<br />
Jehovah, as Father (Is 64:8; Deut 32:6), is the source of all light (Is 45:7; Gen 1:3), and he is the "Father<br />
of lights"(Jas 1:17), meaning obviously, that there would be other lights.<br />
As McKenzie puts it:<br />
"The Servant of Yahweh is a light to the nations, an agent of salvation (Is 42:6; 49:6)." Dictionary of the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, p. 511<br />
When Jesus came down to earth, he revealed the invisible God (John 1:18), and as the true light, to see<br />
Jesus was to see the Father (John 14:9).<br />
For more on OT Monotheism go to http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/otstudies/elohim.htm<br />
Added April 5, 2001, Response from Sam/or that which he sent:<br />
Jesus states emphatically that eternal life is this: Knowing the Father in an intimate way as well as His<br />
Son. Salvation depends on knowing both Father and Son. Jesus is the "way, the truth, and the life." No<br />
one comes to the Father but through the Son, for it is the Son who "explains" the Father, the beloved and<br />
One and Only Son who is in the heart of the Father.<br />
The Son does everything the Father shows Him, is one with the Father, and assures us that when we have<br />
seen Him, we have seen the Father as well. The Son is God in every sense the Father is (1:1), does<br />
whatever the Father does (5:19); is to be honored equally with the Father (5:23), and is confessed as<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (7 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:19 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
Lord and God (20:28).<br />
Reply: And what really does any of this have to do with a Trinity? If eternal life is knowing "the only<br />
true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent," then why is the holy spirit not factored into the<br />
equation? Does John 1:1 teach a trinity? Absolutely not. It does not mention the holy spirit, in fact, the<br />
Word is indeed not the same god he is with? Even Origen understood this:<br />
"We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences [John 1:1]. He does not write<br />
without care in this respect nor is he unfamiliar with the Greek tongue. In some cases he<br />
uses the article, and in some cases he omits it...He uses the article when the name of God<br />
refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God...The<br />
God who is over all is God with the article, not without it."<br />
I just came across an interesting bit in Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture where a scribe altered<br />
John 1:1c in order to elevate the divine status of Jesus.<br />
"I should observe that a similar addition of the article occurs in the 8th century Alexandrian<br />
manuscript L of John 1:1, so that the text now reads *O QEOS HN O LOGOS*-making it<br />
clear that the Word actually was God himself (not simply divine). I am somewhat reluctant<br />
to exclude this singular reading from consideration here, but am nonetheless under the<br />
distinct impresssion that it derives from the later Arian controversies. At the same time, it is<br />
worth pointing out that Origen already used the *absence* of the article in John 1:1 to<br />
demonstrate Christ's subordination to God (Jn. Com 2.2.17-18)." p. 179<br />
I think Ehrman's comment is interesting, and the fact that John 1:1c, as it should read, is simply not<br />
enough to elevate Christ to almightihood even from a historical perspective.<br />
What of John 5? John 14:9 says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father"<br />
Nobody believes Jesus is the Father, but he is the only-begotten god who shows us the Invisible God (Jn<br />
1:18). It is with this qualification that Jesus is also called god, much like YHWH's past representatives<br />
were also called gods.<br />
There is something called the Schaliach Principle which I have explained above, and I will repeat here:<br />
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is<br />
regarded as the person himself. Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is<br />
regarded as having been committed by the principle."<br />
The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder<br />
GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic<br />
law as follows:<br />
"One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach]<br />
is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who<br />
sent him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the<br />
messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 18).<br />
George Buchanan also appears to take this position in his commentary on Hebrews (Anchor<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> series). Buchanan notes that<br />
"a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power of<br />
attorney for the one who sent him" (Buchanan 7). He then adds "The New Testament<br />
apostles were apostles of Jesus, and Jesus was an apostle of God. It is against this<br />
background that Jesus, in the same context, could say both, "He who has seen me has seen<br />
the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (8 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:19 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
Sam sent: The Only True God<br />
Had Jesus said, "Only you, Father, are the true God," He would, indeed, be proclaiming what the<br />
Watchtower says. However, that's not precisely what Jesus said. He said to the Father, "you, the only<br />
true God." The word "only" does not modify "Father," but rather "God." Does this fact change the<br />
meaning of the what Jesus is saying?<br />
Reply: But what does the context say? Verse 5 says "And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own<br />
self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." It is quite obvious that he is referring to<br />
the Father. The footnote just prior to this in the Zondervan NASB/NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong> says, "Jesus<br />
emphasized the supreme place of the Father." The New American <strong>Bible</strong> adds in a footnote that these<br />
words were, "addressed directly to the Father."<br />
Stafford reasons:<br />
While in certain contexts the word "only" might not mean only in the absolute sense, there is no<br />
indication that we have such use here in John 17:3. Also, there is no example that I am aware of where<br />
the person who makes the assertion that another person is the "only" something, means to include himor<br />
herself in the description. (IBID, p. 120).<br />
But is there a subtle presupposition in this line of reasoning? I would submit there is: The presupposition<br />
is that the person in question is a unipersonal being. That is, human nature is such that there is a<br />
one-to-one correspondence between Person (or Identity, Consciousness, or Will) and Being (the essence<br />
or nature that makes a human, human); therefore, any<br />
example of a human person saying that that another person is the "only" something, indeed does not<br />
mean to include him- or herself in the description - because it is impossible for a being to be the "only"<br />
something if there is another being who is also that something. But what if there is Biblical evidence of a<br />
Being that subsists in more that one person<br />
- a multi-personal being? If such a Being exists (and Trinitarians believe the <strong>Bible</strong> teaches that God is<br />
such a Being), it must be admitted that each Person of a multi-personal Being can be described as the<br />
"only" something, without necessarily excluding other Persons of that Being from that description. Put<br />
another way, Jesus includes the Father in the identity of<br />
the True God. However, if Jesus is the same Being as the Father, He does not logically exclude Himself<br />
from that category.<br />
Reply: Have you noticed there was never a scripture cited to back up any of this mind-boggling rhetoric.<br />
I understood none of this mumbo jumbo. Why? Because it is not common sense, and definitely NOT<br />
Biblical. All this ignores the point of agency that I put forth above. There is only one President of the<br />
United States, but he has ambassadors abroad that represent him. We even have a vice-president that acts<br />
in his stead when he is not here. This is how the <strong>Bible</strong> speaks of other humans, angels as God (Ex 4:16;<br />
7:1; Ps 8:5; 45:6, 7; 82:1; 97:7; 138:1), and this is how the <strong>Bible</strong> speaks of Jesus as an "only-begotten<br />
God" (NASB) or "only-born God" (Lattimore, Byington) at John 1:18 who EXHGHSATO the God that<br />
"No man hath seen."<br />
Sam sent: Witnesses who argue as Stafford does deny the possibility of a multipersonal God from the<br />
outset. They therefore place considerable emphasis on their preferred definition of "true," for without it,<br />
they would be forced to concede that the Son is a false god. However, we may ask how it is that John<br />
17:3 excludes Jesus from the category of "true" God, when Jude 4 does not exclude the Father from the<br />
category of Lord?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (9 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:19 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
Reply: Because, the Son was "MADE LORD." (Acts 2:36) The Father was never MADE anything, and<br />
as almighty, does not need to be made anything. Again, you can see what is happening here. Again, there<br />
is no proof of a tri-personal/triune anything, as it is all about the Dynamic Duo, never the Triune Trio.<br />
This is sheer trickery at work.<br />
Sam sent: Indeed, here, there is not even the qualifying adjective that provides the basis of the Witness<br />
interpretation of John 17:3. Matthew 19:17 presents Witnesses with a similar problem, for here Jesus<br />
says that there is only "One" who is good; Witnesses must interpret this to mean that Jesus in His<br />
humility is denying His own goodness. In practice, Witnesses acknowledge Jesus as "good," and Jehovah<br />
as their Lord. Their exegetical methodology appears inconsistent and subject to their theology; whereas<br />
Trinitarians are consistent in<br />
holding that an exclusive title may be given to any member of the Trinity, without excluding other<br />
members from that category.<br />
Reply: Are you puttting words in our mouths to buttress your point?<br />
Consider the WT 1951:<br />
"Jesus said that Jehovah "makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good". Concerning<br />
Barnabas the record is, "He was a good man." Young Christian women were instructed to be<br />
"good". House servants were told to be in subjection to their owners, "not only to the good<br />
and reasonable, but also to those difficult to please." (Matt. 5:45; Acts 11:24; Titus 2:5; 1<br />
Pet. 2:18, NW) For other instances see Matthew 12:35; 20:15; 22:10; 25:21, 23; Luke 6:45;<br />
19:17; 23:50. In all of these cases "good" translates the one Greek original word, agathós.<br />
The same Greek word is used where the record tells of the rich young ruler who questioned<br />
Jesus: "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?" Jesus said to him: "Why<br />
do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God."—Mark 10:17, 18; Luke 18:18, 19,<br />
NW.<br />
Certainly if imperfect men could be called "good", Jesus would qualify even more so as<br />
such. Nor would he object to the term "teacher"; he accepted that designation. (John 13:13,<br />
NW) Then why did he answer this young man as he did? It seems that the rabbis of Jewry<br />
affected this title, which would explain Christ's rejection of it. When this ruler addressed<br />
him thus it amounted to classing him with the rabbis. Jesus wanted no rabbinical titles, and<br />
by this rebuke Jesus showed the impropriety of using such titles. (Job 32:21, 22; Matt.<br />
23:7-10, NW) Christ had no objections to being properly identified as the teacher or master<br />
or leader, as he said it was well that they called him such, but when designations were linked<br />
in a title-setting commonly used to address rabbis in a flattering way he did protest. He<br />
drove the point home forcefully by taking the extreme and highest view of the matter,<br />
spotlighting Jehovah God as the one deserving of such title. Incidentally, this shows Jehovah<br />
no part of the trinity with two others equal with him, and trinitarian attempts to offset this by<br />
referring to Matthew's wording of this meeting do not erase the two accounts by Mark and<br />
Luke.—Matt. 19:16, 17, NW.<br />
That the rich ruler was using "Good Teacher" as a formalistic title rather than as expressing<br />
his honest conviction concerning Jesus is shown by his rejection of Jesus' advice.<br />
Apparently he did not consider Jesus such a good teacher in reality, for he went off without<br />
following Christ's counsel. He deserved rebuke."<br />
Sam sent: More importantly, Stafford and the WT cannot interpret verses like John 5:44, 1 Timothy 1:17,<br />
or Jude 25, in which we find the phrase "[the] only God," without denying the absolute use of "only,"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (10 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:19 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
though there is no more contextual reason for doing so in these verses than there is in John 17:3. For if<br />
God is the "only" God, the Jesus of WT theology cannot be "a god;" certainly not in the sense that the<br />
WT means. Stafford says that nothing contextually precludes the "absolute sense" in John 17:3, but the<br />
point must be pressed that MONOS means "only, alone" (so BAGD) in all contexts, and while in some<br />
contexts it may be used in a hyperbolic sense, if one argues against the natural meaning, one should<br />
provide some reason for doing so, which the Watchtower typically does not in regard to these other<br />
verses.<br />
Stafford argues that the exclusive use of MONOS in this verse need not exclude the Son from being a<br />
non-false "god" but is excluded from the category of true God, that is, God Almighty.<br />
Reply: And since the Father seems to exhaust the title God, or even, "only true God", and Trinitarian<br />
theology teaches that Jesus is not the Father, then no matter which way you slice it, Jesus is excluded,<br />
and according to the reasoning of Sam, He must then be a false god.<br />
But since we have seen, which even Sam admits, there are "figurative gods" that are not false, as the<br />
bible clearly shows, he is only arguing against himself.<br />
Sam sent: But then we may ask why it is that this same exclusive connotation does not exclude the<br />
Father from being "Lord" and "Master" in Jude 4?<br />
Reply: Again, like I said, the Father was never made Lord (Acts 2:36). He GAVE Jesus authority (Mt<br />
28:18). Obviously there was a time when he was not Lord, and did not have authority. Oh what<br />
confusion this terrible Trinity brings with it.<br />
Robert Wilken wrote in _The Myth of Christian Beginnings:<br />
"From the very beginning, the Christian tradition had struggled with the question of JESUS'<br />
relation to God . . . Very early Christians tried to account for his extraordinary life and<br />
accomplishments and his Resurrection, and it was not long before he was called Son of<br />
God--then God. EVEN SO, HE WAS NOT GOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE<br />
FATHER WAS GOD--OR WAS HE? Was he creator, was he eternal, should he be<br />
addressed in prayer? These and other questions troubled thoughtful Christians for almost<br />
three centuries. During these years, MOST CHRISTIANS VAGUELY THOUGHT OF<br />
JESUS AS GOD; yet they did not actually think of him IN THE SAME WAY THAT<br />
THEY THOUGHT OF GOD THE FATHER. They seldom addressed prayers to him, and<br />
thought of him somehow as SECOND TO GOD--DIVINE, YES, BUT NOT FULLY GOD .<br />
. . When the controversy over the relation of Jesus to God the Father broke out in the early<br />
fourth century, most Christians were "SUBORDINATIONISTS," i.e. they believed that<br />
Christ was God BUT NOT IN PRECISELY THE SAME WAY THAT THE FATHER<br />
WAS GOD" (See pp. 177-183).<br />
The new BDAG - QEOS 2 - provides an interesting parallel to John 1:1b,c when it<br />
quotes Dg 10:6. It says:<br />
“hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN ECEI, TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS<br />
CORHGWN, QEOSGINETAI [QEOS as predicate nominative preceeding copulative verb]<br />
TWN LAMBANANTWN (one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God<br />
proves to be a god to the recipients). (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother). Such understanding<br />
led to the extension of the mng. of Q. to pers. who elicit special reverence.”<br />
So again, we see that Biblically and historically, other Gods were not viewed in the same way as<br />
Trinitarians desperately wish it to be.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (11 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:19 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
Also, the <strong>Bible</strong> makes it clear that there is someone else who is God to Jesus:<br />
Micah 5:1-4 "In the majesty of the name of the LORD, his God." Smith&Goodspeed<br />
Matt 27:46 "Jesus cried out...My God, my God, why have you abandoned me." God's Word<br />
Jn 20:17 "I am going to ascend to My God and your God" New Berkeley Version<br />
Rom 15:6 "So that you may together give glory to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ with one<br />
heart. NJB<br />
2 Cor 1:3 "Let us give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." TEV<br />
2 Cor 11:31 "To God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" Geneva <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Eph 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" BLE<br />
Eph 1:17 "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ" Moffatt<br />
Heb 1:7-9 " That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your<br />
partners." NWT<br />
1 Pet 1:3 "Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Lattimore<br />
Rev 1:6 "unto his God and Father" Montgomery<br />
Rev 3:2 "in the sight of my God" Phillips<br />
Rev 3:12 "the temple of my God....the name of my God...out of heaven from my God" Jewish NT<br />
Sam sent: The Meaning of "True"<br />
Reply: Here Sam just expands on the same rhetoric which I have already exposed. He quotes several<br />
sources which point to John 17:3 and say that the opposite of true is false. I do not argue that, but the<br />
point that I have already made is that all the cases of false have to do with something inanimate, like an<br />
idol, never anything living. "In the OT Yahweh is distinguished from the other gods by the designation<br />
*living*." Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>/ McKenzie p. 385<br />
Sam sent: Origen's Understanding of the True God<br />
..."Thus, Origen understands that the Word is God by derivation....Here Origen<br />
is directly indebted to the Platonism of his day" (Rusch, p. 14)....<br />
Reply: Snip…here Sam makes a big case to show that Origen is influenced by Plato and not one of<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses. Nobody argues that. But then pretty much all the ANF were. To assume that one<br />
has to agree with someone in toto to quote him is ridiculous, and nonsense. What Stafford does is give an<br />
example of how the word "true" was used early on, Sam has no argument for this, so, like all Trinitarians<br />
do, they try to find dirt, or anything else to discredit your use of any sources. Even looking at<br />
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101501.htm for Origen's Commentary on John we see again how he<br />
viewed the word *true,*<br />
"Christ, again, the light of the world, is the true light as distinguished from the light of sense; nothing that<br />
is sensible is true. Yet though the sensible is other than the true, it does not follow that the sensible is<br />
false, for the sensible may have an analogy with the intellectual, and not everything that is not true can<br />
correctly be called false."<br />
Again, no one really believes all that Origen believes, but we do have a record of how he viewed the<br />
word *true.*<br />
Sam sent: Immediately preceding the quote provided by Stafford, we read: Now there are many who are<br />
sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may<br />
be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either<br />
they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (12 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:19 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate<br />
existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are<br />
separable from each other (Commentary on John 2:2:10-13).<br />
Reply: And immediately following this quote we read:<br />
"Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the<br />
one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by<br />
having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may<br />
be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. We drew this distinction between<br />
Him and them that we showed God the Word to be to all the other gods the minister of their<br />
divinity."<br />
Hmmm, why no mention of false gods in regards to "all the other gods?" So the quote stands, no matter<br />
what desperate attempts follow.<br />
Sam sent: Thus, the Son is distinct in person, but of one "essence" with the Father.<br />
For Origen, though he may speak at times of "a secondary God," he is also<br />
quite comfortable speaking of Father, Son, and Spirit as One God. In his<br />
Dialog with Heraclides, Origen refers to Scripture in order to show in what<br />
sense two can be one:....<br />
Reply: "Elsewhere, in his Commentary on John, he writes: "there are three hypostases, the Father and the<br />
Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father"<br />
(Burgess 73).<br />
Origen clearly the Holy Spirit was a creation of God through the Logos. Origen definitely espoused a<br />
Neo-Platonic view that the Son and Spirit were subordinate to the Father while in some way viewing<br />
them all as God. In Origen's theology the Son and the Spirit are not God as He is God. This is not to say<br />
that Origen taught the later view of the Trinity, but of course, "he was evidently influenced by<br />
Middle/Neo-Platonism's divine hierarchy of being (Bigg 152-234)."<br />
But even Plato in his _Symposium_, writes:<br />
"Heaven forbid, she said. But do you really think that if a thing isn't beautiful it's therefore<br />
bound to be ugly? . . . Don't you know, she asked, that holding an opinion which is in fact<br />
correct, without being able to give a reason for it, is neither true knowledge--how can it be<br />
knowledge without a reason?--nor ignorance--for how can we call it ignorance when it<br />
happens to be true? So may we not say that a correct opinion comes midway between<br />
knowledge and ignorance. Yes, I admitted, that's perfectly true."<br />
So even from this world view we see a middle ground between true and false.<br />
Origen also expressed subordinationist sentiments when he wrote:<br />
"We can say that the Saviour and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures without possible<br />
comparison, in a wholly transcendent way, but that they are exceeded by the Father by as<br />
much or even more than they exceed the other beings" (Commentary On John 130, 25,<br />
151)."<br />
Concerning this passage, eminent Origenist Henri Crouzel tells us:<br />
"Of course later orthodoxy would not express it like that, it would avoid anything that could<br />
express a superiority of the Father over the other two" (Crouzel 203).<br />
Origen's theological view of God is further summed up by Ian McGreal when he cites Origen as follows:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (13 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:19 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
"the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father);<br />
and the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone" (McGreal 65)." Origen also manifestly<br />
stated that the Father made the Holy Spirit through Christ:<br />
"We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and<br />
that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through<br />
Christ. And this, perhaps, is the reason why the Spirit is not said to be God's Son" (Commentary on John<br />
2.6). This proclamation is a sure sign of essential subordination in the "Godhead."<br />
From Origen:<br />
"And therefore we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is<br />
called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals.<br />
For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: "The Lord created<br />
me—the beginning of His ways and among His works, before He made any other thing; He<br />
founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth ... before all the<br />
hills, He brought me forth ... He is styled First-born, as the apostle declared "who is the<br />
first-born of every creature." [Colossians 1:15] The first-born however, is not by nature<br />
a different person from the Wisdom but one and the same ... the Apostle Paul says that<br />
"Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God. [1 Corinthians 1:24]" (bold italics<br />
added)—Origen, De Principiis, Book I, chapter II, § 1; ANF, Vol. IV (4), page 246.<br />
It is interesting to note that many of the Fathers felt that they too would get to share in being a god. Were<br />
they worried about being false gods?<br />
"We have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and<br />
virtue."-Justin Martyr, The First Apology Of Justin, chapter XXI (21); ANF, Vol. I, p. 170.<br />
"For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but<br />
at first merely men, then at length gods;"-Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV (4),<br />
chapter XXXVIII (38), § 4; ANF, Vol. I, p. 52<br />
"[the Son] having bestowed on us the truly great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the<br />
Father, deifying man by heavenly teaching,"-Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The<br />
Heathen (or, The Greeks, or, The Gentiles), chapter XI (11); ANF, Vol. II, p. 203.<br />
"But let us, O children of the Father-nurslings of the good Instructor [Christ]-fulfil the<br />
Father's will ... and meditating on the heavenly mode of life according to which we have<br />
been deified, let us anoint ourselves with the perennial, immortal bloom of<br />
gladness."-Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Peadagogus), Book I, chapter XII (12);<br />
ANF, Vol. II, p. 234.<br />
"The Creator did not wish to make him [mankind] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an<br />
angel-be not deceived-but a man. For if He had wished to make thee a god, He could have<br />
done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos [the Word, the Son]"-Hippolytus, The<br />
Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10), chapter XXIX (29); ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 151.<br />
"And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved<br />
by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God ... For<br />
the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the dignity of His divine<br />
perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!"-ibid., chapter XXX (30); ibid., p.<br />
153.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (14 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:19 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
"If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by<br />
water and by the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also<br />
joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection of the dead."-Hippolytus, Discourse On The<br />
Holy Theophany, § 8; ANF, Vol. V, p. 237.<br />
"For He [the Son of God] was made man that we might be made God."-Athanasisus,<br />
Incarnation Of The Word, (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei), The Nicene and Post-Nicene<br />
Fathers, Edinburgh, T&T Clark; Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.;<br />
Second Series, Vol. IV (4), p. 65, reprinting of October, 1987.<br />
"For He has become Man, that He might deify us in Himself, and He has been born of a<br />
woman, and begotten of a Virgin in order to transfer to Himself our erring generation, and<br />
that we may become henceforth a holy race, and 'partakers of the<br />
Divine Nature,' as blessed Peter wrote. (2 Peter 1:4)-Athanasius, Letters of Athanasius, (Lx.<br />
Ad Adelphiun), 60.4; ibid., p. 576.<br />
And the ANF almost all accepted a different faith that was later developed in the 4/5th centuries.<br />
"With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some<br />
form of subordinationism at least up the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the<br />
denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." (Hanson, The<br />
Search for the Christian Doctrine of God,<br />
p.xix)<br />
Sam sent: Let's first consider what Origen means by the "true God." It would be a mistake to read a<br />
post-Arian meaning into Origen's use of autotheos or the distinction his draws between theos with the<br />
article and without. In terming the Father autotheos, Origen does not mean<br />
that the Father possesses a "true" divine nature, and the Son a "lesser" divine nature. Origen taught that<br />
the "begetting" of the Son by the Father cannot be compared to human begetting (First Principles 1:2:4),<br />
that the Son and Father share the same nature (Commentary on John 2:2:16; 2:10:76; 19:2:6;), and that<br />
there was never a time when the Son did not exist (Commentary on Romans 1:5; First Principles 1:2:9;<br />
4:4:1 in both Rufinus' Latin<br />
translation and Athanasius' Greek).<br />
The begetting of the Son is a part of the Divine Being and is from all eternity (First Principles, 1:2:9;<br />
4:41, again in both Rufinus and Athanasius) and is also continual (Homily on Jeremiah 9:4); the<br />
Father is the "source" of divinity, and the Son "attracts" that<br />
same divinity to Himself through his eternal contemplation of theFather (Commentary on John 2:2:18).<br />
Sam also knows just how damaging Origen's words were, that translators, again, had to corrupt them to<br />
fit the later theology of the Trinity. Jaroslav Pelikan says that Rufinus' translation is all we have of First<br />
Principles. (see The Emergence of Catholic Tradition-A History of the Development of Doctrine, p. 109)<br />
This is an ongoing situation with these type of people:<br />
"We know for certain that the translations, especially those made by Rufinus [of<br />
Aquileia] are not accurate. ... Rufinus says himself in his introduction that he followed the<br />
example of Jerome in his translation of the homilies, "Here and there" he says, "things are<br />
found in the Greek that might give offense". Jerome whittled all that down when he made<br />
his translation and expurgated the text so that no one reading the Latin would find anything<br />
in it at variance with our [Roman Catholic] faith. He [Rufinus] was all the more convinced<br />
of his right to do this in that he thought that Origen's books had been altered by heretics, as<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (15 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:19 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
he explains in his De Adulteratione Liborum [Of (The) Adulteration (of the) Books (of)<br />
Origen]. Jerome produced a more faithful translation of the book to take the field against<br />
Rufinus's but it is now lost. Rufinus's translation therefore has to be used, but with<br />
caution."—Jean Danielou (in French) Paris, La Table Ronde, (no date given); English<br />
translation by Walter Mitchell, New York, Sheed And Ward, 1955; Nihil Obstant: Carolus<br />
Davis, S.T.L. Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard Vic[ar] Gen- [eral].,<br />
1955, pp. xi, xii. (The "Nihil Obstant" and "Imprimatur" show this work to be accepted by<br />
the Roman Catholic Church.)<br />
"The work has come down to us in the Latin translation of his admirer Rufinus; but, from a<br />
comparison of the few fragments of the original Greek which have been preserved, we see<br />
that Rufinus was justly chargeable with altering many of Origen's expressions, in order to<br />
bring his [Origen's] doctrine on certain points more into harmony with the orthodox views<br />
of the time [of Rufinus c. 398 C.E.]."—ANF, Vol. IV, p. 231.<br />
Now no one is saying that Origen was not influenced by Plato, but all the Fathers were to some extent. Is<br />
this not how we arrived at the Trinity after all?<br />
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge points out:<br />
"Many of the early Christians, in turn, found peculiar attractions in the doctrines of Plato,<br />
and employed them as weapons for the defense and extension of Christianity, or cast the<br />
truths of Christianity in a Platonic mold. The doctrines of the Logos [Greek for "the Word"]<br />
and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who, if not trained in the schools,<br />
were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy, particularly in its<br />
Jewish-Alexandrian form."<br />
Hastings' Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics explains:<br />
"Christianity took over from Greek philosophy, and to some extent developed<br />
independently, the profound and fruitful idea of the distinction between time and eternity,<br />
and between becoming and being. First clearly stated by Parmenides, c. 500 B.C. . . . , it is<br />
worked out in considerable detail by Plato, c. 390 B.C., especially in his Phædrus and<br />
Symposium."<br />
"Christian theology," notes the Encyclopædia Britannica, "took the Neoplatonic metaphysics of<br />
substance as well as its doctrine of [essences, or natures] as the departure point for interpreting the<br />
relationship of the 'Father' to the 'Son.'"<br />
What, though, did Jesus mean when he said, "I and the Father are one"? J. H. Bernard, D.D., states in A<br />
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John:<br />
"A unity of fellowship, of will, and of purpose between the Father and the Son is a frequent theme in the<br />
Fourth Gospel . . . , and it is tersely and powerfully expressed here; but to press the words so as to make<br />
them indicate identity of ousia [Greek for "substance," "essence"], is to introduce thoughts which were<br />
not present to the theologians of the first century."—Compare John 5:18, 19; 14:9, 23; 17:11, 22.<br />
Interestingly, the French encyclopedia Alpha states: "Most religious traditions or philosophical systems<br />
set forth ternary [threefold] groups or triads that correspond to primeval forces or to aspects of the<br />
supreme God." Another French work points to the Greek philosopher Plato (of about 427 to 347 B.C.E.)<br />
and declares:<br />
"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier<br />
peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (16 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:19 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's<br />
conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan]<br />
religions."—Dictionnaire Lachatre.<br />
Naturally, Christendom's priests and clergymen, for the most part, deny this pagan philosophical origin<br />
of the Trinity dogma. The authoritative French Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique devotes 16 columns<br />
of small type to its arguments against the relationship between Plato's trinity and Christendom's triune<br />
God. Yet, this work has to admit that Catholic "Saint" Augustine himself—said to have been "of decisive<br />
importance for the Western [Roman] development of the Trinitarian doctrine"—recognized this<br />
relationship. Moreover, the Encyclopædia Britannica (1976, Macropædia) states:<br />
"Such a Hellenization did, to a large extent, take place. The definition of the Christian faith<br />
as contained in the creeds of the ecumenical synods of the early church indicate that<br />
unbiblical categories of Neoplatonic philosophy were used in the formulation of the doctrine<br />
of the Trinity."<br />
According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel,<br />
"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier<br />
peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three<br />
hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's<br />
[Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the<br />
ancient [pagan] religions."—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.<br />
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>, says:<br />
"The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature'<br />
which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the <strong>Bible</strong>. The<br />
trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and<br />
others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some<br />
theologians."—(New York, 1965), p. 899.<br />
The Church of the First Three Centuries says:<br />
"The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its<br />
origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it<br />
grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers."<br />
By the end of the third century C.E., "Christianity" and the new Platonic philosophies became<br />
inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine<br />
became "firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to<br />
the great majority of Christians."<br />
The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the <strong>Bible</strong>. But Harnack says: "In reality it<br />
legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan<br />
mystery-worship."<br />
In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity:<br />
"We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian<br />
revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his<br />
Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists."<br />
'Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.'—The Encyclopedia<br />
Americana<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (17 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:19 AM]
The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods.<br />
On to Part 2<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alethinos.htm (18 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:19 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
The Biblical view of Only True God/TON MONON ALHQINON QEON<br />
Part II<br />
Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901<br />
from http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/heinz-rebuttal.html<br />
Additions in Red<br />
Back to Part 1<br />
Sam Shamoun makes much use of the term Henotheism, and applies it to Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
Henotheism is when you only believe in one God, but you allow for the existence of others. But, unlike<br />
other trinitarians, Sam allows for a third category of gods, "figurative gods."<br />
As he says,<br />
"the terms 'God' or 'gods' are also applied figuratively to entities functioning as God's<br />
emissaries, speaking to humanity on behalf of Yahweh, having God's authority to function in<br />
his place."<br />
This position is how I would describe Jesus' role as a divine being, and it closely mirrors what Martin<br />
Werner has said:<br />
"The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question<br />
whether Christ was an angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an<br />
angel, rank as God. The explanation which was offered by the supporters of the<br />
Angel-Christology was that Christ, according to his nature, was a high angel, but that he was<br />
named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The word 'God' did mean, in the<br />
first place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the beings who served<br />
this deus verus [Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods'<br />
implies reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus<br />
represented. Consequently in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28), not only angels, but even<br />
men could be called 'gods' [cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:7, 9; Ps. 82:6, 7; John 10:34, 35] without<br />
according them the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius [260-330 C.E.] had thought in<br />
this way2 ... 2 Latantius, inst. Epitome [The Epitome Of The Divine Institutes], 37."-Martin<br />
Werner, The Formation Of Christian Dogma, p. 140.<br />
Does that make us, or the early believers henotheists? As I had said in my previous reply to Sam:<br />
After discussing Deut. 32:8 and Ps. 82:1-6, Ralph Smith poses the timely question: was<br />
Israel henotheistic or monotheistic? His answer is that Israel<br />
was monotheistic. But in what sense? Quoting G.E. Wright, Smith notes that monotheism<br />
(in this case) can be defined as: "the exclusive exaltation of the one source of all power,<br />
authority, and creativity" ( _Old Testament Theology_. R. Smith. P. 232). By defining<br />
monotheism in this way, we allow room for others to be called gods (in that they are<br />
superhuman and supernatural) without compromising our monotheistic position.<br />
The Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> by Catholic Jesuit John L. McKenzie, S.J. God, p. 317,says<br />
"The unique character of Yahweh is the answer to the question about the monotheism of<br />
early Israel. Monotheism as a speculative affirmation is simply not found in the earlier<br />
books of the <strong>Bible</strong>; the affirmation presupposes a pattern of philosophical thinking which<br />
was foreign to the Israelite mind. Nor is there a clear and unambiguous denial of the reality<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (1 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:45 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
of other Elohim before Second Isaiah in the 6th century. This does not mean that early Israel<br />
was polytheistic or uncertain about the exclusive character of Yahweh. They perhaps would<br />
have said that there are many Elohim but only one Yahweh, and would have denied to any<br />
Elohim the unique character which they affirmed of Yahweh."<br />
I have also provided evidence that others, like angels, were very much called 'gods' by the early Jews.<br />
But labels are important for people like Sam, because people like this feel that it gives them a<br />
psychological advantage over others.<br />
It is too bad that SSham has to resort to ad hominem attacks ad nauseum to further his message (when I<br />
found his reply to me online, it was via a link stating "More JW Lies.") For instance, I am already on<br />
page 3 of his 78 page reply, and there has been nothing for me to reply to, as it is simply an attack on my<br />
character and religion. He complains about me calling him SamSham, yet, if memory serves me correct,<br />
this was a combination of his email address at the time. You will find throughout my many responses on<br />
my web-site that I often refer to people by their email address. If I am wrong, then I apologize in<br />
advance. I am sorry Sam, and I have removed and reference to SamSham. At the same time I would like<br />
to point out that this response by Sam was not sent to me, nor I was notified of its being posted in the<br />
internet. At one time he did write to me tell me had written a lengthy response, but never actually sent it<br />
to me. I did reply to tell him that I thought the length was designed to keep me from responding, and I<br />
still think so. I trust this time that Sam actually wrote it, and that it was not a cut and paste from Robert<br />
Hommel, as last time.<br />
Let us move on:<br />
Sam:Paul himself in Galatians 4:8 distinguishes those who are "not God by nature" (me ousis theois) from<br />
the One who is. Heinz may try to respond that Paul allows for others who are gods by nature, because theois<br />
is plural – however, the context precludes this interpretation – for Paul certainly wouldn't condone being a<br />
slave to any but the true God. Heinz may say the "gods" here are idols. Yet as I had already demonstrated in<br />
my monotheism paper both Paul and the OT indicate that there is an actual spiritual presence, more<br />
specifically a demonic presence, behind every idol:<br />
"What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? Rather, that the<br />
things which the Gentiles sacrificed they sacrificed to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to<br />
have fellowship with demons." 1 Corinthians 10:19- 20 NKJV<br />
"They made him jealous with their foreign gods and angered him with their detestable idols. They sacrificed<br />
to DEMONS which are not God- gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared, gods your fathers<br />
did not fear." Deuteronomy 32:16-17 NIV<br />
"They worshiped their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters<br />
to DEMONS." Psalm 106:36-37 NIV<br />
Reply: Nothing here negates the fact that idols are not real, therefore not "gods by nature."<br />
[By way of explanation, my original response mentioned that the few scant places the <strong>Bible</strong> refers to a<br />
"false god" it is to a lifeless idol, not to anything living. The RSV Annotated Study <strong>Bible</strong> says of the<br />
false gods, "Idols are helpless, useless, and not to be compared with celestial phenomena." (ftn. Letter of<br />
Jeremiah) ]<br />
But they are still false gods, as the <strong>Bible</strong> is quite insistent on showing.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> makes it clear, if you are not with God, you are with Satan or his demons.<br />
Sam mentions 1 Corinthians 10, yet had he continued we would have the following:<br />
"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord,<br />
and of the table of demons."<br />
My NIV and NKJV <strong>Bible</strong>s cross-reference this scripture with 2 Cor. 6:<br />
"Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what<br />
communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (2 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:45 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols?"<br />
The NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong> says here that false teachers "are in reality servants of Satan."<br />
So even those "who are not of the same nature" (MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong> NKJV 2 Cor 6:14 ftn.) have, as<br />
Sam would call, "an actual spiritual presence, more specifically a demonic presence" behind them.<br />
There is more: "Proud arguments that keeps people from knowing God" are "the Devil's strongholds." 2<br />
Cor 10:4, 5 NLT<br />
The ruins of Babylon are demonic (Rev 18:2).<br />
Anyone and anything that takes an adversarial position against God has the Devil behind him.<br />
Judas is called "a devil." John 6:70<br />
Peter, taking an adversarial position opposite to the divine plan is even called Satan twice (Mt 16:23 and<br />
Mk 8:33).<br />
The Angel of Jehovah is called an Adversary (DIABELEIN in the Lxx).<br />
Hadad, as an adversary to Solomon, was SATAN according to the LXX at 1 Ki 11:14.<br />
People can be taken captive by the snare of the devil, as he seeks to devour people (2 Tim 2:26; 1 Pet<br />
5:8).<br />
Of course, the numerous instances in the <strong>Bible</strong> of demon possession indicates that people also can also<br />
have a demonic presence. As the Zondervan NASB Study <strong>Bible</strong> says of demons at Rev 9:20, "Spiritual<br />
beings in league with Satan and exerting an evil influence on human affairs."<br />
The only Scripture that I can find where "idol" and "demon" are mentioned together, is Revelation 9:20,<br />
"that they should not worship demons, and the idols of gold" of which Bullinger's Companion <strong>Bible</strong> says,<br />
"Devils=demons...Distinguished from worship of idols."<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> though is still clear as to the uselessness of idols:<br />
"Don't go after false gods; they cannot help you or save you, FOR THEY ARE NOT REAL." 1 Sam<br />
12:21 TEV [emphasis mine]<br />
When Jehovah said "besides me there is no God" in Isaiah 44:6, he was comparing his Deity to the idols.<br />
Let us start from verse 9 to see exactly how ineffectual these idols really are.<br />
"The makers of idols<br />
All work to no purpose;<br />
And the things they treasure<br />
Can do no good,<br />
As they themselves can testify.<br />
They neither look nor think,<br />
and so they shall be shamed....<br />
They have no wit or judgment:<br />
Their eyes are besmeared, and they see not;<br />
Their minds, and they cannot think." Isaiah 44:9-19 NJPS<br />
So my original point stands.<br />
And:<br />
"Let all be put to shame who serve CARVED IMAGES, Who boast of IDOLS. Worship Him, all you<br />
GODS… For You, LORD, are most high above all the earth; You are exalted far above all gods." Psalm<br />
97:7, 9 NKJV<br />
Interestingly, the translators of the LXX understood the above reference to gods as referring to angelic<br />
beings:<br />
"Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his ANGELS<br />
(angeloi)." Psalm 96:7<br />
So we see that according to early Jewish thought, not only were there demons standing behind every idol<br />
but angels as well. This clearly establishes that not only are the idols considered nothing, but also the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (3 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:45 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
spiritual presence behind these idols is categorized as nothing.<br />
Reply: I think you are reading WAY too much into this scripture.<br />
Let us look at how the following bible cross-reference Psalm 97:7:<br />
NA27 Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6<br />
UBS3 Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6<br />
NKJV Nelson Study <strong>Bible</strong> Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6<br />
NAB Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6<br />
Darby <strong>Bible</strong> Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6<br />
Scofield <strong>Bible</strong> Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6<br />
Douay <strong>Bible</strong> Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6<br />
English Standard <strong>Bible</strong> Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6<br />
AV1611 Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6<br />
NASB Ref. Edition Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6...And your site.<br />
Are you inferring that the *idolatry* of Psalm 97:7 compares to the "worship/PROSKUNEW" given to<br />
Christ by these same angels [who by your own words are categorized as nothing]? I can not see why you<br />
never actually sent me this reply<br />
Sam: Finally, another reason why the Holy <strong>Bible</strong> infrequently uses the phrase "false gods" stems primarily<br />
from the fact that not all who are called "gods" are necessarily false, nor are they true gods by nature.<br />
Rather, as I argued in my paper which Heinz mentions in his article, the terms "God" or "gods" are also<br />
applied figuratively to entities functioning as God's emissaries, speaking to humanity on behalf of Yahweh,<br />
having God's authority to function in his place.<br />
Reply: And that is exactly how we should view Jesus, the unique Son of God.<br />
Heinz:<br />
Sam Shamoun makes much of what he thinks Stafford ignores in the BAGD, which<br />
says, "genuine, real ... Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real." Stafford<br />
does not hide this, and if you take a closer look, it does not really say what you hope it<br />
says. The BAGD has italicized the word "real," and the reason for this is plain. The<br />
scriptures posted in lexicons, such as BAGD, Thayers, etc, to determine false gods are<br />
never directed to anything living. They almost always refer to a worthless idol, or<br />
something equally without any substance.<br />
That is why the RSV Annotated Study <strong>Bible</strong> says of the false gods, "Idols are helpless,<br />
useless, and not to be compared with celestial phenomena." (ftn. Letter of Jeremiah)<br />
You will be hard pressed to find an example lexically of a living being described as a<br />
false god.<br />
Response:<br />
It is rather unfortunate that Heinz makes very little of Stafford's misuse of BAGD.<br />
Proof that Stafford misused this source (whether willfully or not is not for me to say)<br />
can be seen from his very own writings. In the first edition of his book, Stafford wrote:<br />
"The Greek word translated 'true' (… alethinos) can have one of several meanings,<br />
depending on the context and usage of the author or speaker. According to BAGD,<br />
alehtinos can mean: 'genuine, real… Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not<br />
real… true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its<br />
copies.' To illustrate this meaning of a 'reality possessed only by the archetype,<br />
not by its copies,' consider John 1:9, where John says concerning Jesus, 'The true<br />
light [… to phos to alethinon] that gives light to every sort of man was about to come<br />
into the world' (compare 1 Jo 2:8). Does this mean that Jesus' disciples (Mt 5:14) are<br />
'false' lights? No. It means they are not the original light, but copies of it, giving forth<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (4 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:45 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
the light they received from Jesus." (Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended- An<br />
Answer to Scholars and Critics, first edition, pp. 196-197 bold emphasis mine)<br />
The implication of Stafford's statement is that BAGD seemingly understood and<br />
applied alethinos in the same way that Stafford understood it, namely that John17:3<br />
teaches that the Father is "true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the<br />
archetype, not by its copies". This is clearly false. Stafford was seemingly aware of<br />
his misapplication of BAGD and corrected himself in the second edition of his book:<br />
"The Greek word translated 'true' (… alethinos) can have one of several meanings,<br />
depending upon the context and usage of the author or speaker. According to BAGD,<br />
alethinos can mean: genuine, real… Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not<br />
real… true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its<br />
copies. While BAGD does not attribute the archetypal meaning to alethinos in<br />
John 17:3, WE BELIEVE this sense best fits the use of 'true' in this and other<br />
passages." (Stafford, second edition, p. 121 bold and capital emphasis mine)<br />
The fact that Stafford clarified his use of BAGD affirms that Stafford misapplied at<br />
least this source and thereby gave a misleading impression to his readers.<br />
Reply: So, "it is for you to say" exactly how he used his sources after all!<br />
All revisions have changes and clarifications. If you have recently checked the newly released BDAG<br />
against the older BAGD under the heading of alethinos, you will notice more than a changes and<br />
clarifications, but that does not mean the BAGD gave a misleading impression. You might have a<br />
complaint had the opposite actually happened. Both of the above uses by Stafford are acceptable. We can<br />
take "true" in the sense of the archtypal versus its copy, as the New American <strong>Bible</strong> says in a footnote at<br />
Hebrews 8:2, "True means 'real' in contradistinction to a mere 'copy and shadow.'" [Emphasis theirs]<br />
This brings me to Sam misuse of the word "misuse." Ask most trinitarians like Sam what the ARCH at<br />
Rev. 3:14 means, and they will tell that it means "ruler," or "originator." Yet this is not the definition<br />
assigned to Rev. 3:14 by the BAGD. In fact, the BDAG has upgraded Christ as created first from poss.<br />
[possible] to prob. [probable]. This does not stop <strong>Bible</strong>s like the NIV from using "ruler" here, as the<br />
translators, driven by their theology, feel it best works here. [The NIV translators do use the BAGD...see<br />
The Accuracy of the NIV by Kenneth L. Barker].<br />
One webmaster (see http://www.forananswer.org/Rev/Rv3_14.htm) accuses Stafford of limiting himself<br />
in regards to ARCH and the BAGD, you do quite the obvious and accuse him of branching out to other<br />
definitions in regards to alethinos.<br />
Thankfully, the BAGD is not Thayer, for fear that he would again be labelled an Unitarian by you<br />
trinitarians (he is not).<br />
I could go on, but I think my point is made. Next, we could move on to Colwell's Rule of grammar.<br />
Walter Martin says in his Kingdom of the Cults, "Colwell's rule clearly states that a predicate nominative<br />
never takes an article when it precedes the verb as in John 1:1." Not only did Colwell not state this (he<br />
said usually instead of never, and he even gives 15 exceptions to the rule), his rule is now considered of<br />
no value in determining the translation of John 1:1c. But this does not stop anti-JW Apologists from still<br />
using it against Jehovah's Witnesses regarding John 1:1c. It is quite embarrassing really.<br />
This also demonstrates that Stafford's rejection of BAGD's understanding of the use<br />
of "true" in John 17:3 stems from Stafford's post-biblical 19th century JW henotheistic<br />
theology that he imposes upon the text of scripture. Stafford's commitment to the JW<br />
organization does not allow him to exegete scripture in light of its context, since the<br />
Society forbids its members from thinking independently in regards to assessing JW<br />
doctrine for biblical accuracy.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (5 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:45 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
Reply: You must be desperate Sam. Much of what you find in JWD and JWD2 you will not see in any<br />
Society publication. Rather, it is trinitarians that are not allowed to veer outside the confines of<br />
"orthodoxy" and its man-made creeds, lest they be labelled "liberal" "cultish" or "heretic" and thereby<br />
lose their funding, backing and support. It is YOU that is not allowed to exegete Scripture outside of<br />
Nicaea and the other early Catholic/Platonic formulations, which are simply not articulated in the <strong>Bible</strong>,<br />
period.<br />
Furthermore, Heinz's claim that these lexicons are not contrasting the true God with other living beings<br />
is erroneous. How does Heinz know this to be the case? Do any of these lexicons state this explicitly, or is<br />
Heinz simply imposing his own erroneous understanding into these sources? We challenge Heinz to show<br />
us where the sources alluded to above state that the term alethinos is used solely to contrast the true God<br />
with non-living entities who are not gods at all.<br />
Reply: The fact that you cannot list any non-idol false gods is an answer to your challenge.<br />
Heinz is apparently aware of his blunder and therefore ends up contradicting his<br />
own statement. We reproduce his statement here with bold and capital emphasis:<br />
"…The scriptures posted in lexicons, such as BAGD, Thayers, etc, to determine<br />
false gods are NEVER directed to anything living. They ALMOST always refer to a<br />
worthless idol, or something equally without any substance…"<br />
So which is it Heinz? Is it never or almost always? If it is almost always then you<br />
proceed to refute your own assertion since the use of "almost" negates the term<br />
"never". If it is never then how can it be almost always? Perhaps Heinz can explain<br />
this obvious paradox for us.<br />
Reply: It is *almost always* since I have not checked every lexicon in the world. I suppose you might<br />
find one that makes a mistake.<br />
Finally, BAGD is not alone in understanding alethinos in John 17:3 as implying that there is only one<br />
true God and that the rest are all false since other lexical sources are in agreement. Robert Hommel points<br />
out:<br />
If BAGD is reliable in both their understanding of the various connotation of alêthinos and their specific<br />
definition in John 17:3, we would expect that other authorities would corroborate it. Similarly, if BAGD got<br />
it wrong with regard to John 17:3, we would expect other authorities to disagree.<br />
Reply: Let us see what these lexicon really have to say regarding false gods. The BDAG has on P. 281<br />
(under EIDWLON/Idols), "Polytheists know that the images of gods are lifeless....through metonymy the<br />
image and the deity or divinity the image and the deity or divinity alleged to be represented are freq.<br />
associated in such a manner that the image factor is less significant than the component of unreality or<br />
spuriousness of what is represented." and then it points to Isaiah 44:6-20; 46:1-7and Wisdom 13 and 14.<br />
Read it! Lets continue with the BDAG under Idols, "the cult object as alleged image is evident, but its<br />
subject has no real existence as a god; Paul means that if any transcendent reality is at all to be assigned<br />
to EIDWLON, its status is not that of a god, but of the lesser beings known as DAIMONES 1Cor<br />
10:20....no idol has any real existence in the universe (20th Century NT) 1 Cor 8:4." What does it say?<br />
"We are aware that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one."<br />
Grimm/Thayer defines alêthinos as "contrasts realities with their semblances" for Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24,<br />
but "opposed to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated, pretended" for John 17:3 (p. 27). So,<br />
Grimm/Thayer, too, recognizes the correct connotation of alêthinos in John 17:3 as "true contrasted with<br />
false."<br />
Reply: I would now like you to turn over to page 174 under EIDWLO-LATREIA which is "the worship<br />
of false gods, idolatry: Gal. v. 20."<br />
Also under EIDWLOLATRHS..."a worshipper of false gods, an idolater."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (6 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:45 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
In fact, under DIAMWN (demon) we have "an inferior deity" instead of your desperate "false god."<br />
In his Expository Dictionary, Vine recognizes Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24 as requiring the meaning: "the<br />
spiritual, archetypal tabernacle," but defines alêthinos in John 17:3 as: "'very God,' in distinction from all<br />
other gods, false gods" (p. 645).<br />
Reply: And under Idol (EIDWLON) "*an idol,* an image to represent a false god...*the false god*<br />
worshipped in an image."<br />
Louw and Nida similarly recognize several connotations for alêthinos, including those discussed. They<br />
define alêthinos in John 17:3 as: "pertaining to being real and not imaginary ... 'that they may know you, the<br />
only one who is really God'" (p. 667). Moulton and Milligan list a number of contemporary extra-biblical<br />
examples of alêthinos, including several by Christians in reference to God, and all carry the meaning 'real';<br />
'genuine'; 'true, as opposed to false' (p. 22).<br />
Reply: Louw and Nida, under Idol (EIDWLON, 12.23) states: "an unreal supernatural being - 'false<br />
god'...A 'false god' may be rendered as 'that which seems to be a god.' In 1 Jn. 5:21 one may speak of<br />
'those that seem to be gods but really are not.' "<br />
Finally, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) does not specifically reference John<br />
17:3 in its discussion of alêthinos, but says "As a divine attribute it has the sense of 'reliable,' 'righteous,' or<br />
'real,'" and cites 1 John 5:20, a verse Stafford relates to John 17:3 (IBID, p. 120). This meaning is contrasted<br />
with the<br />
archetype connotation: "In Heb 8:2 the heavenly tabernacle is 'true' in contrast to the earthly, and in Heb.<br />
9:24 the human sanctuary is a copy of the true one, which is genuine as divine" (Abridged edition, p. 39).<br />
Reply: As we can see above, and as the <strong>Bible</strong> record shows, the only false gods are stupid lifeless gods<br />
"who are not gods by nature." The archetype explanation, used by Greg Stafford, fits the best when we<br />
harmonize everything.<br />
Jesus, and the following, are, using Sam's own words, "functioning as God's emissaries, speaking to<br />
humanity on behalf of Yahweh, having God's authority to function in his place."<br />
Moses is a god (Ex 4:16; 7:1)<br />
Judges are gods (Ex 21:6; 22:8; Psalm 82)<br />
Kings are O QEOS (Psalm 45:6)<br />
Angels are gods, and they even act functionally as Jehovah himself.<br />
See Exodus 3:2 [Acts 7:30-32] and then verse 14, 15, also Gen 16:13, 21:17; 22:15,16; 31:11, 13, Jg<br />
6:12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23; 13:6, 21; Deut 5:24; Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23.<br />
But what happens when the angels turn bad. If they can be called "God" easily in the <strong>Bible</strong> as functioning<br />
for the God, if they cease acting for God, do they not them become a "false God?"<br />
It's like the "vessels" mentioned by the apostle Paul. He spoke of a "vessel for honor, another for<br />
dishonor." (Romans 9:21) Both are still "true" vessels though, irrespective of how they use themselves.<br />
The true man is one in which brings delight to our God, and speaks the truth, and applies truth in all<br />
things. He is a Godly man, he is a good man. Yet, in the <strong>Bible</strong>, a good man is contrasted with an evil<br />
man, not a false man. (Lu 6:45; Matt 12:35)<br />
Jesus said at Luke 18:18,19 that none except God were "good". Does this make everyone else<br />
bad? Acts 11:24 says that the disciple Barnabas "was a good man".<br />
On top of the Ark of the Covenant were two cherubs with wings overshadowing the cover. These<br />
"cherubs" were not true "cherubs," but neither were they false. They were copies.<br />
The ANF did not burden themselves with the true God/false God strawman, as Martyr, Athanasius,<br />
Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus all believed that they also could be deified. (click here<br />
for more) Does this mean they would be false gods? They certainly never thought so. In light of Hebrews<br />
1:1-3, they certainly would not be figurative/functional gods, as the Son only speaks in God's behalf now.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (7 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:45 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
If, to a trinitarian, the divine nature encompasses all that God is, are Christians false gods because they<br />
are partakers in the divine nature? (2 Peter 1:4) The more we examine this issue, the more we see the<br />
need to abandon it all costs. It makes a mockery of all that is holy, good and true.<br />
Heinz:<br />
This does not rule out living beings as being false gods, but according the <strong>Bible</strong>,<br />
early Jewish and Christian thought, the true/false enigma is not as restrictive as<br />
Trinitarians wish.<br />
Response:<br />
Heinz has apparently not read the article he claims to be rebutting, or at least did not<br />
read it carefully. Had he done so he would have found sufficient evidence where<br />
certain living beings are in fact classified as false gods.Seeing that the Holy <strong>Bible</strong><br />
does refer to actual living beings as false gods the "true/false EMIGMA" is only an<br />
enigma for henotheists!The point is that the <strong>Bible</strong> says that the true God has a<br />
nature that is not shared by those CALLED "gods," (legomenoi theoi [1 Corinthians<br />
8:5]; cf., Galatians 4:8), but this nature IS shared by the Son. (Cf. John 1:1c;<br />
Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:3)<br />
Reply: We have already seen how the BDAG uses 1 Cor 8:4 to denote "idols" when it uses the quote<br />
from the 20th Cent. NT, "We are aware that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but<br />
one."<br />
Gal 4:8 also refers to idols (see Wycliffe <strong>Bible</strong> Commentary). Yet, while doing a check in the American<br />
Standard Version of the term "true God" I, again, found something interesting. Of the 5 times it mentions<br />
the phrase "true God," the majority of those the term was held in opposition to false "idol" gods.<br />
1) "Jehovah is the true God; he is the living God." Jer 10:10 ASV<br />
Yet this "true God" is compared in vss 3-5 to...IDOLS, who are false gods and NOT living.<br />
"Their stands their god like a helpless scarecrow in the garden! It cannot speak, and it need to be carried<br />
because it cannot walk." NLT<br />
2) 1 Thess 1:9, "For they themselves report concerning us what manner of entering in we had unto you;<br />
and how ye turned unto God from idols, to serve a living and true God"<br />
Again, the "true God" is a living God, the exact antithesis to an "idol" that is not living.<br />
3) 1 John 5:20, 21, "This is the true God, and eternal life. My little children, guard yourselves from idols.<br />
Again, the <strong>Bible</strong> comes to my defense in declaring that false gods were in reality simply "idols."<br />
Since you mentioned Hebrews 1:3 to show how Jesus can share God's nature, let us look at how Jesus<br />
compares to Moses.<br />
The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the <strong>Bible</strong> says this of Moses,<br />
"In the OT as well as the NT Moses is above all the mediator or revelation. Several times his<br />
most intimate relation with the LORD is emphasized (e.g., Exod 19:9.19; 20:18-21; 24:18;<br />
33:11.18-23; Num 12:7,8; Deut 5:20-28; Ps 103:7; Sir 45:5; cf. John 9:29; Acts 7:38; Heb<br />
8:5), evidently to emphasize that Moses' words and prescriptions really are the words and<br />
rules of the LORD himself. In connection with his role as a mediator of revelation, Moses is<br />
portrayed with superhuman traits (cf. also Deut 34:5; Sir 45:20. According to Exod 34:29-35<br />
the skin of Moses' face radiated after his meeting with the Lord on Mount Sinai (Exod<br />
34:29.30.35), i.e. his face was enveloped in a divine aura. By this nimbus Moses was<br />
legitimated as the true representative of the LORD (cf. Matt 17:2, Acts 6:15)."<br />
Now, read Hebrews 1:1-3 again.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (8 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:45 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
"Long ago God spoke to our fathers in many different ways by the prophets, but in these last days He has<br />
spoken to us by His Son...who shines with God's glory and is the copy of His being." An American<br />
Translation/Beck. We not only have Moses and Jesus sharing many aspects as figurative and functional<br />
"gods" (with Jesus of course being a greater Moses, cf. Heb 3:3) but the nature Jesus shared was a COPY<br />
of the true God. What did BAGD say again of ALHQINOS? "true in the sense of the reality possessed<br />
only by the archetype, not by its copies." Jesus is indeed a copy of the only true God, his Father (John<br />
17:3).<br />
It is in this way Barclay could say:<br />
"When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was n o t saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was<br />
saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we<br />
perfectly see what God is like”<br />
Heinz:<br />
We have already mentioned John 17:3, where the "only true God" is distinguished<br />
FROM Jesus Christ. So damaging was this scripture to "Saint" Augustine, that he tried<br />
to change it so that "only true God" was read after "Jesus Christ" to make it sound like<br />
Jesus was the only True God.<br />
Response:<br />
Heinz introduces irrelevant issues and red herring arguments by bringing up St.<br />
Augustine. Since the issue is monotheism not Augustine's integrity or "infallibility",<br />
Heinz is now introducing the very same type of diversionary tactics he accuses<br />
Trinitarians of. Heinz needs to be careful in slinging mud against his opponents since<br />
the same accusations he uses against Christians can be used more forcefully against<br />
him.<br />
One only needs to read the NWT translation of the Greek Scriptures in such places<br />
as Philippians 2:9-11 and Colossians 1:16-17 to discover that the JWs have<br />
deliberately inserted the word "other" into the text. This was done primarily to avoid<br />
the implication these passages have in accurately understanding the true nature and<br />
person of Christ. The NWT translation committee seemingly knew that these passages<br />
clearly teach that Jesus is Yahweh God, the Creator of all things and could not<br />
therefore be the first creation of God. Hence, in order to avoid this they willfully<br />
manhandled God's Word to suit their theological presuppositions.<br />
Reply: Uhm, when I mentioned Augustine, it actually had some bearing on what we were talking about.<br />
How does the word "other" fit into this?<br />
Let us take a look at your assumptions of the word "other" in Php 2:<br />
"God...gave him the name that is above every [other]name." NWT<br />
"God...gave him a name that is above every other name." New Living Translation<br />
"God...has given Him the name that is above every other name." CB Williams NT<br />
"God...gave Him the name that is above every other name. Beck<br />
"God...gave him the name which is above all other names." New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"God...gave him the name that is greater than any other name." Good News <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"God has...given him that name which is greater than any other name." Knox <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"God...has conferred on Him the Name which is supreme above every other." Weymouth NT<br />
"God...gave him the Name which stands above all other names." 20th Century NT<br />
"God...giving him a name that is above every other name." 21st Century NT<br />
"God has...given him the name above all others. Smith&Goodspeed's An American Translation<br />
"God...gave him the name which is above all other names." Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (9 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:45 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
"God...gave him a name which is above every other name." Living <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"God made the name of Christ greater than every other name." New Century Version<br />
"God...gave Him a name that is greater than any other name." New Life Study Testament<br />
"God has given him...the name honored above all other names." God's Word <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Do not these translators "understand the true nature and person of Christ" according to Sam?<br />
The reason for the insertion of the word "other" (and you have to notice that the NWT is the only one that<br />
actually has it in brackets), as 1 Corinthians shows, is that God is excluded by the word "ALL."<br />
"In that quotation All things are put under him, it is evident that God is excepted, who put all things<br />
under Him." 1 Cor 15:27 Montgomery NT [emphasis hers]<br />
Commenting on this, John V. Dahms points out,<br />
"I submit that a responsible reading of Philippians 2 finds the doctrine of the eternal<br />
subordination of the Son implied in it. AS J.J. Muller has said in commenting on this text:<br />
'The glorification of the Father is the ultimate purpose of all things.'" The Subordination of<br />
the Son, JETS, September 1994, 351-64<br />
Moises Silva adds, "EIS DOXAN QEOU PATROS: Clearly, the worship of Jesus as Lord does not imply<br />
competition with the Father, who receives even greater glory through the glorification of the Son." p.<br />
133, The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary<br />
This leads us to Colossians 1:16.<br />
E. Lohse, "A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon", (The Hermeneia Series) p.<br />
50, note 125 says: "It should be noted that EN (in), DIA (through), and EIS (for) are used, but not EK<br />
(from). 'From whom are all things' ( EX hOU TA PANTA) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He is and<br />
remains the creator, but the pre-existent Christ is the mediator of creation."<br />
The Son is never called "creator", but he is what Robertson calls "the intermediate agent" According to<br />
Robertson (Grammar p. 820) the source (direct agent) is most commonly expressed by the Greek<br />
preposition hUPO ("by"), and sometimes by APO ("from") and EK ("out of"). The intermediate agent is<br />
often identified by DIA ("through"). Matthew 1:22 points this out nicely: "All this took place because<br />
what was spoken [aorist passive participle] by [ hUPO] the Lord through [DIA] the prophet must be<br />
fulfilled [aorist passive subjunctive]." Here "the Lord" is the source and "the prophet" is the intermediate<br />
agent. In John 1:3 we read " Through (DIA) him all things were made." In Colossians 1:16 we read: "For<br />
by (EN) him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones<br />
or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by (DIA) him and for (EIS) him. " Please note<br />
that the verbs are passive and note the use of prepositions. In the verse we find the preposition EN ("in,"<br />
"by means of"). This preposition governs AUTW ("him," in the dative case). Most of the 74 occurrences<br />
in the NT of EN AUTW in the dative case are locative, that is, they refer to something or someone being<br />
in some place. Only one of the examples points to a source. In the last part of verse 16 we find the<br />
preposition DIA which governs AUTOU in the genitive case. This is the typical marking of an<br />
intermediate agent, so this must be the proper way to view the Son in this context. God is the source of<br />
the passive verbs which speak about creation, and that the Son is the intermediate agent? In Colossians<br />
1:12 "the Father" is mentioned, and he is active through verse 20. This is seen in verse 19 where God is<br />
the implied subject for the verb, and it is particularly evident in verse 20, because here both the source<br />
(God) and the intermediate agent (Jesus) are mentioned. It is said that the reconciliation is "through"<br />
(DIA) Jesus and "to" (EIS) God. The same thought is expressed in verse 22. The implied source<br />
(grammatical subject) of the active verb "reconciled" is "God." The intermediate agent is Jesus, for it is<br />
said that reconciliation occurred "by means of" (EN) his fleshly body and "through" (DIA) his death.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (10 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:45 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
Even Robert H Countess, though no friend of the NWT, had the following interesting remarks:<br />
"Even though Liddell-Scott state that the radical sense of DIA is 'through' there can be<br />
produced instances where the genetive appears to be causal and the accusative to signify<br />
agency. In general this writer would observe that the so-called causal uses of DIA seem to<br />
be inextricably linked with agency (i.e. 'by' or 'through').<br />
For example, one lexicon cites as causal John 1:3-DI AUTOU EGENETO. [cf. Col.<br />
1:16-TA PANTA DI AUTOU KAI EIS AUTON EKTISTAI.] God apparently worked<br />
*through* the Son in creating all things and, therefore, the Son Himself in some sense<br />
*caused* or created. Another example given is Acts 3:18- O DE QEOS A<br />
PROKATHGGEILEN DIA STOMATOS PANTWN TWN PROFHTWN. Here the mouth<br />
of all the prophets is the channel or medium *through which* God announced beforehand<br />
the sufferings of Christ. The prophets indeed *caused* the message to be proclaimed but<br />
only inasmuch as their mouths had been selected as channels or media for the divine<br />
communication." THANK GOD FOR THE GENETIVE, Robert H. Countess, p. 118, JETS,<br />
Spring 1969<br />
It is interesting that even Countess has to concede that Christ is the agent of creation, and, as a parallel,<br />
uses Acts 3:18, denoting a separate body/being as agent.<br />
So, yes you can translate the following without violating anything:<br />
"It was he that formed all other things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. Whether<br />
kingdoms or dominions, governments or authorities, all came into existence as a result of<br />
him and by means of him." 21st Century NT<br />
Keep in mind that God is exempted from "all things" 1 Cor 15:27, and when you think about, Jesus is<br />
also exempted from the creative process with the wording "other" in the NWT. You would think that this<br />
is something Trinitarians would like.<br />
Sam does bring up Scriptures where Jehovah says he created alone.<br />
We know that Jehovah, was not really alone at the time of creation because Job 38:6, 7 tells us: "When I<br />
laid the foundation of the earth ... all the sons of God shouted for joy". The angels shouted for joy when<br />
Jehovah, through His Son, "laid the foundations of the earth".<br />
We see also that the created Wisdom (Jesus) was helping god during creation creation,<br />
"when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman (ftn.<br />
little child)." Prov 8:22-30 RSV<br />
The use of the term, "alone", "by myself" etc do not necessarily mean the same thing to those in power,<br />
even in the <strong>Bible</strong>. What do I mean?<br />
Let us look at Daniel 4:30 and Isaiah 63:3. Daniel 4:30, "The king reflected and said, 'Is this not Babylon<br />
the great, which I myself have built.' " NASB.<br />
"The king was saying, 'Great Babylon! Imperial palace! Did I not build it alone.' " Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
"The king spake and said, Is this not Babylon the great, - which I myself have built," J.B. Rotherham<br />
Nebuchadnezzar was not the only person to have built Babylon, was he? But it was built by his<br />
authority, his word and no other's.<br />
Isaiah 63:3 says: "I [Jehovah] have trodden the wine press alone, and of the peoples there was no man<br />
with me." Again, it was not Jehovah who personally punish these people. It was His angel acting on the<br />
Jehovah's authority. (2 Kings 19:35, 36) Did Jehovah personally chastise the Babylonians or did He use<br />
the Medes and Perians to accomplish His will? (Daniel 5:26-28, 30-31) All these acts were done by<br />
Jehovah's authority; and by His alone.—Ezekiel. 36:33, 36.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (11 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:45 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
But this again, is where agency comes in, such as was mentioned in the first reply to Sam. Nave's Topical<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> rightly says under *Worship,* "to be rendered to God only."<br />
Yet, the worship to God (Shachah, OT), is again, contrasted between Jehovah and the false idol gods.<br />
Ex 20:3-4, " Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image..."<br />
Ex 34:14, 17 "for thou shalt worship no other god: for Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous<br />
God...Thou shalt make thee no molten gods."<br />
...and interestingly, Deut 29:26, "and went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods that they<br />
knew not, and that he had not given unto them."<br />
It is of no small note that the <strong>Bible</strong> also uses the same word (Shachah) used in exclusive WORSHIP to<br />
Jehovah, to others as well.<br />
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV<br />
"And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and<br />
worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV<br />
Here, king David is given the same worship as Jehovah.<br />
An angel even receives worship(NKJV, ASV) at Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23.<br />
Angels were even allowed to use God's name. In Exodus 3:2 [Acts 7:30-32], "the angel of Jehovah<br />
appeared unto him [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush" Ex. 3:2. Yet later on we read<br />
that this same angel used the name Jehovah for himself [v. 16], even the "I AM"[v.14] you find so<br />
important to your theology. As Ex 23:20, 21 says,<br />
"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I<br />
have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not<br />
pardon your transgression: for my name is in him."<br />
So as representatives of God, angels were allowed to use his name, and to act as God. You will find other<br />
examples of angels in similar situations at Gen 16:13, 21:17; 22:15,16; 31:11, 13, Jg 6:12, 13, 14, 20, 21,<br />
22, 23; 13:6, 21, and Deut 5:24.<br />
[It should be noted that Sam will say that the "Angel of the LORD" is also a member of the Trinity, or<br />
even Jesus. This may be true some of the time, but not always. Consider a few examples:<br />
In Zechariah 1:11-13 we have a conversation between this angel and Jehovah.<br />
"And they answered the angel of Jehovah that stood among the myrtle-trees, and said, We have walked to<br />
and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest.<br />
Then the angel of Jehovah answered and said, "O Jehovah of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy<br />
on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and<br />
ten years?"<br />
And Jehovah answered the angel that talked with me with good words, even comfortable words."<br />
If the angel of the LORD is the LORD himself (or a member of the LORD...I can't believe I just said that)<br />
then how did he not know the answer to the question he posed to the LORD?<br />
The text indicates that the Angel really is perplexed over the present state of Judah. He does not know<br />
what the LORD knows and so poses the aforesaid question to Him.<br />
Next, we have the angel of the Lord appearing to Joseph, while Mary was pregnant (Matt 1:20), and<br />
while Jesus was a child (Matt 2:13). If Jesus is the Angel of the Lord, then how many members of the<br />
trinity are there?<br />
Just to show you the level of dishonesty that goes into these theories, read the follwing from Charles<br />
Ryrie: "That He [the angel of the Lord] is a member of the Trinity is indicated by the fact that the<br />
appearances of the Angel of Yahweh cease after the Incarnation." (To Ryrie the "Angel of Yahweh" is the<br />
same as the"Angel of the Lord"...see index). p. 236, Basic Theology, by Charles Ryrie.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (12 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:45 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
Not only do the above 2 Scriptures contradict him, but so do the mention of the "angel of the Lord" at<br />
Acts 5:19; 8:26; 12:7, 23. Can we believe ANYTHING these people say regarding the Trinity, if they are<br />
even willing to lie about it?<br />
"He is distinguished from God in that God refers to the angel (Ex 23:23; 32:34) and speaks<br />
to him (2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chron 21:27) and the angel speaks to Yahweh (Zech 1:12). The<br />
evidence for the view that the angel of the Lord is a preincarnate appearance of Christ is<br />
basically analogical and false short of it being conclusive. The NT does not clearly show<br />
make that identification." Evangelical Dictionary of Theology by Elwell, p. 62<br />
"Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this 'angel' was a preincarnate<br />
manifestation of Christ as God's messenger-Servant. It may be, however, that, as the Lord's<br />
personal messenger who represented him and bore his credentials, the angel could speak<br />
on behalf of the (an so be identified with) the One who sent him (see especially 19:21; cf.<br />
18:2, 22; 19:2). Whether this 'angel' was the second person of the Trinity remains therefore<br />
uncertain." NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong>, Genesis 16:7]<br />
Heinz:<br />
Couple this with 1 Cor 8:6, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in<br />
heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God,<br />
the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ,<br />
through whom are all things, and we through him."<br />
Response:<br />
Heinz needs to answer who the legomenoi theoi of this passage are…(answer: gods<br />
many AND lords many).Since theoi and kurioi are BOTH the "so-called gods,"<br />
Paul is EQUATING the two terms.If he intends a distinction (essential to WT<br />
theology), then both Witnesses and Trinitarians have a dilemma.For then we are<br />
to have one [true] God and one [true] Lord – two different beings.Yet as I will<br />
point out below, Jude 4 refutes this attempt of positing two distinct beings, with one<br />
being God and the other Lord. As I will demonstrate the JW apologist is stuck at this<br />
point, if he is to remain logically consistent. The JW must explain how Jesus is his one<br />
and only Sovereign Master and Lord (regardless of HOW Jesus became DESPOTES<br />
and KURIOS), and how he honors (values) the Son equally with the Father, when the<br />
Son is inferior in NATURE to the Father. (Cf. John 5:22-23)<br />
Heinz:<br />
This scripture alone is disastrous to a Trinitarian, as Jesus is excluded from the<br />
term, "One God."<br />
In fact, if you take a look at QEOS as it is mentioned in the NT, the term is almost<br />
exclusively used of the Father. Trinitarian and Biblical theology both teach that Jesus<br />
cannot be the Father. So if Jesus is not the "One God" or "only True God," as he is<br />
clearly distinguished from him, then where does that leave him?<br />
Response:<br />
Heinz shows that he really has not taken the time to read the Trinitarian responses to<br />
the JW misapplication of 1 Corinthians 8:6. Had he done so he would not have made<br />
such an outlandish claim. This verse no more proves that Jesus cannot be God then<br />
Jesus being Lord proves that the Father cannot be Lord also. In fact, the Holy <strong>Bible</strong><br />
clearly states that Jesus is our only Sovereign Master and Lord while at the same time<br />
acknowledging that the Father is also our Sovereign Master and Lord:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (13 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:45 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
My reason is that certain men have slipped in who have long ago been appointed by<br />
the Scriptures to this judgment, ungodly men, turning the undeserved kindness of our<br />
God into an excuse for loose conduct and proving false to our only Owner and Lord<br />
(ton monon despoten kai kurion hemon), Jesus Christ. Jude 4 NWT<br />
Reply: There are no trinitarian responses to 1 Cor 8:6, as it does not mention the Spirit. 1 Cor. 8:4-6<br />
states that there are many gods "as (indeed) there are" [Zerwick's A Grammatical Analysis]. Thayers<br />
thinks the gods mentioned here are the angels. Angels are indeed called gods in the <strong>Bible</strong> and most<br />
certainly in the intertestamental period. But we do not refer to angels as God, and neither do we refer to<br />
Moses as God or the Judges as God, though these were referred to as such in the <strong>Bible</strong>. To me, though<br />
QEOS is used in reference to Jesus (though disputed, cf Thayers) we should not call Jesus God either.<br />
What every glory, honor, title, and authority the above had or shared, it was GIVEN to them by the<br />
Father, and it was "to the glory of God the Father." BDAG - QEOS 2 - provides an interesting thought<br />
when it quotes Dg 10:6. It says:<br />
"hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN ECEI, TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS<br />
CORHGWN, QEOS GINETAI [QEOS as predicate nominative preceeding copulative verb]<br />
TWN LAMBANANTWN (one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God<br />
proves to be a god to the recipients). (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother). Such understanding<br />
led to the extension of the mng. of Q. to pers. who elicit special reverence." p. 450<br />
None of this devalues the term as it is applied to God Jehovah, as he alone is the true God, which can<br />
also mean "better" (see Zerwick, 1 John 5:21).<br />
Sam: Whereas JW apologists must squirm their way through these passages, a Trinitarian<br />
is able to account for all these passages with no problems. The reason why Jesus can<br />
be our only Sovereign Master and Lord without this excluding the Father is because<br />
both the Father and the Son share the same eternal Being of the one true God. Hence,<br />
what is true of One is also true of the Other as far as their divine nature and attributes<br />
are concerned.<br />
Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 8:6 actually affirms the essential equality that exists<br />
between the Father and the Son since Paul states that all things are from the Father and<br />
through the Son:<br />
Reply: Still, as H Conzelman points out, "The interpretation of ...'Lord'...is deliberately set in contrast to<br />
that of the concept 'God.'" 1 Corinthians, p. 144, as quoted in The Subordination of the Son, JETS,<br />
September 1994, 351-64, Dahms.<br />
As for Jude 4, You have to look at the <strong>Bible</strong> from a Biblical point of view.<br />
Rev 15:4 also uses the word MONOS (alone, only):<br />
"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy."<br />
But yet, others are called HOLY (Acts 3:21; 10:22; 1 Corinthians 7:14 etc).<br />
Jesus is called the "only Son" (John 1:18 RSV), yet God has other Sons (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).<br />
The referent at 1 Tim 6:16 is called the MONOS DUNASTHS "only Potentate." Yet, the same word<br />
"DUNASTHS" is used for the Eunuch "of great authority" at Acts 8:27.<br />
The monarchs who were dethroned are also referred to as DUNASTHS at Luke 1:52.<br />
It can refer to a "prince" (Thayer's) or "gen. one who is in a position to command others" BDAG.<br />
In this, it is similar to DESPOTHS ("one who has legal control and authority over person, such as<br />
subjects or slaves" BDAG. Jesus is also called TON MONON DESPOTHS "our only Sovereign" NIV.<br />
The word DESPOTHS is also used of humans at 1 Tim 6:1; Titus 2:1; 1 Peter 2:18 etc.<br />
Jesus is our only Lord and Master as he was "MADE Lord" (Acts 2:36) and he was GIVEN a Name (Php<br />
2:9-11) and Authority (Matt 28:18), but everything he does is to "the glory of God the Father." He is our<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (14 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:46 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
only way to God, as he is mediator (1 Tim 2:5) between God and men.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> also says,<br />
If all 2 members of the Trinity are co-equal, why does the Spirit not share in these titles? Why is there so<br />
little mention of the Spirit amongst trinitarian apologists? Why does the Dynamic Duo seem to make up<br />
the Triune Trio in these discussions?<br />
This leads me to another point of interest. Why do all the Trinity "proof texts" suffer from one or another<br />
form of ambiguity? This includes John 1:1, John 1:18, John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy<br />
3:16; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:6, 8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:7,8; Jude 4; Revelations 1:11...<br />
Sam: Additionally, elsewhere in the NT Jesus is credited with the actual creation of the universe in<br />
much the same way that the Father is, further implying that the Son is Jehovah God (but not<br />
the Father). For instance, the inspired author of Hebrews writes:<br />
“But about the Son he says… ‘In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations<br />
of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but<br />
you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like<br />
a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never<br />
end.’” Hebrews 1:8a, 10-12<br />
The author has the Father addressing the Son as the actual Creator of the cosmos. The author<br />
applies an OT passage, Psalm 102:25-27, referring to Jehovah’s work in creation and applies it<br />
to the Son. The author is affirming that the Son personally laid the foundations of the earth and<br />
that the heavens are the work of the Son’s hands. This inarguably demonstrates that at least to<br />
this writer Jesus is actually Jehovah God, the eternal Creator (yet not the Father)!<br />
Reply: What does any of this have to do with an actual Trinity. I am sick and tired of Trinity "proof<br />
texts" that have nothing to do with the 3rd person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. All Sam is doing is<br />
converting Sabellianism to Trinitarianism.<br />
On Hebrews 1:10-12, imminent scholar, George W. Buchanan has this to say,<br />
"The connective "and" relates verses 10-12 to verses 7-9. "Now, (on the other hand,) [with<br />
reference] to the angels, it says" (1:7) "but [with reference] to the Son, [it says,]" (1:8) "and"<br />
(1:10). The "Lord" in Ps 102 clearly referred to God. Here it might also<br />
mean God, with the implication that since the Son was "heir or all" (1:2) and since it was<br />
through the Son that the Lord "made the ages" (1:2), any reference to the endurance of God<br />
would also be a reference to the endurance of the Son. In other places the author of Hebrews<br />
quoted Old Testament passages that mention the name of the Lord, and in every case the<br />
author held the same meaning (7:21; 8:8, 10, 11; 10:16, 30; 12:5, 6). On the other hand, the<br />
author did use the name "Lord" when referring to Jesus (2:3; 7:14). Like other scholars of<br />
his time, the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and<br />
attributing it to the Messiah. For example in LXX Deut 32:43, in which the object of<br />
worship for the sons of God according to the Proto-Massoretic text was Israel, the author of<br />
Hebrews applied it to the first-born, namely Jesus (1:6). Since the term "first-born" could be<br />
applied either to Israel (Exod 4:22) or to the Messiah, the author made the shift. By the same<br />
logic,<br />
since the "Lord" was a title of respect used both for God and for kings, such as Jesus, he<br />
may also have made the shift here to apply to Jesus the durability of God in contrast to the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (15 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:46 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
temporal nature of the angels. If this were the case, then Jesus would also have been thought<br />
of as a sort of demiurge through whom God created the heaven and the earth.as well as the<br />
ages (1:2, 10). In either case it does not mean that Jesus was believed to be God or was<br />
addressed as God."<br />
Hebrews 1:10 Anchor <strong>Bible</strong>/Buchanan<br />
Hebrews 1 and 2 stresses the superiority of Jesus over the angels, something that almighty God does not<br />
have to defend nor explain.<br />
We have to be real careful how we apply ontology or equality regarding certain Scriptures:<br />
Let us compare 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chron 21:1:<br />
2 Sam reads, "And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against<br />
them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah."<br />
1 Chron reads, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.<br />
At Job 1:12 we have Satan moving against Job, but at Job 42:11 it was "the LORD had brought on him."<br />
Are we here to conclude, by the arguments listed above that Jehovah and Satan are the same person (or<br />
equal?)<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> calls both Jesus AND Satan a "Lion" (1 Peter 5:8 & Rev 5:5).<br />
Satan is called a morning star (Lucifer KJV) at Isaiah 14:12, but Jesus is also called one at Revelation<br />
22:16. No one suggest that Jesus and Satan are the same.<br />
A scripture in Matthew 2:15 applies to Jesus, but the earlier reference in Hosea 11:1 applies to Israel.<br />
Does than make them the same/equal? No! There is a prophecy about Elijah in Malachi 4:5 that is<br />
applied to John the Baptist in Matthew 17:12,13; 11:14. Is John the Baptist really Elijah? No!<br />
And none of this makes for anything TRIUNE. Like I said, it is all smoke and mirrors.<br />
(Have you noticed that Sam moved away from the discussion of alethinos?)<br />
Continued...<br />
Sam: Stafford also commits a categorical fallacy since he assumes that because the Father is said to be<br />
Jesus’ God and the source of his authority, this somehow proves that Jesus is not the same kind of God that<br />
the Father is. This fails to take into consideration that at the incarnation Christ truly became man and set<br />
aside his authority in order to take the form of a slave. (Cf. John 1:14; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:5-8.)<br />
In order for Stafford’s argument to work either he or Heinz must present one single passage where the<br />
Father is said to be Jesus’ God even before the Incarnation. If they can show a verse demonstrating that<br />
prior to Christ’s human birth the Father was Jesus’ God while the latter existed alongside the Father in<br />
heaven, then they have a case. If they cannot produce such a passage then Stafford’s claim that Jesus has a<br />
God does nothing to refute the Trinitarian position.Stafford might offer Micah 5:4 as evidence that the<br />
Father was God to the Son in His preexistence.<br />
Yet this is a messianic prophecy, and as such refers to the Messiah AFTER the incarnation. (Cf. Micah 5:2)<br />
Therefore the appeal to Micah 5:4 will not establish the JW position.<br />
Reply: C'mon Sam, even Jesus admits that the references to him in the OT are with the future in mind.<br />
"Everything thing written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be<br />
fulfilled." Luke 24:44 HCSB<br />
What is most important is that Jesus, in his divine exalted state in heaven, just when he is as high as he<br />
will ever get, still has someone who is God to him. (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Eph.<br />
1:17; 1 Pet. 1:3) When does the <strong>Bible</strong> ever state that the Holy Spirit or the Father has a God over them?<br />
We must remember that the createdWisdom of Proverbs 8:22-30 also applies to Jesus Christ, who even<br />
applies this to himself at Luke 11:49; Matthew 23:34. All creatures, great and small, have been created<br />
by the Father, Jehovah, and this includes Jesus (cf. Col 1:15; Rev. 3:14).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (16 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:46 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
"Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?"<br />
Sam: We see that JW apologists are inconsistent in their methodology. They claim that it is wrong for<br />
Trinitarians to conclude that Jesus is Jehovah despite the fact that OT passages referring to Jehovah along<br />
with titles, attributes, functions and the worship given exclusively to Jehovah alone are applied to Christ.<br />
Yet, it is perfectly all right for JWs to assume that Jesus is the archangel Michael due to similarities shared<br />
by the two, despite the fact that not a single NT passage explicitly states that Jesus is an angel, or more<br />
specifically the archangel Michael.<br />
Reply: It should be noted here, that Trinitarians have no problem considering Jesus as the<br />
*Angel of the LORD*, despite the fact "that not a single NT passage explicitly states that<br />
Jesus is an angel."<br />
JW apologists are therefore guilty of assuming that similarities somehow prove sameness along with<br />
employing a methodology that they only too quickly condemn Trinitarians for using. This is known as<br />
religious hypocrisy.<br />
Reply: The difference between our two methodologies is that my belief system does not hinge on Christ<br />
being Michael. It is actually rarely talked about amongst JW's. JW's though want to best represent<br />
Christianity in its most ancient form.<br />
From Brittanica.com:<br />
"Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology, which had already played a role in<br />
Rome in the early 2nd century--namely, the so-called angel-Christology. The descent of the<br />
Son to Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who<br />
became man in Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael.<br />
In the old angel-Christology the concern is already expressed to preserve the oneness of<br />
God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all<br />
paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he<br />
is moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim--i.e.,<br />
defending the idea of the oneness of the Christian concept of God against all reproaches that<br />
Christianity introduces a new, more sublime form of polytheism."<br />
http://mamma66.mamma.com/Search?eng=MSN&cb=Mamma&dest=http%3A%2F%2<br />
Fwww.britannica.com%2Fbcom%2Feb%2Farticle%2F1%2F0%252C5716%252C1083<br />
01%2B3%252C00.html&engid=599&af=0&qtype=0&qw=angel+christology&idx=0<br />
But I think the biggest difference here that Sam is missing is being able to distinguish between typology,<br />
ontology and agency.<br />
Typology, according to McKenzie's Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> is, "an impression; then 'a copy,' 'image,'<br />
'pattern,' or 'model,' 'example'). The type and typological interpretation of the <strong>Bible</strong> is an exposition<br />
which presents the persons, institutions or events of the OT as 'types' of persons, institutions or events in<br />
the NT."<br />
For instance, Jesus is called the "last Adam" but no one supposes they are the same as Adam no longer<br />
existed in the NT.<br />
Matthew 2:18 compares Rachel to Bethlehem.<br />
Moses was a type of Christ, as was Joseph and many others. But the archangel Michael is different in<br />
that he appears again in the NT (Jude 9; Revelation 12), in fact, he only appears when Christ is in<br />
heaven, not on earth. When Jesus was on earth, there was still a God in heaven whom he prayed to. It is<br />
not the same situation at all.<br />
God's representatives/agents are designated as "God" also in the <strong>Bible</strong>, but no one will argue that Jesus is<br />
an agent for Michael.<br />
"Jewish angelology in apocalyptic writings describes Michael as 'general' and 'chief captain' (2 En. 22:6;<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (17 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:46 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
33:10),...He is characterized as 'merciful, charitable, and long-suffering"...a 'mediator and<br />
intercessor...and in intermediary between God and Moses at the time when the Law was given at<br />
Sinai...As the true representative of God, identified with the 'angel of Yahweh,' Michael withstood<br />
Satan's accusations and vindicated Israel at the heavenly tribunal." p. 896, Eerdman's Dictionary of the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong><br />
Subj: Hello<br />
Date: 01/22/2002 2:22:19 PM Pacific Standard Time<br />
From: sam_shmn@hotmail.com (sam shamoun)<br />
To: hector3001@aol.com<br />
Hello Hector,<br />
I see that my refutation has unnerved you. :-)<br />
Needless to say I was left unimpressed with your alleged rebuttal and will<br />
write a final refutation of your points exposing the logical fallacies such<br />
as rd herring, equivocation, straw man etc. But that will come in the<br />
distant future since I have tons of rebuttals to write regarding Muslim<br />
apologetics.<br />
Please try to make your rebuttals at least accurate and to the point, and<br />
avoid the logical fallacies since that will save me another 78 page<br />
response. :-)<br />
I promise you that you will be the first to know when my rebuttal is<br />
finished.<br />
Sam<br />
P.S.<br />
Thanks for the citations on the Idols. It seems you failed to realize that<br />
those citations actually cut your own throat and reinforces my arguments.<br />
Thanks bud for all the help, I sure will use it!<br />
Reply: You have to understand how people like Sam think. They are trained to think this way. I don't<br />
know the level of Sam's training in Greek, though he seems to be very intelligent. But from the outset,<br />
students are taught to have a certain mindset when it comes to learning Greek. Consider the following<br />
from Mounce's Basic's of Biblical Greek ( a good first year grammar).<br />
Talking about the punctuation, Mounce has this to say,<br />
"Obviously this has created some difficulties for contemporary scholars since the way a verse is<br />
punctuated can have a significant effect on the interpretation of the verse. One outstanding example is<br />
Romans 9:5. If a major stop is placed after KATA SARKA ("according to the flesh"), then the final<br />
section of the verse is a statement about God the Father (the NEB has "May God, supreme above all, be<br />
blessed for ever! Amen"). However, if a minor stop is placed at that point, the final words of the sentence<br />
speak of Christ (the NIV has "Christ, who is God over<br />
all, forever praised! Amen").<br />
Does it make any difference? Most scholars believe it does. If the latter punctuation brings out what Paul<br />
intended, then we have in this verse a clear-cut statement affirming the deity of Jesus Christ. He is, in<br />
fact, God. The way a translation handles an ambiguous verse such as this reveals the theological<br />
leanings of the translator."<br />
The language here is quite clear. If you don't apply full deity to Christ, no matter how ambiguous the<br />
passage, you are rejecting Christ as the God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. Yet, it gives the<br />
NEB as an example of this, and it was directed by representatives of Protestant and Catholic Churches in<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (18 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:46 AM]
Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun<br />
the UK. Are they Unitarians? No! The same could be said for the Revised Standard Version, the Good<br />
News <strong>Bible</strong> etc. But this warning is set in the book right at the outset (p. 13). Let us move on to page 28,<br />
where it discusses the Definite Article. Right in the beginning, as an example of a subject and predicate<br />
nominative, it gives "John is a man."<br />
But when we move on to John 1:1, to phrase it similarly (the Word was a god) is considered "Arianism"<br />
and outside the framework of "Orthodoxy." But let us look at how they import a later theology into this<br />
verse: "Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with<br />
the person of 'God' (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine<br />
attributes of God that the Father has: lack of article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father." [Emphasis<br />
theirs]<br />
Mounce is aiming for a qualitative (divine attributes) exegesis of the passage. The problem is that he has<br />
to import the words "person" and "Father," neither of which are in the text. An honest examination with<br />
quality in view SHOULD read, "Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the the Word<br />
(Jesus Christ) with the 'God.' That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine<br />
attributes God has: lack of article tells us that Jesus Christ is not God."<br />
Unfortunately, NT Greek students, and Sam, are not allowed to think outside the confines of orthodoxy.<br />
To elevate themselves though, they embrace an air of superiority, and they do this by labelling other<br />
groups who are allowed free thought as "cults."<br />
As one atheist points out: "This superiority complex lies at the core of evangelism. I seriously doubt<br />
that this attitude has anything to do with you being in any state of vulnerability: evangelicals tend to see<br />
the rest of us as being flat-out inferior to them simply because we're not one of them. This clannishness<br />
brings their behavior into the realm of bigotry: it's as if they are a privileged few, and the best we could<br />
hope for would be to be like them."<br />
Sam, you can reply to me ad nauseum, but at some point I will have to follow the <strong>Bible</strong>'s lead and move<br />
on.<br />
"If they don't welcome you, quietly withdraw. Don't make a scene. Shrug your shoulders and be on your<br />
way. You can be sure that on Judgment Day they'll be mighty sorry-but it's no concern of yours now."<br />
Matthew 10:14 The Message<br />
Back To Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/sam.htm (19 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:46 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
The E-Mail Bag<br />
Emerson: It doesn't import me what will say. It matters it is the truth. NWT is a confused<br />
translation and full of interpolations.<br />
Reply: No, it is no more full of interpolations than any other <strong>Bible</strong>, and even less so for <strong>Bible</strong>s that use<br />
the Dynamic Equivalent approach to <strong>Bible</strong> translating.<br />
res172vi@verizon...: The WBTS will not allow their members to read any literature not<br />
published by their sect. They will not allow any other bible to be studied at home or in<br />
church other than the NWT. These are undeniable facts. It seems like you are searching for<br />
the truth and that is why you continually show disregard for the WBTS rules.<br />
Reply: The misinformation wagon keeps rolling. The only "undeniable fact" is that people want to<br />
believe the worst about Jehovah's Witnesses. The WTS also prints the King James Version, The<br />
American Standard Version, The Emphatic Diaglott, The <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English, and I have also<br />
recieved from them, the New English <strong>Bible</strong>, the New American <strong>Bible</strong>, the Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, Rotherham's<br />
Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong>, and others have been available. I often use other <strong>Bible</strong>s in my ministry, sermons<br />
(talks) and service.<br />
I also own hundreds of books on theology and New Testament history and grammar, a passion shared by<br />
many of my brothers. We have though criticized owning books considered junk, like romance novels,<br />
and those written by apostates (former members).<br />
SS777: I wanted to talk about the WT's murder of the English language when translating the<br />
Hebrew Scriptures in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation. I remember my first few encounters with<br />
JW's and I remember reading a Watchtower magazine and being surprised at how bad their<br />
OT scriptures seemed to be in comparison to the KJV or NASB...<br />
It doesn't take long for someone reading the WT <strong>Bible</strong> to realize that it is very wooden,<br />
wordy, graceless, stiff, awkward, unwieldy, dull, unfortunate and odd. Things like the word<br />
"grace" being translated as "undeserved kindness" are a bit weighty at first, but it is still<br />
being true to the text. The question is, is it a translation that maintains the beauty of the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, or is it devoid of the beauty that has been captured and inspired by God?<br />
Starting off in Genesis, we find that the NWT uses the term "bad" as opposed to "evil."<br />
Gen 2:17 "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it."<br />
Bad can mean many things. Someone can have a bad back. In can be meant as ïincorrectÍ.<br />
The room you live in could have bad lighting. An untrained puppy is a "bad puppy." Satan<br />
rebelling against God and causing death and pain and the fall of 20 or 30 billion souls is<br />
none other than "EVIL." Hitler was not bad for killing 10 million people, he was evil. You<br />
get the point? You may say this is nit picking, but stick with me for a moment.<br />
Reply: The problem with this is, the fruit was not meant for Satan, and the prohibition put on the tree<br />
was not directed towards spirit creatures such as Satan, but mere humans. Yes, the word "bad" can also<br />
mean a "bad puppy" or "bad lighting," but it is used in the context of Genesis 2 as the antithesis to<br />
"good." Good knowledge as opposed to bad knowledge. Ask anyone what the opposite of good is, and<br />
you will get "bad" as an answer, before you get "evil."<br />
Evil might have a better ring to it, but the Hebrew and Greek (LXX) words used indicate that it has "bad"<br />
as a meaning before "evil." (See BAGD, BDB, Strong's, Vine's etc)<br />
The word "bad" is also used in the Living <strong>Bible</strong>, The Holy <strong>Bible</strong> in the Language of Today by William F.<br />
Beck, Tanakh-The New Jewish Publication Society, The New American <strong>Bible</strong>, Good News <strong>Bible</strong>, and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (1 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
Byington's <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English.<br />
SS777: Judges 14:3 is a passage where Samson spots a lovely Philistine woman and says to<br />
his parents enthusiastically Her get for me(NWT). ...<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> is filled with beautiful literature, even atheists can admire its poise and<br />
gracefulness. The Psalms overflow with the exhortations to worship the Lord in the beauty<br />
of holiness. It seems the NWT has taken the beauty out of the <strong>Bible</strong>, and even the word itself.<br />
Reply: If you want beauty, then read the Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> or the New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, if you want<br />
word study, then choose the NWT.<br />
"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the <strong>Bible</strong> who are trying to appreciate<br />
to learn *the Hebrew or Greek* languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or<br />
'gloss' translation, especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the<br />
NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG, DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, <strong>Bible</strong><br />
<strong>Translations</strong><br />
and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie [emphasis his]<br />
"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages. we suggest either a<br />
very literal version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version<br />
[Kingdom {Interlinear Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your <strong>Bible</strong> Wisely,<br />
Duthie<br />
For instance, in Judges 14:3, most <strong>Bible</strong>s will remove the references to "eyes." The Hebrew Interlinear<br />
(Jay P. Green) reads, "for she is pleasing in my eyes."<br />
But what do most <strong>Bible</strong>s say?<br />
"for she pleaseth me well" ASV, KJV<br />
"pleases me very much" LITV<br />
"she is the one that suits me" Smith & Goodspeed<br />
"she looks good to me" NASB<br />
If you are fortunate to have the NASB Study <strong>Bible</strong>, it gives the literal rendering in the margin...and it<br />
reads exactly like it is in the NWT, and THAT is the value of having the NWT.<br />
Question: The <strong>Bible</strong> says that Jesus forgave people their sins and everyone knows that only<br />
God Himself can forgive sins.<br />
Reply: It was the hateful Jews who said that only God can forgive sins (Mark 2:7), but the <strong>Bible</strong> clearly<br />
show that Jesus got his power from God (Luke 5:17; John 10:32). What did Jesus say? "All authority<br />
hath been GIVEN unto me in heaven and on earth." Matt 28:18<br />
God does not need to be GIVEN anything. Jesus' disciples were also given power to forgive sins (John<br />
22:22, 23). Does this mean they are God also?<br />
Question: How are people baptised. I was told they were baptised in the name of the father,<br />
son, and watchtower organization.<br />
Reply: The last baptism I was at specifically had a sermon on what it meant to be baptized in the name<br />
of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and before baptism, this is made clear to the baptismal candidates.<br />
Baptismal candidates are given instruction as to what it means to be baptized "the name of the Father and<br />
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and this is re-iterated by the Watchtower April 1, 2002, pp. 11, 12.<br />
Though it is common to use the language of "God's Spirit-directed organization."<br />
Is this a stretch? As far the spirit goes, there is nothing here that Trinitarians haven't said before. Most<br />
people feel their Church organization is Spirit-directed, and this is borne out in the <strong>Bible</strong>: Scofield, "the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (2 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
Church, which is Christ's body, formed<br />
by the baptism with the Holy Spirit." [ftn at Eph 3] cf. Eph 1:13; 2:22; 3:5, 19; 1Pet 2:5; 1 Cor. 2:10;<br />
John 14:26,Matt. 18:20. Harper <strong>Bible</strong> Commentary, "The Spirit is the Church.<br />
What of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: "It is said, 'In the church, God has set apostles, prophets, teachers,"<br />
and all the other means through which the SPIRIT works. Those who do not join themselves to the<br />
church are not partakers of these things. Rather, they defraud themselves of life through their perverse<br />
opinions and infamous behavior. For where the church is, there is the SPIRIT of God. And where the<br />
SPIRIT of God is, there is the church, and every kind of grace." Irenaeus (c.180, E/W),<br />
1.458.<br />
Barclay writes that there is truth in the statement that we cannot have God for our Father if we do not<br />
have the Church for our Mother. (see The Gospel of Mark-Daily <strong>Bible</strong> Series, p. 331)<br />
On an interesting note, the baptismal formula is never repeated for subsequent baptism in the Greek<br />
Scriptures (NT).<br />
From: J. Cejka+<br />
I was a student of E.C. Colwell. You have misused his material. I often recall his critiques of<br />
the NWT's deliberate mistranslation and its violation of Colwell's rule.<br />
Oh, well.<br />
Canis meus id comedit.<br />
J. Cejka +<br />
Adjunct Faculty, University of Phoenix<br />
Adjunct Faculty, Bakersfield College<br />
Reply: Rather, it is those who have used the converse of Colwell's rule to advertize their theology, even<br />
so far as misquoting him, that are in error. Walter Martin misquotes Colwell, yet no one complains about<br />
that. Colwell's rule is obsolete as far as any practical use is concerned in determining definiteness in John<br />
1:1c, which is what many try to do.<br />
Mr. Cejka wrote: Thanks for your reply. You have not proved your case. You've still misused<br />
Pomp's material and methodology. And, as Momma says, just cause someone else does it,<br />
don't make it right.<br />
J. Cejka+<br />
Adjunct, University of Phoenix<br />
Adjunct, Bakersfield College<br />
Reply: But sir, you have not proved your case where I have not proved my case. I simply applied<br />
Colwell's<br />
apparatus to as many versions as I could, and these are the results (see<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/colwell.htm ).<br />
This is called verifiable FACT. You may not like the outcome, but that is something YOU have to deal<br />
with.<br />
Experiments like these often produce results that make us question our own prejudices.<br />
From Sharon:<br />
IF THE STAR OR 'LIGHT' SHINES BRIGHTER AS<br />
> TIME GOES ON, WHEN DO YOU THINK JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES<br />
> CAN STOP HAVING TO TURN IN A TICKET EVERY MONTH TO<br />
> PROOVE THEY ARE WHO THEY ARE? IN REALITY, DO YOU<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (3 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
> REALIZE, SOME WILL AT THE END OF THE MONTH MAKE A<br />
> QUICK PHONE CALL TO RELATIVE OR SOMEONE AND TRY TO<br />
> GET IN 15 MORE MINUTES TO MAKE THE QUOTA? WHOSE<br />
> BEHIND THIS. NO TICKET THAT WE SIGN WILL GET US INTO<br />
> THE NEW ORDER.<br />
Reply: Any slip of paper is not as important as our attitude towards serving God, and doing the work of<br />
an evangelizer (2 Tim 4:5). It is not about filling quotas if it is not done joyously:<br />
"Each one should give as much as he has decided on his own initiative, not reluctantly, or under<br />
compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." 1 Cor 9:7 New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> (NJB)<br />
"Preaching the gospel gives me nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion and I should be in trouble<br />
if I failed to do it." 1 Cor 9:16 NJB<br />
Personally, counting may not be the best route for some people, but all in all, it is harmless. Is is<br />
scripturally required? No.<br />
But you have to remember that all denominations keep records of some sort, and I think JW's do a better<br />
job at this than most. For instance, because I was baptized a Catholic, I am still considered Catholic by<br />
the church and they will not remove me from membership in that organization. I just finished talking to a<br />
Methodist minister who quit due to the practices of fudging the membership count in order to<br />
embellish/swell their member-rolls. JW's aren't that dishonest, but the way we count our members....is if<br />
you keep a monthly service record. You see how one complements the other. While the Methodists will<br />
count anyone who steps inside a church a member, JW's only count those who are active.<br />
Thanx for writing<br />
From a reader:<br />
IN JOHN 3:15-16 VS 15 TRANSLATES THE BELIEVING TO BELEIVING, BUT IN VS. 16<br />
THE SAME WORD IS TRANSLATED TO "EXCERISING FAITH" PLEASE EXPLAIN<br />
THIS.<br />
Reply: The NWT was making a distinction between PISTEUWN EN in verse 15, and PISTEUWN EIS<br />
in verse 16. The expression in verse 16 is continual.<br />
IN ROMANS 5:9 THE GREEK "WE WILL BE SAVED" IS TRANSLATED TO "SHALL WE<br />
BE SAVED" IN VS 10 THE SAME WORD IS TRANSLATED THE SAME ON BOTH SIDE.<br />
PLEASE EXPLAIN.<br />
Reply: The translators were probably making a distinction between SWQHSOMEQA DI in verse 9 ("we<br />
shall be saved" CB Williams NT) and SWGHSOMEQA EN in ver 10 ("we shall finally be saved" CB<br />
Williams NT) as Williams NT has.<br />
1 JOHN 3:24 WHY WAS THE "WE ARE KNOWING" CHANGED TO "GAIN THE<br />
KNOWLEDGE".<br />
Reply: Vine's dictionary gives as the primary definition of GINWSKW as "to be taking in knowledge, to<br />
come to know." The NWT translators felt the above was the best option as the Greek word is in the first<br />
person present.<br />
LUKE 17:19 THE FAITH OF YOU HAS SAVED YOU, CHANGED TO "HAS MADE YOU<br />
WELL. PLEASE EXPLAIN<br />
Reply: This is actually the common rendering of the text (see NASB, NKJV etc).<br />
This falls within the semantic range (see Louw&Nida 23.136) and we have to remember that it is not<br />
always the best idea to translate word for word, as we must find the best way to express it so that people<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (4 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
can properly understand the meaning behind it.<br />
IN JOHN 14:10 WHY IS THE WORD"IN" (EV) TRANSLATED TO "IN UNION" IN<br />
ENGLISH?<br />
Reply: They felt that "in union with" best describes what is trying to be said. The Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
and CB Williams New Testament does this also at John 14:10.<br />
"Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and that the Father is in union with me? I am not<br />
saying these things of my own authority, but the Father who always remains in union with me is doing<br />
these things himself." Williams NT<br />
See also Romans 6:23; 8:1; 8:2; 12:5 and many others in the Good News <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
stop>>Here<br />
are some verses with my translations and understanding that support the<br />
Trinity 1Cor. 12:4-6, 2Cor. 13:14, 2Th. 2:13.<br />
Sir, simply mentioning the three together does not have them share a substance, essence or ousia, or in<br />
any way imply an equality shared in one body.<br />
Did you notice that all your scriptures actually apply the word GOD to only one of them. When the three<br />
are together, only one is actually God, and that excludes the Son and the Spirit. Interesting. These<br />
Scriptures actually work against you.<br />
There are a lot more Scriptures that mention God, Jesus and the angels together.<br />
From a King James Only Person:<br />
Carmine: Wescott and Hort were luceferian heretics. Just an article I recently read below.<br />
If your bible is the closest one to their ideas, then it would be obvious why the JW have<br />
confused and messed up prophecy and why they are NOT allowed to talk to any christians<br />
who try to talk sense into them. I pray for your souls... No wonder there is so much<br />
heretical teachings from the Watchtower...<br />
Reply: Hello Carmine<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses actually came by our teachings by using the King James Version. We still print and<br />
distribute the KJV.<br />
Thank you for writing.<br />
BFM was looking for an NWT online, and I offered to help him get one. Here is his reply:<br />
Dear Friend, that was very nice of you to offer a free copy, but I already<br />
have one. Thanks, Bob from Michigan, Conservative Presbyterian Minister.<br />
Please do not PROSELYTIZE me and I will not attack your beliefs.<br />
I wish you well, B.<br />
Where did that come from? Not a very Christian way of handling things, is it?<br />
From a woman desperately trying to get me to see that the trinity is true:<br />
Hector, read this thoroughly... Chapter 4 Don't dismiss it...read it, please.<br />
The interesting thing is, the linked page did not mention a Trinity once, as it was done by Oneness<br />
Pentectostals who reject the Trinity, but believe that Jesus is God (the Father also). This is<br />
Sabellianism/Modalism.This view is rejected by everyone, but it is of more than passing interest that they<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (5 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
use EXACTLY THE SAME SCRIPTURES to prove their doctrine that the Trinitarians do.<br />
The woman, upon being asked, did not even know what a Oneness Pentecostal was.<br />
A Reader Regarding Jesus as Michael:<br />
In Hebrews 1; 5 it reads For example; to which one of the angels did he ever say: "you are<br />
my son;I today,I have become your Father". Objection 1) the word ( one ) is not in many<br />
translations only on the NWT. Objection 2) the words ( did I ever say) is a question that is<br />
being answered at the sametime. It is in the negative as in( no I did not ).<br />
Reply: My versions seem to be split as whether "angels" should be rendered in the plural or the singular.<br />
Consider:<br />
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time" KJV, Barclay<br />
"For to what angel did God ever say" Williams NT, Montgomery, Smith&Goodspeed<br />
"to any of the messengers" Ferrar Fenton<br />
"an angel" New English <strong>Bible</strong>, Simple English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
As for 2)<br />
An Archangel is no mere angel.<br />
Jesus has always been set apart from one of the angels. For instance, the angels are called "sons of God"<br />
(Gen 6; Job 38:7), but yet, Jesus is called the:<br />
"only Son" RSV<br />
"only-begotten Son" KJV, NWT and<br />
"one and only Son" NIV at John 3:16<br />
The same, yet different/unique. For more click here.<br />
BP: Hi,<br />
I am hoping that you can explain something for me from 'Reasoning from the Scriptures'.<br />
On page 202 under the sub-heading 'How old is the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses' the<br />
book states "According to the <strong>Bible</strong>, the witnesses of Jehovah reaches back to faithful Abel."<br />
Abel was clearly killed by Cain. There is no mention in the <strong>Bible</strong> that Abel had any progeny<br />
and it would be incorrect to suggest he has. How can the line of Witnesses reach back<br />
directly to Abel?<br />
Thanks in anticipation. BP.<br />
Reply: Thank you for writing. The book was not implying a blood-line. The name "Abel" here is<br />
qualified by the term "faithful."<br />
Hebrews 11 verses 3 to 9 connects " a great cloud of witnesses" (Heb 13:1) by FAITH, and one of these<br />
witnesses was Abel (see verse 4).<br />
Hence, this makes him one of Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
"You are my witnesses, says Jehovah, and My servant whom I have chosen; that you may know and<br />
believe me, and understand that I am He. Before me there was no god formed, nor shall any be after me."<br />
Isaiah 43:10 Jay P Green's Interlinear Old Testament<br />
AMoore:<br />
You are hereby given notice that I will block any and all emails from you. Be forewarned<br />
Hector.....if you attempt to contact me any other way, I will immediately contact the web site<br />
of the WTBTS, provide your email address and web site with a brief, but detailed synopsis of<br />
your demeanor, attitude and general conduct in reference to our discussions. I will let your<br />
leadership deal with you in their own "special" way.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (6 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
Reply: All humor aside, if you don't want me to answer your queries people, then the solution is a simple<br />
one..."Don't write to me asking questions!"<br />
Alan could not answer the problem of the partitive genetive of the firstborn as it relates to Christ's<br />
creation in Colossians 1:15 (for more on this click here and here). This is of course devastating for<br />
trinitarians and indefensible.<br />
His only retort was to quote old Watchtowers (see below) and attack the scholarship of the NWT (though<br />
I do not use these in my responses).<br />
These arguments, along with the theology of nominal churches simply do not hold up to biblical or<br />
logical scrutiny, and people end having their belief system threatened by the pure logic of the <strong>Bible</strong> and<br />
history, which in turn, upsets them, resulting in ad hominems.<br />
Fear God, not the truth.<br />
As sent to me by one writer hoping to put a bad light on the WTS:<br />
*** w65 3/1 151 Basis for Reliance on Prophecy ***<br />
"The best method of proof is to put a prophecy to the test of time and circumstances. The<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> invites such a test. "The Watchtower is not the instrument of an man or any set of men,<br />
nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in the<br />
Watchtower [Note: Emphasis added]<br />
Reply: The only problem with this, is that the sentence highlighted is not actually in the article. This<br />
smacks of desperation. I too often find that people who just want to quote old Watchtowers against me<br />
(even fabricated ones as above), do so because they cannot quote scripture. Too sad.<br />
In about 1895 a document was fabricated to incite hatred against the Jews. This document eventually fell<br />
into the hands of one Adolf Hitler, and the rest, as they say, is history. Since I tend to get alot of email<br />
from so-called "Christians," I have been finding a disturbing trend lately. Old Watchtower (and other<br />
WTS publications) quotations are floating around wherein the words quoted simply do not exist. These<br />
of course, are written in a way to make Jehovah's Witnesses look bad. It is sad, and ultimately<br />
frightening, that people are resorting to these kinds of tactics.<br />
I always ask these people for a hard-copy, to date, I have never received one. I usually get the same<br />
answers, "I lost mine," or, most often, "I got it from a web-site, but I lost the URL."<br />
Warning! Any document posted on a web-site AGAINST JW's that makes Witnesses look real bad, has<br />
an extremely high probability of being fabricated. People, this is not "Christian," this is evil.<br />
Matt Paulsen (CARM) asks: How can a Christadelphian (the translator of the Diaglott)<br />
have a Trinitarian bias at Hebrew 1:6 when he is an Arian?<br />
Reply: I guess for the same reason Wilson (the translator of the Diaglott) did so at 2 Thess 1:12, Titus<br />
2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. I guess "Trinitarian bias" is not the best phrase to use (and I have since amended it<br />
somewhat) , but we adopt traditional renderings based on previous translations by trinitarians.<br />
MattP: Have you thought that the Greek grammar allows for that rendering?<br />
Reply: Greek grammar does allow for the word "Worship", but in the sense that it is used in the<br />
following:<br />
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV<br />
"And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and<br />
worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV<br />
MattP: How many years of Koine Greek do you have to be able to determine Tritarian bias?<br />
Reply: How many years of Koine Greek do you have to have to NOT mention this to your<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (7 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
followers at http://www.carm.org/jw/heb1_6.htm ?<br />
How many years of Koine Greek do you have to have to NOT mention that even the ASV mentions at<br />
Matt. 2:2, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to man (see chap. Matt. 18:26) or<br />
to God (see chap. Matt. 4:10)'" ?<br />
How many years of Koine Greek do you have to have to NOT mention that many other <strong>Bible</strong>s are doing<br />
the same thing in this regard as the NWT?<br />
Nvs: As quoted by Charles Russell, "Beware of 'organization.' It is wholly unnecessary."<br />
Reply: And if this is what Russell said, then I disagree. (Though I am sure he was concerned about the<br />
negative side of organization that brought about the horrors of the dark ages, ...as indicated by the word<br />
organization being set aside by quotation marks). I am not a follower of Russell, or any human. The<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> clearly teaches an organizational structure. The 1st century Church was actually a very judicious<br />
and authoritative organizational structure, as the following from Smith's <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary will show you:<br />
"Excommunication, as exercised by the Christian Church, is not merely founded on the natural right,<br />
possessed by all societies, nor merely on the example of the Jewish Church and nation. It was instituted<br />
by our Lord (Matt. xviii. 15, 18), amd it was practised and commanded by St. Paul (1 Tim. i. 20; 1 Cor.<br />
v. 11; Tit. iii.10). In the Epistles, we find St. Paul frequently claiming the right to exercise discipline over<br />
his converts (comp. 2 Cor. i. 23, xiii.10).<br />
...The Nature of Excommunication is made more evident by the acts of St. Paul than by any investigation<br />
of Jewish practice or of the etymology of words. We thus find,<br />
(1) that it is a spiritual penalty, involving no temporal punishment, except accidentally;<br />
(2) that it consists in seperation from the communion of the Church;<br />
(3) that its object is the good of the sufferer ( 1 Cor. v.5), and the protection of the sound members of the<br />
Church ( 2 Tim. iii. 17);<br />
(4) that its subjects are those who are guilty of heresy (1 Tim. i. 20), or gross immorality (1 Cor. v. 1);<br />
(5) that it is inflicted by the authority of the Church at large (Matt. xviii. 18), wielded by the<br />
highest ecclesiastical officer (1 Corinthians 5:3; Titus 3:10)<br />
(6) that this officer's sentence is promulgated by the congregation to which the offender belongs, (1<br />
Corinthians 5:4) in defence to his superior judgment and command, (2 Corinthians 2:9) and in spite of<br />
any opposition on the part of a minority, (2 Corinthians 2:6)<br />
(7) that the exclusion may be of indefinite duration, or for a period;<br />
(8) that its duration may be abridged at the discretion and by the indulgence of the person who has<br />
imposed the penalty, (2 Corinthians 2:8)<br />
(9) that penitence is the condition on which restoration to communion is granted, (2 Corinthians<br />
2:8)<br />
(10) that the sentence is to be publicly reversed as it was publicly promulgated. (2 Corinthians 2:10) "<br />
The result is, that you "faith alone" people are so fractured it is funny. I work with people like you. They<br />
recieve the Spirit at church on Sunday, but they also dabble in the occult and promiscuity, both which are<br />
clearly condemned in the <strong>Bible</strong>. There is no move on their part to clean up their act, as no one is allowed<br />
to tell them they are doing anything wrong. That is not Christianity, but Permissive Theology that has<br />
resulted by denying the Church any authority.<br />
For more click here.<br />
Aaron: You said, "The quote: "It [excommunication] was instituted by our Lord (Matt. xviii.<br />
15, 18), " is in error. "<br />
Reply: That quote wasn't by me, but by Smith's <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (8 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
But I checked the footnote in my Nelson Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NKJV, and it says, "If the erring one will not<br />
respond, that person is to be disciplined by being cut of from the fellowship."<br />
It appears Smith's was right after all.<br />
A message to me from someone trying to put forth that JW's have claimed to be prophets (hence the<br />
reason he simply posts quotes where we seem to say such), so they must then be false prophets:<br />
"The Nations shall know…", 1971:<br />
There is an authentic prophetic class of Christians among us. Jehovah has raised up a<br />
genuine "prophet" within our generation. Regardless of how Christendom views or regards<br />
this group of anointed witnesses of Jehovah, the time must come, and that shortly, when<br />
those making up Christendom will know that really a "prophet" of Jehovah was among<br />
them."<br />
Reply: Often when the WTS uses the word "prophet" concerning themselves, you will notice that the<br />
word is surrounded by quotation marks, indicating not a seer, but a prophet in a quasi-sense. It is just like<br />
the Billy Graham is called a prophet (see amazon.com's "A Prophet With Honor : The Billy Graham<br />
Story" by William Martin)<br />
and another Church leader, Klemp (see amazon.com's "Autobiography of a Modern<br />
Prophet"<br />
by Harold Klemp). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language uses<br />
the word *prophet* also as "A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional<br />
powers of expression" and "The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause." This is<br />
how the word prophet is used of these men in a quasi-sense, just like JW's use it.<br />
From a reader:<br />
I have to disagree with your chart on Colwelland <strong>Bible</strong> Versions. Colwell<br />
would never have promoted a New Testament that uses the Divine Name.<br />
Reply: The use of the Divine Name was not part of Colwell's criteria. He chose the Centenary New<br />
Testament as one of his picks, and yet it had the Divine Name.<br />
Dby:<br />
I have a question that maybe you can answer for me. When Jesus Christ was teaching his<br />
followers how to pray, why did he not use the name Jehovah in "The Model Prayer"? In<br />
Matt.6:19(The Living <strong>Bible</strong>)he says,"Our Father in heaven,we honor your holy name".<br />
If it is SO IMPORTANT that we use the name Jehovah in our worship, then why didn't Jesus<br />
Christ our Lord specifically use the the name Jehovah when instructing his disciples how to<br />
pray to God The Almighty???<br />
Reply: Who says he didn't? I mean, let's face it, when is this prayer ever repeated in the New Testament.<br />
It simply teaches us what things to pray for, but it was never repeated in exactly the same way. My<br />
MacArthur Study links the Model Prayer to Malachi 1:11 which says in the American Standard Version:<br />
" For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the<br />
Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name<br />
shall be great among the Gentiles, saith Jehovah of hosts."<br />
I think his disciples caught the tie-in.<br />
Dby:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (9 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
I personally feel more comfortable addressing God as "Heavenly Father" when praying. I<br />
feel this way because I want to have a "parent to child" kind of close relationship with God.<br />
Reply: But what is more important? How you FEEL, or what the <strong>Bible</strong> says?<br />
Father is quite an interchangeable title. Consider John 8. The Jews said Abraham was<br />
their Father (v. 39), then they said God is their Father (v. 41) and then Jesus says their Father is Satan<br />
(v.44).<br />
Personally, and Biblically, I could never dishonor my Father by NOT using His name.<br />
"A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if then I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I<br />
am a master, where is my fear? saith Jehovah of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye<br />
say, Wherein have we despised the name?" Malachi 1:6 ASV<br />
From Hrh:<br />
Just a few questions. First,why are there 2 greek translation books? [I am assuming he is<br />
talking about the Kingdom Interlinear] The 1969 and the 1985 version,and why are they<br />
different?why are words added in brackets when there are greek words that could have been<br />
used?Why have some footnotes have been removed or changed from 1969 to 1985?Why is it<br />
not a word for word translation ? [ like it says in front of both books]<br />
Reply: I own many interlinears in Greek made by different <strong>Bible</strong> societies and people. You will find<br />
that none of them agree together 100% (even the ones made by the same people in multiple editions...like<br />
Jay P. Green's Greek Interlinear). We all grow in understanding. Case in point: You will also find that the<br />
older New <strong>World</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> differ slightly from the newer ones. But you will also find that this is the<br />
case with the NIV, NRSV, NASB, NAB, the Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, TEV etc. It is common, and does not<br />
indicate a devious agenda. The intent of both the KIT and NWT is to be "as literal as possible."<br />
Hrh: Also the title of your web-site ,DEFENDING THE NWT, Friend, the TRUTH does not<br />
need defending .<br />
Reply: "Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is<br />
in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" 1 Peter 3:15 RSV<br />
"My child, how happy I will be if you turn out to be wise! Then I will be able to answer my critics." Prov<br />
27:11 NLT<br />
RonA wrote:<br />
Why does the WTS put sich a rigid standard of dress code for men? I mean EVERYONE at a<br />
Kingdom hall gathering wears a suit,shirt and tie.Does Jehovah<br />
only accept people who wear business suits and are clean shaven? When did all this<br />
conformity start?<br />
Reply: I dress the same way at the Hall as I would for someone's wedding or funeral...*I dress to respect<br />
the person I am attending for.* Certainly, Jehovah affords more respect than mere humans. When I dress<br />
up for meetings, I am showing that I am taking God seriously. There used to be an expression in this<br />
country: "Sunday-go-to-meetin clothes." But now I see people going to churches dressed like they would<br />
for anything else. To me it says that worship is not much<br />
more important to them than anything else.<br />
From Email: The New <strong>World</strong> Translation used to have the word "worship" at Hebrews 1:6,<br />
but in later editions, it changed it to "obeisance." I can show you if you don't believe me.<br />
What do you think of that?<br />
Reply: I know that it was changed. We are not alone in this. The Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> had "worship" at<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (10 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
Hebrews 1:6, but the New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> changed it to "homage." No one is going to call these<br />
translators biased against the Trinity. So why the change? 50 years ago, the word *worship* does not<br />
have the same connotations as it does today. For instance, the bible could speak of Daniel and King<br />
David as being worshipped:<br />
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV<br />
"And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and<br />
worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV<br />
All <strong>Bible</strong> versions make a distinction with this word, as it is lexically possible to do so (see Matt 18:26).<br />
According to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence<br />
to...It is used of an act of homage or reverence to God(John 4:24)...to Christ(Matt 2:2)...to a man(Matt<br />
18:26)...to the Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to<br />
demons(Rev 9:20)...to idols(Acts 7:43)."<br />
AOC writes: The NWT (New <strong>World</strong> Translation) translates EGW EIMI as I AM each time,<br />
except at John 8:58. How do you explain that?<br />
Reply: Is this really exceptional? Let us look at the use of EGW EIMI in context:<br />
Version John 8:12 John 8:18 John 8:24 John 8:28 John 8:58 John 9:9<br />
NWT I am I am I am [he] I am [he] I have been I am [he]<br />
AT I am I am I am I am I existed I am<br />
New Living Trans I am I am I am I am [he] I existed I am<br />
Williams I am N/A I am I am I existed I am<br />
Beck I am N/A I'm I am I was I'm<br />
Lamsa I am N/A I am I am he I was I am he<br />
Simple English I am I am I am I am I was alive I'm<br />
Moffatt I am N/A I am I am I have existed I am<br />
NASB Reference<br />
I am<br />
Edition 1960-73<br />
I am I am He I am He<br />
I am...<br />
ftn: I have been<br />
I am<br />
Five Gospels I am N/A I am I am I existed It's me<br />
Living <strong>Bible</strong> I am I am I am I am I was in existence I am<br />
Kleist&Lilly NT I am I am I am he I am he I am here and I was I am<br />
20th Century NT I am N/A I am I am I was I am he<br />
21st Century NT I am I am I am I am came into being I am<br />
As you can see, the NWT is not alone in this way, and the reason for this can be explained better by<br />
going to egweimi.htm. If we simply look up the words in Strong's, we get "I" for ego [1473], and "I<br />
exist...am, have been." Notice too that the chart points to John 9:9 where a blind beggar says the same<br />
words, egw eimi, as Jesus did in John 8:58. Does this also make him YHWH?<br />
AOC on John 14:28: [He is] Greater in terms of position only...Is the president greater then<br />
I am? Yes, but only in position (such as his rank), but on a substance and essence level, he is<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (11 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
not. We are equal, in terms of form, and substance, and essence, just as Christ and God are.<br />
Reply: Think about the Creed:<br />
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,<br />
the only Son of God,<br />
eternally begotten of the Father,<br />
God from God, light from light,<br />
true God from true God,<br />
begotten, not made,<br />
of one Being with the Father"<br />
Are you ONE BEING with the president? Are you president from president? Are you son of the<br />
president?<br />
You do not share a substance/essence with the president according to Trinitarian theology. You are not<br />
homoousian with him, and therefore you are comparing apples to oranges.<br />
The president is greater than you because you are TWO different people, seperate and subordinate.<br />
TWO, not ONE in TWO.<br />
Conversation taken from Darkness to Light's Email page:<br />
> I seek this information because I have family and friends who disagree on what JW's believe regarding<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> translations. Some say that JW's have no problems with the NIV or other modern versions but reject<br />
the King James version. Others say that JW's prefer the King James over the other modern versions. Please<br />
help me dispel rumors. Could you also tell me where I might find more information on which translations<br />
JW's prefer.<br />
This information is very important to me. Thank-you<br />
Sincerely<br />
Damien<br />
9/29/1999<<br />
DTL's answer: JWs would definitely have "problems" with almost any version other than their own, if only<br />
for<br />
the translation of John 1:1. That said, the NIV might appeal to them since it is based on the CT,<br />
but since it is not a literal version they probably wouldn't agree with it. The KJV they definitely<br />
reject, since as I said, it is based on the TR and includes 1John 5:7.<br />
Reply: This is incredible. Folks, don't believe the lies and misinformation that you read on these anti-JW<br />
sites. Why is this a lie? Because the Watchtower Society also PRINTS the King James Version. I know, I<br />
received one from them 2 months ago. They also print the American Standard Version, The <strong>Bible</strong> in<br />
Living English (and check out their KJV-based translation of John 1:1), and in the past they have<br />
distributed <strong>Bible</strong>s such as the Good News <strong>Bible</strong>, Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, Rotherham <strong>Bible</strong>, New American<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, New English <strong>Bible</strong> etc. I have a Ukrainian brother that goes to my meetings and all he uses is a<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> made from the TR/Byzantine tradtion. I use an NKJV at my meetings (it has a Vine's Dictionary<br />
attached to it). and I usually always have a small RSV in my shirt pocket. DTL has their own version of<br />
the <strong>Bible</strong> (Analytical Literal Version), which uses not the TR, but mainly the Majority Text of a later<br />
tradition (it also does not contain the spurious words at 1John 5:7). By utilizing the later tradition of the<br />
Byzantine text, "Darkness to Light" has gone from *light* right back to the *dark ages.*<br />
Inquiry One: Is Jesus God in the flesh?<br />
Jeremiah 23:5-6<br />
"Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD (Yahweh), "That I will raise to David a<br />
Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (12 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
righteousness in the earth. 6 In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely;<br />
Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD (Yahweh) OUR<br />
RIGHTEOUSNESS. Here, YHWH is prophecizing the coming of Jesus, who he also refers to<br />
as YHWH. I consider this a strong point towards the fact that this is a prophecy of God<br />
coming as Jesus in the flesh. What do you think?<br />
Reply: His becoming entitled to that name does not mean that Jesus is Jehovah God himself. The<br />
Israelite called Jehozadak, whose name means "Jehovah Declared Righteous" or "Jehovah Is Righteous,"<br />
was not Jehovah himself. (1 Chron. 6:14, 15) Jeremiah 33:16 tells us that even Jerusalem was to be<br />
called "Jehovah Is Our Righteousness," but does that mean that Jerusalem was Jehovah himself? No! The<br />
name of the last reigning king of Jerusalem was Zedekiah, and that name means "The Righteousness of<br />
Jah." The king who was to be called "Jehovah Is Our Righteousness," namely, Jesus Christ, contrasts<br />
sharply with King Zedekiah.<br />
Same writer, Question 2<br />
Matthew 4:4,6,7,10<br />
When Satan tempted Jesus, He answered not just as a man but as God rebuking Satan.<br />
(Specifically 4:6-7, Satan said to Jesus "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down.".<br />
Jesus answered "You shall not tempt the LORD your God". Here, Jesus is responding to<br />
Satan, stating that you shall not tempt God. Here, it shows that Jesus refers to himself as<br />
God.<br />
Reply: No, Satan said he was the Son of God. The correct wording here should be "You shall not put the<br />
Lord you God to the TEST" New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
This is common to say, especialy if you consider Exodus 17:2 where Moses says, "Why do you quarrel<br />
with me" Why do you TEST the LORD." NASB<br />
Where in the past God spoke thru prophets, he now speaks thru his Son. (Hebrews 1:1-3) It does not<br />
make them the same or equal.<br />
AOC: Now let me ask you something. Why is it that in the JW assemblies, one does not need<br />
to go to an accredited school (like a bible college, and get a bachelors, and learn<br />
extensively Hebrew and Greek), in order to become a preacher? I think the cult is smart, in<br />
keeping it's leaders education to a minimum.<br />
Reply: And yet, your own scholars cannot seem to agree on anything with all those degrees. But we JW's<br />
have the same credentials as those in the <strong>Bible</strong>:<br />
Acts 4:13, Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were<br />
unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with<br />
Jesus.<br />
Matt 11:25, At that season Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth,<br />
that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes:<br />
1Cor 1:27, "But God has chosen what the world calls foolish to shame wise. He has chosen what the<br />
world calls weak to shame what is strong." 1Cor 1:27 New Life NT<br />
Is 29:14, therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous<br />
work and a wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their<br />
prudent men shall be hid.<br />
Lu 10:21, In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of<br />
heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and did reveal them<br />
unto babes: yea, Father; for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (13 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
From GS, after viewing information like the one I have at wilson.htm where the Reformers admit that<br />
Jesus is Michael:<br />
"Your quotes are misquotes because nowhere does Calvin even hint that Jesus Christ was<br />
Michael the angel, and neither does Wesley. More importantly the Holy Scriptures are<br />
absolutely clear in honoring Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God, and nowhere can<br />
you quote a single verse in the <strong>Bible</strong> that shows Michael and Jesus Christ are the same. I<br />
have rebuked you in the Name of Jesus Christ before, but you continue in your satanic<br />
teachings. May the Lord Jesus Christ deal with you accordingly and destroy your work of<br />
deceit and obstinate pride. I command you, Satan, in the Name of Jesus Christ to stop trying<br />
to deceive us any further and remove yourself from our company. Amen. In Christ Jesus,<br />
G-n<br />
PS. For everybody else reading this e-mail I can assure you that there is no teaching from<br />
any Christian that teaches Jesus Christ was Michael. Such an idea is stupid, false, deceitful,<br />
and contrary to any and every teaching of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God and Jesus<br />
Christ created all the angels and everything else that was made. It is foolish and evil to<br />
suggest otherwise. Such people that continue teaching that Jesus Christ is Michael will<br />
soon spend eternity in HELL wishing they had never been born.........<br />
Reply: Read what made G-n so upset by clicking here!<br />
Cs: Micah 5:2 says that Jesus always existed.<br />
Reply: The New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> has "whose origins are back to the distant past, to the days of old." My<br />
Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon says it of OLAM (5769) "long duration,<br />
antiquity" It is even used of the forefathers (Joshua 24:2) and the prophets (Jer 28:8).<br />
Cs: Taken together (qedem AND yown owlam) these communicate, as Jamieson, Fausset<br />
and Brown say, "the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language<br />
is capable" Renowned Old Testament scholar Merrill F. Unger, commenting on Micah 5:2<br />
in Unger's <strong>Bible</strong> Handbook says, "He [Jesus] is the Bethlehem-born pre-existent, eternal<br />
One"<br />
Reply: Obviously, many other <strong>Bible</strong> versions do not agree with this. The fact that the <strong>Bible</strong> says he is the<br />
first being created would obviously indicate that he is older than anything else, thus necessitating the<br />
stress at Mic 5:2. In Prov 8:23, the 2 words are used again of Jesus/Wisdom, right after the scripture says<br />
he was created. The same words used in Micah 5:2 are used for others who are not God. The psalmist<br />
could remember qedem AND olam (ps 77:5).<br />
To Jehovah, OLAM and QEDEM are consistent with the time of Rahab and Creation, "Awake, awake,<br />
put on strength, O arm of Jehovah; awake, as in the days of old, the generations of ancient times. Is it not<br />
thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces, that didst pierce the monster? Is it not thou that driedst up the sea, the<br />
waters of the great deep; that madest the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over? Is 51:9,<br />
10 ASV<br />
It does not have to mean eternity.<br />
MTP writes: It seems to me that you twist the words in some of the quotes that you use in<br />
your website. You are correct in saying that the word Trinity does not appear anywhere in<br />
the <strong>Bible</strong>. However, neither does the word <strong>Bible</strong> and, yet, no one ever seems to attack its<br />
name.<br />
Reply: Actually, that's not true. The equivalent word "scriptures" is in the <strong>Bible</strong>, and has been translated<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (14 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
as *<strong>Bible</strong>* by various translators such as Beck (Matt 21:42) and the Living <strong>Bible</strong> (2Tim 3:16). We have<br />
no equivalent for the word or concept of the Trinity. It is simply not in the bible, period.<br />
RobertN: Hi again,<br />
Thank you for another opportunity to ask the question and taking the time to answer it.<br />
Enclosed is email address. This is also an opportunity for you to give us your feedback<br />
publicly, so others can read. Thanks again, (re:Using Fortman's quote)<br />
Reply: This issue has already been dealt with on my site, but I will humor you anyways.<br />
If I remember correctly, your question was concerning the use of Fortman's quote.Did you know that the<br />
verse in question is quoted also by G.A.T. <strong>Robinson</strong> "There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the<br />
New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine<br />
persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and<br />
triadic formulas are there... The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or<br />
formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine<br />
persons." (Jesuit Scholar Edmund J. Fortman, "Triune God", pp. 32,35) (Fortman, pp. 22-23, as cited by<br />
<strong>Robinson</strong>, p. 74) The book, The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit-The Triadic Phrase in Matthew<br />
28:19 from Jane Schaberg, SBL Dissertation Series 61 as borrowed from Southeastern Baptist<br />
Theological Library also quotes from Fortman, "Fortman also remarks, however, that nowhere in the<br />
N.T. do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same<br />
Godhead." p.16 Are the above quoting Fortman out of context, even though they are Trinitarians? No,<br />
they are stating a fact that Fortman, while believing in the Trinity, and stating traces might be evident in<br />
the NT, he was wise and honest enough to admit the obvious. Fortman himself directs us to this in the<br />
index in the back of his book he points to the pages where the Trinity is not supportable in the OT etc.<br />
(Author Anthony Buzzard also quotes Fortman the same way).<br />
What else does Fortman admit to?<br />
"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament<br />
writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a<br />
divine force or power." —The Triune God, Edward J. Fortman, pp. 6, 15.<br />
"These passages give no doctrine of the Trinity... Paul has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut<br />
realization of a Trinitarian problem......there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts... nowhere<br />
do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same<br />
Godhead" (Fortman, "Triune God", pp. 22-23)<br />
"The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who<br />
is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected<br />
the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead.... Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions<br />
or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the Trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and<br />
intent of the sacred writers" (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God, Baker Book House, 1972, pp.<br />
xv, 8, 9).<br />
"For Thomas [Aquinas] natural reason can neither demonstrate nor know the Trinity: 'that God is triune<br />
is uniquely and object of belief, and one cannot prove it in any demonstrative way." p.204<br />
Fortman's conclusion: "The basic trinitarian dogmas are still substantially in procession today, and<br />
always will be. But some Catholic theologians feel they are in need of reappraisal. They see problems<br />
everywhere: **a tension between the outlook of the Biblical writer and that of the Trinitarian<br />
theologian;** a tension between the rigid Hellenic though and patterns of trinitarian theology...." p.316<br />
We must remember that Catholics do not rely heavily on the <strong>Bible</strong> for a complete definition of the<br />
Trinity. That is why most of Fortman's "The Triune God" deals with how the Trinity was viewed and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (15 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
explained by various philosophers/theologians over different periods of time. You will find very few<br />
scriptures actually used in the book. When Fortman says that is an elemental trinity in the scripture, his<br />
view is not expanded upon nor does he quote scripture to back this statement. However, the word<br />
"Mystery" is used quite liberally throughout the book.<br />
You see, Fortman, like all Catholics, know that the Trinity is not in the <strong>Bible</strong>, and is only revealed<br />
through papal revelation, "My belief in the Trinity is based on the authority of the Church: no other<br />
authority is sufficient...I have now proved the Trinity opposed to human reason." Catholic Priest James<br />
Hughes, <strong>Bible</strong> Christian for January, 1839<br />
By the way, I actually read Fortman's book. Did you?<br />
GCM (on his objection to my article on "Only-Begotten or Unique and Monogenes Theos):<br />
This gets very confusing to me when we are told that "begetting" someone denotes a<br />
physical act. This makes it sound as if God came around a got a young teenaged girl<br />
pregnant. Certainly, this would be a corrupt interpretation of the scripture.<br />
Reply: Biblically, begetting does not denote a physical act, and I don't know anyone besides you who<br />
thinks that.<br />
Matt 1:2: "Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; and<br />
Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram etc etc etc" ASV<br />
Begetting denotes a filial relationship, like the one between Father and Son.<br />
GCM: I appreciate your response. Using this reference in your reply, a man cannot beget a<br />
child without the agency of a woman. Yes, Abraham did beget Isaac. He needed Sarah to do<br />
that. Your response substaniate the fact that begetting is physical. These were physical<br />
people, made by sperm and ovum. My purpose was to only point out why I thought the word<br />
Unique is a better translation. The superimposing of our beliefs, fears, and predjudices on<br />
the word of God is the evil that seperates.<br />
Reply: If we look at the parallel genealogy in Luke 3, we see<br />
something interesting in verse 38:<br />
"the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."<br />
Again, the <strong>Bible</strong> does not look upon "begetting" or the parallel "the son of" as having to include a<br />
woman, as God did not need a woman to produce his son, Adam. Adam's birth then, is also *unique.* By<br />
robbing the text of "begotten" in place of unique, again, removes the filial father/son relationship that is<br />
important to the theology of the Greek scriptures.<br />
JKRZ: Well I "m sure you know what has happened in New York and Washington, DC It has<br />
got me very convicted about what I am doing here. I want to talk to you about the trinity,<br />
yet at the same time I feel as though I should be telling you that you are a lost soul. You are<br />
trusting in yourself your so-called intellect and what ever else you think will get you saved,<br />
STOP THAT. You are playing with fire (hell fire). Jesus came to this earth to save us from<br />
our sins and the payment there of.<br />
The watchtower is like those men that hijacked the plains and crashed them into the<br />
buildings. those men didn't just want to die but they wanted to take as many people with<br />
them as they could. The watchtower is no different.<br />
Reply: What an evil and outrageous statement. Mr. JKRZ has had a hard time convincing me of his<br />
beliefs, as many of the beliefs of nominal Christianity are simply not sustainable from the <strong>Bible</strong>. In his<br />
anger, instead of dealing with the issues, he compares me to this terroristic evil. The term JW Terrorism<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (16 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.<br />
is actually an oxymoron. Jehovah's Witnesses do not kill people, not even in war. There are in fact,<br />
Protestant and Catholic terrorists in Northern Ireland (and the Christian Militia in the Middle East), but<br />
according to the above, it is JW's that are bad. Consider:<br />
"Then the Holy Inquisition was born...thousands of torn and mutilated heretics shrieking<br />
under the torture, and other thousands and thousands of heretics and witches<br />
burning at the stake, "always in the pleasant shade flung by the peaceful banner of the<br />
cross," as Satan remarked.<br />
And in the midst of these fearful spectacles, as an incidental matter, we had a<br />
marvelous nightshow, by the light of fitting and flying torches the butchery of Christian<br />
by Christian in France on Bartholomew's Day.--- Mark Twain<br />
On an interesting side note, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are spreading the blame around also:<br />
"Falwell, a Baptist minister and chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., said<br />
Thursday on Robertson's religious TV program ``The 700 Club'' that he blames the attacks<br />
on pagans, abortionists, feminists, homosexuals, the American Civil Liberties Union (news -<br />
web sites) and the People for the American Way."<br />
http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010914/us/attacks_robertson_falwell_1.html<br />
I demand an apology from you Mr Jkrz. If you cannot bring yourself to do that, then leave me alone.<br />
Your statement above is evil and malicious.<br />
Thus far, there has been one confirmed death of Jehovah's Witnesseses in the WTC bombing, 13<br />
others are still missing. (Sept, 2001)<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
Updated July 19 2002<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/email.htm (17 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]
What is the best New Testament? Colwell's Rule of <strong>Bible</strong> Translation.<br />
What is the Best New Testament: Colwell's Apparatus<br />
Colwell's apparatus was taken from his book, "What Is The Best New Testament" University of Chicage<br />
Press, 1951.<br />
Colwell's Rule of <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong><br />
Versions in bold italics are those Colwell had printed, the others are added by me using the same criteria.<br />
Translation<br />
Agrees with the Critical<br />
Text<br />
Agrees with the later Textus<br />
Receptus<br />
Other<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation 64 0 0<br />
21st Century NT* 64 0 0<br />
Goodspeed* 64 0 0<br />
Rotherham 62 2 0<br />
Byington/BLE 61 3 0<br />
New Revised Standard 60 3 1<br />
20th Century NT 59 4 1<br />
Lattimore 59 5 0<br />
New American Standard 59 5 0<br />
Westminster 58 6 0<br />
American Standard Ver. 58 6 0<br />
Revised Version 1885 57 7 0<br />
Beck's An American Trans 56 8 0<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> 56 8 0<br />
Revised Standard Version 56 8 0<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong> 56 7 1<br />
Moffatt 56 7 1<br />
New Berkeley Version 56 7 1<br />
Riverside New Testament 55 9 0<br />
Barclay's New Testament 55 8 1<br />
Kleist & Lilly New Test. 55 9 0<br />
Wuest's Expanded Trans. 54 10 0<br />
New English <strong>Bible</strong> 53 9 2<br />
Holman Christian Standard 53 11 0<br />
God's Word Translation 53 11 0<br />
Weymouth's New Test. 53 11 0<br />
Williams New Testament 52 12 0<br />
English Standard Version 52 10 2<br />
Spencer 51 13 0<br />
New International Version 51 10 3<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/colwell.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:16 AM]
What is the best New Testament? Colwell's Rule of <strong>Bible</strong> Translation.<br />
Basic English <strong>Bible</strong> 51 12 1<br />
New Century Version 51 12 1<br />
International Standard Ver 50 14 0<br />
Ferrar Fenton 50 14 0<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong> 50 12 2<br />
Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> 49 15 0<br />
Recovery NT 49 15 0<br />
NET <strong>Bible</strong> 49 13 2<br />
Jewish NT 49 13 2<br />
The Message 48 13 3<br />
Centenary Version 47 16 1<br />
Contemporary English Ver 46 15 3<br />
JB Phillips 45 17 2<br />
Living <strong>Bible</strong> 42 15 7<br />
New Living Translation 41 19 4<br />
Amplified <strong>Bible</strong> 37 27 0<br />
Confraternity Version 35 27 2<br />
Concordant Literal NT 25 28 1<br />
Knox Version 33 29 2<br />
Challoner 25 27 2<br />
Hebrew Names Version 8 55 1<br />
New King James Version 0 63 1<br />
Revised Webster 0 64 0<br />
King James Version 0 64 0<br />
*The 21st Century NT has 64 points due to its being a dual Literal/Free Translation. Where one side<br />
(usually the Free side) had the weaker reading, it was usually corrected by the truer reading on the<br />
literal side. At the same time, each side held alone would have done remarkably well, especially the<br />
literal side. I think it is encumbent on any Free/Dynamic Equivalent/Paraphrased <strong>Bible</strong> to include a<br />
literal text, if nothing else, than for ease of mind and conscience.<br />
*Colwell chose Goodspeed version as his top New Testament, but I disagree. While taking him at his<br />
word for the most part, I cannot agree when it comes to the reading at John 1:18. Colwell's true reading<br />
of this verse has "the only begotten God," a faithful rendering of MONOGENHS QEOS. Goodspeed<br />
actually has "divine Only Son," a weaker reading as it seeks to combine the reading of both the Textus<br />
Receptus (TR) and the Westcott and Hort (WH) text. I left it at the top out of respect for Colwell, but it<br />
really deserves a reading of 63, placing the New <strong>World</strong> Translation as the best stand alone version of the<br />
New Testament in English.<br />
Below are the 64 scriptures that Colwell uses to determine accuracy in a New Testament. The message<br />
being:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/colwell.htm (2 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:16 AM]
What is the best New Testament? Colwell's Rule of <strong>Bible</strong> Translation.<br />
*Is your <strong>Bible</strong> faithful to the best manuscripts available? If not, then why not? What is the<br />
motivation behind choosing a weaker reading?*<br />
Why is the TR (Textus Receptus/Received Text) weaker. According to Colwell,<br />
"No scholar today employs this text for any scholarly purpose except as he may use it in<br />
writing the history of the Greek New Testament. The King James version is undoubtably the<br />
most inaccurate English New Testament in common use today...The King James stands at<br />
the bottom of the list also in regard to three spurious passages selected as tests (Mk 16:9-20;<br />
Jn 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7-8)." pp. 99, 100<br />
The list of 64: TR = Textus Receptus; WH = Westcott and Hort Text<br />
1:15 TR This was he of whom I spake<br />
WH For it was he who said it<br />
1:18 TR the only begotten Son<br />
WH the only begotten God<br />
1:27 TR He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me<br />
WH He is to come after me<br />
1:28 TR Bethabara<br />
WH Bethany<br />
1:39 TR Come and see<br />
WH Come and you will see<br />
1:49 TR Nathanael answered and saith unto him<br />
WH Nathanael answered<br />
1:51 TR Hereafter ye shall see heaven<br />
WH you will see heaven<br />
3:15 TR That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal<br />
life<br />
WH That whoever believes in him may have eternal life<br />
3:25 TR between John's disciples and the Jews<br />
WH between John's disciples and a Jew<br />
4:15 TR come hither to draw<br />
WH come all this way to draw<br />
4:35-36 TR they are white already to harvest. And he that reapeth<br />
WH they are white for harvesting. The reaper is already<br />
4:42 TR is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world<br />
WH is indeed the Saviour of the world<br />
4:43 TR departed thence, and went into Galilee<br />
WH went on to Galilee<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/colwell.htm (3 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:16 AM]
What is the best New Testament? Colwell's Rule of <strong>Bible</strong> Translation.<br />
5:2 TR Bethasda<br />
WH Bethzatha<br />
5:3 TR a great multitude<br />
WH a multitude<br />
5:3-4 TR waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a<br />
certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first<br />
after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever<br />
disease he had.<br />
WH omitted<br />
5:12 TR Take up thy bed, and walk?<br />
WH pick it up and walk?<br />
5:16 TR persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because<br />
WH persecute Jesus because<br />
5:30 TR of the Father which hath sent me<br />
WH him who hath sent me<br />
6:11 TR he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were<br />
set down<br />
WH he distributed to them that were set down<br />
6:17 TR Jesus was not come to them<br />
WH Jesus had not yet come to them<br />
6:22 TR none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were<br />
entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat<br />
WH no other boat there except one and that Jesus had not gone into the boat<br />
with his disciples<br />
6:39 TR of the Father who has sent me<br />
WH of him who has sent me<br />
6:40 TR of him who has sent me<br />
WH of may Father<br />
6:47 TR He that believeth on me hath everlasting life<br />
WH He that believeth hath everlasting life<br />
6:51 TR and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for<br />
the life of the world<br />
WH and the bread that I will give is my flesh, on behalf of the life of the<br />
world.<br />
6:58 TR not as your fathers did eat manna<br />
WH not as your fathers ate and died<br />
6:63 TR the words which I speak<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/colwell.htm (4 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:16 AM]
What is the best New Testament? Colwell's Rule of <strong>Bible</strong> Translation.<br />
WH the words which I have spoken<br />
6:69 TR thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God<br />
WH you are the Holy One of God<br />
7:20 TR the crowd answered and said<br />
WH the crowd answered<br />
7:26 TR Do the rulers know truly that this is truly the Christ?<br />
WH Do the rulers know that this is the Christ?<br />
7:39 TR for not yet was the Holy Spirit<br />
WH for not yet was the Spirit<br />
7:40 TR many of the crowd<br />
WH some of the crowd<br />
7:53-8:11 TR Pericope Adulterae<br />
WH omits (or in appendix)<br />
8:59 TR and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so<br />
passed by.<br />
WH and went out of the temple<br />
9:4 TR it is necessary for me to work<br />
WH it is necessary for us to work<br />
9:11 TR to the pool of Siloam<br />
WH to Siloam<br />
10:4 TR whenever he puts out his own sheep<br />
WH whenever he puts out all his own<br />
10:26 TR because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you<br />
WH because ye are not of my sheep<br />
10:29 TR he who gives to me is greater than all<br />
WH that which he gives me is greater than all<br />
11:30 TR but he was in the place<br />
WH but he was still in the place<br />
11:41 TR Then they took away the stone from the place where the corpse was<br />
lying<br />
WH Then they took away the stone<br />
12:4 TR Judas Iscariot, Simon's son<br />
Judas Iscariot<br />
12:22 TR and again Andrew and Philip<br />
WH Andrew and Philip went<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/colwell.htm (5 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:16 AM]
What is the best New Testament? Colwell's Rule of <strong>Bible</strong> Translation.<br />
12:41 TR These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory<br />
WH These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory<br />
12:47 TR my words, and believe not<br />
WH my words, and does not keep them<br />
13:18 TR the one who eats bread with me<br />
WH the one who eats my bread<br />
14:4 TR you know where I am going and you know the way<br />
WH you know where I am going<br />
14:28 TR because I said I am going<br />
because I am going<br />
16:4 TR whenever the time comes<br />
WH whenever their time comes<br />
16:16 TR and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father<br />
WH and ye shall see me<br />
16:27 TR I came out from God<br />
WH I came out from the Father<br />
17:11 TR keep those whom you gave me in your name<br />
WH keep them in your name which you gave me<br />
17:21 TR let them be one in us<br />
WH let them be "in us"<br />
18:20 TR where the Jews always meet together<br />
WH where all the Jews meet together<br />
18:40 TR and they all cried out again<br />
WH and they cried out again<br />
19:3 TR and they said<br />
WH and they marched up to him saying<br />
19:29 TR and they filled a sponge with the wine<br />
WH a sponge soaked with wine<br />
19:39 TR a mixture of myrrh and aloes<br />
WH a roll of myrrh and aloes<br />
20:16 TR she said to him Rabbouni<br />
WH she said to him in Hebrew Rabbouni<br />
20:29 TR Is it because you have seen me, Thomas, that you believe<br />
WH Is it because you have seen me that you believe<br />
21:3 TR they went out and embarked in the boat immediately<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/colwell.htm (6 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:16 AM]
What is the best New Testament? Colwell's Rule of <strong>Bible</strong> Translation.<br />
WH they went out and embarked in the boat<br />
21:15 TR Simon son of Jonah<br />
WH Simon son of John<br />
Colwell's apparatus was taken from the Book, "What is the Best New Testament" by E.C. Colwell,<br />
University of Chicage Press.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/colwell.htm (7 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:16 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah-A Reply to John C.<br />
Is Jesus Jehovah?<br />
Unless other stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901<br />
In introduction, we have to remind ourselves of the immensity of God. God is bounded by neither time<br />
nor space. His life in times past is boundless. His lifetime in the future is<br />
unbounded. To this unbounded One Moses said: " Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."<br />
(Ps 90:2) This God lives to endless time, to keep on producing and creating beyond the present universe,<br />
expanding it. He is the bottomless reservoir of energy. All the things of the universe are bundles of<br />
particles of energy from him. Is 40:26 says, "Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these,<br />
that bringeth out their host by number; he calleth them all by name; by the greatness of his might, and for<br />
that he is strong in power, not one is lacking."<br />
When we think just of the energy tied up in the sun of our solar system, which is a furnace of nuclear<br />
explosions like the explosion of hydrogen bombs, we are utterly amazed. And then when we think of the<br />
unnumbered billions of stars many of which are larger than our sun, we get some idea of the outflow of<br />
dynamic energy from God<br />
"The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork." Ps 19:1<br />
It is a good thing for us that God is invisible to humans. He himself says, "Thou canst not see my face;<br />
for man shall not see me and live." Ex 33:20 No man has seen God at any time (Jn 1:18).<br />
King Solomon knew of his immensity, for he said, "But will God in very deed dwell on the earth?<br />
behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have<br />
builded!" 1Kings 8:27.<br />
God, as a bundle of dynamic energy could never be restricted by his own creation. He lives in the<br />
heavens, the earth he has given to men. Ps 115:16<br />
Even Jesus himself prayed to the God "which art in<br />
heaven." Mt 6:9<br />
But people keep insisting that the Almighty God can indeed negate all of the above. The following letter<br />
was sent to me to promote the "Orthodox" position that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was also God<br />
Almighty, something Jesus never claimed for himself. Let us proceed:<br />
"Is Jesus Yahweh?" John: The name Yahweh (or Jehovah) appears nearly 7,000 times in the Old<br />
Testament. Most English translations render the Hebrew name for God as LORD, while some (like the New<br />
Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> and Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> ) use "Yahweh" and others (like the American<br />
Standard Version of 1901 and the New <strong>World</strong> Translation ) use "Jehovah." But, between Malachi and<br />
Matthew the Name suddenly disappears! There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament,<br />
and not one of them has the Name in either Greek or Hebrew letters. The Watchtower Society claims that<br />
the Name was there in the original Greek N.T., but that it was later removed. They claim this with no real<br />
evidence, for they are unable to produce even one manuscript of the Greek New Testament with the Name!<br />
Besides, some of those manuscripts of the N.T. date from within one generation of the original writings.<br />
That leaves very little chance for the Society's theory of a conspiracy to remove the Name from the N.T.<br />
writings. If we accept the facts the way they are (without trying to change them to fit a preconceived theory)<br />
we are forced to admit the Name is not in the N.T.<br />
Reply: John's information starts off with a false premise and builds from there. We will see that the<br />
Name has been removed, and that the consequence has been the unbiblical doctrine of the Trinity. It is by<br />
killing off Jehovah/Yahweh that Trinitarians can deify and worship "the creature rather than the Creator."<br />
Rom 1:25<br />
John: In the New Testament we meet up with another name. The name that is emphasized in the N.T. is the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jcostouros.htm (1 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:02:30 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah-A Reply to John C.<br />
name of Jesus. (This makes for an interesting comparison in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation. While the<br />
Watchtower Society "restores" the name Jehovah 237 times to the N.T., their Comprehensive Concordance<br />
lists the name Jesus over 900 times!) In the book of Acts we particularly notice the emphasis of the name of<br />
Jesus. If you have an exhaustive concordance look up the word "name" in the book of Acts. Over and over<br />
again you will see the Name the early Christian church emphasized was the name of Jesus! At Acts 3:6<br />
Peter healed the lame beggar in the name of Jesus Christ. In Acts 4:7,10,12,17,18 we read about the first<br />
disciples defending themselves before the Sanhedrin, proclaiming their use of the name of Jesus. In Chapter<br />
5 they are back before the Jewish high court. For whose name did they suffer? Acts 5:41 tells us: "These,<br />
therefore, went their way from before the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy to be<br />
dishonored in behalf of his name." They suffered for the name of Jesus! Space does not permit us to look at<br />
all the relevant verses. Take time to consider these few: Acts 8:12; 9:13-16,27,28; 15:26; 16:18; 19:17;<br />
21:13; 26:9. In Acts the Name that is emphasized is the name of Jesus Christ!<br />
Reply: It should be noted the New <strong>World</strong> Translation was neither the first nor the last <strong>Bible</strong> to restore the<br />
Divine Name to the New Testament, You can see a list of them here and here. It is also interesting to see<br />
that, when you compare <strong>Bible</strong>s, it is actually difficult to determine how many times "Jesus" was<br />
mentioned. Take note:<br />
NIV Jesus = 1226 Christ = 499<br />
KJV Jesus = 943 Christ = 522<br />
NASB Jesus = 881 Christ = 493<br />
NRSV Jesus = 1088 Christ = 45<br />
RSV Jesus = 926 Christ = 534<br />
Darby <strong>Bible</strong> Jesus = 904 Christ = 507<br />
Young's Literal Version Jesus = 932 Christ 529<br />
Wesley N.T. Jesus = 951 Christ = 497<br />
God's Word Jesus = 1504 Christ = 516<br />
New Living Translation Jesus = 1404 Christ = 536<br />
Douay Jesus = 932 Christ = 534<br />
ASV Jesus = 883 Christ = 501<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> in Basic English Jesus = 905 Christ = 496<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>/TEV Jesus = 1543 Christ 502<br />
New Century Version Jesus = 1846 Christ 604<br />
NKJV Jesus = 941 Christ = 530<br />
In fact it is hard to determine even in the KJV using differing software helps.<br />
<br />
983 (in 942 vrs) QuickVerse 4.0<br />
973 (in 935 vrs) <strong>Bible</strong>Works 3.5<br />
983 (in 942 vrs) Logos Research Systems<br />
Why the difference? It was common to inflate the position and deity of Christ by adding to the text, and<br />
this is something that happened quite early on. When researching Textual Criticism (and reading books<br />
like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Ehrman), it becomes clear that corruption in favor of the<br />
theology of the mainstream theology of the time happened almost immediately. Here are a few examples:<br />
John 19:40, "They took the body of Christ" to "they took the body of God"<br />
Luke 2:26 changed to "Christ, namely God." Old Latin ff<br />
Luke 9:20 "the Christ of God" changed to "Christ, God" Coptic<br />
Mark 3:11 "You are the Son of God" changed to "You are God, the Son of God." MS69<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jcostouros.htm (2 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:02:30 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah-A Reply to John C.<br />
Luke 7:9 "when Jesus heard this" changed to "when God heard this" 124<br />
Luke 8:28 "Jesus, Son of the highest God" changed to "Jesus, the highest God" 2766<br />
Luke 20:42 "the lord said to my lord" changed to "God said to my God" Persian Diatesseron<br />
2 Peter 1:2 changed to "in the knowledge of God, our Lord Jesus" P72<br />
Jude 5 changed to "Jesus" or "the God Christ" who saved the people from Egypt P72<br />
Gal 2:2 "Son of God" changed to "God the Son" MS1985<br />
Acts 20:28 "church of God" changed to "church of the Lord" or "church of the Lord and God" various<br />
1 Cor 10:5, "God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness" changed to "Christ"<br />
MS81<br />
Rom 14:10, "we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God." changed to "judgment-seat of<br />
Christ" 048, 0209 Byz etc<br />
Matt 24:36, "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son,<br />
but the Father only." The Byx mss omit "neither the Son." Interestingly, the Codex Siniaticus originally<br />
had "neither the Son", but was removed by a later scribe...and then was restored by yet another scribe.<br />
"In the second or third centuries, there were, of course, Christians who believed in only One<br />
God; others, however, claimed that there were two Gods; yet others subscribed to 30, or<br />
365, or more. Some Christians accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as a revelation of the one<br />
true God, the sacred possession of all believers; others claimed that the Scriptures had been<br />
inspired by an evil deity. Some Christians believed that God created the world and was soon<br />
going to redeem it; others said that God neither had created the world nor had ever had any<br />
dealings with it/ Some Christians beleived that Christ was somehow both a man and God;<br />
others said that he was a man; but not God; others claimes that he was God, but not a<br />
man....the controversies that ensued impacted the surviving literature on virtually every<br />
level. ...The New Testament manuscripts were not produced impersonally by machines<br />
capable of flawless production. They were copied by hand, by living, breathing human<br />
beings who were deeply rooted in the conditions and controversies of their day. Did the<br />
scribes' polemical context influence the way they transcribed sacred Scriptures? The<br />
burden of the present study is that they did....."<br />
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by B. Ehrman, p. 3<br />
These changes did not stop early on:<br />
"When an intentional change affects the meaning of the passage, there is a demonstrable<br />
tendency to move the meaning in the direction of the orthodoxy of the time, not away from<br />
it. By 'demonstrable' I mean the even within the Byzantine tradition, the later witnesses are<br />
inclined to change things in favor of giving more titles to Christ, not fewer" D.A. Carson,<br />
The King James Version Debate, p. 62<br />
It must be remembered that these intentional scribal changes were made by those in the orthodox<br />
position, not by fringe "heretical" groups.<br />
John: Why the change of emphasis between the Old Testament Yahweh and the New Testament Jesus? Are<br />
we being introduced to some rival deity in the New Testament when we encounter so much emphasis on the<br />
name of Jesus? That is the way some nearly react when it is suggested that the answer lies in the fact that<br />
the N.T. identifies Jesus with Yahweh. Bear in mind that I am not saying Jesus is the Father! Rather, what I<br />
am saying is that Jesus and the Father share the same Name and are not in some sort of competition.<br />
Reply: The NT writers had use of the LXX (Septuagint). Did the early LXX use the divine name?<br />
"We know that the the Greek <strong>Bible</strong> text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for<br />
Jews did not translate the Divine Name by Kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jcostouros.htm (3 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:02:30 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah-A Reply to John C.<br />
Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the<br />
Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not<br />
understood anymore". (Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p.222)<br />
When did they remove the name? In a commentary on the manuscript P Fouad 266,<br />
Professor G. D. Kilpatrick, on talking about the period between 70-135 C.E. said that 3<br />
important changes were made in this period. The change from scroll to Codex, the<br />
Tetragrammaton was replaced by KYRIOS and abbreviations were introduced for divine<br />
names. See Etudes de Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme 1971 pp. 221,222<br />
That's right, the Divine Name WAS at one time in the New Testament! Here is a quote from<br />
the Catholic magazine "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, april-june 1997, p. 183-186.<br />
JHWH. The tetragrammaton in the New Testament:<br />
"The Tetragrammaton in the christian Scriptures according to the Babylonian Talmud.<br />
The first part of this Yewish work is called Shabbath (Sabbath) and it contains an immense<br />
code of rules that establishes what could have been done of a Sabbath. Part of it deals with if<br />
on the Sabbath day Biblical manuscripts could be saved from the fire, and after it reads:<br />
"The text declares: 'The white spaces ("gilyohnim") and the books of the Minim, can't be<br />
saved from the fire'. Rabbi Jose said: 'On working days one must cut out the Divine Names<br />
that are contained in the text, hide them and burn the rest'. Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury<br />
my son if I don't burn them toghether with the Divine Names that they contain if I come<br />
across them". From the English translation of Dr. H.Freedman.<br />
The word "Minim" means "sectarians" and according to Dr. Freedman it's very probable that<br />
in this passage it indicates the Jewish-Christians. The expression "the white spaces"<br />
translates the original "gilyohnim" and could have meant, using the word ironically, that the<br />
writings of the "Minim" where as worthy as a blank scroll, namely nothing. In some<br />
dictionaries this word is given as "Gospels". In harmony with this, the sentence that appears<br />
in the Talmud before the above mentioned passage says: "The books of the Minim are like<br />
white spaces (gilyohnim)."<br />
So in the book Who was a Jew?, of L.H.Schiffman, the above mentioned passage of the<br />
Talmud is translated: "We don't save the Gospels or the books of Minim from the fire. They<br />
are burnt where they are, together with their Tetragrammatons. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says:<br />
"During the week one should take the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the<br />
rest". Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my children! If I would have them in my hands, I<br />
would burn them with all their Tetragrammatons'". Dr. Schiffman continues reasoning that<br />
here "Minim" is refered to Hebrew Christians.<br />
And it's very probable that here the Talmud refers to the Hebrew Christians. It is a<br />
supposition that finds agreement among the studious people, and in the Talmud seems to be<br />
well supported by the context. In Shabbath the passage that follows the above mentioned<br />
quotations relates a story, regarding Gamaliel and Christian judge in which there is an<br />
allusion to parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, this passage of the Talmud is a<br />
clear indication that the Christians included the Tetragrammaton in their Gospel and their<br />
writings."<br />
We have seen above that the omission is due to the expansion of piety, and to honor the Son more than<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jcostouros.htm (4 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:02:30 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah-A Reply to John C.<br />
the Father. It was important to lessen or blurr the role of the Father.<br />
"In pre-Christian manuscripts for Greek-speaking Jews, God's name was not paraphrased<br />
with kurios [Lord], but was written in the tetragram form [YHWH] in hebrew or archaic<br />
characters....We find recollections of the name in the wroting of the Church Fathers; but<br />
they are not interested in it. By translating this name kurios (Lord), the Church Fathers were<br />
more interested in attributing the grandeur of the kurios to Jesus Christ." Entschluss/Offen,<br />
1985, Feneberg<br />
"The strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was<br />
they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be "updated" by blurring or even obliterating<br />
the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son."<br />
Rubenstein's When Jesus Became God, p. 74.<br />
John: Let's consider a few quotations from the Old Testament and see if the New Testament writers had<br />
any problem in applying passages containing the name Yahweh to Jesus. We will use the New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation for these comparisons.<br />
The apostle Paul quoted Psalm 68:18 and applied it to the Ascension of Jesus Christ. Psalm 68:18 says:<br />
"You<br />
have ascended on high; you have carried away captives; you have taken gifts in the form of men, Yes, even<br />
the<br />
stubborn ones, to reside among them, O Jah God." ("Jah" is an abbreviated form of the name Jehovah.)<br />
Notice how Paul applies this passage at Ephesians 4:7-10: "Now to each one of us undeserved kindness was<br />
given according to how the Christ measured out the free gift. Wherefore he says: `When he ascended on<br />
high he carried away captives; he gave gifts in men.' Now the expression `he ascended,' what does it mean<br />
but that he also descended into the lower regions, that is, the earth? The very one that descended is also the<br />
one that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might give fulness to all things."<br />
Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes the Greek Septuagint version of Psalm 102:25-27 and applies it to Christ: "You at<br />
the<br />
beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are the works of your hands.<br />
They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually ; and just like an outer garment they<br />
will grow old, and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed, but<br />
you are the same, and your years will never run out." Not only do we here see a N.T. writer apply an O.T.<br />
passage about Yahweh to Jesus Christ-notice to what lengths this N.T. writer will go in his scripture<br />
application. He openly identifies Christ as the Creator of heaven and earth. And he contrasts the<br />
impermanence of creation against its<br />
Creator, who is unchangeable and eternal. Does it make sense to think the writer of Hebrews felt Christ was<br />
only a creature after seeing how he applies Scripture?<br />
Notice this comparison between 1 Peter 3:14,15 and Isaiah 8:12,13. 1 Peter says: "But even if you should<br />
suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are happy. However, the object of their fear do not you fear,<br />
neither become agitated. But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense<br />
before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper<br />
and deep respect." Now, Isaiah says: "`You men must not say, "A conspiracy!" respecting all that of which<br />
this people keep saying, "A conspiracy!" and the object of their fear you men must not fear, nor must you<br />
tremble at it. Jehovah of armies-he is the One whom you should treat as holy, and he should be the object of<br />
your fear, and he should be the One causing you to tremble.'" This comparison is even more striking if one<br />
compares the Greek word order of 1 Peter with the Greek Septuagint of Isaiah. The Hebrew says: "Sanctify<br />
Jehovah of hosts" (according to Jay<br />
Green's The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English <strong>Bible</strong> ) but the Greek Septuagint has "Sanctify ye the Lord<br />
himself." (From Brenton's translation of the Septuagint.) Now, Peter, writing in Greek, would most<br />
naturally quote from the standard Greek translation of the O.T.- the Septuagint. The Septuagint here says:<br />
kurion auton hagiasate (Greek word order: "Lord himself sanctify"). Peter's quotation in 1 Peter 3:14,15 is<br />
practically identical except here he exchanges the word auton (himself) for who is Christ. Peter writes:<br />
kurion de ton christon hagiasate (Greek word order: "Lord but the Christ sanctify"-compare the Watchtower<br />
Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation.) It is as if Peter were adding a parenthetical thought to his<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jcostouros.htm (5 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:02:30 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah-A Reply to John C.<br />
quotation from Isaiah: "The object of their<br />
fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. The Lord (who is Christ ) you should sanctify." Peter was<br />
making sure we knew that the Lord we are to sanctify is Christ!<br />
Notice this prophecy from Isaiah 40:3-5: "Listen! Someone is calling out in the wilderness: `Clear up the<br />
way of Jehovah, you people! Make the highway for our God through the desert plain straight. Let every<br />
valley be raised up, and every mountain and hill be made low. And the knobby ground must become level<br />
land, and the rugged ground a valley plain. And the glory of Jehovah will certainly be revealed, and all flesh<br />
must see it together. '" Matthew 3:1-3, Mark 1:1-4, Luke 3:2-6 and John 1:23 apply this passage to John the<br />
Baptist's preparatory work before the ministry of Jesus.<br />
It becomes undeniable that New Testament writers applied Old Testament passages about Yahweh to Jesus.<br />
Can we be sure they were thereby identifying Jesus with Yahweh? ......<br />
Reply: John has given other examples also, but I think the main thrust of his argument are wonderfully<br />
demonstrated in the above. To be sure, there are scriptures that have indeed connected Jesus with<br />
Jehovah. Does this make them the same person though?<br />
Let us compare 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chron 21:1:<br />
2 Sam reads, "And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against<br />
them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah."<br />
1 Chron reads, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.<br />
Are we here to conclude, by the arguments listed above by John, that Jehovah and Satan are the same<br />
person? These 2 scriptures were handled in the book "Alleged Discrepancies in the <strong>Bible</strong>" by John W.<br />
Haley, and his comments were:<br />
"It is consistent with Hebrew modes of thought that whatever occurs in the world, under the overruling<br />
providence of God, what he suffers to take place, should be attributed to his agency."<br />
Did you understand this? The Jews obviously did.<br />
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as<br />
the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been<br />
committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey<br />
Wigoder<br />
GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic law as<br />
follows: "One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach] is thereby<br />
granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This is the more<br />
remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray<br />
18).<br />
For more on this go to availablelight.htm<br />
Jesus holds a unique position in the <strong>Bible</strong>, a functional equality if you will. Rev 5:13 tells us "Unto him<br />
that sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb, be the blessing, and the honor, and the glory, and the<br />
dominion, for ever and ever."<br />
Also Rev 22:1, 3:" And he showed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the<br />
throne of God and of the Lamb... And there shall be no curse any more: and the throne of God and of the<br />
Lamb shall be therein: and his servants shall serve him."<br />
Jesus is often portrayed on the "right hand of God." (Ps 110:1; Mt 22:44; 26:64; Acts 7:55)<br />
"He, therefore, can fill any position in the God's universe, and represent his Father in any<br />
purpose. This is something to keep in mind when we are looking at the various quotes that<br />
are applied to Jesus. As we consider how the NT quotes the OT, we must stress that an<br />
"ontological" identity between the persons mentioned in the quotes is not at all obvious." p.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jcostouros.htm (6 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:02:30 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah-A Reply to John C.<br />
195, Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation by Rolf Furuli<br />
Professor Furuli then goes on to point out some examples of this. In Hosea 11:1 the reference is to Israel,<br />
but the same words are later applied to Jesus at Matt 2:15. In Jeremiah Rachel is described as weeping<br />
over her sons, but this is later applied to the children of Bethlehem.(Mt 2:17, 18) Paul applied Habakkuk<br />
1:5, 6 in his sermon at Acts 13:40, 41, but the earlier application was to the Chaldeans, the later was not.<br />
"Then there is the identification of John the Baptist with the prophet Elijah. Malachi 4:5<br />
prophecied that Elijah the prophet would come before the great and fear-inspiring day of<br />
YHWH. Jesus quoted these words in Matthew 17:12 and said that "Elijah has already<br />
come." Verse 13 tells us that the disciples perceived that he spoke about John the baptist. In<br />
Matthew 11:14 Jesus states the matter clearly, 'He himself is Elijah who is destined to<br />
come." There can hardly be a more way to express ontological identity that to say John the<br />
baptist is Elijah! But this is not what is meant, because John was neither the resurrected nor<br />
the re-incarnated Elijah. But John did the same work as Elijah, under circumstances which<br />
were comparable to<br />
those of Elijah." Furuli, p 195<br />
What of Hebrews 1:10 though? George Wesley Buchanan says,<br />
"The connective "and" relates verses 10-12 to verses 7-9. "Now, (on the other hand,) [with<br />
reference] to the angels, it says" (1:7) "but [with reference] to the Son, [it says,]" (1:8) "and"<br />
(1:10). The "Lord" in Ps 102 clearly referred to God. Here it might also<br />
mean God, with the implication that since the Son was "heir or all" (1:2) and since it was<br />
through the Son that the Lord "made the ages" (1:2), any reference to the endurance of God<br />
would also be a reference to the endurance of the Son. In other places the author of Hebrews<br />
quoted Old Testament passages that mention the name of the Lord, and in every case the<br />
author held the same meaning (7:21; 8:8, 10, 11; 10:16, 30; 12:5, 6). On the other hand, the<br />
author did use the name "Lord" when referring to Jesus (2:3; 7:14). Like other scholars of<br />
his time, the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and<br />
attributing it to the Messiah. For example in LXX Deut 32:43, in which the object of<br />
worship for the sons of God according to the Proto-Massoretic text was Israel, the author of<br />
Hebrews applied it to the first-born, namely Jesus (1:6). Since the term "first-born" could be<br />
applied either to Israel (Exod 4:22) or to the Messiah, the author made the shift. By the same<br />
logic,<br />
since the "Lord" was a title of respect used both for God and for kings, such as Jesus, he<br />
may also have made the shift here to apply to Jesus the durability of God in contrast to the<br />
temporal nature of the angels. If this were the case, then Jesus would also have been thought<br />
of as a sort of demiurge through whom God created the heaven and the earth.as well as the<br />
ages (1:2, 10). In either case it does not mean that Jesus was believed to be God or was<br />
addressed as God."<br />
Hebrews 1:10 Anchor <strong>Bible</strong>/Buchanan<br />
Hebrews 1and 2 is stressing the superiority of Jesus over the angels, something that almighty God does<br />
not have to defend nor explain.<br />
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology; _Type, Typology_<br />
“The "type" is perhaps the least understood but most important concept<br />
in the hermeneutics of biblical prophecy. Typological prophecy occurs<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jcostouros.htm (7 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:02:30 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah-A Reply to John C.<br />
throughout the <strong>Bible</strong> and can be considered the "normal" way that the<br />
prophets, including Jesus, spoke of the future. Failure to take this<br />
method of speaking into account can lead to gross distortions of the<br />
prophetic message.<br />
The non-Christian biblical interpreters of the NT era accepted and used typological<br />
perspectives in their hermeneutical work. The NT writers are accordingly using<br />
STANDARD approaches of their day to understanding the OT.<br />
The typological interpretation of prophecy asserts that the prophets did not so much make<br />
singular predictions as proclaim certain theological themes or patterns and that these themes<br />
often have several manifestations or fulfillments in the course of human history.<br />
The type may have its own place and meaning, independently of that which it prefigures.<br />
Typology differs from prophecy in the strict sense of the term only in the means of<br />
prediction. Prophecy predicts mainly by means of the word, whereas typology predicts by<br />
institution, act or person.”<br />
Scofield and others new about typology and they described in terms like "Type of Christ."<br />
John MacArthur in his NKJV Study <strong>Bible</strong> describes Joseph as a "Type of Christ."<br />
He provides the following of similarities between Joseph and Jesus:<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were A SHEPHERD OF HIS FATHERS SHEEP (Gen<br />
37:2/Jn 10:11,27-29)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were LOVED DEARLY BY THEIR FATHER (Gen 37:3/Mt<br />
3:17<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were HATED BY THEIR BROTHERS (Gen 37:4/Jn 7:45)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were SENT BY FATHER TO BROTHERS (Gen<br />
37:13,14/Heb 2:11)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus had OTHERS TO HARM THEM (Gen 37:20/Jn 11:53)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus had ROBES TAKEN FROM THEM (Gen 37:23/Jn<br />
19:23,24)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were TAKEN TO EGYPT (Gen 37:26/Mt 2:14,15)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were SOLD FOR A PRICE OF A SLAVE (Gen 37:28/Mt<br />
26:15)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were TEMPTED (GEN 39:7/mT 4:1)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were FALSELY ACCUSED (Gen 39:16-18/Mt 26:59,60)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were BOUND IN CHAINS (Gen 39:20/Mt 27:2)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were PLACED WITH 2 OTHER PRISONERS, ONE WHO<br />
WAS<br />
SAVED AND THE OTHER LOST (Gen 40:2,3/Lu 23:32)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were EXALTED AFTER SUFFERING (Gen 41:41/Phil<br />
2:9-11)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were BOTH 30 YEARS OLD AT THE BEGINNING OF<br />
PUBLIC RECOGNITION<br />
(Gen 41:46/Lu 3:23)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus BOTH WEPT (Gen 42:24; 45:2, 14, 15; 46:29/Jn<br />
11:35)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus FORGAVE THOSE WHO WRONGED THEM (Gen<br />
45:1-15/Lu<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jcostouros.htm (8 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:02:30 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah-A Reply to John C.<br />
23:34)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus SAVED THEIR NATION (Gen 45:7/Mt 1:21)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus had WHAT MEN DID TO HURT THEM, GOD TURNED<br />
TO<br />
GOOD (Gen 50:20/ 1Cor 2:7,8<br />
Does this mean Jesus must be Joseph? Of course not.<br />
John: We are told at Isaiah 45:22-24: "Turn to me and be saved, all you at the ends of the earth; for I am<br />
God,<br />
and there is no one else. By my own self I have sworn-out of my own mouth in righteousness the word<br />
has gone forth, so that it will not return- that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear,<br />
saying, `Surely in Jehovah there are full righteousness and strength.'" Notice how Paul makes a<br />
direct allusion to this passage at Philippians 2:9-11 (NIV): "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place<br />
and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in<br />
heaven<br />
and on the earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God<br />
the Father." At Isaiah 45:23 we were told that every knee would bend in worship and every tongue swear to<br />
Jehovah. Paul alludes to this and says this would happen "at the name of Jesus." Why? Because Paul adds<br />
that God has shared with Christ "the name that is above every name "-the Divine Name. So, when every<br />
knee bows before Jesus and every tongue confesses Jesus Christ as LORD, does this detract from the<br />
Father? Not at all! Rather, Paul said this would glorify God the Father!-compare John 5:23.<br />
(Interestingly, early editions of the N.T. part of the New <strong>World</strong> Translation had a cross-reference at<br />
Philippians 2:10 pointing to Isaiah 45:23. Their 1984 Reference <strong>Bible</strong> edition has removed that<br />
cross-reference.)....<br />
(Above written by Mr. Dave Brown; originally appeared as an article in "The Dividing Line", the newsletter<br />
of Alpha and Omega Ministries. Printed copies available.)<br />
Reply: 1Cor.8:6 identifies the "one God" as the Father who is the source of creation. Jesus is explicitly<br />
excluded when he is next identified as the "Lord" who is the agent of the one God. 1Tim.2:5 states there<br />
is "one God" but then specifically EXCLUDES Jesus from being that one God by saying he is the<br />
"mediator" between GOD and humans. Without equivocation or replacing the word God with father,<br />
explain how can Jesus be the same God he is mediator for?<br />
Far from being Almighty, Jesus is said to have a God over him before, during and after he came to earth<br />
(Mic.5:4, Rom.15:6, Rev.1:6; 3:2,12). Rather than being equal in power, Jesus is said to be in subjection<br />
to God even when he is as high as he ever gets (1Cor.15:27,28, Eph. 1:17; 19-22). Mat.28:18,19 says that<br />
when Jesus returned to heaven he had to be "given" all authority (power-KJV). If Jesus were equal to<br />
God in power, then why exactly would he need to be "given" any authority? (Mt.28:18; 11:27, Jn. 5:22;<br />
17:2; 3:35; 2Pet.1:17) cf. (Mat.11:26-27, Dan.7:13-14, Phil.2:9).<br />
So what of the NAME in Php 2:9-11. We have to keep in mind the context of the passage.<br />
"Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name."<br />
God had to exalt Jesus, and give him a name above all others. Obviously, it is something he did not have<br />
before his exaltation, and again, why would Almighty God need to be given anything?<br />
Any authority Jesus has was given to him (see Mt 9:8; 28:18; Jn 17:2).<br />
It never says God shared his name.<br />
But how does this authority tie into his exalted name? Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of NAME/ONOMA,<br />
"for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc."<br />
Vine's <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary says of ONOMA/Name in reference to Jesus (as "in the name of Christ").<br />
"representing the authorityof Christ."<br />
Christians are persecuted for recognizing his authority. Interestingly, the New Living Translation renders<br />
Matthew 24:9 as "You will be hated all over the world because of your allegiance to me."<br />
The Message translates Php 2:9 as "God lifted him high and honored him far beyond anyone or<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jcostouros.htm (9 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:02:30 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah-A Reply to John C.<br />
anything."<br />
What else can we learn from the preceeding verses in Php 2?<br />
"Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not<br />
the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a<br />
servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself,<br />
becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross." ASV<br />
Jesus, as the last Adam (1Cor 15:45) would never do what Adam did, that is, trying to be "be as God,<br />
knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:5) Jesus humbled himself and was obedient to God, and in this, we<br />
should be of the "same mind." For this ultimate humility, Jesus was honored by being given more<br />
authority than the angels.<br />
Does the exaltation of Jesus push his Father, Jehovah into the background? No, for the <strong>Bible</strong> never tells<br />
us to stop honoring the Father, and this is where I agree with you. Honoring Jesus means honoring the<br />
Father, as Jesus definitely made God's name known.<br />
"Hallowed be thy name" Matt 6:9 Revised Version<br />
"I have made known to them your name, and will make it known," John 17:26 NASB<br />
"Around the time of Christ the Jewish copyists began to leave off writing the Divine Name<br />
in their Hebrew MSS and substituting the titles Lord and God. The reason was the<br />
development of a tradition of superstitious fear over pronouncing or writing the Divine<br />
Name. Old worn-out MSS were not destroyed but were buried, because they contained the<br />
Name. One Jewish tradition credits the miracles of Jesus to his possessing a writing<br />
containing the Name that he stole from the temple. Each time scribes scribes wrote the<br />
Name they reverently wiped their pens, some even took a bath! Little wonder that the<br />
copying of the Name was eventually dropped altogether by Jewish scribes.<br />
Jesus was no respecter of Jewish traditions (Matt 15:3,6) especially when his Father's Name<br />
was at stake (John 17:26). So he and his apostles would scarcely have approved or followed<br />
this practice. In the original Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures as used by<br />
the apostles, the Name appeared in the form of the four Hebrew letters. This is shown by its<br />
appearance in ancient fragments of the Septuagint such as the Fouad 266 papyrus of the 2nd<br />
century B.C. It also can be seen in Aquila's version of the second century A.D., in Origen's<br />
Hexapla of the third century, and is attested to by Jerome in the fourth century. It can also be<br />
seen in the Dead Sea fragment of Habakkuk in Greek.<br />
The Divine Name would thus have been spoken by Jesus and the apostles whenever they<br />
quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, either directly or from the Greek version, and so would<br />
have appeared in their writings when they made such quotations."<br />
Appendix, 21st Century N.T.<br />
George Howard has done extensive study on the Divine Name in the New Testament and has this to say:<br />
"The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the<br />
surrogates KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and<br />
the Lord Christ, and in many passages made it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the<br />
Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure<br />
whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures were brought into<br />
even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them. Thus it may be<br />
that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later Christological<br />
and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries." George<br />
Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 15<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jcostouros.htm (10 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:02:30 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah-A Reply to John C.<br />
In fact, the name Jesus means, "Jehovah is Salvation."<br />
Does the <strong>Bible</strong> ever tell us to stop using the Divine Name though?<br />
No, definitely not. This name is in the Hebrew scriptures almost 7000 times. This name was in the LXX<br />
in Jesus time and it was definitely in the Hebrew scriptures. When Jesus read scriptures, whether he was<br />
using the the LXX (Septuagint) or the Hebrew, he read the Divine Name. This name is mentioned more<br />
than any other name, and more than all the other titles put together. The math and common sense alone<br />
tells us this repetitive emphasis means the Name was meant to last forever.<br />
"You must tell the Isrealites this, that it is JEHOVAH the God of their forefathers, the God of Abraham,<br />
The God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, who has sent you to them. This is my name forever; this is my title<br />
in every generation." The New English <strong>Bible</strong>(Protestant and Catholic).<br />
"Then have those fearing Jehovah spoken one to another, And Jehovah doth attend and hear, And written<br />
is a book of memorial before Him Of those fearing Jehovah, And of those esteeming His name." Malachi<br />
3:16 Young's Literal Version<br />
"Jehovah our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy majesty above the<br />
heavens." Ps 8:1 Darby<br />
"That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the<br />
earth." Ps 83:18 King James Version<br />
"Let them praise the name of Jehovah; For his name alone is exalted; His glory is above the earth and the<br />
heavens." Ps 148:13 American Standard Version<br />
'From the sun's rising even to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place<br />
sacrificial smoke will be made, a presentation will be made to my name, even a clean gift; because my<br />
name will be great among the nations,' Jehovah of armies has said."-Mal 1:11 NWT<br />
"And in very deed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you; and that my<br />
name may be declared in all the earth." NKJV<br />
"And I will sanctify my great name, which hath been profaned among the nations, which ye have<br />
profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am Jehovah, saith the Lord Jehovah,<br />
when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes." Ezekiel 36:23 ASV<br />
"Praise Yahweh! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his doings. Bring to remembrance<br />
that exalted is his Name. Praise in song Yahweh, for a splendid thing he has done. Well known is this in<br />
all the earth."-Isaiah 12:4, 5. Rotherham<br />
Simeon has reported how God first intervened to take from the Gentiles a people for His name. Acts<br />
15:14 HCSB<br />
"I will protect those who know my name." Psalm 91:14 NRSV<br />
"For the Name of Jehovah I proclaim, Ascribe ye greatness to our God! The Rock! --perfect [is] His<br />
work, For all His ways [are] just; God of stedfastness, and without iniquity: Righteous and upright [is]<br />
He. It hath done corruptly to Him; Their blemish is not His sons', A generation perverse and crooked! To<br />
Jehovah do ye act thus, O people foolish and not wise? Is not He thy father--thy possessor? He made<br />
thee, and doth establish thee." Deut 32 Young's Literal Version<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jcostouros.htm (11 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:02:30 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah-A Reply to John C.<br />
Don't be fooled by those who argue that the Divine Name is not in the New Testament. The <strong>Bible</strong> is not<br />
divided up into Testaments, that is something that man did. The Scriptures tell us, "The whole <strong>Bible</strong> was<br />
given to us by inspiration from God." 2Tim 3:16 The Living <strong>Bible</strong><br />
When this was written by Paul, he mainly had the existing Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) in mind.<br />
We must do our utmost to embrace the entire <strong>Bible</strong>, the book that contains the Sacred Name<br />
Jehovah/Yahweh/YHWH about 7000 times.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> anticipated that there would be those that hate his name. "How long, O God, will you allow<br />
your enemies to dishonor your name? Will you let them get away with this forever?" Ps 74:10 Living<br />
<strong>Bible</strong><br />
When Jesus was given a name above all others, he was given authority. "Hence God saw fit to endow<br />
him with all authority and power." Col 1:19 21st Century NT<br />
With this authority, he is able to sit at God's right hand, not supercede him (Ps 110:1; Mt 22:44; Mt<br />
26:64; Acts 2:32, 33; 5:31; 7:55).<br />
Jesus as Savior, knows that there is "and a book of remembrance was written before him, for them that<br />
feared Jehovah, and that thought upon his name."<br />
Jesus glorified his Father. In the <strong>Bible</strong>, Jehovah is identified as our Father (Deut 32:6; Isaiah 64:8). Even<br />
according to trinitarian theology, Jesus cannot be the Father.<br />
Acts 2:36, "God hath made him both Lord and Christ"<br />
"as there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things,<br />
and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." 1 Cor<br />
8:6<br />
"That they may know that thou alone, whose name is<br />
Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth."<br />
Psalm 83:18 King James Version<br />
Thank you for this opportunity John.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jcostouros.htm (12 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:02:30 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah Pt. 2-Are JW Opposers Brainwashed?<br />
Is Jesus Jehovah Pt. 2/ <strong>Bible</strong> Inerrancy and the Mindset of JW Opposers<br />
Are they just like the King James Only Cult?<br />
Unless otherwise states, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version<br />
John: Since you are so eager to mention the Pharisees , why don't you check out the activities of your<br />
group and see how close you resemble them.<br />
Reply: The Pharisees were the religious rulers in the early 1st century and keepers of strict tradition,<br />
whereas, Jesus, in contrast, was part of a minority group that placed God and the Scriptures over<br />
tradition. Trinitarian Christendom are the religious rulers of today and uphold the unbiblical traditions if<br />
idolatry, the Trinity and other Greek philosophical beliefs, while Jehovah's Witnesses stress God and the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> and return to the Christianity taught in the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
John: The <strong>Bible</strong> makes it clear that salvation is a gift. All the door knocking in the world won't do you any<br />
good. No-one and I mean no-one is good enough to make it to Heaven on their own merit. If that was the<br />
case the Mosaic law would have been sufficient , provided that one could conceivably keep all the<br />
commandments.<br />
Reply: No one is saying anything different. You are being fed dirt on us that is simply geared towards<br />
hatred, and nothing else. Jesus Christ, did give us a work to do though, and we would be less than<br />
Christian if we did not follow his grand commision.<br />
Mk 16:15, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole<br />
creation." Mt 28:19, 20, "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the<br />
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever<br />
I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."<br />
True Christians would share in the preaching work. We are even told to imitate Paul in this regard (1Cor<br />
4:16). We are told to evangelize, "I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge<br />
the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be urgent in season, out<br />
of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they<br />
will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their<br />
own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables. But be thou sober in all<br />
things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry." 2 Tim 4:1-5<br />
This is starting to sound like works, does it not? "Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by<br />
faith." Jas 2:24 Yes, faith, accompanied by works is what eventually saves us. The <strong>Bible</strong> has always<br />
promoted this type of works.<br />
John: However , it was necessary for God to become a man in order to reconcile us to Himself. The Son<br />
gave up his position in Heaven [ his equality with the Father] [ see Philippians 2:6-8], became a human and<br />
died on the cross for our sins, past , present and future. Because of this the Father exalted Him and gave<br />
Him a name [authority, position] that is above every other name in the visible and invisible universe.<br />
Reply: It was not necessary for God to become man, and it certainly was not an equivalent to the life we<br />
lost in Adam. The <strong>Bible</strong> tells us how things are paid back, "But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give<br />
life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" Ex 21:23, 24 What does the bible<br />
say we lost? We lost our Adamic (perfect) life via Adamic sin. And Jesus, as an Adamic (perfect) man,<br />
can get that back for us.<br />
"Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed<br />
unto all men, for that all sinned" Rom 5:12<br />
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." 1Cor 15:22<br />
"So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/johnc.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:37 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah Pt. 2-Are JW Opposers Brainwashed?<br />
spirit." 1Cor 15:45<br />
"For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave<br />
himself a *ransom* for all" Jesus as a perfect man fulfilled the duties of a ransom. He died for us, and<br />
that is something God simply cannot do.<br />
" Surely you Yahweh are from ancient times, my holy God, who never dies." Hab 1:12 NJB<br />
"Now unto the King eternal, *immortal*, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.<br />
Amen." 1Tim 1:17<br />
The death of the Almighty God Jehovah is far too big a price to pay for the perfect life we lost in Adam.<br />
Moving on...it is special pleading to say that the harpazo at Phil 2:6 means Jesus had equality with the<br />
Father. Ralph Martin, says in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians:<br />
"It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning<br />
of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'" The Expositor's Greek Testament<br />
also says: "We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of its derivatives has the sense<br />
of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'.<br />
Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally<br />
different, 'hold fast.'"<br />
If we read the preceeding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean<br />
that we should try to be equal with God? Of course not. That is why many versions read differently than<br />
the way you propose (and others think) it should say..<br />
"though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." RSV "who,<br />
existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped" ASV<br />
"did not count equality with God something to be grasped" NJB, NIV<br />
"he never considered seizing the chance to be equal to God" 21st Century NT<br />
"did not regard equality with God something to be grasped" NAB<br />
"he laid no claim to equality with God" REB<br />
"he did not think to snatch at equality with God" NEB etc etc etc....<br />
After all, isn't trying to grasp at equality with God is how we reached our state of Adamic sin in the first<br />
place (see Genesis 3:5).<br />
John: Before you jump and tell me that this proves that the Father is greater than the Son, let me tell you<br />
that I agree. He is greater in terms of function and not substance. That is why Jesus said that the Father and<br />
I are one[ not the same person but the same substance]. The Jews certainly understood what He meant [but<br />
not the Jehovah's witnesses]. They [Jews] wanted to stone Him for blasphemy and "because that ,thou,<br />
being a man, makest thyself God." [John 10:33]. Again when the disciples asked Him to show them the<br />
Father what did He say? " Have I been such a long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me,..He that<br />
hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?"[John14:9] Did Jesus<br />
imply that He was the same person as the Father? Certainly not! He was simply indicating what Paul said in<br />
a later letter about the equality of the Son to the Father: "God [the Father] ...had spoken through the Son ,<br />
whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds [ Jesus=creator]; Who, being the<br />
brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, [ all about substance ,Heinz ]and upholding all<br />
things by the word of his power,[ Not even Michael the archangel could do that- wake up Heinz] when he<br />
had by himself purged our sins [ all by himself, hmmm that is POWER ], sat down on the right hand of the<br />
Majesty on high [Hebrews 1:2-3] In today's language, the CEO told the V.P. of Human Affairs: " A job<br />
well done Son, you be the King of Kings, Lord of Lords " And that is what my faith is all about my friend. I<br />
only trust in the cleansing work of the blood of Jesus and I answer to no human organization in regards to<br />
how I ought to worship.<br />
Reply: Perhaps you should join an organization, as then you would not be troubled with erroneous and<br />
unbiblical ideas like those mentioned above. As for John 10:33, "Any difficulty in understanding this<br />
verse is caused the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verse<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/johnc.htm (2 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:37 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah Pt. 2-Are JW Opposers Brainwashed?<br />
34 and 35, then it would read, "...you a man, claim to be a god." One God/One Lord by Graeser, Lynn<br />
and Schoenheit p.482<br />
Consider the following exceptions...<br />
"claim to be a god" NEB<br />
"Makest thyself a god" Bowes, Sharpe, Robert Young's Concise Commentary<br />
"Make yourself out to be a god" Fenton<br />
"Are deifying yourself" Wuest<br />
"For making a mortal like yourself into a god" Unvarnished NT<br />
Torrey's translation lowercases the word as "god," while the interlinear reading of The Emphatic<br />
Diaglott says "a god."<br />
Why? Because Jesus goes on to quote Psalm 82. Like Ryrie says of John 10:34, "Christ's point is that if<br />
the O.T. uses the word "God" (Elohim) of men who were representative of God, then the Jews should not<br />
oppose Him for calling Himself the Son of God."<br />
Also, you again mentioned Hebrews 1, which shows Jesus superiority over the prophets, and mainly the<br />
angels. Why? In the past these were used to mediate between God and men. As such, prophets like<br />
Moses could be called a god (Ex 4:16; 7:1). Angels were called gods at (Ps 8:5; 97:7 and 138:1). Even<br />
judges (or perhaps angels) were called gods at Psalm 82, as we have seen above. Moses, the angels, and<br />
the judges were God to whomever they were mediating for. Those that have seen them, have seen the<br />
Father they were representing. But they have been superceded. As Hebrews points out, now we have<br />
Jesus. He has been given a functional equality with God, but just like these other gods, he is not one in<br />
substance with God. To be one in substance means to be that same being. The words "substance" or<br />
"essense" do not appear in the <strong>Bible</strong>, these are 4th century philosophical innovations that were introduced<br />
into Xtian theology, but they have no bearing on <strong>Bible</strong> truth. I have already gone into detail about some<br />
of the terms used above in our previous letter, but let me expand.<br />
Jesus is the image of God, but then, we are also made in God's image. (Gen 1:26)<br />
How else does the <strong>Bible</strong> use the term "image/eikon?"<br />
Consider Matt 22:20 where Jesus asked, while pointing to a coin, "Whose is this image (eikon) and<br />
superscription? They say unto Him, Caeser's." Does this mean that coin bears the substance/essence of<br />
Caeser, that the coin was fully Caeser and fully coin? Absolutely not. There are prototypes, and then<br />
there are representatives, which is what Hebrews 1 is driving at. As you pointed out "CEO told the V.P.<br />
of Human Affairs"....the CEO is never the same substance/essence as the next in command. They are 2<br />
different people. When God says "Sit thou at my right hand" to Jesus, is he mocking our intelligence<br />
when we fully know that to sit at someone's right hand not only makes you seperate in substance, but it<br />
puts you in a different position altogether?<br />
John: More <strong>Bible</strong> Truths Dear Heinz: I checked some of our previous correspondence and guess what I<br />
found: {Their New <strong>World</strong> <strong>Bible</strong> translation done by "scholars" who knew neither Greek nor Hebrew was<br />
full of errors. Meanings of words in the original languages were twisted to fit their particular viewpoint and<br />
doctrines. >>Do you think that God would allow someone to ruin his word, and make it full of errors? Is<br />
God so weak in your mind? Give me a "for instance" of the above fallacious statement. } Well, well, it's my<br />
turn to ask you the same question: You quoted the following in your rebuttal of my so-called article<br />
>>John's information starts off with a false premise and builds from there. We will see that the Name has<br />
been removed, and that the consequence has been the unbiblical doctrine of the Trinity. It is by killing off<br />
Jehovah/Yahweh that Trinitarians can deify and worship "the creature rather than the Creator." Rom 1:25<br />
Is Jesus Jehovah Pt. 2-Are JW Opposers Brainwashed?<br />
that there would not be some minor tampering. In fact, you might say, that by the closing words of the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, that he even anticipated it (Rev 22:18, 19). Many textual scholars like Colwell and Metzger agree<br />
that the text of the King James Version is the most corrupt that there is. Yet, when the average person<br />
examines them, we are hard-pressed to find them. That is because the Word of God and especially the<br />
message has remained virtually unchanged, despite the variations.<br />
You, however, said "Their New <strong>World</strong> <strong>Bible</strong> translation done by "scholars" who knew neither Greek nor<br />
Hebrew was full of errors." That is a little different than an occasional corruption creeping in.<br />
Professor/AuthorAlan S Duthie says that the New <strong>World</strong> Translation is no more "full of heresies" than<br />
any other version. The reason that some, like Professor Jason Beduhn can praise the NWT, and others<br />
damn it comes down to bigotry and prejudice, pure and simple.<br />
As for God's seeming inability to preserve his Name, this is false. He has in fact preserved it 6828 times<br />
in the Hebrew mss. It is the Christians that revile God's name that have even then, failed to translate it.<br />
Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote about failing to include the<br />
Divine Name:<br />
"Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and<br />
ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a<br />
sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh<br />
is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have<br />
used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and<br />
practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get<br />
two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King<br />
James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It<br />
was a hard decision, and many of our translators<br />
agree with you."<br />
The ISV commitee has also refused to translate the Sacred Name due to financial considerations. For<br />
more click here. I think that is pathetic and unchristian.<br />
It is also Christians that have divided up the <strong>Bible</strong> into Old and New Testaments, something God never<br />
did. The <strong>Bible</strong> tells us that there are those that revile his name. (Psalm 74:10) It also tells us that the<br />
Church would be over-run with apostasy.<br />
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus stated: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is<br />
easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is<br />
hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in<br />
sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits." (Matthew<br />
7:13-16, Revised Standard Version) True Christianity is a hard, cramped road, found by only the "few."<br />
These "few" were warned that seemingly harmless "false prophets" would try to sidetrack them onto the<br />
"easy" way "that leads to destruction."<br />
Over 30 years later the apostle Peter wrote: "But there arose false prophets also among the people, as<br />
among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even<br />
the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.<br />
And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil<br />
spoken of. And in covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose sentence<br />
now from of old lingereth not, and their destruction slumbereth not. ."—2 Peter 2:1-3.<br />
"The way of the truth," the way "that leads to life," is the way of true Christianity. The "false prophets,"<br />
or "false teachers," are the apostate 'wolves in sheep's clothing' who began to make their presence felt<br />
among the early Christians even before the death of the apostles. (1 John 2:18, 19; 4:1-3) The apostle<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/johnc.htm (4 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:37 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah Pt. 2-Are JW Opposers Brainwashed?<br />
Paul also gave warning about such "oppressive wolves." He identified them as men who would "speaking<br />
perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." (Acts 20:29, 30) From the second half of the first<br />
century onward, these false teachers 'quietly brought in destructive sects,' exploiting the early Christians<br />
"with counterfeit words." Because of these apostates, "the way of the truth," true Christianity, was<br />
"spoken of abusively."<br />
Consider the fruits of orthodoxy. The Christological/Trinitarian controversy that plagued the Church<br />
known for its violence.<br />
"Bishop Athanasius, a future saint and uninhibited faction fighter, had his opponents excommunicated,<br />
and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped and imprisoned and exiled to different<br />
provinces....Athanasuis possessed a power independent of the emperor which he built up and perpetuated<br />
by violence...Like a modern gangster, he evoked widespread mistrust.." When Jesus Became God by<br />
Rubenstein, pp. 6, 107<br />
Even Constantine, under who's direction we have the Trinity, Christmas and the Cross, was a Sun<br />
Worshipper who killed his Son and had his wife boiled alive...and this was done AFTER he gave us<br />
these things. Food for thought, is it not? For more click here.<br />
John: You also stated that >>It was common to inflate the position and deity of Christ by adding to the<br />
text, and this is something that happened quite early on. When researching Textual Criticism (and reading<br />
books like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Ehrman), it becomes clear that corruption in favor of<br />
the theology of the mainstream theology of the time happened almost immediately. Here are a few<br />
examples: >>>> Then you go on to quote examples that are not relevant with what is happening today.<br />
When I checked my King James <strong>Bible</strong> I did not find any of these anomalies. i.e. your examples don't apply<br />
today.<br />
Reply: Oh believe me, the changes are well documented. You can ask any KJV-Only person, like the<br />
ones at:<br />
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nasv.txt<br />
av1611.org<br />
The examples I gave you were in ancient mss...and the important thing to remember is that these changes<br />
were made by the victors, not the fringe "heretical" groups. The orthodox Trinitarian Xtians were the<br />
ones that have attempted time and again to corrupt scriptures to fit their theology, so your complaint is<br />
flat and unwarranted. The NWT translators have not changed the Hebrew or Greek text like those in<br />
times past. I asked you to give me a "for instance," and you have ignored this query. It seems to be that<br />
many have a conplaint, but few can back it up with facts.<br />
This leads to something else though. There are a plethora of newer <strong>Bible</strong> versions that termed<br />
"paraphrased," "dynamic equivalent,""thought for thought," or "meaning based" like the Good News<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, The Message, The Living <strong>Bible</strong>, New Living Translation, God's Word, NIrV, Contemporary<br />
English Version etc that have taken many more liberties than the NWT, but few complain about these<br />
since the changes favor the "orthodox/mainstream" position.<br />
John: In previous letters I asked you to tell me why Jesus claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath when the<br />
Jews knew very well that the title referred to their covenant God Jehovah. Do you think He was saying that<br />
just to "piss them off"? Jesus also claimed that He is the Truth and the Life, the Good Shepherd, the living<br />
bread, the vine etc, etc which are clearly attributes of the almighty Jehovah. If He has all of the<br />
characteristics of Jehovah, He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords [ Revelation 19:16] is it not possible that<br />
He may be equal to Him or be Him ? The name Jehovah applies to the one and only God who acts in<br />
history in the persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.<br />
Reply: It is sad to see a good man like you resort to bad language like using the vernacular for "urinate"<br />
to make your point. True, the <strong>Bible</strong> does employ this word,...but not in the same sense as you do. (2Ki<br />
18:27; Is 36:12; 1Sam 25:22, 34; 1Ki 14:10)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/johnc.htm (5 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:37 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah Pt. 2-Are JW Opposers Brainwashed?<br />
Many in the <strong>Bible</strong> share titles, but that does not make them same being/essence/substance. Consider:<br />
Son of God (angels) Gen 6:1,2; Job 1:8; 38:7; (Solomon) 2Sam 7:14; (Adam) Lu 3:38<br />
King of Kings (Artaxerxes) Ezra 7:12; (Nebuchadrezzar) Ezekiel 26:7/Dan 2:37<br />
Apostle (Jesus) Hebrews 3:1; (Peter) 1Peter 1:1; (Paul) Rom 1:1 etc<br />
God (Jesus) Jn 1:1; angels (Ps 8:5;97:7;138:1); Solomon (Ps 45:6); Moses (Ex 4:16; 7:1)<br />
Lord (Abraham) 1Pet 3:6 (Saul)1Sam 24:8; (David) 2Sam 11:9; (Joab) 2Sam 11:11 etc<br />
Savior (Jesus) Ac 13:23; (Jehovah) Is 43:3; (Othniel) Jg 3:9; (Ehud) Jg 3:15<br />
Judge (Jehovah) Jg 11:27; (Jesus) Jn 5:22; (Humans) see Book of Judges<br />
Satan/Devil (Judas) John 6:70; (Peter) Matt 16:23<br />
Interestingly, the King James Only crowd makes much of the similarities between Jesus and Satan in<br />
newer <strong>Bible</strong>s:<br />
"1) Just about everybody knows the word "Lucifer" as another name for Satan. The word<br />
"Lucifer" is found one time in the King James <strong>Bible</strong>. Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from<br />
heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst<br />
weaken the nations!<br />
(2) But what about the NIV? The word "Lucifer" is clean, bald-headed gone and now this<br />
creature is identified as the "morning star". Lucifer is the "morning star" in the NIV. How<br />
you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to<br />
the earth, you who once laid low the nations!<br />
(3) So we know that in the NIV the "morning star" is a negative, evil figure. Right? He<br />
was fallen from heaven. He was cast down to the earth. Can we find the "morning star"<br />
anywhere else in the NIV? Yes! The following passages in the NIV show the<br />
"morning star" as Jesus Christ! But the NIV just called the fallen creature of Isaiah 14:12<br />
"morning star". Lucifer AND Jesus are ONE in the NIV! Lord have mercy, Jesus! Help<br />
me, Lord.<br />
NIV: Revelation 22:16,<br />
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root<br />
and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."<br />
NIV: 2 Peter 1:19,<br />
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay<br />
attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day<br />
dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.<br />
NIV: Revelation 2:28--<br />
I will also give him the morning star."<br />
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivsatan.htm<br />
Since, in the <strong>Bible</strong> Kings can be referred to as "stars" (cf Num 24:17...the scripture in Isaiah had its<br />
earlier fulfillment in the King of Babylon at Is 14:4, and we cannot argue that the Babylonian King is<br />
ontologically one with Satan), it is quite evident in the <strong>Bible</strong> that positioning and titles are relative to the<br />
context and the almighty King Jehovah.<br />
The point that I am making is that the mindset that condemns Jehovah's Witnesses and the New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation can also be seen in the KJVO Cult crowd. Much of the arguments used by you John, are<br />
reminiscent of the anti-intellectual arguments used by this misguided crowd. I would like to help you<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/johnc.htm (6 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:37 AM]
Is Jesus Jehovah Pt. 2-Are JW Opposers Brainwashed?<br />
come out of this darkness to the light of God's truth, given the chance.<br />
In conclusion. Jehovah cannot be the Son, and he is never referred to as a Son. Jehovah is only described<br />
as the Father (Is 64:8; Deut 32:6).<br />
Jesus is God's perfect agent, better than his agents in the past.<br />
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as<br />
the person himself."<br />
Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by<br />
the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey<br />
Wigoder<br />
GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic<br />
law as follows: "One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach]<br />
is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent<br />
him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger<br />
was commonly a slave" (Murray 18).<br />
William Barclay points to something interesting in his commentary on The Letter to the<br />
Hebrews, "he [the writer of Hebrews] calls him the mediator, the mesites. Mesites comes<br />
from mesos, which, in this case, means in the middle. A mesites is, therefore, one who<br />
stands in the middle between two people and brings them together. When Job is desperately<br />
anxious that somehow he should be able to put his case to God, he cries out hopelessly:<br />
'There is no umpire, mesites, between us.' (Job 9:33)"<br />
This is interesting as the Zondervan NASB Study <strong>Bible</strong> says of this verse, "God is so immense that Job<br />
feels he needs someone who can help him, someone who can argue his case in court."<br />
By pushing a Trinity doctrine you are robbing God of his grandeur and Jesus of his role as mediator.<br />
The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older<br />
trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave<br />
birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek<br />
philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the<br />
ancient [pagan] religions." -- (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.<br />
We should strive to keep the <strong>Bible</strong> pagan-free, don't you think?<br />
vale amice<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/johnc.htm (7 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:37 AM]
1 JOHN V. 7 AND LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE by Ezra Abbot<br />
1 JOHN V. 7 AND LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE<br />
By Ezra Abbot<br />
[From the Christian Intelligencer for May 15, 1879]<br />
In my reply to Dr. Todd (Christian Intelligencer for April 24), I pointed out the futility of his objection<br />
to President Woolsey’s statement that I John v. 7 was a “passage which Luther would not express in his<br />
translation.” – a statement which, in the plain fact that Luther did not insert it in any one of the numerous<br />
editions of his translation published in his lifetime, Dr. Todd presumed to call a “mistake.” I will here<br />
simply remind the reader that Erasmus introduced the passage into his third edition of the Greek<br />
Testament in 1522, and that Luther died in 1546. It has been contended, however, by some writers, that,<br />
at least in the latter part of his life, the great Reformer changed his mind, and received the text as<br />
genuine. (See Knittel’s Neue Kritiken, Braunschw. 1785, p. 133 ff.) The argument rests on the fact that<br />
in an exposition of the First Epistle of John, written probably between the years 1543 and 1545, Luther<br />
commented on the verse without expressing any doubt of its genuineness. The question whether Luther<br />
changed his mind is not important in itself, but is on several accounts not without interest. I will therefore<br />
state the circumstances of the case.<br />
There are two exceptions by Luther of the First Epistle of John, both of which may be found, translated<br />
from the original Latin into German, in vol. Ix. Of Walch’s edition of Luther’s Sammtliche Schriften. The<br />
first was written somewherew between the years 1522 and 1524. (See Walch’s ed., ix. 908-1079, and<br />
Vorrede, pp. 18, 19.) In this, Luther, after quoting the passage of the three heavenly witnesses, remarks: -<br />
“These words are not found in the Greek <strong>Bible</strong>s; but it seems as if this verse had been inserted by the<br />
Orthodox against the Arians. This, however, has not been done even fittingly, for he [the Apostle] speaks<br />
here and there not of the witnesses in heaven, but of the witnesses on earth.” (Col. 1059.)<br />
We see here that Luther felt not merely the deficiency of the external evidence for the passage, but its<br />
internal incongruity.<br />
The other exposition was certainly written after 1532, and probably between 1543 and 1545. (See<br />
Knittel, ubi supra, pp. 134, 135.) It first appeared in 1743, in Walch’s edition of Luther, vol. ix. Coll.<br />
1080-1251. In this exposition Luther not unfrequently remarks upon Greek words, showing that he had<br />
the Greek text before him. He is said to have used as a manual in the later years of his life the edition of<br />
the Greek Testament published at Basle in 1540 by Thomas Platter, which reproduces substantially the<br />
text of the third edition of Erasmus, (See Luther’s Bibelubersetzung kritisch bearbeitet von Blindseil und<br />
Niemeyer, Theil vii., Vorrede, p. xv. note +.) This edition contains 1 John v. 7, like nearly all of the<br />
editions of the sixteenth centuries published after 1522. In his remarks under 1 John v. 6, which include<br />
the larger part of what he says about the seventh verse, Luther begins with observing that “this passage is<br />
certainly very difficult and obscure.” Speaking of the three heavenly witnesses, he rejects the supposition<br />
that the apostle refers to their testimony at the baptism and the transfiguration of Jesus, because that was<br />
a testimony borne on earth, not “in heaven”; and then explains it as given in what some later theologians<br />
would call “the covenant of redemption” made between the three persons of the Trinity. Apparently,<br />
however, not very well satisfied with this explanation, he concludes with saying, “If this is not the true<br />
meaning of these words, I confess that I know of no other.” (Col. 1225)<br />
On the seventh verse itself, after quoting the words, he only says: “This is the testimony which is borne<br />
by the three witnesses, [which] is in heaven, and also remains there. The order here should be observed,<br />
namely, that the witness which is the last among the witnesses in heaven is the first among the witnesses<br />
on earth; and with reason.” He then proceeds to expound the eighth verse.<br />
In this second exposition, Luther could no longer say that 1 John v. 7 was not in the Greek <strong>Bible</strong>s: it had<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abbot.htm (1 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:02:48 AM]
1 JOHN V. 7 AND LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE by Ezra Abbot<br />
already appeared in a large number of editions of the Greek Testament. Having it before him, he gave<br />
such an explanation of it as he could. It does not necessarily follow that he had re-examined the subject,<br />
and convinced himself of the genuineness of the passage; but only that he did not choose to go into the<br />
critical question. If he had really found any new evidence in favor of the text, here was the place for him<br />
to have said so. That he had not become convinced of its genuineness appears from the fact that he did<br />
not insert it in the edition of his translation published in 1545, the year before his death. This is<br />
confirmed by the circumstance that he seems never to have quoted the passage as a proof-text for the<br />
doctrine of the Trinity, though he has often treated of this doctrine in his voluminous writings.<br />
For example, in his Auslegung der letzten Worte Davids, 2 Sam. xxiii. 1-7, 65-96 (Walch, iii. 2835-59),<br />
he sets for the doctrine at length, quoting as proof-texts Ps. Xxxiii. 6; Matt. Xxvii. 19; Luke iii. 22; John<br />
v. 17, x. 30, 33, and other passages, but ignoring 1 John v. 7. This treatise was written in 1543. See also,<br />
other discussions of the Trinity by Luther, his works as edited by Walch, x. 1215-30; xi. 1548-55; xii.<br />
852-69; xiii. 1508-29, 2624-39. Neither here nor anywhere else have I been able to find the passage<br />
quoted by Luther, though it was interpolated into his Catechism by Lyser in 1600. (Rickli, Johannes<br />
erster Brief, Anhang, p. 40.) It is omitted in his Auslegung der Epistel [I John v. 4-12] am Sonntage nach<br />
Ostern. (Walch, xii. 698, 710.)<br />
In view of all these facts, the judgment of Michaelis seems reasonable. His remarks : - “As for the<br />
circumstance that Luther in his lecture explained I John v. 7, after he had read it from the Greek<br />
Testament, without entering into any critical inquiry into its authority, it shows nothing more than that<br />
Luther distinguished exegetical from critical lectures, and that in explaining the Greek Testament he<br />
interpreted what he and his hearers had before them. That he received it as genuine is an inference which<br />
we are not authorized to make.” (Introd. To the N. T., trans. by Marsh, 2d ed., iv. 440 f.)<br />
Bengel takes the same view. He says, “It is clear that the passage was omitted by Luther not<br />
accidentally, but deliberately; nay, his colleague Bugenhagen, with solemn adjuration, warned all person<br />
against ever inserting it.” (Apparatus criticus ad N.T., ed. 2da. 1763, p. 459.) Luther’s own warning;<br />
prefixed to editions of his own translation of the New Testament from 1530 onward, ought to have been<br />
sufficient. His words were as follows: -<br />
“Martin Luther. I beg all my friends and enemies, my masters, printers and readers, to let this<br />
Testament be mine. If they find it faulty, let them make one of their own for themselves. I know well<br />
what I make; I see well what others make. But this Testament shall be Luther’s German Testament. For<br />
of playing the master and the critic [or “of conceited correcting and criticising,“ meisterns und klugelus]<br />
there is nowadays neither measure nor end. And let every man be warned against other copies. For I have<br />
had full experience how carelessly and falsely others reprint what I have printed.” (See Luther’s<br />
Bibelubersetzung von Bindseil und Niemeyer, Theil vi. P. 15. Compare also the Warnung prefixed in<br />
Luther’s <strong>Bible</strong> of 1541. Ibid., Theil vii. P. 21 f.)<br />
The warning of Luther and the protest of Bugenhagen (occasioned by the interpolation of I John v.7 in<br />
an Evangelieu – und Epistelbuch printed at Wittenburg in 1549) were not without effect, for at least one<br />
generation. The first edition of Luther’s German <strong>Bible</strong> which contains I John v.7 appears to have been<br />
printed at Frankfurt-am-Main in 1582, 4to. Panzer and Monckenberg are wrong in saying that the verse<br />
was inserted in a Hamburg edition in 1574.<br />
(See Huther, Krit. Exeg. Handb. Uber die drei Briefe des Ap. Johannes, 3te Aufl., p. 222, note.) It is<br />
found in none of the numerous editions printed at Wittenberg before 1596. In the Swiss-German version<br />
(not published under Luther’s name) printed by Froschover at Zurich in 1529, it was inserted in smaller<br />
type, and so in the edition of 1531; in nearly all the later editions from 1534 to 1589 (that of 1561 is said<br />
by Ebrard to be an exception), in brackets; in 1597 without brackets, at which time it was also introduced<br />
as a proof-text into the Zurich Catechism. The Basle edition by Byrlinger in 1552 is said to have it<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abbot.htm (2 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:02:48 AM]
1 JOHN V. 7 AND LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE by Ezra Abbot<br />
without brackets. It was still omitted in Meissner’s Wittenberg edition of 1607, and in a quarto edition<br />
printed at Wittenberg in 1620; also, in Hamburg editions of 1596, 1619, and 1620. Since this last date the<br />
interpolation has appeared in the numberless editions of Luther’s German <strong>Bible</strong> without mark of doubt,<br />
except that it has been bracketed in the recent authorized “revised edition” of his version of the New<br />
Testament (Halle, Canstein’sche Bibelanstalt, 1871), with the following note: “The bracketed words are<br />
wanting in Luther’s translation, and were not added till later.” It should be understood that the words auf<br />
Erden, “on earth,” in verse 8, are not included in the brackets. They were inserted by Luther in the five<br />
editions of his German <strong>Bible</strong> printed at Wittenberg from 1541 to 1545 inclusive; but this very fact shows<br />
that his attention was directed to the passage, and that the omission of the three heavenly witnesses was<br />
intentional.<br />
(Perhaps I may be pardoned for turning aside a moment to correct two errors which have been repeated<br />
from Rickli (1828) by a large number of respectable scholars. As De Wette, Tischendorf in his editions<br />
of 1841, 1849, 1859, and 1869-72, Berthau in his edition of Lucke on the Epistles of John (1856),<br />
Davidson, Braune in Lange’s Commentary, etc. They all speak of Robert Stephens as receiving the<br />
passage in his editions of 1546-69, and Beza in his editions 1565-76. They should have said “Robert<br />
Stephens the elder in his editions of 1546-51, and Robert Stephens the younger in his edition of 1569”<br />
(the great Robert died ten years before); also, “Beza in his editions 1565-98.” Beza published no edition<br />
in 1576: the one of that date erroneously ascribed to him by several writers was edited by Henry<br />
Stephens.)<br />
We may observe, finally, that the other early reformers and friends of Luther generally rejected the<br />
passage; so Zwingli, Bullinger, CEcolampadius, Bugenhagen (Rickli, ubi supra, pp. 35, 36). So, also,<br />
according to Kettner (Historia dicti Johannei…I John v.7, etc., 1713, cap. 13), Melanchton, Cruciger (or<br />
Creutziger), Justus Jonas, Forster, Aurogallus. (See Semler, Hist. U. krit. Sammlungen uber I John v. 7, I.<br />
248.) Bugenhagen, as we have seen, was especially strenuous against it; see his Expositio Jonae, 1550,<br />
cited by Rickli, p. 39. It was also omitted in the celebrated Latin version of the <strong>Bible</strong> by Leo Judae,<br />
Pellicanus, Peter Cholin, Rudolph Gualther, and others, printed at Zurich in 1543, fol., and commonly<br />
called the Zurich <strong>Bible</strong> or Versio Tigurina. A marginal note explains the reasons for its rejection. The<br />
passage was received, though with hesitation, by Calvin, and without hesitation by Beza. Both of them,<br />
however, explain “these three are one” as relating not to unity of essence, but agreement in testimony.<br />
To trace the history of this gross corruption of the text in modern translations, Catechisms, and<br />
Confessions of Faith, especially the Greek Church since the sixteenth century, and in modern editions of<br />
some ancient versions, as the Peshito Syriac, Armenian, and Slavonic, might be interesting and<br />
instructive, psychologically as well as critically; but there is no room for it here.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
For more on the Comma Johanneum click here<br />
For more on the Byzantine/Majority Text click here<br />
For more on the Textus Receptus click here<br />
Email me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abbot.htm (3 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:02:48 AM]
Yet Another Reply to an Attack on the Deity of the Father!<br />
A Response to<br />
http://availablelight.org/discipleship/track01/cult_jehovahs_witnesses.html<br />
Words in small letter from: gabrielkushin@webtv.net (Gabriel Kushin)<br />
Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901<br />
Here is some info on Jehovah's Witnesses that I have gathered. I<br />
suggest to anyone trying to witness to a Witness, to stick to the deity<br />
of Christ and salvation by grace. Do not go into the eternal substance<br />
of the soul and various other weird winds of doctrines.<br />
>From the New <strong>World</strong> Translation, these verses prove the deity of Jesus<br />
Christ (the first reference is for God and the second one is for Jesus):<br />
No other gods...Deut 32:29>John 1:1<br />
Reply: But there were other gods in the <strong>Bible</strong>, and they were designated so by God himself.<br />
"The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question whether Christ<br />
was an angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an angel, rank as God. The<br />
explanation which was offered by the supporters of the Angel-Christology was that Christ, according to<br />
his nature, was a high angel, but that he was named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The<br />
word 'God' did mean, in the first place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the<br />
beings who served this deus verus [Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods'<br />
implies reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus represented. Consequently<br />
in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28), not only angels, but even men could be called 'gods' [cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb.<br />
2:7, 9; Ps. 82:6, 7; John 10:34, 35] without according them the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius<br />
[260-330 C.E.] had thought in this way2 ... 2 Latantius, inst. Epitome [The Epitome Of The Divine<br />
Institutes], 37."-Martin Werner, The Formation Of Christian Dogma, p. 140.<br />
"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred an<br />
honourable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His Son] is far<br />
more worthy of this honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John 10:34] is in Psalm<br />
lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; where God<br />
expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically abuse the authority and power for<br />
their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for every evil action ... Christ applies this to the<br />
case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, be- cause they are God's ministers for governing the<br />
world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams<br />
forth on the world ... In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them<br />
authority."-John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 419, 20.<br />
Mighty God...Isa 10:20,21>Isa 9:6<br />
Reply: 1 Cor 8:6 says "there is only one God, the Father," which pretty much excludes the Son, Jesus.<br />
The context of Isaiah 4x deals with the pagan gods of the nations, and as we have seen above, others can<br />
be called God. It is interesting how other versions made by trinitarians have handled this verse at Isaiah<br />
9:6:<br />
"Wonder-Counsellor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace." Byington<br />
"A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince." Moffatt<br />
"in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like...." New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father...."Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Interestingly, this verse has not been understood by all trinitarians as<br />
a reference to Christ at all, but, rather, to King Hezekiah, the son of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/availablelight.htm (1 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:03:02 AM]
Yet Another Reply to an Attack on the Deity of the Father!<br />
Ahaz; or to Hezekiah initially and Christ finally. Note what some<br />
trinitarians from former years have said regarding this account:<br />
"Hezekiah, who was very unlike his father Ahaz. This passage<br />
is acknowledged, not only by Christians, but by the Chaldee<br />
interpreter, to relate in the same manner, but in a more<br />
excellent sense, to the Messiah––(Annotationes ad vetus et<br />
Novum Testamentum, by Hugo Grotius, a Dutch Arminian,<br />
1583-1645).<br />
"In several places of his Expositions and Sermons, he [LUTHER]<br />
maintains that the epithets belong, not to the person of<br />
Christ, but to his work and office. He understands [ale;<br />
Strongs 410] in the sense of power or ability, citing for his<br />
authority Deut. Xxviii. 32, where, as in about four other<br />
places, the expression occurs of an action's being or not<br />
being "in the power of the hand,"––(Scripture Testimony to the<br />
Messiah, Third ed. Lond. 1837, 3 vol., by Dr. J.P. Smith [it<br />
should fairly be noted that Dr. Smith disapproves of Luther's<br />
rendering])<br />
"The word la [ale] here used is applicable, not only to God,<br />
but to angels and men worthy of admiration. Whence it does<br />
not appear, that the Deity of Christ can be effectually<br />
gathered from this passage."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, SASBOUT<br />
[as quoted in Concession, by Wilson])<br />
"The words of Isaiah, Deus fortis, "strong God," have been<br />
differently interpreted. It is evident, that the term God is<br />
in Hebrew applied figuratively to those who excel – to angels,<br />
heroes, and magistrates; and some render it here, not God, but<br />
brave or hero."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, Esromus Rudingerus [as<br />
quoted in Concessions, by Wilson])<br />
"It is evident that la [ale] properly denotes strong,<br />
powerful, and is used in Ezek. Xxxi. 11, of king<br />
Nebuchadnezzar, who is called... "the mighty one of the<br />
heathen."––(Scholia in Vetus Testamentum. Lips. 1828-36, 6<br />
vol, E.F.C. Rosenmuller [Prof. of the Arabic Language at<br />
Leipzig; d. 1836])<br />
Immutable...Mal 3:6>Heb 13:8<br />
Reply: The Zondervan NASB Study <strong>Bible</strong> says Heb 13:8 pertains to faith. As for what is implied here, a<br />
trinitarian does not really believe in God's immutability. Let us look at the 2 scriptures to see why not:<br />
"For I, Jehovah, change not."Mal 3:16<br />
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever." Hb 13:8<br />
For Jesus to be Almighty God, then he obviously changed his name. This is remarkable since Jehovah<br />
said "this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." Ex. 3:15<br />
God cannot be tempted (Jas 1:13), but Jesus can (Matt 4).<br />
God cannot die (Hab 1:12 NJB/1 Tim 1:17/Rev 15:3), and Jesus did.<br />
God cannot be contained by the Temple (1Kings 8:27), Jesus entered the Temple (Mt 21:12)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/availablelight.htm (2 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:03:02 AM]
Yet Another Reply to an Attack on the Deity of the Father!<br />
God cannot be seen without death (Ex 33:20, Jn 1:18), many have seen Jesus.<br />
It is quite obvious that if you take the entire <strong>Bible</strong> into view, then what you have is NOT one immutable<br />
being, but 2 different distinct beings.<br />
Created alone...Isa 44:21>John 1:2,3 [Ed. should be Isa 44:24]<br />
We know that Jehovah, was not really alone at the time of creation because Job 38:6, 7 tells us: "When I<br />
laid the foundation of the earth ... all the sons of God shouted for joy". The angels shouted for joy when<br />
Jehovah, through His Son, "laid the foundations of the earth".<br />
The use of the term, "alone", "by myself" etc do not necessarily mean the same thing to those in power,<br />
even in the <strong>Bible</strong>. What do I mean?<br />
Let us look at Daniel 4:30 and Isaiah 63:3. Daniel 4:30, "The king reflected and said, 'Is this not Babylon<br />
the great, which I myself have built.' " NASB.<br />
"The king was saying, 'Great Babylon! Imperial palace! Did I not build it alone.' " Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
"The king spake and said, Is this not Babylon the great, - which I myself have built," J.B. Rotherham<br />
Nebuchadnezzar was not the only person to have built Babylon, was he? But it was built by his<br />
authority, his word and no other's.<br />
Isaiah 63:3 says: "I [Jehovah] have trodden the wine press alone, and of the peoples there was no man<br />
with me." Again, it was not Jehovah who personally punish these people. It was His angel acting on the<br />
Jehovah's authority. (2 Kings 19:35, 36) Did Jehovah personally chastise the Babylonians or did He use<br />
the Medes and Perians to accomplish His will? (Daniel 5:26-28, 30-31) All these acts were done by<br />
Jehovah's authority; and by His alone.—Ezekiel. 36:33, 36.<br />
Worshipped...Matt 4:10>Rev 5:11-14<br />
Reply: Daniel is worshipped at Dan 2:46 ASV, KJV<br />
So is the king, "And David said to all the assembly, Now bless Jehovah your God. And all the assembly<br />
blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the<br />
king. 1Chron 29:20<br />
Why is worship used for both Jesus, God, Daniel, and the king? Because the Hebrew (SHACHAH) and<br />
Greek (PROSKUNEW) words were such that they can be applied to others as well. According to W.E.<br />
Vine's Expository Dictionary PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence to...It is used of an<br />
act of homage or reverence to God(John 4:24)...to Christ(Matt 2:2)...to a man(Matt 18:26)...to the<br />
Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to demons(Rev 9:20)...to<br />
idols(Acts 7:43)."<br />
But worship, in conjunction with "serve", is used only of Jehovah God the Father, never the Son.<br />
See Deut 4:19; 8:19; 11:16; 17:3; 29:26; 30:17, 1Kings 9:6, 9; 16:31; 22:53, 2Kings 17:16; 21:3, 21,<br />
2Chron 7:19, 22; 33:3, Jeremiah 8:2; 13:10; 16:11; 22:9; 25:6, Daniel 3:12, 14, 18, 28<br />
Matthew 4:10; Luke 4:8 and Romans 1:25<br />
Omnipotent...Jer 32:17>Php 3:21<br />
Reply: "Ah Lord Jehovah! behold, thou hast made the heavens and the earth by thy great power and by<br />
thine outstrethed arm; there is nothing too hard for thee" Jer 32:17<br />
"who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory,<br />
according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself." Php 3:21 I think<br />
this is special pleading to assume omnipotence on the part of Christ here.<br />
Omniscient...1 John 3:20>Col 2:3<br />
Reply: "because if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things." 1John<br />
"Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden." Col 2:3<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/availablelight.htm (3 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:03:02 AM]
Yet Another Reply to an Attack on the Deity of the Father!<br />
Since Jesus is the created Wisdom of Proverbs 8:22-30, it is only reasonable to consider him as<br />
containing wisdom and knowledge. No trinity here.<br />
When Jesus claimed to be the "Son of God" this was a claim to be God<br />
(John 5:18).<br />
Reply: John 5:17-19 says "And for this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did<br />
these things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I<br />
work. For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the<br />
sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.<br />
About this scripture the Ryrie Study <strong>Bible</strong> says, "The Jews were perfectly aware that Jesus was<br />
claiming full deity" Was this what Jesus was doing though? Remember, these were the Jews<br />
talking, and they were saying that Jesus was equal to God because he was calling God his Father. But in<br />
John 8:41, the Jews said, "we have one Father, God." Were the Jews then, Equal with<br />
God also? Exactly how were the Jews "perfectly aware" in this context of anything. They had a<br />
few verses prior to this misapplied the Law as for as doing good deeds on the Sabbath. Jesus had said: "it<br />
is lawful to do good on the sabbath day". Matt. 12:10-12 In fact, Jesus had few nice<br />
words to say about the Jews/Pharisees in toto:<br />
Matt. 15:6 "And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. Ye hypocrites,<br />
well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart<br />
is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of<br />
men."<br />
Matt. 12:34 "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the<br />
abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."<br />
Matt. 22:29 "But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor<br />
the power of God."<br />
It is probably for this reason that Gerald O'Collins, though believing that the Son is the Creator, says of<br />
John 5, "Here let me add that, whatever we recognize the earthly Jesus to have claimed implicitly or<br />
explicitly about himself, he did not present himself as the pre-existent Creator of the world....these are<br />
later theological reflections rather than historical traditions that reach back to Jesus himself." p. 67,<br />
Christology<br />
J.A.T. <strong>Robinson</strong> adds, "Jesus refuses the claim to be God (John 10:33) or in any way usurp the position<br />
of the Father...Jesus is prepared to ignore the charge that by calling God his own Father he is claiming<br />
equality with God (John 5:18) and accepts that of being the Son of God (10:36), while vigorously<br />
denying the blaspemy of being God or His substitute." Twelve More New Testament Studies, 175, 176<br />
When people who use this to promote a Trinity, they are forgetting the agency of Jesus.<br />
"Jesus is not God but God's representative and, as such, so completely and totally acts on God's behalf<br />
that he stands in God's stead before the world. The Gospel clearly states that God and Jesus are not to be<br />
understood as identical persons. as in 14:28, 'The Father is greater than I."<br />
The Trinity:<br />
Who raised Jesus from the dead?<br />
God>Acts 4:10<br />
Father>Gal 1:1<br />
Son>John 2:19-21<br />
Spirit>Rom 8:11<br />
Reply: I counted 4 up there, but then math is relative to a Trinitarian.<br />
As for John 2:19-21, One Study <strong>Bible</strong> says, "As with His usage of parables, Jesus' cryptic statement most<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/availablelight.htm (4 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:03:02 AM]
Yet Another Reply to an Attack on the Deity of the Father!<br />
likely was designed to reveal the truth to His disciples but conceal its meaning from unbelievers who<br />
questioned Him (Matt. 13:10, 11). Only after his resurrection, however, did the disciples understand the<br />
real significance of this statement (v.22; cf. Matt. 12:40). Importantly, through the death and resurrection<br />
of Christ, temple worship in Jerusalem was destroyed (cf. 4:21) and reinstituted in the hearts of those<br />
who were built into a spiritual temple called the church (Eph. 2:19-22). -footnote at John 2:19, NKJV<br />
MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong><br />
As for Romans 8:11, since SPIRIT is the "power of God" (Good News <strong>Bible</strong>/Gen 1:2), then it only<br />
makes sense that God would use his power to raise Jesus. God's spirit/breath gives life.<br />
"Spirit is the principle of life and vital activity. The spirit is the breath of life (Gn 6:17; 7:15, 22; BS<br />
38:23; WS 15:11, 16; 16:14). Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> by John L. McKenzie, S.J.<br />
Plurality in the Godhead...Gen 1:26, 3:22, 11:7...God refers to Himself as "us".<br />
Reply: The Jews have always regarded this as God speaking to his heavenly assembly of angels. (Job<br />
1:6) Were they not with him at creation? (Job 38:4-7)<br />
Did God not also have Jesus as a master worker beside him? (Prov 8:22-30)<br />
Jehovah was hardly alone in the heavens.<br />
Matt 28:19 says that we are to baptise in the name (onoma is the<br />
singular form of name in the Greek) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.<br />
Reply: Using a singular form of NAME does not necessarily denote singularity.<br />
Genesis 5:2 "Male and female created he them: and blessed them, and called their NAME Adam, in the<br />
day when they were created."<br />
Here two distinct and separate individuals are called by one NAME.<br />
Genesis 48:6 "And thy issue, that thou begettest after them, shall be thine; they shall be called after the<br />
name of their brethren in their inheritance." All the brothers had<br />
different names although the text represents that by the singular, "name".<br />
It is interesting that the NIV and NEB distributes the term by translating it "names".<br />
Genesis 48:16: "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named<br />
on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a mulititude in the midst<br />
of the earth." Did Abraham and Isaac have the same name? Clearly, the singular term here "name" is<br />
used in a distributive sense.<br />
Mark 5:9: "Then Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ ‘My name is Legion,’ he replied, ‘For we are<br />
many.’" In this case one name was given to a plural number of distinct demons.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> clearly distinguishes between the name of the Father and the name of the Son.<br />
Proverbs 30:4 (NIV):" Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the<br />
hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of<br />
the earth? What is HIS NAME, AND THE NAME OF HIS SON? Tell me if you know!"<br />
Hebrews 1:4 (New Jerusalem): "So he is now as far above the angels as the title which he has inherited is<br />
higher than THEIR OWN NAME."<br />
Revelation 14:1 (NIV): "Then I looked, and theme before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion,<br />
and with him 144,000 who had HIS NAME AND HIS FATHER’S NAME written on their foreheads." It<br />
is quite obvious that the Father has one name and that the Son has another.<br />
To look for anything else in Matt 28:19 also ignores the "authority" that is placed within the lexical range<br />
of ONOMA itself.<br />
Jesus is called God (John 20:28) and the Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3,4).<br />
Reply: Is the spirit God in Acts 5:3-4? Let us see what it says:<br />
"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/availablelight.htm (5 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:03:02 AM]
Yet Another Reply to an Attack on the Deity of the Father!<br />
the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in<br />
thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto<br />
God." ASV<br />
Do you notice that the last part is directed towards Peter when it says, "thou has not lied unto men?" See,<br />
they lied to Peter, who was "filled with holy spirit" Acts 4:8<br />
And when they lied to Peter, they lied to God. Later on, in the same chapter, we have a similar situation<br />
in vss 38 and 39 where these words were directed towards Peter and the disciples, "Refrain from these<br />
men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: but if it is of<br />
God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God."<br />
Peter and his men were not God, but representative stand in place of God, and when something is done<br />
against them, it is done against God. "Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own eye." Zech 2:8<br />
New Jewish Publication Society/ Tanakh That is why the Scofield Study <strong>Bible</strong> cross-references Acts 5:4<br />
to Scriptures like Numbers 16:11, 1Samuel 8:7 and 1 Thess 4:8 which says, " Therefore he that rejecteth,<br />
rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you." ASV<br />
What of John 20:28? Some have taken Thomas's exclamation as directed towards the Father, hence you<br />
have, "My Master, and my God" as in the 20th Century NT.<br />
Winer , as does Beza, thinks it is simply an exclamation, not an address. (see G.B. Winer, A Grammar of<br />
the Idiom of the New Testament, 1872, p. 183<br />
Brown reads it as "my divine one" The Gospel According to John, 1966<br />
Fortna finds a problem with the high Christology of v.28 and the more primitive messianism of v.31. (see<br />
The Gospel of Signs, 1970, pp. 197, 198<br />
Burkitt paraphrases it as "It is Jesus himself, and now I recognize him as divine."<br />
While I may not agree with Harris on everything, he does say, "Although in customary Johannine and<br />
NT usage (O) QEOS refers to the father, it is impossible that Thomas and John would be personally<br />
equating Jesus with the Father, for in the immediate historical and literary context Jesus himself has<br />
explicitly distinguished himself from God his Father." p. 124<br />
John Martin Creed, as Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, observed: "The adoring<br />
exclamation of St. Thomas 'my Lord and my God' (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to<br />
Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ<br />
himself to Mary Magdalene (v. Joh 20:17): 'Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my<br />
Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'"<br />
The translator Hugh J. Schonfield doubts that Thomas said: "My Lord and my God!" And so in a<br />
footnote 6 on John 20:28 Schonfield says: "The author may have put this expression into the mouth of<br />
Thomas in response to the fact that the Emperor Domitian had insisted on having himself addressed as<br />
'Our Lord and God', Suetonius' Domitian xiii."—See The Authentic New Testament, page 503.<br />
AS Margret Davies says in her book RHETORIC AND REFERENCE IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL,<br />
125-126,<br />
"Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words was hotly debated by early church theologians who<br />
wanted to use it in support of their own christological definitions. Those who understood "My Lord' to<br />
refer to Jesus, and 'my God' to refer to God[the Father], were suspected of heresy in the 5th cent CE.<br />
Many modern commentators have also rejected that interpretation and instead they understand the<br />
confession as an assertion that Jesus is both Lord and God. In doing so they are forced to interpret 'God'<br />
as a reference to LOGOS. But it is perfectly for Thomas to respond to Jesus' resurrection with a<br />
confession of faith both in Jesus as lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the confession<br />
in this way actually makes much better sense in the context of the 4th gospel. In 14:1 belief in both God<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/availablelight.htm (6 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:03:02 AM]
Yet Another Reply to an Attack on the Deity of the Father!<br />
and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which Thomas is particularly singled out.... If we understand<br />
Thomas's confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20:31 becomes an anti-climax."<br />
Does Jn 20:28 say what trinitarians think it says? No. There is nothing there that talks of Jesus as being<br />
God the Son, the second person of a consubstantial Trinity.<br />
"For any Jew or Greek in the first century A.D. who was acquainted with the OT in Greek, the term<br />
QEOS would have seemed rich in content since it signified the Deity, the Creator of heaven and earth,<br />
and also could render the ineffable sacred name, Yahweh, the covenantal God, and yet was able of<br />
extremely diverse application, ranging from the images of pagan deities to the One true God of Israel,<br />
from heroic people to angelic beings. Whether one examines the Jewish or the Gentile use of the term<br />
QEOS up to the end of the 1st century A.D., there is an occasional application of the term to human<br />
beings who perform divine functions or display divine characteristics." Harris' Jesus as God, p.270<br />
Don Cupitt describes the relationship between God and Jesus as "something like that between King and<br />
ambassador, employer and omnicompetent secretary, or Sultan and Grand Vizier. Christ's is God's right<br />
hand man; all God does he does through Christ, and all approach to God is through Christ. All traffic,<br />
both ways, between God and the world is routed through Christ." The Debate about Christ, p. 30<br />
"The NT designation of Jesus as QEOS bears no relation to later Greek speculation about substance and<br />
natures." O. Cullman's Christology of the New Testament as quoted in Harris' Jesus as God, p.289.<br />
If Thomas was actually calling Jesus hO QEOS and hO KURIOS--it is strange that Thomas used the<br />
nominative forms of KURIOS and QEOS instead of the vocative. So it still seems that Theodore of<br />
Mopsuestia could have been correct. The Father may well be the referent in John 20:28.<br />
This brings us to Smart's Rule as discussed on B-Greek. The rule is stated as: "In native [not translation]<br />
KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects two substantives of personal description in regimen<br />
[i.e. both or neither have articles] and the first substantive alone is modified by the personal pronoun in<br />
the genitive or repeated for perspicuity [Winer 147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in<br />
view."<br />
Possessive pronoun repeated for perspicuity (21) - (Mt 12:47,49;<br />
Mk 3:31 ,32 ,33 ,34 ; 6:4 7:10 ; 8:20, 21 Lu 8:21 ; Jn 2:12;<br />
4:12; Ac 2:17; Ro 16:21 ; 1Th 3:11 ; 2Th 2:16 ; 1Ti 1:1;<br />
2Ti 1:5; Heb 8:11; Re 6:11) [Heb 1:7 is a LXX quote and is<br />
therefore translation Greek.]<br />
Single possessive - both substantives anarthrous (10) - (Mk 3:35;<br />
Ro 1:7; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Ga 1:3; Ep 1:2; Php 1:2; 2Th 1:1,2;<br />
Phil 1:3)<br />
Single possessive pronoun - both substantives arthrous (12) -<br />
(Mk 6:21; 10:7,19; 16:7; Lk 2:23; 14:26; 18:20; Jn 11:5; Eph 6:2;<br />
Ac 7:14; 10:24; Re 11:18)<br />
There are no exceptions to this rule.<br />
"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and<br />
acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched,<br />
he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other." Augustine in "Tractate CXXI"<br />
Explainations:<br />
Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" in Col 1:15. The word<br />
firstborn refers to Him being the first in rank over all creation. He<br />
is also called "the firstborn from the dead" in Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5.<br />
This refers to His resurrection. The word for firstborn in the Greek is<br />
prototokos. This does not mean first created (as Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
say). If Jesus were the first created the word protoktistos would have<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/availablelight.htm (7 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:03:02 AM]
Yet Another Reply to an Attack on the Deity of the Father!<br />
been used.<br />
Reply: It should be noted that protoktizo was not in common use back in the first century, and would not<br />
be for a 100 to 200 years after Christ. Interestingly though, when this word was eventually used, it was<br />
used of Christ. John Patrick, in his Clement of Alexandria notes: "Clement repeatedly identifies the Word<br />
with the Wisdom of God, and yet refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in one passage he<br />
attaches the epithet "First-created," and in another "First-begotten," to the Word." p.103,104, note 6.<br />
When PROTOTOKOS is used with the genitive OF, like "the firstborn of" it is used as part of a group. If<br />
it is "the firstborn of" Israel(Ex. 6:14 LXX), it is one of the sons of Israel, if it is "the firstborn of"<br />
Pharoah(Ex. 11:5 LXX) it is a member of the house of Pharoah, if it is "the firstborn of" beasts(Ex. 13:15<br />
LXX) then it is an animal also. Why then should this rule be changed as it applies to "the firstborn of"<br />
creation. Jesus is part of creation. Obviously Jesus is a created being, as he was historically always<br />
thought to be the created Wisdom of Proverbs.<br />
For more go to http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/firstborn.htm<br />
First and Last...Isa 44:6>Rev 1:17,18<br />
Reply: When you take the entire book of Revelation into consideration, the conclusion that Jesus is the<br />
Lord God is not even possible. Jesus cannot be the very God who is *his* God (Rev. 1:6; 3:2; 3:12).<br />
The Father's superiority to Christ is shown in the very first verse of Revelation, where Christ is described<br />
as one who was *given*<br />
knowledge by God. Then come the aforementioned verses where the Father is described as Christ's<br />
God. Finally, in recognition of this, in chapter 15 vs 3 we find Christ joining Moses as they sing a song<br />
of *praise* to his God and Father, who Christ himself calls "the Almighty."<br />
But why do they both bear the title "first and the last, beginning and the end?"<br />
Well, how have others in the past viewed this?<br />
"Christ is called the beginning and the end, because he is the<br />
beginning and the consummation of the Church, which was<br />
founded by his first, and will be completed by his second<br />
appearance."--(Erasmus, Opp. Tom. VI. col. 376, E. [quoted in<br />
"Our Heavenly Father has no Equals", by unitarian Donald R.<br />
Snedeker])<br />
"Principium Christus, quia ipse inchoavit perficienda; finis<br />
Christus, quia ipse perficit inchoata"; [that is] "Christ is<br />
the beginning, because he himself commenced the work to be<br />
accomplished; Christ is the end, because he accomplished the<br />
work begun."--(Fulgentius (the Latin Father), Ad Transimundum,<br />
Lib. II. c. 5; in Migne's Patrol. Tom. LXV. vol. 250, C. [as<br />
quoted by Snedeker, ibid])<br />
The First and the Last<br />
"Attend well to the comfortable words of your heavenly Master,<br />
whom God has appointed to be the original Lord, the continual<br />
Preserver, and at last the righteous Judge of<br />
mankind"--(Thomas Pyle, M.A., Paraphrases on the Acts, the<br />
Epistles, and the Revelation, New edit. Oxford, 1817 [quoted<br />
in Concessions, by John Wilson])<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/availablelight.htm (8 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:03:02 AM]
Yet Another Reply to an Attack on the Deity of the Father!<br />
"...the first, that is, chief in dignity, having much greater<br />
power than any one before possessed...the last, that is, the<br />
most despised of men, Isa. liii. 3; having been betrayed,<br />
mocked, beaten, scourged, and even condemned to be punished as<br />
a slave"--(Hugo Grotius, Annotationes ad Vetus et Novum<br />
Testamentum. [quoted in Concessions])<br />
"Christ is called, in the Apocalypse, chap. i. 17, the first<br />
and the last; and this expression, if taken in the same sense<br />
as that in which it is used, Isa. xli.4; xliv.6; xlviii. 12,<br />
may denote Christ's eternal Godhead. Yet it is not absolutely<br />
decisive; for the meaning of chap. i.17 may be, "Fear not; I<br />
am the first (whom thou knewest as mortal), and the last (whom<br />
thou now seest immortal), still the same, whom thou knewest<br />
from the beginning." The same explanation may be given of<br />
chap. ii. 8, where the expression, the first and the last,<br />
again occurs, and is used in connection with Christ's<br />
resurrection from the dead.--(J.D. Michaelis: Introduction to<br />
the New Test., vol. iv. pp. 539-40. [as quoted in<br />
Concessions])<br />
All of these examples show that there have even been trinitarians who have not viewed these titles as<br />
denoting any ontological oneness of identity between Christ and the Father. The last example, by<br />
Michaelis, is especially interesting, because he realizes that the title "first and last" was being applied to<br />
Christ in reference to his death and resurrection. This is how I view it, though in a slightly different<br />
manner, namely, that Christ is the first to be resurrected by the Father directly, and last to be so<br />
resurrected. All references to Jesus as being the "first and the last" have this limitation. Let us take a<br />
look? "I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18 "These things saith<br />
the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]" Rev. 2:8<br />
"Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead" Rev 1:5 See also Romans 14:9 and<br />
Col 1:18.<br />
Can you really beleive that God can die? I cannot. Hab 1:12, (before the scribal changes/ Tiqqune<br />
Sopherim) reads, "Art not thou from everlasting, O Jehovah my God, my Holy One? you do not die." see<br />
also New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>. I believe that almighty God cannot be confined by his own creation. Since<br />
God created life, and death is a by-product of life, this would be included. The <strong>Bible</strong> never speaks of only<br />
Jesus' human-self/human nature/second nature dying. This is a 4/5th century Cappadocian thought read<br />
back into the scriptures.<br />
Only Savior...Isa 43:11>Acts 4:12<br />
Reply: But there were other saviours. "And when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah<br />
raised up a saviour to the children of Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's<br />
younger brother." Judges 3:9, 15<br />
"Jehovah raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera" Judges 3:15<br />
"Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their adversaries, who distressed them: and in the time<br />
of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest from heaven; and according to thy manifold<br />
mercies thou gavest them saviours who saved them out of the hand of their adversaries." Neh 9:27<br />
Why, the very name "Jesus" points to God as the source of salvation. It means "Jehovah Is Salvation"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/availablelight.htm (9 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:03:02 AM]
Yet Another Reply to an Attack on the Deity of the Father!<br />
and thus honors the Father as the Saviour to whom even the Son looked.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> as a whole thus makes it clear that there is but one Saviour, Jehovah God. All others who have<br />
rightly been called saviours, including Jesus Christ, are not rival saviours. Rather, they were willing to be<br />
used by Jehovah God in this capacity. Hence, those desiring to gain divine approval must acknowledge<br />
that salvation proceeds from the Father through his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.<br />
"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who would have all men to be saved, and<br />
come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men,<br />
himself man, Christ Jesus" 1Tim 2:3-5 ASV<br />
Lord of lords...Deut 10:17>Rev 17:11<br />
Holy...1 Sam 2:2>Acts 3:14<br />
Source of Lving Waters...Jer 17:13>John 4:10-14<br />
Stone of Stumbling...Isa 8:14,15>1 Pet 2:7,8<br />
King of Israel (In a spiritual sense)...Isa 44:6>John 1:49<br />
Judgement Seat...Rom 14:10>2 Cor 5:10<br />
Sent Holy Spirit...John 14:26>John 16:7<br />
Jesus is on with (John 10:30), and the exact representation of (Heb 1:3)<br />
the Father. In Him dwells all the fulness of the divine quality (Col<br />
2:9).<br />
No man has seen God at any time (Exo 33:20; John 1:18, 6:46; 1 Tim<br />
6:16), but God is seen (Gen 32:30; Exo 24:9-11, 33:11). This apparant<br />
contradiction can be explained by the preincarnate Christ (who is God).<br />
Reply: There is a simple and less confusing way to explain the above. There is something called the<br />
Schaliach Principle which is explained this way, "The main point of the Jewish law of agency is<br />
expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act<br />
committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." The<br />
Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder<br />
GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic law as<br />
follows: "One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach] is thereby<br />
granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This is the more<br />
remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger was<br />
commonly a slave" (Murray 18).<br />
George Buchanan also appears to take this position in his commentary on Hebrews (Anchor <strong>Bible</strong><br />
series). Buchanan notes that "a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the<br />
power of attorney for the one who sent him" (Buchanan 7). He also adds "The New Testament apostles<br />
were apostles of Jesus, and Jesus was an apostle of God. It is against this background that Jesus, in the<br />
same context, could say both, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is<br />
greater than I" (John 14:28).<br />
In the <strong>Bible</strong>, Angels were representatives of God, and yet are referred to as GOD.<br />
Let us see what happened to Hagar in Genesis 16. Verse 7 says, "And the angel of Jehovah found her by<br />
a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur." The angel then conversed with<br />
her.<br />
Then it goes on to say, "And she called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou art a God that<br />
seeth. For she said, Have I even here looked after him that seeth me?"<br />
The context clearly says that it was an angel that spoke to her, but her reaction is that Jehovah God spoke<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/availablelight.htm (10 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:03:02 AM]
Yet Another Reply to an Attack on the Deity of the Father!<br />
to here.<br />
Let us go to Judges 13 where again, the angel of Jehovah spoke to Manoah and his wife. Verse 21 and 22<br />
says, "But the angel of Jehovah did no more appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he<br />
was the angel of Jehovah. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen<br />
God."<br />
Angels were allowed to appear in behalf of God, and even use his name.<br />
Take Exodus 3:2, "And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a<br />
bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed." But further<br />
on down this angel speaks, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the<br />
God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God." Look at what this angel<br />
further says, " I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath<br />
sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,<br />
Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent<br />
me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."<br />
Even God admits that angels can bear his name, "Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the<br />
way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto<br />
his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him." Ex 23:20<br />
Angels represented God, appeared as God, and were everything that God was to those who saw them.<br />
Why? Because God cannot be confined by his own creation. 1 Kings 8:27 says, "But will God in very<br />
deed dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less<br />
this house that I have builded!"<br />
The temple that Solomon built is not enough to hold Jehovah, and then v. 49 tells us that God dwells in<br />
heaven. Why.<br />
Because Jehovah says, "Thou canst not see my face; for man shall not see me and live." The awesome<br />
power, glory and being of Jehovah cannot be restricted by his own creation. The footnote at 1 Kings in<br />
the MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong> NKJV tells us that Jehovah "far transcended containment by anything in<br />
creation." (cf. Zondervan NASB Study <strong>Bible</strong>) Also, as a "spiritual Being" (Jn 4:24 Williams NT), God is<br />
invisible, and the <strong>Bible</strong> stresses this over and over. (John 1:18; 6:46, Col 1:15, Rom 1:20, 1 Tim 1:17,<br />
Heb 11:27, 1John 4:12).<br />
What of Heb 1:3 though? Vincent says, "We come nearer to the sense of the word in this passage in the<br />
story of Moses' vision of the divine glory, Exod xxxiii. 18-23; xxxiv. 5, 7."<br />
Interestingly, the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the <strong>Bible</strong> adds this of Moses,<br />
"In the OT as well as the NT Moses is above all the mediator or revelation. Several times his<br />
most intimate relation with the LORD is emphasized (e.g., Exod 19:9.19; 20:18-21; 24:18;<br />
33:11.18-23; Num 12:7,8; Deut 5:20-28; Ps 103:7; Sir 45:5; cf. John 9:29; Acts 7:38; Heb<br />
8:5), evidently to emphasize that Moses' words and prescriptions really are the words and<br />
rules of the LORD himself. In connection with his role as a mediator of revelation, Moses is<br />
portrayed with superhuman traits (cf. also Deut 34:5; Sir 45:20. According to Exod 34:29-35<br />
the skin of Moses' face radiated after his meeting with the Lord on Mount Sinai (Exod<br />
34:29.30.35), i.e. his face was enveloped in a divine aura. By this nimbus Moses was<br />
legitimated as the true representative of the LORD (cf. Matt 17:2, Acts 6:15)."<br />
So there were similarities in the representational aspects of both Moses and Jesus, without either having<br />
to share nature or essence or Godhood in a consubstantial manner.<br />
Hebrews chapter 1 starts off by making the comparison of the prophets of old, "God, having of old time<br />
spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/availablelight.htm (11 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:03:02 AM]
Yet Another Reply to an Attack on the Deity of the Father!<br />
days spoken unto us in his Son."<br />
What did Jehovah say to Moses? "I have made thee as God to Pharaoh" (Ex 7:1; 4:16), and in this same<br />
way, God had made Jesus a god to us (Jn 1:1, 18). Both represent the true God.<br />
It should be noted that we are also ONE with God. John 17:11 says, "Holy Father, keep them in thy name<br />
which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are."<br />
Jesus says, "...the Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28) This<br />
refers to the Father having a greater position when Christ was on earth.<br />
He did not say that the Father is better than Him because they are equal<br />
in essence.<br />
Reply: But the text does not say that this only refers to Christ when he was on earth. This is a 4th century<br />
interpretation read back into this verse. Jesus showed us how to use this same Greek word right in the<br />
next chapter, "Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord." A<br />
relationship between servant and his lord is one of rank, authority and superiority.<br />
Is this the same for Jn 14:28? In the Grimm-Thayer Lexicon, it says of John 14:28 that MEIZON "is used<br />
of those who surpass others-either in nature and power, as God"p. 395<br />
The same word is used at John 1:50. "Jesus said...thou shalt see greater things than these."<br />
Then Jesus continues, "And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heaven<br />
opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." Is heaven not BETTER<br />
than anything we have yet seen?<br />
It is unfortunate that Trinitarians have to change the common meanings of words to buttress an errant<br />
theology.<br />
Embrace the freedom of the One God, and rid yourself of the shackles of an errant theology.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/availablelight.htm (12 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:03:02 AM]
Does ONE mean THREE in the Hebrew Scriptures?<br />
A Reply to: One God<br />
As posted athttp://acharlie.tripod.com/one_God.html<br />
Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures will be from the American Standard Version 1901<br />
Holy Scripture flatly proclaims that there is one and only one God. Throughout the <strong>Bible</strong> we are reminded<br />
time and again that there is one God. So as not to fill the page with page upon page of verse references, I<br />
will limit them to just a few.<br />
(Note don't go running off because you see the word "Jehovah" In the following verses. I will explain this at<br />
the end of the page.)<br />
Isa 44:6 " Thus said Jehovah, king of Israel, And his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: `I [am] the first, and I the<br />
last, And besides Me there is no God."<br />
Isa 43:10-11 "Ye [are] My witnesses, an affirmation of Jehovah, And My servant whom I have chosen, So<br />
that ye know and give credence to Me, And understand that I [am] He, Before Me there was no God<br />
formed, And after Me there is none. I--I [am] Jehovah, And besides Me there is no saviour."<br />
Deut 4:35 "Thou, thou hast been shewn [it], to know that Jehovah He [is] God; there is none else besides<br />
Him."<br />
From these few verses, and the multitude of others I have not cited, we can conclude that there is only one<br />
God. Yet, what about the statements made throughout Scripture concerning Jesus Christ. (If you haven't<br />
been to my page "Who is Jesus Christ?" you will find listings of verses there, which apparently contradict<br />
the verses cited above). What are we to conclude? Is Scripture flawed? How can we possibly resolve the<br />
seeming disparity between these two groups of verses?<br />
In the three verses cited at the beginning of this page the word 'besides' is used. This word is translated from<br />
the Aramaic 'milebad' and the Hebrew 'bilade' both of which are only used in the context of 'apart from'. To<br />
sum up the verses, "there is no God apart from Jehovah". So, I ask you to consider, "Is Scripture trying to<br />
tell us that Jesus is part of Jehovah?" How can that possibly be? It doesn't make sense; or, does it?<br />
To reconcile the two different sets of verses would mean that the being (entity) God (JHVH) is comprised<br />
of more than one being. Does Scripture give us any indication that this is true?<br />
Gen 1:26 "And God saith, `Let Us make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness-."<br />
(In Genesis 1:26 the original word which has been translated "God" is "elohiym" which is again a plural<br />
word.)<br />
Gen 11:6-7 "And Jehovah said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is<br />
what they begin to do: and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do. Come, let<br />
US go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."<br />
Gen 19:24 "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of<br />
heaven;-."<br />
It seems that, especially considering the last verse, there is a multiplicity in the God Jehovah. If you read<br />
Gen 18 & 19 you find that Jehovah appeared to Abraham in the guise of three travelers, Abraham addressed<br />
them as Jehovah. Later in the chapter, Jehovah goes down to Sodom; yet the following verse clearly states<br />
that Jehovah was still with Abraham. Is this another hint as to the true nature of God? I believe that it is!<br />
Scripture abounds with references, which point to the Triune nature of the living God, Jehovah.<br />
Reply: Well, let us take a look at the above verses. In Genesis 18 and 19, do we have a multiplicity of<br />
the God Jehovah?<br />
Gen 19:1,2, "And Jehovah appeared unto him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat<br />
of the day. And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him." ASV<br />
Who are these three men? Are they really Jehovah? To find out, we have to use other <strong>Bible</strong> texts to<br />
figure this out.<br />
1 Kings 8:27 says, "But will God in very deed dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of<br />
heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded!"<br />
The temple that Solomon built is not enough to hold Jehovah, and then v. 49 tells us that God dwells in<br />
heaven. Why.<br />
Because Jehovah says, "Thou canst not see my face; for man shall not see me and live." The awesome<br />
power, glory and being of Jehovah cannot be restricted by his own creation. The footnote at 1 Kings in<br />
the MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong> NKJV tells us that Jehovah "far transcended containment by anything in<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mamre.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:03:21 AM]
Does ONE mean THREE in the Hebrew Scriptures?<br />
creation." (cf. Zondervan NASB Study <strong>Bible</strong>) Also, as a "spiritual Being" (Jn 4:24 Williams NT), God is<br />
invisible, and the <strong>Bible</strong> stresses this over and over. (John 1:18; 6:46, Col 1:15, Rom 1:20, 1 Tim 1:17,<br />
Heb 11:27, 1John 4:12).<br />
So this leaves us with one question! Who were the three men in Genesis 18? The surrounding context<br />
will help us here. Let us go to chapter 16 and Hagar. "And the angel of Jehovah found her by a fountain<br />
of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur." (see also vss. 9, 10, 11) How does Hagar<br />
respond? "..she named the LORD {Jehovah} who spoke to her El-roi [a God who can be seen]. 'For,' said<br />
she, 'I have actually seen God, and am still alive after seeing him.'" v13<br />
She did not really see Jehovah, but His angel. The context tells us that much.<br />
Angels came down to represent Jehovah in every way. They even bore His name. Let us take a look at<br />
Exodus 3:2, " And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush."<br />
But we read on that his angel is being presented as Jehovah Himself. In fact, this angel tells Moses, "And<br />
God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I<br />
AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of<br />
Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,<br />
hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."<br />
How can an angel bear God's name? Because God allows this. Exodus 23:20, 21 says, "Behold, I send an<br />
angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take<br />
ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your<br />
transgression: *for my name is in him*."<br />
Is this also true of the context at Genesis 18 and 19? Yes it is. In fact, at 19:1, the three *angels*" split<br />
up. "And the two angels came to Sodom at even." So, they were not God at all, but angels all along. (cf.<br />
Oxford Annotated Study <strong>Bible</strong>-RSV)<br />
"It is also clear that the messenger of Yahweh is not clearly distinguished from Yahweh Himself; cf Gn<br />
16:13; 21:18; 31:13; Ex 3:2 ff; Jgs 6:14; 13:22. Thus it appears that the messenger is an emissary sent by<br />
Yahweh to speak in His name or to work wonders in his name..." Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> by John L.<br />
McKenzie (cf. Oxford Companion to the <strong>Bible</strong>, p. 28, where it refers to the men at Gen 18:2 as angels).<br />
What of Gen 1:26 and the Hebrew word Elohim? Gn 1:26 says, "And God said, Let us make man in our<br />
image, after our likeness." Does this mean that God is plural? "The plural form does not indicate multiple<br />
gods, but God and the retinue of the divine court." Harper Collins Study <strong>Bible</strong> NRSV (cf. Zondervan<br />
NASB Study <strong>Bible</strong>, Oxford Annotated <strong>Bible</strong>-RSV, and Oxford Study <strong>Bible</strong> - REB) What divine court?<br />
God is not alone in heaven (Ps 82:1; 89:5-7) and he was not alone during creation (Job 38:4-7; Prov<br />
8:22-30).<br />
"Christians have traditionally seen this verse [Gen 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is<br />
now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author" (Genesis 1-15,<br />
Word Biblical Commentary, G.J. Wenham, 27).<br />
How do we know this? Examine Ezra 4:17, 18 which says, "Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum<br />
the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and<br />
in the rest of the country beyond the River: Peace, and so forth. The letter which ye sent unto us hath<br />
been plainly read before me." King Artaxerxes was not a Trinity, yet he can refer to himself as "us."<br />
What does Elohim mean? Aaron Ember wrote: "That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely<br />
given up the idea of plurality in . . . [´Elo·him'] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by<br />
the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular<br />
adjectival attribute. . . . [´Elo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness<br />
and majesty, being equal to The Great God."-The American Journal of Semitic Languages and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mamre.htm (2 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:03:21 AM]
Does ONE mean THREE in the Hebrew Scriptures?<br />
Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.<br />
"Rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and<br />
power." Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon under Elohim.<br />
Hebrew grammarian Gesenius says of Elohim, "The plural of Majesty...sums up the several<br />
characteristics belonging to the idea, besides posing the secondary sense of an intensification of an<br />
original idea...that the language has entirely rejected the idea of a numerical plurality in elohim<br />
(whenever it denotes one God), is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular<br />
attribute." Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, 398-399<br />
At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as Elohim. The word Elohim is also used when referring to<br />
idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply "gods." (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the<br />
plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not<br />
trinities.-1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 ("goddess" Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).<br />
"It is exegesis of a mischievous kind, if pious, sort that would discover the doctrine in the plural form<br />
'Elohim,' of the Deity's name, in the recorded appearance of three angels to Abraham, or even in the ter<br />
sanctus of the prophecies of Isaiah." Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics<br />
German scholar Franz Delitzsch observed that "the idea that the Trinity is represented in the three is in<br />
every point of view untenable."<br />
What then of Genesis 19:24, "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire<br />
from Jehovah out of heaven."<br />
Are there 2 Jehovahs here? Or, maybe, 2/3rds of the required three for a Trinity?<br />
A similar expression is used at Ex 24:1, where the Harper Study <strong>Bible</strong> NRSV has a footnote that says,<br />
"The Lord refers to himself in the third person as in 19:24." Is this unusual? King Solomon did the same<br />
thing, "Solomon assembled the elders of Israel . . . unto King Solomon."<br />
Gen 49:1,2, " And Jacob called unto his sons, and said: gather yourselves together, that I may tell you<br />
that which shall befall you in the latter days. Assemble yourselves, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; And<br />
hearken unto Israel your father." Here we another example of speaking of yourself in the 3rd person.<br />
This was common back then, so it can be dismissed as the New English <strong>Bible</strong> has in its reading of Gen<br />
19:24, "The LORD rained down fire and brimstones from the skies on Sodom and Gomorrah." (see also<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong>, Contemporary English Version, New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, NIrV, <strong>Bible</strong> in Basic<br />
English, New Century Version-ICB, New Living Translation)<br />
The name 'Jehovah' does not exist anywhere in the original manuscripts of Scripture. What does exist is the<br />
tetragrammation 'JHVH'. This is used to signify the incommunicable name of the One True God. It has been<br />
rendered both as Jehovah and Yahweh; however, by definition neither is the correct name. Many<br />
translations render "JHVH" as LORD, and LORD in a smaller print. This has lead to a lot of confusion<br />
among readers of the <strong>Bible</strong>. With each version, or translation, of the <strong>Bible</strong> subtle, and some not so subtle,<br />
changes have been introduced to God's Word the Holy <strong>Bible</strong>. One translation, the New <strong>World</strong> Translation,<br />
has undertaken to rewrite various key verses of Scripture to support their own beliefs.<br />
Reply: Is neither Jehovah or Yahweh by definition a correct name? To say this is intirely misleading, and<br />
somewhat dishonest and unfair. It is just as correct for me to say that Jesus is incorrect, since nobody<br />
actually called him that in <strong>Bible</strong> times. For more on the pronunciation of the Divine Name click here.<br />
There have been glosses introduced into the <strong>Bible</strong>, but by far, the majority of these have been introduced<br />
by people trying to promote a Trinity (see The Orthodox Corruption by Bart D. Ehrman, the Comma<br />
Johanneum, and The Text of the New Testament-It;s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration). We can<br />
be thankful though that God has seen fit to help us uncover the many thousands of manuscripts so that<br />
we have virtually have the <strong>Bible</strong> that God gave us. The interpolations can be weeded out. As for the New<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mamre.htm (3 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:03:21 AM]
Does ONE mean THREE in the Hebrew Scriptures?<br />
<strong>World</strong> Translation, those against it are often guilty of religious prejudice and bigotry, as can be seen by<br />
following these links.<br />
"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the <strong>Bible</strong> who are trying to appreciate to learn the<br />
Hebrew or Greek languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 'gloss' translation,<br />
especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG,<br />
DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and How to Choose Between Them by<br />
Alan S. Duthie [emphasis his]<br />
"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages. we suggest either a very literal<br />
version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version [Kingdom {Interlinear<br />
Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your <strong>Bible</strong> Wisely, Duthie<br />
What about the various verses that flatly proclaim :there is one God"?<br />
A study into the original manuscripts, or at least checking Concordances & Lexicons, reveals that the word<br />
translated as "one" is "echad" this word was not used to denote a singular entity. It was however, used to<br />
denote a unit composed of more than one- for example, it would be used in the context "One Army" but<br />
would NOT be used in the context of "One Person." Since, "All Scripture is God-breathed" it is no mistake<br />
that the original wording is "echad".<br />
Reply: Again, the above is a lie. ECHAD is indeed used to denote a single entity. Even Abraham is<br />
referred to as ONE(Echad) at Isaiah 51:2. Exekiel 33:24, "`Abraham was only one (ECHAD) man, yet he<br />
possessed the land." NIV<br />
Is Abraham not a singular entity?<br />
When the LXX translators made the first translation into another language, Greek, they rendered the<br />
word ECHAD with the singular "hEIS." Deut 6:4 "KURIOS O QEOS HMWN KURIOS EIS ESTIN"<br />
LXX/Septuagint. This was carried over into the NT. Consider Mark 12:29:<br />
"KURIOS O QEOS HMWN KURIOS EIS ESTIN." That which was a characteristic of the Hebrew<br />
language, was not carried over into the <strong>Bible</strong> by the pre-Christian Jews nor the 1st century Christians.<br />
God is simply ONE...not THREE. Sorry.<br />
Trinitarian professor of theology Gregory Boyd admits, "Even weaker [than the argument for Elohim] is<br />
the argument that the Hebrew word for "one" (echad) used in the Shema...refers to a unified one, not an<br />
absolute one. Hence some Trinitarians have argued, the Old Testament has a view of a united Godhead.<br />
It is, of course, true that the meaning of the word may in some contexts denote a unified plurality (eg<br />
Gen. 2:24, they shall become one flesh). But this really proves nothing. An examination of the Old<br />
Testament usage reveals that the word echad is as capable of various meanings as our English word one.<br />
The context must determine whether a numerical or unified singularity is intended." Oneness<br />
Pentecostals and the Trinity, 47, 48<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mamre.htm (4 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:03:21 AM]
Why Does Ron Rhodes Hate Jehovah?<br />
Ron Rhodes vs Jehovah<br />
Jehovah, Yahweh or LORD?<br />
Excerpt from the book, The Complete Book of <strong>Bible</strong> Answers by Ron Rhodes, on page 59, when asked<br />
"Does the fact that the word 'Trinity' is not in the <strong>Bible</strong> mean the doctrine is unbiblical?" To answer this<br />
in the negative, Ron Rhodes, the <strong>Bible</strong> Answer Man, puts himself at odd with the <strong>Bible</strong>, God, and<br />
common sense.<br />
Rhodes retorts, "It is generally the Jehovah's Witnesses who say the Trinity is an unbiblical doctrine<br />
because it is not in the <strong>Bible</strong>."<br />
Actually, it is a great many people that hold that the Trinity is not in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
Click here for more.<br />
To follow up with this, Ron Rhodes drops a whopper, "A good response to them is to point out that<br />
the word Jehovah does not appear as such in the <strong>Bible</strong>."<br />
Is this really so? On page 67 Ron Rhodes has to admit that the name Jehovah is used in some legitimate<br />
translations such as the American Standard Version and the King James Version. So which is it? Is it in<br />
the <strong>Bible</strong> or isn't it? It may seem that the <strong>Bible</strong> Answer Man is the subject of Romans 10:2,3, "For I bear<br />
them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of God's<br />
righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of<br />
God."<br />
In fact, as I have constantly shown, the Jehovah/Yahweh is rendered in many many <strong>Bible</strong>s, as can be<br />
seen at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/jhvh.htm and<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/yhwh.htm and<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/jehovah.htm<br />
Let us examine Ron's argument further:<br />
"In fact, the word Jehovah does not appear does not appear in any legitimate Hebrew or Greek<br />
manuscripts of the <strong>Bible</strong>."<br />
Does Ron know of any illegitimate Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the <strong>Bible</strong> that do contain the name<br />
Jehovah? The fact is, even the name "Jesus" does not appear in any Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>. Why? Because Jesus is an Anglicized form of the Hebrew word Yeshua or Yehoshua and the<br />
Greek word Iesous. So, in this vein, the word Jehovah does not appear in Hebrew or Greek manuscripts<br />
of the <strong>Bible</strong> just as EVERY OTHER NAME in the <strong>Bible</strong> does not appear in Hebrew or Greek<br />
manuscripts of the <strong>Bible</strong>. The <strong>Bible</strong> was not written in English, simply put. The <strong>Bible</strong>s that Rhodes' likes<br />
are the New American Standard Version and maybe the New International Version. Instead of using any<br />
Divine Name, these use the word LORD in its place. Did you know the word LORD is not in any<br />
Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the <strong>Bible</strong>. It comes from the Hebrew word ADONAI and the Greek<br />
word KYRIOS.<br />
But let's move on. The best way to determine <strong>Bible</strong> pronunciations by looking at how the <strong>Bible</strong> renders<br />
other names with the same letters. How does the <strong>Bible</strong> use other names that incorporate part of the<br />
Divine Name?<br />
Here are <strong>Bible</strong> names that use the 1st part of the Divine Name:<br />
Jehoaddah (literally YEHOADDA)<br />
Jehoaddan (literally YEHOADDAN)<br />
Jehoahaz (literally YEHOAHAZ)<br />
Jehoash (literally YEHOAS)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes_jhvh.htm (1 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:03:37 AM]
Why Does Ron Rhodes Hate Jehovah?<br />
Jehohanan (literally YEHOHANAN)<br />
Jehoiachin (literally YEHOYAKIN)<br />
Jehoiada (literally YEHOYADA)<br />
Jehoiakim (literally YEHOYAQIM)<br />
Jehoiarib (literally YEHOYARIB)<br />
Jehonadab (literally YEHONADAB)<br />
Jehonathan (literally YEHONATAN)<br />
Jehoram (literally YEHORAM)<br />
Jehoshabeath (literally YEHOSABAT)<br />
Jehoshaphat (literally YEHOSAPAT)<br />
Jehosheba (literally YEHOSEBA)<br />
Jehoshua (literally YEHOSUA)<br />
Jehozabad (literally YEHOZABAD)<br />
Jehozadak (literally YEHOSADAQ)<br />
The words above, starting with "J" are the ones that we have in pretty well all English <strong>Bible</strong>s. But none<br />
of these words are in the Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong>, according to the same reasoning that Ron Rhodes uses. None of<br />
the above words that start with "J" appear in any Hebrew or Greek manuscript. In fact, neither are the<br />
literal renderings, since they are transliterations. Why? Because Hebrew is Hebrew, and English is<br />
English.<br />
But what about words the end with the latter element of the Divine Name? Here are some that are:<br />
Puvah<br />
Kibbroth-Hattaavah<br />
Ivvah<br />
Ishvah<br />
Hodevah<br />
Chavvah<br />
Alvah<br />
(I am indebted to the excellent book The Divine Name Controversy by Firpo W. Carr, Ph.D. for some of<br />
the above information...see also Petrus Galatinus', De arcanis catholicae veritatis, 1518 A.D.)<br />
As we can see, Jehovah is an acceptable form of the Tetragrammaton in the English language, in fact, it<br />
is more acceptable the oft transliterated Yahweh. Francis B. Denio, who studied and taught Hebrew for<br />
40 years says:<br />
"Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more that Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu. The settled<br />
connotation of Isaiah and Jeremiah forbid questioning their right. Usage has given them the connotations<br />
proper for designating the personalities which these words represent. Much the same is true of Jehovah.<br />
It is not barbarism. It has already many of the connotations needed for the proper name of the covenant<br />
God of Israel. There is no other word which can faintly compare with it. For centuries it has been<br />
gathering these connotations. No other word approaches this name in fullness of associations required.<br />
The use of any other word falls so far short of the proper ideas that it is a serious blemish in a<br />
translation." On the Use of the Word Jehovah, JBL 46, 1927, 147-148<br />
Notice the very interesting statements in the Catholic Encyclopedia<br />
(1913) (http://www.newadvent.org)<br />
"Jehovah (Yahweh): The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes_jhvh.htm (2 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:03:37 AM]
Why Does Ron Rhodes Hate Jehovah?<br />
excellence, the great name, the only name,.... Finally, the word is found even in the "Pugio fidei" of<br />
Raymund Martin, a work written about 1270 (ed. Paris, 1651, pt. III, dist. ii, cap. iii, p. 448, and Note, p.<br />
745). PROBABLY THE INTRODUCTION OF THE NAME JEHOVAH ANTEDATES EVEN R.<br />
MARTIN. No wonder then that this form has been regarded as the true pronunciation of the Divine name<br />
by such scholars as Michaelis ("Supplementa ad lexica hebraica", I, 1792, p. 524), Drach (loc. cit., I,<br />
469-98), Stier (Lehrgebäude der hebr. Sprache, 327), and others."<br />
What of Michaelis? Johann David Michaelis in his German translation of the Old Testament of the<br />
eighteenth century...said in part: "On the other hand, the name Jehovah [ Jehova in German] is used. . . .<br />
so I considered it to be a matter of integrity in translation to identify it, even though it might not always<br />
be pleasing to the German ear." ....Several of my friends insisted that I not at all insert this foreign word. .<br />
. . Jehovah is a Nomen Proprium, and, just as properly as I retain other nomina propria [such as]<br />
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob... In the translation of a classical author one would not have the slightest hesitance<br />
toward the use of the names Jupiter, Apollo [and] Diana; and why then should the name of the Only True<br />
God sound more offensive? I do not therefore see why I should not use the name Jehovah in the German<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>."<br />
"How God's Name Was Pronounced<br />
Biblical Archaeology Review, Mar./Apr. 1995 Volume 21 Number 2; page 30:<br />
"1) Among the magical papyri the name appears as IAWOUHE (Ya-oh-oo-ay-eh), but it is difficult to<br />
know how much this pronunciation had to do with the Tetragrammaton...so it is not certain how many of<br />
these syllables were thought to belong to the name. At least, however, it has more syllables than two, and<br />
the central vowel is not omitted, as is done in Yah-weh.<br />
"2) Clement of Alexandria spelled the Tetragrammaton IAOAI (Ya-oo-ai), IAOE (Ya-oo-eh), and IAO<br />
(Ya-oh). In none of these is the central oo or oh vowel omitted.<br />
"3) Rabbis often deduced the meaning of a word by taking the word apart and interpreting each part...By<br />
this logic Clement argued that the Tetragrammaton had the same consonants as the verb "to be," so it<br />
meant the one who caused things to be, but he did not pronounce the word<br />
according to any form of that verb. His conjecture was homiletic ally thought provoking, but not<br />
scientifically or historically correct...Reams of paper and gallons of ink have been expended over the<br />
years justifying a pronunciation Westerners deduced on the basis of Clement's conjecture. It may all be<br />
irrelevant to the subject....The word spelled Ya-hoo or Ya-hoh may have been pronounced Yahowah or<br />
Yahoowah, but in no case is the vowel oo or oh omitted. The word was sometimes abbreviated as "Ya,"<br />
but never as "Ya-weh." This can be illustrated further by studying the proper names of the <strong>Bible</strong> that<br />
were based on the Tetragrammaton....Yah-ho-na-than..."Yaho-cha-nan"...Eli-yahoo ...Anyone who cares<br />
to check the concordances will find that there is no name in the entire Scriptures that includes the<br />
Tetragrammaton and also omits the vowel that is left out in the two-syllable pronunciation Rainey<br />
upholds.<br />
"There is still one other clue to the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton Hebrew poetry. For example,<br />
from the poem of Exodus 15, read aloud verses 1, 3, 6, 11, 17 and 18, first pronouncing the<br />
Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh" and then read it again, pronouncing the same<br />
word as "Yahowah." Notice the rhyme and poetic beat of the two. In this way the reader can judge which<br />
one is the more likely pronunciation used in antiquity.<br />
"The name "Yahowah" is not a ghost word, as Rainey declared. Clement of Alexandria's conjecture that<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes_jhvh.htm (3 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:03:37 AM]
Why Does Ron Rhodes Hate Jehovah?<br />
the Tetragrammaton was based on the verb "to be" overlooks the pronunciation of the proper names in<br />
the Scripture that include some portion of the Tetragrammaton. Clement did not have access to the<br />
scrolls and may never have seen the Aramaic Papyri.<br />
Nevertheless, he spelled the Tetragrammaton in Greek employing the central vowel that Rainey omitted<br />
in his determination that the proper name was Yahweh....<br />
The way Rudolf Kittle translates YHWH is more accurate than "Yahweh", he translates it "Yehowah.<br />
Why? Became YHWH is a 3 syllable word, not a two syllable word like "Yahweh" is. George<br />
Buchanan of Wesley Theological Seminary favors the use of "Yahowah" or "Yahoowah."<br />
He explains how he came up with those: "In ancient times, parents often named their children after their<br />
deities. That means that they would have pronounced their children's names the way the deity's name<br />
was pronounced. The Tetragrammaton was used in people's names, and they always used the middle<br />
vowel." A few examples of proper names found in the <strong>Bible</strong> that<br />
include the shortened form of God's name are Jonathan, which appears as Yohnathan or Yehohnathan in<br />
Hebrew. It means "Yaho or Yahowah has given." Elijah's name is Eliyah or Eliyahu in Hebrew, which<br />
means: "My God is Yahoo or Yahoo-wah." Also, Jehoshaphat is Yehohshaphat meaning "Yaho has<br />
judged."<br />
The two syllable pronunciation of YHWH as "Yahweh" would not allow for the "o" vowel sound to exist<br />
as part of God's name. But in dozens of Biblical names that incorporate the divine name, this middle<br />
vowel sound appears in both the original and the shortened forms, as in Jehonathan and Jonathan.<br />
Professor Buchanan says about God's name: "In no case is the vowel oo or oh omitted. The word was<br />
sometimes abbreviated as 'Ya,' but never as 'Ya-weh.'... When the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in<br />
one syllable it was 'Yah' or 'Yo.' When it was pronounced in three syllables it would have been<br />
'Yahowah' or 'Yahoowa.' If it was ever abbreviated to two syllables it would have been 'Yaho.' "<br />
(Biblical Archaeology Review)<br />
Gesenius in his Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament Scriptures agrees saying: "Those<br />
who consider that YHWH [Yehowah] was the actual pronunciation are not altogether without ground on<br />
which to defend their opinion. In this way can the abbreviated syllables YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo],<br />
with which many proper names begin, be more satisfactorily explained." -George Wesley Buchanan<br />
Professor Emeritus, Wesley Theological Seminary Washington, DC<br />
However, if the word were<br />
spelled with four letters in Moses' day, we would expect it to have had<br />
more than two syllables, for at that period there were no vowel<br />
letters. All the letters were sounded. At the end of the OT period the<br />
Elephantine papyri write the word YHW to be read either yahu (as in<br />
names like Shemayahu) or yaho (as in names like Jehozadek). The<br />
pronunciation yaho would be favored by the later Greek from iao found in<br />
Qumran Greek fragments (2d or 1st centuries B.C.) and in Gnostic<br />
materials of the first Christian centuries.Theological Wordbook of the<br />
Old Testament<br />
"In the history of the English language however, the letter J has a written counterpart in the German J,<br />
although the latter J in German is pronounced like an English Y. The bulk of theological studies having<br />
come from the German sources, there has been an intermixed usage in English of the J and the Y. Our<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes_jhvh.htm (4 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:03:37 AM]
Why Does Ron Rhodes Hate Jehovah?<br />
English translations of the bible reflect this, so we have chosen to use J, thus Jehovah, rather than<br />
Yahweh, because this is established English usage for Biblical names beginning with this Hebrew letters.<br />
No one suggests that we ought to change Jacob, Joseph, Jehoshaphat, Joshua etc. to begin with a Y, and<br />
neither should we at this late date change Jehovah to Yahweh." -<strong>Bible</strong> Translator Jay P. Green, Sr.<br />
Girdlestones says: "It is generally agreed that Jehovah [unlike Elohim]<br />
is not a generic or class name, but a personal or proper name.<br />
Maimonides says this is called the Plain name. [Another] says: It is<br />
every where a proper name, denoting the person of God, and Him only;<br />
whence Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun.<br />
"The Hebrew may say the Elohim, the true God, in opposition to all false<br />
Gods; but he never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is the name of the true<br />
God only! He says my God, but never my Jehovah; the God of Israel, but<br />
never the Jehovah of Israel, for there is no other Jehovah, the living<br />
God but never of the living Jehovah.<br />
"God's personal existence, the continuity of His dealings with man, the<br />
unchange-ableness of his promises, and the whole revelation of his<br />
redeeming mercy gather round the name Jehovah.<br />
"In the 3rd chapt. of Genesis it may be noted that THE SERPENT AVOIDS<br />
THE USE OF THE NAME."Girdlestones Synonyms of the Old Testament; 36-38:<br />
"Knowing another's name was a special privilege that offered access to<br />
that persons thought and life...God favored His people by revealing [his<br />
name] which offered special insight into his love and righteousness."<br />
-Illustrated Bi. Dict.<br />
It might be added here that the meaning of Jesus, is, according to Weymouth: "Jehovah is Salvation." So<br />
every time anyone uses this name, Jesus, (which is not the original pronunciation of it in the 1st century)<br />
he is using and supporting the form of The Divine Name JEHOVAH<br />
in the N.T.<br />
So Why Does Ron Rhodes Hate the Name Jehovah?<br />
Because, according to Ron, "Jesus is Yahweh" (same book, p.101). [Rhodes himself says that "Jesus is<br />
not the Father." p. 127 Yet the <strong>Bible</strong> clearly says that Yahweh/Jehovah is the Father at Isaiah 64:8<br />
"Yahweh, you are our Father" Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>]. If Jesus is Yahweh/Jehovah, then to translate it as such<br />
does not really promote a Trinity teaching. Rhodes likes the NASB, which, unlike its predecessor refuses<br />
to translate the Divine Name properly. This causes confusion between the Father and the Son, something<br />
that was done purposely even back in the Nicene controversy:<br />
"The strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was they who<br />
demanded, in effect, that Christianity be "updated" by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted<br />
distinction between the Father and the Son." When Jesus Became God by Richard E. Rubenstein,p. 74<br />
By creating a confusion between the Father and Son, you end up with an unholy incest. Take note of Ps<br />
110:1 in the NASB:<br />
"The LORD says to my Lord: Sit at my right hand."<br />
It sounds like God talking to another part of himself. This is what trinitarians want. God as a community.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes_jhvh.htm (5 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:03:37 AM]
Why Does Ron Rhodes Hate Jehovah?<br />
Yet, if you look in any Hebrew Interlinear, you will see that this is not the case. The first Lord is the<br />
Divine Name, the second is the word is ADONI.<br />
"I.e., adon with the personal suffix 'i' ('my'). It is amazing that that a number of commentaries wrongly<br />
assert that the second lord is adonai. See, for example, The <strong>Bible</strong> Knowledge Commentary (ed. Walvoord<br />
and Zuck, representing Dallas Theological Seminary faculty, Victor Books, 1987) which states<br />
mistakenly that 'my lord' in Ps. 110:1 'translates the Hebrew adonay, used only of God' (73).<br />
Unfortunately this comment suggests that the Messiah is God Himself. In fact, the Hebrew for 'my lord'<br />
is not adonai but adoni, which is never used of God but often of the king of Israel and other human<br />
superiors. This surprising error of fact is symptomatic of the widespread confusion of God with the<br />
Messiah. 1 Sam. 24:6 it typical of the Hebrew manner of distinguishing 'my lord, the king' from the Lord<br />
God. No one reading Ps. 110:1 could imagine that the Messiah was the Lord God. The Messiah is the<br />
Lord's anointed. See Luke 2:11, 26 for Luke's carefully worded titles. The 'Lord Christ' (Luke 2:11) is the<br />
'my lord' of Ps. 110:1. There are thus two Lords: the one Lord God and the one Lord Messiah, Jesus.<br />
That is exactly Paul's creed in 1Cor. 8:4-6. Robert Sumner in his Jesus Christ is God (Biblical<br />
Evangelism Press, 1983) bases his major argument for the Trinity on Ps. 110:1:'Jesus' reference was to<br />
the oft-quoted Ps. 110:1, readily acknowledged by the Jews of His day to be both Davidic and Messianic,<br />
where both King David called the Christ 'my lord' using one of the names of deity, Adonai' (321) He then<br />
goes on to find the complete Trinity in Jehovah, Adonai, Spirit. Accurate reporting of the language facts<br />
would make that conclusion impossible."<br />
The Doctrine of the Trinity-Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound, p.46, Anthony Buzzard.<br />
George Howard has done extensive study on the Divine Name in the New Testament and has this to say:<br />
"The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates<br />
KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in<br />
many passages made it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and<br />
replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time went<br />
on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish<br />
between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the<br />
later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries."<br />
George Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 15<br />
There would be less confusion if <strong>Bible</strong>s would just translate this name accurately. In the book <strong>Bible</strong><br />
<strong>Translations</strong> and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie says,<br />
"In the Old Testament, God's name should appear as a name, either 'Jehovah' [BLE] or 'Yahweh' [NJB]<br />
(ch. 6); while other proper names should take their most familiar English form [top five] preferably with<br />
assistance in their pronunciation [NWT; cf. RSV]. p.111<br />
He also says, "One of the forms of the divine name should appear for the original YHWH throughout the<br />
Old Testament, and especially in Exodus 6:3, 'by my name JEHOVAH' and 1Kings 18:39, 'Jehovah, he is<br />
God', which hardly makes sense without the actual name. However, in place of the name, many <strong>Bible</strong><br />
translations use 'the LORD' (in capitals)...but capitals are inaudible when read aloud and are readily<br />
ignored. A few <strong>Bible</strong> translations do not even use capitals for Lord (LB, AB, etc)." p.38<br />
Does the <strong>Bible</strong> ever tell us to stop using his name?<br />
No, definitely not. This name is in the Hebrew scriptures almost 7000 times. This is more than any other<br />
name, and more than all the other titles put together. The math and common sense alone tells us this<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes_jhvh.htm (6 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:03:38 AM]
Why Does Ron Rhodes Hate Jehovah?<br />
repetitive emphasis means the Name was meant to last forever.<br />
"You must tell the Isrealites this, that it is JEHOVAH the God of their forefathers, the God of Abraham,<br />
The God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, who has sent you to them. This is my name forever; this is my title<br />
in every generation." The New English <strong>Bible</strong>(Protestant and Catholic).<br />
"Then have those fearing Jehovah spoken one to another, And Jehovah doth attend and hear, And written<br />
is a book of memorial before Him Of those fearing Jehovah, And of those esteeming His name." Malachi<br />
3:16 Young's Literal Version<br />
"Jehovah our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy majesty above the<br />
heavens." Ps 8:1 Darby<br />
"That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the<br />
earth." Ps 83:18 King James Version<br />
"Let them praise the name of Jehovah; For his name alone is exalted; His glory is above the earth and the<br />
heavens." Ps 148:13 American Standard Version<br />
'From the sun's rising even to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place<br />
sacrificial smoke will be made, a presentation will be made to my name, even a clean gift; because my<br />
name will be great among the nations,' Jehovah of armies has said."-Mal 1:11 NWT<br />
"And in very deed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you; and that my<br />
name may be declared in all the earth." NKJV<br />
"And I will sanctify my great name, which hath been profaned among the nations, which ye have<br />
profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am Jehovah, saith the Lord Jehovah,<br />
when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes." Ezekiel 36:23 ASV<br />
"Praise Yahweh! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his doings. Bring to remembrance<br />
that exalted is his Name. Praise in song Yahweh, for a splendid thing he has done. Well known is this in<br />
all the earth."-Isaiah 12:4, 5. Rotherham<br />
Simeon has reported how God first intervened to take from the Gentiles a people for His name. Acts<br />
15:14 HCSB<br />
"Hallowed be thy name" Matt 6:9 Revised Version<br />
"I have made known to them your name, and will make it known," John 17:26 NASB<br />
"I will protect those who know my name." Psalm 91:14 NRSV<br />
"For the Name of Jehovah I proclaim, Ascribe ye greatness to our God! The Rock! --perfect [is] His<br />
work, For all His ways [are] just; God of stedfastness, and without iniquity: Righteous and upright [is]<br />
He. It hath done corruptly to Him; Their blemish is not His sons', A generation perverse and crooked! To<br />
Jehovah do ye act thus, O people foolish and not wise? Is not He thy father--thy possessor? He made<br />
thee, and doth establish thee." Deut 32 Young's Literal Version<br />
Here are some fast facts on the Divine Name and the sinister agenda behind its removal.<br />
Most English <strong>Bible</strong>s, like the New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong>, New Revised Standard Version, New<br />
American <strong>Bible</strong>, New King James Version etc refuse to translate YHWH. Yet, the average <strong>Bible</strong> contains<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes_jhvh.htm (7 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:03:38 AM]
Why Does Ron Rhodes Hate Jehovah?<br />
the name Satan about 50 times. Satan, it seems, is afforded more respect than the <strong>Bible</strong>s own author. **<br />
In the <strong>Bible</strong>, Satan never uses the Divine Name, preferring the title God, (Gen 3) a parallel situation to<br />
the average <strong>Bible</strong> translator.<br />
How did Jesus view Gods name when confronted with Satan? When Jesus was tempted by the Devil, he<br />
answered each and every time with a scripture that highlighted the Divine Name. At Matthew 4:4, Jesus<br />
quotes Deut 8:3 which says, man doth not live by bread only, but by everything that proceedeth out of<br />
the mouth of Jehovah doth man live.<br />
At Matthew 4:7, Jesus quotes Deut 6:16, Ye shall not tempt Jehovah your God, and at Matthew 4:10,<br />
Jesus quotes from Deut 6:13/10:20, Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; him shalt thou serve.<br />
**Many may argue that some, like the Jews, stopped saying the Divine Name in order that they may not<br />
break the commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain." (Ex 20:7). Yet, I do<br />
not see the same kind of zeal to remove the sex organs for fear of breaking the commandment at v. 14,<br />
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." This is the height of piety and arrogance, and nothing else.<br />
Marmorstein (1927: 17, 13) "The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God":<br />
"Greek philosophy, Jewish Alexandrian theology, christian apology and Gnostic lore concur in the<br />
idea of God`s namelessness. That God has no name was taught by Aristotele, Seneca, Maxim of Tyre,<br />
Celsus and Hermes Trismegistus."<br />
"We notice a very far-reaching difference between Palestinian and Alexandrian theology concerning the<br />
Tetragrammaton. A bitter struggle between Hellenists and Hasidim /forerunners of the pharisees, my<br />
note/centered around the pronunciation of the Divine Name. A similar<br />
controversy arose afterwards around the use of the Name Elohim and even as to the substitution of the<br />
Tetragrammaton."<br />
One <strong>Bible</strong> Translator who opted to translate the Name, John W. Davis, a missionary in<br />
China during the 19th century. He explained why he translated the Name:<br />
"If the Holy Ghost says Jehovah in any given place in the Hebrew, why does the translator not say<br />
Jehovah in English or Chinese? What right has he to say, I will use Jehovah in this place and a substitute<br />
for it in that? . . . If any one should say that there are cases in which the use of Jehovah would be wrong,<br />
let him show the reason why; the onus probandi [burden of proof] rests upon him. He will find the task a<br />
hard one, for he must answer this simple question,-If in any given case it is wrong to use Jehovah in the<br />
translation then why did the inspired writer use it in the original?"<br />
-The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal, Volume VII, Shanghai, 1876.<br />
For more of a detailed discussion I highly recommend The Divine Name that Lasts Forever<br />
The books The Divine Name Controversy by Firpo W. Carr, Ph.D.<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses Defended by Greg Stafford<br />
and The Role of Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation by Rolf Furuli<br />
"In the Scriptures there is the closest possible relationship between a person and his name the two being<br />
practically equivalent' so that to remove the name is to extinguish the person.( Num. 27:4; Deut. 7:24)To<br />
forget God's name is to depart from Him." -571 Zondervan Pictorial <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary.1964<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes_jhvh.htm (8 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:03:38 AM]
Why Does Ron Rhodes Hate Jehovah?<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes_jhvh.htm (9 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:03:38 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
Answers to 50 Questions Every Jehovah's Witness Should Be Asked<br />
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the ASV-American Standard Version 1901<br />
1. Since Fred Franz admitted under oath that he and nobody else on the (New <strong>World</strong> Translation)<br />
committee could read either Greek or Hebrew, how could they "translate" the manuscripts and be accurate?<br />
Reply: Actually, your information is not true, and that from several different angles. But, the proof is in<br />
the pudding, and many experts have viewed the NWT as very good <strong>Bible</strong> (click here for more). To argue<br />
otherwise would be to argue against divine providence, which makes you anti-<strong>Bible</strong> and anti-God. (cf.<br />
Psalm 12:6, 7; Daniel 12:4; 1 Peter 1:24, 25)<br />
The following will also show that this movement is also anti-intellectual and religiously bigoted.<br />
2. In the New <strong>World</strong> Translation, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" is used in reference to God, it is<br />
translated as "worship" (Rev.5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in<br />
reference to Jesus, it is translated as "obeisance" ( Mt. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even<br />
though it is the same word in the Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for this inconsistency?<br />
If the NWT was consistent in translating "proskuneo" as "worship", how would the verses above referring<br />
to Christ read?<br />
Reply: Did you know that the New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, New English <strong>Bible</strong>, Smith & Goodspeed's An<br />
American Translation, the 20th Century NT does the exact same thing as the NWT? Is it because they are<br />
also made by Jehovah's Witnesses and therefore trying to mislead the public? No, it is because<br />
PROSKUNEW as well as the Hebrew equivalent SHACHAH has a wider application, and it is often the<br />
same word used to bow to mere humans. Take note of the following:<br />
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV<br />
"And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and<br />
worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV<br />
Here, king David is given the same worship as Jehovah.<br />
So it is necessary for <strong>Bible</strong> versions to make a distinction, as they all do (see Matt 18:26).<br />
3. The NWT translates the Greek word "kyrios" (Gr-lord) as "Jehovah" more than 25 times in the New<br />
Testament (Mt 3:3, Lk 2:9, Jn 1:23, Acts 21:14, Rom 12:19, Col 1:10, 1 Thess 5:2, 1 Pet 1:25, Rev 4:8,<br />
etc.). Why is the word "Jehovah" translated when it does not appear in the Greek text? Why is the NWT not<br />
consistent in translating kyrios (kurion) as "Jehovah" in Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2 Thess 2:1, and<br />
Rev 22:21 (see Gr-Engl Interlinear)?<br />
Reply: Why are there absolutely NO <strong>Bible</strong> translations that are consistent in translating "kyrios"? What<br />
does "kyrios" mean?<br />
"ltA-1,Noun,2962,kurios><br />
properly an adjective, signifying "having power" (kuros) or "authority," is used as a noun,<br />
variously translated in the NT, "'Lord,' 'master,' 'Master,' 'owner,' 'Sir,' a title of wide<br />
significance, occurring in each book of the NT save Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used<br />
(a) of an owner, as in Luke 19:33, cp. Matt. 20:8; Acts 16:16; Gal. 4:1; or of one who has<br />
the disposal of anything, as the Sabbath, Matt. 12:8; (b) of a master, i.e., one to whom<br />
service is due on any ground, Matt. 6:24; 24:50; Eph. 6:5; (c) of an Emperor or King, Acts<br />
25:26; Rev. 17:14; (d) of idols, ironically, 1 Cor. 8:5, cp. Isa. 26:13; (e) as a title of respect<br />
addressed to a father, Matt. 21:30, a husband, 1 Pet. 3:6, a master, Matt. 13:27; Luke 13:8, a<br />
ruler, Matt. 27:63, an<br />
angel, Acts 10:4; Rev. 7:14; (f) as a title of courtesy addressed to a stranger, John 12:21;<br />
20:15; Acts 16:30; from the outset of His ministry this was a common form of address to the<br />
Lord Jesus, alike by the people, Matt. 8:2; John 4:11, and by His disciples, Matt. 8:25; Luke<br />
5:8; John 6:68; (g) kurios is the Sept. and NT representative of Heb. Jehovah ('Lord' in<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (1 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
Eng. versions), see Matt. 4:7; Jas. 5:11, e.g., of adon, Lord, Matt. 22:44, and of Adonay,<br />
Lord, Matt. 1:22; it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Pet. 1:25. " Vine's Expository Dictionary<br />
So sometimes, the title applies to God, sometimes to Jesus, other times to angels and mere men. The<br />
context will usually help us decide who it is being applied to. I do not know of any <strong>Bible</strong> version that<br />
translates it as "lord" for every application of the word "kyrios." The real question should be, "Why do<br />
most English <strong>Bible</strong> Versions fail to translate the Divine Name YHWH/JHVH, or do so inconsistently,<br />
but instead substitute it with the generic 'Lord' each of it's 6828 occurences?" It might also be pointed out<br />
that many other have also used the Divine Name Jehovah in the New Testament. Click here and here for<br />
more.<br />
4. To what was Jesus referring to by the term "this temple' in Jn 2:18-19? See Jn 2:21.<br />
Reply: He certainly didn't mean that he was part of a mysterious Trinity!<br />
"As with His usage of parables, Jesus' cryptic statement most likely was designed to reveal the truth to<br />
His disciples but conceal its meaning from unbelievers who questioned Him (Matt. 13:10, 11). Only after<br />
his resurrection, however, did the disciples understand the real significance of this statement (v.22; cf.<br />
Matt. 12:40). Importantly, through the death and resurrection of Christ, temple worship in Jerusalem was<br />
destroyed (cf. 4:21) and reinstituted in the hearts of those who were built into a spiritual temple called the<br />
church (Eph. 2:19-22)."<br />
-footnote at John 2:19, NKJV MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Says A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament:<br />
"Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: 'And in three days I will raise it up.' He did not mean that he will<br />
raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11)."-(New York,<br />
1932), Vol. V, p. 183.<br />
We have the prophet Ezekiel doing the same thing in Ezekiel 43:3, "I came to bring the city [Jerusalem]<br />
to ruin," that is, by predicting its destruction. Ezekiel actually did not destroy Jerusalem; but by<br />
prophecying it, he could speak of himself as doing it in a predictive sense. (cf. Jeremiah 1:10.) Similarly,<br />
the Father resurrected his Son, but Jesus could speak of doing so in a prophetic sense.<br />
5. The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" as "I am" every time it appears (Jn 6:34, 6:41, 8:24,<br />
13:19, 15:5, etc.) except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as "I have been". What is the reason for the<br />
inconsistency in this translation? If "ego eimi" was translated in Jn 8:58 the same way it is translated in<br />
every other verse in which it appears, how would Jn 8:58 read?<br />
Reply: Again, do all <strong>Bible</strong> Versions translate "ego eimi" as consistently also. The following versions do<br />
the same thing that the NWT does. Why? It is called “Extension from the Past” idiom or PPA (Present of<br />
Past Action), which makes its occurences at John 8:58 different from the others:<br />
The Living New Testament: "The absolute truth<br />
is that I was in existence before Abraham was<br />
ever born."<br />
The 20th Century New Testament: "before Abraham<br />
existed I was."<br />
Noyes, G.R. N.T. (1878)<br />
_Jesus said to them, _truly, truly do I say to you, from before Abraham<br />
was, I have been.__<br />
Hanson, J.W. New Covenant (1884)<br />
_Jesus said to them, _truly, truly, I say to you, I am before Abraham was<br />
born.__<br />
Kraeling, E.G. Four Gospels (1962)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (2 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
_With another amen-saying, Jesus declares to them that before<br />
Abraham was, He (Jesus) is (hint of His preexistence) ._<br />
Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T._Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed._<br />
Cotton Patch Version (1970)<br />
_To this Jesus replied, _I existed before Abraham was born.__<br />
Ledyard, G.H. New Life Testament (1969)<br />
_Jesus said to them, _for sure I tell you, before Abraham was born, I<br />
was and sum and always will be._,,<br />
Dr. E.C. Dymond N.T. (1972)<br />
__Yes, indeed!; said Jesus: _He saw me in prospect. The fact is, that<br />
long before Abraham was conceived in his mother_s womb, that<br />
individual who I now am had been conceived in God_s mind: He had<br />
completed the plan and specifications, so to speak, and therefore He<br />
was able to give Abraham a mental preview of me__.<br />
Good News for the <strong>World</strong> (1969)<br />
_Jesus answer, _I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was<br />
born.__<br />
The New Testament, An American Translation<br />
Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham<br />
was born."<br />
The Complete <strong>Bible</strong>, An American Translation<br />
Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham<br />
was born."<br />
New Believers <strong>Bible</strong>, New Living Translation:<br />
"I existed before Abraham was even born."<br />
The New Testament, C. B. Williams: "I solemnly<br />
say to you, I existed before Abraham was born."<br />
The Book, New Testament: The absolute truth is<br />
that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."<br />
The Living <strong>Bible</strong>: "I was in existence before Abraham<br />
was ever born."<br />
Lattimore: "Truly, truly I tell<br />
you, I am from before Abraham was born."<br />
The New Testament, From the Peshitta Text,<br />
Lamsa: "Before Abraham was born, I was."<br />
An American Translation, In The Language of<br />
Today, Beck: "I was before Abraham."<br />
New Testament Contemporary English Version:<br />
"I tell you.that even before Abraham was, I was,<br />
and I am."<br />
The Unvarnished New Testament: "Before<br />
Abraham was born, I have already been."<br />
The New Testament, Klist & Lilly: "I am here-and<br />
I was before Abraham."<br />
The New Testament in the Language of the People,<br />
Williams: "I existed before Abraham was born."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (3 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
The New Testament, Noyes: "From before Abraham<br />
was, I have been."<br />
A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: "Before<br />
Abraham was, I have been."<br />
Wakefield, G. N.T. (1795)<br />
_Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham<br />
was born, I am He._<br />
The Syriac New Testament, Murdock: "Before<br />
Abraham existed I was."<br />
The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels,<br />
Burkitt& The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,<br />
Blake & Briere "Before Abraham came to be, I was."<br />
The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant,<br />
Sharpe: "I was before Abraham was born."<br />
The 20th Century New Testament 1904: "Before<br />
Abraham existed I was already what I am."<br />
The New Testament, Stage: "Before Abraham<br />
came to be, I was."<br />
International <strong>Bible</strong> Translators 1981<br />
_Jesus said to them, _I am telling the truth: I was alive before Abraham<br />
was born!__<br />
The Coptic Version the New Testament in the<br />
Southern Dialect, Horner: "Before Abraham became,<br />
I, I am being."<br />
The Documents of the New Testament, Wade:<br />
"Before Abraham came into being, I have existed."<br />
Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961)<br />
_Jesus answered them: _Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham<br />
was born.__<br />
The Concise Gospel and The acts, Christianson:<br />
"I existed even before Abraham was born."<br />
A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida:<br />
"Before Abraham existed, I existed, or.I have existed."<br />
The Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>: "I was alive before<br />
Abraham was born."<br />
The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you<br />
for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born."<br />
The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version,<br />
Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham."<br />
Swann, G. N.T. (1947)<br />
_!Jesus said to them, _verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before<br />
Abraham was born_<br />
Perhaps there would be less confusion here if most <strong>Bible</strong>s would simply render the Hebrew word<br />
EHYEH consistently at Exodus 3:14 (compare with v. 12). For more on this go click here.<br />
6. If Jesus was executed on a torture stake, with both hands together over his head, why does Jn 20:25 say<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (4 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
'...Unless I see in his hands the prints of the nailS...", indicating that there was more than one nail used for<br />
his hands.<br />
Reply: The Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by M'Clintock and<br />
Strong, comments:<br />
'Much time and trouble have been wasted in disputing as to whether three or four nails were used in<br />
fastening the Lord. Nonnus affirms that three only were used, in which he is followed by Gregory<br />
Nazianzen. The more general belief gives four nails, an opinion which is supported at much length and<br />
by curious arguments by Curtius. Others have carried the number of nails as high as fourteen.'-Volume<br />
II, page 580.<br />
Accounts of Jesus impalement/crucifixion like Matthew 27:35 give little evidence of the methods used.<br />
After Jesus' resurrection, Thomas said: "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my<br />
finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe." (John 20:25)<br />
Because of this some have also concluded from John 20:25 that two nails were used, one through each<br />
hand. But does Thomas' use of the plural *nails* have to be understood that Jesus' hands were pierced by<br />
a separate nail?<br />
In Luke 24:39 the resurrected Jesus said: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself." This suggests<br />
that Christ's feet also were nailed. Since Thomas made no mention of nailprints in Jesus' feet, his use of<br />
the plural "nails" could have been a general reference to multiple nails used in piercing Jesus.<br />
Debate over such an insignificant detail should not be permitted to becloud the all-important truth that<br />
"we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son."-Romans 5:10. RSV<br />
You will notice that often the artwork in some of the WT literature shows Jesus being nailed through his<br />
wrists? Why is this?<br />
"'The Romans used spikes that were five to seven inches long and tapered to a sharp point. They were<br />
driven throught the wrists,' Metherell said, pointing to an inch below his left palm.<br />
'Hold it,' I interrupted. 'I thought the nails pierced his palms. That's what all the paintings show. In fact,<br />
it's become a standard symbol representing the Crucifixion.'<br />
'Through the wrists,' Metherell repeated. 'This was a solid position that would lock the hand; it the nails<br />
had been driven throught the palms, his weight would have caused the skin to tear and he would have<br />
fallen of the cross. So the nails went through the wrists, although it was considered part of the hand in<br />
the language of the day." p. 197, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel.<br />
7. Jesus uses the phrase "Truly I say to you, ..." over 50 times in the <strong>Bible</strong>. In the NWT, the comma is<br />
placed after the word "you" every time except in Lk 23:43, where the comma is placed after the word<br />
"today". Why is the comma placed after "today" instead of after "you" in this verse? If the translation of this<br />
phrase in Lk 23:43 was consistent with the translation of this phrase in all the other verses in which it<br />
appears, and the comma was placed after the word "you", how would it read?<br />
Reply: The above statement is neither accurate or fair. The original languages did not have commas, so it<br />
is left up to the translator to determine where to put the comma. In the book How To Enjoy The <strong>Bible</strong> by<br />
E. W. Bullinger, it states, "The word 'verily'[truly] points us to the solemnity of the occasion, and to the<br />
importance of what is about to be said. The solemn circumstance under which the words were uttered<br />
marked the wonderful faith of the dying malefactor; and the Lord referred to this by connecting the word<br />
'to-day' with 'I say.' 'Verily, I say unto to thee this day.' This day, when all seems lost, and there is no<br />
hope; this day, when instead of reigning I am about to die. This day, I say to thee, 'Thou shalt be with me<br />
in paradise.'<br />
'I say unto thee this day' was the common Hebrew idiom for emphasizing the occasion of making a<br />
solemn statement(see Deut. iv. 26, 39, 40; v. 1; vi. 6; vii.11; viii. 1; 11, 19; ix. 3; x. 13; xi. 2, 8, 13, 26,<br />
27, 28, 32; xiii. 18; xv. 5; xix. 9; xxvi. 3, 16, 18; xxvii. 1, 4, 10; xxviii. 1, 13, 14, 15; xxix. 12; xxx. 2, 8,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (5 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
11, 15, 16, 18, 19; xxxii. 46). p. 48 5th ed. 1921<br />
See also Syriac versions of the <strong>Bible</strong>, along with Rotherham, Concordant Literal NT and The Riverside<br />
New Testament.<br />
Greg Stafford, in his book "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended. Elihu Books," makes an excellent point with<br />
regards to the "precise wording of the text." He says on page 552 that "Luke 23:43 is the only instance<br />
apart from Luke 23:34 where a verb of speech is used with semeron and where hoti does not separate it<br />
from that verb."<br />
Below is the Vatican Manuscript 1209 (one of the oldest surviving mss) and they have placed the comma<br />
similarly to the NWT.<br />
Other sources:<br />
Tines men houtos anaginoskousin* _Amen lego soi semeron*_ kai hypostizousin* eita epipherousin,<br />
hotiet' emou ese e to paradeiso._("Some indeed read this way: 'Truly I tell you today,' and put a comma;<br />
then they add: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'"--Hesychius of<br />
Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E. Greek text found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol.<br />
93, columns 432, 1433.<br />
Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to hin' e to legomenon toiouton* eita to,
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
today,' and then adding the expression this way: 'You will be with me' etc.")--Scholia 237, 239, 254. Text<br />
found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig,<br />
1869, under Luke 23:43.<br />
Kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met' emou ese en to parad[eiso]. ("And<br />
immediately he said to me: 'Most truly today I tell you, You will be with me in Paradise.'")--Descent into<br />
Hades, an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece,<br />
editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43.<br />
Ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton parad[eison] met' emou. ("And he said<br />
to him: 'Today I tell you the truth, that I should have you in Paradise with me.'")--Gospel of Nicodemus<br />
(=Acts of Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum<br />
Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke<br />
23:43.<br />
Therefore, at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the twelfth century C.E. there were readers<br />
who understood the text at Luke 23:43 as "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise." On<br />
that very day, when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in<br />
Paradise. (Psalms 16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb until the third day and was then<br />
resurrected as "the firstfruits" of the resurrection. (Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18)<br />
Thus, the word "today" at Luke 23:43 does not give the time of the evildoer's being with Jesus in<br />
Paradise.<br />
8. In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is "coming quickly", says of himself, "I am the Alpha and the<br />
Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one who "became dead,<br />
but, look, I am living forever and ever", refers to himself as the first and the last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of<br />
God, says, "...I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end...". God is also referred to as the<br />
"first" and the "last" in Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this be since by definition of these words there can<br />
be only one first and one last?<br />
Reply: Revelation 22:12-13 does not have Jesus speaking, but his Father, God. In fact, this verse is<br />
speaking of Jehovah in Isaiah 40:10, but referring to his son, the Arm of Jehovah.<br />
" Behold, the Lord Jehovah will come as a mighty one, and his arm will rule for him: Behold, his reward<br />
is with him, and his recompense before him." ASV<br />
I am not alone in this. The following references agree with me by noting the relevance of Isaiah 40:10 to<br />
Revelation 22:12 in the marginal references:<br />
· The Nestle-Aland Greek Text (27th edition).<br />
· The Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
· The New American <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
· The New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong> (1973, reference edition)<br />
Compare that with Isaiah 53:1, 5, " Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of<br />
Jehovah been revealed?...But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities;<br />
the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." [see also John 12:38]<br />
Here, along with Is 40:10, we have the "arm of Jehovah" as being the Messiah and differentiated from his<br />
Father, Jehovah. Remember, Jehovah is the Father (Is 64:8), which, according to Trinitarian theology, the<br />
Son cannot be. When you take the entire book of Revelation into consideration, the conclusion that Jesus<br />
is the Lord God is not even possible. Jesus cannot be the very God who is *his* God (Rev. 1:6; 3:2;<br />
3:12). The Father's superiority to Christ is shown in the very first verse of Revelation, where Christ is<br />
described as one who was *given*<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (7 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
knowledge by God. Then come the aforementioned verses where the Father is described as Christ's<br />
God. Finally, in recognition of this, in chapter 15 vs 3 we find Christ joining Moses as they sing a song<br />
of *praise* to his God and Father, who Christ himself calls "the Almighty."<br />
But why do they both bear the title "first and the last, beginning and the end?"<br />
Well, how have others in the past viewed this?<br />
"Christ is called the beginning and the end, because he is the<br />
beginning and the consummation of the Church, which was<br />
founded by his first, and will be completed by his second<br />
appearance."--(Erasmus, Opp. Tom. VI. col. 376, E. [quoted in<br />
"Our Heavenly Father has no Equals", by unitarian Donald R.<br />
Snedeker])<br />
"Principium Christus, quia ipse inchoavit perficienda; finis<br />
Christus, quia ipse perficit inchoata"; [that is] "Christ is<br />
the beginning, because he himself commenced the work to be<br />
accomplished; Christ is the end, because he accomplished the<br />
work begun."--(Fulgentius (the Latin Father), Ad Transimundum,<br />
Lib. II. c. 5; in Migne's Patrol. Tom. LXV. vol. 250, C. [as<br />
quoted by Snedeker, ibid])<br />
The First and the Last<br />
"Attend well to the comfortable words of your heavenly Master,<br />
whom God has appointed to be the original Lord, the continual<br />
Preserver, and at last the righteous Judge of<br />
mankind"--(Thomas Pyle, M.A., Paraphrases on the Acts, the<br />
Epistles, and the Revelation, New edit. Oxford, 1817 [quoted<br />
in Concessions, by John Wilson])<br />
"...the first, that is, chief in dignity, having much greater<br />
power than any one before possessed...the last, that is, the<br />
most despised of men, Isa. liii. 3; having been betrayed,<br />
mocked, beaten, scourged, and even condemned to be punished as<br />
a slave"--(Hugo Grotius, Annotationes ad Vetus et Novum<br />
Testamentum. [quoted in Concessions])<br />
"Christ is called, in the Apocalypse, chap. i. 17, the first<br />
and the last; and this expression, if taken in the same sense<br />
as that in which it is used, Isa. xli.4; xliv.6; xlviii. 12,<br />
may denote Christ's eternal Godhead. Yet it is not absolutely<br />
decisive; for the meaning of chap. i.17 may be, "Fear not; I<br />
am the first (whom thou knewest as mortal), and the last (whom<br />
thou now seest immortal), still the same, whom thou knewest<br />
from the beginning." The same explanation may be given of<br />
chap. ii. 8, where the expression, the first and the last,<br />
again occurs, and is used in connection with Christ's<br />
resurrection from the dead.--(J.D. Michaelis: Introduction to<br />
the New Test., vol. iv. pp. 539-40. [as quoted in<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (8 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
Concessions])<br />
All of these examples show that there have even been trinitarians who have not viewed these titles as<br />
denoting any ontological oneness of identity between Christ and the Father. The last example, by<br />
Michaelis, is especially interesting, because he realizes that the title "first and last" was being applied to<br />
Christ in reference to his death and resurrection. This is how I view it, though in a slightly different<br />
manner, namely, that Christ is the first to be resurrected by the Father directly, and last to be so<br />
resurrected. All references to Jesus as being the "first and the last" have this limitation. Let us take a<br />
look? "I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18 "These things saith<br />
the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]" Rev. 2:8<br />
"Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead" Rev 1:5 See also Romans 14:9 and<br />
Col 1:18.<br />
Can you really beleive that God can die? I cannot. Hab 1:12, (before the scribal changes/ Tiqqune<br />
Sopherim) reads, "Art not thou from everlasting, O Jehovah my God, my Holy One? you do not die." see<br />
also New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>. I believe that almighty God cannot be confined by his own creation. Since<br />
God created life, and death is a by-product of life, this would be included. The bible never speaks of only<br />
Jesus' human-self/human nature/second nature dying. This is a 5th century Cappadocian thought read<br />
back into the scriptures.<br />
9. Jn 1:3 says that Jesus created "all things", but in Isa 44:24, God says that he "by myself" created the<br />
heavens and the earth and asks the question "Who was with me?" when the heavens and the earth were<br />
created. How can be since if Jesus was created by God, then he would have been with God when everything<br />
else was created?<br />
Reply: John 1:3 does not say that Jesus created all things. " All things were made through him; and<br />
without him was not anything made that hath been made." ASV<br />
The New Oxford Annotated <strong>Bible</strong>-NRSV, and others have linked/cross-referenced Proverbs 8:22-30 with<br />
John 1:3, where it describes the created Wisdom/Jesus as a master workman beside God as he is creating.<br />
Click here for more.<br />
The use of the terms, "alone", "who was with me" and "by myself" does not necessarily mean what you<br />
would like it to mean, especially where a king is concerned:<br />
Look at Daniel 4:30 and Isaiah 63:3. Daniel 4:30 has been translated in the following ways:<br />
1) "The king reflected and said, 'Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built.' " NASV.<br />
2) "The king was saying, 'Great Babylon! Imperial palace! Did I<br />
not build it alone.' " —Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> ("JB").<br />
3) "The king spake and said, Is this not Babylon the great, - which I myself have<br />
built," — J.B. Rotherham ("RO")<br />
4) "The king was answering and saying: "Is this not Babylon the Great, that I myself have<br />
built".— NWT.<br />
Was Nebuchadnezzar really the only person in Babylon who took part in the construction and building of<br />
the whole city by himself? Or, was the construction during his time, accomplished by his authority, his<br />
word and no other's?<br />
Isaiah 63:3 proclaims: "I [Jehovah] have trodden the wine press alone of the peoples there was no man<br />
with me." (ASV) Did Jehovah personally punish the peoples and nations that had offended Him? Who<br />
was it exactly that destroyed 185,000 men in Sennacherib's army? It was Jehovah's angel acting on the<br />
word of Jehovah. (2 Kings 19:35, 36) Did Jehovah personally punish Babylon or did He use the Medes<br />
and Perians to accomplish His will? (Daniel 5:26-28, 30-31) All these acts were done by Jehovah's<br />
permission and authority; and by His alone, but it was others who carried it out.—Ezekiel. 36:33, 36.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (9 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
10. Col 1:16, in talking about Jesus, says that "...All [other] things have been created through him and FOR<br />
HIM". First, why was the word [other] added four times when it is not in the original text (see Gr-Engl<br />
Interlinear)? Second, If Jesus was Michael the Archangel at the time of creation, would an angel have<br />
created all things for himself? Isa 43:7 says God created "everyone...for my OWN glory...".<br />
Reply: Is it wrong to add the word "other" to the text? Do other versions do it also?<br />
Compare Luke 21:29<br />
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV)<br />
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News <strong>Bible</strong> (TEV)<br />
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American <strong>Bible</strong>(NAB)<br />
Luke 11:42<br />
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)<br />
"and all the other herbs." TEV<br />
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version<br />
In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put<br />
it in there. Can they do that even without brackets?<br />
"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Christian Literature" by F. Blass and A.<br />
Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".<br />
The book Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> by Professor Rolf Furuli when talking about the word<br />
"other" in the Col. 1:16 in the NWT says, "This means that the brackets that NWT uses around OTHER<br />
may be removed, because the word OTHER is no addition or interpolation, but in a given context it is a<br />
legitimate part of PAS."<br />
Have you ever noticed all those words in italics in the King James Version and the New American<br />
Standard Version? Those are words that are not in the original text, but are added for clarity. There are<br />
thousands of them.<br />
God did make all things for His glory. But like the preceeding verse in Colossians says, he is invisible,<br />
but many have seen Jesus. That same verse says Jesus is the first created being, PRWTOTOKOS PASHS<br />
KTISEWS. Hence, he cannot be that same God.<br />
11. Jn 1:3 says in reference to Christ, "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not<br />
even one thing came into existence". How could Christ have been a created being if ALL things came into<br />
existence through him? If Jesus was a created being, then according to Jn 1:3, Jesus would have had to<br />
create himself.<br />
Reply: No, because the <strong>Bible</strong> puts limitations on the word "ALL." Consider 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28 in<br />
the New English <strong>Bible</strong>,<br />
"Scripture says, 'He has put all things in subjection under his feet.' But in saying 'all things', it clearly<br />
means to exclude God who subordinates them; and when all things are thus subject to him, then the Son<br />
himself will also be made subordinate to God who made all things subject to him..."<br />
2 Tim 1:15 "You are aware of the fact that 'ALL' who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom<br />
are Phygelus and Hermogenes."--New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Here the word PAS (=All) obviously refers to 'a great number', because the words hOI EN Thi ASIAi do<br />
not really include 'all' the people in Asia, but the refer explicitly to Christians (non-Christians are already<br />
'turned away' from God). Moreover, these words don't even include 'all' of the Christians, because<br />
Onesiphuros (and perhaps others) remained loyal to God.<br />
Acts 2:17 "And it shall be, in the last days saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; And<br />
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy..."--Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Here, again, PAS (=All) is used in a more restricted sense. The Spirit will hardly be poured out upon<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (10 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
"ALL flesh", since this verse refers exclusively to Christians.<br />
You will notice that when Jesus is spoken in reference to creation, it is always in a passive sense, as<br />
THROUGH/DIA him.<br />
I see this question has been repeated in #45 below. I have further comments down there.<br />
12. In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word "other", even though it does not appear in the original Greek (see<br />
Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for inserting this word? Is the word "Jehovah" a name? See Ex 6:3,<br />
Ps 83:18, and Ia 42:8. How would the verse read if the word "other" had not been inserted? What does<br />
scripture say about adding words to the <strong>Bible</strong>? See Prov 30:5-6.<br />
Reply: Why did the New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, Good News <strong>Bible</strong>/TEV, Williams NT, Beck's <strong>Bible</strong>, New<br />
Living Translation, Weymouth's NT, 20th Century NT, Knox <strong>Bible</strong>, Contemporary English Version, The<br />
Complete <strong>Bible</strong> by Smith& Goodspeed, Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> and the Living <strong>Bible</strong> add the word "other" here<br />
also? Perhaps they are all Jehovah's Witnesses. Every <strong>Bible</strong> translation and version has to add words (and<br />
does) in the receptor language to clarify what is meant in the source language.<br />
And yes, Jehovah is indeed a name, as the above scriptures mention. But yet most English bibles have<br />
removed this name. What does the <strong>Bible</strong> say about removing words from the scriptures (Rev 22:19).<br />
13. If Christians are persecuted for the sake of Jehovah's name, why did Christ tell the first Christians that<br />
they would be persecuted for the sake of his (Jesus) name instead of Jehovah's (Mt24:9, Mk 13:13,<br />
Lk21:12, 17, Jn15:21, and Acts 9:16)?<br />
Reply: "Name" also has the meaning of authority. God *gave* Jesus authority. If Jesus was really<br />
almighty God, why would he need to be given anything.<br />
Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of NAME/ONOMA, "for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure,<br />
command, excellences, deeds etc"<br />
Christians are persecuted for recognizing his authority. Interestingly, the New Living Translation renders<br />
Matthew 24:9 as "You will be hated all over the world because of your allegiance to me."<br />
14. If the spirit of a man has no existence apart from the body, why does Stephen just before his death in<br />
Acts 7:59, pray to Jesus to "receive my spirit"? How could Jesus receive Stephen's spirit if a man's spirit<br />
ceases to exist when the body dies?<br />
Reply: Because, the primary meaning of SPIRIT is:<br />
"Spirit is the principle of life and vital activity. The spirit is the breath of life (Gn 6:17; 7:15,<br />
22; BS 38:23; WS 15:11, 16; 16:14). Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> by John L. McKenzie, S.J.<br />
Spirit: "<br />
primarily denotes "the wind" (akin to pneo, "to breathe, blow"); also "breath;" then,<br />
especially "the spirit," which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful. The NT<br />
uses of the word may be analyzed approximately as follows:<br />
"(a) the wind, John 3:8 (where marg. is, perhaps, to be preferred); Heb. 1:7; cp. Amos 4:13,<br />
Sept.; (b) the breath, 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 11:11; 13:15; cp. Job 12:10, Sept.; " Vine's<br />
Expository Dictionary<br />
So what did Stephen mean? Let us look at Psalm 146:4 in 2 different versions:<br />
"His spirit goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, In that day have his thoughts perished." Young's Literal<br />
<strong>Bible</strong><br />
"When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish." NRSV<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> even associates the word SPIRIT/RUACH with "nostrils." (Gen 7:22; Job 27:3) For more on<br />
SPIRIT, click here.<br />
15. The <strong>Bible</strong> says that ONLY God is our savior (Hos 13:4, Isa 43:11, 45:21, etc.). How can it be then, that<br />
the <strong>Bible</strong> repeatedly says that Jesus Christ is our savior (Lk2:11, Phil 3:20, Tit 2:13, 3:6, 2 Pet 1:1, 2:20,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (11 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
3:18, etc)?<br />
Reply: For the same reason Jehovah raised up saviours in the past:<br />
"And when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised up a saviour to the children of<br />
Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother." Judges 3:9, 15 ASV<br />
"Jehovah raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera" Judges 3:15<br />
"Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their adversaries, who distressed them: and in the time<br />
of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest from heaven; and according to thy manifold<br />
mercies thou gavest them saviours who saved them out of the hand of their adversaries." Neh 9:27<br />
Why, the very name "Jesus" points to God as the source of salvation. It means "Jehovah Is Salvation"<br />
and thus honors the Father as the Saviour to whom even the Son looked.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> as a whole thus makes it clear that there is but one Saviour, Jehovah God. All others who have<br />
rightly been called saviours, including Jesus Christ, are not rival saviours. Rather, they were willing to be<br />
used by Jehovah God in this capacity. Hence, those desiring to gain divine approval must acknowledge<br />
that salvation proceeds from the Father through his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.<br />
"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who would have all men to be saved, and<br />
come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men,<br />
himself man, Christ Jesus" 1Tim 2:3-5 ASV<br />
16. Why does the WT break the Granville-Sharp rule of the Greek grammar for Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1,<br />
"...of God and our Savior, Jesus Christ", which show Jesus Christ and God to be one and the same person?<br />
Yet they always get the rule right where the Diety of Christ is not an issue (such as in 2 Peter 1:11, 2:20,<br />
3:2, 3:18, 1 Peter 1:3, and Eph 1:3)?<br />
Reply: Why don't other <strong>Bible</strong> versions like the New American <strong>Bible</strong>, Moffatt, ASV, Concordant,<br />
Rotherham, Schonfield, Jewish NT, Lamsa, Webster, HNV, Lattimore, Newcome, the margins of many<br />
other <strong>Bible</strong>s also apply this "rule" consistently?<br />
Because the rule does not apply where proper names/nouns are used, as in Matthew 17:1, "Jesus taketh<br />
with him Peter, and James, and John." If we were to apply the rule strictly, then Peter, James and John<br />
would be the same person. So there are exceptions to this rule, and this should apply in a way that is most<br />
often used. In at least 10 other instances though, God and Jesus are described as different<br />
individuals.(2Peter 1:2; 1Timothy 1:1,2; 2:5; 6:13; 2Timothy 1:1,2; 4:1; Titus 1:1; 3:6) Is is not better to<br />
explain things in a way that people understand, rather than relying on obscure "rules". After all, Paul and<br />
the other writers of the Greek scriptures did not view Jesus as God:<br />
"Apparently Paul did not call Jesus God" (Sydney Cave, D.D., Doctrine of the Person<br />
of Christ, p. 48).<br />
"Paul habitually differentiates Christ from God" (C.J. Cadoux, A Pilgrim’s Further<br />
Progress, pp. 40, 42).<br />
"Paul never equates Jesus with God" (W.R. Matthews, The Problem of Christ in the<br />
20th Century, Maurice Lectures, 1949, p. 22).<br />
"Paul never gives to Christ the name or description of ‘God’" (Dictionary of the<br />
Apostolic Church, Vol. 1, p. 194).<br />
"When the New Testament writers speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of Him nor<br />
do they think of Him as God" (J.M. Creed, The Divinity of Jesus Christ, pp. 122-123).<br />
"Karl Rahner [leading Roman Catholic spokesman] points out with so much emphasis<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (12 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
that the Son in the New Testament is never described as ‘ho theos’ [the one God]"<br />
(A.T. Hanson, Grace and Truth, p. 66).<br />
17. Why did J. Rutherford declare that heaven was closed for J.W.s and everyone else after 1935? How did<br />
he arrive at this date? Where in the <strong>Bible</strong> does it state 1935?<br />
Reply: I do not follow Rutherford, and neither do any other J.W.'s. Why have trinitarian Christians led<br />
some of the bloodiest and cruelest crimes against human history? How far do you want to play this<br />
game?<br />
From a reader:<br />
> This isn't answering the question at all, it's<br />
> ignoring it in the classic<br />
> sense, do you not take the teaching of the faithful<br />
> and discrete slave as<br />
> the tool that God uses to disseminate bible<br />
> knowledge? Who wrote or<br />
> influenced all the articles written during<br />
> rutherfords time? Rutherford<br />
> himself, just as Russell before him and Franz after.<br />
Webmaster Reply: The problem is, heaven was not closed in 1935, and it still isn't. It is a strawman<br />
argument. On another note, the year 1948 is pivotal in the undertanding of prophecy amongst nominal<br />
Christians, yet you will not find this year in the <strong>Bible</strong>. Again, How far do you want to play this game?<br />
18. What did the Watchtower predict would happen in 1873, 1874, 1878, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925,<br />
1931, 1941, and 1975? Why did these prophecies not happen?<br />
Reply: Why did Protestants, Catholics, Pentescostals etc also speculate about the end throughout their<br />
history. Why did these prophecies not happen? Click here for more.<br />
19. Why does the Watchtower ignore the following verses in saying that we don't go to heaven? Col 1:5,<br />
Heb 10:34, 1 Pet 1:4, Rev 19:1, Mt 6:20, Jn 12:26, 14:3, Heb 3:1, 2 Cor 5:1, etc.<br />
Reply: And why do you ignore John 3:13, Acts 2:34, Psalm 37:9, 11, 22, 27, 29, 34; Isaiah 45:18,<br />
Jeremiah 27:5, Matthew 5:5, Proverbs 2:21, Psalm 115:16 (cf. Isaiah 66:22), John 10:16, Luke 2:32 (cf.<br />
Revelation 5:10, as in:if the ones are in heaven are to rule over the earth, then there must be persons on<br />
earth), Genesis 1:28 (cf. Isaiah 55:11).<br />
"But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a **new earth**, wherein dwelleth<br />
righteousness." 2Peter 3:13 ASV<br />
Early Church Father Methodius in The _Symposium/LOGOS 7.3, Methodius applies the Scripture in 1<br />
Cor 15:40-41 to the rewards that Christians will receive from God. However, he writes that "the Lord<br />
does not promise to give the same<br />
rewards to everyone." He continues in LOGOS 7.3 of the *Symposium*:<br />
"Some He says will number in the kingdom of the heaven, others that they shall possess the<br />
land, others that they shall see the Father. So too in this case He reveals that the order and<br />
holy choir of virgins will be the first to follow in His train [in Ps 45] as it were into a bridal<br />
chamber, into the repose of the new ages."<br />
Methodius reveals that some Christians will go to heaven, others will possess the land (Ps 37:29) while<br />
yet others will see the God personally.<br />
20. If Jesus returned in 1914, why did the Watchtower teach that he returned in 1874, and maintained this<br />
1874 teaching up until 1940?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (13 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
Reply: Again, why have Protestants, Catholics, Pentescostals etc also done the same thing at other dates.<br />
Click here for more.<br />
21. In John 14:14, why did the Watchtower omit the word "me" in "If you ask me anything"... in the New<br />
<strong>World</strong> Translation, especially since the Kingdom Interlinear has the word "me". see Gr-Engl. It should<br />
therefore read "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it". Why the change?<br />
Reply: John 14:14 is rendered that way probably because of the same reason it is in the Darby version,<br />
Williams NT, New English <strong>Bible</strong>, King James Version, Revised Standard Version, Emphatic Diaglott,<br />
American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, 20th Century NT, Living <strong>Bible</strong>, Unvarnished<br />
NT, Modern Language <strong>Bible</strong>, Young's Literal Version, Contemporary English Version, Lattimore,<br />
Moffatt, Montgomery NT, New King James, Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> etc.<br />
The word "ME" is also omitted from ancient manuscripts like A, D, K, L, Codex Petropolitanus, Codex<br />
Athous Laurae and the Byzantine manuscripts amongst others. Why is this? Because the book of John<br />
clearly says that this phrase is a referent to the Father (John 15:16; 16:23). Remember, according to<br />
trinitarian theology, Jesus is NOT the Father.<br />
Looking at the above list of <strong>Bible</strong> versions leads to another question...why can't you people agree on<br />
anything?<br />
"That evangelicals, all claiming a biblical norm, are reaching contradictory theological formulations on<br />
many of the major issues they are addressing suggests the problematic nature of their present<br />
understanding of theological interpretation. To argue that the <strong>Bible</strong> is authoritative, but to be unable to<br />
come to anything like agreement on what it says (even with those who share an evangelical commitment)<br />
is self-defeating. " EXEGETICAL FALLACIES by D. A. Carson p.18<br />
22. Considering that the Watchtower not too long ago banned vaccinations and organ transplants and as a<br />
result, many Witnesses died needlessly, would you really let your baby die from lack of a blood<br />
transfusion? Especially since they allow Witnesses in some countries to now get blood tranfusions, but not<br />
in most countries.<br />
Reply: Vaccinations at one time included animal blood, so in keeping with the biblical restrictions on<br />
blood (Acts 15:28, 29), we avoided them. Now, name me just one JW who died of refusing a<br />
vaccination, and if you do, then contrast those who actually died taking tainted vaccinations.<br />
How many people actually die because of refusing blood tranfusions anyways? I will give 2 scenarios:<br />
Man gets into a serious car accident. The hospital says he need blood. He refuses, instead he opts for a<br />
safer alternative, like Ringers Solution etc. The hospital either administers the alternative or refuses. The<br />
man dies. The cause of death is reported as "Refusal of Blood Transfusion."<br />
Second scenario: Man gets into a serious car accident. The hospital says he need blood. The man accepts,<br />
but dies anyways. The cause of death is reported as "Car Accident," when in reality, both people died of<br />
the same thing. Consider what some medical experts have to say:<br />
Here is a quote from Dr. Laura's program:<br />
Subject: Non-Blood Transfusions<br />
Date: 1999-03-04<br />
RE: Your Caller Concerned About Father's Refusal of Blood<br />
Transfusion<br />
"I'm a long-time listener, fan, supporter and defender of all<br />
that you teach, preach (& nag). Today a man called you and voiced<br />
concern over his father, a JW who is facing surgery and will refuse a blood<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (14 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
transfusion. After some personal chat with the man, you said you<br />
understood his feelings: he'd lost his wife and now stood to lose his father.<br />
The assumption his father was as good as dead without blood transfusion is a<br />
common one, but there's almost no truth to that anymore. At our hospitals, we have a<br />
Transfusion-Free Medicine & Surgery Program and the results are phenomenal. Outcomes<br />
are better and the hospital stays are shorter. We've eliminated the risks associated with blood<br />
transfusions (and there are many, ranging from the best known, AIDS, to Hepatitis C and<br />
other infections and complications).<br />
Our Palm Springs-area hospitals, part of the Tenet Healthcare Corp., are part of a<br />
network of Southern California facilities with this program. Included among them are our<br />
prestigious USC University Hospital and the USC/Norris Cancer Hospital. Hospitals and<br />
doctors all over the country are climbing aboard this bandwagon; I could introduce you to<br />
surgeons who haven't transfused blood in years.<br />
We're doing open heart, cancer, neuro, ortho (including total hip and knee<br />
replacement) neonatal and pediatric, gynecological and urological, transplant, and vascular<br />
surgeries successfully without blood transfusions. Much of this is due to advances in<br />
equipment and technology, and credit also goes to the JW population for their stand on<br />
blood which brought about these changes. Today, about 25% of tranfusion-free procedures<br />
are on people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, but who choose the option for health or<br />
personal reasons.<br />
This is emerging medicine. Your caller would have benefited from this<br />
knowledge (his father probably already knows about it). The day may<br />
come when blood transfusions are a thing of the past.<br />
So, let's put this canard to rest."<br />
Tom Wixon<br />
Manager, Marketing & Public Relations<br />
Desert Regional Medical Center<br />
John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital<br />
Phone: (760) 323-6690<br />
Fax: (760) 323-6580<br />
Or Call:<br />
Bradford Ray<br />
Transfusion Free Medical & Surgery Coordinator<br />
Desert Regional Medical Center<br />
John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital<br />
Phone: (760) 323-6311<br />
God also had the people circumsized in the <strong>Bible</strong>, yet babies die every year due to this procedure.<br />
Also, Witnesses "in some countries" are not getting blood transfusions, despite the erroneous reporting to<br />
the contrary.<br />
23. In Romans 10:13, why does the Watchtower translate it as "name of Jehovah", when every Greek<br />
manuscript translates it as "Lord", and the Watchtower prior to 1978 also translated it as "Lord"?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (15 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
Reply: Every Greek manuscript does not translate it as Lord, it is in there as KYRIOS, and it is<br />
untranslated. In fact, you will find that there is a wide discrepancy between most translations and<br />
versions as to the number of times KYRIOS is translated as "Lord". It is widely known among textual<br />
critics that the later Byzantine manuscripts embellished titles like "Lord" and inserted them more into the<br />
actual text. This was done by Trinitarian scribes. Question: Why do most Catholic and Protestant<br />
versions omit the divine name in the OT, especially when every Hebrew manuscript has it in there over<br />
6000 times? Is it because of a profit motive? Click here for more.<br />
24. Since the anointed believers as an organization are claimed to be God's collective "faithful and discreet<br />
slave" that alone guides people in their understanding of Scripture, and since this organization did not come<br />
into existence until the late-nineteenth century, does this mean God had no true representatives on earth for<br />
many, many centuries? If so, who were they?<br />
Reply: Despite the incorrect wording that you use, we see it as not different as with most Protestants.<br />
Many Protestants have a dislike for Catholics, but the Church for over 1000 years was Catholic. Does<br />
this mean that did not have representatives for this period of time? We do believe that there were<br />
honest-hearted people in history who were searching for the truth apart from the holy Roman Church,<br />
like the Waldenses, Albigenses etc.<br />
25. Where does the <strong>Bible</strong> teach that after a prophecy fails, if the prophet admits he made a mistake, he is no<br />
longer a false prophet?<br />
Reply: Does this apply to Catholics, Protestants and Pentecostals too See 1975.htm<br />
We do have biblical examples of the same. Perhaps the most well known of failed prophetic views in the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> is found at Acts 1:6, 7. Here Jesus was questioned by his disciples, "..Lord, are you at this time<br />
going to restore the Kingdom to Israel? He said to them: 'It is not for you to know the time or dates the<br />
Father has set by his own authority..." (New International Version) This question indicated their<br />
prophetic view of what they expected Jesus to do at his first advent. This was shown also in Luke 24:21.<br />
In this passage, two of Jesus' disciples traveling on a road to a village called Emmaus were joined by the<br />
resurrected Christ who was not recognized by them. Discussing what had been their expectations<br />
regarding Christ, they said, "But we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel."<br />
This prophetic view held by the Apostles was in error. Yet would we call them false prophets? No! Like<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses, and many others, they at the time exegeted incorrectly what the <strong>Bible</strong> originally<br />
said about these prophecies.<br />
26. Since the Organization has received new light regarding the 1914 generation, and completely changed<br />
their view on this, does this mean that all former Jehovah's Witnesses who were disfellowshipped years ago<br />
for the same view the organization is now teaching will automatically be accepted into fellowship again?<br />
Were these ex-JWs in fact disfellowshipped for truth and knew things that the governing body did not?<br />
Reply: This is a fantasy of JW-Haters. Disfellowshipping occurs not because of differences of opinion,<br />
but of rebellion and a lack of humility. “REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG<br />
YOURSELVES.” 1 Cor 5:13 NASB (emphasis theirs)<br />
We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises, the Scriptural<br />
basis for which is already in the hands of our readers in the six volumes of<br />
SCRIPTURE STUDIES. We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our<br />
interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely<br />
laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt<br />
in respect to them. -- "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion's Watch Tower and<br />
Herald of Christ's Presence, 1 January 1908, reprint, 4110.<br />
27. If the Watchtower organization rejects others calling them inspired yet the Watchtower organization<br />
does call themselves God's Spirit-directed Prophet what is the difference? Is there such a thing as an<br />
uninspired prophet?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (16 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
Reply: For one thing, where does it say that they are "God's Spirit-directed Prophet?" They do they say<br />
they are "God's Spirit-directed organization." Is this a stretch? As far the spirit goes, there is nothing<br />
here that Trinitarians haven't said before. Most people feel their Church organization is Spirit-directed,<br />
and this is borne out in the <strong>Bible</strong>:<br />
Scofield, "the Church, which is Christ's body, formed by the baptism<br />
with the Holy Spirit." [ftn at Eph 3] cf. Eph 1:13; 2:22; 3:5, 19;<br />
1Pet 2:5; 1 Cor. 2:10; John 14:26,Matt. 18:20.<br />
Harper <strong>Bible</strong> Commentary, "The Spirit is the Church.<br />
What of the ANF:<br />
"It is said, 'In the church, God has set apostles, prophets,<br />
teachers," and all the other means through which the SPIRIT works.<br />
Those who do not join themselves to the church are not partakers of<br />
these things. Rather, they defraud themselves of life through their<br />
perverse opinions and infamous behavior. For where the church is,<br />
there is the SPIRIT of God. And where the SPIRIT of God is, there is<br />
the church, and every kind of grace." Irenaeus (c.180, E/W), 1.458.<br />
"Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a<br />
par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our<br />
teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations<br />
of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still<br />
urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the<br />
light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what<br />
they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to<br />
enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that<br />
we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon<br />
which to build." -- "Worship the Lord in the Beauty of Holiness," No. 2,<br />
Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 December 1896,<br />
reprint, 2080.<br />
28. If the organization did not actually prophecy the end in 1925 and 1975, then how come so many<br />
Witnesses left the faith immediately afterwards? (The Watchtower lost about three-quarters of the<br />
organization between 1925 and 1928, then suffered huge losses after 1975, when the end did not come as<br />
they implied over and over again.<br />
Reply: Because, like God-fearing Catholics and Protestant men throughout history, throught their zeal,<br />
they placed an improper stress on the wrong things.<br />
"Nevertheless, we are far from claiming any direct plenary inspiration. . . .<br />
A careful examination of the subject leads us to the conclusion that the Lord<br />
providentially shapes our course so as to give us such personal experiences<br />
in life as will bring us to his word for comfort and instruction in<br />
righteousness; and thus he permits us to sympathize with the experiences and<br />
questionings of his people, and then present to them at appropriate times the<br />
lessons drawn from our own experiences, backed by the instructions and<br />
comfort of the Scriptures." -- "Interesting Letters," Zion's Watch Tower and<br />
Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 July 1899, reprint, 2506.<br />
Now, why have members and clergy of mainstream churches left in droves? Why are there homosexual<br />
priests and ministers? Why is there a problem with AIDS amongst the Catholic priests? Why do<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (17 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
Protestants and Catholics kill each other in Northern Ireland?<br />
29. How do you know that there were any vacancies, if any, in the 144,000 class if Jesus offered this to first<br />
century Christians? How can the organization know the exact number of vacancies today without any<br />
records from the first century?<br />
Reply: How do I know if nominal Christianity teaches the truth if it is run rampant with gross ignorance<br />
of the <strong>Bible</strong> and what it teaches. How can mainstream Christianity be right if they will willingly kill their<br />
own spiritual brothers in war. Why is pedophilia a major problem for certain mainstream Christian<br />
faiths? Matthew 7:16, 17, "By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of<br />
thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."<br />
30. Why are the members called Jehovah's Witnesses, and not Christians? Since Jehovah's Witnesses appeal<br />
to Isa. 43:12 and 44:8 for scriptural support that they should be called Jehovah's Witnesses, then what was<br />
the "new name" prophesied in Isa 62:2? It can't be Jehovah's Witnesses, for God already used it 20 chapters<br />
earlier. Could the new name be "Christian" after our savior Christ?<br />
Reply: Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, however, since Christendom has tarnished the name<br />
"Christian," with its endless wars, and downright pure evil in the name of Christ, then you can see some<br />
hesitancy.<br />
The NRSV Harper Collins Study <strong>Bible</strong> gives this explanation of Is 62:2, "A new name implies a change<br />
in status (1.26)." What does 1:26 say? "And I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors<br />
as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city." NRSV (see<br />
also Oxford Annotated <strong>Bible</strong> RSV)<br />
31. Why would the name God gave to His people not be "Christians" since Acts 11:26 says "The disciples<br />
were first called Christians in Antioch"? Why is the name "Jehovah's Witness" found nowhere in the New<br />
Testament, if that is God's divine name for his people under the new covenant? Why would God wait<br />
almost 2000 years to suddenly start using the name "Jehovah's Witness".<br />
Reply: "The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the<br />
surrogates KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord<br />
Christ, and in many passages made it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the Tetragrammaton was<br />
removed and replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure whether "lord" meant God or Christ.<br />
As time went on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to<br />
distinguish between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed<br />
significantly to the later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early<br />
Christian centuries." George Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978),<br />
15<br />
The NT writers had use of the LXX (Septuagint). Did the early LXX use the divine name?<br />
"We know that the the Greek <strong>Bible</strong> text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for<br />
Jews did not translate the Divine Name by Kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with<br />
Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the<br />
Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not<br />
understood anymore". (Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p.222)<br />
When did they remove the name? In a commentary on the manuscript P Fouad 266, Professor G. D.<br />
Kilpatrick, on talking about the period between 70-135 C.E. said that 3 important changes were made in<br />
this period. The change from scroll to Codex, the Tetragrammaton was replaced by KYRIOS and<br />
abbreviations were introduced for divine names. See Etudes de Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme 1971 pp.<br />
221,222<br />
The Trinity, the removal of the Divine Name, the conciliar decisions and the controversies surrounding it<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (18 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:31 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
blurred the lines between Father and Son<br />
"The strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was<br />
they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be "updated" by blurring or even obliterating<br />
the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son." When Jesus Became God by<br />
Richard E. Rubenstein, p.74<br />
A. Marmorstein in the book The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God deals extensively with the Hellenizing of<br />
the early Jews, and that is the major reason they stopped pronouncing it.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> never tells us to stop using it though. In fact, just the opposite.<br />
Ex. 3:15: "And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt<br />
thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers,<br />
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent<br />
me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all<br />
generations."<br />
Ps 135:13 "Thy name, O Jehovah, [endureth] for ever;<br />
Thy memorial [name], O Jehovah, throughout all generations."<br />
Mal 3:6 "For I, Jehovah, change not"<br />
In fact, Jehovah jealously guarded his name."And ye shall<br />
not profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of<br />
Israel" Lev 22:32<br />
We know that Jesus made mention of this name at John 5:43, 10:25, 17:6, 11, 12 and Matt 6:9<br />
"Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name."<br />
Acts 15:14 ASV<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> was never divided up by God into the New Testament and the Old Testament. That was done<br />
by others with an anti-semitic slant to their theology. "The whole <strong>Bible</strong> was given to us by inspiration<br />
from God" 2Tim 3:16 Living <strong>Bible</strong><br />
32. If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why is it never used in the entire Greek New Testament? If<br />
men edited out the name of God "YHWH" when they copied the New Testament, as only the Watchtower<br />
organization claims, then how can we have any confidence in any of the New Testament? Should we<br />
discard the New Testament or the Watchtower as unreliable?<br />
Reply: Again, see above. There are many more besides Jehovah's Witnesses that make this claim. For<br />
more click here and here. Since the God of nominal Christianity is the Trinity, and it is not mentioned at<br />
all in the entire <strong>Bible</strong>, then I think it is fair to say that we should should not believe in a fantasy, but<br />
strive for the truth.<br />
33. If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say, "There is salvation in no one else;<br />
for their is no other name [v,10 Jesus Christ] under heaven that has been given among men, by which we<br />
must be saved"? Would this not have been a logical place for god to have used the name "YHWH"?<br />
Reply: " Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every<br />
name" Phil 2:9<br />
Why would almighty God need to be given anything? How many times in the name Jehovah (YHWH) in<br />
the <strong>Bible</strong>? 6828 times. How many times is the name Jesus in the <strong>Bible</strong>? It is in the NIV 1226 times, the<br />
KJV 943 times, the NASB 881 times and the NRSV 1088 times? What does the name Jesus mean?<br />
34. Since the Jehovah's Witness organization currently rejects most of the teachings of its founder Charles<br />
Taze Russell , and since they also reject many of Joseph Rutherford's teachings, how can one be sure that in<br />
25 years from now, Jehovah's Witnesses won't also reject the current president, Milton Henschel, as they<br />
did Russell and Rutherford?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (19 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:32 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
Reply: We only reject certain teachings of others, but we still embrace the majority. It is important to<br />
progress with new light on certain topics with time. " But the path of the righteous is as the dawning<br />
light, That shineth more and more unto the perfect day." Prov 15:14 ASV<br />
When some of the first Christians came to the New <strong>World</strong> on the Speedwell (joining the Mayflower),<br />
they were given this memorable charge:<br />
"If God reveals anything to you by any other instrument of His, be ready to recieve it as you<br />
were to recieve any truth by my ministry, for I am verily persuaded that the Lord hath more<br />
truth yet to break forth out of His holy Word. For my part, I cannot sufficiently bewail the<br />
condition of those reformed Churches which are come to a period in religion, and will go, at<br />
present, no further than the instruments of their reformation. The Lutherans cannot be drawn<br />
to go beyond what Luther saw; whatever part of His will our God has revealed in Calvin,<br />
they will rather die than embrace it; and the Calvinists, you see, stick fast where they were<br />
left by that great man of God, who saw yet not all things. This is a mystery much to be<br />
lamented, for thought they were burning and shining lights in their times, yet they<br />
penetrated not into the whole counsel of God; but were they now living, would be as willing<br />
to embrace further light as that which they first recieved, for it is not possible the Christian<br />
world should come so lately out of such thick anti-Christian and that perfection of<br />
knowledge should break forth at once."<br />
John <strong>Robinson</strong>, 1620 A.D. as quoted in the Pilgrim Church, by E.H. Broadbent, p.257<br />
Origen adds:<br />
"For however far one may advance in the search and make progress through an increasingly<br />
earnest study, even when aided and enlightened by God's grace, he will never be able to<br />
reach the final goal of his inquiries."<br />
From Peri Archon 4.3.14, as cited in _The <strong>Bible</strong> in Greek Christian Antiquity_ (Edited and Translated by<br />
Paul M. Blowers),<br />
page 144:<br />
35. Since the Watchtower claims "apostolic succession", who was it that passed "the torch of God's Spirit"<br />
to Charles Russell when he founded the organization? What was the name of this individual?<br />
Reply: Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim "apostolic succession." In fact, you will even find them quoting<br />
Jesuit John McKenzie, who wrote: "Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession<br />
of church authority."-The Roman Catholic Church (New York, 1969), p. 4.<br />
36. Col 1:16, in talking about Jesus, says that "...All [other] things have been created through him and FOR<br />
HIM". If Jesus was Michael the Archangel at the time of creation, would an angel have created all things<br />
for himself? Isa 43:7 says God created "everyone...for my OWN glory.."<br />
Reply: I think the context will clear all this up: Isa 43:7 says, "every one that is called by my name, and<br />
whom I have created for my glory, whom I have formed, yea, whom I have made." ASV What does that<br />
mean? The MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong> NKJV says, "The faithful remnant of Israel will bear the Lord's name<br />
and exist for one primary purpose: to glorify him (44:23). 44:23 says, "For the LORD has...glorified<br />
himself in Israel." NKJV<br />
Israel shares in God's glory. Jesus recieves his glory from God, "For he received from God the Father<br />
honor and glory." 2Peter 1:17<br />
We get to share in that glory, "And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they<br />
may be one, even as we are one." Jn 17:22<br />
So Jesus and his followers are part of God's glory.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (20 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:32 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
The preceeding verse in Col 15 says of Jesus, " is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all<br />
creation." ASV So God is invisible, and Jesus is the first created being. Hardly a prerequisite for an<br />
almighty creator.<br />
37. If the soul is the body, why does Jesus make a distinction between the body and the soul in Mt 10:28.<br />
Reply: Who says the soul is the body? We teach that the soul is the "animated" body, i.e, LIFE<br />
D.R.G. Owen, "Body and Soul in the New Testament," In Readings and Christian Theology, ed. M.J.<br />
Erickson (Baker Book House, 1967), 86: "In Hebrew thought, as we have seen, the word translated 'Soul'<br />
regularly stands simply for the personal pronoun and means the self, and the phrase 'body and<br />
soul'...stands for the Hebrew idea that man is an 'animated body' and not for the Greek view that he is an<br />
'incarnated soul.' "<br />
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (edited by C. Brown, 1978, Vol. 3, p.<br />
304) states: "Matt. 10:28 teaches not the potential immortality of the soul but the irreversibility of divine<br />
judgment on the unrepentant."<br />
For more click here.<br />
38. The Watchtower teaches that the 144,000 of Rev 7:4 is to be taken literally. If so, where then does the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> say that the 144,000 will come from?<br />
Reply: "the hundred and forty and four thousand,...that had been purchased out of the earth." Revelation<br />
14:3 <strong>Bible</strong> scholar E. W. Bullinger says of the 144,000 in Rev 7: "It is the simple statement of fact: a<br />
definite number in contrast with the indefinite number in this very chapter." (see v. 9)<br />
39. The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as "...the Word was WITH God, and the Word was a god". How can the<br />
Word (Jesus) be "a god" if God says in Deut 32:39, "See now that I, I am he, and there are NO gods<br />
together WITH me"?<br />
Reply: For the same reason Moses can be a god (Ex 4:16; 7:1), Angels can be gods (Ps. 8:5; 97:7,<br />
138:1), Judges can be gods (Ps 82/John 10:34) and King Solomon can be a God (Ps 45:6 KJV, NIV,<br />
NASB etc).<br />
"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred<br />
an honourable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His<br />
Son] is far more worthy of this honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John<br />
10:34] is in Psalm lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the<br />
Most High; where God expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically<br />
abuse the authority and power for their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for<br />
every evil action ... Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of<br />
gods, be- cause they are God's ministers for governing the world. For the same reason<br />
Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world<br />
... In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them<br />
authority."-John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 419, 20.<br />
So what kind of *god* is meant at Deut 32:39? The same one that is mentioned at v.12, "Jehovah alone<br />
did lead him, And there was no foreign god with him." ASV<br />
This leads to another question: Why do JW-haters "expose" the errors in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation, but<br />
at the same time, they use this same <strong>Bible</strong> in support of their own point. I guess it is not that bad after all,<br />
is it?<br />
40. Jesus Christ is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 9:6 "For there has a child born to us, there has been a<br />
son given to us...And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God...". Jehovah is referred to<br />
as "Mighty God" in Isa 10:20-21. How can this be if there is only one God (1 Cor 8:4, Isa 43:10, 44:6)?<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (21 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:32 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
Reply: 1 Cor 8:6 says "there is only one God, the Father," which pretty much excludes the Son, Jesus.<br />
The context of Isaiah 4x deals with the pagan gods of the nations, and as we have seen above, others can<br />
be called God. It is interesting how other versions made by trinitarians have handled this verse at Isaiah<br />
9:6:<br />
"Wonder-Counsellor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace." Byington<br />
"A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince." Moffatt<br />
"in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like...." New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father...."Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Interestingly, this verse has not been understood by all trinitarians as<br />
a reference to Christ at all, but, rather, to King Hezekiah, the son of<br />
Ahaz; or to Hezekiah initially and Christ finally. Note what some<br />
trinitarians from former years have said regarding this account:<br />
"Hezekiah, who was very unlike his father Ahaz. This passage<br />
is acknowledged, not only by Christians, but by the Chaldee<br />
interpreter, to relate in the same manner, but in a more<br />
excellent sense, to the Messiah––(Annotationes ad vetus et<br />
Novum Testamentum, by Hugo Grotius, a Dutch Arminian,<br />
1583-1645).<br />
"In several places of his Expositions and Sermons, he [LUTHER]<br />
maintains that the epithets belong, not to the person of<br />
Christ, but to his work and office. He understands [ale;<br />
Strongs 410] in the sense of power or ability, citing for his<br />
authority Deut. Xxviii. 32, where, as in about four other<br />
places, the expression occurs of an action's being or not<br />
being "in the power of the hand,"––(Scripture Testimony to the<br />
Messiah, Third ed. Lond. 1837, 3 vol., by Dr. J.P. Smith [it<br />
should fairly be noted that Dr. Smith disapproves of Luther's<br />
rendering])<br />
"The word la [ale] here used is applicable, not only to God,<br />
but to angels and men worthy of admiration. Whence it does<br />
not appear, that the Deity of Christ can be effectually<br />
gathered from this passage."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, SASBOUT<br />
[as quoted in Concession, by Wilson])<br />
"The words of Isaiah, Deus fortis, "strong God," have been<br />
differently interpreted. It is evident, that the term God is<br />
in Hebrew applied figuratively to those who excel – to angels,<br />
heroes, and magistrates; and some render it here, not God, but<br />
brave or hero."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, Esromus Rudingerus [as<br />
quoted in Concessions, by Wilson])<br />
"It is evident that la [ale] properly denotes strong,<br />
powerful, and is used in Ezek. Xxxi. 11, of king<br />
Nebuchadnezzar, who is called... "the mighty one of the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (22 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:32 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
heathen."––(Scholia in Vetus Testamentum. Lips. 1828-36, 6<br />
vol, E.F.C. Rosenmuller [Prof. of the Arabic Language at<br />
Leipzig; d. 1836])<br />
41. The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" (estin) as "is" in almost every instance in the New Testament<br />
(Mt26:18,38, Mk14:44, Lk22:38, etc.). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate this<br />
Greek word as "means" in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the<br />
translation of the word "esti"? If the NWT was consistent and translated the Greek word "esti" as "is" in<br />
these verses, what would these verses say?<br />
Reply: Actually, the Greek word ESTIN occurs almost 1000 times in the NT, and it is rendered as<br />
"means" about 49% of the time in the NWT, not just in the few isolated cases as mentioned above.<br />
"Means" falls within the allowable lexical range of meaning for this word, as is evident in Matthew 1:23<br />
in most versions.<br />
"The broken bread is a symbol of Christ's body." NASB Zondervan Study <strong>Bible</strong>, 1Cor 1:24 ftn.<br />
42. In John 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy". This translates<br />
literally as "the Lord of me and THE God of me". Why does Jesus, in Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for having<br />
come to this realization? If Jesus really wasn't the Lord and THE God of Thomas, why didn't Jesus correct<br />
him for making either a false assumption or a blasphemous statement?<br />
Reply: Some have taken Thomas's exclamation as directed towards the Father, hence you have, "My<br />
Master, and my God" as in the 20th Century NT.<br />
Winer , as does Beza, thinks it is simply an exclamation, not an address. (see G.B. Winer, A Grammar of<br />
the Idiom of the New Testament, 1872, p. 183<br />
Brown reads it as "my divine one" The Gospel According to John, 1966<br />
Fortna finds a problem with the high Christology of v.28 and the more primitive messianism of v.31. (see<br />
The Gospel of Signs, 1970, pp. 197, 198<br />
Burkitt paraphrases it as "It is Jesus himself, and now I recognize him as divine."<br />
While I may not agree with Harris on everything, he does say, "Although in customary Johannine and<br />
NT usage (O) QEOS refers to the father, it is impossible that Thomas and John would be personally<br />
equating Jesus with the Father, for in the immediate historical and literary context Jesus himself has<br />
explicitly distinguished himself from God his Father." p. 124<br />
John Martin Creed, as Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, observed: "The adoring<br />
exclamation of St. Thomas 'my Lord and my God' (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to<br />
Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ<br />
himself to Mary Magdalene (v. Joh 20:17): 'Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my<br />
Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'"<br />
The translator Hugh J. Schonfield doubts that Thomas said: "My Lord and my God!" And so in a<br />
footnote 6 on John 20:28 Schonfield says: "The author may have put this expression into the mouth of<br />
Thomas in response to the fact that the Emperor Domitian had insisted on having himself addressed as<br />
'Our Lord and God', Suetonius' Domitian xiii."—See The Authentic New Testament, page 503.<br />
AS Margret Davies says in her book RHETORIC AND REFERENCE IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL,<br />
125-126,<br />
"Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words was hotly debated by early church<br />
theologians who wanted to use it in support of their own christological definitions. Those<br />
who understood "My Lord' to refer to Jesus, and 'my God' to refer to God[the Father], were<br />
suspected of heresy in the 5th cent CE. Many modern commentators have also rejected that<br />
interpretation and instead they understand the confession as an assertion that Jesus is both<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (23 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:32 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
Lord and God. In doing so they are forced to interpret 'God' as a reference to LOGOS. But it<br />
is perfectly for Thomas to respond to Jesus' ressurection with a confession of faith both in<br />
Jesus as lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the confession in this way<br />
actually makes much better sense in the context of the 4th gospel. In 14:1 beleif in both God<br />
and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which Thomas is particularly singled out.... If we<br />
understand Thomas's confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20:31<br />
becomes an anti-climax."<br />
Does Jn 20:28 say what trinitarians think it says? No. There is nothing there that talks of Jesus as being<br />
God the Son, the second person of a consubstantial Trinity.<br />
"For any Jew or Greek in the first century A.D. who was acquainted with the OT in Greek,<br />
the term QEOS would have seemed rich in content since it signified the Deity, the Creator<br />
of heaven and earth, and also could render the ineffable sacred name, Yahweh, the<br />
covenantal God, and yet was able of extremely diverse application, ranging from the images<br />
of pagan deities to the One true God of Israel, from heroic people to angelic beings.<br />
Whether one examines the Jewish or the Gentile use of the term QEOS up to the end of the<br />
1st century A.D., there is an occasional application of the term to human beings who<br />
perform divine functions or display divine characteristics." Harris' Jesus as God, p.270<br />
Don Cupitt describes the relationship between God and Jesus as "something like that between King and<br />
ambassador, employer and omnicompetent secretary, or Sultan and Grand Vizier. Christ's is God's right<br />
hand man; all God does he does through Christ, and all approach to God is through Christ. All traffic,<br />
both ways, between God and the world is routed through Christ." The Debate about Christ, p. 30<br />
"The NT designation of Jesus as QEOS bears no relation to later Greek speculation about substance and<br />
natures." O. Cullman's Christology of the New Testament as quoted in Harris' Jesus as God, p.289.<br />
If Thomas was actually calling Jesus hO QEOS and hO KURIOS--it is strange that Thomas used the<br />
nominative forms of KURIOS and QEOS instead of the vocative. So it still seems that Theodore of<br />
Mopsuestia could have been correct. The Father may well be the referent in John 20:28.<br />
This brings us to Smart's Rule as discussed on B-Greek. The rule is stated as: "In native [not translation]<br />
KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects two substantives of personal description in regimen<br />
[i.e. both or neither have articles] and the first substantive alone is modified by the personal pronoun in<br />
the genitive or repeated for perspicuity [Winer 147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in<br />
view."<br />
Possessive pronoun repeated for perspicuity (21) - (Mt 12:47,49;<br />
Mk 3:31 ,32 ,33 ,34 ; 6:4 7:10 ; 8:20, 21 Lu 8:21 ; Jn 2:12;<br />
4:12; Ac 2:17; Ro 16:21 ; 1Th 3:11 ; 2Th 2:16 ; 1Ti 1:1;<br />
2Ti 1:5; Heb 8:11; Re 6:11) [Heb 1:7 is a LXX quote and is<br />
therefore translation Greek.]<br />
Single possessive - both substantives anarthrous (10) - (Mk 3:35;<br />
Ro 1:7; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Ga 1:3; Ep 1:2; Php 1:2; 2Th 1:1,2;<br />
Phil 1:3)<br />
Single possessive pronoun - both substantives arthrous (12) -<br />
(Mk 6:21; 10:7,19; 16:7; Lk 2:23; 14:26; 18:20; Jn 11:5; Eph 6:2;<br />
Ac 7:14; 10:24; Re 11:18)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (24 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:32 AM]
o<br />
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
43. If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, how could he: Be referred to as "he" and "him" in Jn<br />
16:7-8 and Jn 16:13-14; Bear witness-Jn 15:26; feel hurt- Isa 63:10; Be blasphemed against- Mk 3:29; Say<br />
things- Ezek 3:24, Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, 21:11, Heb 10:15-17, Rev 2:7, Desire- Gal 5:17; Be outraged-<br />
Heb 10:29; Search- 1 Cor2:10; Comfort- Acts 9:31; Be loved- Rom 15:30; Be lied to and be God- Acts<br />
5:3-4?<br />
Reply: Let's start with the last one. Is the spirit God in Acts 5:3-4? Let us see what it says:<br />
"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of<br />
the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in<br />
thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto<br />
God." ASV<br />
Do you notice that the last part is directed towards Peter when it says, "thou has not lied unto men?" See,<br />
they lied to Peter, who was "filled with holy spirit" Acts 4:8<br />
And when they lied to Peter, they lied to God. Later on, in the same chapter, we have a similar situation<br />
in vss 38 and 39 where these words were directed towards Peter and the disciples, "Refrain from these<br />
men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: but if it is of<br />
God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God."<br />
Peter and his men were not God, but representative standing in place of God, and when something is<br />
done against them, it is done against God. "Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own eye." Zech<br />
2:8 New Jewish Publication Society/ Tanakh That is why the Scofield Study <strong>Bible</strong> cross-references Acts<br />
5:4 to Scriptures like Numbers 16:11, 1Samuel 8:7 and 1 Thess 4:8 which says, " Therefore he that<br />
rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you." ASV<br />
Another interesting statement:<br />
"First, then, it is usual to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit on the ground, that the name<br />
of God seems to be attributed to the Spirit: Acts 5:3, 4, "why hath Satan filled thine heart to<br />
lie to the Holy Ghost?...thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." But if attention be paid<br />
to what has been stated respecting the Holy Ghost on the authority of the Son, this passage<br />
will appear too weak for the support of so great a doctrinal mystery. For since the Spirit is<br />
expressly said to be sent by the Father, and in the name of the Son, he who lies to the Spirit<br />
must lie to God, in the same sense as he who receives an apostle, receives God who sent<br />
him, Matt. 10:40, John 13:20. St. Paul himself removes all ground of controversy from this<br />
passage, and explains it most appositely by implication, 1 Thess. 4:8, where his intention is<br />
evidently to express the same truth more at large: "he therefore that despiseth, despiseth not<br />
man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit." Besides, it may be doubted<br />
whether the Holy Spirit in this passage does not signify God the Father; for Peter afterwards<br />
says, Acts 5:9, "How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?" that<br />
is, God the Father himself, and his divine intelligence, which no one can elude or deceive.<br />
And in Acts 5:32 the Holy Spirit is not called God, but a witness of Christ with the apostles,<br />
"whom God hath given to them that obey him." So also Acts 2:38, "ye shall receive the gift<br />
of the Holy Ghost," the gift, that is, of God. But how can the gift of God be himself God,<br />
much more the supreme God?"<br />
Of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit, by John Milton<br />
What of the rest though? The <strong>Bible</strong> employs terms that are descriptive, and often personifies the<br />
impersonal.<br />
Sheol/Hell has a mouth and can swallow people (Numbers 16:30), it has ropes (2 Samuel 22:6), and it<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (25 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:32 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
has soul (Isaiah 5:14).<br />
"Sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire" (Gen 4:7 KJV). Here SIN is given desire, it lies<br />
and it is referred to as "HIS."<br />
Blood cries out (Gen 4:10).<br />
Names can rot (Pr 10:7)<br />
Land can be punished for its sins (Lev 18:25)<br />
Land can vomit (Lev 18:25)<br />
A man of wisdom will see God's name (Mic 6:9)<br />
God's name is near (Ps 75:1)<br />
Wisdom cries...she has a voice (Prov 1:20)<br />
Wisdom speaks (Prov 1:21)<br />
Babylon is a whore (Rev 17:5)<br />
The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as "kings." (Ro 5:14, 17, 21;<br />
6:12) He writes of sin as "receiving an inducement," 'working out covetousness,' 'seducing,' and 'killing.'<br />
(Ro 7:8-11)<br />
For more on the spirit click here.<br />
44. What is the meaning of Rev 14:9-11, which says, "...If anyone worships the wild beast... he shall be<br />
tormented with fire and sulphur...And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever...". Where could<br />
"anyone" be tormented forever and ever"?<br />
Reply: It doesn't really say that though, does it? It is the figurative "smoke" that lasts forever, in other<br />
words, the lingering after-effects, the memory will last forever. Fire and Sulphur is used to extinguish<br />
something forever, to remove them completely. So when the <strong>Bible</strong> says, " And death and hell were cast<br />
into the lake of fire," we know that God will get rid of them forever. Rev 20:14 KJV<br />
45. Jn 1:3 says in reference to Christ, "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not<br />
even one thing came into existence". How could Christ have been a created being if ALL things came into<br />
existence through him? If Jesus was a created being, then according to Jn 1:3, Jesus would have had to<br />
create himself.<br />
Reply: In looking at the Greek word here for "apart from" CWRIS, Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of its<br />
occurence in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or co-operation) of one."<br />
In this way, the <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English handles it superbly, "Everything was made by his agency." Jn 1:3<br />
Even Origen acknowledged this, "And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of<br />
the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the<br />
ages, " showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when the<br />
ages were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage also, THROUGH<br />
[DIA] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who<br />
else could this but the Father?"<br />
Origen's Commentary on John, ANF 10, Book 2, chap. 6, p. 328<br />
46. If there are 144,000 spirit anointed people who have a heavenly hope,and a great crowd of people who<br />
have another hope of everlasting life onparadise earth, why does Paul say that there is only ONE hope (Eph<br />
4:4), instead of two?<br />
Reply: Eph 4:4 says "even as also ye were called in one hope **of your calling**"<br />
The entire scripture gives a different spin on this, because the "one hope" pertains to the one we are<br />
called for. Try this from another direction. The scripture right after this says that there is, "one Lord, one<br />
faith, one baptism," but 2Cor 4:13 says, "we have the same kind of faith as the psalmist had when he<br />
said, 'I believed in God, and so I speak.'" New Living Translation (cf. Ps 116:10)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (26 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:32 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
The psalmist was not baptized, the psalmist did not accept Jesus Christ as his saviour, in fact, the<br />
psalmist "David never ascended into heaven." Acts 2:34 NLT<br />
But we all worship the same God, all have the hope of life eternal.<br />
47. In Rev 14:13, how can the dead be "happy" and find "rest" if there is no conscious awareness after<br />
death?<br />
Reply: Actually, it is the <strong>Bible</strong> that tells us this "For the living at least know that they will die! But the<br />
dead know nothing; they don't even have their memories. Whatever they did in their lifetimes - loving,<br />
hating, envying - is long gone....Whatever you do, do well, for in death, where you are going, there is no<br />
working or planning or knowledge or understanding." Eccl 9:5, 10 Living <strong>Bible</strong> [Because Christendom<br />
has a problem with this, the footnote in this <strong>Bible</strong> says, "These statements are Solomon's discouraged<br />
opinion, and do not reflect a knowledge of God's truth on these points." What arrogance!]<br />
So what is a dynamic equivalent of the above scripture? "At last the time has come for his martyrs to<br />
enter his full reward." Living <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on" New Living<br />
"Happy are the dead who die in the faith of Christ!" New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Blessed are the dead who from this time die as Christians." Williams NT<br />
"From now on, the Lord will bless everyone who has faith in him when they die." CEV<br />
Why are they blessed/happy? "For you died to this world, and now you have entered with Christ into the<br />
secret life of God. When Christ, who is your life, comes again for all the world to see, then all the world<br />
will see that you too share his glory." Col 3:3 Barclay's NT<br />
Hardly an eerie other-wordly experience.<br />
48. If Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE, why does every historical and archelogical source (including<br />
many secular sources the Watchtower itself uses such as Encyclopedia Britannica, etc.) state that Jerusalem<br />
was destroyed in 586 BCE?<br />
Reply: Secular historians are in agreement that Babylon fell to Cyrus the Persian in the year 539 BC.<br />
This date is substantiated by all available historical records of ancient times. The <strong>Bible</strong> reveals that in<br />
his first year of rule, Cyrus issued a decree permitting the exiled Israelites to return to Jerusalem and<br />
rebuild the temple. There existed first the brief rule of Darius the Mede over Babylon, Cyrus' first year of<br />
rule toward Babylon evidently extended from 538 to 537 B.C.E. (Daniel 5:30, 31) As considerable<br />
distance in traveling was involved, it must have been by the "seventh month" of 537 B.C.E.<br />
2Chronicles 36:19-21 shows that a period of seventy years passed from the time of the destruction of<br />
Jerusalem and the desolation of its domain until the restoration.<br />
Counting back seventy years from the time the Israelites arrived back in their cities, that is, in 537<br />
B.C.E., brings us to 607 B.C.E.<br />
You may or may not agree with this, but all others do agree on the above 539 BC.<br />
We are simply taking the <strong>Bible</strong> record over the secular record.<br />
There is an interesting statement by archaeological writer C. W. Ceram, commenting on the modern<br />
science of historical dating:<br />
"Anyone approaching the study of ancient history for the first time must be impressed by the<br />
positive way modern historians date events which took place thousands of years ago. In the<br />
course of further study this wonder will, if anything, increase. For as we examine the<br />
sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records<br />
were even at the time they were first written. And poor as they originally were, they are<br />
poorer still as they have come down to us: half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the<br />
carelessness and rough usage of men." He further describes the framework of chronological<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (27 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:32 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
history as "a purely hypothetical structure, and one which threatens to come apart at every<br />
joint."—The Secret of the Hittites, 1956, pp. 133, 134.<br />
Let us not forget there are many that do not even chose to beleive the Biblical accounts of Nabonidus or<br />
that even Daniel wrote the book of Daniel, which was instead written by "a pious jew in the 2nd century<br />
B.C.E" New Oxford Annotated <strong>Bible</strong>/NRSV. Even the year of Christ's birth is disputed.<br />
49. Since Jesus is claiming to be the "first and the last" in Rev 22:12,13 and since Isa records Jehovah as<br />
saying, "I am the first and the last; apart from me there is no God", who is "the first and the last"?<br />
Reply: Let us look at this reasoning:<br />
We can look at it like this:<br />
Jehovah is the first and the last<br />
Jesus is the first and the last<br />
Jesus is Jehovah<br />
But then, with the same reasoning, we can say:<br />
All dogs have four legs<br />
My cat has four legs<br />
My cat is a dog<br />
When we look closely at the use of the term "first and the last," we see that it has limitations when used<br />
of Jesus. When used of Jesus, it always in reference to his death and resurrection. We must remember<br />
that God cannot die (Hab 1:12 NJB). Jesus however is the "the firstborn from the dead." Interestingly, the<br />
Codex Alexandrinus [usually indicated by the letter "A"], uses the word "firstborn" instead of "first" at<br />
Rev 1:17 and 2:8, but at Rev 22:13, where it refers to the Alpha and Omega, this codex uses the word<br />
"first" instead of "firstborn." Even this scribe recognized the difference. As we have seen above with the<br />
word "saviour", simply sharing titles does not make you the same person.<br />
I often get people who try to find similarities in what Jesus and Jehovah did, and the remarking that this<br />
should mean that they are the same being. But should this be the case? Let us take alook at Joseph. The<br />
NKJV MacArthur Study provides the following of similarities between Joseph and Jesus:<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were A SHEPHERD OF HIS FATHERS SHEEP (Gen<br />
37:2/Jn 10:11,27-29)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were LOVED DEARLY BY THEIR FATHER (Gen 37:3/Mt<br />
3:17<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were HATED BY THEIR BROTHERS (Gen 37:4/Jn 7:45)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were SENT BY FATHER TO BROTHERS (Gen<br />
37:13,14/Heb 2:11)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus had OTHERS TO HARM THEM (Gen 37:20/Jn 11:53)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus had ROBES TAKEN FROM THEM (Gen 37:23/Jn<br />
19:23,24)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were TAKEN TO EGYPT (Gen 37:26/Mt 2:14,15)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were SOLD FOR A PRICE OF A SLAVE (Gen 37:28/Mt<br />
26:15)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were TEMPTED (GEN 39:7/mT 4:1)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were FALSELY ACCUSED (Gen 39:16-18/Mt 26:59,60)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were BOUND IN CHAINS (Gen 39:20/Mt 27:2)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were PLACED WITH 2 OTHER PRISONERS, ONE WHO<br />
WAS<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (28 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:32 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
SAVED AND THE OTHER LOST (Gen 40:2,3/Lu 23:32)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were EXALTED AFTER SUFFERING (Gen 41:41/Phil<br />
2:9-11)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus were BOTH 30 YEARS OLD AT THE BEGINNING OF<br />
PUBLIC RECOGNITION<br />
(Gen 41:46/Lu 3:23)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus BOTH WEPT (Gen 42:24; 45:2, 14, 15; 46:29/Jn<br />
11:35)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus FORGAVE THOSE WHO WRONGED THEM (Gen<br />
45:1-15/Lu<br />
23:34)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus SAVED THEIR NATION (Gen 45:7/Mt 1:21)<br />
Both Joseph and Jesus had WHAT MEN DID TO HURT THEM, GOD TURNED<br />
TO<br />
GOOD (Gen 50:20/ 1Cor 2:7,8<br />
Does this mean Jesus must be Joseph?<br />
50. Why did the Watchtower use for over 30 years only one authority to support it's John 1:1 "a god"<br />
translation, Johannes Greber? And when Johannes Greber turned out to be a spiritist, the Watchtower still<br />
used him until they were found out?<br />
Reply: That is simply not true. It has used Newcome's "The New Testament in An Improved Version,<br />
published in London, England, in 1808," Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott (which it also prints),<br />
The Four Gospels-A New Translation by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey, and the qualitative renderings<br />
of Moffatt and Goodspeed amongst others. Greber was never even mentioned in the inaugural edition of<br />
the NWT. Plus, there are more:<br />
Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"<br />
Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god<br />
Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god"<br />
Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was"<br />
Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"<br />
Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the<br />
Word"<br />
Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”<br />
Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god"<br />
J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"<br />
George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"<br />
James L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"<br />
Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"<br />
Madsen, 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"<br />
Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos]<br />
Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine<br />
Being/being].<br />
Bohmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly<br />
linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being]<br />
Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]<br />
Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (29 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:32 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine<br />
being]<br />
Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of<br />
Kind/kind) was the Word/word].<br />
John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"<br />
Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word<br />
was a god"<br />
Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"<br />
Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>: "Jn 1:1 should<br />
rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'<br />
For more on John 1:1c click here. Actually, Greber was used for support for John 1:1c about a handful of<br />
times, hardly the rampant abuse it is made out to be. And Greber is hardly "one authority." For more on<br />
Greber, click here.<br />
Pot Calls the Kettle Black<br />
What have anti-JW authors said about their own kind? Here is a sampling:<br />
From author Rob Bowman:<br />
The latest Barna and Gallup research reveals the shocking but true<br />
statistics of how the church is being molded by or postmodern culture rather<br />
than vice-versa. For example 1996-1997 research reveals the following:<br />
84% of Americans claim to be "Christian." (a significant drop from 90% in<br />
1995-1996) and 40% of Americans claim to be "born again," that is to have<br />
confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ and Lord and Savior.<br />
67% of the general population reject belief in absolute truth and also<br />
believe that all religions will equally get one to heaven if one is faithful<br />
(universalism). As alarming as this is, even more so is that 53% of "born<br />
again" Christians agree with this and reject the belief in absolute truth<br />
while 41% of the "born again population embrace the belief of universalism!<br />
The belief that a person qualifies for heaven if they are good, breaks down<br />
denominationally as follows:<br />
Roman Catholics, 82%; Methodist, Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians<br />
range from 52-59%; Baptist 38%; Assemblies of God 22%.<br />
70% of Americans are members of a church, temple, or synagogue, however,<br />
only 31% attend weekly. It gets worse. Only 17% attend Sunday School weekly<br />
(1996), down from 23% in 1991.<br />
58% of Americans believe that the <strong>Bible</strong> is totally accurate, 32% of the<br />
"born again" Christian reject the infallibility of the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
20% of Americans identify themselves as New Age practitioners, 53% believe<br />
in ESP, 24% have practiced Transcendental Meditation, 34% believe in a New<br />
Age form of God, 36% read their horoscopes regularly and 26% believe that<br />
astrology is scientifically accurate (a recent Life Magazine poll indicated<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (30 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:32 AM]
50 Answers to 50 Questions<br />
48% believe that astrology is probably or definitely valid). Belief in<br />
reincarnation grew from 25% in 1992 to an astonishing 30% in 1996.<br />
Especially troubling is of the "born again" population: 28% believe that<br />
Jesus sinned and didn’t rise from the dead, 47% say Satan is not living<br />
being-only a symbol for evil, and 43% deny the Person of the Holy Spirit<br />
calling Him a symbol of Gods power!<br />
As you read the above incredible statistics remember that 84% of those<br />
polled identified themselves as "Christians." Because of the high level of<br />
consciousness toward religion or spirituality, with a low level of true<br />
knowledge or understanding, our population continues to drift toward the<br />
abyss. The old Biblical paradigm teaches that if you have the right teaching<br />
you will experience God correctly, redemptively. The new paradigm is that if<br />
you "experience" God, then you have the "right" teaching.<br />
http://www.apologeticsresctr.org/siren_song.htm<br />
"Though lyrics in most contemporary Christian songs fall within the<br />
boundaries of orthodoxy, a small but growing percentage of Christian songs<br />
have lyrics that are either shallow, confusing, doctrinally errant, or even<br />
blatantly unbiblical." Ron Rhodes<br />
"9 out of 10 christians don't know how to answer a Jehovah's Witness(sic)." Ron Rhodes<br />
-Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
"The average Jehovah's Witness(sic) can make a doctrinal pretzel out of the average christian in about 30<br />
seconds." Walter Martin<br />
"It [the Trinity] is so misunderstood that a majority of christians, when asked, give incorrect and at times<br />
downright heretical definitions of the Trinity." Page 16 The Forgotten Trinity<br />
"The most obvious reason for Christian acceptance of such material [New Age] is the fact that Biblical<br />
influence and wordliness are common among Christians. The Church is failing to educate her people<br />
properly in these areas."<br />
"Christians are being influenced by the NAM(New Age Movement) principally because of ignorance of<br />
Biblical teachings and lack of doctrinal knowledge." The Facts on the New Age Movement<br />
byAnkerberg&Weldon p. 17,25<br />
Perhaps JW-Haters that post this dreck should look at their own church end educate their own members,<br />
and save themselves the constant embarrasment of a dazed look as they cannot defend their God and<br />
their beliefs.<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/50questions.htm (31 of 31) [5/25/2003 4:04:32 AM]
Jehovah's Name in the New Testament<br />
Comprehensive List of Occurences of the Divine Name in the New Testament<br />
Compiled from Matteo Pierro's book 'Geova e il Nuovo Testamento' (Jehovah and New<br />
Testament)<br />
Read Matteo's Article in Rivista Biblica<br />
The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ J. Eliot algonchino<br />
1661 Jehovah sempre<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Aneityum Ihova Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Awabakal Yehoa Lc 3:4<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Bolia Yawe Lc 3:4<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Bube Yehovah Mtt 5:8<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Chacobo Jahue Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Chi Kalanga Yehova Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Chi Luimb Yehova Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Chi Lunda Yehova Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Chi Luvale Yehova Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Choctaw Chihowa Mr 1:1<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento dialetto Isola del duca di York Ieova Mr 1:29<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento dialetto Isola Manus Jehova Mr 1:1<br />
Biblia Sacra Eliae Hutteri ebraico 1599 sempre<br />
Die vier Evangelien Franz Delitzsch ebraico 1984 (1877\1890\1902)<br />
sempre<br />
Evangelium Secundum Matthaeum J. M. Paulus Bauchet ebraico 1950 sempre<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Salkinson e Ginsburg ebraico Sempre<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento United <strong>Bible</strong> Society, ed. 1976. ebraico 1976 Sempre<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento W. Robertson ebraico 1661 sempre<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies, ed. 1991. ebraico 1991<br />
Sempre<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento J.C. Reichardt e J.H.R. Biesenthal ebraico 1866<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jhvh.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:04:47 AM]
Jehovah's Name in the New Testament<br />
sempre<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento A. McCaul, M.S. Alexander, J.C. Reichardt e S. Hoga<br />
ebraico 1838 sempre<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento T. Fry ebraico 1817 sempre<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento J. Bauchet e D. Kinnereth ebraico 1975 sempre<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento J.C. Reichardt ebraico 1846 sempre<br />
Salmi e vangelo di Matteo A. Margaritha ebraico 1533 sempre<br />
The four Gospel translated into Hebrew William Greenfield ebraico 1982<br />
(1831) Sempre<br />
The four Gospel translated into Hebrew London Society for Promoting<br />
Christianity ebraico 1985 (1838+1864) Sempre<br />
Traduction hebraiques des Evangiles G.B.Iona ebraico 1982 (1668) Sempre<br />
Traduction hebraiques des Evangiles T.Yeates ebraico 1982 (1805) Sempre<br />
Vangeli liturgici F. Petri ebraico 1573 sempre<br />
Vangelo di Luca, Atti, Lettere ai Romani e agli Ebrei J.H.R. Biesenthal<br />
ebraico 1855, 1867, 1853 e 1858. sempre<br />
Vangelo di Matteo Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut ebraico 1385 sempre<br />
Vangelo di Matteo J. Quinquarboreus ebraico 1551 sempre<br />
Vangelo di Matteo J. du Tillet ebraico 1555 sempre<br />
The New Testament-Peshitta Aramaic Text With a Hebrew Translation United<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Society ebraico\aramaico 1986 spesso<br />
The New Testament . . . in Hebrew and English R. Caddick ebraico\inglese<br />
1798-1805 sempre<br />
Vangelo di Matteo e lettera agli Ebrei Sebastian Münster ebraico\latino<br />
1537, 1557. sempre<br />
Vangeli liturgici Johannes Claius ebraico\tedesco\latino\greco 1576<br />
sempre<br />
Dwed Abasi - BIBBIA UBS efik (nigeria) 1985 Jehovah Sempre<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Epi: (dialetto Tesiko) Yehova Mtt 4:10<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Eromangan Iehova Mr 12:11<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jhvh.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:04:47 AM]
Jehovah's Name in the New Testament<br />
Biblia UBS ewe 1995 Yehowa Ebrei 8<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Fang: Gabon Jehova Mtt 4:10<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento UBS fijiano Jiova sempre<br />
La <strong>Bible</strong> Andre Chouraqui francese 1989 YHWH sempre<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Gilbertese Iehova Mr 1:3<br />
The New Testament A. Kneeland greco\inglese 1822 Jehovah Mtt 22:44, Mr<br />
12:36, Lc 20:42, At 2:34<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Hawaiiano Iehova Mr 1:3<br />
21st Century New Testament aa. vv. inglese 1995 Jehovah spesso<br />
A literal translation of the New Testament E. Hardwood inglese 1768 Jehovah<br />
Mtt 21:9, 22:44, etc.<br />
A new family <strong>Bible</strong> & improved version B. Boothroyd inglese 1817 Jehovah Lc<br />
20:42, At 2:34<br />
A new translation ..., Epistle to the Romans T.W. Peile inglese 1854 Jehovah<br />
Ro 11:34<br />
A paraphrase & version of the New Testament P. Doddridge inglese 1739-56<br />
Jehovah Mc 12:29, Lc 1:68, etc.<br />
A revised Translation of the Sacred Scriptures D. Macrae inglese 1798\99<br />
Jehovah Mtt 22:44, Ap 1:8<br />
A Translation of the <strong>Bible</strong> G. Wakefield inglese 1791 Jehovah Ap 19:1, 3, 4, 6<br />
An ... english Translation of Greek Scriptures W. Newcome inglese 1795<br />
Jehovah Mtt 22:44, Mc 12:36, etc.<br />
An english version of the New Testament H. Heinfetter inglese 1864 Jehovah<br />
sempre<br />
Centenary Translation of the New Testament H.B. Montgomery inglese 1924<br />
Jehovah Lc 1:38<br />
Epistle to the Romans W.G. Rutherford inglese 1900 Jehovah sempre<br />
Execeses ready research <strong>Bible</strong> H. Jahn inglese 1993 Yah Veh sempre<br />
From the Trenches (Corinthians & Ephesians) G.W. Cornish inglese 1981<br />
Jehovah 1Cor 10:9<br />
God's Covenant People T.R. Weiland inglese 1997 YHWH sempre<br />
Memoir of the life & doctrine of Christ by the four evangelist R. Fellowes<br />
inglese 1804 Jehovah Mtt 22:44<br />
New Testament epistles in english prose W.H. Isaacs inglese 1933 Jehovah<br />
Ebrei<br />
Studies in Matthew B.W. Bacon inglese 1931 Jehovah Mtt 21:9, 42, 21:44,<br />
23:39, 27:10<br />
The American <strong>Bible</strong> F.S. Ballentine inglese 1902 Jehovah At 2:25, 34, Ro<br />
14:11, etc.<br />
The Book of Yahweh - The Holy Scriptures Yisrayl Hawkins inglese 1996 Yahweh<br />
sempre<br />
The clarified New Testament P.G. Parker inglese 1955 Jehovah Mtt 22:44<br />
The Cristian's <strong>Bible</strong>, New Testament G.N. LeFevre inglese 1939 Jehovah sempre<br />
The Documents of the New Testament G.W. Wade inglese Jehovah Ap 19:1, 3, 4, 6<br />
The epistle to the Hebrews J.B McCaul inglese 1836 Jehovah Eb 7:21<br />
The Epistles of Paul in modern English G.B. Stevens inglese 1980 (1898)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jhvh.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:04:47 AM]
Jehovah's Name in the New Testament<br />
Jehovah sempre<br />
The Gospel of the Hellenists B.W. Bacon inglese 1933 Jehovah Gv 10:12, 38<br />
The Growth of the Early Church W. A. Carleton inglese 1970 Jehovah At 2:35<br />
The Holy <strong>Bible</strong> J.T. Conquest inglese 1841 Jehovah Mtt 22:44, Mc 12:36, etc.<br />
The Holy Name <strong>Bible</strong> Revised A. B. Traina inglese 1989 Yahweh sempre<br />
The messages of Jesus according to the Synoptists T.C. Hall inglese 1901<br />
Jehovah Spesso<br />
The messages of the Apostles G.B. Stevens inglese 1900 Jehovah At 2:1, 3:7, 7:6<br />
The New Testament in braid scots W.W. Smith inglese 1901 Jehovah Mtt 22:44,<br />
Lc 20:37<br />
The New Testament Letters J.W.C. Wand inglese 1947 Jehovah Ro 9:29, 11:3,<br />
12:19, etc.<br />
The New Testament of our Messiah & Saviour Yahshua A.B. Traina inglese 1950<br />
Yahweh sempre<br />
The NT, An improved version upon the basis of archbishop Newcome T. Belsham<br />
inglese 1808 Jehovah Mtt 22:44, Mc 12:36, etc.<br />
The restoration of original Sacred Name <strong>Bible</strong> Missionary Dispensary <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Research inglese 1970 Yahvah sempre<br />
The Sacred Scriptures Assemblies of Yahweh inglese Yahweh sempre<br />
The Sacred Scriptures J.G. Meyer inglese 1981 Yahweh sempre<br />
Two nineteenth century versions of the New Testament W. Kelly inglese 1995<br />
Jehovah spesso<br />
The Emphatic Diaglott Benjamin Wilson inglese\greco 1942 Jehovah spesso<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Isi Xhosa Yehova Mr 1:3<br />
??Unknown Title?? italiano >1750 Ièhovah Lc 4:18<br />
Traduzione del Nuovo Mondo delle Sacre Scritture WatchTower Society italiano<br />
1986 Geova sempre<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Ke Senegle Yawe Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Kerewo Iehova Mr 1:1<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Ki Luba Yehova Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Ki Songe Yehowa Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Ki Sukuma Jakwe Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Kikongo (San Salvador) Yave Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Kipsigis Jehoba Mr 1:1<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Kiwai: Goaribari Iehova Gv 3:16<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Lanu Yaw Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Lingala Yawe Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Lo Bodangi Yawe Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Lo Mongo Yawe Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Lo Nguandu Yawe Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Lo Ntsumba Yawe Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Mabuiag: Saibai Iehovan Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Malekula: Kuliviu Iova Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Malekula: Pangkumu Iova Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Malekula: Uripiv Iova Mr 1:3<br />
Ny Baiboly - BIBBIA malgascio 1992 Jehovah sempre<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jhvh.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:04:47 AM]
Jehovah's Name in the New Testament<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Mentawi Jehoba Gv 3:6<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Mohowk Yehovah Gv 1:12<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Mortlock Jioua Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Naga: Angami Jihova Mr 1:1<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Naga: Konyak Jihova Mr 1:1<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Naga: Lhoto Jihova Mr 1:1<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Naga: Mao Jihova Mr 1:1<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Naga: Ntenyi Jihova Mtt 4:10<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Naga: Sangtam Jihova Mr 1:1<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Nandi Jehova Mr 1:1<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Nguna: Efate Yehovah Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Nguna: Tongoa Yehovah Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Nukuoro Jehova Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Ojibwa Jehovah Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Panaieti Iehova Mr 1:1<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Rotuma Jihova Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Sesuto Yehofa Gv 1:12, 13<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento UBS tahitiano 1975 Iehova sempre<br />
Die heilige Schrift des neuen Testaments D. von Brentano tedesco 1796<br />
Jehovahs spesso<br />
Die neusten Offenbarungen Gottes Carl Friedrich Bahrdt tedesco 1773 Jehovah<br />
spesso<br />
Die neusten Offenbarungen Gottes Carl Friedrich Bahrdt tedesco 1773 Jehovah<br />
spesso<br />
Neuen Testaments Johann Babor tedesco 1805 Jhova spesso<br />
Samtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments J.J. Stolz tedesco 1781-82 Jehovahs<br />
sempre<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Toaripi Iehova Mtt 1:25<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Togan Sihova Mr 1:3<br />
Il Nuovo Testamento Tsimihety (dialetto malgascio) Jehova Lc 3:4<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
Jehovah's Name in the New Testament as posted as in Rivista Biblica<br />
Jehovah's Name as posted by <strong>Bible</strong> Museum and Biblical Research Foundation<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jhvh.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:04:47 AM]
Trinity Chart of Lesser Scriptures<br />
A Chart of Lesser Scriptures Used in Defense of the Trinity Doctrine<br />
A "YES" denoted a rendering in favor of the Trinity/Deity of Christ, a "NO" is just the opposite.<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Ex 3:14 Ps 45:6 Mic 5:2 Matt<br />
24:36<br />
Acts<br />
7:59<br />
1Tim<br />
3:16<br />
1John 5:7<br />
1John<br />
5:20<br />
Rev<br />
1:11<br />
King James YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO YES<br />
NKJV YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO YES<br />
NAB YES YES NO NO NO NO NO N/A NO<br />
Rotherham NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
NWT NO NO NO NO NO NO NO* NO NO<br />
RSV YES* NO* NO NO* NO NO* NO NO NO<br />
NEB YES* NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
Fenton YES NO NO YES N/A NO NO NO NO<br />
NIV YES* YES NO NO* NO NO* NO* NO NO<br />
Darby YES YES YES YES NO* YES* NO NO NO<br />
ASV YES* YES* YES* NO* NO NO NO NO NO<br />
Lamsa NO YES YES YES N/A NO NO NO NO<br />
Beck YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
Byington NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
Moffatt NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO<br />
Douay NO YES YES YES N/A NO YES NO NO<br />
Geneva N/A N/A N/A YES YES YES YES YES YES<br />
NASB YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
God's Wrd YES N/A NO NO YES NO YES NO<br />
NCV/ICV YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
TEV/GNB YES* NO* NO NO* NO NO NO NO NO<br />
REB YES* NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
MLB/NBV YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
Goodspeed YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
Jerusalem YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
NJB YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
TanakhJPS NO NO NO<br />
Young YES YES NO YES NO YES YES NO YES<br />
Barclay NO N/A NO NO NO NO<br />
Spencer NO NO NO YES NO NO<br />
Diaglott NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
CEV YES* YES* NO NO* NO NO* NO NO NO<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/lesser.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:05:05 AM]
Trinity Chart of Lesser Scriptures<br />
Message NO NO NO NO YES NO<br />
Wuest NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
Lattimore NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
Living B. YES* YES YES NO* N/A NO NO YES YES<br />
NLT YES YES NO NO N/A NO NO NO NO<br />
* has an opposite variant reading in the margin<br />
Exodus 3:14 [YES]: "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say<br />
unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." KJV (this is usually accompanied by a<br />
cross-reference to John 8:58 in many <strong>Bible</strong>s).<br />
[NO] "At this God said to Moses: 'I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.' And he<br />
added: 'This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU."<br />
NWT<br />
For further comment see my page on Ex.3:14/Jn 8:58<br />
Psalm 45:6 [YES]: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." ASV<br />
[NO] "You throne is from God, forever and ever." NJB<br />
For more see Hebrews 1:8<br />
Micah 5:2 [YES]:"out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings<br />
forth are from of old, from everlasting."<br />
[NO] "someone who's family goes back to ancient times" CEV<br />
Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon says of OLAM (5769) "long duration,<br />
antiquity" It is even used of the forefathers (Is 24:2) and the prophets (Jer 28:8).<br />
Some do say that taken together (qedem AND yown owlam) these communicate, as Jamieson,<br />
Fausset and Brown say, "the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the<br />
Hebrew language is capable" Renowned Old Testament scholar Merrill F. Unger, commenting on Micah<br />
5:2 in Unger's <strong>Bible</strong> Handbook says, "He [Jesus] is the Bethlehem-born pre-existent, eternal One"<br />
Obviously, many other <strong>Bible</strong> versions do not agree with this. The fact that the <strong>Bible</strong> says he is the first<br />
being created would obviously he is older than anything else, thus necessitating the stress at Mic 5:2. In<br />
Prov 8:23, the 2 words are used again of Jesus/Wisdom, right after the scripture says he was created. The<br />
same words used in Micah 5:2 are used for others who are not God. The psalmist could remember qedem<br />
AND olam (ps 77:5).<br />
To Jehovah, OLAM and QEDEM are consistent with the time of Rahab and Creation, " Awake, awake,<br />
put on strength, O arm of Jehovah; awake, as in the days of old, the generations of ancient times. Is it<br />
not thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces, that didst pierce the monster? Is it not thou that driedst up the sea,<br />
the waters of the great deep; that madest the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over? Is<br />
51:9, 10 ASV<br />
It does not have to mean eternity.<br />
Matthew 24:36 [YES]: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my<br />
Father only." KJV<br />
[NO] But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the<br />
Father only. ASV<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/lesser.htm (2 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:05:05 AM]
Trinity Chart of Lesser Scriptures<br />
The removal of "neither the Son" is a textual error. The words appear in the oldest manuscripts of the<br />
Alexandrian and Western text-types, and they do appear at Mark 13:32 in the KJV.<br />
For more see my pages on the Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus.<br />
Acts 7:59 [YES]: And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.<br />
KJV<br />
[NO] So they stoned Stephen, and as they did so, he called out, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. NEB<br />
The word "God" does not appear in ANY Greek manuscript, neither does the word epikaleomai mean<br />
prayer, as it is used elsewhere of others who do not deserve to be prayed to. That is why the KJV uses the<br />
same word elsewhere to mean (appeal (unto), call (on, upon), surname.) (Acts 10:5; 11:13)<br />
1Timothy 3:16 [YES]: "God was manifest in the flesh" KJV<br />
[NO] "He who was manifested in the flesh" ASV<br />
"The strength of the internal evidence favoring OS ["WHO" as opposed to QEOS "God"] along with<br />
considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually<br />
unanimously to regard OS as the original text...Accordingly, 1 Timothy 3:16 is not an instance of the<br />
christological use of QEOS." Jesus as God-The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, by<br />
Murray J, Harris<br />
1 John 5:7 [YES]: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the<br />
Holy Ghost. And these three are one."Catholic Douay-Rheims Version<br />
[NO] "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth." NASB<br />
For more on the above Comma Johanneum click here and here.<br />
1 John 5:20 [YES]: "This Jesus Christ is the real God and eternal life." God's Word Version<br />
[NO] We know the Son of God has come and given us understanding to know him who is real; indeed<br />
we are in him who is real, since we are in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, this is eternal life."<br />
New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"it should be noted that precisely in St. John's First Epistle [O QEOS] ho theos, "the true God" so often<br />
certainly means the Father that it must be understood of the Father throughout the Epistle, unless we are<br />
to suppose that some incomprehensible change has taken place in the subject referred to by O QEOS."<br />
Theological Investigations, Vol. 1 by Karl Rahner, Third printing: 1965, pages 136, 137. Compare John<br />
17:3<br />
One person tells me: Christ is the immediate antecedent of the pronoun THIS, therefore is applies to him.<br />
Reply: Does this mean that Jesus is the true God? Let's look at some examples:<br />
Acts 7:18, 19: "Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph. The same (houtos, just like<br />
in 1 John 5:20) dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they<br />
cast out their young children, to the end they might not live." KJV<br />
Does this mean that Joseph was this evil person?<br />
Acts 4:10, 11, " Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of<br />
Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him<br />
doth this man stand here before you whole. This (houtos, just like 1 John 5:20) is the stone<br />
which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." KJV<br />
Does this mean that the man that was healed was the stone that the builders rejected? Of course not!<br />
Another parallel written by the same author is 2 John 1:7,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/lesser.htm (3 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:05:05 AM]
Trinity Chart of Lesser Scriptures<br />
" For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come<br />
in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."<br />
Does this mean that Jesus is this deceiver? No!<br />
Revelation 1:11 [YES]: "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last" NKJV<br />
[NO] OMITTED-Most <strong>Bible</strong>s do not have this phrase referring to Jesus. Contrary to what KJV-Only<br />
people want to believe, it is not even in the Majority of manuscripts.<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email MeJehovah's Witnesses<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/lesser.htm (4 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:05:05 AM]
JW Opposers and their Love of Johannes Greber.<br />
Johannes Greber and Opposers to the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
Maybe you have seen them out there, at least a hundred (yes, I mean a hundred) web-sites condemning<br />
the Watchtower Society for using Johannes Greber's New Testament to support their rendering of "a<br />
god" at John 1:1c. Most Jehovah's Witnesses do not even know who Johannes Greber is, and the<br />
opposers that DO mention him know embarrassingly little of him and how they are hurting themselves<br />
with their own arguments.<br />
In the 1983 Watchtower 4/1/31 it says,<br />
"This translation was used occasionally in support of renderings of Matthew 27:52, 53 and<br />
John 1:1, as given in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other authoritative <strong>Bible</strong> versions. But<br />
as indicated in a foreword to the 1980 edition of The New Testament by Johannes Greber,<br />
this translator relied on "God's Spirit <strong>World</strong>" to clarify for him how he should translate<br />
difficult passages. It is stated: "His wife, a medium of God's Spiritworld was often<br />
instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God's Messengers to Pastor Greber."<br />
The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close<br />
rapport with spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)"<br />
We will be looking at this from several different angles.<br />
Is it unusual for Catholics like Johannes Greber to involve themselves with spiritism? No.<br />
One book states,<br />
"Has the Catholic Church ever been in communication with spirit beings from the next<br />
world?...In the history of the Catholic Church there are many accounts of messages received<br />
from the souls of the departed. The truth of these accounts is subject to the ordinary laws of<br />
historical criticism, and some accounts have certainly been proved doubtful. Others leave no<br />
room for prudent doubt. As a rule, God permits a soul only occasionally to communicate<br />
momentarily a warning, or a request for prayers, but nothing fantastical. Likewise, the<br />
messages are spontaneous, and not due to the curious efforts of people seeking the truth<br />
from the dead. The Church tests the messages received, or claimed as received, in order to<br />
discern whether good or evil spirits are responsible for the communication. (1) The message<br />
must in no way conflict with Catholic teaching or moral principles. Gal. I.,9. . . ."-Pages 73,<br />
74 of the book Radio Replies, by Rumble and Carty, with the Imprimatur of Archbishop J.<br />
G. Murray, of St. Paul, Minnesota, February 11, 1938, and with a Preface by Monsignor<br />
Fulton J. Sheen, D.D. (9th printing of 1939)<br />
The WTS knows about this, as this quote comes from the 1955 Watchtower that also mentions Johannes<br />
Greber and his book, "Communication with the Spirit <strong>World</strong>, Its laws and Its Purpose." (1932, Macoy<br />
Publishing Company, New York). In Central and South America the mixing of Catholic beliefs with<br />
voodooism is a common practice. Interest in Santeria is also growing. In fact, all through history, pagan<br />
elements have been introduced into Christianity AND the <strong>Bible</strong> by the Catholic Church, like the Cross<br />
(translated from the word stauros meaning "stake"), the Trinity (as in adding the Comma Johanneum)<br />
and Christmas (as in the 3 Wise Men instead of Magi/Astrologers). Does that mean we should reject all<br />
Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s and other versions that carry these? No. In fact, one of my favorite <strong>Bible</strong>s is the<br />
Catholic New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>. The <strong>Bible</strong> is God's Word, it is QEOPNEUSTOS/God-breathed [2Tim<br />
3:16], and it is not hijacked by demons.<br />
"The words of Jehovah are pure words, silver tried in the furnace of the earth, purified seven<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/greber.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:19 AM]
JW Opposers and their Love of Johannes Greber.<br />
times. Thou, Jehovah, wilt preserve them from this generation forever." Psalm 12:6, 7 Darby<br />
That does not mean there haven't been slight corruptions over time, but most of these involve a varying<br />
word order and do not affect the message of the <strong>Bible</strong>. To argue otherwise is to argue against divine<br />
providence.<br />
The spirit world has been used in the past in translating scripture, despite the <strong>Bible</strong>'s warning against this<br />
(see Deut 18:10). When? In 1823 Joseph Smith claimed that the "Angel" Moroni appeared to him and led<br />
him to some plates. Smith translated the plates into English through supernatural means and called the<br />
record the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon contains entire excerpts that are identical with the<br />
King James Version <strong>Bible</strong>. Are we now to conclude that the King James Version is a demonic <strong>Bible</strong>? In<br />
fact, Joseph Smith has made his own "Inspired" version of the <strong>Bible</strong>, which, except for a few place [like<br />
the beginning of Genesis, the Johannine prologue, Ex 33:20, 1John 4:12 and Genesis 50:24], this "direct<br />
revelation" is otherwise identical to the King James Version. Sure, we might argue that this is a claim by<br />
Mr. Smith only, but that argument can go both ways. What Joseph Smith received by supernatural<br />
means, Johannes Greber received from the Codex Bezae.<br />
The Codex Bezae was first presented to the library at Cambridge University in 1581 by Theodore Beza,<br />
who is no stranger to textual critics and Calvinists. The Codex probably dates from somewhere around<br />
the 4th century, making it very old. The inner page of Johannes Greber's NT states, "A New Translation<br />
and Explanation based on the Oldest Manuscripts [1937]." Remember that it was the 1980 edition that<br />
stated it relied on "God's Spirit <strong>World</strong>." I suspect that this is a fanciful claim. Others have also made<br />
translations from this Codex, namely William Whiston (1745) and J.M. Wilson (1923). It is also true that<br />
others have used Johannes Greber for support (see Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament", <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Museum and Biblical Research Foundation and Duthie's How to Choose Your <strong>Bible</strong> Wisely).<br />
I have yet to see examples of outright marring, removing or additions in Greber's <strong>Bible</strong> that you cannot<br />
see in modern <strong>Bible</strong>s.<br />
Let us consider more accusations.<br />
"The first two, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort discuss their club, the Ghostly Guild, in their<br />
biographies. They were actually the fathers of the New Age channeling movement; their<br />
Ghostly Guild evolved into the infamous Society for Psychical Research.<br />
The third translator to confess involvement was J.B. Phillips, author of the Phillips<br />
Translation. His autobiography details his necromancy and communication with the dead.<br />
The last and most recent revelation of "giving heed to seducing spirits," concerns Dr.<br />
Virginia Mollenkott of the NIV. Her book, Sensous Spirituality, tells tales of her spirit guide<br />
and contact with her dead mother...The doctrines of devils which follow her includes<br />
admitted involvement with divination through use of Tarot cards and the I Ching." 'Which<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> is God's Word' by Gail Riplinger, p.81<br />
Many take writings like these with an understandable grain of salt. But if the above did have some<br />
involvement with the spirit world, then we are all in danger because the above accused represent most of<br />
the sales in <strong>Bible</strong>s in the English language. Even older versions are not safe if you consider the<br />
accusations hurled at Origen:<br />
Origen's six column Old Testament, the Hexapla, parallels O.T. versions by Theodotian,<br />
Symmachus, and Aquilla, all three Gnostic occultists." Ibid, p.79<br />
But wait, there is more.<br />
"But is it only the pride of man that prompted this rewriting, or is some malignant<br />
supernatural power guiding the hands of these people as they take away from and add to the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/greber.htm (2 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:19 AM]
JW Opposers and their Love of Johannes Greber.<br />
Word of God? Below are some of the results of this satanic assault on the <strong>Bible</strong>."<br />
This is from a pastor on jesus-is-lord.com, and he includes the NASB in this attack. Not even the New<br />
King James Version is without suspicion:<br />
"There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity<br />
which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by satanist Aleister<br />
Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the New<br />
King James <strong>Bible</strong>, on certain rock albums (like Led Zeppelin's), or you can see it on<br />
the cover of such New Age books as The Aquarian Conspiracy. (See Riplinger's tract<br />
on the NKJV.)"<br />
Fact is, if you really want to discredit someone or something, you can. Atheists do it all the time.<br />
KJV-Onlyites and NWT/Greber opposers are only helping atheists in their attack on the word of God.<br />
There is nothing wrong with using the NKJV, the NIV, the NASB, the NWT etc, in fact, using more than<br />
one translation helps one to get a better feel for the original Greek and Hebrew.<br />
KJV-Onlyites would probably cringe at the notion that their precious Comma Johanneum was first<br />
quoted as part of the actual text by a Gnostic and an occultist, see "Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and<br />
the Charismatic in the Early Church" by H. Chadwick, but that is exactly what happened.<br />
The Watchtower simply made a mistake by quoting Greber's NT, but then, they had only used that book<br />
a handful of times in the last 40 years, and never for support in the last 20. The WTS is not an infallible<br />
organization:<br />
"Someone may ask, Do you then claim infallibility and that every sentence appearing in<br />
"The Watch Tower" publications is stated with absolute correctness? Assuredly we make no<br />
such claim and have never made such a claim. What motive can our opponents have in so<br />
charging against us? Are they not seeking to set up a falsehood to give themselves excuse<br />
for making attacks and to endeavor to pervert the judgements of others?" Zion's Watchtower<br />
and Herald of Christ's Presence, Sept 15. 1909, 4473<br />
So when you read comments, like those from Raines:<br />
"If it wasn't for the JWs quoting from his translation, Greber would have rightfully faded<br />
into obscurity."<br />
The truth is, JW's have used him so little, it is actually a non-issue. It is JW Hater's that have given<br />
Greber prominence and deified him. My last check on the Google search engine came up with 779<br />
results, none from the WT Society.<br />
In fact, you will find that Greber's New Testament more closely resembles other non-JW <strong>Bible</strong><br />
translations. Take note of the cover:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/greber.htm (3 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:19 AM]
JW Opposers and their Love of Johannes Greber.<br />
The cover of Johannes<br />
Greber's NT<br />
Greber's NT uses the Cross, in translation and imagery, something that resembles the <strong>Bible</strong> of<br />
mainstream churches more so than the New <strong>World</strong> Translation (who never use the Cross). By attacking<br />
Greber's NT, opposers are actually causing damage to their own belief system. Remember, the WT has<br />
only used Greber for 2 scriptures. Those that assert that Greber's NT resembles the NWT 100% (and yes,<br />
they do say that) are dishonest and lying. A closer examination (like the Cross) will help you see that<br />
Greber has much in common with non-JW translations.<br />
Consider also Matthew 1:23:<br />
"Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his<br />
name Im·man'u·el," which means, when translated, "With Us Is God."<br />
Here the New <strong>World</strong> Translation uses the word VIRGIN which is comparable to the King James, New<br />
American Standard etc. But Greber's NT uses the words "young women." This more closely resembles<br />
how the Revised Standard Version and the New English <strong>Bible</strong> have rendered the Hebrew equivalent<br />
ALMAH at Isaiah 7:14.<br />
Let us look at some other examples that the NWT is commonly accused of as misleading:<br />
Scripture<br />
New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation<br />
Greber NT<br />
King James<br />
Version<br />
NIV<br />
Matt 27:32 stake cross cross cross<br />
punctuation after<br />
Luke 23:43<br />
*today*<br />
punctuation before<br />
*today*<br />
punctuation before<br />
*today*<br />
punctuation before<br />
*today<br />
John 8:58 I have been I am I am I am<br />
John 1:12 exercise faith believe believe believe<br />
Rom 9:5<br />
reading separates God reading separates<br />
from Christ God from Christ<br />
reading separates<br />
God from Christ<br />
reading joins God as<br />
Christ<br />
Rom 10:13 Jehovah Lord Lord Lord<br />
Titus 2:13<br />
reading separates God reading separates<br />
from Christ God from Christ<br />
reading separates<br />
God from Christ<br />
reading joins God as<br />
Christ<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/greber.htm (4 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:19 AM]
JW Opposers and their Love of Johannes Greber.<br />
Col 1:16 *other* interpolated<br />
*other* NOT<br />
interpolated<br />
*other* NOT<br />
interpolated<br />
*other* NOT<br />
interpolated<br />
While Greber's NT is used against the NWT in relation to John 1:1, the above shows that it actually has a<br />
lot in common with the King James Version.<br />
This is of course a very unscientific polling, but the point forwarded is this, "You can make any version line up with the<br />
one you want to attack."<br />
In a survey of 64 scriptures taken from the book of John, the Greber NT agrees with the KJV 24 more<br />
times than does the NWT. click here for more<br />
Did Greber's use of "a god" influence how the translation of John 1:1c was rendered by the New<br />
<strong>World</strong> <strong>Bible</strong> Translation Committee?<br />
A quick check of the 1950 first edition reveals that this is not so. In the appendix we have mention and<br />
use of Smith and Goodspeed's An American Translation, Moffatt's <strong>Bible</strong>, A Manual Grammar of the<br />
Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey, The New Testament in an Improved Version upon the basis<br />
of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: with a Corrected Text, 1808 and Acts 28:6 in the King<br />
James Version etc. Of the above, only Newcome's Corrected Version reads "a god" at John 1:1c, while<br />
the other examples were used to promote the qualitative aspect of the anarthrous QEOS.<br />
[It should be noted too that only the last clause of John 1:1, the "c" part, really resembles Greber's NT.<br />
The first part of the 1950 NWT start's, "Originally the Word was..."]<br />
Are there others that have used "a god" at John 1:1c?<br />
Yes, take note:<br />
In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.<br />
(Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott)<br />
Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"<br />
Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god<br />
Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god"<br />
Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was"<br />
Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"<br />
Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the<br />
Word"<br />
"In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and<br />
the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." John 1:1 21st Century NT Literal<br />
Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”<br />
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La <strong>Bible</strong> du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice<br />
Goguel.<br />
Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god"<br />
J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"<br />
George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"<br />
James L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"<br />
Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the<br />
Word"<br />
Madsen, 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"<br />
Becker, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"<br />
Stage, 1907, The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/greber.htm (5 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:19 AM]
JW Opposers and their Love of Johannes Greber.<br />
Holzmann, 1926, "a God/god was the Thought/thought"<br />
Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]<br />
Smit, 1960, the word of the world was a divine being<br />
Schultz, 1987, a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word].<br />
John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"<br />
Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word<br />
was a god"<br />
Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"<br />
Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>: "Jn 1:1 should<br />
rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'<br />
Others, like Vine's and Harris have recognized that the rendering "a god" is grammatically possible. So<br />
we can see that the New <strong>World</strong> Translation does indeed have support for its rendering and does not need<br />
to rely on Johannes Greber and his New Testament. We simply do not know where his ancient<br />
manuscript, the Codex Bezae stopped, and his "spirit world" began.<br />
For a fuller expanded list of various translations of John 1:1 click here.<br />
Is it unusual for spirits/demons to recognize the truth of God's Word?<br />
No, and this is borne out by the scriptures themselves. Consider Acts 16:16:<br />
"And it happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a certain servant girl with a<br />
spirit, a demon of divination, met us. She used to furnish her masters with much gain by<br />
practicing the art of prediction. This [girl] kept following Paul and us and crying out with<br />
the words: "These men are slaves of the Most High God, who are publishing to YOU the<br />
way of salvation." This she kept doing for many days. Finally Paul got tired of it and turned<br />
and said to the spirit: "I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And it<br />
came out that very hour." NWT<br />
This demon was telling the truth, as the words in the above italics show, yet an exorcism was deemed<br />
necessary, as this kind of spiritism is condemned in the <strong>Bible</strong> (cf. Deut 18:10) .There are other examples.<br />
Matthew 8:29 says,<br />
"there met him two possessed with demons... And behold, they cried out, saying, What have<br />
we to do with thee, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?"<br />
ASV<br />
Again more truth out of the mouths of demons. Luke 4:34 says,<br />
"And in the synagogue there was a man, that had a spirit of an unclean demon; and he cried<br />
out with a loud voice,<br />
Ah! what have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Nazarene? art thou come to destroy us? I<br />
know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." ASV<br />
The astrologers (traditionally 3 Wise Men) knew of the prophecy of the birth of the Messiah,<br />
"Where is the child who is born to be king of the Jews? We observe the rising of his star,<br />
and we have come to pay him homage." Matthew 2:2 New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
All this, even though astrology/divination is condemned in the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
WHY? Because their (the demons) very existence hinges on what is written in the scriptures.<br />
"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."<br />
James 2:19 KJV<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/greber.htm (6 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:19 AM]
JW Opposers and their Love of Johannes Greber.<br />
So there should be not be any surprise when evil spirits try to imitate the godly. "And no marvel; for<br />
Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." 2Cor 11:14 KJV<br />
So what is the greater evil I wonder. The indiscretions of certain men like Greber (and perhaps those<br />
others mentioned above), or those who would keep others away from the <strong>Bible</strong>? By condemning certain<br />
versions, are you not condemning God for his inability to maintain divine providence? The mindset of<br />
those who condemn the New <strong>World</strong> Translation too often mirror the anti-intellectualism that runs<br />
rampant in the KJV-Only crowd. These people are not only anti-intellectual, they are anti-<strong>Bible</strong> and<br />
anti-God. It is these kinds of tactics, this kind of fear-mongering that brings out the worst in people of<br />
faith. It is okay to criticize certain elements of translation...I do it all the time. But I would never<br />
condemn the use of the King James Version, the New International Version and certainly not any<br />
Catholic version. They are all the word of God, and we can thank God for protecting his Word the way<br />
he has.<br />
The Best <strong>Bible</strong> is one that is read!<br />
Email Me<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/greber.htm (7 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:19 AM]
Recommended Books on <strong>Bible</strong>s and Theology<br />
Recommended Books<br />
If some of these books are out of print, try http://www.abebooks.com or http://www.everybookstore.com<br />
The New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
http://www.watchtower.org/publications/publications_available.htm<br />
"Your 'New <strong>World</strong> Translation' is a high<br />
quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness<br />
to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations<br />
in use today." Professor Jason Beduhn, Northern Arizona University<br />
Department of Humanities Arts and Religion<br />
Find out for yourself why it is a great <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Newcome's New Testament-Revised and Corrected-1808<br />
http://www.geocities.com/metatron32001/books4sale.htm<br />
"The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."<br />
$19.95 for hardcopy and $9.95 for CDRom<br />
The Name of God by Gerard Gertoux<br />
http://www.divinename.net/<br />
or http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/search?t=ISBN&q=0-7618-2204-6<br />
Gérard GERTOUX is a Hebrew scholar, specialist of the Tetragram; He has been president of the<br />
Association Biblique de Recherche d'Anciens Manuscrits since 1991. His training as an engineer and<br />
teacher has enabled him to compile an amount of information coming from a great diversity of<br />
specialized departments.<br />
The Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> for 14.95<br />
http://www.geocities.com/metatron32001/books4sale.htm<br />
The 21st Century New Testament-The Literal Free-Dual Translation<br />
http://www.stoopsmfg.com<br />
"The dual translation which enables a study of the literal meanings of the original text to be combined<br />
with a reading in modern English."<br />
"Jehovah your God you should worship and him alone you should serve." Matt 4:10<br />
"At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all<br />
things in their order." John 1:1 Free<br />
"In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal]<br />
[Word] was a god." John 1:1 Literal<br />
Christology and the Trinity: An Exploration<br />
http://members.aol.com/hector3001/christology.htm<br />
First effort by young scholar Edgar Foster:<br />
"This book is written, not only to dispel the erroneous notion that Christ is one persona in a triune<br />
Godhead: it is also written to present a true portrait of Jesus Christ."<br />
Jesus: God or the Son of God? by Brian Holt<br />
http://www.tellway-publishing.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/books.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:37 AM]
Recommended Books on <strong>Bible</strong>s and Theology<br />
This is a wonderful book with 366 pages of easy to understand analysis of the Trinity going through all<br />
the books of the NT one by one.<br />
The New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
www.amazon.com<br />
In 1956, scholars from L'Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem set their minds to translating the Scriptures from<br />
the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, hoping they could preserve the most sacred Christian<br />
traditions and stories. By 1966, the first English-language Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> was published.<br />
The Role of Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong>: with a special look at the New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
by Rolf Furuli<br />
Buy at Walmart for $11.94<br />
TimeLine of <strong>Bible</strong> History-Free<br />
by Theodore Cobb<br />
Free .pdf document, simply email the Webmaster at hector3001@aol.com<br />
The Mormon Murders: A True Story of Greed, Forgery, Deceit, and Death<br />
by Steven Naifeh<br />
amazon.com/naifeh<br />
Link inspired by Jose Luis Gil Alvarez<br />
When Jesus Became God<br />
by Richard Rubenstein<br />
www.amazon.com<br />
Jack Miles, The Boston Globe; author of God: A Biography<br />
"A splendidly dramatic story . . . Rubenstein has turned one of the great fights of history into an<br />
engrossing story."<br />
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words<br />
www.amazon.com<br />
The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the <strong>Bible</strong> : With Main Concordance, Appendix to<br />
the Main Concordance, Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the OT and Greek Dictionary of the NT<br />
The Epistles of Paul in Modern English-A Paraphrase by George Barker Stevens, Ph.D., D.D. 1898<br />
$9.95 at http://www.geocities.com/metatron32001/books4sale.htm<br />
Sample Scriptures:<br />
"In the Scripture Jehovah solemnly declares he will punish his foes and vindicate his<br />
people." Hebrews 10:29<br />
"We eagerly expect the glorious advent of Christ, our divine Saviour." Titus 2:13<br />
The Divine Name Controversy Firpo W. Carr, Ph.D.<br />
http://stirinc.org/dncvol1.htm<br />
"For his first doctoral dissertation (the basis for his book [The Divine Name Controversy])<br />
Carr used a computer to sift through all the relevant vowel/consonant combinations found<br />
in Hebrew scripture. The computer eventually narrowed the list to 'e' 'o' and 'a' or YeHoWaH (Jehovah in<br />
English)."--The Daily Breeze<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/books.htm (2 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:37 AM]
Recommended Books on <strong>Bible</strong>s and Theology<br />
The Interlinear Greek/English New TestamentWith Strong's Concordance Numbers Above Each<br />
Word by Jay P., Sr Green (Editor)<br />
www.amazon.com<br />
The third edition of this widely-used reference tool features an updated edition of A Literal Translation<br />
of the Hold <strong>Bible</strong> in the left column, the Greek Textus Receptus in the center column, and the King<br />
James Version in the right column.<br />
Thayer's Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament<br />
www.amazon.com<br />
Coded With the Numbering System from Strong's Exhausive Concordance of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
by Joseph Thayer<br />
A Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (BAGD)<br />
http://www.amazon.com/<br />
Exhaustive and irreplaceable, Walter Bauer's lexicon is one of the great momuments of biblical and<br />
related scholarship, perfect for English speaking students working in the Greek text.<br />
Rotherham Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> : A Literal Translation<br />
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos<br />
A Reader on amazon.com: " I believe that The Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> is the most accurate translation that we<br />
have available in English today."<br />
The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop<br />
amazon.com<br />
With sixty-one woodcut illustrations from Nineveh, Babylon, Egypt, Pompeii, etc. Objects of Worship;<br />
Festivals; Doctrine and Discipline; Rites and Ceremonies; Religious Orders; The Two Developments<br />
Historically and Prophetically Considered.<br />
The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound<br />
by Anthony F. Buzzard, Charles F. Hunting<br />
amazon.com/trinity<br />
Excellent discussion on the Trinity Doctrine from a Unitarian point of view.<br />
The King James Version Debate<br />
amazon.com/carson<br />
A good rundown of the King James Only deception.<br />
Vine's Dictionary of <strong>Bible</strong> Words<br />
Barnes and Nobles<br />
This reference makes it possible for the students with substantial, limited, or no background in Greek or<br />
Hebrew to study the meaning of biblical words in the original languages. Through the extensive use of<br />
Strong's numbering system and other references included in Vine's indexes, the student will be able to<br />
bridge Vine's entries with those of the standard technical lexicons used by <strong>Bible</strong> scholars worldwide. 755<br />
pp.<br />
How to Choose Your <strong>Bible</strong> Wisely<br />
Purchase<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/books.htm (3 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:37 AM]
Recommended Books on <strong>Bible</strong>s and Theology<br />
Also <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie gives a fair report on<br />
certain <strong>Bible</strong> Versions and <strong>Translations</strong>.<br />
Concepts of Father, Son and Holy Spirit<br />
amazon.com/alfs<br />
Paul W. Newman, A SPIRIT CHRISTOLOGY, University Press of America, 1987, p. 196n<br />
"A useful analysis of different versions of Trinitarianism and Non-trinitarianism."<br />
Randall R. Warren, CHRISTIAN BOOKSELLER, August 1984 "A challenging and interesting study....<br />
a first class religious reference work which manages to maintain a great deal of doctrinal objectivity."<br />
The Original New Testament<br />
The First Definitive Translation of the New Testament in 2000 Years<br />
by Hugh Schonfield<br />
And excellent and highly recommendable version of the Greek Scriptures.<br />
amazon.com/schonfield<br />
One God & One Lord-Reconsidering The Cornerstone Of The Christian Faith<br />
Discussing the fallacy of the Trinity Doctrine from an Ex-Way point of view. At $15.00 for a 680 page<br />
book it is worth every penny<br />
http://www.christianeducational.org/bookpromo.html<br />
The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon : With an Appendix Containing the<br />
Biblical Aramaic : Coded With the Numbering System from Strong's<br />
by Francis Brown, S. Driver, C. Briggs<br />
amazon.com/BDB<br />
A useful lexical tool. A must for any serious study of the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Accuracy of Translation : The Primary Criterion in Evaluating <strong>Bible</strong> Versions With Special<br />
Reference to the New International Version<br />
by Robert P. Martin<br />
amazon.com/martin<br />
An interesting critique of the NIV and Dynamic Equivalence.<br />
The King James Version Debate-A Plea for Realism<br />
by D.A. Carson<br />
amazon.com/carson<br />
With an appendix dealing with Pickering's The Identity of the New Testament Text<br />
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament<br />
by Bruce M. Metzger<br />
amazon.com/metzger<br />
Metzger gives explanation for the ratings of readings in many of the variant readings and texts and why<br />
they were rated as such. This work will give you a quick look at the arguments pro and con on the major<br />
variant readings of the New Testament.<br />
Faith of the Fatherless-The Psychology of Atheism<br />
by Paul C. Vitz<br />
amazon.com/vitz<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/books.htm (4 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:37 AM]
Recommended Books on <strong>Bible</strong>s and Theology<br />
"Surveys of the leading intellectual defenders of atheism and Christianity, show that the atheists had<br />
"defective fathers" while the believers did not. Vitz does not intend to suggest that atheism is<br />
psychologically determined, but rather hopes to counteract the idea that irrational psychological factors<br />
lead one to believe in God." Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)<br />
The Unvarnished New Testament by Andy Gaus<br />
amazon.com/gaus<br />
"Other translations were made by committees; they interpreted the text through theological<br />
doctrines and dogmas that arose centuries after the books were written. This new translation strips away<br />
these thick layers of convention to portray an ageless beauty that no earlier translation has captured."<br />
Tanakh-The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text<br />
amazon.com/tanakh<br />
Very readable Jewish Translation<br />
Basics of Biblical Greek-Grammar by William D. Mounce ISBN 0-310-59800-1<br />
amazon.com/mounce<br />
Enjoy it, as I do.<br />
The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament<br />
by George Wigram<br />
amazon.com/wigram<br />
Coded with Strong's Concordance numbers<br />
The New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
www.powells.com<br />
A fresh mainstream translation that moves away from the KJV tradition.<br />
Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
by John L. McKenzie S.J.<br />
amazon.com/mckenzie<br />
"One can only marvel at the depth, breadth, and accuracy of the scholarship"-Library Journal<br />
The Text of the New Testament-Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration<br />
by Bruce M. Metzger<br />
amazon.com/metzger<br />
"By far the best available handbook on textual criticism."-Bibliotheca Sacra<br />
The Greek New Testament-United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies<br />
Easier to use critical apparatus than the Nestle-Aland text.<br />
amazon.com/ubs<br />
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament<br />
by Bruce M. Metzger<br />
amazon.com/tc<br />
A fine companion to the above stated UBS Greek text.<br />
What Happens When We Die by Anthony Buzzard<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/books.htm (5 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:37 AM]
Recommended Books on <strong>Bible</strong>s and Theology<br />
Contact Atlanta <strong>Bible</strong> College, Box 100,000, Morrow GA, 30205 or<br />
185 Summerville Dr. Brooks, GA, 30205<br />
Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History<br />
By Philip Jenkins<br />
"...Jenkins argues that cults are more realistically regarded as the cutting edge of religious development.<br />
Loaded with intriguing sketches of dozens of cults and distinguished by Jenkins' healthily nonjudgmental<br />
attitude, this is a superb historical primer on what, tomorrow, may be a hot topic again."<br />
amazon.com/jenkins<br />
Our Fathers Who Aren't In Heaven-The Forgotten Christianity of Jesus, the Jew<br />
by Anthony F. Buzzard<br />
http://www.centuryarchive.com/<br />
Who is Jesus<br />
by Anthony F. Buzzard<br />
Contact Atlanta <strong>Bible</strong> College, Box 100,000, Morrow GA, 30205 or<br />
185 Summerville Dr. Brooks, GA, 30205<br />
One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism<br />
by Larry W. Hurtado<br />
amazon.com/hurtado<br />
A great study of agency in second temple Judaism.<br />
The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English<br />
Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton's translation on one side, and the Greek text on the other. Very useful for study<br />
purposes<br />
amazon.com/lxx<br />
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey<br />
amazon.com/mantey<br />
A great read and study, though it does have a theological slant.<br />
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture : The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the<br />
Text of the New Testament<br />
by Bart D. Ehrman<br />
amazon.com/ehrman<br />
The victors not only write the history, they also reproduce the texts. In a study that explores the close<br />
relationship between the social history of early Christianity and the textual tradition of the emerging New<br />
Testament, Ehrman examines how early struggles between Christian "heresy" and "orthodoxy" affected<br />
the transmission of the documents over which, in part, the debates were waged.<br />
Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis<br />
by Philip Jenkins<br />
amazon.com/jenkins<br />
"Philip Jenkins has written a fascinating, exhaustive, and, above all, even-handed account that not only<br />
puts this particular crisis in perspective, but offers an eye-opening look at the way in which an issue takes<br />
hold of the popular imagination. Jenkins reassures us about our local clergy, but also delivers a disturbing<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/books.htm (6 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:37 AM]
Recommended Books on <strong>Bible</strong>s and Theology<br />
message about how vulnerable we are to the news media."<br />
"Arguing that the current epidemic of clergy sex abuse is not as widespread as the media suggests, a<br />
critical examination of this issue states that popular imagination fans the fire of scandal and theorizes<br />
about why the controversy has targeted Catholicism."<br />
Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek<br />
by Matthew S. Demoss<br />
amazon.com/demoss<br />
"What is a parechesis? How about that word you see throughout many commentaries, paraenesis? What<br />
is the Didache? Did you forget exactly what was the Hexapla? What does it mean when a commentator<br />
says that the construction of a given passage is anacoluthon?" This little book will help you.<br />
Nave's Topical <strong>Bible</strong><br />
by Orville J. Nave<br />
amazon.com/nave<br />
Nave's Topical <strong>Bible</strong>, the best known of all topical bibles, has been a valuable <strong>Bible</strong>-study reference and<br />
a best-seller for more than 75 years. It is a comprehensive digest of over 20,000 topics and subtopics with<br />
more than 100,000 associated Scripture references. The most significant references for each topic<br />
actually include the full text of the verse cited-saving the need to separately look up each verse.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/books.htm (7 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:37 AM]
Constantine the Great: Pagan or Christian?<br />
Was Constantine the Great a Pagan or a Christian?<br />
A Reply to http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-history-constantine.htm<br />
and others who adore this man.<br />
Why do myths abound? Yes, I mean myths. History is full of myths, tales in where we make mere men<br />
as gods and heroes. Molehills of moments blown into mountains of false memories.<br />
How many of us truly know that George Washington did not really cut down the cherry tree, or that<br />
Helen Keller was a communist, that the first Thanksgiving with the Pilgrims was an American<br />
fabrication, that Martin Luther was an anti-semite and John Calvin a murderer? We paint our heroes with<br />
the broad stroke of perfection, and the same goes for Constantine the Great, the first "Christian"<br />
Emperor. Some books will have you believe that Constantine was used by God, he was a "Saint." And in<br />
this they need to. The central doctrine of Christendom is the Trinity, which was brought about through no<br />
small measure of help by Constantine the Great. If Constantine's portrait was less than Christian, then the<br />
next logical step is to wonder what problems there are with the Trinity doctrine. So, the question put<br />
forward is: Is Constantine sinner or Saint?<br />
It is significant, for instance, not that the pagan gods and their legends survived for a few years on<br />
Constantine's coinage but that they disappeared so quickly: the last of them, the relatively inoffensive<br />
"Unconquered Sun" had been eliminated within little over a decade after the defeat of Maxentius<br />
(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)<br />
Reply: How can the Sun-God be considered “relatively inoffensive” to a Christian?<br />
“Constantine’s nephew Julian speaks of Constantine’s connection with a special cult of<br />
Helios. From a familiar obverse on coins of Constantine, representing the sun-god with the<br />
inscription SOLI. INVICTI. COMITI, we deduce that the personification of the sun as<br />
Mithras is here implied. Anyone who has dealt with ancient coins knows that out of five<br />
Constantinian pieces probably four will bear this obverse, so that there is a high probability<br />
that this device was retained until the Emporer’s death…But the coins with unequivocal<br />
Christian emblems which he is said to have struck are yet to be found” The Age of<br />
Constantine the Great, 1949, Jacob Burckhardt, p.293<br />
Nor was the visit to Rome a success. Constantine's refusal to take part in a<br />
pagan procession offended the Romans; and when he left after a short visit, it<br />
was never to return. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great,<br />
Vol. 5, p.71)<br />
the accusation that his [Constantine’s] generosity was only made possible by<br />
his looting of the treasures of the pagan temples (Encyclopedia Britannica,<br />
1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)<br />
Reply:<br />
"Although Constantine attributed his success to the divine message that he beleived he had<br />
read in the skies before the battle at the Milvian Bridge in 312, he could not officially--and<br />
privately, it seems, did not-abandon paganism at once." Encyclopedia Americana 2000<br />
"However, until his preparations for his final campaign by 323, he did not abandon his<br />
allegiance to the Sun god, even though he regarded himself as a servant of the Christian<br />
God... Constantine's public image remained - the Sun god was the emperor's 'companion.'<br />
The liberation of Rome was attributed to the Sun on a medallion struck at the time." The<br />
Rise of Christianity, W.H.C. Frend, p.484<br />
Constantine’s Conversion and Genuineness of Faith Assessment. The reign of Constantine must be<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/constantine.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:05:50 AM]
Constantine the Great: Pagan or Christian?<br />
interpreted against the background of his clear and unambiguous personal commitment to Christianity.<br />
(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)<br />
Reply:<br />
"Some things have been established with reasonable certainty: Constantine was no<br />
intellectual giant; he took himself very seriously with regard to what he considered his<br />
mission to promote Christianity; and lacking more than one of the Christian virtues, he was<br />
on occasion cruel, ruthless, and even inhumane." Encyclopedia Americana 2000<br />
"Constantine was almost certainly a Mithraic, and his triumphal arch, built after his<br />
'conversion', testifies to the Sun-god, or 'unconquered sun'. Many Christians did not make a<br />
clear distinction between this sun-cult and their own. They referred to Christ 'driving his<br />
chariot across the sky'; they held their services on Sunday, knelt towards the East and had<br />
their nativity feast on 25 December, the birthday of the sun at the winter solstice. During the<br />
later pagan revival under the Emperor Julian many Christian found it easy to apostacize<br />
because of this confusion; the Bishop of Troy told Julian he had always secretely prayed to<br />
the sun. Constantine never abandoned sun-worship and kept the sun on his coins. He made<br />
Sunday into a day of rest, closing the law courts and forbidding all work except agricultural<br />
labour. In his new city of Constantinople, he set up a statue of the sun-god, bearing his own<br />
features, in the Forum; and another of the mother-Goddess Cybele, though she was<br />
presented in a posture of Christian prayer.<br />
Constantine's motives were probably confused. He was an exceptionally superstitious man,<br />
and he no doubt shared the view, popular among professinal soldiers, that all religous cults<br />
should be respected, to appease their respective gods....Vain and superstitious, Constantine<br />
may have embraced Chrstianity because it suited his personal interests, and his growing<br />
megalomania.... His own role was not wholly removed from that of the pagan God-emperor<br />
- as witness the colossal heads and statues of himself with which he littered his<br />
empire...How could the Christian Church, apparently quite willingly, accomodate this weird<br />
megalomaniac in its theocratic system?" A History of Christianity "Paul Johnson pp. 67, 68<br />
"Few of the essential elements of Christian belief interested Constantine very much-neither<br />
God's mercy nor man's sinfulness, neither damnation nor salvation, neither brotherly love<br />
nor, needless to say, humility. Ardent in his convictions, he remained nevertheless oblivious<br />
to their moral implications. Modern historians have been bothered by this;" [Constantine by<br />
Ramsay MacMullen, p. 239]<br />
This is the same man that even some of his time was considered analogous to Christ. [cf. pp<br />
176, 177]<br />
What about the famous council of Nicaea:<br />
"Constantine, who treated religious questions solely from a political point of view, assured<br />
unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new profession of faith. In<br />
this way unity was achieved/ 'It was altogether unheardof that a universal creed should be<br />
instituted solely on the authority of the emperor, who as a catechumen was not even<br />
admitted to the mystery of the Eucharist and was totally unempowered to rule on the highest<br />
mysteries of the faith. Not a single bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing."<br />
[Walter Nigg, The Heretics, Heresy Throught the Ages, p127]<br />
"When he [Constantius] died at York on 25 July 305 the soldiers proclaimed<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/constantine.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:05:50 AM]
Constantine the Great: Pagan or Christian?<br />
his son Constantine as emperor. Constantine, like his father, worshipped<br />
the Unconquered Sun [page 122]... "The conversion of Constantine marks a<br />
turning-point in the history of the Church and of Europe." ... "But if his<br />
conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace,<br />
neither was it a cynical act of Machiavellian cunning. It was a military<br />
matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear,<br />
but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the<br />
Christians....He was not baptized until he lay dying in 337, but this implies no<br />
doubt about his Christian belief. It was common at this time (and continued so<br />
until about A.D. 400) to postpone baptism to the end of one's life, especially if<br />
one's duty as an official included torture and execution of criminals. Part of the<br />
reason for postponement lay in the seriousness with which the responsibilities<br />
of baptism were taken. Constantine favoured Christianity among the many<br />
religions of his subjects, but did not make it the official or 'established' religion<br />
of the empire." (The Early Church, Chadwick, Henry. p 122,125,127)<br />
Reply:<br />
"Constantine was a hot-blooded man. He was wise to avoid being baptized while there were<br />
still so many sins of passion that he might yet commit." [Rubenstein, p. 49]<br />
"The last years of C(onstantine)'s life saw an approach to the Arian position: he was<br />
baptized by a bishop with Arian tendencies shortly before his death near Nicomedia in May<br />
337." [Encyclopedia of the Early Church, p. 193]<br />
"...it may be that the Church refused him the sacrament because of his manner of life.<br />
Certainly it was not his piety which made him a Christian." [A History of Christianity, Paul<br />
Johnson, 1928, p.68]<br />
The fact that Constantine murdered his son is no proof that Constantine was not a Christian.<br />
We are not told why Constantine murdered his son. Anti-Trinitarians are basically trying to trash the<br />
genuineness of Constantine's Christianity and his involvement in the Nicene creed. Britannica notes<br />
Constantine putting his son to death, but says it was for reasons unknown. What if his son committed<br />
murder himself, and Constantine, just like the USA today, executed him, being head of state! The fact that<br />
Constantine killed his own son, could be taken, should the facts ever be known, as a sign of his impartial<br />
intolerance of sin even in his own family! In this case the murder of his son could be viewed as an act of<br />
righteous faith!<br />
Reply: Let us look at the facts.<br />
"At around the same time, the emporer tried the apparently related case of a young Roman<br />
aristocrat, Ceionius Rufius Albinus, who was accused of adultery and black magic,<br />
convicted him, and sent him onto permanent exile." [When Jesus Became God, Rubenstein,<br />
p.91]<br />
It is interesting that this aristocrat was only exiled, while Crispus (Constantine's son) was executed<br />
immediately after a (possibly trumped-up) charge of "attempted rape." How did others view this action at<br />
the time?<br />
"In July he arrived in Rome, only to be confronted by his mother, the devout Helena, who<br />
had become a symbol of Christian piety throughout the empire. Dressed in mourning, she<br />
accused him of executing her grandson hastily on false evidence. Evidently, she offered<br />
evidence that Fausta had masterminded the plot in order to rid her sons of the leading rival<br />
for the succession. One can only imagine the scene that must have ensued between<br />
Constantine and his wife, but the outcome is well attested. Fausta visited the steam room of<br />
the baths at the imperial palace and asphyxiated in the overheated air. She is generally<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/constantine.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:05:50 AM]
Constantine the Great: Pagan or Christian?<br />
believed to have suicided to avoid the executioner, but some have pictured her being hurled<br />
into the scalding steam by Constantine's agents, the doors held fast against her escape.<br />
Not long after this, Bishop Hosius requested permission to leave Constantine's court...one<br />
suspects that it was a response to the horrors the bishop had witnessed." [Rubenstein, pp.<br />
91,92]<br />
"To pass for a Christian would, indeed, have been a great presumption on his part. Not<br />
long after the Council of Nicaea he suddenly had Crispus, his excellent Son by his first<br />
marraige and a pupil of Lactantius, put to death at Pola in Istria (326), and soon thereafter he<br />
had his wife Fausta, daughter of Maximian, drowned in her bath. The 11 year old Licinianus<br />
was also murdered, apparently at the same time as Crispus....that the horror was not merely<br />
a family affair but possessed political implications can be deduced from the fact that<br />
Licinianus was included among the victims. [The Age of Constantine the Great,<br />
pp.283,284, Burckhardt]<br />
"In modern-day terms, Constantine could hardly be considered much of a Christian. As an<br />
example, he never relinguished his title Pontifex Maximus. This was the title given to him as<br />
the head of the state pagan cult, which was either Mithraism or Sol Invictus, two distinct but<br />
similar religions. In addition, the coinage of his reign continued to depict the Sun God [Sol<br />
Invictus]. Finally, it is reported that he personally murdured one of his own sons, had his<br />
second wife drowned, had his nephew and brother-in-law killed after he had guaranteed safe<br />
passage, etc. However, during all of this he sponsored Christianity because it had been<br />
useful to him in winnig a decisive battle."<br />
[The Christian Conspiracy, p. 58, Dr. L.D. Moore]<br />
It is evident from the above that Constantine was no godly man in a Christian sense. This has been borne<br />
out by the violence that erupted at the time during the Nicene Controversy. The pro-Trinitarian side of<br />
the issue was led by Athanasius, "a future saint and uninhibited faction fighter, had his opponents<br />
excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled to<br />
distant provinces." He "possessed a power independent of the emperor which he built up and perpetuated<br />
by violence. That was both the strength and the weakness of his position. Like a modern gangster, he<br />
evoked widespread mistrust, proclaimed total innocence - and especially succeeded in evading<br />
conviction on specific charges." [When Jesus Became God, Rubenstein, pp. 6, 107]<br />
"Constantine was a Christian of a very peculiar type, a type that would hardly be recognized as Christian<br />
at all today." Constantine the Great by Michael Grant<br />
A rotten tree does indeed bear rotten fruit. Matthew 7:17<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>.ca: Your article is riddled with both errors and mistakes. Nothing you wrote<br />
refuted the facts of history.<br />
Your sources are insignificant and invalid.<br />
Britannica is the most reliable source of historical information in the<br />
world. Take a look at the bibliography.<br />
Britannica is not ONE SOURCE it is the consensuses of world opinion.<br />
Look up Christmas and its pagan origin. It is dead on! <strong>Bible</strong>.ca<br />
I encourage all to check out every source on this man. Brittanica's article was written by TWO men, who<br />
used other sources that did not even agree with him (i.e. Ramsey MacMullen).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/constantine.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:05:50 AM]
Constantine the Great: Pagan or Christian?<br />
And of course, please read their artice on Christmas which is quite enlightening.<br />
"The reason why Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25 remains uncertain, but<br />
most probably the reason is that early Christians wished the date to coincide with the pagan<br />
Roman festival marking the "birthday of the unconquered sun" (natalis solis invicti); this<br />
festival celebrated the winter solstice, when the days again begin to lengthen and the sun<br />
begins to climb higher in the sky."<br />
Even those who consider themselves good Christians would be at odds with Brittanica's take on<br />
evolution.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/constantine.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:05:50 AM]
Theotes vs. Theiotes and Godhead, Deity or the Divine Quality of Christ.<br />
An Online Reply to Mark McFall's:<br />
An analysis of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Watchtower<br />
Society -<br />
"Theotes" in Col 2:9 and "Theiotes" in Rom 1:20<br />
Original Article at http://www.bright.net/~bielski/theotes_versus_theiotes.htm<br />
Mark: "According to Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, theotes (the nominative form, from which<br />
theotetos is derived) means "divinity, divine nature.1 Being truly "divinity," or "divine nature," does not<br />
make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans<br />
share "humanity" or "human nature" makes them coequal or all the same age."<br />
After checking a few more lexicons and <strong>Bible</strong>'s we learned that "theotes" is defined similarly to the Liddell<br />
and Scott Lexicon, but we also learn that most scholarly Lexicon's go one step further and include the<br />
definitions deity, Godhead, and divine being. In fact Biblical scholar Joseph H. Thayer (not a Christian),<br />
defined theotes in<br />
his Lexicon the following way:<br />
"Theotes...(deitas, Tertullian, Augustine) deity i.e. the state of being God,<br />
Godhead: Col 2:9"7<br />
Notice in Thayer's Lexicon that Thayer has added in parenthesis two ancient Biblical scholars who agree<br />
with him, he list's: Tertullian and Augustine. Biblical scholar Grimm who edited Thayer's third edition of<br />
his lexicon in 1888 added in brackets his own comments, Grimm writes:<br />
"[Syn...theotes deity differs from theiotes divinity, as essence differs from<br />
quality or attribute. Trent, Lightfoot, Meyer, Fritzsche]"<br />
In examining Thayer's Lexicon, we discover that there are eight Biblical scholars listed who hold that<br />
"theotes" means "deity," and five scholars who say there is a difference in meaning between "theotes" in<br />
Colossians 2:9 and "theiotes" of Romans 1:20. It seems that there is some confusion here, this has lead to<br />
some mistranslation of<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>'s and ultimately in the case of the Jehovah Witness the misapprehension of the person of Christ.<br />
Reply: The "confusion" seems to be widespread, and as we shall see, it is not really an issue at all based<br />
on many <strong>Bible</strong>s, lexicons and dictionaries. We will also explore the context and the Greek word<br />
PLHRWMA [fullness] and KATOIKEI [dwelleth]. First though, how have <strong>Bible</strong> translators viewed the<br />
relationship between theotes [QEOTHTOS] and theiotes [QEIOTHS] and other closely related Greek<br />
words?<br />
Version Acts 17:29 2Peter 1:4 Romans 1:20 Colossians 2:9<br />
Greek QEION QEIAS QEIOTHS QEOTHTOS<br />
KJV Godhead divine Godhead Godhead<br />
ASV Godhead divine divinity Godhead<br />
NKJV divine nature divine Godhead* Godhead<br />
TEV nature divine divine nature divine nature<br />
MLB Deity divine divine nature Godhead<br />
NRSV deity divine divine nature deity<br />
CEV* God God God God<br />
Unvarnished divine divine divinity divinity<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/theotes.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:06:06 AM]
Theotes vs. Theiotes and Godhead, Deity or the Divine Quality of Christ.<br />
Concordant Divine divine divinity Deity<br />
Schonfield Divine nature divine divinity Divine Wisdom<br />
NASB Divine Nature divine divine nature Deity<br />
Jerusalem deity divine deity divinity<br />
New Jerusalem deity divine God divinity<br />
Lattimore divinity divine divinity divine<br />
Simple English God divine divinity divinity<br />
NIV divine being divine divine nature Deity<br />
Revised English deity being of God deity Godhead<br />
20th Century Deity divine divinity Godhead<br />
Barclay N/A divine deity godhead<br />
RSV Deity divine deity deity<br />
Lamsa Deity divine Godhead Godhead<br />
Goodspeeed AT divine nature divine divine character God's nature<br />
N.A.B. divinity divine divinity deity<br />
Newcome Godhead divine providence deity*<br />
NWT Divine Being divine Godship divine quality<br />
QEION/QEIAS Strong's 2304, "godlike (neuter as noun, divinity): - divine, godhead."<br />
Thayers, "divine, divinity, deity<br />
BAGD, "of the godhead and everything that applies to it"<br />
"whereby he hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises; that through these ye may<br />
become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in that world by lust."<br />
2Peter 2:4 ASV<br />
QEIOTHS Strong's 2305, " divinity (abstractly)"<br />
Thayer's, "divinity, divine nature"<br />
BAGD, "of a divinity...divine nature...HSNash, Ro 1:20, Col 2:9"<br />
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have<br />
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." NIV Ro<br />
1:20<br />
QEOTHTOS, Strong's 2320, "divinity (abstractly)"<br />
See comments below on Thayer.<br />
BAGD, "deity, divinity, used as abstract noun for theos...the fullness of a deity Col.2:9"<br />
"For it is in him that all the fulness of God's nature lives embodied, and in union with him, you too are<br />
filled with it" Col 2:9 Smith/Goodspeeed AT<br />
*NKJV ftn. divine nature, deity/MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong> ftn "Godhead=His divine nature, particularly His<br />
faithfulness, kindness and graciousness.<br />
* CEV [God's...character at Romans 1:20] is a paraphrased <strong>Bible</strong> and not very useful for serious stydy.<br />
* Newcome ftn. "Compare Ephesians iii. 19, where Christians are said to be filled with the very fulness<br />
of God. 'The scholastic word godhead,' says Mr. Lindsey, 'is rejected, because to common readers it<br />
countenances the strange notion of a God consisting of three persons."<br />
Now let us examine Thayer:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/theotes.htm (2 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:06:06 AM]
Theotes vs. Theiotes and Godhead, Deity or the Divine Quality of Christ.<br />
qeovth"...deity i.e. he state of being God, Godhead...Col. ii. 9...[SYN[ONYM]., qevth", qeiovth"<br />
[theiotes, thay.AH.tace] qeovt[h"]. deity differs from qeiovt[h""] divinity, as essence differs from quality<br />
or attribute; c[on]f[er]. Trench [Synonyms of the New Testament, Ninth edition, improved, London,<br />
1880.] § ii; Bp. Lightf[oo]t. or [Heinrich August Wilhelm] Mey[er]. on Col 1.c….] —'Thayer' lexicon, p.<br />
288.<br />
Despite the ad hominem attack on Thayer, that what is called 'Thayer's Lexicon', is mostly the work of<br />
Lutherans Wilke and Grimm in Greek and Latin, which were translated into English by Joseph Henry<br />
Thayer, who was a Congregationalist and NOT an Unitarian see: George Huntston Williams, The<br />
Harvard Divinity School, Boston, The Beacon Press, 1954, p. 147 and The Encyclopedia Americana,<br />
1956, Vol. 26, p. 490.)<br />
Thayer's additions in the lexicon are set off in brackets. In the above quotation from the lexicon, after<br />
"Col. ii. 9", Thayer has made an addition to show the meaning of 'theotes' according to the understanding<br />
of Trench, Lightfoot and Meyer, all of whom are trinitarians.<br />
So the definitions and meanings expressed were of trinitarians.<br />
Mark: This confusion can be clearly seen in the Watchtower's own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the<br />
Greek Scriptures. Editions 1969 and 1985 are effective tools that can be used in witnessing encounters. Let<br />
me explain: In the interlinear (1985 edition) section of Col. 2:9 "Theotes" is translated divinity. As stated<br />
previously some scholars accept theotes as meaning divinity which could convey the rendering "divine<br />
quality," but this seems to be a gray area in which the Watchtower Society has focused on. For in their<br />
Kingdom Interlinear Translation of<br />
the Greek Scriptures first published in 1969, Col. 2:9 "theotes" is translated "godship," this is an accepted<br />
translation and presents the idea of "deity" more clearly than "divinity." (1969 edition) The confusion is<br />
also easily detected in the same Kingdom Interlinear (1985ed) at Romans 1:20. Here "theiotes" in the<br />
interlinear section is incorrectly translated "godship". When in fact according to Thayer it should be<br />
"divinity". The Kingdom<br />
Interlinear (1985ed) has used this gray area of translation to confuse the two Greek words "theotes" and<br />
"theiotes" in an attempt to support their view that Jesus Christ is not God.<br />
Reply: Corrections of this type are not uncommon. Consider Scriveners Greek text with interlinear by<br />
Jay P. Green at Acts 17:29 with Godhood (1996) and Godhead (1983).<br />
Many <strong>Bible</strong> versions have made changes in key areas in their revisions, like the NIV (John 1:18), TEV<br />
(John 1:1), NAB (2 Thess 1:12) etc.<br />
However, the translation in the NWT has not changed in this regard. It is quite clear from the above chart<br />
that <strong>Bible</strong> translator view DEITY,GODHEAD,DIVINITY,DIVINE and DIVINE NATURE in the four<br />
Greek words in the same fashion.<br />
Mark: The Watchtower also uses another interlinear that is quite useful in this study. It is know as The<br />
Emphatic Diaglott. It is published by the Watchtower but it is not produced by them...which correctly<br />
translates the word "deity"<br />
Reply: But what Mark does not show you is that the Emphatic Diaglott also uses "deity" at Acts 17:29,<br />
Romans 1:20 also, thereby, not making the distinction that Mr McFall is hoping for.<br />
What Have Other Scholars Said?<br />
A.T Robertson who is recognized as the worlds for most authoritative grammarian said<br />
in his scholarly book Word Pictures In The New Testament:<br />
"There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead<br />
(the very essence of God, from 'Theos,' deity) and not to be confused with<br />
'Theiotes' in Romans 1:20 (from 'Theios,' the quality of God, divinity), here<br />
only in N.T. as 'Theiote' only in Romans 1:20. The distinction is observed in<br />
Lucian and Plutarch. 'Theiotes' occurs in the papyri and inscriptions."10<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/theotes.htm (3 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:06:06 AM]
Theotes vs. Theiotes and Godhead, Deity or the Divine Quality of Christ.<br />
The Expositor's Greek Testament, confirms A.T Robertson on this issue:<br />
"The word ("Theotes") is to be distinguished from "Theiotes" as Deity, the<br />
being God, from Divinity, the being Divine or Godlike. The passage thus<br />
asserts the real Deity of Christ."<br />
Reply: But what of other scholars? Does it mean only 'deity'? Does it bear the sense of 'divinity' and/or<br />
'divine nature'? Edward <strong>Robinson</strong> in his Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 334,<br />
reports: "divinity, divine nature".<br />
Liddell and Scott's A Greek–English Lexicon, page 792, says: "divinity, divine nature".<br />
E.A. Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, page 578, discloses: "divinity<br />
, deity, godhead".<br />
Clinton Morrison, as found in An Analytical Concordance to the Revised Standard Version of the New<br />
Testament, page 139, relates: "deity, divinity".<br />
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Volume 2, page 66, states: "deity,<br />
divinity".<br />
The Abington <strong>Bible</strong> Commentary, offers: "The totality of divine attributes is present as a whole in one<br />
'Body' or concrete individual personality", page 1257.<br />
The Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich lexicon [BAGD], on page 359, defines it as: "deity, divinity, used as<br />
abstract noun for theos...the fullness of a deity Col.2:9". [abstract noun, a quality or attribute].<br />
The Eerdman's Analytical Concordance to the RSV states: "deity, 1. QEION (Acts 17:29), 2. QEIOTHS<br />
(Rom 1:20), 3. QEOTHTOS (Col 2:9). p.251<br />
See also The Anchor <strong>Bible</strong>: Colossians, by Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke (Doubleday, 1994), pp. 312<br />
and 363; also volume 3 of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by<br />
Kittel, page 119. "Abstract nouns by their very nature focus on a quality." (Wallace, Greek Grammar<br />
Beyond the Basics, p. 226.<br />
Or, as a note in Kittel reads, "The hEIS QEOS [One God] of the OT has attracted to Himself all divine<br />
power in the cosmos, and on the early Christian view He has given this fullness of power to Christ as the<br />
Bearer of the divine office."<br />
Counter all this with the translators in the above chart and you will see that many do not see much<br />
difference in the 2 words at all.<br />
Mark: What Are The Historical Roots of "Theotes" and "Theiotes"<br />
James Hastings in his book A Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> Dealing With Its Language, Literature, And Contents<br />
deals with these two words and one other that is closely related ("Theios-divine nature"),<br />
"Theiotes-divinity", and "Theotes-deity" informs us that:<br />
"In each case the Greek word is appropriately employed, and the one could<br />
not have been used for the other....Lightfoot on Col 2:9 expresses the<br />
difference between 'Theiotes' and 'Theotes' thus:'Theiotes' is the quality,<br />
'Theotes' the essence of God. The distinction is best seen by observing that<br />
'Theotes' comes from 'Theos' God, While 'Theiotes' comes from 'Theios'<br />
Divine....It is at once seen how appropriately St. Paul uses 'Theiotes' in<br />
Romans 1:20 where he speaks of such attributes of God as can be read in<br />
the book of Nature; and how appropriately 'Theotes' in Col 2:9 where he<br />
asserts of the Son that in Him dwells the fullness of the entire (revealed and<br />
unrevealed) Personality of God. The Latin Versions were forced to use<br />
divinitas for both words. But Its insufficiency to represent 'Theotes' was early<br />
felt....The same feeling is now finding expression in English, and theologians<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/theotes.htm (4 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:06:06 AM]
Theotes vs. Theiotes and Godhead, Deity or the Divine Quality of Christ.<br />
prefer to speak of the Deity rather than of the Divinity of Christ, since the<br />
former word alone give Him the full Personality of God. The English Versions<br />
from Wyclif to AV make no distinction, but use "Godhead" at both places,<br />
except that the Rheims in 1582 New Testament has "Divinity" at Romans<br />
1:20. Yet Beza (on Col. 2:9) had shown the distinction."<br />
Reply: But what it the REAL history of QEIOTHS and QEOTHTOS? H. S. Nash (who is mentioned as a<br />
reference in BAGD) in his "QEIOTHS- QEOTHTOS, Rom. i. 20; Col.ii.9," JBL 18 (1899), 1-34 states<br />
that Philo and Josephus never use QEOTHTOS, and use QEIOTHS sparingly. Nash also show a lack of<br />
distinction between these 2 term in Greek philosophy and that "the 2 words are practically identical in<br />
meaning."<br />
"The chief fault in the exponents of the distinction between the terms is that they have taken<br />
little or almost no account of the long history of the terms. Thay have made no attempt to<br />
correlate them with the history of thought. They have not asked whether the system of the<br />
author in question called for the distinction, but, taking the terms as the isolated expressions<br />
of the theorem, have picked up an example whereever it came their way. The only excuse<br />
for the hasty study of the larger context of the stock illustrations is the fact that the<br />
traditional view, having ruled interpretations for six centuries, has naturally fallen into the<br />
habit of taking itself for granted." NASH<br />
Stephen E. Broyles, in his "What Do We Mean By Godhead" considers the other Greek sources and<br />
defines it as a "quality of being a god." [EQ 50.4 (1978), 224]<br />
Mark: J.B. Lightfoot whom James Hastings is referencing in his book St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians,<br />
included more on the subject that was not covered in Hastings Dictionary, Lightfoot went on to say<br />
concerning Latin versions:<br />
"In the Latin versions, owing to the poverty of the language, both 'Theotes'<br />
and 'Theiotes' are translated by the same term divinity; but this was felt to be<br />
inadequate, and the word deity was coined at a later date to represent<br />
"Theotes."<br />
Notice below that the Latin Vulgate shows what Lightfoot is referring to here is in both Romans 1:20 and<br />
Col. 2:9 with "divinitatis" occurring in both passages:<br />
"VUL Romans 1:20 invisibilia enim ipsius a creatura mundi per ea quae facta<br />
sunt intellecta conspiciuntur sempiterna quoque eius virtus et (divinitas) ut<br />
sint inexcusabiles."<br />
"VUL Colossians 2:9 quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo (divinitatis)<br />
corporaliter."<br />
It is here in the Latin versions where the root of this gray area has been exposed. The Watchtower Society's<br />
book Insights On The Scriptures states of these Latin versions:<br />
"The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as 'divinity.' Thus,<br />
here too, there is a solid basis for rendering theiotes as referring to quality,<br />
not personality."<br />
The Watchtower Society can do no more than present a Latin translation of the Greek original for their<br />
defense and assert that they have "a solid basis" for their own translation. What they neglect to say is that<br />
the Latin language has it's limitations in the translation process.<br />
Reply: That is not really a fair argument as Watchtower article also mentions other versions and Liddel<br />
and Scott's lexicon. In the past they have also used Parkhurst's A Greek and English Lexicon (1845)<br />
which defines theiótes as "Godhead" (page 261) and theótes as "Deity, godhead, divine nature" (page<br />
264). Note the definition "divine nature" as well as "Godhead."<br />
Notice below that the Latin Vulgate shows what Lightfoot is referring to here is in both Romans 1:20 and<br />
Col. 2:9 with "divinitatis" occurring in both passages<br />
Reply: But as we see, DIVINITATIS does not occur in both scriptures, only in Col 2:9. All the <strong>Bible</strong>s I<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/theotes.htm (5 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:06:06 AM]
Theotes vs. Theiotes and Godhead, Deity or the Divine Quality of Christ.<br />
own that are translated from the Vulgate do translate divinitatis as Godhead:<br />
The Douay has Godhead at Col 2:9, but not at the other scriptures, as does the Confraternity Version.<br />
The Knox <strong>Bible</strong> uses Deity at Colossians 2:9, but not at the other scriptures mentioned above. It seems<br />
that those <strong>Bible</strong>s that are based on the Latin are more careful to distinguish between the words in<br />
question [making the above criticisms unfair and dishonest] than are the Protestant <strong>Bible</strong>s like the KJV.<br />
I have 2 Latin dictionaries, and none of them even mention the word DIVINITATIS, probably due to its<br />
lack of use Now, and in the Past.<br />
Professor Metzger explains it this way: "Although the Latin language is in general very suitable for use in<br />
making a translation from Greek, there still remain certain features which cannot be expressed in Latin."<br />
Note: Bruce Metzger's article "The Jehovah's Witnesses And Jesus Christ" which appeared in Theology<br />
Today (page 77, {1953}), seems to suggest that he accepts the New <strong>World</strong> Translation of "divine quality."<br />
He writes: "Nothing could be clearer or more emphatic than this declaration. It means that everything<br />
without exception which goes to make up the godhead, or 'divine quality,' dwells or resides in Jesus Christ<br />
bodily, that is, is invested with a body in Jesus Christ." It seems Metzger defines "divine quality" the same<br />
as "deity," which posses a problem for the Watchtower Societies definition of "divine quality," because<br />
Metzger is a recognized authority in translating the Greek <strong>Bible</strong>. In concluding this study it seems clear that<br />
Paul's point is polemical against the idea that the fullness of God dwells anywhere else accept in Christ<br />
alone. Jesus Christ at the incarnation assumed humanity, and is forever the God-man (theanthropos).<br />
Reply: Thank you. Metzger's book did say that there were limitations of translating the <strong>Bible</strong> into Latin,<br />
but at the same time he also points out that all of the early languages had limitations.<br />
Metzger may define deity the same as divine quality, but then, so do I. According to the above chart of<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> translations, many view "divine nature" as equivalent to deity and Godhead. But since "ye may<br />
become partakers of the divine nature," then this loses some of the meaning the trinitarians hope to cull<br />
from this word.<br />
So what really does "deity" and "divinity" mean?<br />
The Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines "divinity" as:<br />
di•vin•i•ty (di vin'i te) n., pl. -ties 1. the qualityof being divine; divine nature. 2. deity;<br />
godhood. 3. a divine being; God.<br />
4. the Divinity, (sometimes l.c.) the Deity.<br />
5. a being having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities.<br />
6. the study or science of divine things; theology.<br />
7. godlike character; supreme excellence.<br />
8. Also called divin'ity fudge. a fluffy white or artificially tinted fudge made usually of<br />
sugar, corn syrup, egg whites, and flavoring, often with nuts.[1275–1325; ME divinite < AF<br />
< L divinitas. See DIVINE, -ITY]<br />
From www.dictionary.com<br />
di·vine (d-vn)<br />
adj. di·vin·er, di·vin·est.<br />
1. a.Having the nature of or being a deity.<br />
b.Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought<br />
divine guidance through meditation.<br />
c.Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.<br />
2.Superhuman; godlike.<br />
And what are the primary definitions of Diety?<br />
www.dictionary.com<br />
de·i·ty (d-t) n., pl. de·i·ties.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/theotes.htm (6 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:06:06 AM]
Theotes vs. Theiotes and Godhead, Deity or the Divine Quality of Christ.<br />
1.A god or goddess.<br />
2. a.The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.<br />
So I ask, are we really just splitting hairs? Does it mean that Jesus is theanthropos/God-Man, (a word<br />
that is NOT in the <strong>Bible</strong>)? When the <strong>Bible</strong> says "the whole fulness of deity dwells in Christ [RSV]," are<br />
we to assume that this means that the full Trinity dwells in Christ Jesus? What does dwell mean?<br />
The Greek word for "dwelleth" is KATOIKEI which is a form of KATAOIKEO. This word comes from<br />
two Greek words, KATA (down) and OIKEO (to dwell). Thus KATAOIKEO refers to a "certain fixed"<br />
or "durable dwelling" (Cf. Matt. 2:23; 4:13; Luke 13:4; Acts 1:19). At Matt. 23:21, Jesus informed us<br />
that God "dwelt" (Emphatic Diaglott) in the first century temple of Jerusalem. We know that he really<br />
did not literally dwell as "heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this<br />
house [temple] that I have builded!" 1 Kings 8:27 ASV<br />
In Col. 1:19, Paul wrote that Christ was vested with "all fullness [PLHRWMA]" by Almighty God. This<br />
PLHRWMA *dwelled* in Christ, because of the God's "good pleasure."<br />
As far as the word "Fulness", we have to remember that "thru union with Him you too are are filled with<br />
it" [Co, 2:10 Williams NT] "Filled is the same Greek word EUDOKEO used in Col 1:19<br />
These Christians are "filled with the very fulness of God" (Eph 3:19 Goodspeed)<br />
This does not make them a Trinity or part of God.<br />
In Christ we can see the qualities that God would have His followers display in their lives. Then Paul<br />
goes on to say: "For it is in him that all the fullness of God's nature lives embodied, and in union with<br />
him you too are filled with it."—AT.<br />
The interesting connection is that even humans can be partakers of the "divine nature/being of God" [2<br />
Peter 1:4], which, as we can see above, can be equivalent to "deity/godhead." To think that we can<br />
become part of some mysterious godhead is a stretch for the <strong>Bible</strong> and common sense. Instead, like the<br />
definition of Godhead at Romans 1:20 [MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong> above], the Kleist & Lilly New<br />
Testament says at 2 Peter 1:4 that "Grace enables us to think, love, desire and act as does God." By trying<br />
to add mysticism to the above Greek terms we miss the beauty of the <strong>Bible</strong> message, and many do all<br />
that in order that you become a "victim of 'philosophy' which is but an empty conceit resting on human<br />
tradition." Col 2:8<br />
"For we believe that Christ is the embodiment of divine perfection."—Metropolitan Fan S.<br />
Noli, The New Testament.<br />
"All the attributes of GOD".—Arthur E. Overbuy translation.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/theotes.htm (7 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:06:06 AM]
Online Reply: The Textus Receptus Re-examined and is the King James Version a Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
A Reply to: Lynnford Beachy's Which <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
by "<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong>" Webmaster<br />
The Waldenses faced the threat of entire extinction by the hand of the papal power. Although they were<br />
constantly under attack, the Lord allowed them to preserve the Word of God throughout the Dark Ages.<br />
God<br />
never allowed the light of His Word to go out completely. As noted earlier, there are approximately 5000<br />
Greek manuscripts available today. This was made possible, to a large degree, by the work of these faithful<br />
Waldenses in copying by hand the sacred pages of Scripture. God designed that His Word would be kept<br />
pure from corruption even during the darkest time of this earth’s history. Satan, however, was not asleep<br />
through all of this. He endeavored to corrupt the pure Word of God by altering important verses and<br />
deleting phrases and verses entirely. This purpose was accomplished by the production of two Greek<br />
manuscripts that stand in variance with all the rest of the Greek manuscripts in several thousand instances.<br />
These two Greek manuscripts are said to be the oldest and most reliable, however much of their history is<br />
unknown. These two Greek manuscripts are known as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (otherwise known as<br />
Codex B and Codex Aleph, respectively).<br />
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts<br />
Regarding the Vaticanus manuscript, Easton’s <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary states,<br />
"VATICANUS, CODEX is said to be the oldest extant vellum manuscript. It and the Codex Sinaiticus are<br />
the two oldest uncial manuscripts. They were probably written in the fourth century. The Vaticanus was<br />
placed in<br />
the Vatican Library at Rome by Pope Nicolas V in 1448, its previous history being unknown." (Easton’s<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary, article: "Vaticanus, Codex")<br />
It is claimed that the Vaticanus manuscript was probably written in the fourth century, but that cannot be<br />
proven since there is no known history of that manuscript until 1448 when it appeared in the Vatican<br />
Library at Rome. The Sinaiticus manuscript has a similar history being found in the convent of St.<br />
Catherine in 1859; its previous history remains unknown.<br />
Reply: I am getting the message here that the appearance of these manuscripts are due to some sinister<br />
Catholic plot to undermine the Textus Receptus. If this was so, then why were the monks at St.<br />
Catherine’s “Monastery” trying to burn it when it was found by Tischendorf?<br />
The dating of the Vaticanus can be proven by the simple fact that Greek uncials (small letters on vellum)<br />
were simply an ancient way of producing manuscripts.<br />
Regarding the Sinaiticus manuscript, Easton’s <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary states, "SINAITICUS, CODEX usually<br />
designated by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, is one of the most valuable of ancient MSS. of the<br />
Greek New Testament. On the occasion of a third visit to the convent of St.Catherine, on Mount Sinai, in<br />
1859, it was discovered by Dr. Tischendorf." (Easton’s <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary, article: "Sinaiticus, Codex")<br />
It is very interesting to note the time in which these manuscripts first appeared, especially in light of the fact<br />
that they stand at variance with the rest of the Greek manuscripts in thousands of significant places. Just 68<br />
years before the Vaticanus was discovered John Wyckliffe translated the first complete <strong>Bible</strong> into English<br />
in A.D. 1380. (See Revised Easton’s <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary, article: "Version"). The strange appearance of the<br />
Vaticanus manuscript has caused some to question its origin and validity.<br />
Reply: There is nothing strange about the appearance of Vaticanus. The Catholic Church did not even<br />
use it for manuscript evidence until the 20th century, and a reproduction was not allowed to be made of it<br />
until 1889-90. If there is a Catholic conspiracy, then it was to suppress this manuscript.<br />
Perhaps it was because of the disappearance of the Comma Johanneum in this manuscript.<br />
As late as 1897 a papal decree was issued forbidding the faithful to doubt the “comma Johanneum.” In<br />
part it said:<br />
“Secretariat of the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Concerning the<br />
authenticity of the text of 1 John V. 7. (Wednesday, Jan. 12, 1897).<br />
“In a General Congregation of the Holy Roman Inquisition . . . the following doubtful<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tr.htm (1 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:06:26 AM]
Online Reply: The Textus Receptus Re-examined and is the King James Version a Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
question was presented:<br />
“‘Whether we may safely deny, or even treat as a matter of doubt, the authenticity of that<br />
text (1 John V. 7). . . ’<br />
“All things having been most diligently examined and weighed, and the opinion of the Lords<br />
Consultors having been taken, the aforesaid Most Eminent Cardinals gave out ‘the answer is<br />
in the negative.’ On Friday the 15th of the aforesaid month and year, in the usual audience<br />
granted to reverend father the lord Assessor of the Holy Office, after that he had made an<br />
exact report of the aforesaid proceedings to our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, His<br />
Holiness approved and confirmed the resolution of these Most Eminent Fathers . . . ”—Acta<br />
Sanctae Sedis, vol. 29. 1896-7. p. 637.<br />
Pope Leo, in 1902 re-established a commission to study the Comma more closely. Because the report<br />
was unfavorable to the earlier decree it had to be put aside, but the pope continued to be worried by the<br />
situation right up to his death. Some Roman Catholic scholars began to ignore the decree. Dr. Vogels<br />
omitted the text from his Greek Testament published in 1920. Others were at first more cautious. In the<br />
Roman Catholic Westminster Version of the New Testament published in 1931 the footnote to 1 John<br />
5:7, 8 after calling attention to its omission in the original text continues,<br />
“Until further action be taken by the Holy See it is not open to Catholic editors to eliminate<br />
the words from a version made for the use of the faithful.”<br />
But in the same version republished as one volume in 1947 the interpolation is omitted, editor Cuthbert<br />
Lattey citing the Greek text published by Jesuit scholar A. Merk, which also omits it.<br />
In brief summary the words of that well-known textual critic and KJV text translator F. H. A. Scrivener<br />
can be quoted:<br />
“We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by<br />
St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin,<br />
where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they<br />
crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to<br />
which they had no rightful claim.” A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New<br />
Testament by F. H. A. Scrivener, 4th edition, 1894, volume 2, page 407.<br />
And yet, these words “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy<br />
Ghost: and these three are one” are still included in the NKJV, Green’s Literal Translation, Green’s<br />
Modern KJV, Webster’s <strong>Bible</strong>, even though it is NOT in the majority of manuscripts, the Byzantine text,<br />
or even in the first two editions of Erasmus Greek text.<br />
There are basically two types of Greek <strong>Bible</strong>s from which we get all of our English <strong>Bible</strong>s today—those<br />
that agree with the two Catholic manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), and those that agree with the<br />
"Textus Receptus" (Received Text). The "Textus Receptus" is the name given to the majority of Greek<br />
manuscripts which are almost entirely in harmony with one another.<br />
Reply: The above paragraph is somewhat devious in truth and intent.<br />
There are about 15000 early versions of the Greek, and most of these are in Latin (due to the change in<br />
the lingua franca), and yet, they read closer to the Alexandrian text-type of the Aleph<br />
(Sinaiticus/Vaticanus) than the much later Byzantine (Textus Receptus) text-type of the eastern<br />
Catholic/Orthodox Church.<br />
I personally feel it is dangerous to call any manuscript or version corrupt, and to do so questions divine<br />
providence and Jehovah God himself. While I may not agree with Catholics theologically, I personally<br />
feel that they have contributed greatly to the preservation of the word of God, and this is shown by the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tr.htm (2 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:06:26 AM]
Online Reply: The Textus Receptus Re-examined and is the King James Version a Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
extensive use of the Vulgate by the scribes of the Textus Receptus themselves. Even the King James<br />
translators themselves made use of the Douay Rheims <strong>Bible</strong>. Take note: "many of the improved<br />
translations of the Rheims NT were introduced into the<br />
AV [Authourised King James Version], e.g., "converted" (convertantur) for "turn" (Mk 4, 12); "founded"<br />
(fundata) for "grounded" (Eph 3, 17); "centurion" (centurio) for "captain" (Acts 10, 22); "sign" (signum)<br />
for "badge, token" (Mt 26, 48); "clemency" (clementia) for "courtesy" (Acts 24, 4). Not only did the<br />
Rheims NT introduce such Latin words into the English language but it also influenced the AV in the<br />
direction of modernization, e.g., "moisture" for "moistness" (Lk 8, 6); "what man is there" for "what man<br />
is it" (Acts 19, 35); "distresses" for "anguishes" (2 Cor 12, 10)." New American <strong>Bible</strong> w/Revised New<br />
Testamant and Revised Psalms, p.1456<br />
To also prove that the KJV/Textus Receptus is basically Catholic is proven by the background of<br />
Erasmus himself. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol 3, pp. 42, 43, states that he was an Augustinian<br />
friar who was ordained a priest in 1492, he was granted a dispensation by Pope Leo X to live in the<br />
world. The aforesaid work says that Pope Paul III wanted to make him a<br />
cardinal, and that may have accounted for his refusal to leave the Church of Rome. It also says that<br />
Erasmus remained within the Church, and told Luther,<br />
"I always freely submit my judgement to the decisions of the Church whether<br />
I grasp or not the reasons which she prescribes."<br />
Erasmus died a faithful Roman Catholic! (see The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed. [1997], Vol.<br />
26, p. 887, and Schaff, History, Vol. VII, p. 411, 423)<br />
And what of his Greek New Testament? It was dedicated to the pope! (see New Catholic Encyclopedia,<br />
Vol 5 [1967], pp. 509, 510) The Catholic influence was so heavy, that the King James Version, 1611<br />
edition contained a calendar of Catholic holy days and the Catholic<br />
Apocryphal/Deutero-Canonical Books. I also feel that the Catholic New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> is one of the<br />
greatest <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> ever, and every serious <strong>Bible</strong> student or lover of the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> should own one. On another note, it seems to me that most Paraphrased/ Dynamic Equivalent <strong>Bible</strong><br />
are made by Protestants (i.e. Living <strong>Bible</strong>, New Living Translation, Contemporary English Version,<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>, God's Word, The Message, New Life, J.B. Phillips, New Century Version, NIrV, etc).<br />
These <strong>Bible</strong>s have taken more liberties with God's Word than any Catholic <strong>Bible</strong> previously.<br />
Maurice A. <strong>Robinson</strong>, Ph.D., Department of Biblical Studies and Languages, Southeastern Baptist<br />
Theological Seminary wrote the following introduction for the Online <strong>Bible</strong> computer software concerning<br />
the<br />
Stephens 1550 edition of the "Textus Receptus":<br />
"The Stephens 1550 edition of the so-called ‘Textus Receptus’ (Received Text) reflects a general agreement<br />
with other early printed Greek texts also (erroneously) called by that name. These include editions such as<br />
that of Erasmus 1516, Beza 1598, and (the only one actually termed ‘Textus Receptus’) Elzevir 1633.<br />
Berry correctly notes that ‘In the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as<br />
the Textus Receptus.’ (George Ricker Berry, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, page ii, New<br />
York: Hinds & Noble, 1897.)<br />
"All these early printed Greek New Testaments closely parallel the text of the English-language Authorized<br />
(or King James) version of 1611, since that version was based closely upon Beza 1598, which differed<br />
little from its ‘Textus Receptus’ predecessors. These early ‘TR’ editions generally reflect (but not<br />
completely) the ‘Byzantine Textform,’ otherwise called the ‘Majority’ or ‘Traditional’ text, which<br />
predominated throughout the period of manual copying of Greek New Testament manuscripts.<br />
Reply: The irony is that the Received Text is not actually a single edition, but a sort of text-type of its<br />
own consisting of hundreds of extremely similar but not identical editions. Nor do any of its various<br />
flavors agree exactly with any extant text-type or manuscript. Thus the need, when referring to the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tr.htm (3 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:06:26 AM]
Online Reply: The Textus Receptus Re-examined and is the King James Version a Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
Received Text, to specify which received text we refer to.<br />
Take note:<br />
Luke 2:22: "her purification" KJV, Vulgate, but Erasmus, Stephanus and Majority Text has "their<br />
purification"<br />
Luke 17:36: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left" KJV, Vulgate, but<br />
omitted by Erasmus, Stephanus and Majority Text<br />
Romans 12:11: "serving the Lord" KJV, Vulgate, Aleph etc, while the Erasmus 2-5 and Stephanus has<br />
"serving the time"<br />
1 Timothy 1:4: "godly edifying" KJV, Vulgate, while Stephanus and the Majority Text has "dispensation<br />
of God"<br />
Hebrews 9:1: "first tabernacle" KJV, Stephanus, while "tabernacle" is omitted by Erasmus, Beza<br />
James 2:18: "without thy works" KJV, Vulgate, while Erasmus, Beza (1st ed) and Stephanus has "by thy<br />
works"<br />
Will the real TR please stand up. Is it Stephanus's or Beza's. F.H.A. Scrivener studied the matter in detail,<br />
concluded that it was none of these. Rather, it is a mixed/eclectic text, closest to Beza, with Stephanus in<br />
second place, but not clearly affiliated with any edition. ( the influence of the Vulgate, and of early<br />
English translations, is also felt here.) Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894, finding some<br />
250 differences from Stephanus. Jay P. Green, states that Scrivener’s edition does not agree entirely with<br />
the KJV, listing differences at Matt. 12:24, 27; John 8:21, 10:16 (? -- this may be translational); 1 Cor.<br />
14:10, 16:1; compare also Mark 8:14, 9:42; John 8:6; Acts 1:4; 1 John 3:16, where Scrivener includes<br />
words found in the KJV in italics as missing from their primary text.<br />
"The user should note that the Stephens 1550 TR edition does NOT agree with the Wescott-Hort Greek text<br />
nor with modern critical editions such as that published by the United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies or the various Nestle<br />
editions. All those editions follow a predominately ‘Alexandrian’ Greek text, as opposed to the Byzantine<br />
Textform which generally underlies all TR editions. Note, however, that 85%+ of the text of ALL Greek<br />
New Testament editions IS identical." (Specialized Introduction: The Stephens 1550 edition of the Textus<br />
Receptus, Online <strong>Bible</strong> Version 6.13, March 20, 1995, file: Gnt.doc, prepared by Maurice A. <strong>Robinson</strong>,<br />
Ph.D.—bold emphasis supplied)<br />
It may be somewhat comforting to realize that all the Greek New Testament editions are identical 85% of<br />
the time. Yet that indicates that some editions vary 15% of the time. The Greek editions <strong>Robinson</strong> referred<br />
to as varying from the Textus Receptus 15% of the time are evidently the two Greek manuscripts known as<br />
the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.<br />
Reply: The fact is, <strong>Bible</strong> manuscripts provide great testimony to the purity of God’s Word. How loving<br />
our creator is to keep his word basically untainted in spite of the opposition against it. 85% is quite a low<br />
figure. Dr Daniel Wallace puts it as high as 98%, and Bruce M. Metzger (author of The Text of the New<br />
Testament-It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration) , in the book “The Case for Christ” by Lee<br />
Strobel, p. 65 , in answer to the query, “So the variations, when they occur, tend to be minor rather than<br />
substantive?” , replies ‘Yes, yes, that’s correct, and scholars work very carefully to try to resolve them by<br />
getting back to the original meaning….Any good <strong>Bible</strong> will have notes that will alert the reader to variant<br />
readings of any consequence. But again, these are rare.’ So rare that scholars Norman Geisler and<br />
William Nix conclude, ‘The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any<br />
other book from antiquity, but it has in a purer form than any other book- a form that is 99.5 % pure.’”<br />
When you Textus Receptus-Only people argue that modern <strong>Bible</strong>s are corrupted and that the older<br />
manuscripts are corrupt, then you are only helping atheists in their satanic attack on the <strong>Bible</strong>. I must<br />
severely oppose such a dangerous movement.<br />
<strong>Robinson</strong> continues: "One should also recognize that NO printed Receptus Greek edition agrees 100% with<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tr.htm (4 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:06:26 AM]
Online Reply: The Textus Receptus Re-examined and is the King James Version a Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
the aggregate Byzantine manuscript tradition (Majority/Traditional Text), nor with the Greek text presumed<br />
to underlie the Authorized Version. However, all printed Receptus texts DO approximate the Byzantine<br />
Textform closely enough (around 98% agreement) to claim a near-identity of reading between those<br />
Receptus forms and the majority of all manuscripts." (Ibid.—bold emphasis supplied) It is amazing how the<br />
Lord preserved His Word to such a highdegree of accuracy.<br />
Reply: In fact, as we have seen above, all manuscripts agree to a high degree exceeding 98%. This is<br />
amazing when you consider the shoddy work Erasmus did compiling a Greek text:<br />
Is it any wonder that the Textus Receptus "was not based on early manuscripts, not reliably edited, and<br />
consequently not trustworthy." N. Geisler/W. Nix A General Introduction to the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
The 1881 Westcott - Hort Greek text<br />
In 1881 Brook Westcott and Fenton Hort produced their New Testament in the Original Greek. This Greek<br />
text had a considerable influence upon the production of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the<br />
American<br />
Standard Version (ASV), along with many of the new translations.<br />
The Westcott-Hort Greek text has approximately 6000 significant alterations. That is very disturbing<br />
considering the fact that many of the newer translations are based upon the Westcott-Hort Greek<br />
text.<strong>Robinson</strong> continues, "Westcott and Hort opted in regard to many orthographical variants to follow the<br />
specific spellings of Codex<br />
Vaticanus and/or Codex Sinaiticus even if such manuscripts stood virtually alone in the peculiarity of their<br />
spelling.… Wescott and Hort... relied primarily on joint testimony of Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex<br />
Vaticanus (B) in contradistinction to the assimilation of readings from manuscripts of other texttypes."<br />
(Ibid.—bold emphasis supplied)<br />
This statement is extremely significant when we consider that these two manuscripts (the Vaticanus and<br />
Sinaiticus) stand alone with over 6000 significant alterations as compared to over 5000 other Greek<br />
manuscripts which are almost entirely in harmony with one another. That is a ratio of 2 to 5000, and<br />
Westcott and Hort chose to side with the two Greek manuscripts rather than using the testimony of 5000<br />
other Greek manuscripts that differed with these two manuscripts.<br />
Reply: Fact is, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not stand alone, and to say otherwise is a lie, and provides<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tr.htm (5 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:06:26 AM]
Online Reply: The Textus Receptus Re-examined and is the King James Version a Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
fodder for atheists and other satanic attacks on the <strong>Bible</strong>. When we look at the many thousands of early<br />
versions, alone with the quotations of the early church fathers, we see that these agree with the earlier,<br />
more superior Alexandrian Text-type. The early Church Fathers almost always use the older Alexandrian<br />
text type. In fact, Gordon Fee, who is one of the leading patristic authorities, wrote:<br />
"Over the past eight years I have been collecting the Greek patristic evidence for Luke and<br />
John for the International Greek New Testament Project. In all of this material I have found<br />
one invariable: a good critical edition of a father's text, or the discovery of early MSS,<br />
always moves the father's text of the NT away from the TR and closer to<br />
the text of our modern critical editions. In other words when critical study is made<br />
of a church father's text or when early copies of a church father's writings are<br />
discovered, the majority text is found wanting. The early fathers had a text that<br />
keeps looking more like modern critical editions and less like the majority text."<br />
as quoted in Daniel Wallaces' The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?<br />
It is not “TWO” manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), but a wealth of evidence that supports the newer<br />
versions based on the older texts.<br />
Many Byzantine readings, or "Textus Receptus" Greek manuscripts, are "(now shown to be ancient by<br />
many early papyri)… these supposedly ‘late’ readings (so deprecated by Westcott and Hort) are now<br />
proven to be early<br />
thanks to their discovery in various early papyrus documents." (Ibid.)<br />
Reply: As is shown by Gordon Fee, this really is not the case. While there may appear to be some<br />
distinctly Byzantine readings found early on, the fact is, these same witnesses show many more distinctly<br />
Alexandrian readings.<br />
As Daniel Wallace puts it:<br />
“even with all the allowances made in the direction of the majority text, i.e., combining<br />
percentages of readings which (a) support the majority text against the Alexandrian text and<br />
those which (b) support the majority text as well as the Alexandrian text, one finds that:<br />
Marcion (c. 160?) supported MT 28% of the time (18% against the Alexandrian); Irenaeus<br />
(d. 202) supported MT 33% (16.5% against Alexandrian); Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)<br />
supported MT 44% (15% against Alexandrian); Origen (d. 254) supported MT 45% (17%<br />
against Alexandrian); Hippolytus (d. 235) supported MT 50% (19% against Alexandrian);<br />
Methodius (280?) supported MT 50% (19% against Alexandrian); Adamantius (d. 300)<br />
supported MT 52% (31% against Alexandrian); Asterius (d. 341) supported MT 90% (50%<br />
against Alexandrian); Basil (d. 379) supported MT 79% (40% against Alexandrian);<br />
Apostolic Constitutions (380?) supported MT 74% (41% against Alexandrian); Epiphanius<br />
(d. 403) supported MT 74% (41% against Alexandrian); Chrysostom (d. 407) supported MT<br />
88.5% (40.5% against Alexandrian); etc. Whether these writers used the Egyptian text is not<br />
the issue here; indeed, perhaps Aland makes too much of this (and Pickering ably points this<br />
out). But to suppose that they used the Byzantine text as their primary texttype is<br />
demonstrably not true before A.D. 341. (Compare Asterius, above, with his predecessors.)<br />
Third, Pickering argues that "any claim that Aland makes for the Egyptian text, on the basis<br />
of these Fathers, is a claim that can be made even more strongly for the Majority text" (p. 3).<br />
But this would only be true if the Fathers' support of the majority text readings were support<br />
of distinctive majority text readings. If such readings are found in the Western text, for<br />
example, then it is question-begging to see them necessarily in support of the majority text<br />
at such an early date. In this connection it is significant that Hort argued that no distinctive<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tr.htm (6 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:06:26 AM]
Online Reply: The Textus Receptus Re-examined and is the King James Version a Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
Byzantine reading had been found in the Fathers in the first three centuries, a point that Fee<br />
echoed.”<br />
How reliable are the new translations?<br />
One of the most popular of the new translations is the New International Version (NIV). This version was<br />
completed in 1978 by a committee of scholars who consulted many Greek manuscripts but relied heavily<br />
upon<br />
the Westcott and Hort Greek text which was based upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The translators of the<br />
NIV inserted a note after Mark 16:8. The note reads as follows: "The two most reliable early manuscripts<br />
do not have<br />
Mark 16:9-20." It is obvious where the translators of this new version placed their trust when they made this<br />
translation. They claimed that the two most reliable early manuscripts are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The<br />
translators of the New American Standard Version (NASV) inserted a note after Mark 16:8 similar to the<br />
note inserted in the NIV. The note reads as follows: "Some of the oldest mss. omit from verse 9 through<br />
20." The translators of the NASV claim that some of the oldest mss. omit this portion of scripture but they<br />
would have been more accurate to state "two" rather than "some." Two Greek texts in comparison to 5000<br />
can hardly be interpreted as "some."<br />
Reply: Thank you for the above, but while checking my NASV, I found that they included the entire<br />
passage in question. There was a footnote, but only for verse 20, and verse 20 only. Verse 20 was still<br />
included. My NIV still included the entire verses in question, but with the comment. “The most reliable<br />
early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” So what are the other ancient<br />
witnesses? It is omitted by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sinaitic, Syriac Codex and the Ethiopic and Armenian<br />
versions. Manuscript L 019 (Codex Regius, 8th Cent) gives both the long AND short endings much like<br />
the newer versions based on the older more reliable manuscripts Interestingly, the Catholic Vulgate does<br />
contain it. Eusebius wrote that the longer ending was not in the “accurate copies,” for “at this point [Mr<br />
16 verse 8] the end of the Gospel according to Mark is determined in nearly all the copies of the Gospel<br />
according to Mark.” And Jerome said that “nearly all Greek MSS. have not got this passage.”<br />
There is also the matter of vocabulary. There are words used in Mr 16 verses 9 through 20 that do not<br />
appear elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel, some words that do not occur in any of the other Gospels, some that<br />
do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. These verses consist of 163 Greek words, and, of these, 19<br />
words and 2 phrases do not occur elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel. Or, put otherwise, in these verses there<br />
are 109 different words, and, of these, 11 words and 2 phrases are unique to these verses.<br />
And then there is the matter of content, these questionable verses state that the eleven apostles refused to<br />
believe the testimony of two disciples whom Jesus had met on the way and to whom he revealed himself.<br />
But, according to the account in Luke, when the two disciples found the eleven and those with them,<br />
these said: “For a fact the Lord was raised up and he appeared to Simon!”—Luke 24:13-35.<br />
So the verses in question actually contradict the rest of the Gospels. But most newer versions still carry<br />
it, albeit with an understandable cautionary note.<br />
{Note: Bruce Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, New<br />
York: United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies, 1994, page 105-106) writes, "On the basis of good external evidence and<br />
strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended<br />
with 16.8. At the same time, however, out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and<br />
its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee [the Editorial Committee of the<br />
United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies' Greek New Testament, of which Dr. Metzger is a member] decided to include<br />
verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose<br />
them within double square brackets in order to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the<br />
evangelist."}<br />
It is true that there is a space at the end of Mark in Sinaiticus, but the same manuscript also has two<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tr.htm (7 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:06:26 AM]
Online Reply: The Textus Receptus Re-examined and is the King James Version a Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
blank columns at the end of Nehemiah and the book of Tobit.<br />
It is very sad that people would attempt to make alterations to the Word of God. John solemnly warned<br />
against this when he wrote, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this<br />
book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this<br />
book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his<br />
part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."<br />
(Revelation 22:18, 19)<br />
Reply: I agree. It is sad that the KJV, NKJV, MKJV and other <strong>Bible</strong>s based on the Textus<br />
Receptus/Byzantine text contain readings that are in absolutely NO Greek manuscript whatsoever. Even<br />
in Revelation 22, the KJV the reading “tree of life” has NO Greek manuscript support. Erasmus here<br />
used the Catholic Latin Vulgate to complete the reading (as he had No Greek manuscript for the last 6<br />
scriptures of Revelation). Other examples are Hebrews 2:16, Ephesians 1:18 and 3:9 to name but a few.<br />
The Comma Johannuem at 1 John 5:7, 8 has no Greek manuscript support earlier than the middle ages,<br />
and even then, only a scant few. So much for “Majority” text.<br />
Green sums up the evidence, stating, "not only is Mark 16:9-20 vindicated, but codices B and Aleph<br />
[Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] stand convicted of containing poison. They also contain the poison (mentioned<br />
above) in Matthew 1:7 and 10, Matthew 1:18, Mark 6:22, Luke 3:33 and Luke 23:45, John 1:18 and 1<br />
Corinthians 5:1. Does this not diminish their credibility as witnesses?" (Ibid.)<br />
Reply: I will let Alan Duthie respond to Green here:<br />
"Green evidently thinks it was just words that God breathed, but not clauses, sentences,<br />
paragraphs, and indeed the whole of Scripture! He should be reminded 'not to dispute-aboutwords<br />
for nothing useful, to the casting down of those hearing.' [2Tim. 2:14 KJ2]<br />
The KJV translators had this to say: 'For is the kingdom of God become words and<br />
syllables? ... Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to<br />
trifling.'"<br />
How to Choose Your <strong>Bible</strong> Wisely, p.58 [Duthie has an MA in Greek and Hebrew, a PhD in Linguistics<br />
and a BD from the University of London]<br />
How to test a <strong>Bible</strong> translation<br />
As before noted, there are two types of Greek texts. One type agrees with the majority, or "Textus<br />
Receptus" Greek manuscripts, and one type that agrees with the two questionable Greek manuscripts—the<br />
Vaticanus<br />
and Sinaiticus. Every translation of the Scriptures comes from one or the other of these types of Greek<br />
manuscripts. There are a few verses you can use to determine whether a version is reliable or not. This is a<br />
very simple test and can be applied to any <strong>Bible</strong> version.<br />
Reply: To be fair, there are actually 4 types of Greek texts,<br />
The Alexandrian text-type which is so named because it is generally associated with the Church at<br />
Alexandria. Most of the papyri manuscripts, and the uncial (meaning all capital letter) manuscripts are<br />
representative of this Alexandrian text-type. The oldest manuscripts reflect this text-type. Codex<br />
Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus(B) are two of the most important mss. of the Alexandrian type,<br />
and often the brunt of the KJV/TR only debate.<br />
TheWestern text-type which is so named because it was the text-type prevalent in the Western church.<br />
It is found in Greek manuscripts and in the Latin translations used by the Western church.<br />
The Byzantine text-type which is so named because of its association with the Byzantine empire. This<br />
text type is also refered to as the Majority Text because the majority of the surviving manuscripts are of<br />
this type.<br />
The Caesarean text-type which is associated with the Church at Casearea. If is represented by what is<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tr.htm (8 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:06:26 AM]
Online Reply: The Textus Receptus Re-examined and is the King James Version a Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
known as "Family 1" and papryus 45. There is considerable debate about whether this should be treated<br />
as a separate text-type.<br />
In this test we will simply compare the NIV with the KJV (King James Version). We will use Romans 8:1<br />
for our test. The KJV reads: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,<br />
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The NIV reads: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation<br />
for those who are in Christ Jesus." Notice that half the verse is missing. The translators insert a note for this<br />
verse which reads, "Some later manuscripts Jesus, who do not live according to the sinful nature but<br />
according to the Spirit." They would be more accurate to have said, "5000 manuscripts" rather than "some<br />
manuscripts." The NASB note on Mark 16:9 calls the two corrupt Greek manuscripts (Vaticanus and<br />
Sinaiticus) "some," and the NIV calls the remaining 5000 Greek manuscripts "some." This usage is very<br />
misleading.<br />
Reply: It is interesting to note, that even without Westcott/Hort and the findings of a later age, J. J.<br />
Griesbach, (who had access to the Patristic evidence and hundreds of Greek manuscripts that had become<br />
available toward the end of the 18th century published in 1796-1806 a Greek text was the basis for<br />
Sharpe's English translation in 1840 and is the Greek text printed in The Emphatic Diaglott, first<br />
published complete in 1864) also does not include the longer reading at Romans 8:1. The reading in the<br />
KJV appears to be an interpolation of Rom 8:4 (which you will find in practically all <strong>Bible</strong>s so nothing is<br />
lost). We have already dealt with Mark 16:9 above, but the Emphatic Diaglott has this to say,<br />
"From this verse to the end of the chapter is wanting in ...many other ancient copies.<br />
Grisbach (sic) marks the whole passage of very doubtful authenticity, but retains it in the<br />
text."<br />
It is simply a fact that the oldest mansucripts, AND NOT JUST 2 of them do not have the embellishment<br />
and additions of a later age. Those that have added to the scriptures (as we see with the Byzantine/TR<br />
text type) will be punished for what they did.<br />
It is easy to determine if a <strong>Bible</strong> version follows the two corrupt Greek manuscripts (the Vaticanus and<br />
Sinaiticus) or the remaining 5000 Greek manuscripts collectively referred to as the "Textus Receptus." If<br />
the <strong>Bible</strong> version you are examining contains only half of Romans 8:1 you know it is following the<br />
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and it has thousands of other errors in it. We have a list of over 200<br />
of these significant alterations which you may obtain by contacting us and requesting the 200 Omissions<br />
pamphlet.<br />
Reply: But again, is it just "TWO?" Let us look at all the evidence against the Textus Receptus.<br />
Not only the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but the codex Ephraemi, codex 33, codex Regius, codex Bezae,<br />
the Coptic versions, the Old Latin versions, the uncials, codex Bezae, codex Claromontanus, Curetonian<br />
Syriac, the quotations from the Alexandrian Fathers, Clement, Origen, Dionysius, Didymus, Cyril,<br />
Marcion, Tatian, Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian Cyprian etc. Interestingly too, the Athanasian<br />
side of the Nicene controversy never quoted scriptures that the KJV has that seems to support an<br />
anti-Arian position (i.e. 1 John 5:7, 8; 1Tim 3:16; Rev 1:11; Acts 7:59).<br />
All in all, we have the testimony of many ancient witnesses that stand against the Textus Receptus in key<br />
places. Included in these are also P45, P46, P47, 33, 81, 436, 579, 892, 1175, 1881, 2050, 2062, 2138,<br />
1739, 2427, 2464,1739, P38, P48, P69, and 0171, 0243.<br />
Sure, you may be able to find some distinctly Byzantine/TR readings in some of the above, but the same<br />
could be said for codex Alexandrinus (A) which is largely closer to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Sinaiticus<br />
has some Western type of readings, so intrusions are not uncommon.<br />
Another easy test is found in Revelation 22:14. Again we will compare the NIV with the KJV. The KJV<br />
reads, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may<br />
enter in through the gates into the city." The NIV reads, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they<br />
may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city." There is a vast difference<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tr.htm (9 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:06:26 AM]
Online Reply: The Textus Receptus Re-examined and is the King James Version a Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
between doing God’s commandments, and washing robes. This alteration conveniently eliminates the<br />
requirement of doing God’s<br />
commandments to enter into the holy city and eat of the tree of life.<br />
Reply: This is getting silly. {Greek a/r: poiountes tas entolas autou TO the other: plunontes tas stolas<br />
autown} If you read Rev 7:14, "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed<br />
their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb", then you see that symbolically, surviving<br />
the great tribulation entails the washing. Again, the NIV reading is attested to by thousands of early<br />
witnesses.<br />
Another easy test is found in John 1:18. In this test we will compare the NASV with the KJV. The KJV<br />
reads, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he<br />
hath declared him." The NASV reads, "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in<br />
the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." The translators included a footnote stating, "Some later<br />
mss. read, Son." Again, the translators refer to the testimony of 5000 manuscripts as "some" in comparison<br />
to the two corrupted Greek<br />
manuscripts the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They also state that these 5000 manuscripts are "later." Later than<br />
what? Later than the supposed date that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written, which date we cannot be<br />
sure of due to their questionable origin and unknown history.<br />
Reply: **Here is the manuscript support for each rendering**<br />
Rendering Number One (Only-begotten One)<br />
In favor of number 1 are some manuscripts of the Vulgate, possibly the old Syriac, the Diatessaron of<br />
Tatian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Nonnus, and Nestorius.<br />
Rendering Number Two (Only-begotten Son)<br />
In favor of number 2 are the Codex Alexandrinus, one of the correctors of Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus,<br />
Family I, many later uncials, the Latin Versions, the Curetonian, Harcleian, the Palestinian old Syriac,<br />
the Armenian, the Ethiopian Versians, two out of five quotations of the passage in Clement of<br />
Alexandria, sex out of seven in Eusebius, seven out of seven in Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen,<br />
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom, two out of three quotations in the Latin translation of Irenaeus,<br />
Tertullian, Hilary, seven out of seven quotations in Victorinus, and finally, two out of three quotations in<br />
Ambrosiaster.<br />
Rendering Number Three (Only-begotten God)<br />
Having the greatest manuscript support is number 3, which has to its favor, the Codex Sinaiticus, the<br />
Codex Vaticanus, the original scribe of Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Regius, the original scribe of<br />
the Washington Codex, the Codex Koridethianus, possibly minuscule 33, the Syriac Peshitto, the Syriac<br />
Harcleian (in its margin), the Egyptian Versions, one codex of the Ethiopic Version and Ambrosiaster on<br />
one occasion confuse the two readings. ‘The only begotten God’ is read by Valentinus as as cited by<br />
Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, three out of five quotations in Clement of Alexandria, all of Origen,<br />
Didymus, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril, one out of three quotations in the Latin version of<br />
Irenaeus, and finally, Jerome.<br />
But again, nothing is changed by the addition or omission of any of the above. I personally like the<br />
reading "only-begotten Son", but it may be a reading that a scribe inserted feeling the familiarity with<br />
similar readings at Jn 1:14 and John 3:16.<br />
It is a serious thing to remove Christ as "the only begotten Son of God." This fact is the believer’s assurance<br />
of overcoming the world. John wrote, "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus<br />
is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:5) The translators of the NIV have attempted to hide the fact that Jesus is "the<br />
only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18) The phrase, "only begotten" cannot be found in the NIV, in its place<br />
we find the term, "one and only." It is sad that this version is so misleading, yet they are not alone in their<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tr.htm (10 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:06:26 AM]
Online Reply: The Textus Receptus Re-examined and is the King James Version a Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
attempt to hide the fact that Jesus Christ is "the only begotten Son of God." The NASV rightly uses the term<br />
"only begotten"<br />
referring to Christ, but the translators have inserted a note in John 3:16 referring to the term "only<br />
begotten." The note reads, "Or, unique, only one of His kind." Notice they do not give the Greek text as the<br />
authority for this assertion. This is quite appropriate because, even though the NASV translators rely<br />
heavily on the two corrupt Greek manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) they do not even have them to<br />
fall back on in this case. All of the "Textus Receptus" manuscripts contain the Greek word monogenh 3439<br />
(only begotten). The Vaticanus and<br />
Sinaiti- cus also contain the exact same word and the spelling in this verse.<br />
Yet some will still claim that the Greek word monogenh actually means "unique." However, this assertion<br />
is not accurate, which we will see as we examine the Scriptures. The Greek word monogenh is made up of<br />
the two<br />
Greek words monoV 3441 and ginomai 1096. The Greek word monoV means, "alone (without a<br />
companion), only." (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon) The vast majority of times the New Testament writers<br />
wanted to indicate "only," or "alone," they used either the Greek word monoV or its companion monon.<br />
The Greek word ginomai means, "to come into existence, begin to be, receive being." (Thayer’s Greek<br />
Lexicon)<br />
The Greek word monogenh was never used to merely indicate "only, or unique." Every time monogenh was<br />
used in the <strong>Bible</strong> it refers to children. This Greek word was used nine times in the New Testament, five<br />
times it refers to Christ, and the remaining four refer to other children. Some people maintain that since<br />
monogenh is used in Hebrews 11:17 referring to Isaac that it cannot possibly mean "only begotten" because<br />
Isaac was not Abraham’s only son. This argument would hold some validity if the thought ended in verse<br />
17. However, verse 18 continues<br />
the thought making the intention clear. The verses read, "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up<br />
Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in<br />
Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Hebrews 11:17, 18) It is not true that Isaac was Abraham’s "only begotten<br />
Son," but it is true that Isaac was Abraham’s "only begotten Son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall<br />
thy seed be called." As you can see, the use of this verse to disprove the fact that Jesus is "the only begotten<br />
Son of God" has no<br />
foundation.<br />
It is a sad day when Christians will try to prove that Jesus Christ is not "the only begotten Son of God." Yet<br />
it is even more sad when <strong>Bible</strong> translators take it upon themselves to twist the <strong>Bible</strong> and make it say<br />
something it does not say.<br />
Reply: I agree with much of the above. I never recomment the NIV to anyone, and I also think that<br />
people are much better off with Green's Interlinear <strong>Bible</strong>. I especially love the way he has restored the<br />
name Jehovah to its righful place. I also think "only-begotten" is a much better translation than "one and<br />
only" or "unique". But this is a translational issue, not a manuscript one, as both the Textus Receptus and<br />
the critical texts have MONOGENHS. There are many <strong>Bible</strong>s based on the critical texts that still render<br />
MONOGENHS as "only begotten" such as the Revised Version, ASV, NASB, New <strong>World</strong> Translation,<br />
Montgomery NT, Rotherham, Recovery Version and any Interlinear <strong>Bible</strong> etc.<br />
The best way to study the Scriptures is to know the original languages in which they were written.<br />
However, to most people this is not practical. Yet the Lord has provided tools whereby we can examine the<br />
Scriptures in their original languages without the need of knowing those languages. The first and most<br />
important tool is the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. This handy tool allows you to discover the original<br />
Greek and Hebrew words behind each English word in your <strong>Bible</strong> and find a brief definition of each word.<br />
This book is based on the "Textus Receptus," and is most commonly found for the KJV. This book is<br />
available in most Christian bookstores.<br />
Reply: I also agree that everyone should own a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. My Strong's also lets<br />
me know with astericks and obelisks the very minor changes in the Revised and the American Standard<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tr.htm (11 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:06:26 AM]
Online Reply: The Textus Receptus Re-examined and is the King James Version a Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
Versions. I see that you also use the excellent Thayer's Greek Lexicon. Mine is under copyright to Jay P.<br />
Green (1974) and it includes, interestingly, readings from the Greek texts of Westcott/Hort, Tregelles,<br />
Lachmann and Tischendorf.<br />
Please be aware of the <strong>Bible</strong> version you choose to read. Using the tests outlined in this paper I have<br />
determined several translations that follow the "Textus Receptus" Greek manuscripts. Here are some of<br />
them: KJV (also known as AV-Authorized Version), NKJV, 1898 Young’s Literal Translation, Green’s<br />
Literal Translation, Green’s Modern KJV, the Spanish 1909 Reina-Valera, 1995 Revised Webster’s <strong>Bible</strong>,<br />
1833 Webster’s<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Reply: Your list includes some great <strong>Bible</strong>s. Here is a partial list of translations that will greatly<br />
complement your list, ASV, (N)RSV, <strong>Bible</strong> in Basic English, Darby Translation, RSV, NASV,<br />
Weymouth NT, the Good News <strong>Bible</strong>, Greek Westcott-Hort, Greek Nestle etc.<br />
I will now allow the great scholar Ezra Abbot conclude with his remarks on the authenticity of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
testimony and variant readings:<br />
"of these again, it will appear, on examination, that nineteen out of twenty are of no sort of<br />
consequence as affecting the sense; they relate to questions of orthography, or grammatical<br />
construction, or the order of words, or such other matters as have been mentioned above, in<br />
speaking of unimportant variations. They concern only the form of expression, not the<br />
essential meaning. This reduces the number to perhaps 400 which involve a difference in<br />
meaning, often very slight, or the omission or addition of a few words, sufficient to render<br />
them objects of some curiosity and interest, while a few among them be relatively<br />
important."<br />
Critical Essays, Ezra Abbot, p.209 (1888)<br />
I pray that this study has been a blessing to you so that you are more<br />
informed about <strong>Bible</strong> versions.<br />
Click here for another look at the Byzantine Text<br />
Click here for another look at the King James Version<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
Here is a list on recommendations and must haves:<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation [feel free to contact me for one]<br />
The Interlinear <strong>Bible</strong>: Hebrew/Greek/English by Jay P., Sr. Green<br />
The New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> : Reader's Edition<br />
The Role of Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation by Professor Rolf Furuli<br />
Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament<br />
The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance<br />
Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words<br />
Numerous <strong>Bible</strong>s to download for free including the KJV, the excellent ASV and Greek Texts by<br />
Stephanos, Westcott/Hort, Nestle Aland etc<br />
Understanding Greek Texts<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tr.htm (12 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:06:26 AM]
Online Reply: The Textus Receptus Re-examined and is the King James Version a Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tr.htm (13 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:06:26 AM]
A Reply to Matt Slick of CARM and the use of EGO EIMI at John 8:58<br />
A Reply to Matt Slick/CARM and the use of EGW EIMI at John 8:58<br />
A response to the original article at http://www.carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm<br />
CARM: The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 8:58<br />
"Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence,<br />
I have been" (New <strong>World</strong> Translation).<br />
The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God. So, when it comes to translating and interpreting <strong>Bible</strong><br />
verses that show the deity of Jesus, the JW's will go to great lengths to support their false presupposition.<br />
Sometimes they will even translate verses in a way that is not consistent with biblical grammar and context.<br />
In the Jehovah's Witness <strong>Bible</strong>, known as the New <strong>World</strong> Translation (NWT), John 8:58 is a verse that they<br />
have translated in a manner deliberately consistent with their theology. Following is the verse in context<br />
from the NASB.<br />
In John 8:56-59 says, "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' 57The<br />
Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' 58Jesus said to<br />
them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' 59Therefore they picked up stones to<br />
throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple." (All <strong>Bible</strong> quotes are from the NASB)<br />
Reply: Did you know that the 1960, 1973 NASB also has "I have been" as a variant reading in the<br />
margin.<br />
If the NASB translators accepted the NWT rendering, perhaps their work is not consistent with "biblical<br />
grammar and context" either.<br />
In fact, there are quite a few more, and some of them are literal translations:<br />
The Living New Testament: "The absolute truth<br />
is that I was in existence before Abraham was<br />
ever born."<br />
The 20th Century New Testament: "before Abraham<br />
existed I was."<br />
Noyes, G.R. N.T. (1878)<br />
_Jesus said to them, _truly, truly do I say to you, from before Abraham<br />
was, I have been.__<br />
Hanson, J.W. New Covenant (1884)<br />
_Jesus said to them, _truly, truly, I say to you, I am before Abraham was<br />
born.__<br />
Kraeling, E.G. Four Gospels (1962)<br />
_With another amen-saying, Jesus declares to them that before<br />
Abraham was, He (Jesus) is (hint of His preexistence) ._<br />
Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T._Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed._<br />
Cotton Patch Version (1970)<br />
_To this Jesus replied, _I existed before Abraham was born.__<br />
Ledyard, G.H. New Life Testament (1969)<br />
_Jesus said to them, _for sure I tell you, before Abraham was born, I<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/egweimi.htm (1 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:06:37 AM]
A Reply to Matt Slick of CARM and the use of EGO EIMI at John 8:58<br />
was and sum and always will be._,,<br />
Dr. E.C. Dymond N.T. (1972)<br />
__Yes, indeed!; said Jesus: _He saw me in prospect. The fact is, that<br />
long before Abraham was conceived in his mother_s womb, that<br />
individual who I now am had been conceived in God_s mind: He had<br />
completed the plan and specifications, so to speak, and therefore He<br />
was able to give Abraham a mental preview of me__.<br />
Good News for the <strong>World</strong> (1969)<br />
_Jesus answer, _I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was<br />
born.__<br />
The New Testament, An American Translation<br />
Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham<br />
was born."<br />
The Complete <strong>Bible</strong>, An American Translation<br />
Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham<br />
was born."<br />
New Believers <strong>Bible</strong>, New Living Translation:<br />
"I existed before Abraham was even born."<br />
The New Testament, C. B. Williams: "I solemnly<br />
say to you, I existed before Abraham was born."<br />
The Book, New Testament: The absolute truth is<br />
that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."<br />
The Living <strong>Bible</strong>: "I was in existence before Abraham<br />
was ever born."<br />
Lattimore: "Truly, truly I tell<br />
you, I am from before Abraham was born."<br />
The New Testament, From the Peshitta Text,<br />
Lamsa: "Before Abraham was born, I was."<br />
An American Translation, In The Language of<br />
Today, Beck: "I was before Abraham."<br />
New Testament Contemporary English Version:<br />
"I tell you.that even before Abraham was, I was,<br />
and I am."<br />
The Unvarnished New Testament: "Before<br />
Abraham was born, I have already been."<br />
The New Testament, Kleist & Lilly: "I am here-and<br />
I was before Abraham."<br />
The New Testament in the Language of the People,<br />
Williams: "I existed before Abraham was born."<br />
The New Testament, Noyes: "From before Abraham<br />
was, I have been."<br />
A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: "Before<br />
Abraham was, I have been."<br />
Wakefield, G. N.T. (1795)<br />
_Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham<br />
was born, I am He._<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/egweimi.htm (2 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:06:37 AM]
A Reply to Matt Slick of CARM and the use of EGO EIMI at John 8:58<br />
The Syriac New Testament, Murdock: "Before<br />
Abraham existed I was."<br />
The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels,<br />
Burkitt& The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,<br />
Blake & Briere "Before Abraham came to be, I was."<br />
The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant,<br />
Sharpe: "I was before Abraham was born."<br />
The 20th Century New Testament 1904: "Before<br />
Abraham existed I was already what I am."<br />
The New Testament, Stage: "Before Abraham<br />
came to be, I was."<br />
International <strong>Bible</strong> Translators 1981<br />
_Jesus said to them, _I am telling the truth: I was alive before Abraham<br />
was born!__<br />
The Coptic Version the New Testament in the<br />
Southern Dialect, Horner: "Before Abraham became,<br />
I, I am being."<br />
The Documents of the New Testament, Wade:<br />
"Before Abraham came into being, I have existed."<br />
Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961)<br />
_Jesus answered them: _Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham<br />
was born.__<br />
The Concise Gospel and The acts, Christianson:<br />
"I existed even before Abraham was born."<br />
A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida:<br />
"Before Abraham existed, I existed, or.I have existed."<br />
The Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>: "I was alive before<br />
Abraham was born."<br />
The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you<br />
for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born."<br />
The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version,<br />
Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham."<br />
Swann, G. N.T. (1947)<br />
Jesus said to them, verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before<br />
Abraham was born_<br />
International English Version (2001)<br />
"I was alive before Abraham was born"<br />
CARM: Grammatically, their version is the 'perfect tense.' By contrast, the past tense would be "I was." The<br />
future tense would be "I will be." The present tense would be, "I am."<br />
Reply: True, EIMI is in the present tense, but the surrounding context is not. They call this the<br />
“Extension from the Past” idiom or PPA (Present of Past Action). The reason for this are the words PRIN<br />
ABRAAM GENESQAI (before Abraham was). Many grammarians realize this, and have thus<br />
abandoned trying to read more into John 8:58. Here is a list of these grammarians:<br />
Meyer, The Gospel of John, 293; Tholuck, Commentary on the Gospel of John (Edinburgh: T & T Clark,<br />
1859), 243; J. N. Sanders and B. A. Mastin, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (New<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/egweimi.htm (3 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:06:37 AM]
A Reply to Matt Slick of CARM and the use of EGO EIMI at John 8:58<br />
York: Harper & Row, 1968), 236; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament<br />
and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,<br />
1961), 168, sec. 322; Mckay, A New Syntax of the Verb in NT Greek, 41-42 etc etc.<br />
To go along with this, the EGW EIMI at vss 24 and 28 has the hOTI (that) before it, implying a<br />
predicate:<br />
Verse 24, "EIPON OUN UMIN OTI APOQANEISQE EN TAIS AMARTIAIS UMWN EAN GAR MH<br />
PISTEUSHTE OTI EGW EIMI APOQANEISQE EN TAIS AMARTIAIS UMWN"<br />
Verse 28, "EIPEN OUN [AUTOIS] O IHSOUS OTAN UYWSHTE TON UION TOU ANQRWPOU<br />
TOTE GNWSESQE OTI EGW EIMI KAI AP EMAUTOU POIW OUDEN ALLA KAQWS<br />
EDIDAXEN ME O PATHR TAUTA LALW"<br />
BDAG also says, " The formula egw eimi is oft. used in the gospels (corresp. to hebr. aWh ynla} Dt<br />
32:39; Is 43:10), in such a way that the predicate must be understood fr. the context: Mt 14:27; Mk<br />
6:50;13:6; 14:62; Lk 22:70; J 4:26; 6:20;8:24, 28; 13:19; 18:5f and oft.-In a question mhti egw eimi;<br />
surely it is not I? Mt 26:22,25." If you notice, John 8:58 is not mentioned here, this is because the eimi in<br />
24 and 28 is predicated by the preceding hOTI. In verse 58 however, the eimi is strictly a verb because of<br />
its connection with the adverbial prin. PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI<br />
CARM: But the NWT does not prefer the present tense because it is too close to the divine title of God<br />
found in Exodus 3:14 where God says to Moses, "I AM." And since the Watchtower Organization erringly<br />
teaches that Jesus is not God in flesh, it must alter its <strong>Bible</strong> to support its theological bias.<br />
…The NASB, for example, is intended to be as literal as possible as does the KJV which both translate the<br />
verse as "I AM." Take Young's Literal Translation as another example. In John 8:58 it states, ". . . Before<br />
Abraham's coming -- I am."<br />
Reply: So far we have seen that this is not so, or are we to assume the translators of the NASB and all of<br />
the above list are members of the WT Organization. But let’s look further.<br />
In spite of some of the translations regarding John 8:58, I do not believe the NWT's version of John 8:58 is<br />
warranted for three reasons: First, it purports to "transmit his [God] thoughts and declarations as accurately<br />
as possible."1 I do not believe this is the case. Rather, I see the Watchtower's bias against Jesus' divinity<br />
overtaking this verse and altering it as it has done in other verses such as Heb. 1:8 and Col. 1:15-17.<br />
Second, the most literal translations such as the NASB, the NIV, and the KJV do not render this verse as "I<br />
have been" but as "I AM."<br />
Reply But we have seen that the NASB does allow for the NWT rendering. Soon we will see that the<br />
LXX link is not literal either.<br />
And, third, if you look at the context of John 8:56-59 it says,<br />
"'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' 57The Jews therefore said to<br />
Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' 58Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say<br />
to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid<br />
Himself, and went out of the temple."<br />
If Jesus were really saying to the Jews, "I have been," then why would the Pharisees want to kill him (v.<br />
59)? Since blasphemy, or calling yourself God, was punishable by death, isn't this a confirmation that Jesus<br />
was saying "I am" and that the Jew's understood what he was saying? Absolutely! That is why the best<br />
translation is simply, "I am."2 I also need to mention that in Mark 14:62, where Jesus answered the High<br />
Priest who said, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the<br />
Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63Then the high priest<br />
rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? 64Ye have heard the blasphemy. . ." Jesus<br />
responded with "I am" which provoked the authorities and prompted them to seek death. This is particularly<br />
revealing when we compare John 10:34 where the Pharisees want to kill Jesus because they said He was<br />
making Himself equal to God. The phrase, "I AM" in these contexts would surely imply that.<br />
Reply: NOW, let us really take a look at the context.<br />
Jesus identifies himself as the one "sent" by a superior, he did not come of his own accord<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/egweimi.htm (4 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:06:37 AM]
A Reply to Matt Slick of CARM and the use of EGO EIMI at John 8:58<br />
(Jn.8:16,29,42,). This superior is identified as "Father" and "God" (8:54). Is not the sender<br />
The superior of the one sent? (Jn.13:16 cf Jn. 14:28). Jesus does nothing of his "own initiative" and he<br />
can only speak what he was "taught" by the Father (8:28). Jesus does not seek his own glory, but God's<br />
and "keeps His word" (8:50, 54). Could this be said of Almighty God?<br />
So why do the Jews try to kill him? Probably for the same reason that they stoned Stephen. Does this<br />
mean that Stephen was claiming equality with God?<br />
Let us look at the context even more closely:<br />
Jesus says they will die (v.21)<br />
Jesus says they are killers (v.37,40)<br />
Jesus says their Father is not God (v.41)<br />
Jesus says their Father is Satan (v.44)<br />
Jesus says he is above Abraham (vss. 53-58)<br />
Says A Rabbinic Anthology, “So great is the [merit] of Abraham that he can atone for all the vanities<br />
committed and lies uttered by Israel in this world.” (London, 1938, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe, p. 676)<br />
It was only after all this, and after FIVE "I AM's" [EGW EIMI vss. 12, 18, 24, 28, 58] that they tried to<br />
stone him. The Jews did not understand the I AM to mean that he was saying he was Jehovah, they were<br />
upset at him for elevating himself above Abraham, and this is only heightened by the fact that he was<br />
hurling the above rebukes at them, simply put.<br />
Was Jesus claiming equality with God at John 10:34?<br />
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye<br />
are gods? {10:35} If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God<br />
came (and the scripture cannot be broken), {10:36} say ye of him, whom<br />
the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest;<br />
because I said, I am [the] Son of God?” ASV<br />
Here Jesus was quoting Psalm 82 where human judges are called gods. Does it not make sense that the<br />
Son of God can be called a god also?<br />
Jesus was adamant about the ignorance of the Jews, so we should not put too much stock in his enemies.<br />
Matt. 12:34 "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance<br />
of the heart the mouth speaketh."<br />
Matt. 22:29 "But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the<br />
power of God."<br />
Also, note that Jesus said, "Before Abraham was..." Abraham came before Moses and it was to Moses that<br />
God said, "I AM..." The Jews knew that when Jesus said, "I AM," particularly in the context of saying<br />
"Before Abraham...", that Jesus was identifying Himself as the One at the burning bush. That is why they<br />
wanted to kill Him, because He was identifying Himself as the divine "I AM."<br />
Reply: I fail to see how a Trinitarian can see that Jesus is the “I AM” since the context of Exodus shows<br />
that this is an angel speaking for Jehovah.<br />
“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:<br />
and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath<br />
sent me unto you. {3:15} And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt<br />
thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers,<br />
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent<br />
me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all<br />
generations.” Ex 3:14, 15 ASV<br />
Trinitarian theology teaches that Jesus is NOT the Father, yet Jehovah is identified as the Father. Isa.64.8<br />
says," Jehovah (YHWH) you are our Father. The Father is YHWH (cf. Ps 103:13; Pr 3:12;Is 63:16)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/egweimi.htm (5 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:06:37 AM]
A Reply to Matt Slick of CARM and the use of EGO EIMI at John 8:58<br />
The Septuagint<br />
A final note: Around 250 B.C., the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into the Greek. This translation is<br />
called the Septuagint which is also known by the letters LXX. The Jews often used the LXX. In John 8:58,<br />
Jesus was most probably quoting the LXX in Exodus 3:14 where Moses was at the burning bush and asked<br />
God what His name was. God answered and said, "Ego eimi ho on." Translated this literally from the Greek<br />
LXX we get, "I am the Being One." Most <strong>Bible</strong>s translate the Hebrew from Exodus 3:14 as "I am" -- the<br />
present tense. The LXX also has it in the present tense. Jesus uses the present tense in John 8:58.<br />
Reply: Since you are very big on literal translations, did you know that the LXX translation of Ex 3:14 is<br />
not literal. A literal rendering would be one akin to Aquila’s and Theodotion’s, “esomai<br />
hos esomia.” Translated, this reads “I will be what who I will be.” This is just like the<br />
TRUE reading at Exodus 3:14. If you check the footnotes in most mainstream <strong>Bible</strong>s, like<br />
the NIV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, NEB (but not the NASB)etc, you will see that this is the<br />
case. But why is this the true reading. Well 2 verses before the same Hebrew word<br />
(EHYEH) is used, but there it is universally translated “I WILL BE.” Actually, for a<br />
translation of the Hebrew to be “I AM THAT I AM” would require the original Hebrew to<br />
read “ANI ASHER ANI”, a reading that we do not have at this verse.<br />
It should also be noted that, in the LXX, God is identified as the “ho on”, THE BEING,<br />
not the I AM. Yet, this is not carried forth in John 8:58.<br />
Take a look at the Hebrew text here: The same Hebrew word (1961) is used 2 scriptures<br />
apart (right beside the 12 and the 14), but it is translated differently in v.14, in order to<br />
prop Jesus' claim to Jehovahhood. Which versions accurately translate EHYEH as I<br />
WILL BE or a similar rendering: The James Moffatt Translation, New <strong>World</strong> Translation,<br />
New Jewish Publication Society footnote [hereafter "ftn"], The Schocken <strong>Bible</strong>, Amplified<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, TEV ftn., RSV ftn., Rotherham, Byington, NIV ftn., CEV ftn., NEB ftn., REB ftn., Living <strong>Bible</strong> ftn.<br />
NRSV., etc.<br />
Kenneth L. McKay, who graduated with honors in Classics from the Universities of Sydney and<br />
Cambridge, taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria, New Zealand, and England,<br />
who taught at the Australian National University for 26 years, has written numerous articles on ancient<br />
Greek syntax, as well as authored a book on Classical Attic, Greek Grammar for Students, and A New<br />
Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: an aspectual approach, provides the following in relation to<br />
the alleged "true parallel between Exodus 3:14 (LXX) and John 8:58":<br />
====================================================================<br />
John's Gospel," Expository Times (1996): 302-303)<br />
'I am' in John's Gospel<br />
BY K. L. MCKAY, MA, FORMERLY OF THE AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY<br />
It has become fashionable among some preachers and writers to relate Jesus's<br />
use of the words 'I am' in the Gospel according to John, in all, or most, of<br />
their contexts, to God's declaration to MOSES in Exodus 3:14, and to expound<br />
the passages concerned as if the words themselves have some kind of magic in<br />
them. Some who have no more than a smattering of Greek attribute the 'magic'<br />
to the Greek words ego eimi.1 I wish briefly to draw attention to the<br />
normality of the Greek in all such passages, and the unlikelihood of the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/egweimi.htm (6 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:06:37 AM]
A Reply to Matt Slick of CARM and the use of EGO EIMI at John 8:58<br />
words ego eimi being intended to suggest any special significance of this<br />
kind.<br />
It is, of course, perfectly reasonable to draw attention to Jesus's claims<br />
about himself by noting the 'I am' element common to them: 'I am the bread<br />
of life' (6:35), 'I am the light of the world' (8:12), 'I am the gate/door'<br />
(10:7), 'I am the good shepherd' (10:11), 'I am the resurrection and the<br />
life' (11:25), 'I am the way, the truth and the life' (14:6), 'I am the true<br />
vine' (15:1). These statements give important insights into the identity and<br />
work of Jesus, and we can be challenged to decide whether the words 'I am'<br />
in them convey truth, delusion, deceit, or something else. In each case the<br />
Greek words used are ego eimi, the pronoun being emphatic (as is usually<br />
appropriate in beginning a startling fresh statement, answering a question<br />
of identity or personal activity, and in some other circumstances), and the<br />
verb, also slightly emphatic,2 being the normal use of the verb 'to be' as a<br />
copula, the means of linking the subject with the significant words,<br />
'bread', 'light', etc., which occur as noun complements.The same principle<br />
applies when the complement is an adjective or an adverb or adverbial phrase<br />
used adjectivally.<br />
With variations of context the degree of emphasis may vary, and either the<br />
pronoun or the verb may be omitted. In the parallelism of 8:23 pronoun and<br />
verb are separated: humeis ek ton kato este, ego ek ton ano eimi, but in the<br />
immediately following parallel statement the introduction of a negative<br />
brings the verb forward (thus also giving extra emphasis to toutou): ego ouk<br />
eimi ek tou kosmou toutou. In 14:10 the verb is omitted, because it is<br />
understood from the rest of the sentence: ego en to (i) patri kai ho pater<br />
en emoi estin.3 In 14:20 a development from the same statement, also in a<br />
hoti clause, omits the copula entirely: ego en to(i) patri mou kai humeis en<br />
emoi kago en humin In 10:36 the personal pronoun is not needed for emphasis,<br />
and is omitted: huios tou theou eimi. In 7:34 and 7:36 the clause structure<br />
demands the postposition of the subject: hopou eimi ego humeis ou dunasthe<br />
elthein.<br />
Although the natural English translations differ, there are two contexts of<br />
this kind in which Jesus uses the words ego eimi alone to identify himself:<br />
in 6:20, where the disciples are afraid of the apparition they see walking<br />
on the water, and Jesus reassures them by identifying himself, quite<br />
naturally, with these words, which translate into English as 'It is 1'; and<br />
in 18:5, whale Jesus acknowledges that he is Jesus of Nazareth by speaking<br />
the same words, which are naturally translated into English as 'I am he'.<br />
The syntactic difference between them is that in the former ego is the<br />
complement, the unexpressed subject being something equivalent to 'what you<br />
see', and in the latter ego is the subject, the unexpressed complement being<br />
'Jesus of Nazareth'. In both these passages ego eimi is the natural Greek<br />
response in the circumstances, as may be seen in 9:9, where the man cured of<br />
blindness uses exactly the same words to acknowledge his identity.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/egweimi.htm (7 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:06:37 AM]
A Reply to Matt Slick of CARM and the use of EGO EIMI at John 8:58<br />
The dramatic reaction of the arresting party in 18:6 is readily explained if<br />
we note that the confident authority of Jesus's presence was such that he<br />
defeated the merchants in the temple (2:15), and he simply walked away when<br />
the crowd was intent on throwing him over the brow of the hill near Nazareth<br />
(Luke 4:28-30).<br />
The verb 'to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its basic<br />
meaning of 'be in existence', in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi,5<br />
which would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since<br />
before Abraham was born',6 if it were not for the obsession with the simple<br />
words 'I am'. If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we<br />
surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself<br />
a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction.<br />
For the emphasis on the words 'I am' we need to look back to God's words to<br />
Moses in Exodus 3:14, 'I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the<br />
Israelites: "I am has sent me to you".' The passage in its Hebrew form has<br />
been discussed by many commentators as something of a problem, with<br />
possibilities that the verb could mean 'I am', 'I will be', 'I become', or<br />
'I will become', and the pronoun 'that', 'who', 'what', or even 'because'.<br />
Some see a need to emend the text, and some stress various critical<br />
principles as basic to its interpretation. A few refer to the Septuagint<br />
translation of the passage as relevant for understanding it.7<br />
Now the Septuagint was the translation done for the benefit of the<br />
increasing number of Greek-speaking Jews a couple of centuries earlier, so<br />
naturally it is the version of the Old Testament that is normally referred<br />
to in the New Testament, and certainly the one most likely to be known to<br />
the early readers of John's Gospel. Its translation of Exodus 3:14 follows<br />
the sense (as understood by the Jewish translators) rather than the exact<br />
form of the Hebrew: ego eimi ho an ... Ho an apestalke me, which translates<br />
into English literally as 'I am the being one',' and 'the being one has sent<br />
me'. Now the words ego eimi here are the emphatic pronoun and the copula as<br />
in most of the passages cited above; and ho an represents a relative clause<br />
which in its first occurrence would be hos eimi and in its second occurrence<br />
would be hos esti,9 but the most natural translation into English of both<br />
would be 'the one who is (who really exists)',' the verb having its basic<br />
meaning (and being so accented), and not being a mere copula In neither is<br />
there any possibility of inserting an emphatic ego. So the emphatic ords<br />
used by Jesus in the passages referred to above are perfectly natural in<br />
their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the<br />
normally quoted Greek version. Thus they are quite unlikely to have been<br />
used in the New Testament to convey that significance, however much the<br />
modern English versions of the relevant passages, following the form of the<br />
Hebrew words, may suggest it.<br />
1 I have seen one such speaker try to impress his audience by writing the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/egweimi.htm (8 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:06:37 AM]
A Reply to Matt Slick of CARM and the use of EGO EIMI at John 8:58<br />
words on a blackboard, only to demonstrate that he was ignorant of even the<br />
simplest details of Greek.<br />
2 Its position is unemphatic, but the degree of emphasis could be reduced by<br />
its omission, which would make no difference to the meaning. The omission of<br />
the copula is quite common in Greek, especially, but not exclusively, in the<br />
third person.<br />
3 The fact that this is a reported statement, in a hoti clause, does not<br />
affect the grammar, but only the degree of emphasis.<br />
4 In translation, if as is likely, the original reply was the equivalent in<br />
Aramaic.<br />
5 Note that with this meaning the verb is differently accented in Greek<br />
E)GW\ E)MI/ instead of E)GW E)IMI ).<br />
6 For the construction see K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New<br />
Testament Greek: An aspectual approach (Peter Lang, 1994), 4.2.4.<br />
7 For extensive modern discussion of the problems of interpretation see<br />
Brevard S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL, SCM, 1974) and John 1. Durham,<br />
Exodus (WBC 3, Word, 1987). See also Martin Noth, Exodus (OTL, SCM, 2nd ed.<br />
1966); U. Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Magnes Press), 1. P.<br />
Hyatt, Exodus (NCB, Oliphants, 1971); Alan Cole, Exodus (TC, IVP, 1973); J.<br />
W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (Scholars Press, 1990).<br />
8 As Noth mentions in a footnote.<br />
9 Cf. the Vulgate translation of 14b: Qui est misit me ad vos.<br />
10 English has lost the full range of inflections, and the relative pronoun<br />
is now treated as if it were always third person.<br />
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 23:48:54 PST [Show full headers]<br />
From: "mattslick" [Add to Address Book]<br />
To: "Heinz Schmitz" <br />
Subject: RE: Triplepoint Theory<br />
You are full of yourself and the watchtower. You are a watchtowerite,<br />
predictable and led by the organization. You think like one and talk like<br />
one... of the many many I've met over the years.<br />
The same tone, the same words, the same predictable comments. You've been<br />
trained into thinking this way like the other jw's.<br />
and you offered nothing substantial as a refutation. You offered<br />
misrepresentation.<br />
Go ahead, pick ONE thing on my site and show me where i am wrong.<br />
The above is my response to Mr. Slick.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/egweimi.htm (9 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:06:37 AM]
A Reply to Matt Slick of CARM and the use of EGO EIMI at John 8:58<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/egweimi.htm (10 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:06:37 AM]
A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus."<br />
A Reply to:<br />
Why We Reject Jesus by Tropism1<br />
When quoting from the JPS: The Holy Scriptures by the Jewish Publication Society 1917<br />
When quoting from the NJPS: Tanakh-The New JPS Translation<br />
About 2000 years ago, Christians abandoned the law of Moses and began<br />
to worship a Galilean named Jesus of Nazareth.<br />
They encouraged their Jewish brethren to join them in idolatry.<br />
The answer was no, and unremitting Christian hostility became the norm.<br />
Jews rejected Jesus because of these claims of divinity.<br />
In addition, they refused to believe a dead man could be messiah,<br />
especially when he himself was not clear on this issue. Did Jesus believe<br />
himself to be the messiah?<br />
He did not (Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). He tacitly<br />
admitted he was not the messiah.<br />
Reply: Did he really?<br />
“Yeshua…said, 'Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that the Son may glorify you-….and<br />
eternal life is this: to know you the only true God, and him who you sent, Yeshua the Messiah.'” Jn 17:3<br />
Jewish N.T.<br />
“He said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?” In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the<br />
Christ, the Son of the living God.” In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jo'nah,<br />
because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did.” Matthew 16:<br />
15-17 NWT<br />
“The woman said to him: “I know that Mes·si'ah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one<br />
arrives, he will declare all things to us openly.” Jesus said to her: “I who am speaking to you am he.”<br />
John 4:24-26 NWT<br />
The gospels still call Jesus the son of David.<br />
Why?<br />
To prove that he was the messiah, who was prophesied to be of the house<br />
of David.<br />
Both gospels give genealogies to try prove their point. Both fail<br />
miserably:<br />
1. How many generations were from David to Jesus?<br />
Matthew lists 28 generations (1:6-16).<br />
Luke lists 43 generations (3:23-31)<br />
Additionally, genealogical lists help us to understand matters otherwise obscure. For instance, Samuel<br />
appears to be an Ephraimite at 1 Samuel 1:1, where Samuel's father Elkanah is called an Ephraimite. But<br />
the genealogical list of 1 Chronicles 6:19-28 shows us that Samuel and Elkanah were the descendants of<br />
Levi So Samuel was actually a Levite, qualified for tabernacle service.<br />
Matthew's genealogy should not be wondered at, however, for genealogical lists were at times<br />
abbreviated. For example, Ezra lists twenty-three names in his priestly genealogy at 1 Chronicles 6:3-14<br />
but lists only sixteen for the same period when giving his own genealogy at Ezra 7:1-5.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jewish.htm (1 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:06:46 AM]
A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus."<br />
These can all be explained, but it goes to show that Scriptures do not necessarily follow the 21st century<br />
ways of doing things.<br />
2. Matthew's genealogy includes Jeconiah(Jehoiachim), a wicked king<br />
cursed so that his descendents would never again sit on the throne (Jeremiah<br />
22:24-30)<br />
Reply: Jesus is not affected here as the scriptures stress the importance of being through him mother's<br />
bloodline.<br />
3. G-d vows that Jeconiah will be childless. Matthew mistakenly says<br />
that he bore Salatheil, an ancestor of Jesus.<br />
Reply: The Tanakh disagrees, "and the sons of Jeconiah, the captive: Shealtiel his son" 1Chron 3:17 It is<br />
quite obvious that YHVH does not carry the curse to the extreme that you do.<br />
Problems with Jesus' genealogies in Luke (ascribed to Mary by Christian<br />
tradition):<br />
1.Descent from Nathan: the messiah was only through Solomon.<br />
2.Tribal lineage in Jewish Law was always through the male, not the<br />
female.<br />
Reply: But this denies the scriptural importance of having to be born through an ALMAH/young<br />
woman/maiden. Solomon is from Joseph's family line/genealogy while Nathan's is from Mary's.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> lays stress on the importance of having lineage through Mary. “Therefore the Lord Himself<br />
will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and he shall be called Emmanuel<br />
[God-with-us]. Septuagint <strong>Bible</strong> (We will have more on this later).<br />
Paul knew about these problems and told his disciple Timothy not to pay<br />
attention to "endless genealogies."(1 Timothy 1:4) In other words, he told<br />
Timothy not to bother himself with the facts!<br />
Reply: Paul did not have access to the Gospel writings, as some were probably written AFTER his<br />
letters.<br />
The “endless genealogies” you refer to probably occurred as a source of pride.<br />
The Jewish Encyclopedia, speaking of the early centuries of the Common Era, says: “How prolific these<br />
Biblical books [Chronicles] were in provoking genealogical conceits is shown by the statement [in the<br />
Babylonian Talmud, Pes. 62b] that 900 camel-loads of commentary existed on I Chron. viii. 37 to ix. 44.<br />
. . . Much mischief must have been done by this speculation on family origins and pedigrees.”—Vol. V,<br />
p. 597 (1910).<br />
When the gospel's couldn't find verses, they made them up, like Matthew<br />
2:23: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be<br />
fulfilled...he shall be called a Nazarene." This verse exists nowhere in the<br />
Jewish scriptures.<br />
Reply: As usual, the whole verse is not quoted. The Matthew 2:23 does not appeal to the Jewish<br />
Scriptures, but instead, “that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets.” This refers<br />
to oral tradition combined with a play on the word NETSER , “And there must go forth a twig out of the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jewish.htm (2 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:06:46 AM]
A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus."<br />
stump of Jesse; and out of his roots a sprout [nétser] will be fruitful.” Isaiah 11:1<br />
When Jewish Scripture is quoted, it is often quoted as “It is written” like it is 2 chapters later (cf.<br />
Matthew 4:4, 6, 7, 10).<br />
Jews always have been a problem for Christendom. Jesus' own people<br />
rejected him and survived to tell of it! Now 2000 years have passed, Jesus is<br />
not yet returned, and the Jews are triumphantly returned to their land. The<br />
Messiah will appear, the temple will be rebuilt, and Christianity will once<br />
and for all be proven false!<br />
Reply: Well, at least we picked a Messiah. “From Josephus it appears that in the first century before the<br />
destruction of the Temple [in 70 C.E.] a number of Messiahs arose promising relief from the Roman<br />
yoke, and finding ready followers.” (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. X, p. 251) The Jewish Encyclopedia<br />
lists 28 false Messiahs between the years 132 C.E. and 1744 C.E.—Vol. X, pp. 252-255.<br />
What did God say concerning the Jews? "I will no longer accept the house of Israel, or pardon them. . . .<br />
you are not my people and I will not be your God." (Hosea 1:6, 9 NJPS) Thus, those apostate Israelites<br />
would not remain in God's favor. Only a faithful remnant would one day be privileged to be restored and<br />
again experience divine blessings.<br />
The late historian Theodore H. White, himself a Jew, candidly admitted: "There are almost as many<br />
different sects of Jews, who quarrel with each other, . . . as there are among Protestants"? Time<br />
magazine, calling attention in 1987 to the squabbling religious factions within Israel's 120-member<br />
political body, the Knesset, write: "Some durable solution must be found if Israel . . . is not to become a<br />
house fatally divided against itself"?<br />
The determination of modern Judaism offers little hope for the future. By trusting in human politics to<br />
realize their Messianic hope, Judaism has ignored the words of its own sacred writings: "It is better to<br />
take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man. . . . Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in<br />
whom there is no help."—Psalm 118:8; 146:3, The Holy Scriptures, published by the Jewish Publication<br />
Society of America.<br />
In contrast with the difficulty many Jews today have in identifying their Messianic hope (see above), a<br />
number of their ancestors back in the first century C.E. had no difficulty doing so. (cf. John 1:41.) They<br />
became followers of the One they accepted as the Messiah, becoming zealous proponents of a religion<br />
we can aptly call "The Way of Faith, Hope, and Love."<br />
The Jewish view of Jesus can basically be summed up as follows:<br />
Yeshu (Yeshua, Jesus) of Nazareth practiced sorcery and led people<br />
astray.<br />
He was an idolator and heretic who mocked the Rabbis.<br />
He was stoned/hung on the eve of Passover for his crimes by a Jewish,<br />
not a Roman court.<br />
The authors of the Talmud imply he was the son of an adultress , the<br />
hairdresser Mary (Miriam) and a soldier named Pandera/Panthere.<br />
Reply: Max Dimont says in his book Jews, God and History that though the Pharisees carried on the<br />
torch of Jewish ideology and religion, “the torch itself had been ignited by the Greek philosophers.”<br />
I personally do not put much faith in Talmudic opinions with Greek pagan philosophical overtones. They<br />
would not carry much weight with any Christians.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jewish.htm (3 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:06:46 AM]
A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus."<br />
The earliest of these Talmud sources date from a time well before the<br />
Gospels reached their final form.<br />
Reply: “The Jewish life and the thought of the Talmud is not the Jewish life and though of the NT [New<br />
Testament] period simply, and while this mine of information often does illustrate the NT, it has also<br />
misled scholars who projected elements of the Talmudic period into the NT period, where they had not<br />
yet appeared.” Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>, John L. McKenzie, S.J., p.867 stop<br />
The arguments over Jesus intensified during these first three centuries<br />
of the common era until the church came to full power in 325 CE. At the<br />
Council of Nicaea in that year, a pagan Roman emperor, Constantine, made<br />
Christianity the official religion to shore up his tottering empire.<br />
This council deified Jesus, cutting the new religion off forever from<br />
its Jewish roots and incorporated elements of pagan cultss to win over their<br />
adherents.<br />
Reply: I agree with the above. The Trinity is never mentioned in the <strong>Bible</strong>. It is not a New Testament<br />
teaching, nor was it espoused by Jesus. Many recognize this:<br />
"You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the <strong>Bible</strong>. St Paul has the<br />
highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself<br />
explicitly claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father." -- For<br />
Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest).<br />
"The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan." -- The Paganism in Our Christianity<br />
The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an<br />
explicit doctrine of the Trinity."<br />
Yale University Professor E. Washburn Hopkins: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was<br />
apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it." -- Origin and Evolution of Religion.<br />
The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian<br />
[believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight<br />
one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature<br />
of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> believers have often gone against scripture and paid for it, but it does not make the message wrong.<br />
Were not the Jews sent to exile in Babylon because of unfaithfulness to God in worship?<br />
You can consider most Christians in sort of a spiritual exile.<br />
This mutated church began several centuries of persecution of its<br />
Jewish mother, censoring the sections of the Talmud that referred to Jesus<br />
and Christianity.<br />
Only within the last century have the censored parts been restored to<br />
printed versions of the Jewish Talmud.<br />
Reply: It is the Talmud that mentions the ritual removal the "Tetragrammata" (YHWH) from the "Books<br />
of the Minim" (Christian Scriptures/New Testament) at Talmud Shabbat 13 (14:5) BY THE JEWS. So<br />
these accusations can go both ways.<br />
George Howard has done extensive study on the Divine Name in the New Testament and has this to say:<br />
"The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates<br />
KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jewish.htm (4 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:06:46 AM]
A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus."<br />
many passages made it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and<br />
replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time went<br />
on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish<br />
between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the<br />
later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries."<br />
George Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 15<br />
In an interesting twist, it may be that Judaism led to the problems in Christianity.<br />
JESUS IS NOT THE MESSIAH!<br />
1. Scriptural References<br />
In order to understand anything in the Torah one must look at the original<br />
Hebrew.<br />
You will see that the Christians distorted, changed and misinterpreted<br />
many of the Hebrew words in order to fit things into their beliefs.<br />
The two places that are good examples.<br />
In Psalm 22:17 the Hebrew states "hikifuni ca'ari yaday veraglay" which<br />
means "they bound me (hikifuni) like a lion (ca-like ari-lion), my hands<br />
(yaday) and my feet (ve-and raglay-my feet).<br />
The Christians translate this as "they pierced my hands and feet".<br />
Nowhere in the entire Torah, Prophets and Writings do the words ca'ari<br />
or hikifuny mean anything remotely resembling "pierce".<br />
Reply: The Christian <strong>Bible</strong>s I mainly use, the New <strong>World</strong> Translation, New Revised Standard Version,<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong>, New English <strong>Bible</strong> and the official Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>, the New American <strong>Bible</strong>, do<br />
not used the word "pierce" here. So much for the Christian distortion. I personally use Zechariah 12:10<br />
here to prove my point, which is quoted later at John 19:37. What does that scripture say? "And they<br />
shall look unto me because they have THRUST him through." JPS The Hebrew word here for THRUST<br />
is DAQAR which is also translated as "piercing" in the JPS at Proverbs 22:18.<br />
In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew states "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben"<br />
"behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is<br />
pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth)<br />
to a son (ben)".<br />
The Christians translate this as "behold a virgin shall give birth."<br />
They have made two mistakes (probably deliberate) in the one verse. They<br />
mistranslate "ha" as "a" instead of "the".<br />
They mistranslate "almah" as "virgin", when in fact the Hebrew word for<br />
virgin is "betulah".<br />
Reply: The great Hebrew grammarian, William Gesenius, stated:<br />
"Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article to denote a single person or thing<br />
(primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore not capable of being defined) as<br />
being present to the mind under given circumstances. In such cases in English the indefinite<br />
article is used" [Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, § 126q].<br />
In this section Gesenius listed many examples including the *'almah* of Isaiah 7:14. Though Gesenius<br />
did not support the virgin birth, he nevertheless supported the use of the indefinite article in an English<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jewish.htm (5 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:06:46 AM]
A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus."<br />
translation of this passage. In other words, according to the grammar and the context, the identity of the<br />
*'almah* was unknown to the participants of the story and to the prophet's audience.<br />
The word ALMAH is never used in the <strong>Bible</strong> where it necessarily means anything other than virgin. The<br />
word occurs seven times in the Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong>:<br />
Gen 24:43--where the word refers to the virgin Rebekah.<br />
Exod 2:8--where the word refers to Moses' sister Miriam. She was obviously a virgin at the time Moses<br />
was born?<br />
Psa 68:25--where the word refers to the female musicians in the procession escorting the king. There is<br />
no reason to question the virginity of these young women?<br />
Song 1:3; 6:8--where the word refers to the attendants of Solomon's queens and concubines. There is no<br />
reason to question the virginity of these choice young women either.<br />
I especially like how the <strong>Bible</strong> uses the 2 terms BETULAH and ALMAH:<br />
Genesis 24:16 "The maiden [*na'arah*] was very beautiful, a virgin [*bethulah*]; whom no man had<br />
known." NJPS<br />
In this verse Rebekah is referred to as a *bethulah*, but the text adds the qualifying clause "no<br />
man had known her." Such a qualifying clause would be unnecessary if *bethulah*<br />
unambiguously meant "virgin." Later in the same story, Rebekah is referred to as an *'almah* (vs.<br />
43) without any qualifying clause.<br />
Interestingly, the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation made by Jews before Christ used the word<br />
PARTHENOS here, the same word used for "Virgin" in the New Testament.<br />
Christians do not need only chapter 7 verse 14 to point to proof from Isaiah. Consider the following<br />
literal fulfillments from the same book:<br />
The birth of Immanuel Is 9:6a [Matt 1:23; Luke 1:31-33; 2:7-11]<br />
The revival of the Davidic dynasty Is 11:1 [Matt 1:6, 16; Acts 13:23; Rev 5:5; 22:16]<br />
Incarnation of Jesus Christ Is 28:16 [Matt 21:42]<br />
Preaching of John the Baptist Is 40:3-5 [Matt 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4-6; John 1:23]<br />
Jesus at baptism and transfiguration Is 42:1a, 2, 3 [Matt 3:16, 17; 17:5]<br />
Jesus beaten and spat upon Is 50:6 [Matt 26:67; 27:26, 30; Mk 14:65; 15:19; Lk 22:63; Jn 18:22]<br />
Jesus setting his face towards Jerusalem Is 50:7 [Lk 9:51]<br />
Israel failing to recognize her Messiah Is 53:1 [Jn 12:38]<br />
Philip identifies Jesus as the one written of Is 53:7,8 [Acts 8:32,33]<br />
Jesus remains silent during trial Is 53:7 [Matt 26:63; 27:12-14; Mk 14:61; 15:5; Lk 23:9; Jn 19:9; 1Pet<br />
2:23]<br />
Jesus is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world Is 53:7 [Jn 1:29; 1Pet 1:18,19; Rev 5:6]<br />
Jesus was innocent of charges Is 53:9 [1Pet 2:22]<br />
Jesus needed to be slain besides 2 criminals Is 53:11 [Lk 22:37]<br />
Christ's resurrection was important to his occupying David's throne Is 55:3 [Acts 13:34]<br />
Jesus fulfilled the call to the daughter of Zion by his triumphal entry Is 62:11 [Mt 21:5]<br />
Aside from the fact that if you read the context of that prediction you<br />
will see clearly that it is predicting an event that was supposed to<br />
happen and be seen by king Achaz who lived 700 years before Jesus!<br />
Reply: Now you really have to ask yourself, "Why would God bless Achaz with a young boy, "Immanuel<br />
[With us is God]" (Is. 7:14) after he had "burned his sons in the fire, in the abhorrent fashion of the<br />
nations which the LORD had dispossessed before the Israelites." (2Chron 28:3 NJPS).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jewish.htm (6 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:06:46 AM]
A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus."<br />
2. Genealogy<br />
He was not descended from the House of David. According to Jewish law,<br />
tribal identification comes from the father's side, being Jewish, from<br />
the mother's side.<br />
Reply: Since the importance of the virgin birth, as laid out in both Hebrew and Greek scriptures, it is<br />
quite evident that God is not interested in following Jewish law here, as Jeremiah 8:8,9 says, "How can<br />
you say, 'We are wise, And we possess the Instruction of the LORD'? Assuredly, for naught has the pen<br />
labored, For naught the scribes! The wise shall be put to shame, Shall be dismayed and caught; See, they<br />
reject the word of the LORD, so their wisdom amounts to nothing." NJPS<br />
According to Matthew 1, Joseph was descended from David (Although there<br />
are many contradictions between his genealogy there and that listed in<br />
Luke, however according to the same text, Joseph did not have sexual<br />
relations with Mary, therefore Jesus was not related to Joseph, and not<br />
a descendant of King David.<br />
Three answers to this problem are given in classic Christian sources:<br />
The genealogy is that of Mary - This is inadequate, since if he is<br />
claimed to be the Jewish messiah, and according to Jewish tradition he<br />
must be descended on his father's side, Mary's genealogy is irrelevant.<br />
He was adopted by Joseph -According to Jewish law, adoption does not<br />
change the status of the child. If an Israelite is adopted by a Cohen,<br />
(A descendant of Aaron the High Priest), the child does not become a<br />
Cohen, likewise if a descendant of David, adopts someone who is not, he<br />
does not become of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David.<br />
It doesn't matter, he was a spiritual inheritor of King David - If it<br />
doesn't matter, why do Christian scriptures spend time establishing his<br />
genealogical pedigree? And if he is claimed to be the Jewish messiah,<br />
then according to Jewish tradition it does matter!<br />
Again, I have answered alot of this above.Well, consider the facts. The <strong>Bible</strong>, in the Hebrew Scriptures,<br />
set forth certain rigid qualifications for the one to be the Messiah. Among these requirements, he was to<br />
sit on the "throne of David." (Isa. 9:6, 7; Jer. 33:20, 21; Acts 2:29, 30) He had to be a natural heir of King<br />
David of the tribe of Judah. And he had to be of the kingly line, inheriting the kingly right, which was in<br />
the hands of David's posterity through his son and successor King Solomon.<br />
Does Jesus Christ have proof of this from genealogical records? Yes, he does. He was of the tribe of<br />
Judah and the lineage of David by natural birth through his mother, who descended through David's son<br />
Nathan. (Luke 3:23-38) And he had the legal right transferred to him through his foster-father Joseph,<br />
who was from David through King Solomon. (Matt. 1:1-17) Details of this genealogy are a matter of<br />
public record in the <strong>Bible</strong>. Only the <strong>Bible</strong> record of this lineage remains.<br />
How do we know that the record of Jesus' line of descent is accurate? Because those records that appear<br />
in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 agreed with (and were likely taken from) the official public<br />
registers of that day, which were open to all to examine. This explains why the learned men of the Jews,<br />
the scribes and Pharisees and the Sadducees, who bitterly opposed Jesus, never uttered one breath of<br />
challenge of this genealogy. It is of interest, too, that no Gentile enemy of Christianity, among<br />
which were astute men, made any criticism of Jesus' genealogy until after 70 C.E. (when the public<br />
records were destroyed during the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans.)Of course, they could make false<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jewish.htm (7 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:06:46 AM]
A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus."<br />
claims then because no one could check the public registers for himself to detect their false claims.<br />
3. Messianic Predictions<br />
The main predictions concerning the Messiah are that he will bring peace<br />
to the world, gather the Jewish people from their exile to the land of<br />
Israel and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.<br />
After Jesus' appearance, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were exiled<br />
all over the world and we have not even had one day of peace in the past<br />
2,000 years. (Many of the wars in fact were started and fought by<br />
followers of Jesus)<br />
Reply: It is true that many of the worlds woes were started by those claiming to be Christian. But even<br />
Jesus and the rest of the New Testament writers knew of the "great apostasy." Consider:<br />
"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the<br />
flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw<br />
away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never<br />
stopped warning each of you night and days with tears." (Acts 20:29-31) (New International<br />
Version)<br />
"But relative to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, and our gathering<br />
together to [meet] Him, we beg you, brethren, not to allow your minds to be quickly<br />
unsettled or disturbed or kept excited or alarmed, whether it be by some [pretended]<br />
revelation of [the] Spirit or by word or by letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the<br />
day of the Lord has [already] arrived and is here. Let no one deceive or beguile you in any<br />
way, for that day will not come except the apostasy comes first- that is, unless the<br />
[predicted] great falling away of those who have professed to be Christians has come - and<br />
the man of lawlessness (sin) is revealed, who is the son of doom (of perdition)." (2<br />
Thessalonians 2:1-3) (Amplified <strong>Bible</strong>)<br />
see also 2 Thessalonians 2:4-9<br />
"Dear Friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I<br />
had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the<br />
saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly<br />
slipped in among you. They are godless men who change the grace of our God into a license<br />
for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord... These men are<br />
blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm -shepherds who<br />
feed only themselves... These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil<br />
desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage. . .But, dear<br />
friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, "In<br />
the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." These are<br />
the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit."<br />
(Jude 3, 4, 12, 16-19) (New International Version)<br />
1 Timothy 4:1-5 says:<br />
"The Spirit distinctly says that in later times some will turn away from the faith and will<br />
heed deceitful spirits and things taught by demons though plausible liars - men with seared<br />
consciences who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods which God created to<br />
be received with thanksgiving by believers who know the truth. Everything God created is<br />
good; nothing is to be rejected when it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jewish.htm (8 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:06:46 AM]
A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus."<br />
God*s word and by prayer." (The New American <strong>Bible</strong>)<br />
Probably the best prophecy on the Christian apostasy was spoken of by Jesus Himself at Matthew<br />
13:24-30,36-43. Verses 24-30 read:<br />
"Jesus told them another parable: "The Kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed<br />
good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed<br />
weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads,<br />
then the weeds also appeared. The owner's servants came to him and said, "Sir, didn't<br />
you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?" "An enemy did<br />
this", he replied. The servants asked him, "Do you want us to go and pull them up?" "No",<br />
he answered, "because while you are pulling the weeds, you root up the wheat with them.<br />
Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect<br />
the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned, then gather the wheat and bring it into my<br />
barn." (New International Version)<br />
Jesus did not leave this open to interpretation, he explains the rest:<br />
"Then he left the crowd and went into the<br />
house. His disciples came to him and said,<br />
"Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the<br />
field". He answered, "The one who sowed the<br />
good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the<br />
world, and the good seed stands for the sons<br />
of the Kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the<br />
evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the<br />
devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and<br />
the harvesters are angels. As the weeds are<br />
pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be<br />
at the end of the age. The Son of Man will<br />
send out his angels, and they will weed out of<br />
his Kingdom everything that causes sin, and all<br />
who do evil. They will throw them into the<br />
fiery furnace, where there will be weeping<br />
and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will<br />
shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their<br />
Father. He who has ears, let him hear."<br />
When Jesus was on earth, he spread a specific message, "the seed of wheat", that resulted in his followers<br />
and believers, "the wheat". But when his co-workers [the apostles and the disciples died, or "went to<br />
sleep", an enemy, the Devil, now oversowed the body of believers with<br />
others, "the weeds", who were different than the original community. This resulted in a contamination of<br />
the true faith by Jesus and his original followers. Only during "the end of the age", would we see a<br />
harvesting that would bring together once again the wheat, but separate from the weeds.<br />
These events are enough to show that he was not the messiah.<br />
The main Christian responses to these objections are:<br />
The Second Coming - First of all, we find this to be a contrived answer,<br />
since there is no mention of a second coming in the Jewish <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jewish.htm (9 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:06:46 AM]
A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus."<br />
Second, why couldn't G-d accomplish His goals the first time round.<br />
Reply: One author puts it this way: "How can God's reign have begun and yet heathendom remain<br />
unmoved? The answer is given in Daniel 7: the Reign of God would not be established easily- the one<br />
like a Son of Man must given over to tribulations for a time, two times and half a time...and only then<br />
exalted to God's presence and given the kingdom." p.52 The Myth of God Incarnate, Frances Young/John<br />
hicks editor<br />
Why must he undergo tribulations? Because of a legal principle in God's law for the nation of Israel. It<br />
states that 'life should be given for life.' (Exodus 21:23) By disobedience the perfect man Adam lost<br />
perfect life for himself and all his children. Jesus Christ gave his own perfect life to buy back what Adam<br />
lost. As the <strong>Bible</strong> explains, Jesus "gave himself a corresponding ransom for all."-1 Timothy 2:5, 6.<br />
"The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."<br />
Matt 20:28/1Tim 2:6<br />
John 1:29 "Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!"<br />
1 Cor 15:45 "The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."<br />
1 Cor 15:22 " For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.<br />
It is only fitting that this happened on Nisan 14, the same night as the Jewish Passover.<br />
4. Messiah's Qualifications<br />
Messiah is a prophet, a scholar and a pious king. Jesus made a<br />
prediction that "The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand."<br />
(Mark 1:15) That was 2000 years ago, has the kingdom of God come? Do you<br />
call the holocaust, Pol Pot and Stalin a world in which the kingdom of<br />
God has come? Jesus was not a great scholar - one of the requirements of<br />
the Messiah. Was Jesus a king? He was not anointed as king by a prophet<br />
(as was the rule in Jewish kings), he was not appointed by any judicial<br />
body as a leader and he did not rule over the Jewish people nor was he<br />
accepted by them. He was arrested, tortured and killed like a common<br />
criminal. He had no army or government. The answer to my question is an<br />
obvious, "No."<br />
Reply: I have tackled alot of this above relating to Christendom's apostasy. But why did the Jews in<br />
general not accept Jesus as the Messiah?<br />
The Encyclopaedia Judaica says: “The Jews of the Roman period believed [the Messiah] would be raised<br />
up by God to break the yoke of the heathen and to reign over a restored kingdom of Israel.” (Jerusalem,<br />
1971, Vol. 11, col. 1407) They wanted liberation from the yoke of Rome. Jewish history testifies that on<br />
the basis of the Messianic prophecy recorded at Daniel 9:24-27 there were Jews who expected the<br />
Messiah during the first century C.E. (Luke 3:15) But that prophecy also connected his coming with<br />
'making an end of sin,' and Isaiah chapter 53 indicated that Messiah himself would die in order to make<br />
this possible. However, the Jews in general felt no need for anyone to die for their sins. They believed<br />
that they had a righteous standing with God on the basis of their descent from Abraham. Says A Rabbinic<br />
Anthology, “So great is the [merit] of Abraham that he can atone for all the vanities committed and lies<br />
uttered by Israel in this world.” (London, 1938, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe, p. 676) By their rejection<br />
of Jesus as Messiah, the Jews fulfilled the prophecy: “He was despised, and we esteemed him<br />
not.”—Isaiah 53:3, JPS.<br />
Before his death, Moses foretold that the nation would turn aside from true worship and that, as a result,<br />
calamity would befall them. (Deuteronomy 31:27-29.) The book of Judges says that this occurred<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jewish.htm (10 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:06:46 AM]
A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus."<br />
repeatedly. In the days of the prophet Jeremiah, national unfaithfulness led to the Jews being taken into<br />
exile in Babylon. God also allowed the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and its temple in 70 C.E. Of what<br />
crime and unfaithfulness had the nation been guilty so that God did not protect them as he had done<br />
when they had put their trust in him? It was shortly before this that they had rejected Jesus as the<br />
Messiah.<br />
Embrace the Name of the Jewish God<br />
The preface of the American Standard Version (1901) states:<br />
"the American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous<br />
conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be<br />
uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old<br />
Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern<br />
missionaries. This Memorial Name, explained in Ex. iii. 14, 15, and emphasized as such<br />
over and over in the original text of the Old Testament, designates God as the personal God,<br />
as the covenant God, the God of revelation, the Deliverer, the Friend of his people;-not<br />
merely the abstractly 'Eternal One' of many French translations, but the ever living Helper of<br />
those who are in trouble. This personal name [Jehovah], with its wealth of sacred<br />
associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable<br />
claim."<br />
By cutting us off from his name, the Jewish forefathers have cut us off from God. The Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong><br />
over and over again stresses the importance of this name:<br />
Joel 2:32: And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe NWT<br />
Zeph 3:9: For then will I turn to the peoples of a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of<br />
Jehovah, to serve him with one consent.<br />
Ps 118:26/Mt 21:9 Mk 11:9, Lk 19:38: Blessed be he that cometh in the name of Jehovah<br />
Again and again the Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong> places great stress and importance on His name (cf. Ps 79:6; 80:18;<br />
99:6; 105:1; 116:4, 13, 17; Is 4:1; 12:4; 43:7; 63:19 Jer 10:25; 14:9), after all, it is in there over 6800<br />
times. Most nominal Christians are guilty of rejecting the Name too.<br />
GOD’S NAME IN THE TALMUD—WHAT MEN SAID<br />
“It was ordained that a man should greet his friends by mentioning the Name.”—Berakhot 9:5.<br />
“Thus did he [the High Priest on the Day of Atonement] say: O JHVH, Thy people, the House of Israel,<br />
have committed iniquity, have transgressed, have sinned before Thee. I beseech Thee by the Name<br />
JHVH . . . And when the priests and the people that stood in the Court heard the glorious and revered<br />
Name pronounced freely out of the mouth of the High Priest, in holiness and purity, they knelt and<br />
prostrated themselves, falling on their faces, and exclaiming: Blessed be His glorious, sovereign Name<br />
for ever and ever.”—Yoma 6:2.<br />
“In the Sanctuary the Name was pronounced as written; but beyond its confines a substituted Name was<br />
employed.”—Sotah 7:6.<br />
“At first the High Priest used to proclaim the Name in a loud voice; but when dissolute men multiplied,<br />
he proclaimed it in a low tone.”—The Jerusalem Talmud, Yoma 40d.<br />
“[Among those excluded from the world to come is] he who pronounces the Name according to its<br />
letters.”—Sanhedrin 10:1.<br />
“Whoever explicitly pronounces the Name is guilty of a capital offence.”—Pesikta 148a.<br />
The phrase “proclaim His name” may also be translated “call him by his name.” (Compare The New<br />
English <strong>Bible</strong>.) The same Hebrew construction is found at Genesis 12:8, where it is translated by the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jewish.htm (11 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:06:46 AM]
A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus."<br />
Tanakh: “[Abram] invoked the LORD by name.”<br />
"And God said further: You must tell the Israelites this, that it is Jehovah the God of their forefathers, the<br />
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, who has sent you to them. This is my name for<br />
ever; this is my title in every generation." Exodus 3:14, 14 New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"No; I, Yahweh [Jehovah], do not change." New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Heinz Schmitz Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jewish.htm (12 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:06:46 AM]
The Majority Text /Byzantine Text vs The Modern Critical Text-with another look at the King James Version<br />
The Majority Text/Byzantine Text vs the Modern Critical Text<br />
With Another Look at the King James Version<br />
In a discussion with someone on the possibility of Jesus being the archangel Michael, up popped<br />
Hebrews 2:16 in the King James Version (hereafter, KJV). It states, "For verily he took not on him the<br />
nature of angels." I explained that my New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong> does not have this reading, instead,<br />
"He does not give help to angels." The answer: "Well, my reading (KJV) is in the majority of<br />
manuscripts, the Majority Text." What does he mean?<br />
The Majority Text comes mainly from the Byzantine Text. "It has, in addition to 'Byzantine,' been called 'Antiochian,' after<br />
the supposed place of its origin, and the 'Lucian Recension,' after its supposed editor. It is Semler's 'Oriental,' Bengel's<br />
'Asiatic,' Griesbach's 'Constantinopolitan,' Westcott and Hort's 'Syrian,' and Burgon's 'Traditional.' Other designations of<br />
the same text include: von soden and Merk's 'K,' standing for 'Koine" or 'Common' text, Lagrange's 'A,' and Kenyon's<br />
'Alpha.' It is laregely the text which lies behind the Textus Receptus and the King James Version."<br />
The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism by Harry A. Sturz, p.13<br />
It means that there are readings in the majority of available manuscripts that are not used in modern<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>s like the RSV/NRSV/NIV/NAB/NASB/NWT etc(i.e., John 7:53-8:11, the longer ending to the<br />
Lord's prayer at Matt 6 amongst others). But if they are in the majority of manuscripts, should we<br />
therefore not accept them? Let us take a look at some facts:<br />
There was a time back about the 4th century when Greek ceased to be the lingua franca in the West,<br />
instead the Latin was adopted. However, the eastern Byzantine continued to use and write in the Greek.<br />
Hence, there are more Byzantine Greek manuscripts by virtue of all the copying done at a later date. So<br />
should we use this later text, which resembles the text (Textus Receptus) the King James translators used,<br />
rather then the older texts like the Codex Alexandrinus (A), Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and the Vatican<br />
Manuscript 1209 (B)? We find that these older manuscripts differ in certain aspects than the later<br />
Byzantine texts, as mentioned above.<br />
Scholars who work in the area of textual criticism have recognized that manuscripts fall into groups that<br />
are known as text-types or families. These families arose because a certain original, or few originals,<br />
were the basis for copies of the texts. Readings in those orginals where passed on the copies made from<br />
them. Because of the development of the Church into certain geographical groupings, these families tend<br />
to fall into certain geographical patterns.<br />
There are four main text-types that are recognized:<br />
The Alexandrian text-type is so named because it is generally associated with the Church at<br />
Alexandria. Most of the papyri manuscripts, and the uncial (meaning all capital letter) manuscripts are<br />
representative of this Alexandrian text-type. The oldest manuscripts reflect this text-type. Codex<br />
Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus(B) are two of the most important mss. of the Alexandrian type,<br />
and often the brunt of the KJV only debate.<br />
TheWestern text-type is so named because it was the text-type prevalent in the Western church.<br />
It is found in Greek manuscripts and in the Latin translations used by the Western church.<br />
The Byzantine text-type is so named because of its association with the Byzantine empire. This text<br />
type is also refered to as the Majority Text because the majority of the surviving manuscripts are of this<br />
type.<br />
The Caesarean text-type is associated with the Church at Casearea. If is represented by what is known<br />
as "Family 1" and papryus 45. There is considerable debate about whether this should be treated as a<br />
separate text-type.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/byzantine.htm (1 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:06:57 AM]
The Majority Text /Byzantine Text vs The Modern Critical Text-with another look at the King James Version<br />
You can see some<br />
of these differences by noting the footnotes in your <strong>Bible</strong>. You will find many notes that say<br />
something like "some MSS read. . ." Unfortunately, too few <strong>Bible</strong>s tell you which MSS these really (the<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation Reference Edition excepted).<br />
What are the Rules of Textual Criticism?<br />
1. The older reading is to be preferred. (This rule assumes that the closer the manuscript is to<br />
the autograph the more likely it is to be correct.)<br />
2. The more difficult reading is to be preferred over the easier reading. (This is based on the<br />
tendency to simplify difficult words or phrases in the process of copying.)<br />
3. The shorter reading is to be preferred over the longer reading. (Copyists tended to add<br />
material to make the text easier to understand. Of course this rule does not apply if there is<br />
evidence of an error, such as described above, that results in the loss of text.)<br />
4. The reading that explains all the variants is most likely the original one.<br />
5. The reading with the widest geographical support is to be preferred over one that<br />
predominates only within a single region or single manuscript.<br />
6. The reading that most closely conforms to the style, diction, or viewpoint of the author in<br />
the rest of the book is to be preferred. (Of course, critics often disagree on which variant<br />
best fits this criteria.)<br />
7. A reading that displays no doctrinal bias on the part of the copyist is to be preferred over<br />
one that betrays a partisan bias.<br />
These are not always perfect rules, but they have proven themselves for the most part thus far. KJVO<br />
people do not like this, because alot of this comes from Westcott and Hort. In 1881, these two British<br />
scholars, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort published an edition of the Greek New Testament which was<br />
based heavily upon the readings of Alexandrian MSS Aleph and B. The full theory of Westcott and Hort<br />
regarding manuscript transmission and their relation to the text is complex, the basic premise can be<br />
summed up as the older manuscripts are more likely to reflect the original reading. This has brought a<br />
torrent of ad hominem attacks on these two. But what is often not known is that S. P. Tregelles (Tregelles<br />
was premillennial and wrote a famous commentary defending the Book of Daniel), who was a British scholar<br />
affiliated first with the Plymouth Brethren and reportedly later with the Baptists(See Schaff-Herzog, vol.<br />
IV, p. 2388, and Life and Letters of John A. Broadus, p. 352.) produced a revised Greek text (1857-<br />
1879) before the Westcott-Hort text was issued (1881).<br />
Tregelles' text was the result of decades of laborious and exacting personal inspection of<br />
manuscripts. There is very little difference in substance between his text and the later text of<br />
Westcott and Hort. Few would find problems with Tregelles as he was considered "orthodox."<br />
(The same line of argument could be pursued using another 19th century Greek text editor, Constantine<br />
Tischendorf).<br />
There is a movement right now that is promoting the longer readings in the Textus Receptus. Their<br />
proof? Readings in the Textus Receptus are in the majority of manuscripts, therefore the majority text is<br />
the original. To conclude that this makes it the "preserved" word of God is no more logical than walking<br />
into a <strong>Bible</strong> bookstore today and concluding that the New International Version is the preserved word of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/byzantine.htm (2 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:06:57 AM]
The Majority Text /Byzantine Text vs The Modern Critical Text-with another look at the King James Version<br />
God because it is in the majority. Or that the predominant life on earth would be anaerobic bacteria, and<br />
the human race would have originated in China. What are some other facts:<br />
● Among extant Greek manuscripts, what is today the majority text did not become a<br />
majority until the ninth century.<br />
● As far as the extant witnesses reveal, the majority text did not exist in the first four<br />
centuries.<br />
● For the letters/epistles of Paul, not even one majority text manuscript exists from before<br />
the ninth century.<br />
● The early Church Fathers almost always use the older Alexandrian text type. In fact,<br />
Gordon Fee, who is one of the leading patristic authorities, wrote, "Over the past eight years<br />
I have been collecting the Greek patristic evidence for Luke and John for the International<br />
Greek New Testament Project. In all of this material I have found one invariable: a good<br />
critical edition of a father's text, or the discovery of early MSS, always moves the father's<br />
text of the NT away from the TR and closer to the text of our modern critical editions. In<br />
other words when critical study is made of a church father's text or when early copies of a<br />
church father's writings are discovered, the majority text is found wanting. The early fathers<br />
had a text that keeps looking more like modern critical editions and less like the majority<br />
text." as quoted in Daniel Wallaces' The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They<br />
Identical?<br />
● The Textus Receptus differs from the Byzantine/Majority in almost 1900 places--and in<br />
fact has several readings that have "never been found in any known Greek manuscript," and<br />
perhaps hundreds of readings that depend on only a handful of very late manuscripts.Many<br />
of these passages are theologically significant texts.<br />
So Where does the Majority Text differ from the Textus Receptus (Received Text, TR) that the KJV<br />
uses?<br />
Here is a sampling:<br />
Matthew 27:35 -- The Majority Text deletes the following words: "that might be fulfilled which was<br />
spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots."<br />
Mark 15:3 -- The Majority Text does not have: "but he answered nothing."<br />
Luke 7:31 -- The Majority Text does not have: "And the Lord said"<br />
Luke 9:1 -- The Majority Text does not have: "his disciples"<br />
Luke 17:36 -- The Majority Text does not have: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall betaken,<br />
and the other left."<br />
Luke 20:19 -- The Majority Text does not have: "the people"<br />
John 6:70 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "Jesus"<br />
John 10:8 -- The Majority Text does not have "before me"<br />
Acts 7:37 -- The Majority Text does not have: "him shall ye hear"<br />
Acts 8:37 -- The Majority Text does not have the entire verse: "And Philip said, if thou believest with all<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/byzantine.htm (3 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:06:57 AM]
The Majority Text /Byzantine Text vs The Modern Critical Text-with another look at the King James Version<br />
thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."<br />
Acts 9:5,6 -- The Majority Text does not have: "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he<br />
trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"<br />
Acts 9:17 -- The Majority Text does not have "Jesus"<br />
Acts 10:6 -- The Majority Text does not have: "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"<br />
Acts 10:21 -- The Majority Text does not have: "which were sent from him from Cornelius"<br />
Acts 15:11 -- The Majority Text does not have"Christ"<br />
Acts 15:34 -- The Majority Text does not have the entire verse: "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to<br />
abide there still."<br />
Acts 20:21 -- The Majority Text does not have the word: "Christ"<br />
Acts 24:6-8 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and would have judged according to our law.<br />
But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,<br />
Commanding his accusers to come unto thee"<br />
Romans 13:9 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "Thou shalt not bear false witness"<br />
2 Corinthians 8:4 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "that we would receive"<br />
1 Thessalonians 2:19 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "Christ"<br />
2 Timothy 2:19 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "Christ"<br />
Hebrews 11:13 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and were persuaded’<br />
Hebrews 12:20 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "or thrust through with a dart’<br />
1 John 5:7,8 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:<br />
and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth"<br />
Revelation 1:8 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "the beginning and the ending"<br />
Revelation 1:11 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "1 am Alpha and Omega, the first and the<br />
last: and"<br />
Revelation 2:3 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "hast laboured"<br />
Revelation 5:4 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and to read"<br />
Revelation 5:7 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "the book"<br />
Revelation 5:14 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "four and twenty"<br />
Revelation 5:14 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "him that liveth forever and ever"<br />
Revelation 7:5-8 -- -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "were sealed" from 10 of the 12<br />
references<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/byzantine.htm (4 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:06:57 AM]
The Majority Text /Byzantine Text vs The Modern Critical Text-with another look at the King James Version<br />
Revelation 8:7 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "angel"<br />
Revelation 11:1 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and the angel stood"<br />
Revelation 11:17 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and art to come"<br />
Revelation 12:12 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "to the inhabiters"<br />
Revelation 12:17 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "Christ"<br />
Revelation 14:1 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "forty and four"<br />
Revelation 14:3 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "forty and four"<br />
Revelation 14:5 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "before the throne of God"<br />
Also, the Hodges & Farstad edition of the Majority Text disagrees significantly with <strong>Robinson</strong> &<br />
Pierpont's edition.<br />
However, it should be noted that <strong>Bible</strong>s that use the Majority Text (New King James, <strong>World</strong> English<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>) still have some of the readings above, like Rev 1:11 and of course, I John 5:7,8 (the Comma<br />
Johanneum), even though it is not in the majority of manuscripts (in fact, it is in only about 8 of them).<br />
The Greek manuscript evidence and the evidence from early translations and church fathers (ANF)<br />
overwhelmingly declare that the trinitarian text is not an original or genuine part of 1 John, and has no<br />
legitimate place in the text of the New Testament, as anyone can see by examining the evidence in, for<br />
instance, the commentaries of Adam Clarke [Vol. VI, pp. 927-933], Henry Alford [Vol. IV, pp.<br />
503-505], and B. F. Westcott [pp. 202-209], Scrivener's Introduction [pp. 8, 149-150, 457-463], and<br />
Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [pp. 716- 718].) Luther never<br />
included the passage in his own German translation. Both Tyndale and Coverdale indicated that they<br />
thought the suspect words were spurious. Even Erasmus rejected 1 John 5:7 as not being an original part<br />
of 1 John. In this, all Greek New Testament editions (other than mere reprints of Erasmus' text) agree,<br />
including The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad. Erasmus<br />
also surmised that the doxology to the Lord's Prayer in Matt. 6:13, "for thine is the kingdom, and the<br />
power, and the glory forever, amen," was a later liturgical addition to Matthew, and formed no original<br />
part of that Gospel (Bainton, p. 137). In this virtually all Greek New Testament editors agree. Further,<br />
Erasmus doubted that Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 formed an original part of those Gospels (ibid.,<br />
p. 136). On the basis of available evidence, most New Testament editors agree with the judgement of<br />
Erasmus (the evidence on these disputed passages can be readily found in Alford's commentary or<br />
Metzger's Textual Commentary). All in all, Erasmus believed "the only way to determine the true text is<br />
to examine the early codices" (Bainton, p. 135). It is not unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that, were<br />
Erasmus alive today, he would use a Greek text like that of Nestle or the United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies' text.<br />
In fact, the reading, "he took not on him the nature of angels" mentioned above, is not supported in any<br />
Greek manuscript. Even the KJV has this in italics to let you know that it is an interpolation. What it<br />
comes down to is this: Majority Text supporters are usually KJV supporters, and are really not<br />
concerned with the facts, they simply want to be able to buttress their arguments for their support of the<br />
deity of Christ.<br />
One argument that usually arises is in support for the reading, "God was manifest in the flesh."<br />
Supporters of this text will argue that some early Church Fathers used this scripture, and they will put<br />
forward quotes like:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/byzantine.htm (5 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:06:57 AM]
The Majority Text /Byzantine Text vs The Modern Critical Text-with another look at the King James Version<br />
"There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made;<br />
GOD EXISTING IN FLESH; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and<br />
then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord."--Ignatius (100 AD), Ephesians (shorter),<br />
Chapter 7<br />
These are not quotes from the <strong>Bible</strong>, in fact, the closest that resembles anything like the scripture in 1<br />
Timothy 3:16 comes from Chrysostom (347- 407), but it does not appear any earlier than this. After<br />
carefully investigating the Gospel quotations of Didymus, a fourth-century Egyptian writer, Ehrman<br />
concludes:<br />
"These findings indicate that no 'proto-Byzantine' text existed in Alexandria in Didymus'<br />
day or, at least if it did, it made no impact on the mainstream of the textual tradition there."<br />
Bart D. Ehrman, Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels (Atlanta: Scholars Press,<br />
1986), p. 260<br />
"It (QEOS in 1 Tim 3:16) does not appear in any manuscript before this time, nor was it<br />
used in the Arian controversy of the same time...The earliest church father to use the<br />
Byzantine text was the heretic Asterius, a fourth-century writer." Daniel Wallace<br />
In a critique of W. N. Pickering's The Identity of the New Testament Text (Pickering is a<br />
Majority/Byzantine Text advocate), Carson takes note that Pickering does raise some valid historical<br />
questions relating to the Byzantine text. But he concludes that Pickering is historically naive in failing to<br />
take into account:<br />
● the professed conversion of Constantine,<br />
● the immense influence of Chrysostom in the eastern empire,<br />
● the rise of monarchical bishops and their pressure for textual uniformity,<br />
● the division of the Roman Empire<br />
● and the demise of the Greek language (and the resulting preeminence of Latin) throughout the<br />
Mediterranean world, Byzantium excepted. (Latin texts resemble the older Alexandrian texttype)<br />
So what is the textual evidence for the reading of QEOS (theos) in 1 Timothy 3:16?<br />
OS: Aleph* A* C* F G 33 365 442 1175 2127<br />
QEOS: Aleph** A** C** D** K L P Psi 075 0150<br />
6 81 (88 O QEOS) 104 263 330 424 436 451 629 630 1241 1319<br />
1505 1739 1881 1962 2492 2495 Byz<br />
geo2 slav OS QEOS: 256 (conflation)<br />
O: D* (a b d f m vg "quod," i.e. O on its face but possibly<br />
a grammatical correction for OS)<br />
O or OS: most other versions except as cited.<br />
It looks on the surface that QEOS has the advantage. But why do most <strong>Bible</strong> versions reject that reading?<br />
Because OS has the best support, being supported by all the Alexandrian manuscripts with the addition<br />
of some "Western" witnesses. "QEOS," except for the members of Family 1739, is purely Byzantine (we<br />
can ignore the corrections in Aleph, A, C, etc.; those are Byzantine also). "O" is supported only by a<br />
subset of the "Western" witnesses.<br />
"OS" is the reading which best explains the others in several senses. First, the best witnesses all support a<br />
relative pronoun (either O or OS). This is much the more difficult reading(see above for rules of textual<br />
criticism). So surely a relative pronoun is correct, and OS is better attested.<br />
OS is also the middle reading. To get from OS to O requires a change of only one letter; similarly, to get<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/byzantine.htm (6 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:06:57 AM]
The Majority Text /Byzantine Text vs The Modern Critical Text-with another look at the King James Version<br />
from OS to QEOS requires only one letter (remember that QEOS was written QS). To get from O to<br />
QEOS or vice versa is a larger change. So OS could be preferred as the middle reading.<br />
Even Sir Isaac Newton commented on this scripture where he showed how, by a small alteration in the<br />
Greek text, the word "God" was inserted to make the phrase read "God was manifest in the flesh." He<br />
demonstrated that early Church writers in referring to the verse knew nothing of such an alteration.<br />
Summing up both passages, Newton said: "If the ancient churches in debating and deciding the greatest<br />
mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts, I understand not, why we should be so fond of<br />
them now the debates are over."<br />
An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, by Sir Isaac Newton, Edition of 1830,<br />
London<br />
see also The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, edited by H. W. Turnbull, F.R.S., Cambridge 1961, Vol.<br />
1, p. XVII.<br />
On the flip-side, Scrivener, whose Greek text carries alot of weight with the MT/Byzantine/TR crowd<br />
finds for the reading QEOS, though with much hesitation, but Edward Miller who edited the posthumous<br />
work, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament 4th ed. vol 2. pages 390-395 attempts<br />
to make a more definite case than Scrivener did.<br />
All of this is neither here nor there to most of us. I still use the King James and the New King James<br />
Versions. All texts and <strong>Bible</strong>s agree at least 98.5%. The reason for this page is due to the sad fact that<br />
many are ready to condemn modern <strong>Bible</strong>s simply because they believe that the King James <strong>Bible</strong> is the<br />
best and has the support of God. This is unfortunate, and dangerous, and displays a limited grasp of the<br />
issues at hand. The same goes for those who are to quick to condemn the New <strong>World</strong> Translation.<br />
There are over 5,300 surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. These range from<br />
small fragments to almost the entire New Testament. The earliest of these manuscripts are<br />
known as papyri because they are written on papyrus. The papyri are from the second and third centuries.<br />
Some of them are listed below:<br />
P87(3), containing a few verses of Philemon, (c. 125)<br />
P77, containing a few verses of Matthew 23, ( c. 150)<br />
P45, (the Chester Beatty Papyrus 1), containing portions of all Gospels and Acts, (c. 150)<br />
P32, containing portions of Titus, (c 175)<br />
P90, containing a portion of John 18, (c. 150)<br />
P52, containing a few verses of John 18, (c. 150, many scholars date it c. 125)<br />
P4/64/67, containing portions of Matthew and Luke, (c. 200; grouped together because they are<br />
now considered parts of the same manuscript)<br />
P1, containing Matthew 1, (c. 200)<br />
P13, containing Hebrews 2-5, 10-12, (c. 200)<br />
P27, containing a portion of Romans 8, (c. 200)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/byzantine.htm (7 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:06:57 AM]
The Majority Text /Byzantine Text vs The Modern Critical Text-with another look at the King James Version<br />
P66, containing most of John, (c. 175, although some scholars have dated c. 125-150)<br />
P75, containing most of Luke and John (c. 200)<br />
P46, containing all of Paul's letters except the Pastorals. (traditionally dated c. 200) In 1988<br />
Young Kyu Kim published an article proposing a date prior to the reign of Domitian (A.D.<br />
81-96). In The Origin of the <strong>Bible</strong>, New Testament scholar Philip W. Comfort argues that even<br />
if this date is not true then at least it provides a convincing argument to push the date back at maybe<br />
A.D.150.<br />
In addition to the above listing, there are 33 papyri from the 3rd century.<br />
The other major group of early manuscripts are known as uncials, because of the style of writing<br />
(a Greek handwriting similar to printing with all capitals in English). Some uncial fragments are<br />
dated as early as 250, but the most significant to the textual critic are from the fourth through<br />
sixth centuries. Some of the more important ones are:<br />
Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter Aleph), containing the whole New Testament, (c.350)<br />
Codex Vaticanus (designated B), containing almost the whole New Testament, (c. 325)<br />
Codex Alexandrinus (designated A), containing most of the New Testament (5th century)<br />
Codex Bezae (designated D), containing the Gospels and Acts (6th century)<br />
Codex Claromotanus (designated DPAUL), containing the Pauline epistles and Hebrews (6th<br />
century)<br />
Codex Freerianius, or Washingtonensis (designated W), containing the New Testament (4th or<br />
5th century)<br />
The Best <strong>Bible</strong>.......is one that is read.<br />
Other Sources:<br />
Conversations on the Textus Receptus<br />
The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.<br />
Why I Do Not Think the King James <strong>Bible</strong> Is the Best Translation Available Today<br />
by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.<br />
Is the King James <strong>Bible</strong> the Best? by H. Schmitz<br />
Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.<br />
The Questionable Character of King James<br />
Answering the Attack on the New <strong>World</strong> Translation by H. Schmitz<br />
Westcott and Hort and the "Ghostlie Guild<br />
KJV Errors<br />
Is the KJV the ONLY True Word of God?<br />
Search the Byz/Maj Text and the Westcott and Hort Text<br />
Download the <strong>Robinson</strong>-Pierpont Majority Text<br />
Download Tischendorf's Greek Text<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/byzantine.htm (8 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:06:57 AM]
The Majority Text /Byzantine Text vs The Modern Critical Text-with another look at the King James Version<br />
Understanding Greek Texts<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/byzantine.htm (9 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:06:57 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity with Tim<br />
Conversations on the Trinity<br />
Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901<br />
Tim: Now why do I believe in the Deity of Jesus: He goes a small sample from the entire <strong>Bible</strong>:<br />
There are several lines of evidence that convince me and many others that Jesus did claim to be God. This<br />
can be seen from his claims to be the Jehovah of the OT, from his acceptance of the titles of Deity, from his<br />
messianic claims, from his acceptance of worship, from the implications of many of his actions, from the<br />
authority of his commands, and from the reaction of the first century monotheistic Jews to his claims and<br />
actions.<br />
Heinz: Tim, why are you doing this. I also believe in the Deity of Jesus, but what I asked from you was<br />
an explanation from the <strong>Bible</strong> of a trinity. I wanted you to show me that there was a Trinity in the bible,<br />
yet you always fall back on the deity of Jesus, as this alone is supposed to prove that God is triadic or<br />
triune.<br />
Tim: JESUS' CLAIMS TO BE JEHOVAH. [note: Jehovah does not mean only Father - you must<br />
understand this vital concept so that you can get beyond the simple questions like "Who ran the universe the<br />
three days while Christ was in the grave?" and "Did Jesus pray to himself?" and "Did Jesus forsake<br />
himself?" etc.]<br />
Heinz: Do not brush these off as simple questions. These are very good questions as we shall soon see.<br />
You say: "Jehovah does not mean only Father" Then show me place in the <strong>Bible</strong> where Jehovah is<br />
referred to as a Son. Father is the term that the bible uses to describe him. "But now, O Jehovah, thou art<br />
our Father" Is 64:8<br />
Tim: The most forthright claims of Christ to be God are revealed in his indentification with the Jehovah of<br />
the OT. "Jehovah" or (YAWEH) as you know is the spelling given to the tetragrammaton or designation<br />
for God (ie. JHWH, or YHWH) in the OT. As you know, this word for God is spelled many different ways<br />
in different <strong>Bible</strong>s. In every case this name JHWH is only refering to Deity unlike ADONAI - which can<br />
be used of humans (Gen 18:12) and other times to God. So sacred was the name, JWHW, that devout Jews<br />
would not pronounce it, as you know.<br />
Heinz: Are these really devout Jews Tim, or perhaps a Jewry following a religion that has since<br />
apostasized? The Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong> uses this name almost 7000 times, so the really devout biblical Jews did<br />
not refrain from using the name, and they should not do so even after a change in their religious system.<br />
"Therefore wait ye for me, saith Jehovah, until the day that I rise up to the prey; for my determination is<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim.htm (1 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:07:12 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity with Tim<br />
to gather the nations,that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation,even all my<br />
fierce anger; for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the<br />
peoples of a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of Jehovah, to serve him with one<br />
consent." Zeph 3:8,9<br />
Tim: Many scholars take the name to mean "underived existence" or "HE WHO IS" from the "I AM" of<br />
Ex. 3:14, but the meaning NOR THE PRONOUNCIATION OF THE TERM IS NOT CERTAIN.<br />
Heinz: I think part of the confusion is that I AM means absolutely nothing in modern speech. The same<br />
words in Hebrew EHYEH or HAYAH two verses previous to this are translated as I WILL BE in almost<br />
every <strong>Bible</strong> translation, which helps us alot. Then there is the context which, in verse 8 promises to<br />
deliver the Israelites out of Egypt. The NWT translation of v.14, I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I<br />
SHALL PROVE TO BE bring the true sense of this out. This is in keeping with the oft-repeated<br />
prophetic statement of the God who keeps his promises in Ezekiel, "And they shall know that I am<br />
Jehovah."<br />
Tim: It is known for sure that Jehovah is the "I AM" of Ex. 3:14 and that for the Jews he alone is God.<br />
Everything else in an IDOL or FALSE GOD [Moses is not a God by nature - neither are the rulers of Israel<br />
Ps. 82 - neither is Satan - all are Idols as IS 43:10-11 confirm]. Nothing else was to be worshiped or served,<br />
nor were sacrifices to be made to them (Ex. 20:5). Jehovah was a "jealous God" and would NOT SHARE<br />
EITHER HIS NAME NOR HIS GLORY WITH ANOTHER. Isaiah wrote, "Thus said Jehovah...I am the<br />
first, and I am the last; and besides me there is NO GOD" (44:6) - no other IDOL - NO OTHER REAL<br />
god/GOD - not a junior demi-god or absolute GOD - none no other God! Again, "I am Jehovah, that is my<br />
name; and my GLORY I WILL NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER, neither my praise unto graven images" (Isa.<br />
42:8 cf. 48:11).<br />
In view of the fact that the Jehovah of the Jewish OT would not give his name, honor, or glory to another, it<br />
is little wonder that the words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth drew stones and cries of "blasphemy" from<br />
first century Jews. The very things that the Jehovah of the OT claimed for himself Jesus of Nazareth also<br />
claimed, as the following verses reveal: Jesus said, "I am the Good Shepherd" (Jn 10:11), but the OT<br />
declared "Jehovah is my Shepherd" (Ps. 23:1). Jesus claimed to be the judge of all men and nations (Jn<br />
5:27 f. and Matt. 25:31 f.) but Joel, quoting Jehovah wrote, "For there I will sit to judge all the nations<br />
round about" (Joel 3:12). Jesus said, "I am the light of the world" (Jn 8:12) whereas Isaiah says, "Jehovah<br />
will be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory" (60:19). Jesus claimed in prayer before the<br />
Father to share his eternal glory, saying, "Father, glorify thou me with the glory I had with you before the<br />
foundation of the world [or before the cosmos began] (Jn 17:5). I think that the strongest and most direct<br />
claim that Jesus made was the I AM statements in Jn 8:24, 28, 58. These are key. The reaction of the first<br />
century Jews - knowing what Jehovah had said concerning his nature in the OT - they did not have a perfect<br />
understanding of the OT for they failed to recognize their Messiah - but this in no way means that they<br />
possesed all wrong understandings of the OT. Certainly we can learn much concerning the OT from Jewish<br />
sources and we should not conclude that based on that the Jews made some mistakes regarding Jesus that<br />
they got everything wrong. For example, they understood that he claimed to be Messiah - King of the Jews.<br />
They understood that he claimed to be able to forgive sins. They knew that he claimed<br />
that all had to get to the Father through belief in him. And they also knew that he claimed equality with<br />
God in Jn 8:58. And Jesus did not correct them. When they picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy -<br />
why did he not correct them as he did on numerous other occations when they got things wrong? This<br />
claim in Jn 8:58 is either blasphemy or a claim to share the nature of Jehovah. Jesus left no doubt as to<br />
which interpretation he wished them to take. He not only claimed pre-existence to Abraham, but also<br />
equality with God. This fits well with Jn 5:18, 10:30, 17:5, 20:28, 1:1[in you take a qualitative<br />
non-indefinte rendering as Wallace and Don Hartley domonstrate is the best.]. This claim to be "I AM" is<br />
repeated in Mk. 14:62 and in Jn 18:5, 6. In the latter case the effect on those around Christ was dramatic:<br />
"they drew back and fell to the ground." The OT declares<br />
that "Jehovah is our light" (Ps. 27:1), but Jesus said "I am the light of the world" (Jn 8:12).<br />
Heinz: I am glad you brought this up because I want to nip it in the bud. I really fail to see Moses or<br />
rulers as idols or false Gods. Would you consider me a false human? I know you have your opinion of<br />
me. But am I less human? Some people are good, bad or ugly (if you will), but they are not less human.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim.htm (2 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:07:12 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity with Tim<br />
A false human would be a robot or an android. It's like the "vessels" mentioned by the apostle Paul. He<br />
spoke of a "vessel for honor, another for dishonor." (Romans 9:21) Both are "true" vessels, irrespective<br />
of there use. There are "gods" mentioned throughout the <strong>Bible</strong>. Some have rebelled against Jehovah God,<br />
the "God of gods." (Duet 10:17; Daniel 2:11, 47; 11:36) Although they are rightly called "demons", they<br />
are still "truly" gods--"bad" ones though. Jesus is called the "True light" at John 1:9, but he also calls his<br />
followers "lights" at Matthew 5:14. Jesus is the "Faithful and True Witness" at Rev. 3:14, yet there are a<br />
"great cloud of witnesses" at Hebrews 12:1. Like most trinitarians, you do not allow for a greater<br />
semantic that the <strong>Bible</strong> has. This is evident in your comment about Jehovah not sharing his name and<br />
glory with another. This is true in one sense. Isaiah 44 and Exodus 20 are commands against the pagan<br />
idol gods of the nations. These do not share in his glory or his name. You yourself will allow for his Son<br />
Jesus sharing his glory, in fact you will argue that the they share the same name. But then your argument<br />
is that Jesus is Jehovah, despite the fact that Jehovah is referred to as the Father(Is 64:8), something<br />
trinitarian theology doesn't allow. In Exodus 3:2 [Acts 7:30-32], "the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him<br />
[Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush" Ex. 3:2. Yet later on we read that this same angel<br />
used the name Jehovah for himself [v. 16], even the "I AM"[v.14] you find so important to your<br />
theology. So as a representative of God, angels were allowed to use his name, and to act as God. You<br />
will find other examples of angels in similar situations at Gen 16:13, 21:17; 22:15,16; 31:11, 13, Jg 6:12,<br />
13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23; 13:6, 21, and Deut 5:24. An angel even received worship(NKJV,ASV) at Joshua<br />
5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23. But why choose angels? Because Exodus also says that no one may see God and<br />
live [Ex. 33:20]. No one can withstand Jehovah [1Chr 20:6], and the <strong>Bible</strong> tells us repeatedly of his<br />
invisibility [Jn 1:18; 5:37; 6:46, 1Jn 4:12, 1Tim 1:17, Col 1:15, Rom 1:20, Heb 11:27 and Deut 4:12].<br />
But what about GLORY? It is true that Jesus shared in God's glory [Jn 1:14], but does that mean that<br />
they share the same essence, one in "unity and Trinity"? John 17:22 says, "And the glory which thou hast<br />
given me I have given unto them(his followers); that they may be one, even as we [are] one." They may<br />
be one Tim, but only in purpose, just like the unity of the first century Church. They also "boast in our<br />
hope of sharing the glory of God." Rom 5:2 NRSV As for Shepherds and Judges, we have many other<br />
instances of those in the scriptures [see the book of Judges, there are too many instances of other<br />
shepherds, even Death is a shepherd at Ps 49:14. I think we have gone over John 1:1c in quite some<br />
detail, and I have my own view of it posted here.<br />
As for the First and the Last, Revelation 1:17 (NWT), states: "I am the First and the Last." But a check of<br />
the context shows this "First and Last" was with definite limitations, was related to just the matter of<br />
Christ Jesus' death and resurrection, as shown in v.18. Christ was the first one raised in the first<br />
resurrection, and the last one that will be raised directly by God. Others who follow in that resurrection<br />
will be raised by God through Christ. (John 6:40; 1 Cor. 6:14) In fact, this limitation is also shown that<br />
the Alexandrinus Codex used the word FIRSTBORN here. Christ was the firstfruits of those asleep in<br />
death. (1 Cor. 15:20) When "First and Last" is again applied to Christ Jesus, at Revelation 2:8, note that<br />
again it is with respect to death and resurrection. But when it speaks thus of Jehovah no limitation is set<br />
on the meaning. I suspect it is because of this limitation that made some unscrupulous scribe add the<br />
words Alpha and Omega at Rev 1:11. The Good News <strong>Bible</strong> inserts the name Jesus at Rev 22:12 to make<br />
it appear that Jesus is again the Alpha and Omega. So you see, they can only make Jesus the Alpha and<br />
Omega if they distort scripture to do so. Incidentally, Hebrews 3:1 calls Jesus an APOSTLE, whereas<br />
elsewhere in the <strong>Bible</strong> it refers to some of his followers. Does that make them the same person or equal<br />
because the share the same title? Of course not.<br />
Tim: Recal my argument concernig the eternality of the Word. He you have no way out - Christ had some<br />
kind of glory before the COSMOS began. Now science has just about demonstrated what philosophy has<br />
known for a long time - that when the COSMOS "began" Space, TIME, matter and energy all came into<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim.htm (3 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:07:12 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity with Tim<br />
existence - remember the impossibility of an actual number of things existing as well the impossibility of<br />
traversing an infinite amount of time. He were have Christ declaring that he had some kind of Glory before<br />
the space, time, matter and energy came into existence. This makes a nice parallel to Jn 1:1-3, where Christ<br />
was said to be in the absolute begining with the Father and that HE created all things (Jn 1:3 NWT). He<br />
thus demonstrates that he is eternal and that is a quality of God alone. And remember Jehovah said that he<br />
would not give his glory to another (Isa. 42:8). Jesus spoke of himself as the coming "bridegroom" (Matt.<br />
25:1), which is exactly how Jehovah is depeicted in the OT (cf. Isa 62:5; Hos. 2:16). In the book of<br />
Revelation Jesus is quoted by John saying, "I am the First and the Last" (1:17), which are precisely the<br />
words of Jehovah in Isa. 42:8.<br />
Heinz: John 1:1-3 never says that Jesus is in the ABSOLUTE beginning. Hebrews 1:10 says "And,<br />
Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth". (see also Gen 1:1) So here we see the<br />
"beginning" as implying the physical universe. We know that Jehovah was not alone then, "Where wast<br />
thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who determined the<br />
measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who stretched the line upon it? Whereupon were the foundations<br />
thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner-stone thereof, When the morning stars sang together, And all<br />
the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-7 When we examine Proverbs 8 and the apocryphal books<br />
dealing with Wisdom, we see Wisdom personified as a created being who was with God, and helped<br />
during the creation process. "The LORD himself created me at the beginning of his works, the first of his<br />
acts of long ago." Prov. 8:22 NRSV. The Interpreters's <strong>Bible</strong> [p.830] says of Prov 8:22 .<br />
"The verb QANAH may be translated either way. In view of the statements made in the<br />
following verses concerning wisdom, it would seem that the RSV translates correctly; cf.<br />
also the following quotations from Ecclesiasticus:<br />
Wisdom was created before them all,<br />
And sound intelligence from eternity (Ecclus 1:4)<br />
The Lord himself created her (Ecclus 1:9<br />
Then the Creator of all gave me his command;<br />
And he who created me made my tent rest (Ecclus 24:8 AT).<br />
"The doctrine of wisdom, thus outlined in the OT, will be resumed in the NT which will<br />
give it new and decisive completion by applying it to the person of Christ. Jesus is referred<br />
to as Wisdom itself, the Wisdom of God, Mt 11:19 par.; Lk 11:49, cf. Mt 23:34-36; 1 Co<br />
1:24-30; like Wisdom, he participates in the creation and preservation of the world, Col<br />
1:16-17, and the protection of Israel, 1Co 10:4, cf. Ws 10:17seq. Finally, John in his<br />
prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the Word, and his gospel<br />
throughout represents Christ as the Wisdom of God. See Jn 6:35t. Hence, Christian tradition<br />
from St Justin onwards sees in the Wisdom of the OT the person of Christ himself." footnote<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> at Prov 8<br />
Murray Harris wrote a good book on the deity of Christ (which you recommend), but he like too many<br />
others, ignores the Wisdom writings.<br />
Tim JESUS' CLAIMS TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD<br />
On numerous occations Jesus claimed to be equal with God in other ways than assuming the titles of<br />
Deity. Jesus said to the scribes, "That you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive<br />
sins...I say to you [the paralytic], rise, take up your pallet and go home" (Mk 2:10,11). Jesus had just said<br />
to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven" (v. 5), to which the outraged scribes retorted, "Why does<br />
this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (v. 7). Jesus' claim to be able<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim.htm (4 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:07:12 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity with Tim<br />
to forgive sins, the scribes<br />
understanding of that calim, and Jesus' healing of the man are all evidence of his authority, and make it<br />
clear that Jesus was claiming a power that God aloned possessed (Jer. 31:34).<br />
Jesus solemnly claimed another power that God alone possessed, namely, the power to raise and Judge<br />
the dead: "Truly, truly, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and has now come, when the dead will hear the<br />
voice of the son of God, and those who hear will live...and come forth, those who have done good, to the<br />
resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the reserrection of judgement" (Jn 5:25, 29). Jesus<br />
removed all doubt of the intentions of his claim when he added, "For as the Father raises the dead and gives<br />
life to them, so also the Son give life to whom HE will" (v.21). According to the OT, however, Jehovah<br />
alone is the giver of life (1 Sam 2:6; Deut. 32:39) and can raise men from the dead (Ps 2:7). Hence, Heinz,<br />
in the face of orthodox Jewish belief that<br />
God alone could resurrect the dead, Jesus not only boadly proclaimed his ability to bring the dead back to<br />
life but also his ability to Judge them. The Scriptures, however, reserved for Jehovah the right to Judge<br />
men (Joel 3:12; Deut. 32:35).<br />
Another way in which Jesus claimed Deity for himself was in his statement in Jn 5:23 that "All men<br />
should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father," adding, "He who does not honor the Son does not<br />
honor the Father." In this same catagory, Jesus exorted his disciples, "believe in God, believe also in me"<br />
(Jn 14:1). the pretensions of this claim to a monotheistic people were evident. The Jews knew well that no<br />
man should claim honor and belief with God. They reacted with stones (Jn 5:18) You must come face to<br />
face with this. Jesus claimed honor with God and belief in himself as on par with the Father. This is very<br />
important in light of the aforementioned OT texts.<br />
Heinz: Let me start right off saying that Jesus absolutely NEVER claims equality with God. Why? Let us<br />
take a look.<br />
Contrast this with, as you rightly stated above, that Jehovah jealously guarded his name and deity. But<br />
Jesus said, in the same context that you are trying to use to declare his triunity with the almighty, "I do<br />
not seek praise from men." v. 41 NIV But let us take a look at your insistence on using Jn 5:18. John<br />
5:17-19 says "And for this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath.<br />
But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work. For this cause therefore the<br />
Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own<br />
Father, making himself equal with God.<br />
About this scripture the Ryrie Study <strong>Bible</strong> says, "The Jews were perfectly aware that Jesus was claiming<br />
full deity" Was this what Jesus was doing though? Remember, these were the Jews talking, and they<br />
were saying that Jesus was equal to God because he was calling God his Father. But in John 8:41, the<br />
Jews said, "we have one Father, God." Were the Jews then, Equal with God also? Exactly how were the<br />
Jews "perfectly aware" in this context of anything. They had a few verses prior to this misapplied the<br />
Law as for as doing good deeds on the Sabbath. Jesus had said: "it is lawful to do good on the sabbath<br />
day". Matt. 12:10-12 In fact, Jesus had few nice words to say about the Jews/Pharisees in toto:<br />
Matt. 15:6 "And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did<br />
Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me.<br />
But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of men."<br />
Matt. 12:34 "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance<br />
of the heart the mouth speaketh."<br />
Matt. 22:29 "But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the<br />
power of God."<br />
Now Tim, I hate to belabor the point, but do the Jews, either then or now, believe in a Trinity? You have<br />
to admit that a Jewish view of God differs greatly from your own, so it is puzzling to me why you, or<br />
anyone else would use Jewish thought to bolster their claims of a Triune God. Having just read Harris's<br />
Jesus as God, why does he not use John5, John 10 or even John 8 for that matter as proof of Jesus as<br />
God. My Thayers Lexicons says, "Whether Christ is called God must be determined from Jn. i.1; xx.28;<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim.htm (5 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:07:12 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity with Tim<br />
1Jn. v. 20 ; Ro. ix. 5; Tit. ii.13; Heb. i.8 sq., etc,; the matter is still in dispute among theologians."<br />
Tim: JESUS' CLAIMS TO BE THE MESSIAH-GOD.<br />
The OT Foreshadowings of the Messiah also point to his Deity. Hence, when Jesus claimed to fulfill the OT messianic<br />
predictions here thereby also claimed the Deity attritbuted to the Messiah in those passages. For example, the famous<br />
Christmas texts from Isa. speaks of the Messiah as the "Mighty God" (9:6). The psalmist wrote of the Messiah, "Thy<br />
throne o God, is for ever and ever" (45:6 quoted in Heb. 1:8). Psalm 110:1 relates a converstion between the Father and<br />
the Son: "Jehovah said unto my Lord (Adonai), sit thou at my right hand." Jesus applied this passage to himself in Matt<br />
22:43-44. Isa. the prophet, in a great majestic prophecy, exhorted Israel, "Behold your God" (40:9). Indeed, the great<br />
messianic passage from Dan 7:13, quoted by Jesus at his trial before the high priest, as a text implying the Deity of the<br />
massiah. In Daniel's vision, the Son of Man (Messiah) is also called the "ancient of days" (7:22), a phrase that is used<br />
twice in the same passage to describe God the Father (vv. 9,13). When Jesus quoted this passage to the high priest who<br />
demanded that Jesus whether or not Jesus was Deity, the high priest left no doubt as to how he interpreted Jesus' claim.<br />
"Are you the Christ [Messiah], the son of the Blessed?" the high priest asked. "And Jesus said to him, 'I am; and you will<br />
see the son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.'" At this the high priest tore<br />
his garment and said, "why do we still need a witness? You have heard his blasphemy!" (Mk 14:61-64).<br />
In short, the OT not only predicted the Messiah but also proclaimed him to be God. And when Jesus claimed to be a<br />
fulfullment of the OT messianic passages, he laid claim to possessing the Deity in these passages ascribed to the Messiah.<br />
Jesus removed all doubts of his intentions by his answer before the high priest at his trial.<br />
Heinz: First, let us look at Isaiah 9:6. For the sake of time I will let my friend Kazz handle this one: "I<br />
don't believe that it can be stated with any conviction that this<br />
offers support to trinitarianism, for, Jesus is called 'G-god' in a<br />
limited sense, bearing reference to his role as Messiah. This is not<br />
just the opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses, but of some fairly reputable<br />
trinitarian scholars. Raymond Brown, the renowned Catholic scholar,<br />
said of the "Mighty God" of Isaiah 9:6, "'God' may have been looked on<br />
simply as a royal title and hence applicable to Jesus as the Davidic<br />
Messiah"–(Jesus, God and Man, New York: Macmillan, 1967, p. 24,25).<br />
Interestingly, this verse has not been understood by all trinitarians as<br />
a reference to Christ at all, but, rather, to King Hezekiah, the son of<br />
Ahaz; or to Hezekiah initially and Christ finally. Note what some<br />
trinitarians from former years have said regarding this account:<br />
"Hezekiah, who was very unlike his father Ahaz. This passage<br />
is acknowledged, not only by Christians, but by the Chaldee<br />
interpreter, to relate in the same manner, but in a more<br />
excellent sense, to the Messiah––(Annotationes ad vetus et<br />
Novum Testamentum, by Hugo Grotius, a Dutch Arminian,<br />
1583-1645).<br />
"In several places of his Expositions and Sermons, he [LUTHER]<br />
maintains that the epithets belong, not to the person of<br />
Christ, but to his work and office. He understands [ale;<br />
Strongs 410] in the sense of power or ability, citing for his<br />
authority Deut. Xxviii. 32, where, as in about four other<br />
places, the expression occurs of an action's being or not<br />
being "in the power of the hand,"––(Scripture Testimony to the<br />
Messiah, Third ed. Lond. 1837, 3 vol., by Dr. J.P. Smith [it<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim.htm (6 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:07:12 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity with Tim<br />
should fairly be noted that Dr. Smith disapproves of Luther's<br />
rendering])<br />
"The word la [ale] here used is applicable, not only to God,<br />
but to angels and men worthy of admiration. Whence it does<br />
not appear, that the Deity of Christ can be effectually<br />
gathered from this passage."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, SASBOUT<br />
[as quoted in Concession, by Wilson])<br />
"The words of Isaiah, Deus fortis, "strong God," have been<br />
differently interpreted. It is evident, that the term God is<br />
in Hebrew applied figuratively to those who excel – to angels,<br />
heroes, and magistrates; and some render it here, not God, but<br />
brave or hero."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, Esromus Rudingerus [as<br />
quoted in Concessions, by Wilson])<br />
"It is evident that la [ale] properly denotes strong,<br />
powerful, and is used in Ezek. Xxxi. 11, of king<br />
Nebuchadnezzar, who is called... "the mighty one of the<br />
heathen."––(Scholia in Vetus Testamentum. Lips. 1828-36, 6<br />
vol, E.F.C. Rosenmuller [Prof. of the Arabic Language at<br />
Leipzig; d. 1836])<br />
Moffatt<br />
"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us;<br />
the royal dignity he wears, and this the title that he<br />
bears––"A wonder of a counselor, a divine hero, a father for<br />
all time, a peaceful prince!"<br />
Steven T. Byington<br />
"For we have a child born to us, a son given to us,––and<br />
dominion rests on his shoulder, and he is named<br />
Wonder-Counselor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of<br />
Peace, for ample dominion and for endless peace"<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"For a child has been born to us, a son is given to us; he<br />
will bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder, and his<br />
title will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Eternal<br />
Father, Prince of Peace."<br />
New Revised Standard Version<br />
"For a child has been born for us, a son given to us;<br />
authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful<br />
Counselor, Mighty god, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."<br />
Other translations might be offered, but these should be adequate to<br />
show how the words of Isaiah have been understood. It will be noted<br />
that Christ is considered a 'divine' or 'mighty hero' or 'champion' in<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim.htm (7 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:07:12 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity with Tim<br />
some cases."<br />
Now on to Ps. 45:6/Heb 1:8. I am always surprised that you Trinitarians use this to prop up support for<br />
your triune deity. Heb. 1:8 is earlier applied to King Solomon in Ps 45:6. What that means is that Jesus is<br />
God insofar as as King Solomon is. I do not remember King Solomon sharing a triune<br />
nature/essence/homoousian with anyone. Even the Jews, whom you understand as having a special<br />
knowledge of God have translated Ps. 45:6(7) as "Your divine throne is everlasting;"(JPS) with a c.f. to<br />
1Chron 29:23.<br />
Again, I will let my friend Kazz (Sean) handle the rest:<br />
Hebrews 1:8, as you well know, is a quotation taken from Psalms 45:6. There are two problems with<br />
asserting that these verses are calling Jesus *God*, at least in the trinitarian sense. One problem is the<br />
rendering itself, which is either "Thy throne, O God" (a vocative), or "God is thy throne" (God as<br />
subject), or "Thy throne is God" (God as predicate). In favor of the non-vocative are The Twentieth<br />
Century New Testament,Goodspeed, Moffatt, Byington, RSV footnote, NRSV footnote, Alternate<br />
rendering offered in the Translator's NT (p 523), NEB footnote, REB, Harkavy, Gerard Wallis, F.<br />
Fenton, Andy Gaus (translator of "The Unvarnished NT), Newcome (the Improved Version), Cassirer,<br />
and B.F. Wescott (no doubt there are others). If we accept "God" as either the subject or the predicate,<br />
these verses do not call Jesus God. However, even if we take "God" as a vocative, nothing astonishing<br />
need be inferred; certainly nothing comparable to trinitarianism. Indeed, as B.F. Wescott acknowledged<br />
(see his "The Epistle to the Hebrews" ad loc cit), the Psalm is a reference to an earthly King (probably<br />
Solomon), so if this verse requires that Jesus be God Almighty, then we have no choice but to conclude<br />
that Solomon was also God Almighty. A far more reasonable understanding of these texts was expressed<br />
by Vincent Taylor, as referred to by Raymond Brown --to wit:<br />
"Vincent Taylor admits that in v. 8 the expression "O God" is<br />
vocative spoken of Jesus, but he says that the author of<br />
Hebrews was merely citing the Psalm and using its<br />
terminology without any deliberate intention of suggesting<br />
that Jesus is God. It is true that the main point of citing the<br />
Psalm was to contrast the Son with angels and to show that the<br />
Son enjoys eternal domination, while the angels were but<br />
servants. Therefore in the citation no major point was being<br />
made of the fact that the Son can be addressed as God. Yet<br />
we cannot presume that the author did not notice that his<br />
citation had this effect. We can say at least, that the author saw<br />
nothing wrong in this address, and we can call upon a similar<br />
situation in Heb. 1:10, where the application to the Son of<br />
Psalm 102:25-27 has the effect of addressing Jesus as Lord. Of<br />
course, we have no way of knowing what the "O God" of<br />
Psalm meant to the author of Hebrews when he applies it to<br />
Jesus. Psalm 45 is a royal Psalm; and on the analogy of the<br />
"Mighty God" of Isaiah 9:6, "God" may have been looked on<br />
simply as a royal title and hence applicable to Jesus as the<br />
Davidic Messiah."--Taken from Jesus, God and Man (New<br />
York: Macmillian, 1967, pg 24 & 25.)<br />
You may also find George Wesley Buchanan's remarks on these verses<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim.htm (8 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:07:12 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity with Tim<br />
interesting, which are found in his "To The Hebrews", part of the superb<br />
Anchor <strong>Bible</strong> series.<br />
Tim: JESUS' ACCEPTANCE OF WORSHIP<br />
The OT forbids worship of anyone but God (Ex. 20:1-4; Deut. 5:6-9). In the <strong>Bible</strong> men were not to<br />
accept worship (see Acts 14:15) and even angels refused to be worshiped (Rev. 22:8-9). And yet, Jesus<br />
received worship on at least nine occations without rebuking his worshipers. The healed leper worshiped<br />
Jesus (Matt 8:2) and the ruler knelt before him with his petition (Matt. 9:18). After Jesus had stilled the<br />
storm, "those in the boat worshiped him saying, 'Truely you are the Son of God.'" (Matt. 14:33). The<br />
Cananite women bowed before Christ in prayer (Matt. 15:25), as did the mother of the sons of Zebedee<br />
(Matt. 20:20). Just before Jesus commissioned his followers to diciple all nations, "they worshiped him"<br />
(Matt. 28:17). Earlier in the same chapter the women who had just been at the tomb met Jesus "and they<br />
came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him" (v. 9). Again look at Mk 5:6; Jn 9:38; 20:28. Not to<br />
rebuke these people who nelt before him, prayed to him, and worshiped him was not only utterly<br />
pretentious but it wa blasphemous, unless Jesus considered himself to be God. The same word that is<br />
translated "worshiped" is also used of the Father (Lk 4:8) and by the actions of the people must be seen as<br />
worship. I would not do any one of these activities just mentioned to anyone else - other than Jehovah.<br />
This is not just obeisance or honor as you would give to a man of high standing -but really honoring and<br />
worshiping as one is only supposed to do toward Jehovah. In Rev. 4:10 cf. Rev 5:11-14 proskuneo is used<br />
to describe the worship of the Father and the Lamb [the Son]. They receive the exact same worship. I have<br />
the 1961 edition of the NWT and it has no problem saying "worship" in Heb1:6 so there must be some<br />
chance to this translation. According to the <strong>Bible</strong>, you cannot worship angels or men or anything but<br />
Jehovah God. So with the Father telling all the angels to worship Christ it can been seen as the Father<br />
affirming the Deity of the Son. See also Rev 22:8-9 - same word used. From all the above, it is at least<br />
reasonable to conclude that Jesus accepted some form of reverence/worship/honor that was unusual to give<br />
to a mere man in that<br />
day and that by this worship the people of that day recognized him as somehow being equal with the<br />
Jehovah of the OT.<br />
Heinz: What does PROSKUNEO mean? According to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary<br />
PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence to...It is used of an act of homage or reverence<br />
to God(John 4:24)...to Christ(Matt 2:2)...to a man(Matt 18:26)...to the Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the<br />
Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to demons(Rev 9:20)...to idols(Acts 7:43)."<br />
In the LXX PROSKUNEO was administered to Jehovah and to the King at the same time at 1 Chron<br />
29:20.<br />
An angel even received worship(NKJV,ASV) at Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23.<br />
Thayers, when discussing PROSKUNEO, mentions the word "Worship" only once in the context of, "Of<br />
homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings and to demons: absol. (our to<br />
worship)"<br />
I have more to say about Proskuneo at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/proskuneo.htm.<br />
But you raise an interesting problem. Why does Paul and the one angel refuse worship/proskuneo, and<br />
yet it is alright for Jesus? Because Jesus is "the reflection of God's glory and the perfect representation of<br />
his being." Heb 1:3 Williams<br />
Jesus is the fulfilment of all who spoke for God in times past (Heb. 1:1,2). Jesus was David's Lord, the<br />
greater than Solomon, the prophet greater than Moses. (Luke 20:41-43; Matt. 12:42; Acts 3:19-24) The<br />
obeisance/homage rendered those men prefigured that due Christ. Again, none of the above proves a<br />
TRIUNE relationship, which is what I asked for.<br />
Tim: THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS' Commands<br />
Jesus not only accepted the titles and worship due Deity alone but he often placed his words on a par with<br />
God's. "You have heard that it was said to men of old, ... But I say to you..." (Matt. 5:21, 22) is repeated<br />
over and over again. "All authority in havean and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim.htm (9 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:07:12 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity with Tim<br />
diciples of all nations..." (MAtt. 28:18-19). God had given the Ten Commandments through Moses, but<br />
Jesus added, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another" (Jn 13:34). Jesus once taught<br />
that "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law" (Matt. 5:18). Later<br />
Jesus put his own words on par as the OT LAw of Jehovah saying, "Heaven and Earth will pass away, but<br />
my words will not pass away" (Matt. 24:35). Speaking of those who rejected him, Jesus declared, "The<br />
word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day" (Jn 12:48). In view of his categorical and<br />
authoritative pronouncements we are left with but one conclusion: Jesus intended his commands to be on<br />
the level with those of God. His words are equally authoritative with God's words.<br />
Heinz: I think we need to look at the above in the light of what Jesus said. "All authority hath been<br />
GIVEN unto me in heaven and on earth." Mt 28:18<br />
You also mention Mt 24:35, and yet the next scripture appeals to his limited knowledge. "But of that day<br />
and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." This<br />
scripture was so damning to your theology Tim that unscrupulous individuals in the past omitted "neither<br />
the Son" from their <strong>Bible</strong>s (KJV, Geneva, Douay).<br />
You mention John 12:48, yet right after that Jesus says, "For I spake not from myself; but the Father that<br />
sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak."<br />
You mention Matthew 5, yet right at the end of that chapter he says, " Ye therefore shall be perfect, as<br />
your heavenly Father is perfect." Does this mean that we on a level with God, or are we equally<br />
authoritative. Only if we take your argument and apply it elsewhere. All things have been made subject<br />
to the Son, "Scripture says, He has put all things in subjection under his feet, But in saying 'all things', it<br />
clearly means to exclude God who subordinates them; and when all things are thus subject to him, then<br />
the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God who made all things subject to him, and this God<br />
will be all in all." 1 Cor 15:28, 29 NEB.<br />
Perhaps some are too insistent on seeing everything in a certain light, that they miss the whole message.<br />
There is absolutely nothing in the above that alludes to a Triune Godhead.<br />
Tim: JESUS REQUESTED THAT MEN PRAY IN HIS NAME<br />
Jesus not only asked men to believe in him (Jn 14:1) and to obey his commandments (Jn<br />
14:15), but, but he asked men to pray in his name. "Whatever you ask in my name, I will do<br />
it," he said (Jn 14:14). Later, Jesus added, "If you abide in me, and my words abide in you,<br />
ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you (Jn 15:7). Indeed, Jesus insisted that "no<br />
man comes to the Father, but by me" (Jn 14:6). It is interesting to note in this regard that not<br />
only did the diciples of Christ pray in Christ's name (1 Cor 5:4) but that they also PRAYED<br />
TO CHRIST (Acts 7:59). There is no doubt that both Jesus intended and his diciples<br />
understood it was Jesus' name that was to be invoked both before God and as God's in<br />
prayer. Remember what Jehovah said in the OT - I will never share any of my glory (the<br />
glory of absolute Deity - which includes being prayed to - with another!?). This for me<br />
alone is proof positive that Christ must share the absolute Divine nature with his Father.<br />
Heinz: Actually Tim, Stephen's words in Acts 7:59 are not a prayer to Jesus. It is the same<br />
Greek word that Paul used Acts 25:11, 12 , 21 in reference to Caeser. Just like Paul's word<br />
were an appeal, so were Stephens. Stephen had a vision of heaven. Did he see Jesus sitting<br />
on God's throne? No. He was sitting at the "God's right hand". Acts 7:56 I think you missed<br />
the point of John 14:6. Most of the translations I have render it, "no man comes to the<br />
Father, except THROUGH me". This is a very important point as Jesus is the mediator<br />
between God and Men (1 Tim 2:5). Since when is a mediator the same person as the one he<br />
is mediating for? Jesus taught us to pray to the Father at Matthew 6:9. What else did Jesus<br />
say? "that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you", "if ye<br />
shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name." John 15:16, 16:23 If there<br />
was any doubt about Jesus words in John 14:14, it all but removed 14 verses later when he<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim.htm (10 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:07:12 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity with Tim<br />
says, "the Father is greater than I" John 14:28. Does any of the above prove a trifold God?<br />
Absolutely not!<br />
Tim: Throughout Jesus' claims several point that are of key importance emerged. First, there is no question<br />
that Jesus often accepted and sometimes even emcouraged the appellations and attitudes appropriate only<br />
for God. Second, Jesus himself unquestionably affirmed by words and actions these characteristcs and<br />
preogatives appropriate only to Deity. Third, the reaction of those around him manifests that they too<br />
understood him to be claiming Deity. The disciples responded with "you are the Chrsit, the Son of the<br />
living God" (Matt. 16:16) or "my Lord and my God" (Jn 20:28).<br />
Heinz: "In the words of Jesus and in much of the NT the God of Israel (Gk ho theos) is the Father of<br />
Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal<br />
reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of<br />
usage and not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few times. Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated<br />
"the Word was with the God [= the Father], and the Word was a divine being." Thomas invokes Jesus<br />
with the titles which belong to the Father, "My lord and my God" (Jn 20:28).....It should be understood<br />
that this usage of ho theos touches the personal distinction of the Father and the Son and not the divinity<br />
i.e., the divine sonship of Jesus Christ." p. 317, 318 Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> by J. L. McKenzie, S. J.<br />
Tim: Unbelievers exclaimed, "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy!" (Mk 2:7). When Jesus<br />
claim to be one with the Father, the Jews, who are not as dumb as you make them out to be, picked up<br />
stones to stone Christ. They said they did this because Christ blasphemed. He made himself equal to God<br />
because he initiated calling God his Father - thus also implying Deity because he by default the unique Son<br />
of God - not a created son as many would so carelessly conclude today but "of the the order of" (see 1 Kgs<br />
20:35; Neh 12:28).<br />
Heinz: I fail to see where where the above verses mention "of the the order of", but since you brought it<br />
up, Jesus is called a "priest for ever, After the order of Melchizedek."Heb 5:6 Does this mean that Jesus<br />
shared some special type of consubstantiality with Melchizedek? I feel ridiculous even talking like this.<br />
The Jews also called God their Father (Jn 8:41) and they were not suggesting a consubstantial triune<br />
existence with him, but that ONLY THEY had a special relationship with him, as opposed to Jesus.<br />
Tim: Ancient Semitics and Orientals were very aware of this usage of "Son of" and it is this parallel that<br />
should be understood as Christ claims to be Gods Son. The high priest of the time also reacted towards<br />
Jesus with accusations of blasphemy when Christ claimed Divinity (Mk 14:62-64). Whatever you may<br />
want to think, the point is crystal clear - the Jesus of the NT claimed equality with the Jehovah of the OT.<br />
Thus, so far, the two person, while differing in person, are equal in Nature, and make up two/thirds of the<br />
One God.<br />
Heinz: Even in Mark 14:62 we have Jesus explaining that he sits "at the right hand of power". Why does<br />
he not sit on the throne, if they are in equal in nature? Where, pray tell, does the <strong>Bible</strong> ever use the term<br />
"son of" to describe a sharing of essence, or two that are "equal in nature"? Where is the "son of" ever<br />
used to describe 2/3 of one being? I keep asking this question and I NEVER get an answer. I keep getting<br />
directed back to Jesus as Jehovah as the Son of God which is supposed to explain everything. Even the<br />
angels were called "sons of God" at Job 1:6, 38:7, Gen 6:2 and Dan 3:25. The latter scripture has your<br />
Orientals describing an angel as a "son of the gods." I wonder if these Babylonians understood this angel<br />
to represent 1/3 of your Triune God? Probably not.<br />
Continued in Part 2<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim.htm (11 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:07:12 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity with Tim<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim.htm (12 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:07:12 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
Tim: What about some of your best alleged counterclaims. That Jesus said "My Father is greater that I" (Jn<br />
14:28); Jesus claimed ignorance of the time of his second coming (Mk 13:32); Jesus said that neither he nor<br />
anyone else is "good" except God alone (Mk 10:18); Jesus prayed on the cross, "My God, my God, why<br />
have you forsaken me?" (Mk 15:34). On closer examination none of these passages is contradictory with<br />
Jesus' evident claims to Deity just discussed. The Father was greater than Jesus - for Jesus in the<br />
incarnation was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death. The Son also occupies lesser<br />
office than the Father. His position is subordinate - but his nature is not. You cannot conclude that just<br />
because the Father is positionally higher than the Son that therefore they are not one in nature. This does<br />
not follow. I am in a superior positon to my wife and kids by virtue of the divine decree that the man is the<br />
head of the home and the wife is to be submissive in all things - she is the weaker vessel but Paul<br />
catagorically states that "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave nor free, there is no<br />
longer male nor female; for you are all one in Christ" (Gal 3:28). So, while this analogy is not a one to one<br />
correspondence - none of the relationships are a Trinity - or two natures in one person - I think that the<br />
POINT I'm trying to make is clear - subordination in no way ever implies or leads to inferiority. This is the<br />
point people are trying to make when using the president of the united states example - between MEIZON<br />
AND KRITTON. The example you give in "Lies that Walter Martin Told Me" does not stand. 1 Jn 5:9<br />
does not invalidate the point I'm trying to make between MEIZON AND KRITTON - the text says nothing<br />
to the effect that the tetimony of God is not better than man's. It only says that God's testimony is Greater<br />
than man's - it comes from a higher office - and therefore deserve the respect and acceptence do it. It is<br />
certainly true that God's testimony is also Better than man's for God posessess perfectness and total<br />
understanding - but the text here in 1 Jn 5:9 is not saying that. The Greek here says greater - not better - but<br />
you cannot conclude that distiction between the words evaporates because the sentence does not say one or<br />
the other or both. Your putting unnecessary stress on the text. You are assuming falsely.<br />
Heinz: Am I now? The point that you are trying to make above is kind of confusing, so let us take it<br />
from Ron Rhodes' perspective. In speaking of Heb. 1:4, Rhodes says, "He is higher than the angels in His<br />
very nature." Italics His<br />
But what does the entire text say? "as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they". So Jesus had<br />
inherited a more excellent name (or Title/Williams), not a nature. In the Grimm-Thayer Lexicon, it says<br />
of John 14:28 that MEIZON "is used of those who surpass others-either in nature and power, as God"p.<br />
395 Italics mine<br />
On Heb 1:4, this same lexicon tells us that KREITTON means "more excellent." p. 359 See also BAGD<br />
page 449. So, lexically speaking, Rhodes is wrong. I find it amazing how normal language seems to<br />
change once a Trinitarian gets a hold of it. All of a sudden the words "greater", "subordinate", "one" and<br />
"Son" do not have the same meaning as has come to be understood in dictionaries.<br />
Since you touched on the headship issue, let me expand on it, Ron Rhodes has done. "But I would have<br />
you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of<br />
Christ is God." 1 Corinthians 11:3<br />
We know that God is not under the authority of anyone. Dan 4:35, 1 Chron 29:11 (which begs the<br />
question, "How can Jesus be God?") Ron Rhodes makes the following statement, "why does the<br />
Watchtower teach that the Fathers headship over Christ mean that Christ is inferior in nature?" p.<br />
140,141<br />
The Watchtower actually does not teach that this scripture has anything to do with with the nature of<br />
Christ and Jehovah. The BAGD (p. 430) says that the greek word KEPHALE, as used in 1 Cor 11:3 is<br />
used "to denote superior rank." So Jesus and God are not equal in authority, just as the man is not equal<br />
to Christ in authority. The scripture says just exactly what we think it says. Again, thank you for bringing<br />
the Holy Spirit into this discussion;)<br />
Nowhere does the <strong>Bible</strong> speak of the 2 natures of Christ, yet I know it is important to your theology. But<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (1 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
you are relying too much on a man-made definition of God.<br />
Tim: Besides, Jesus claimed equality with God in essense (Jn 5:18 - 10:30); it was only his function as Son<br />
that he was less than the Father. Next, Jesus was ignorant of the time of his coming again as man, just as he<br />
was ignorant of whether the fig tree had fruit (Matt. 21:19). As man, Jesus tired, hungered, and thirsted; but<br />
as God he never slumbered nor slept (Ps. 121:4). Jesus the person possesed two distinc natures: one divine<br />
by nature by which he knew all things [which by the way he limited the indendent use of it while on earth -<br />
but restored it to himself after the resurrection when he resumed the glory he Had with the Father before<br />
Time Space Matter and Energy began], and one human which was finite in knowledge and grew in<br />
wisdom. Since you have a copy of Rhodes' book, please read the section on Philps 2:6-9 on pp. 148-151.<br />
This is a well written section of his book and demands you to refute any parts of the issues that you disagree<br />
with. This one fundamental passage in perhaps the greatest stumbling block for JWs - there general lack of<br />
understanding especially of v. 6 where the Greek READS : WHO NEVER CEASING TO EXIST in the<br />
form of God. The participle is in the present tense - you must deal with this FACT Heinz. The present<br />
participle denotes continuous never ceasing action.<br />
Heinz: As regards Phil 2:6, I cannot find a commentary or an interlinear that reads like the example you<br />
provided above, and I certainly can't find that in Rhodes' favorite, the NASB. There are of course some<br />
paraphrases that touch on it. But most references are unsure of how to translate it. "This verse has been<br />
the subject of much controversy" Adams Commentary. But if you subscribe to the renderings in the TEV<br />
and the NCV, "who always had the nature of God, then I really have to ask this...when Jesus was<br />
speaking thus in John 14:28 "The Father is Greater than I", how are we to know if he is speaking from<br />
his divine nature or his human nature. If he still had his divine nature while he had his human nature,<br />
why doesn't the <strong>Bible</strong> differentiate between the 2 natures, especially in statements where he expresses his<br />
inferiority to the Father. And since Jesus is the only member of your divine triumvirate that possesses 2<br />
natures, doesn't that really make them a Quadrinity?<br />
Now let us see what Jesus really said at John 5:18; 10:30. The Jews had no problem accepting a divine<br />
LOGOS, "The LOGOS served Greek Jews as the bridge to the remote, transcendent God in a way<br />
comparable to that served by angels in the thought of Palestine Jews." So where would the Jews object?<br />
Speaking of the term "Son of God", We Jews and Jesus by Samuel Sandmel states, "To Jews this term, if<br />
used figuratively, would have raised no objection, for it is a frequent phrase in the Tanak;... If used<br />
literally or quasi-literally, Jews would have objected, and especially so limiting the sonship to Jesus." pp.<br />
38, 41 , 42 So we have here a Jewish mindset of accepting the LOGOS of God on par with an angel, we<br />
also have "Son of God" as a term used in the Tanak of angels and even the Jewish nation, but the<br />
objection was the exclusivity of the Son in relation to Jehovah. Could there be some jealousy here?<br />
Hurtado also points out in Pre-Jewish Opposition to Christ-Devotion "Although it was acceptable to exalt<br />
a great figure of the past recognized by the Jewish tradition, such as Moses, to give equivalent treatment<br />
to Jesus, a figure of their own time who was regarded by some as a false teacher and who did not enjoy<br />
broad respect outside the circle of his followers, would have seemed silly and offensive, all the more so<br />
since these followers even put Jesus above the great figures of Israel's past." p.36<br />
Perhaps this is why the Jews also said he was a Samaritan, he was a demon, and he had a demon at Matt<br />
12:24, John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20.<br />
Another point that we can allow is that the gospel writers gave a less than favorable view of the Jews,<br />
especially John. Gerald Borchert also observes that "It has been stated by scholars, as J.A.T. <strong>Robinson</strong><br />
has noted, that 'John is the most anti-Jewish of the four [Gospels].' "<br />
But Borchert goes on to point out that "The reason that I would agree with <strong>Robinson</strong> in resisting the<br />
charge of anti-Semiticism against John is multidimensional, but several facts can be stated here in brief . .<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (2 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
. The stern polemic in chaps. 5-11, therefore . . . as I have argued at length in the commentary, is not<br />
basically a battle waged against all Jews by outsiders but a battle by Jews against an institutional Judaism<br />
that had rigidly defined its borders to exclude Jesus, as the Messiah, and his followers" (_John_ (NAC).<br />
Gerald Borchert, P. 71-73. Cf. 81 also).<br />
Tim: Just like when the <strong>Bible</strong> tells us to "be filled with the HS." This "filled" is also a present participle -<br />
"Never stop being filled by the HS" the verse could be translated.<br />
Heinz: Are you saying that we should "Never stop being filled by the HS" i.e. God? Are then also part of<br />
this Triune God? Since you look for similar expressions between the Jesus and Jehovah to prove a 3-way<br />
God is true (which is really bitheism isn't it?), tell me where the Son and the Father can both be poured<br />
out just like your 3rd person of the trinity (Acts 2:17,18). The Scriptures indicate that the H.S. is inferior<br />
to the Father, subservient and obedient in all things; it can speak nothing of itself (Jn 16:13). Indicating a<br />
position of subordination, it is promised, sent<br />
(Jn.14:26; 15:26), and given (Jn.11:13; 14:16). But it does nothing of or on it’s own.<br />
For instance, some texts say that the spirit "spoke," but other passages make clear that this was done<br />
through angels or humans. (Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Matt. 10:19, 20; compare Acts 20:23 with Acts 21:10,<br />
11.)<br />
"The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the<br />
parallelism between the spirit and the power of God. When a quasi-personal activity is ascribed to God's<br />
spirit, e.g., speaking, hindering, desiring, dwelling (Acts 8.29; 16.7;<br />
Rom 8.9), one is not justified in concluding immediately that in these passages God's spirit is regarded as<br />
a Person; the same expressions are used also in regard to rhetorically personified things or abstract ideas<br />
(see Rom 8.6; 7.17).--“New Catholic Encyclopedia” (Vol. 13, p. 575)<br />
Tim: So, hear we have a certain statement to the eternality of the Son. Next, upon careful examination<br />
Jesus did not deny that he was good or that he was God to the rich young ruler [do you think Jesus is<br />
absolutely good, Heinz, the kind of good that he was talking about in this passage - what are the<br />
consequences of answering yes to this question - what about answering no to this question]. The bracketed<br />
question is key - you are stuck here my friend. Jesus was saying to the rich young ruler, "Do you realize<br />
what you are saying? Are you calling me God?" Jesus' reply left only two alternatives: either he was good<br />
and God or else he was bad and only human - which of these two do you think friend?<br />
Heinz: "And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit<br />
eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, [even]<br />
God.(Luke 18:19) Now why did Jesus say this? The <strong>Bible</strong> clearly shows that others are called Good(Tit<br />
2:3, Ro 5:7). Vine's Expository Dictionary also gives a list of scriptures where it applies to "certain<br />
persons". But it also refers to God as "essentialy, absolutely and consummately good". It is you that is<br />
putting unnecessary an strain on the word.<br />
Certainly if imperfect men could be called "good", Jesus would qualify even more so as such. Nor would<br />
he object to the term "teacher"; he accepted that designation. (John 13:13) Then why did he answer this<br />
young man as he did? It seems that the rabbis of Jewry affected this title, which would explain Christ's<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (3 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
rejection of it. When this ruler addressed him thus it amounted to classing him with the rabbis. Jesus<br />
wanted no rabbinical titles, and by this rebuke Jesus showed the impropriety of using such titles. (Job<br />
32:21, 22; Matt. 23:7-10) Christ had no objections to being properly identified as the teacher or master or<br />
leader, as he said it was well that they called him such, but when designations were linked in a<br />
title-setting commonly used to address rabbis in a flattering way he did protest. He drove the point home<br />
forcefully by taking the extreme and highest view of the matter, spotlighting Jehovah God as the one<br />
deserving of such title. Incidentally, this shows Jehovah no part of the trinity with two others equal with<br />
him, and trinitarian attempts to offset this by referring to Matthew's wording of this meeting do not erase<br />
the two accounts by Mark and Luke.-Matt. 19:16, 17.<br />
That the rich ruler was using "Good Teacher" as a formalistic title rather than as expressing his honest<br />
conviction concerning Jesus is shown by his rejection of Jesus' advice. Apparently he did not consider<br />
Jesus such a good teacher in reality, for he went off without following Christ's counsel. He deserved the<br />
rebuke he recieved.<br />
Tim: Next, Jesus's examples of God talking to God (or, better, one Person of the Godhead speaking to<br />
another person of the Godhead) are not strang to the <strong>Bible</strong>. Ps. 110:1, "The LORD said unto my Lord, sith<br />
thou at my right hand..." Likewise, in the OT the LORD sometimes speaks to the Angel of the Lord (cf.<br />
Zech 1:12) who also is Deity (cf. Ex. 3:2 f.; Judges 13:15 f.). These so-called counter claims for Deity turn<br />
out to be not only completely congruous with the uniform claim of Christ to be equal with God, but in at<br />
least one case a closer examination of them evidences a convert claim to Deity.<br />
Heinz: You are using a Lawyers device here. You are taking my arguments and trying to use them to<br />
your end. But can you really do that? Ps 110:1 is a mistranslation, but rather should read, "Jehovah said<br />
to my Lord."(ASV, Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> etc) Regarding the use of the word LORD here, the Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
calls it a tautology. As to it being "congruous", are you saying that the angels also represent a Trinity<br />
with God. How else can it correspond to your view of Deity? All it shows is that Jesus represented the<br />
invisible God (John 1:18 1Tim 2:5), just like the angels (Ex 3:2) and the prophets of old (Heb 1:1-3).<br />
Tim: THE CLAIM OF JESUS' DISCIPLES THAT HE WAS GOD<br />
It is one thing for a first century Jew to claim to be God, but it is quite another to get monotheistic Jews to<br />
believe it. Both Jesus and the diciples knew the Jewish Shema very well: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our<br />
God, the Lord is one" (Mk 12:29). Paul stated the Jewish belief well when he wrote, "For although there<br />
are many so-called gods in heaven or on earth...yet for us there is one God..." ( 1 Cor. 8:5-6). Both<br />
polytheism and idolatry were abhorrent to a Jew, and yet these first century Jewish diciples of Jesus found it<br />
necessary to atribute Deity to Jesus of Nazareth in many ways.<br />
Heinz: My Thayers attributes the "For though there be that are called gods" in 1 Corinthians to angels.<br />
This is interesting, but more than likely Paul was referring to the myriads of pagan gods that<br />
monotheistic Christianity had to be distinguished from. I notice that you cut part of your quotation<br />
off...let me finish it for you, "yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto<br />
him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." So it is the Father<br />
alone that we view as the One God. This is in keeping with Paul's letters. "You simply simply cannot find<br />
the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the <strong>Bible</strong>. St Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and<br />
person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second<br />
person of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur<br />
(Anglican Priest).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (4 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
Tim: JESUS WAS GIVEN THE NAMES OF DEITY<br />
John called Jesus First and Last in Rev. 1:17 - a name reserved for Jehovah alone (Isa. 44:6; 41:4;<br />
48:12). Now as I recall - ah yes - here is your letter that responded to this claim. You wrote "It is true that<br />
when the angel speaks for Christ, at Rev. 1:17 (NWT), he states:'I am the First and the Last.' But a check of<br />
the context shows this 'First and Last' was with definite limitations, was relative to just the matter of Christ<br />
Jesus' death and resurrection, as verse 18 shows. Christ was the First one raised in the first resurrection,<br />
and the last one who will be raised directly by Jehovah God. Others who follow in that resurrection will be<br />
raised by God through Christ." This is terrible eisogesis and a complete misrepresentation of the text.<br />
Verse 18 DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE KIND OF FIRST AND LAST IN V 17, rather V 18<br />
IDENTIFIES THE ONE WHO CLAIMS A TITILE RESERVED ONLY FOR DEITY. Look at it this<br />
way: John's response to the vision was to fall at the feet of Christ as though dead. Similar responses are<br />
found in Josh. 5:14; Ezek. 1:28; Dan 8:17; 10:15; Matt. 17:6; Acts 26:14; and 1 Enoch 14:14. But to call<br />
the response "sterotyped behavior in such apocolyptic trances" [Moffat] would incorrectly imply that John<br />
was playing out a role rather than experiencing a supernatural phenomenon of such magnitude that to stand<br />
as an equal would be tantamount to blasphemy. It could even lead to death (cf. the OT belief that for a<br />
sinful person to see God was to die; Exod. 19:21; 33:20; Judg 6:22-23).<br />
Heinz: There is no need to scream Tim. I had warned you about getting too emotional. As we have seen<br />
above, a "falling to the ground" happened also to the angel of Jehovah in Judges. There is no reason to<br />
suspect that the Angel must be Jehovah himself. This is where trinitarians again change the meanings of<br />
words to fit their theology. Did it ever occur to you that an Angel might just mean angel? Are only<br />
"sinful" people hindered from seeing God? No! "No man may see me and live", "No man hath seen God<br />
at any time" (Ex 33:20, Jn 1:18). As we have seen above, the<br />
bible repeats over and over again the invisibility of God. Judges does say that you will not die, but then<br />
the context shows that it was an angel. Now let us examine what it is I said: It is true that when the angel<br />
speaks for Christ, at Revelation 1:17 (NWT), he states: "I am the First and the Last." But a check of the<br />
context shows this "First and Last" was with definite limitations, was relative to just the matter of Christ<br />
Jesus' death and resurrection, as verse 18 shows. Christ was the first one raised in the first resurrection,<br />
and the last one that will be raised directly by Jehovah God. Others who follow in that resurrection will<br />
be raised by God through Christ. (John 6:40; 1 Cor. 6:14) In fact, this limitation is also shown that the<br />
Alexandrinus Codex used the word FIRSTBORN here. Christ was the firstfruits of those asleep in death.<br />
(1 Cor. 15:20) When "First and Last" is again applied to Christ Jesus, at Revelation 2:8, note that again it<br />
is with respect to death and resurrection. But when it speaks thus of Jehovah no limitation is set on the<br />
meaning. I suspect it is because of this limitation that made some unscrupulous scribe add the words<br />
Alpha and Omega at Rev 1:11. The Good News <strong>Bible</strong> inserts the name Jesus at Rev 22:12 to make it<br />
appear that Jesus is again the Alpha and Omega. So you see, they can only make Jesus the Alpha and<br />
Omega if they distort scripture to do so.<br />
Incidentally, Hebrews 3:1 calls Jesus an APOSTLE, whereas elsewhere in the <strong>Bible</strong> it refers to some of<br />
his followers. Does that make them the same person or equal because the share the same title? Of course<br />
not." This is not poor exegesis. Why? Let us take a look? "I am the first and the last, and the Living one;<br />
and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18 "These things saith the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]"<br />
Rev. 2:8 "Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead" Rev 1:5 See also Romans<br />
14:9 and Col 1:18. Can you really believe that God can die? I cannot. Hab 1:12, (before the scribal<br />
changes/ Tiqqune Sopherim) reads, "Art not thou from everlasting, O Jehovah my God, my Holy One?<br />
you do not die." see also New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>. I believe that almighty God cannot be confined by his<br />
own creation. Since God created life, and death is a by-product of life, this would be included. The bible<br />
never speaks of only Jesus' human-self/human nature/second nature dying. This is a 5th century<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (5 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
Cappadocian thought read back into the scriptures. As one Catholic apologist puts it, "The <strong>Bible</strong> does not<br />
anywhere use the word Trinity or define the nature of the Triune God. Rather, the use of the word<br />
"Trinity" and the definition of the Triune God are part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church not found<br />
directly in Scripture. This is one major reason why the Tradition of the Church is necessary to fully<br />
comprehend the message of Christ." Are you a Catholic in drag Tim?<br />
Tim: Further in this section, both Jesus and Jehovah are viewed as the author of eternal words (cf. Matt.<br />
24:35 and Isa. 40:8).<br />
Heinz: Jesus is the spokesman for God, the Word OF God. "And I know that his commandment is life<br />
eternal: the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak. John 12:50<br />
Not a TRIUNE relationship.<br />
Tim: The Psalmist wrote, "Jehovah is my light" (27:1) but John claimed that Jesus was the "true Light" (Jn<br />
1:9).<br />
Heinz: Jesus said of his followers, "Ye are the light of the world." Mt 5:14<br />
Two scriptures later he says, "Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good<br />
works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. "After all, Jesus is the "the true light, which lighteth<br />
every man, coming into the world." Jn 1:9 All, like Jesus, will glorify the Father. Not a TRIUNE<br />
relationship.<br />
Tim: Likewise, "Jehovah is out rock" is a common appellation of God in the OT (see Ps. 18:2; 95:1), but<br />
the diciples call Jesus their "rock" (1 Cor 10:4 or "stone" (1 Peter 2:6-8). Jehovah was also a husband or<br />
"bridegroom" to Israel (Hos. 2:16; Is. 62:5), which is how the NT relates Christ to his church (Eph. 5:28-33;<br />
Rev. 21:2). "Jehovah is my shepherd," David wrote and Peter called Christ "the chief shepherd" (1 Peter<br />
5:4), ......<br />
Heinz: Perhaps the following might help you: "There is none holy as Jehovah; For there is none besides<br />
thee, Neither is there any rock like our God." We know that there are other holy ones mentioned in the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, but they do not compare to the archetype, Jehovah. Many titles are shared by others, but it should<br />
never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the<br />
conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called "king of kings" (Dan. 2:37;<br />
Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus' disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called "the light of<br />
the world." (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) Isaiah 43:10 says, "I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no<br />
saviour", but yet there were other saviours (see Judg. 3:9 and 15). Note that Othniel and Ehud were<br />
raised up by Jehovah God as saviors. They were merely the agents of the great Savior, God. Now look at<br />
Jude 25, "to the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord. If God is represented THROUGH<br />
Jesus, does it not make sense to refer to them both as Saviour. After all, isn't this what Jesus' name<br />
means?<br />
I will let my friend Kazz explain the rest for me:<br />
"Now let us consider how God accomplished his will, including our salvation, through his<br />
son, using him as his agent, by focusing on the following texts:<br />
Acts 2:22,23 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Naz·a·rene', a man publicly shown by God to<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (6 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
YOU through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in YOUR midst, just as<br />
YOU yourselves know, this [man], as one delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of<br />
God, YOU fastened to a stake by the hand of lawless men and did away with."<br />
The above verse shows that Jehovah showed great signs and portents by using his agent<br />
Jesus Christ, for it was "through him" (Christ) that these portents were demonstrated.<br />
Acts 15:12<br />
At that the entire multitude became silent, and they began to listen to Bar'na·bas and<br />
Paul relate the many signs and portents that God did through them among the nations.<br />
Acts 19:11,12<br />
And God kept performing extraordinary works of power through the hands of Paul, 12<br />
so that even cloths and aprons were borne from his body to the ailing people, and the diseases left them,<br />
and the wicked spirits came out.<br />
These two verses show that God used Barnabas and Paul as his agents to relate "many<br />
signs and portents", and "extraordinary works of power," for he did these signs "through them". These<br />
verses are quoted tofurther show how Jehovah uses agents to accomplish his will.<br />
Romans 1:4,5<br />
but who with power was declared God's Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection<br />
from the dead--yes, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we received undeserved kindnessand an<br />
apostleship in order that there might be obedience of faith among all the nations respecting his name...<br />
This verse shows that Christ is the agent "through whom" undeserved kindness has been<br />
demonstrated.<br />
Romans 2:16<br />
This will be in the day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of<br />
mankind, according to the good news I declare.<br />
This account shows that God is a judge, and that he judges through Christ Jesus; again,<br />
Jehovah is the source of judgment while Christ is the agent used to judge.<br />
Romans 5:1,2<br />
Therefore, now that we have been declared righteous as a result of faith, let us enjoy<br />
peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have gained our approach by faith<br />
into this undeserved kindness in which we now stand; and let us exult, based on hope of the glory of<br />
God.<br />
Romans 5:8-11<br />
But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died<br />
for us. Much more, therefore, since we have been declared righteous now by his blood, shall we be saved<br />
through him from wrath.<br />
For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his<br />
Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only<br />
that, but we are also exulting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received<br />
the reconciliation.<br />
Can there be any clearer statement than that which is quoted above? We are saved<br />
through Christ, through his death and subsequent resurrection to life, and it is through Christ that we<br />
become reconciled to God.<br />
Romans 7:25<br />
Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with [my] mind I myself am a slave to God's<br />
law, but with [my] flesh to sin's law.<br />
The above is quoted to demonstrate that, since our life and salvation are attained through<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (7 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
Christ, so our gratitude should be expressed to God through Christ. In this case we are the source of<br />
gratitude, while Christ is the agent through whom our gratitude is expressed to God.<br />
1Corn 8:4-6<br />
For even though there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth,<br />
just as there are many "gods" and many "lords," 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom<br />
all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we<br />
through him.<br />
Did you notice the wording of the above verses? Jehovah is the source of "all things",<br />
while Jesus is the agent through whom all things are (or came about).<br />
1 Corn 15:54-57<br />
"Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?" 56 The sting producing<br />
death is sin, but the power for sin is the Law. 57 But thanks to God, for he gives us the victory through<br />
our Lord Jesus Christ!<br />
Here we see that God is the source, while Jesus is the agent through whom we can gain<br />
victory over death by putting faith in his ransom sacrifice.<br />
2 Corn 1:3-5<br />
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies<br />
and the God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those<br />
in any sort of tribulation through the comfort with which we ourselves are being comforted by God. For<br />
just as the sufferings for the Christ abound in us, so the comfort we get also abounds through the Christ.<br />
You will notice above that, not only is the Father the God of Jesus, but he is the God of comfort, and that<br />
it is through Jesus that God allows his comfort to abound in us.<br />
2 Corn 5:18,19<br />
But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us<br />
the ministry of the reconciliation, namely, that God was by means of Christ reconciling a world to<br />
himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and he committed the word of the reconciliation to us.<br />
This verse shows, once again, that we can be reconciled to God through Christ, for it is<br />
by means of Christ that God reconciles a world to himself.<br />
Ep 1:3-7<br />
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he has blessed us with<br />
every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in union with Christ, 4 just as he chose us in union with<br />
him before the founding of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love.<br />
For he foreordained us to the adoption through Jesus Christ as sons to himself, according to the good<br />
pleasure of his will, in praise of his glorious undeserved kindness which he kindly conferred upon us by<br />
means of [his] loved one. By means of him we have the release<br />
by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of [our] trespasses, according to the riches<br />
of his undeserved kindness.<br />
Here again the Father is called the God of Jesus Christ. Also, it shows that the<br />
undeserved kindness of God is conferred upon us by means of his loved one (Christ), and<br />
that it is by means of him that we the release by ransom.<br />
Ep 2:13-18<br />
And he came and declared the good news of peace to YOU, the ones far off, and peace<br />
to those near, because through him we, both peoples, have the approach to the Father by one spirit. This<br />
reiterates that we have gained the approach to the Father through Christ.<br />
1 Thess 5:6-11<br />
So, then, let us not sleep on as the rest do, but let us stay awake and keep our senses. 7<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (8 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
For those who sleep are accustomed to sleep at night, and those who get drunk are usually drunk at night.<br />
But as for us who belong to the day, let us keep our senses and have on the breastplate of faith and love<br />
and as a helmet the hope of salvation; because God assigned us, not to wrath, but to the acquiring of<br />
salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us, that, whether we stay awake or are asleep, we<br />
should live together with him. Therefore keep comforting one another and building one another up, just<br />
as YOU are in fact doing.<br />
This verse clearly shows that we gain salvation from God through our Lord Jesus Christ.<br />
Jehovah is shown here to be the source of salvation, making him our savior, and Jesus is the agent of our<br />
salvation, making him our savior.<br />
2 Tim 4:16-18<br />
In my first defense no one came to my side, but they all proceeded to forsake me--may<br />
it not be put to their account- 17 but the Lord stood near me and infused power into me, that through me<br />
the preaching might be fully accomplished and all the nations might hear it; and I was delivered from the<br />
lion's mouth. The Lord will deliver me from every wicked work and will save [me] for his heavenly<br />
kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.<br />
The above is quoted to reiterate that Christ is not the only one through whom God<br />
accomplishes his will, for it was through Paul that the preaching was fully accomplished.<br />
Hebrews 1:1-4<br />
God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the<br />
prophets, 2has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all<br />
things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3 He is the reflection of [his] glory and the<br />
exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he<br />
had made a purification for our sins he sat<br />
down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places. 4 So he has become better than the<br />
angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.<br />
Just as God used prophets to relate his sayings to mankind, he likewise used his son, for it<br />
says that he spoke to us by "means of a son."<br />
You will also notice that God appointed his son as heir of all things, and that he made all things through<br />
his son. Certainly if Christ were God Almighty he would not need to be appointed as heir. As a side note,<br />
you will notice that the son "became" better than the angels. Certainly if Jesus were both totally God and<br />
totally man he would not have had to become better then the angels, for that superior status would have<br />
been automatically attached to his supposed "divine nature".<br />
Hebrews 7:18-25<br />
Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he<br />
is always alive to plead for them.<br />
Heb 13:15,16<br />
Through him let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips<br />
which make public declaration to his name. Moreover, do not forget the doing of good and the sharing of<br />
things with others, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.<br />
1 John 4:9,10<br />
By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his<br />
only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him. 10 The love is in this respect, not<br />
that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.<br />
Rev 1:1-3<br />
A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that<br />
must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (9 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
John, who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, even to all the things<br />
he saw. These last four verses were added just for emphasis; however, there is an interesting side point<br />
that can be gleaned from Rev 1:1. Notice that God gave Christ a revelation, which is "a disclosure of<br />
truth, instruction, concerning divine things before unknown" (see Grimm-Thayer, 62). Obviously, even<br />
in heaven, Jesus has limited knowledge, which contradicts the notion that he is a co-equal member of the<br />
Godhead. This also emphasizes that Jehovah is the source of all knowledge and Jesus is the channel<br />
through whom knowledge appropriate for our edification is dispensed.<br />
So the clear teaching of Scripture shows that God is the author and Christ the agent of<br />
our salvation. Jehovah performed powerful works, signs and portents through his son; he created all<br />
things through his son; he demonstrates undeserved kindness to us, and comforts us through his son; he<br />
effected our released from sin and offers us victory over death through his son; and it is through his son<br />
that he will ultimately judge all of mankind, and reconcile all things to himself. May we, in return,show<br />
our gratitude and praise to God through his son.<br />
End of Excerpt"<br />
Tim: JESUS WAS GIVEN POWERS POSSESSED ONLY BY GOD<br />
The diciples of Christ not only gave him the titles of Jehovah or Deity but the also attributed to him powers<br />
that only God<br />
possesses. The NT writers declare that Jesus raised the dead (Jn 5, 11), and yet the OT declares, "Jehovah<br />
Killeth, and maketh alive" ( 1 Sam 2:6; cf. Deut. 32:39). Isaiah pronounced Jehovah as "the everlasting<br />
God...the Creator of the ends of the earth" (4:9) and Jerimiah clalled him the "former of all things" (10:16);<br />
the NT writers speak of all things being created through Christ (Jn 1:2; Col 1:16). Likewise, for the Jews<br />
"who can forgive sins but God alone?"; and yet without hesitation the NT writers attribute this power to<br />
Jesus (acts 5:31; 13:38). Such attribution should removed all reasonable doubt as to whether they believed<br />
in the Deity of Christ.<br />
Heinz: Elijah also raised the dead (1 Ki 17; 2 Ki 4) as did Peter (Acts (9:37-40) and Paul (Acts 20:9-12).<br />
Once someone had only to touch Elisha's bones to live again.<br />
This brings to an interesting area. As we have noted above, others have, in the <strong>Bible</strong>, been favorably<br />
referred to as gods, but also as Jehovah. We have even seen angels accepting the divine name for<br />
themselves. The fact is, and representative of God bears his name and authority. Let's take a look a<br />
Moses and Aaron. Ex 16:2 says, "And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against<br />
Moses and against Aaron in the wilderness", but then at v. 6 it says, "Your murmurings are not against<br />
us, but against Jehovah." As representatives, Aaron and Moses could speak thus. Even in Christian times<br />
it was considered such. Speaking of the apostles, Acts 5 says, "And now I say unto you, Refrain from<br />
these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: but if it is<br />
of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God."<br />
38-40<br />
This speaks of the close relationship God has with his servants. "For thus saith Jehovah of hosts...he that<br />
toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye." So his representatives have spoken for him, and as him. "In<br />
the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets many times and in many different ways. But<br />
now in these last days God has spoken to us through his Son. God has chosen his Son to own all things,<br />
and through him he made the world. The Son reflects the glory of God and shows exactly what God is<br />
like. He holds everything together with his powerful word. When the Son made people clean from their<br />
sins, he sat down at the right side of God, the Great One in heaven." Heb 1:1-3 (NCV)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (10 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
Tim: Some very important things we must now close with concerning the Deity of Christ. The first is Jn<br />
1:1, the second is Jn 1:18; 8:58; 20:20, the third is Jesus was considered to be the Creator of the universe,<br />
and last Jesus was obeyed and worshiped by angels. Why can we not accept "the Word was a god?" On top<br />
of Hartley's great advise lies a very simple and concrete objection. The theological context, viz., John's<br />
monotheism, makes this rendering of 1:1c impossible, for if a monotheist were speaking of the Deity he<br />
himself reverenced, the singular THEOS could be applied only to the Supreme Being, not to an inferior<br />
divine being or emanation<br />
as if THEOS were simply generic. That is, in reference to his own beliefs, a monotheist could not speak of<br />
THEOI nor could he use THEOS in the singular (when giving any type of personal discription) of any being<br />
other than the one true God whom he worshiped. On the other hand, when the polytheistic inhabitants of<br />
Malta affirmed that Paul was Theos, they were suggesting that he had or deserved a place among their owm<br />
patheon of gods. "They said that he was a god" is therefore a proper translation of Acts 28:6.<br />
Heinz: Murray Harris says that "the Word was a god" is grammatically possible, and W.E. Vine calls it<br />
the most literal rendering of the phrase, but both, like you, say it shouldn't be translated that way because<br />
it contradicts monotheism. Let us take a further look at this. The monotheistic Jews had no problem<br />
interchanging angel with god, and this can be proven by comparing the Masoretic Text with the LXX at<br />
Ps 8:5; 97:7; 138:1. The Jewish Christians has little problem with this either at Hebrews 2:7. Therefore<br />
the Jew had no problem with putting lesser being in this divine position. But what does this have to do<br />
with a Trinity? Nothing, in fact the opposite of what you like. Here is what one Jew has to say about it, "<br />
The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a Trinity is to be<br />
found there or even in any way shadowed forth, is an assumption that has long held sway in theology, but<br />
is utterly without foundation. The Jews, as a people, under its teachings became stern opponents of all<br />
polytheistic tendencies, and they have remained unflinchingly monotheists to this day. On this point there<br />
is no break between the Old Testament Scriptures and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued.<br />
Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament Scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to<br />
the core, a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology." L.L. Paine, A Critical History of the Evolution of<br />
Trinitarianism (Boston and New York; Houghton Mifflin and Co., 1902), 4. stop<br />
Tim: If you were to honestly look at Jn 1:1 you would find it clearly triadic: each of the three clauses has<br />
the same subject (HO LOGOS) and an identical verb (ANE). So far from being tautological, verse 2<br />
gathers together these three seperate affirmations<br />
and declares them all to be true EN ARCHN: "This LOGOS who was THEOS was in the beginning with<br />
God." Even though Jesus Christ is not explicitly mentioned until verse 17, the evangelist clearly assumes<br />
throughout the prologue that the Logos is none other than the "only Son" (monogenes, 1:14, 18) of the<br />
Father.. In the first proposition of the verse 1 John affirms that the Logos existed before all time and<br />
creation and therefore implicitly denies that the Logos was a created being.<br />
Heinz: Again, it is only with you trinitarians that words change meanings, in this case EN ARCH/In the<br />
Beginning, no longer means in the Beginning, but "Before" the beginning. Most <strong>Bible</strong>s cross reference<br />
John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1 where "the beginning" is when God created the heavens and the earth. There is<br />
nothing in the scriptures that supports a "timeless" EN ARCH, and this is only building on Greek<br />
philosophy where time was created with the universe (see Timaeus/Plato). I have come to that conclusion<br />
by looking honestly at John 1:1. John 1:1 also parallels Prov 8 where Wisdom (i.e. the Word) is a created<br />
being. I also consider "Only Son" to be a poor translation of MONOGENHS QEOS or even UION TON<br />
MONOGENH as God also had other sons (Job 1:6; 38:7 etc).<br />
Tim: In the second, he declares that the Logos always was in active communion with the Father and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (11 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
thereby implies that the Logos cannot be personally identifying with the Father, [thus illustrating the error<br />
in using Colwell's rule to argue for a definite reading of 1:1c]. In the third, he states that the Logos always<br />
was a partaker of Deity and so implicitly denies that the Logos<br />
was ever elevated to divine status. The thought of the verse moves from eternal preexistence to personal<br />
intercommunion to intrinsic Deity. Verse 1c states the basis on which vv.1a and b can be said to be true:<br />
only because the Logos participated inherently in the Divine nature could he be said to be already in<br />
existence when time began or creation occured and to be in unbroken eternal fellowship with the Father.<br />
This would justify regarding THEOS as emphatic, standing as it does at the head of the clause.<br />
Whereever you place the piviotal point in the prologue, verses 14 and 18 are of paramount importance.<br />
Verse one stands in antithetical parallelism to verse 14 and in synthetic and climatic parallelism to verse<br />
18. The Logos who "existed in the beginning" (v.1a), "came on the human scene (egeneto)" in time (v. 14a)<br />
[notice Heinz the difference in word choice between NV in verse 1a and EGENETO in verse 14a - it is the<br />
difference between timeless and within time - just like I've been saying all along - why did the evangelist<br />
use NV in v. 1a and EGENETO in v.14a if it was not to make that very crucial distinction?]. The one who<br />
was eternally<br />
"in communion with God" (v. 1b), temporarily sojourned among us" (v. 14b). "The Word had the same<br />
nature as God" (v. 1c) is paralleled by the contrasting though that "the Word assumed the same nature as<br />
humans (SARKS EGENETO)" (v. 14a). Verses 1 and 18 share references to timeless existence (NV ter,<br />
v.1; HO WV, v. 18c), intimate fellowship (pros tov theov, v. 1b; eis tov kolpov tou patros, v. 18c), and<br />
predicated Deity (THOES, vv. 1c; 18b). Where v. 18 advances beyond verse 1 is in its grounding of the<br />
validity and accuracy of the Son's revelation (EXNGNSATO) of the Father in his oneness with the Father in<br />
nature (THEOS) and fellowship (EIS TOV KOLPOV). And, as you will see shortly, this 1c verse is<br />
strategically placed. It is the first of three stratigically placed verses to unveil the Nature of Christ in the<br />
fourth gospel (1:1c; 1:18; 20:28). These three verses unequivocally affirm the essential Divinity of Jesus<br />
Christ.<br />
Heinz: Well Tim, you have alot of grammatical acrobatics above to prove...what is it exactly? A<br />
Trinity? Again, does any of the above really prove that Jesus is part of a Triune relationship? If John had<br />
wanted to place hO LOGOS prior to the beginning,. then he would have used the preposition PRO<br />
(before) instead of EN (in). If one is IN something, be it a place or time, one is not necessarily before it.<br />
For example when the LOGOS in Jn 1:10 was in (HN) the world, he was not ALWAYS in the world,<br />
because as 1:9 shows us he was in the process of coming INTO the world before that point. You are<br />
assuming something not there. As someone else has put it earlier: "Consider John 1:10 EN TWi<br />
KOSMWi HN KAI O KOSMOS DI AUTOU EGENETO. Here we have a grammatical parallel to the<br />
EN ARXHi HN hO LOGOS with the preposition EN (IN) being followed by the dative. This dative is<br />
locative while John 1:1 is temporal, but the concept is still "in or in the realm of" ( see Porter's Idioms<br />
156). Take note that even though the world EGENETO through the Word, that the HN does not indicate<br />
that the Word was "in the world" from all eternity. This verse simply means what is says. While it is true<br />
that the state is continuous it is equally true that the Word did not remain in the world for all eternity nor<br />
was he there from eternity. The period of time is made visible by the writer even though the aspect is<br />
continuous. Now let us look at John 1:3-4 hO GEGONEN EN AUTW ZWH HN KAI H ZWH HN TO<br />
FWS TWN ANQRWPWN . This example is a bit of an enigma, however when one takes a look at the<br />
syntax of the phrase which includes both GINOMAI and HN one can see that it does not necessarily<br />
prove a difference between what "was made" and what "was." Using the punctuation as accepted by most<br />
modern scholars, we find that what came into existence (hO GEGONEN) is said to enter into the state of<br />
HN, which happens to be the complete opposite of the Trinitarian theory that beings with these properties<br />
are mutually exclusive." Others have come to the same conclusion that the LOGOS is not eternal, like<br />
Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 21; Moses Stuart, Exegetical and Theological Examination of John<br />
1:1-18, who himself says, "To say, as some have said, the NV[was] of itself denotes timeless<br />
existence....seems not to be well founded in the laws of grammatical usage."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (12 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
We know also that the angels were present at the beginning of creation (Gen 1:26, Job 38:7), but to say<br />
that "in the beginning were the angels/EN ARCHE ESAN HOI ANGELOI means that the angels are<br />
eternal is just ridiculous. In the part of the LOGOS, this is a desperate attempt to try to put 4/5th century<br />
philosophy into the plain reading of scripture.<br />
I will let AT Robertson finish this off nicely, "The Greek runs: KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS. The<br />
so-called Authorized Version has: 'And the Word was God.' This would indeed suggest the view that<br />
'Jesus' and 'God' were identical and interchangeable. But in Greek this would most naturally be<br />
represented by 'God' with the article, not QEOS but hO QEOS. But, equally, St. John is not saying that<br />
Jesus is a 'divine' man, in the sense with which the ancient world was familiar or in the sense that<br />
Liberals spoke of him. That would be QEIOS. The Greek expression steers carefully between the two. It<br />
is impossible to represent it in a single English word, but the New English <strong>Bible</strong>, I believe, gets the sense<br />
pretty exactly with its rendering, 'And what God was, the Word was.' In other words, if one looked at<br />
Jesus, one saw God--for he who has seen me, has seen the Father . . . Through him, as through no one<br />
else, God spoke and God acted; when one met him one was met . . . by God" (<strong>Robinson</strong> 70-71).<br />
Since the scriptures do not speak of Jesus/LOGOS as having existed from eternity, we must rely on what<br />
IS revealed. What is revealed is that Jesus/ LOGOS is described with temporal terms such as Son,<br />
only-begotten Son/god (John 1:18, 3:16 MONOGENHS), firstborn (Col 1:15), and beginning (Col 1:17,<br />
Rev 3:14). Since the bible describes the LOGOS with these temporal terms, this is strong evidence that<br />
he has not existed from eternity. To do so one needs to redefine the term "begotten," which indicates a<br />
beginning, the opposite of eternal begetting! In view of the bible's use of this kind of language regarding<br />
Jesus, we must consider this strong evidence of the Son's temporal origin. John 1:1c distinguishes the<br />
godship of the LOGOS from HO QEOS because the LOGOS was *with* hO QEOS. They are not<br />
presented as two equal gods. In fact, John 1:18 adjectivally modifies the godship of the LOGOS by<br />
calling him the *only-begotten* god, rather than QEOS in an unqualified sense. This subordinate<br />
only-begotten god had a beginning ("only-begotten"), which is in perfect harmony with the monotheism<br />
of the first century. Even if you prefer "unique" for MONOGENHS, it raises the question of how the<br />
godship of the LOGOS is "unique" in comparison with HO QEOS.<br />
Tim: Let's move to Jn 1:18, for the way you understand the translation and the way that I understand it is<br />
quite different. Well, let's start with thing one thing that we do agree with. The most probable out of the<br />
four textual variants is MONOGENES THEOS. Let<br />
us now consider its meaning.<br />
In compound adjectives, YEVNS refers to derivation or decent in general, rather than to birth in particular<br />
or to species. Etymologically, it is related to GI(G)VESTHAI, not GENASTHAI. The idea of birth,<br />
although congruous with MONOGENES, is in no whay an essential part of its meaning.<br />
If the first element in compounds involving -GEVNS is a noun, the SOURCE of the derivation is thereby<br />
indicated (thus GNGEVNS, "sprung from the earth") (F. Buchsel, TDNT 4:738). Accordingly,<br />
MONOGENES could mean "he who proceeded from the Unique One (=MOVOS)" or "deriving from a<br />
single begetter" (where MOVOGEVES = EK MOVOU GEVOMEVOS).<br />
But there is no evidence that MOVOS was a first-century title fo God that might have been used by<br />
Christians or borrowed by John, or that by employing the termMOVOGEVES John was combating attacks<br />
of some description on the virgin birth of Jesus or else asserting the descent of Jesus from the one true God<br />
of Israel.<br />
If, on the other hand, the first component in a GEVNS compound is an adverb, the NATURE of the<br />
derivation is thus shown (so EUGEVNS, "of noble decent") (F. Buchsel, TDNT 4:738). To this category<br />
the adjective MOVOGEVNS rightly belongs. It means "of sole decent," referring to the only child in a<br />
family, a meaning attested in the secular Greek literature [Hesiodius, Op. 376;<br />
Plato, Critias 113D; Aeschylus, Ag. 898], the LXX [Judg. 11:34; Tob. 3:15; 6:11; 8:17; Ps. 21:21; 24:16;<br />
34:17; Wisd. Sol. 7:22] and other Jewish literature [Josephus, ANT 1:222, 5:264. Israel is called<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (13 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
MOVOGEVNS in Pss. Sol. 18:4; cf. 4 Ezra 6:58], and the NT [Lk 7:12; 8:42; 9:38. In Hebrews 11:17<br />
Isaac is given this term of Abraham, not as the onaly son he fathered (cf. Ishmael, Gen 16:15) but as the<br />
only "son of promise" or his "beloved son." [Behind the use of movogevns in later Hellenistic Jewish<br />
writings and in the NT outside John, de Kruijf finds the theme of paradoxical divine intervention to save an<br />
only child who is in a critical situation, intervention that calls for the utmost trust and fidelity.] So, for<br />
example, Tobit 3:15: "I am my father's only daughter (MOVOGEVNS) and he has no other child (ETEPOV<br />
TEKVOV) to be his heir."<br />
Some, however, find the -GEVNS element isignificant - and that the word mean solely unique, just a<br />
more fuller form of Movos.This is true specifically of nonpersonal objects but it is less clear that this is the<br />
predominant or primary sense of the word. The meaning "without siblings" does not result from the<br />
application to the spere of the family of the catagory of "singularity of kind." Rather, from the personal<br />
application of MOVOGEVNS to "the only member of a kin" there developed a nonfarmiliar and<br />
nonpersonal use in reference to "the only member of a kind." Certainly in Johannine usage the conjunction<br />
of MOVOGEVNS and UIOS shows that it is not the personal uniqueness of Jesus in itself that John is<br />
emphasizing but his being "of sole descent" as the Son of God.<br />
Heinz: There is few in the above that I will disagree with. In none of the examples above do we have<br />
someone (Isaac etc) sharing the same essence as his begetter. Since when do any of the above examples<br />
share a consubstantiality with his Father. Jesus was the only-begotten of the Father in that he was the first<br />
thing created directly by the Father himself. Everything else was made through him..."All things were<br />
made through him; and without him was not anything made<br />
that hath been made" John 1:3( see also Col 1:16). Jesus is also referred to as the<br />
firstborn[PRWTOTOKOS], which is usually referred to as being a separate, subordinate, and most of the<br />
time the actual FIRST BORN member of a family. See my page on PROTOTOKOS.<br />
It should be noted too, that Jesus, unlike Ephraim, Jacob and Israel, was never GIVEN the title of<br />
"firstborn". He was simply spoken of as firstborn in the temporal sense in passages like the ones at Col.<br />
1:15, 18, Heb. 1:6, Rev. 1:5 and Romans 8:29.<br />
When this changes, "the firstborn of" is used as part of a group. If it is "the firstborn of" Israel(Ex. 6:14),<br />
it is one of the sons of Israel, if it is "the firstborn of" Pharoah(Ex. 11:5) it is a member of the house of<br />
Pharoah, if it is "the firstborn of" beasts(Ex. 13:15) then it is an animal also. This should not change as it<br />
applies to "the firstborn of" creation. Obviously Jesus is a created being, as he was historically always<br />
thought to be the created Wisdom of Proverbs.<br />
We all know that Trinitarians don't like the translation "Only-begotten". John Dahms, in his The<br />
Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered says, "It seems clear the monogenes, when used of persons,<br />
was always understood to include the idea of generation. This understanding did not have its beginning at<br />
the time of the Arian controversy." p.228 Dahms further asserts that the modern use of MONOGENHS<br />
QEOS has little support, especially from the ANF like Philo, Tertullian and Justin. In fact Justin would<br />
often refer to the Father as un-begotten, hence not something that "God begat before all creatures."<br />
Dialogue with Trypho, ANF 1, 227<br />
Yes, I am quite aware of the efforts made to downplay "Only Begotten" by you Trinitarians. Athanasius<br />
did the same thing. The way Athanasius reasoned in some instances is as follows: We know that LOGOS<br />
(Jesus) is not a creature but God. Therefore, if we find passages in the <strong>Bible</strong> saying that he is created, the<br />
words do not carry the usual meaning, but the divine OUSIA (LOGOS) changes the meaning of the<br />
words, so"created" therefore becomes "begotten", and one begotten is eternal (hence eternally begotten).<br />
see "Four discourses against the Arians", Discourse II, from "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers", IV,<br />
pp 349,350<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (14 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
Tim: What is more likely is that Jn 20:28 is a vocatival, addressed to Jesus. This passage is an exclamation<br />
actually addressed to Jesus. This is the view held by the greatests grammarians, lexogreaphers,<br />
commentators that have ever walk earth.<br />
Heinz: Are these men not Trinitarians? Of course they are.<br />
Tim: A good question to ask at this point is: what does KURIOS AND THEOS MEAN in this passage?<br />
The first must mean more than "sir" or "master," as the conjuction with THEOS conclusively indicates.<br />
Thomas was addressing JEsus as one who shared YAHWEH's authority and functions and exercised<br />
YAHWEH's rights. It was a case of KATHWS ....HO PATNP, K'AGW (cf. Jn 20:21). Jesus deserved<br />
human worship as the one in whom was vested the ultimate authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:23; cf. Mk<br />
2:5-10), the one who dispensed the HS to his followers (Jn 20:22) and commissioned them to divine service<br />
(Jn 20:21), the one<br />
who by virtue of his resurrection possessed "the keys that unlocked death and HADES" (Rev 1:8 Moffat),<br />
and the one who was to climax his resurrection by assention to the Father (Jn 20:17). For Thomas, in this<br />
text, KURIOS was an exalted and confessional title of address far different that that of MAry in the garden.<br />
The difference was RESURRECTION. It was nothing less than<br />
worship of Jesus by calling him Lord.<br />
Heinz: "In John 20:28 Ho kýrios mou kai ho theós mou [that is, My Lord and my God], it is to be noted<br />
that a substantive [like God] in the Nominative case used in a vocative sense [in address to Jesus] and<br />
followed by a possessive [of me] could not be anarthrous [that is, without the definite article the] . . . ; the<br />
article [the] before theós may, therefore, not be significant. . . . the use of the article [the] with a virtual<br />
Vocative (compare John 20:28 referred to above, and 1 Peter 2:18, Colossians 3:18ff.) may also be due to<br />
Semitic idiom."—Pages 116, 117, of An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule,<br />
Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, 1953 edition, England.<br />
For instance, to show that a vocative in Greek usually has the definite article before it, we can see that in<br />
1 Peter 2:18; 3:1, 7 the literal word-for-word translation reads: "The house servants, be subject . . . In like<br />
manner, [the] wives, be . . . The husbands, continue dwelling." in Colossians 3:18 to 4:1: "The wives . . .<br />
The husbands, . . . The children . . . The fathers . . . The slaves . . . The masters."<br />
The translator Hugh J. Schonfield doubts that Thomas said: "My Lord and my God!" And so in a<br />
footnote 6 on John 20:28 Schonfield says: "The author may have put this expression into the mouth of<br />
Thomas in response to the fact that the Emperor Domitian had insisted on having himself addressed as<br />
'Our Lord and God', Suetonius' Domitian xiii."—See The Authentic New Testament, page 503.<br />
This is interesting, though I doubt it.<br />
Thomas was also familiar with certain expressions found in the OT by his forefathers. Not to belabor the<br />
point Tim, but on many occasions when individuals were visited or addressed by an angelic messenger of<br />
Jehovah, the individuals, or at times the <strong>Bible</strong> writer setting out the account, responded to or spoke of<br />
that angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah God. (Compare Ge 16:7-11, 13; 18:1-5, 22-33;<br />
32:24-30; Jg 6:11-15; 13:20-22.) This was because the angelic messenger was acting for Jehovah as his<br />
representative, speaking in his name, perhaps using the first person singular pronoun, and even saying, "I<br />
am the true God." (Ge 31:11-13; Jg 2:1-5) Thomas may therefore have spoken to Jesus as "my God" in<br />
this sense, acknowledging or confessing Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God.<br />
Whatever the case, it is certain that Thomas' words do not contradict the clear statement he himself had<br />
heard Jesus make, namely, "The Father is greater than I am."—Joh 14:28.<br />
All in all, here was an excellent opportunity for John to explain John 1:1 and say that Jesus Christ, who<br />
was the Word made flesh, was God himself, that he was "God the Son, the Second Person of the Blessed<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (15 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 2<br />
Trinity." But is that the conclusion that John reached? Is that the conclusion to which John brings his<br />
readers? Listen to the conclusion that John wants us to reach:<br />
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have<br />
not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples,<br />
which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe." That we might believe<br />
what? "That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his<br />
name."—John 20:29-31, KJV.<br />
All of the above do NOT prove a Trinity. I asked Tim to prove a Trinity from the bible, all he has done is<br />
blow his horn about the Deity of Christ, something, which I hold myself, though I might have a different<br />
outlook on the Deity myself. There was very little mention of the spirit, but that is not unusual, since the<br />
holy spirit doesn't really fit as a 3rd person of the Godhead.<br />
Parts of the above were snipped for brevity (and some for being too repetitive), and I apologize for that,<br />
but the main ideas and theme of Tim's thoughts were present. But then again, none of the above had<br />
nothing whatsoever to do with a Triune Godhead.<br />
On to Page 3<br />
Email Me<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim2.htm (16 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 3<br />
Trinity Conversations Part 3<br />
Tim: As a matter of fact, there are no scholarly publications that mention either of<br />
these two [Greg Stafford/Rolf Furuli] individuals! When Stafford wrote his first edition, he sent it to nearly<br />
every scholar he could think of and the response was total silence. The only place where Stafford has been<br />
addressed (and refuted) is on the internet. There are some cult groups that have addressed him and will<br />
continue to do so, but I know from first hand experience that he is ignored by scholars of any rank (scholars<br />
with a capital "S"). Dan Wallace, for example, has left addressing him (on certain issues relating to NT) to<br />
his students (like Don Hartley). Wallace and others knew all along that if eminent scholars did address him,<br />
he would bequeath to himself a scholarly status, which he doesn't deserve and he has not earned. The tide,<br />
therefore, has only turned in the minds of JWs who tend to view reality a bit differently than the rest of us.<br />
Heinz: Really Tim! Do you stand by that? The first I read anything of Greg's was in the book The<br />
Forgotten Trinity by James White. I guess James White is not a "scholar of any rank" which is<br />
heartwarming to me. I know that Rob Bowman Jr is also writing alot concerning Greg Stafford, and I can<br />
give you his email address as proof if you want it. And since Hartley is only a protege of a scholar, I<br />
guess we can discount any further comments from him. And then there is Ed Komoszewski, Christianity<br />
Today magazine, and the folks at http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/nt_gram.htm . And if you are holding<br />
everyone by your standard above, then Walter Martin and Ron Rhodes (which you like so much) are not<br />
"scholars of any rank" or ....the WT is. Fact is, Greg Stafford only sent it to about 4 or 5 people, and one<br />
of them, Countess, praised it in many respects. I have already sent you Greg's email address so I will let<br />
it go at that.<br />
Tim: About man and wife. Ephesians states they are one flesh (Eph. 5). You state, "In fact together you are<br />
plural." Exactly! Now ask yourself Heinz how they (two persons) can be one (of substance) of anything?<br />
Added to this is that the allusion goes back to Genesis where out of one man came Eve, thus they were<br />
indeed one flesh (this pertains to nature, thus one in nature), which is reunited in marriage. The married<br />
couple are one flesh in a like fashion that the Father and the Son are one God. They are one in nature, two<br />
in persons. This text, therefore, supports the notion that plurality of persons does not militate against unity<br />
of substance, whatever that substance might be. It also gives insight into the issue of man made in the image<br />
of God. Here, they<br />
(Adam/Eve, man/wife) are one flesh, with the Father and Jesus, they are one God. And if two can be one,<br />
why not three one? I'd like to hear the Abbot and Costello routine, that you so flippantly refer to on such<br />
occasions, applied to the marriage union! Now this would be funny (Who's on first . . .?)!<br />
Heinz: But a husband and wife are not part of a triune anything. They are not one in substance, as a<br />
husband and wife can divorce and therefore split and no longer remain as one. To further prove my point<br />
that there is no sharing of essence/substance between a husband and wife, nor a consubstantiality. Jesus<br />
prayed that his followers "may be one just as we are one" Jn 17:11 NEB. Is there a sharing of substance<br />
between all of Christ's followers. No! They are one in purpose. There is a close unity between husband<br />
and wife, and a sharing of purpose, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;<br />
and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" 1 Cor 11:3. So there seems to be a<br />
hierarchy instead of an equality.<br />
Since 1 Corinthians also calls Jesus the "Last Adam" (15:45), then my Abbot and Costello routine stands.<br />
Tim: On the blasphemy of Jesus. You should check out the book by D. L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation<br />
in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus: A Philological-Historical Study of Key Jewish Themes<br />
Impacting Mark 14:61–64, ed. Conrad H. Gempf, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim3.htm (1 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:07:32 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 3<br />
Testament, ed. Martin Hengel and Otfried Hofius, vol. 106 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1998).<br />
I'm sure you have not read this work and it is an important study on this issue. The book is divided into four<br />
sections. The first is a summary of research on the issue in Mark (pp. 5-29). The second is an examination<br />
of Jewish texts (pp. 30-112). He goes through various sources including the Hebrew Scriptures, Qumran<br />
texts, the LXX, the Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, the Mishnah and Tosefta, the Targums, the<br />
Midrashim, the Palestinian Talmud, the Babylonian Talmud and Aboth de Rabbi Natham. The<br />
third section is on exalted figures in Judaism (pp. 113-183). This includes both human (Adam, Abel, Enoch,<br />
Abraham, Jacob, Levi, Moses, David, Isaiah, Elijah, Exra and Baruch, Son of Man/Chosen One, Messiah,<br />
Martyrs/Prominent/Righteous) and exalted angelic figures (Gabriel, Michael, Prince of<br />
Light/Melchizedek/Heavenly Man, has an excursus on the Seating of<br />
Angels in Heaven, Yahoel [Iaoel], Eremiel, Michael, Surafel [Uriel, Raphael], Gabriel, Asuryal, Metatron,<br />
Angels). The final section is devoted to focusing on the blasphemy and Jewish examination of Jesus in<br />
Mark (pp. 184-237). It is a fine book and a good illustration of how research into these areas should be<br />
performed. I highly recommend you getting a copy of it either at the library or ordering it through<br />
Amazon.com.<br />
Heinz: Well thank you Tim, I am always looking for recommendations, but since we are supposed to be<br />
discussing the Trinity, might I recommend When Jesus Became God by Frend<br />
Mankinds Search For God, Should You Believe in a Trinity,<br />
Harpur's_For Christ Sake, The Doctrine of the Trinity-Christianty's Self Inflicted Wound by Anthony<br />
Buzzard,<br />
Jaroslav Pelikan's _Christian Tradition_ (Vol. I), Robert Grant's _Gods and the One God_, Karen<br />
Armstrong's _A History of God_, Robert Wilken's _The Myth of Christian Beginnings_, Frances<br />
Armstrong's _From Nicea to Chalcedon_, F.H.C. Frend's _The Rise of Christianity, the Two Babylons by<br />
A. Hislop, When Jesus Became God by Rubenstein, and of course, the Holy <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Since you brought up the Dead Sea Scrolls. here are some quotes from G. Vermes The Dead Sea Scrolls<br />
in English that gives us enlightenment as to how the Jews viewed angels/Gods.<br />
"Praise him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the firmament of<br />
the highest heavens, all...and its wall, all its structure, its shape. The<br />
spirits of the holy of holies, the living 'gods', the spirits of eternal<br />
holiness above all the holy ones...The divine spirits surround the dwelling<br />
of the King of truth and righteousness; all its walls" (Vermes 226 [4Q403 I<br />
i, 30-46]).<br />
"The figures of the 'gods' shall praise him, the most holy spirits...of<br />
glory; the floor of the marvelous innermost chambers, the spirits of the<br />
eternal gods, all...figures of the innermost chambers of the King, the<br />
spiritual works of the marvelous firmament are purified with salt, spirits<br />
of knowledge, truth and righteousness in holy of holies, forms of the<br />
living 'gods,' forms of the illuminating spirits. All their works of art<br />
are marvelously linked, many-coloured spirits, artistic figures of the<br />
'gods,' engraved all around their glorious bricks of splendour and majesty.<br />
All their works of art are living 'gods,' and their artistic figures are<br />
holy angels. From beneath the marvelous inner most chambers comes a sound<br />
of quiet silence: the 'gods' bless..."(Vermes 228 [4Q405 19ABCD]).<br />
The author here describes the Most Holy chamber of the Temple. In this<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim3.htm (2 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:07:32 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 3<br />
chamber was were the Ark of the Covenant was kept. This is where Jehovah<br />
dwelled (symbolically). Everything in the Most Holy was made of the finest<br />
gold. The <strong>Bible</strong> tells us that the Temple was ornamented with pictures of<br />
angels (1 Kings 6:27-32). Therefore, this description of the "gods"<br />
ministering to the Almighty fits perfectly with the <strong>Bible</strong>. The curtain<br />
that separated the Holy from the Most Holy even has pictures of angels<br />
("gods") woven into it (2 Chron. 3:14).<br />
"The 'gods' praise him when they take up their station, and all the spirits<br />
of the clear firmament rejoice in his glory...when the gods of knowledge<br />
enter by the doors of glory, and when the holy angels depart the realm, the<br />
entrance doors and the gates of exit proclaim the glory of the King...the<br />
fear of the King of 'gods' is awe-inspiring to all the 'gods,' and they<br />
undertake all his commissions by virtue of his true order" (Vermes 229<br />
[4Q405 23i]).<br />
The War Rule we read that "the host of warring 'gods' gird themselves for<br />
the Day of Revenge" (1QMXV, Vermes 121). We also find in the fragment<br />
titled by Vermes as The Song of Michael and the Just (4Q491 fr. II, Ma) an<br />
incomplete sentence that says that there is "a throne of strength in the<br />
congregation of 'gods' so that not a single king of old shall sit on it,<br />
neither shall their noble men...(Vermes 126). The one called Michael is<br />
also held as saying "I am reckoned with the 'gods' and my dwelling place is<br />
in the congregation of holiness" and "for I am reckoned with the 'gods,'<br />
and my glory is with the sons of the King" (Vermes 126).<br />
In the Pseudepigrapha, exalted beings like Metatron are given the name of Jehovah, as are many other<br />
angelic princes. (See 3 Enoch 10:3-6; 48C:1; 48C:7; 48C:10; 48D:6-9.) The point not to be missed,<br />
though, is that they are given SOMEONE ELSE'S name. It is not their own name they are given (!), but<br />
that of their God, which could mean it is now part of a new name they have been given (such as when<br />
Metatron took on the name YAHOEL), or that they are now endowed with the authority and power that<br />
comes with one who speaks for and represents the Most High God.<br />
The Jewish idea of monotheism does not seem to conflict with calling others with the title "god".<br />
Tim: Matthew 9:34. You insinuate in your comments that Jesus did not correct<br />
this conclusion of the Pharisees, namely, that Jesus cast out demons by the<br />
prince of demons. First of all, here the comment is not in the presence of<br />
Jesus nor addressed to Jesus.<br />
Heinz: Are you sure Tim...perhaps you should read it again.<br />
Tim: Second, Jesus does indeed deny this assessment<br />
later in 10:25 and so it does not go uncontested. Later in 12:24 the<br />
Pharisees infer the same idea and when Jesus "knew their thoughts" he opposes<br />
it directly (12:25). He ends up condemning them by laying to their charge the<br />
unpardonable sin (12:31-32). Jesus hardly remains silent about their error.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim3.htm (3 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:07:32 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 3<br />
Heinz: And does all of this prove the Trinity Tim? The fact is, the Jews were not always accurate in their<br />
portrayal of him, as it shows in Matt 12:24, John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20. Jesus never actually says "No" in<br />
these circumstances, he uses common sense arguments to drive home a point. When the Jews accuse him<br />
of making himself "a god" (NEB), he uses a scriptural arguments. Like Ryrie says of John 10:34,<br />
"Christ's point is that if the O.T. uses the word "God" (Elohim) of men who were representative of God,<br />
then the Jews should not oppose Him for calling Himself the Son of God." If Jesus were really "Equal to<br />
God" as the Jews have wrongly claimed by making God his Father, then here would have been a great<br />
opportunity to explain the Trinity to an unbeleiving nation. But what does he do? He answers, "The Son<br />
can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing. No explanation whatsoever of a Triune<br />
Deity. Amazing!<br />
Tim: Your caricatures on the Trinity. You constantly refers to the Trinity in<br />
false terms like "three-forked god," or "three way deity." I challenge you to<br />
produce any documentation from recognized Trinitarians that use this type of<br />
terminology. The problem is that you do not understand the doctrine and if<br />
you do then you should represent it correctly if not fairly. Your tactic in<br />
this area smacks of straw man argumentation and suggests you do not have<br />
real objections against the actual doctrine as it is plainly enunciated by<br />
Trinitarians.<br />
Heinz: The terms I use above are verbal representations of medieval art. If you think that I don't<br />
understand the Trinity, then I am pretty much in line with most trinitarian Xtians. "It is so misunderstood<br />
that a majority of christians, when asked, give incorrect and at times downright heretical definitions of<br />
the Trinity." Page 16, The Forgotten Trinity by James White<br />
Tim: The use of O KURIOS in direct address. Your evasion in Revelation 4:11,<br />
where this is patently so and admitted as such by himself, is very damning to<br />
his case. That you appeals to issue that Revelation has unusual grammar is<br />
beside the point here, for this is not unusual grammar at all and is not<br />
cited as such in manuals that deal with the unique style of that book. Now go<br />
back to Hebrews 1:8 and address the issue of the Father calling the<br />
Son O THEOS (not KURIOS)! Compare this same construction in Hebrews 10:7<br />
where the Son (pre-incarnation) calls the Father O THEOS as well. "To do your<br />
will O God" (10:7) with "Your throne, O God" (1:8). Both nominatives are used<br />
for the vocative, both are used as an afterthought to a main idea (throne,<br />
will), both call the referent O THEOS. The only objection is that the speaker<br />
of the first is God the Father who speaks to God the Son, while the second is<br />
God the Son speaking to God the Father. You will deny one of these for<br />
obvious reasons. Blessed consistency.<br />
Heinz: You are the master of the overstatement Tim. Let us take a look at "lord" shall we. You<br />
mentioned earlier that Ps 110:1 is key to your understanding of the Trinity. "Psalm 11:1 provides a major<br />
key to understanding who Jesus is. The Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong> carefully distinguishes the divine title adonai, the<br />
supreme Lord, from adoni, the form of address appropriate to human and angelic superiors. Adoni, "my<br />
lord", "my master", and adonai, the Supreme God. No less than 195 times in the Hebrew canon adoni<br />
marks the person addressed as the recipient of honor but never as the Supreme God. This important fact<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim3.htm (4 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:07:32 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 3<br />
tells us that the Hebrew Scriptures expected the Messiah not to be God, but the human descendant of<br />
David, whom David properly recognized would also be his Lord." The Doctrine of the<br />
Trinity-Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound by Anthony Buzzard/C.F. Hunting p.47<br />
Now, the Hebrew and the Greek has been very careful to differentiate between Adonai/Adoni and<br />
Kyrios/Kyrie. That Revelation 4:11 seems to put the Lord God on the same level as his creatures is not<br />
complimentary to him or your theology. Revelation utilizes unusual grammar, and I could point to John<br />
Hurtgen's 1991 PhD dissertation, entitled something like<br />
"Anti-language in the Book of Revelation" for a discussion of why the grammar is bad.<br />
David Aune's assessed that when compared to other instances of Biblical and (secular) Hellenistic<br />
literary Greek that of of Rev is "peculiar". This is not something new. One early Christian writer,<br />
Dionysius of Alexandria (d. ca. 264) who was a pupil of Origin and became head of the Alexandrian<br />
Catechetical School and later bishop of Alexandria. He is cited at length<br />
by Eusebius (HE 7.25.24-27). I will just repeat the pertinent ending of a lengthy citation from the<br />
translation by J. E. L. Oulton in the Loeb Classical Library:<br />
"And further, by means of the style one can estimate the difference between the Gospel and Epistle and<br />
the Apocalypse. For the former are not only written in faultless Greek [APTAISTWS KATA THN TWN<br />
hELLHNWN FWNHN] , but also show the greatest literary skill in their diction, their reasonings, and<br />
the constructions in which they are expressed. There is a complete<br />
absence of any barbarous word, or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For their author had, as it seems,<br />
both kinds of word, by the free gift of the Lord, the word of knowledge and the word of speech. But I<br />
will not deny that the other writer had seen revelations and received knowledge and prophecy;<br />
nevertheless I observe his style and that his use of the Greek language is not accurate [DIALEKTWN<br />
MENTOI KAI GLWSSAN OUK AKRIBWS hELLHNIZOUSAN AUTOU BLEPW], but that he<br />
employs barbarous idioms, in some places commiting downright solecisms [ALL IDIWMASIN TE<br />
BARBARIKOIS CRWMENON KAI POU KAI SOLOIKIZONTA]. These there is no necessity to single<br />
out now. For I have not said these things in mockery (let no one think it), but merely to establish the<br />
dissimilarity of these writings."<br />
Tim: About Thomas. You answer an issue that is, again, beside the point.<br />
What Thomas doubted (that Jesus was raised) is only indirectly not directly<br />
related to what he affirmed to Jesus (and about Jesus) in John 20:28 (that he<br />
was YHWH). In other words, it was because he was raised from the dead (by his<br />
own power according to John 10:17-18), that Thomas reaches the conclusion<br />
about his identity. The statement was about the identity of who was raised,<br />
not about dispelling the doubt about the resurrection in an address to God<br />
the Father. You wishe this to be connected to the latter in a fashion that<br />
is hardly verifiable. Heinz, attempt to prove this and see what happens.<br />
Heinz: Ok. The whole issue of the context is that Thomas doubted whether Jesus was actually<br />
ressurected, not that he was God the Son, the second person of a consubstantial Trinity. The chapter<br />
starts off "Now on the first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto<br />
the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb." So the setting is by the tomb of Jesus. Let's<br />
look at vss.8,9 where Peter enters the tomb, " Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, who came<br />
first to the tomb, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise from<br />
the dead."<br />
So they believed WHAT? Not that he was God Almighty, but that he had risen. In vs.17 he says, "I am<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim3.htm (5 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:07:32 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 3<br />
not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and<br />
your Father, and my God and your God." So here he is calling the Father his God...and his followers<br />
"brothers". Let us continue: vss, 20,21 "When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first [day] of the<br />
week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood<br />
in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you. And when he had said this, he showed unto them<br />
his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. Jesus therefore said to<br />
them again, Peace [be] unto you: as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you." Adam Clarke's<br />
Commentary says "So it appears that his body bore the marks of the nails and the spear; and these marks<br />
were preserved that the disciples might be the more fully convinced of the reality of his resurrection."<br />
Now lets move to Thomas: But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when<br />
Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them,<br />
Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.<br />
(v.25) Of this Barclay says, belligerent in his pessimism, he said that he would never believe that Jesus<br />
had risen from the dead until he had seen and handled the print of the nails in his hands and thrust his<br />
hand into the wound the spear had made in Jesus' side.<br />
None of the context leads us to beleive that Jesus was setting up a Chalcedonian understanding of<br />
himself. The focus of the entire chapter is on his resurrection, not his being Jehovah. "It has long been<br />
held and taught that in the Southern Presbyterian Church that Christ is Jehovah; that is, the He who was<br />
worshipped as Jehovah by the OT saints did, without ceasing to be God, become man "for us men and<br />
our salvation"...But the Scottish professor of systematic theology in Union Seminary, New York, has<br />
recently challenged this statement, writing in The Presbyterian of the South as follows: The orthodox<br />
view is surely not that 'Christ is Jehovah'-such a phrase is new to me." William Childs <strong>Robinson</strong>, "Jesus<br />
Christ is Jehovah," Evangelical Quarterly 5:2 (1933): 144.<br />
Tim: About oneness. You quote John 17:22 but misunderstand the meaning. It<br />
says, "That they (elect/disciples) may be one, even as we are one." The<br />
stress is on the outworking of the plan of God among his people in unison<br />
just as it is worked out by God the Father and God the Son. It is the effect<br />
of their unity that is stressed not the fact of their unity--the latter is<br />
assumed. The full equal deity of both God and the Son is assumed behind an<br />
outward unity just as the full humanity and/or like nature of humans (who are<br />
elect) is assumed in the latter. To be consistent, you would have to contend<br />
that some humans are by nature higher or lower in nature (and therefore not<br />
human at all) if you are going to suppose that for the former (one is YHWH, the<br />
other is a god). Context is the key. You will no doubt appeal to John 10:30<br />
but 10:33 gives the interpretation of that sense as pertaining to his full<br />
identification as YHWH with the Father. You will go to this passage (as<br />
Stafford does) and assert that the Jews were wrong in their assessment and<br />
argue instead for Jesus claiming to be part of the divine council of gods<br />
(Psa. 89 et al)--but this argument doesn't follow.<br />
Heinz: I think you are putting too much stress on "One", and of course, your view of nature. "I will no<br />
doubt appeal" to other prominent trinitarians of the past that do not share your view on this matter.<br />
Speaking of John 10:30, Erasmus says,<br />
"I do not see how thias text is of any value in confirming the opinion of the orthodox, or in restraining<br />
the pertinacity of the heretic."<br />
Even John Calvin noted, "the ancients improperly used this passage to prove that Christ is of the same<br />
substance as the Father. For [Jesus] does not argue concerning unity of substance, but speaks of HIS<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim3.htm (6 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:07:32 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 3<br />
AGREEMENT WITH THE FATHER; so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the<br />
Father's power."<br />
C.F. Ammon, another trinitarian asserts of this passage, "if the doctrine of the Trinity, and the unity of<br />
essence, be immediately inferred, this is a faulty application of the dogmatic system, because THE<br />
CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE IS NEGLECTED. "<br />
The Jews to this day not believe in a Trinity, so they are consistent in their assessment of Biblical<br />
monotheism, and they, like Trinitarians DO NOT believe that Jesus and his Father are really ONE IN<br />
NATURE/SUBSTANCE.<br />
Tim: Herod a god? In Acts 12:22 it does not refer to Herod as a god (even if<br />
it did it would not prove anything, or perhaps prove too much). It states<br />
that the people (Jews?) shouted "The voice of a god, and not of man!"<br />
Whatever this means, it does not support the contention that a man could be<br />
called YHWH or even a god without consequences. Notice that Herod was struck<br />
by an angel of the Lord, died and was eaten by worms (12:23)! If they were<br />
affirming his deity (doubtful), then the question arises as to why this<br />
judgment is reserved only for Herod and not for Jesus? Further, this comment<br />
was based on the manner of how Herod spoke not based on an inference to his<br />
claims (as with Jesus). Thus it was not borne out of discursive thought, but<br />
emotion. Nevertheless, he was struck down and Jesus was not (by God). But are<br />
not those who come to conclusions based on thought more responsible than<br />
those who do so out of emotion? It would follow that Jesus, rather than<br />
Herod, should have been struck down by an angel in that scenario. But he was<br />
not. Something to consider.<br />
Heinz: Something else to consider....since Kings in the past were referred to as God (Ps 45:6), as were<br />
other representatives of Jehovah (Ex 7:1; Ps 82; compare also Genesis 18, Genesis 16:13,Judges 6:12,13,<br />
and Judges 13), I think it is fair to conclude that Herod was no friend or representative of Jehovah. Also,<br />
since the appearance of the messiah Jesus, there is no need or reason to have any other such claim made<br />
of humans or angels. That is why Paul did what Herod should have done(Acts 14:11), and distance<br />
himself from any such honor.<br />
But you are moving away from my argument here. You claim that the Jews has special knowledge of<br />
the unique Deity of Jesus (which in your case would make 1/3 of a consubstantial Trinity). Since they<br />
have also called others "god" and they have wrongfully assumed Jesus to be demonic etc at Matt 12:24,<br />
John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20, then I think it is fair to say that they were mistaken as to a good many things<br />
J.A.T. <strong>Robinson</strong> in his Twelve More New Testament Studies says, "Jesus refuses the claim to be God<br />
(John 10:33) or in any way to usurp the position of the Father...Jesus is prepared to ignore the charge that<br />
by calling God his own Father he is claiming equality with God (John 5:18) and accepts that of being the<br />
Son of God (10:36), while vigorously denying the blasphemy of being God or his substitute." p. 175,176<br />
As to John 5:18, the Interpreter's <strong>Bible</strong> says, "To this charge Jesus makes a formal reply. His words had<br />
been misinterpreted..."p.545<br />
As to John 10:33 this same work says, "Jesus met their attack by a two-fold argument. First, he parried<br />
their thrust with a weapon that they were bound to respect, for it was quite sound reasoning on principles<br />
of rabbinical exegesis. He quoted Ps. 82:6, where God says to the judges of Israel, 'I said ye are gods,<br />
sons of the Most High-all of you.' If an inspired scripture allowed that title to mere men to whom God<br />
entrusted a message, how much more so can he, whom the Father consecrated and sent into the<br />
world, claim to say I am the Son of God (vs.36), without incurring the reproach of blasphemy? But the<br />
second line of defense was a repetition of the contention that his works were of a character to reveal the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim3.htm (7 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:07:32 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 3<br />
presence of God with him (c.f. 5:20, 23, 36). Jesus is the revealer of God. In all that he says and does<br />
God is speaking through him." p.634 Emphasis theirs<br />
Tim: Mathematics 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 and you, apparently do not go hand in hand. Each numeral (1 x 1 x 1) is the<br />
same yet distinct, a point you miss (they are not the same "1", there are three of them!). They are in the<br />
same class (left of the = ) but the answer is a distinct class (right of the = ). You have two separate classes<br />
on each side of the equation. It is the same with YHWH. But I think this issue will continue to elude JWs<br />
not because they cannot understand this simple point, but because they refuse to admit of its simplicity. It<br />
disrupts their view that the Trinity is incomprehensible. So they have to make elemental mathematics<br />
incomprehensible.<br />
Heinz: Well let us take a look at the following diagram:<br />
So here we see that the Trinity is "not really" 1 x 1 x 1, since the Son is not the Father, or the Spirit or<br />
vice versa. I cannot think of anything in mathematics that parallels this unique God of yours. But I will<br />
let another trinitarian try:<br />
"We are to consider the order of those persons in the Trinity described in the words before us in Matthew<br />
28:19. First the Father and then the Son and then the Holy Ghost; everyone one of which is truly God.<br />
This is a mystery which we are all bound to believe, but yet must exercise great care in how we speak of<br />
it, it being both easy and dangerous to err in expressing so great a truth as this is. If we think of it, how<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim3.htm (8 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:07:32 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 3<br />
hard it is to imagine one numerically divine nature in more than one and the same divine person. Or<br />
three divine persons in no more than one and the same divine nature. If we speak of it, how hard it is to<br />
express it. If I say, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost be three, and everyone a distinct God, it is false. I<br />
may say, God the Father is one God and the Son is one God, and the Holy Ghost is one God, but I cannot<br />
say that the Father is one God and the Son is another God and the Holy Ghost is a third God. I may say<br />
that the Father begat another who is God; yet I cannot say that He begat another God. I may say that from<br />
the Father and Son proceeds another who is God; yet I cannot say that from the Father and Son proceeds<br />
another God. For though their nature be the same their persons are distinct; and though their persons be<br />
distinct, yet still their nature is the same. So that, though the Father be the first person in the Godhead,<br />
the Son the second and the Holy Ghost the third, yet the Father is not the first, the Son the second and the<br />
Holy Ghost a third God. So hard it is to word so great a mystery aright; or to fit so high a truth with<br />
expressions suitable and proper to it, without going one way or another from it." Bishop Beverage,<br />
Private Thoughts, Part 2, 48, 49, cited by Charles Morgridge, The True Believers Defence Against<br />
Charges Preferred by Trinitarians for Not Beleiving in the Deity of Christ (Boston: B. Greene, 1837), 16.<br />
Nuff said.<br />
Tim: On Hebrews 1. Your understanding of hermeneutics is flawed, as well as your<br />
understanding of "mediators" and the context of Hebrews 1. On Hebrews 1:8, from a grammatical<br />
perspective, there is no doubt that Jesus is called O THEOS by the Father. It is a nominative used as a<br />
vocative and you know it. I have seen some interesting (but flawed) understandings of this verse and some<br />
ingenuous (but invalid) means of arriving at a view that denies the attribution of deity (YHWH) by the<br />
Father to the Son here in the past. Even when JWs admit that "OK it is a nominative used as a vocative, it<br />
still doesn't mean YHWH . . . " is just a good example of their circularity. When O THEOS refers to the<br />
Father it is YHWH, when it refers (and some JW admit it does) to the Son, it does not entail the same<br />
meaning, even when YHWH the Father says it! How convenient. I wonder if you would argue that God the<br />
Father should be struck down by an angel for calling Jesus O THEOS? Was he wrong (like the Jews)?<br />
Heinz: Since this was earlier used of a human king, then maybe your understanding of hermeneutics is at<br />
fault here.<br />
"Vincent Taylor admits that in v.8 the expression "O God" is vocative spoken of Jesus, but he says that<br />
the author of Hebrews was merely citing the Psalm and using terminology without any deliberate<br />
intention of suggesting that Jesus is God. It is true that the main point of citing the Psalm was to contrast<br />
the Son with angels and to show that the Son enjoys enjoys eternal domination, while the angels were but<br />
servants. Therefore in the citation no major was being made of the fact the the Son can be addressed as<br />
God. Yet we cannot presume that the author did not noticethat his citation had this effect. We can say at<br />
least, that the author saw nothing wrong in this address, and we can call upon a similar situation in Heb.<br />
1:10, where the application to the Son of Psalm 102:25-27 has the effect of addressing Jesus as Lord. Of<br />
course, we have no way of knowing what the "O God" of the Psalm meant to the author of Hebrews<br />
when he applies it to Jesus. Psalm 45 is a royal Psalm; and the analogy of the "Mighty God" of Isaiah<br />
9:6, "GOD" MAY HAVE BEEN LOOKED ON SIMPLY AS A ROYAL TITLE AND HENCE<br />
APPLICABLE TO JESUS AS THE DAVIDIC MESSIAH." Jesus, God and Man (New York:<br />
Macmillan, 1967), 25, 25<br />
"For the author(of Hebrews), the Son was the first-born, the apostle of God, the reflection of God's glory,<br />
and the stamp of his nature (1:3, 6), but he was not God himself." The Anchor <strong>Bible</strong> with Commentary<br />
by G. W. Buchanan.<br />
Harris and I both accept that QEOS is used of Christ in the NT. We just disagree on which ones.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim3.htm (9 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:07:32 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 3<br />
According to the Friberg Concordance the word QEOS occurs 1317 times. In Harris' conclusion on a<br />
chart on page 272 he give only four scriptures that he is "certain" apply QEOS to Jesus. He considers<br />
three to be "Very Probable," and one to be "Probable." I might add, that Harris expresses other "possible"<br />
views. It seems to me that the Father EXHAUSTS the title of QEOS.<br />
Trinitarian Karl Rahner's view of the NT use of the word "God" bears a mention here, "In no N.T. text is<br />
theos [God] used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with Him who elsewhere in the N.T. figures as ho<br />
theos, that is the Supreme God"..."Nowhere in the N.T. is there to be found a text with ho theos [God]<br />
which has unquestionably to be referred to the Trinitarian God as a whole existing in three Persons"<br />
Theological Investigations, 1:155, 1:143.<br />
Tim: I hope this keep you awake at night.<br />
I plan to give you much more evidence from the <strong>Bible</strong> in the next two days on why I believe in the Trinity.<br />
Heinz: I slept like a baby...thanks;)<br />
Conversations Part IV<br />
Email Me<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim3.htm (10 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:07:32 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 4<br />
Conversations on the Trinity-Part 4<br />
Tim: Consider the appearances of YHWH in the OT to his saints. And consider them in context with Ex<br />
33:20, "Thou canst see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.," and with the parallel declaration<br />
in the NT, "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he<br />
has declared him," indicate the he, who thus manifested himself, was the Lord Jesus.<br />
Now Jacob says, "I have seen YHWH face to face, and my life is preserved" (Gen 32:30), and after his<br />
wrestling all night long in tangible conflict with the One now called a man, now the angel, now God, now<br />
the Lord of Hosts (Hosea 7:3,4). The elders saw the God of Israel. To Moses, for example, the Lord spoke<br />
face to face, as a man speaks with his friend (Ex. 33:11). Joshua conversed with the adorable captain of<br />
Jehovah's hosts (Josh 5:15). Manoah feared, saying, "We shall surely die, because we have seen God" (Jud.<br />
13:22). Isaiah cried, "Woe is me! for I am ruined;...for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts" (Isa.<br />
6:5). Of the message then recorded, we are expressly told - "These things said Isaiah, when he saw his<br />
(Christ's) glory, and spoke of Him (Jn 12:41). These are only a few on many passages in which the who<br />
appears under the form of an angel or a man, is, in the immediate context, declared to be God (YHWH).<br />
The big question is Heinz, who was this being? Who is this Angel, or Sent One - the one whom the Lord<br />
calls "MY PRESENCE"? (Ex. 33:14; Num. 12:8). It is also said of this being - "Beware of Him, and obey<br />
his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my Name is in him" (Ex.<br />
23:20-21). This one could not be distinctively the Father, for no man hath seen him at any time, or can see<br />
him and live. But he who appeared is declared to be YHWH . Are we not compelled to acknowledge that he<br />
was the Divine Word, the Son, the brightness of His Father's glory, the express image of His person? (Heb<br />
1:3ff). And let's talk briefly about Heb1: I think that this passage gives Christ the Divine Name - the<br />
Tetragrammaton, the name which names the unique identity of the One God, the name which is exclusive to<br />
the One God in a way that the sometimes ambiguous word 'god' is not. Heb. 1:4 states that Jesus, exalted to<br />
the right hand of God, became "became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more<br />
excellent then theirs." This can only refer to the divine name, as must "the name that is above every name,"<br />
from Phip. 2. Connected with this naming of the exalted Christ by the divine name is the early Christian use<br />
of the phrase "to call on the name of the Lord", as a reference to Christian confession in baptism. The OT<br />
phrase [Ps 82:18; Isa. 12:4; Joel 2:32; Zeph. 3:9; Zech. 13:9] means to invoke God by His Name YHWH<br />
[CF. Gen. 4:26; 1 Kings 18:24-39], but the early Christian use of it applies to Jesus. It means invoking Jesus<br />
as the divine Lord who exercises the divine sovereignty and bears the divine name. Another reason that<br />
Heb. 1:8 should be rendered "Thy Throne , o God [HO THEOS IS AGAIN APPLIED TO JESUS] is<br />
forever...<br />
Heinz: The Dictionary of Deities and Demons [Van Der Toorn] says of the ANGEL OF YAHWEH,<br />
"The word ANGEL in this phrase is literally 'messenger'. The juxtaposition of the common noun<br />
'messenger' with a following divine name in a genitive construction signifying a relationship of<br />
subordination is attested elsewhere in the ancient Near East." That is probably not what you want to hear,<br />
is it?<br />
Others have also mentioned that the angel of/as Jehovah might be Jesus. Let's take a look at this. In<br />
Genesis 18 we have more than one, "And Jehovah appeared unto him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat in<br />
the tent door in the heat of the day; and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over<br />
against him." Later we have these 3 angels splitting up, 19:1 "And the two angels came to Sodom". It is<br />
not realistic to imagine Jesus as 2 or 3 people. After referencing Genesis 18 and 19, Justin explains to<br />
Trypho: "There is . . . another God and Lord SUBJECT TO THE MAKER OF ALL THINGS; who is<br />
also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things---above whom<br />
there is no other God---wishes to announce to<br />
them."?Chap. LVI.?God Who Appeared to Moses Is Distinguished from God the Father.<br />
The angel that appeared to Moses was still referred to as an angel in the NT, even though HERE would<br />
have been a great opportunity to explain otherwise, "And when forty years were fulfilled, an angel<br />
appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. And when Moses saw it,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim4.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:09:24 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 4<br />
he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold, there came a voice of the Lord, I am the God of<br />
thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. Acts 7:30-32<br />
There were other appearances of the angel of the Lord in the book of Acts (see Acts 5:19; 8:26; 10:3;<br />
12:7, 11, 23). see also Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2) Compare this to visions of Jesus in the same book. As a spirit<br />
creature Christ is "the image of the invisible God" and "the exact representation of his very being", yet a<br />
partial revealment of his glory was so intensely brilliant that it blinded Saul of Tarsus, and sight returned<br />
only after a miracle of God. (Acts 9:1-18)<br />
Interestingly, the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the <strong>Bible</strong> says this of Moses, "In the<br />
OT as well as the NT Moses is above all the mediator or revelation. Several times his most<br />
intimate relation with the LORD is emphasized (e.g., Exod 19:9.19; 20:18-21; 24:18;<br />
33:11.18-23; Num 12:7,8; Deut 5:20-28; Ps 103:7; Sir 45:5; cf. John 9:29; Acts 7:38; Heb<br />
8:5), evidently to emphasize that Moses' words and prescriptions really are the words and<br />
rules of the LORD himself. In connection with his role as a mediator of revelation, Moses is<br />
portrayed with superhuman traits (cf. also Deut 34:5; Sir 45:20. According to Exod 34:29-35<br />
the skin of Moses' face radiated after his meeting with the Lord on Mount Sinai (Exod<br />
34:29.30.35), i.e. his face was enveloped in a divine aura. By this nimbus Moses was<br />
legitimated as the true representative of the LORD (cf. Matt 17:2, Acts 6:15)."<br />
So there were similarities in the representational aspects of both Moses and Jesus, without either having<br />
to share nature or essence or Godhood in a consubstantial manner. And I also submit that the angel of<br />
Jehovah could have been Jesus at times, but this does not help your view since and angel is a lesser being<br />
than Jehovah himself.<br />
But did the name Jehovah become supplanted by Jesus?<br />
The NT writers had use of the LXX (Septuagint). Did the early LXX use the divine name?<br />
"We know that the the Greek <strong>Bible</strong> text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for<br />
Jews did not translate the Divine Name by Kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with<br />
Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the<br />
Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not<br />
understood anymore". (Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p.222)<br />
When did they remove the name? In a commentary on the manuscript P Fouad 266, Professor G. D.<br />
Kilpatrick, on talking about the period between 70-135 C.E. said that 3 important changes were made in<br />
this period. The change from scroll to Codex, the Tetragrammaton was replaced by KYRIOS and<br />
abbreviations were introduced for divine names. See Etudes de Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme 1971 pp.<br />
221,222<br />
Why did they remove the Name? "The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New<br />
Testament and its replacement with the surrogates KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the<br />
original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in many passages made<br />
it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced<br />
by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time<br />
went on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible<br />
to distinguish between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton<br />
contributed significantly to the later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued<br />
the church of the early Christian centuries." George Howard, The Name of God in the New<br />
Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 15<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim4.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:09:24 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 4<br />
The Trinity, the removal of the Divine Name, the conciliar decisions and the controversies surrounding it<br />
blurred the lines between Father and Son<br />
"The strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was<br />
they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be "updated" by blurring or even obliterating<br />
the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son." When Jesus Became God by<br />
Richard E. Rubenstein, p.74<br />
Is this Christian or Biblical though?<br />
A. Marmorstein in the book The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God deals extensively with the Hellenistic in<br />
the early Jews, and that is the major reason they stopped pronouncing it.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> never tells us to stop using it though. In fact, just the opposite.<br />
Ex. 3:15: "And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt<br />
thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers,<br />
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent<br />
me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all<br />
generations."<br />
Ps 135:13 "Thy name, O Jehovah, [endureth] for ever;<br />
Thy memorial [name], O Jehovah, throughout all generations."<br />
Mal 3:6 "For I, Jehovah, change not"<br />
In fact, Jehovah jealously guarded his name."And ye shall<br />
not profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of<br />
Israel" Lev 22:32<br />
We know that Jesus made mention of this name at John 5:43, 10:25, 17:6, 11, 12 and Matt 6:9<br />
So what Name was it that Jesus had? "Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the<br />
name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow<br />
So let us take a look at Hebrews 1....again. Here I will be quoting from the Anchor <strong>Bible</strong>/Hebrews 1,<br />
which also has an interesting parallel of Jesus to Moses like I mentioned above:<br />
"Hebrews also considered Jesus a 'reflection of the glory' which means the same as being a<br />
'stamp of his nature.' The Greek word for 'stamp' comes from the verb charassein, "to mark,<br />
engrave, or stamp." The stamp, accordingly, refers to the characteristics and distinctive form<br />
(see II Macc 4:10). Isaac was claimed to have features like those of Abraham (Gen R. 21:2;<br />
53: 6). Thyis does not mean either that Isaac was actually identical to Abraham or that Jesus<br />
was identical to God. Both were reflections and had characteristics of their Fathers. Jesus<br />
was the son, heir, and apostle of God (3:1). As apostle or agent he was sent with the full<br />
authority of the one who sent him. A man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but<br />
legally. He has the power of attorney for the one who sent him. That which the<br />
apostle/agent does in behalf of and has the approval and support of the one who sent him.<br />
He has the authority of an ambassador who speaks in behalf of a king in negotiating for his<br />
country (Ber. 5:5)...Just as Christians thought of Jesus as an apostle of God, so Jews thought<br />
of Moses as the 'apostle between Israel and their heavenly Father' (Sifra behuqqotai, perek<br />
8:12; Lev 26:46). As the great apostle (magnus nuntius), Moses prayed "every hour, both<br />
day and night...to him who rules the world." (Assumption of Moses 11:17). Samaritans also<br />
thought of Moses as their apostle of God; they called him a good apostle, a righteous<br />
apostle, an apostle of God, and the apostle of the true One whom God especially chose for<br />
apostleship. As apostle he was also called "Son of the house of God," God's "man",<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim4.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:09:24 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 4<br />
"saviour," "prophet," "Faithful one," "crown of the righteous of the world," and "light of<br />
prophethood". As an apostle, Moses was entrusted with the mysteries and honored in the<br />
things revealed. To Moses was revealed that which preceded creation and also that which<br />
follows the day of vengeance....There are many biblical illustrations of apostolic authority:<br />
Jehu was ritually made king when Elisha sent one of the sons of the prophets to anoint him.<br />
It was not necessary for Elisha to anoint him himself for the anointing to be authoritative (II<br />
Kings 9:1-10). Paul sent a message to the Corinthians, giving them authority to deliver to<br />
Satan the man who had been living with his father's wife, becasue Paul was "with them in<br />
spirit", meaning that his legal authorization was there (1 Cor 5:1-5)."<br />
But does v.8 mean that he is the Almighty God himself?<br />
"This is not a necessary conclusion. As the pros in v.7 means "in reference to," and it seems<br />
most likely that pros in vs. 8 should be rendered in the same way, so it is in reference to the<br />
Son that the author quoted the scripture dealing with the eternity of God's throne, upon<br />
which the Son would sit. When Solomon, who was God's Son (II Samuel 7:14), ruled over<br />
the Lord's kingdom (1Chron 29:11), he sat on the Lord's throne (al kisse Yhwh) (1 Chron<br />
29:23; see also Enoch 51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:2-3, 5; 69:26-27, 29). That did not mean that<br />
Solomon was God. It means that Solomon ruled over God's kingdom when he ruled over<br />
Palestine, and he sat on God's throne when he ruled from Jerusalem. Therefore it is just as<br />
proper to speak of the eternity of God's throne with reference to the Son Jesus who was to sit<br />
on it as it was to speak of God's throne when Solomon the Son, sat on it. ....For the author(of<br />
Hebrews), the Son was the first-born, the apostle of God, the reflection of God's glory, and<br />
the stamp of his nature (1:3, 6), but he was not God himself." The Anchor <strong>Bible</strong> with<br />
Commentary by G. W. Buchanan.<br />
By quoting Ps. 97:7, Hebrews 1:6 relates to Jesus' position under God. (Phil.2:9-11) Paul shows that the<br />
resurrected Jesus has a God over him (1:9). He is not God but "the reflection of [God's] glory and the<br />
exact representation of his very being (1:3)." God is his father (1:5) God speaks to us through his son, a<br />
Son which was appointed to his position (1:2). Jesus sits at the "right hand of Majesty (1:3). He obtained<br />
a better name/authority (1:4). God had to subject the risen Christ's enemies below his feet (1:14). In<br />
Hebrews, as is common elsewhere in the <strong>Bible</strong>, Jesus is never placed on an equal footing with the<br />
Almighty, his God<br />
Jesus is not the Almighty. Jesus had a God over him before, during and after he came to earth (Mic.5:4,<br />
Rom.15:6, Rev.1:6; 3:2,12). Rather than being equal in power, Jesus is said to be in subjection to God<br />
even at his highest. (1Cor.15:27,28, Eph. 1:17; 19-22). Mat.28:18,19 says that when Jesus returned to<br />
heaven he had to be "given" all authority (power-KJV). If Jesus were equal to God in power, why would<br />
he need to be "given" any authority? (Mt.28:18; 11:27; Jn. 5:22; 17:2; 3:35; 2Pet.1:17) cf. (Mat.11:26-27,<br />
Dan.7:13-14, Phil.2:9). Why isn't he powerful enough to subject things to himself? (1Cor.15:27,<br />
Eph.1:17,22) Why doesn't he have the authority to personally grant his followers or special positions?<br />
(Mat.20:23.) Matt. 24:36 shows that Jesus was not equal to God in knowledge (Cf. Lk.8: 45). Even after<br />
his ascension to heaven, why did he then not know what God knows--having to receive a revelation from<br />
God? (Rev.1:1). Why did Jesus have to LEARN anything? (Heb.5:8, Jn.5:19; 8:28) Jesus did not exist<br />
from eternity but is everywhere described in temporal terms denoting a beginning of life: son, begotten,<br />
born, produced, birth, child, image and copy etc. Why did he have to be GIVEN life in himself?<br />
(Jn.5:25,26) If Jesus existed from eternity, how could he be a "BEGOTTEN God"? (Jn. 1:18) The idea of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim4.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:09:24 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity Part 4<br />
"eternal generation" is foreign to scripture and it is a contradiction of terms, an oxymoron. Before<br />
Athanasius the word "begotten" meant just that: a birth of something not in existence before. The term<br />
"Eternal generation" was invented by Athanasius who could not accept the normal meaning of biblical<br />
words when they contradicted his theology. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers I:349)<br />
Jesus is at the right hand of God, and thereby does not share the same substance. How could he be at the<br />
"right hand of God," if he were in fact the very substance of God? (Luke.22:69, Acts 7:55, Romans.8:34)<br />
These are facts that contradict a Trinity. The only way is to resort to a Trinity is to claim that it is<br />
“mystery” beyond human understanding. And, evidently beyond God’s ability to explain in his word.<br />
Tim: I'm going to address 1 Cor. 8:6 soon with you - my understanding of it is going to be very challenging<br />
for you and will hopefully present you with insurmountable problems as you try and reconcile what this text<br />
says with your heretical view of Christ.<br />
Heinz: Uhmm..okay:)<br />
On to Part 5<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim4.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:09:24 AM]
More Conversations on the Trinity with a focus on 1 Corinthians 8:6<br />
Conversations on the Trinity Part 5<br />
Tim Wrote: Consider 1 Cor. 8:6. Paul's concern is this context is explicitly monotheistic. The issue of<br />
eating meat offered to idols and participation in temple banquets is an instance of the highly traditional<br />
Jewish monotheistic concern for loyalty to the only true God in a context of paga polytheistic worship.<br />
What Paul does is to maintain this Jewish monotheistic concern in a Christian interpretation for which<br />
loyalty to the only true God entails loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ. He takes up from the Corinthians' letter<br />
(at the end of verse 4) the typical Jewish monotheistic formula "there is no God except One" in order to<br />
agree with it and to give, in verse six, his own fuller monotheistic formulation, which contrasts the "many<br />
gods and many lords" of the Corinthians' pagan environment (verse 5) with the one God and one Lord to<br />
whom Christians owe exclusive allegiance.<br />
Verse 6 is a carefully formulated statement:<br />
a. but for us [there is] one God, the Father,<br />
b. from whom [are] all things and we for him,<br />
c. and one Lord, Jesus Christ,<br />
d. through whom [are] all things and we through him.<br />
The statement has been composed from two sources, both clearly recognizable. One is the SHEMA', the<br />
classic Jewish statement concerning the uniqueness of God, taken from the Torah itself, recited twice daily<br />
by all observant Jews. It is now commonly recognized that Paul has here adapted the SHEMA' and<br />
produced, as it were, a Christian version of it [see F.F. Bruce, 1&2 Corinthians - a must read scholar]. Not<br />
so widely recognized is the full significance of this. In the first and third lines of Paul's formula [labeled a<br />
and c above], Paul has in fact reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the SHEMA', but<br />
Paul has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce and affirmation of both one God, the Father, and<br />
one Lord, Jesus Christ. It<br />
should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is<br />
redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the<br />
one God of whom the SHEMA' speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would<br />
certainly be producing not christological monotheism but outright ditheism. The addition of a unique Lord<br />
to the unique God of the SHEMA' would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter. the only possible<br />
way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique<br />
identity of the one God affirmed in the SHEMA'. But this is in any case clear from the fact that the term<br />
'Lord' , applied here to Jesus as the 'one Lord', is taken from the SHEMA' itself. Paul is not adding to the<br />
one God of the SHEMA' a 'Lord' the SHEMA' does not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the 'Lord'<br />
whom the SHEMA' affirms to be one. Thus, in Paul's quite unprecedented reformulation of the SHEMA',<br />
the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah.<br />
Contrary to what many exegetes who have not sufficiently understood the way in which the unique identity<br />
of God was understood in Second Temple Judaism seem to suppose, by including Jesus in this unique<br />
identity Paul is clearly not repudiating Jewish monotheism, whereas were he merely associating Jesus with<br />
the unique God, he certainly would be repudiating monotheism.....I hope this letter finds you thinking<br />
clearly.<br />
Heinz: I have Gerald O'Collins Christology and he also explains your *splitting* of the shema in the<br />
same way, but even he calls this a "redefining of Jewish monotheism." p.138<br />
But O'Collins also reminds of the semantic range of the term "Lord".<br />
"Let us review the range of usage for this term in the entire NT. (1) Kyrios could be simply<br />
a respectful way of addressing other people (e.g. Matt. 21:30;25:11;27:63; John 4:11;12:21;<br />
Acts 16:30) (2) It could be a way of addressing a ‘teacher' or ‘rabbi' (Matt. 8:25; see Matt.<br />
17:15; Mark 4:38;9:17). (3) The designation can suggest authority, in the sense of one with<br />
power to perform mighty works (e.g. Matt 8:25). (4)Kyrios may denote the owner of<br />
property (Mark 12:9; Luke 19:33) or the master of slaves (Luke 12:42-7; Eph. 6:5; Col. 4:1)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim5.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:09:44 AM]
More Conversations on the Trinity with a focus on 1 Corinthians 8:6<br />
In some parables ‘the mater' or Kyrios is a metaphor for Jesus (e.g. Matt 25:18-24, 26). (5)<br />
Because of their power, political rulers (Matt. 27:63) could lay claim to a certain divinity<br />
and as ‘lords' even demand worship (see Acts 25:16). (6) ‘Lords' might also refer to<br />
so-called gods who were supposed to have rights over human beings (1 Cor. 8:5). (7)<br />
Finally, The NT speaks not only of God (e.g. Matt. 5:32; 11:25; Mark 12:29-30; Acts<br />
2:39;4:26; Rom. 4:6-8; 11:2-4) but also of Jesus as Kyrios and often does so in a way that<br />
raises him above the merely human level (e.g. Mark 12:36-7;Luke 19:31; John 13:13-14;<br />
Phil. 2:11; Rev. 22:20-1)." p.139<br />
But does "Lord" have to have a religious sense when applied to Jesus? The following is an example from<br />
John 4:11: Here the Samaritan woman has just met Jesus, he has not yet told her that he is the Messiah.<br />
They have just met, yet she addresses him as kyrios, which in the New American <strong>Bible</strong> is translated as<br />
"sir."<br />
"The woman said to him, Sir (kyrios), you do not have a bucket and the cistern is deep."<br />
The word in this passage is kyrios. It is applied to Jesus, and it is used as a term of respect, as "sir."<br />
The Apostles used this title as a term of respect for Jesus just like the term "master." This is why Jesus is<br />
called Lord in the NT. He is our King, our master, our Lord. Like the Lord of a castle/ kingdom. He is<br />
the Lord of the kingdom of God.<br />
Is Paul here borrowing "Lord" from the shema in Deuteronomy and applying it to Jesus in 1 Corinthians?<br />
"With the Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong> in mind, Paul carefully distinguishes, in a critical creedal statement,<br />
between the "one God, the Father," and the "one Lord Jesus Christ." Paul has not split the<br />
Shema of Israel between two persons. This would be to abandon his precious Jewish creed.<br />
Paul in fact makes a clear unitarian declaration: "There is no God but One...There is One<br />
God, the Father" (1 Cor. 8:4,6) He then claims for Jesus a lordly status based on the central<br />
Christological affirmation, by divine oracle, that he is the promised "my lord, the King<br />
Messiah, the lord's anointed" )Ps. 110:1; Luke 2:11): "There is one Lord Jesus Messiah" (1<br />
Cor. 8:6) This is his full official title. Peter had likewise proclaimed in Acts 2:34-36, with<br />
apostolic authority derived from the Messiah, that Jesus was the appointed Lord Christ, in<br />
accordance with Psalm 110:1, as distinct from, and as the servant of, the Lord God." The<br />
Doctrine of the Trinity-A. Buzzard p.53<br />
What do others have to say about Paul, the early Christians and their view of Christ?<br />
"Apparently Paul did not call Jesus God" (Sydney Cave, D.D., Doctrine of the Person<br />
of Christ, p. 48).<br />
"Paul habitually differentiates Christ from God" (C.J. Cadoux, A Pilgrim’s Further<br />
Progress, pp. 40, 42).<br />
"Paul never equates Jesus with God" (W.R. Matthews, The Problem of Christ in the<br />
20th Century, Maurice Lectures, 1949, p. 22).<br />
"Paul never gives to Christ the name or description of ‘God’" (Dictionary of the<br />
Apostolic Church, Vol. 1, p. 194).<br />
"When the New Testament writers speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of Him nor<br />
do they think of Him as God" (J.M. Creed, The Divinity of Jesus Christ, pp. 122-123).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim5.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:09:44 AM]
More Conversations on the Trinity with a focus on 1 Corinthians 8:6<br />
"Karl Rahner [leading Roman Catholic spokesman] points out with so much emphasis<br />
that the Son in the New Testament is never described as ‘ho theos’ [the one God]"<br />
(A.T. Hanson, Grace and Truth, p. 66).<br />
"The clear evidence of John is that Jesus refuses the claim to be God…Jesus<br />
vigorously denied the blasphemy of being God or His substitute" (J.A.T. <strong>Robinson</strong>,<br />
Twelve More New Testament Studies, pp. 175, 176).<br />
"In his post-resurrection heavenly life, Jesus is portrayed as retaining a personal<br />
individuality every bit as distinct and separate from the person of God as was his in<br />
his life on earth as the terrestrial Jesus. Alongside God and compared with God, he<br />
appears, indeed, as yet another heavenly being in God’s heavenly court, just as the<br />
angels were — though as God’s Son, he stands in a different category, and ranks far<br />
above them" (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 1967-68, Vol. 50, p. 258).<br />
"What, however, is said of his life and functions as the celestial Christ neither means<br />
nor implies that in divine status he stands on a par with God Himself and is fully God.<br />
On the contrary, in the New Testament picture of his heavenly person and ministry we<br />
behold a figure both separate from and subordinate to God" (Ibid., pp. 258, 259).<br />
"When [first-century Christians] assigned Jesus such honorific titles as Christ, Son of<br />
Man, Son of God and Lord, these were ways of saying not that he was God but that he<br />
did God’s work" (Ibid., p. 250).<br />
"The ancients made a wrong use of [John 10:30, "I and the Father are one"] to prove<br />
that Christ is...of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the<br />
unity of substance, but about the agreement that he has with the Father" (John Calvin,<br />
Commentary on John).<br />
"The Pauline Christ who accomplishes the work of salvation is a personality who is<br />
both human and superhuman, not God, but the Son of God. Here the idea, which was to<br />
develop later, of the union of the two natures is not present" (Maurice Goguel, Jesus<br />
and the Origins of Christianity, Harper, 1960).<br />
"Jesus is never identified simplicitly [absolutely] with God, since the early Christians<br />
were not likely to confuse Jesus with God the Father" (Howard Marshall, "Jesus as<br />
Lord: The Development of the Concept," in Eschatology in the New Testament,<br />
Hendrickson, p. 144).<br />
Now Tim, you can view these separate scriptures in a long letter that even went longer than I what I<br />
included here. But we have to take the <strong>Bible</strong> as a whole, and not just dwell on a few scriptures here and<br />
there. If you take a look at the <strong>Bible</strong> as a whole, we find powerful<br />
evidence that Christ was a created being:<br />
Prov 8:22 "The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old."<br />
RSV<br />
Col. 1:15 "which is the image of the invisible God, first begotten of all creatures"<br />
Rev. 3:14 "This saith (amen) the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creatures of<br />
God."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim5.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:09:44 AM]
More Conversations on the Trinity with a focus on 1 Corinthians 8:6<br />
Jn 5:26 "Life comes from the Father himself. So the Father has allowed the Son to give life."<br />
Jn 6:57 "Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the<br />
one who feeds on me will have life because of me."<br />
Jesus is either subordinate to, depends upon, or reveres his Father:<br />
Isa 11:1,2 "But there shall come forth from a shoot the stock of Jesse, And a sprout from his<br />
roots shall bear fruit; And the spirit of Yahweh shall rest upon him, The spirit of wisdom<br />
and understanding, The spirit of counsel and might, The spirit of knowledge and reverence<br />
of Yahweh" Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Heb 2:7,8 "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; and hast crowned him with<br />
glory and honor, and hast set him ruler over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things<br />
under his feet." Lamsa's Translation of the Aramaic Peshitta<br />
1 Cor 11:3 "God is the Head of the Christ" 20th Century NT<br />
Jn 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus<br />
Christ, whom thou hast sent." KJV<br />
Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." NASB<br />
Jn 5:19 "I most solemnly say to you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, except as He sees<br />
the Father doing." Williams NT<br />
Jn 6:38 "I came down from heaven, not to do what I want but what He wants who sent Me."<br />
Beck<br />
Jn 7:16 "Jesus answered them and said, 'My doctrine is not Mine but His who sent Me"<br />
Matt 20:23 "Truly, you will take of my cup: but to be seated at my right hand and at my left<br />
is not for me to give, but it is for those for whom my Father has made it ready. BBE<br />
Luke 22:42 "He prayed saying 'Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me;<br />
nevertheless, not My will, but Thine be done'" Worrell NT<br />
Heb 5:8 "Although a Child, Jesus learned obedience through suffering." Inclusive Version<br />
Rev 1:1 "This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to show his servants<br />
the things that must happen soon." ISV<br />
Acts 5:31 "Him has God exalted by his right hand as leader and saviour, to give repentance<br />
to Israel and remission of sins." Darby<br />
1 Cor 15:27,28 "the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God" NEB<br />
Phil 2:8,9 "and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient<br />
[even] unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted him<br />
Jn 14:28 "I go on to the Father, because my Father is greater than I." Young<br />
Mark 13:32 "As for that exact day or minute: no one knows, not even heaven's messengers,<br />
nor even the son, no one, except the Father." Funk, Hoover<br />
And that he has someone who is God to him<br />
Micah 5:1-4 "In the majesty of the name of the LORD, his God." Smith&Goodspeed<br />
Matt 27:46 "Jesus cried out...My God, my God, why have you abandoned me." God's Word<br />
Jn 20:17 "I am going to ascend to My God and your God" New Berkeley Version<br />
Rom 15:6 "So that you may together give glory to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus<br />
Christ with one heart. NJB<br />
2 Cor 1:3 "Let us give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." TEV<br />
2 Cor 11:31 "To God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" Geneva<br />
Eph 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" BLE<br />
Eph 1:17 "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ" Moffatt<br />
Heb 1:7-9 " That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim5.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:09:44 AM]
More Conversations on the Trinity with a focus on 1 Corinthians 8:6<br />
your partners." NWT<br />
1 Pet 1:3 "Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Lattimore<br />
Rev 1:6 "unto his God and Father" Montgomery<br />
Rev 3:2 "in the sight of my God" Phillips<br />
Rev 3:12 "the temple of my God....the name of my God...out of heaven from my God"<br />
Jewish NT<br />
Exactly how many times does scripture have to attest to the subordination of the Son to His God and<br />
Father before it is actually believed?<br />
1Cor.8:6 identifies the "one God" as the Father who is the source of creation. Jesus is explicitly excluded<br />
when he is next identified as the "Lord" who is simply the agent of the one God. 1Tim.2:5 states there is<br />
"one God" but then specifically EXCLUDES Jesus from being that one God by saying he is the<br />
"mediator" between GOD and humans. Without equivocation or replacing the word God with father,<br />
explain how can Jesus be the same God he is mediator for?<br />
Far from being Almighty, Jesus is said to have a God over him before, during and after he came to earth<br />
(Mic.5:4, Rom.15:6, Rev.1:6; 3:2,12). Rather than being equal in power, Jesus is said to be in subjection<br />
to God even when he is as high as he ever gets (1Cor.15:27,28, Eph. 1:17; 19-22). Mat.28:18,19 says that<br />
when Jesus returned to heaven he had to be "given" all authority (power-KJV). If Jesus were equal to<br />
God in power, then why exactly would he need to be "given" any authority? (Mt.28:18; 11:27, Jn. 5:22;<br />
17:2; 3:35; 2Pet.1:17) cf. (Mat.11:26-27, Dan.7:13-14, Phil.2:9).<br />
Again, you still have not made mention of the holy spirit. May I remind you that this is a conversation on<br />
the Trinity.<br />
To Page 6<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim5.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:09:44 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity-Part 6-All those quotes<br />
More Conversations on the Trinity/Part 6<br />
Tim: Thank-you for continually amusing me with your responses. If anything I am getting much sharper as<br />
a defender of the faith. My response to your last four letters is well underway. It has been most enjoyable.<br />
Here is a sample: On this issue [Greg Stafford and scholars] you should notice first that I made a distinction<br />
between "scholars" and "Scholars." Second, by "of no repute" I mean to invest the term "repute" with the<br />
meaning of "exceedingly high repute" whereby I have in mind specifically NT scholars not theologians, or<br />
apologists. Third, I am not inferring that scholars like White and Rhodes are not scholars of repute in their<br />
own field (quite capable as they are), but neither fit the definition I give for Scholars in the field of NT--and<br />
that is what I meant (does you care anything for original intent?). Fourth, like everything written by me,<br />
however, you guys (Stafford/yourself) have a knack for misconstruing language much like you do<br />
Scriptures and the work of other<br />
scholars to meet your own agenda.<br />
Heinz: I do not remember you making any distinction between "Scholar and "scholar" at all. I think that<br />
you are backtracking in order to cover yourself. You have in the past talked quite highly of Rhodes, after<br />
all, he is called the "<strong>Bible</strong> Answer Man". If it makes you feel any better, I think he falls quite short of any<br />
"scholar" reference....period.<br />
Tim: This whole process has a circular appeal to it. The more your work is refuted for the worthless but<br />
destructive propaganda it is [not an ad hom.], the more you claim how high caliber it is based on the<br />
reputation of scholars (of all fields) who address it. Its a parasitic claim to fame.<br />
Now as for Stafford, yes there will be a flurry of scholars addressing his "book" in the future on the<br />
internet and in a few books perhaps (so my earlier comment surely didn't rule out future acts by scholars or<br />
Scholars). What is interesting is that most Scholars that have been quoted by him and have been contacted,<br />
don't know who Stafford is, are perplexed at his misconstruing of their data when informed about them, and<br />
are reaffirming what all of us who have dealt with him have always known--he either deliberately twists<br />
what others write to conform to his WT theology, or he is a poor reader.<br />
Heinz: We notice that you do not actually mention anyone who has been contacted. It could be that<br />
many of them are now dead. But then you do get your information second-hand. Greg insists on quoting<br />
those that do not agree with him on order to dissect the argument and find errors from a biblical<br />
perspective. But since you have not read his book and you have repeatedly demonstrated that you rely on<br />
3rd party information to furnish you with your information, then I think you that you do not have much<br />
to defend your self with. You will be surprised to know that Robert Countess (author of The Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses' New Testament, 1982) praised Greg's book, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended in many respects.<br />
Professor/Writer Jason Beduhn calls the book a scholarly effort, and here is what author Robert Bowman<br />
Jr. (author of Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John; and You Should Beleive in the<br />
Trinity) said in the Greek Theology Newsgroup:<br />
"While I should note that I respect the knowledge and skills of several members of this list,<br />
Mr. Stafford is by far the most exegetically sophisticated, academically rigorous, and<br />
theologically informed Jehovah's Witness that I have encountered. I find him to be very<br />
intelligent and quite articulate.<br />
I have said these things several times, but it seems they have tended to get buried in the pile<br />
of arguments and counterarguments, as well as the more unfortunate dimensions of our<br />
discussion that we have agreed to leave behind. So, for the record, I wanted to say them<br />
again. Whatever errors, mistakes, or misrepresentations I claim to find in Mr. Stafford's<br />
writings should not be construed as contradicting the above overall assessment of his<br />
abilities and performance. He is a gifted spokesman for the perspective of the Jehovah's<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim6.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:09:55 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity-Part 6-All those quotes<br />
Witnesses and deserves to be taken quite seriously."<br />
Perhaps you should actually read his book before you criticize him in this manner.<br />
Tim: Here's a good example of what I mean concerning bad scholarship:<br />
1. Selective quotation, Providing quotations that are out of context, or elided to obscure that the author<br />
intended.<br />
SYBT: "’At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian…It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic<br />
ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[testament] and other early Christian writings’ – Encyclopedia of Religion<br />
and Ethics" (pp. 6-7). The first part of this quotation is cut off in mid-sentence. It reads in full: "At first the<br />
Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference. It was not so in the apostolic and<br />
sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings. It should be observed that there<br />
is no real cleavage or antithesis between the doctrines of the economic and the essential Trinity, and<br />
naturally so. The Trinity [or essential Trinity] represents the effort to think out the [economical] Trinity, and<br />
so to afford it a reasonable basis" (Encyclopedia<br />
of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 12, p. 461.) This same article proclaims: "If the doctrine of the Trinity<br />
appeared<br />
somewhat late in theology, it must have lived very early in devotion" (IBID., 458-459).<br />
Heinz: Robert Bowman mentioned above would agree with you that Witnesses milk the comments of<br />
scholars and reference works for more than they are worth, but even he, after writing an entire book on<br />
the Trinity brochure, only tackles a scant few (similar to the ones that you do). Perhaps these are the only<br />
ones that seem open for attack. It seems that your reading of the above Encyclopedia is more selective<br />
than mine. This is the same work that says, "In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of<br />
Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . .<br />
Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the<br />
Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality," which is "triadically represented." This work<br />
maintains over and over again in many ways how the 4th century Church merely adopted paganism in its<br />
fold. You would be surprised at what this book says about Easter, birthdays, Mary, Tithes, etc.<br />
But let us focus on what else it says about the Trinity: "It is exegesis of a mischievous kind, if pious, sort<br />
that would discover the doctrine in the plural form 'Elohim,' of the Deity's name, in the recorded<br />
appearance of three angels to Abraham, or even in the ter sanctus of the prophecies of Isaiah.""In the<br />
New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like its developed form, not even in<br />
the Pauline and Johannine theology, although ample witness is borne to the religious experience from<br />
which the doctrine springs. It then directs you to the footnote which mentions Luke 24:49 which says,<br />
"And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed<br />
with power from on high." ASV<br />
Hardly the start of any Triune doctrine. Scripture is quoted rarely, as are most of these works, but<br />
perhaps it is because the "doctrine of the Trinity does not usually fit well into the general doctrine of<br />
God, and often bears the character of a doctrine apart." p.462<br />
But what is an "Economic Trinity"? According to one of our anti-JW web-sites (and there are thousands<br />
of them) the Economic Trinity is: First in a simple sense, as we find in the <strong>Bible</strong>, where there is an<br />
affirmation of the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit combined with a mono-theistic<br />
view of God, but without any explanation as to how the whole thing fits together and works. So basically<br />
speaking, just because the NT speaks of the Father...and the Son...and the Holy Spirit, then that is all that<br />
is good enough for you people to form a belief system akin to "Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim6.htm (2 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:09:55 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity-Part 6-All those quotes<br />
religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus."<br />
Tim: SYBT: "This confusion [over the Trinity] is widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the<br />
doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be "beyond the grasp of human reason" (p. 4). Unfortunately, SYBT<br />
neither quotes this passage in full nor documents it, instead only giving the title of the source and implying<br />
that it agrees with<br />
the Watch Tower's position: "It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is,<br />
like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though<br />
it may not comprehended) by the human mind" (Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 27, p.116).<br />
Heinz: Now tell me Tim, what is more oxymoronic than to say that the Trinity is contrary to reason...but<br />
not really. This is the same article that says that it did not reach its full understanding until St. Thomas<br />
Aquinas. This is also the same encyclopedia that reduces Jesus Christ to a "redeemer myth." What the<br />
SYBT was driving at was its incomprehensibility, just like your buddy Walter Martin, "The Trinity itself<br />
is a mystery or a "holy secret". It is incomprehensible. It can never be fully understood." Now we all<br />
know that "Dr" Martin is a Trinitarian. Now we all know that Martin tries to explain it, but in the end it is<br />
an incomprehensible mess isn't it?<br />
Tim-SYBT: “Fortman states: ‘The New Testament writers…give us no formal for formulated doctrine of<br />
the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons’” (p. 6). Sounds like<br />
Fortman denies the Trinity in any form exists in the NT, doesn’t it?Here’s what Edmund Fortman really<br />
said, in context:<br />
“If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of<br />
the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word,<br />
Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him<br />
God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times<br />
they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and<br />
personality are concerned. They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They<br />
do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission, but they<br />
present in their own ways the ideas that are behind these terms. They give us no formal or formulated<br />
doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But<br />
they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God<br />
may be formulated” (Fortman, The Triune God, p. 9).<br />
Heinz: But did you know that the verse in question is quoted also by G.A.T. <strong>Robinson</strong> "There is no<br />
formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one<br />
God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a<br />
triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there... The Biblical witness to God, as we have<br />
seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one<br />
God there are three co-equal divine persons." (Jesuit Scholar Edmund J. Fortman, "Triune God", pp.<br />
32,35) (Fortman, pp. 22-23, as cited by <strong>Robinson</strong>, p. 74) The book, The Father, The Son and the Holy<br />
Spirit-The Triadic Phrase in Matthew 28:19 from Jane Schaberg, SBL Dissertation Series 61 as<br />
borrowed from Southeastern Baptist Theological Library also quotes from Fortman, "Fortman also<br />
remarks, however, that nowhere in the N.T. do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects<br />
of divine life and activity in the same Godhead." p.16 Are the above quoting Fortman out of context,<br />
even though they are not Jehovah's Witnesses. No, they are stating a fact that Fortman, while believing in<br />
the Trinity, was wise and honest enough to admit, which is what the SYBT was driving at. Fortman<br />
himself directs us to this in the index in the back of his book he points to the pages where the Trinity is<br />
not supportable in the OT etc. But I guess it is only bad when the Witnesses do it:)<br />
What else does Fortman admit to?<br />
"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament<br />
writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim6.htm (3 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:09:55 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity-Part 6-All those quotes<br />
divine force or power." —The Triune God, Edward J. Fortman, pp. 6, 15.<br />
"These passages give no doctrine of the Trinity... Paul has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut<br />
realization of a Trinitarian problem......there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts... nowhere<br />
do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same<br />
Godhead" (Fortman, "Triune God", pp. 22-23)<br />
"The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who<br />
is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected<br />
the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead.... Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions<br />
or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs' of the Trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and<br />
intent of the sacred writers" (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God, Baker Book House, 1972, pp.<br />
xv, 8, 9).<br />
"For Thomas [Aquinas] natural reason can neither demonstrate nor know the Trinity: 'that God is triune<br />
is uniquely and object of belief, and one cannot prove it in any demonstrative way." p.204<br />
Fortman's conclusion: "The basic trinitarian dogmas are still substantially in procession today, and<br />
always will be. But some Catholic theologians feel they are in need of reappraisal. They see problems<br />
everywhere: a tension between the outlook of the Biblical writer and that of the Trinitarian theologian; a<br />
tension between the rigid Hellenic though and patterns of trinitarian theology...." p.316<br />
We must remember that Catholics do not rely heavily on the <strong>Bible</strong> for a complete definition of the<br />
Trinity. That is why most of Fortman's "The Triune God" deals with how the Trinity was viewed and<br />
explained by various philosophers/theologians over different periods of time. You will find very few<br />
scriptures actually used in the book. When Fortman says that is an elemental trinity in the scripture, his<br />
view is not expanded upon nor does he quote scripture to back this statement. However, the word<br />
"Mystery" is used quite liberally throughout the book. By the way Tim, I actually read the book. Did<br />
you?<br />
Tim: SYBT: “The New Encyclopedia Britannica observes: ‘Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in<br />
the New Testament’” (p. 6).Note the word “explicit.” The Britannica is saying the same thing as Fortman. On the same<br />
page, we find: “The New Testament establishes the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity” (Encyclopedia Britannica,<br />
Micropedia, Vol. X, p. 126).<br />
Heinz: That is a pretty weak argument since most nominal Xtians beleive that simply because the N.T.<br />
mention the Father, Son and holy spirit that this makes this a basis for a three-in-one doctrine. What else<br />
does Brittanica say?<br />
"In his theological interpretation of the idea of God, Arius was interested in maintaining a formal<br />
understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of the oneness of God, he was obliged to dispute the<br />
sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, as stressed by<br />
the theologians of the Neoplatonically influenced Alexandrian school. From the outset, the controversy<br />
between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which<br />
was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis<br />
of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New<br />
Testament--such as the question of the sameness of<br />
essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons." Brittanica.com<br />
Tim: 2. Not telling the whole story. Similar to #1, by providing only an out-of-context quotation, does not<br />
reveal information the author provides that is detrimental to one's argument. SYBT: “E. Washburn Hopkins<br />
affirmed: ‘To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown…they say nothing about it”<br />
(p. 6).<br />
Full quote in context: “The beginning of the doctrine of the trinity appears already in John (c. 100). To<br />
Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown, at any rate they say nothing about it”<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim6.htm (4 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:09:55 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity-Part 6-All those quotes<br />
(Hopkins, The Origin and Evolution of Religion, p. 336). So, Hopkins, a liberal scholar who questions the<br />
historical accuracy of the NT record, finds the trinity present in the Gospel of John. Hardly “affirming” the<br />
proposition that the Trinity is non-Biblical.<br />
Heinz: On the basis of his studies, Professor E. Washburn Hopkins said of the trinities of Hinduism,<br />
Buddhism and Christendom: "The three trinities as religious expressions are identical. . . . One may say: I<br />
believe in God as godhead, and in the divine incarnation, and in the creative Holy Spirit, as a Christian, a<br />
Vishnuite, or a Buddhist."<br />
Noteworthy, too, is the fact that the trinity of Chinese Buddhism is defined in a way that is practically<br />
identical to what professed Christians say. We read:<br />
"The Three are all included in one substantial essence. The three are the same as one; not one, and yet<br />
not different; without parts or composition. When regarded as one, the three persons are spoken of as the<br />
Perfect One (Tathagata). There is no real difference [between the three persons of the trinity]; they are<br />
manifestations, different aspects of the same unchanging substance."-Origin and Evolution of Religion,<br />
p. 348.<br />
Yale professor E. Washburn Hopkins put it this way: "The final orthodox definition of the trinity was<br />
largely a matter of church politics."<br />
Origin and Evolution of Religion, by E. Washburn Hopkins, 1923, page 339.<br />
Tim: Let me ask, have Trinitarians who quote Harris without referencing his comments on YHWH withheld<br />
information Harris provides that is detrimental to their argument? Let me ask, have Trinitarians attributed<br />
quotes by Harris to someone else, or someone else to Harris?<br />
The examples can be multiplied. Let me ask, have Trinitarians selectively quoted Harris to obscure what he<br />
said about YHWH (or anything else for that matter)?<br />
Heinz: I don't know of any Trinitarians that have actually quoted Harris. But since you are ignorant of<br />
the writings of Rolf Furuli and Greg Stafford, you might be surprised to know that they have used Harris<br />
quite a bit and even praised his efforts. "Murray J. Harris' work, Jesus as God, ...will be quoted here<br />
throughout this discussion. This is probably the most exhaustive book ever written about the Biblical<br />
witness to Jesus as theos. Its strength is the sound grammatical and linguistic analysis presented and it<br />
also gives the principal viewpoints for each verse discussed." p.199 Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Translation. Rolf does though find fault with the author's statements of faith interspersed throughout, but<br />
all in all a glowing recommendation. Stafford also uses Harris' work favourably throughout his book, but<br />
since, according to you, neither of the above are scholars of any repute, then this does not bode well for<br />
your argument.<br />
Tim: 3. Mis-attributed quotes/Attributing a quote to someone other than the author, with the intent of<br />
obscuring what the author really did write.<br />
SYBT: "Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: ‘The Father is<br />
different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he<br />
who sends,<br />
different from him who is sent.’ He also said: ‘There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all<br />
things, God was alone’" (p. 7).<br />
The phrase: "There was a time when the Son was not" is not from Tertullian, but an expression used by<br />
scholar Bishop Kaye in an appendix of one of Tertullian’s works. Bishop Kaye was summarizing a<br />
statement made by<br />
Tertullian, who argued that the Word and the Father were always God, but the titles Father and Son only<br />
become applicable after the Incarnation: "For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a<br />
judge previous to sin" (Against Hermogones, Ch. 3). See Bishop Kaye, “Account of the Writings of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim6.htm (5 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:09:55 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity-Part 6-All those quotes<br />
Tertullian,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 1181. This section includes the following statements that<br />
more accurately summarize Bishop Kaye’s understanding of Tertullian: “Tertullian’s opinions were<br />
generally coincident with the orthodox belief of the Christian Church on the great subject of the Trinity in<br />
Unity” (p. 1180); “the Reason and Spirit of God, being the substance of the Word and Son, were co-eternal<br />
with God” (p. 1181); “He [Tertullian] really believed that the very hypostasis which is called the Word and<br />
Son of God is eternal” (p. 1182).<br />
This is a particularly egregious example, as it included not only the mis-attribution, but also selective<br />
quotation and ellipses to conflate two works to make them appear as a single passage.<br />
Heinz: All the writings of the ANF (Ante-Nicene Fathers) come to us from others, as there are many<br />
translations and commentaries out there of the ANF. Tertullian held a two stage view of the LOGOS<br />
QEOU and believed that the Son qua Son was brought forth at the ARXH of creation based on his<br />
reading of Genesis chapter one. So even if the LOGOS, as Tertullian contended, eternally subsisted as<br />
the Reason of God within the Father before God the Father created all things--he (the Son) did not subsist<br />
as a distinct divine hypostasis from all eternity and nor was he always the Son. The view that Christians<br />
are/will be gods was also echoed by Tertullian. Here is a sample of what else they say that Tertullian<br />
says: Frend lists Tertullian and Hippolytus as examples of western thinkers who believed in the<br />
inferiority of the Son. He even writes that Hippolytus felt that Jesus Christ "was simply a created being to<br />
whom divinity had been arbitrarily and temporarily assigned" (_The Rise of Christianity_. Page 345).<br />
"Tertullian . . . [also] was a man to whom the inspiration of the Spirit was everything . . . [in his<br />
theological system] the Word was derivative ("a portion of the whole") and subordinate, and equally<br />
liable to modalist interpretations . . . despite Tertullian's thrust against Praxeas,<br />
Trinitarian theology never had a high priority in the thought of the North African church leaders . . .<br />
Fourth century inscriptions if anything emphasize the subordination of Son to Father. God [the Father]<br />
was "Omnipotent," Christ was "Saviour." In this period, few African Christians showed<br />
much concern regarding the accusation that Donatus was an Arian (Frend 345-346).<br />
And since you claimed that we misquoted Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, here is what it has to say<br />
about Tertullian, "And even Tertullian, who founded the nomenclature of the orthodix doctrine, knew as<br />
little of an ontological Trinity as did the apologists; his is still the economic or relative conception of the<br />
Johannine and Pauline theology." Do you remember what this same work said about John and Paul? "In<br />
the New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like its developed form, not<br />
even in the Pauline and Johannine theology" p.458<br />
Robert Wilken wrote in _The Myth of Christian Beginnings: "From the very beginning, the Christian<br />
tradition had struggled with the question of JESUS' relation to God . . . Very early Christians tried to<br />
account for his extraordinary life and accomplishments and his Resurrection, and it was not long before<br />
he was called Son of God--then God. EVEN SO, HE WAS NOT GOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE<br />
FATHER WAS GOD--OR WAS HE? Was he creator, was he eternal, should he be addressed in prayer?<br />
These and other questions troubled thoughtful Christians for almost three centuries. During these years,<br />
MOST CHRISTIANS VAGUELY THOUGHT OF JESUS AS GOD; yet they did not actually think of<br />
him IN THE SAME WAY THAT THEY THOUGHT OF GOD THE FATHER. They seldom addressed<br />
prayers to him, and thought of him somehow as SECOND TO GOD--DIVINE, YES, BUT NOT FULLY<br />
GOD . . . When the controversy over the relation of Jesus to God the Father broke out in the early fourth<br />
century, most Christians<br />
were"SUBORDINATIONISTS," i.e. they believed that Christ was God BUT NOT IN PRECISELY THE<br />
SAME WAY THAT THE FATHER WAS GOD" (See pp. 177-183).<br />
"With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim6.htm (6 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:09:55 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity-Part 6-All those quotes<br />
subordinationism at least up the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the<br />
controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." (Hanson, The Search for the Christian<br />
Doctrine of God, p.xix)<br />
Tim:This exercise could continue for quite some time, but I think I've made my<br />
point. Have Fun!<br />
Thank you Tim, I will. And I will do it by explaining the Triadic phrase at Matthew 28:19b. This is the<br />
scripture that is used in many Encyclopedias to promote a biblical trinity, even when they say ‘Neither<br />
the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament’. Many works cross-reference<br />
Mt 28:19 to scriptures like 2 Cor 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the<br />
communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all"; "But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up<br />
stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" In none of<br />
these scriptures are they ever said to be one in nature/essence. In fact, it is the Father that is clearly<br />
defined as being "God" when they are all put together.<br />
Many say to me that by reading Acts 2:38, we can see that Jesus alone is synonymous with the Trinity,<br />
"And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ<br />
unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." After all, this scripture<br />
only mentions "in the name of Jesus", while Mt 28:19 mentions "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy<br />
Spirt."<br />
But is this really so? If we look at Acts 8:14-17 we read, "Now when the Apostles at Jerusalem heard<br />
Samaria had recieved the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John; who came down and prayed<br />
that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them; but they had only been<br />
baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. RSV<br />
So here we can see that baptism into Jesus is not the same as being baptized into the holy spirit.<br />
Conclusion: Most works, like Bowman You Should Believe in a Trinity only attack a few of the quotes<br />
in the SYBT, but those only the few THEY CAN use against us. Many others in the booklet are ignored<br />
or simply brushed away. There are verily hundreds that could have been used, and better ones that the<br />
WTS probably could have made better use of.<br />
I will finish off with a quote from E.H. Broadbent to show you where I am coming from. Speaking of the<br />
much persecuted but humble group of Christians of times past, the Waldenses and the Albigenses, he<br />
says<br />
"They considered that in all times and in all forms of churches there were enlightened men<br />
of god. They therefore made use of the writings of Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom,<br />
Bernard of Clairvaux and others, not accepting, however, all they wrote, but only that which<br />
corresponded with the older, purer teaching of Scripture." The Pilgrim Church, p.120<br />
But while I am writing all of this in response to you, you have yet to introduce the holy spirit into your<br />
argument, which means that all your posturing has been for nothing.<br />
-Heinz<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
Back to Previous Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim6.htm (7 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:09:55 AM]
Conversations on the Trinity-Part 6-All those quotes<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim6.htm (8 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:09:55 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
Conversations on the Trinity-Part 7<br />
Unless otherwise specified, all scriptures are from the New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> (NJB).<br />
Abbreviations=NASB (New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong>)<br />
TEV (Today's English Version-Good News <strong>Bible</strong>)<br />
ASV (American Standard Version 1901)<br />
Tim: Heinz, Our discussion started with me trying to show you how, despite the <strong>Bible</strong> saying<br />
that Jehovah is a jealous God and that He will never share His glory with another, it is<br />
phenominal that Paul, a jew schooled in the traditions of his fathers and now a believer in<br />
the man Jesus, attributed to this very<br />
same Jesus glory and honor (i.e. the worship of all creation) that apparently was only due to<br />
God.<br />
Reply: What do Jews really think?<br />
"the <strong>Bible</strong> refers to judges [Psalm 82; John 10:34] who teach God’s divine law as gods.<br />
This title was bestowed on them because they were teachers of the Almighty’s divine law,<br />
not because they were actually God in any way. This usage is quite common in the Jewish<br />
scriptures. For example, in Exodus 7:1 Moses is called a god because he was God’s<br />
representative to Pharaoh. In essence, Jesus’ reply supports the very opposite of what<br />
missionaries are trying to put forth. Jesus, as depicted by John, is explaining that his<br />
identification with God is comparable to the Jewish judges’ identification with God.<br />
The fact remains that no author in the New Testament ever advanced the doctrine of the<br />
Trinity. It took many years from the time the last Gospel was completed for the defenders<br />
of the church to promote this alien creed.<br />
-Rabbi Tovia Singer<br />
see http://www.outreachjudaism.org/claimgod.html]<br />
"The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a<br />
Trinity is to be found there or even in any way shadowed forth, is an assumption that has<br />
long held sway in theology, but is entirely without foundation. The Jews, as a people, under<br />
its teachings became stern opponents of all polytheistic tendencies, and they have remained<br />
unflinching monotheists to this day. On this point there is no break between the Old<br />
Testament and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by<br />
his Jewish parents in the Old Testament Scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a<br />
new Gospel indeed, but not a new theology. He declared that He came 'not to destroy the<br />
Law and the Prophets, but to fulfil' them, and he accepted as his own belief the great text of<br />
Jewish monotheism, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.' His proclamation<br />
concerning himself was in line with Old Testament prophecy. He was the 'Messiah' of the<br />
promised Kingdom, the 'Son of Man' of Jewish hope...if He sometimes asked 'Who do men<br />
say that I the Son of Man am?' He gave no answer beyond the implied assertion of<br />
Messiahship." A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, 1900, pp. 4, 5 by L. L.<br />
Paine, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Bangor Theological Seminary.<br />
Now, the <strong>Bible</strong> does say, "I am Yahweh, that is my name! I shall not yield my glory to another, nor my<br />
honour to idols." Is 42:8<br />
But then, the <strong>Bible</strong> does also say that Jesus was GIVEN glory from God, and he in turn gave it to his<br />
followers.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (1 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:57 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
"I [Jesus] have given them the glory you gave to me, that they may be one as we are one."<br />
Christians share in God's glory, so it is indeed given to others, including Jesus, who was given God's<br />
glory [Almighty God does not need to be given anything], glory as of the only begotten from the Father<br />
(John 1:14), and as followers of Christ, we can also say, "I do not seek my own glory." John 8:50<br />
So what was Isaiah talking about? It is quite obvious that Jehovah's glory was not intended for images,<br />
"nor my honour to idols." See also Isaiah 44:9-20<br />
Tim: Your first objection was to say that we should not be surprised at this for, "God's<br />
representatives are often that given the glory Jehovah is given."<br />
>>This point is utterly bankrup. If we look to God's holiness we will understand why this is<br />
so. Jehovah is totally separate from all of creation. This is what Louis Berkof called the<br />
"majesty holiness" of God (see his systematic theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, p.<br />
73). The uniqueness of God from all creation is affirmed in Ex. 15:11: "Who is like thee, O<br />
Lord, among the gods? Who is like thee, majestic in holiness, terrible in glorious deeds,<br />
doing wonders?" And as such, it would be impossible for any idol, and by inference,<br />
creature to share the same honor and glory as God.<br />
Reply: There is something which my readers will tire of, but I have not yet discussed with you.<br />
It is called the Schaliach Principle which is explained this way,<br />
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is<br />
regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is<br />
regarded as having been committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish<br />
Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder<br />
GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic law as<br />
follows: "One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach] is thereby<br />
granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This is the more<br />
remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger was<br />
commonly a slave" (Murray 18).<br />
George Buchanan also appears to take this position in his commentary on Hebrews (Anchor <strong>Bible</strong><br />
series). Buchanan notes that "a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the<br />
power of attorney for the one who sent him" (Buchanan 7). He also adds "The New Testament apostles<br />
were apostles of Jesus, and Jesus was an apostle of God. It is against this background that Jesus, in the<br />
same context, could say both, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is<br />
greater than I" (John 14:28).<br />
Revelation 19:10 makes the point clear for the created order. The angel says to John as he<br />
fell down to worship him: "See to it that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of<br />
your bretheren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!" The angel puts himself on<br />
par with John and thus we can<br />
conclude that the only being that can be worshipped is God.<br />
So, back to 1 Chron 29:20. You responded:<br />
>>I am not interested in a discusssion of why you think the ASV, RV, KJV is a poor<br />
translation of the Hebrew Shachah (LXX proskunew) since it is rendered that way in many<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>s in the NT. This was not my point. I have no trouble with translating the verb<br />
proskunew "worship" as that is what it precisely means (see esp. Hebrew 1:6). The issue I<br />
have is that David, in 1 Chron. 29:20, is not the recipient of worship and thus you cannot<br />
use this to support your argument against Is. 45:23 cf. with Philp. 2:11! The SENTENCE<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (2 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:57 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
CONSTRUCTION in the ASV and KJV have been corrected in the more recent <strong>Bible</strong>s: NIV<br />
reads "Praise [worship] the Lord your God." So they all praised [worshipped] the Lord, the<br />
God of<br />
their fathers; they bowed down and fell prostrate before the Lord and the King." David<br />
made it clear from the start: it was the "Lord your God" who was to be worshipped, not the<br />
king. The fact that David remained standing is not proof that he intended himself to be<br />
worshipped and receive the "same<br />
honor as God." The context refutes this. "Praise [worship] the Lord your God!" On the<br />
other hand, in Philip 2:11, Jesus receives worship and honor as all creation bows before<br />
Him. This is all to the glory of God the Father as "all must honor the Son even as the honor<br />
the Father. He who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father who sent Him" (Jn<br />
5:23). This verse goes far beyond making Jesus a mere ambassador who is acting in the<br />
name of a monarch, but gives him full and complete equality with the Father (cf. Phip 2:11).<br />
Reply: Much has happened since angels were rendered worship/obeisance in the OT.<br />
"When the two angels reached Sodom in the evening, Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. As soon as<br />
Lot saw them, he stood up to greet them, and bowed to the ground." Gen 19:1<br />
The word "bowed" is the Hebrew word Shachah/Sahah, the same word used at Exodus 34:14:<br />
"for you will worship [shachah] no other god, since Yahweh's name is the Jealous One, he is a jealous<br />
God."<br />
An angel, working as God's agent, can receive the honor due to Jehovah, as mentioned above. See also<br />
Numbers 22:31<br />
But 3 very important things happened since then.<br />
A) Jesus was elevated above the angels.<br />
"He is now as far above the angels as the title which he has inherited is higher than their own name."<br />
Heb 1:4<br />
"who for a short while made less than the angels; now crowned with glory and honour." Heb 2:9<br />
Now even the angels bow to him, "Let all the angels of God pay him homage." Heb 1:6<br />
The question we need to ask here, is why, if Jesus is almighty God, does he even need to be exalted<br />
above anything?<br />
B) Since anointed Christians will also share in the glory that was given to Jesus by God (John 17:22),<br />
they will now also judge angels. See 1 Corinthians 6:3<br />
C) Jesus is now the mediator between God and men. 1 Tim 2:5<br />
Whereas God used others in the past as his spokesman, he now only uses the His Son:<br />
"At many moments in the past and by many means, God spoke to our ancestors through the<br />
prophets, but in our time, the final days, he has spoken to us in the person of his Son."<br />
Hebrews 1:1<br />
Hence, considering the above 3 points, there was no longer any purpose in bowing to angels, as was the<br />
practise when bowing to superiors.<br />
As for the ASV, I don't think the NIV "corrected" anything.<br />
"Then David said to the whole assembly, 'Praise the LORD your God.' So they all praised<br />
the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate [MT Shachah; LXX<br />
proskuneo] before the LORD and the king." NIV<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (3 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:57 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
This reminds me of something Augustine once said about Thomas at John 20:28:<br />
"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the<br />
man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of<br />
what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the<br />
other." Augustine in "Tractate CXXI"<br />
Again, there is the scripture at II Kings 18:28 in the LXX, which reads:<br />
"And Achimaaz cried out and said to the king, Peace. And he did obeisance [proskuneo] to<br />
the king with his face to the ground, and said, Blessed be the Lord thy God, who has<br />
delivered up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord the king." (Brenton)<br />
Here we have Achimaaz bowing before the king, and exclaiming thanks to YHWH. No one here<br />
supposes that David is almighty God, and there is nothing strange about this type of vocalizing. Where<br />
God has his king in the past as a god-like right hand man, he now has Jesus as king and appointed god<br />
and right hand man.<br />
The NAB says in a footnote of the Davidic king at Psalm 45, "The king in courtly language, is called<br />
'god,' i.e., more than human, representing God to the people."<br />
The Distinguished Professor of Theology at Baylor University's Truett Theological<br />
Seminary Millard J. Erickson wrote, "There will always be a difference between God and<br />
human beings. The gap between us is not merely moral and spiritual disparity which<br />
originated with the fall. It is metaphysical, steming from creation. Even when redeemed and<br />
glorified, we will still be his human creatures. We will never become God." And thus we<br />
can never receive the same "honor and worship" as God. As such, only God can be<br />
worshipped and this is exactly what Jesus receives in Philippians 2:11.<br />
Reply: And this Scripture does not change anything I have said. Php 2 is another example of exaltation<br />
Christology.<br />
"God raised him high, and gave him the name which is above all others."<br />
Why again, does Almighty God need to be raised? Why does he need to be GIVEN anything?<br />
And again, in verse 11, we have a similar situation as we have with the kings of old. They may have been<br />
given praise, but it was all for God's glory in the end.<br />
"Every tongue should acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord, TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER."<br />
>>I also am not interested in talking about Phillipians 2, since it is an<br />
ambiguous scripture, and a rule of hermeneutics states that you cannot use<br />
an ambiguous scripture as a proof text. You trinitarians are as unsure of the<br />
kenosis of this text as you are of how to translate it:<br />
"he did not think to snatch at equality with God." New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
I am not interested in a modalist discussion, but one of the THREE in ONE.<br />
Reply: Well, I guess that I disagree that it is ambiguous. v.6 declares that Jesus was in the<br />
morphe of God and verse 7 says that he is in the morphe of a servant. Just as the "form of<br />
servant" is a servant by nature, so the "form of God" is God by nature. In this passage, what<br />
Jesus emptied himself<br />
of was not the divine morphe. There is no point in the passage that can<br />
support this. Combined with Col.2:9, we can be certain that Jesus was the<br />
fullness of God in body/flesh. Jesus emptied himself by "taking the from of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (4 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:57 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
a servant." The participle phrase is an explanation of how Jesus emptied<br />
himself, or what he did that constituted kenosis. While the text does not<br />
specify what he emptied himself of, it is noteworthy that "form of a<br />
servant" constrasts sharpley with "equality with God." It is equallity with<br />
God , not the form of God, of which Jesus emptied himself. While he did not<br />
cease to be in nature what the Father was, he became functionally<br />
subordinate to the Father for the period of the incarnation. Jesus is the<br />
God-Man.<br />
Reply: "A vigorous debate still continues around the hymnic passage. However, the suggestion that the<br />
hymn has been constructed with a strong allusion to Adam, or even modeled after the template of Adam<br />
christology is still persuasive." p. 282, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, by James D.G. Dunn<br />
The ambiguity I had mentioned earlier is simply one that is shared by many translators and exegetes.<br />
The Harper Collins Study <strong>Bible</strong> NRSV states that some of the key words used here "had puzzled<br />
interpeters" and are "problematic."<br />
Sure, we have the way that Trinitarians like to look at this verse, as is stated in Heinz Cassirer's "did not<br />
look upon his equality with God as something to be held in his grasp," but there are many others that do<br />
not see this in the same way:<br />
"who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,<br />
but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men" ASV<br />
"who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"<br />
NASB<br />
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" Revised<br />
Standard Version<br />
"Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized, accounted the being equal with God."<br />
Rotherham<br />
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped" TCE<br />
"Christ Jesus, who, when he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as a prize" <strong>Bible</strong><br />
in Living English<br />
"Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped" New<br />
Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped"<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"who, though being in God's Form, yet did not meditate a Usurpation to BE like God" Emphatic Diaglott<br />
"Who, [beginning] [existing] in a form of God did not consider a seizing, to be equal to God" 21st<br />
Century Literal<br />
"although he was like God in nature, he never even considered the chance to be equal with God." 21st<br />
Century Free<br />
"who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." Revised Version<br />
"Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God." An American<br />
Translation/Goodspeed<br />
"who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped"<br />
NET <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"who though he had god-like form, did not regard it as a prize to be equal to God." The Original<br />
NT-Schonfield<br />
[Footnote: "Referring to the sin which Adam was tempted by Satan to commit, and which Lucifer in his<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (5 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:57 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
former state had committed (Gen 3:5; Isa 14:12-14). Moses is said to have had a divine form, and as an<br />
infant to have received the crown from Pharoah's head (Josephus, Antiq II 232-235). The Christ Above<br />
of the Jewish mystics had angelic likeness as a Son of God (Dan 4:25-28; Job 1:6-7)."]<br />
"who - did not think it a matter to earnestly desired." -Clarke<br />
"Did not regard - as an object of solicitous desire." -Stuart<br />
"Thought not - a thing to be seized." -Sharpe<br />
"Did not eagerly grasp." -Kneeland<br />
"Did not violently strive." -Dickinson<br />
"did not meditate a usurpation." -Turnbull<br />
If, as the New Scofield <strong>Bible</strong> says, that this verse is the strongest assertions of Christ's deity, then those<br />
who hold such a position have a real problem.<br />
These verses are about humility, and how, unlike Adam, Jesus did not try to be equal to God. That is why<br />
the preceeding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean that we<br />
should try to cling to our equality with God? Of course not. To translate this verse in a way that promotes<br />
the deity of Christ robs it of its true force and meaning.<br />
But what of the phrase, "form of God" or EN MORFH QEOU<br />
Carolyn Osiek writes that the NIV translation, "being in very nature God," misses the mark since it<br />
"overstates the traditional<br />
interpretation" by rendering MORFH as "very nature" instead of "form." Osiek goes on to say that<br />
MORFH [in the Phil account] does not mean nature, "but form, shape, or appearance . . ." She says more<br />
and favors the understanding "status" for MORFH. She goes on to say that "divinity in the absolute sense<br />
is probably not being ascribed to Christ." EN MORFH QEOU appears to be a dative of indirect object<br />
that describes "an exalted heavenly figure very close to God," but not one who possesses absolute<br />
divinity (Osiek, Carolyn. _Philippians, Philemon_. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000). See page 60.<br />
Also, "This interpretation is enhanced by the rest of verse 6: he did not consider it a hARPAGMOS,<br />
something to be seized or exploited, to be ISA QEWi, equal or of equal status to God" (Osiek 60).<br />
I think she has something here regarding status, since EN MORFH QEOU (in the form of God) seems to<br />
be contrasted with EN MORFH DOULOU (form of a slave). A slave is not the antithesis of deity. A<br />
slave, or servant, has the bearing of status or function among humanity, serving humans while heavenly<br />
beings, angels, have also served and held a functional equality with God.<br />
[See Exodus 3:2, 14-16 cf. Acts 7:30-32; Gen 16:13, 21:17; 22:15,16; 31:11, 13, Jg 6:12, 13, 14, 20, 21,<br />
22, 23; 13:6, 21; Deut 5:24; Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23; Psalm 8:5; 82:1; 97:7; 138:1.]<br />
They are representatives, and as such, can even bear the title of "God." See footnote Psalm 45:7 New<br />
American <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
As Buchanan says, "a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power<br />
of attorney for the one who sent him"<br />
But for sure, the notion that MORFH can also mean outer appearance, but too much cannot be read into<br />
this as assuming divinity in its absolute sense, as even sinful humans can have a "form [MORFWSIN] of<br />
godliness, although they have denied its power." 2 Tim 3:5 NASB<br />
"But Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of God. His oneness with the Father does not<br />
mean absolute identity of being. Although the Son of God in his preexistent being was in -<br />
the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God."-The New International<br />
Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. II, p. 80.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (6 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
"When he [Paul] says that Christ existed in the form of God, he implies that Christ was of<br />
the same nature as God, [yes a spirit] that the principle of his being was essentially divine.<br />
Since he had this affinity with God, he might have aspired to "equality" with him; he might<br />
have claimed an equal share in all the powers which God exercises and in all the honors<br />
which are rendered to him by his creatures. Standing so near to God, he might have resented<br />
his inferior place and thrown off his obedience. (d) Yet he never attempted the robbery<br />
which might have raised him higher….But in Greek, as in English, the word "robbery"<br />
involved the idea of violent seizure, and what Christ resisted was not merely the prize but<br />
the means of obtaining it. He refused to seize for his own the glory which belongs to<br />
God….Paul…set the obedience of Christ over against that old conception of a heavenly<br />
being [Satan] who had sought by violence to make himself equal to God." (e.a.)-The<br />
Interpreter's <strong>Bible</strong>, in loc cit.<br />
Additionally, you may want to check out the book<br />
entitled Where Christology Began : essays on<br />
Philippians 2 ; Ralph P. Martin, Brian J. Dodd,<br />
editors. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox<br />
Press, 1998.<br />
We will have more on Adam Christology below.<br />
Tim: OK - Here goes the Trinity:<br />
This doctrine is not polytheism or tri-theism. It is also not modalism. No<br />
one in Christianity believe this or teaches it. Christianity insists that<br />
only one God exists, but it is just as emphatic in maintaining that the<br />
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all are God. Moreover, the doctrine can<br />
be stated that God is one as to essence and three as to person. Christians<br />
maintain that while the doctrine is nowhere stated explicitly in Scripture,<br />
it is a logically warranted inference from what does say about God.<br />
This doctrine as dictated in 325 and 381, specifically the way it is<br />
worded, seems rather technical and remote to our way of thinking. Some<br />
people get the feeling that the church fathers were reacting to something,<br />
but exactly what is not clear. And, of course, not everyone agreed with the<br />
decisions of the councils, and the implications of the creedal formulations<br />
for what Christians say about the Son's and the Holy Spirit's relation to<br />
one another and to the Father continued to be a bone of contention for many<br />
centuries among Christians. As you may know, one difference of opinion about<br />
the Trinity still divides the Western and Eastern churches to this day.<br />
Predominantly, when I speak of the Trinity to people, they grant that the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> does warrent belief in some kind of Trinity, but the biggest issue is<br />
seems to be concerning how we are to understand what we are saying when we<br />
teach that God is Triune. Perhaps this may account for the many paragraphs<br />
like the one you quoted to me in your letter. Most scholars of the history<br />
of Christianity believe in the Trinity. But the expression of it often gets<br />
"muddled" and "confused." Now whether you like it or not, the finite will<br />
always struggle to understand the infinite and the former will only be able<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (7 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
to comprehend what the latter allow him to comprehend (and only to a finite<br />
degree).<br />
I will also conceed that most people in the Church do not understand this<br />
doctrine, as they have never faithfully studied and meditated upon it. In<br />
fact, most lay-Christians live as practical tri-theists. They don't even<br />
seem to care about the doctrine or what exactly it states. This is a tragedy<br />
of catastrophic proportions. As Wolfhart Pannenberg replies to those who<br />
think this doctrine is unimportant:<br />
"It is not a doctrine of only secondary importance in addition to some other<br />
basic concept of the one God: if the issue is considered in terms like that,<br />
the case for trinitarian theology is lost. It can be defended only on the<br />
condition that there is no other appropriate conception of the God of<br />
Christian faith that the trinity. In that case we cannot have first a<br />
doctrine on the one God and, afterwards, in terms of some additional<br />
supernatural mystery, the trinitarian doctrine. Rather, if the trinitarian<br />
doctrine is sound, Christian monotheism can only mean that the three persons<br />
of the trinity are not three gods, but one God only. Everthing that is said<br />
in Christian theology on the one God has to be predicated, then, of the<br />
three persons of the trinity in their communion.<br />
If a case can be made out for trinitarian theology, the decisive argument<br />
must be that the trinitarian doctrine simply states explicitly what is<br />
implicit already in God's revelation in Jesus Christ and basically in Jesus'<br />
historical relationship to the Father whom he proclaimed to be the one God.<br />
If Jesus' relationship to the Father could be adequately described and<br />
accounted for in other terms than trinitarian doctrine, the case for that<br />
doctrine would be lost. It can only be defended if the trinitarian concept<br />
of God can be shown to be the only adequate and fully explicit expression of<br />
the reality of God revealed in Jesus Christ."<br />
Indeed, this is a most significant doctrine theologically. If Father, Son,<br />
and HS are not coequally God and not of the same essence, there are serious<br />
problem, for example, for the doctrine of salvation. It is generally agreed<br />
in evangelical theology that because of human sin and guilt before God, a<br />
radical remedy is required. Someone must die to pay the penalty, but who?<br />
Evangelical theology contends that it msut be a human being, for humans have<br />
incurred the guilt and penalty. But no mere human could atone even for their<br />
own sins, let alone for those of the whole world, so the Savior must be God.<br />
But if Jesus is less than God (above humans and even above angels, but still<br />
not equal to the Father and the Spirit), how can he serve as an atoning<br />
sacrifice for all? Redemption is in jeopardy. Moreover, if there is not<br />
equality of being and purpose, then perhaps Christ's desire to offer a<br />
sacrifice is contrary to the Father's thinking about how to atone for human<br />
sin. Perhaps, as some earlier in church history have supposed , the Son's<br />
propitiation of the Father attemps to win over a Father who is not inclined<br />
to handle sin in this way. And what if the Father decided to reject the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (8 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
Son's sacrifice?<br />
As to the Holy Spirit, if he is not fully God, the implications for<br />
salvation are again serious. Scripture teaches that the HS regenerates<br />
believers and indwells and fills them, but if the HS is a lesser God or no<br />
God at all, how can we be sure that he can do any of these things? Moreover,<br />
unless he is coequal in being and purpose with the Father and the Son, what<br />
guarantees that even if he tried to do such things, the Father and Son would<br />
recognize his actions as appropriate and relate to us accordingly?<br />
Reply: Well, we have 961 words, and no Scriptures thus far. Let us examine a few points. You said:<br />
"It is generally agreed in evangelical theology that because of human sin and guilt before God, a radical<br />
remedy is required. Someone must die to pay the penalty, but who? Evangelical theology contends that it<br />
msut be a human being, for humans have incurred the guilt and penalty. But no mere human could atone<br />
even for their<br />
own sins, let alone for those of the whole world, so the Savior must be God. But if Jesus is less than God<br />
(above humans and even above angels, but still not equal to the Father and the Spirit), how can he serve<br />
as an atoning<br />
sacrifice for all?"<br />
Reply: God's death, I believe, is not a proper or corresponding ransom, as God dying would too high a<br />
price. Besides, God cannot die, "Surely you, Yahweh, are from ancient times, my holy God, who never<br />
dies!" Hab 1:12<br />
This is again, where the Adam Christology talked about above comes into play.<br />
Rom 5:14 Nonetheless death reigned over all from Adam to Moses, even over those whose<br />
sin was not the breaking of a commandment, as Adam was. He prefigured the One who was<br />
to come..."<br />
1 Cor 15:22 Just as all die in Adam, so in Christ all will be brought to life.<br />
1 Cor 15:45 So the first man, Adam, as scripture says, became a living soul; and the last<br />
Adam has became a life-giving spirit.<br />
If we lost eternal life because of Adam, who was once perfect and without sin, then it only follows that it<br />
would take another Adam, another perfect man, to get it back for us.<br />
The NWT renders 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 in a superior manner when it deals with the ransom,<br />
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who<br />
gave himself a corresponding ransom for all-[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own<br />
particular times."<br />
Rob Bowman calls the NWT's rendering at 1 Tim 2:6 of antilutron ["a corresponding ransom,"] an<br />
"overtranslation."<br />
(See Why You Should Believe In The Trinity. pp. 76, 77)<br />
Now, the NASB, NJB and others all render this as simply "ransom." If Paul wanted just "ransom," he<br />
could have just used LUTRON, but instead he used LUTRON with the preposition ANTI, indicating, as<br />
grammarians generally agree, of "substitution." Vine's says that ANTILUTRON is "significant," and<br />
indicates a "substitutionary ransom." Surely Vine's take on this must also be considered<br />
"overtranslation."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (9 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
Actually, it could be said that translating ANTILUTRON as simply "ransom" is undertranslation.<br />
H.A.W. Meyers says: “The word antilutron, is synonymous with antallagma<br />
in Mt. 16:26; it is distinguished from the simple lutron only in this,<br />
that the preposition makes the idea of exchange still more<br />
emphatic."--Meyers Commentary on the NT.<br />
"Antilutron: a corresponding price."--Young’s Concordance.<br />
"It signifies a substitute ransom price, a ransom in place of another or others." Paul's Letter<br />
to the Colossians-An Exegetical and Devotional Commentary by J. Hampton Keathley<br />
III-Biblical Studies Press 2001, p. 64<br />
"the reference in 1 Timothy 2:6...has a substitutionary meaning." Davies, Christ in our<br />
Place, 89-90<br />
"A ransom, price of redemption, or rather corresponding ransom. It<br />
properly signifies a price by which captives are redeemed from the<br />
enemy; and that kind of exchange in which the life of one is redeemed by<br />
the life of another. so Aristotle uses the verb antilytroo for redeeming<br />
life by life."--Parkhurst's Lexicon;47<br />
A look at the word ANTI help us with this reasoning. The BDAG Lexicon says that it is "indicating that<br />
one thing is equiv[alent] to another" and some of the examples it gives are Matt 5:38, "Eye for [ANTI]<br />
eye and tooth for [ANTI] tooth" and Romans 12:17, "Never pay back evil with [ANTI] evil."<br />
This substitutionary value is stressed further by the use of the prepositional hUPER following LUTRON<br />
in 1 Timothy. So, when the <strong>Bible</strong> tells us that, "it was through one man [Adam] that sin came into the<br />
world, and through sin death, and thus death spread to the whole world" then it requires another Adam to<br />
free us from this sinful inheritance of death. (Romans 5:12) Both Adam and Jesus are called the "Son of<br />
God" [Luke 3:38; 4:3] but, while Adam may at the same time be the father of a sinful many, Jesus will<br />
bear their sins, and we can be in this way counted as offspring of the father and suffering servant who<br />
gives us eternity. (Isaiah 9:6; 53:10-12)<br />
For God, the creator of universe, the awesome, powerful, dynamic Almighty Jehovah to have to pay this<br />
price is not the ANTILUTRON, it is not a corresponding, substitutionary ransom, for a million planets<br />
housed with billions of people could never measure up to the immeasurable Yahweh.<br />
Tim: The doctrine of theTrinity is also significant in terms of the truth of revelation. In 1<br />
Cor. 2, Paul tells us that the hidden things of God have been revealed to us by God's Spirit,<br />
the Holy Spirit. In verse 11 Paul writes, "For who among men know the thoughts of a man<br />
except the spirit of the man, which is in him. Even so the thoughts of God no one knows<br />
except the Spirit of God." Paul's logic is hard to fault. Who would better know what you are<br />
thinking than you? Similarly, who would better know the truths<br />
of God than God's own Spirit? But what if the HS does not share the divine essence but is a<br />
lesser one (even a none divine one)? Then, according to Paul's logic, the HS would not<br />
necesarrily be in the best position to know the truths of God, and if that is so, we are in deep<br />
trouble in relation to Scripture. Scripture clearly teaches that revelation of God's truth<br />
comes through the Spirit and that the Spirit inspired Scripture (1 Cor 2:9-13). Believing this<br />
to be so and believing the Spirit to be coequally God so thathe really knows the truth of<br />
God, evangelicals take the <strong>Bible</strong> to be God's Word and understand it as a true revelation<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (10 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
from God about himself, ourselves, etc. As Paul says, who would better know what someone<br />
is thinking than that person himself? If the HS doesn't share the divine essence withthe<br />
Father and the Son, he is not in a position to know. The implicationsfor our knowledge of<br />
God are staggering!<br />
Reply: It is nice to finally start talking about the spirit. You quoted verse 11, ""For who among men<br />
know the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him. Even so the thoughts of God no<br />
one knows except the Spirit of God."<br />
I would say that the phrase "spirit of the man" helps us to understand "the Spirit of God," much like the<br />
"spirit of error" tells us how to view the "spirit of truth" at 1 John 4:6.<br />
"The spirit of man bears the same relation to man as the spirit of God bears to God (1 Cor. 2:11). As the<br />
spirit of man is not another person distinct from himself, but his human consciousness or mind by which<br />
he is able to be self-aware and contemplate things peculiar to himself, so the spirit of God is not another<br />
person distinct from God. It is that consciousness and intelligence that is essential and peculiar to Him<br />
whereby He manifests amd reveals Himself to man. As the spirit of man means the man himself (the<br />
essence of a man is his mind), so the spirit of God means God Himself. The parallel usage of mind and<br />
spirit is seen in the Apostle Paul's citation of Isaiah 40:13 ('Who has directed the spirit of the Lord, or as<br />
His counselor has instructed him?') and in Romans 11:34 and 1 Corinthians 2:16 where 'spirit' is rendered<br />
'mind.'<br />
If the 'spirit of truth' in John 14:17 is a person, then 'the spirit of error' in 1 John 4:6 must also be a<br />
person, since the two are directly contrasted. The fact is, that each 'spirit' represents an influence or a<br />
power under which a person acts, but neither is a person in itself." p. 597, One God & One Lord by<br />
Graeser, Lynn and Schoenheit.<br />
Let us look at some other examples of "the spirit of" in the <strong>Bible</strong>:<br />
"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both birds, and cattle, and beasts, and every creeping thing<br />
that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life" Gen<br />
7:22 ASV<br />
"the spirit of their father Jacob revived" NJB "he recovered from the shock" TEV Gen 45:27<br />
"whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom" ASV "whom I have endowed with skill" NJB Ex 28:3<br />
"and have filled him with the spirit of God" NJB "I have filled him with my power" TEV Ex 31:3<br />
"have filled him with the spirit of God" NJB "God has filled him with his power" TEV Ex 35:31<br />
"this spirit of suspicion comes over him" NJB "a husband becomes suspicious of his wife" TEV Numbers<br />
5:14<br />
"Joshua, son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom" NJB "Joshua, son of Nun was filled with<br />
wisdom" TEV Deut 34:9<br />
"and the spirit of Yahweh began to stir him" NJB "the LORD's power began to strengthen him" TEV<br />
Judges 13:25<br />
"the spirit of Elijah has come to rest on Elisha" NJB "the power of Elijah is on Elisha" TEV 2 Kings 2:15<br />
"the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul" ASV "the God of Israel roused the hostility of Pul" NJB 1<br />
Chron 5:26<br />
"the spirit of the Philistines" ASV "the hostility of the Philistines" NJB 2 Chron 21:16<br />
More examples can be allowed, but I think you get the gist of it here. The Spirit of God is God's power,<br />
his breath, it is God Himself. There is no difficulty here, it is simply not another person within a triune<br />
Godhead.<br />
"After being exalted to the right hand of God and receiving the sacred breath as promised from the<br />
Father, he poured out all this you see and hear." Acts 2:33 Unvarnished NT<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (11 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
For more on the spirit go to http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/spirit.htm and<br />
http://members.aol.com/hector3001/spiritresearch.htm<br />
Tim: Think as well of the implications for revelation if Jesus is not coequally God. The <strong>Bible</strong><br />
says that Jesus is the exact image of God (Heb 1:3) and that in Him dwells all the fulness of<br />
the Godhead in bodily form (Col. 2:9). Jesus adds that whomever have seen him have seen<br />
the Father (Jn. 14:9). John says that while no one else has ever seen God, the Son knows<br />
him and reveals him to us (Jn 1:18). But if Jesus is a lesser god or not a god at all, thereare<br />
no such guarantees. In his very person he cannot reveal God, for he isnot coequal with him.<br />
Moreover, we cannot even be sure that his teachingabout God reveals the truth, for if he is<br />
not coequal with God how can we really know what he is talking about when he speaks of<br />
God? If so, then in knowing about Christ and knowing him personally by faith, we cannot be<br />
sure<br />
our knowledge of God increases at all.<br />
Reply: Let us take an even closer look at the above Scriptures.<br />
Heb 1:3 "the Son who is the effulgence of God's splendour, and the stamp of God's very being." New<br />
English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"He is the reflection of God's glory and bears the impress of God's own being." NJB<br />
"He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact likeness of his being" International Standard Version<br />
"He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature" RSV<br />
We can sum all this up with Beck's An American Translation's "who shines with God's glory and is the<br />
copy of His being."<br />
The KJV 1611 edition cross-references this scripture with the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon 7:26,<br />
"She is a breath of the power of God, pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; ...For she is a<br />
reflection of the eternal light, untarnished mirror of God's active power, and image of his goodness."<br />
Jesus, as the created Wisdom (see Sirach 24:9; Prov 8:22), reflected perfectly the Father, whom even<br />
trinitarian theology teaches, he could never be.<br />
There are 2 keys words at play here. APAUGASMA ("reflected brightness" Thayer's) and CARAKTHR<br />
(stamp, impress).<br />
APAUGASMA is "in the sence of brightness from a source; pass(ive)."<br />
Vincent concludes in his Word Studies, "WE come nearer to the sense of the word (Glory/DOXA) in this<br />
passage in the story of Moses's vision of the divine glory."<br />
It is interesting that the previous Scriptures in Hebrews 1 point to the prophets as mediators, but now we<br />
have the Son as such.<br />
Moses was the mediator of the old covenant, Jesus is the mediator of the new.<br />
"According to Exod 34:29-35 the skin of Moses' face radiated after his meeting with the<br />
Lord on Mount Sinai (Exod 34:29.30.35), i.e. his face was enveloped in a divine aura. By<br />
this nimbus Moses was legitimated as the true representative of the LORD (cf. Matt 17:2,<br />
Acts 6:15)."<br />
Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
A stamp or an impression, like that on a coin, or a logo (see BDAG) is not the original, but a<br />
representation of the original. The picture of George Washington on the dollar bill is a CARAKTHR, it<br />
represents him, but it is not really him.<br />
A "copy" bears a resemblance to the original, it represents it, but it is NOT the same or equal in value to<br />
the original.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (12 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
Adam was made in God's image, in His likeness, but he failed as a true representative of God (Gen 1:26).<br />
This required another Adam.<br />
"Hebrews also considered Jesus a "reflection of the glory" which meant the same as being a<br />
"stamp of his nature" The Greek word for "stamp" comes from the verb charassein. "to<br />
mark, engrave, or stamp." The stamp, accordingly, refers to the characteristic and distinctive<br />
form, Isaac was claimed to have features (zlw 'iqoniw) like those of Abraham (Gen R. 21:2;<br />
53 /6). This does not mean either that Isaac was actually identical to Abraham or that Jesus<br />
was identical to God. Both were reflections and had characteristics of their fathers. Jesus<br />
was the son, heir, and apostle of God (3:1). As apostle or agent he was sent with the full<br />
authority of the one who sent him. A man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but<br />
legally. He has the power of attorney for the one who sent him. That which the apostle/agent<br />
does is in behalf of and has the approval and support of the one who sent him. He has the<br />
authority of an embassador who speaks in behalf of a king in negotiating for his country<br />
(Ber. 5:5). Jesus said that the one who recieved his apostles whom he had sent recieved<br />
Jesus himself and not only Jesus, but the one who had sent him (Matt 10:40-42;John 13:20).<br />
This is true because legally a man's apostle is like the man himself. The New Testament<br />
apostles were apostles of Jesus, and Jesus was an apostle of God. It is against this<br />
background that Jesus, in the same context, could say both, "He who has seen me has seen<br />
the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Legally Jesus was<br />
identical with the Father, but physically the Father was greater. Just as Christians thought of<br />
Jesus as an apostle of God, so Jews thought of Moses as the "apostle between Israel and<br />
their heavenly Father" (Sifra behuqqotai, perek 8:12; Lev 26:46). As the great apostle<br />
(magnus nuntius), Moses prayed "every hour, both day and night...to him who rules all the<br />
world" (Assumption of Moses 11:17). Samaritans also thought of Moses as their apostle of<br />
God: They called him a good apostle, a righteous apostle, an apostle of God, and the apostle<br />
of the true one whom God specially chose for apostleship. As apostle, he was also called<br />
"Son of the House of God", God's "man," "savior," "prophet," "faithful one," "crown of the<br />
righteous of the world," and "light of prophethood." As an apostle, Moses was entrusted<br />
with the mysteries and honored in the things revealed. To Moses was revealed that which<br />
preceded creation and also that which follows the day of vengeance. To him was opened the<br />
gateway to the unseen. He had drawn near to the holy deep darkness where the Divine One<br />
was and had seen the wonders of the unseen (Memar Marquah 2/12; 3/6; 4/4; 5/3; 6//3,11).<br />
There are many biblical illustrations of apostolic authority: Jehu was ritually made king<br />
when Elisha sent one of the sons of the prophets to annoint him. It was not necessary for<br />
Elisha to annoint him himself for the annointing to be authoritative (2Kings 9:1-10). Paul<br />
sent a message to the Corinthians, giving them authority to deliver to Satan the man who<br />
had been living with his father's wife, because Paul was "with them in spirit," meaning that<br />
his legal authorization was there (1Cor 5:1-5).<br />
"Bearing everything by the word of his power" does not picture the Son playing the part of<br />
Atlas carrying the world on his shoulder, nor in the sense that God is the "sustainer of the<br />
<strong>World</strong>" or "age" (sobel 'olam) (Exod R. 64c, /36:4). Rather, as ambassador or apostle, the<br />
Son has authority over everything since he is given legal authority and is supported in<br />
everything he does "by the word of [God's] power." He speaks for the One who sent him."<br />
The Anchor <strong>Bible</strong>-To the Hebrews, by George Wesley Buchanan<br />
The mistranslation of "Godhead" at Colossians 2:9 has already been dealt with elsewhere on my site.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (13 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
Tim: The doctrine of the Trinity safeguards against all of these devastatingposibilities. The one who dies on<br />
the cross is fully God as well as fullyhuman. Salvation is not merely his idea, an idea of whose merit he<br />
mustconvince the Father; it is the plan and work of the whole Godhead. The Holy Spirit does have the<br />
power to regenerate, and in indwelling believers he brings the very presence of God (Father, Son, and HS)<br />
into our lives. Moreover, the Spirit as God knows accurately the things of God, so we can be sure that the<br />
Scriptures He inspired are both the truth of God and the truth about God. And Jesus is, as Scripture says,<br />
the highest revelation of God<br />
that we have. Yes, he is a man; but he is also fully God (Titus 2:13).<br />
Now, lets dig in. What does the <strong>Bible</strong> say that leads many to formulate this great truth. First of all, the<br />
doctrine of the trinity is never explicitly stated in the <strong>Bible</strong>. There is no realiable verse that says, "God is<br />
one as to essence, three as to persons." Now, while no passage states this doctrine per se, there are other<br />
ways Scripturecan teach something. If Scripture makes various claims which, we taken together, necessitate<br />
or even warrant adoctrine, then the <strong>Bible</strong> teaches the doctrine by implication. It is easy to show that the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> only teaches that there is only one God. Moreover, Scripture applies terms such as "God" and<br />
"YAHWEH" and predicates various divine attributes and actions to more than one individual. There is<br />
good Biblical evidence that these three individual are distinct and exist simultaneously with one another.If<br />
Scripture does teach all of this, it doesn't "say" that God is one in essence and three as to persons, but it<br />
requires the theologian and exegete to do a lot of explaining. For how can there only be one God and yet<br />
several distinct, simultaneously existing individuals who are attributed divine<br />
qualities, called by divine names, and portrait as doing things that, according to the bible and reason, only<br />
a divine being could do? If the theologian and exegete are to avoid contradiction, the traditional<br />
formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity seems required.<br />
All of this means that the doctrine of the Trinity is inferred from things that Scripture teaches without<br />
actually being stated anywhere in Scripture. Inferential reasoning is notoriously slippery, for from one set<br />
of data it may be possible to generate several distinct inferences, each of which mutually excludes the<br />
others. But this is no reason to dispare. Careful attention to the text is possible and a reasonable conclusion<br />
is still within our God-guided reach. Formulating doctrines by inferential reasoning from Scripture can and<br />
will be difficult, but it is not an illegitimate wayto come up with doctrine. If the data warrant the inference,<br />
there is noreason to be apologetic about the doctrine.<br />
Here are a couple more ground rules. We do know what the early church fathers and church councils<br />
concluded about this doctrine. We also know from the writings of church fathers who attempted to expond<br />
and defend the decision of the church councils that rather sophisticated metaphysical distinctions were used<br />
to explain and defend this doctine. They introduced<br />
Greek and Latin terms (such as ousia, hypotasis, substantia, subsistantia, persona) to elucidate this<br />
doctrine, terms that were never used in this way in Scripture to speak of the Trinity. This should caution all<br />
to be careful not to impose these terms and concepts on the <strong>Bible</strong> so as to force biblical writers to make<br />
sophisticated metaphysical points that they never intended<br />
to make and possibly new little about. I know that it is frustrating for you and me to read various<br />
theological treatments of this doctrine in which theologians essentially "read back" into Scripture<br />
conclusions of the church councils that biblical authors never intended. That doesn't mean, however, that<br />
biblical authors would disagree with these claims and sophistications, but only that while we want to say<br />
whatever Scripture says about this topic, we should not make the biblical writer say more than they did. The<br />
secondcaution is to avoid reading current notions of "person" back into Scripture<br />
and into the formulations and writings of the church fathers who bravely grappled with these ideas. As you<br />
may know, some dramatic changes occured with Immanuel Kant in our understanding of how the mind<br />
functions in the knowing process, and all of that has implications for our notions of conciousness and<br />
self-conciousness, and those concepts have significant implications for what we mean by a person. Don't<br />
assume that 4th and 5th century thinkers undrstood conciousness, knowledge, or personhood as Kant and<br />
Descartes did, let alone as we do.<br />
A third rule deals with the relation of the NT to the OT. Progress of revelation means that God has not said<br />
everything that He wants to say about a topic in just one passage. It also means that as salvation-history<br />
progresses, earlier revelation is made more complete by later revelation. It becomes more clear. This is<br />
especially true for the doctrine of the Trinity. The truths that form the foundation of the doctrine are most<br />
clearly presented in the NT. Parts of the doctrine are at best only vaguely hinted<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (14 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
at in the OT. It is tempting to read the NT truth back into the OT, but we must, insofar as it is possible,<br />
resist that temptation. The reason is not that the NT contradicts the OT or doesn't flow from it, but rather<br />
that the OT does not say entirely what we claim on the basis of NT teaching. It is one thing to say, for<br />
example, that we can see how an OT passage that says the coming Messiah would also be God (Is 9:6-7)<br />
fits NT teaching that Jesus of Nazareth is the long awaited Messiah, and is the Son of God. It isanother<br />
thing to say that Isaiah is teaching that Jesus is God. Or again, itis one thing to say that a passage such as<br />
Is. 63:7-14 teaches that God, the angel of his presence, and God's Holy Spirit were all involved in Israel's<br />
exodus from Egypt and through the wilderness pilgrimage, and if the second member of that trio is the<br />
preincarnate Christ, then though this passage dosen't teach three distinct members of the Godhead, it can<br />
made to cohere with such a doctrine. On the other hand, it is another to say that this passage teaches not<br />
only plurality in the Godhead but also that each of the three individuals mentioned are distinct persons of<br />
the Godhead and coequal with one another. By being careful with OT texts, I don't think we lose anything<br />
of significance to the doctrine of the Trinity. On the other hand, we can clearly see the intimations of a<br />
triune God, outlines which, if not completely understood by the OT person, are still understandable in the<br />
NT era as seeds from which the fuller and clearer teaching would grow. Moreover, for the observant OT<br />
saint, those OT passages could have been a clue that ther is more to say about God that just that there is<br />
one God and YAHWEH is his name.<br />
THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD.<br />
This is a foundational claim of the <strong>Bible</strong>. This rules out all forms of polytheism. Moreover, Scripture makes<br />
it clear that this one God is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is not Baal, Molech, or any<br />
of the other pagan deities. Both OT and NT are very clear about this.<br />
Frist in the OT, there are many indications that there is only one God. The best known is the SHEMA.<br />
Though the syntax is a bit difficult in the original, the meaning of the verse is quite clear. 'ehod occurs some<br />
960 times in many contexts throughout the OT, and its predominant use is to designate something that is<br />
numerically one, and that seems to be its sense here. There is only one Yahweh; no one else qualifies as<br />
God. Other peoples have their own gods, but Israel's God is Yahweh alone. For Jews and Christians, the<br />
God of the <strong>Bible</strong> is the true and living God, so no other god is real. In light of Yahweh alone being God, v. 5<br />
instructs Israel to "lovethe LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with allyour<br />
might." Ex. 20:3 and Deut. 5:7 command Israel to "have no other gods before Me." When Moses asked God<br />
what to tell Israel if they ask the name of this God (Ex 3:13-14, NIV), God replys that Moses should answer,<br />
"I AM WHO I AM. this is what you are to say to the Israelites: "I AM has sent me to you." "This is my name<br />
forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation<br />
to generation" (v. 15). At various places in the OT God emphatically reiterates that he is the only God and<br />
that there is no other. Deuteronomy repeatedly makes this point. In chapter 4:35, 39 we read, "You were<br />
shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God, besides him there is no<br />
other...Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in<br />
heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other." See also Deut. 32:39.<br />
In 1 Kings and Psalms we read the same thing (1 Kings 8:59-60; Ps 86:10), but by far it is Isaiah who<br />
make the point most frequently. If you read 43:10; 45:5-6; 44:6; 45:14, 18; 45:21-22 you can't help but see<br />
the point. Sure most are in response to idols, but the point is that regardless of who or what it is, there is<br />
only one God. Isaiah 46:9 proclaims, "I am God, and<br />
there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me." The last line of 46:9 says more than that there is<br />
only one God. It also says that there is no one, even including THE HIGHEST OF ALL BEINGS BESIDE<br />
GOD, to compare with him (do you still think that representative of God - excluding Jesus for now - can<br />
receive the same honor?). In Exodus 15:11, Moses makes a further point that when Yahweh is compared<br />
with other nations' gods, there is no comparassion. Moses asks, "Who among the gods is like you, O<br />
LORD? Who is like you - majestic in holiness, awsome in glory, working wonders?"<br />
The NT repeats this message in various ways. On one occasion (Mk 12:29-30) Jesus was asked which one<br />
of the 10 commandments he thought most important. Jesus's reply, taken form Deut. 6:4 was followed by<br />
the first commandment.<br />
In verse 31 Jesus adds the command to love our neighbor as ouselves, and then his interlocutor agrees (v.<br />
32) that "God is one and there is no other but him." Jesus also states that God is one in Jn 17:3.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (15 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
Paul is in agreement. See Roman 3:29-30. The logic is clear: there is only one God, so whatever rules<br />
apply to one group of people, apply to all. This is what we would expect from Paul for he was raised as an<br />
Orthodox Jew.<br />
In 1 Cor. 8 Paul discusses issues of Christian liberty (matters morally indifferent in themselves). The<br />
particular practice in question is eating food sacrificed to idols. In 8:4ff. Paul explains that idols are not<br />
really gods, and eating or not eating food sacrificed to them is morally indifferent. However, because some<br />
have scruples about such things, believers should be careful not to offend. As he makes this point, Paul<br />
affirms the tradition Jewish and Christian belief in only one God. See also<br />
Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2:5. There is only one God to whom we are accountable, and he has given us<br />
one means by which we must be saved, namely, through Jesus, the only mediator between God and man.<br />
See also what<br />
James says in 2:19. It is good to believe in only one God.<br />
Reply: I think Durant sums up Kant nicely with "Our philosopher [Kant] is like and unlike Jehovah; he<br />
speaks through clouds, but without the illumination of the lightning-flash." Durant also adds, "He<br />
disdains examples and the concrete; they would have made his book too long, he argued."<br />
God does help us to know Him...with examples. If we are puzzled about His beginning, we can look at an<br />
endless/beginningless universe to fathom this. To understand His relationship with His Son, he uses<br />
anthropomorphisms, in other words, Father and Son, so that we can look at our own relationship with our<br />
Father and Son to fathom this. What do we come up with? We are close to our fathers/sons. We often<br />
share a resemblance to our fathers/sons. The father receives more honor than the son. The father comes<br />
before the son in time. The son is subordinate to the father. They may be united in purpose, but they are<br />
separate in being.<br />
You are right, there is only one God, and in every passage where the Father and the Son are mentioned<br />
together, God is distinguished from the Son. God is One, not Three. True, Isaiah 46:9 says, "I am God,<br />
and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me," but Isaiah 46 ends with these words, "I shall<br />
place my salvation in Zion and my glory in Israel." If God can place His glory elsewhere, this does not<br />
mean that the recipient shares an equality with Jehovah, he just represent God to the people.<br />
God says there are no other Saviors (Isaiah 43:11), yet he did have other saviors:<br />
"And when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised up a saviour to the children of<br />
Israel, who saved them,<br />
even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother." Judges 3:9, 15 ASV<br />
"Jehovah raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera" Judges 3:15 ASV<br />
"Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their adversaries, who distressed them: and in the time<br />
of their trouble, when<br />
they cried unto thee, thou heardest from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them<br />
saviours who saved<br />
them out of the hand of their adversaries." Neh 9:27<br />
Why, the very name "Jesus" points to God as the source of salvation. It means "Jehovah Is Salvation"<br />
and thus honors the<br />
Father as the Saviour to whom even the Son looked.<br />
God says there are no other gods besides him (Isaiah 44:8). yet he did appoint other humans and<br />
angels who were called gods.<br />
Exodus 21:6 cf 22:8<br />
"then his master must take him before the judges" NIV<br />
"then his master shall bring him unto God" ASV<br />
[See also Exodus 3:2, 14-16 cf. Acts 7:30-32; Gen 16:13, 21:17; 22:15,16; 31:11, 13, Jg 6:12, 13, 14, 20,<br />
21, 22, 23; 13:6, 21; Deut 5:24; Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23; Psalm 8:5; 45:6, 7; 82:1; 97:7; 138:1.]<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (16 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
God says you must worship [Shachah] only Him (Exodus 34:14) yet others were allowed Shachah as a<br />
form of respect:<br />
See 1 Sam 24:9; Gen 43:28; 2 Sam 14:4, 22; Ruth 2:10; 1 Kings 1:31; 2 Kings 4:37; Esther 3:2, 5; 2 Sam<br />
14:33; 1 Kings 1:23; Gen 48:12; 2 Sam 18:28; Gen 42:6; Isa. 60:14; Gen 23:7; 27:29; 37:9; 49:8; Ex<br />
11:8; Gen 23:12; etc., etc.<br />
No one is good but God alone (Mark 10:18) yet others were also called "good" at 1 Tim 3:12; 1 Tim<br />
4:4; 1 Tim 4:6; 6:18; 2 Tim 2:3; and 1 Peter 4:10.<br />
God alone is holy (Rev 15:4) yet others were holy (Acts 3:21; 10:22; 1 Corinthians 7:14 etc).<br />
Only Jesus is Leader (Matthew 23:10 Amplified), yet we are to "obey our spiritual leaders." Heb 13:17<br />
Amplified<br />
Jesus is called the "only Son" (John 1:18 RSV), yet God has other Sons (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).<br />
The referent at 1 Tim 6:16 is called the MONOS DUNASTHS "only Potentate." Yet, the same word<br />
"DUNASTHS" is used for the Eunuch "of great authority" at Acts 8:27. The monarchs who were<br />
dethroned are also referred to as DUNASTHS at Luke 1:52. It can refer to a "prince" (Thayer's) or "gen.<br />
one who is in a position to command others" BDAG.<br />
In this, it is similar to DESPOTHS ("one who has legal control and authority over person, such as<br />
subjects or slaves" BDAG. Jesus is also called TON MONON DESPOTHS "our only Sovereign" NIV,<br />
yet the word DESPOTHS is also used of humans at 1 Tim 6:1; Titus 2:1; 1 Peter 2:18 etc.<br />
The upshot of all this is that Jehovah is uniquely God, he is uniquely good, he is our unique Savior, he is<br />
worshipped uniquely, he is uniquely holy, and Jesus is uniquely God's Son and our Lord and Master, in a<br />
way that no others are.<br />
Gleason Archer, who is certainly a trinitarian [and one of the translators of the NASB], has to concede<br />
the following:<br />
"One additional observation is in orderconcerning this occasional employment of Elohim in<br />
the Old Testament to refer to believers under the covenant. This seems to operate by the<br />
analogy of national designations like bene Yisrael (the sons of Israel), bene Ammon (the<br />
sons of Ammon), bene Yehudah (the sons of Judah), bene Babel (the sons of Babylon), etc.<br />
Any or all of these tribes or nations could also be referred to without the bene (sons of), as<br />
Yisrael, Ammon, or Yehudah. By analogy then, the combination bene elohim could be<br />
shortened to elohim alone - i.e., a member of the sons (or people) of God. (Other passages of<br />
this class, referring to Israelite rulers or judges as God's representatives on earth, include<br />
Exod. 21:6; 22:7-8, 27; Pss. 8:5; 82:1; 138:1 [or else 'angels']. Encyclopedia of Biblical<br />
Difficulties, p. 374<br />
Tim: EVIDENCES OF PLURALITY IN THE GODHEAD<br />
We can begin with the fact that the typical OT word for Israel's God is<br />
'elohim, and it is plural.<br />
Reply: I have already dealt with Elohim and Gen 1:26 at<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/mamre.htm, so I do not see the need to repeat this all here. But I<br />
would like to add the following regarding pluralisms in the Biblical text.<br />
Speaking of Jesus, Isaiah 53:9 says, "His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich<br />
man in His death."<br />
However, the word "death" here is plural, so it could be rendered "deaths." Yet Jesus did not die more<br />
than one time (Heb 10:10). These kinds of pluralisms are simply a unique factor of the Hebrew language,<br />
even with singular pronouns.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (17 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
Consider also that the plural form of "lord" is used to address King Saul, thus denoting respect for his<br />
position and rank in I Samuel 22:12. Literally it is "my Lords" in Hebrew. Moses is also addressed as<br />
"lords" out of respect in Exodus 32:22, being translated, of course, as "lord" into English.<br />
True righteousness (Isa.33:15), and full knowledge (I Sam. 2:3) are conveyed by the use of plural nouns<br />
in the Hebrew in these Scriptures.<br />
The "darkness" mentioned in Psalm 88:6 is plural, as is the contemptuous tone mentioned in Daniel 12:2.<br />
You will find that the Septuagint translators, no longer using the pluralistic Hebrew, translated these in<br />
the singular.<br />
Rabbi Singer also adds some interesting notes at http://www.outreachjudaism.org/genesis1-26.html<br />
A further intimation of plurality in the Godhead comes from the various references to the<br />
angel of the Lord (mal'ak yhwh).<br />
Reply: I have also already dealt with the Angel of Jehovah at<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/sam.htm.<br />
Tim: Further OT of plurality in the Godhead comes in teaching about the Messiah, God's<br />
anointed. Some passages identify the coming Messiah as God. Isaiah 9:6-7, which<br />
prophesies the birth of a son to Israel. This is no mere human child, however, for the<br />
passage clarifies that he will sit upon Davids throne and his kingdom will last forever. This<br />
can be no other than thelong awaited Messiah, but note the description of this child. Among<br />
otherthings, verse 6 reveals that he is the Mighty God, so this passage connects<br />
Messiahship with deity.<br />
Reply: Let us look closer at Isaiah 9:6:<br />
"Mighty God, Eternal Father." New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
"Wonder-Counsellor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace." Byington's The <strong>Bible</strong> in Living<br />
English<br />
"A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince." Moffatt's The <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like...." New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father...."Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Great Leader, Time's Father, the Prince of Peace." The Complete <strong>Bible</strong> in Modern English by Ferrar<br />
Fenton<br />
"his name is called the Messenger of great counsel." Brenton's LXX<br />
"divine hero, father of spoil, prince of peace" Isaiah 1:12 Old Testament Library-A Commentary by Otto<br />
Kaiser<br />
There can be no complaint of the above rendering in the NWT, but why do other <strong>Bible</strong>s not render it so?<br />
Isaiah 9:4 makes a<br />
reference to the Midian's defeat at the hands of the Judge Gideon. Mentioning him here is no<br />
coincidence, as Jesus is the<br />
greater Gideon, and all judgement will be committed to him (John 5:22). Now, Judges were also called<br />
"God," not only at<br />
Psalm 82:1, but also at Exodus 21:6 ("then his master must take him before the judges ["God" footnote]"<br />
NIV; "then his master<br />
shall bring him to God" NASB) and Exodus 22:8 ("the owner of the house must appear before the judges<br />
["God" footnote]"<br />
NIV; "then the master of the house shall come near unto God" ASV).<br />
As we have also discussed before, Isaiah 9:6 was originally thought of as applying to a mere human. See<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (18 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim.htm.<br />
Tim: We find something similar to this in Jerimiah23:5-6, where God says that he will raise<br />
up for David a righteous branchwho will reign as king over Israel and Judah.<br />
Commentators uniformlyunderstand this as a prophecy about the Messiah, but beyond that,<br />
verse 6 says that his name will be called "the LORD of righteousness," or "Yahwehour<br />
righteous." This is more than mere prophecy that people in Messiah's day will think<br />
possitively of him. Rather, he will be called this because they will recognize him as God and<br />
will be thrilled with the justice and righteousness that he does in the land (v. 5). So this<br />
passage identifies Messiah as divine.<br />
Reply: His becoming entitled to that name does not mean that Jesus is Jehovah God himself. The<br />
Israelite called Jehozadak,<br />
whose name means "Jehovah Declared Righteous" or "Jehovah Is Righteous," was not Jehovah himself.<br />
(1 Chron. 6:14, 15)<br />
Jeremiah 33:16 tells us that even Jerusalem was to be called "Jehovah Is Our Righteousness," but does<br />
that mean that<br />
Jerusalem was Jehovah himself? No! The name of the last reigning king of Jerusalem was Zedekiah, and<br />
that name means "The<br />
Righteousness of Jah." The king who was to be called "Jehovah Is Our Righteousness," namely, Jesus<br />
Christ, contrasts sharply<br />
with King Zedekiah.<br />
Another well known passage makes a similar indentification. Mic. 5:2 predicts the<br />
birthplace of the Messiah as Bethlehem Ephrathath. It also says that his goings forth are<br />
"from long ago, from the days of eternity."<br />
Reply: I have also already dealt with the Micah 5:2 at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/email.htm<br />
The Ot also frequently refer to the Spirit of God. Though in some passages such as Gen.<br />
6:3 ("My Spirit shall not strive") and Psalm 139:7 (the psalmist asks God, "Where can I go<br />
from thy Spirit?") it is not entirely clear whether the Spirit is a distinct personage or rather<br />
a reference to God the Father's Spirit, there are many passages in which the Spirit is<br />
distinct.<br />
Reply: I have already dealt with the Spirit at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/spirit.htm<br />
Three final OT items are relevant for our study. There are several passages where the<br />
name of God or the notion of his deity is applied to more than one person. Three of these<br />
passages appear in Isaiah. In 48:16 the speakers says "the LORD God has sent Me, and<br />
His Spirit." Many interpreters judge the speaker in the verse to be the second member of the<br />
Godhead. If one agrees, then all three persons are linked together in this verse. On the<br />
other hand, if one rejects that identification, the verse still speaks<br />
of the LORD God and his Spirit. Is. 61:1 is a second passage, and again the Lord God and<br />
the Spirit of the Lord are said to be upon the one who speaks. From the context of chapter<br />
61, this one who is anointed by the Lord and his Spirit does things (vv. 1-9) that could only<br />
happen in Messianic times, so one might on the basis of this chapter alone conclude that the<br />
Messiah is speaking. What seals the issue for many, however, is the fact that in Luke<br />
4:18ff., Jesus turns to this passage, reads it, and says that he fulfils it.<br />
Christ's statement linking himself to Isaiah 61 is for many conclusiveevidence that 61<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (19 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
mentions all three members of the Godhead.<br />
Reply: Simply having the three sometimes mentioned together does not imply a sharing of substance,<br />
essence or equality. You will find many more instances of God, the Son and the Angels mentioned<br />
together in the <strong>Bible</strong>, like the following from the ASV:<br />
Luke 12:8. And I say unto you, Every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man<br />
also confess before the angels of God.<br />
John 1:51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heaven opened, and the<br />
angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.<br />
1 Cor 4:9, 10 For, I think, God hath set forth us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death: for we<br />
are made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels and men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are<br />
wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye have glory, but we have dishonor.<br />
1 Tim 5:21. I charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe<br />
these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.<br />
Heb 1:6. And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of<br />
God worship him.<br />
Heb 2:9 But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the<br />
suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for<br />
every man.<br />
1 Peter 3:22. who is one the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and<br />
powers being made subject unto him.<br />
21. which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of<br />
the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;<br />
Rev 14:22. who is one the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and<br />
powers being made subject unto him.<br />
Matt 16:27. For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he<br />
render unto every man according to his deeds.<br />
Matt 18: 10,11. See that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their<br />
angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven. [For the Son of man came to save that<br />
which was lost.]<br />
Matt 24:36. But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but<br />
the Father only. cf. Mk 13:32<br />
Mark 8:38. For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful<br />
generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with<br />
the holy angels.<br />
Luke 9:26. For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be<br />
ashamed, when he cometh in his own glory, and the glory of the Father, and of the holy angels.<br />
This is not to say that God is not portrayed as a Father (esp. to Israel) in the OT, for this is<br />
not the case (see 2 Sam<br />
7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13; 22:10; 28:6; 29:10; Ps. 89:26; 103:13; 68:5; Jer. 31:9; 3:19; Is.<br />
63:16; 64:8; Mal 1:6; 2:10). From these passages, it is abundantly clear that God plays a<br />
fatherly role in the OT. My point, however, is that the phrase "God the Father," which in<br />
the NT often functions as a proper name, is absent from the OT. The only exception might<br />
be 1 Chron. 29:10 - I'll let you look at that debate on your own.<br />
Reply: Yes, YHWH is indeed portrayed as a Father in the OT, in fact the Father pretty much exhausts<br />
the word "God" in the entire <strong>Bible</strong>. Many Hebrew personal names apply Fatherhood to God. Joab means<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (20 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
"Jehovah is Father," Eliab or Abiel means "El is Father" and Absalom means "the father-god is peace."<br />
Jehovah's love for his people is described as a love between Father and Son (Hosea 11:1).<br />
God demands honor as Father "If I am father, where is the honour due to me." Mal 1:6<br />
The phrase God the Father does not appear as such in the Hebrew as the Christian Greek Scriptures often<br />
relate this in relation to the Jesus Christ, as in "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" Romans<br />
15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Eph 1:3, 17; 4:6; Col 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3.<br />
YHWH is never protrayed as a Son.<br />
NT TEACHING ON PLURALITY IN THE GODHEAD.<br />
Indeed, the NT data on plurality in the Godhead are so plentiful that one<br />
hardly knows where to begin.<br />
Reply: It is rather easy, simply fine me one Scripture that articulates a Trinity.<br />
JESUS CHRIST IS GOD.<br />
In many different ways the NT teaches that Jesus is God. First, many passages, though not<br />
calling Jesus God, amount to saying that he is divine. In two passages in John, for example,<br />
Jesus in effect claims to be deity. In John 5 we find Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath,<br />
which infuriated the Jews. When they challenged Jesus, he replied (v. 17), "My Father is<br />
working till now, and I Myself am working." This made the situation worse, for his accusers<br />
understood Jesus to be calling himself God's son and making himselfequal with God (v. 18).<br />
If Jesus meant that he was God's son in the sensethat angels or human were called sons of<br />
God, that would not have merittedthe charge of blasphemy. But as his accusers complained,<br />
Jesus was making himself equal to God, and HE NEVER DENIED THEIR CHARGE, for<br />
that was exactly what he meant.<br />
Reply: Actually, he did deny the charge. He followed the statement, "By himself the Son can do<br />
nothing." This is old ground that we have gone over previously (see<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim.htm)<br />
"This is not a statement about equality in the sense that it could be reversed to read: The<br />
Father can do nothing except what he sees the Son doing. The notion of equality is heavily<br />
qualified by the notion of dependence. The equality consists primarily of equal works,<br />
which had been the point of Jesus claim in 5:17...The Son's equality with the Father is<br />
grounded in and defined by his doing the Father's will and fulfilling his commision. It is also<br />
grounded in the claim that he is uniquely qualified to do so, since he is the Son of the Father,<br />
different from other people. His being is distinctive and enables his doing. In his being he is<br />
dependent and subordinate; in his doing he is equal. The inequality of dependence of the<br />
unique Son is also emphasized as the basis of his equality of deed and word in 5:36f." The<br />
Christology of the Fourth Gospel by William Loader, pp. 160,161<br />
John V Dahms says,<br />
"Ison does not necessarily mean sameness or equality in every respect, as Matt 20:12<br />
demonstrates. And the use of the term 'Father' in the statement that led to the charge ('My<br />
Father is working still, and I am working') suggests that ison does not mean 'exactly like' in<br />
this context. Moreover, what immediately follows makes it clear that that the Son is not<br />
'exactly like' the Father: ' The Son can do nothing on his own account, but only what he sees<br />
the Father doing....I can do nothing on my own authority.'" The Subordination of the Son,<br />
Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 37/3, Sept. 1994, p. 360<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (21 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
Another example of this can be found at Genesis 44:18 where it says of Joseph, "you are equal to<br />
Pharaoh." NASB<br />
Loader also points out that other interpretations often read "later Christological formulations into the<br />
text." Ibid, p. 161<br />
"From the Old Testament and Rabbinism there is no road to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ" also<br />
"the title Son of God is strictly Jewish and that the further step from Son of God to God the Son was<br />
taken upon Gentile ground through lax ideas brought in by converts from paganism" Hastings Dictionary<br />
of the <strong>Bible</strong>, Vol. IV. p. 577.<br />
John 10 records a similar incident. Jesus calls himself the good shepherd who give eternal<br />
life to his sheep. In verse 29 Jesus says that the Father has given him the sheep, and no one<br />
can take them from his hand. Jesus adds (v. 30), "I and the Father are one." Now Jesus<br />
might have meant that heagreed with God's will as set forth in Scripture, but, if that was<br />
hispoint, no one would have accused him of blasphemy [and you cannot justright-off the<br />
Jews interpretation of everything and say that they weremistaken. I would bet that the<br />
scribes and scholars that Jesus was engaged in had a much more sensitive understanding of<br />
most of the OT than you or Ido today. Modern Jews have so much understanding of TANAK<br />
on most areas that it blows the mind]. When the Jews heard this, however, they took up<br />
stones to stone him. When asked why they were doing this, they answered that they did this<br />
because, he, a mere man, was making himself out to be God. Jesus answered the charge of<br />
blasphemy, but not by denying that he isGod. His listeners understood him only too well.<br />
Rather, Jesus' defense was that in the OT Scriptures mere men (even evil men) who served<br />
as judgesin Israel were called gods without blasphemy, so why should they object when he<br />
did good works and called himself God? His accusers could not answer him, but don't be<br />
mistaken: Jesus wasn't suggesting that they misunderstood him; He meant that he is God.<br />
Reply: Once again, we are going over old ground (see http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim3.htm)<br />
I will let a Jew answer this for me:<br />
"Some missionaries will argue, as you point out, that Jesus’ statement in John 10:30, “I and<br />
my Father are one,” demonstrates that Jesus considered himself God. The Greek word hen<br />
(one), however, does not imply being a part of the same substance. We see this clearly in<br />
John 17:11 and 17:21-22 where Jesus prays to God that the disciples may be one (hen) as<br />
are Jesus and God. Clearly, Jesus is requesting that the disciples be of one unified purpose,<br />
not of the same substance or part of the Trinity.<br />
Moreover, John 10:30-34 is particularly revealing. The fourth Gospel describes how when<br />
the Jews heard Jesus proclaim, “I and my Father are one,” they immediately wanted to stone<br />
him. When Jesus asks them why they wanted to kill him, the Jews responded because “you<br />
claim to be God.” Upon hearing this, Jesus asked, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I have said<br />
you are gods’?” This response is one of the most important statements in the Book of John,<br />
and should at least give Trinitarians pause.<br />
The verse is found in Psalm 82:6 where the <strong>Bible</strong> refers to judges who teach God’s divine<br />
law as gods. This title was bestowed on them because they were teachers of the Almighty’s<br />
divine law, not because they were actually God in any way. This usage is quite common in<br />
the Jewish scriptures. For example, in Exodus 7:1 Moses is called a god because he was<br />
God’s representative to Pharaoh. In essence, Jesus’ reply supports the very opposite of what<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (22 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
missionaries are trying to put forth. Jesus, as depicted by John, is explaining that his<br />
identification with God is comparable to the Jewish judges’ identification with God.<br />
The fact remains that no author in the New Testament ever advanced the doctrine of the<br />
Trinity. It took many years from the time the last Gospel was completed for the defenders<br />
of the church to promote this alien creed.<br />
Sincerely yours,<br />
Rabbi Tovia Singer"<br />
William Barclay adds that this is<br />
"a purely Jewish argument that is hard for us to understand. He quoted Psalm 82:6. That<br />
psalm, is a warning to unjust judges to cease from unjust ways and defend the poor and<br />
innocent. The appeal concludes: 'I say, You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.' The<br />
judge is commissioned by God to be god to men. This idea comes out very clearly in certain<br />
of the regulations in Exodus. Exodus 21:1-6 tells how the Hebrew servant may go free in the<br />
seventh year. As the Authorized Version has it, verse 6 says "Then his master shall bring<br />
him unto the judges." But in the Hebrew, the word which is translated judges is actually<br />
elohim, which means gods. The same form of expression is used in Exodus 22:9, 28. Even<br />
scripture said of men who were specially commissioned for some task by God that they<br />
were gods. So Jesus said: 'If scripture can speak like that about men, why should I not speak<br />
so about myself.'" The Gospel of John-Volume 2, The Daily <strong>Bible</strong> Study Series, p. 77<br />
Barclay goes on to make the same argument that Loader makes above, in that Jesus "was consecrated by<br />
God to a special task." Ibid. p. 77<br />
In Colossians, Paul makes two very powerful statements about Christ as deity. In<br />
Colossians 1, Paul says that in Christ we have redemption and forgiveness of sins. He then<br />
says (v. 15) that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God." The word for image is "eikon"<br />
which means "representation" or "likeness." of this term Kittel writes:<br />
"Image is not to be understood as a magnitude which is alien to the reality and present<br />
only in the consciousness. It has its share in the reality. Indeed, it is the reality. Thus eikon<br />
does not imply a<br />
weakening or a feeble copy of something. It implies the illumination of its core and<br />
essence" (Hermann Kleinknecht, "The Greek Use of eikon," in TDNT 2:389).<br />
With this sense, we might even say that Jesus is a "corbon copy" of God.<br />
Reply: You forget that the entire scripture reads, "He is the image of the unseen God, the first-born of all<br />
creation."<br />
We are told several things here.<br />
A) God is invisible, unseen, Jesus was not.<br />
B) The "firstborn of all creation" is a partitive genitive, implying of course that Jesus is a created being,<br />
he is a part of creation. Click here, here, and here for more.<br />
C) Jesus is the image of God, but then so is man:<br />
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created<br />
them." Gen 1:27 NASB<br />
"In the image of God man was created." Gen 9:6<br />
The same language was used when Adam had his son:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (23 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
"When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness,<br />
according to his image, and named him Seth." Gen 5:3 NASB<br />
The Greek LXX also uses the word eikon here, but no one suggests a sharing of being, essence and<br />
consubstantiality.<br />
It is as Wisdom 7:26 says of Wisdom, "she is the image of his goodness."<br />
How could this be true and he not be divine is hard to see for me. In the<br />
other passage (Col 2:9), Paul says that in Christ "all the fullness of Deity<br />
dwells in bodily form."<br />
Reply: Dealt with at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/theotes.htm<br />
"A recent and widely read acclaimed study of the Biblical view of Jesus-Christology in the<br />
Making, by James Dunn-alerts us to the danger of reading too much into Paul's words the<br />
conclusion of a later generation of theologians, the 'fathers' of the Greek church in the<br />
centuries following the completion of the New Testament writings. The tendency to find in<br />
Scripture what we already believe is natural, since none of us can easily face the threatening<br />
possibility that our 'received' understanding does not coincide with the <strong>Bible</strong>."<br />
Who Is Jesus-A Plea for a Return to Belief in Jesus, the Messiah, by Anthony Buzzzard, p.19<br />
In a number of passages, he is directly called God (theos). In John 1:1 John says theos en<br />
ho logos ("the Word was God"). In verse 14, we read that the Word became flesh and dwelt<br />
among us. This speaks of Christ's incarnation; hence, Johnis calling Jesus the Word. But in<br />
John 1:1 John says the Word was God.JW's like to claim that the absence of the definite<br />
article with theos means that John is saying that Jesus is "a god" (a lesser deity), but not at<br />
all equal to the Father Jehovah God. I have read this claim in WT magazines and heard it<br />
from the lips of dozens of JW's. There is no doubt that it is an official teaching of the<br />
WTBATS. However, and what I continue to point outto all JW's, is that grammatical studies<br />
have shown that in this passage the anarthrous noun before the verb (en) focuses on the<br />
quality of the thing designated by the noun. So in this case John is saying that the Word was<br />
ofthe quality of God, or qualitatively God. John is saying then, that the Word is God. I<br />
cannot see how Stafford's arguments have done any damage to Hartly and Wallace's<br />
defense of the orthodox interpretation of John 1:1.<br />
Reply: "Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom is by<br />
prefacing the noun with 'a.'" -- Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate<br />
Nominative in John" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 47. This has all been discussed<br />
at length at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/kkla.htm.<br />
The official teaching in this regard, from the 1950 and 1984 NWT is that the anarthrous QEOS in this<br />
instance points to quality, in fact they feel it says the same thing as Moffatt's and Goodspeed's "the Word<br />
was divine."<br />
If someone has a quality of someone, it does not automatically make them that person or one and the<br />
same, it gives them their attributes or characteristics. Wallace says of 1 John 4:8 in a subset proposition,<br />
"God has the quality of love, but is not identical with it." We believe that the Word has the quality of<br />
God, but is not identical with Him.<br />
The traditional reading of "the Word was God" does not focus on quality, but it erroneously implies<br />
definiteness. Definiteness is what was implied in Colwell's study of this verse to promote the traditional<br />
reading. After Harner's study, the mainstream churches had to scramble to redefine qualitativeness. They<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (24 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
realized that they were wrong.<br />
William Loader, who calls "a God" "the most natural reading of the text" has this to say of both<br />
renderings:<br />
"The Word was God?<br />
Against the first of these interpretations ('the word was God') is the fact that the author has<br />
just said that the Word was 'with' God. If 'Word' means little more than 'words', then it<br />
would be conceivable that the author could say: God's words were with him; they are, as his<br />
words, part of God himself, in that sense, they are God. Dupont comes near to this in<br />
claiming that the Logos concept refers not to a person but to God's communication of<br />
himself. But the author goes on to speak of the Word as a person as distinct from God, so<br />
that this must be assumed also in the opening verses.<br />
Nor is it likely that the author intends to his opening statement to make a gradual approach<br />
to what he wishes to say, so that 'the Word was with God' is merely a step along the way to<br />
the statement, 'the Word was God' which is repeated in 1:2.<br />
The Word was a God?<br />
The other two translations fit the context more smoothly at one level. Yet their evaluation<br />
cannot take place without our making assumptions about the author's wider frame of<br />
reference. In particular it is unlikely, given his context within the Christian community and<br />
its roots in Judaism, that he would mean that there is more than one God. Langbrandtner<br />
reckons with this as the positions of the redactor, whereas the Grundschrift had thought of<br />
Jesus more as an extension of God into the world, but such a view on the part of the redactor<br />
is unlikely and unsupported elsewhere. It is true, *on the most natural reading of the text*,<br />
that there are two beings here: God and a second who was theos but this second is related to<br />
God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over against which the second is<br />
defined. They are not presented as two equal gods."<br />
The Christology of the Fourth Gospel by William Loader, p. 155<br />
Again, go to the above link where I have already discussed Wallace, Harris, et al.<br />
Tim: Frequently in the NT Jesus is also called Lord. The Greek word is kyrios, the word the<br />
Septuagint uses the render the OT divine name YHWH.<br />
Reply: Lest the reader should be deceived, all extant copies of the LXX up the middle of the second<br />
century C.E. contained the Divine Name. It was Christians that had removed the Name.<br />
"We know that the the Greek <strong>Bible</strong> text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for<br />
Jews did not translate the Divine Name by Kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with<br />
Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the<br />
Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not<br />
understood anymore". (Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p.222)<br />
When did they remove the name? In a commentary on the manuscript P Fouad 266, Professor G. D.<br />
Kilpatrick, on talking about the period between 70-135 C.E. said that 3 important changes were made in<br />
this period. The change from scroll to Codex, the Tetragrammaton was replaced by KYRIOS and<br />
abbreviations were introduced for divine names. See Etudes de<br />
Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme 1971 pp. 221,222<br />
For more click here, and go to my article here at http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/ntstudies/tetragram.htm<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (25 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
Of the early beliefs, as express in II Clement, Adolph Harnack writes,<br />
"It is necessary to think of Jesus as one thinks of God, (1) because he is the God-exalted<br />
Lord and Judge, (2) because he brought true knowledge and life and has delivered mankind<br />
from the dominion of demons,<br />
from error and sin, or will deliver them. Therefore he is Savior, Lord our God, Son of God<br />
and God, Lord and God, but not THE God." (The THE is italicised in the text.)<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> identifies Jehovah as the "Sovereign Lord." (Genesis 15:2, 8; Acts 4:24; Revelation 6:10) He<br />
is also called "the true Lord" and "the Lord of the whole earth." (Exodus 23:17; Joshua 3:13; Revelation<br />
11:4) Who, then, is the other "Lord" of Psalm 110:1, [Yahweh declared to my Lord] and how did he<br />
come to be recognized as "Lord" by Jehovah?<br />
Jesus Christ as "Lord"<br />
Jesus is addressed as "Lord" in the four Gospels, most often in Luke and John. In the first century C.E.,<br />
the title was one of respect and courtesy, equivalent to "Sir." (John 12:21; 20:15) In Mark's Gospel the<br />
term "Teacher," or Rab·bo'ni, is used more frequently in addressing Jesus. (Compare Mark 10:51 with<br />
Luke 18:41.) Even Saul's question on the road to Damascus, "Who are you, Lord?" had this same general<br />
sense of polite inquiry. (Acts 9:5) But as Jesus' followers came to know their Master, it is apparent that<br />
their use of the title "Lord" expressed much more than simple respect.<br />
Following his death and resurrection but prior to his heavenly ascension, Jesus appeared to his disciples<br />
and made this startling announcement: "All authority in heaven and on the earth has been *given to<br />
me.*" (Matthew 28:18) In Acts 2:36 we are told that Jesus was "MADE Lord."<br />
Because of his faithfulness to the end, Jesus was resurrected and given the highest reward. He then<br />
entered into his lordship in the heavens.<br />
Ephesians 1:20, 21 states that God had "seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all<br />
rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also<br />
in the one to come." NASB<br />
Jesus Christ's lordship is above all other lordships, and it will continue on into the new world. (1 Timothy<br />
6:15) He was exalted to "a superior position" and given "the name which is above all other names" so<br />
that everyone should acknowledge "that Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians<br />
2:9-11) The first part of Psalm 110:1 was thus fulfilled, and "angels, ruling forces and powers" were<br />
subject to Jesus' lordship.-1 Peter 3:22; Hebrews 8:1.<br />
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the expression "Lord of lords" applies only to Jehovah. (Deuteronomy 10:17;<br />
Psalm 136:2, 3) But Peter under inspiration said of Christ Jesus: "He is the Lord of all." (Acts 10:36) He<br />
is indeed "Lord of both the dead and the living." (Romans 14:8, 9) All Christians acknowledge Jesus<br />
Christ as their Lord and Owner and show him obedience as his subjects, as they are bought with his most<br />
precious blood. And Jesus Christ has ruled as King of kings and Lord of lords over the church since<br />
Pentecost. But now he has been given authority to rule in that capacity with his enemies placed as a 'stool<br />
for his feet.' The time has come for him to 'go subduing in the midst of them,' all so that Psalm 110:1,<br />
2.-Hebrews 2:5-8; Revelation 17:14; 19:16 are fulfilled.<br />
But if you compare scriptures like Luke 4:19 with Isaiah 61:2 in either the King James Version or The<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> people will maintain that Jesus took over the title "Lord" from Jehovah and that<br />
Jesus is Jehovah in the flesh. But God and his Son, Jesus Christ, are always carefully distinguished from<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (26 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
each other in Scripture. Jesus made known his Father's name and represented him.-John 5:36, 37.<br />
In the following examples, note the quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures as they appear in the New<br />
Testament. Jehovah God and his Messiah, are both mentioned at Acts 4:24-27, which quotes from Psalm<br />
2:1, 2. The context of Romans 11:33, 34 is clearly referring to God as the Source of all wisdom and<br />
knowledge, with a quotation from Isaiah 40:13, 14. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul repeats the<br />
quotation, "Who has ever known the mind of the Lord (Jehovah)?" and then adds: "But we are those who<br />
have the mind of Christ." The Lord Jesus revealed to his followers the Lord Jehovah's mind on so many<br />
important matters.-1 Corinthians 2:16.<br />
Sometimes a text in the Hebrew Scriptures refers to Jehovah, but by virtue of His delegation of power<br />
and authority, it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Psalm 34:8, for example, invites us to "taste and see that<br />
Yahweh is good." But Peter applies this to the Lord Jesus Christ when he says: "Provided you have tasted<br />
that the Lord is good." (1 Peter 2:3) Peter takes a principle and shows how it is true also of Jesus Christ.<br />
By taking in knowledge of both Jehovah God and Jesus Christ and acting upon it, Christians can enjoy<br />
rich blessings from both the Father and his Son. (John 17:3) None of this makes them consubstantial.<br />
The relative positions of Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus Christ, are made very clear by the apostle Paul<br />
when he says: "Yet, to us, there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and, we, for him; and one<br />
Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and, we, through him." (1 Corinthians 8:6; 12:5, 6<br />
Rotherham) Writing to the Christian congregation in Ephesus, Paul identified the "one Lord," Jesus<br />
Christ, as being quite distinct from the "one God and Father of all."-Ephesians 4:5, 6.<br />
Apocalyptically, "The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord [Jehovah God] and of<br />
his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever." The New International Dictionary of New<br />
Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 514) says: "When Christ has overcome every power (1 Cor.<br />
15:25), he will submit himself to God the Father. Thus Jesus' lordship will have achieved its goal and<br />
God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28)." At the end of his 1000 year Reign, Christ Jesus hands back to his<br />
Father, Almighty God, the power and authority previously delegated to him. Hence, all glory and<br />
worship are rightly given to Jehovah, "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ."-Ephesians 1:17.<br />
Although Jesus is now Lord of lords, he is never called God of gods.<br />
"When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of<br />
our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor do<br />
they think of him as God. He is God's Christ, God's Son, God's Wisdom, God's Word. Even<br />
the Prologue to St. John, which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the<br />
light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is *less<br />
explicit in Greek with the anarthrous [the·os'] than it appears to be in English.*"-"The<br />
Divinity of Jesus Christ," by John Martin Creed.<br />
Further evidence of Christ's deity stems from the fact that NT writers predicated attributes<br />
of Christ that belong only to God. By saying that Christ possessed those qualities, they were<br />
attributing deity to him. We find, for example, that he is eternal and fully living (John 1:4; 1<br />
John 5:11-12). He is immutable (Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8); omnipotent (Philp. 3:20:21; John<br />
5:19; Rev. 1:8); omnicient (John 2:24-25 [cf. Jer. 17:9-10]; 6:64; 21:17; omnipresent,<br />
despite all his limitations in space and time during his<br />
earthly pilgramage (Matt 18:20; 28:20; John 14:23); loving (Jn 13:1, 34; 1 Jn 3:16); truth<br />
(Jn 14:6); holy (Lk 1:35); and possessing life in and of himself, i.e., having the attribute of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (27 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
aseity (Jn 5:26).<br />
Reply: The rest of this has been repeated elsewhere on my site.<br />
See http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/jcostouros.htm<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/availablelight.htm<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/christology.htm#aseity<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/john13.htm<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/firsborn.htm<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/prototokos.htm<br />
and feel free to check my sitemap at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/sitemap.htm<br />
THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD<br />
Reply: Dealt with at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/spirit.htm<br />
and http://members.aol.com/hector3001/spiritresearch.htm<br />
and http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/50questions.htm<br />
THE FATHER, SON, AND HS are distinct persons see Matt.3:16-17; John 14-15; Jn<br />
12:27-30; Matt. 17:5; Mk 9:7; Lk 9:35; 2Peter 1:17<br />
YET THE FATHER, SON, AND HS ARE ONE<br />
There is evidence that the Father, Son, and HS are considered as one. Various passages<br />
show that the writers and speakers mean more than just that the three happan to think<br />
alike. Rather, ontological (though that word is never used in Scripture) unity is the point.<br />
Christ's listeners understood<br />
this to be his point, and they accused him of blasphemy. That charge could have easily been<br />
refuted by saying that his point was that he agrees with God's way of thinking. While Jesus<br />
and the Father agree, Jesus never used that defense. Instead, his response to the accusation<br />
shows that he was saying exactly what they thought. This is what is going on in John 10:30.<br />
This is the point in John 14:9. This is revealed in the high priestlyprayer (Jn 17:21, 22,<br />
23). Moreover, passages such as Col. 1:15 and Hebrews1:8 not only clarifiy that Christ is<br />
God, but the language (eikon,charakter) speaks of unity between the two.<br />
There are passages that speak of the Son and the HS as one. See Rom 8:9-10. Having<br />
Christ is having the Spirit and vice versa. See also 2 Cor. 3:17. There is also unity between<br />
the Father and the Spirit. 1 Cor. 3:16. Cf. this with Col 1:27 and you can put Christ into<br />
the mix. Father and Spiritare seen well together in 1 Cor. 2:10-11. Their unity enables the<br />
HS (as no mere human could) to reveal the thing of God.<br />
Reply: The death knell to this type of oneness thinking is provided at John 17:22 "I have given them the<br />
glory that you gave me, that THEY may be one as WE are one."<br />
Christians are ONE similar to the way that Jesus and His Father are ONE. We are not part of some<br />
mysterious Godhead, or peoplehead. Christians are NOT co-essential, consubstantial, we are plural,<br />
something God should never be. God is not the community and society that desperate attempts to<br />
pluralize him by the Trinitarian community make him out to be.<br />
We have seen this above.<br />
"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity<br />
in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics)<br />
"The Jews themselves sincerely resent the implication that their Scriptures contain any proof, or any<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (28 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
intimation of the donctrine of the orthodox Trinity, and Jesus and the Jews never differed on this subject,<br />
both maintaining that God is One only, and that this is the greatest truth revealed to man."<br />
The True God, the True Christ, the True Holy Spirit, by Ezra D. Gifford<br />
THE THREE ARE EQUAL<br />
From biblical teaching surveyed so far, the most natural conclusion is that if there is only<br />
one God and yet Father, Son, and HS are God, the three most likely are equals. Indeed, if<br />
there is any metaphysical difference among them in terms of their essence, were are on the<br />
road to polytheism. Hence, the most natural conclusion is that they are ontologically<br />
equal. Scripture uses neither the term "ontological" nor "metaphysical," and outside of the<br />
data presented to the effect that the three are one, there is no direct biblical claim that the<br />
three are equal. Still, certain elements of NT teaching FIT this notion of equality, even if<br />
they do not directly teach it.<br />
An initial point is how the NT authors list the members of the Godhead when speaking of all<br />
three together. If the three were inherently unequal, we might expect a consistent order in<br />
listing them whenever they are mentioned together. This might even seem like a formulaic<br />
prioritizing of the three. However, the NT refers to the three in a variaty of orders. See<br />
Matt 28:19; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; Eph. 4:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2.<br />
Reply: Let us take a look at these from the RSV:<br />
Matt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and<br />
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"<br />
1 Cor 12:4-6 "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but<br />
the same Lord; 6and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every<br />
one."<br />
Eph 4:4-6 "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your<br />
call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all<br />
and in all."<br />
2 Cor 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy<br />
Spirit be with you all."<br />
1 Peter 1:2 "chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus<br />
Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you."<br />
While Tim reads alot into the order that they are mentioned, the <strong>Bible</strong> is quite clear that only ONE of<br />
them was God, and the Scriptures are quite consistent in differentiating God from the Son and the holy<br />
spirit. Where all three are mentioned together, only one, the Father, is God. In fact, all visions of heaven<br />
exclude the person of the holy spirit, and show the Son at the Father's side, often along with the angels<br />
(Acts 7:56; Dan 7:13, 14; 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chron 18:18; Rev 7:9 etc.) Why is this if they are equally part<br />
of the same God? [There may be some interesting exceptions here, as in Revelation 1:4, where we have<br />
seven spirits before the throne, and Zechariah 6:5 where we have four spirits of heaven. Which one of<br />
these is the Holy Ghost, or is the Trinity simply quite crowded?]<br />
When we look above at the Scriptures that make mention of the God, and the Son, and the angels, we see<br />
that they are in differing order also.<br />
NT CLARIFICATION OF MEMBER OF GODHEAD INVOLVED IN A DIVINE ACT.<br />
Here my point is about the relation of OT and NT texts. In the OT various actions are<br />
attributed simply to God, in particular to Jehovah/YHWH. On the other hand, the NT more<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (29 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
specifically attributes those divine acts either to the Son or to the Holy Spirit. Hence, while<br />
all members of the Godhead are invlolved in every divine action, a certain member is more<br />
particularly designated in the NT as the one doing it.<br />
The point is easy enough to illustrate. In the OT, YHWH is depicted as the redeemer and<br />
savior, whereas in the NT it is the Son of God who clearly stands out in that capacity. See<br />
Job 19:25; Ps. 19:14; 78:35; 106:21; Is. 41:14; 43:3, 11, 14; 47:4; 49:7, 26; 60:16; and<br />
Hos 13:4. In constrast, the NT depicts Christ as savior in Matt. 1:21; Lk. 1:76-79; 2:11; Jn<br />
4:42; Gal 3:13; 4:5; Phil. 3:20; and Tit. 2:13-14.<br />
Reply: I don't think the NT sets Christ out as Savior in contrast, as God is also depicted as "savior" (see<br />
Luke 1:47; 1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3).<br />
Jesus Christ, as the Ambassador of God (see John 5:23 Kleist & Lilly NT), represented God's saving<br />
power to the world that could not behold God without dying (Ex 33:20).<br />
Kittel's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" under "APOSTOLOS (XYL$) in Judaism"<br />
states: "A saying of the<br />
Rabbis was: 'The emissary of a King is as the King himself.'"–Vol. I, pg.416 "Moses, Elijah, Elisha and<br />
Ezekiel are called<br />
MYXWL$ of God because there took place through them things normally reserved for God. Moses<br />
causes water to flow out<br />
of the rock; Elijah brings rain and raises a dead man; Elisha 'opens the mother's womb' and also raises a<br />
dead man; and Ezekiel<br />
receives the 'key to the tombs at the reawakening of the dead' according to Ex. 37:1 ff...These four were<br />
distinguished by the<br />
miracles which God empowered them to perform and which He normally reserved for Himself."—Vol. I,<br />
pg. 419<br />
"By his own right hand God has now raised him to be leader and Saviour, to give repentance and<br />
forgiveness of sins through him to Israel." Acts 5:31<br />
"To keep his promise, God has raised for Israel one of David's descendants, Jesus, as Saviour." Acts<br />
13:23<br />
If Jesus was raised as Savior, (just like God has raised up saviors in the past at Judges 3:9, 15) then that<br />
indicates a time when he was not a Savior. Why is the holy spirit never referred to as Savior, if they are<br />
indeed co-equal? The above statement by Tim is Modalist, not trinitarian.<br />
Tim: The same narrowing focus also occurs with respect to the HS's ministry. In the OT,<br />
YHWH is said to dwell among Israel and in the hearts of those who fear Him (see Ps. 74:2;<br />
135:21; Is. 8:18; 57:15; Exek. 43:7-9; Joel 3:17, 21; and Zech. 2:10-11). In the NT, the HS<br />
indwells the members of the church (see Acts 2:4; Rom 8:9,11; 1 Cor. 3:16; Gal 4:6; Eph.<br />
2:22; and Jas. 4:5).<br />
Reply: What does it mean for God to dwell in Jerusalem or Mt Zion? Is he physically dwelling there?<br />
We see from 1 Kings 8:27 that God is unable to be contained by His own creation:<br />
"Yet will God really live with humans on earth?Why, the heavens, the highest of heavens, cannot contain<br />
you. How much less this temply built by me!"<br />
God's covenantal box, the ark, "was a symbol of the presence of Yahweh" [McKenzie's Dictionary of the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, p. 54], yet, mishandling it could bring on death, earthquakes and plagues [see 1 Sam 5:3, 6ff; 6:19;<br />
Lev 16:2 etc]. Is this what is dwelling in Christians? No.<br />
There are theological implications in God's dwelling with His people. Jerusalem is covered with a canopy<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (30 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
of His glory:<br />
"For over all will be the Glory as canopy" [Isaiah 4:5 cf. Rev 21:2, 3].<br />
It is His NAME that dwells with His people.<br />
"Jerusalem is where I shall put my name." 2 Kings 21:4<br />
"My Name shall be there." 2 Kings 23:27<br />
"then it shall come to pass that to the place which Jehovah your God shall choose, to cause his name to<br />
dwell there" Deut 12:11 ASV<br />
"And thou shalt eat before Jehovah thy God, in the place which he shall choose, to cause his name to<br />
dwell there" Deut 14:23 ASV<br />
"And thou shalt sacrifice the passover unto Jehovah thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place<br />
which Jehovah shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there." Deut 16:2 ASV cf Deut 16:6, 11; 26:2;<br />
Ezra 6:12; Neh 1:9; Jer 7:12 etc.<br />
In fact, if you make a detailed search of the word "Name" in the <strong>Bible</strong> you will see that it is often<br />
personified, just like the Spirit is. God's Name and His spirit/power is at work in Christians. He can<br />
"portion" out His spirit [2 Kings 2:9] to those that are His, but it does not mean that 1/3 of God/Fully<br />
God is portioned out to physically dwell inside someone. This is ridiculous, and undermines Jehovah's<br />
awesome Majesty.<br />
"Spirit" is a word of wide and elastic meaning, derived from "breath." And the same idea holds good in<br />
the Hebrew and Greek of the Scriptures. "Spirit," as referred to the Father by the Lord Jesus, means the<br />
divine force, breath and even nature as opposed to flesh and blood. And Jesus himself, when raised from<br />
the dead and glorified, is called "a quickening spirit" (1 Cor. 15 : 45); that is, a "spiritual body," as the<br />
apostle here explains. And the angels likewise are all "ministering spirits" (Heb. I : 14), like Christ. But<br />
God speaks also of His "spirit" in the sense of His power breathed forth from His personal presence in<br />
heaven. From the KJV, "My spirit shall not always strive with man" (Gen. 6: 3). "Thou testifiedst against<br />
them by thy spirit in the prophets" (Neh. 9: 30). "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created" (Psa. 104<br />
: 30). "The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. 1 : 2). "By his spirit he hath garnished<br />
the heavens" (Job 26: 13). "The Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon" Samson (Judges 14: 6), and made<br />
him stronger than a lion. "The Spirit of the LORD God is upon me, because the LORD hath<br />
ANOINTED ME" (Isa. 61 : 1). So said "the spirit of Christ IN" Isaiah (I Pet. 1 : 11). In all these places<br />
there is no indication of a Person, but of the Power of God sent forth and bestowed for His divine will<br />
and purpose.<br />
Because God speaks by His spirit in the prophets, we have by metonymy the expression, "The Spirit<br />
speaketh,. "The Spirit speaketh expressly" (I Tim. 4: 1); that is, God by His spirit in the prophets and<br />
apostles, speaketh. "The spirit of Christ in them (the prophets) . . . when IT testified beforehand" (1 Pet. 1<br />
: 11). "Well spake the Holy Spirit by Isaiah the prophet" (Acts 28: 25). "It is not ye that speak, but the<br />
Holy Spirit"' (Mark 13: 11). "David himself said by the Holy Spirit" . . . (Mark 12:.36). "He that hath an<br />
ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the. churches" (Rev. 2: 7, 11, 17, 29; 3: 1, 6, 13, 22); that is,<br />
hear what Christ commanded John to write. The personification is natural and effective when you clearly<br />
understand its original use.<br />
You can blaspheme God's name...and the Spirit (Lev 24:11; Matt 12:31)<br />
We can pray for God's spirit...and sing praises to His name (Ps 68:4; Mk 14:8)<br />
The Name can have dwelling...and so can the Spirit (Deut 12:11; John 14:17)<br />
The Spirit is Holy, but so is the Name (Matt 6:9)<br />
God's Name is powerful, and so is His spirit (Prov 18:10; Micah 3:8)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (31 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim<br />
The Name is associated with glory, as is the Spirit (Ps 115: 1; 2 Cor 3:8)<br />
This is the bottom-line. If our eternal life is dependant on our knowing God, and it is (John 17:3), and the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> does not articulate a Trinity, then this doctrine should be rejected as man-made.<br />
"Is it not as gross an Absurdity to say, the One God of Heaven and Earth, is Three or Four<br />
Persons, as to say, the One King of Great Britain and Ireland, is Three or Four Persons? Is<br />
not the former altogether as false as the latter?"<br />
Edward Elwall, 1726, prominent eighteenth-century Baptist merchant and writer of religious literature<br />
wrote in his tract Dagon fallen upon his stumps.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/tim7.htm (32 of 32) [5/25/2003 4:12:58 AM]
A Reply to- Exegetes: Only-Begotten Son or Only<br />
A Reply to: Exegetes: Only-Begotten Son or Only Son?<br />
"monogennetos" means "only-begotten"<br />
"monogenes" means "one of a kind" (only or unique)<br />
"The translation of the Greek word "monogenes" describes the Sonshipthat Christ has with His Father. This unique<br />
relationship Jesus has with His Father can reveal some powerful things to us. Can He be either "only-begotten Son" (KJV)<br />
or the "only Son" (NIV) of the Father?<br />
Due to an unfortunate, although well intended, set of circumstances this crucial term has come to us in many of our<br />
translations in a form that suggests that the Son of God was actually begotten, that is, that he had a beginning. The Old<br />
Latin versions correctly translated monogenes as unicus (only), and so did Jerome (A.D. 347-419) where it was not<br />
applied to Jesus. But when referring to Jesus, Jerome appears to have been influenced by the Orations of Gregory of<br />
Nazianzus1 (A.D. 329-390) who, in discussing the eternal relation between the Father and the Son, spoke of the Father as<br />
gennetor "begetter" and the Son as gennema "begotten." To answer the Arian claims that Jesus was not begotten, but<br />
made, Jerome translated it as unigenitus (only begotten), in these passages that were referring to Jesus Christ. The<br />
influence of Jeromes Vulgate on the King<br />
James Version made "only begotten" the standard English rendition." Italics mine<br />
Reply: This is a common explanation, but not a great one. It does not explain that even the apologetic<br />
Hilary of Poitiers (ca. 315-367 CE) in his De Trinitate, also uses the term unigenitus<br />
when quoting John 1:14, 18 from the Old Latin. Now look at the words in italics. Did Jerome apply<br />
unicus to Jesus or not. When we read the following sentence we find that he didn't, but that is not what<br />
the preceeding sentence says. In fact, by an large, the early Christian writers would refer to Christ as<br />
"only-begotten" and the Father always as "unbegotten" (see Dialogue with Trypho, ANF 1, 263). Justin<br />
Martyr was quite adamant about this when he wrote, "God begat before all creatures a Beginning, who<br />
was a certain rational power proceeding from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of<br />
the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again Angel, then God, and then Lord, and Logos;...For He can be<br />
called by those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by<br />
an act of will."<br />
"Although the English words of "only-Begotten" are found only six times in the New Testament, the Greek word<br />
(monogenes) appears nine times, and more often in the Septuagint. It is used literally of an only child: "the only son of his<br />
mother" (Lk 7:12); "an only daughter" (Lk 8:42); "mine only child" (Lk 9:38); "Isaac .... his only begotten" (Heb 11:17). In<br />
all other places in the<br />
New Testament it refers to Jesus Christ as "the only begotten Son of God" (Jn 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 Jn 4:9). In these<br />
passages, it might be translated as "the only son of God"; for the emphasis seems to be on His uniqueness, rather than on<br />
His sonship, although both ideas are certainly present. But how do modern Biblical scholars translate this word?<br />
According to Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: "monogenos is literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’<br />
‘unique’ (unicus), not ‘only-begotten,’ which would be monogennetos (unigenitus). Moulton and Milligan’s are telling us<br />
that the Greek word "monogennetos" meaning "only-Begotten" is not found anywhere in the Greek New Testament. So<br />
what are the New Testament writers trying to convey by the use of the correct word monogenos?"<br />
Reply: The reason that monogennetos is not used by the Christian <strong>Bible</strong> writers or the ANF<br />
(Ante-Nicene Fathers-with the common exception to Ignateous) is that it was usually a derogatory term used to<br />
denote frailty and weakness (see Thayers and Vines 1084). Such a term would show a lack of respect for<br />
the Son of God.<br />
The first part of this Greek word monogenes is mono which means "only," the second half of the word is from an<br />
adjectival form derived from genos, which means "origin, race, stock," so the two words put together mean "one of a<br />
kind." One of the<br />
main arguments is that the -genes suffix is related to the verb ginomai rather than gennao, thus acquiring the meaning<br />
"category" or "genus" (category of biological classification) instead of "to beget." The word emphasizes the unique<br />
relationship that the Father has to the Son. It does not suggest the idea of begotten by one alone, by one father with-out the<br />
assistance of a mother, suggesting the doctrine of eternal generation. Instead it suggest the unique position to the Father<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/monogenesreply.htm (1 of 2) [5/25/2003 4:13:20 AM]
A Reply to- Exegetes: Only-Begotten Son or Only<br />
and thus His unique ability to reveal the Father.<br />
Reply: I agree with the above to an extent. "Unique" is a better translation than most, but it never quite<br />
explains how he the subject is unique. In the N.T., monogenes is used in a filial way, one that is used for<br />
offspring...see Thayers Greek Lexicon & BAGD. In fact the BAGD states that it could be analagous to<br />
prototokos (firstborn). In view of the above evidence, John V. Dahms in his The Johannine Use Of<br />
Monogenes Reconsidered NTS 29, 1983, p.231 states: We have examined all of the evidence which has<br />
come to our attention concerning the meaning of monogenes in the Johannine writings and have found<br />
the majority view of modern scholarship has very little to support it. On the other hand, the external<br />
evidence, especially that from Philo, Justin and Tertullian, and the internal evidence from the context of<br />
its occurences, makes clear that 'only begotten' is the most accurate translation after all."<br />
Email Me<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/monogenesreply.htm (2 of 2) [5/25/2003 4:13:20 AM]
A Reply to: Jehovah Witnesses And The Symbol Of The Cross<br />
A Reply to:<br />
Jehovah Witnesses And The Symbol Of The Cross<br />
The first step in understanding why this statement is made is to know that every where your <strong>Bible</strong> uses<br />
the word "cross," their <strong>Bible</strong> uses the word "stake." To confirm their position they will use partial<br />
quotes and references from scholars that seem to back up their claim that the Greek word stauros in<br />
the New Testament means "stake" or "pole" instead of its true meaning "cross." They also will say,<br />
"stauros" in both the classical Greek and Koine carries no thought of a "cross" made of two timbers,<br />
but instead it carries the notion of only an upright stake, a pale, pile, or pole.When the Greek lexicons<br />
are checked, however, one finds this is not the case.<br />
Heinz: Are JW's using partial quotes? And do Greek Lexicons and dictionaries agree more with Mark's point of<br />
view? Let us take a look. "The Tau was the basis for what is now called the "cross" taken from the Latin "crux".<br />
"The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god<br />
Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands,<br />
including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied,<br />
certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system<br />
pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain<br />
their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered,<br />
was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ."—An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London,<br />
1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256.<br />
What is this? The Cross used among ancient pagan? Is there more?<br />
"It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands<br />
untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol. . . . The Greek<br />
Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolized to their votaries by a<br />
cruciform device."—The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art (London, 1900), G. S. Tyack, p. 1.<br />
The people of the ancient lands used the cross in worship, some, like the Egyptians used it in Phallus worship,<br />
or, worship of the male sex organ. It was used as a symbol of fertility. "Various figures of crosses are found<br />
everywhere on Egyptian monuments and tombs, and are considered by many authorities as symbolical either<br />
of the phallus [a representation of the male sex organ] or of coition. . . . In Egyptian tombs the crux ansata<br />
[cross with a circle or handle on top] is found side by side with the phallus."—A Short History of Sex-Worship<br />
(London, 1940), H. Cutner, pp. 16, 17; see also The Non-Christian Cross, p. 183.<br />
The Ancient Church by clergyman W. D. Killen says, on page 316: "From the most remote antiquity the cross<br />
was venerated in Egypt and Syria; it was held in equal honour by the Buddhists of the East; and, what is still<br />
more extraordinary, when the Spaniards first visited America, the well-known sign was found among the objects<br />
of worship in the idol temples of Anahuac. It is also remarkable that, about the commencement of our era, the<br />
pagans were wont to make the sign of a cross upon the forehead in the celebration of some of their sacred<br />
mysteries." The origin of the cross is indeed very pagan.<br />
So you see, the reason that JW's do not use the word bears heavily on its pagan origin. After all, "What accord<br />
has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple<br />
of God with idols?" 2Cor 6:15 RSV<br />
"They also will say, "stauros" in both the classical Greek and Koine carries no thought of a "cross"<br />
made of two timbers, but instead it carries the notion of only an upright stake, a pale, pile, or pole.<br />
When the Greek lexicons are checked, however, one finds this is not the case. "<br />
We have already checked Vine's, but are there others?<br />
A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Original Greek Words with their Precise Meanings for English<br />
Readers states: "STAUROS . . . denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such<br />
malefactors were nailed for execution." Similarly, the book The Non-Christian Cross observes:<br />
"There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament,<br />
which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in<br />
the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros [pole or stake]; much less to the effect that<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/symbol_cross.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:13:29 AM]
A Reply to: Jehovah Witnesses And The Symbol Of The Cross<br />
it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross."<br />
Paul Wilhelm Schmidt, who was a professor at the University of Basel, in his work Die<br />
Geschichte Jesu (The History of Jesus), Vol. 2, Tübingen and Leipzig, 1904, pp. 386-394, made<br />
a detailed study of the Greek word stau·ros'. On p. 386 of his work he said: "staur¬V [stau·ros']<br />
means every upright standing pale or tree trunk."<br />
New <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary of 1985 under "Cross," page 253: "The Gk. word for 'cross' (stauros; verb<br />
stauroo . . . ) means primarily an upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an<br />
instrument for punishment and execution."<br />
W. E. Vine says on this subject: "STAUROS (staur¬V) denotes, primarily, an upright pale or<br />
stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to<br />
fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two<br />
beamed cross." Greek scholar Vine then mentions the Chaldean origin of the two-piece cross<br />
and how it was adopted from the pagans by Christendom in the third century C.E. as a symbol of<br />
Christ's impalement.—Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol.<br />
1, p. 256.<br />
The Latin dictionary by Lewis and Short gives as the basic meaning of crux "a tree, frame, or<br />
other wooden instruments of execution, on which criminals were impaled or hanged."<br />
The book Dual Heritage—The <strong>Bible</strong> and the British Museum states: "It may come as a shock to<br />
know that there is no word such as 'cross' in the Greek of the New Testament. The word<br />
translated 'cross' is always the Greek word [stau·ros'] meaning a 'stake' or 'upright pale.' The<br />
cross was not originally a Christian symbol; it is derived from Egypt and Constantine."<br />
See also Strongs and Young's Analytical Concordance.<br />
The Watchtower Society not only claims that Christ did not die on a cross, they further state that there<br />
is no evidence that a cross with a crossbeam was ever even used by Romans during the first century.<br />
They claim the stake was "the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient." They<br />
maintain, "The evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on two pieces<br />
of timber placed at right angles...The passing of time and further archaeological discoveries will be<br />
certain to prove its [torture stake] correctness.<br />
To further elucidate those that see this rejection of a 2-beamed stauros are not WT-born are the follwing<br />
references:<br />
"THE sign of the cross has been a symbol of great antiquity, present in nearly every known<br />
culture. Its meaning has eluded anthropologists, though its use in funerary art could well point to<br />
a defense against evil. On the other hand, the famous crux ansata of Egypt, depicted coming<br />
from the mouth, must refer to life or breath. The universal use of the sign of the cross makes<br />
more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains, especially any specific<br />
reference to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree that the cross, as an artistic<br />
reference to the passion event, cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine."—Ante<br />
Pacem—Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (1985), by Professor<br />
Graydon F. Snyder, page 27.<br />
"There was no use of the crucifix," says one historian of the early Christians, "and no material<br />
representation of the cross." History of the Christian Church, J. F. Hurst, Vol. I, p. 366.<br />
We have strong Biblical basis for assuming a cross beam:<br />
NAS John 20:25 The other disciples therefore were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said<br />
to them, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails [plural], and put my finger into the<br />
place of the nails [plural], and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.<br />
You will notice in this passage the word "nails," this is in the plural suggesting each hand was nailed<br />
seperately to a cross beam. You might also notice in JW literature images of Jesus hanging on a cross<br />
with one (singular) nail through his wrist/hands.<br />
The Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by M'Clintock and Strong, comments:<br />
'Much time and trouble have been wasted in disputing as to whether three or four nails were used in fastening<br />
the Lord. Nonnus affirms that three only were used, in which he is followed by Gregory Nazianzen. The more<br />
general belief gives four nails, an opinion which is supported at much length and by curious arguments by<br />
Curtius. Others have carried the number of nails as high as fourteen.'-Volume II, page 580.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/symbol_cross.htm (2 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:13:29 AM]
A Reply to: Jehovah Witnesses And The Symbol Of The Cross<br />
Accounts of Jesus impalement/crucifixion like Matthew 27:35 give little evidence of the methods used. After<br />
Jesus' resurrection, Thomas said: "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the<br />
print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe." (John 20:25) Because of this some<br />
have also concluded from John 20:25 that two nails were used, one through each hand. But does Thomas' use<br />
of the plural *nails* have to be understood that Jesus' hands were pierced by a separate nail?<br />
In Luke 24:39 the resurrected Jesus said: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself." This suggests that<br />
Christ's feet also were nailed. Since Thomas made no mention of nailprints in Jesus' feet, his use of the plural<br />
"nails" could have been a general reference to multiple nails used in piercing Jesus.<br />
Debate over such an insignificant detail should not be permitted to becloud the all-important truth that "we were<br />
reconciled to God by the death of his Son."-Romans 5:10. RSV<br />
We must also remember too that the Cross was adopted as a "Christian" symbol (312 C.E.) after it was adopted by<br />
Emperor Constantine, who continued to be a Sun-worshipper, and the cross was the symbol of the sun-god, Sol.<br />
January 13, 313 C.E. Constantine as pagan Pontifex Maximus publishes his famous edict of toleration in favor of the<br />
professed Christians and they are made eligible to public office.<br />
321 C.E. Sunday Dies Solis, the day of the sun-god, Sol, whose symbol is the cross, is made a day exempt from being<br />
judicial and its observance made a legal duty.<br />
325 C.E. Constantine becomes head of the eastern and western sections of the Roman Empire. He calls a religious council<br />
for settling the controversy over the Greek characters or "trinity," which threatens the unity of his empire. As pagan<br />
Pontifex Maximus, not yet baptized as a Christian, Constantine presides over the council...and the rest is the history of<br />
Christendom.<br />
I think what JW's are driving at is the adoration of a symbol. I think you will agree that many use the figure of a<br />
cross a object of worship, and where that happens we are no better than the pagans who did the very same<br />
thing. The cross is a symbol of Christ's humiliation, but we are saved through his BLOOD that was shed that<br />
day. Let us envision it this way. If our Saviour was killed by a gun, would we be hanging that around our necks.<br />
It is too macabre to sprinkle blood on our shirts to commemorate this important event, and using the cross as a<br />
symbol of our affection in the Lord Jesus Christ is not necessary. After all, we are walking by faith, not by sight.<br />
Addendum: Here is an interesting note from a recently released <strong>Bible</strong>:<br />
"The Greek term signifies an upright stake on which criminal were executed, with no<br />
suggestion of a cross-beam. In the Latin versions the term 'crux' was used, but according to<br />
Livy of the 1st century B.C., the word meant no more than an upright stake; it was only later<br />
that crux came to mean a cross. Josephus relates how 2,000 were crucified at one time<br />
('Antiquities' book 17; 10:10) hardly practicable if crosses had to be made for each one.<br />
There are Greek words which denote a cross, but none of these appear in the in any of the<br />
four gospel accounts of Jesus' execution. At Galatians 3:13 Paul refers to the instrument as 'a<br />
timber' (A.V. a tree) a reference to the upright stake on which bodies of criminals were<br />
hanged under the Mosaic Law (Deut 21:22), and which Jesus fulfilled by his death.<br />
Some have contended that the Romans did use crosses for execution at that time although<br />
Livy refutes this. Even if this were so, the Romans were also careful to observe local<br />
customs as fas as possible to avoid unnecessarily upsetting the populace, and so likely<br />
would have modified their method to conform to the Jewish practice. A rough upright stake<br />
would be in any case less trouble to produce than a hewn cross with a joint strong enough to<br />
bear the weight of a man.<br />
Christians are sometimes disturbed to learn that the cross, considered for centuries as a<br />
Christian symbol, had its origin long before Christ and was actually used in pagan<br />
mythology.It was the symbol of the god Tammuz, and Bacchus, and the Egyptian Osiris. It<br />
was worshipped by the Celtic druids and worn on necklaces by the Vestal Virgins of<br />
Rome...As the Greek text shows, Christ was not executed on a Cross, that symbol can be<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/symbol_cross.htm (3 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:13:29 AM]
A Reply to: Jehovah Witnesses And The Symbol Of The Cross<br />
regarded for what it is, a pagan corruption of Christian worship introduced in the early<br />
centuries of our common era. Thus in harmony with 2 Cor 6:15 although long cherished, it<br />
is something that Christians should shun."<br />
21st Century NT appendix<br />
Although (A.E. Knoch) uses "cross" in the text of the Concordant Literal Version, in the<br />
Keyword Concordance under "cross" he says, "an upright stake or pale, without any crosspiece, now,<br />
popularly, cross". Under "crucify" he adds, "Drive a stake into the ground, fasten on a stake, impale,<br />
now popular usage, crucify, though there was no crosspiece".<br />
Click here and here for more<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/symbol_cross.htm (4 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:13:29 AM]
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
The Book of Mormon and the Plagiarization of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
I have no idea who first started this, but this is a good chart showing the blatant plagiarizing of the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> by Joseph Smith. If you have any other plagiarisms to add to this list, please tell me by<br />
e-mailing me at: hector3001@aol.com<br />
Is the Book of Mormom from God? Click Here<br />
Book of Mormon The Holy <strong>Bible</strong><br />
charity sufferth long, and is kind, and<br />
envieth not,...is not puffed up,...seeketh not<br />
her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no<br />
evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but<br />
rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all<br />
things,...hopeth all things, endurth all things<br />
(Moroni 7:45)<br />
if ye have not charity, ye are nothing<br />
(Moroni 7:46)<br />
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity<br />
envieth not;...is not puffed up,...seeketh not<br />
her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no<br />
evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth<br />
in the truth; Beareth all things,...hopeth all<br />
things, endureth all things (1 Corinthians<br />
13:4-7)<br />
and have not charity, I am nothing (1<br />
Corinthians 13:2)<br />
charity never faileth (Moroni 7:46) Charity never faileth (1 Corinthians 13:8)<br />
that when he shall appear we shall be like<br />
him, for we shall see him as he is (Moroni<br />
7:48)<br />
that we may have this hope; that we may be<br />
purified even as he is pure (Moroni 7:48)<br />
the name of his Holy Child, Jesus (Moroni<br />
8:3)<br />
the gifts of God,...are many; and they come<br />
from the same God (Moroni 10:8)<br />
there are different ways that these gifts are<br />
administered (Moroni 10:8)<br />
but it is the same God who worketh all in all<br />
(Moroni 10:8)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (1 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]<br />
that when he shall appear, we shall be like<br />
him; for we shall see him as he is (1 John<br />
3:2)<br />
that hath this hope in him purifieth himself,<br />
even as he is pure (1 John 3:3)<br />
the name of thy holy child Jesus (Acts 4:30)<br />
there are diversities of gifts, buit the same<br />
Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4)<br />
there are differences of administrations (1<br />
Corinthians 12:5)<br />
but it is the same God which worketh all in<br />
all (1 Corinthians 12:6)
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto<br />
men, to profit them (Moroni 10:8)<br />
For behold, to one is given by the Sprit of<br />
God, that he may teach the word of wisdom<br />
(Moroni 10:9)<br />
to another, that he may teach the word of<br />
knowledge by the same Spirit (Moroni<br />
10:10)<br />
to another faith, exceeding great faith<br />
(Moroni 10:11)<br />
to another, the gifts of healing by the same<br />
Spirit (Moroni 10:11)<br />
to another, that he may work mightly<br />
miracles (Moroni 10:12)<br />
to another, that he may prophesy (Moroni<br />
10:13)<br />
to another, the beholding of angels and<br />
ministering spirits (Moroni 10:14)<br />
to another, all kinds of tongues (Moroni<br />
10:15)<br />
to another, the interpretation of languages<br />
and of divers kinds of tongues (Moroni<br />
10:16)<br />
all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ;<br />
and they come unto every man secerally,<br />
according as he will (Moroni 10:17)<br />
every good gift cometh of Christ (Moroni<br />
10:18)<br />
the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead<br />
(Moroni 10:34)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (2 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]<br />
the manifestations of the Spirit is given to<br />
every man to profit withal (1 Corinthians<br />
12:7)<br />
For to one is given by the Spirit the word of<br />
wisdom (1 Corinthians 12:8)<br />
to another the word of knowledge by the<br />
same Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:8)<br />
To another faith (1 Corinthians 12:9)<br />
to another the gifts of healing by the same<br />
Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:9)<br />
to another the working of miracles (1<br />
Corinthians 12:10)<br />
to another prophecy (1 Corinthians 12:10)<br />
to another discerning of spirits (1<br />
Corinthians 12:10)<br />
to another divers kinds of tongues (1<br />
Corinthians 12:10)<br />
to another the interpretation of tongues (1<br />
Corinthians 12:10)<br />
all these worketh that one and the selfsame<br />
Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he<br />
will (1 Corinthians 12:11)<br />
Every good gift...cometh down from the<br />
Father (James 1:17)<br />
the Judge of quick and dead (Acts 10:42)
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
stand fast in the faith (Alma 1:25)<br />
sit down in the kingdom of God, with<br />
Abraham, with Isacc, and with Jacob (Alma<br />
5:24)<br />
the Only Begotten of the Father, full of<br />
grace, and mercy, and truth (Alma 5:48)<br />
stand fast in the faith (1 Corinthanians<br />
16:13)<br />
sit down with Abraham, and Isacc, and<br />
Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew<br />
8:11)<br />
the only begotten of the Father, full of grace<br />
and truth (John 1:14)<br />
take away the sins of the world (Alma 5:48) taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29)<br />
the ax is laid at the root of the tree, therefore<br />
every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit<br />
shall be hewn down and cast into the fire<br />
(Alma 5:52)<br />
bring forth works which are meet for<br />
repentance (Alma 5:54)<br />
come ye out from the wicked, and be ye<br />
separate, and touch not their unclean things<br />
(Alma 5:57)<br />
and to cleanse from all unrighteousness<br />
(Alma 7:14)<br />
lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset<br />
you (Alma 7:15)<br />
he who is filthy shall remain in his filthiness<br />
(Alma 7:21)<br />
the axe is laid unto the root of the trees:<br />
therefore every tree which bringeth not forth<br />
good fruit is hewn down and cast into the<br />
fire (Matthew 3:10)<br />
Bring forth therefore fruits meet for<br />
repentance (Matthew 3:8)<br />
come out from among them, and be ye<br />
separate,...and touch not the unclean thing (2<br />
Corinthians 6:17)<br />
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness<br />
(1 John 1:9)<br />
lay aside every weight, and the sin which<br />
doth so easily beset us (Hebrews 12:1)<br />
he which is filthy, let him be filthy still<br />
(Revelation 22:11)<br />
faith, hope, and charity (Alma 7:24) faith, hope, charity (1 Corinthians 13:13)<br />
thou hast not lied unto men only but thou<br />
hast lied unto God (Alma 12:3)<br />
resurrection of the dead,...both the just and<br />
the unjust (Alma 12:8)<br />
the rocks and the mountains, to fall upon us<br />
to hide us from (Alma 12:27)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (3 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]<br />
thou hast not lied unto men , but unto God<br />
(Acts 5:4)<br />
resurrection of the dead, both of the just and<br />
unjust (Acts 24:15)<br />
the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and<br />
hide us from (Revelation 6:16)
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
must die; and after death, they must come to<br />
judgment (Alma 12:27)<br />
this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham<br />
paid...of one-tenth part of all (Alma 133:15)<br />
not to be tempted above that which ye can<br />
bear (Alma 13:28)<br />
Rabbanah, which is...powerful or great king<br />
(Alma 18:13)<br />
being wise yet harmless (Alma 18:22)<br />
I say unto thee, woman, there has not been<br />
such great faith among all the people of the<br />
Nephites (Alma 19:10)<br />
my heart is exceeding sorrowful (Alma<br />
31:31)<br />
if ye have faith ye hope for things which are<br />
not seen (Alma 32:21)<br />
springing up unto everlasting life (Alma<br />
32:41)<br />
it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle,<br />
and none shall have passed away (Alma<br />
34:13)<br />
against the devil, who is an enemy to all<br />
righteousness (Alma 34:23)<br />
cast out,...and is trodden under foot of men<br />
(Alma 34:29)<br />
behold now is the time and the day of your<br />
salvation (Alma 34:31)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (4 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]<br />
to die, but after this the judgment (Hebrews<br />
9:27)<br />
this Melchisedec,...To whom also Amraham<br />
gave a tenth part of all (Hebrews 7:1-2)<br />
not suffer you to be tempted above that ye<br />
are able (1 Corinthians 10:13)<br />
Rabboni; which is to say, Master (John<br />
20:16)<br />
be ye therefore wise as serpents, and<br />
harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16)<br />
I say unto you, I have not found so great<br />
faith, no, not in Israel (Luke 7:9)<br />
My soul is exceeding sorrowful (Matthew<br />
26:38)<br />
Now faith is the substance of things hoped<br />
for, the evidence of things not seen<br />
(Hebrews 11:1)<br />
springing up into everlasting life (John<br />
4:14)<br />
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass<br />
from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew<br />
5:18)<br />
child of the devil, thou enemy of all<br />
righteousness (Acts 13:10)<br />
cast out,...and to be trodden under foot of<br />
men (Matthew 5:13)<br />
behold, now is the accepted time; behold,<br />
now is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians<br />
6:2)
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
work out your salvation with fear (Alma<br />
34:37)<br />
worship God,...in spirit and in truth (Alma<br />
34:38)<br />
work out your own salvation with fear<br />
(Philippians 2:12)<br />
worship him,...in spirit and in truth (John<br />
4:24)<br />
and learn of me; for I (Alma 36:3) and learn of me; for I (Matthew 11:29)<br />
Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me<br />
(Alma 36:18)<br />
meek and lowly in heart; for such shall find<br />
rest to their souls (Alma 37:34)<br />
Jesus thou son of David, have mercy on me<br />
(Mark 10:47)<br />
meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find<br />
rest unto your souls (Matthew 11:29)<br />
he is...the light of the world (Alma 38:9) I am the light of the world (John 8:12)<br />
the lusts of your eyes (Alma 39:9) the lusts of the eyes (1 John 2:16)<br />
shall be cast out into outer darkness; there<br />
shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing<br />
of teeth (Alma 40:13)<br />
fearful looking for the fiery indignation of<br />
the wrath of God (Alma 40:14)<br />
restoration of those things of which has been<br />
spoken by the mouths of the prophets (Alma<br />
40:22)<br />
then shall the righteous shine forth in the<br />
kingdom of God (Alma 40:25)<br />
shall be cast out into outer darkness; there<br />
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth<br />
(Matthew 8:12)<br />
fearful looking for of judgment and fiery<br />
indignation, which shall devour the<br />
adversaries (Hebrews 10:27)<br />
restitution of all things, which God hath<br />
spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets<br />
(Acts 3:21)<br />
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the<br />
sun in the kingdom of their Father (Matthew<br />
13:43)<br />
without God in the world (Alma 41:11) without God in the world (Ephesians 2:12)<br />
it was appointed unto man to die (Alma<br />
42:6)<br />
the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and<br />
then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also<br />
(Alma 60:23)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (5 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]<br />
it is appointed unto men once to die<br />
(Hebrews 9:27)<br />
cleanse first that which is within the cup and<br />
platter, that the outside of them may be<br />
clean also (Matthew 23:26)
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
lay up for yourselves a treasure in heaven<br />
(Helaman 5:8)<br />
except ye repent ye shall perish (Helaman<br />
5:8)<br />
And as he lifted up the brazen serpent in the<br />
wilderness, even so shall he be lifted up who<br />
should come (Heleman 8:14)<br />
heaping up for yourselves wrath against the<br />
day of judgment (Helaman 8:25)<br />
lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven<br />
(Matthew 6:20)<br />
except ye repent, ye shall...perish (Matthew<br />
6:20)<br />
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the<br />
wilderness, even so must the Son of man be<br />
lifted up (John 3:14)<br />
treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the<br />
day of wrath and revelation of the righteous<br />
judgment (Romans 2:5)<br />
darkness rather than light (Helaman 13:29) darkness rather than light (John 3:19)<br />
graves shall be opened; and shall yield up<br />
many of their dead; and many saints shall<br />
appear unto many (Helaman 14:25)<br />
the dog to his vomit, or like the sow to her<br />
wallowing in the mire (3 Nephi 7:8)<br />
Old things are done away, and all things<br />
have become new (3 Nephi 26:3)<br />
the elements should melt with fervent heat,<br />
and the earth (3 Nephi 26:3)<br />
and heard unspeakable things, which are not<br />
lawful to be written (3 Nephi 26:18)<br />
whether they were in the body or out of the<br />
body, they could not tell (3 Nephi 28:15)<br />
no variableness neither shadow of turning<br />
(Mormon 9:9)<br />
that ye may consume it on your lusts<br />
(Mormon 9:28)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (6 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]<br />
graves were opened; and many bodies of the<br />
saints which slept arose,...and appeared unto<br />
many (Matthew 27:52-53)<br />
the dog is turned to his own vomit again;<br />
and the sow that was washed to her<br />
wallowing in the mire (2 Peter 2:22)<br />
old things are passed away; behold, all<br />
things are become new (2 Corinthians 5:17)<br />
the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the<br />
earth (2 Peter 3:10)<br />
and heard unspeakable words, which it is<br />
not lawful for a man to utter (2 Corinthians<br />
12:4)<br />
whether in the body, or out of the body, I<br />
cannot tell (2 Corinthians 12:3)<br />
no variableness, neither shadow of turning<br />
(James 1:17)<br />
that ye may consume it upon your lusts<br />
(James 4:3)
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
an anchor to the souls of men, which would<br />
make them sure and steadfast (Ether 12:4)<br />
partakers of the heavenly gift (Ether 12:8)<br />
it was the faith of Alma and Amulek that<br />
caused the prison to tumble (Ether 12:13)<br />
by faith that the three disciples obtained a<br />
promise that they should not taste death<br />
(Ether 12:17)<br />
by faith...obtained the promise (Ether<br />
12:22)<br />
the Lord spake unto me, saying:...my grace<br />
is sufficient for the meek, that they shall<br />
take no advantage of your weakness (Ether<br />
12:26)<br />
an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast<br />
(Hebrews 6:19)<br />
partakers of the heavenly calling (Hebrews<br />
3:1)<br />
By faith the walls of Jericho fell down<br />
(Hebrews 11:30)<br />
By faith Enoch was translated that he should<br />
not see death (Hebrews 11:5)<br />
through faith...obtained promises (Hebrews<br />
11:33)<br />
he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for<br />
thee: for my strength is made perfect in<br />
weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9)<br />
better things of you (Moroni 7:39) better things of you (Hebrews 6:9)<br />
have not charity he is nothing (Moroni<br />
7:44)<br />
to declare unto them concerning the things<br />
which he had both seen and heard (1 Nephi<br />
1:18)<br />
have not charity, it profiteth me nothing (1<br />
Corinthians 13:3)<br />
That which we have seen and heard declare<br />
we unto you (1 John 1:3)<br />
steadfast, and immovable (1 Nephi 2:10) stedfast, unmoveable (1 Corinthians 15:58)<br />
being grieved because of the hardness of<br />
their hearts (1 Nephi 2:18)<br />
that one man should perish than that a nation<br />
should ...perish in unbelief (1 Nephi 4:13)<br />
kindreds, tongues, and people (1 Nephi<br />
5:18)<br />
being grieved for the hardness of their hearts<br />
(Mark 3:5)<br />
that one man should not die for the people,<br />
and that the whole nation perish not (John<br />
11:50)<br />
people and kindreds and tongues<br />
(Revelations 11:9)<br />
who are not of the world (1 Nephi 6:5) they are not of the world (John 17:14)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (7 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
the Lamb of God, who should take away the<br />
sins of the world (1 Nephi 10:10)<br />
by the power of the Holy Ghost (1 Nephi<br />
10:17)<br />
all those who diligently seek him (1 Nephi<br />
10:17)<br />
the same yesterday, to-day, and forever (1<br />
Nephi 10:18)<br />
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin<br />
of the world (John 1:29)<br />
through the power of the Holy Ghost<br />
(Romans 15:13)<br />
of them that diligently seek him (Hebrews<br />
11:6)<br />
the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever<br />
(Hebrews 13:8)<br />
he that ...seeketh shall find (1 Nephi 10:19) he that seeketh findeth (Luke 11:10)<br />
bear record that it is the Son of God (1<br />
Nephi 11:7)<br />
the love of God, which sheddeth itself<br />
abroad in the hearts of the children of men<br />
(1 Nephi 11:22)<br />
the Holy Ghost come down out of heaven<br />
and abide upon him in the form of a dove (1<br />
Nephi 11:27)<br />
heavens open again, and I saw angels<br />
descending upon the children of men (1<br />
Nephi 11:30)<br />
who were sick, and who were afflicted with<br />
all manners of diseases, and with devils (1<br />
Nephi 11:31)<br />
bare record that this is the Son of God (John<br />
1:34)<br />
the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts<br />
(Romans 5:5)<br />
the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape<br />
like a dove upon him (Luke 3:22)<br />
heaven open, and the angels of God<br />
ascended and descended upon the Son of<br />
man (John 1:51)<br />
all sick people that were taken with divers<br />
diseases...and those which were possessed<br />
with devils (Matthew 4:24)<br />
wars, and rumours of wars (1 Nephi 12:2) wars, and rumors of wars (Matthew 24:6)<br />
the earth and the rocks, that they rent (1<br />
Nephi 12:4)<br />
their garments were made white in his blood<br />
(1 Nephi 12:10)<br />
made white in the blood of the Lamb (1<br />
Nephi 12:11)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (8 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]<br />
the earth did quake, and the rocks rent<br />
(Matthew 27:51)<br />
their robes, and made them white in the<br />
blood of the Lamb (Revelations 7:14)<br />
made them white in the blood of the Lamb<br />
(Revelation 7:14)
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and<br />
fine-twined linen, and all manners of<br />
precious clothing (1 Nephi 13:7)<br />
pervert the right ways of the Lord (1 Nephi<br />
13:27)<br />
blind the eyes and harden the hearts (1<br />
Nephi 13:27)<br />
the power of the Holy Ghost (1 Nephi<br />
13:37)<br />
endure unto the end...shall be saved (1<br />
Nephi 13:37)<br />
gold, and silver,... and fine linen,...and silk,<br />
and scarlet,...and all manner vessels of most<br />
precious wood (Revelation 18:12)<br />
pervert the right ways of the Lord (Acts<br />
13:10)<br />
blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart<br />
(John 12:40)<br />
the power of the Holy Ghost (Romans<br />
15:13)<br />
endureth to the end shall be saved (Matthew<br />
10:22)<br />
tiding of great joy (1 Nephi 13:37) tiding of great joy (Luke 2:10)<br />
last shall be first, and the first shall be last (1<br />
Nephi 13:42)<br />
the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon<br />
many waters; and she had dominion over all<br />
the earth, among all nations, kindreds,<br />
tongues, and people (1 Nephi 14:11)<br />
the fiery darts of the adversary (1 Nephi<br />
15:24)<br />
there cannot any unclean thing enter into the<br />
kingdom of God (1 Nephi 15:34)<br />
shall be saved, even if it so be as by fire (1<br />
Nephi 22:17)<br />
blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke (1<br />
Nephi 22:18)<br />
first shall be last; and the last shall be first<br />
(Matthew 19:30)<br />
the great whore that sitteth upon many<br />
waters:...The waters which thou sawest,<br />
where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and<br />
multitudes, and nations and tongues<br />
(Revelation 17:1 and 15)<br />
the fiery darts of the wicked (Ephesians<br />
6:16)<br />
nor unclean person,...hath any inheritance in<br />
the kingdom of Christ (Ephesians 5:5)<br />
shall be saved; yet so as by fire (1<br />
Corinthians 3:15)<br />
blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke (Acts<br />
2:19)<br />
the lusts of the flesh (1 Nephi 22:23) the lust of the flesh (1 John 2:16)<br />
the things of the world (1 Nephi 22:23)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (9 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]<br />
the things that are in the world (1 John<br />
2:16)
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
his sheep, and they know him (1 Nephi<br />
22:25)<br />
and there shall be one fold and one shepherd<br />
(1 Nephi 22:25)<br />
by the law no flesh is justified (2 Nephi 2:5)<br />
his own sheep,...they know his voice (John<br />
10:4)<br />
and there shall be one fold, and one<br />
shepherd (John 10:16)<br />
by the works of the law shall no flesh be<br />
justified (Galatians 2:16)<br />
full of grace and truth (2 Nephi 2:6) full of grace and truth (John 1:14)<br />
who layette down his life according to the<br />
flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the<br />
Spirit (2 Nephi 2:8)<br />
I lay down my life, that I might take it up<br />
again (John 10:17)<br />
the firstfruits onto God (2 Nephi 2:9) the firstfruits unto God (Revelations 14:4)<br />
that old serpent, who is the devil (2 Nephi<br />
2:18)<br />
that old serpent, which is the Devil<br />
(Revelations 20:2)<br />
who is the father of all lies (2 Nephi 2:18) he is a liar, and the father of it (John 8:44)<br />
have chosen the good part (2 Nephi 2:30) hath chosen the good part (Luke 10:42)<br />
O wretched man that I am (2 Nephi 4:17) O wretched man that I am (Romans 7:24)<br />
the sins which do so easily beset me (2<br />
Nephi 4:18)<br />
I know in whom I have trusted (2 Nephi<br />
4:19)<br />
God will give liberally to him that asketh (2<br />
Nephi 4:35)<br />
the sin which doth so easily beset us<br />
(Hebrews 12:1)<br />
I know whom I have believed (2 Timothy<br />
1:12)<br />
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of<br />
God, that giveth to all men liberally (James<br />
1:5)<br />
I ask not amiss (2 Nephi 4:35) ye ask amiss (James 4:3)<br />
this corruption could not put on incorruption<br />
(2 Nephi 9:7)<br />
transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of<br />
light (2 Nephi 9:9)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (10 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]<br />
this corruptible must put on incorruption (1<br />
Corinthians 15:53)<br />
Satan himself is transformed into an angel of<br />
light (2 Corinthians 11:14)
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
death and hell must deliver up their dead (2<br />
Nephi 9:12)<br />
they must appear before the judgement-seat<br />
of the Holy One (2 Nephi 9:15)<br />
his eternal word, which cannot pass away (2<br />
Nephi 9:16)<br />
they who are righteous shall be righteous<br />
still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy<br />
still (2 Nephi 9:16)<br />
the devil and his angels; and they shall go<br />
away into everlasting fire; prepared for them<br />
(2 Nephi 9:16)<br />
endured the crosses of the world, and<br />
despised thee shame (2 Nephi 9:18)<br />
the kingdom of God, which was prepared<br />
for them from the foundation of the world (2<br />
Nephi 9:18)<br />
death and hell delivered up the dead<br />
(Revelation 20:13)<br />
we shall all stand before the judgement seat<br />
of Christ (Romans 14:10)<br />
my words shall not pass away (Matthew<br />
24:25)<br />
he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and<br />
he that is righteous, let him be righteous still<br />
(Revelation 22:11)<br />
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting<br />
fire prepared for the devil and his devils<br />
(Matthew 25:41)<br />
endured the cross, despising the shame<br />
(Hebrews 12:2)<br />
the kingdom prepared for you from the<br />
foundation of the world (Matthew 25:34)<br />
their joy shall be full (2 Nephi 9:18) that your joy might be full (John 15:11)<br />
commandeth all men that they must repent<br />
(2 Nephi 9:23)<br />
where there is no law given there is no<br />
punishment (2 Nephi 9:25)<br />
their wisdom is foolishness (2 Nephi 9:28)<br />
commandeth all men every where to repent<br />
(Acts 17:30)<br />
where no law is, there is no transgression<br />
(Romans 4:15)<br />
the wisdom of the world is foolishness (1<br />
Corinthians 3:19)<br />
But wo unto the rich (2 Nephi 9:30) But woe unto you that are rich (Luke 6:24)<br />
hearts are upon their treasures (2 Nephi<br />
9:30)<br />
where your treasure is, there will your heart<br />
be also (Matthew 6:21)<br />
shall be thrust down to hell (2 Nephi 9:34) shall be thrust down to hell (Luke 10:15)<br />
die in their sins (2 Nephi 9:38) die in your sins (John 8:21)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (11 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
to be carnally-minded is death, and to be<br />
spiritually-minded is life (2 Nephi 9:39)<br />
And whosoever knocketh, to him will he<br />
open (2 Nephi 9:42)<br />
Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both<br />
male and female (2 Nephi 10:16)<br />
they who are not for me are against me,<br />
saith our God (2 Nephi 10:16)<br />
to be carnally-minded is death, but to be<br />
spiritually-minded is life (Romans 8:6)<br />
and to him that knocketh it shall be opened<br />
(Matthew 7:8)<br />
Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor<br />
free, there is neither male nor female<br />
(Galatians 3:28)<br />
He that is not with me is against me (Luke<br />
11:23)<br />
lay aside our sins (2 Nephi 10:20) lay aside....the sin (Hebrews 12:1)<br />
reconciled unto God (2 Nephi 10:24) reconciled to God (Romans 5:10)<br />
through the grace of God that ye are saved<br />
(2 Nephi 10:24)<br />
the power of the resurrection (2 Nephi<br />
10:25)<br />
the Only Begotten of the Father (2 Nephi<br />
25:12)<br />
there is none other name given under heaven<br />
save it be this Jesus Christ,...whereby man<br />
can be saved (2 Nephi 25:20)<br />
made alive in Christ (2 Nephi 25:25)<br />
by grace are ye saved (Ephesians 2:8)<br />
the power of his resurrection (Philippians<br />
3:10)<br />
the only begotten of the Father (John 1:14)<br />
there is none other name under heaven given<br />
among men, whereby we must be saved<br />
(Acts 4:12)<br />
in Christ shall all be made alive (1<br />
Corinthians 15:22)<br />
in nowise be cast out (2 Nephi 25:29) in no wise cast out (John 6:37)<br />
grind them to powder (2 Nephi 26:5) grind him to powder (Matthew 21:44)<br />
darkness rather then light (2 Nephi 26:10) darkness rather then light (John 3:19)<br />
he may draw all men unto him (2 Nephi<br />
26:24)<br />
will beat us with a few stripes (2 Nephi<br />
28:8)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (12 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]<br />
I...will draw all men unto me (John 12:32)<br />
be beaten with few stripes (Luke 12:48)
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
his everlasting chains (2 Nephi 28:19) in everlasting chains (Jude verse 6)<br />
judged according to their works (2 Nephi<br />
28:23)<br />
judged every man according to their works<br />
(Revelations 20:13)<br />
a lake of fire (2 Nephi 28:23) the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14)<br />
built upon the rock (2 Nephi 28:28) built his house upon a rock (Matthew 7:24)<br />
built upon a sandy foundation (2 Nephi<br />
28:28)<br />
for unto him that receiveth I will give more;<br />
and from them that shall say, We have<br />
enough, from them shall be taken away even<br />
that which they have (2 Nephi 28:30)<br />
out of the books which shall be written I will<br />
judge the world, every man according to<br />
their works (2 Nephi 29:11)<br />
scales of darkness shall begin to fall from<br />
their eyes (2 Nephi 30:6)<br />
There is nothing which is secret save it shall<br />
be revealed (2 Nephi 30:17)<br />
built his house upon the sand(Matthew<br />
7:26)<br />
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given,<br />
and he shall have more abundance: but<br />
whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken<br />
away even that he hath (Matthew 13:12)<br />
out of those things which were written in the<br />
books, according to their works (Revelation<br />
20:12)<br />
fell from his eyes as it had been scales (Acts<br />
9:18)<br />
for there is nothing covered that shall not be<br />
revealed (Matthew 10:26)<br />
made manifest in the light (2 Nephi 30:17) made manifest by the light (Ephesians 5:13)<br />
the Lamb of God, which should take away<br />
the sins of the world (2 Nephi 31:4)<br />
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin<br />
of the world (John 1:29)<br />
to fulfil all righteousness (2 Nephi 31:5) to fulfil all righteousness (Matthew 3:15)<br />
straight and narrow path which leads to<br />
eternal life (2 Nephi 31:18)<br />
strait is the gate, and narrow is the way,<br />
which leadeth to life (Matthew 7:14)<br />
with the tongue of angels (2 Nephi 32:2) with the tongues...of angels (James 4:2)<br />
because ye ask not (2 Nephi 32:4) because ye ask not (James 4:2)<br />
ye must pray always, and not faint (2 Nephi<br />
32:9)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (13 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]<br />
men ought always to pray, and not to faint<br />
(Luke 18:1)
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
How unsearchable are the depths of the<br />
mysteries of him; and it is impossible that<br />
man should find out all his ways (Jacob 4:8)<br />
wither away, and we will cast them into the<br />
fire that they may be burned (Jacob 5:7)<br />
how unsearchable are his judgments, and his<br />
ways past finding out (Romans 11:33)<br />
withered; and men gather them, and cast<br />
them into the fire, and they are burned (John<br />
15:6)<br />
quench the Holy Spirit (Jacob 6:8) quench not the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19)<br />
nevertheless, not my will be done (Jacob<br />
7:14)<br />
thy faith hath made thee whole (Enos 8)<br />
Whatsoever thing ye shall ask in faith,<br />
believing...ye shall receive it (Enos 15)<br />
nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done<br />
(Luke 22:42)<br />
thy faith hath made thee whole (Matthew<br />
9:22)<br />
whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing,<br />
ye shall receive (Matthew 21:22)<br />
Come unto me, ye blessed (Enos 27) Come, ye blessed (Matthew 25:34)<br />
grievous to be borne (Mosiah 2:14) grievous to be borne (Matthew 23:4)<br />
if ye should serve him with all your whole<br />
souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants<br />
(Mosiah 2:21)<br />
drinketh damnation to his own soul (Mosiah<br />
2:33)<br />
when ye shall have done all those<br />
things...say, We are unprofitable servants<br />
(Luke 17:10)<br />
drinketh damnation to himself (1<br />
Corinthians 11:29)<br />
he cometh unto his own (Mosiah 3:9) He came unto his own (John 1:11)<br />
he judgeth, and his judgment is just (Mosiah<br />
3:18)<br />
I judge; and my judgment is just (John<br />
5:30)<br />
become as little children (Mosiah 3:18) become as little children (Matthew 18:3)<br />
putteth off the natural man (Mosiah 3:19) put off the old man (Colossians 3:9)<br />
believe that he is, and that he (Mosiah 4:9)<br />
believe that he is, and that he (Hebrews<br />
11:6)<br />
enemy to all righteousness (Mosiah 4:14) enemy of all righteousness (Acts 13:10)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (14 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]
Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
the thoughts and intents of his heart (Mosiah<br />
5:13)<br />
steadfast and immovable, always abounding<br />
in good works (Mosiah 5:15)<br />
the grave should have no victory, and that<br />
death should have no sting (Mosiah 16:7)<br />
the thoughts and intents of the heart<br />
(Hebrews 4:12)<br />
stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in<br />
the word (1 Corinthians 15:55)<br />
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where<br />
is thy victory (1 Corinthians 15:55)<br />
He in the light...of the world (Mosiah 16:9) I am the light of the world (John 8:12)<br />
If they be good, to the resurrection of<br />
endless life and happiness; and if they be<br />
evil, to the resurrection of endless<br />
damnation (Mosiah 16:11)<br />
they that have done good, unto the<br />
resurrection of life; and they that have done<br />
evil, unto the resurrection of damnation<br />
(John 5:29)<br />
one faith and one baptism (Mosiah 18:21) one faith, one baptism (Ephesians 4:5)<br />
stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have<br />
been made free (Mosiah 23:13)<br />
pray without ceasing (Mosiah 26:39)<br />
Marvel not that all mankind...must be born<br />
again (Mosiah 27:25)<br />
the gall of bitterness and bonds of iniquity<br />
(Mosiah 27:29)<br />
every knee shall bow, and every tongue<br />
confess before him (Mosiah 27:31)<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
Email Me<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/mormon.htm (15 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]<br />
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith<br />
Christ hath made us free (Galatians 5:1)<br />
Pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians<br />
5:17)<br />
Marvel not that...Ye must be born again<br />
(John 3:7)<br />
the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of<br />
iniquity (Acts 8:23)<br />
every knee shall bow to me, and every<br />
tongue shall confess to God (Romans<br />
14:11)
Jesus Christ: The Firstborn of Creation.<br />
The First-Born of Creation is an answer to Cornerstone Church<br />
in Garden City, Kansas<br />
see also An Examination of Colossians 1:15-20 by Mark Larson<br />
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other]<br />
things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no<br />
matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been<br />
created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other]<br />
things were made to exists." (Col. 1:15-17, The New <strong>World</strong> Translation).<br />
cornerst writes: Please note that this passage does not say Jesus was the "first created," but that He was<br />
the "first-born." The <strong>Bible</strong> doesn't use the Greek word for "first created (protoktizo), but firstborn<br />
(prototokos) of all creation.<br />
Response: It should be noted that protoktizo was not in common use back in the first century, and would<br />
not be for a 100 to 200 years after Christ. Interestingly though, when this word was eventually used, it<br />
was used of Christ. John Patrick, in his Clement of Alexandria notes:<br />
"Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet refers to Wisdom<br />
as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and<br />
in another "First-begotten," to the Word." p.103,104, note 6.<br />
The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Volume 1 Faith, Trinity, Incarnation, by Harry Austryn Wolfson,<br />
2nd Edition, Revised:<br />
"Zahn casually remarks that Clement 'always makes a sharp distinction between the only<br />
uncreated God the Father and the Son or Logos who was begotten or created before the rest<br />
of creation.'...1. cf. Th. Zahn, "Supplementum Clementinium", (1884), 144, p. 204, 92<br />
"It is undoubtably with reference to this "coming forth" of the Logos prior to the creation of<br />
the world that Clement speaks of the Logos as "firstborn" [protogonos] and of wisdom,<br />
which he idtentified with the Logos, as the "first-created" [protoktistos]...30 Strom. VI, Ibid.<br />
V. 14., ibid. p 209<br />
cornerst writes: The word "firstborn" refers to a position of pre-eminence rather than a time of birth.<br />
Rights and privileges were usually bestowed upon the child who was born first, but those rights did not<br />
always go to him. Manasseh was the first one born, but Jacob (Israel) blessed Ephraim instead of<br />
Manasseh and gave him the position of first-born (Gen. 48:13-22). In Jeremiah 31:9, God declares<br />
Ephraim to be His first-born, even though Manasseh was born first.<br />
The same is true with Jacob and Esau. Although Esau was the first one born, Jacob (whose name was<br />
change to Israel) received his brother's birthright and his father's blessing and became the first-born. The<br />
nation of Israel was named after him, and the Lord calls Israel His first-born (Ex. 4:22). Here again,<br />
first-born refers to rank and privilege. It means first in importance, not first in time. The nation of Israel<br />
was not the first-born of a woman and not even the first nation to exist. But God called it the first-born<br />
among all the nations. In the same way, Jesus is the first-born of all creation.<br />
The "first-born of the poor" (Isa. 14:30) means "the poorest of the poor." The "first-born of death" (Job<br />
18:13) means Job's disease was the most terrible of diseases. The "first-born" of the kings means the<br />
highest of the kings of the earth (Ps. 89:27). David (v.20) was the last one born in his family, but was<br />
called the firstborn. The "first-born of the dead" (Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5) means that Jesus is pre-eminent<br />
over death.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/firstborn.htm (1 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:14:07 AM]
Jesus Christ: The Firstborn of Creation.<br />
Response: But how many of us know that the word PRWTOTOKOS is not used in Greek LXX in Job<br />
18:13 and Isaiah 14:30? Let us look for examples where it is used mostly followed by the genitive like<br />
"of":<br />
Verses used are from the English Translation of The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament by Sir<br />
Lancelot C. L. Brenton, 1844, 1851.<br />
LXX Genesis 4:4 And Abel also brought of the first born of his sheep<br />
and of his fatlings, and God looked upon Abel and his gifts,<br />
LXX Genesis 25:13 And these are the names of the sons of Ismael, according<br />
to the names of their generations. The firstborn of Ismael, Nabaioth,<br />
and Kedar, and Nabdeel, and Massam,<br />
LXX Genesis 27:19 And Jacob said to his father, I, Esau thy<br />
first-born, have done as thou toldest me; rise, sit, and eat of my<br />
venison, that they soul may bless me.<br />
LXX Genesis 35:23 The sons of Lea, the first-born of Jacob; Ruben,<br />
Symeon, Levi, Judas, Issachar, Zabulon.<br />
LXX Genesis 36:15 These are the chiefs of the son of Esau, even the sons of<br />
Eliphas, the first-born of Esau; chief Thaeman, chief Omar, chief<br />
Sophar, chief Kenez,<br />
LXX Genesis 38:6 And Judas took a wife for Er his first-born, whose<br />
name was Thamar.<br />
LXX Genesis 38:7 And Er, the first-born of Judas, was wicked before<br />
the Lord; and God killed him.<br />
LXX Genesis 46:8 And these are the names of the sons of Israel that went<br />
into Egypt with their father Jacob-- Jacob and his sons. The first-born<br />
of Jacob, Ruben.<br />
LXX Genesis 49:3 Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength, and<br />
the first of my children, hard to be endured, hard and self-willed.<br />
LXX Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say to Pharao, These things saith the Lord,<br />
Israel is my first-born.<br />
LXX Exodus 6:14 And these are the heads of the houses of their families: the<br />
sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel; Enoch and Phallus, Asron, and<br />
Charmi, this is the kindred of Ruben.<br />
LXX Exodus 11:5 And every first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from<br />
the first-born of Pharao that sits on the throne, even to the<br />
first-born of the woman-servant that is by the mill, and to the<br />
first-born of all cattle.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/firstborn.htm (2 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:14:07 AM]
Jesus Christ: The Firstborn of Creation.<br />
LXX Exodus 12:29 And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord smote all the<br />
first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharao that<br />
sat on the throne, to the first-born of the captive-maid in the<br />
dungeon, and the first-born of all cattle.<br />
LXX Exodus 13:13 Every offspring opening the womb of the ass thou shalt<br />
change for a sheep; and if thou wilt not change it, thou shalt redeem it:<br />
every first-born of man of thy sons shalt thou redeem.<br />
LXX Exodus 13:15 And when Pharao hardened his heart so as not to send us<br />
away, he slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, both the first-born<br />
of man and the first-born of beast; therefore do I sacrifice<br />
every offspring that opens the womb, the males to the Lord, and every<br />
first-born of my sons I will redeem.<br />
LXX Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not keep back the first-fruits of thy threshing<br />
floor and press. The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give to me.<br />
LXX Exodus 34:19 The males are mine, everything that opens the womb; every<br />
first-born of oxen, and every first-born of sheep.<br />
LXX Exodus 34:20 And the first-born of an ass thou shalt redeem with<br />
a sheep, and if thou wilt not redeem it thou shalt pay a price: every<br />
first-born of thy sons shalt thou redeem: thou shalt not appear<br />
before me empty.<br />
LXX Numbers 1:20 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel<br />
according to their kindreds, according to their divisions, according to the<br />
houses of their families, according to the number of their names, according<br />
to their heads, were-- all males from twenty years old and upward, every one<br />
that went out with the host--<br />
LXX Numbers 3:40 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Count every<br />
first-born male of the children of Israel from a month old and upwards,<br />
and take the number by name.<br />
LXX Numbers 3:41 And thou shalt take the Levites for me-- I am the Lord-instead<br />
of all the first-born of the sons of Israel, and the cattle<br />
of the Levites instead of all the first-born among the cattle of the<br />
children of Israel.<br />
LXX Numbers 3:45 Take the Levites instead of all the first-born of the<br />
sons of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle,<br />
and the Levites shall be mine; I am the Lord.<br />
LXX Numbers 3:46 And for the ransoms of the two hundred and seventy-three<br />
which exceed the Levites in number of the first-born of the sons of<br />
Israel;<br />
LXX Numbers 3:50 He took the silver from the first-born of the sons of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/firstborn.htm (3 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:14:07 AM]
Jesus Christ: The Firstborn of Creation.<br />
Israel, a thousand three hundred and sixty-five shekels, according to<br />
the holy shekel.<br />
LXX Numbers 8:16 For these are given to me for a present out of the midst of<br />
the children of Israel: I have taken them to myself instead of all the<br />
first-born of the sons of Israel that open every womb.<br />
LXX Numbers 8:17 For every first-born among the children of Israel is<br />
mine, whether of man or beast: in the day in which I smote every<br />
first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified them to myself.<br />
LXX Numbers 18:15 And every thing that opens the womb of all flesh,<br />
whatsoever they bring to the Lord, whether man or beast, shall be thine:<br />
only the first-born of men shall be surely redeemed, and thou shalt<br />
redeem the first-born of unclean cattle.<br />
LXX Numbers 18:17 But thou shalt not redeem the first-born of calves<br />
and the first-born of sheep and the first-born of goats;<br />
they are holy: and thou shalt pour their blood upon the altar, and thou<br />
shalt offer the fat as a burnt-offering for a smell of sweet savour to the<br />
Lord.<br />
LXX Numbers 26:5 Ruben was the first-born of Israel: and the sons of<br />
ruben, Enoch, and the family of Enoch; to Phallu belongs the family of the<br />
Phalluites.<br />
LXX Deuteronomy 12:6 And ye shall carry thither your whole-burnt-offerings,<br />
and your sacrifices, and your first-fruits, and your vowed-offerings, and<br />
your freewill-offerings, and your offerings of thanksgiving, the<br />
first-born of your herds, and of your flocks.<br />
LXX Deuteronomy 12:17 Thou shalt not be able to eat in thy cities the tithe<br />
of thy corn, and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thine<br />
herd and of thy flock, and all your vows as many as ye shall have<br />
vowed, and your thank-offerings, and the first-fruits of thine hands.<br />
LXX Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat it in the place which the Lord thy<br />
God shall choose to have his name called there; ye shall bring the tithe of<br />
thy corn and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thy herd<br />
and of thy flock, that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God<br />
always.<br />
LXX Deuteronomy 15:19 Every first-born that shall be born among thy kine and<br />
thy sheep, thou shalt sanctify the males to the Lord thy God; thou shalt not<br />
work with thy first-born calf, and thou shalt not shear the first-born of<br />
thy sheep.<br />
LXX Deuteronomy 33:17 His beauty is as the firstling of his bull, his<br />
horns are the horns of a unicorn; with them he shall thrust the nations at<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/firstborn.htm (4 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:14:07 AM]
Jesus Christ: The Firstborn of Creation.<br />
once, even from the end of the earth: these are the ten thousands of<br />
Ephraim, and these are the thousands of Manasse.<br />
LXX Joshua 6:26 And Joshua adjured them on that day before the Lord, saying,<br />
Cursed be the man who shall build that city: he shall lay the foundation of<br />
it in his first-born, and he shall set up the gates of it in his<br />
youngest son. And so did Hozan of Baethel; he laid the foundation in Abiron<br />
his first-born, and set up the gates of it in his youngest surviving son.<br />
LXX Joshua 17:1 And the borders of the tribe of the children of Manasse,<br />
(for he was the first-born of Joseph) assigned to Machir the<br />
firstborn of Manasse the father of Galaad, for he was a warrior, were<br />
in the land of Galaad and of Basan.<br />
LXX 2 Samuel 3:2 And sons were born to David in Chebron: and his<br />
first-born was Ammon the son of Achinoom the Jezraelitess.<br />
LXX 2 Samuel 13:21 And king David heard of all these things, and was very<br />
angry; but he did not grieve the spirit of his son Amnon, because be loved<br />
him, for he was his first-born.<br />
LXX 1 Kings 16:34 And in his days Achiel the Baethelite built Jericho; he<br />
laid the foundation of it in Abiron his first-born, and he set up the<br />
doors of it in Segub his younger son, according to the word of the Lord<br />
which he spoke by Joshua the son of Naue.<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 1:29 And these are their generations: the first-born of<br />
Ismael, Nabaeoth, and Kedar, Nabdeel, Massam,<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 2:3 The sons of Juda; Er, Aunan, Selom. These three were<br />
born to him of the daughter of Sava the Chananitish woman: and Er, the<br />
first-born of Juda, was wicked before the Lord, and he slew him.<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 2:13 And Jessae begot his first-born Eliab, Aminadab<br />
was the second, Samaa the third,<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 2:25 And the sons of Jerameel the first-born of Esron<br />
were, the first-born Ram, and Banaa, and Aram, and Asan his brother.<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 2:27 And the sons of Ram the first-born of Jerameel<br />
were Maas, and Jamin, and Acor.<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 2:42 And the sons of Chaleb the brother of Jerameel were,<br />
Marisa his first-born, he is the father of Ziph:-- and the sons of<br />
Marisa the father of Chebron.<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 2:50 These were the sons of Chaleb: the sons of Or the<br />
first-born of Ephratha; Sobal the father of Cariathiarim,<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 3:15 And the sons of Josia; the first-born Joanan,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/firstborn.htm (5 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:14:07 AM]
Jesus Christ: The Firstborn of Creation.<br />
the second Joakim, the third Sedekias, the fourth Salum.<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 4:4 And Phanuel the father of Gedor, and Jazer the father<br />
of Osan: these are the sons of Or, the first-born of Ephratha, the<br />
father of Baethalaen.<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 5:1 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel<br />
(for he was the first-born; but because of his going up to his father's<br />
couch, his father gave his blessing to his son Joseph, even the son Israel;<br />
and he was not reckoned as first-born;<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 5:3 The sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel;<br />
Enoch, and Phallus, Asrom, and Charmi.<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 6:28 The sons of Samuel; the first-born Sani, and<br />
Abia.<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 8:1 Now Benjamin begot Bale his first-born, and<br />
Asbel his second son, Aara the third, Noa the fourth,<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 8:30 And her first-born son was Abdon, and Sur, and<br />
Kis, and Baal, and Nadab, and Ner,<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 8:38 And Esel had six sons, and these were their name;<br />
Ezricam his first-born, and Ismael, and Saraia, and Abdia, and Anan,<br />
and Asa: all these were the sons of Esel.<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 8:39 And the sons of Asel his brother; AElam his<br />
first-born, and Jas the second, and Eliphalet the third.<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 9:5 And of the Selonites; Asaia his first-born, and<br />
his sons.<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 9:36 And his first-born son was Abdon, and he had<br />
Sur, and Kis, and Baal, and Ner, and Nadab,<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 9:44 And Esel had six sons, and these were their names;<br />
Esricam his first-born, and Ismael, and Saraia, and Abdia, and Anan,<br />
and Asa: these were the sons of Esel.<br />
LXX 1 Chronicles 26:6 And to Samaias his son were born the sons of his<br />
first-born, chiefs over the house of their father, for they were mighty.<br />
LXX Nehemiah 10:36 the first-born of our sons, and of our<br />
cattle, as it is written in the law, and the first-born of our herds<br />
and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, for the<br />
priests that minister in the house of our God.<br />
LXX Psalm 135:8 Who smote the first-born of Egypt, both man and<br />
beast.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/firstborn.htm (6 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:14:07 AM]
Jesus Christ: The Firstborn of Creation.<br />
LXX Psalm 136:10 To him who smote Egypt with their first-born; for<br />
his mercy endures for ever.<br />
LXX Jeremiah 31:9 (38:9) They went forth with weeping, and I will bring them<br />
back with consolation, causing them to lodge by the channels of waters in a<br />
straight way, and they shall not err in it: for I am become a father to<br />
Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born.<br />
LXX Micah 6:7 Will the Lord accept thousands of rams, or ten thousands of<br />
fat goats? should I give my first-born for ungodliness, the fruit of<br />
my body for the sin of my soul?<br />
As you can see there are many examples of the firstborn[PRWTOTOKOS] as a separate, subordinate,<br />
and most of the time the actual FIRST BORN member of a family.<br />
It should be noted too, that Jesus, unlike Ephraim, Jacob and Israel, was never GIVEN the title of "firstborn". He was<br />
simply spoken of as firstborn in the temporal sense in passages like the ones at Col. 1:15, 18, Heb. 1:6, Rev. 1:5 and<br />
Romans 8:29.<br />
When this changes, "the firstborn of" is used as part of a group. If it is "the firstborn of" Israel(Ex. 6:14),<br />
it is one of the sons of Israel, if it is "the firstborn of" Pharoah(Ex. 11:5) it is a member of the house of<br />
Pharoah, if it is "the firstborn of" beasts(Ex. 13:15) then it is an animal also. Why then should this rule be<br />
changed as it applies to "the firstborn of" creation? Obviously Jesus is a created being, as he was<br />
historically always thought to be the Wisdom of Proverbs. Is this a stretch?<br />
"She [Wisdom] is God's associate in his works, and his agent in making all things (Prov<br />
8:22-30; see also Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2)." footnote at Wisdom 8:2-21 in the New Oxford<br />
Annotated <strong>Bible</strong>-NRSV<br />
"The doctrine of wisdom, thus outlined in the OT, will be resumed in the NT which will<br />
give it new and decisive completion by applying it to the person of Christ<br />
Jesus is referred to as Wisdom itself, the Wisdom of God, Mt 11:19 par.; Lk 11:49, cf. Mt<br />
23:34-36; 1 Co 1:24-30; like Wisdom, he participates in the creation and preservation of the<br />
world, Col 1:16-17, and the protection of Israel, 1Co 10:4, cf. Ws 10:17seq.<br />
Finally, John in his prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the<br />
Word, and his gospel throughout represents Christ as the Wisdom of God. See Jn 6:35t.<br />
Hence, Christian tradition from St Justin onwards sees in the Wisdom of the OT the<br />
person of Christ himself." footnote New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> at Prov 8.<br />
Why is this damaging to Trinitarians? Because Wisdom was created!<br />
"He created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never cease."Sirach24:9<br />
The Interpreter's <strong>Bible</strong> [p.830] says of Prov 8:22: "The verb QANAH may be translated<br />
either way. In view of the statements made in the following verses concerning wisdom, it<br />
would seem that the RSV translates correctly; cf. also the following quotations from<br />
Ecclesiasticus:<br />
Wisdom was created before them all,<br />
And sound intelligence from eternity (Ecclus 1:4)<br />
The Lord himself created her (Ecclus 1:9<br />
Then the Creator of all gave me his command;<br />
And he who created me made my tent rest (Ecclus 24:8 AT)."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/firstborn.htm (7 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:14:07 AM]
Jesus Christ: The Firstborn of Creation.<br />
Also see Proverbs 8:22 NRSV, "The LORD created me at the beginning of his work."<br />
"The LORD formed me as the first of his works, the beginning of<br />
his deeds of old." Smith&Goodspeed<br />
cornerst writes:The New <strong>World</strong> Translation adds the word "other" four times, which is not in the Greek.<br />
They add to Scripture to make it look like Jesus was the first-created thing among God's creation.<br />
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, God created Jesus and then Jesus created all other things. This<br />
mistranslation of Col. 1:16-17 presents a problem for the Jehovah's Witnesses. Isaiah 44:24 says, "Thus<br />
says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the LORD, am the<br />
maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone'". How is<br />
it possible for the LORD (Jehovah) to stretch out the heavens alone and yet Jesus, "the first created<br />
thing," be the one who did it? They can't both be true. Jesus is not the created, but the Creator (John<br />
1:3,10, Heb. 1:10, Col. 1:16).<br />
Response: Well let us see if John 1:3,10, Heb. 1:10, Col. 1:16 picture Jesus as the creator.<br />
"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the<br />
works of thy hands". Heb. 1:10 ASV<br />
In Hebrews 1:10-12 the apostle Paul uses a scripture earlier applied to Jehovah in Ps. 102. Does that<br />
make them the same person? No! For instance verse 8 says, "But of the Son [he saith,]<br />
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."<br />
These words were earlier applied to King Solomon in Ps. 45:6 (see also 2Sam. 7:14). Is King Solomon<br />
the same person as Jesus? No! Jesus is simply doing a work earlier prefigured by Solomon, also sharing<br />
some of the qualities of Solomon, such as wisdom. So when it comes to Jehovah in Ps. 102 the writer<br />
here attributes these qualities to Jesus Christ, because Jesus is the one whom God used in the work of<br />
creation and to whom he has now committed all authority "in heaven and on the earth." (Matt. 28:18;<br />
Col. 1:15-17) Jesus represents the God that no one has ever seen to us fully in all his qualities and<br />
actions.(John 1:18)<br />
Psalm 22, attributed to David, relates, partly in figurative language, some of the sufferings of Christ.<br />
(Compare Psalm 22:1 with Mark 15:34; also compare the entire psalm with the four gospel accounts of<br />
Jesus' trial and impalement.) Are Jesus and David the same person? No! A scripture in Matthew 2:15<br />
applies to Jesus, but the earlier reference in Hosea 11:1 applies to Israel. Does than make them the same?<br />
No! There is a prophecy about Elijah in Malachi 4:5 that is applied to John the Baptist in Matthew<br />
17:12,13; 11:14. Is John the Baptist really Elijah? No! They just did a similar work. I think you get the<br />
point. For more on this verse, click here.<br />
"John 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made<br />
that hath been made. {1:10} He was in the world, and the world was made<br />
through him, and the world knew him not." ASV<br />
In looking at the Greek word here for "apart from" CWRIS, Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of its<br />
occurence in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or co-operation) of one."<br />
In this way, the <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English handles it superbly, "Everything was made by his agency." Jn 1:3<br />
Even Origen acknowledged this, "And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of<br />
the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the<br />
ages, " showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/firstborn.htm (8 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:14:07 AM]
Jesus Christ: The Firstborn of Creation.<br />
ages were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage also, THROUGH<br />
[DIA] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who<br />
else could this but the Father?"<br />
Origen's Commentary on John, ANF 10, Book 2, chap. 6, p. 328<br />
This scripture ties into the next one at Colossians 1:16. As we can see, the world was made "through<br />
him". We have already seen that Wisdom was created, but he was also with him at creation. "When he<br />
marked out the foundations of the earth; Then I was beside him, like a master workman; And I was daily<br />
his delight, rejoicing before him always." Prov. 8:29, 30 RSV<br />
The bible tells us that the angels were there too:"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the<br />
earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding....When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of<br />
God shouted for joy? Job 38:4,7 ASV But as we can see from Proverbs, Wisdom/Jesus shared a special<br />
relationship with his God Jehovah.<br />
Col 1:16 "for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth,<br />
things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all<br />
things have been created through him, and unto him" ASV<br />
Again we see that all things were "created thru him". This is only right, after all the <strong>Bible</strong> says: "For there<br />
is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5 ASV Now<br />
a mediator cannot be the person he is mediating for. For instance Moses is also called a mediator at Gal.<br />
3:19. Moses, like Jesus, shared a special relationship with God. Both were even called by the respectful<br />
title "god", (Ex. 7:1; John 1:1) though Jesus is mightier than Moses. (Is. 9:6)<br />
But let us expand further. Let us look at Hebrews 1:<br />
"In the past God spoke to our ancestors many times and in many ways through the prophets, {1:2} but in<br />
these last days he has spoken to us through his Son. He is the one through whom God created the<br />
universe." TEV<br />
In verse 1, God spoke. The prophets were intermediate agents (Greek: EN).<br />
God uses agents to carry out his will.<br />
In verse 2, God spoke, but just like the prophets, the Son was an intermediate agent (Greek: EN).<br />
For example, Col 1:16 does not teach that Jesus is the almighty creator. Rather, it uses same Greek<br />
preposition EN which is used of the Son with an active source in the context (like the Father in vss. 12<br />
and 13). The Father redeems "BY/IN/THROUGH" (Greek: EN) the Son. The Father creates<br />
"BY/IN/THROUGH" (Greek: EN) the Son. Since the Father creates "BY/IN/THROUGH" Son as agent,<br />
it is necessary that the creation of the Son was a special case. That is why Paul explicitly says that the<br />
Son is the "firstborn of" all creation ( PRWTOTOKOS), the "first-begotten of all creatures" Tyndale.<br />
Tyndale also refers to Jesus in Rev. 3:14 as the "beginning of the creatures of God."<br />
In John 1:3 it is clear that agency is intended since DIA is used with a passive verb, or created<br />
"THROUGH" (not "by") the Word. That "through" is the clear meaning and not "by" is made explicitly<br />
clear by Paul when he said of the relationship between God and Christ in 1 Cor 8:5,6: "One God, the<br />
Father, out of (Greek: EK) whom all things are, and we unto him; and one lord, Jesus Christ "through"<br />
(Greek: DIA) whom all things are, and we through him. "<br />
When you consider all the times that God and Christ Jesus are mentioned in Colossians, the Spirit is<br />
mentioned a scant 2 times. Hardly a Trinity! "You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity<br />
set out anywhere in the <strong>Bible</strong>. St Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he<br />
call him God. Nor does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly<br />
equal to his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/firstborn.htm (9 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:14:07 AM]
Jesus Christ: The Firstborn of Creation.<br />
It should be noted that Trinitarians do not beleive that Jesus is the Father. They believe that the Father is God, and that the<br />
Son, Jesus, is equally God. Yet they are not the same, but at the same time they are not plural, but one. So when trinitarians<br />
say that Jesus is God, they don't really mean that. What they mean is that Jesus is God the Son, the second person of a<br />
consubstantial Trinity. A phrase that is never used in the <strong>Bible</strong>!<br />
cornerst writes: The New <strong>World</strong> Translation adds the word "other" four times, which is not in the<br />
Greek.<br />
Response: Now let's look at the insertion of the word "other" in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation at<br />
Colossians chapter 1. We are going to start of by looking at some other scriptures where this is<br />
done.<br />
Luke 21:29<br />
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV)<br />
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News <strong>Bible</strong> (TEV)<br />
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American <strong>Bible</strong>(NAB)<br />
Luke 11:42<br />
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)<br />
"and of every [other] vegetables." NWT<br />
"and all the other herbs." TEV<br />
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version<br />
In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but translators felt a need<br />
to put it in there. Can they do that even without brackets?<br />
"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Chrisitian Literature" by F. Blass and<br />
A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".<br />
The book Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> by Professor Rolf Furuli when talking about<br />
the word "other" in the Col. 1:16 in the NWT says, "This means that the brackets that NWT uses<br />
around OTHER may be removed, because the word OTHER is no addition or interpolation, but<br />
in a given context it is a legitimate part of PAS."<br />
Have you ever noticed all those words in italics in the King James Version and the New American<br />
Standard Version? Those are words that are not in the original text, yet there are thousands of them.<br />
For more on PRWTOTOKOS go to http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/firstborn.htm<br />
and http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/response1.htm<br />
Email Me<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/firstborn.htm (10 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:14:07 AM]
Proskuneo in Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
PROSKUNEO as used in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other Catholic<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
This is in reply to John Pacheco 'the Founder of the Apologists of St. Francis De Sales' Ottawa,Ontario,Canada who has<br />
slammed the New <strong>World</strong> Translation for it's use of "Obeisance" where he thinks "Worship" should be placed in the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Scripture Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> New J. <strong>Bible</strong> New English <strong>Bible</strong> New American <strong>Bible</strong> N.W.T.<br />
Matt 2:2* Homage Homage Homage Homage Obeisance<br />
Matt 2:8* Homage Homage Homage Homage Obeisance<br />
Matt 4:9 Worship Homage Homage Worship Worship<br />
Matt 18:26 Threw Himself Down Threw Himself Down Prostrate Homage Obeisance<br />
John 4:24 Worship Worship Worship Worship Worship<br />
Acts 7:43 Adore Adore Adore Worship Worship<br />
Heb 1:6* Worship Homage Homage Worship Obeisance<br />
Rev 9:20 Worship Worship Worship Worship Worship<br />
Rev 13:4 Prostrate Prostrate Worship Worship Worship<br />
Rev 13:8 Worship Worship Worship Worship Worship<br />
Rev 14:11 Worship Worship Worship Worship Worship<br />
As we can see, despite the accusations, the NWT is not the only <strong>Bible</strong> Translation that is "inconsistent"<br />
with its use of PROSKUNEO. Other Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s tend to soften its use in reference to Jesus (see<br />
asterisk) also.<br />
What does PROSKUNEO mean? According to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary PROSKUNEO means<br />
"to make obeisance, do reverence to...It is used of an act of homage or reverence to God(John 4:24)...to<br />
Christ(Matt 2:2)...to a man(Matt 18:26)...to the Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of<br />
the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to demons(Rev 9:20)...to idols(Acts 7:43)." See Above.<br />
Is PROSKUNEO the highest form of worship? According to Roman Catholic Theology it is not. The<br />
highest form is LATREUO(Latin Latria). In the RC Church this distinction is necessary as only God<br />
recieves LATREUO and the Blessed Virgin Mary can receive a lesser form of worship(such as dalia).<br />
For more on Latria and Dalia see the Catholic Encyclopedia at:<br />
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm<br />
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm<br />
The NWT consistently renders LATREUO as "sacred service" while Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s only make a<br />
distinction between LATREUO or PROSKUNEO when they are mentioned together(see Matt 4:10<br />
below).<br />
LATREUO as used in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation and other Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Scripture Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> New J. <strong>Bible</strong> New English <strong>Bible</strong> New American <strong>Bible</strong> N.W.T.<br />
Matt 4:10 Serve Serve Worship Serve S.S.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/proskuneo.htm (1 of 2) [5/25/2003 4:14:25 AM]
Proskuneo in Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Php 3:3 Worship Worship Worship Worship S.S.<br />
Ac 7:42 Worship Worship Worship Worship S.S.<br />
Ac 24:14 Worship Worship Worship Worship S.S.<br />
Heb 10:2 Worship Worship Worship Worship S.S.<br />
Rev 22:3 Worship Worship Worship Worship S.S.<br />
S.S. = Sacred Service<br />
LATREUO is never used solely of Jesus Christ in the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Revelation 22:3 cannot refer to Jesus(the Lamb) solely as a distinction is made between "God and of the Lamb"(see also<br />
Revelation 6:16, 17). The scripture ends with worship for "him"(singular). It would be unreasonable to exclude "God" in<br />
such a circumstance. If this is truly a Trinitarian proof text, then where is the Holy Spirit? Why is he never mentioned in<br />
visions or depictions of heaven where Jesus is "at God's right hand"? See Acts 7:55,56; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1 etc<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/proskuneo.htm (2 of 2) [5/25/2003 4:14:25 AM]
The Misunderstood Jehovah<br />
A Misunderstood Jehovah<br />
Go Straight to the Article in Rivista Biblica<br />
John Pacheco 'the Founder of the Apologists of St. Francis De Sales' Ottawa,Ontario,Canada says: In the<br />
Hebrew language, there is no ?J? sound. Many Jewish names in the <strong>Bible</strong> have become traditionally<br />
Hellenized, and therefore they have assumed Greek pronunciations. For instance, "Jacob" is really<br />
pronounced "Yah-kobe" in Hebrew - likewise for ?Jehovah? and YHWH. Furthermore, according to<br />
Strong?s Concordance (word number 1943) ?Hovah? (the second part of ?Je-hovah?) actually means<br />
?ruin? and ?mischief? or ?disaster?. It occurs three times in the Hebrew Old Testament (Isaiah<br />
47:11[1], Ezekiel 7:26 [2]). Now the question is: is ?mischief? what God?s name is supposed to be<br />
rooted on? Give me a break. Far from elevating God?s name, the Witnesses have ironically blasphemed<br />
the Holy Name, and go on insisting that everyone do the same!<br />
Truth: This unfortunate missive comes from someone with little or no knowledge of the original<br />
languages. The last 3 letters, HWH(howah) do not change in the original languages whether you translate<br />
YHWH as Jehovah or Yahweh. So if Jehovah comes from a word meaning "?ruin? and ?mischief? or<br />
?disaster?", then so does Yahweh. So, did the Catholic Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> "ironically blaspheme" the Holy<br />
Name by translating it 6800 times? Of course not! The HWH comes from the verb HAYAH(1961, as<br />
even Strong's will tell you). Now check the footnotes of any Catholic <strong>Bible</strong>, and they will tell you exactly<br />
the same thing. So what is the difference between 1943(hovah) and 1961(hayah) if they both contain the<br />
same hebrew characters? YHWH(Jehovah and/or Yahweh) uses the verb form HAYAH(1961) to define<br />
his name at Exodus 3:14. No respected theologian/scholar would say otherwise.<br />
Is Jacob really "Yah-kobe"? Yes. Do we say Yahkobe when we refer to Jacob? No. Do we render John<br />
1:19 as "This is Yochanan's testimony, when the Yehudim sent Kohanim and<br />
Levites from Yerushalayim to ask him, "Who are you" ?? HNV No, this is too awkward.<br />
"In the history of the English language however, the letter J has a written counterpart in the<br />
German J, although the latter J in German is pronounced like an English Y. The bulk of<br />
theological studies having come from the German sources, there has been an intermixed<br />
usage in English of the J and the Y. Our English translations of the bible reflect this, so we<br />
have chosen to use J, thus Jehovah, rather than Yahweh, because this is established English<br />
usage for Biblical names beginning with this Hebrew letters. No one suggests that we ought<br />
to change Jacob, Joseph, Jehoshaphat, Joshua etc. to begin with a Y, and neither should we<br />
at this late date change Jehovah to Yahweh." -<strong>Bible</strong> Translator Jay P. Green, Sr.<br />
The following names would lose the "Jeho" if we would be so discriminating in all respects to <strong>Bible</strong><br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jehovah.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:14:39 AM]
The Misunderstood Jehovah<br />
translation: Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jehoiachin, Jehoiada, Jehoiakim, Jehonadab, Jehoram, Jehoshaphat,<br />
Jehosheba, Jehozabad.<br />
Thankfully, the Catholic Encyclopedia is much more respectful of the name Jehovah at:<br />
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm:<br />
"Jehovah (Yahweh)" The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called<br />
it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the<br />
hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most<br />
frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name, though the precise<br />
meaning of this last expression is a matter of discussion (cf. Buxtorf, "Lexicon", Basle,<br />
1639, col. 2432 sqq.).<br />
Jehovah occurs more frequently than any other Divine name. The Concordances of Furst<br />
("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", Leipzig, 1840) and Mandelkern ("Vet. Test. Concordantiae",<br />
Leipzig, 1896) do not exactly agree as to the number of its occurrences; but in round<br />
numbers it is found in the Old Testament 6000 times, either alone or in conjunction with<br />
another Divine name. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render the name generally by "Lord"<br />
(Kyrios, Dominus), a translation of Adonai—usually substituted for Jehovah in reading."<br />
Catholic Bob Stanley writes: "show me a Greek dictionary which lists jehovah<br />
as meaning kurios? No JW document please, any secular Greek dictionary only.<br />
Betcha cant find even one."<br />
Response: Well the above Catholic document should more than make up...besides, you have Vine's<br />
Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words which says under the many meanings and uses of kurios,<br />
"(g)kurios is the Sept. and N.T. representative of Heb. Jehovah." p.379<br />
Catholic Bob Stanley answers:The Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official Catholic<br />
publication..<br />
What other <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> use the Divine Name?<br />
The King James Version uses Jehovah at Ex.6:3, Ps.83:18, Is.12:2;26:4<br />
The American Standard Version uses Jehovah thousands of times.<br />
Young's Literal Translation uses Jehovah thousands of times.<br />
The Holy <strong>Bible</strong> by J.N.Darby uses Jehovah thousands of times.<br />
The Literal Translation/King James 2 Version by Jay P. Green uses Jehovah thousands of times.<br />
The Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong> by Rotherham uses Yahweh thousands of times.<br />
The Recovery Version by Livings Dreams Ministry uses Jehovah thousands of times.<br />
The New English <strong>Bible</strong> uses Jehovah at Exodus chapters 3 and 6.<br />
The <strong>World</strong> English <strong>Bible</strong> uses Yahweh thousands of times.<br />
The Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> uses Yahweh thousands of times.<br />
The New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> uses Yahweh thousands of times.<br />
The Living <strong>Bible</strong>/Protestant and Catholic editions uses Jehovah over 300 times.<br />
The English Revised Version uses Jehovah at Ex. 6:2,3,6,7,8, Ps. 83:18, Is. 12:2;26:4.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English by Byington uses Jehovah thousands of times.<br />
The Webster <strong>Bible</strong> uses Jehovah in the same places as the KJV above.<br />
The Modern Language <strong>Bible</strong>/New Berkeley Version uses Jehovah at Exodus 3:15; 6:3, Numbers 3:13,<br />
45; 15:41; 21:14; 35:34, Ezra 6:21; Ps. 8:1, 9; 16:2, Is 12:2; 140:7; 141:8; 147:1, Hosea 12:5, Zech. 4:10<br />
etc.<br />
The Complete <strong>Bible</strong>-Smith&Goodspeed uses Yahweh at Exodus 3:15, 6:3 and the shorter form Yah is<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jehovah.htm (2 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:14:39 AM]
The Misunderstood Jehovah<br />
used at Ps. 68:4, Is. 12:2; 26:4<br />
The New King James Version uses YAH at Is. 12:2; 26:4.<br />
The New <strong>World</strong> Translation uses Jehovah thousands of times.<br />
The Emphatic Diaglott uses Jehovah at Matt 21:42; 22:37, 44, 23:39, Mark 11:9 and Acts 2:34<br />
The Amplified <strong>Bible</strong> uses Yaweh at Ex. 6:3<br />
Boothroyd's Versions uses Jehovah thousands of times.<br />
S. Sharp's translation uses Jehovah thousands of times.<br />
The Reina Valera <strong>Bible</strong> uses Jehova thousands of times.<br />
The Moderna version uses Jehova thousands of times.<br />
The Bover-Cantera <strong>Bible</strong> uses Yahveh thousands of times.<br />
The Nacar-Colunga <strong>Bible</strong> uses Yave thousands of times.<br />
The Evaristo Martin Nieto <strong>Bible</strong> uses Yave thousands of times.<br />
The Biblia de Jerusalen uses Yahveh thousands of times.<br />
The Cantera-Iglesias <strong>Bible</strong>s uses Yahveh thousands of times.<br />
The Straubinger <strong>Bible</strong> uses Yahve thousands of times.<br />
The Almeida <strong>Bible</strong> uses Jehovah thousands of times.<br />
The Pontificio Instituto Biblico uses Jave thousands of times.<br />
The Osty <strong>Bible</strong> uses Yahve thousands of times.<br />
The Brasileira <strong>Bible</strong> uses Jehovah thousands of times.<br />
The Elberfelder <strong>Bible</strong> uses Jehova thousands of times.<br />
The Crampon <strong>Bible</strong> uses Jehovah thousands of times.<br />
The Lienart <strong>Bible</strong> uses Yahweh thousands of times.<br />
La <strong>Bible</strong> de Jerusalem uses Yahve thousands of times.<br />
The Leidsche Vertaliing <strong>Bible</strong> uses Jahwe thousands of times.<br />
The Willibrordvertaling <strong>Bible</strong> uses Jahwe thousands of times.<br />
The Himmelriech <strong>Bible</strong> uses Jahve thousands of times.<br />
The Canisiusvertaling <strong>Bible</strong> uses Jahweh thousands of times.<br />
Catholic Bob Stanley says: All of these bibles you list are nothing more than one protestant lie being<br />
followed by other protestant liars, all lemmings following one another as the first one jumps off the cliff..<br />
Response: As you can see, there is much hatred for the Divine Name, and it seems to stem from<br />
ignorance, as many of the <strong>Bible</strong>s mentioned above, including the Encyclopedia, are Catholic.<br />
Addendum 1<br />
This article was published on the Catholic magazine "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, april-june 1997,<br />
p. 183-186.<br />
JHWH. The tetragrammaton in the New Testament<br />
For a long time it was thought that the divine Tetragrammaton YHWH, in Hebrew written with the<br />
letters YHWH/JHVH (which recurs over 6800 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament) did not<br />
appear in the original writings of the New Testament. In its place it was thought that the writers of the<br />
New Testament had used the Greek word for LORD, KYRIOS. However, it seems that such an opinion<br />
is wrong. Here below are some factors to consider:<br />
1) The Tetragrammaton in the Greek Version of Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jehovah.htm (3 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:14:39 AM]
The Misunderstood Jehovah<br />
One of the reasons produced to support the above mentioned opinion was that the LXX substituted<br />
YHWH (YHWH) with the term KYRIOS, (kurios) which was the equivalent Greek of the Hebrew word<br />
ADONAY used by some Hebrews when they met the Tetragrammaton during the <strong>Bible</strong> reading.<br />
However, recent discoveries have shown that the practice of substituted in the LXX YHWH with<br />
KYRIOS started in a much later period in comparison with the beginning of that version. As a matter of<br />
fact, the older copies of the LXX keep the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters in the Greek<br />
text. (See App. 1)<br />
Girolamo, the translater of the Latin Vulgate confirms this fact. In the prologue of the books of Samuel<br />
and Kings he wrote: "In certain Greek volumes we still find the Tetragrammaton of God's name<br />
expressed in ancient characters". And in a letter written in Rome in the year 384 it says: "God's name is<br />
made up of four letters; it was thought ineffable, and it is written with these letters: iod, he, vau, he<br />
(YHWH). But some have not been able to decipher it because of the resemblace of the Greek letters and<br />
when they found it in Greek books they usually read it PIPI (pipi)". S. Girolamo, Le Lettere, Rome,<br />
1961, vol.1, pp.237, 238; compare J.P.Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol.22, coll.429, 430.<br />
Further confimation comes from The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, that<br />
says: "Recently discovered texts doubt the idea that the translaters of the LXX have rendered the<br />
Tetragrammaton JHWH with KYRIOS. The most ancient mss (manuscripts) of the LXX today available<br />
have the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew letters in the Greek text. This was custom preserved by the<br />
later Hebrew translater of the Old Testament in the first centuries (after Christ)". Vol.2, pag.512.<br />
Consequently, we can easily deduce that if the writers of NT in their quotations of the OT used the LXX<br />
they would surely have left the Tetragrammaton in their writings the way it recurred in the Greek<br />
version of the OT. To confirm the correctness of this conclusion it is interesting to note the following<br />
declaration made before the finding of the manuscripts proving that the LXX originaly continued the<br />
Tetragrammaton:<br />
"If that version (LXX) would have kept the term (YHWH), or had used the Greek term for JEHOVAH<br />
and another for ADONAY, such a use would have surely been followed in the discourses and in the<br />
reasonings of the NT. Therefore our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalms, insteand of saying: 'The LORD<br />
has said to my LORD' could have said: "JEHOVA has said to ADONI". Supposing that a Christian<br />
student was translating in Hebrew the Greek Testament: every time that he met the word KYRIOS, he<br />
should have had to consider if in the context there was something that indicated the true Hebrew<br />
correspondent; and this is the difficulty that would have arisen in translating the NT in whatever<br />
language if the name JEHOVAH would have been left in the Old Testament (LXX). The Hebrew<br />
scriptures would have constitued a standard for many passages: every time that the expression "the<br />
LORD's angel" recurs, we know that the term LORD represents JEHOVA; we could come to a similar<br />
conclusion for the expression "the LORD's word", according to the precedent established in the OT; and<br />
so it is in the case of the name "the LORD of armies". On the contrary, when the expression "my LORD"<br />
or "our LORD" recurs, we should know that the term JEHOVA would be inadmissible, when instead the<br />
words ADONAY or ADONI should be used". R.B.Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897,<br />
p.43.<br />
For a stronger support of this argument there are the words of the professor George Howard, of the<br />
University of Georgia (U.S.A.) who observes: "When the Septuagint Version that the New Testamental<br />
Church used and quoted, contained the Divine Name in Hebrew characters, the writers of the New<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jehovah.htm (4 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:14:39 AM]
The Misunderstood Jehovah<br />
Testament included without doubt the Tetragrammaton in their quotations". Biblical Archeology<br />
Review, March 1978, p.14.<br />
Consequently several translators of the NT have left the Divine Name in the quotations from the OT<br />
made by the New Testament writers. It can be noted, for example the versions of Benjamin Wilson, of<br />
Andrè Chouraqui, in Efik, and Malgascio languages.<br />
2)The Tetragrammaton in Hebrew version of the NT.<br />
As many know, the first book of the NT, the gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. The proof of this<br />
is found in the work of Girolamo De viris inlustribus, chap. 3, where he writes:<br />
"Mattew, that is also Levi, that became an apostle after having been a tax collector, was the first to write<br />
a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and Hebrew characters, for the benefit of those who<br />
where circumcised that had believed. It's not know with enough certainly who had then translated it in<br />
Greek. However the Hebrew one it self is preserved till this day in the Library at Cesarea, that the martyr<br />
Pamphilus collected so accurately. The Nazarenes of the Sirian city of Berea that use this copy have also<br />
allowed me to copy it". From the Latin text edited by E.C.Richardson, published in the series Texte und<br />
Untersuchungen zur Geschicte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol.14, Lipsia, 1986, pp.8,9.<br />
It is therefore natural to conclude that when Matthew quoted passages from the OT in which the<br />
Tetragrammaton appeared (thing that occurred both in the Hebrew OT and in the Greek one then<br />
available) he would have surely left YHWH in his gospel as no jew ever dared to take away the<br />
Tetragrammaton from the Hebrew text of the Holy Scriptures.<br />
To confirm this there are at least 27 hebrew versions of the NT that present the Tetragrammaton in the<br />
quotations of the OT or where the text requires it. (see note 11)<br />
3) The Tetragrammaton in the christian Scriptures according to the Babylonian Talmud.<br />
The first part of this Yewish work is called Shabbath (Sabbath) and it contains an immense code of rules<br />
that establishes what could have been done of a Sabbath. Part of it deals with if on the Sabbath day<br />
Biblical manuscripts could be saved from the fire, and after it reads:<br />
"The text declares: 'The white spaces ("gilyohnim") and the books of the Minim, can't be saved from the<br />
fire'. Rabbi Jose said: 'On working days one must cut out the Divine Names that are contained in the text,<br />
hide them and burn the rest'. Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my son if I don't burn them toghether with<br />
the Divine Names that they contain if I come across them". From the English translation of Dr.<br />
H.Freedman.<br />
The word "Minim" means "sectarians" and according to Dr. Freedman it's very probable that in this<br />
passage it indicates the Jewish-Christians. The expression "the white spaces" translates the original<br />
"gilyohnim" and could have meant, using the word ironically, that the writings of the "Minim" where as<br />
worthy as a blank scroll, namely nothing. In some dictionaries this word is given as "Gospels". In<br />
harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above mentioned passage says:<br />
"The books of the Minim are like white spaces (gilyohnim)."<br />
So in the book Who was a Jew?, of L.H.Schiffman, the above mentioned passage of the Talmud is<br />
translated: "We don't save the Gospels or the books of Minim from the fire. They are burnt where they<br />
are, together with their Tetragrammatons. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: "During the week one should take<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jehovah.htm (5 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:14:39 AM]
The Misunderstood Jehovah<br />
the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the rest". Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my<br />
children! If I would have them in my hands, I would burn them with all their Tetragrammatons'". Dr.<br />
Schiffman continues reasoning that here "Minim" is refered to Hebrew Christians.<br />
And it's very probable that here the Talmud refers to the Hebrew Christians. It is a supposition that finds<br />
agreement among the studious people, and in the Talmud seems to be well supported by the context. In<br />
Shabbath the passage that follows the above mentioned quotations relates a story, regarding Gamaliel<br />
and Christian judge in which there is an allusion to parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, this<br />
passage of the Talmud is a clear indication that the Christians included the Tetragrammaton in their<br />
Gospel and their writings.<br />
Because of all we have said there are valid reasons to assert that the writers of the New Testament<br />
reported the Tetragrammaton in their divinely inspired work.<br />
Matteo Pierro.<br />
Appendix 1<br />
List of LXX versions that have Tetragrammaton:<br />
1) LXX P. Fouad Inv. 266, have the Tetragrammaton as: +,<br />
2) LXX VTS 10a, have the Tetragrammaton as: .-<br />
3) LXX IEJ 12, have the Tetragrammaton as: .-<br />
4) LXX VTS 10b, have the Tetragrammaton as: 0/<br />
5) 4Q LXX Levb, have the Tetragrammaton as: 1<br />
6) LXX P. Oxy. VII.1007, have the Tetragrammaton as: 23<br />
7) Aq Burkitt, have the Tetragrammaton as: 45<br />
8) Aq Taylor, have the Tetragrammaton as: 67<br />
9) Sym. P. Vindob. G. 39777, have the Tetragrammaton as: 89 o ;:<br />
10) Ambrosiano O 39 sup., have the Tetragrammaton as: ==<br />
Appendix 2<br />
List of Hebrew versions of the NT that have the Tetragrammaton:<br />
1) Gospel of Matthew, a cura di J. du Tillet, Parigi, 1555<br />
2) Gospel of Matthew, di Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut, 1385<br />
3) Matthew and Hebrews, di S. Munster, Basilea, 1537 e 1557<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jehovah.htm (6 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:14:39 AM]
The Misunderstood Jehovah<br />
4) Gospel of Matthew, di J. Quinquarboreus, Parigi, 1551<br />
5) Gospels, di F. Petri, Wittemberg, 1537<br />
6) Gospels, di J. Claius, Lipsia, 1576<br />
7) NT, di E. Hutter, Norimberga, 1599<br />
8) NT, di W. Robertson, Londra, 1661<br />
9) Gospels, di G. B. Jona, Roma, 1668<br />
10) NT, di R. Caddick, Londra, 1798-1805<br />
11) NT, di T. Fry, Londra, 1817<br />
12) NT, di W. Greenfield, Londra, 1831<br />
13) NT, di A. McCaul e altri, Londra, 1838<br />
14) NT, di J. C. Reichardt, Londra, 1846<br />
15) Luke, Acts, Romans and Hebrews, di J. H. R. Biesenthal, Berlino, 1855<br />
16) NT, di J. C. Reichardt e J. H. R. Biesenthal, Londra, 1866<br />
17) NT, di F. Delitzsch, Londra, ed.1981<br />
18) NT, di I. Salkinson e C. D. Ginsburg, Londra, 1891<br />
19) Gospel of John, di M. I. Ben Maeir, Denver, 1957<br />
20) A Concordance to the Greek New Testament, di Moulton e Geden, 1963<br />
21) NT, United <strong>Bible</strong>s Societies, Gerusalemme, 1979<br />
22) NT, di J. Bauchet e D. Kinnereth, Roma, 1975<br />
23) NT, di H. Heinfetter, Londra, 1863<br />
24) Romans, di W. G. Rutherford, Londra, 1900<br />
25) Psalms and Matthew, di A. Margaritha, Lipsia, 1533<br />
26) NT, di Dominik von Brentano, Vienna e Praga, 1796<br />
27) NT, <strong>Bible</strong> Society, Gerusalemme, 1986<br />
This article was published on the catholic magazine "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, april-june 1997, p.<br />
183-186.<br />
See more from the Author Matteo at http://libriusati.hypermart.net/geova.htm<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jehovah.htm (7 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:14:39 AM]
The Misunderstood Jehovah<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/jehovah.htm (8 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:14:39 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
Click here for KKLA Radio's Misrepresentation of this page<br />
The following is a list of variant translations of John 1:1:<br />
Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the<br />
Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."<br />
Recovery Version, Living Streams Ministry, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word<br />
was with God, and the Word was God."<br />
Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The New Testament, collated with the most<br />
approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references<br />
to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a<br />
Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed<br />
Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768,<br />
"and was himself a divine person"<br />
Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"<br />
Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's"<br />
La <strong>Bible</strong> du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: “and the Word<br />
was a divine being.”<br />
John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four<br />
Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god<br />
Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine<br />
Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god."<br />
Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word."<br />
Concordant Version (Knoch) "God was the Word"<br />
C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, Second Edition, 1947, "the Word was god<br />
New English <strong>Bible</strong>, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"<br />
Moffatt's The <strong>Bible</strong>, 1972, "the Logos was divine"<br />
International English <strong>Bible</strong>-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or<br />
Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present<br />
before this Greek word]<br />
Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the<br />
Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god"<br />
The NET <strong>Bible</strong>, "and the Word was fully God."<br />
Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>, "and the Message was Deity"<br />
Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the<br />
Command was"<br />
Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"<br />
Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy <strong>Bible</strong> [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.],<br />
54). 1885,<br />
"[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"<br />
Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”<br />
Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer<br />
and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (1 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:45 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was<br />
Godly]<br />
J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901,<br />
[A]nd was a god"<br />
International <strong>Bible</strong> Translators N.T. 1981<br />
“In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God.<br />
The Message was deity.”<br />
CEV, "the Word was truly God."<br />
Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel<br />
of John, London<br />
"[A] Divine Person."<br />
Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture<br />
Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and<br />
Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ<br />
[Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God"<br />
Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a<br />
God"<br />
Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of<br />
Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god"<br />
Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil<br />
(in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God"<br />
"At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who<br />
produced all things in their order." 21st Century NT Free<br />
"and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal<br />
George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God<br />
was the word"<br />
Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University<br />
Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"<br />
James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he<br />
Word was a God"<br />
Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"<br />
Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"<br />
Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind)<br />
was the Word"<br />
Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature<br />
...with footnote, "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In<br />
the forst instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second<br />
instance there is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant.<br />
In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrae<br />
means 'The Word was divine'."<br />
William Barclay's The New Testament, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the<br />
nature of God"<br />
Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos<br />
Schonfield's The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (2 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:45 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong>, 1989, "what God was, the Word was<br />
Cotton Patch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One<br />
Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with<br />
God, and it was what God was<br />
J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"<br />
Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos"<br />
Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being."<br />
Bohmer, 1910, "It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being"<br />
Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word"<br />
Baumgarten et al, 1920, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos"<br />
Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]<br />
Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, "itself a God/god was the Word/word"<br />
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind"<br />
Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind"<br />
Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word"<br />
Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being"<br />
Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word"<br />
Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William<br />
Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]<br />
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "He was with God and in all like God"<br />
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"<br />
Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As<br />
mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260]<br />
William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan &<br />
Co.,1933,<br />
"And the Word was divine."<br />
John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One<br />
God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"<br />
Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox<br />
Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"<br />
Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943,<br />
"And the Word was Divine"<br />
Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster<br />
College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student<br />
Movement Christian Press1931<br />
"and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"<br />
Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>: "Jn 1:1 should<br />
rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'<br />
Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962 (original manuscript)<br />
"In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully<br />
expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]."<br />
Buzzard/Hunting<br />
“In the beginning of God’s creative effort, even before he created the<br />
heavenly bodies and the earth, the mental power to reason logically already<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (3 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:45 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
existed, and the Wisdom produced by it was known only to God, for the<br />
Wisdom was God’s Wisdom” (Pro. 8:22-30)<br />
Barclay, W. The Daily Study <strong>Bible</strong>- The Gospel of John vol.1<br />
“III. [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9: Finally John says that “The Word was God”.<br />
There is no doubt that<br />
this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because<br />
greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from<br />
the way in which english speaks. When the greek uses a noun it almost<br />
always uses the definite article with it. The greek for God is ‘theos’,<br />
and the definite article is ‘ho’. When greek speaks about God it does<br />
not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when greek does not<br />
use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like<br />
an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John<br />
did not say that the Word was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say<br />
that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was<br />
‘theos’- without the definite article- which means that the Word was,<br />
as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and<br />
being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was n o t<br />
saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so<br />
perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we<br />
perfectly see what God is like”<br />
So Why the Difference?<br />
Let us look at the construction as it is in the Nestle-Aland Greek NT.<br />
EN ARCH HN O LOGOS KAI O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS<br />
Let's look at the two different appearances of the word "God" in John1:1. The first usage of 'theos'<br />
(which is spelled with the accusative case ending) is preceded by a definite article(TON QEON/The<br />
God). This gives this God "identity". The second usage is the predicate noun "QEOS" or "a god." It lacks<br />
the article. So here we see that the subject, the LOGOS/WORD is with The God, but he belongs to a<br />
"class" of god or has the "quality" of a God. It is qualitative. As you can see I added the indefinite article<br />
"a" before the second word "god". This is perfectly acceptable as the greek doesn't have an indefinite<br />
article and so it is up to the translator to decide where the indefinite article should be. However, W.E.<br />
Vine's Expository Dictionary claims that "to translate it literally, 'a god was the Word,' is entirely<br />
misleading." Vine does not deny that "a god" is a literal translation, only that we shouldn't translate it like<br />
that. But is he right? Trinitarians like Vine do not like the rendering "a god". Murray Harris in his book,<br />
Jesus as God-The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus gives us a list where others were<br />
referred to as gods in early times as titles of respect:<br />
Heroes were gods, like Chiron and Colonus(see Sophocles Trach. 714 & Oed. Col. 65).<br />
Skilled politicians were gods, like Demetrius Poliorketes and Antigonos (see Athanaeus 6:63).<br />
Founding fathers of philosophical schools like Diogenes, Peregrinus and Heraclitus were gods<br />
(Peregrinus was thought so by his Christian students).<br />
Rulers such as Ptolemy V (Epiphanes), Julius Caeser, Augustus, Herod Agrippa I, Nero and Domitian<br />
were referred to as gods.<br />
Patriarchs like Moses are referred to as god by Philo (Sacr. AC. 9).<br />
Certain servants such as Marricus (see Tacitus, Hist. 2:51).<br />
And humans as possessors of great intelligence(i.e. Marcus Aurelius/Epictetus Diss.2:8:12 and Plotinus).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (4 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:45 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
p.27,28<br />
But Harris only accepts "the Word was a god" on grammatical grounds as Christians are monotheistic.<br />
Christians are, but this does not disallow "god" as a title of respect. Even the <strong>Bible</strong> makes reference to<br />
others who are termed "god" but are not YHWH or false gods.<br />
Moses is a god(Ex. 4:16; 7:1)<br />
Kings are gods(Ps. 45:6)<br />
Angels/Judges are gods(Ps. 8:5; 82:1-6; 97:7; 138:1)<br />
Here is how others have viewed the title "God":<br />
"The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question whether Christ<br />
was an angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an angel, rank as God. The<br />
explanation which was offered by the supporters of the Angel-Christoloy was that Christ, according to<br />
his nature, was a high angel, but that he was named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The<br />
word 'God' did mean, in the first place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the<br />
beings who served this deus verus [Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods'<br />
implies reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus represented. Consequently<br />
in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28), not only angels, but even men could be called 'gods' [cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb.<br />
2:7, 9; Ps. 82:6, 7; John 10:34, 35] without according them the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius<br />
[260-330 C.E.] had thought in this way2 ... 2 Latantius, inst. Epitome [The Epitome Of The Divine<br />
Institutes], 37."-Martin Werner, The Formation Of Christian Dogma, p. 140.<br />
"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred an<br />
honourable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His Son] is far<br />
more worthy of this honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John 10:34] is in Psalm<br />
lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; where God<br />
expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically abuse the authority and power for<br />
their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for every evil action ... Christ applies this to the<br />
case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, be- cause they are God's ministers for governing the<br />
world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams<br />
forth on the world ... In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them<br />
authority."-John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 419, 20.<br />
"We have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue."-Justin<br />
Martyr, The First Apology Of Justin, chapter XXI (21); ANF, Vol. I, p. 170.<br />
"For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first<br />
merely men, then at length gods;"-Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV (4), chapter XXXVIII<br />
(38), § 4; ANF, Vol. I, p. 52<br />
"[the Son] having bestowed on us the truly great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the Father,<br />
deifying man by heavenly teaching,"-Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The Heathen (or, The<br />
Greeks, or, The Gentiles), chapter XI (11); ANF, Vol. II, p. 203.<br />
"But let us, O children of the Father-nurslings of the good Instructor [Christ]-fulfil the Father's will ...<br />
and meditating on the heavenly mode of life according to which we have been deified, let us anoint<br />
ourselves with the perennial, immortal bloom of gladness."-Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor<br />
(Peadagogus), Book I, chapter XII (12); ANF, Vol. II, p. 234.<br />
"The Creator did not wish to make him [mankind] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel-be not<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (5 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:45 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
deceived-but a man. For if He had wished to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the<br />
example of the Logos [the Word, the Son]"-Hippolytus, The Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10),<br />
chapter XXIX (29); ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 151.<br />
"And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or<br />
passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God ... For the Deity, (by<br />
condescension,) does not diminish aught of the dignity of His divine perfection; having made thee even<br />
God unto His glory!"-ibid., chapter XXX (30); ibid., p. 153.<br />
"If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and by the<br />
Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the<br />
resurrection of the dead."-Hippolytus, Discourse On The Holy Theophany, § 8; ANF, Vol. V, p. 237.<br />
"For He [the Son of God] was made man that we might be made God."-Athanasisus, Incarnation Of The<br />
Word, (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Edinburgh, T&T Clark; Grand<br />
Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Second Series, Vol. IV (4), p. 65, reprinting of October,<br />
1987. "For He has become Man, that He might deify us in Himself, and He has been born of a<br />
woman, and begotten of a Virgin in order to transfer to Himself our erring generation, and that we may<br />
become henceforth a holy race, and 'partakers of the Divine Nature,' as blessed Peter wrote. (2 Peter<br />
1:4)-Athanasius, Letters of Athanasius, (Lx. Ad Adelphiun), 60.4; ibid., p. 576.<br />
Origen (185 CE - 251 CE) is called "one of the most learned teachers and prolific authors of the early<br />
church." (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity) Though coming well after the apostolic period, it is<br />
interesting to peruse his Commentary on John, as found in volume 9 of<br />
Menzies' "Ante-Nicene Fathers."<br />
[Quote]<br />
We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences [John<br />
1:1]. He does not write without care in this respect nor is he<br />
unfamiliar with the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article,<br />
and in some cases he omits it...He uses the article when the name of<br />
God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when<br />
the Logos is named God...The God who is over all is God with the<br />
article, not without it.<br />
God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so<br />
the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know<br />
Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God<br />
by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God<br />
(with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the<br />
first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to<br />
attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the<br />
other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The<br />
God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth."<br />
The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him<br />
are gods, images, as it were of Him the prototype. But the<br />
archetypal<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (6 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:45 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the<br />
beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not<br />
possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father.<br />
[Unquote]<br />
For Origen, John 1:1c is the logical outcome of John 1:1b, i.e., the Word is "God" or a divine being<br />
*because* he was "with" The God in the beginning, "not possessing that of Himself, but by His being<br />
with the Father."<br />
What I found interesting was so early a recognition of the relevance of the difference between QEOS and<br />
hO QEOS in John 1:1. As Origen explains it, the meaning would be similar to modern translators who<br />
render John 1:1 as "the Word was Divine" or "the Word was a divine<br />
being" or even -- yes -- "the Word was a god."<br />
I just came across an interesting bit in Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture where a scribe altered<br />
John 1:1c in order to elevate the divine status of Jesus.<br />
"I should observe that a similar addition of the article occurs in the 8th century Alexandrian<br />
manuscript L of John 1:1, so that the text now reads *O QEOS HN O LOGOS*-making it<br />
clear that the Word actually was God himself (not simply divine). I am somewhat reluctant<br />
to exclude this singular reading from consideration here, but am nonetheless under the<br />
distinct impresssion that it derives from the later Arian controversies. At the same time, it is<br />
worth pointing out that Origen already used the *absence* of the article in John 1:1 to<br />
demonstrate Christ's subordination to God (Jn. Com 2.2.17-18)." p. 179<br />
I think Ehrman's comment is interesting, and the fact that John 1:1c, as it should read, is simply not<br />
enough to elevate Christ to almightihood even from a historical perspective.<br />
To understand the translation "the Word was a god," let us look at John 6:70. When speaking of his<br />
betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, "One of you is a devil."ASV Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually<br />
Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he has the qualities<br />
of a devil. The word "devil" here has no article in the greek, but most translators deem it necessary to add<br />
the "a" to complete the thought.<br />
So what kind of god is Jesus? John 1:18 says he is the "only-begotten God" or "only-born God" who<br />
represents the God that "no man hath seen"(NASB, NWT, Lattimore, Byington.<br />
But why is the term WORD/LOGOS used here to refer to Jesus Christ?<br />
First, most of the early Church Fathers considered Wisdom to be Christ.<br />
Eldon J. Epp, in his book "WISDOM, TORAH, WORD: THE JOHANNINE PROLOGUE and the<br />
PURPOSE of the FOURTH GOSPEL singles out Wisdom hymns in Proverbs, Sirach 24:3-9, 23-32,<br />
Baruch 3:9-4:2 and Wisdom of Solomon 7:21-9:18 that he believes influenced the Prologue of John.<br />
There are considerable parallels.<br />
In fact, Wisdom 9:1 refers to the God who "made all things by means of his word(logos). But then 9:2<br />
uses SOPHIA(wisdom) as a parallel to LOGOS.<br />
"I issued from the mouth of the Most High" Sirach 24:3 Hence: a Word<br />
"He created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never cease." Sirach 24:9<br />
"All that was secret or manifest I learned." Wisdom 7:21<br />
"But if the possession of wealth is to be desired in life, What is richer than wisdom, which<br />
operates everything?" And if understanding works, Who in all the world is a greater<br />
craftsman than she?" Wisdom 8:5-6<br />
"God of my forefathers and merciful Lord, Who created all things by your word, and by<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (7 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:45 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
your wisdom formed man<br />
To rule over the creatures you had made." Wisdom 9:1,2<br />
"And with you is wisdom, which knows your works, And was present when you made the<br />
world, And understands what is pleasing in your sight, And what is in accord with your<br />
commands." Wisdom 9:9<br />
"She glorifies her high birth in living with God." Wisdom 8:3<br />
"Give me the wisdom that sits by your throne." Wisdom 9:4<br />
"The motif of Wisdom the woman subsequently played a notable part in Jewish and<br />
Christian thought. She appears, for example, in the Wisdom of Solomon, in Sirach, in<br />
Baruch 3:9-4:4, and in the non-biblical texts from Qumram, and her words are echoed in the<br />
New Testament (e.g. Matt. 11:28). Perhaps most resonant of all was Wisdom's speech in<br />
Proverbs 8:22-31, stressing her presence at the beginning of creation. Sirach equates<br />
Wisdom with the creative word of God (24:3) and with Torah (24:23). Readers of the jewish<br />
philosopher Philo of Alexandria (first century C.E.) have found it difficult to disentangle the<br />
properties of God's word (LOGOS) from Wisdom (SOPHIA) of God (1 Cor 1:24). The<br />
mini-creation story at John 1:1-3 consciously evokes Proverbs 8."<br />
The Oxford Companion to the <strong>Bible</strong> edited by Bruce M. Metzger<br />
"The doctrine of wisdom, thus outlined in the OT, will be resumed in the NT which will<br />
give it new and decisive completion by applying it to the person of Christ. Jesus is referred<br />
to as Wisdom itself, the Wisdom of God, Mt 11:19 par.; Lk 11:49, cf. Mt 23:34-36; 1 Co<br />
1:24-30; like Wisdom, he participates in the creation and preservation of the world, Col<br />
1:16-17, and the protection of Israel, 1Co 10:4, cf. Ws 10:17seq. Finally, John in his<br />
prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the Word, and his gospel<br />
throughout represents Christ as the Wisdom of God. See Jn 6:35t. Hence, Christian tradition<br />
from St Justin onwards sees in the Wisdom of the OT the person of Christ himself." footnote<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> at Prov 8<br />
"She is God's associate in his works, and his agent in making all things (Prov 8:22-30; see<br />
also Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2)." footnote at Wisdom 8:2-21 in the New Oxford Annotated<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>-NRSV<br />
"While we do not say with certainty that this applies to a personal being, it does foreshadow<br />
the beautiful doctrine of the Word of God later developed in St. John`s gospel (Jn 1, 1-14)."<br />
footnote at Sirach 24, New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Here that plurality of divine persons is foreshadowed which was afterward to be fully<br />
revealed when Wisdom in the Person of Jesus Christ became incarnate." footnote at<br />
Proverbs 8:22 New American <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
W. Gunther Plaut, in his work Book of Proverbs—A Commentary, says that these verses apply to<br />
Wisdom "personified only in a figurative way." This passage, however, cannot be speaking merely about<br />
divine wisdom or wisdom in the abstract. Why not? Because the "Wisdom" that is here depicted was<br />
"created" or "produced" (Hebrew, qa·nah') as the beginning of Jehovah's way.<br />
What is the best rendering here though. Some <strong>Bible</strong>s read "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of<br />
his way. The Interpreters's <strong>Bible</strong> [p.830] says of Prov 8:22 .<br />
"The verb QANAH may be translated either way. In view of the statements made in the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (8 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:45 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
following verses concerning wisdom, it would seem that the RSV translates correctly; cf.<br />
also the following quotations from Ecclesiasticus:<br />
Wisdom was created before them all,<br />
And sound intelligence from eternity (Ecclus 1:4)<br />
The Lord himself created her (Ecclus 1:9<br />
Then the Creator of all gave me his command;<br />
And he who created me made my tent rest (Ecclus 24:8 AT).<br />
Interestingly, the New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> at Proverbs 8:22 states, "The translation 'acquired me' or<br />
'possessed me' (Aquila, Symm., Theod. ) was adopted by Jerome (Vulg), probably with an eye to the<br />
heretic Arius who maintained that the Word (=Wisdom) was a created being." So again we see a<br />
manipulation of the text to fit an errant theology. For an extensive list of <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> that do not<br />
render the verb QANAH as possessed click here.<br />
So how is it that Jesus stopped being referred to as Wisdom in many minds?<br />
"Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner:<br />
the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from<br />
himself that the Father is over all', as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene<br />
theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the<br />
Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov.<br />
Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the<br />
pre-existent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the<br />
Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as<br />
false.... A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking,<br />
could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been<br />
originally ‘alone', and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not'. When he did so, within<br />
the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed<br />
there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same<br />
words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as<br />
heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea." [e.a.]-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma,<br />
by Martin Werner, D.D.<br />
The Scriptures show that Jehovah (Yahweh) God himself has always existed. (Ps. 90:2; 1 Tim. 1:17)<br />
Because Jehovah filled his only-begotten Son with wisdom, the Son became the very symbol of wisdom<br />
and he speaks of himself as Wisdom in Proverbs chapter 8. In Pr 8 verse 30 where Moffatt uses the<br />
expression "foster-child" to refer to the Son, Moffatt is giving a literal translation of the word ah·móhn,<br />
which is from the Hebrew verb ahmán, meaning "to nourish, nurse, be guardian to". In Isaiah 49:23 the<br />
participle of this verb, ah·méhn, is translated in the King James Version "nursing fathers", and<br />
"nourishers" in the margin. At Isaiah 60:4 the word is rendered "nursed".<br />
John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ, wrote:<br />
When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our<br />
Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of<br />
him as God. He is God's Christ, God's Son, God's Wisdom, God's Word. Even the prologue<br />
to St. John{John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the<br />
light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less<br />
explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word "god" at John 1:1c without the article]<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (9 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:45 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
than it appears in English... The adoring exclation of St. Thomas "my Lord and my god"<br />
(Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification<br />
[limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary<br />
Magdalene (v[erse. 17) "Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and<br />
your Father, and my God and your God." Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation<br />
Epistles as "our God", "my God", but probably never as "God" without qualification.<br />
Is it polytheism though to refer to another god in light of what is written at Isaiah 43:10, "Before me<br />
there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." ASV<br />
Isaiah 42:8 says, "I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my<br />
praise to graven images."ASV If we honestly look at the surrounding context of Isaiah, we see that it is<br />
talking about the idol gods of the nations (compare Is 41:6, 29, . In the <strong>Bible</strong> book of Psalms we have<br />
several examples of angels referred to as gods. Click here for more<br />
To clear this up, Gerald Cooke in his writing, "The Sons of (The) God(s)," ZAW76 (1964). 39 states,<br />
"We have found the conception of lesser beings around Yahweh was known and utilized<br />
throughout Israel's biblical period, beginning possibly as early as the Yahwist in the early<br />
Genesis references and in Ps 29 and Dt 33...and extending to the book of Daniel....The<br />
functional distinction of the gods of the peoples among this heavenly company is made<br />
clearer, however by II Isaiah and Ps. 82. II Isaiah denies the existence of gods other than<br />
Yahweh; yet it is quite likely that II Isaiah himself continued to make use of the conception<br />
of heavenly company [compare Isa 6:1-4, 6,7]....It seems to the writer equally likely that it is<br />
to be explained in terms of a distinction within the heavenly company as a living reality of<br />
Israelite faith, for the poet-prophet condemns and denies the existence to the gods of<br />
Babylon which have led the community into idolatry and apostasy. The gods of a foreign<br />
people, and perhaps the gods worshipped by all the nations, are denied existence by one who<br />
is seeking to meet an immediate and critical religious need. None deserves the worship<br />
which is due Yahweh alone; none can perform the role which belongs to Yahweh alone, for<br />
there is none like Yahweh. The denial applies not to the entire heavenly company, but to the<br />
gods of a foreign people, gods that claim the worship due Yahweh alone."<br />
For more discussions on John 1:1, especially in light of Count/Non-Count Nouns, click here.<br />
Visit http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/John%2011.htm for more on John 1:1.<br />
For Professor Jason Beduhn's comment on John 1:1 click here.<br />
For info on Hebrews 1:8 click here.<br />
For info on Colossians 1:15 click here.<br />
For some of the above information I am indebted to the <strong>Bible</strong> Museum and Biblical Research Foundation<br />
Email Bag:<br />
avengerofchrist@hotmail.com: Man, you have got it all wrong, and either don't know it, or are too<br />
brainwashed by the Cult. If you think the translation of John 1:1 should be rendered "a god", man, you are<br />
so lost.<br />
Please read on: JOHN 1:1<br />
The book "REASONING FROM THE SCRIPTURES" (Hereafter referred to as RFTS.) published by the<br />
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY. (copyright 1985. 1989) states the following about John<br />
1:1 on page 212: 'The definite article.'("The') appears before the first occurrence of # 'Theos' (God) but not<br />
before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (10 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:46 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
personality, where as a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb, (as the<br />
sentence is constructed in the Greek) points to a quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the<br />
Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was god-like, divine, a<br />
god.' (Note: The ^ and # are added to help you locate them in the text below.)<br />
This is a misuse, misapplication and erroneous statement about the Greek language. Let me explain.<br />
Reply: What does this have to do with anything? I did not quote the RFTS or the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
or any other WTS publication. All to the above references are mostly from Trinitarians themselves. The<br />
fact that they cannot agree on much just makes it easier for me to proceed.<br />
avengerofchrist@hotmail.com: OUR FIRST RESPONSE HAS TO DO WITH GREEK GRAMMAR IN<br />
REGARD TO COMMON NOUNS. 'A GRAMMAR OF THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK' by Moulton,<br />
states on pages 173-174 the following about COMMON NOUNS:<br />
'The article will not normally be used when a person or object is first introduced. or when only an undefined<br />
part of a group or class is referred to, or when a person or object is thought of only predictively and<br />
therefore not individually and definitely....Since Theos (God) and Kurios (Lord) come so near to being<br />
proper nouns, it is not surprising that the article is so often omitted.'<br />
Moulton page 174.<br />
Thus our first response to RFTS is that the absence of the article on the second instance of "God" ("Theos")<br />
which refers to "The Word" is not an indication that Jesus is only "god-like" but rather it is a mere<br />
characteristic<br />
of the Greek language, similar to the characteristic of English when we say that "i" usually comes before<br />
"e" except after "c".<br />
OUR SECOND RESPONSE HAS TO DO WITH THE RULES IN REGARD<br />
TO PREDICATE NOUNS.<br />
That the article is absent has nothing to do with the fact that Jesus is God or just 'a god" is further proven by<br />
the<br />
following rule of Greek Grammar. Before we state the rule, note that the second 'Theos' in John. 1:1 is a<br />
predicate noun. That is, it is the object of the verb "to be." Now note the following quote from the same<br />
grammar we have been quoting by Moulton.<br />
"E.C. Colwell (JBL. 52. 1933. 12-21) formulates rules for the article with predicate nouns in New<br />
Testament<br />
sentences in which the verb occurs. He finds that [a] definite predicate nouns take the article, if (as usual)<br />
they<br />
follow the verb; but [b] otherwise they usually lack it; (emphasis mine) and [c] proper nouns (emphasis<br />
mine)<br />
lack it; [d] in relative clauses it does not apply since nouns always follow the verb anarthrous or not.<br />
MOULTON<br />
PAGE 183<br />
In applying this to John 1:1 note that the second occurrence of 'Theos' which is a predicate noun does not<br />
follow<br />
the verb "was' but precedes it. Therefore it conforms to the rule [b] above. Again, the fact that there is no<br />
article before 'Theos' does not detract from the fact that Jesus is fully God. The absence of the article merely<br />
conforms to the usual way Greek sentences are written when you have a predicate noun that precedes the<br />
verb.<br />
OTHER EXAMPLES<br />
For example in Matthew 5:13 the pronoun 'You' precedes<br />
the verb and thus there is no article preceding it.<br />
But in Matthew 13:37.'The Son of Man" follows the verb and thus has the article.<br />
Reply: The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a<br />
predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead<br />
of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does<br />
not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (11 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:46 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows<br />
the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses<br />
the quality or character of the Word.<br />
Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress<br />
his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction?<br />
There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite...In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative<br />
force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.—Philip<br />
Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.<br />
We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better<br />
word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God<br />
[the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the<br />
image of God'' of Paul, Col. 1:15.—G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in,<br />
Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.<br />
There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God'. In the first instance the article is<br />
used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there in no article and it is difficult to<br />
believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of<br />
Theos so the phrase means 'The Word was divine'.—The Translator's New Testament, p. 451.<br />
We reach a more difficult issue in the Gospel of John. Here, in the Prologue, the Word is said to be God,<br />
but, as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not<br />
used (in the final clause.) For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine' (Moffatt) or<br />
is not regarded as God in the Absolute sense of the name...In a second passage in the Prologue (I 18) the<br />
textual evidence attests 'only-begotten God' more strongly than 'only begotten Son', but the latter is<br />
preferred by many commentators as being more in harmony with Johannine usage and with the<br />
succeeding clause, 'who is in the bosom of the Father'. In neither passage is Jesus unequivocally called<br />
God, while again and again in the Gospel He is named 'the Son of God.—Vincent Taylor, The<br />
Expository Times, January 1962. p. 117.<br />
As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue's “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is<br />
no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does<br />
when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene<br />
understanding of the vocabulary involved.—Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor <strong>Bible</strong>, p. 25.<br />
The late Dr. William Temple in His Readings in St. John's Gospel (1939), 4, obviously accepts Moffatt's<br />
translation, for he says, 'The term “God” is fully substantival [shows identity, who, or what, 'the God', the<br />
Father, is] in the first clause pros ton then [“with the God”, both “the” (ton) and “God” (Theon) being<br />
spelled accusative case endings] it is predicative and not far from being adjectival in the second - kai<br />
theos en ho logos [“and (a) god was the Word”]—R.H. Strachan, The Fourth Gospel (3rd ed., 1941).<br />
The closing words of v[erse]. 1 should be translated, “the Word was divine.” Here the word Theos has no<br />
article, thus giving it the significance of an adjective”...Taken by itself, the sentence kai theos en ho logos<br />
[and (a) god was the Word] could admittedly bear either of two meanings: 1) 'and the Word was (the)<br />
God' or 2) 'and the Word was (a) God'...E.F. Scott's statement about the Philonic doctrine (The Fourth<br />
Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology, Edinburg, 1908, p.151): “The Logos appears sometimes as only an<br />
aspect of the activity of God, at other times as a “second God” an independent and it might seem a<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (12 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:46 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
personal being.” We have seen that 'and the Word was (a) God' is a possible, if unlikely, translation of<br />
kai theos en ho logos. This is apparently accepted by E.F. Scott—J. Gwyn Griffiths, The Expository<br />
Times, July 1951, pp. 314-316.<br />
It would be impossible to speak about Jesus without considering the words of John's 'Gospel: “The Word<br />
was God”. The Greek of that phrase is Theos en ho logos. This does not mean Word was God. In Greek<br />
ho is the definite article. [there are eighteen other ways to spell the 'definite' article in the Koine Greek of<br />
the first century of the common era] In Greek, if two things are identified [shown to be the same entity]<br />
the definite article is used with both. If this phrase meant the Word was God it would be Ho theos çn ho<br />
logos. There is noting strange about this. We do the very same in English. When in English, or in Greek,<br />
a noun does to have the definite article, it becomes the equivalent of an adjective. [a description rather<br />
than an identification, how the subject is rather than what of who the subject is] If in English I say: “John<br />
is the man,” then I identify John with a definite and particular specimen of the human race; but if I omit<br />
the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is<br />
human; he belongs to the sphere of man.” So then, what the Greek really says [means] in not “The Word<br />
was God,” but “The word is in the same sphere as God; it belongs to the same kind of life [spiritual life]<br />
and is one with God [cp. John 17:20-23 on “one”]. (Notations is brackets added by this<br />
reviewer.)—William Barclay, Who Is Jesus, Tidings, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A., 1975, pp. 35-6.<br />
Here “God” is used predicatively, without the article: the Word, whom he has just distinguished from the<br />
Person of God, is nevertheless a divine being in his own right.—Bruce Vawter, C.M., The Four Gospels<br />
an Introduction, p. 38.<br />
The rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. The subject is then definite<br />
and distributed, the predicate indefinite and undistributed.—A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek<br />
New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, fourth edition, 1934, p. 767.<br />
God - divine in nature...God (in kind)”, [footnote to John 1:1c]—The Cross Reference <strong>Bible</strong>, American<br />
Standard Version, Harold E. Monser, Editor-In-Chief; Associate Editors, C.R. Scotville, I.M. Price, A.T.<br />
Robertson, M.S. Terry, Jr., R. Sampey, J.W. Monser, G.C. Eiselen, R.A. Torrey, A.C. Zenor, 1959<br />
edition.<br />
Not that he [John] identified him [the Word] with the Godhead (ho Theos); on the contrary, he clearly<br />
distinguishes the Son and the Father and makes him inferior in dignity (“the Father is greater than I”), but<br />
he declares that the Son is “God” (Theos), that is, of divine essence or nature.—Philip Schaff, History of<br />
the Christian Church, edition of 1910, Vol. I, p. 690.<br />
The predicate [noun] commonly refers not to an individual or individuals as such, but to the class to<br />
which the subject belongs, to the nature or quality predicated of the subject; e.g. Jo I, 1 [kai theos en ho<br />
logos], which attributes to the Word the divine nature,—Maximilian Zerwich, S.J., Biblical Greek,<br />
Rome, Scriptua Pontificii Instituti Biblici (Pontifical Biblical Scripture Institute), p. 55.<br />
In John 1:1...Theos en (“was deity”);...The qualitative force is obvious and most important,—Alfred M.<br />
Perry, “Translating The Greek Article” in Journal of Biblical Literature, 1949, Vol. l68, p. 331.<br />
After closely examining Colwell's rule, Harris says, "This leads me to affirm that one may not infer (as is<br />
often done) in rule 2b that anarthrous predicate nouns which precede the verb are usually definite.<br />
Indeed, such nouns will usually be qualitative in emphasis.—Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, Grand<br />
Rapids, Baker Book House, 1992, pp. 60, 312.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (13 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:46 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
So let us take a look at COLWELL'S “RULE”<br />
Grammarian Nigel Turner, has gone on record as saying:<br />
So that while the canon [rule] may reflect a general tendency it is not absolute by any means; after all, it<br />
takes no account of relative clauses of proper nouns like that in [ho Theos agape estin, [“the God love<br />
is”] 1 John 4:8. Moreover, he is the first to admit the lack of objectivity in his method of counting: he<br />
professes to include only definite nouns among his anarthrous predicates, and the degree of definiteness<br />
is extremely difficult to assess.—A Grammar of New Testament Greek, James Hope Moulton, Nigel<br />
Turner, Vol. III, Syntax, 1963, p.1<br />
Dixon says: "The only other conceivable value of Colwell's rule [that is, other than textual criticism] is to<br />
say it is possible to have an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb that is definite (but, did<br />
we not already know that?), and that because Colwell apparently found some. Yet it is most important to<br />
see that the rule says nothing about the probability of definiteness (contrary to what Colwell and Blum<br />
have us believe), nor can it, as Colwell has not considered both definite and non-definite nouns. Because<br />
Colwell considered only definite predicate nominatives then his rule applies when definiteness has<br />
already been determined, then, the probability of articularity may be ascertained...Assuming the rule is<br />
valid, its value is almost exclusively for textual criticism. The rule may not be valid, however, as its<br />
underlying assumptions are highly questionable."<br />
Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John" (Th.M. thesis,<br />
Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 18, 23.<br />
Colwell's "rule" *assumes* definiteness of the QEOS at John 1:1c.Take for example, Acts 26:4 "This<br />
man (Paul) is *a* murderer" is a precise Colwell construction with "murderer" as anarthrous but is not<br />
within the scope of Colwell's "rule." "Murderer" is not a definite noun. QEOS is not a definite noun, as is<br />
clearly shown by John 10:34 "You are gods" QEOI ESTIN, which, markedly, is a Colwell "construction"<br />
itself! At 1Kings 18:37 we have Elijah crying out<br />
regarding Baal "QEOS ESTIN" . We here have a use of a Colwell construction that parallels John 1:1c<br />
with the same anarthrous preverbal predicate QEOS. Brenton's LXX translation renders it as "He is a<br />
god!"<br />
Download a .pdf document from Rodney Decker on Colwell's Rule.<br />
The Greek text of the Christian Scriptures has many examples of this type of predicate noun where other<br />
translators into English have added the indefinite article "a." Consider, for example, Marshall's interlinear<br />
translation of the following verses: "Says to him the woman: Sir, I perceive that a prophet [predicate] art<br />
[verb] thou [subject]." (John 4:19) "Said therefore to him-Pilate: Not really a king [predicate] art [verb]<br />
thou [subject]? Answered-Jesus: Thou sayest that a king [predicate] I am [verb, with subject<br />
included]."-John 18:37.<br />
Did you notice the expressions "a prophet," "a king" (twice)? These are anarthrous predicate nouns that<br />
precede the verb in Greek. But the translator rendered them with the indefinite article "a." There are<br />
numerous examples of this in English versions of the <strong>Bible</strong>. For further illustration consider the<br />
following from the Gospel of John in The New English <strong>Bible</strong>: "A devil" (Jn 6:70); "a slave" (Jn 8:34); "a<br />
murderer . . . a liar" (Jn 8:44); "a thief" (Jn 10:1); "a hireling" (Jn 10:13); "a relation" (Jn 18:26).<br />
Alfred Marshall explains why he used the indefinite article in his interlinear translation of all the verses<br />
mentioned in the two previous paragraphs, and in many more: "The use of it in translation is a matter of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (14 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:46 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
individual judgement. . . . We have inserted 'a' or 'an' as a matter of course where it seems called for." Of<br />
course, neither Colwell (as noted above) nor Marshall felt that an "a" before "god" at John 1:1 was called<br />
for. But this was not because of any inflexible rule of grammar. It was "individual judgement," which<br />
scholars and translators have a right to express. The New <strong>World</strong> <strong>Bible</strong> Translation Committee expressed<br />
a different judgment in this place by the translation "a god."<br />
Let us look at other anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb, to find their qualitative status.<br />
(taken from Harner's article, page 82, footnote “19”). The information above and below have to do with<br />
anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb, (in the Greek text) “I am” EIMI or any of its<br />
forms, such as HN “was”.<br />
III Kings 18:27, LXX (Septuagint); (=1 Kings 18:27):<br />
“And it was noon, and Eliu [Elijah] the Teshbite mocked them, and said, Call with a loud voice, for he is<br />
a god;”. Here we have the same syntax as at John 1:1c; the word “god” is an anarthrous predicate<br />
nominative and it occurs before the verb “estin” (“is”) a form of “I am”.<br />
Mark 11:32:<br />
“They feared the people, for everyone held that John was a prophet.” (NIV). Here John has the qualities<br />
of the prophets of old.<br />
John 6:70:<br />
“Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (NIV). Was Judas<br />
really “a devil” i.e. Satan himself? No. He was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of Satan.<br />
B.F. Westcott comments on this: “Judas...partook of that which is essential to the devil's nature.” (The<br />
Gospel According to St John, p. 253) Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the<br />
Devil (definite); he was not a devil (indefinite), he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the<br />
mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, Satan. If a definite meaning were desired the word order<br />
would be, 'is the devil'; if an indefinite meaning were desired the word order would be, 'is devil'. Since<br />
the word order is, 'devil is', and a form of “I am” comes after the noun, the meaning is qualitative, as it is<br />
in these examples including John 1:1c.<br />
JOHN 12:6<br />
“He [Judas] said this, not out of any care for the poor, but because he was a thief he used to pilfer the<br />
money put into the common purse, which was in his charge.” (NEB) The information is given that Judas<br />
sought ways in which to gain money in a dishonest manner, (verse) 5). He was not merely a thief, one<br />
who stole; he was a thief. He wanted to steal, he planned to steal, his nature was to steal; stealing was in<br />
his heart. He was a thief!<br />
In these examples, which have the same noun function (adjectival) as John 1:1c, we have seen that the<br />
main meaning is, a description of the nature, the disposition of, the subject, not the subject's rank nor<br />
position nor title. In other words not who or what the subject was, but how the subject was.<br />
If John really wanted to provide support for the trinity, why didn't he write it something like this, "in the<br />
beginning was the Word, and he was with the Father, and they were both one God"? I think he would<br />
have, for he was not trying to hide God's nature, but to reveal it, and the endless sea of dissertations,<br />
discussions, and exegetical extrapolations that have focused on this one tiny hymn testify to the problems<br />
trinitarians are faced with in trying to use this verse as a basis for their doctrine. If Harris can admit that<br />
"[theos en ho logos] could be rendered 'the Word was a god'" (Jesus as God, p 60), and if C.H. Dodd can<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (15 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:46 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
admit that "As a word-for-word translation it [the 'a god' rendering] cannot be faulted" (Technical Papers<br />
for The <strong>Bible</strong> Translator,Vol 28,<br />
No.1, January, 1977), and if Robert Young can confirm that John 1:1c could literally be rendered "and a<br />
God (i.e. a Divine being) was the Word" (Young's Concise Commentary), and if Catholic Scholar John<br />
L. McKenzie is willing to go so far as to say that "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated...'the Word was<br />
a divine being'", and if all the above translators see something similar in John 1:1c, then why not simply<br />
accept the 'a god' rendering, which is the most natural. As William Loader puts it:<br />
"It is true, on the most natural reading of the text, that there are<br />
two beings here: God and a second who was theos but this<br />
second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is<br />
the absolute over against which the second is defined. They<br />
are not presented as two equal gods."<br />
Obviously, in John 1:1 we have one individual with the characteristic of QEOS who is "with" TON<br />
QEON, thus he cannot be the God he is with! This one is further identified as "a son from a father," as a<br />
"begotten god," and as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word QEOS<br />
we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as "god."<br />
So either there was two equal Gods talking to each other or there was one godlike (a quality) individual<br />
talking to the Almighty God. There is no other possible explanation.<br />
avengerofchrist@hotmail.com: I saw your picture, and your very nice looking family. I sincerely hope you<br />
never rub off all that rubbish upon them......<br />
It is truly unfortunate that there are those who have to resort to un-christian attacks to further their point.<br />
avengerofchrist@hotmail.com says: "You have no response. You will now need to conjure up some cult<br />
material to define your reasoning, which is guaranteed to make no sense what so ever. I look forward to the<br />
amusement of your ridiculous "Witch" tower response.<br />
Your prejudice is interesting from possibly a psychological standpoint perhaps, but it only weakens your<br />
point. You will be hard-pressed to find the majority of the information on this page from any<br />
Watchtower. The New <strong>World</strong> Translation was not even used.<br />
For more on Colwell's Rule, go to:<br />
A Response To Don Hartley on the Matter of the Colwell Construction,<br />
Luke 7:39, and the Use of Theology in Grammatical Studies<br />
And<br />
Surrejoinder to Don Hartley: Q-Class Count Nouns, John 1:1c, and<br />
Other Related Matters, By Greg Stafford<br />
"Earlier in this century E. C. Colwell attempted to use a certain grammatical construct to prove, among<br />
other things, that Jesus was God, and that John 1:1 supported this teaching. For years Trinitarian scholars<br />
used and abused Colwell's rule, citing ...but all the while they were oblivious to the fact that what they were<br />
advocating<br />
was in direct contradiction to the very doctrine they were seeking to uphold, the Trinity."<br />
Is it Grammar or interpretation?<br />
An Open Letter to James White Regarding his "Germans, JWs, and John 1:1"<br />
Updated Aug 2 2001<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (16 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:46 AM]
Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God<br />
Email Me<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wisdom.htm (17 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:46 AM]
Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity<br />
My Response to:<br />
Author: Walter R. Martin<br />
Taken from: http://www.webzonecom.com/ccn/cults/jw-005.txt<br />
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES<br />
AND THE TRINITY<br />
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity has been consistently<br />
misunderstood, probably more than any other teaching of the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>. Frequently investigation into the doctrine of the Trinity<br />
has been dismissed from serious discussion or study by invoking<br />
the time-worn assertions - "It's a great mystery" or "This is<br />
incomprehensible" - thus discouraging many from investigating the<br />
scriptural basis of the doctrine.<br />
Truth: Mr. Martin is one of those that has promoted this assertion in another<br />
book about the Witnesses where he says, "The Trinity itself is a<br />
mystery or a "holy secret". It is incomprehensible. It can never be fully<br />
understood."<br />
Since the Watchtower denies that the Trinity doctrine is<br />
Biblical; and since they complicate the issue by defining it<br />
incorrectly - the task of true Christians is two fold: First, a<br />
definition in accord with historic Christianity must be given.<br />
Secondly, it must be shown that the doctrine of the Trinity is<br />
both Biblical and essential to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.<br />
THE HOLY TRINITY<br />
Definition: Within the unity of the One God there are three<br />
Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; and these three<br />
share the same Nature and attributes. In effect, the three<br />
Persons ARE the one God.<br />
My Response: Well here is the Nicene Creed:<br />
"I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all<br />
things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son<br />
of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very<br />
God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by<br />
whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from<br />
heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man,<br />
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered and was buried;<br />
and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into<br />
heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with<br />
glory to judge both the quick and the dead whose kingdom shall have no end. And I<br />
believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the<br />
Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and<br />
glorified, who spake by the prophets. And I believe one catholic and apostolic<br />
Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the<br />
resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."<br />
But that wasn't good enough, so they brought about the Athanasian Creed many years<br />
later:<br />
" . . . we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding<br />
the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father,<br />
another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father,<br />
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wmartin.htm (1 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:14:55 AM]
Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity<br />
coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The<br />
Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father<br />
incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.<br />
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are<br />
not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three<br />
incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one<br />
incomprehensible.<br />
"So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost<br />
almighty. And yet there are not three almightys, but one almighty. So the Father<br />
is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three<br />
Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy<br />
Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by<br />
the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord, so<br />
are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say there be three Gods and three<br />
Lords.<br />
"The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the<br />
Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father<br />
and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there<br />
is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not<br />
three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is<br />
greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together,<br />
and coequal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the<br />
Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus<br />
think of the Trinity. . . . "<br />
I hope that clears everything up. I certainly wouldn't want to give an incorrect<br />
definition.<br />
From this concise statement, similarly set forth in many<br />
theological texts,2 it is clear that the Christian Church does<br />
not believe that "there are three gods in One." Quite to the<br />
contrary, we affirm that there is but one God, as Scripture<br />
repeatedly asserts (Deut. 6:4, Isa. 43:10, 1 Tim 2:5).<br />
Notice that he quotes first from the Hebrew Scriptures at Deuteronomy and Isaiah.<br />
I wonder how many trinitarian Jews there are?<br />
Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures will be quoted from the RSV.<br />
Having defined the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, it becomes<br />
necessary, secondly, to demonstrate inductively from the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
that it is true.<br />
Yes, let's define it first, THEN we will go to the <strong>Bible</strong> to back it up.<br />
To accomplish this, we begin with one basic premise: If it can be<br />
shown from Scripture that there are three persons, all of whom<br />
are called Jehovah (God), then, since there is only one Jehovah<br />
(Isa. 44:6, 48:12), those three Persons are the one God. Things<br />
equal to the same thing are equal to each other.<br />
I don't know about you, but I am pretty excited:)<br />
Just how it is possible for three to be One and for that One to<br />
be three, will also be explained. But first, the evidence:<br />
1. THE FATHER IS JEHOVAH<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses are quick to agree with the Apostle Peter<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wmartin.htm (2 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:14:55 AM]
Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity<br />
that the Father is called Jehovah. Moreover, Peter and many<br />
other Biblical writers identify Him as a "person" (2 Peter<br />
1:17). It is therefore unnecessary to press this point, the<br />
Witnesses having already conceded it.<br />
You see that Mr. Martin has to do this piecemeal. There is no ONE scripture that<br />
puts them together in ONE triune godhead.<br />
However, we would point out that the word "person" is, by<br />
definition, descriptive of "ego" or "I." Without "ego," which<br />
distinguishes man from the beast, personality as such would cease<br />
to exist. Any reputable lexicon of Greek dictionary will<br />
substantiate the fact that the Greek word "ego," is the basis for<br />
our English term, "I." Jehovah designates His Being as The Great<br />
I AM (Ex. 3:14): So the Deity is Personal and possesses Ego, the<br />
hallmark of Personality.<br />
Or as the Greek Septuagint Version (the translation that was often quoted by the<br />
apostles in the first century C.E.) reads, e·go' ei·mi' ho Ohn', "I am the Being."<br />
The Revised Standard Version(RSV) has in it's margin, "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE"<br />
2. THE SON IS JEHOVAH<br />
A careful study of the first chapter of Revelation (vs. 11-18)<br />
will show that Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, identifies Himself<br />
as "the first and the last" and "the one who became dead" and who<br />
now lives for all eternity.<br />
It is of no small significance that in verse 13 of the last<br />
chapter of Revelation, He confirms this title with great<br />
emphasis, identifying Himself in verse 16 as "I Jesus," and<br />
declaring that He is "the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and<br />
the end, the first and the last." The context reveals that it is<br />
Jesus speaking (vs. 12), for He - not the Father - is coming<br />
"quickly" (Rev. 1:7; 1 Thess. 4:15,16).<br />
It must never be forgotten that these titles ("the first and the<br />
last," "the Alpha and the Omega'" "the beginning and the end")<br />
belong only to Jehovah God (Isa. 44:6,8; Rev. 1:8, 21:6). But<br />
Jesus Christ claims them as His own, because He, the Son is also<br />
Jehovah!<br />
Truth: Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that those who are spiritual conquerors are<br />
to be 'sons' of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of<br />
the relationship of Christians at that time to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them<br />
as his 'brothers.' (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those 'brothers' of Jesus<br />
are referred to as "sons of God." (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) At Revelation 22:12, (Good News<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>)TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in Re 22:13<br />
is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in<br />
Greek, and other translations do not include it. At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha<br />
and Omega is also said to be "the first and the last," and this phrase is applied<br />
to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Just like the phrase "apostle" is applied both to<br />
Jesus Christ and to some of his followers. But that does not prove that they are<br />
the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points<br />
to the fact that the title "Alpha and Omega" applies to Almighty God, the Father,<br />
not to the Son. If Jesus really was the Alpha and Omega, there would have been no<br />
need to spuriously insert his name at Revelation 1:11 like some have done(KJV),<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wmartin.htm (3 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:14:55 AM]
Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity<br />
and that goes for the TEV in the Revelation 22:13. Maybe the TEV should have read<br />
ahead at verse 18 where it says, "I, John, solemnly warn everyone one who hears<br />
the prophetic words of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to his<br />
punishment the plagues described in this book." TEV<br />
Just a little side note...if you read Revelation 1:1 that it was an angel that<br />
was relaying all this to John. Yes! It was an Angel who actually said spoke and<br />
said,"I am the Alpha and Omega". Hmmmm!<br />
We see, then, that there are either two firsts and two lasts (a<br />
hopeless contradiction of terms), or the Son is Jehovah, the one<br />
who was pierced for our sins (Zech. 12:10; Rev. 1:7,11,13) and<br />
who is truly "the fullness of Jehovah in flesh" (Col. 2:9).<br />
Truth: This scripture says nothing of the kind. He has several times already<br />
misquoted scripture to suit this erroneous belief. Since I already have my TEV<br />
open, it says at Col.2:9, "For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ,<br />
in his humanity" Remember, he is the Son of Jehovah according to Martin. How can a<br />
son be his own Father?<br />
The angel who showed John the wonder Revelation forbade the<br />
Apostle to worship him, for he was but a created being, a "fellow<br />
servant." Quite properly, he declared, "worship Jehovah," (Rev.<br />
22:9). Yet Jesus Christ, whom Jehovah's Witnesses say is also a<br />
created being (i.e., Michael the Archangel),<br />
Truth: Even John Calvin said he was the Archangel Michael. See:<br />
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment2/dan9-13.htm<br />
John A. Lees, The International Standard <strong>Bible</strong> Encyclopedia, 1930,<br />
Vol. 3, page 2048 states: ><br />
"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael<br />
with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view,<br />
not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel<br />
in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl"<br />
commended the<br />
worship of Himself as Jehovah (John 20:28,29). This would have<br />
been a blasphemous act of presumption on His part and a direct<br />
violation of His Father's commandments (Ex. 20:3; Deut. 6:17),<br />
unless He were in some mysterious sense on in Nature and Being<br />
with His Father. In such a case He would in truth be "equal with<br />
God" and entitled to receive worship as Jehovah(John 5:18,23).<br />
Truth: If you read the context of John 20:28,29, you will see that Jesus commended<br />
nothing of the sort. In fact, several verses later in v.31 we will see what Jesus<br />
commended. "but these are written that you may beleive that Jesus is the Christ,<br />
the son of God." We have to remember when Thomas surprisingly exclaimed "My lord<br />
and my God" that "God" in biblical times was a very relative term. In Judges<br />
13:20-22 and Psalms 8:5 angels are referred to as "God". In Exodus(which Martin<br />
quotes above) 7:1, Moses is referred to as God. In fact, when Jehovah appeared to<br />
Moses in the burning bush at Exodus 3, that was really an angel(see v.2).WHY?<br />
Because like Jesus, angels are messenger of Jehovah. Judges are also referred to<br />
as gods at Psalms 82. Let us not forget that Jesus is referred to also as an<br />
"only-begotten God" at John 1:18 (NASB) Jehovah and the Holy Spirit are never<br />
referred to as such.<br />
But let's look at John 5:18: "This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wmartin.htm (4 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:14:55 AM]
Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity<br />
him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making<br />
himself equal with God."<br />
It was the unbelieving Jews who said that Jesus was trying to make himself equal<br />
with God by claiming God as his Father. While properly referring to God as his<br />
Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God. He stated afterward "Truly, truly,<br />
I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the<br />
Father doing." (John 5:19; see also John 14:28; John 10:36.) It was those<br />
unbelieving Jews, too, who claimed that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but they were<br />
wrong about that also. Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and he declared: "It is<br />
lawful to do good on the sabbath."-Matt. 12:10-12.<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses have always taught that Jesus Christ was no<br />
more than a perfect man, "certainly not the supreme God Almighty<br />
in the flesh."3 They state categorically that He was in no sense<br />
both God and man. "Some insist that Jesus while on earth was<br />
both God and man. This theory is wrong."<br />
Truth: But yet Mr. Martin will use the above scriptures, while Jesus was on earth,<br />
to make that very assumption. Do you see how complicated it gets."For God is not a<br />
God of confusion" 1Cor.14:33<br />
4 Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
also maintain that our Lord was "the first and direct creation of<br />
Jehovah God," and that prior to His earthly life He was an<br />
angle.5(sic)<br />
In contrast to this teaching, Scripture and the Christian Church<br />
declare the full Deity of Jesus Christ, and His equality with God<br />
the Father.<br />
Truth: Jesus himself called the father,"the only true God."[John 17:3] He called<br />
the Father "my God"[John 20:17] He also said,"the Son can do nothing of his own<br />
accord, but only what he sees the Father doing."[John 5:19] He also said, "Why do<br />
you call me good? No one is good but God alone."[Mark 10:19] He also said"Father,<br />
if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine<br />
be done."[Luke 22:42](I thought Jesus was God???) He also said, "Father, into thy<br />
hands I commit my spirit!"[Luke 23:46](Is Jesus talking to himself here???) Jesus<br />
also said, "But of that day or that hour no one knows...nor the Son, but only the<br />
Father."[Mark 13:32](If Jesus is God, why doesn't he know???) He also said, "My<br />
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"[Mark 15:34](Did he forsake himself???)<br />
What else does the <strong>Bible</strong> say?<br />
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ<br />
Jesus." 1Timothy 2:5<br />
"the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head<br />
of Christ is God." [1Corinthians 11:3]<br />
"Are you not from ancient times Yahweh, my God, my Holy One, who never dies."<br />
[Habakkuk 1:12] Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> (Jesus died remember)<br />
"He is the image of the unseen God and the first-born of all creation." Colossians<br />
1:15 Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"the beginning of God's creation" Revelation 3:14<br />
"God cannot be tempted with evil" James 1:13 yet Satan did try to tempt Jesus at<br />
Matthew 4:4<br />
"God raised him up" Acts 2:24 (Did Jesus raise himself up?)<br />
"Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered." Hebrews<br />
5:8 (God can learn obedience?)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wmartin.htm (5 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:14:55 AM]
Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity<br />
"God exalted him at his right hand" Acts 5:31<br />
"But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and<br />
Jesus standing at the right hand of God." Acts 7:55 (Why wasn't the Holy Spirit in<br />
heaven with the other 2?)<br />
"No one has ever seen God" John 1:18<br />
"He is the image of the invisible God" Col. 1:15<br />
"the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God" 1Timothy 1:17<br />
"you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live." Exodus 33:20<br />
"No man has ever seen God" IJohn 4:12 (But people have seen Jesus,hence, he cannot<br />
be God)<br />
In the first verse of John's Gospel, Christ is revealed as the<br />
eternal Word of God who became flesh (verse 14) - the "image of<br />
God" (2 Corinthians 4:4). Consider the emphasis "in the<br />
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word<br />
was God" John 1:1).<br />
Note that John 1:1 states that the Word already was in the<br />
beginning - it does not say the Word "became" or "was created" by<br />
God, as Jehovah's Witnesses teach. The Witness incorrectly<br />
translate this text to read "the Word was a god,"6 but their<br />
translation is by both context and grammar an impossibility<br />
according to all recognized authorities on Greek. No recognized<br />
translation bears out their error.<br />
Truth: Lets take a quote from a biblical scholar:<br />
"The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god<br />
was the word."<br />
Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefeinite<br />
article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has<br />
the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the<br />
phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was<br />
written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate<br />
it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting"<br />
an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article<br />
into English, we are simply obeying rules of<br />
English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say<br />
"Snoopy is a dog."<br />
Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when<br />
you mean to refer to the one supreme<br />
God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would<br />
have to say "The God": ho theos. Even a<br />
monotheistic Christian, who beleives there is only one God and no others, would be<br />
forced to say in Greek "The God," as John<br />
and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off<br />
the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you<br />
are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are<br />
called noun cases, which means the nouns<br />
change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say<br />
"of God," which is theou, you don't need<br />
the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to<br />
have the article.)<br />
So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in<br />
a specific category of beings. There are<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wmartin.htm (6 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:14:55 AM]
Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity<br />
plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god,"<br />
John wants to tell his readers that the<br />
Word(which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine class of<br />
things. Notice the word order: "a god was the<br />
word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek. The subject can<br />
be after the verb and the object before the<br />
verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has<br />
shown that when ancient Greek writers put a<br />
object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y),<br />
without the definite article, they are telling us that the<br />
subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a<br />
Volkswagen." In English we would accomplish the<br />
same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" =<br />
"John is smart." So we would tend to say<br />
"The word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would<br />
translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is<br />
more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more<br />
problems, since to a modern reader it implies<br />
polytheism.<br />
No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" -<br />
the language does not convey that<br />
sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since<br />
that author has just said that the word was with<br />
God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly<br />
differentiates between God from the Word. The latter<br />
becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is the Word? John says<br />
it was the agent through whom God made<br />
the world. He starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1.<br />
How does God create in Genesis? He speaks<br />
words that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power<br />
and plan and activity. It is not God himself,<br />
but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of<br />
ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist like John<br />
can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a polytheist.<br />
This divine thing does not act on its own,<br />
however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh brings<br />
God's will and plan right down face to face with<br />
humans.<br />
Jason Beduhn<br />
Northern Arizona University<br />
Department of Humanities Arts and Religion<br />
Moreover, the Scriptures proclaim that Christ made "himself equal<br />
with God" (John 5:18),<br />
Truth: No, that was the unbelieving Jews(read the context). It was those<br />
unbelieving Jews, too, who claimed that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but they were<br />
wrong about that also. Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and he declared: "It is<br />
lawful to do good on the sabbath."-Matt. 12:10-12.<br />
and that "in him dwelleth all the fullness<br />
of the Deity bodily" (Colossians 2:9).<br />
Truth: Let's take a look at this carefully. The Good News <strong>Bible</strong>(TEV) translates it<br />
"divine nature", Goodspeed translates it "divine quality" as does Weymouth.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wmartin.htm (7 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:14:55 AM]
Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity<br />
Schonfield translates it "divine wisdom". Fact is, the greek "the·o'tes" can mean<br />
all these things. What does the context say? Colossians 3:1 says that "Christ is<br />
seated at the right hand of God." How can you sit at the right hand of God if<br />
you're supposed to be fully God?<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> further states<br />
that Christ claimed to be the great I AM (Jehovah) of the Old<br />
Testament (cf. Exodus 3:13-16 with John 8:58),<br />
Truth: So did a beggar in John 9:9. He must be Jehovah too, by this faulty<br />
reasoning.<br />
and the Jews<br />
understood Him so clearly during His ministry that they sought to<br />
stone Him to death for blasphemy (John 8:59; cf. 10:28-33).<br />
Truth: Can you follow this reasoning? They also understood him so well that they<br />
rejected him as their savior. I'm alot more stupid for just saying that:)<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses pervert these texts and many others in their<br />
determined effort to demote our Lord from His position of God and<br />
Creator (Colossians 1;<br />
Truth: Colossians 1:15,"He is the image of the invisible God; the firstborn of all<br />
creation."<br />
"You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>. St Paul has the highest view of Jesus'<br />
role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself<br />
explicitly claim to be the second person of the<br />
Trinity, wholly egual to his heavenly Father."-For Christ's Sake by Tom<br />
Harpur(Anglican Priest).<br />
Hebrews 1); and they compound their error<br />
by translating the Greek of the New Testament, in many places,<br />
contrary to all grammatical authorities.<br />
Truth: As we have already seen...this is a lie.<br />
It is certainly true<br />
that during His earthly life our Lord voluntarily limited Himself<br />
as a man (Philippians 2:6-8),<br />
and thus He never strove to usurp<br />
the prerogatives of Deity; But one does not have to "rob" what is<br />
His by inheritance (Hebrews 1). He was true Deity - "the great<br />
God" (Titus 2:13).<br />
Truth: "As we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God<br />
and of our savior Jesus Christ." New American <strong>Bible</strong> (As you can see, they are<br />
different)<br />
We must not forget that Christ humbled Himself, even to the death<br />
of the cross, and therefore, as a man, could say, "My Father is<br />
greater than I" (John 14:28). However, let us remember that<br />
Christ never said, "My Father is better than I." "Better" is a<br />
term of comparison between natures (Heb 1:4), while "greater," as<br />
in the context of John 14, is a term of comparison relative to<br />
positions.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wmartin.htm (8 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:14:55 AM]
Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity<br />
The President of the United States, for instance, is greater in<br />
position than any of his fellow-Americans by virtue of his<br />
office, but he would be the first to insist that he is not better<br />
than other human beings. So Christ was admittedly inferior to<br />
His Father positionally while on earth as a man, but the<br />
Scriptures clearly and unmistakably state that he was at all<br />
times His Father's equal on the spiritual plane of Divine Being<br />
or Nature (Heb. 1:3; John 5:18). Note also that in 1 Corinthians<br />
15:28 it is function that is dealt with - not Deity.<br />
Truth: The President is not part of a Trinity either. The President is not of the<br />
same substance as his Father is he?<br />
1John 5:9 it states:"If we recieve the testimony of men, the testimony of God is<br />
greater." Does that mean that the testimony of God is NOT better than man's. What<br />
faulty reasoning.<br />
Hebrews 1:3 states that Jesus sits at God's right hand. Is my right hand man my<br />
equal? And where is the Holy spirit in all the visions of heaven. None of them<br />
make mention of the person of the holy spirit.(Acts 7:55,56; Revelation 7:10;<br />
22:1,3)<br />
John 5:18 is one of Walter's favourites...it is too bad that he has to rely on<br />
unbeleivers to make his point.<br />
"Function" is not even mentioned at 1 Corinthians 15:28;"27-He has put all things<br />
in subjection under his feet. But in saying 'all things', it clearly means to<br />
EXCLUDE GOD WHO SUBORDINATES THEM; and when ALL THINGS are thus subject to him,<br />
then the SON HIMSELF will also be made SUBORDINATE TO GOD who made all things<br />
subject to him, and thus God will be all in all. New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Jehovah's Witnesses always point to Christ's humanity in the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>; they carefully omit mention of His claim to full Deity,<br />
and they thus "wrest...the...scriptures, unto their own<br />
destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). the second Person, the Son, is also<br />
called God, then, despite the efforts of the Watchtower to prove<br />
the contrary.<br />
Truth: What is destructive is that Walter Martin wants you to believe that the Son<br />
is Jehovah. The Son is Jesus Christ, God's only-begotten Son. John 3:16 In every<br />
instance in the <strong>Bible</strong>, a "son" is separate from his "Father"...and sub-ordinate.<br />
We use the BIBLE to interpret scripture, not some Platonic Pagan Trinity.<br />
3. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS JEHOVAH<br />
It is peculiar, to say the least, that Jehovah's Witnesses can<br />
agree with the Apostle Peter when he declared that the Father is<br />
Jehovah - and then contradict his affirmation that the Holy<br />
Spirit is likewise Jehovah, as recorded in Acts 5:3 and 4.<br />
Truth: Again, it says nothing of the kind. See below.<br />
No Christian theologian has ever denied either the Person or<br />
Deity of the Holy Spirit, for the evidence to substantiate both<br />
is abundant in Scripture.<br />
Truth: Well, lets take a look at the <strong>Bible</strong> then. Jesus is referred to as "theos" 3<br />
times in the NT, and once in the OT. The Holy Spirit is never called "theos." What<br />
is the spirit?<br />
Gen. 1:2 "The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters."<br />
or..."a might wind swept over the waters." New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wmartin.htm (9 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:14:55 AM]
Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity<br />
Basically speaking, the holy spirit is the breath or power of God. Or as the NWT<br />
says, "active force." That is why in Acts 5, if you lie the the Holy Spirit, you<br />
are in effect lying to God.<br />
For instance, a thorough study of the<br />
book of Acts, chapter thirteen, reveals that the Holy Spirit is a<br />
Person, because He possesses "ego." Luke records therin that the<br />
Holy Spirit as a Person has "ego" (13:2,4) and, furthermore, that<br />
He (not "it") prophesies to His servants and commissions them, as<br />
well (21:11). See also such verses as John 14:26, 15:26, Acts<br />
8:29, 13:2, and Romans 5:5.<br />
Truth: And absolutely none of these scripture say that the Holy Spirit is God, or<br />
the 3rd person of the Trinity. Acts DOES say at verse 2:13 that holy spirit will<br />
be poured out on men. Now that sounds more like a power/breath than a person.<br />
The Scriptures are clear that the Holy Spirit has a "will" (1<br />
Cor. 12:11; Heb. 2:4), and since "will" denotes "ego" or<br />
personality, as opposed to the neuter (animals), obviously the<br />
Spirit is a person. We have also seen from Peter's words that<br />
when Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, he lied to Jehovah (Acts<br />
5:4). Both the thirteenth chapter of Acts and Isaiah 48 add to<br />
the proof that the Holy Spirit is God, since He answers the<br />
prayers of the Apostles (Acts 13:1-4) and is designated Deity by<br />
the prophet Isaiah (48:16). Even the Watchtower admits that God<br />
alone answers prayer.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong>, then, does indeed teach that the Spirit is a Person<br />
and that He is called God. It is therefore apparent that there<br />
are three Persons mentioned in Scripture and that they are all<br />
identified as God: Yet there is only one true God (Isa. 45:22).<br />
Truth: Yes, some personality is given the spirit, but then so is "Sin" and "Death"<br />
at Romans 5:21. But what about "neuter"? Spirit at john 14:16 is neuter. "SIN" at<br />
1 John 5:16 is feminine...so much for that argument.<br />
Are there 3 persons mentioned in the Scripture as God, but yet there is only One<br />
God? I could take that argument another way. Satan is referred to as God at 1<br />
Corinthians 4:4, Moses is referred to as God at Exodus 7:1, Jehovah is God at<br />
Psalms 83:18...but there is only One God. Something is rotten in the state of<br />
Denmark here. You have to realize that in <strong>Bible</strong> times, the term "God" was used<br />
quite loosely. Judges were gods at Psalms 82, so were angels at Psalms 8:5,6;<br />
97:7; 138:1.<br />
"LORDS MANY AND GODS MANY"<br />
There are two other important points that must be mentioned.<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses claim that, because the <strong>Bible</strong> designates some<br />
beings and idols as "gods," it is proper for them to call Jesus<br />
"a god" and worship him as the angels did (Heb. 1:6). This is an<br />
important point and must be clarified.<br />
Of course, it is true that God made Moses appear as a god in<br />
Pharoah's eyes (Exodus 7:1). Moreover, Satan, certain of the<br />
judges of Israel and pagan idols are described as "gods" in the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> (John 14:30, Psalms 82:6, 1 Cor. 8:4, 10:19, 2 Cor. 4:4).<br />
Nevertheless, they are not deity by nature, as the Apostle Paul<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wmartin.htm (10 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:14:55 AM]
Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity<br />
flatly states (Gal. 4:8). They are "gods" by angelic or human<br />
acclamation, and God addresses them in that context. Worshiping<br />
a thing can make it your god; but it is not God by nature - for<br />
by nature there is only one God (1 Cor. 8:4-6, 1 Tim. 2:5).<br />
When this cardinal distinction is made in Scripture, the<br />
Watchtower's doctrine is refuted, and the problem of the usage of<br />
the term "gods" or "a god" disappears.<br />
Truth: Most of the above is true. But it still addresses that the <strong>Bible</strong> uses the<br />
term "God" in a relative sense.<br />
Why does no one worship the Spirit?<br />
Did you know that when Jehovah talked to Moses in the Burning Bush, that was<br />
really an Angel. See Exodus 3:2. Why? Because we cannot see God(John 1:18; Exodus<br />
33:20). Why then can people see Jesus? The problem of the usage of the Trinity's<br />
"fully God and fully man" disappears.<br />
COMPOSITE UNITY AND THE TRIPLE POINT<br />
The second important fact to be remembered is that of the meaning<br />
of the term "one."<br />
"How is it possible," say the Jehovah's witnesses, "for Jehovah<br />
to be three and one both at the same time? It is illogical,<br />
unreasonable and confusing; and God is not the author of<br />
confusion!"<br />
To answer this all-too-common objection, it should be kept in<br />
mind that the word "one" can denote composite as well as solitary<br />
unity. For instance, in Genesis (chapter 2), Adam and Eve are<br />
called one flesh; and Numbers (chapter 13) speaks of "one" when<br />
the context indicates that is was in reality a cluster of grapes<br />
hanging from one stem. Here are bona fide instances of composite<br />
unity.<br />
Truth: And none of the above is TRIUNE. Adam and Eve and a cluster of grapes are<br />
NOT God.<br />
The same Hebrew word, "echod" (one) is used in both cases,<br />
however, even as it is in Deuteronomy 6:4 where we are told that<br />
God is "One." The evident composite unity indicated here is<br />
confirmed in the New Testament. Our Lord spoke of composite<br />
unity where marriage is concerned (Mk. 10:8); so He, too, was<br />
aware of this important distinction. See also Joshua 9:2; Judges<br />
20:1; 2 Chron. 30:12; Isaiah 65:25; Nehemiah 7:66 and Ezra 6:20<br />
for further instances of composite unity.<br />
Truth: None of the above scriptures mention a trinity or triad of any sort. The<br />
word ECHOD(One) can be composite, but that is just how the hebrew language is.<br />
Even Abraham is referred to as ONE(Echod) at Isaiah 51:2.<br />
Finally, let us illustrate how it is both logically and<br />
rationally possible for three to be one and one to be three<br />
simultaneously, since Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT believe this is<br />
possible.<br />
Truth: I have to hear this...I want to try it at the bank.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wmartin.htm (11 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:14:56 AM]
Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity<br />
It is a well-known fact of chemistry that plain water, when<br />
placed in a vacuum under 230 millimeters of gas pressure and at a<br />
temperature of 0 degrees Centigrade, solidifies into ice at the<br />
bottom of the container, remains liquid in the center and<br />
vaporizes at the top! At a given instant the same water is both<br />
solid, liquid and gas, yet all three are manifestations of the<br />
same basic substance or nature: H2O - hydrogen: two parts;<br />
oxygen: one.<br />
If one of the simplest of all created substances can be three in<br />
manifested form and yet remain one in nature, then the Creator of<br />
that substance can surely be Father, Son and Holy Spirit - three<br />
Persons and one Nature - without any violation of logic or reason<br />
whatever if He so wills.<br />
Truth: There you have it folks. The God of "orthodox" Chrisitianity is........ a<br />
drip. Actually, water is mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen."2" In other words, "orthodox"<br />
Christianity chooses texts that mention mainly the Father and the Son, and they<br />
pass these off as triune. So, in some respects, H2O works in that way. But then,<br />
maybe Moses is triune, after all he is referred to as a God, a Prince and a<br />
Prophet-all 3 manifestations of the same basic substance.<br />
Also, because the h2o molecules can only be in one form at one time (either<br />
liquid, ice, steam), and under the same conditions, the argument is actually<br />
Sabellian, not trinitarian. Anyone who supports this theory is actually arguing in<br />
favor of a heresy that was long ago condemned.<br />
Did you know that the Pagan world before Christ had its Trinities also?<br />
See http://www.mv.com/ipusers/butterfly/babylon/00index.htm<br />
By mixing Paganism with Chrisitianity, the pure message of God has become<br />
....INSOLUBLE.<br />
Incidentally, Athanasius did the same thing with HOMOOUSIOUS(of the same<br />
substance/essence). He used 2 coins to show that they were made of the same<br />
stuff(copper), but the problem was still the fact that it was 2 coins<br />
God is not triples (1+1+1) - He is triune (1x1x1), and He has<br />
revealed Himself fully in the Person of our Lord, Jesus Christ<br />
(Col. 2:9; John 14:9).<br />
Truth: This is mathematical idiocy. 1x1x1 would mean the Father x the Father x the<br />
Father.(Any trinitarian will tell you that the Father is not the Son is not the<br />
holy spirit). Whereas, the Father + the Son + the Holy Spirit= 3.<br />
Colossians 2:9 is very ambiguous. Consider this: "for it is in him that the<br />
immensity of the Divine Wisdom corporately dwells" Schonfield...see also TEV.<br />
John 14:9? Jesus makes this straight at verse 28 where he say the "Father is<br />
greater than I"<br />
Trinitarian christianity is confused by 1500 years of false doctrine. It started<br />
with its beginning under the Sun-Worshipping Emperor Constantine in 325 AD.<br />
Regarding the Nicene Council and those that followed, Hans Kung/Christianity says,<br />
"The conciliar<br />
decisions plunged Chrisitianity into undreamed-of theological confusions with<br />
constant entanglements<br />
in church politics. They produced splits and sparked off a persecution of heretics<br />
unique in the history<br />
of religion. This is what Christianity became as it changed its nature from a<br />
persecuted minority to a<br />
majority persecuting others."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wmartin.htm (12 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:14:56 AM]
Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity<br />
What a Satanic legacy this doctrine has had.<br />
The book, "Knowing the Truth about The Trinity" by Ankerberg and Weldon quote<br />
Walter Martin right at the beginning of their preface. But on page 9 it says that<br />
the "Trinity is incomprehensible...it is impossible that a finite creature could<br />
ever fully comprehend an infinite being."<br />
Yet at John 17:3 it says, "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only<br />
true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." If eternal life depends on our<br />
understanding of God, but our God is an incomprehensible Trinity, then we are all<br />
in trouble. But I can sit down with my son and say, "Son, I love you. You are my<br />
son, and I am your Father. Now you understand God the Father, and his relationship<br />
with Jesus Christ his Son." See John 17:3<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
September 1 1999<br />
Updated November 13 1999<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/wmartin.htm (13 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:14:56 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
My Response to Andy Bjorklund's<br />
Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation (??)<br />
at http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~rlm/misleading.html<br />
Mr Bjorklund says at his site: "References to actual Hebrew and Greek words are derived from Strong's<br />
Exhaustive Concordance of the <strong>Bible</strong> (Thomas Nelson, c. 1990), the Greek-English New Testament<br />
(Christianity Today, c. 1975) and Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (McDonald,<br />
unabridged ed., n.d.)" As we will see, he has made little use of the above.<br />
Genesis 1:2<br />
"Spirit of God" changed to "God's active force."<br />
The revision modifies the original noun with a more impersonal form as the JWs reject the orthodox<br />
Christian belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit.<br />
Response: Since Mr. Bjorklund uses Vine's Expository Dictionary and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance<br />
I will too. If you look up SPIRIT(ruah 7307) you will see that it means "breath; air; strength; courage;<br />
temper; Spirit." As we can see, spirit often denotes a force of impersonal action or power. In keeping<br />
with this other <strong>Bible</strong>s render Genesis 1:2 as: "a mighty wind swept over the waters." New American<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>; "a divine wind sweeping over the waters." New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"and the power of God was moving over the water." Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV see also RSV mg and NEB<br />
For more click here.<br />
Exodus 3:14<br />
"I am" changed to "I shall prove to be."<br />
The revision clouds the connection between God's self proclaimed title and Jesus' proclamation of being<br />
the same in John 8:58, as the JW rejects the deity of Jesus.<br />
Response: Strong's says of HAYAH(1961) to exist.i.e., be or become, come to pass. Vine's says of<br />
Exodus 3:14," this revelation seems to emphasize that the God who made the covenant is the God who<br />
kept the covenant. So Ex. 3:14 is more than a statement of identity...it is a declaration of divine control of<br />
things.<br />
You will notice also that at Ex. 3:12 the same word is used(hayah) but there it is rendered I WILL BE,<br />
but 2 verses later the NIV and NASB use I AM for the same word, and most bibles give I WILL BE<br />
WHAT I WILL BE as a variant reading in the margins. Who is miseading who I wonder?<br />
For more click here.<br />
Numbers 1:52<br />
"Under his own standard" changed to "by his [three-tribe] division."<br />
The Hebrew word degal translated as "standard" literally means flag or banner. Since the JWs regard<br />
saluting a flag as an act of idolatry, the text has been altered according to their doctrinal bias. (Same<br />
revision found in Num. 2:2, 3, 10, 18, 25; 10: 14, 18, 22, 25.)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (1 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
Response: Yes, Strong's does give flag, standard or banner as a meaning for DEGEL, but like<br />
McClintock and Strong's Cyclopædia says after discussing the Hebrew words used: "Neither of them,<br />
however, expresses the idea which 'standard' conveys to our minds, viz. a flag." At Song of Solomon 6:4;<br />
10 a form of DEGEL is used to describe a division of the heavenly armies (constellations), Here,<br />
GEORGE ATHAS, Dept of Semitic Studies, University of Sydney says, "This would also fit the context<br />
in which DEGEL implies a division of an army. A constellation would certainly make sense if it seen as<br />
both something you look up at, and something which is an ordered division of the starry host."<br />
So the Hebrew word used here can also mean "division of an army". And we know that they are divided<br />
into 3 tribes by reading Numbers 2:3-8<br />
See also New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Isaiah 43:10<br />
"Nor will there be one after me" changed to "after me there continued to be none."<br />
The original future tense of the verb indicates that there will never be another being sharing in God's<br />
divinity. The altered tense suggests credibility to the JW doctrine of Jesus' becoming a "mighty god"<br />
while still being less than Jehovah in nature. (See the John 1: I discussion below for another expression<br />
of this JW distortion.)<br />
Response: I think this is reaching a bit on Mr. Bjorklund's part, as both carry the same meaning to me.<br />
Smith & Goodspeed has the same word order, in fact many different versions do not read as is stated by<br />
Mr. Bjorklund above.<br />
Ecclesiastes 12:7<br />
"The spirit returns" changed to "the spirit itself returns."<br />
The passage indicates the return of a human spirit to God after death. Since the JWs believe in an<br />
unconscious state after death, "itself' has been inserted to suggest a more impersonal reference to spirit.<br />
Response: As we have seen above, SPIRIT can also mean "breath or wind". There is no personification<br />
here as the NAB, NRSV, Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV, NEB mg, Tanakh, and CEV all use "breath" here<br />
instead of "spirit". See also Ps. 146:4 It should also be noted that SPIRIT in Greek is neuter, while in<br />
Hebrew it is feminine.<br />
Feel free to check the KJV at Rom 8:16, 26 for more of the "Spirit itself".<br />
Matthew 2:11<br />
"Bowed down and worshipped him" changed to "did obeisance to it"<br />
The JWs evade recognizing Jesus as worthy of worship as a divine being by altering the form of honor<br />
that he receives from men and angels. The Greek word proskuneo literally means "worship." The use of<br />
"obeisance" is a NWT adaptation. (Same revision found in Matt. 8:2; 9:18, 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mark<br />
5:6; 15:19; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6.)<br />
Response: The greek word used here, proskuneo, is not the highest form of worship, that is reserved for<br />
latreuo(Phil 3:3, Acts 7:42, 24:14). Vine's Expository Reference explains proskuneo as "to make<br />
obeisance, do reverence to." It is used of a man(Matt 18:26) and to God and a King at the same time(1<br />
Chronicles 29:20 LXX), to the Dragon in revelations(Rev.13:4), to the Beast(Rev.13:4, 8, 12; 14:9,11),<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (2 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
the image of the Beast(Rev 13:15, 14:11), to Demons(Rev. 9:20), and idols(Acts 7:43). See also NEB,<br />
Young, Byington, NJB, Goodspeed, Newcome, REB, 20th Cent, Schonfield, Confraternity, Douay and<br />
Kleist&Lilly.<br />
For more click here.<br />
Matthew 5:19<br />
"Least in the kingdom of heaven" changed to "least in relation to the kingdom of the heaven."<br />
The passage indicates that a disobedient believer who sins can still find forgiveness and eternal life. The<br />
JWs believe heaven is reserved for only 144,000 specially designated servants of God. The revision<br />
suggests more separation between these groups through a status hierarchy.<br />
Response: Mr. Bjorklund no doubt feels that "least" here is the same as the one used in Matthew 11:11,<br />
but they aren't. The NIV and the NASB uses "least" in both cases, even though 2 different greek words<br />
are used here. The NWT differentiates between the 2 scriptures, making it superior in this regard.<br />
Matthew 25:46<br />
"Eternal punishment" changed to "everlasting cutting-off."<br />
The Greek word kolasis translated "punishment" indicates continuous torment, but the NWT revision<br />
suggests "termination," as the JWs promote the doctrine of annihilationism regarding condemned souls.<br />
Response: KOLASIS does not indicate continous torment, and any quick look at Strong's and Vine's will<br />
tell you that. In fact it comes from the greek word KOLAZO which means to cut off or prune. The<br />
Emphatic Diaglott also uses the phrase "cutting off" and it gives the explanation that most versions<br />
confuse KOLASIN with BASINOS conveying the meaning of "torment". It goes on further to say that<br />
KOLAZOO "which signifies ,1. to cut off, as lopping off branches of trees, to prune, 2. To restrain, to<br />
repress.....3, to punish, to chastise. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is<br />
esteemed as punishment." p.106<br />
Interestingly, The New Testament in Modern English, By Ferrar Fenton has "into a long correction." for<br />
more click here<br />
Mark 1:4<br />
"Baptism of repentance" changed to "baptism [in symbol] of repentance. "<br />
Nothing in the original Greek text justifies the insertion of "in symbol." The revision undermines the<br />
significance of John the Baptist's ministry, the Jewish meaning of baptism and the Christian sacrament of<br />
baptism in contrast to the more regimented JW baptism requirements.<br />
Response: John baptized "those repenting for forgiveness of sins. . . . they were baptized by him in the<br />
Jordan river, openly confessing their sins." (Mark 1:4, 5) This does not mean that baptism itself washed<br />
away sins. As Acts 19:4 shows, according to various modern translations: "John baptized with the<br />
baptism of those repenting." "John's baptism was a baptism in token of repentance." (Smith&Goodspeed)<br />
"John baptized with a baptism that was an expression of repentance." (Williams NT) John's baptism,<br />
then, was a token or symbol of a natural Jew's having repented for sins against the law covenant. Hence<br />
John's baptism prepared these repentant persons for the Messiah. So the NWT uses internal evidence to<br />
render as it does, and indicates interpolation by means of brackets(interpolation is a common practise in<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (3 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
all translations as it is used to complete a thought.)<br />
See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/baptism.htm<br />
Luke 12:8<br />
"Acknowledges me" changed to "confesses union with me."<br />
The addition of "union" suggest something more than what the original Greek actually states and adds<br />
further credibility to the NWT distortion presented in John 6:56 below.<br />
Response: W.E. Vine's says of HOMOLOGEO in reference to Luke 12:8 that the nature of the<br />
"confession" is determined by the context. The succeeding verses talk of denial as an antithesis to the<br />
preceeding verse. At Luke 22:58 it talks of Peter's denial as being part of something...hence, in union<br />
with something. That is why the Good News <strong>Bible</strong>_TEV says of Luke 12:8, "those who declare publicly<br />
that they belong to me."<br />
According to Eugene Nida in <strong>Bible</strong> Translating (p.57), “The Gospels alone contain more than 700<br />
ambiguous readings in which the Greek may be translated one of two ways.”<br />
Luke 23:43<br />
'Today you will be with me" changed to "I tell you today, You will be with me."<br />
Jesus assured the thief on the cross that their spirits would soon enter the spiritual/heavenly realm<br />
together. As the JWs reject the belief in the conscious survival of the human spirit after death, their<br />
revision suggests that "today" deals with the time of the statement rather than the relocation of their<br />
spirits.<br />
Response: The original languages did not have commas, so it is left up to the translator to determine<br />
where to put the comma. In the book How To Enjoy The <strong>Bible</strong> by E. W. Bullinger, it states, "The word<br />
'verily'[truly] points us to the solemnity of the occasion, and to the importance of what is about to be said.<br />
The solemn circumstance under which the words were uttered marked the wonderful faith of the dying<br />
malefactor; and the Lord referred to this by connecting the word 'to-day' with 'I say.' 'Verily, I say unto to<br />
thee this day.' This day, when all seems lost, and there is no hope; this day, when instead of reigning I am<br />
about to die. This day, I say to thee, 'Thou shalt be with me in paradise.'<br />
'I say unto thee this day' was the common Hebrew idiom for emphasizing the occasion of making a<br />
solemn statement(see Deut. iv. 26, 39, 40; v. 1; vi. 6; vii.11; viii. 1; 11, 19; ix. 3; x. 13; xi. 2, 8, 13, 26,<br />
27, 28, 32; xiii. 18; xv. 5; xix. 9; xxvi. 3, 16, 18; xxvii. 1, 4, 10; xxviii. 1, 13, 14, 15; xxix. 12; xxx. 2, 8,<br />
11, 15, 16, 18, 19; xxxii. 46). p. 48 5th ed. 1921<br />
See also Syriac versions of the <strong>Bible</strong>, along with Rotherham, Concordant Literal NT and The Riverside<br />
New Testament. Below is the Vatican Manuscript 1209 (one of the oldest surviving mss) and they have<br />
placed the comma similarly to the NWT.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (4 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
John 1:1<br />
"Word was God" changed to "Word was a god."<br />
The JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the deity of Jesus. The revision asserts that Jesus was<br />
someone other than God Himself.<br />
Response: If you look at the greek, the first use of the word THEOS(God) is not the same as the second<br />
in this sentence. That is why many different <strong>Bible</strong>s also do not render the above verse as<br />
the "Word was God".See also:<br />
In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word. (Interlinear<br />
Word for Word English<br />
Translation-Emphatic Diaglott)<br />
Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"<br />
Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"<br />
Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god<br />
Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine<br />
Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god<br />
New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"<br />
Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine<br />
Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature<br />
Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"<br />
Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos<br />
Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine<br />
Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was<br />
Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (5 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
Madsen, 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"<br />
Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos]<br />
Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].<br />
Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to<br />
God, yes itself divine<br />
Being/being]<br />
Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word]<br />
Baumgarten et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]<br />
Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]<br />
Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]<br />
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine<br />
kind]<br />
Pffflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind]<br />
Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word]<br />
Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]<br />
Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the<br />
Word/word)<br />
Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]<br />
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in<br />
all like God]<br />
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"<br />
Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was<br />
the Word/word]<br />
For more click here.<br />
John 1:12<br />
"Believe" changed to "exercise faith."<br />
The orthodox Christian doctrine of spiritual justification and rebirth before God by belief in Jesus is in<br />
conflict with the JW doctrine of salvation by works (i.e., obedience to their organization). The revision<br />
attempts to describe salvation as a continuous process rather than a radical encounter and transition<br />
(Same revision found in John 3:16, 18; 6:29; Rom. 4:3, 10:4, 9, 10.)<br />
Response:Strong's definition of this greek word(PISTEUO 4100) is "to have faith". What is beleiving if<br />
it is not "exercising faith?" This is why the NWT is such an excellent complement to any <strong>Bible</strong> library.<br />
The Amplified <strong>Bible</strong> renders this verse as "believe in-adhere to, trust in and rely on-his name."<br />
John 6:56<br />
"Remains in me" changed to "remains in union with me."<br />
The mystical union between the individual human spirit and the Spirit of Jesus is obscured by<br />
restructuring "in" with a compound form. The substitution implies more separation between a Christian<br />
and Jesus. (Same revision found in John 14:20; Rom. 8:1, 2, 10; 12:5; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 1:13*;<br />
2:10, 13, 15, 21, 22; 3:6; Col. 1:14*, 16*, 27; 2:6, 10*, 11, 12*; 3:3; 1 Thes. 4:16; 5:18; 1 John 3:24; 4:4;<br />
5:20. Verses with an asterisk (*) indicate where the revision uses "by means of" or "in relationship to"<br />
rather than "in union with.")<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (6 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
Response:Look up 1722 in Strong's and you will see that this word (EN) has upwards of about 40<br />
different meanings. While UNION isn't specifically mentioned it does fit the parameters mentioned(in,<br />
above, on, by means of, against, about, altogether etc). The NWT has compounded all these words and<br />
come up with UNION which is an improvement since Jesus is not physically IN us. Smith&Goodspeed,<br />
REB, Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>, Moffatt and the NEB use some of the other words included. But isn't the<br />
NWT a literal <strong>Bible</strong>. Yes it is. The King James Version and the New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong> are also<br />
very literal <strong>Bible</strong>s, but if you look at Philippians 1:30, the KJV(and NASB) interpolates to be before the<br />
word me(EN), even though to be is not in the original Greek. The translators have done this to complete<br />
the thought and this is acceptable.<br />
Incidentally, the Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-Today's English Version also uses the word "union" in conjunction<br />
with EN at Ephesians 1:3, 4, 11; 2:6, 10, 13, 15, 22 etc<br />
John 8:58<br />
"I am" changed to "I have been."<br />
Same intent as described in Exodus 3:14 above.<br />
Response: As we have seen above, Exodus 3:14 has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus and it has been<br />
misinterpreted to fit an errant theology. But let us look this up in Strong's. Eimi(1510) carries the<br />
meaning(according to Strong's) as "I exist", "am", "have been" or "was."<br />
Examples: John 14:9: "Have I been (EIMI) so long with you." NASB<br />
Ac.13:7: "He was (EIMI) with Sergius Paulus."<br />
For more click here.<br />
John 14:17<br />
"Beholds him or knows him" changed to "beholds it or knows it."<br />
The revision ignores the context of the pronoun with the Comforter role in the preceding verse to deny<br />
the personality of the Holy Spirit.<br />
Response: The greek word used here is AUTOS(Strong's 846) which can also mean IT(John 15:2),<br />
ITSELF(John 21:25), THAT , THERE, THEM and SHE. Now let us consider the context. John 14:17<br />
seaks of the Spirit of Truth. Are we to believe that a concept such as Truth has a shadowy personality<br />
that will live on after it dies. Of course not. Us we have seen above, the word SPIRIT, according to<br />
Strong's and Vine's also means BREATH, WIND, BLOW etc. There is nothing wrong with either<br />
rendering. It should also be noted that SPIRIT in Greek is neuter, while in Hebrew it is feminine. English<br />
nouns do not have gender, but many translators will add masculine references to the Spirit to add<br />
personality.<br />
John 17:5<br />
"Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you" changed to "glorify me alongside yourself<br />
with the glory that I had alongside you."<br />
The original text reflects the shared deity of God the Father and Jesus before the creation of the world,<br />
but the revision suggests different natures as implied by different states of glory.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (7 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
Response: The greek word used (twice in the greek text) here is PARA(3844) which means "beside, at,<br />
or in the vicinity of(see Strong's). See also Byington, 20th Cent NT, Jewish NT, Knox, Wuest, and Beck.<br />
John 17:21<br />
"Are in me" changed to "are in union with me."<br />
The original statement by Jesus indicates his shared deity with the Father. The revision undermines this<br />
by suggesting a greater separation between them.<br />
Response: See above. The only reason this is mentioned again is to make this page seem longer.<br />
Acts 2:17<br />
"Pour out my Spirit" changed to "pour out some of my spirit."<br />
The revision evades recognition of the Holy Spirit and His activity at Pentecost by suggesting an<br />
impersonal force activated to a more limited degree by God.<br />
Response: How a person can be "poured out" is beyond me, but again, as we have seen above, the<br />
original words for SPIRIT, as used in the <strong>Bible</strong>(RUAH, PSUCHE) can also mean BREATH, WIND etc.<br />
Certainly the context here cries out for an impersonal force. Incidentally, the original Greek renders this<br />
passage "I will pour out of my spirit on all flesh." In keeping with the original Greek, Byington, New<br />
English <strong>Bible</strong>, Weymouth margin, and the NAB read similarly to the NWT. See also<br />
http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/acts2.17.htm<br />
Acts 2:42<br />
"Breaking of bread" changed to "taking of meals."<br />
The passage demonstrates the frequency of the communion sacrament among the earliest Christians. The<br />
revision is an attempt to disguise this practice as the JWs teach that communion is reserved for only the<br />
144,000 special saints. (Same revision found in Acts 20:7.)<br />
Response: It is not an attempt to disguise anything as the literal rendering "breaking of bread" is<br />
mentioned in the footnotes and in the KIT Greek Interlinear. The term is merely an ancient way of saying<br />
"eating". If the passage truly demonstrates the frequency of the communion sacrament, then why is wine<br />
not mentioned? Beck and the Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV read similarly to the NWT.<br />
Acts 4:12<br />
"Be saved" changed to "get saved." The revision avoids recognizing that an individual commitment to<br />
Jesus provides immediate and complete salvation, as the JWs believe in an alternative salvation as<br />
prescribed by their organization. (Same revision found in Acts 16:30-31.)<br />
Response: Does anyone know that "their organization" also prints the King James Version, American<br />
Standard Version, Emphatic Diaglott and the <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English along with interlinears. They also<br />
distribute other <strong>Bible</strong> versions. The "organization" even uses the Revised Standard Version rendering "be<br />
saved" in their literature, so they are not opposed to this rendering.But let us look at this scripture. If you<br />
read the context(which is something I highly recommend for any of these missives), you will notice that<br />
the meaning has not changed. In fact, the meaning has not changed for any of the scriptures mentioned<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (8 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
on this page. Did you know that the Moffatt <strong>Bible</strong>, along with Weymouth, Living <strong>Bible</strong>, NEB, TEV,<br />
Schonfield, Byington, NLT, CEV, BBE, Kleist&Lilly, 20th Cent NT also do not read "be saved?" That is<br />
because the Greek word used here is SOZO(4982) and it means "to save". So context has alot of bearing<br />
how the word is translated. Please read the list of how this word is used in Vine's Expository Dictionary.<br />
Acts 10:36<br />
"Lord of all" changed to "Lord of all [others]."<br />
The revision suggests that even though Jesus is highly honored, he is still one among many of God's<br />
created beings. (Similar revisions found in Rom. 8:32; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1: 16-17.)<br />
Response:We are going to start of by looking at some other scriptures where this is<br />
done.<br />
Luke 21:29<br />
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV)<br />
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News <strong>Bible</strong> (TEV)<br />
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American <strong>Bible</strong>(NAB)<br />
Luke 11:42<br />
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)<br />
"and of every [other] vegetables." NWT<br />
"and all the other herbs." TEV<br />
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version<br />
In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need<br />
to put it in there. Can they do that even without brackets?<br />
"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Chrisitian Literature" by F. Blass and<br />
A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".<br />
Interestingly, the KJV has added the word "other" 67 times in places where it is not in the original<br />
languages. The Revised Standard Version has done this 100 times, and the NRSV over 30 times in their<br />
NT.<br />
See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/acts10.htm<br />
Romans 2:29<br />
"By the Spirit" changed to "by spirit."<br />
Although the definite article 'the" does not literally appear in the Greek, it is implied by the form that<br />
(pneuma) appears in. The revision, however, translates pneuma in a more abstract form to evade the<br />
reality of the Holy Spirit. (Same revision found in Rom. 15:19; Eph. 2:22; 3:5; Titus 3:5; James 2:26; 2<br />
Peter 1:21.)<br />
Response: Byington, Schonfield, RSV, 20th Cent NT, New Berkeley Version, Emphatic Diaglott, God's<br />
Word, Moffatt, Smith&Goodspeed, Lamsa, REB, Phillips, NRSV and many others do not use the article<br />
"the" here. Perhaps they are trying to evade the reality of the holy spirit also.<br />
Romans 8:23a<br />
"Have the firstfruits of the Spirit" changed to "have the firstfruits, namely the spirit."<br />
This represents another form of disguising the separate personality of the Holy Spirit as in Rom. 2:29<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (9 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
above. The original text refers to the derivatives of the Spirit, but the revision identifies the spirit as a<br />
derivative.<br />
Response: It should be noted right here that few <strong>Bible</strong>s would add up to Mr Bjorklund's expectations.<br />
The translation process is not as cut and dried as he would like to think. Let us look at other <strong>Bible</strong>s that<br />
refer to "the spirit as a derivative."<br />
God's Word, "we have the Spirit as the first of God's gifts."<br />
New English <strong>Bible</strong>, "to whom the Spirit is given as firstfruits."<br />
New Life NT "We have the Holy Spirit as the first of God's gift to us."<br />
See also Knox, Moffatt, Smith&Goodspeed and REB.<br />
Other <strong>Bible</strong>s refer to the spirit as a "foretaste to the future" here.<br />
Romans 8:23b<br />
"The redemption of our bodies" changed to "the release from our bodies by ransom."<br />
This revision avoids the suggestion that there is continuity of either body or soul after death. Their<br />
teaching that the soul ceases to exist at the death of the body precludes the ownership of, or relationship<br />
to, a body that must be redeemed.<br />
Response: I am still waiting for Mr. Bjorklund to use his Vine's Expository Dictionary or Strong's<br />
Words. Redemption, in this instance, according to Vine's(Strong's 629) defines APOLUTROSIS as "a<br />
releasing, for(i.e., on payment of) a ransom."<br />
Romans 8:28<br />
"All things" changed to "all his works." The revision undermines the sovereignty of God by suggesting<br />
that He controls only the things He is directly involved in doing.<br />
Response: Perhaps a lesson in biblical Greek might help Mr. Bjorklund. The word "things" may be<br />
implied...but it is not in the actual Greek. See also NJB, Smith&Goodspeed, REB, Byington, NEB,<br />
Barclay etc. In fact there are variant readings of this verse, as in the RSV, NRSV and the footnotes that<br />
accompany them. Why? A word for word reading of the Greek text has "all (things) works together the<br />
God into good." The translator makes what he believes is the best choice, and this verse in Romans is<br />
especially difficult since you can pick up 5 different versions and get 5 different renderings. The meaning<br />
of the chapter has not changed though, and neither is "all things" that different from "all his works."<br />
Romans 8:29<br />
"Those God foreknew" changed to "those whom he gave his first recognition."<br />
The revision obscures the nature of God's knowledge and power as a first recognition may or may not be<br />
foreknowledge.<br />
Response: Again, another weak attempt. The above sentence admits that it "may or may not be<br />
foreknowledge" Any example on this page "may or may not be" one thing or another. Many other <strong>Bible</strong><br />
translations do not use "foreknew" here, and the 20th Century NT and Smith&Goodspeed also use the<br />
word FIRST.<br />
Romans 9:5<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (10 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
"Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!" changed to "Christ, [sprang] according to the flesh: God<br />
who is over all, [be] blessed forever."<br />
The direction proclamation that Christ is God is obscured by the altered text.<br />
Response: The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: "It would be easy, and<br />
linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, 'Christ who<br />
is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but<br />
only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable<br />
explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God."-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), translated<br />
from German, Vol. 2, p. 80.<br />
It is amazing to me that people use this as proof of Jesus' Almightyhood since many <strong>Bible</strong> versions read<br />
similarly to the NWT. The following have also watered down any reference to Jesus was God in this<br />
verse. RSV, Moffatt, NEB, Goodspeed , TEV, KJV, NASB, NIV ftn, ASV, Young's, NAB etc etc etc.<br />
Again, I have the following from the Vatican Ms 1209, and again, it agrees with the NWT:<br />
Romans 10:13<br />
"Lord" changed to "Jehovah."<br />
This revision obscures the fact that the Lord referred to in verse 13 is the same Lord called Jesus in verse<br />
9. Since the JWs reject the deity of Jesus, the revision is made accordingly.<br />
The Greek word, kurios, translated "Lord" has been revised to "Jehovah" over 200 times in the NWT.<br />
The JWs insist that this is the only valid title for God, even though Greek-speaking Jews used "Lord" and<br />
"God" in place of "Yahweh" (the source of "Jehovah") throughout their Septuagint translation of the Old<br />
Testament. Furthermore, the <strong>Bible</strong> contains dozens of names for God other than Lord, Yahweh, or<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (11 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
Jehovah.<br />
Response: The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 512) says:<br />
"Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated<br />
the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS now available to us have the<br />
tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters in the G[ree]k text. This custom was retained by later Jewish<br />
translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D."<br />
Professor George Howard, of the University of Georgia, U.S.A., stated: "When the Septuagint which the<br />
New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New<br />
Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations." (Biblical Archaeology<br />
Review, March 1978, page 14)<br />
Does the <strong>Bible</strong> really contain dozens of names for God? Absolutely not. Many people refer to a list of<br />
titles that are shared by others. The one name that is most often mentioned in the originals is<br />
Jehovah/Yahweh(about 6823 times). Most <strong>Bible</strong> versions and <strong>Translations</strong> have removed this name<br />
completely and replaced it with a Title(usually LORD or GOD). Mr. Bjorklund would no doubt like it if<br />
the NWT did the same.<br />
For more click here, here and here.<br />
Romans 13:1<br />
"Authorities that exist have been established by God" changed to "authorities stand placed in their<br />
relative positions by God."<br />
Since the JW regard saluting a flag, military service and similar forms of submission to government as<br />
idolatry, they have added words to the text to weaken the proclaimed authority of government.<br />
Response: Fact is, if you look at 20 different translations, you might 20 different readings of this<br />
scripture. This phrase comes from the Greek TASSO(5021) which, according to Strong's, means "to<br />
arrange in an orderly manner", but it depends on the tense of the verb. It seems, that according to this, the<br />
NWT is closer to the meaning than most.<br />
See also Emphatic Diaglott, God's Word, Byington, Jewish N.T., TEV, Rotherham, Beck, The Message,<br />
CEV, Amplified etc.<br />
See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/romans13.htm<br />
1 Corinthians 6:19<br />
"Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit" changed to "the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the<br />
holy spirit."<br />
To avoid recognition of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, the revision modifies<br />
"body" to a more collective form in harmony with the opposing JW doctrine.<br />
Response: In 1Co 6:18 the apostle Paul warns: "Flee from fornication. Every other sin which a man may<br />
commit is outside his body, but he that practices fornication is sinning against his own body." Here he<br />
refers to misuse of one's fleshly organism. Then in 1Co 6 v. 19, 20 he is reminding them that as a group<br />
they occupy a special place in God's purpose. It is not the body of just one member of the<br />
congregation/church that is the temple, but he says: "Do you not know that the body of you people is the<br />
temple of the holy spirit within you which you have from God?" This use of the expression "body of you<br />
people" is in agreement with the statement in 1 Corinthians 10:17: "Because there is one loaf, we,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (12 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
although many, are one body, for we are all partaking of that one loaf." The use of the word YOU in<br />
capital letters denotes that the original Greek uses this word in a plural tense.<br />
1 Corinthians 10:4<br />
"The Rock was Christ" changed to "that rock-mass meant the Christ."<br />
The passage depicts the preincarnate Jesus exhibiting his divine nature by being present many centuries<br />
earlier. This revision tries to conceal his eternal nature with a more figurative interpretation of "the<br />
Rock."<br />
Response: A quick look at Vine's and Strongs will tell you that the Greek word PETRA means "a mass<br />
of rock". Nuff said.<br />
See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/1corinth10.4.htm<br />
1 Corinthians 12:11<br />
"As he determines" changed to "as it wills."<br />
The NWT finds many ways to disguise the personality of the Holy Spirit. In this case the third person<br />
pronoun exercising individual conscience and will is replaced with an impersonal pronoun.<br />
Response: There actually is no gender here. It could also literally be rendered "having willed."<br />
1 Corinthians 14:14-16<br />
"Spirit" changed to "[gift of the] spirit."<br />
Like several other Biblical passages, this one indicates the distinctive presence of the human spirit as<br />
distinguished from the mind and body. The JWs evade these distinctions and try to disguise them with<br />
related revisions.<br />
Response: If you open an NASB or a KJV to 1 Corinthians 14 you will notice at verses 1 and 12 that the<br />
word "gifts" is in italics. Why? Because this word is not in the original Greek. But the translators felt the<br />
need to interpolate the word "gift" to complete the thought. This is required. The NWT translators did the<br />
same as the 14th chapter of 1 Cor. deals with the "spiritual gifts" [hence: GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT] such<br />
as speaking in tongues and prophesying.<br />
1 Corinthians 15:2<br />
"By this gospel you are saved" changed to "through which YOU are also being saved."<br />
Similar to the Acts 16:30 revision above, this one again obscures the completeness of salvation by grace.<br />
The JW's salvation exists as an extended process ("being saved") with the outcome being uncertain until<br />
final judgment before Jehovah.<br />
Response: One needs only to compare this scripture with the one at Acts 2:47(NIV, NASB) to get a<br />
similar reading. That is why the NRSV, Barclay, NAB, Jewish NT, Emphatic Diaglott, 20th Cent NT etc<br />
read the same as the NWT.<br />
See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/1cor.15_2.htm<br />
Galatians 6:18<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (13 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
"Your spirit" changed to "the spirit YOU [show]."<br />
Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision above, this one attempts to obscure the reality of the individual human<br />
spirit by presenting it more as an attitude of action than an entity.<br />
Response: It might be a stronger argument to complain about those <strong>Bible</strong>s that don't even mention<br />
"spirit" at all in this instance, like the REB,20th Cent. NT, CEV, NLT and the Living <strong>Bible</strong>. It obviously<br />
is not referring to an entity if this is an allowable practice of translation among trinitarian scholars.<br />
Philippians 1:23<br />
"To depart and be with Christ" changed to "the releasing and the being with Christ."<br />
Paul's eagerness indicates that the believer's spirit goes immediately into Christ's presence at death. The<br />
revision suggests that death and being with Christ are two separate steps in an extended process, as the<br />
JWs believe in soul sleep (i.e., the unconscious state of the human spirit awaiting the resurrection).<br />
Response: Vine's explains ANALUO as "to unloose, undo", and he explains it metaphorically as "...the<br />
unyoking of baggage animals". I think the NWT has handled this marvelously.<br />
for more click here<br />
Colossians 1:19<br />
"His fullness" changed to "fullness."<br />
The definite Greek article (to), translated "his," indicates that Jesus shares the Father's divine nature as<br />
also shown in Col. 2:9. The revisions evade the truth by concealing the similarity of the two passages.<br />
Response: No! "His fullness" is used in the NIV and a few other paraphrases, but most standard and<br />
literal <strong>Bible</strong>s do not use "His Fullness".<br />
Colossians 2:9<br />
"The fullness of deity" changed to "the fullness of the divine quality."<br />
The Greek theotes, translated "deity," literally means divine essence or divinity. As the JWs reject the<br />
divine nature of Jesus, a revision is inserted to suggest that Jesus is limited to only divine-like<br />
characteristics.<br />
Response: The NWT nor the JW's reject the divine nature of the son. Even the NWT calls him the<br />
"only-begotten god"(John 1:18, see also NASB). Since Mr. Bjorklund himself admits THEOTES can<br />
employ varying examples of the word "divine", other <strong>Bible</strong>s such as the Good News <strong>Bible</strong>, Schonfield,<br />
Lattimore read similarly to the NWT. For more on Col 2:9 click here.<br />
I Timothy 4:1<br />
"The Spirit" changed to "the inspired utterance."<br />
This revision attempts to obscure the reality and activity of the Holy Spirit by representing it as a<br />
message instead of an entity. (Similar revisions found in 1 John 4:1, 3, 6 with "expression" being utilized<br />
in place of "utterance.")<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (14 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
Response: This is from Edgar Foster(Lenoir/Rhynes College : "I do not mean to be condescending or<br />
harsh, but a comment like this could only come from someone who has not studied a foreign<br />
language--orwho has not studied it indepth. There are a number of errors made in an assumption like<br />
this...you can't simply do word studies and translate a text word<br />
for word. What is more, the expression 'inspired utterance' is within the PNEUMA's range of meaning, as<br />
Thayer's clearly show."<br />
See Knox at 1Timothy and 1 John 4 in Williams NT, Smith&Goodspeed, 20 Cent NT, Barclay, for<br />
readings similar to the NWT. For more on SPIRIT, click here.<br />
Titus 2:13<br />
"Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" changed to "the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ<br />
Jesus."<br />
Similar to the Rom. 9:5 revision shown above, a distinct proclamation of Jesus as God is obscured by the<br />
altered text. (Similar rewording also found in 2 Peter 1:1.)<br />
Response: Many translations differ as to how this should be rendered. The NAB, Geneva, KJV, Moffatt,<br />
ASV and more read similar to the NWT. Other <strong>Bible</strong>s have the alternative reading in the margin. Henry<br />
Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: "I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God<br />
and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both<br />
structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle's way of<br />
writing."-(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.<br />
See also 2Peter 1:2; 1Timothy 1:1,2; 2:5; 6:13; 2Timothy 1:1,2; 4:1; Titus 1:1; 3:6<br />
For more click here.<br />
Hebrews 1:8<br />
"Your throne, 0 God" changed to "God is your throne."<br />
The revision avoids addressing the Son, Jesus, as God to validate the JWs' rejection of his divine nature.<br />
Response: Again, many <strong>Bible</strong>s offer the alternative reading in the margin. Why? This is a quote from<br />
Psalms 45:6(7) where it is addressed to King Solomon originally. Was King Solomon almighty God?<br />
No! But he could be addressed as such, and this is in keeping with Biblical idiom. Moses was referred to<br />
as "god". So were the angels(Ps 8:5; 97:7; 103:1), judges(Ps 82) etc. "For the author(of Hebrews), the<br />
Son was the first-born, the apostle of God, the reflection of God's glory, and the stamp of his nature (1:3,<br />
6), but he was not God himself." The Anchor <strong>Bible</strong> with Commentary by G. W. Buchanan. for more click<br />
here and here<br />
Hebrews 9:14<br />
"The eternal Spirit" changed to "an everlasting spirit."<br />
Similar to the Rom. 2:29 revision above, the switching of the article before the adjective represents the<br />
work of the Holy Spirit in a more indirect/ impersonal manner.<br />
Response: And again, see the other <strong>Bible</strong> versions that do similarly at Rom. 2:29 above.<br />
Hebrews 12:28<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (15 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
"We are receiving a kingdom" changed to "we are to receive a kingdom."<br />
An orthodox Christian understanding of the Kingdom recognizes it as primarily established through<br />
Jesus' victorious death, then further through post-resurrection displays of his power, and perpetually<br />
through the addition of new believers into God's family. The JWs teach that Jesus' Kingdom did not<br />
begin until his invisible return in 1914. The form of the Greek word for "receiving" (paralambano)<br />
implies a current condition, but the revision suggests a future event according to the JW doctrine.<br />
Response: I am to receive a raise...or...I am receiving a raise. There really is no difference. Thankfully<br />
this nonsense is just about over.<br />
Revelation 3:14<br />
"Ruler of God's creation" changed to "beginning of the creation by God."<br />
The altered prepositions distract from the sovereignty of Jesus indicated in the passage and suggests that<br />
the real power of creation was accomplished through the Father, as the JWs believe that Jesus is a created<br />
being.<br />
Response: Who changed WHAT here since many older translations have always used "beginning." The<br />
Greek word ARCHE can have other meaningS besides "beginning", but when it is followed by the same<br />
kind of expression (genitive) as it does in Rev 3:14, it has the meaning of a beginning or the first part of<br />
something. Below are some examples from the KJV:<br />
Matt 24:8 All these [are] the beginning of sorrows.<br />
Mark 13:19 from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time<br />
John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galile<br />
Phil 4:15 in the beginning of the gospel<br />
Heb 3:14 if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end<br />
Heb 7:3 having neither beginning of days<br />
2 Peter 3:4 having neither beginning of days<br />
for more on ARCHE click here<br />
The rest of Andy Bjorklund's page deals with more examples of the "spirit". I have provided a few<br />
examples of my own:<br />
"Spirit" NASB Romans 8:6<br />
"spiritual" NKJB Romans 8:6<br />
"mystically" NASB Rev. 11:8<br />
"Spiritually" KJV Rev. 11:8<br />
"symbolic" NAB Rev. 11:8<br />
"prophetically" NRSV Rev. 11:8<br />
In John 3:8 PNUEMA is mentioned twice in the same scripture. The first time it is translated "wind", the<br />
second time "spirit".<br />
"the spirit of his mouth" KJV, NWT 2 Thess 2:8<br />
"the breath of his mouth" NASB<br />
There are tons more, but I think you get the drift. It is up to the translator to decide what word best fits,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (16 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
and not all translations agree on the point of how to translate SPIRIT, but all the above fall under the<br />
guidelines and allowances for the greek word PNEUMA.<br />
Should we always Translate as Literal as the Original language(Hebrew orGreek)? Obviously Mr.<br />
Bjorklund and others would say yes. "He[the translator] thinks that as long as he keeps the "same" words<br />
he cannot be too far wrong with the meaning. Instead, what he has done is not translation at all- he has<br />
put a new, and therefore wrong message in the bible. Whenever this happens, the problem has become<br />
very serious indeed." Norman Mundhenk, What Translation are you Using, The <strong>Bible</strong> Translator, Oct<br />
1974, pp 419,420<br />
For instance, in 1Samuel 24:3 the NWT uses the phrase "ease nature" while the original has "cover his<br />
feet". Is this is a mistranslation? After all the New <strong>World</strong> Translation is supposed to be literal <strong>Bible</strong>. But<br />
other literal <strong>Bible</strong>s such as the NKJV and the NASB also do not use the words "cover his feet". They use<br />
"relieve himself." This follows the original meaning better and it is an improvement.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
hector3001@aol.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/abjorklund.htm (17 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]
A Response to Kevin Quick Ministries and their Attack on the New <strong>World</strong> Translation <strong>Bible</strong><br />
A Response to Kevin Quick's Attack on the<br />
at http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/nwt.html<br />
with another Response Here via Thumim1<br />
Q1. Does the New <strong>World</strong> Translation give<br />
accurate translations of <strong>Bible</strong> verses which<br />
normally indicate the deity of Christ?<br />
Zech 12:10-"And I [Jehovah] will pour out upon<br />
the house of David and upon the inhabitants of<br />
Jerusalem the spirit of favor and entreaties, and<br />
they will certainly look to the One [Heb. Me]<br />
whom they pierced through, and they will certainly<br />
wail over Him as in the wailing over an only<br />
[son]; and there will be a bitter lamentation over<br />
him as when there is bitter lamentation over the<br />
firstborn [son]."<br />
Answer: The Good News <strong>Bible</strong>(TEV), Moffatt, Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, Modern Language <strong>Bible</strong>, New<br />
American <strong>Bible</strong>, Revised Standard Version, Byington and Smith&Goodspeed read similarly to the NWT.<br />
In fact if you look at the greek equivalent at John 19:37, it also reads "the one" NIV.<br />
Matt 2:2,8,11,14:33, John 9:38, Heb 1:6, etc.-But<br />
when he again brings his First-born into the<br />
inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God's angels<br />
do obeisance [Gr. worship-see NWT, Heb 1:6<br />
footnote] to him."<br />
Answer: The greek word used here, "proskuneo," is not the highest form<br />
of worship, that is reserved for latreuo (Phil 3:3, Acts 7:42, 24:14). Vine's Expository Reference explains<br />
PROSKUNEO as "to make obeisance, do reverence to." It is used of a man(Matt 18:26) and to God and a<br />
King at the same time(1 Chronicles 29:20 LXX), to the Dragon in revelations(Rev.13:4),to the<br />
Beast(Rev.13:4, 8, 12; 14:9,11), the image of the Beast(Rev 13:15,14:11), to Demons(Rev. 9:20), and<br />
idols(Acts 7:43). Accordingly the New English <strong>Bible</strong>, Schonfield, Byington, Young, New Jerusalem,<br />
Goodspeed, Newcome, Revised English <strong>Bible</strong>, 20th Century NT, Confraternity, Kleist&Lilly and the<br />
Douay read similarly.<br />
John 1:1-In [the] beginning the Word was, and the<br />
Word was with God, and the Word was a god<br />
[Gr. God was the Word].<br />
Answer: For a full explanation see http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/nwt.htm#beduhn<br />
In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word. (Interlinear<br />
Word for Word English<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kquick.htm (1 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:15:49 AM]
A Response to Kevin Quick Ministries and their Attack on the New <strong>World</strong> Translation <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Translation-Emphatic Diaglott)<br />
Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"<br />
Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"<br />
Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god<br />
Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine<br />
Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god<br />
New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"<br />
Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine<br />
Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature<br />
Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"<br />
Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos<br />
Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine<br />
Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was<br />
Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was<br />
Madsen, 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"<br />
Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos]<br />
Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].<br />
Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to<br />
God, yes itself divine<br />
Being/being]<br />
Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word]<br />
Baumgarten et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]<br />
Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]<br />
Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]<br />
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine<br />
kind]<br />
Pffflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind]<br />
Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word]<br />
Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]<br />
Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the<br />
Word/word)<br />
Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]<br />
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in<br />
all like God]<br />
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"<br />
Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was<br />
the Word/word]<br />
John 8:58-Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to<br />
you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have<br />
been [Gr. I am-cp. Ex 3:14, LXX]."<br />
Answer: Jesus was here referring to his pre-existence, as in Micah 5:2. He was making no claim to<br />
Exodus 3:14 as many say. The LXX renders Ex. 3:14 as eigo eimi ho ohn or "I am the Being" which is<br />
quite different, as is the hebrew which is Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh which can better be rendered "I will be<br />
what I will be"(Moffatt, NWT). Almost all <strong>Bible</strong> translate the word Ehyeh as "I will be" at Exodus 3:12.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kquick.htm (2 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:15:49 AM]
A Response to Kevin Quick Ministries and their Attack on the New <strong>World</strong> Translation <strong>Bible</strong><br />
To change it 2 scriptures later is unfortunate.<br />
The Living New Testament: "The absolute truth<br />
is that I was in existence before Abraham was<br />
ever born."<br />
The 20th Century New Testament: "before Abraham<br />
existed I was."<br />
The New Testament, An American Translation<br />
Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham<br />
was born."<br />
The Complete <strong>Bible</strong>, An American Translation<br />
Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham<br />
was born."<br />
New Believers <strong>Bible</strong>, New Living Translation:<br />
"I existed before Abraham was even born."<br />
The New Testament, C. B. Williams: "I solemnly<br />
say to you, I existed before Abraham was born."<br />
The Book, New Testament: The absolute truth is<br />
that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."<br />
The Living <strong>Bible</strong>: "I was in existence before Abraham<br />
was ever born."<br />
Lattimore: "Truly, truly I tell<br />
you, I am from before Abraham was born."<br />
The New Testament, From the Peshitta Text,<br />
Lamsa: "Before Abraham was born, I was."<br />
An American Translation, In The Language of<br />
Today, Beck: "I was before Abraham."<br />
New Testament Contemporary English Version:<br />
"I tell you.that even before Abraham was, I was,<br />
and I am."<br />
The Unvarnished New Testament: "Before<br />
Abraham was born, I have already been."<br />
The New Testament, Klist & Lilly: "I am here-and<br />
I was before Abraham."<br />
The New Testament in the Language of the People,<br />
Williams: "I existed before Abraham was born."<br />
The New Testament, Noyes: "From before Abraham<br />
was, I have been."<br />
A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: "Before<br />
Abraham was, I have been."<br />
The Syriac New Testament, Murdock: "Before<br />
Abraham existed I was."<br />
The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels,<br />
Burkitt& The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,<br />
Blake & Briere "Before Abraham came to be, I was."<br />
The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant,<br />
Sharpe: "I was before Abraham was born."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kquick.htm (3 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:15:49 AM]
A Response to Kevin Quick Ministries and their Attack on the New <strong>World</strong> Translation <strong>Bible</strong><br />
The 20th Century New Testament 1904: "Before<br />
Abraham existed I was already what I am."<br />
The New Testament, Stage: "Before Abraham<br />
came to be, I was."<br />
The Coptic Version the New Testament in the<br />
Southern Dialect, Horner: "Before Abraham became,<br />
I, I am being."<br />
The Documents of the New Testament, Wade:<br />
"Before Abraham came into being, I have existed."<br />
The Concise Gospel and The acts, Christianson:<br />
"I existed even before Abraham was born."<br />
A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida:<br />
"Before Abraham existed, I existed, or.I have existed."<br />
The Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>: "I was alive before<br />
Abraham was born."<br />
The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you<br />
for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born."<br />
The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version,<br />
Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham."<br />
John 10:33-The Jews answered him: "We are<br />
stoning you, not for a fine work, but for<br />
blasphemy, even because you, although being a<br />
man, make yourself a god [Gr. God]."<br />
Answer: Torrey's translation lowercases the word as "god," while the interlinear reading of The<br />
Emphatic Diaglott says "a god." The New English <strong>Bible</strong> also uses "a god". Support for the rendering "a<br />
god" is found principally in Jesus' own answer, in which he quoted from Psalm 82:1-7. As can be seen,<br />
this text did not refer to persons as being called "God," but "gods" and "sons of the Most High."<br />
Phil 2:6-who, although he was existing in God's<br />
form, gave no consideration to a seizure,<br />
namely, that he should be equal to God [Gr.<br />
who in [the] form of God subsisting not robbery<br />
deemed [it] the to be equal with God]<br />
Answer: Ralph Martin, says in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: "It is questionable, however,<br />
whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of<br />
'to hold fast.'" The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We cannot find any passage where harpazo<br />
or any of its derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean<br />
'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is<br />
totally different, 'hold fast.'" If we read the preceeding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was<br />
in Christ." Does that mean that we should try to be equal with God? Of course not. That is why many<br />
other versions read similarly to the NWT like the RSV, ASV, New English, New American etc.<br />
Col 2:8-9-Christ; because it is in him that all the<br />
fullness of the divine quality [Gr. Deity or<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kquick.htm (4 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:15:49 AM]
A Response to Kevin Quick Ministries and their Attack on the New <strong>World</strong> Translation <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Godhead] dwells bodily.<br />
Answer:The Latin Vulgate at Col. 2:9 uses the Latin word DIVINITATIS to render THEOTHTOS.<br />
DIVINITATIS is the Latin word for 'divinity' and was commonly referenced by the speeches and<br />
writings of Constantine. Divinity may differ from "deity", even anointed Christians will one day possess<br />
the 'divine nature.' They will see God and be "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4; 1 John 3:2).<br />
Other <strong>Bible</strong>s render Col. 2:9 as: "For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity."<br />
TEV(Good News <strong>Bible</strong>)<br />
"For it is in him that the immensity of the Divine Wisdom corporately dwells." Schonfield<br />
"Because in him resides all the fulfillment of the divine." Lattimore<br />
Q2. Does the New <strong>World</strong> Translation give<br />
accurate translations of <strong>Bible</strong> verses which<br />
explain the requirements for salvation?<br />
John 17:3-"This means everlasting life, their<br />
taking in knowledge of you [Gr. that they may<br />
know you], the only true God, and of the one<br />
whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."<br />
Answer: Is "that they may know you" really that different from "their taking in knowledge of you"? No!<br />
A quick look at Strong's numbers will clear this up(1097 GINOSKO) = "to know, in a great variety of<br />
applications and with many implications(as follow, with others not thus clearly expressed): -allow, be<br />
aware(of) feel, (have) know(ledge), perceive, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand". In fact, Vine's<br />
Expository Dictionary gives "to be taking in knowledge" as the first definition of GINOSKO.<br />
Rom 10:9-10-For if you publicly declare [Gr.<br />
confess] that word in your own mouth, that Jesus<br />
is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God<br />
raised him up from the dead, you will be saved.<br />
For with the heart one exercises faith for<br />
righteousness, but with the mouth one makes<br />
public declaration [Gr. one confesses] for<br />
salvation.<br />
Answer: The Same Greek word for confess(HOMOLOGEO) is also used at Matt 7:23 as declare. NKJV<br />
Vine's Expository Dictionary gives "to declare openly by way of speaking out freely, such confession<br />
being the effect of deep conviction of facts" as one definition. Smith&Goodspeed, Schonfield, 20th<br />
Century NT, J.B. Phillips, Jewish NT, Living <strong>Bible</strong>, New Life NT, CEV, Williams NT, etc also do not<br />
use "confesses" and read similarly to the NWT.<br />
Read above.<br />
Heb 13:15-Through him let us always offer to God<br />
a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips which<br />
make public declaration to his name [Gr.<br />
confessing to the name of him].<br />
Q3. Does the New <strong>World</strong> Translation give<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kquick.htm (5 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:15:49 AM]
A Response to Kevin Quick Ministries and their Attack on the New <strong>World</strong> Translation <strong>Bible</strong><br />
accurate translations of <strong>Bible</strong> verses pertaining to<br />
the Christian's personal relationship with Jesus<br />
Christ?<br />
1 Cor 1:9-God is faithful, by whom you were<br />
called into a sharing [Gr. fellowship] with his<br />
Son Jesus Christ our Lord.<br />
Answer: Again, a quick check at Vine's Expository Dictionary will let you know that the Greek word<br />
used here, KOINONIA can mean "sharing in common" as well as "fellowship". BBE, REB, Simple<br />
English <strong>Bible</strong>, Moffatt, NEB read similarly to the NWT.<br />
2 Cor 11:3-But I am afraid that somehow, as the<br />
serpent seduced Eve by its cunning, your minds<br />
might be corrupted away from the sincerity and<br />
the chastity that are due the Christ [Gr. the<br />
simplicity and the purity in Christ].<br />
Answer: Few <strong>Bible</strong> versions read exactly like this (the ASV being one of the few that I could find). Many<br />
others use the word "sincerity" or "sincere" just like the NWT(see NIV, RSV, Amplified, NAB) and as<br />
for chastity/purity, see CHASTE in Vine's and also Weymouth, Smith&Goodspeed(fidelity) and<br />
Rotherham (chasteness).<br />
2 Cor 13:5-Or do you not recognize that Jesus<br />
Christ is in union with you [Gr. Jesus Christ is in<br />
you]?<br />
Answer: Look up 1722 in Strong's and you will see that this word (EN) has upwards of about 40 different<br />
meanings. While UNION isn't specifically mentioned it does fit the parameters mentioned(in, above, on,<br />
by means of, against, about, altogether etc). The NWT has compounded all these words and come up<br />
with UNION which is an improvement since Jesus is not physically IN us. Smith&Goodspeed, REB,<br />
Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>, Moffatt and the NEB use some of the other words included.<br />
See above. .<br />
1 John 1:3-Furthermore, this sharing [Gr.<br />
fellowship] of ours is with the Father and with his<br />
Son Jesus Christ.<br />
Q4. Are there other verses in which the New<br />
<strong>World</strong> Translation disagrees with the original<br />
Greek and with the standard independent<br />
translations of the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
Matt 5:18-for truly I say to you that sooner would<br />
[Gr. until] heaven and earth pass away than for<br />
one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to<br />
pass away from the Law by any means and not all<br />
things take place.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kquick.htm (6 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:15:49 AM]
A Response to Kevin Quick Ministries and their Attack on the New <strong>World</strong> Translation <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Answer: "For solemnly I say to you, heaven and earth would SOONER pass away..."Williams NT,<br />
"heaven and earth will pass away SOONER..." Alba House NT see also:<br />
Smith&Goodspeed, J.B. Philipps, REB, Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>, New Berkeley Version, TEV, NEB,<br />
Message<br />
Why do these Versions not use the same preposition that Kevin Quick says it should? We know that the<br />
literal heavens and earth will never pass away. (Psalm 78:69; 104:5; Ecclesiastes 1:4) Jesus also said: "It<br />
is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."<br />
(Mark 10:25) It is simply a matter of exaggeration and the NWT along with these others mentioned bring<br />
out a better sense of meaning.Also the preposition is followed by the greek word HOS(like) rendering it<br />
literally as UNTIL LIKELY. Quick's translation above does not use this word and does not carry this<br />
meaning.<br />
Matt 27:52-53-And the memorial tombs were<br />
opened and many bodies of the holy ones that<br />
had fallen asleep were raised up, (and persons,<br />
coming out from among the memorial tombs<br />
after his being raised up, entered into the holy<br />
city,) and they became visible to many people.<br />
[Gr. and the tombs were opened and many bodies<br />
of the having fallen asleep saints were raised; and<br />
coming forth out of the tombs after the rising of<br />
him entered into the holy city and appeared to<br />
many.]<br />
Answer: I think the above example shows a good example of how faithfully the NWT renders this<br />
passage, especially after reading the NIV, Good News <strong>Bible</strong> and others that insert words like "raised TO<br />
LIFE". I wonder if Mr Quick objects to these interpolations? Protestant <strong>Bible</strong> Commentator, Adam<br />
Clarke, states: "It is difficult to account for the transaction mentioned in Mt 27 verses 52 and 53. Some<br />
have thought that these two verses have been introduced into the text of Matthew from the gospel of the<br />
Nazarenes, others think the simple meaning is this:—by the earthquake several bodies that had been<br />
buried were thrown up and exposed to view, and continued above ground till after Christ's resurrection,<br />
and were seen by many persons in the city. Why the graves should be opened on Friday, and the bodies<br />
not raised to life till the following Sunday, is difficult to be conceived. The place is extremely obscure."<br />
Jesus mentioned a resurrection of life or judgement at John 5:28, 29, but this account states that neither<br />
happened.<br />
Acts 5:3-But Peter said: "Ananias, why has Satan<br />
emboldened you to play false [Gr. lie] to the holy<br />
spirit and to hold back secretly some of the price<br />
of the field?"<br />
Answer: The greek word here PSEUDOMAI (5574)is explained as "attempt to decieve by falsehood"<br />
Strong's, so again, I am in ignorance to what the problem is here. Byington also has "play false",<br />
Rotherham has "deal falsely". See also Weymouth, God's Word, Amplified, Phillips and Knox.<br />
2 Cor 11:8-Other congregations I robbed by<br />
accepting provisions [Gr. taking wages] in order<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kquick.htm (7 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:15:49 AM]
A Response to Kevin Quick Ministries and their Attack on the New <strong>World</strong> Translation <strong>Bible</strong><br />
to minister to you...<br />
Answer: W.E.Vine's explains as to the use of "wages"OPSONION in 2 Cor. 11:8,"of material support<br />
which Paul recieved" See also REB, New Berkeley Ver(MLB), Amplified, NEB, Jewish NT, NAB,<br />
Living <strong>Bible</strong>, NLT, NiRV and Wuest.<br />
Eph 4:24, Col 3:10-clothe yourselves with the<br />
new personality [Gr. having put on the new man]<br />
Answer: Pertaining to Ephesians and Colossians W.E. Vine's says, "'the new man', standing for the new<br />
nature personified as the believer's regenerate self [as opposed to the former unregenerate nature(on the<br />
same page)], a nature 'created in righteousness and holiness of truth' Eph. 4:24 and having been 'put on' at<br />
regeneration....."p. 388 See also New Berkeley Ver(MLB), Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>, REB, 20th Cent.NT,<br />
Moffatt, Smith&Goodspeed, Schonfield, TEV, Lattimore, NRSV, Weymouth, NEB, RSV, Jewish NT,<br />
Montgomery, NAB, Living <strong>Bible</strong> etc etc etc.....<br />
Heb 12:23-spiritual lives of righteous ones [Gr.<br />
spirits of just men] who have been made perfect<br />
Answer: First, the word MAN is not even in the greek text here. You have to wonder what Greek text is<br />
used here.<br />
Few understand all the meanings of spirit(PNUEMA), which, according to Strong's(4151) and Vine's<br />
can also mean: air, breath, wind, mental disposition(-ual, ually) mind, the sentient element of man by<br />
which he perceives, reflects, desires, moral qualities and activities etc. It is also closely associated with<br />
LIFE(see Romans 8:4-6).<br />
A quick look will also reveal that "just" can mean "righteous". Rotherham has "righteous ones", see also<br />
NRSV,Beck<br />
Q5. The name Jehovah occurs 237 times in the<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation of the Greek Scriptures.<br />
Does the tetragrammaton appear in any of the<br />
extant Greek manuscripts?<br />
"Why, then, do all extant copies of the 'New<br />
Testament' lack the Tetragrammaton?" (WT<br />
5/1/78, p. 10)<br />
Answer: The article used here from the 1978 WT also quoted the Journal of Biblical Literature. (Vol. 96,<br />
No. 1, 1977, pp. 63-83) In fact, right after the above quote used by the Kevin Quick Ministries, the WT<br />
quoted Professor Howard saying of the Septuagint:<br />
"The Tetragram in these quotations would, of course, have remained as long as it continued to be used in<br />
the Christian copies of the LXX. But when it was removed from the Greek OT, it was also removed from<br />
the quotations of the OT in the NT."<br />
That's right, research has shown that the LXX used the Divine Name originally, but it was later removed<br />
by unscrupulous individuals. The NWT never tries to hide the fact that this name is not found in any<br />
extant manuscript, and it has substituted lord with the Divine Name where it deems necessary. I find it<br />
incredible that those who complain about this never complain that most mainstream <strong>Bible</strong>s substitute the<br />
Divine Name with LORD about 7000 times, even though this goes against the manuscripts they use. The<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kquick.htm (8 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:15:49 AM]
A Response to Kevin Quick Ministries and their Attack on the New <strong>World</strong> Translation <strong>Bible</strong><br />
NWT is not the only translation that uses the Divine Name(Jehovah/Yahweh) in the NT. See also<br />
Emphatic Diaglott,1796 Dominikus von Brentano, Inclusive Language NT, Richard Caddick NT and<br />
about 25 others mentioned in the NWT Ref. Introduction. The NKJV has also capitalized LORD in the<br />
NT where the Divine Name should appear.<br />
Should we always Translate as Literal as the Original Language(Hebrew or Greek)? Obviously Mr.<br />
Bjorquist and others would say yes. "He[the translator] thinks that as long as he keeps the "same" words<br />
he cannot be too far wrong with the meaning. Instead, what he has done is not translation at all- he has<br />
put a new, and therefore wrong message in the bible. Whenever this happens, the problem has become<br />
very serious indeed." Norman Mundhenk, What Translation are you Using, The <strong>Bible</strong> Translator, Oct<br />
1974, pp 419,420<br />
For instance, in 1Samuel 24:3 the NWT uses the phrase "ease nature" while the original has "cover his<br />
feet". Is this is a mistranslation? After all the New <strong>World</strong> Translation is supposed to be literal <strong>Bible</strong>. But<br />
other literal <strong>Bible</strong>s such as the NKJV and the NASB also do not use the words "cover his feet". They use<br />
"relieve himself." This follows the original meaning better and it is an improvement.<br />
Conclusion: I have brought some of the above examples to Mr. Quick's attention some time ago, but he<br />
was not interested in the truth. As we can see from the previous examples, many translators of both<br />
Catholic and Protestant persuasion reflect the New <strong>World</strong> Translation, which makes for shoddy<br />
scholarship on the part of KQ Ministries and reflects a clear bias based on emotion not facts. " But let<br />
God be found true, though every man be found a liar, even as it is written: "That you might be proved<br />
righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged." Romans 3:4<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
Go to <strong>Site</strong><strong>Map</strong><br />
Go to an Online Defence of KQuick<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kquick.htm (9 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:15:49 AM]
The Forgotten Trinity-James R. White tries to Explain the Unexplainable!<br />
The Forgotten Trinity?<br />
Trying to explain the unexplainable.<br />
Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures used are from the New American<br />
Standard <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"It is so misunderstood that a majority of christians, when<br />
asked, give incorrect and at times downright heretical<br />
definitions of the Trinity." Page 16<br />
Wow...what a lousy job Christendom has done educating its<br />
masses. A further examination of this book will explain why.<br />
John 1:1<br />
"Few passages of Scripture are more important to our study<br />
of the Trinity, and in particular, of the person of the Son, than<br />
the prologue of John." p.48<br />
Really? The last time I looked, it takes "3" to make a<br />
Trinity...hence the name. The Holy Spirit isn't even<br />
mentioned in the prologue of John. But to explain these few<br />
passages further, let us go to John 1:18.<br />
John 1:18<br />
"No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God,<br />
who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."<br />
I will say that this is proof that Jesus can't be God almighty<br />
because people have seen Jesus. But Mr. White asks who<br />
walked with Abraham in Genesis 18:1? I have one word for<br />
you: "ANGELS". This is even stated in Genesis 19:1.<br />
Who was the voice in the Burning Bush? The voice said, I am<br />
the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac<br />
and the God of Jacob. Then Moses hid his face , for he was<br />
afraid to look at God." Ex.3:6. But if you look at Ex.3:2 you<br />
will see that it was "the angel of the LORD" that appeared to<br />
him. This fact is re-iterated at Acts 7:30. Yes, angels were<br />
allowed to represent Jehovah/Yahweh....and even to use his<br />
name.(Exodus 3:13-15)<br />
Angels were messengers of God. Moses was also a<br />
messenger. He is also called God. "Then the LORD said to<br />
Moses, 'See, I make you as God to Pharoah" Exodus 7:1<br />
Jesus Christ is also a messenger of God, that is why he is<br />
referred to as the "Word". And that is why he can also be<br />
referred to as God. But none of the above are Almighty God,<br />
because as the <strong>Bible</strong> says, God is "invisible" (Colossians<br />
1:15) and that "no man may see Me and live!"(Exodus 33:20)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/white.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:16:01 AM]<br />
Trinity Truth<br />
Trinitarian Bias in the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong><br />
Who Put That in the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>!?<br />
Comma Johanneum<br />
(1John 5:7,8)<br />
Ron Rhodes<br />
King James the Fop<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Differences<br />
Tactics Opposers Use<br />
Trinity Not the Truth<br />
The Truth About the<br />
Trinity
The Forgotten Trinity-James R. White tries to Explain the Unexplainable!<br />
"If Moses could be ['elohim](God), then, for the gospel<br />
writers, so could Jesus, who was regarded by the New<br />
Testament as at the very least a new Moses." p.252 4Q374: A<br />
Discourse on the Sinai Tradition: The Deification of Moses<br />
and Early Christology, Dead Sea Discoveries 3.3<br />
Robert Wilken wrote in _The Myth of Christian Beginnings:<br />
"From the very beginning, the Christian tradition had<br />
struggled with the question of JESUS' relation to God . . .<br />
Very early Christians tried to account for his extraordinary<br />
life and accomplishments and his Resurrection, and it was not<br />
long before he was called Son of God--then God. EVEN SO,<br />
HE WAS NOT GOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE<br />
FATHER WAS GOD--OR WAS HE? Was he creator, was he<br />
eternal, should he be addressed in prayer? These and other<br />
questions troubled thoughtful Christians for almost three<br />
centuries. During<br />
these years, MOST CHRISTIANS VAGUELY THOUGHT<br />
OF JESUS AS GOD; yet they did not actually think of him<br />
IN THE SAME WAY THAT THEY THOUGHT OF GOD<br />
THE FATHER. They seldom addressed prayers to him, and<br />
thought of him somehow as SECOND TO GOD--DIVINE,<br />
YES, BUT NOT FULLY GOD . . . When the controversy<br />
over the relation of Jesus to God the Father broke out in the<br />
early fourth century, most Christians<br />
were"SUBORDINATIONISTS," i.e. they believed that Christ<br />
was God BUT NOT IN PRECISELY THE SAME WAY<br />
THAT THE FATHER WAS GOD" (See pp. 177-183).<br />
Granville Sharp's Rule<br />
"our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus."<br />
"that mightie God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ" (Geneva<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>) Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1<br />
Mr. White states Granville Sharps rule of greek grammar<br />
which means that when 2 nouns in the same case are<br />
connected with kai(and), when only the first noun has an<br />
article, both nouns refer to the same person, but as Matthew<br />
17:1 points out, there are exceptions to every rule. [While<br />
some may argue that names do not apply to the rule, I think<br />
that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 are semantic equivalents to<br />
names, and therefore do not apply either]. In at least 10 other<br />
instances though, God and Jesus are described as different<br />
individuals.(2Peter 1:2; 1Timothy 1:1,2; 2:5; 6:13; 2Timothy<br />
1:1,2; 4:1; Titus 1:1; 3:6) Is is not better to explain things in a<br />
way that people understand, rather than relying on obscure<br />
"rules".<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/white.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:16:01 AM]<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Research<br />
WOC Trinity<br />
Research<br />
Islamic View<br />
The Trinity-An<br />
Extensive Look<br />
Original <strong>Bible</strong> Project<br />
Hebrews 1:8<br />
Should You Believe<br />
In A Trinity<br />
More on the Trinity<br />
Early Mormon View<br />
Another Look at the<br />
Trinity<br />
Jesus as Theos<br />
(Boobyer)<br />
Bruce's Defence of the<br />
New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation<br />
NWT Errors?!<br />
Another Trinity Chart
The Forgotten Trinity-James R. White tries to Explain the Unexplainable!<br />
"You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set<br />
out anywhere in the <strong>Bible</strong>. St Paul has the highest view of<br />
Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God.<br />
Nor does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second<br />
person of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly<br />
Father."-For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur(Anglican Priest).<br />
For more on Granville Sharp's Rule see Greg Stafford.<br />
I Am He<br />
When Jesus says "I Am" in John 8:24, 58, is he claiming to<br />
be Jehovah. Not when we read verse 50 where he says he<br />
does not seek his own glory. By ascribing the Exodus 3:14 to<br />
him at verse 58 makes Jesus a liar. Many trinitarians don't<br />
agree with this assumption that Jesus is saying that he is<br />
Jehovah/Yahweh here either. As for the NASB that James<br />
White uses, "Printing 'I AM' in capitals reflects the theory<br />
that Jesus is intending to make a claim connecting with the<br />
wording given in Ex.3:14. Full deity is attributed to Jesus<br />
Christ in the NASB."(The English <strong>Bible</strong> from KJV to NIV by<br />
Jack P. Lewis) That is why The New Living Translation has<br />
"Jesus answered, 'The truth is, I existed before Abraham was<br />
even born.' "<br />
The truth is, almost all of the scriptures that James R. White<br />
uses exclude the Holy Spirit, which is needed to make a<br />
TRIUNE God. This just proves my assertion that all<br />
trinitarians are closet Sabellianists. The scriptures are also<br />
very ambiguous. It is for this reason that many reference<br />
works state: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit<br />
doctrine appears in the New Testament.” The New<br />
Encyclopædia Britannica<br />
"The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament,<br />
where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father"<br />
MS Encarta 99<br />
"In the sense of a definition the doctrine of the Trinity is<br />
stated nowhere in Scripture." The Encyclopedia of the<br />
Lutheran Church<br />
Early Church Fathers<br />
Did the early church fathers believe in the same God as James<br />
R. White. Mr. White circles around this knowing full well<br />
that many of them held "heretical" views of the Trinity.<br />
"With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian,<br />
East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at<br />
least up the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/white.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:16:01 AM]<br />
<strong>Site</strong> <strong>Map</strong><br />
Is Jesus "Abaddon?"<br />
Is Jesus "Michael?"
The Forgotten Trinity-James R. White tries to Explain the Unexplainable!<br />
the denouement of the controversy, have been described as<br />
accepted orthodoxy." (Hanson, The Search for the Christian<br />
Doctrine of God, p.xix)<br />
"It is interesting that in the period before Nicaea a universal<br />
subordinationist view existed among the Fathers." (Rolf<br />
Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation)<br />
James White speaks passionately of the Nicene Creed which<br />
is evident on p.194 of his "King James Only Controversy".<br />
Even Grant Jeffrey states in his "The Handwriting of God"<br />
that 325 A.D.(the same year as the Creed, and Emperor<br />
Constantine was the overseer of it) is when Constantine was<br />
baptized as a Christian. But history shows that he was still a<br />
sun worshipper, he thought of himself as God-incarnate, he<br />
even held Arian views of God. In fact, he only made a<br />
death-bed conversion to Christianity in 337 A.D. The<br />
"Christianity" of James White and other trinitarians has<br />
become bastardized. It is an awkward reflection of the "faith<br />
which was once for all delivered unto the saints." Jude 3<br />
"One of the most effective ways of sharing the<br />
deity of Christ with one of Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
is...<br />
...to demonstrate that the New Testament identifies Jesus as<br />
Yahweh." J.R.White(The King James Only Controversy,<br />
p.205)<br />
He says that there are passages in the O.T. like Ps. 102:25-7<br />
that refer to Jehovah, but are used in reference to Jesus in the<br />
N.T. like Hebrews 1:10-12. This is true. Does that make Jesus<br />
Jehovah? NO! A scripture in Matthew 2:15 applies to Jesus,<br />
but the earlier reference in Hosea 11:1 applies to Israel. Does<br />
than make them the same? No! There is a prophecy about<br />
Elijah in Malachi 4:5 that is applied to John the Baptist in<br />
Matthew 17:12,13; 11:14. Is John the Baptist really Elijah?<br />
No! They just did a similar work. There are more examples,<br />
but these should suffice.<br />
Notice that argument starts with showing the DEITY of<br />
Christ. This is a smoke and mirrors ploy. By trying to show<br />
you the supposed DEITY of Christ, they are not showing you<br />
the TRIUNITY of their God.<br />
Greg Stafford<br />
In his NOTES in the back of his book, James White makes<br />
very unfavorable references(about 16) to Greg Stafford and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/white.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:16:01 AM]
The Forgotten Trinity-James R. White tries to Explain the Unexplainable!<br />
his book "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended". Click here for the<br />
other side of the story.<br />
Email Me<br />
Yes, James White has a web-page at: Alpha-Omega Ministries<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
Email Me<br />
Back To Main Page<br />
July 31 1999<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/white.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:16:01 AM]
Links and more information on the Book of Mormon, Mormons, and their Dangerous Side<br />
The Book of Mormon-Is It of God<br />
Inspired by Jose Luis Gil Alvarez<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> says, "However, if we or an angel from heaven should come preaching a different 'good news'<br />
from the one we already taught you, let him be accursed!" Galatians 1:8 21st Century NT. The Book of<br />
Mormon was given to Joseph Smith via the Angel Moroni. Mr. Alvarez says that the BOM is not a<br />
different gospel (good news), but it in fact complements the <strong>Bible</strong>. But what are the real facts on the<br />
BOM?:<br />
The French word "Adieu" closes the book of Jacob (Jacob 7:27). The Book of Mormon<br />
dates Jacob between 544 and 421 BC. The French language didn't even exist until around<br />
700 AD!<br />
Jesus Christ was to be born "at Jerusalem" according to Alma 7:10. However, the <strong>Bible</strong> says<br />
He was born at Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Luke 2:4).<br />
Helaman 14:20, 27 says that darkness covered the whole earth for 3 DAYS at Jesus' death.<br />
Matt. 27:45, Mark 15:33, and Luke 23:44 says it was 3 HOURS.<br />
In Alma 46:15, believers are called Christians in 73 BC. However, Acts 11:26 says that they<br />
were FIRST called Christians at Antioch (about 42 AD).<br />
2 Nephi 22:2 quotes Isaiah 12:2 almost verbatim from the King James <strong>Bible</strong>:<br />
"Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Lord Jehovah is my<br />
strength and my song; he also is become my salvation."<br />
However, this scripture in the BOM is dated at 559 and 545 BCE, the King James <strong>Bible</strong> was<br />
not released until 1611 AD.<br />
The Book of Mormon sounds Biblical because some 27,000 words are from the King James <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Hundreds of verses are copied verbatim. For example, II Nephi, chapters 12-24 are copied from Isaiah<br />
2-14, III Nephi 24 & 25 are copied from Malachi 3 & 4, and I Nephi 20-21 are copied from Isaiah 48-49<br />
except for a few additions in the Book of Mormon. Even the italicized words from the King James<br />
Version are copied! The words in the King James Version were NOT in the original text but were added<br />
by the translators to give clarity of thought. The King James Version was completed in 1611 AD and the<br />
Book of Mormon published in 1830. This proves that Nephi was written after 1611! for more click here<br />
Ether speaks of steel (7:8,9) and breakable windows (2:23) back in Abraham's time. Neither had been<br />
invented at that time.<br />
According to I Nephi 2:5-8, the River Laman emptied into the Red Sea. However, there are no rivers in<br />
Arabia and no river empties into the Red Sea.<br />
Ether 9:19 states that in the Americas before Christ was even born there were "horses, and asses, and<br />
there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially<br />
the elephants and cureloms and cumoms."<br />
Archeology denies this. The Smithsonian Institute has on record that "none of the principal Old<br />
<strong>World</strong> domesticated food, plants, or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New <strong>World</strong> in<br />
pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens,<br />
horses, donkeys, camels before 1492." Elephants came over from Africa many years after that. And<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alvarez.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:16:19 AM]
Links and more information on the Book of Mormon, Mormons, and their Dangerous Side<br />
cureloms and cumoms only existed in the mind of Joseph Smith.<br />
We are told in the Book of Mormon that Indians wrote many official records (Hel 3:13), scrolls (Mor<br />
5:23) and other writings (Mor. 9:2; 2 Nephi 9:18). But, every anthropologist will tell you that the<br />
American Indians never wrote books but used simple pictures to communicate.<br />
The Book of Mormon also implies that the North American Indians are descended from the Jews. But, it<br />
is generally accepted that Indians are "mongoloid", and are descended from east Asia.<br />
Since the KJV uses Elijah and Elias for the same person , Mormon prophet Joseph Smith mistakenly and<br />
interestingly had a vision of both (Doctrine and Covenants 110:12-16)!<br />
The Book of Mormon claims that God cursed the Indians with dark skin and that anyone who marries an<br />
Indian shall get dark skin too (2 Nephi 5:21-23; Jacob 3:3-9; Mormon 5:15-17; Alma 3:6-10). But, if this<br />
were true, there would be no part Indians, only full-blooded Indians.<br />
The statement is obviously false on a genetic level.<br />
The Book of Mormon states that when Indians accept Mormon teachings they will become, "white and<br />
delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:5-7; 3 Nephi 2:15). Because of this<br />
teaching, Latter-day Saints early in their history did a great deal of mission work among American<br />
Indians, and converted many. Even though today there are third, fourth and even fifth-generation Indian<br />
Mormons, there is not an instance of even one ever experiencing a lightening of the skin upon submitting<br />
to Mormon doctrine.<br />
The Book of Mormon Contradicts History and Archaeology<br />
1) No Mormon cities have ever been located using Book of Mormon. But, most cities in the <strong>Bible</strong> have<br />
been located with <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
2) No Mormon names have been found in inscriptions as a result of archeological finds. But, many<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> names have been found in secular inscriptions.<br />
3) Archaeologists have never successfully used the Book of Mormon as a guide in locating ancient ruins.<br />
But, archaeologists have in the past and still do successfully use the <strong>Bible</strong> as a guide in locating ancient<br />
ruins.<br />
4) The Book of Mormon was supposedly translated from "reformed Egyptian". Nothing on the western<br />
hemisphere has been found that even remotely resembles Egyptian. Officially "reformed Egyptian" does<br />
not even exist. But on the other hand, the <strong>Bible</strong> was translated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. We<br />
know these languages well. These languages are taught in today's<br />
universities.<br />
5) Furthermore, there are no manuscripts or "reformed Egyptian" writings available. None of the "gold<br />
Nephite plates" exist from which the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated to examine and<br />
compare the English translation of the Book of Mormon. However, the <strong>Bible</strong> is supported by thousands<br />
of Greek & Hebrew manuscripts along with at least 2 compete copies of the <strong>Bible</strong> from 300AD. All<br />
manuscripts are available to public at any time. Even archeological scholars of the Latter Day Saints<br />
admit that the Book of Mormon cannot be supported by archeology. Dee F. Green, who at one time<br />
served as editor of the University Archaeological Society Newsletter, published at the church's Brigham<br />
Young University, made it plain<br />
that archaeological evidence did not prove the Book of Mormon: "The first myth we need to eliminate is<br />
that Book of Mormon archaeology exists."<br />
Thomas Smart Ferguson was one of the most noted defenders of Book of Mormon archaeology. Mr.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alvarez.htm (2 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:16:19 AM]
Links and more information on the Book of Mormon, Mormons, and their Dangerous Side<br />
Ferguson planned the New <strong>World</strong> Archaeological Foundation which he hoped would prove the Book of<br />
Mormon through archaeological research. The Mormon Church granted hundreds of thousands of dollars<br />
to this organization, but in the end, Thomas Stuart Ferguson admitted that although the Foundation made<br />
some important contributions to New <strong>World</strong> archaeology, all his work with regard to the Book of<br />
Mormon was in vain. He admitted, in fact, that he had wasted twenty-five years of his life trying to prove<br />
the Book of Mormon.<br />
Concerning books written by Mormons to support the Book of Mormon through archeology,<br />
Dr. Ray T. Matheny, professor of Anthropology at the church's Brigham Young University<br />
stated, "While some people choose to make claims for the Book of Mormon through<br />
archaeological evidences, to me they are made prematurely, and without sufficient<br />
knowledge... I do not support the books written on this subject including The Messiah in<br />
Ancient American, or any other. I believe that the authors are<br />
making cases out of too little evidence and do not adequately address the problems that<br />
archaeology and the Book of Mormon present. I would feel terribly embarrassed if anyone<br />
sent a copy of any book written on the subject to the National Museum of Natural History -<br />
Smithsonian Institution, or other authority, making claims that cannot as yet be substantiated<br />
.... Speculation, such as practiced so far by Mormon authors has not given church members<br />
credibility." (Letter by Ray T. Matheny, dated Dec. 17, 1987).<br />
Conclusion: "'What you have is just plain charlatanry by Joseph Smith, who created Mormonism,' [Bill]<br />
Craig replied. 'It's interesting that Smith and his father, when they lived in New York, were obsessed<br />
with finding Captain Kidd's buried gold. Then what does Smith later claim he finds? Golden plates from<br />
the Angel Moroni, and then they disappear and are supposedly taken to heaven and never seen again.<br />
What he have here is an elaborate hoax, compared to the gospels, with the evident sincerity of the people<br />
in what they were reporting. The problem with Mormonism is basically one of credibility because of the<br />
unreliability of Joseph Smith and a blatant lack of corroboration. Unlike the gospels, whose credibility<br />
has been greatly enhanced by archaeology, archaeological discoveries have repeatedly failed to<br />
substantiate the Book of Mormon.'"<br />
p.71, The Case for Faith, by Lee Strobel<br />
Again:<br />
No Book of Mormon cities have ever been found!<br />
No Book of Mormon person has ever been found!<br />
No Book of Mormon nation has ever been found!<br />
No Book of Mormon name has ever been found!<br />
No Book of Mormon inscriptions have ever been found!<br />
No Book of Mormon artifacts have ever been found!<br />
No Book of Mormon scriptures have ever been found!<br />
Statement from Jose when I commended him for his incredible faith, as one would need such to believe<br />
in the Book of Mormon:<br />
More faith than you? I do not think so because LDS have never had a drunker as President<br />
like Rutherford."<br />
More faith than you? The society predicted the end of the world for 1914, 1915,1918, 1925,<br />
during the II <strong>World</strong> War, 1975 and before the XX century ends.<br />
More faith than you? When you have change doctrine dozens of times even preaching<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alvarez.htm (3 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:16:19 AM]
Links and more information on the Book of Mormon, Mormons, and their Dangerous Side<br />
contradictory statements.<br />
More faith than you? Who allow to their fellow to be killed because you do not accept bloo<br />
transfusion when there is nothing in the <strong>Bible</strong> against it.<br />
More faith than you? When you believe that the witnesses were the real victims in the Nazi<br />
Holocaust instead of the Jews.<br />
More faith than you? When the Society used double standard in Mexico and Malawi.<br />
If the LDS church had had this characteristics I would have left it long time ago but Thanks<br />
God It is His church."<br />
Reply: Well, Jose, start packing. As for Rutherford, I don't know anything about his drinking habits, but<br />
then, he is not my prophet.<br />
On Wednesday May 3, 1843, Joseph "... drank a glass of wine with Sister Jenetta Richards,<br />
made by her mother in England ..."<br />
On the night that Joseph was murdered he drank again. The LDS Church records describe in<br />
detail that, "The guard immediately sent for a bottle of wine, pipes, and two small papers of<br />
tobacco; and one of the guards brought them into the jail .... Dr. Richards uncorked the bottle, and<br />
presented a glass to Joseph [Smith], who tasted, as also Brother Tylor ...." (History of the<br />
Church, vol. 6, pg. 616)<br />
Was this for sacrament only? Let us look at John Taylor statement:<br />
"Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported that this was taken as a sacrament. It<br />
was no such thing our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent to revive us" (History of the<br />
Church, vol. 7, pg. 101)<br />
Did you know Joseph Smith had a liquor license to distribute alcohol from his home. Take a look at<br />
*History of the Church*, vol. 6, pg. 111, "Section 1 - Be it ordained by the City Council of<br />
Nauvoo, that the Mayor [Joseph Smith] of the city is hereby authorized to sell or give spirits of<br />
any quantity as he in his wisdom shall judge to be for the health and comfort, or convenience of<br />
such travelers or other persons as shall visit his house from time to time."<br />
Changing doctrines dozens of times?<br />
Have JW's changed their mind about the Trinity, Hellfire, the Immortality of the Soul, God's Name etc,<br />
or is that we have at time fine-tuned our understanding of certain scriptures, much like everyone else has<br />
(this is true of all Christian groups), but this point is harped on by anti-JW's as they really are only<br />
looking for points to misrepresent us by.<br />
What of the prophecies mention above?<br />
Most of these dates are embellished by Jose himself, and the rest, like those of all churches have been<br />
dealt at my page at 1975.htm and by Hal Fleming at http://jehovah.to/exegesis/general/prophetic.htm and<br />
http://jehovah.to/exegesis/translation/vandermeer.htm<br />
But I do find it interesting that you, a Mormon, accuse us of such, when compared to your own church<br />
founder and members, all others pale in comparison.<br />
PROPHECIES OF JOSEPH SMITH:<br />
Sept 21, 1823. Joseph Smith says in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:40, that Moroni told him<br />
that Isaiah 11 was "about to be fulfilled." Isaiah 11:6-11 prophesies that the wolf and the lamb, the calf<br />
and the lion, etc. shall dwell in peace together, and that nothing will "hurt or destroy," and that the earth<br />
shall be "full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alvarez.htm (4 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:16:19 AM]
Links and more information on the Book of Mormon, Mormons, and their Dangerous Side<br />
None of this has yet come to pass.<br />
Joseph had a revelation that Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery were to go to Toronto to sell the copyright<br />
of the Book of Mormon to raise money. Winter 1829-1830. Comp Hist 1:165<br />
They were completely unsuccessful.<br />
After this, Joseph Smith "inquired of God" and was told that some "revelations" are not from God. See<br />
David Whitmer's An Address To All Believers In Christ, Richmond, 1887, photo reprinting by Utah<br />
Lighthouse Ministry, pp 30-31.<br />
In his "Prayer and Prophecies," Joseph Smith while he was a prisoner in the jail at Liberty, Missouri,<br />
wrote that:<br />
● he will be avenged of his enemies by the sword (v. 5) (this is phrased as a prayer, but God had<br />
promised Joseph Smith that his prayers would be answered; he need only ask. D&C 29:6),<br />
● his friends will not charge him with transgressions (v. 10)<br />
● the hopes of those who do charge him with transgression shall have their hope blasted (v. 11)<br />
● God will "change the times and seasons" (v. 12)<br />
● Joseph Smith's enemies will be taken "in their own craftiness" (v. 12)"not many years hence, ...<br />
[his enemies] and their posterity shall be swept from under heaven, saith God, that not one of them<br />
is left to stand by the wall." (v. 15)<br />
● knowledge will be poured down from heaven upon the heads of the Mormons.<br />
None of these prophecies came to pass. Joseph Smith's enemies were not destroyed "by the sword;" but<br />
rather, the Mormons were successfully driven out of Missouri. His friends did charge him with<br />
transgressions within a few years, and those charges (in The Nauvoo Expositor) resulted directly in his<br />
arrest and destruction, as his enemies wished. God did not "change the times and seasons," whatever that<br />
may mean. The enemies of the Mormons achieved their goal of driving the Mormons out and destroying<br />
Joseph Smith. Their posterity was not destroyed, but survived. At least, there is no record of the<br />
anti-Mormon Missourians being swept away.<br />
And exactly what knowledge has been "poured down from heaven" upon the Mormons since 1839?<br />
NEW YORK WILL BE DESTROYED: Sept 22-23, 1832. D&C 84:114-115. New York, Albany and<br />
Boston will be destroyed if they reject the gospel. The "hour of their judgment is nigh..."<br />
FULFILLMENT: Newell K. Whitney and Joseph Smith went to New York, Albany, and Boston and<br />
preached there. These cities did not accept the gospel. They have not been destroyed.<br />
In *History of the Church* (5:336), Joseph Smith taught that the Second Coming of Christ would occur<br />
between 1890 and 1891. In 1835 he stated that it would happen 56 years later, and then in 1843, he<br />
declared that it would happen 48 years later.<br />
"I prophecy in the name of the Lord God-&let it be written: that the Son of Man will not come in the<br />
heavens until I am 85 years old, 48 years hence, or about 1890." Smith's Diary Smith died one year later,<br />
the Christ did not return in 1890.<br />
Apostle Parley Pratt wrote in 1838, "I will state as a prophesy, that there will not be an unbelieving<br />
Gentile upon this continent 50 years hence; and if they are not greatly scourged, and in a great measure<br />
overthrown, within five or ten years from this date, then the Book of Mormon will have proved itself<br />
false." Naturally, this prophecy has been deleted from modern versions of the Writings of Parley P. Pratt.<br />
There are many other prophecies also, listed by some at Doctrine and Covenants 42:39; 62:6; 69:8;<br />
84:114, 115; 88:87; 97:19, 22-24; 101:11, 17; 103:6, 7; 111:2, 4-10; 112:15, 19; 115:14, 17; 117:12, and<br />
in the Journal of Discourses 3:228, 253, 262; 4:40; 5:10, 93, 94, 164, 173-174, 274, 275 etc.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alvarez.htm (5 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:16:19 AM]
Links and more information on the Book of Mormon, Mormons, and their Dangerous Side<br />
We allow to their fellow to be killed because you do not accept blood transfusion when there is nothing<br />
in the <strong>Bible</strong> against it.<br />
Do you have documented evidence that we have not saved lives from refusing blood transfusions? In the<br />
age of AIDS, Hepatitis and other blood-borne diseases, JW's are pioneers in this field and opening the<br />
way for a safer alternative to Blood, this same blood that the <strong>Bible</strong> is against ingesting.<br />
The prohibition on blood was there before the Jewish system (Gen 9:4), during it (Le 17:3, 4 etc), and<br />
after it, in Christian times (Acts 15:28, 29).<br />
This is acknowledged by probably the smartest man in his history in The Chronology of Ancient<br />
Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184) he says: "This law [of abstaining from<br />
blood] was ancienter than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of<br />
Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the<br />
Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of<br />
abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of<br />
Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of<br />
the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from<br />
fornication."-Italics his.<br />
"It ought to be observed, that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and<br />
repeated to the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been<br />
revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made<br />
of perpetual obligation."-Benson's Notes, 1839, Vol. I, p. 43.<br />
What of early Christians?<br />
In 177 C.E., in Lyons (France), when Christians were falsely accused of eating children, a woman named<br />
Biblis said: "How would such men eat children, when they are not allowed to eat the blood even of<br />
irrational animals?"-The Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, V, I, 26.<br />
Tertullian backed the prohibition of ingesting ANY kind of blood in his work Apology (IX, 13, 14): "Let<br />
your error blush before the Christians, for we do not include even animals' blood in our natural diet. We<br />
abstain on that account from things strangled or that die of themselves, that we may not in any way be<br />
polluted by blood, even if it is buried in the meat. Finally, when you are testing Christians, you offer<br />
them sausages full of blood; you are thoroughly well aware, of course, that among them it is forbidden;<br />
but you want to make them transgress."<br />
Minucius Felix made the same point: "For us it is not permissible either to see or to hear of human<br />
slaughter; we have such a shrinking from human blood that at our meals we avoid the blood of animals<br />
used for food."-Octavius, XXX, 6.<br />
Somebody called Dr Laura and spewed the same kind of rhetoric that you did about blood transfusions.<br />
Here is the response they received from some doctors:<br />
Subject: Non-Blood Transfusions<br />
Date: 1999-03-04<br />
RE: Your Caller Concerned About Father's Refusal of Blood<br />
Transfusion<br />
"I'm a long-time listener, fan, supporter and defender of all<br />
that you teach, preach (& nag). Today a man called you and voiced<br />
concern over his father, a JW who is facing surgery and will refuse a blood<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alvarez.htm (6 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:16:19 AM]
Links and more information on the Book of Mormon, Mormons, and their Dangerous Side<br />
transfusion. After some personal chat with the man, you said you<br />
understood his feelings: he'd lost his wife and now stood to lose his father.<br />
The assumption his father was as good as dead without blood transfusion is a<br />
common one, but there's almost no truth to that anymore. At our hospitals, we have a<br />
Transfusion-Free Medicine & Surgery Program and the results are phenomenal. Outcomes<br />
are better and the hospital stays are shorter. We've eliminated the risks associated with blood<br />
transfusions (and there are many, ranging from the best known, AIDS, to Hepatitis C and<br />
other infections and complications).<br />
Our Palm Springs-area hospitals, part of the Tenet Healthcare Corp., are part of a<br />
network of Southern California facilities with this program. Included among them are our<br />
prestigious USC University Hospital and the USC/Norris Cancer Hospital. Hospitals and<br />
doctors all over the country are climbing aboard this bandwagon; I could introduce you to<br />
surgeons who haven't transfused blood in years.<br />
We're doing open heart, cancer, neuro, ortho (including total hip and knee<br />
replacement) neonatal and pediatric, gynecological and urological, transplant, and vascular<br />
surgeries successfully without blood transfusions. Much of this is due to advances in<br />
equipment and technology, and credit also goes to the JW population for their stand on<br />
blood which brought about these changes. Today, about 25% of tranfusion-free procedures<br />
are on people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, but who choose the option for health or<br />
personal reasons.<br />
This is emerging medicine. Your caller would have benefited from this<br />
knowledge (his father probably already knows about it). The day may<br />
come when blood transfusions are a thing of the past.<br />
So, let's put this canard to rest."<br />
Tom Wixon<br />
Manager, Marketing & Public Relations<br />
Desert Regional Medical Center<br />
John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital<br />
Phone: (760) 323-6690<br />
Fax: (760) 323-6580<br />
Or Call:<br />
Bradford Ray<br />
Transfusion Free Medical & Surgery Coordinator<br />
Desert Regional Medical Center<br />
John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital<br />
Phone: (760) 323-6311<br />
As for the Jews, NO JW would belittle the horrors the Jews had to go through in Nazi Germany. We JW's<br />
would not follow Hitler of our own accord. Not so for the Mormons. "In the Nazi era, the church<br />
authorities in Utah counseled German members to support the Third Reich" says Douglas Tobler, a<br />
professor at [Brigham Young University]."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alvarez.htm (7 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:16:19 AM]
Links and more information on the Book of Mormon, Mormons, and their Dangerous Side<br />
Double Standards?:If you are alluding to any crimes/indescrepancies, then do you have any criminal<br />
charges that you can refer to, to back yourself up? Or are these allegations based on ONE individual<br />
gloryhound? Are there any public charges brought forth in newspaper print of any of these (you know,<br />
like the Olympic bribery scandal the Mormon leaders are tied to in Salt Lake City, which is being<br />
investigated by the IOC)?<br />
What about the latest Mormon church cover up:<br />
Sex Case May Pry Open Finances of LDS Church - 7/17/01 - by Elizabeth Neff<br />
The Salt Lake Tribune "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is fighting to keep its finances<br />
confidential in an Oregon lawsuit seeking more than $1.5 billion in damages from the church. Plaintiff<br />
Jeremiah Scott, 22, of California, sued the church in Oregon state court after an LDS ward Sunday school<br />
teacher was convicted of repeatedly sexually abusing him in Portland<br />
when he was 11 years old. The suit alleges negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress,<br />
claiming church officials knew Franklin Richard Curtis was a pedophile, but did not warn Scott's parents<br />
before they took Curtis into their home. Church attorneys have told Scott the church is able to pay<br />
punitive damages of $162 million, or twice the amount of the largest punitive damages award in Oregon<br />
history. excerpt from http://www.sltrib.com/07172001/utah/114274.htm<br />
Or:<br />
Church fights plaintiff's attempt for force financial disclosure - AP - 7/17/01 Salt Lake City - "The<br />
Mormon church is fighting a sex-abuse victim's attempt to force it to disclose financial<br />
information." excerpt from<br />
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0717az-mormonsuirt-ON.html<br />
Further reading:<br />
God and the Holy Books by Hal Fleming<br />
Did the Book of Mormon Plagiarize the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE BOOK OF MORMON<br />
Salamander : The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders by Linda Sillitoe, Allen Roberst, Allen Dale<br />
Roberts<br />
The Kinderhook Plates-The Embarrasment of the Mormon Church<br />
Studies of the Book of Mormon by Brigham D. Madsen<br />
Early Mormon View of Jehovah and Jesus<br />
The Mormon Murders: A True Story of Greed, Forgery, Deceit, and Death by Steven Naifeh<br />
CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE BOOK OF MORMON AND THE BIBLE<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/alvarez.htm (8 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:16:19 AM]
The Triplepoint Theory of the Trinity<br />
Triple Point Theory of the Doctrine of the Trinity<br />
Some argue that the past is distinct from the present, which is also distinct from the future. Yet, they are<br />
not three 'times,' but only one.<br />
The same is said of space, where height is distinct from width and from depth, yet there is only one<br />
space.<br />
Walter Martin argued that water can be solid, liquid and gas, but there are not three 'waters,' but one.<br />
Note: I used to have a quote here from CARM (Xtian Apologetics and Research Ministry) where I had<br />
linked right back to their page. But Matt Slick of CARM had threatened me with legal action if I did not<br />
remove it. This is manipulation and information-control of the highest order. CARM also quotes<br />
extensively from the WTS without permission, yet they are completely 2 faced about all this. They are<br />
trying to control the flow of information. CARM has become the very thing they are trying to fight...a<br />
CULT organization. If CARM was more confident in their message, then I would not be conceived as a<br />
threat.<br />
-Editor, Oct 29 2000 I will have more in the future exposing the small-mindedness of CARM. For now you<br />
can read our exchange below.<br />
If we look at time though, we see that it is measured in regards to the earth's position against the sun's. So<br />
we have 2 representing 3.<br />
This problem is shared by matter. Let's take water for example. It can be liquid, gas and solid. But it is<br />
still hydrogen and oxygen. Again, we have 2 representing 3. Incidentally, Athanasius did the same thing<br />
with HOMOOUSIOUS(of the same<br />
substance/essence). He used 2 coins to show that they were made of the same<br />
stuff(copper), but the problem was the fact that it was still 2 coins.<br />
If we look at space, we have only ONE example where space is measurable according to the rules of<br />
Euclidean geometry<br />
It does not always follow this rule. We also have an added problem because it is believed that space with<br />
time are continuations of the same theory.(Space-Time Continuum). Or is space merely 6<br />
dimensions/sides with left and right, up and down, and forward and back.<br />
Does This All Sound New Age To You?<br />
It should. New Age is also a Trinity of ancient beliefs. It is:<br />
● Monism(a view that reality is basically one unitary organic whole)<br />
● Panentheism(the universe is God's body)<br />
● Pantheism(a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe)<br />
Like the Triple Point Theory, New Age also uses scientific mysticism.(see Dean C. Halverson, "Science:<br />
Quantum Physics and Quantum Leaps" also Stanislav Grof "Ancient Wisdom and Modern Science".<br />
It is the New Age Movement that teaches that all humans have a divine nature and that Jesus was the first<br />
New Age teacher to realize that he was God...while Trinitarians believe that Jesus, though he was a<br />
human, had a divine nature and that he is God.<br />
The New Age Movement continues to be a big influence on modern churches. "The most obvious reason<br />
for Christian acceptance of such material is the fact that Biblical influence and wordliness are common<br />
among Christians. The Church is failing to educate her people properly in these areas."<br />
"Christians are being influenced by the NAM(New Age Movement) principally because of ignorance of<br />
Biblical teachings and lack of doctrinal knowledge." The Facts on the New Age Movement<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/triplepoint.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:16:38 AM]
The Triplepoint Theory of the Trinity<br />
byAnkerberg&Weldon p. 17,25<br />
Even Robert Schuller promotes it in his "Peace of Mind through Possibility Thinking" pp. 130- 138<br />
We know from ancient history that the worship of triads(trinities) meant some form of pagan worship<br />
(see The Two Babylons) but interestingly, the Egyptian god Khepri, Re and Atum were three<br />
manifestations of the Sun (morning, midday, evening), yet it was still one Sun. Sound familiar? [See<br />
Egyptian Religion, by Siegfried Morenz, p. 142-146]<br />
The New Age Movement today is also associated with witchcraft and Satanism, as was stated by Satanist<br />
Dr. Michael Aquino on the Oprah Winfrey Show, February 17, 1988.<br />
Most Witches/Wiccans today believe in a nature-oriented mother-goddess who is viewed triunely as<br />
maiden, mother and crone. Three natures, one person. This "three natures one person" belief is the same<br />
that Trinitarians use to try and explain their 3-pronged deity.<br />
The ancient Egyptian Triad of Thebes(see below)had a leader, Amon, who also came to represent AIR, while the other members represented the MOON.<br />
"The indebtedness of Christian theological theory to ancient Egyptian dogma is nowhere more striking than in the doctrine of the Trinity. The very same terms used<br />
of it by Christian theologians meet us again in the inscriptions and papyri of Egypt." Professor Sayce Gifford Lectures and Hibbert Lectures<br />
Trying to define God with nature is obviously nothing new, but we have to ponder...."Stay away from<br />
people who are not followers of the Lord! Can someone who is good get along with someone who is<br />
evil? Are light and darkness the same?...Can people who know the Lord have anything in common with<br />
those who don't? DO IDOLS BELONG IN THE TEMPLE OF GOD?" 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 CEV<br />
"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it...pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist results. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine Trinity..." (Caeser<br />
and Christ, page 595)(Lawson, Newton & Durant)<br />
The Exchange between CARM and this web-site (Oct 29, 2000):<br />
CARM:You took my writing, copied it without permission, and misrepresented<br />
what I said... shame on you.<br />
Editor: You took the WTS writing's without permission, and misrepresented what they<br />
said. Shame on you. At least I had the decency to link back to you, so<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/triplepoint.htm (2 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:16:38 AM]
The Triplepoint Theory of the Trinity<br />
remove the log in your own eye buddy before you start pointing fingers.<br />
-Heinz<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com<br />
CARM: I want you to remove my material.<br />
You have misrepresented me and violated my copyright.<br />
You have 48 hours or I will report you.<br />
matt slick<br />
Editor: It may be true that your work is copyrighted.<br />
Unfortunately, from your perspective, this does not<br />
prevent one from incorporating parts of it in<br />
another academic, non-profit criticism of such work.<br />
I will refer you to the Fair Use section of United<br />
States' Copyright Law:<br />
___________________________________________________<br />
Fair Use Clause<br />
107: Limitatons on exclusive rights: Fair Use<br />
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106,<br />
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including<br />
such use by reproduction in copies or phone<br />
records or by any other means specified by that<br />
section, for purposes such as criticism, comment,<br />
news reporting, teaching (including multiple<br />
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or<br />
research, is not an infringement of copyright.<br />
In determining whether the use made of a work<br />
in any particular case is a fair use, the<br />
factors to be considered shall include:<br />
1.The purpose and character of the use, including<br />
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is<br />
for nonprofit educational purposes;<br />
2.the nature of the copyrighted work;<br />
3.the amount and substantiality of the portion used<br />
in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and<br />
4.the effect of the use upon the potential market<br />
for or value of the copyrighted work.<br />
(added pub. l 94-553, Title I, 101, Oct 19, 1976,<br />
90 Stat 2546)<br />
Remember Mr. Slick, the copyright thing goes both ways, and at least i had<br />
the decency to link back to you.<br />
"Listen dear friends. Isn't it clear by now that God operates quite differently? He chose the world's down-and-out as the kingdom's first citizens, with full rights and<br />
privileges. This kingdom is promised to anyone that loves God. And here you are abusing these same citizens! Isn't it the high and mighty who exploit you, and use<br />
the courts to rob you blind." James 2:6 The Message<br />
-Heinz<br />
CARM: true, and misrepresentation of it is sin and illegal.<br />
Now, remove it.<br />
Whether or not I did what was right or wrong, in YOUR opinion, does not<br />
change the fact that what YOU did was wrong.<br />
Now, remove it!<br />
Editor: Consider yourself removed. Your opinions are neither original nor ingenious.<br />
It should be noted that CARM still has entire pages on their web site of copyrighted quotes that does not belong to them, nor do they have permission to post it.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/triplepoint.htm (3 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:16:38 AM]
The Triplepoint Theory of the Trinity<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/triplepoint.htm (4 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:16:38 AM]
More Trinitarian Bias in the Certain <strong>Bible</strong> Versions<br />
Other Scriptures that are seldom used to promote a<br />
Trinitarian Rendering....<br />
And their counterparts.<br />
A "YES" means there is a trinitarian bias (or at least one that can be misconstrued that<br />
way)...a "NO" means there isn't.<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Zech 12:10 Jn 8:58 Eph 5:5 Phil 2:6 Col 1:15 Heb 1:6 Jude 4 Rev 3:14<br />
King James YES YES YES YES NO YES NO NO<br />
A.S.V. YES YES YES NO NO YES NO NO<br />
Darby YES YES YES N/A NO YES NO NO<br />
Young YES YES YES YES NO NO YES YES<br />
Translator's N.T. N/A YES YES YES YES YES NO YES<br />
21st Century NT N/A NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
Good News NO YES NO YES YES YES NO YES<br />
N.I.V. YES YES NO NO* NO YES NO YES<br />
New English N/A YES NO NO YES NO NO YES<br />
Fenton NO YES NO N/A YES NO NO YES<br />
New American NO YES NO NO NO YES NO YES<br />
N.A.S.B. YES YES YES NO NO YES NO NO<br />
New Living YES NO NO YES YES YES NO YES<br />
Diaglott N/A NO NO NO NO YES NO NO<br />
New <strong>World</strong> NO NO NO NO NO some editions NO NO<br />
Weymouth N/A YES NO YES NO YES NO NO<br />
N.R.S.V. NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES<br />
Unvarnished N/A NO NO YES NO NO NO YES<br />
R.S.V. NO YES NO NO NO YES NO NO<br />
N.K.J.V. YES YES YES YES NO YES NO NO<br />
Moffatt NO NO YES N/A NO YES NO YES<br />
Rev. Version YES YES YES NO NO YES NO NO<br />
Byington NO YES YES NO NO NO NO NO<br />
Lamsa YES NO NO YES NO YES NO NO<br />
Living <strong>Bible</strong> NO NO NO YES YES YES NO YES<br />
Jerusalem NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES<br />
New Jerusalem NO YES NO NO NO NO NO YES<br />
Goodspeed NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinitychart.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:16:45 AM]
More Trinitarian Bias in the Certain <strong>Bible</strong> Versions<br />
Tanakh NO N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A<br />
Beck YES NO YES YES NO YES NO YES<br />
Revised Eng. N/A YES NO NO YES NO NO YES<br />
Phillips N/A YES NO YES NO YES NO NO<br />
Berkeley NO YES NO YES NO YES NO NO<br />
Simple English N/A NO YES YES YES YES NO YES<br />
20th Century N/A NO YES YES YES NO NO NO<br />
Schonfield N/A NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
Jewish NT N/A YES NO NO YES YES NO YES<br />
Lattimore N/A N/A YES NO NO YES NO NO<br />
Montgomery N/A YES NO YES NO YES NO NO<br />
Amplified YES YES NO YES NO YES NO YES<br />
Newcome N/A NO NO NO NO NO NO YES<br />
Webster YES YES NO YES NO YES NO NO<br />
Message N/A YES YES YES YES YES NO NO<br />
C.E.V. NO N/A NO YES YES YES NO YES<br />
Williams N/A NO YES YES YES YES NO YES<br />
N.E.T. YES YES YES NO NO YES NO YES<br />
Hebrew N.V. YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES<br />
New Life N/A NO NO YES YES YES NO YES<br />
Green YES YES NO YES NO YES YES YES<br />
Worrell N/A YES YES NO YES YES NO NO<br />
God's Word N/A YES NO YES NO YES NO YES<br />
New Evangel. N/A YES YES YES NO YES NO YES<br />
Knox N/A YES N/A NO NO YES NO YES<br />
Wuest N/A YES NO YES YES YES NO YES<br />
Deaf N/A YES NO YES YES YES NO YES<br />
Confraternity N/A YES YES YES NO NO NO NO<br />
Basic English NO YES YES NO NO YES NO YES<br />
Douay YES YES NO YES NO NO NO NO<br />
K.&Lilly N/A NO NO YES NO NO NO NO<br />
Recovery N/A YES NO NO NO YES NO NO<br />
Tyndale N/A YES NO YES NO YES NO NO<br />
Aitken 1782 YES YES NO YES NO YES NO NO<br />
Examples:<br />
Zechariah 12:10,"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the<br />
spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto me whom they have pierced; and they shall<br />
mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinitychart.htm (2 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:16:45 AM]
More Trinitarian Bias in the Certain <strong>Bible</strong> Versions<br />
bitterness for his first-born. ASV (YES)<br />
"when they look on the one whom they have pierced." NRSV (NO)<br />
(Compare John 19:37)<br />
John 8:58,"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."<br />
KJV (YES)<br />
"I existed before Abraham was even born." New Living Translation (NO)<br />
Jesus was here referring to his pre-existence, as in Micah 5:2. He was making no claim to Exodus 3:14 as<br />
many say. The LXX renders Ex. 3:14 as eigo eimi ho ohn or "I am the Being" which is quite different, as<br />
is the hebrew which is Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh which can better be rendered "I will be what I will<br />
be"(Moffatt, NWT). Almost all <strong>Bible</strong> translate the word Ehyeh as "I will be" at Exodus 3:12. To change<br />
it 2 scriptures later is unfortunate.<br />
For more on John 8:58 click here.<br />
Ephesians 5:5," For this ye are [well] informed of, knowing that no fornicator, or unclean person, or<br />
person of unbridled lust, who is an idolater, has inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and God. Darby<br />
(YES)<br />
"in the Kingdom of Christ and of God." New American <strong>Bible</strong> (NO)<br />
This is not a strong one to use as the sentence structure supports two as individuals, just like saying "the<br />
Kingdom of the King and Queen."<br />
Philippians 2:6,"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" KJV<br />
(YES)<br />
"though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." RSV (NO)<br />
Ralph Martin, says in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: "It is questionable, however, whether the<br />
sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'"<br />
The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of its<br />
derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch<br />
violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally<br />
different, 'hold fast.'"<br />
The Greek says literally, "deemed not being-on-a-par-with-God a-thing-to-be-plucked (hARPAGMON)."<br />
An added problem is that the word hARPAGMON is not found anywhere<br />
else in extant Greek; clearly it derives from hARPAZW, "pluck," "grasp in the hand," "seize." But if<br />
equality-with-God is something Jesus doesn't deign to grasp, is it reasonable to suppose that it is<br />
something he actually already has?<br />
"A vigorous debate still continues around the hymnic passage. However, the suggestion that the hymn<br />
has been constructed with a strong allusion to Adam, or even modeled after the template of Adam<br />
christology is still persuasive." p. 282, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, by James D.G. Dunn<br />
If we read the preceeding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean<br />
that we should try to be equal with God? Of course not.<br />
Colossians 1:15,"who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation" Darby (NO)<br />
"he is the primacy over all created things" New English <strong>Bible</strong> (YES)<br />
It seems to me that everytime the phrase, "the firstborn of" is used, it is used as part of a group. If it is<br />
"the firstborn of" Israel(Ex. 6:14), it is one of the sons of Israel, if it is "the firstborn of" Pharoah(Ex.<br />
11:5) it is a member of the house of Pharoah, if it is "the firstborn of" beasts(Ex. 13:15) then it is an<br />
animal also. Why then should this rule be changed as it applies to "the firstborn of" creation. Obviously<br />
Jesus is a created being, as he was historically always thought to be Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22, "The<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinitychart.htm (3 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:16:45 AM]
More Trinitarian Bias in the Certain <strong>Bible</strong> Versions<br />
LORD formed me as the first of his works, the beginning of his deeds of old." Smith&Goodspeed<br />
For more on PRWTOTOKOS/Firstborn click here.<br />
Hebrews 1:6,"And let all the angels of God worship him." KJV (YES)<br />
"Let all the angels of God pay him homage." New English <strong>Bible</strong> (NO)<br />
The greek word used here, proskuneo, is not the highest form of worship, that is reserved for latreuo(Phil<br />
3:3, Acts 7:42, 24:14). Vine's Expository Reference explains proskuneo as "to make obeisance, do<br />
reverence to." It is used of a man(Matt 18:26) and to God and a King at the same time(1 Chronicles<br />
29:20 LXX), to the Dragon in revelations(Rev.13:4), to the Beast(Rev.13:4, 8, 12; 14:9,11), the image of<br />
the Beast(Rev 13:15, 14:11), to Demons(Rev. 9:20), and idols(Acts 7:43).<br />
Jude 4," our only Master, God, and Lord--Jesus Christ" Young's (YES)<br />
" our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." ASV (NO)<br />
The word "God" is omitted in the texts most <strong>Bible</strong>s use today(Nestle/Aland, UBS, Westcott and Hort),<br />
and even where they are included, it can be translated such as it is in the KJV: "denying the only Lord<br />
God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."<br />
Revelation 3:14,"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the<br />
creation of God" KJV (NO)<br />
"These things saith the Amen, the witness--the faithful and true--the chief of the creation of God"<br />
Young's (YES)<br />
Arche can have other meaning besides "beginning", but when it is followed by the same kind of<br />
expression (genitive) as it does in Rev 3:14, it has the meaning of a beginning or the first part of<br />
something. Below are some examples from the KJV:<br />
Matt 24:8 All these [are] the beginning of sorrows.<br />
Mark 13:19 from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time<br />
John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galile<br />
Phil 4:15 in the beginning of the gospel<br />
Heb 3:14 if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end<br />
Heb 7:3 having neither beginning of days<br />
2 Peter 3:4 having neither beginning of days<br />
Email me<br />
Back To Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinitychart.htm (4 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:16:45 AM]
The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity<br />
"God can in no way be described." -- Plato (Father of the pagan Trinity) "The Trinity itself is a mystery or<br />
a "holy secret". It is incomprehensible. It can never be fully understood." -- Dr. Walter Martin<br />
1 Corinthians 14:33 -- "God is not the author of confusion. "<br />
Of course, that doesn't stop the above writer, along with B. Larson, R. Rhodes, James R. White and others<br />
from trying to explain the unexplainable. The above writers will use scriptures like John 1:1,18; 8:58; Acts<br />
20:28; Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:8 etc.<br />
Have you ever noticed that <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionaries and most scholarly religious encyclopedias and reference<br />
works don't use those scriptures. Why is that? Because they don't prove a trinity. For a trinity you need<br />
"THREE".<br />
In the above scriptures, and in almost all so-called "Trinity Proof" texts, the holy spirit is woefully<br />
under-represented. Using the above scriptures is less trinitarian and more Sabbelianism/Modalism. Just like<br />
this quotation from the myopic James R. White, "The <strong>Bible</strong> teaches that Jesus Christ is the eternal Word, the<br />
Creator of all things, the mighty God, as the Nicene Creed states it so succinctly, ...there is no Christianity<br />
where this truth is denied. Of this there can be no question." (The King James Only Controversy)<br />
So what is this "truth" of the Nicene Creed?<br />
It was 325 A.D. at Nice that the doctrine of the Trinity was rammed<br />
through by Athanasius (who in the future would use strong-arm tactics that<br />
would make a modern day mobster proud) in a Council that was overseen<br />
by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough, thought of himself as<br />
God-incarnate. (Constantine was a Sun Worshipper and only made an<br />
official conversion to "christianity" on his deathbed). Roman coins of the<br />
period still portrayed the image of the sun God despite the sudden<br />
adoption/conversion of Christianity. Many of those present at the Council<br />
Of Nicaea were in fact opposed the doctrine of the Trinity and had sided<br />
with Arius, who was quite adept and effective in proving from the<br />
scriptures that the Son was separate and subordinate to God. Much less<br />
effective was Athanasius's theory of homoousion which meant "made of<br />
the same stuff". By this reasoning though, you could have 2 copper coins that were homoousion because they<br />
were of the same substance...so couldn't the Word (Logos) also be a second and separate god. Even after the<br />
Nicene Creed, the doctrine of the Trinity was hotly debated for decades and centuries after.<br />
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AFTER NICAEA<br />
325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify<br />
the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance"<br />
(homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered<br />
Sun presided over this council.<br />
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:<br />
"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula<br />
expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the<br />
Father'."<br />
The American Academic Encyclopedia states:<br />
"Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he<br />
had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity2.htm (1 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:16:53 AM]
The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity<br />
At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.<br />
328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.<br />
328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.<br />
335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.<br />
337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.<br />
339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.<br />
341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian<br />
Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the<br />
Nicene Creed.<br />
343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.<br />
346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.<br />
351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.<br />
353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.<br />
355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.<br />
356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.<br />
357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as<br />
unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.<br />
359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however,<br />
specify how the Son is like the Father.<br />
361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius' positions.<br />
380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.<br />
381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor<br />
Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is<br />
re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters.<br />
If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not<br />
have been any conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you<br />
would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It would be like me being a member of the<br />
Communist Party. I would join it knowing that they do not believe in the ownership of private property, no<br />
conflict. But now, say after I have been a member of the party for a few years, someone decides to introduce<br />
a proposal that we allow the ownership of private property, not everyone in the party is going to agree, the<br />
result is conflict. This is similar to what happened in the church. It was not the established teaching, and<br />
when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict.<br />
It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication<br />
throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the<br />
outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled<br />
and recalled depending on who is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and<br />
homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.<br />
This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula.<br />
In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity2.htm (2 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:16:53 AM]
The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity<br />
whichever way Theodosius favors, that is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened<br />
next.<br />
In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the<br />
Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the<br />
theology of the church.<br />
The big difference now was that there was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the state<br />
religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years. It would<br />
undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was<br />
willing to back it up. Debates however, would continue for years to come. Juan Baixeras<br />
"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far way from me. Their worship of me is useless,<br />
because they teach man-made rules as if they were doctrines." Matt. 15:8 Jewish N. T.<br />
From the Webmaster: For the most part, the trinitarian church has silenced critical thought and dealt<br />
treacherously with anyone of open mind and free thought. In the 1670's, Isaac Newton quietly studied the<br />
Trinity and came to the conclusion that the doctrine was foisted on the Church by Athanasius in order to<br />
swell the numbers and fill the coffers. He concluded Arius was right and he claimed that the <strong>Bible</strong> had<br />
prophesied the Rise of Trinitarianism("this strange religion of the west", the cult of 3 equal gods) as the<br />
abomination of desolation. -- The Rise of Science and Decline of Orthodox Christianity. A study of Kepler,<br />
Descartes and Newton. After Newton, others such as Matthew Tindal, John Toland, Gottfried Arnold, Goerg<br />
Walch, Giovanni<br />
But, Henry Noris and Hermann Samuel Reimarus argued Arianism (unitarianism) and opened up a new era<br />
of criticism. It is only logical for people to argue after this, "What else has the Church lied to us about?"<br />
This unfortunately led to Higher Criticism of the bible in the 19th century which in turn, paved the way for<br />
evolutionism and Neitzsche's death of God. Is it not logical that to replace a polytheistic trinity, man would<br />
have to become gods themselves.<br />
The Superman would replace God and declare war on old christian values. (Thus Spake Zarathustra 1883)<br />
Can this happen to the message of Christ? It can if the message is diluted. Albrecht Ritschl(1822-89) saw the<br />
Trinity doctrine as flagrantly Hellenistic. It had corrupted the Christian message by introducing an alien<br />
"layer of metaphysical concepts, derived from the natural philosophy of the Greeks," and it had nothing to<br />
do with early christianity.<br />
Quotes:<br />
"The doctrine of the Trinity is a post-scriptural attempt to bring to coherent expression diverse affirmations<br />
about God..." -- Grolier Encyclopedia<br />
"Most assuredly, I am saying to you, A slave is not greater than his master, nor even one who is sent on a<br />
mission greater than the one who sent him." -- John 13:16 (Kenneth S. Wuest)<br />
"The Chalcedonian formula [the council's decision declaring Jesus both God and man] makes genuine<br />
humanity impossible. The conciliar definition says that Jesus is true man. But if there are two natures in him,<br />
it is clear which will dominate. And Jesus becomes immediately very different from us. He is omniscient,<br />
omnipotent, omnipresent. He knows the past, present and future...He knows exactly what everyone is<br />
thinking and going to do. This is far from ordinary human experience. Jesus is tempted but cannot sin<br />
because he is God. What kind of temptation is this? It has little in common with the kinds of struggles we are<br />
familiar with." To Know and Follow Jesus, Roman Catholic writer Thomas Hart (Paulist Press, 1984), 46.<br />
"And the LORD said...'you cannot see my face, for no man may see me and live.'" Ex. 33:19, 20 NIV<br />
"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity<br />
in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics)<br />
"Surely Christ has not been divided." 1 Corinthians 1:13 Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity2.htm (3 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:16:53 AM]
The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity<br />
Historian Will Durant: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas<br />
of a divine trinity." And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: "The trinity was a major<br />
preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed<br />
in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian<br />
theology."<br />
"He is exactly like God himself who is invisible. Of all creation, he was the first to be produced." Col 1:15<br />
21st Century NT<br />
"The New Testament does not actually speak of tri-unity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the<br />
N.T."—Kittels Theological Dictionary of the N.T.<br />
"Jehovah describes him [Christ] as occupying the seat of authority and wielding the sceptre of dominion over<br />
all foes." Hebrews 1:13 The Epistles of Paul in Modern English by George Baker Stevens<br />
"The doctrine of the Trinity has in the West come into increasing question...there has for long been a<br />
tendency to treat the doctrine as a problem rather than as encapsulating the heart of the Christian Gospel."<br />
The Promise of the Trinity, Gunton, p.31<br />
"Thus says the LORD...beside me there is no god." Is 44:6 English Standard Version<br />
"Despite their orthodox confession of the Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere<br />
monotheists. We must be willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false,<br />
the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged." Karl Rahner, The Trinity, J.<br />
Donceel, trans, p.10<br />
"There was no theoretical framework in Scripture that explained the<br />
relationship of the Father, Son and Spirit.No Old Testament author addressed<br />
the issue of a separate being, the Holy Spirit, and its ('her,' in Hebrew)<br />
relationship to the Father; the Spirit of God was God's 'spirit' or breath<br />
that carried his power.<br />
Likewise, no New Testament author addressed the interrelationship of Father,<br />
Son, and Spirit. There are triadic formulations in the New Testament, such<br />
as the command to baptize "in the name of the Father and the Son and the<br />
Holy Spirit" (Matt 28:19), and the prayer of the blessing that "the grace of<br />
the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy<br />
Spirit be with you all" (2 Cor. 13:14). But all of these have to do with<br />
how God relates to the church. None explains how the Father, Son, and Holy<br />
Spirit relate to each other in essence. That task fell to a particularly<br />
influential group of 'heretics' - Gnostic Christians of the second century."<br />
The River of God, by Gregory J. Riley, p. 62<br />
"Why have Christians generally failed to grasp the grammar of the Trinity as the "fundamental grammar of<br />
Christian theology"? Why the "strange paucity of Trinitarian hymns in our modern repertoire of praise"? Or<br />
for that matter, in evangelical praise songs, hymns and choruses" Christianity Today, April 28 , 1997, p.28<br />
"Whatever else might be said about the doctrine of the Trinity, it is safe to say that in the history of Christian<br />
doctrine there has been no single, universally accepted articulation of the specific way in which it is to be<br />
understood. Every attempt to<br />
articulate the doctrine has had its detractors and has been viewed as erring in one direction or the other.<br />
Articulations stressing the unity of God to the relative de-emphasis of divine threeness have most often been<br />
labelled modalist or Sabellian: whereas, those stressing the threefold existence of deity to the relative neglect<br />
of divine unity have been castigated as as tri-theistic or polytheistic. It has seemed next to impossible to<br />
achieve a balanced presentation of the triune nature of God that is both<br />
relatively detailed and also acceptable to most sincere Christians with theological sensitivity." Logic, Morris,<br />
pp. 207, 208<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity2.htm (4 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:16:53 AM]
The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity<br />
". . . it is a remarkable fact, that no single passage or verse of the Old or New Testament is received as an<br />
assured proof-text of the trinity by the unanimous consent of all Trinitarian writers: some ground their faith<br />
on one passage, some on another."<br />
A Religious Encyclopædia: or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, Based on<br />
the Real-Encyklopädie of Herzog, Plitt, and Hauck."<br />
"Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 1:3 Revised<br />
Webster <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"But how can such weak creatures ever take in so strange, so difficult and so abtruse a doctrine as this [the<br />
Trinity], in the explication and defence wherof multitudes of men, even men of learning and piety, have lost<br />
themselves in infinite subtleties of dispute and endless mazes of darkness? And can this strange and<br />
perplexing notion of three real persons going up to make one true God be so necessary and important a part<br />
of that Christian doctrine, which, in the Old Testament and the New, is represented as so<br />
plain and so easy, even to the meanest understandings."<br />
William G. Eliot, Discourses on the Doctrines of Christianity (American Unitarian Association,<br />
Boston,1877), pp. 97, 100<br />
"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth." Ps 83:18<br />
King James Version<br />
The Eastern Theologian John of Damascus (c. 675-749) once used a very curios argument in favour of<br />
icons...John replied to the criticism are unscriptural by admitting the fact, and adding that you will not find in<br />
scripture the Trinity, of homousian or the two natures of Christ either. But we know those doctrines are true.<br />
And so, having acknowledged that icons, the Trinity and the incarnation are innovations, John goes on to<br />
urge his reader to hold fast to them as venerable traditions delivered to us by the Fathers...He was not the<br />
only one to use this argument: Theodore the Studite (759-826) adopted it too. It brings out an odd feature to<br />
Christianity, its mutability and speed with which innovations come to be vested with religious solemnity to<br />
such an extent that anyone who questions them find himself regarded as the dangerous innovator and<br />
heretic." The Christ of Christendom by Don Cupitt, as used in The Myth of God Incarnate, p. 133<br />
"Jesus retorted, "Get away from me Satan!, it is written: 'Jehovah your God you should worship and him<br />
alone you should serve.'" Matthew 4:10 21st Century NT<br />
Paul, of course, did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity, and he often appears<br />
to operate with a subordinationist christology (cf. 15:28)." (Richard Hays, 1<br />
Corinthians, page 192).<br />
"The doctrine of God as existing in three persons and one substance is not demonstrable by logic or by<br />
scriptural proofs.”--Hastings Dict. of The <strong>Bible</strong> -Revised edition by F.C. Grant & H.H. Rowley<br />
"Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me,<br />
and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Is 43:10<br />
ASV<br />
In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by<br />
Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first<br />
Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of<br />
the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."<br />
"Is there not one Father of us all? Did not one God create us? Why then, do we break faith with one another,<br />
profaning the covenant of our ancestors." Malachi 2:10 NJB<br />
"We must not contend that the Nicene Creed looks like the New Testament. The creed is an exercise in<br />
systematic theology. Although there are portions of the New Testament which are highly theological, the one<br />
thing we cannot say is that any of it is systematic theology as it was practiced three hundred years later."<br />
Beisner, E. Calvin's "God in Three Persons." (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, c1984), footnote 7,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity2.htm (5 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:16:53 AM]
The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity<br />
p. 145. BT109 .B45 1984 / 84-051210.<br />
"Throughout the Jewish scriptures, God never "screened or veiled his divine nature." In fact, Isaiah<br />
unequivocally proclaimed that the Almighty did not reveal Himself in darkness or in a hidden or veiled<br />
fashion. In Isaiah 45:19 the prophet, speaking in the Almighty's name, declares that,<br />
'I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob's descendants,<br />
"Seek Me in vain." I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right.'<br />
Although the belief in the unity of God is taught and declared on virtually every page of the Jewish<br />
scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is never mentioned anywhere throughout the entire corpus of the<br />
Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong>. This is understandable when we consider that primitive Christianity, in its earliest stages, was<br />
still monotheistic. The authors of the New Testament were completely unaware that the church they had<br />
fashioned would eventually embrace a pagan deification of a triune deity. Although the worship of a<br />
three-part godhead was well known and fervently venerated throughout the Roman Empire and beyond in<br />
religious systems such as Hinduism and<br />
Mithraism, it was quite distant from the heretical Judaism out of which Christianity emerged. However, when<br />
the Greek and Roman rather than the Hebrew began to dominate the church, it created a theological disaster<br />
from which Christendom has never recovered. By the end of the fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity<br />
was firmly<br />
in place as a central tenet of the church, and strict monotheism was formally rejected by Vatican councils in<br />
Nicea and Constantinople." Rabbi Singer<br />
"though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered" Heb 5:8 ASV<br />
"Only one, the Father, can absolutely be termed the ‘only true God,’ not at the same<br />
time Christ (who is not even in I John 5:20 the true God…). Jesus, in unity with the<br />
Father, works as his commissioner (John 10:30), and is His representative (John 14:9, 10) (Professor H.A.W.<br />
Meyer, Commentary on the New Testament. The quotation is from his comment on John 17:3).<br />
The son honours his father, the slave stands in awe of his master. But if I am indeed father, where is the<br />
honour due to me? And if I am indeed master, where is the awe due to me? says Yahweh Sabaoth to you<br />
priests who despise my name." Malachi 1:6 NJB<br />
"It was impossible for the Apostles to identify Christ with Jehovah. Psalm 110:1 and<br />
Malachi 3:1 prevented this" (R.A Bigg, D.D. Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical<br />
History, Oxford, in International Critical Commentary on I Peter).<br />
"A classic contrast is between [John] 10:30, 'The Father and I are one,' and 14:28, 'The Father is greater than<br />
I.' It is the perdurance of such lower christological statements which shows that the Johannine community<br />
had not made a rival God out of Jesus, but it also shows that the christology of John still stands at quite a<br />
distance from the christology of Nicaea wherein the Father is not greater than the Son." (R.E. Brown "The<br />
Johannine Community" 53)<br />
"glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 15:6 ASV<br />
"During these years [the first three centuries of Christianity's existence], most Christians vaguely thought of<br />
Jesus as God; yet they did not actually think of him in the same way as they thought of God the Father. They<br />
seldom addressed prayers to him, and thought of him somehow as second to God--divine, yes, but not fully<br />
God" (Robert Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings, 179).<br />
"Does this mean that early Christian theology was "nothing but" paganism with a biblical accent? Or, to<br />
paraphrase Numenius, was Christianity no more than Plato with a faint Palestinian accent?...We should not<br />
say it was "no more than" the sum of its parts, but the reality of the pagan environment cannot be neglected."<br />
Gods and the One God, Robert M. Grant, p. 170<br />
"We have one Father, God." John 8:41 Lamsa<br />
"Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it" (Soren<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity2.htm (6 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:16:53 AM]
The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity<br />
Kierkegaard, cited in Time magazine, Dec. 16, 1946, p. 64).<br />
Emil Brunner, in Dogmatics I:205, writes: "On the triadic passages in the N. T., see below. The only<br />
trinitarian passage which is found in some ancient versions of the <strong>Bible</strong> (1 John 5:7) is regarded as not<br />
genuine."<br />
"You have no need to worry over mysteries. Do not meddle with matters that are beyond you; what you have<br />
been taught already exceeds the scope of the human mind. For many have been misled by their own notions,<br />
wicked presumption having warped their judgement." Ecclus. 3:22-24 New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"The attempt to superimpose these three abstract categories [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] on the Godhead<br />
and then to claim a Trinity has been discovered, is misleading in the extreme. It is no genuine Trinity, but<br />
merely a useful and at times quite penetrating analysis of three aspects of what is involved in making<br />
something. But there<br />
is no real reason to stop at three, nor is there any validity in isolating idea, energy, and power from a complex<br />
process with an indefinite number of terms" (CC Richardson, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 139-140).<br />
"There is...one God and Father of all" Eph 4:4,6 ASV<br />
"In his theological interpretation of the idea of God, Arius was<br />
interested in maintaining a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In<br />
defense of the oneness of God, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of<br />
essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, as stressed by<br />
the theologians of the Neoplatonically influenced Alexandrian school. From<br />
the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common<br />
basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New<br />
Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on<br />
the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have<br />
no foundation in the New Testament--such as the question of the sameness of<br />
essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine<br />
persons." Brittanica.com<br />
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." 1Cor 3:19 Tyndale<br />
"The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official. The<br />
subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . . Finally, cart-loads of saints raised<br />
to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades,<br />
it was the most polytheistic religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This<br />
untenable contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt with by<br />
accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned<br />
aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted<br />
them as heathen or pagan. "<br />
"The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of<br />
more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered<br />
and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus<br />
appendages." -- The Doubter's Companion (John Ralston Saul)<br />
"It isn't for me to say who will sit at my right side and at my left. That is for my Father to say." -- Matthew<br />
20:23 - Contemporary English Version<br />
"In brief, the ante-Nicene Fathers taught the real distinction and divinity of the three persons . . . but in their<br />
attempts at a philosophical interpretation of the Dogma, the ante-Nicene Fathers used certain expressions<br />
which would favor sudordinationism. In the late 17th century, the Socinians cited these expressions that the<br />
ante-Nicene tradition agreed rather with Arius than with Athanasius . . . Catholic theologians commonly<br />
defend the orthodoxy of these early Fathers, while admitting that certain of their expressions were inaccurate<br />
and eventually dangerous." -- Colliers Encyclopedia<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity2.htm (7 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:16:53 AM]
The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity<br />
"Yeshua(Jesus) said to him, 'Why are you calling me good? No one is good except God!" -- Mark 10:18 -<br />
Jewish New Testament - D.H. Stern<br />
"You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the <strong>Bible</strong>. St Paul has the<br />
highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself explicitly<br />
claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by<br />
Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest).<br />
"Hear, O Israel, the lord our God is one lord." -- Deuteronomy 6:4 (Douay)<br />
"No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and<br />
uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity . . . Nor was the unity of the Supreme<br />
Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil<br />
government, wielded at the will of the Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like<br />
another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of<br />
thousands of martyrs . . . The Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so<br />
incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how<br />
can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves,<br />
also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the<br />
most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such person,<br />
gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a<br />
wreck." -- Thomas Jefferson: Letter to James Smith, Dec. 8, 1822 For more Letters from T.<br />
Jefferson see:<br />
http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/tjletters.html<br />
". . . there is only one God." Romans 3:30 - New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Thus by your own tradition, handed down among you, you make God's word null and void." -- Mark 7:13 -<br />
New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to<br />
the Father" -- MS Encarta 99<br />
"For God is one; and one is mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus." -- 1 Timothy 2:5 -<br />
Montgomery NT<br />
"The word itself does not occur in the <strong>Bible</strong>...The explicit formula was thus formulated in the post-biblical<br />
period, although the early stages of its development can be seen in the NT. Attempts to trace the origin still<br />
earlier (to the OT literature) cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship, and these attempts must be<br />
understood as retrospective interpretations of this earlier corpus of Scripture in the light of later theological<br />
developments." The Harper Collins Study <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary<br />
"We are judged to be heretics because we can no longer believe in essence, person, nature, incarnation, as<br />
they want us to believe. If these things are necessary for salvation, it is certain that no poor peasant Christian<br />
be saved, because he could never understand them in all his life." -- Francis David (1510-79)<br />
"No one has seen God at any time." -- John 1:18 - New King James <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Christ's deity was "repugnant not only to sound Reason, but also to the holy Scriptures." -- Fostus Socinus<br />
(1539-1604)<br />
". . . the Father is greater than I." -- John 14:28 - New Revised Standard Version<br />
Catholic theologian Hans Küng in Christianity and the <strong>World</strong> Religions, "Even well-informed Muslims<br />
simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity . . . The<br />
distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy<br />
Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and<br />
Latin. Muslims find it all a word game . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God's<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity2.htm (8 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:16:53 AM]
The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity<br />
oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?"<br />
"I have come to you from God. I am not here on my own, but he sent me." -- John 8:42 - Living <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"The word Trinity is not found in the <strong>Bible</strong> . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church<br />
till the 4th century." -- The Illustrated <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary<br />
"There is no God but one." -- I Corinthians 8:4<br />
And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God." -- New<br />
Catholic Encyclopedia<br />
"one lord, one faith, one baptism." -- Ephesians 4:5 - Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition<br />
The Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "In Scripture there is as<br />
yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are<br />
denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas<br />
is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about<br />
A. D. 180 . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of<br />
trinitas in Tertullian." However, this is no proof in itself that<br />
Tertullian taught the Trinity. The Catholic work Trinitas - A<br />
Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example,<br />
notes that some of Tertullian's words were later used by others<br />
to describe the Trinity. But then it states: "But hasty<br />
conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not<br />
apply the words to Trinitarian theology."<br />
". . . let your will be done, not mine." -- Luke 22:42,43 -<br />
Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that<br />
the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."<br />
"For there is but one God and one mediator between God and men - Christ Jesus." -- 1 Timothy 2:5<br />
Weymouth<br />
Jesuit Fortman: "The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no<br />
explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any<br />
trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."<br />
"And this is the eternal life, that they know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom thou didst send."<br />
-- John 17:3 - Worrell N.T.<br />
The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New<br />
Testament."<br />
"The Lord our God is one Lord." -- Mark 12:29 - Webster's <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Bernhard Lohse in A Short History of Christian Doctrine: "As far as the New Testament is concerned, one<br />
does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."<br />
"Yet to us there is one God the Father, Of whom are all things, and we for him; And one Lord Jesus Christ,<br />
through whom all things are, and we through him." -- 1 Corinthians 8:6<br />
Rotherham - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:<br />
"The N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity."<br />
"The <strong>Bible</strong> lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence.",<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity2.htm (9 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:16:53 AM]
The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity<br />
said Protestant theologian Karl Barth<br />
"God is supreme over Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 11:3 - Good News <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Yale University Professor E. Washburn Hopkins: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was<br />
apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it." -- Origin and Evolution of Religion.<br />
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- 1 Peter 1:3 - New Berkeley Version<br />
Tom Harpur states, "As early as the 8th century, the Theologian St. John of Damascus frankly admitted what<br />
every modern critical scholar of the NT now realizes: that neither the Doctrine of the Trinity nor that of the 2<br />
natures of Jesus Christ is explicitly set out in scripture. In fact, if you take the record as it is and avoid<br />
reading back into it the dogmatic definitions of a later age, you cannot find what is traditionally regarded as<br />
orthodox Christianity in the <strong>Bible</strong> at all." -- For Christ's Sake.<br />
"I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." -- John 20:17 - New International<br />
Version<br />
Historian Arthur Weigall: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New<br />
Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after<br />
the death of our Lord." -- The Paganism in Our Christianity<br />
"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." 1Cor 1:3 ASV<br />
The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in<br />
the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament:<br />
'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' -- Deut. 6:4<br />
. . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . By the end<br />
of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." --<br />
Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976)<br />
"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception." -- Colossians 2:8 - New<br />
American Standard <strong>Bible</strong><br />
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly<br />
established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the<br />
4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among<br />
the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." -<br />
(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.<br />
"In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." -- Matthew 15:9 - Common<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>-RSV<br />
The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian<br />
[believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one.<br />
Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God;<br />
it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.<br />
"God is not a man to lie, Or a son of man to change his purpose" Numbers 23:19 The Complete <strong>Bible</strong> by<br />
Ferrar Fenton<br />
"It is fair to say that no one in the first century was a Trinitarian as the doctrine was later defined in the<br />
creeds of the fourth century." p. 55 The River of God by G.J. Riley<br />
"No one has ever seen deity, but Jesus." -- John 1:18 - Simple English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities<br />
dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the<br />
three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity2.htm (10 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:16:53 AM]
The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity<br />
fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."<br />
-- (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.<br />
"Yet about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the Son; no one but the<br />
Father." -- Mark 13:32 - Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th<br />
centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical<br />
belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined<br />
in terms of "person" and "nature: which are Gk philosophical<br />
terms; actually the terms do not appear in the <strong>Bible</strong>. The<br />
trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in<br />
which these terms and others such as "essense" and "substance"<br />
were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."<br />
Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong> by John L. McKenzie, S.J. p. 899<br />
"Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the<br />
blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever<br />
says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever<br />
speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." -- Matt 12;31,32<br />
- Revised Standard Version<br />
Regarding the Nicene Council and those that followed, Hans Kung in Christianity says, "The conciliar<br />
decisions plunged Chrisitianity into undreamed-of theological confusions with constant entanglements in<br />
church politics. They produced splits and sparked off a persecution of heretics unique in the history of<br />
religion. This is what Christianity became as it changed its nature from a persecuted minority to a majority<br />
persecuting others."<br />
"By this all will know that you are disciples of mine, if you have love for each other." -- John 13:35 Byington<br />
-- For much, much more on the Trinity, click here.<br />
"Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything." --<br />
Robert A. Heinlein<br />
Well I like to be fair, so I will now give the other side a chance to explain their belief:<br />
"We are to consider the order of those persons in the Trinity described in the words before us in Matthew<br />
28:19. First the Father and then the Son and then the Holy Ghost; everyone one of which is truly God. This is<br />
a mystery which we are all bound to believe, but yet must exercise great care in how we speak of it, it being<br />
both easy and dangerous to err in expressing so great a truth as this is. If we think of it, how hard it is to<br />
imagine one numerically divine nature in more than one and the same divine person. Or three divine persons<br />
in no more than one and the same divine nature. If we speak of it, how hard it is to express it. If I say, the<br />
Father, Son and Holy Ghost be three, and everyone a distinct God, it is false. I may say, God the Father is<br />
one God and the Son is one God, and the Holy Ghost is one God, but I cannot say that the Father is one God<br />
and the Son is another God and the Holy Ghost is a third God. I may say that the Father begat another who is<br />
God; yet I cannot say that He begat another God. I may say that from the Father and Son proceeds another<br />
who is God; yet I cannot say that from the Father and Son proceeds another God. For though their nature be<br />
the same their persons are distinct; and though their persons be distinct, yet still their nature is the same. So<br />
that, though the Father be the first person in the Godhead, the Son the second and the Holy Ghost the third,<br />
yet the Father is not the first, the Son the second and the Holy Ghost a third God. So hard it is to word so<br />
great a mystery aright; or to fit so high a truth with expressions suitable and proper to it, without going one<br />
way or another from it." Bishop Beverage, Private Thoughts, Part 2, 48, 49, cited by Charles Morgridge, The<br />
True Believers Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians for Not Beleiving in the Deity of Christ<br />
(Boston: B. Greene, 1837), 16.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity2.htm (11 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:16:53 AM]
The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity<br />
Nuff said!<br />
Yes, I do not always agree 100% with some of the other works of the above mentioned authors, but then, I<br />
don't agree 100% with anyone..period. I have produced an eclectic array of trinitarians, non-trinitarians,<br />
pagans, skeptics, atheists, liberal theologians to provide a rounded view that people from all walks of life,<br />
people of great intelligence find humor and incredulity in the triune doctrine.<br />
So why use them? I will finish off with a quote from E.H. Broadbent to show you where I am coming from.<br />
Speaking of the much persecuted but humble group of Christians of times past, the Waldenses and the<br />
Albigenses, he says "They considered that in all times and in all forms of churches there were enlightened<br />
men of god. They therefore made use of the writings of Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Bernard of<br />
Clairvaux and others, not accepting, however, all they wrote, but only that which corresponded with the<br />
older, purer teaching of Scripture." The Pilgrim Church, p.120<br />
Updated Feb 21, 2001<br />
Send me Feedback<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity2.htm (12 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:16:53 AM]
Trinitarian Bias in the Holy <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Glorifying the Father-Or Glorifying the Son?<br />
Is there a theological/Christological bias in <strong>Bible</strong> versions?<br />
"Whether Christ is called God must be determined from Jn. i.1; xx.28; 1Jn. v. 20 ; Ro. ix. 5; Tit. ii.13;<br />
Heb. i.8 sq., etc,; the matter is still in dispute among theologians." Thayer's Lexicon<br />
There are certain scriptures used to try to deify Jesus Christ. But as you can see, many<br />
do not agree. A "YES" means that the version in question could be viewed as assigning<br />
Deity to the Son. A "NO" means that a certain rendering was translated in a way to<br />
promote the Deity of the Father.<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Jn1:1 Jn1:18 Ac20:28 Rom9:5 2Thess1:12 Tit2:13 Heb1:8 2Pet1:1<br />
King James YES NO YES NO NO NO YES NO<br />
Revised Version YES NO YES NO NO YES YES YES<br />
RV mg. YES NO NO NO NO<br />
Revised Standard Ver YES NO NO NO NO YES YES YES<br />
RSV mg. YES NO YES NO NO NO<br />
New English <strong>Bible</strong> NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES<br />
NEB mg. YES NO YES NO NO<br />
Moffatt NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES<br />
The Message* YES NO YES YES? NO YES YES YES<br />
Goodspeed NO NO YES NO NO YES NO YES<br />
Translator's N.T. NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>* YES NO NO NO YES YES YES<br />
GNB mg.* NO NO YES<br />
21st Century NT Literal NO NO N/A N/A NO NO NO NO<br />
21st Century NT Free NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
New International Ver YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES<br />
NIV mg. NO NO NO YES<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Trans NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
Modern Lang.Bib YES NO YES YES NO YES YES YES<br />
Jerusalem Bib YES NO YES NO NO YES YES YES<br />
New Amer.Stan.Bib. YES NO YES NO NO YES YES YES<br />
Amer.Stan.Ver YES NO NO NO NO NO YES NO<br />
ASV mg. NO<br />
Young`s YES NO YES NO YES YES YES YES<br />
An Inclusive Ver.* YES YES NO NO NO YES YES YES<br />
An Inclusive mg. NO YES YES NO NO NO<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:06 AM]
Trinitarian Bias in the Holy <strong>Bible</strong><br />
New RSV YES YES NO NO NO YES YES YES<br />
NRSV mg. NO YES YES NO NO NO<br />
New Amer.Bib YES YES YES NO NO NO YES YES<br />
NAB mg. NO NO<br />
Revised NAB YES YES YES NO YES NO YES YES<br />
RNAB mg NO NO NO YES NO<br />
New Jerusalem YES NO NO NO YES YES YES<br />
Catholic Con.Doc. YES NO YES NO NO YES YES YES<br />
Amplified Bib YES NO YES NO YES YES YES<br />
Darby YES NO NO NO YES YES YES<br />
S.T.Byington YES NO YES NO NO YES NO YES<br />
Beck YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES<br />
Cotton Patch* NO NO N/A NO YES NO NO YES<br />
Williams N.T. Yes YES NO NO YES YES YES<br />
Contemp.Eng.Ver.* YES YES NO NO NO YES YES YES<br />
CEV mg.* YES YES NO<br />
Diaglott NO NO YES NO YES YES YES YES<br />
Concordant Lit.N.T. YES NO YES NO NO NO YES NO<br />
Rotherham YES NO YES NO YES NO YES YES<br />
Bib.Basic Eng. YES NO YES NO YES YES YES<br />
Knox YES NO YES YES NO YES YES YES<br />
Revised<br />
Version-Parkinson<br />
NO NO NO NO NO NO YES NO<br />
Living Bib.* YES NO YES NO NO YES YES YES<br />
Weymouth YES NO YES NO NO YES YES NO<br />
Simple Eng.Bib NO NO NO NO NO YES YES NO<br />
Worrell YES NO YES NO YES NO YES YES<br />
New Century Ver* YES YES YES YES No YES YES YES<br />
NCV mg.* NO NO<br />
Revised Eng.Bib NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES<br />
Phillips* YES NO YES YES NO NO YES NO<br />
Montgomery N.T. YES YES NO YES YES YES<br />
Jewish N.T. YES NO NO NO NO NO YES NO<br />
Schonfield NO NO NO NO NO NO YES NO<br />
Douay YES NO YES NO NO NO YES YES<br />
Kingdom Interlinear NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
King JamesII YES NO YES YES NO YES YES NO<br />
Deaf* YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:06 AM]
Trinitarian Bias in the Holy <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Unvarnished NT NO NO YES NO YES YES NO YES<br />
God`s Word* YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES<br />
Geneva YES NO YES YES NO NO YES NO<br />
Lamsa YES NO NO YES NO NO YES NO<br />
Cath.RSV Yes NO NO YES NO YES YES YES<br />
ISV YES NO YES YES N/A YES YES N/A<br />
Wuest* YES YES NO YES YES YES<br />
Webster YES NO YES NO NO NO YES NO<br />
Net <strong>Bible</strong> YES YES NO YES NO YES YES YES<br />
Hebrew Names Version YES NO YES YES NO NO YES YES<br />
New Living* YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES<br />
NIrV YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES<br />
Wesley Trans. YES NO YES NO NO NO YES YES<br />
Inclusive Lang. NT* YES NO NO NO NO YES YES YES<br />
New Life Ver.* YES NO YES NO NO NO YES YES<br />
Kleist&Lilly YES NO YES YES NO YES YES NO<br />
Lattimore YES NO YES NO NO NO YES YES<br />
Newcome NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO<br />
Tyndale YES NO YES N/A NO NO NO YES<br />
Aitken 1782 YES NO YES N/A N/A NO YES NO<br />
Fenton YES NO NO NO NO NO NO YES<br />
*=Paraphrased <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Examples of the above:<br />
John 1:1<br />
● "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".(King<br />
James Version)<br />
● "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god".(NWT,<br />
Parkinson's Revised Version-Improved and Corrected)<br />
● "In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was<br />
divine".(Goodspeed,Moffatt)<br />
For Professor Jason Beduhn's letter on this scripture click here.<br />
For further discussion of this interesting scripture click here.<br />
There is actually some fresh material in BDAG on the subject of QEOS. There is an interesting quotation<br />
from Diognetus that was not in BAGD.<br />
BDAG - QEOS 2 - provides an interesting parallel to John 1:1b,c when it<br />
quotes Dg 10:6. It says:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:06 AM]
Trinitarian Bias in the Holy <strong>Bible</strong><br />
hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN ECEI, TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS CORHGWN, QEOS<br />
GINETAI [QEOS as predicate nominative preceeding copulative verb] TWN<br />
LAMBANANTWN (one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God<br />
proves to be a god to the recipients). (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother). Such understanding led to the<br />
extension of the mng. of Q. to pers. who elicit special reverence.<br />
John 1:18<br />
● "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the father's heart, who has<br />
made him known".(New Revised Standard Version)<br />
● "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he<br />
hath declared him."(Revised Version, KJV)<br />
● "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He<br />
has explained Him".(New American Standard Version,NWT)<br />
For more on John 1:18 click here.<br />
Acts 20:28<br />
● "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you<br />
overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood"(New<br />
American Standard Version)<br />
● "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to<br />
care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son".(Revised Standard<br />
Version,NWT)<br />
For more info on this scripture click here.<br />
Romans 9:5<br />
● "Their ancestors were great people of God, and Christ himself was a Jew as far as his human<br />
nature is concerned. And he is God, who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal<br />
praise!Amen".(New Living Translation)<br />
● "to them, belonging the patriarchs, and of their race, according the flesh, is the Christ. God who is<br />
over all be blessed for ever.Amen".(Revised Standard Version,NWT)<br />
For more info on this scripture click here.<br />
Also http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/translation/romans95.htm<br />
2Thessalonians 1:12*<br />
● "That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the<br />
grace of our God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ".(Douay-Rheims <strong>Bible</strong>)<br />
● "that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the<br />
grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ".(Young`s Literal Translation)<br />
For a discussion on this topic click here.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:06 AM]
Trinitarian Bias in the Holy <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Titus 2:13*<br />
● "as we wait for the blessed Day we hope for, when the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus<br />
Christ will appear".(Good News <strong>Bible</strong>)<br />
● "as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus<br />
Christ".(New American <strong>Bible</strong>)<br />
For a discussion on this topic click here.<br />
Hebrews 1:8<br />
● "But of the Son he says,"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, thy righteous sceptre is the<br />
sceptre of thy kingdom".(Revised Standard Version...incidentally, this is a quotation from Psalms<br />
45:6 which this same bible translates"your Divine throne".<br />
● "but as to the Son "God is your throne forever and ever...."(<strong>Bible</strong> in Living English-S.T.Byington)<br />
For more on Hebrews 1:8 click here.<br />
Theos" in Kittels Dictionary of New Testament.On Hebrews 1.8 it says: "In Hebrews 1:8-9<br />
the designation of the OT king as theos is transferred to Jesus."<br />
2 Peter 1:1*<br />
● "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal<br />
standing with our in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ".(Revised Standard<br />
Version)<br />
● "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious<br />
faith with us throught the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ".(King James<br />
Version)<br />
For a discussion on this topic click here.<br />
*compare Ephesians 5:5 and Proverbs 24:21 in the LXX (Septuagint)<br />
E-mail me<br />
Back to Main <strong>Bible</strong> Page<br />
Last Updated April 30 2002<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/trinity.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:06 AM]
Why We Need Different <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong><br />
Why We Need Different <strong>Translations</strong> of the<br />
It is amazing to me how many people think that the <strong>Bible</strong> is English in origin. It is not, it comes to us<br />
from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The English language has changed over the centuries, and many<br />
words have become obsolete or changed meaning. For a list of these changes click here. Here is an<br />
example:<br />
"Then said Iefus vnto them, My foule is veary heauie, euen vnto death: tarie yee here, and watch with<br />
me." Matthew 26:38 Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> 1602 edition<br />
" then saith he to them, `Exceedingly sorrowful is my soul--unto death; abide ye here, and watch with<br />
me." Youngs Literal Translation 1884<br />
"Then he said to them, 'My soul is sorrowful to the point of death. Wait here and stay awake with me."<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> 1985<br />
When we translate from these ancient forms of these languages, one English word may not always<br />
suffice. For instance, the greek word "theotes" has a few different meanings, such as "divinity, godhead,<br />
deity, divine, godship". The translator will then take the meaning that best fits the context. This is where<br />
his beliefs/theology come into play. Looking at a certain scripture in different versions of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
usually gives us a more rounded view of the word in question.<br />
Colossians 2:9<br />
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." KJV<br />
"For in Him all the fullness of the deity dwells in bodily form." NASB<br />
"For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity." TEV<br />
"For it is in him that the immensity of the Divine Wisdom corporately dwells." Schonfield<br />
"Because in him resides al the fulfillment of the divine." Lattimore<br />
These slight theological differences account for an extremely small portion of the Holy <strong>Bible</strong>. The<br />
main message of the <strong>Bible</strong> has not changed. I can show people the truth about God in the King James<br />
Version, the New <strong>World</strong> Translation, the Catholic New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> or the ecumenical Good News<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>-TEV. In fact, these <strong>Bible</strong>s together would greatly complement each other in serious <strong>Bible</strong> study.In<br />
fact these are some of my favourite versions. You can throw in the New English <strong>Bible</strong>, Revised<br />
Standard Version, and my Interlinear <strong>Bible</strong>s. I also recommend the Revised English <strong>Bible</strong>, The Original<br />
New Testament by Hugh Schonfield, Rotherham's Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong>, the American Standard Version<br />
and An American Translation by Smith&Goodspeed and you have a great set of <strong>Bible</strong>s.<br />
"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the <strong>Bible</strong> who are trying to appreciate to learn the<br />
Hebrew or Greek languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 'gloss' translation,<br />
especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG,<br />
DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and How to Choose Between Them by<br />
Alan S. Duthie [emphasis his]<br />
"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages. we suggest either a very literal<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/translation.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:20 AM]
Why We Need Different <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong><br />
version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version [Kingdom {Interlinear<br />
Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your <strong>Bible</strong> Wisely, Duthie<br />
Are these differences Trinitarian in nature? Yes, alot of them are. The Trinity is a post- scriptural<br />
theory/doctrine that many use to explain God. These were formulated thru a series of creeds starting 300<br />
years after Christ. This doctrine has done more to damage scriptural integrity than any other. This is<br />
evidenced early on by adding scriptures and substituting words like the Comma Johanneum(Johannine<br />
Comma) at 1 John 5:7. You will notice that most modern <strong>Bible</strong>s have removed this spurious insertion.<br />
That is where a well placed footnote will clear up the error, like the one in the King James Version-Ryrie<br />
Study <strong>Bible</strong>, where it says these words, "are not in any Greek manuscript, only in later Latin<br />
manuscripts."<br />
Bruce Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament- Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration" gives<br />
us this interesting statement: "Jesus' statement, 'But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the<br />
angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only' (Matt. xxiv. 36 and Mark xiii. 32), was unacceptable<br />
to scribes who could not reconcile Jesus ignorance with his divinity, and who saved the situation by<br />
simply omitting the phrase OUDE O UIOS[nor the Son]." p.202<br />
In Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words under the heading "Cross" it goes on to say, "By the<br />
middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had oether departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of<br />
the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were<br />
received into the churches aprt from regeneration by faith, and were permitted to regain their pagan signs<br />
and symbols." I sincerely believe that the doctrine of the trinity is one many beliefs carried over. It is<br />
widely known that the ante-Nicene Fathers were heavily influenced by greek(platonic) philosophy.<br />
Plato's trinity consisted of 1. The ONE 2. The IDEA 3. The SPIRIT. This closely resembles the trinity of<br />
the mainstream churches where it is the The FATHER, The WORD and the HOLY SPIRIT. There is<br />
another similarity. The ONE in Plato's trinity was nameless...so is the FATHER in christendom's trinity.<br />
Which leads to my next point.....<br />
Is God really called LORD or GOD? In the <strong>Bible</strong> there is one name used that is used more often than<br />
any other name...and it has been removed in most <strong>Bible</strong>s. This name is represented by four hebrew<br />
letters, YHWH or JHVH and is either translated Jehovah or Yahweh. The removal of this name has<br />
helped the doctrine of the Trinity as it has blurred the lines between Father and Son. As one of my critics<br />
puts it, "After all, with the 'Lord' in both testaments, it would be impossible to separate them as two<br />
persons, one who is God, and one who is 'a' god, as the Watchtower Society has attempted to do."<br />
So if we read aloud passages like Psalms 110:1, "The LORD said unto my Lord"(KJV), it sounds like<br />
God is talking to a part of himself. But if it is translated correctly, like the Darby translation, it makes<br />
better sense, "Jehovah said unto my Lord"<br />
"One of the proper names for God, perhaps the better known one, should be used to translate 'YHWH'<br />
throughout the OT; but most especially in Ex. 3:14-5 [NEB]; 6:3 'By my name Jehovah' [KJV, NEB]; 1<br />
Ki. 18:39 'Jehovah, he is God.'-which hardly even makes sense without the actual name; similarly, Ex.<br />
5:2; Gen. 31:49-50; Lev. 24:16; 2 Ki. 2:24; 5:11; Ps. 83:18 [KJV]; 110:1; Ex. 34:6 [NEB]. [Osborn,<br />
Name] Gen.15:2; 1Sam.15:21, 30; 2 Sam.7:18,19,20,28; Ps. 68:20 could then have 'Lord Jehovah'.<br />
But, in place of the actual name, 'the LORD' [all in capital letters] is substituted in most <strong>Bible</strong> versions<br />
in English [KJV, RV, FEN, GOS, RSV, NBV, NAB, GNB, NAS, NIV, RAV, REB, NRS, CEV], even<br />
though capital letters are obviously inaudible when read aloud [and giving a misleading impression of<br />
emphasis]. " p. 90, How to Choose a <strong>Bible</strong> Wisely by Alan S. Duthie<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/translation.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:20 AM]
Why We Need Different <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong><br />
And then there is the integrity of the Translator. Because of not agreeing with the inspired words at<br />
Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, the translator of the Living <strong>Bible</strong>(Taylor) added the footnote: "These statements are<br />
Solomon's discouraged opinion, and do not reflect a knowledge of God's<br />
truth on these points!" This same <strong>Bible</strong> goes on to say correctly at 2 Timothy 3:16, "The whole <strong>Bible</strong> was<br />
given to us by inspiration from God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is<br />
wrong in our lives." Taylor's disgusting comment has contradicted his own rendition of the latter<br />
scripture.<br />
New Oxford Annotated <strong>Bible</strong>-NRSV has this to say about the book of Daniel in the foreword: "The<br />
author was a pious Jew living under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, 167-164 B.C. To encourage<br />
his suffering believers he tell six stories...." The paragraph before this lumps the book of Daniel in with<br />
pseudepigraphal books. Contrast this with Daniel 7:1, "In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon<br />
Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream and told the sum of the<br />
matters." ASV<br />
What they are basically saying is that Daniel was written by an imposter, and by doing this they are<br />
echoing the anti-Christian philosopher Porphyry who theorized that someone took past events and made<br />
them appear to be prophecies. The genuineness of the book of Daniel was not seriously questioned,<br />
however, from that day until the "Higher Criticism" in the early part of the 18th century. Jesus Christ's<br />
own acceptance of Daniel's prophecy is an even more significant evidence of its authenticity.-Mt 24:15;<br />
Da 11:31.<br />
The Five Gospels/Funk&Hoover has this to say about Mark 13:32, "most Fellows were dubious that<br />
Jesus was responsible for the present wording." The Fellows mentioned here are The Jesus Seminar who<br />
voted on which parts of the <strong>Bible</strong> were actually true.<br />
Another Example: J.B. Phillips goes even further by changing the text meaning and then adding,<br />
"I felt bound to conclude that we have here either a slip of the pen on Paul's part or a textual corruption,<br />
and I have therefore been bold enough to alter the verse in order to make good sense." Footnote<br />
1Corinthians 14:22 What Arrogance!! Speaking of arrogance......<br />
From the "What were they thinking Files"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/translation.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:20 AM]
Why We Need Different <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong><br />
I really enjoy the New Testament by the late Richmond Lattimore, but I really have to question the use of<br />
a photograph on the cover of a cadaver entitled, "Man Beaten to Death Photographed in the Morgue".<br />
The photo was taken by Andres Serrano of "Piss Christ" fame. This is the same person that adorns<br />
religious imagery with animal dung. The publishers of this edition showed poor taste and a lack of<br />
respect for a great work by a greek classicist, and it is an even bigger insult to the author of the inspired<br />
word.<br />
The Book of Daniel is another that is constantly under attack by translators, publishers, editors of certain<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> translations also. "The author was a pious Jew living under the persecution of Antiochus<br />
Epiphanes, 167-164 B.C." NRSV-New Oxford Annotated <strong>Bible</strong> see also New American <strong>Bible</strong>. Who<br />
started this rumor? It was the philosopher Porphyry who hated Christians and wrote 15 books against<br />
them[in fact early writers such as Eusebius and Jerome wrote works against Porphyry]. He<br />
misunderstood Daniel's last vision as pertaining to the Syrian King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and so<br />
could not accept it as history written in advance by inspiration, but looked on it as a history written after<br />
it happened. Hence Porphyry viewed the author of the book of Daniel as a fraud. If early translators like<br />
Jerome condemned this man [as did the Council of Ephesus in 451 C.E.], then why is it that many<br />
modern translators embrace this theory from a man who hated God. Easton's <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary says:<br />
"The genuineness of this book has been much disputed, but the arguments in its favour fully establish its<br />
claims. (1.) We have the testimony of Christ (Matthew 24:15; 25:31; 26:64) and his apostles (1<br />
Corinthians 6:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:3) for its authority; and (2) the important testimony of Ezekiel (14:14,<br />
20; 28:3). (3.) The character and records of the book are also entirely in harmony with the times and<br />
circumstances in which the author lived. (4.) The linguistic character of the book is, moreover, just such<br />
as might be expected. Certain portions (Daniel 2:4; 7) are written in the Chaldee language; and the<br />
portions written in Hebrew are in a style and form having a close affinity with the later books of the Old<br />
Testament, especially with that of Ezra. The writer is familiar both with the Hebrew and the Chaldee,<br />
passing from the one to the other just as his subject required. This is in strict accordance with the position<br />
of the author and of the people for whom his book was written. That Daniel is the writer of this book is<br />
also testified to in the book itself (7:1, 28; 8:2; 9:2; 10:1, 2; 12:4, 5)." see also an excellent commentary<br />
on this in the Wycliffe <strong>Bible</strong> Commentary and the book Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy by the WTS.<br />
Why The <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
● The <strong>Bible</strong> is the oldest religious book<br />
● It is the number 1 bestseller<br />
● It carries the same theme thru each of its 66 books<br />
● It has uncharacteristic candor unheard of for its time<br />
● It is archaeologically sound<br />
● It's prophecies are true<br />
● It said the world was round long before Galileo(Isaiah 40:22)<br />
● It is the most opposed book in all history<br />
And let's face it, no one argues about the genuineness of the following works. We have more witnesses<br />
and manuscripts attest to the <strong>Bible</strong> than most other ancient works.<br />
AUTHOR /When Written /Earliest Copy /Time Span /No. of Copies<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/translation.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:20 AM]
Why We Need Different <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong><br />
Ceaser 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs. 10<br />
Livy 59 B.C.-A.D. 17 20<br />
Plato (Tetralogies) 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 7<br />
Tacitus(Annals) 100 A.D. 1,100 1,000 20 (-)<br />
Also minor works 100 A.D. 1,000 900 yrs. 1<br />
Pliny the Younger<br />
(History)<br />
61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs. 7<br />
Thucydides<br />
(History)<br />
460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 8<br />
Suetonius (De Vita 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs. 8<br />
Ceasarun)<br />
Herodotus (History) 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 8<br />
Horace 900 yrs.<br />
Sophocies 496-406 B.C. 1,000 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 100<br />
Lucretius Died 55 or 53 B.C. 1,100 yrs. 2<br />
Catullus 54 B.C. 1,550 A.D. 1,600 yrs. 3<br />
Euripedes 480-406 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,500 yrs. 9<br />
Demosthenes 383-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 200*<br />
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 5<br />
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 10<br />
What about the Koran, Talmud, Book of Mormon, Pseudepigapha and the Apocrypha? These are<br />
extra-biblical books of varying value(mind you these are important to their respective groups). These are<br />
not part of the <strong>Bible</strong> canon, and often times conflict with it. I will not be dealing with these on my site<br />
unless context demands it.<br />
So enjoy my site, read your <strong>Bible</strong>...and always have more than one for reference and study.<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/translation.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:20 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and the word "SOUL".<br />
Translating the word:<br />
In the <strong>Bible</strong>, the word "Soul" comes from the Hebrew word "nephesh" and its Greek equivalent "psykhe".<br />
As we can see in the following chart, it certainly doesn't have the immortal aspect to it that people think<br />
it does.<br />
Abbreviations:<br />
● N = New<br />
● S = Standard<br />
● A = American<br />
● L = Living<br />
● E = English<br />
● B = <strong>Bible</strong><br />
● V = Version<br />
● T = Translation<br />
● W = <strong>World</strong><br />
● C = Contemporary<br />
● To = Today<br />
● I = International<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Gen. 2:7 Gen. 9:5 Ezekiel<br />
18:4<br />
Matt<br />
10:28<br />
Acts 3:23<br />
1Cor.<br />
15:45<br />
1Peter<br />
3:20<br />
Rev. 16:3<br />
N.W.T. SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL<br />
King James SOUL Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL<br />
L. B. Person Omit SOUL SOUL Anyone BODY Persons Everything<br />
A.S.V. SOUL Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL<br />
R.S.V. Being Life SOUL SOUL SOUL Being Person Thing<br />
N.E.B. Creature Life SOUL SOUL Anyone Being Persons Thing<br />
N.L.T. Person Person Person SOUL Omit Person People Everything<br />
N.A.B. Being Life Life SOUL Everyone Being Persons Creature<br />
N.R.S.V Being Life Person SOUL Everyone Being Persons Thing<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/soul.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:35 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and the word "SOUL".<br />
To.E.V Live Life Person SOUL Anyone Being People Creature<br />
N.I.V. Being Life SOUL SOUL Anyone Being People Thing<br />
N.King James<br />
V.<br />
Being Life SOUL SOUL SOUL Being SOUL Creature<br />
C.E.V. Life Life Those SOUL No one Person People Thing<br />
N.A.S.B. Being Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL Persons Thing<br />
Modern<br />
Language B.<br />
SOUL Life Person SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL Creature<br />
Young Creature Life Person SOUL SOUL Creature SOUL SOUL<br />
Deaf Thing Life Person SOUL Person Thing People Thing<br />
Darby SOUL Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL<br />
Jerusalem B Being Life Man SOUL Man SOUL People Creature<br />
Rotherham SOUL Life Person SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL<br />
A.T. Being Lives Person SOUL Anyone Creature People Thing<br />
Lamsa Being Life SOUL SOUL Person SOUL SOUL SOUL<br />
Webster B SOUL Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL<br />
Amplified B Being Life SOUL SOUL SOUL Being People Thing<br />
Phillips N/A N/A N/A SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL Thing<br />
Douay SOUL Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL<br />
Beck Being Anyone The One SOUL Anyone Being Persons Thing<br />
Concordant N/A N/A N/A SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL<br />
Emph Diag N/A N/A N/A Life SOUL SOUL Persons SOUL<br />
B. Basic E. SOUL Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL Persons Thing<br />
Moffatt Being Life SOUL SOUL SOUL Being SOUL Thing<br />
Weymouth N/A N/A N/A SOUL Everyone Animal Persons Creature<br />
Williams N/A N/A N/A SOUL Person Creature People Thing<br />
Byington Person Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL Life<br />
R.E.B. Creature N/A Person SOUL Anyone Creature People Thing<br />
Schonfield N/A N/A N/A SOUL N/A SOUL Persons Everything<br />
Wuest N/A N/A N/A SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL Creature<br />
As we can see from the above, a SOUL is simply......YOU!! It is not a separate being outside of you.<br />
Even animals are souls-Revelation 16:3<br />
While doing a hand-count in the 80's, of the 858* instances of the Hebrew word for SOUL [NEPHESH]<br />
and the Greek equivalent [PSYKHE] that I looked at, only the New world Translation translated it SOUL<br />
every time. The New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong> (considered to be the most literal <strong>Bible</strong>) only did so 297<br />
times. Other version are as follows:<br />
Darby <strong>Bible</strong>: 575 times<br />
Douay <strong>Bible</strong>: 551 times<br />
King James <strong>Bible</strong>: 534 times<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/soul.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:35 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and the word "SOUL".<br />
Young's Literal Version: 533 times<br />
English Revised Version: 504 times<br />
American Standard Version: 503 times<br />
Rotherham <strong>Bible</strong>: 493 times<br />
Revised Standard Version: 242 times<br />
New International Version: 138 times<br />
*I realize that handcounting might not be the most accurate way to do this, especially now with software<br />
making this much easier, but this does give an overall view of the (in)accuracies of the translating of this<br />
word.<br />
SOUL; SELF; LIFE<br />
nepesh-"The noun refers to the essence of life, the act of breathing, taking a breath." W.E. Vine<br />
psyche-"denotes the breath, the breath of life." W.E. Vine<br />
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (edited by C. Brown, 1978, Vol. 3, p.<br />
304) states: "Matt. 10:28 teaches not the potential immortality of the soul but the irreversibility of divine<br />
judgment on the unrepentant."<br />
"However much God may give his spirit to frail man, and however exalted the resurrected Jesus has<br />
become, man, from the biblical point of view, is dust animated by spirit, and not body and separable<br />
soul,which is a Greek idea. 'Human Being' by definition denoted mortality, subject to frailty and death. 'It<br />
is appointed unto man once to die...' (Heb 9:27)." The Doctrine of the Trinity-Christianity's Self-Inflicted<br />
Wound by Anthony Buzzard/Charles F. Hunting<br />
D.R.G. Owen, "Body and Soul in the New Testament," In Readings and Christian Theology, ed. M.J.<br />
Erickson (Baker Book House, 1967), 86: "In Hebrew thought, as we have seen, the word translated 'Soul'<br />
regularly stands simply for the personal pronoun and means the self, and the phrase 'body and<br />
soul'...stands for the Hebrew idea that man is an 'animated body' and not for the Greek view that he is an<br />
'incarnated soul.' "<br />
"Many people today, even believing people. are far from understanding the basis of their faith...Quite<br />
unwittingly they depend upon the philosophy of the Greeks rather than upon the word of God for an<br />
understanding of the world they live in. An instance of this is the prevailing belief amongst Christians in<br />
the immortality of the soul. Many beleivers despair of this world; they despair of any meaning in a world<br />
where suffering and frustration seem to rule. And so they look for a release for their souls from the<br />
weight of the flesh, and they hope for an entry into the 'world of the spirit,' as they call it, a place where<br />
their souls will find a blessedness they cannot discover in the flesh. The Old Testament, which was of<br />
course the Scriptures of the early Church, has no word at all for the modern (or ancient Greek) idea of<br />
"soul". We have no right to read this modern word into St. Paul's word "psyche", for by it he was not<br />
expounding what Plato had meant by the word; he was expressing what Isaiah and what Jesus meant by<br />
it...There is one thing sure we can say at this point and that is that the popular doctrine of the soul's<br />
immortality cannot be traced back to the biblical teaching." -G.A.T. Knight, Law and Grace<br />
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 78, 79.<br />
"Both man and animals are souls, they are not bipartite creatures consisting of a soul and a body which<br />
can be separate and go on subsisting. Their soul is the whole of them and comprises their their body as<br />
well as their mental powers. They are spoken of as having soul, that is, conscious being" (Life and<br />
Immortality, B. F. C. Atkinson, M.A., PhD., p.2).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/soul.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:35 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and the word "SOUL".<br />
"Although Heb. nepes has a wide range of usage, it most frequently designates the life force of living<br />
creatures.<br />
Thus, all the earth is full of "living creatures" that have the "breath of life" (Gen. 1:20-21,24,30). When<br />
God creates Adam, God breathes the breath of life into Adam's nostrils, and Adam becomes a "living<br />
being" (Gen. 2:7). Far from referring simply to one aspect of a person, "soul" refers to the whole person.<br />
Thus, a corpse is referred to as a "dead soul," even though the word is usually translated "dead body"<br />
(Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6). "Soul" can also refer to a person's very life itself (1 kings 19:4; Ezek. 32:10).<br />
"Soul" often refers by extension to the whole person. Thus, Leah bears Jacob 16 souls (Gen. 46:18), and<br />
when Jacob moves into Egypt, there were "70 persons ('souls') in his house". In the Shema (Deut. 6:4-9)<br />
Israelites are commanded to love their God with all their heart, soul, and strength. Although "soul"<br />
appears in the translation to be a separate faculty of the body, the verse is an exhortation to love God<br />
with ones entire self.<br />
The soul is also the seat of the emotions. It is both the center of joy in God (Ps. 86:4; cf. 62:1[MT2]) and<br />
the seat of the desire of evil in the wicked (Prov. 21:10)<br />
In the NT “soul” (Gk.psyche) refers to the living being of the whole person (Acts 2:41; 3:23) and to a<br />
person’s life. After Herod’s death, the angel commands Joseph to take his wife and child (Jesus) back to<br />
Israel, for “ those who were seeking the child’s life (soul) are dead” (Matt. 2:20). Before he heals the<br />
man with the withered hand, Jesus asks the synagogue authorities whether it is lawful on the Sabbath to<br />
“save life (soul) or to kill” (Mark 3:4). In the parable of the rich young fool (Luke 12: 13-20), the young<br />
man says to his soul that he has ample goods laid up for many years; Jesus then tells him, “ This very<br />
night your soul (‘life force’) is being demanded of you.”<br />
Although the NT contains little evidence of the body-soul dualism that is apparent in Hellenistic<br />
philosophy, some passages indicate that the soul lives on after death (Luke 9:25; 12:4; 21:19)."<br />
Eerdman's Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
[Let us see if this is really so. Luke 9:25, “ What benefit is it to anyone to win the whole world and<br />
forfeit or lose his very self.”<br />
Luke 12:4, “ To my friends I say: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no<br />
more.”<br />
Luke 21:19, “ Your perseverance will win you your lives.” New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
As you can see, the scriptures mentioned do not point to an immortal soul or life after death. As<br />
Ecclesiastes says, “for the living are at least aware that they are going to die, but the dead know nothing<br />
whatever. No more wages for them, since their memory is forgotten…Whatever work you find to do, do<br />
it with all your might, for theirs in neither achievement, nor planning, nor science, nor wisdom in Sheol<br />
where you are going.” New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>]<br />
Can souls die? Yes, according to the following scriptures:<br />
(Job 36:14 [KJV margin]; Psalm 56:13; 78:50;<br />
116:8; Ezekiel<br />
18:4, 20; James 5:20; Psalm 22:29; 30:3; 33:18, 19; Isaiah<br />
55:3; Ezekiel<br />
13:19; 18:27; Psalm 49:8; Psalm 35:17; 40:14; Proverbs 6:32;<br />
Ezekiel 22:27;<br />
Acts 3:23; James 4:12; Ezekiel 22:25; Matthew 16:25, 26 [the<br />
Greek word for<br />
soul is here translated life in many translations]; Leviticus<br />
22:3; Numbers<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/soul.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:35 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and the word "SOUL".<br />
15:30) The body is not the soul, but it is a component of the<br />
soul. The soul<br />
is made up the body and the spirit (or breath) of life from<br />
God. (Genesis<br />
2:7) When one dies the soul dies [ceases to be a living<br />
sentiency] and the<br />
original life process is reversed. (Ecclesiastes 12:7) With<br />
the life-giving<br />
source departed from the body, the soul [sentiency] ceases to<br />
exist.<br />
Email Me<br />
Created September 5 1999<br />
Updated Dec 19 2000<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/soul.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:35 AM]
The Seven Deadly Sins and Other Lists that aren't in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
The Se7en Deadly Sins ....and other lists people think are in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
The Seven Deadly Sinsby Pope St. Gregory the Great(590-604)<br />
● Pride<br />
● Envy<br />
● Wrath<br />
● Sloth<br />
● Avarice<br />
● Gluttony<br />
● Lust<br />
The Seven Virtues an answer to the 7 deadly sins<br />
● Faith<br />
● Hope<br />
● Charity(Love)<br />
● Justice<br />
● Prudence<br />
● Fortitude<br />
● Temperance<br />
The Seven Sacraments Roman Catholic Tradition<br />
● Baptism<br />
● Penance<br />
● Holy Eucharist<br />
● Confirmation<br />
● Holy Orders<br />
● Matrimony<br />
● Extreme Unction<br />
The Seven Wonders of the Ancient <strong>World</strong><br />
● The Great Pyramid of Cheops at Giza<br />
● The Hanging Gardens of Babylon<br />
● The Statue of Zeus at Olympia<br />
● The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus<br />
● The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus<br />
● The Colossus of Rhodes<br />
● The Pharos (Lighthouse) of Egypt<br />
The Seven Hills of Rome<br />
● Palatine<br />
● Capitoline<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/seven.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:17:47 AM]
The Seven Deadly Sins and Other Lists that aren't in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Quirinal<br />
Viminal<br />
Esquiline<br />
Caelian<br />
Aventine<br />
The 9 Circles of Hell from Dante's Inferno<br />
● Limbo-The Virtuous Heathens<br />
● The Lustful<br />
● The Gluttons<br />
● The Avaricious and the Prodigal<br />
● The Wrathful and the Sullen<br />
● The Heretics<br />
● The Violent<br />
● The Fraudulent<br />
● The Treacherous<br />
The Nine Gods of Egypt<br />
● Atum<br />
● Shu<br />
● Tefnut<br />
● Geb<br />
● Nut<br />
● Osiris<br />
● Isis<br />
● Seth<br />
● Nephthys<br />
Other Interesting Lists<br />
The 7 Heavens of the Muslims...what they are made of, and who presides over them.<br />
● Pure Silver-Adam & Eve<br />
● Pure Gold-John the Baptist and Jesus<br />
● Pearl-Joseph<br />
● White Gold-Enoch<br />
● Silver-Aaron<br />
● Ruby and Garnet-Moses<br />
● Divine Light-Abraham<br />
The Five Pillars of Islam<br />
● Witnessing that God is one-and Mohammed is his prophet.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/seven.htm (2 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:17:47 AM]
The Seven Deadly Sins and Other Lists that aren't in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Praying 5 times daily<br />
Giving a portion of ones wealth to charity yearly<br />
Fasting during daylight hours in the holy month of Ramadan<br />
Making the pilgrimage to Mecca at least once<br />
The 9 Worthies the greatest warriors<br />
● Hector of Troy<br />
● Alexander the Great<br />
● Julius Caesar<br />
● Joshua<br />
● King David<br />
● Judas Maccabaeus<br />
● King Arthur<br />
● Charlemagne<br />
● Godfrey of Bouillon<br />
The Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism<br />
● Right Views<br />
● Right Intentions<br />
● Right Speech<br />
● Right Conduct<br />
● Right Livelihood<br />
● Right Effort<br />
● Right Mindfulness<br />
● Right Concentration<br />
Martin Luther's 95 Theses<br />
●<br />
1.Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in saying, "Repent ye, etc.," intended that the whole life<br />
of his believers on earth should be a constant penance.<br />
2.And the word "penance" neither can, nor may, be understood as referring to the Sacrament<br />
of Penance, that is, to confession and atonement as exercised under the priest's ministry.<br />
3.Nevertheless He does not think of inward penance only: rather is inward penance worthless<br />
unless it produces various outward mortifications of the flesh.<br />
4.Therefore mortification continues as long as hatred of oneself continues, that is to say, true<br />
inward penance lasts until entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.<br />
5.The Pope will not, and cannot, remit other punishments than those which he has imposed by<br />
his own decree or according to the canons.<br />
6.The Pope can forgive sins only in the sense, that he declares and confirms what may be<br />
forgiven of God; or that he doth it in those cases which he hath reserved to himself: be this<br />
contempt, the sin remains unremitted.<br />
7.God forgives none his sin without at the same time casting him penitent and humbled before the<br />
priest His vicar.<br />
8.The canons concerning penance are imposed only on the living; they ought not by any means,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/seven.htm (3 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:17:47 AM]
The Seven Deadly Sins and Other Lists that aren't in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
following the same canons, to be imposed on the dying.<br />
9.Therefore, the Holy Spririt, acting in the Pope, does well for us, when the latter in his<br />
decrees entirely removes the article of death and extreme necessity.<br />
10.Those priests act unreasonalby and ill who reserve for Purgatory the penance imposed on the<br />
dying.<br />
11.This abuse of changing canonical penalty into the penalty of Purgatory seems to have arisen<br />
when the bishops were asleep.<br />
12.In times of yore, canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of<br />
true repentance and affliction.<br />
13.The dying pay all penalties by their death, and are already dead to the canons, and rightly<br />
have exemption from them.<br />
14.Imperfect spiritual health or love in the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and<br />
the less this love is, the greater the fear it brings.<br />
15.This fear and horror - to say nothing of other things - are sufficient in themselves to produce the<br />
punishment of Purgatory, because they approximate to the horror of despair.<br />
16.Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven seem to differ as perfect despair, imperfect despair, and<br />
security of salvation differ.<br />
17.It seems that while in Purgatory love in the souls increases, as fear diminishes in them.<br />
18.It does not seem to be proved either by arguments or by the Holy Writ that they are outside the<br />
state of merit and demerit, or increase of love.<br />
19.This, too, seems not to be proved, that they are all sure and confident of their salvation,<br />
though we may be quite sure of it.<br />
20.Therefore the Pope, in speaking of the perfect remission of all punishments, does not mean that<br />
all penalties in general be forgiven, but only those imposed by himself.<br />
21.Therefore, those preachers of indulgences err who say that, by the Pope's indulgence, a man<br />
may be exempt from all punishments, and be saved.<br />
22.Yea, the Pope remits the souls in Purgatory no penalty which they, according to the canons,<br />
would have had to pay in this life.<br />
23.If to anybody complete remission of all penalties may be granted, it is certain that it is<br />
granted only to those most approaching perfection, that is to very few.<br />
24.Therefore the multitude is misled by the boastful promise of the paid penalty, whereby no<br />
manner of distinction is made.<br />
25.The same power that the Pope has over Pugatory, such has also every bishop in his diocese, and<br />
every curate in his parish.<br />
26.The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls, not by the power of the keys -<br />
which in Purgatory he does not possess - but by way of intercession.<br />
27.They preach vanity who say that the soul flies out of Pugatory as soon as the money thrown<br />
into the chest rattles.<br />
28.What is sure, is, that as soon as the penny rattles in the chest, gain and avarice are on the<br />
way of increase; but the intercession of the church depends only on the will of God Himself.<br />
29.And who knows whether all those souls in Purgatory wish to be redeemed, as it is said to have<br />
happened with St. Severinus and St. Paschallis.<br />
30.Nobody is sure of having repented sincerely enough; much less can he be sure of having<br />
recieved perfect remission of sins.<br />
31.Seldom even as he who has sincere repentance, is he who really gains indulgence; that is to say,<br />
most seldom to be found.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/seven.htm (4 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:17:47 AM]
The Seven Deadly Sins and Other Lists that aren't in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
32.On the way to eternal damnation are they and their teachers, who believe that they are sure of<br />
their salvation through indulgences.<br />
33.Beware well of those who say, the Pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which<br />
man is reconciled to God.<br />
34.For the forgiveness contained in these pardons has reference only to the penalties of<br />
sacramental atonement which were appointed by men.<br />
35.He preaches like a heathen who teaches that those who will deliver souls out of Purgatory or<br />
buy indulgences do not need repentance and contrition.<br />
36.Every Christian who feels sincere repentance and woe on account of his sins, has perfect<br />
remission of pain and guilt even without letters of indulgence.<br />
37.Every true Christian, be he still alive or already dead, partaketh in all benefits of Christ and of<br />
the Church given him by God, even without letters of indulgence.<br />
38.Yet is the Pope's absolution and dispensation by no means to be contemned, since it is, as I<br />
have said, a declaration of the Divine Absolution.<br />
39.It is exceedingly difficult, even for the most subtile theologians to praise at the same time<br />
before the people the great wealth of indulgence and the truth of utter contrition.<br />
40.True repentance and contrition seek and love punishment; while rich indulgence absolves from<br />
it, and causes men to hate it, or at least gives them occasion to do so.<br />
41.The Pope's indulgence ought to be proclaimed with all precaution, lest the people should<br />
mistakenly believe it of more value than all other works of charity.<br />
42.Christians should be taught that it is not the Pope's opinion that the buying of indulgence is in<br />
any way comparable to works of charity.<br />
43.Christians should be taught that he who gives to the poor, or lends to a needy man, does<br />
better than buying indulgence.<br />
44.For, by the exercise of charity, chaity increases and man grows better, while by means of<br />
indulgence, he does not become better, but only freer from punishment.<br />
45.Christians should be taught that he who sees his neighbour in distress, and nevertheless buys<br />
indulgence, is not partaking in the Pope's pardons, but in the anger of God.<br />
46.Christians should be taught that unless they are rich enough, it is their duty to keep what is<br />
necessary for the use of their households, and by no means to throw it away on indulgences.<br />
47.Christians should be taught that the buying of indulgences is optional and not commanded.<br />
48.Christians should be taught that the Pope in selling pardons, has more want and more desire of<br />
a devout prayer for himself than of the money.<br />
49.Christians should be taught that the Pope's pardons are useful as far as one does not put<br />
confidence in them, but on the contrary most dangerous if through them one loses the fear of<br />
God.<br />
50.Christians should be taught that if the Pope knew the ways and doings of the preachers of<br />
indulgences, he would prefer that St. Peter's Minster should be burnt to ashes, rather than<br />
that it should be built up of the skin, flesh, and bones of his lambs.<br />
51.Christians should be taught that the Pope, as it is his bounden duty to do, is indeed also<br />
willing to give of his own money - and should St. Peter's be sold thereto - to those from<br />
whom the preachers of indulgences do most extort money.<br />
52.It is a vain and false thing to hope to be saved through indulgences, though the commissary<br />
-nay, the Pope himself - was to pledge his own soul therefore.<br />
53.Those who, on account of a sermon concerning indulgences in one church, condemn the<br />
word of God to silence in the others, are enemies of CHrist and the Pope.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/seven.htm (5 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:17:47 AM]
The Seven Deadly Sins and Other Lists that aren't in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
54.Wrong is done to the word of God if one in the same sermon spends as much or more time on<br />
indulgences as on the word of the Gospel.<br />
55.The opinion of the Pope cannot be otherwise than this: If an indulgence - which is the<br />
lowest thing - be celebrated with one bell, one procession and ceremonies, then the Gospelwhich<br />
is the highest thing - must be celebrated with a hundred bells, a hundred<br />
processions, and a hundred ceremonies.<br />
56.The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants his dispensation, are neither<br />
sufficiently named nor known among the community of Christ.<br />
57.It is manifest that they are not temporal treasures, for the latter are not lightly spent, but<br />
rather gathered by many of the preachers.<br />
58.Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for these, without the Pope's aid, work<br />
always grace to the inner man, cross, death, and hell to the outer man.<br />
59.St. Lawrence called the poor of the community the treasures of the community and of the<br />
Church, but he understood the word according to the use in his time.<br />
60.We affirm without pertness that the keys of the Church, bestowed through the merit of<br />
Christ, are this treasure.<br />
61.For it is clear that the Pope's power is sufficient for the remission of penalties and<br />
forgiveness in the reserved cases.<br />
62.The right and true treasure of the Church is the most Holy Gospel of the glory and grace of<br />
God.<br />
63.This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful, for it makes the first to be the last.<br />
64.While the treasure of indulgence is deservedly most agreeable, for it makes the last to be the<br />
first.<br />
65.Therefore, the treasures of the Gospel are nets, which, in times of yore, one fished for the men<br />
of Mammon.<br />
66.But the treasures of indulgence are nets, with which now-a-days one fishes for the Mammon of<br />
men.<br />
67.Those indulgences, which the preachers proclaim to be great mercies, are indeed great<br />
mercies, forasmuch as they promote gain.<br />
68.And yet they are of the smallest compared to the grace of God and to the devotion of the<br />
Cross.<br />
69.Bishops and curates ought to mark with eyes and ears, that the commissaries of apostolical<br />
(that is, Popish) pardons are recieved with all reverence.<br />
70.But they ought still more to mark with eyes and ears, that these commissaries do not preach<br />
their own fancies instead of what the Pope has commanded.<br />
71.He who speaks against the truth of apostolical pardons, be anathema and accursed.<br />
72.But blessed be he who is on his guard against the preacher's of pardons naughty and<br />
impudent words.<br />
73.As the Pope justly disgraces and excommunicates those who use any kind of contrivance to do<br />
damage ot the traffic in indulgences,<br />
74.Much more it is his intention to disgrace and excommunicate those who, under the pretext of<br />
indulgence, use contrivance to do damage to holy love and truth.<br />
75.To think that the Popish pardons have power to absolve a man even if - to utter an<br />
impossibility - he had violated the Mother of God, is madness.<br />
76.We assert on the contrary that the Popish pardons cannot take away the least of daily sins, as<br />
regards the guilt of it.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/seven.htm (6 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:17:47 AM]
The Seven Deadly Sins and Other Lists that aren't in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
77.To say that the St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could show no greater mercies, is blasphemy<br />
against St. Peter and the Pope.<br />
78.We assert on the contrary that both this and every other Pope has greater mercies to show:<br />
namely, the Gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc. (I Cor. XII).<br />
79.He who says that the cross with the Pope's arm, solemnly set on high, has as much power as<br />
the Cross of Christ, blasphemes God.<br />
80.Those bishops, curates, and theologians, who allow such speeches to be uttered among the<br />
people, will have one day to answer for it.<br />
81.Such impudent sermons concerning indulgences make it difficult even for learned men to<br />
protect the Pope's honour and dignity against the calumnies, or at all events against the<br />
searching questions of the laymen.<br />
82.As for instance: Why does not the Pope deliver all souls at the same time out of Purgatory for<br />
the sake of most holy love and on account of the bitterest distress of those souls - this<br />
being the most imperative of all motives - while he saves an infinite number of souls for the<br />
sake of that most miserable thing money, to be spent on St. Peter's Minster - this being the very<br />
slightest of motives?<br />
83.Or again: Why do masses for the dead continue, and why does not the Pope return or permit<br />
the funds which were established for the sake of the dead to be withdrawn, since it is now wrong<br />
to pray for those who are already saved?<br />
84.Again: What is this new holiness of God and the Pope that, for money's sake, they permit the<br />
wicked and the enemy of God to save a pious soul, faithful to God, and yet will not save<br />
that pious and beloved soul without payment, out of love and on account of its great<br />
distress?<br />
85.Again: Why is it that the canons of penance, long abrogated and dead in themselves,<br />
because they are not used, are yet still paid for with money through the granting of pardons, as if<br />
they are still in force and alive?<br />
86.Again: Why does not the Pope build St. Peter's Minster with his own money - since his<br />
riches are now more ample than those of Crassus - rather than with the money of poor<br />
Christians?<br />
87.Again: Why does the Pope remit or give to those who, through perfect penitence, have<br />
already a right to plenary remission and pardon?<br />
88.Again: What greater good could the Church recieve, than if the Pope presented this<br />
remission and pardon a hundred times a day to every believer, instead of but once, as he<br />
does now?<br />
89.If the Pope seeks by his pardons the salvation of souls, rather than money, why does he<br />
annul letters of indulgence granted long ago, and declare them out of force, though they are still<br />
in force?<br />
90.To repress these very telling questions of the laymen only by force, and not to solve them by<br />
telling the truth, is to expose the Church and the Pope to the enemy's ridicule and to make<br />
Christian people unhappy.<br />
91.Therefore, if pardons were preached according to the Pope's intention and opinion, all these<br />
objections would be easily answered, nay, they never would have occured.<br />
92.Away then with all those prophets who say to the community of Christ, "Peace, Peace" and<br />
there is no peace.<br />
93.But blessed be all those prophets who say to the community of Christ, "The cross, the<br />
cross," and there is no cross.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/seven.htm (7 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:17:47 AM]
The Seven Deadly Sins and Other Lists that aren't in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
94.Christians should be exhorted to endeavour to follow Christ their Head through Cross,<br />
Death, and Hell,<br />
95.And thus hope with confidence to enter Heaven through many miseries, rather than in false<br />
security.<br />
Email me<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/seven.htm (8 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:17:47 AM]
9 out of 10 "Christians" don't know how to answer Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
Reasoning From the Scriptures....with Ron Rhodes<br />
This is in response to the book, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses written by<br />
Ron Rhodes.<br />
Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard<br />
Version(1901)<br />
Do you remember the movie, "Perfect <strong>World</strong>" with Kevin Costner and<br />
Clint Eastwood? In the movie Kevin's character kidnaps a boy who is<br />
one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The boy finally comes alive with this<br />
criminal. As we learn, the boy isn't allowed to have fun because of his<br />
faith. He isn't allowed to go on rides. When the boy finally does indulge<br />
himself, he says he is going to Hell. What is wrong with this picture?<br />
Well, it is all lies. Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to have fun, they are<br />
allowed to go on rides...and a JW would never say anyone is going to<br />
Hell as they don't believe in the fiery inferno. But what this movie proves<br />
is the amount of disinformation that is out there concerning Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses. When people use our name in movies, or in books like this<br />
one by Ron Rhodes, they rely on ex-JW's for information on how we<br />
supposedly think. The problem with this is that the one who has left has<br />
always done so for selfish reasons.<br />
Many ex-Jw's write books, they go on tours...THEY MAKE A NAME<br />
FOR THEMSELVES. When they were witnesses, they are part of a<br />
team, but now they are famous. Even Jesus didn't "seek his own glory(John 8:50)."<br />
But why are their descriptions of JW's so false? Like the Pharisees of Jesus day, they have perverted the<br />
truth of God. Jesus told them that their father was the Devil, as he is the father of the lie.(John 8:44)<br />
Attacking Jehovah's Witnesses has become a growth industry. The above mentioned book is priced<br />
locally at $19.25 with tax for a paperback book(Remember...I don't live in the U.S., so prices may vary).<br />
That's more than Stephen King charges.<br />
This man is making loads of money attacking a group of people that would never release a book<br />
attacking a certain religious group for profit. Jehovah's Witnesses respect the right of other peoples to<br />
worship as they see fit.<br />
Too Incredible to Believe!!!<br />
"Is it true, as the Watchtower society claims, that superstitious Jewish Scribes removed the sacred name<br />
Jehovah from the <strong>Bible</strong>? This is preposterous! There is not a shred of evidence to support this claim.<br />
(You might even ask the Jehovah's Witnesses to produce hard evidence for this assertion.)......Let us be<br />
clear on this: The Watchtower's position that the divine name was stripped from the <strong>Bible</strong> by<br />
superstitious scribes is a fabrication-an out and out lie!" Page 58,59.<br />
Actually...we claim the Christians removed the Name, the Jews just stopped pronouncing it. Want<br />
proof?...here it is:<br />
"the American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous conviction that a<br />
Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to<br />
dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, .....This personal name, with its<br />
wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an<br />
unquestionable claim." -Preface to the American Standard Version (ASV)bible 1901 A.D. (American<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:15 AM]
9 out of 10 "Christians" don't know how to answer Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
Revision Committee)<br />
Want More?<br />
"the one who pronounces the Name with its proper letters, has not part in the world to come" Abba<br />
Saul(Mishna, Sanhedrin 10:1)<br />
"The use of any proper name proper name for the one and only God...began to be discontinued in<br />
Judaism before the christian era." New Oxford Annotated <strong>Bible</strong>, (New)Revised Standard Version<br />
As for the oldest Septuagint(LXX) fragments...and those darn name-hating "christians":<br />
"The papyrus containing fragments of Leviticus ii-v is written in a hand closely akin to that of Papyrus<br />
Fouad 266, characterized as already mentioned by the fact that the name of God is rendered by the<br />
Tetragrammaton in Hebrew square letters not by Ky'ri·os as later in Christian MSS of the <strong>Bible</strong>."-The<br />
Cairo Geniza, 1959 ed., pp. 222, 224.<br />
Professor George Howard: "When the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of<br />
Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the<br />
Septuagint. . . . Before long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church except insofar as it was<br />
reflected in the contracted surrogates or remembered by scholars."<br />
But, to be precise, you will be hard pressed to find a modern Jewish Torah/Holy Scriptures/ <strong>Bible</strong> that<br />
translates the Divine Name, preferring rather to substitute with the generic LORD.<br />
But then, this is the same man that wrote in his The Complete Book of <strong>Bible</strong> Answers, "the word Jehovah<br />
does not appear as such in the <strong>Bible</strong>. In fact, the word Jehovah does not appear in any legitimate Hebrew<br />
or Greek manuscripts of the <strong>Bible</strong>." p.59 Since Ron is here arguing pronunciation (but does not clarify<br />
this), then neither does the word Jesus appear in any legitimate Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>. What Ron has done is lie 6828 times. And THIS is the <strong>Bible</strong> Answer Man!!??<br />
c.f. http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/jehovah.htm<br />
Reasoning From the Scriptures???<br />
That may be the title of Ron's book, but it is kind of a misnomer....actually, it's an out and out lie :) The<br />
literature from the WTS is used over 430 times(some going back over 120 years), and then there are a<br />
bunch of other material used from Ex-JW's and apologetics like Rob Bowman. Scripture is actually<br />
quoted less than 300 times, and most of that only partially. Others are just stated.The rest of the book is<br />
filled with Ron's own verbal ejaculations. Reasoning from the scriptures indeed!<br />
Ok...Let's get it out of the Way....Does 1975 make JW's false prophets?<br />
"Despite its many predictions, the Watchtower Society refuses to concede it is a false prophet."<br />
(Rhodes p.341) Maybe Ron and his fellow "christians" should remove the log that is in their own<br />
eye.(Luke 6:41)For more info Click Here.<br />
The New <strong>World</strong> Tranlsation<br />
"The New <strong>World</strong> Translation is an incredibly biased translation" Ron Rhodes<br />
"It is no more 'full of heresies' than any other translation" <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and how to choose between<br />
them by Alan S. Duthie<br />
Well, let's take a look at the NWT and compare it to Mr.Rhodes faves, the New International Version and<br />
the New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong>. Click here for more.<br />
Before you condemn the "Watchtower <strong>Bible</strong>", please note that the WTB&TS also prints the KJV, ASV,<br />
Emphatic Diaglott, The <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English and the Kingdom Interlinear. Others like the Jerusalem<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, New American <strong>Bible</strong>, Rotherham, and the New English <strong>Bible</strong> have also been available.<br />
Misquoted!?<br />
Rhodes makes much of the WTS use of McKenzie's quote of John 1:1, in which he states, "Jn 1:1 should<br />
rigorously be translated 'the word was a divine being." But Rhodes says that McKenzie uses "divine<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes.htm (2 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:15 AM]
9 out of 10 "Christians" don't know how to answer Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
being" of Yahweh also. This is true, but are they not both divine beings anyways? The point that<br />
McKenzie made is that ho theos [the God] "is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself," therefore we must<br />
differentiate between the 2 Gods mentioned at John 1:1.<br />
What does *divine* mean anyways? Mirriam-Webster states it as:<br />
"1divine \de-vn\ adj diviner; -est 1 : of, relating to, or being God or a god 2 : supremely good : superb;<br />
also : heavenly divinely adv"<br />
Certainly, Yahweh, Jesus, and even the angels, fall into the category of divine beings.<br />
Just take a look at the ways angels are represented in the <strong>Bible</strong> at Genesis 6:2:<br />
"supernatural beings" TEV1, CEV<br />
"heavenly beings" TEV2, New Jewish P.S.,<br />
"the sons of God" NRSV, NKJV, NWT<br />
"beings from the spirit world" Living <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"angels" LXX Codex Alexandrinus, Moffatt<br />
"sons of heaven" NAB<br />
The whole argument stems from Rhodes refusal to accept Jesus as "a god" at John 1:1, yet no one<br />
complains as the highly respected American Standard Version calls Jehovah "a god" at Deut 4:7, "For<br />
what great nation is there, that hath a god so nigh unto them, as Jehovah our God is whensoever we call<br />
upon him?"<br />
Many, like Julius Mantey prefer "the Word was Deity." But again, what does DEITY mean?<br />
Again, let us turn to Mirriam-Webster: "deity \de-e-te, da-\ n, pl -ties 1 : divinity 2 2 cap : god 1 3 : a<br />
god or goddess"<br />
For more on John 1:1c click here, for more on Deity/Divinity, click here.<br />
Scriptures Misrepresented!!<br />
Consider: Rhodes says the following regarding the NWT's rendering of the verse at Acts 20:28, "The<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation rendering of this verse GOES AGAINST ALL LEGITIMATE<br />
TRANSLATIONS OF SCRIPTURE" (p. 86)<br />
Does that mean that J.B. Rotherham, William Barclay, John Nelson Darby, The Revised Standard<br />
Version, The Concordant Literal New Testament, The Translator's New Testament, The Holy <strong>Bible</strong> in<br />
Modern English, by Ferrar Fenton, The New Revised Standard Version, the New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>,<br />
Today's English Version, The Contemporary English Version, Alfred Marshall (see the footnote in his<br />
Interlinear), etc., are NOT LEGITIMATE!!!<br />
About Zechariah 12:10, Rhodes says "In order to avoid Jesus appearing to be Jehovah or Almighty God,<br />
the Watchtower Society deliberately ALTERED the text". But this is a lie, or does Rhodes also consider<br />
the Moffatt <strong>Bible</strong>, Smith & Goodspeed, The <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English, The Revised Standard Version, The<br />
New Revised Standard Version, The New American <strong>Bible</strong>, The Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, The Contemporary<br />
English Version, and many others. With the above statement he also condemned Gesenius' Hebrew<br />
Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press), F.F. Bruce (see his History of<br />
the <strong>Bible</strong> in English, p. 199, 200), the editor of the New Interpreters <strong>Bible</strong> (see vol. 7, p. 828) and none<br />
other than the Apostle John! Yes, the Apostle John, quoting Zech. 12:10 says "They will look on the<br />
*one* they have pierced" (see ch. 19, verse 37 in the NIV).<br />
As for John 8:58 (I have been), Rhodes says, "That is one of the clearest examples of the JW's<br />
mistranslating the <strong>Bible</strong> in order to support a doctrinal bias." p.113<br />
What Rhodes does not tell you is that even his own precious NASB had at one time offered "I have been"<br />
as variant reading. In fact, many trinitarians have abandoned the traditional rendering and offered one<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes.htm (3 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:15 AM]
9 out of 10 "Christians" don't know how to answer Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
more in line with the NWT (see New Living Translation, Living <strong>Bible</strong>, Lamsa, International English<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>, Beck, Williams, International <strong>Bible</strong> Translators, Schonfield, etc etc.) for<br />
more click here<br />
Rhodes never gives these alternatives. In fact, the above is just the tip of the iceberg. Rhodes time and<br />
again misleads and lies to his readers ad nuaseum.<br />
Does Job 1:4 advocate Birthdays?<br />
Rhodes seems to favor the view (p. 393) held forth in such paraphrased <strong>Bible</strong>s like the Living <strong>Bible</strong> and<br />
the NLT. But is this accurate?<br />
"The feast at each brother's house seems to have lasted only a single day, and there was a regular cycle of<br />
feasts, lasting seven successive days. When one cycle of feasts was ended Job offered sacrifices, and a<br />
new series began. Some think this cannot be the meaning, but that feasts were held more rarely, each<br />
feast lasting several days, and ending with sacrifice. *His day* would in that case probably mean<br />
birthdays (cf. Hos. vii. 5). But the language of verses 4, 5 does not favour the view that the feasts occured<br />
at regular intervals. We are not reading prosaic history. The life depicted is like that of princes in fairy<br />
tales, a never-ending round of mirth, disclosing at once the great prosperity of Job and the happiness of<br />
his family. 'His day' means the day that falls to each in the order of seniority, the eldest son entertaining<br />
on the first day and the youngest on the seventh."<br />
The Century <strong>Bible</strong>/Job by Rev. Prof. A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D., p. 56<br />
"This reference to the main meal of each day of the week, which moved from house to house, implies the<br />
love and harmony of the family members." NKJV MacArthur Study <strong>Bible</strong><br />
What are the chances of having everyone's birthday in the same week? This is why the Message<br />
translates it as "took turns throwing parties."<br />
Mr. Rhodes on p. 162 says: "Ask the JW's: Did you know that the same word used for "Lord" (adonai) in<br />
Ps. 110:1 of Jesus Christ is also used of the Father numerous times in Scripture…?" The argument is a<br />
lie, because the word in Psalm 110 is not adonai, but adoni, which is never a reference to Deity and<br />
always (195 times) a reference to someone who is not God. To prove my point, I have created a chart<br />
(click here) using the occurences of adoni...and it never refers to the Father.<br />
At this point, the only logical conclusion is that Rhodes is a constant embarrasment to himself, and his<br />
community. Does he even know what he is talking about? What a disgrace!<br />
Do Jehovah's Witnesses Use Disfellowshipping(excommunication) as a Method of Control?<br />
Something similar came up at work. My co-workers asked me me how it is I can remove someone from<br />
my church. Who am I to judge? Doesn’t the <strong>Bible</strong> say, “Judge Not?”<br />
So I showed them the above scripture in my NASB Study <strong>Bible</strong> (Zondervan), which provided this<br />
footnote, “Jesus did not relieve His followers of the need for discerning right or wrong (cf. vv.43-45), but<br />
He condemned unjust and hypocritical judging of others.”<br />
From there I turned to 1 Cor 5:11-13, which says, "You are not to associate with anyone who is supposed<br />
to be a Christian brother, and yet is immoral or greedy or idolatrous or abusive or grasping- with such a<br />
person you must not even eat. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not your part to judge<br />
those inside the church, and God’s, to judge those who are outside? Drive the wrongdoer out from among<br />
you.” American Translation<br />
The above study <strong>Bible</strong> provides this footnote, “Calling oneself a Christian who continues to live an<br />
immoral life is reprehensible and degrading, and gives a false testimony to Christ. If the true Christian<br />
has intimate association with someone who does this, the non-Christian world may assume that the<br />
church approves such immoral, ungodly living and thus the name of Christ would be dishonored.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes.htm (4 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:15 AM]
9 out of 10 "Christians" don't know how to answer Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
Questions would arise concerning of the Christian’s own testimony, …judge those who are within, The<br />
church is to exercise spiritual discipline over the professing believers in the church.”<br />
“REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.” 1 Cor 5:13 NASB (emphasis<br />
theirs)<br />
What the Ron's doesn't mention is that this practice was used by the first century christians(1Tim.1:20;<br />
1Cor.5:5,6,13;) And it was used before that also. Jehovah(Yahweh God) took expelling, or<br />
disfellowshipping, action in numerous instances. He sentenced Adam to death and drove him and his<br />
wife Eve out of the garden of Eden. (Ge 3:19, 23, 24) Cain was banished and became a wanderer and a<br />
fugitive in the earth. (Ge 4:11, 14, 16) The angels that sinned were thrown into Tartarus, a condition of<br />
dense darkness in which they are reserved for judgment. (2Pe 2:4) Twenty-three thousand fornicators<br />
were cut off from Israel in one day. (1Co 10:8) Achan was put to death at God's command for stealing<br />
that which was devoted to Jehovah God. (Jos 7:15, 20, 21, 25) Korah the Levite along with Dathan and<br />
Abiram of the tribe of Reuben were cut off for rebellion, and Miriam was stricken with leprosy and<br />
eventually might have died in that condition if Moses had not pleaded for her. As it was, she was<br />
expelled from the camp of Israel under quarantine seven days.—Nu 16:27, 32, 33, 35; 12:10, 13-15. Yes,<br />
there is more, but let's be brief. The book accuses the Witnesses of using this as a scare tactic. But really,<br />
nothing is quite as effective as the HELLFIRE doctrine when it comes to scare tactics. "Come to church<br />
or you will burn in hell. Bad people burn in hell." The <strong>Bible</strong> says nothing of the kind. But it is the<br />
ultimate scare tactic.<br />
"Even the most relaxed and liberal of today's established and organized religions...have trafficked-and<br />
often continue to traffic-psychological manipulation, in the machinery of sin and guilt, emotional<br />
blackmail, punishment and reward."(M.Baigent/R.Leigh)<br />
Are Only Jews named Jehovah's Witnesses!<br />
Isaiah 43:10 says, "Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may<br />
know and believe me, and understand that I am he. (ASV) But Ron Rhodes says that this scripture<br />
applies only to the nation of Israel. The last time I checked, Jewish <strong>Bible</strong>s have taken out the Divine<br />
Name almost completely. They will not use the name Jehovah. Let us read the beginning of Isaiah 2. It<br />
says,"The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem." So it was directed<br />
towards the Jews again, but further down in verses 4 and 5 it says,"And he will judge between the<br />
nations, and will decide concerning many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and<br />
their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war<br />
any more. O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of Jehovah." This scripture is oft<br />
quoted by churches and it is permanently posted in front of the United Nations Building. According to<br />
the reasoning of this book, we shouldn't be allowed to use this scripture because it applies only to the<br />
Jews(Israel). Nonsense!The WHOLE <strong>Bible</strong> is for everyone:"Every scripture inspired of God [is] also<br />
profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man<br />
of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work."(1 Timothy 3:16 ASV)<br />
We Don't Need <strong>Bible</strong> Study Aids for People to learn the Truth!!<br />
The book complains that we do not need books other than the bible to teach people. Then why did the<br />
author of this book, Ron Rhodes even write it. This is like an environmentalist complaining about people<br />
abusing the environment while driving an 8 mile an hour tank. If we don't need study aids like the<br />
Watchtower, then we certainly don't need an over-priced book by Ron Rhodes.<br />
Do We Need an Organization?<br />
The book also doesn't believe we need an organization. Well, God had an organization. (Daniel 7:9,10;<br />
Psalms 103:20,21; Isaiah 6:1-4; 40:26; Ezek 1:24-28; Rev 4:1-11; 14:6,7) Does God want christians to be<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes.htm (5 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:15 AM]
9 out of 10 "Christians" don't know how to answer Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
organized?<br />
Matt. 24:14; 28:19, 20: “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a<br />
testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come.” “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all<br />
the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching<br />
them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.” (How would this be accomplished without<br />
organization? When Jesus trained his early disciples for this work, He did not simply tell each one to go<br />
wherever he desired and to share his faith in whatever way he chose. He trained them, gave them<br />
instructions and sent them out in an organized manner. See Luke 8:1; 9:1-6; 10:1-16.)<br />
Heb. 10:24, 25: “let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; 25 not forsaking our<br />
own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting [one another]; and so much the more,<br />
as ye see the day drawing nigh.” (But to where would a person direct interested ones so they could obey<br />
this command if there were no organization with regular meetings where they could gather?)<br />
1 Cor. 14:33, 40: “for God is not [a God] of confusion, but of peace. . . . . But let all things be done<br />
decently and in order.” (The apostle Paul is here discussing orderly procedure at congregation meetings.<br />
Applying this inspired counsel requires respect for organization.)<br />
1 Pet. 2:9, 17: “But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for [God's] own<br />
possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his<br />
marvellous light. . . . Love the brotherhood..” (An association of people whose efforts are directed to<br />
accomplish a particular work is an organization.)<br />
Are those who are faithful servants of God simply individuals who are scattered in the various churches<br />
of Christendom?<br />
2 Cor. 6:15-18: “And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an<br />
unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God;<br />
even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my<br />
people. Wherefore Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no<br />
unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and<br />
daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” (Is a person really a faithful servant of God if he continues to share<br />
in worship with those who show by their way of life that they really are unbelievers?”)<br />
1 Cor. 1:10: “Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak<br />
the same thing and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfected together in the same<br />
mind and in the same judgment.” (Such unity does not exist among the varied churches of Christendom.)<br />
John 10:16: “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall<br />
hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.” (Since Jesus would bring such ones into<br />
“one flock,” is it not obvious that they could not be scattered in Christendom’s religions?)<br />
Didn't Jesus condemn the Pharisee's? Yes! He did so because of a difference of opinion, even though<br />
they shared the same faith and scriptures.<br />
This author promotes diversity of opinion, and, my opinion differs greatly from his. So really, he is upset<br />
that the witnesses have an opinion different than his. It's a catch-22.<br />
Page 43 and 44 includes Romans 14:2-5 and states that this verse promotes diversity. If you would read<br />
the surrounding chapters, the push was to include non-isrealite into the fold. That was where the Romans<br />
had to make changes.<br />
Is John 17:3 Translated Incorrectly in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
Ron also says that John 17:3 in the NWT is incorrectly translated. To get the full meaning of the word<br />
"know" I turned to the Amplified <strong>Bible</strong> and it has, "And this is eternal life: [it means] to know (to<br />
perceive, recognize, become acquainted with and understand) You, the only true and real God, and<br />
[likewise] to know Him, Jesus [as the] Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah, Whom You have sent."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes.htm (6 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:15 AM]
9 out of 10 "Christians" don't know how to answer Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
The Greek word translated "to know" carries a deeper meaning than our English word "know" generally<br />
implies, though often when we say we know a person we mean that we understand him and his qualities.<br />
In these <strong>Bible</strong> contexts the verb form of "to know" means "to come to know, to get acquainted with, to<br />
understand." In John 17:3 it indicates a continuing relationship between God and the person that brings<br />
ever-increasing knowledge of God and Christ; what is known about God is not merely partial<br />
information but is of value or importance to the one who grows in knowledge. It also implies a closeness<br />
of trust and confidence. (John 17:3, Kingdom Interlinear) In fact, the apostle John says: "He that does not<br />
love has not come to know God."-1 John 4:8. But the <strong>Bible</strong> also says, "With his mouth the godless man<br />
destroyeth his neighbor; But through knowledge shall the righteous be delivered."(ASV) Again, I<br />
re-iterate, the author thinks studying anything other than the <strong>Bible</strong> is wrong...and we could save $19.25<br />
from buying his book which is full of untruths so far.<br />
A Review from Amazon.com<br />
"Probably the worst book on JWs ever written. Instead of giving you my opinion, I would prefer to cite<br />
specific examples from different chapters of Rhodes' book, and then give you my opinion based on those<br />
examples. LIST OF 5 UNPROVEN AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS 1) On page 177 of Rhodes'<br />
book, he says, "The fact that Michael [the archangel] is ONE AMONG EQUALS [emphasis added]<br />
proves that he is not unique." Of course, the <strong>Bible</strong> nowhere says Michael is "one among equals." But he<br />
certainly is unique to Daniel, as he is "the prince of you people [=Israel]."--Daniel 10:21. 2) Rhodes, on<br />
page 123 of his book, cites the Greek-English lexicon by Bauer (commonly referred to as BAG), and<br />
says that this lexicon defines the Greek word ARCHE in Revelation 3:14 as "first cause." This is one of<br />
the definitions BAG gives, but the lexicon also states, "The the mng. [meaning] beginning=first created<br />
is linguistically poss. [possible]." Thus, Rhodes witholds this crucial qualification from his readers. 3) On<br />
page 63 of his book, Rhodes claims that Jesus used the expression EGO EIMI ("I am") "as a way of<br />
identifying Himself as God." But nowhere does he comment on the use of this expression by the man<br />
Jesus healed in John 9:9. Of course, EGO EIMI is often associated with Jesus' identity as the Messiah<br />
(compare John 4:25-26), not God. Rhodes' failure to deal with texts such as John 9:9 reveal that he is not<br />
interested in presenting a complete discussion of the facts, but only his dogmatic opinion. 4) This one is<br />
truly amazing. On page 113 of his book, Rhodes contrasts the New <strong>World</strong> Translation's rendering of John<br />
8:58 ("I have been") with the New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong>'s reading ("I am"). He then concludes on<br />
page 116 of his book, "Scholars agree that the Watchtower Society has no justification for translating ego<br />
eimi in John 8:58 as `I have been.'" However, Rhodes fails to recognize that the very same <strong>Bible</strong> he uses<br />
in comparision with the NWT, namely, the NASB, contains this alternate reading in the margin of its<br />
editions of 1960-73, "Or, I have been"! Also, it is NOT true that "Scholars agree that the Watchtower<br />
Society has no justification." In fact, one of the world's leading Greek grammarians, K. L. McKay,<br />
translates John 8:58, "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born."--A New Syntax of the<br />
Verb in New<br />
Testament Greek (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 42. 5) Finally, as if the above were not enough to warn<br />
you of the misleading content of this book, consider Rhodes' unfounded statement on page 173 of his<br />
book, the opening words of Chapter 7: "According to the Watchtower Society, Jesus Christ is a MERE<br />
ANGEL." (emphasis added to "mere angel") The truth is, Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus Christ is the<br />
Archangel, and thus the ruler of the angels. Also, the Witnesses believe Jesus is second only to Jehovah<br />
God Himself. Such a being could hardly be considered a "mere angel"! Still, Rhodes misleads his readers<br />
into thinking that the Witnesses' view of Jesus is one that gives him no glory at all, and relegates him to<br />
the position of a "mere angel." There are many other statements from Rhodes' book that would also<br />
support my negative review, but the above should be enough to encourage any reader of his book to<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes.htm (7 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:15 AM]
9 out of 10 "Christians" don't know how to answer Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
exercise great care, and to never take what he says as the final court of arbitration when it comes to<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses. The reader should question Rhodes the same way you would question the<br />
Witnesses or anyone else. Never let the fact that someone put something in print convince you that it is<br />
true based on that fact<br />
alone."<br />
For more Conversations on the Trinity click here.<br />
See the <strong>Site</strong><strong>Map</strong><br />
Thanks for stopping by.<br />
Back to <strong>Bible</strong> Page<br />
Email me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/rhodes.htm (8 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:15 AM]
The Prince of Egypt<br />
I just saw the movie "The Prince of Egypt." I must admit the<br />
crowd was a little sparse for opening night. The movie was<br />
not your typical cartoon. There is little humor, no funny<br />
animals...and no Mcdonalds tie-ins. I am saving the movie<br />
postcard that I received since I won`t be able to get a Moses<br />
figurine:) When God spoke from the burning bush, he<br />
didn`t sound as masculine as I would`ve liked. In this movie<br />
he sounds more like a kinder, gentler Almighty. The scene<br />
was still powerful, as was the parting of the Red Sea. They<br />
modeled this movie after Cecil B.Demille`s vision of what<br />
happened in his two earlier versions of "The 10<br />
Commandments"(1923,1956).<br />
As in the older version, there was no mention of the<br />
Divine Name Jehovah or Yahweh which played an integral<br />
part of the original story, which is unfortunate.<br />
Example:Exodus 3:13-15,"Then Moses said to God,'If I go<br />
to the Isrealites and tell them that the God of their<br />
forefathers has sent me to them, and they ask me for his<br />
name, what shall I say? .....You must tell the Isrealites this,<br />
that it is JEHOVAH the God of their forefathers, the God of<br />
Abraham, The God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, who has sent<br />
you to them. This is my name forever; this is my title in<br />
every generation." The New English <strong>Bible</strong>(Protestant and Catholic).<br />
The King James Version has,"And God spake unto Moses and said unto him, I am the LORD: And I<br />
appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty, but by my name<br />
JEHOVAH was I not known to them.(Exodus 6:2,3)<br />
According to the preface in the American Standard Version of the Holy <strong>Bible</strong> that the name Jehovah was<br />
removed from most translations because of a Jewish superstition.<br />
But in the age of Southpark and Beavis and Butthead, "The Prince of Egypt" is still a welcome surprise.<br />
And another thing, I have heard some complain that this movie teaches a value system. So! No one<br />
complained when Pleasantville told us to have unprotected sex to finally feel alive. Nobody ever<br />
complains about something amoral.<br />
Created January 6, 1998<br />
Back to <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Site</strong><br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/prince.htm [5/25/2003 4:18:25 AM]
Smoke and Mirrors-Tactics Used by Opposers to Sway Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
Smoke and Mirrors<br />
Click here to go directly to 50 Answers to 50 Questions Directed at Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
Click here to go directly to 65 Answers to 65 Questions Directed at Jehovah's Witnesses-Catholic Perspective<br />
Click here to go to 1975-and the prophecies of Christendom<br />
Why was the Watchtower Society Listed amongst the United Nations Non-Governmental Organizations<br />
(NGO)?<br />
JW's, Pedophiles...and Selective Discrimination and Hysteria<br />
See <strong>Site</strong>map for more<br />
Tactics used by Opposers<br />
These are actual tactics opposers try to use on the Witnesses in print and at seminars in order to sway them.<br />
Afterward, there will be answers to these probes. Many of theses will make their way into your email box. Just<br />
don't reply. That is why the delete button is so handy:) If you can think of any other, email me please.<br />
"Protocols of the Elders of J.W.'s?!<br />
In about 1895 a document was fabricated to incite hatred against the Jews. This document eventually fell into<br />
the hands of one Adolf Hitler, and the rest, as they say, is history. Since I tend to get alot of email from<br />
so-called "Christians," I have been finding a disturbing trend lately. Old Watchtower (and other WTS<br />
publications) quotations are floating around wherein the words quoted simply do not exist. These of course,<br />
are written in a way to make Jehovah's Witnesses look bad. It is sad, and ultimately frightening, that people<br />
are resorting to these kinds of tactics.<br />
I always ask these people for a hard-copy, to date, I have never received one. I usually get the same answer, "I<br />
lost mine," or, most often, "I got it from a web-site, but I lost the URL."<br />
Warning! Any document posted on a web-site AGAINST JW's that makes Witnesses look real bad, has an<br />
extremely high probability of being fabricated. People, this is not "Christian," this is evil.<br />
E-mail Mimics<br />
If you get e-mail from me telling you something horrible, it isn't me. It is an apostate or an opposer, the latest<br />
coming from the Watchtower Observer goon Kent Steinhaug at kent@observer.org or kent@mail.n1l.net.<br />
Please delete these e-mails and don't answer them.<br />
To read more about this unsavory character click here.<br />
Kent's reply to this:<br />
To:<br />
<br />
Subject:<br />
Opposer Tactics<br />
From:<br />
"Kent Steinhaug" Add to Contacts<br />
Date:<br />
Thu, Sep 14 2000 11:44:27 PM +0200<br />
Hi there, moron!<br />
Did anyone tell you how pathetic you are?<br />
Laughing my ass off!<br />
Yakki Da<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/opposers.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:38 AM]
Smoke and Mirrors-Tactics Used by Opposers to Sway Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
kent<br />
As of the middle of May 2001, Kent Steinhaug has written back, but this time his language has gotten<br />
considerably worse. Such seething anger, as we know, is indicative of fear and ignorance. The subject is<br />
devoid of any intelligent response, and must resort to primal/ Darwinian grunts/groans. For more, click here.<br />
Read the latest email from Kent here (Profanity Warning!).<br />
Also avoid email from sunshineconcern@netscape.net, Labufy@aol.com, mshilmer, and jpipenburg@tcsn.net<br />
The Blood Issue<br />
"Ask....would you really allow your baby to die because of instructions by the Watchtower Society."-Ron<br />
Rhodes<br />
Anyone who thinks that is grossly misinformed. Read Dr. Laura's letter about JW's and Blood here....or here.<br />
Here is the comment:<br />
Subject: Non-Blood Transfusions<br />
Date: 1999-03-04<br />
RE: Your Caller Concerned About Father's Refusal of Blood<br />
Transfusion<br />
"I'm a long-time listener, fan, supporter and defender of all<br />
that you teach, preach (& nag). Today a man called you and voiced<br />
concern over his father, a JW who is facing surgery and will refuse a blood<br />
transfusion. After some personal chat with the man, you said you<br />
understood his feelings: he'd lost his wife and now stood to lose his father.<br />
The assumption his father was as good as dead without blood transfusion is a common<br />
one, but there's almost no truth to that anymore. At our hospitals, we have a Transfusion-Free<br />
Medicine & Surgery Program and the results are phenomenal. Outcomes are better and the<br />
hospital stays are shorter. We've eliminated the risks associated with blood transfusions (and there<br />
are many, ranging from the best known, AIDS, to Hepatitis C and other infections and<br />
complications).<br />
Our Palm Springs-area hospitals, part of the Tenet Healthcare Corp., are part of a network<br />
of Southern California facilities with this program. Included among them are our prestigious USC<br />
University Hospital and the USC/Norris Cancer Hospital. Hospitals and doctors all over the<br />
country are climbing aboard this bandwagon; I could introduce you to surgeons who haven't<br />
transfused blood in years.<br />
We're doing open heart, cancer, neuro, ortho (including total hip and knee replacement)<br />
neonatal and pediatric, gynecological and urological, transplant, and vascular surgeries<br />
successfully without blood transfusions. Much of this is due to advances in equipment and<br />
technology, and credit also goes to the JW population for their stand on blood which brought<br />
about these changes. Today, about 25% of tranfusion-free procedures are on people who are not<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses, but who choose the option for health or personal reasons.<br />
This is emerging medicine. Your caller would have benefited from this<br />
knowledge (his father probably already knows about it). The day may<br />
come when blood transfusions are a thing of the past.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/opposers.htm (2 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:38 AM]
Smoke and Mirrors-Tactics Used by Opposers to Sway Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
So, let's put this canard to rest."<br />
Tom Wixon<br />
Manager, Marketing & Public Relations<br />
Desert Regional Medical Center<br />
John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital<br />
Phone: (760) 323-6690<br />
Fax: (760) 323-6580<br />
Or Call:<br />
Bradford Ray<br />
Transfusion Free Medical & Surgery Coordinator<br />
Desert Regional Medical Center<br />
John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital<br />
Phone: (760) 323-6311<br />
Another point about Blood<br />
It is a little known fact that there are deaths every year in relation to circumcisions. These are infant<br />
deaths.Please see: http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/deathsdo.htm These are also a requirement by<br />
certain religious groups. Yet no one seems to criticize this practice. The reason for this is because it is easier to<br />
pick on a little group that is considered a "cult" rather than on larger groups that have powerful political<br />
backing.<br />
"When compared to the treatment of other religions there seems to be a disparity in the treatment of Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses. For example we have never heard of forced abortion on a Catholic, even if that woman's life is in<br />
danger. Doctor's have accepted in these instances that the<br />
Catholic's beliefs are more important than their interest in keeping the woman alive." Robert Conlon, "No<br />
Blood! The History of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Issue of Blood Transfusions<br />
It never ceases to amaze me, the level of myopia that circulates in the minds of those who would think to<br />
condemn JW's as child-killers, when this accusation is actually true of those pointing the fingers.<br />
"Barna noted that substantial numbers of Christians believe that activities such as abortion, gay<br />
sex, sexual fantasies, cohabitation, drunkenness and viewing pornography are morally<br />
acceptable."<br />
http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=106&Reference=E&Key=abortion<br />
Here we have "Christians" who find nothing wrong in the active participation in the deaths of their own<br />
unborn babies, but yet JW's are evil for wanting the safest and best treatment for their children. Could the<br />
accusations lie in the fact that it is easier to condemn an already unpopular group?<br />
Consider the following:<br />
"About 1,350,000 newborn American males are circumcised annually, and about 230 of them die<br />
as a result of this operation." (Sex by Prescription, by Thomas S. Szasz, MD, Syracuse University<br />
Press, 1990)<br />
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/deathsdo.htm<br />
This far outnumbers any complications JW's endure on an annual basis, yet we NEVER hear about this. Why?<br />
The following statement which can be applied to the blood issue might clear it up:<br />
"...Mainstream organized religions often have the same problems (e.g. child abuse, misused<br />
funds) as some new religious sects, yet the former get off the hook. Although there may be some<br />
outcry about the specific incidents, no one in the mainstream uses these occcurences to smear<br />
organized religions as a whole....generally, if (say) a rabbi sins, he is seen as a bad rabbi, not as<br />
proofs of the evils of Judaism; if a 'cult leader' sins, that is proof of the evils of cults. Jews (and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/opposers.htm (3 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:39 AM]
Smoke and Mirrors-Tactics Used by Opposers to Sway Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
other mainstream believers) buy newspapers and will complain if their religion is abused;<br />
whereas cults are not seen as a serious constituency."<br />
You Are Being Lied To/Russ Kick editor, p. 288<br />
No one fears a boycott from JW's. Attacking JW's is not politically incorrect. We are not going to hear bad<br />
reports of Baptists and Jews, for that would mean trouble. What surprises me though is that intelligent persons<br />
fall prey to this myopic mindset.<br />
For more, click here<br />
Dream Conversation<br />
You will often find several versions of this conversation floating around different web-sites and publications<br />
(like the often erroneous one by Ron Rhodes)...<br />
Householder: In the New <strong>World</strong> Translation it says at John 17:3,"This means everlasting life, their taking in<br />
knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."<br />
Witness:That's right.<br />
Householder:So your God is the one true God?<br />
Witness:That's right.<br />
Householder:So other gods are false gods?The opposite of true is false right?<br />
Witness:Yes<br />
Householder:What does it say at John 1:1?<br />
Witness:In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.<br />
Householder:The Word was A GOD?<br />
Witness:Yes<br />
Householder:So he must be a false god?<br />
Witness:Well,...no.<br />
Householder:Well, he isn't a false god is he?<br />
Witness:No.<br />
Householder:Then he must be the True God Jehovah.<br />
Witness:Trinity isn't in the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Householder:Of course it isn't, it is Latin.Theocratic Kingdom isn't in the bible either. When you stop using<br />
that I will stop using Trinity.<br />
What is wrong with this situation?<br />
First, "god" is a very relative term. Angels were referred to as God, even Jehovah.You will find that when God<br />
first communicated with Moses he appeared in a burning bush. And an angel spoke from the bush. (Exodus<br />
3:2) and the "angel" said to Moses: "And he went on to say: 'I am the God of your father, the God of<br />
Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.' Then Moses concealed his face, because he was afraid to<br />
look at the [true] God." (Exodus 3:5,6) Jehovah was still invisible in the heavens, but, he sent an angel to<br />
represent him. The angel was God to Moses.<br />
Again, at Psalm 82:1 it reads: "God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One; (or "God"-<br />
Hebrew Masoretic text; or "gods"- LXX; or "angels" - Syriac Peshitta Version) In the middle of the gods<br />
(godlike ones- Hebrew; "elohim" or "theoi- LXX or "angels"- Syriac (see Psalm 8:5, footnote b) Or<br />
according to the Targums- "judges.") he judges:" (Psalm 82:1)<br />
Even Satan is a god.(2 Corinthians 4:4)<br />
Jehovah made Moses a god to pharoah(Exodus 7:1) Moses was not a false god. He was a messenger of God,<br />
or the word of God, much the same way Jesus was.<br />
1 Corinthians 8:5 says: For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are<br />
gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him;<br />
and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.<br />
How others have viewed angels and men as gods:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/opposers.htm (4 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:39 AM]
Smoke and Mirrors-Tactics Used by Opposers to Sway Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
"The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question whether Christ was an<br />
angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an angel, rank as God. The explanation which<br />
was offered by the supporters of the Angel-Christology was that Christ, according to his nature, was a high<br />
angel, but that he was named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The word 'God' did mean, in the<br />
first place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the beings who served this deus verus<br />
[Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods' implies reverence and recognition of Him<br />
who sent them and whom they thus represented. Consequently in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28), not only<br />
angels, but even men could be called 'gods' [cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:7, 9; Ps. 82:6, 7; John 10:34, 35] without<br />
according them the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius [260-330 C.E.] had thought in this way2 ... 2<br />
Latantius, inst. Epitome [The Epitome Of The Divine Institutes], 37."-Martin Werner, The Formation Of<br />
Christian Dogma, p. 140.<br />
"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred an honourable<br />
office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His Son] is far more worthy of this<br />
honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John 10:34] is in Psalm lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You<br />
are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; where God expostulates with the kings and judges of<br />
the earth, who tyrannically abuse the authority and power for their own sinful passions, for oppressing the<br />
poor, and for every evil action ... Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, because<br />
they are God's ministers for governing the world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods,<br />
because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world ... In short, let us know that magistrates are called<br />
gods, because God has given them authority."-John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p.<br />
419, 20.<br />
"We have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue."-Justin<br />
Martyr, The First Apology Of Justin, chapter XXI (21); ANF, Vol. I, p. 170.<br />
"For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely<br />
men, then at length gods;"-Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV (4), chapter XXXVIII (38), § 4;<br />
ANF, Vol. I, p. 52<br />
"[the Son] having bestowed on us the truly great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the Father, deifying<br />
man by heavenly teaching,"-Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The Heathen (or, The Greeks, or, The<br />
Gentiles), chapter XI (11); ANF, Vol. II, p. 203.<br />
"But let us, O children of the Father-nurslings of the good Instructor [Christ]-fulfil the Father's will ... and<br />
meditating on the heavenly mode of life according to which we have been deified, let us anoint ourselves with<br />
the perennial, immortal bloom of gladness."-Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Peadagogus), Book I,<br />
chapter XII (12); ANF, Vol. II, p. 234.<br />
"The Creator did not wish to make him [mankind] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel-be not<br />
deceived-but a man. For if He had wished to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example<br />
of the Logos [the Word, the Son]"-Hippolytus, The Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10), chapter XXIX<br />
(29); ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 151.<br />
"And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or<br />
passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God ... For the Deity, (by condescension,)<br />
does not diminish aught of the dignity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His<br />
glory!"-ibid., chapter XXX (30); ibid., p. 153.<br />
"If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and by the<br />
Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/opposers.htm (5 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:39 AM]
Smoke and Mirrors-Tactics Used by Opposers to Sway Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
of the dead."-Hippolytus, Discourse On The Holy Theophany, § 8; ANF, Vol. V, p. 237.<br />
"For He [the Son of God] was made man that we might be made God."-Athanasisus, Incarnation Of The<br />
Word, (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Edinburgh, T&T Clark; Grand<br />
Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Second Series, Vol. IV (4), p. 65, reprinting of October, 1987.<br />
"For He has become Man, that He might deify us in Himself, and He has been born of a woman, and<br />
begotten of a Virgin in order to transfer to Himself our erring generation, and that we may become<br />
henceforth a holy race, and 'partakers of the Divine Nature,' as blessed Peter wrote. (2 Peter 1:4)-Athanasius,<br />
Letters of Athanasius, (Lx. Ad Adelphiun), 60.4; ibid., p. 576.<br />
True as Opposed to False<br />
In John 1:9 Jesus is called the "True Light". But yet his disciples are also called "Light"(Matt 5:14). Does that<br />
mean that they are false lights?<br />
Jesus is called the "Faithful and TRUE witness" at Rev 3:14. But at Acts 1:8 Christians are said to be<br />
"witnesses". Are they false witnesses. Of course not. All these uses of the TRUE are used archetypically, as<br />
opposed to a copy of something. That is the way we should be looking at this.<br />
Trinity is Latin?!<br />
Actually, trinity is an english translation of the latin word trinitas, WHICH COMES FROM THE GREEK<br />
WORK TRIAS. Maybe we could ask why trias isn't in the bible.<br />
Theocratic Kingdom!?<br />
This actually is in the <strong>Bible</strong>. Theocratic means "god-rule". Theos and God are certainly in the bible....as is<br />
rule...as is God's Kingdom and the Kingdom of God(Daniel 2:44;Matthew 6:33; 12:28 etc. The trinity, or even<br />
the idea of a Triune God IS NOT in the bible.<br />
Are Quotations Used Erroneous?<br />
Julius R. Mantey and Philip B. Harner both complained that their works were used to support the NWT<br />
rendition of John 1:1. Of course they were, they are trinitarians. They were embarrased and ambushed by<br />
people like Dr. Walter Martin, in public yet. They had to backtrack to save face. P.B. Harner says he never<br />
claimed that John 1:1 could say, "the Word was a god(well, only if we jumble the words around). What he<br />
actually said in our literature and what they don't tell is, "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had<br />
the same nature as God." Elaborating on this point, Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical<br />
construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article<br />
"the," preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that "the logos<br />
has the nature of theos." He further stated: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so<br />
prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite." (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85,<br />
87)<br />
I have a copy of the Journal of Biblical Literature/Vol.92 1973. If you want a copy let me know.<br />
For further conversations with Julius R. Mantey click here.<br />
Much is made also of our quotation of Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>: "Jn 1:1<br />
should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.' The complaint is that we use the quote out of<br />
context and that he believes in a trinity. That makes it even better. If avid trinitarians feel we should translate<br />
John 1:1 differently, that makes the argument more powerful. What they don't tell you is what he said further:<br />
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the <strong>Bible</strong>, says: "The trinity of persons within the unity of nature<br />
is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not<br />
appear in the <strong>Bible</strong>. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms<br />
and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."-(New<br />
York, 1965), p. 899<br />
Then there is the matter of Johannes Greber, and there are books and web-sites devoted to this man and his<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/opposers.htm (6 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:39 AM]
Smoke and Mirrors-Tactics Used by Opposers to Sway Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
rendition of John 1:1 which we have used in the past as support for it. We have stopped using his 1932<br />
translation when it was learnt of his involvement in spiritualism. But we don't need him anymore for that<br />
because we have enough proof of the literal renderings we use. I guess someone out there thinks we are<br />
infallible. Of the thousands of quotes that we have used over the years, they found one that they could use<br />
against us. But what they don't tell you is the thousands of other scriptures that closely resemble other<br />
scriptures found in more mainstream <strong>Bible</strong>s. And no one ever mentions that Greber's <strong>Bible</strong> was distinctive<br />
because of the gold-leaf cross on its stiff front cover. It would be unfair for me to say that because of Greber's<br />
involvement in spiritualism, that the cross must be occultish. The NWT does not need Greber's version to<br />
buttress its position anyways. Take note of the following:<br />
In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word. (Interlineary Word<br />
for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott)<br />
Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"<br />
Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"<br />
Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god<br />
Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine<br />
Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god<br />
New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"<br />
Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine<br />
Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god"<br />
Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>, "and the Message was Deity"<br />
Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was"<br />
Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"<br />
Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"<br />
Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god"<br />
Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]<br />
J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"<br />
George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"<br />
Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"<br />
James L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"<br />
Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"<br />
Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"<br />
Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"<br />
Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature<br />
Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"<br />
Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos<br />
Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine<br />
Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was<br />
Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One<br />
Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was<br />
Madsen, 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"<br />
Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos]<br />
Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].<br />
Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes<br />
itself divine Being/being]<br />
Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word]<br />
Baumgarten et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]<br />
Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]<br />
Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/opposers.htm (7 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:39 AM]
Smoke and Mirrors-Tactics Used by Opposers to Sway Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine<br />
kind]<br />
Pfaefflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind]<br />
Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word]<br />
Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]<br />
Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word)<br />
Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]<br />
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all<br />
like God]<br />
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"<br />
Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the<br />
Word/word].<br />
William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And the Word was divine."<br />
John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"<br />
Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"<br />
Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was<br />
Divine"<br />
Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"<br />
For more on John 1:1 click here.<br />
For more on Johannes Greber click here.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
E-mail Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/opposers.htm (8 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:39 AM]
Defending the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
The New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
Answering the Attack<br />
"The New <strong>World</strong> Translation is an incredibly biased translation" Reasoning from the Scriptures with the<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses by Ron Rhodes<br />
"It is no more 'full of heresies' than any other translation" <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and how to choose between<br />
them by Alan S. Duthie<br />
In the verse preceding his statement, Ron Rhodes says that the NWT rendering of Hebrews 1:8 is<br />
unacceptable. Mr. Rhodes likes the New International Version(NIV) and the New American Standard<br />
Version(NASB).<br />
Hebrews 1:8 says in the NWT: "But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and<br />
[the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness."<br />
The NASB says: "But of the Son he says, THY THRONE O GOD IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE<br />
RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM."<br />
The NIV reads similarly.<br />
So which one is right? The NASB's translation reads like the Son is God, the NWT's does not. This<br />
scripture is quoting Psalms 45:6,7. What Mr Rhodes fails to mention in this regard is that Psalms here is<br />
referring to a human king, probably King Solomon. Was King Solomon "God"? NO! That is why the<br />
Revised Standard Version translates Psalms 45:6,7 as "Your divine throne endures forever and ever"<br />
which is different from the way it translated it for Hebrews 1:8. Who is biased now? Hebrews 1:8 equates<br />
Jesus(the Son) with King Solomon in Psalms. Both are subordinate to God, both are Kings. The Tanakh<br />
Holy Scriptures(the New Jewish Publication Society Translation translates Ps 45:7 as "Your -divine<br />
throne- is everlasting. and then it encourages the reader to read 1 Chronicles 29:23 which says: "Solomon<br />
successfully took over the throne of the LORD as king instead of his father." Solomon, like Jesus sits/sat<br />
on Jehovah's throne.<br />
So a little investigation will go a long way to uncover the truth behind attacks on the NWT. Ron Rhodes<br />
states that the NWT gets a "thumbs down" from legitimate bible scholars...which is an insult to the list<br />
below.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nwt.htm (1 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:19:49 AM]
Defending the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
So What About the NIV and the NASB?<br />
First, let me say that the New International Version and the New American Standard Version are very<br />
good <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and I use them on a regular basis as I do the NWT. But as much as people like to<br />
criticize the NWT, there are problems with the NIV and the NASB.<br />
The New International Version<br />
God's name Jehovah/Yahweh appears in the original hebrew text about 7000 times, but the NIV fails to<br />
mention it even once. When asked about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's<br />
committee wrote:<br />
"Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should<br />
have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down<br />
the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have<br />
translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a<br />
Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It<br />
is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King<br />
James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard<br />
decision, and many of our translators agree with you."<br />
Profit is a low motive for changing this most important text. Even the King James had "Jehovah" 4 times<br />
at Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4.<br />
The NIV is not a literal translation, but something between literal and paraphrased. Is it biased? Yes it is.<br />
Check this out: At Luke 16:23, hades is translated "hell". At Matthew 5:22, gehenna is translated "hell".<br />
At 2Peter 2:4, tartarus is translated "hell". Earlier versions of the NIV also had son of destruction<br />
translated as "child of hell".<br />
Where the NASB has "accursed" at Galatians 1:8,9, the NIV has "eternally condemned". It sounds like the<br />
NIV wants to make sure that the <strong>Bible</strong> teaches hell-fire, which would contradict scriptures like Romans<br />
6:23 which states, "The wages of sin is death." See also Eccl 9:5,10; Psalms 146:4; Romans 6:7; 1John<br />
4:8. What do references say? Historical evidence of the fiery hell of Christendom is found in the religion<br />
of ancient Egypt. (The Book of the Dead, New Hyde Park, N.Y., 1960, with introduction by E. A. Wallis<br />
Budge, pp. 144, 149, 151, 153, 161)<br />
The NWT strives to keep pagan influences out of the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Is the NIV biased when it comes to the Trinity? Yes it is. Dr. Kenneth Barker, General Editor of the NIV<br />
when accused of being too strong on the Deity of Christ answered: "If they want to accuse me of being<br />
biased toward the Deity of Christ, I'm honored."<br />
Feel free to check out how biased the NIV people are when they approved the<br />
New International readers Version.<br />
Jack Lewis, commenting on his own experience as part of the NIV translation committee interestingly<br />
admits, "Once the committee got at its task, one discovered that his preparation was far too scanty. If one<br />
had written a PhD dissertation on each verse that was to be considered, he might have been qualified to<br />
deal with all the questions that could be raised. The individual traits of each committee member quickly<br />
surfaced. One had a special talent for recalling where a particular form had occured before. Another could<br />
offer his training in Akkadian and Ugartic; another in Latin and Greek. The Old Testament specialists<br />
were sometimes not aware that a passage was also used in the New Testament." [Emphasis mine, "The<br />
New International Version" Restoration Quarterly 24 1st Quarter p.3]<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nwt.htm (2 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:19:49 AM]
Defending the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
The New American Standard Version<br />
The NASB is a reworking of the excellent American Standard Version of 1901. It also claims to be a<br />
literal translation of the <strong>Bible</strong>. But is it? The ASV had Jehovah in it about 6,823 times, just like the<br />
original hebrew, but the NASB removed it every time. This makes for some awkward situations like<br />
Psalms 110:1, "The LORD said to my lord."<br />
Gehenna and Tartarus are both translated "Hell"(Matt.5:22; 2Peter 2:4)<br />
The Hebrew word ALMAH is "virgin" at Is.7:14, "maiden" at Gen.24:43, girl at Ex.2:8, "maidens" at Ps.<br />
68:25 and "maid" at Prov. 30:19.<br />
The NWT is one of the few <strong>Bible</strong> that translates this word faithfully.<br />
MONOGENES is translated "only-begotten" when applied to Jesus(John 1:18;3:16) and Isaac<br />
(Heb.11:17), but elsewhere it is translated "only" at Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38.<br />
The above examples show that the NASB is hardly as literal as it claims to be.<br />
Does the NASB have a Trinity bias? Yes! "Full deity is<br />
attributed to Jesus Christ in the NASB."(The English <strong>Bible</strong> from KJV to NIV by Jack<br />
P. Lewis)<br />
Lets take a look:<br />
John 1:1 "and the Word was God." NIV and NASB<br />
John 1:1 "the Word was Divine" Schonfield,Goodspeed,Moffatt etc<br />
John 8:58 "before Abraham was born, I Am" NIV and NASB<br />
John 8:58 "I existed before Abraham was born." Schonfield, New Living etc<br />
Acts 20:28 "to shepherd the Church of God which he purchased with his own blood" NASB and NIV<br />
Acts 20:28 "to feed the church of the Lord, which he obtained wuth his own blood" RSV, see also<br />
Schonfield<br />
Colossians 2:9 "For in him all the fulness of the Deity dwells" NASB and NIV<br />
Colossians 2:9 "for it is in him that the immensity of the Divine Wisdom corporately dwells" Schonfield,<br />
see also Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
Titus 2:13 "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" NASB and NIV<br />
Titus 2:13 of the Great God, and of our Deliverer Jesus Christ" Schonfield, see also Geneva, KJV, NAB,<br />
Moffatt etc<br />
Hebrews 1:8 "But of the Son he says:Thy Throne O God is Forever and Ever." NASB and NIV<br />
Hebrews 1:8 "God is thy throne" RSV margin, see also Moffatt, Kingdom etc<br />
2Peter 1:1 "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" NASB and NIV<br />
2Peter 1:1 "of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" KJV, see also Schonfield, ASV, Concordant etc.<br />
Are the NASB and the NIV inconsistent?<br />
Take note: "And yet you have made him a little lower than God." (Psalms 8:5)NASB<br />
"...a little lower than the angels." (Hebrews 2:9) NASB<br />
Are the angels really "God"? The NIV has improved on this by rendering Psalms 8:5 "heavenly beings". The NWT renders<br />
it "god-like ones" which is consistent with other scriptures in the OT that refer to angels as "gods".(Ps.82; 97:7;<br />
138:1)Compare New American <strong>Bible</strong> and the New English <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
"They will look on me, the one they have pierced." Zechariah 12:10 NIV<br />
"they will look on me who they have pierced." NASB<br />
"they will certainly look on the One whom they have pierced" NWT, see also Good News <strong>Bible</strong> -TEV<br />
The NIV and the NASB have both translated the above scripture using "me" because it was Jehovah talking, hence making<br />
Jesus the God of the OT, as Jesus was pierced. Now let's look at how this is translated in the Christian Greek.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nwt.htm (3 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:19:49 AM]
Defending the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
"They will look on the one they have pierced." John 19:37 NIV<br />
"They shall look on HIM whom they pierced." NASB<br />
"They will look to the One who they pierced." NWT, NRSV<br />
Again, the NWT is more consistent in its rendering, as it does not fall prey to false theology. Few others, like the New<br />
Revised Standard Version(NRSV) and the TEV are not burdened by King James tradition in this instance.<br />
Was not Abraham our father declared righteous by works after he had offered up Isaac his son upon the<br />
altar? You behold that [his] faith worked along with his works and by [his] works [his] faith was<br />
perfected, and the scripture was fulfilled which says: "Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to<br />
him as righteousness," and he came to be called "Jehovah's friend."<br />
YOU see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone. In the same manner was<br />
not also Ra'hab the harlot declared righteous by works, after she had received the messengers hospitably<br />
and sent them out by another way? Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works<br />
is dead. James 2:21-26 NWT<br />
The NASB faithfully renders the greek word ERGON as works, but not the NIV. It translates it by these<br />
words in this order: "what he did", "actions", "what he did", "what he does", "what she did", "deeds".<br />
It is quite obvious that the New International Version do not want to forward a Works/Salvation theology.<br />
An interesting note is that in Romans 4:1-6, where Genesis 15:6 is again quoted(just like it is in James 2) the NIV has no<br />
problems using the word "works".<br />
What about John 1:1 in the NWT?<br />
Well, I will let Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn from the Northern Arizona University answer this one:<br />
"The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word."<br />
Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefeinite article, like our a or an. If a<br />
noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from<br />
John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would<br />
have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate<br />
Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that<br />
tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."<br />
Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to<br />
the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to<br />
say "The God": ho theos. Even a monotheistic Christian, who beleives there is only one God and no<br />
others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New<br />
Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying "a god."<br />
(There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns<br />
change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of God," which is<br />
theou, you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to<br />
have the article.)<br />
So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of<br />
beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John<br />
wants to tell his readers that the Word(which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine<br />
class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you<br />
can in Greek. The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we do it<br />
in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun<br />
first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the definite article, they are telling us<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nwt.htm (4 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:19:49 AM]
Defending the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
that the subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a Volkswagen." In<br />
English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart<br />
person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a<br />
god." That is how I would translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement<br />
over "The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism.<br />
No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does<br />
not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has<br />
just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly<br />
differentiates between God from the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be<br />
seen. What is the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He starts his<br />
gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How does God create in Genesis? He speaks words<br />
that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan and activity. It is not<br />
God himself, but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status.<br />
That is why a monotheist like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a<br />
polytheist. This divine thing does not act on its own, however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and<br />
in becoming flesh brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans.<br />
I hope this helps.<br />
Best wishes<br />
Jason Beduhn<br />
Northern Arizona University<br />
Department of Humanities Arts and Religion<br />
Still Prefer the New International Version's Rendering of John 1:1?<br />
In 1976 "A Linguistic Key To The Greek New Testament" was released by Fritz Rienecker, "Translated<br />
with additions and revisions, from the German SPRACHLICHER SCHLUESSEL ZUM<br />
GRIECHISCHEN NEUEN TESTAMENT edited by Cleon L. Rogers Jr."<br />
ISBN 0-310-32050-X<br />
What do they say of John 1:1? "The word is without the article and is the predicate emphasizing quality,<br />
'the word had the same nature as God'."<br />
Who published this? It was Zondervan Publishing House. The same people who bring you the New<br />
International Version. So let's put this canard to rest.<br />
What about the NWT Old Testament?<br />
Isreali Professor Benjamin Kedar: "Several years ago I quoted the so-called New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
among several <strong>Bible</strong> versions in articles that deal with purely philological questions (such as the rendition<br />
of the causitive hiphil, of the participle qotel). In the course of my comparative studies I found the NWT<br />
rather illuminating: it gives evidence of an acute awareness of the structural characteristics of Hebrew as<br />
well as of an honest effort to faithfully render these in the target language. A translation is bound to be a<br />
compromise, and as such its details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion<br />
corresponding the the Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong>, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous rendition<br />
which would find its explanation in a dogmatic bias. Repeatedly I have asked the antagonists of the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nwt.htm (5 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:19:49 AM]
Defending the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
Watchtower-<strong>Bible</strong> who turned to me for a clarification of my views, to name specific verses for a renewed<br />
scrutiny. This either was not done or else the verses submitted (e.g. Genesis 4:13; 6:3; 10:9; 15:5; 18:20;<br />
etc.) did not prove the point, namely, a tendentious translation."<br />
It should be pointed out that that Professor Kedar does not "feel sympathy for any sect and this includes<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses."<br />
Other Favourable Comments on the NWT.<br />
J.D. PHILLIPS: (J.D. Phillips was a Church of Christ Minister, schooled in the<br />
original tongues). "Last week I purchased a copy of your New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in being an<br />
owner. You have done a marvelous work...I was happy, indeed, to see the name<br />
Jehovah in it. But you have made a marvelous step in the right direction, and I<br />
pray God that your Version will be used to His glory. What you have done for<br />
the Name alone is worth all the effort and cost!"<br />
ALLEN WIKGREN: (Allen Wikgren was on the New Revised Standard Version<br />
committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek text).<br />
"Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such<br />
as...the Jehovah's Witnesses edition of the New Testament(1950)." (The<br />
Interpreter's <strong>Bible</strong>, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99)<br />
BENJAMIN KEDAR: (Benjamin Kedar is a<br />
professor at Hebrew University in Israel). "In my linguistic research in connection with<br />
the Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong> and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what<br />
is known as the New <strong>World</strong> Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling<br />
repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an<br />
understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a<br />
broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a<br />
second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific<br />
structure of the Hebrew...Every statement of language allows for a certain<br />
latitude in interpreting or translation. So the linguistic solution in any given<br />
case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not<br />
contain."<br />
S. MACLEAN GILMORE: "In 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation of the New Testament, and the preparation of the New <strong>World</strong> Old<br />
Testament is now far advanced. The New Testament edition was made by a<br />
committee...that possessed an unusual competence in Greek." (The Andover Newton<br />
Quarterly, September 1966, Vol 7, #1 page 25, 26) C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman<br />
notes that on the point of translator bias "the New <strong>World</strong> Translation of the<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism." (Nederlands<br />
Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280)<br />
WILLIAM CAREY TAYLOR: (William C. Taylor was a Southern Baptist Minister<br />
schooled in the original tongues). "Just when the infidel universities of this<br />
land thought they had laughed out of court the very name Jehovah, up...surges..<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nwt.htm (6 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:19:49 AM]
Defending the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
"Jehovah's Witnesses". ...And with considerable scholarship they get out their<br />
own New Testament and lo and behold, they put Jehovah into the New Testament two<br />
or three hundred times...It ought to be there [in the entire <strong>Bible</strong>] many times"<br />
(The New <strong>Bible</strong> Pro and Con, 1955 Page 75)<br />
C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias "the New <strong>World</strong> Translation of the<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism." Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch<br />
Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280<br />
CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER: "the New <strong>World</strong> Translation of the Christian Greek<br />
Scriptures...the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best<br />
manuscript texts...with scholarly ability and acumen." (The Faith Men Live By,<br />
1954, Page 239)<br />
EDGAR J. GOODSPEED: (Edgar J. Goodspeed was a Professor of Greek at the<br />
University of Chicago, and also translated the New Testament portion of "The<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> an American Translation"). "I am...much pleased with the free, frank and<br />
vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I<br />
can testify." (Personal Letter to Arthur Goux of Brooklyn Bethel, December 8,<br />
1950; See also Watchtower September 1, 1952 page 541, where Goodspeed is quoted<br />
as stating that the New <strong>World</strong> Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was<br />
"an interesting and scholarly work" )<br />
ROBERT M. MCCOY: "The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the<br />
presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the<br />
many problems of Biblical translation." (The Andover Newton Quarterly, January<br />
1963, Vol. 3, #3, Page 31)<br />
STEVEN T. BYINGTON: (Steven T. Byington translated the version known as "The<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> in Living English"). "If you are digging for excellent or suggestive<br />
renderings this is among the richer mines." (Christian Century, "Review of the<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, November 1, 1950 page<br />
1296)<br />
JASON BEDUHN: (Jason Beduhn teaches at the University of Indiana). "I have just<br />
recently completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of<br />
Indiana University, Bloomington, ...This is primarily a course in the Gospels.<br />
Your help came in the form of copies of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of<br />
the Greek Scriptures which my students used as one of the textbooks for the<br />
class. These small volumes were invaluable to the course and very popular with<br />
my students...Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I<br />
am a trained scholar of the <strong>Bible</strong>, familiar with the texts and tools in<br />
use in modern biblical studies, and by the way, not a member of the Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your 'New <strong>World</strong><br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Translation Committee' has done its job well. Your interlinear English<br />
rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to<br />
come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the<br />
Greek-speaking world and our own. Your 'New <strong>World</strong> Translation' is a high<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nwt.htm (7 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:19:49 AM]
Defending the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness<br />
to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations<br />
in use today."<br />
The Harper Collins <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary calls it one of the "major translations of the <strong>Bible</strong> into English,"<br />
along with the Knox translation, the Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, New American <strong>Bible</strong> and the New English <strong>Bible</strong>. p.<br />
292<br />
ALEXANDER THOMPSON: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and<br />
clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the<br />
Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing." (The<br />
Differentiator, April 1952, Page 52)<br />
EDGAR FOSTER: (Classics Major, Lenoir-Rhyne College)<br />
"Before I formally began to study Greek, I simply compared the NWT with lexicons,<br />
commentaries, and other translations to try and determine it's<br />
accuracy. It passed the litmus test then and it also passes the test<br />
now for me...The NWT is a fine translation. In my mind, it is the translation<br />
_par excellence_. But I feel just as confortable with an RSV or an<br />
NASB. Mostly I prefer my UBS Greek text."<br />
THOMAS N. WINTER: (Thomas N. Winter taught Greek at the University of<br />
Nebraska). "I think it is a legitimate and highly useful aid toward the mastery<br />
of koine (and classical) Greek. After examining a copy, I equipped several<br />
interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary test. After<br />
learning the proper pronunciations, a motivated student could probably learn<br />
koine from this source alone. ...the translation by the anonymous committee is<br />
thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate. ...In sum, when a witness comes<br />
to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or <strong>Bible</strong> student alike would do well<br />
to place an order." (The Classical Journal, "The Kingdom Interlinear",<br />
April-May 1974, pages 375, 376) See Also: "<strong>Bible</strong> Translation how to choose<br />
between them" by Alan S. Duthie,(Alan S. Dunthie is a professor at the<br />
University of Legon), Page103. Comments by Dr. Rijkel ten Kate<br />
F.F. BRUCE: "The New <strong>World</strong> Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1950),<br />
followed by the New <strong>World</strong> Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (1953 and following years), is a<br />
publication of the Watchtower <strong>Bible</strong> and Tract Society, Inc., and some of its distinctive renderings reflect<br />
the biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses (e.g., "the Word was a god" in John 1:1). Sometimes it renders the text with an un-English<br />
literalness (e.g., "Let continue yours what is yours" in Gen. 33:9); at other times we find such colloquial<br />
phraseology as "Excuse me, Jehovah" (Ex. 4:10) and "the Nile<br />
river will fairly stink" (Ex. 7:18). Some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike<br />
one as quite good; thus "a jealous God" is "a God exacting exclusive devotion", and the Hebrew phrase<br />
which the AV variously renders as "on this side Jordan"<br />
according to the context appears as "in the region of Jordan" (The English <strong>Bible</strong> 184).<br />
Edgar's Reply: Bruce's review is not a diatribe against the NWT and his remarks seem<br />
to center mostly around the renditions of the NWT as opposed to criticisms of the theological positions of<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses. Conversely, it is evident from some of his remarks that Bruce has a problem with<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nwt.htm (8 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:19:49 AM]
Defending the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
certain renderings of the NWT for theological reasons (e.g., John 1:1. But see Greg Stafford "Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses Defended"). That being said, Bruce calls attention to the literalness of the NWT, which has<br />
been effectively treated by Rolf Furuli in his book "The Role<br />
of Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation." Furuli shows the appropriateness of literalness in some<br />
contexts and translations. Nevertheless, Bruce also recognizes the skillful work expressed in the NWT.<br />
Overall, I think Bruce is as neutral as he can be in his comments on the NWT. Overall they present a<br />
somewhat favorable view of this influential work published by the WTBTS.<br />
Edgar Foster<br />
Classics Major<br />
Lenoir-Rhyne College<br />
For Metzger,Colwell, the NWT and John 1:1c click here<br />
E-Mail Bag<br />
I have a question: How does the New <strong>World</strong> Translation justify the addition of the word "other"<br />
into the Colossian hymn 1: 15-20? In the 1963 edition the word is in the<br />
text without the brackets. The word "other" is not in the Greek.<br />
Answer: Now let's look at the insertion of the word "other" in the New <strong>World</strong> Translation at Colossians<br />
chapter 1. We are going to start of by looking at some other scriptures where this is done.<br />
Luke 21:29<br />
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV)<br />
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News <strong>Bible</strong> (TEV)<br />
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American <strong>Bible</strong>(NAB)<br />
Luke 11:42<br />
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)<br />
"and of every [other] vegetables." NWT<br />
"and all the other herbs." TEV<br />
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version<br />
In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put it<br />
in there. Can they do that even without brackets?<br />
"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Christian Literature" by F. Blass and A.<br />
Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".<br />
The book Theology and Bias in <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> by Professor Rolf Furuli when talking about the word<br />
"other" in the Col. 1:16 in the NWT says, "This means that the brackets that NWT uses around OTHER<br />
may be removed, because the word OTHER is no addition or interpolation, but in a given context it is a<br />
legitimate part of PAS."<br />
Have you ever noticed all those words in italics in the King James Version? Those are words that are not<br />
in the original text, yet there are thousands of them.<br />
I have a question. At Rev. 5:10, most version say "on earth" instead of "over the earth". I read the<br />
reference bible, but did not fully understand its comment.<br />
The word for ON/OVER is EPI which can mean over as well(such as at Rev. 9:11; 11:6). And there are 4<br />
other times where EPI(over) is used with BASILEUO(to rule) and most versions render it as "over"(see<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nwt.htm (9 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:19:49 AM]
Defending the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
Luke 1:33; 19:14,27; Romans 5:14).<br />
That is why other versions use "over the earth" at Rev 5:10 like the Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>, Williams NT,<br />
Beck's translation, Amplified <strong>Bible</strong>, Smith&Goodspeed and footnotes in Schonfield's and Weymouth's<br />
NT.<br />
Hello Heinz: I have a question: Why did the NWT translate hi'na gi·no'sko·si se in John 17: 3 as<br />
"taking in knowledge"?<br />
W.E. Vines Expository Dictionary(which I highly recommend) states that GINOSKO(1097) means, "to be<br />
taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand." Strong's also uses the word "in a great<br />
variety of applications with many implications", which, if you look this scripture up in the Amplified <strong>Bible</strong><br />
will see that it renders it, "to know(to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with and understand.) It<br />
may be that the NWT translates this verse better than most other <strong>Bible</strong>s.<br />
The New <strong>World</strong> Translation carefully notes the difference between gno'sis ("knowledge") and e·pi'gno·sis<br />
(translated "accurate knowledge")-a difference ignored by many others. (Philippians 1:9; 3:8)<br />
MasterAcc0 writes:<br />
I am just quite curious as to why the NWT Left Out a few distinct parts in the scriptures. I am<br />
aware that I John 5:7 is controvertial in many respects, and many do not believe that it was part of<br />
the true texts, but what about John 5:4 of which the NKJV says "For an angel went down at a<br />
certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring<br />
of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had."<br />
>>You don't have these scriptures because you don't have the New <strong>World</strong> Translation Reference <strong>Bible</strong><br />
where you will find these (albeit in the foototes). This verse is not included in P66[Bodmer2 200 C.E.],<br />
P75[Bodmer14,15 200 C.E.], Codex Sinaiticus [4th Cent. C.E.], Vatican Ms 1209, [4th Cent. C.E.], Bazae<br />
Codices[5th, 6th Cent. C.E.], Jerome's Latin Vulgate[405 C.E.] and the Curetonian Syriac[5th Cent. C.E.]<br />
Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."<br />
>>This scripture is not included in the Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Curetonian Syriac and the<br />
Sinaitic Syriac Codex.<br />
Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."<br />
>>Again this is ommited in Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex.<br />
Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and<br />
for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."<br />
>>This verse is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Bazae Codices, Jerome's Latin Vulgate,<br />
Sinaitic Syriac Codex and the Armenian Version 4th to 15th Cent.<br />
Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."<br />
>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus and Vatican Ms 1209.<br />
Mark 9:44 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark 9:46 "Where<br />
their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."<br />
>>Both these verses are omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Ephreami rescriptus 5th<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nwt.htm (10 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:19:49 AM]
Defending the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
cent. C.E. and the Freer Gospels 5th Cent. C.E.<br />
Mark 11:26<br />
>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Freer Gospels and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex.<br />
Mark 15:28<br />
>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus and the Bezae Codices.<br />
Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses)<br />
>>These are omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Sinaitic Syriac Codex and the Armenian<br />
Version.<br />
Luke 17:36<br />
>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus, Freer Gospels and P75.<br />
Luke 23:17<br />
>>This is omitted by Codex Alexandrinus, Vatican Ms 1209 and P75.<br />
Acts 8:37<br />
>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraimi, P74,<br />
P45, Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta 5th Cent. C.E.<br />
Acts 15:34<br />
>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus and P74.<br />
Acts 24:7<br />
>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus, Vulgate and P74.<br />
Acts 28:29<br />
>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209 and Codex Alexandrinus.<br />
Romans 16:24<br />
>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi and P46.<br />
I am quite concerned in finding that many verses are missing from the NWT. I am in awe.<br />
Why??? I am sure that there is just cause, but it troubles me in wondering. If you have any inside<br />
knowledge of what reason the translators had to remove so much, please tell. thanks to you<br />
neighbor, Glenn<br />
>>Again, these verses are not missing in Reference Edition, the first edition and the CD-ROM edition of<br />
the NWT. But they are missing in alot of manuscripts and other versions and translations such as the RSV,<br />
Smith& Goodspeed, RV etc. Most others have them in brackets or in the footnotes.<br />
My KJV and NKJV study <strong>Bible</strong>s also have footnotes against these verses.<br />
The 1611 edition of the KJV also has variant readings[i.e. Acts 7:20 etc] and admissions of manuscript<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nwt.htm (11 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:19:49 AM]
Defending the New <strong>World</strong> Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB<br />
uncertainty in the margins[i.e. Luke 17:36, Luke 10:22], so it should not trouble you or anyone else.<br />
Consider yourself "put at ease".<br />
-Heinz<br />
"Ray Franz has since identified the New <strong>World</strong> <strong>Bible</strong> Translation Committee and now we know that<br />
the translators of the NWT have no more than a High School education."<br />
>>You are putting word in Franz's mouth. What he actually says is that one member has studied Greek for<br />
two years, and is self taught in Hebrew. People are too quick to accept what an apostate like Ray says. Ray<br />
now has a profit motive and a name recognition to uphold, hardly the basis for honest criticism. Ray uses<br />
the NWT as his default translation (see Copyright page) in his 'coming out' book, so obviously it is okay<br />
by him, as his book also uses the NIV, RSV, NEB and the JB as secondary versions. Another<br />
apostate/critic, M. James Penton, writes about the NWT that "this has very little to do with the quality of<br />
the translation itself which deserves to be examined on the basis of its own merits...Criticism of the New<br />
<strong>World</strong> Translation itself seems largely directed at a few passages and certain consistently used word<br />
translations."<br />
As we can see from the above praise of this <strong>Bible</strong> by scholarly poeple like Beduhn et al, any rejection of<br />
this good translation must amount to religious bigotry and hate.<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
For more info on the NWT, go to http://homepages.picknowl.com.au/hepburn/nwt.htm<br />
and http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/nwtmain.htm<br />
For more information contact me.<br />
For discussions, feel free to join:<br />
Subscribe to jehovahbible<br />
Powered by groups.yahoo.com<br />
This page was created with Netscape Navigator Gold<br />
This page last updated on January 1 2001.<br />
Trinity Bias | Trinity Truth | <strong>Bible</strong> Translation Anomalies | Main Page | WTB&TS | John 8:58 and EGW EIMI | Ron Rhodes | Hell | Soul | <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Contradictions? | King James the Fop | KJV<br />
<strong>Site</strong>map | NWT and the GS Rule | Computing & Internet | Triplepoint Theory | Hebrews 1:8 | Games | Health | Links | Apologetics | Angels as<br />
Gods | NWT Defense | News | Answering Kevin Quick Ministries and their Attack on the New <strong>World</strong> Translation | Coming Soon: An Answer to Andy<br />
Bjorklund | Textus Receptus | Johannine Comma | Hebrews 1:8 | The ARCHE at Rev 3:14 and the Creation of Jesus | Monogenes and John 1:18 | The<br />
Majority Text Debate<br />
© 1999 Netscape, All Rights Reserved. Legal & Privacy Notices<br />
This site powered by Netscape SuiteSpot servers.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nwt.htm (12 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:19:49 AM]
The New International Readers Version-Rewriting the <strong>Bible</strong> to fit your Philosophy<br />
Main Page<br />
International<br />
Standard<br />
Version<br />
The Message<br />
Comma<br />
Johanneum<br />
King James the<br />
Fop<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> News<br />
Big Bang Bunk<br />
Old Catholic<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Search English<br />
Versions<br />
<strong>Bible</strong><br />
<strong>Translations</strong><br />
More <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Original <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Project<br />
New American<br />
Standard <strong>Bible</strong><br />
NIV <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Search<br />
E-mail Me<br />
Christology and<br />
the Trinity<br />
Elohim and the<br />
Angels of<br />
Mamre<br />
"If every man's humour were followed, there would be ne no end of<br />
translating."Richard Bancroft -Bishop of London(1604)<br />
New International readers Version<br />
The NIrV is a version of a version-or if you like, a revision of the New International<br />
Version which is one of the best selling <strong>Bible</strong>s on the market. Since it is based on<br />
another version, and not on the original greek and hebrew manuscripts(though they say<br />
that they used some), there is opportunity for play...and abuse.<br />
An NIV translator was once asked about allegations that the New International Version<br />
was too strong on the Deity of Christ. His answer, "If they want to accuse me of being<br />
biased towards the deity of Christ, I'm honored."<br />
The NIrV has allowed these translators to go Hog-trinity wild. Here are some examples"<br />
Phillipians 2:6 "In his very nature he was God."<br />
Should read: "though he was in the form of God" RSV<br />
Collosians 1:15 "Christ is the exact likeness of God, who can't be seen."<br />
Should read: "He is the image of the invisible God" RSV<br />
Revelation 3:14 "He rules over what God has created."<br />
Should Read: "the beginning of God's creation" RSV<br />
Galatians 4:6 "God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts. He is the Holy Spirit."<br />
Should read: No other literal translation has the last sentence.<br />
1 Timothy 3:16 "The Holy Spirit proved that he was the Son of God."<br />
Should Read: "He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit." RSV<br />
John 1:18 "God, the One and only Son."<br />
Should Read: "the Only Son" RSV, or better yet, "the<br />
only-begotten God" NASB<br />
Colossians 2:9 "God's whole nature is living in Christ in human form."<br />
Should read: "The full content of divine nature lives in Christ" Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
Titus 2:13 "We are waiting for Jesus Christ...he is our great God and Savior."<br />
Should Read: "the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" ASV<br />
Hebrews 1:8 "But here is what he says about the Son. 'You are God.' "<br />
Should Read: "God is thy throne" RSV mg<br />
2 Peter 1:1 "our God and Savior Jesus Christ"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nirv.htm (1 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:20:06 AM]
The New International Readers Version-Rewriting the <strong>Bible</strong> to fit your Philosophy<br />
My Family<br />
Rolf Furuli<br />
American<br />
Standard<br />
Version<br />
Virtual <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
21 <strong>Translations</strong><br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Resources<br />
John Wycliffe<br />
An Inclusive<br />
Version<br />
Janey's <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Research<br />
NWT vs NASB<br />
James R.White<br />
Ron Rhodes<br />
Should read: "our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ" ASV<br />
Rev 3:14 and What the Hell?!<br />
the Creation of<br />
Christ<br />
2 Peter 2:4 tartarus is translated "hell"<br />
Matthew 7:13,14 destruction is translated "hell"<br />
Matthew 5:22 gehenna is translated "hell"<br />
Interlinear <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Matthew 16:18 hades is translated "hell".....except where it applies to Christ, then it is<br />
Trinity Bias translated "grave"<br />
Acts 2:27<br />
Geneva <strong>Bible</strong><br />
What's In a Name?<br />
WOC<br />
The translators once made a statement ot the effect that they would be throwing away<br />
Research/Trinity<br />
millions of dollars if they were to include the Divine Name Jehovah or Yahweh in their<br />
Is That in the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>?!<br />
translation. So wee see a profit motive in translating God's word. This was carried over<br />
to the NIrV which makes absolutely no mention of this great name( which incidentally<br />
occurs about 7000 times in the original hebrew). There is absolutely no mention of it in<br />
Latin Vulgate<br />
etc<br />
the foreword either.<br />
I did however see several names, including the editor, interior designer, typesetter,<br />
proofreaders, printers and of course, the publishing company.<br />
Trinity Truth References to the NAME are often removed, such as in Joel 2:32, "Everyone who calls<br />
out to me will be saved."<br />
In closing, I have this scripture. Psalms 74:10 "God, how long will your enemies make<br />
fun of you? Will they attack you with their words forever?"(NIrV)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nirv.htm (2 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:20:06 AM]<br />
Last Updated: July 11, 1999
The New International Readers Version-Rewriting the <strong>Bible</strong> to fit your Philosophy<br />
Trinity<br />
Explained<br />
Study Articles<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/nirv.htm (3 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:20:06 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> News<br />
NET SEARCH<br />
Blood Substitute Saves Lives, Reduces Blood Waste<br />
Fri Apr 5, 5:23 PM ET<br />
By Charnicia E. Huggins<br />
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - An experimental blood substitute that was successfully used as an<br />
alternative to blood transfusion in a 44-year-old Jehovah's Witness may help eliminate excessive waste of<br />
unused blood in our nation's supply, a Colorado researcher suggests.<br />
The product, PolyHeme, uses hemoglobin--the molecule in red blood cells that carries oxygen from the<br />
lungs to tissues throughout the body--from outdated human red blood cells. The cells are stripped of their<br />
protective membrane, which would normally elicit an immune response to foreign proteins, or foreign<br />
blood types. After undergoing various other modifications, the naked hemoglobin can then be transfused<br />
into any individual--regardless of his or her blood type--and even into animals, Dr. Ernest E. Moore of<br />
Denver Health Medical Center told Reuters Health.<br />
Furthermore, although PolyHeme reportedly lasts in the body for only 72 hours, it may provide a<br />
temporary fix for critically injured patients who do not have immediate access to stored blood.<br />
"(PolyHeme) may be one of the most significant advances since the discovery (news - web sites) of<br />
blood types," Moore said. Moore's research with PolyHeme is funded by the product's manufacturer, the<br />
Illinois-based Northfield Laboratories Inc.<br />
The US Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) (FDA) needs to investigate the product to<br />
determine whether or not it may be used by doctors. In November 2001, the FDA told Northfield<br />
Laboratories that it needed additional information on PolyHeme before accepting its application for<br />
filing.<br />
Because it looks promising, however, the FDA allows its "compassionate use," such as in the present<br />
case involving the Jehovah's Witness, Moore said.<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses' religious beliefs require them to refuse blood transfusions, along with any other<br />
medical treatments that involve the administration of blood or blood products. However, these beliefs are<br />
specific to transfusions of whole blood or one of its four main components--red cells, white cells,<br />
platelets, or plasma--and do not take into account transfusions of smaller components of blood, such as<br />
that used in PolyHeme.<br />
"Although not accepting blood transfusions, each Witness makes a personal decision about what<br />
bloodless alternative he or she will accept," J. R. Brown, director of the Jehovah's Witnesses' national<br />
office of public information, told Reuters Health.<br />
For full story, click here<br />
Here's a question posed by a student to God:<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (1 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
Dear God,<br />
Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado?<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Concerned Student<br />
Dear Concerned Student,<br />
I am not allowed in schools.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
God<br />
....Now read below for how this has unfolded in an incredibly short period of time:<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
Let's see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare complained she didn't want any prayer in our<br />
schools.<br />
And we said, OK...<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
Then, someone said you better not read the <strong>Bible</strong> in school, the <strong>Bible</strong> that says "thou shalt not kill, thou<br />
shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself."<br />
And we said, OK...<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little<br />
personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem.<br />
And we said, an expert should know what he's talking about so we won't spank them anymore...<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave.<br />
And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they<br />
misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued.<br />
And we accepted their reasoning...<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell<br />
their parents.<br />
And we said, that's a grand idea...<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway,<br />
let's give our sons all the condoms they want, so they can have all the<br />
fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them<br />
at school.<br />
And we said, that's another great idea..<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our<br />
jobs. Public office is not about character debates.<br />
And we said, it doesn't matter what anybody, including the President, does in private, or the way he has<br />
conducted himself in his past, as long as we have jobs and the economy is good...<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
And then someone said let's print magazines with pictures of nude women and call it wholesome<br />
down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the female body.<br />
And we said, we have no problem with that...<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (2 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
And someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of nude children and then<br />
stepped further still by making them available on the Internet.<br />
And we said, everyone's entitled to free speech...<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
And the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence<br />
and illicit sex... And let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes...<br />
And we said, it's just entertainment and it has no adverse effect and nobody takes it seriously anyway, so<br />
go right ahead...<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from<br />
wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, classmates or even themselves.<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
Undoubtedly, if we thought about it long and hard enough, we could figure it out. I'm sure it has a great<br />
deal to do with...<br />
"WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
Lutherans sorry for silence on Nazis<br />
HELSINKI, Finland (AP) - Finland's dominant Lutheran Church on<br />
Thursday apologized for decades of silence about the Holocaust,<br />
pledging to do more to raise awareness of the Nazi extermination<br />
campaign against the Jews. "The church admits it was silent over the<br />
Holocaust and apologizes to the Jewish community," bishops and other<br />
church leaders said during a synod. The synod, held at the seat of<br />
the Lutheran archbishop in Turku, 100 miles west of Helsinki, came<br />
days after a memorial was unveiled for the only eight Jews extradited<br />
by Finland to Germany - its wartime ally - in 1942 and later sent to<br />
the Auschwitz concentration camp. Finland's Evanglical Lutheran<br />
Church, which has about 85% of the population as members, has not<br />
suppressed information about the Nazi massacres of some 6 million<br />
Jews but acknowledged it has not done enough to promote awareness.<br />
Did you know....<br />
1) Psalm 118 is the middle chapter of the entire bible?<br />
2) Psalm 117, before Psalm 118 is the shortest chapter in the bible?<br />
3) Psalm 119, after Psalm 118 is the longest chapter in the bible?<br />
4) The <strong>Bible</strong> has 594 chapters before Psalm 118 and 594 chapters after Psalm 118?<br />
5) If you add up all the chapters except Psalm 118, you get a total of 1188 chapters.<br />
6) 1188 or Psalm 118 verse 8 is the middle verse of the entire bible?<br />
Should the central verse then not have an important message?<br />
"Better to take refuge in Jehovah than to put confidence in man." - Psalm 118:8 Byington<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (3 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
Episcopalian minister leaves with 150 members to avoid ties with<br />
homosexuals<br />
Denver<br />
"We want to return to the roots of the faith that the Episcopal Church<br />
once held," said the Rev. Gerry Schnackenberg. The 23-year priest has<br />
left St.Philip and St. James Episcopal Church and taken with him 150<br />
members, or two-thirds, of the congregation.<br />
Schnackenberg, 52, and his flock have joined the Anglican Mission in<br />
America, a growing traditionalist movement of 20 churches, including<br />
four in Colorado. They object to the Episcopal Church's increasing<br />
acceptance of sexual unions outside marriage, including homosexuality,<br />
and tolerance of bishops such as Jack Spong of Newark, who has publicly<br />
announced he no longer believes in a personal God.<br />
Entire article found here:<br />
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/1006chur4.shtml<br />
International meetings debate religions' validity<br />
High Point Enterprise, Saturday, September 16, 2000 http://www.hpe.com<br />
CNN founder Ted Turner was an odd choice as honorary chairman of the "peace summit" on interfaith<br />
tolerance, which drew 1000 leaders from many religions to the United Nations in late August.<br />
Turner told the throng that folks in the Southern church where he grew up "thought that nobody was<br />
going to heaven except them" and maybe 99 percent of humanity was going to hell.<br />
The U.N. meeting included few conservative Christians, and many participants contended that the<br />
religious freedom enshrined in the U.N.'s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights should not extend<br />
to convert-seeking.<br />
As if responding to such talk, a Sept. 5 Vatican decree against religious relativism declared that<br />
followers of others religions "are in a gravely deficient situation" compared with those in the church with<br />
"the fulness of the means of salvation."<br />
The summer's other religious summit meeting was totally different, however: Billy Graham's<br />
conference in Amsterdam, Netherlands, for 10,700 evangelical Protestants from 207 lands. Among<br />
leaders of this international movement there's no apology for soul-winning based on Christianity's<br />
exclusive claims.<br />
An "Amsterdam Declaration," which summarized the meeting, said "there may well be traces of truth,<br />
beauty and goodness in many non-Christian belief systems" but they are not "roads to salvation."<br />
Ex-Swaggart employee pleads guilty<br />
BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) - A former fund-raiser for Jimmy Swaggart<br />
Ministries admitted spending $769,000 of the ministry's money on<br />
women around the country last year. John J. Clouser, 34, who earned<br />
$30,000 as the ministry's director of development and planned giving,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (4 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
pleaded guilty Friday in state court to money laundering and bank<br />
fraud. Prosecutors agreed to recommend a 20-year cap on Clouser's<br />
prison time when state District Judge Bonnie Jackson sentences him in<br />
September. His expenditures included <strong>World</strong> Series tickets, moving<br />
expenses and rent for one woman, and a sport utility vehicle for<br />
another, said prosecutor Mark Pethke. Clouser already has been<br />
sentenced in federal court to 57 months in prison and ordered to<br />
repay Swaggart Ministries $841,563 including interest, after pleading<br />
guilty to one count of money laundering, assistant U.S. Attorney Ian<br />
Hipwell said. See<br />
http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2567969498-286A<br />
NEW YORK (AP)<br />
- Some 850 clergy and other religious workers have endorsed a declaration on morality that<br />
calls upon all faiths to bless same-sex couple and allow gay and lesbian ministers<br />
see http://www.usatoday.com/news/ndstue02.htm<br />
Religion is delivered to doorstep by video<br />
By Victoria Combe, Religion Correspondent<br />
ONE thousand churches of all denominations have agreed<br />
to start door-to-door evangelism this year in a style similar<br />
to that used by Jehovah's Witnesses.<br />
To mark the Millennium, the churches are offering people a<br />
free 80-minute video of the life of Jesus, as told in St<br />
Luke's Gospel. Already 230,000 videos have been<br />
distributed to homes as part of the project run by the<br />
evangelical organisation, Agape. Denominations taking<br />
part, which include Roman Catholic, Church of England,<br />
Baptist and Methodist churches, pay Agape £1 for a copy<br />
of the video which they then give to parishioners.<br />
George Hyder, of the London City Mission, who has<br />
distributed the video to tenants of blocks of council flats by<br />
Tower Bridge Road in Bermondsey, south-east London,<br />
will return in a week's time to ask them seven questions<br />
about their thoughts on the film and whether it stirred their<br />
interest to know more about Jesus.<br />
Seventy per cent of the residents who were at home<br />
accepted the video or a magazine. Unlike other<br />
evangelistic projects, the video campaign has been seized<br />
on by more reticent and conservative churches where<br />
worshippers are happier to offer a free gift than hold forth<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (5 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
about the <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
There was a young man who said: 'God<br />
Must think it exceedingly odd<br />
If he finds that this tree<br />
Continues to be<br />
When there's no one about in the Quad.'<br />
Reply:<br />
'Dear Sir, Your astonishment's odd<br />
I am always about in the Quad;<br />
And that's why the tree<br />
Will continue to be,<br />
Since observed by Yours faithfully, GOD.'<br />
-Ronald Knox 1888-1957<br />
Limerick<br />
DEFINITION OF RELIGIOUS TERMS:<br />
FATALISM-------------------Things happen.<br />
OPTIMIST--------------------Everything happens for the best.<br />
PESSIMISM -------------Things happen in spite of all your best efforts.<br />
ATHEISM--------------------Things happen for no apparent reason.<br />
AGNOSTICISM-------------No one can prove anything happens.<br />
CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST-Nothing is happening; it's just God dreaming.<br />
HINDUISM------------------It has all happened before; it will happen again<br />
ISLAM-------------------------Things happen because it's written.<br />
JUDAISM--------------------Why do things always happen to us?<br />
CATHOLICISM-------------If things happen, you deserve it.<br />
TAOISM-----------------------Good things happen if you go with the flow.<br />
CONFUCIANISM----------Things like that always happen to someone like you.<br />
BUDDHISM-----------------Mood makes things happen.<br />
ZEN---------------------------- What is the sound of a thing happening if no one is there?<br />
HARI KRISHNA-----------Things happen, things happen, things happen<br />
SHINTOISM----------------If the emperor says lets have a happening, things happen.<br />
PROTESTANISM----------All roads lead to the same happening.<br />
T.V. EVANGELISTS------Send the ten thousand dollars and watch what happens.<br />
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES-Let us in and we'll tell you why things happen.<br />
New Revised God-Less Version<br />
Right from the pages of the Readers Digest Version and the neutered feminist <strong>Bible</strong> we now have a<br />
doctor from Denmark who has made a rewritten version of the Old Testament without any reference to<br />
God. Dr. Svend Lings says God and faith "are things of the past that can only chain us". He sees that<br />
many people are unhappy. "We are living in a Jewish-Christian culture," says Lings, "thus the<br />
Jewish-Christian culture must be responsible for our lack of happiness". So, to fix this problem, Lings<br />
has taken out any reference to God in the Hebrew Scriptures. In<strong>Bible</strong> Without God, Genesis 3:12<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (6 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
says,"Adam thought to himself:'The Woman by my side gave me fruit, and then I ate.'"<br />
That`s kind of like filming "Titanic" without a ship.(Excerpts from "AWAKE" magazine.)<br />
Esperanto <strong>Bible</strong><br />
The ENI Bulletin of Geneva, Switzerland says that part of the bible were translated into 30 additional<br />
languages last year, including Esperanto. The entire <strong>Bible</strong> is now available in 363 languages, and parts of<br />
the <strong>Bible</strong> available in 2197 languages.<br />
Stephen Hawking's Essay-Origin of the Universe<br />
"We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any<br />
reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that<br />
science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but<br />
that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would<br />
have to appeal to God."<br />
Hawking goes on to describe an alternative theory for the origin of the<br />
universe in which he says the universe creates itself out of "nothing", but then<br />
says that the universe was actually created out of "gravitational energy". Here is<br />
Hawking's description:<br />
"Jonathan Halliwell and I, have made such an approximate calculation. We treated the universe as a<br />
perfectly smooth and uniform background, on which there were small perturbations of density. In real<br />
time, the universe would appear to begin its expansion at a<br />
minimum radius. At first, the expansion would be what is called<br />
inflationary. That is, the universe would double in size every tiny fraction of a<br />
second, just as prices double every year in certain countries.<br />
This inflation was a good thing, in that it produced a<br />
universe that was smooth and uniform on a large scale, and was expanding at<br />
just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. The inflation was also a good<br />
thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe, quite literally<br />
out of nothing.<br />
When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole,<br />
it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles<br />
in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles<br />
come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow<br />
matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle<br />
pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer<br />
is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe."<br />
For more on this article click here.<br />
Jesus photos protested in Sweden. STOCKHOLM (AP)<br />
A crowd protesting the<br />
opening of a photo exhibition depicting Jesus Christ in the company of homosexuals<br />
threw rocks at the photographer when she stepped outside the museum<br />
Sunday. The exhibition, titled "Ecce Homo," has provoked occasional protests<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (7 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
since first being shown in Stockholm last summer. It opened Sunday at the<br />
city museum in Norrkoeping. Several hundred demonstrators gathered outside<br />
the museum and some hurled stones at photographer Elisabeth Ohlson when she<br />
stepped outside to photograph the crowd.<br />
By Stephen Huba/Scripps Howard News Service<br />
Americans Believe in Biblical Creation<br />
Americans have much stronger belief in the <strong>Bible</strong>'s creation story than do Europeans, Canadians and<br />
citizens of other industrialized nations, according to a University of Cincinnati public opinion researcher.<br />
In one of the first studies of its kind, UC political science professor George Bishop compared the beliefs<br />
of Americans on human origins with those in other advanced countries.<br />
Bishop found that the belief in creationism is much higher in America than elsewhere.<br />
"Nearly a third of college graduates in recent Gallup polls still believe in the biblical account of<br />
creation," Bishop said. "This is somewhat of a theoretical riddle."<br />
Bishop's cross-national study was published last fall in The Public Perspective, a journal of the Roper<br />
Center. Bishop first presented his findings at the annual conference of the American Association for<br />
Public Opinion Research.<br />
Citing Gallup and other public opinion polls since the early 1980s, Bishop said about 45 percent of<br />
Americans believe that God created man "pretty much in his present form at one time within the last<br />
10,000 years."<br />
Another 40 percent believe that man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life<br />
but that God guided this process -what Bishop calls "theistic evolution."<br />
And 10 percent of Americans hold the Darwinist evolution position that man developed over millions of<br />
years from less advanced forms of life but that God had no part in the process.<br />
Bishop said the results are explained, in part, by a longstanding, shared "religious worldview" in<br />
America and a national willingness to take the <strong>Bible</strong> literally.<br />
Bishop said he was "astounded" by the findings.<br />
By comparison, only 7 percent of those surveyed in Great Britain said they take the biblical creation<br />
account of Genesis 1 literally, he said. Respondents in Germany, Norway, Russia and the Netherlands all<br />
ranked significantly lower than the United States in biblical literalism.<br />
"The scientific worldview has thus far failed to complete Darwin's revolution in the land of 'One Nation<br />
Under God,' " Bishop wrote in a summary of his findings.<br />
In the surveys Bishop examined, groups most likely to accept the biblical account of human origins were<br />
women, older Americans, the less well-educated, Southerners, African Americans and fundamentalist<br />
Protestants.<br />
The American tendency to believe in biblical creationism also means America has ranked low on<br />
international surveys that measure scientific literacy, he said.<br />
"We don't stack up very well as a nation," Bishop said. "Religious belief tends to be inversely correlated<br />
with what most scientists would say is simple fact."<br />
Bishop said he is not implying that religious people are uneducated; simply that they don't accept the<br />
"fact" of evolution.<br />
The study bothers Jim Eichenberger, author of a new video course on human origins and curriculum<br />
development editor for Cincinnati-based Standard Publishing.<br />
Eichenberger called Bishop's assumptions "arrogant."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (8 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
"It's not ignorant to question a purely naturalistic system of origins," Eichenberger said. "This is a good<br />
question that thinking people need to ask: How did we get here and why does it matter?"<br />
Just as important as a belief in God as creator is how that belief influences behavior, Eichenberger said.<br />
"Is it just lip service," he said, "or does it mean something?"<br />
Ken Ham, executive director and founder of Answers in Genesis, said Bishop's findings show that<br />
creation science organizations such as his are getting the word out.<br />
"I believe that when people are taught science correctly, they see that evolution is just a belief and not<br />
scientific fact," Ham said.<br />
Another explanation for the majority belief in creationism, Bishop said, may be that it creates a "spiral<br />
of silence," a climate where people with agnostic or atheistic beliefs are reluctant to state their views.<br />
In one survey of 17 developed nations, Americans were the most likely to accept the <strong>Bible</strong> as "the actual<br />
word of God ... to be taken literally, word for word," and the least likely to call the <strong>Bible</strong> "an ancient<br />
book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man."<br />
The countries most like the United States in religious beliefs are Ireland and Northern Ireland, Bishop<br />
said.<br />
Survey data indicate that there is a substantial split between scientists and the general public on beliefs<br />
about human evolution, Bishop said.<br />
Only 5 percent of American natural and physical scientists believe in the biblical creationist view,<br />
according to one survey. Fifty-five percent endorse the Darwinist position, and 40 percent accept theistic<br />
evolution.<br />
The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology identifies yet another position, that of "progressive<br />
creationism." Adherents accept the six-day account of creation in Genesis 1 but do not insist on literal<br />
24-hour days.<br />
JW's in Islamic Countries<br />
The Jehovah's Witnesses are becoming a global religious force. Only 19% of Witnesses<br />
now live in the United States. They have become prominent in the former Soviet Union and in the<br />
Islamic world, where they<br />
meet in secret "cells," according to the Journal of<br />
Contemporary Religion. The Witnesses have become less inclined to make prophesies, since<br />
failed predictions have hurt their growth in the past, according to the Journal. Maintaining strict<br />
standards and filtering out<br />
less-committed members is likely to facilitate expansion, as is the practice of assigning important roles to<br />
young people as<br />
part-time missionaries, giving the sect a better chance of retaining their children. The publication<br />
predicted the Witnesses will<br />
grow at about 4% a year.<br />
Evolution vs. Creation, Round 2<br />
3:00 a.m. 11.Jun.99.PDT<br />
In a resurgence of the controversy surrounding the infamous 1925 Scopes<br />
"Monkey Trial," the Kansas school system has become a battleground for<br />
religious conservatives intent on turning back the clock on evolutionary<br />
science.<br />
The battle pits educators who support the teaching of evolution in the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (9 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
classroom against those who say evolution confuses children and undermines<br />
biblical teachings. "It's a real mud fight," said Kansas State Board of<br />
Education chairwoman Linda Holloway. "After 150 years of the evolution<br />
debate, it still hasn't been settled."<br />
The trouble in Kansas began in May as a 27-member science committee neared<br />
the end of a year-long process of writing new curriculum standards that<br />
included evolution as a unifying concept linking all scientific disciplines.<br />
A group called the Creation Science Association for Mid-America <<br />
http://www.arky.org/csa/index.htm> challenged the committee and came up with<br />
an alternate set of standards that sidestep evolution. The 10-member Kansas<br />
Board of Education <br />
deadlocked in a vote on the matter in May, then chose not to vote on it at<br />
its 8 to 9 June meeting after being besieged with opposing views. Another<br />
vote was scheduled for the July meeting, though Holloway believed a decision<br />
will not be made until August.<br />
To be sure, arguments over evolution are not new. The most famous occurred<br />
in 1925 when Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes went to trial over the<br />
teacher's knowing infringement of a law banning the teaching of evolution.<br />
Thirty years later, the trial inspired the play Inherit the Wind.<br />
In this modern version of the old debate, Kansas is not alone. In February,<br />
the Nebraska attorney general complained that new science standards being<br />
written for children promoted evolution as fact rather than theory and could<br />
contradict religious beliefs.<br />
Education officials in Nebraska are expected to vote on the new standards on<br />
Friday. Similar debates have arisen recently in other states, including<br />
Michigan, Arizona, and New Mexico.<br />
While evolution opponents are not demanding students be taught a biblical,<br />
or creationist theory, they do call for evolution to be eliminated from<br />
curriculums, or at least be treated as highly speculative.<br />
"There has been in the last decade or two a very significant increase in the<br />
number of skeptics who question evolution on purely scientific grounds,"<br />
said Bill Hoesch, spokesman for the Institute for Creation Research in<br />
Santee, California. "It's becoming inescapable."<br />
Hoesch cited the work of Michael Behe, a professor at Lehigh University in<br />
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical<br />
Challenge to Evolution.<br />
The scientific community, however, views evolution theory as key to many<br />
applied sciences, including medical research.<br />
Calling the Kansas anti-evolution proposal "just awful," Eugenie Scott,<br />
director of the National Center for Science Education in Berkeley,<br />
California, said evolution is a key concept that students must understand to<br />
advance educations in biology, medicine, and many other fields.<br />
"Evolution is an overarching concept that explains why things are like they<br />
are," Scott said.<br />
The Kansas science committee refused to work with opponents to draft a<br />
mutually acceptable set of standards. The controversy raised the ire of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (10 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
Kansas Governor Bill Graves, who said the debate was distracting the board<br />
of education from other matters.<br />
Copyright © 1999 Reuters Limited.<br />
CATHOLICS GOING FROM DOOR TO DOOR<br />
New York Daily News Tuesday, June 01, 1999<br />
Catholic Missionaries Bring Faith Door-to-Door<br />
By VIRGINIA BREEN<br />
Daily News Staff Writer<br />
Those clean-cut young missionaries out knocking on Manhattan doors this week<br />
aren't Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. They're Roman Catholics. More than<br />
100 proselytizers from the U.S. and Latin America are taking to the streets this<br />
week to invite lapsed Catholics back to the fold - and maybe gain a few converts.<br />
"The Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses are a great model of this kind of<br />
thing, but we're not copying them, really, so much as the first Apostles," said<br />
Paul Bernetsky, 38, executive director of Youth for the Third Millennium, the<br />
Baltimore-based Catholic group spearheading the drive.<br />
"They're not going to be arguing with anyone or using fear tactics," Bernetsky<br />
said, "just preaching their simple love of Christ."<br />
Bernetsky's group sprang into action during 1993's <strong>World</strong> Youth Day in Denver,<br />
after Pope John Paul urged young Catholics, "Go out into the streets and into<br />
public places, like the first Apostles who preached Christ."<br />
The group has done missionary work in Manhattan for the last two years, but<br />
this week's drive is the first on a large scale.<br />
The missionaries, men and women in their early 20s, are visiting apartments,<br />
handing out pamphlets and looking to engage harried New Yorkers in spiritual<br />
discussions.<br />
They wear simple wooden crucifixes around their necks and T-shirts<br />
emblazoned with the Gospel message "Be Not Afraid."<br />
At a Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral on Sunday, Cardinal O'Connor blessed the<br />
missionaries and urged the packed congregation to pray for them.<br />
"We attend workshops on how to approach people," said Joseph Pascale, 19, of<br />
Neptune, N.J., who has devoted a year to full-time missionary work. "We do it in<br />
the true missionary spirit, which is to be joyful even if you don't see immediate<br />
results. But I've been fortunate to see things happen, like getting people back to<br />
church."<br />
The Problem With Science<br />
"Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist<br />
professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his<br />
new students to stand. "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"<br />
"Yes, sir."<br />
"So you believe in God?"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (11 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
"Absolutely."<br />
"Is God good?"<br />
"Sure! God's good."<br />
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"<br />
"Yes."<br />
"Are you good or evil?"<br />
"The <strong>Bible</strong> says I'm evil."<br />
The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a<br />
moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here<br />
and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? "Would you<br />
try?"<br />
"Yes sir, I would."<br />
"So you're good...!"<br />
"I wouldn't say that."<br />
"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you<br />
could...in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."<br />
[No answer.]<br />
"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even<br />
though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can<br />
you answer that one?"<br />
[No answer]<br />
The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a<br />
sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.<br />
In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start<br />
again, young fella."<br />
"Is God good?"<br />
"Er... Yes."<br />
"Is Satan good?"<br />
"No."<br />
"Where does Satan come from?" The student falters.<br />
"From... God..."<br />
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (12 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student<br />
audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies<br />
and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there<br />
evil in this world?"<br />
"Yes, sir."<br />
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"<br />
"Yes."<br />
"Who created evil?<br />
[No answer]<br />
"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All the<br />
terrible things - do they exist in this world?"<br />
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."<br />
"Who created them? "<br />
[No answer]<br />
The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL<br />
ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the<br />
Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't<br />
He, son?"<br />
[No answer]<br />
The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.<br />
Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like<br />
an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How<br />
is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?"<br />
The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the<br />
world. "All the hatred, the brutality,all the pain, all the torture, all<br />
the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is<br />
all over the world, isn't it,young man?"<br />
[No answer]<br />
"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?"<br />
Pause.<br />
"Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and<br />
whispers, "Is God good?"<br />
[No answer]<br />
"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (13 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do." The<br />
old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you<br />
use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you?"<br />
"No, sir. I've never seen Him."<br />
"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"<br />
"No, sir. I have not."<br />
"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus . .<br />
. in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"<br />
[No answer]<br />
"Answer me, please."<br />
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."<br />
"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"<br />
"No, sir."<br />
"Yet you still believe in him?"<br />
"...yes..."<br />
"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling.<br />
"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,<br />
science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where<br />
is your God now?"<br />
[The student doesn't answer]<br />
"Sit down, please."<br />
The Christian sits...Defeated. Another Christian raises his hand.<br />
"Professor, may I address the class?"<br />
The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard!<br />
Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."<br />
The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are<br />
making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as<br />
heat?"<br />
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."<br />
"Is there such a thing as cold?"<br />
"Yes, son, there's cold too."<br />
"No, sir, there isn't."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (14 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold. The<br />
second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat,<br />
super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't<br />
have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which<br />
is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such<br />
thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 - You<br />
see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We<br />
cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat<br />
is<br />
energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."<br />
Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.<br />
"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"<br />
"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What<br />
are you getting at...?" (the professor starting to be impatient)<br />
"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"<br />
"Yes..."<br />
"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence<br />
of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light,<br />
flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and<br />
it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the<br />
word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make<br />
darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of<br />
darker darkness, professor?"<br />
Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him.<br />
This will indeed be a good semester.<br />
"Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"<br />
"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to<br />
start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."<br />
The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!""<br />
"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"<br />
The class is all ears.<br />
"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to<br />
regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to<br />
silence the class, for the student to continue. "You are working on the<br />
premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That for example there is<br />
life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing<br />
the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir,<br />
science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism<br />
but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (15 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot<br />
exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely<br />
the absence of it." The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the<br />
desk of a neighbour who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most<br />
disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing<br />
as immorality?"<br />
"Of course there is, now look..."<br />
"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of<br />
morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the<br />
absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian<br />
pauses. Isn't evil the absence of good?" The professor's face has turned<br />
an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless. The<br />
Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we<br />
all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work<br />
through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free<br />
will, choose good over evil."<br />
The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't vie this<br />
matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I<br />
absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological<br />
factor as being part of the world equation because God is not<br />
observable."<br />
"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world<br />
is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian<br />
replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week!<br />
Tell me,<br />
professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"<br />
"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man,<br />
yes, of course I do."<br />
"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"<br />
The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student<br />
a silent, stony stare.<br />
"Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at<br />
work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are<br />
you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a<br />
priest?"<br />
"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical<br />
discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.<br />
"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (16 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> News And Amusements<br />
"I believe in what is - that's science!"<br />
"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin. "Sir, you<br />
rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science<br />
too is a premise which is flawed..."<br />
"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters.<br />
The class is in uproar. The Christian remains standing until the<br />
commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to<br />
the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?" The<br />
professor wisely keeps silent. The Christian looks around the room. "Is<br />
there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The<br />
class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly,<br />
crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the<br />
professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the<br />
professor's brain?"<br />
No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It<br />
appears no-one here has had any<br />
sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according<br />
to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I<br />
DECLARE that the professor has no brain." The class is in chaos. The<br />
Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
Last Updated May 20 2000<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/news.htm (17 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]
My <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
My <strong>Bible</strong> Versions<br />
1.King James(Authorized)Version<br />
2.Douay-Rheims Version 1582-1609<br />
3.American Standard Version 1901<br />
4.The <strong>Bible</strong>-An American Translation(Smith&Goodspeed) 1935<br />
5.The <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English by Steven T. Byington<br />
6.The N.T.-A Translation in the Language of the People by Charles B Williams 1937<br />
7.The Holy Scriptures by J.N.Darby 1882<br />
8.The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson 1864<br />
9.The Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> 1966<br />
10.The Dead Sea Scrolls<br />
11.A New Translation of the <strong>Bible</strong> by James Moffatt<br />
12.The New American-St.Joseph Edition 1970<br />
13.The New English <strong>Bible</strong> 1970<br />
14.The Emphasised <strong>Bible</strong> by J.B.Rotherham<br />
15.The Common <strong>Bible</strong>-Revised Standard Version(Expanded Edition)1946-52<br />
16.The Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>-New Testament 1981<br />
17.Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-Today`s English Version 1976<br />
18.New King James Version 1982<br />
19.New International Version 1978<br />
20.New American Standard Version 1971<br />
21.Living <strong>Bible</strong> 1972<br />
22.Contemporary English Version 1995<br />
23.The New Testament in Modern English by J.B.Phillips 1960<br />
24.English Revised Version 1885<br />
25.Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures 1969<br />
26.Modern Language <strong>Bible</strong>-The New Berkeley Version 1945<br />
27.New <strong>World</strong> Translation of the Holy Scriptures 1950-62<br />
28.New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> 1985<br />
29.The King James <strong>Bible</strong>(1611 Edition)<br />
30.The New Testament by Monsignor Ronald A.Knox 1945<br />
31.God`s Word-Todays <strong>Bible</strong> translation 1995<br />
32.The Holy <strong>Bible</strong>-English Version for the Deaf 1987<br />
33.The Worrell New Testament 1904<br />
34.The King James II Version by Jay P.Green 1979<br />
35.A Literal Translation of the <strong>Bible</strong> by Jay P.Green 1987<br />
36.The Webster <strong>Bible</strong> by Noah Webster 1833<br />
37.The Antigua Version Reina y Valera 1569-1602<br />
38.Die Heilige Schrift by Dr.Martin Luther 1522-1534<br />
39.Elberfelder <strong>Bible</strong> 1855-71<br />
40.The Holy Scriptures/Masoretic Text by the Jewish Publication Society 1917<br />
41.The Revised English <strong>Bible</strong> 1989<br />
42.Bonnes Nouvelles Aujourd`hui-Le NouveauTestament en francais courant 1971<br />
43.The Nestle Greek Text<br />
44.Concordant Literal New Testament 1926<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/myversions.htm (1 of 6) [5/25/2003 4:20:30 AM]
My <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
45.The Interlineary Hebrew and English Psalter 1970<br />
46.The Greek Text of the New Testament by the Trinitarian <strong>Bible</strong> Society-F.H.A. Scrivener 1976<br />
47.The Pocket Interlinear Old Testament by Jay P.Green 1987<br />
48.The Amplified <strong>Bible</strong> 1965<br />
49.The New Revised Standard Version 1989<br />
50.The Mercier New Testament 1970<br />
51.Neue-Welt-Ubersetzung der Heiligen Schrift 1971<br />
52.Traduzione del Nuovo Mondo delle Sacre Scritture 1967<br />
53.The Word-New Century Version 1984<br />
54.Young`s Literal Translation 1898<br />
55.The <strong>Bible</strong> in Basic English<br />
56.The New Testament-An Expanded Translation by Kenneth S. Wuest 1961<br />
57.Jewish New Testament by David H. Stern 1989<br />
58.New <strong>World</strong> Translation-Revised Reference Edition 1984<br />
59.The King James Clarified New Testament<br />
60.The Holy <strong>Bible</strong> in the Language of Today-An American Translation by Beck 1976<br />
61.New Testament in Modern Speech by Richard F.Weymouth 1909<br />
62.Louis Segond Version(French) 1873-80<br />
63. New Living Translation 1996<br />
64.Montgomery New Testament 1924<br />
65. Cotton Patch Version 1973<br />
66. New International Readers Version<br />
67. Latin Vulgate<br />
68. Hugh Schonfield New Testament<br />
69. George M. Lamsa Translation<br />
70. The Message<br />
71. Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> 1601<br />
72. Revised Standard Version-Catholic Version<br />
73. New Evangelical Translation 1990<br />
74. An Inclusive Version 1995<br />
75. NET <strong>Bible</strong>(software)<br />
76. <strong>World</strong> English <strong>Bible</strong>(software)<br />
77. Hebrew Names <strong>Bible</strong>(software)<br />
78. Recovery Version 1985-91<br />
79. The Living <strong>Bible</strong>-Catholic Edition<br />
80. The Confraternity Version<br />
81. The <strong>Bible</strong>'s Greatest Stories by Paul Roche 1990<br />
82. Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-Catholic 2nd Edition<br />
83. NASB-Updated Edition<br />
84. John Wesley Translation(software)<br />
85. New American <strong>Bible</strong>-Revised Edition 1986<br />
86. The New Testament by Kleist & Lilly 1956<br />
87. William Barclay New Testament 1969<br />
88. The Alba House New Testament from Das Neue Testament fur Menschen<br />
Unserer Zeit, Quell Verlag, Stuttgart 1964<br />
89. New Life Version by Gleason H. Ledyard 1969-86<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/myversions.htm (2 of 6) [5/25/2003 4:20:30 AM]
My <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
90. NRSV-Catholic Edition 1993<br />
91. Textus Receptus(Received Text) software<br />
92. New Testament by Richmond Lattimore<br />
93. Willebrordvertaling N.T. 1961-75<br />
94. Twentieth Century New Testament 1902<br />
95. The Five Gospels(Annotated) by Funk, Hoover and the Jesus Seminar 1993<br />
96. Tanakh/The Holy Scriptures-The New JPS Translation 1985<br />
97. The New Testament in an Improved Version upon the basis of<br />
Archbishop Newcome's New Translation 1808<br />
98. Nestle Greek New Testament<br />
99. King James Easy Readers Version<br />
100. International Standard Version NT 1999<br />
101. Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament 26 Ed.<br />
102. Septuagint<br />
103. International Childrens Version 1988<br />
104. The Unvarnished New Testament<br />
105. Tyndale New Testament<br />
106. Westcott & Hort Greek NT<br />
107. The Septuagint by Charles Thomson<br />
108. The New Testament into Simple Everyday English by Julian G. Anderson<br />
109. The <strong>Robinson</strong>-Pierpont Majority Text<br />
110. Tischendorf's Greek Text (8th Edition)<br />
111. Revised Berkeley Version 1977 Edition<br />
112. Griesbach Greek N.T.<br />
113. Morris Literal Version<br />
114. Micro <strong>Bible</strong> (ValuSoft) Ellis Enterprises<br />
115. Pronounceable Transliterated <strong>Bible</strong> (Morris, Ellis Enterprises)<br />
116. Transliterated Unaccented <strong>Bible</strong> (Morris, Ellis Enterprises)<br />
117. United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies Greek N.T. Parsed (software)<br />
118. The (Thomas) Jefferson <strong>Bible</strong><br />
119. The Modern King James <strong>Bible</strong> (Green,)<br />
120. Stephanos Greek N.T. 1550<br />
121. The Holy Scriptures-An Inspired Revision of the Authorized Version<br />
by Joseph Smith, Jr 1944<br />
122. The New Testament by the Very Reverend Francis Aloysius Spencer 1940<br />
123. The Good News According to John, God's<br />
Living Word Translation<br />
124. Brenton's Septuagint with Apocrypha<br />
125. Huntingdon Translation/Luke<br />
126. New <strong>Translations</strong> From the Greek by David Robert Palmer<br />
127. Bay Psalm Book 1630<br />
128. Nazarene Standard English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
129. The Grail Psalter<br />
130. Holman Christian Standard <strong>Bible</strong> 2000<br />
131. TA IERA GRAMMATA METAFRAQENTA HK TWN QEION ARXETGPWN<br />
-The Holy <strong>Bible</strong> in Modern Greek<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/myversions.htm (3 of 6) [5/25/2003 4:20:30 AM]
My <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
132. The Modern Readers <strong>Bible</strong>-R.V. w/Apocrypha by R.G. Muolton 1950<br />
133. Revised Webster <strong>Bible</strong> 1995<br />
134. 21st Century New Testament-A Literal/Free Dual Translation<br />
135. The Complete <strong>Bible</strong> in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton 1906<br />
136. Shem-Tob's Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew according<br />
to a Primitive Hebrew Text<br />
137. The Epistles of Paul in Modern English/A Paraphrase by George Barker<br />
Stevens, Ph.D., D.D. 1898<br />
138. Hodges & Farstad Majority Text 1985<br />
139. The Essential Jesus by J.D. Crossan 1994<br />
140. A New English Translation of the Septuagint-Psalms by Albert Pietersma 2000<br />
141. Three Gospels-Reynolds Price 1996<br />
142. International English <strong>Bible</strong>-Extreme New Testament 2001<br />
143. Psalm Paraphrases (1673 ed.) John Milton<br />
144. Revised King James Version-NT<br />
145. Von Soden's Greek NT/Apparatus<br />
146. Novum Testamentum Graece/Nestle-Aland 27th Edition<br />
147. The New Testament Letters by J.W.C. Wand 1946<br />
148. United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies 3 w/Apparatus<br />
149. Nestle Aland Greek Text-25 Edition<br />
150. <strong>World</strong> <strong>Bible</strong> Translation (software)<br />
151. The Four Gospels-A New Translation by E. V. Rieu 1953<br />
152. Revised Standard Version-Catholic Ignatius Edition<br />
153. English Standard Version 2001<br />
154. God's New Covenant-Heinz Cassirer 1989<br />
155. Urim-Thummim Version (Dallas James)<br />
156. A Literal English Translation by Rev.A.Marshall 1964<br />
157. Rahlf's Septuagint (LXX)<br />
158. NIV in Russian<br />
159. The Power New Testament by William J. Morford 1996<br />
160. An Understandable Version<br />
161. The New Testament of the Inclusive Language <strong>Bible</strong> 1994<br />
162. A New Translation based on the Majority Text by Wilbur Pickering<br />
163. Yes Word-Tyndale <strong>Bible</strong><br />
164. Today's New International Version 2002<br />
165. Living Water-The Gospel of John/Logos21 Version by A. Farstad 1996<br />
166. Restored Name King James Version<br />
167. Scottish Metrical Psalter 1650<br />
168. James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1852<br />
169. American King James Version<br />
170. The Common Edition New Testament-Timothy E.Clontz<br />
171. Jerome's Septuagint - An English Translation<br />
172. A Conservative Version<br />
173. Orthodox Jewish Brit Cadasha<br />
174. Revised Version-Improved and Corrected by James Parkinson<br />
175. Analytical Literal Translation by Gary Zeolla<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/myversions.htm (4 of 6) [5/25/2003 4:20:30 AM]
My <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
176. The New Covenant by Willis Barnstone<br />
177. The Evidence <strong>Bible</strong> - Comfort-able KJV 2001<br />
178. The New Testament in Plain English by Charles Kingsley Williams 1963<br />
179. Living Destiny by Marley Cole 1984<br />
180. Isaac Leeser's Holy Scriptures<br />
181. A Glascow <strong>Bible</strong> by Jamie Stuart 1997<br />
182. Johannes Greber New Testament (German)<br />
183. The Scriptures by the Institute for Scripture Research (PTY) Ltd. 1998<br />
184. Salkinson-Ginsburg Hebrew New Testament corresponding to the Greek Textus Receptus<br />
by the Revd. Dr. Eric S. Gabe 2000<br />
185. United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies Greek New Testament 4th Edition<br />
186. The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Comfort & Brown 1990<br />
187. Wycliffe <strong>Bible</strong><br />
188. The Centenary Translation New Testament, 1924<br />
189. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts-Comfort and Barrett, 2001<br />
190. The Restoration of Original Sacred Name <strong>Bible</strong> 2002 (7th Edition)<br />
191. Messianic Jewish Version of the New Covenant Scriptures 1981<br />
192. The Book of God by Walter Wangerin, Jr.<br />
193. The Riverside New Testament 1923<br />
194. The Pioneers' New Testament-Ruth P. Martin Revised 2002<br />
195. The Christian <strong>Bible</strong> 1995<br />
196. Common <strong>Bible</strong> - NRSV 1990, 96<br />
Study <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
1. Scofield Reference <strong>Bible</strong> (KJV) 1909, 1917<br />
2. Ryrie Study <strong>Bible</strong> (KJV) 1976<br />
3. Ryrie Study <strong>Bible</strong> (NIV) 1996<br />
4. Oxford Annotated Study <strong>Bible</strong> (RSV) 1965<br />
5. New Oxford Annotated Study <strong>Bible</strong> (NRSV) 1994<br />
6. Harper Collins Study <strong>Bible</strong> (NRSV) 1993<br />
7. Oxford Study <strong>Bible</strong> (REB) 1992<br />
8. New <strong>World</strong> Translation Reference Edition 1984<br />
9. Zondervan NASB Study <strong>Bible</strong> (NASB) 1999<br />
10. New American Standard Reference <strong>Bible</strong> 1960-1973<br />
11. Macarthur Study <strong>Bible</strong> (NKJV) 1997<br />
12. Vine's Reference Edition (NKJV) 1997<br />
13. The Millenium <strong>Bible</strong> (ASV) 1924<br />
14. Revised Standard Version-Reference Edition 1959<br />
17. The Century <strong>Bible</strong> (RV) A.S. Peake Job<br />
18. NIV Study <strong>Bible</strong> (Zondervan)<br />
19. New Scofield Reference Edition <strong>Bible</strong> 1967 KJV<br />
20. The Nelson Study <strong>Bible</strong>/NKJV<br />
21. The Dake Annotated Reference <strong>Bible</strong>/KJV<br />
22. The Companion <strong>Bible</strong>/KJV by E.W. Bullinger<br />
23. Oxford Study Edition of the New English <strong>Bible</strong> w/Apocrypha<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/myversions.htm (5 of 6) [5/25/2003 4:20:30 AM]
My <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
24. Baptist Study Edition-NKJV (Criswell/Patterson)<br />
25. Open <strong>Bible</strong>-KJV<br />
26. Quest Study <strong>Bible</strong>-NIV<br />
27.<br />
28. Holy <strong>Bible</strong> Catholic Reference Edition-New Living Translation, 2001<br />
29. Zondervan KJV Study <strong>Bible</strong>, 2002<br />
30. New Strong's Reference <strong>Bible</strong>-KJV 1989<br />
31. The Catholic Answer <strong>Bible</strong>-NAB 2002<br />
32. The Youth <strong>Bible</strong>-NCV<br />
Email Me<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/myversions.htm (6 of 6) [5/25/2003 4:20:30 AM]
1975...and the Predictions of Christendom<br />
1975...and the Predictions of Christendom!<br />
"As the dates have passed and Christ has not come, the evangelical church in America has<br />
had to battle ridicule of others and confusion within its own ranks. Disillusioned, some have<br />
even turned away from the faith." opening page, Soothsayers of the Second Advent, by<br />
Alnor<br />
And yet, Ron Rhodes has the guts to say:<br />
"Despite its many predictions, the Watchtower Society refuses to concede it is a false prophet."<br />
(Rhodes p.341) Mr. Rhodes calls these predictions, I call them speculations, the same kind that his<br />
church-members have been doing all along.<br />
Have you ever walked into a Christian Bookstore lately? You will notice on the shelf (you know, the<br />
one where they have all the books that bash Jehovah's Witnesses for being false prophets) that there are a<br />
few curious titles. Check these out:<br />
Y2K TidalWave-D.S. McAlvany<br />
2000 A.D. -Are you Ready? -P&P Lalonde<br />
2001 -Dr. Jack Van Impe<br />
The Millennium Bug -Michael S. Hyatt<br />
As Time Runs Out<br />
Armageddon<br />
Final Warning -all by Grant R. Jeffries<br />
The End-Why Jesus could Return by 2000-Ed Dobson<br />
1 & 2 Thessalonians: Living in the End Times-John R. W. Stott.<br />
The 90'S ; Decade of the Apocalypse : The European Common Market--The End Has Begun<br />
by Steve Terrell.<br />
Y2K- Feldham<br />
How Close are We? -D.Hunt<br />
Foreshocks of the Anti-Christ- eclectic<br />
Prophecy Watch -Ice & Demy<br />
2000 A.D. & Predicting Christ's Return -Ice & Demy<br />
Anything by Hal Lindsey...and believe me, there is plenty more.<br />
...and the Left Behind-the Series<br />
According to this issue of Time magazine, evangelical authors, like Tim Lahaye<br />
and Jerry B. Jenkins are making money hand over fist, feeding on people's fears<br />
that the end is near. "A TIME/CNN poll finds that more than 1/3 of Americans say<br />
they are paying more attention now to how the news might relate to the end of the<br />
world, and have talked about what the <strong>Bible</strong> has to say on the subject. Fully 59%<br />
say they believe the events in Revelation are going to come true, and nearly<br />
one-quarter think the <strong>Bible</strong> predicted the Sept. 11 attack." This is the same<br />
magazine (Time, July 1, 2002) that calls Evangelical author Tim LaHaye, a<br />
prophet.<br />
The fact is, many of Ron Rhodes fellow "christians" were awaiting the End/Rapture<br />
in the year 2000 or thereabouts. Other "christian" writers feed off that by even providing fictional novels<br />
of the coming tribulation with titles like THE WARNING(T.D.Bunn), BY DAWN'S EARLY<br />
LIGHT(G.R.Jeffrey &A.Hunt) and others like THE VISITATION(F.Peretti).<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/1975.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:20:53 AM]
1975...and the Predictions of Christendom<br />
Ice & Demy warn:"As speculation intensifies, we must return to the teachings of Jesus to build a<br />
Christ-centered foundation for the future."<br />
So, it is "False Prophecy" when JW's do it, but it is "speculation" when they do it. Does Ron Rhodes<br />
know this? Yes he does. In 1990 Ron Rhodes wrote "Millenial Madness" for the Christian Research<br />
Journal. In it he describes how the Christians in the year 999 A.D. feared the end also. Did he slam them.<br />
No, of course not, they were god-fearing trinitarian Christians after all.<br />
Were there others in the past? Yes, most certainly. Early Church fathers Hilarianus and Hippolytus<br />
predicted the end in 500 A.D.(Paula Fredriksen-Tyconius and Augustine on the Apocalypse)<br />
Irish Bishop James Ussher's prediction was for 1996.<br />
Puritans Issac Watts, Joseph Mede and the Mathers in America were date-setters.<br />
The Father of Protestantism himself, Martin Luther taught Christ would return by 1564.<br />
Does that mean that all Protestants or Lutherans are false prophets? No, of course not, but they are by the<br />
reasoning of a certain few.<br />
German Reformer Philip Melanchton was a date-setter too, as was German theologian Johann Alsted.<br />
Remember the booklet, "88 Reasons Why the Rapture will be in 1988" by Edgar Whisenant? Also<br />
"Christ Returns by 1988: 101 Reasons Why" by Colin Deal.<br />
Or the Korean Christians(Pentecostals) for October 1992?<br />
The most famous one was actually a Baptist....William Miller who predicted 1843.<br />
Wait...there's more<br />
● In the 5th century, the Council of Ephesus decided the millenium had already begun.<br />
● Pope Gregory I, 590-604 C.E., predicted the imminent end of the world.<br />
● Spanish Monk Beatus predicts it for 800 A.D.<br />
● An ecumenical council for the Roman Catholic Church announces Christ's return by<br />
1000.<br />
● Aelfric, the Abbott of Eynsham predicts it for the year 1000.<br />
● Abbo of Fleury, the French Abbott predicts it for predicts it for 994/996.<br />
● Richard of St. Vaast leads a pilgrimage for the predicted end in 1033.<br />
● 1184 is the target date for the return of the Antichrist according to many...<br />
● and again in 1345-1385<br />
● Joachim of Fiore(1135-1202) used the New Testament and the Trinity to proclaim the<br />
coming of the anti-christ in 1260 A.D.<br />
● 1260 is also touted by Brother Arnold (Dominican Monk)<br />
● Speaking of the Trinity, the Church Father who first coined the term, Tertullian was a<br />
Montanist(a deeply apocalyptical sect).<br />
● Jean de Roquetaillade announced it for 1366<br />
● Roman Catholic, Arnald of Villanova, predicted the appearance of the Antichrist in 1378<br />
● The Taborites predict it for 1420.<br />
● Priest Martinek Hauska announces doom for 1420.<br />
● Hans Hut announced the end for1528<br />
● Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa announced it for 1533<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/1975.htm (2 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:20:53 AM]
1975...and the Predictions of Christendom<br />
● Melchior Hoffman announced it for 1593<br />
● The Fifth Monarchists predicted between 1655-57<br />
● A Lutheran named Adam Nachenmoser announced it for 1635<br />
● Lutheran leader, Andreas Osiander announced it for 1672<br />
● Jan Matthys announced for 1534<br />
● Archbishop of York and Primate of England, Edwin Sandys (1519-1588) proclaimed the<br />
imminent end<br />
● John Wycliffe announced it for 1379<br />
● One of the first Baptist groups, The Anabaptists believed that the Millenium would occur<br />
in 1533<br />
● Reformer John Foxe believed the last days would start in 1600. He was shared in this<br />
view by Robert Pont<br />
● New England Minister Jonathan Edwards predicts 1866<br />
● The Puritans predict it for 1700<br />
● Emanuel Swedenborg predicts the end for 1757<br />
● Anglican rector Thomas Beverly predict 1697<br />
● Anglican rector John Mason for 1694<br />
● Pierre Jurie predicts the end for 1689<br />
● Sir Walter Raleigh, Hugh Broughton and Thomas Brightman thought it would not be<br />
until 1700<br />
● Christopher Columbus said the world was going to end in 1656<br />
● Deacon William Aspinwall (General Court) predicts the end for 1673<br />
● Feb 28, 1763 Devout Methodist George Bell foresaw the end of the world on this date.<br />
● Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly announced it for 1789<br />
● The Shakers announced it for 1792<br />
● 1790 The Second Coming, according to Irish orator Francis Dobbs.<br />
● 1792 The end of the world according to the Shakers.<br />
● 1794 The end of the world according to the Shakers.<br />
● Charles Wesley, brother of Methodist Church founder John Wesley, predicted Doomsday<br />
would be in 1794.<br />
● Lavater announced it for 1795<br />
● Some Christian believers in Russia thought that Peter the Great was the Anti-Christ in the<br />
1660's.<br />
● Historic Jews in the 17th century believed that the Messiah would come in the year 1648.<br />
● John Napier announced it for 1688 or 1700<br />
● John Cummings of the Scottish National Church, predicted Jesus would return in 1865.<br />
● Isaac Newton announced it for about another 90 years in his day<br />
● Richard Brothers announced it for 1795<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/1975.htm (3 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:20:53 AM]
1975...and the Predictions of Christendom<br />
● Methodist Church founder John Wesley foresaw the Millennium beginning in 1836, the<br />
same year that the Beast of Revelation was to rise from the sea.<br />
● Reverend M. Baxter (Church of England) predicts it for 1868<br />
● Scottish National Church official, the "Reverend" John Cumming (1807-1881)<br />
proclaimed "Redemption draweth Nigh" in 1867<br />
● In 1832 Pope Gregory XVI indicated that the time of the "plague of locusts<br />
(Revelation 9:3)" had arrived in his Encyclical "Mirari vos arbitramur."<br />
● Pat Robertson announced it for 2007(in a novel)<br />
● Born-Again, R. Henry Hall for 1998 (AD 1991-The Genesis of Holocaust)<br />
● Hart Armstrong posts the Tribulation for 1989<br />
● Chuck Smith, Pastor of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa proclaimed it for 1981<br />
● Tommy Hicks, a noted evangelist, received visions of the end in 1961<br />
● Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, predicted the world's end in the 19th. Century.<br />
● Elizabeth Claire Prophet announced it for 1989<br />
● Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California predicted the Rapture in<br />
1981.<br />
● Hon-Ming Chen predicted Christ's return on March 31, 1998.<br />
● Methodist Joanna Southcott(1750-1814 announced she was the Bride of the Lamb and<br />
began to seal the 144,000<br />
● Early in the 20th century, Dr. Isaac M. Haldeman, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in<br />
New York City, predicted that the Antichrist would appear before the Jews return to<br />
Palestine<br />
● Assemblies of God official, Thomas M. Chalmers, announced it for the early 1920's<br />
● Pentecostal leader, Lester Sumrall predicts 1985<br />
● Evangelical prophecy teacher has announced it for 1975, 1976, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983,<br />
1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989 (see Sooth-Sayers of the Second Advent, Alnor)<br />
● September, 1981, Baptist itinerant preacher (a.k.a. an evangelist) in Springfield, Missouri<br />
makes the sure- fire claim that he had determined from <strong>Bible</strong> study that Christ absolutely<br />
HAD to come back between October, 1981 and September, 1982. (see THE SCOURGE OF<br />
THE "PROPHECY MONGERS" from "AS I SEE IT" Volume 1, Number 3, March, 1998<br />
● Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth, predicted the Rapture would occur in<br />
1988.<br />
● Nationally syndicated TV show host (Prophecy in the News), J.R. Church predicted the<br />
rapture for 1988.<br />
● David Webber and Noah Hutchings of the Southwest Radio Church (SRC) announced it<br />
for "1981 or '88".<br />
● Henry Kreysler announces Armageddon for 1995<br />
● Author Reginald Dunlop announces the Rapture for 1991.<br />
● Mary Stewart Relfe announced the Great Tribulation for 1990.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/1975.htm (4 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:20:53 AM]
1975...and the Predictions of Christendom<br />
● Salem Kirban - <strong>Bible</strong> prognosticator, predicted "the Rapture" would take place in 1989.<br />
● Benny Hinn predicted the Rapture would occur in 1993.<br />
● Dr. Jack van Impe has speculated that the end will come between September 1999 and<br />
2000.<br />
● Lester Sumrall for 2000.<br />
● Grant Jeffrey predicts it for October 9, 2000<br />
● Texe Marrs predicts it for 2000 (Storming toward Armageddon, 1992)<br />
● Philip B. Brown has stated that the millennial reign of Christ will begin April 6, 2008.<br />
● James McKeever ends his 6000 year theory by at least 2030 (End Times News Digest).<br />
● Dr. Harold Camping, president of Family Radio, expected the end of the world in 1994.<br />
"Not a few ministries that began well have been turned aside by an obsessive bent<br />
toward prophecy. I will mention as one example Jack Van Impe. In the 1970s, Van Impe's<br />
ministry was singularly used by God in numerous crusades in various cities. At least two<br />
members of my immediate family were converted in his Wichita crusade. As a youth pastor<br />
in Indiana, I took our young people to his South Bend crusade, and several were saved as a<br />
result. As a seminary student of very restricted financial means, I was a weekly contributor<br />
to his ministry. But in those days, his focus was the Gospel, sin, and salvation by faith, with<br />
only a night or two in the week directed at prophetic themes. In a word--it was balanced.<br />
But what has he become 20 years later? His television broadcasts (which I can scarcely<br />
endure for more than a few minutes) are virtually nothing but the newest sign of the times,<br />
and latest "fulfillment" of a contorted misinterpretation and mangling of some Biblical text,<br />
presented by a man who seems to be all hyped-up and scarcely more sincere than a used car<br />
salesman. It is to me a very sad sight. A progressively more restricted pre-occupation with<br />
prophecy is unmistakably the cause. It is spiritually low octane stuff."<br />
THE SCOURGE OF THE "PROPHECY MONGERS" from "AS I SEE IT" Volume 1,<br />
Number 3, March, 1998<br />
Date suggesting- which is done by attaching predictions to open ended qualifiers such as "near," "close<br />
to," "just beyond," "not long after," "possibly by," or "very soon"-protects Christian prophecy from being<br />
condemned under Deuteronomy 18:21 because the verse only targets individuals who attribute their<br />
predictions directly to God. It says nothing about persons making predictions based on feelings, time<br />
calculations, or faulty biblical interpretation. The evangelical community is filled with even more<br />
date-suggesters than date-setters."<br />
End-Time Visions by Richard Abanes, p.100<br />
For confirmation on the above go to Robin Bruce Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis-Apocalypticism in the<br />
Wake of the Lutheran Reformation<br />
Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End—Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages, Published 1979<br />
Festinger, Riecken and Schaeter, When Prophecy Fails, page 7.<br />
Isaac Massey Haldeman, The Signs of the Times<br />
The Weekly Evangel, April 10, 1917<br />
Soothsayers of the Second Advent by Alnor<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/1975.htm (5 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:20:53 AM]
1975...and the Predictions of Christendom<br />
The Last Days are Here Again-A History of the End Times by Richard Kyle<br />
Apocalypses by Weber<br />
"One faith united the scattered congregations: that Christ was the son of God, that he<br />
would return to establish his kingdom on earth, and that all who believed in him would at<br />
the Last Judgement be rewarded with eternal bliss. But Christians differed as to the date of<br />
the second advent. When Nero died and Titus demolished the Temple, and again when<br />
Hadrian destroyed Jerusalem, many Christians hailed these calamities as signs of the second<br />
coming. When chaos threatened the Empire at the close of the second century, Tertullian<br />
and others thought that the end of the world was at hand; a Syrian Bishop led his flock into<br />
the desert to meet Christ halfway, and a bishop in Pontus disorganized the life of his<br />
community by announcing that Christ would return within a year. As all signs failed, and<br />
Christ did not come, wiser Christians sought to soften the disappointment by reinterpreting<br />
the date of his return.<br />
He would come in a thousand years, said an epistle ascribed to Barnabas; he would come,<br />
said the most cautious, when the "generation" or race of the Jews was quite extinct, or when<br />
the Gospel had been preached to all gentiles; or said the Gospel of John, he would send in<br />
his stead the Holy Spirit or Paraclete."<br />
(Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Volume III, 'Ceasar and Christ, Pg. 603, 604)<br />
Even the earliest Christians prepared for the imminent end of the age in their own time:<br />
"That the earliest Church regarded itself as the Congregation of the end of days, is attested<br />
both by Paul, and the synoptic tradition....Further testimony for eschatological<br />
consciousness is the fact that Jesus' disciples after the Easter experiences in Galilee soon<br />
betook themselves to Jerusalem as the focus of the coming Reign of God."<br />
Theology of the New Testament-Complete in One Volume, by Rudolf Bultmann, p. 37<br />
Here are some WT quotes you will never see with the likes of Ron Rhodes etc:<br />
We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding<br />
former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good<br />
reason for the change,-in fact, it is important that we should be willing to<br />
unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth. . . . It is our duty<br />
to "prove all things."-by the unerring Word,-"and hold fast to that which is<br />
good." -- "The Ten Virgins," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's<br />
Presence, October 1879, reprint, 38.<br />
Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a<br />
par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our<br />
teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations<br />
of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still<br />
urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the<br />
light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what<br />
they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to<br />
enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that<br />
we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon<br />
which to build. -- "Worship the Lord in the Beauty of Holiness," No. 2,<br />
Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 December 1896,<br />
reprint, 2080.<br />
Nevertheless, we are far from claiming any direct plenary inspiration. . . .<br />
A careful examination of the subject leads us to the conclusion that the Lord<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/1975.htm (6 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:20:53 AM]
1975...and the Predictions of Christendom<br />
providentially shapes our course so as to give us such personal experiences<br />
in life as will bring us to his word for comfort and instruction in<br />
righteousness; and thus he permits us to sympathize with the experiences and<br />
questionings of his people, and then present to them at appropriate times the<br />
lessons drawn from our own experiences, backed by the instructions and<br />
comfort of the Scriptures. -- "Interesting Letters," Zion's Watch Tower and<br />
Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 July 1899, reprint, 2506.<br />
We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises, the Scriptural<br />
basis for which is already in the hands of our readers in the six volumes of<br />
SCRIPTURE STUDIES. We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our<br />
interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely<br />
laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt<br />
in respect to them. -- "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion's Watch Tower and<br />
Herald of Christ's Presence, 1 January 1908, reprint, 4110.<br />
"6000 Years of Human Existence"<br />
In 1969 the Watchtower Magazine in Czech began publishing a series of articles based on the book Life Everlasting- In<br />
Freedom of the Sons of God. Chapter 1, under the sub-heading "Six Thousand Years of Human Existence Closing,"<br />
contained an explanation of the Jubilee and of the <strong>Bible</strong> chronology. This material influenced some in a positive way; it<br />
also led to many questions and much speculation.<br />
The office in Czechoslovakia sent a letter dated February 22, 1972, to all congregations. It set out a lengthy explanation of<br />
reasons why we should not make any definite assertions about the date when Armageddon will strike. It pointed out that no<br />
publication of the Society had said that Armageddon will come in a certain year. The letter concluded: "Jehovah's<br />
Witnesses around the world are familiar with these facts, and no one should any personal claims as to what will happen<br />
before or during the year 1975. There are no Scriptural grounds for any claims, and they could have a detrimental effect on<br />
the preaching work. Strive, therefore, that you 'all speak in agreement and that there be no divisions among you but that<br />
you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.' (1Cor 1:10) For concerning that day and hour<br />
nobody knows." Matt.24:36<br />
--2000 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses pp.196,197<br />
For more info, go to http://homepages.picknowl.com.au/hepburn/prophecy.htm<br />
Back to Ron Rhodes<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/1975.htm (7 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:20:53 AM]
The Message-A <strong>Bible</strong> in Contemporary Language by Eugene Peterson<br />
The Message-The <strong>Bible</strong> in Contemporary Language by Eugene H. Peterson<br />
I have come to appreciate Paraphrased <strong>Bible</strong>s a little more in the past little while. They do clarify alot of<br />
texts, and they are fun to read. However, they are also very dogmatic. You have to really ask<br />
yourself...."Is that what the original writer really meant. The foreword of this <strong>Bible</strong> will tell you that it is<br />
written in the language of the people, street language, just like it was written back in <strong>Bible</strong> times. But I<br />
think the real reason for these types of translations is to push the theology and bias of the translator. For<br />
instance, with this translation we are to believe that the first century christians believed that Jesus Christ<br />
was God and part of a trinity, which was not a belief of the early christians.<br />
John 1:1, "The Word was first,<br />
the Word present to God,<br />
God present to the Word.<br />
The Word was God,<br />
in readiness for God from day one."<br />
That has to be the most confusing rendering of that scripture that I have ever read. For a paraphrase, it<br />
clarifies absolutely nothing.<br />
To be sure that we do not think of the Son as subordinate, John 14:28 has been changed from "The Father<br />
is greater than I am" to "the Father is the goal and purpose of my life."<br />
To tell us that John 1:1 is not confusing, John 1:18 says in The Message, "No one has ever seen God, not<br />
so much of a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has<br />
made him plain as day".<br />
Oh good, no more Mystery of the Trinity. This should give us more time for the "Mystery of Sex" which<br />
is the heading for 1 Corinthians 5.<br />
And to clarify another vague "trinity proof" text, John 8:58 has been changed to "I am who I am long<br />
before Abraham was anything."(Italics theirs)<br />
Also, we are to believe from the foreword that people in <strong>Bible</strong> times never used God's personal name,<br />
Jehovah or Yahweh, which this translation never mentions once. It doesn't even capitalize titles like<br />
LORD or GOD where the Divine Name should appear like other <strong>Bible</strong> translations.<br />
Other interesting scriptures from The Message:<br />
John 10:22, "They were celebrating Hanukkah just then in Jerusalem."<br />
Acts 8:20, "Peter said,'To hell with your money!"<br />
Matthew 9:34, "The Pharisees were left sputtering, 'Hocus Pocus.It's nothing but Hocus Pocus."<br />
Matthew 4:9, "They're yours-lock stock and barrel."<br />
Matthew 4:10, "Beat it, Satan!"<br />
1 Corinthians 6:9,10, "Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth<br />
and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens of God's kingdom."<br />
Acts 15:28,29, "avoid serving food offensive to Jewish Christians (blood for instance); and guard the<br />
morality of sex and marriage."<br />
There are however some good points about The Message. I do like the references to quoted scriptures,<br />
like, "The Devil goaded him by quoting Psalm 91: 'He has placed you in the care of angels." Matthew 4<br />
I cannot recommend The Message, even though it is quite readable. It has taken to many liberties with<br />
the text, and, if I may quote the translator out of context in his Introduction to Hebrews, he says, "we<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/message.htm (1 of 2) [5/25/2003 4:21:12 AM]
The Message-A <strong>Bible</strong> in Contemporary Language by Eugene Peterson<br />
become impatiently self-important along the way and decide to improve matters with our own 2 cents<br />
worth. We add on, we supplement, we embellish. But instead of improving on the purity and simplicity<br />
of Jesus, we dilute the purity, clutter the simplicity. We become fussily religious, or anxiously religious.<br />
We get in the way."-Eugene H.Peterson<br />
"This is great literature and great religious literature, this collection of ancient writings we call the <strong>Bible</strong>,<br />
and any translator has a deep sense of responsibility as he undertakes to transmit it to modern readers.<br />
He desires his transcript to be faithful to the meaning of the original, so far as he can reach that meaning,<br />
and also to do some justice to its literary qualities. But he is well aware that his aim often exceeds his<br />
grasp. Translation may be a fascinating task, yet no discipline is more humbling. You may be<br />
translating oracles, but soon you learn the risk and folly of posing as an oracle yourself. If your readers<br />
are dissatisfied at any point, they may be sure that the translator is still more dissatisfied, if not there,<br />
then elsewhere -- all the more so, because, in the nature of the case, he has always to appear dogmatic in<br />
print."<br />
... James Moffatt (1870-1944)<br />
Author Robert Martin who wrote a book on dynamic equivalence states, "The dynamic equivalence<br />
translator tends to be relatively unrestrained in his theologizing. What a formal equivalence [Literal]<br />
translator generally does only as a matter of necessity, the dynamic equivalence translator often does as a<br />
matter of choice."<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
June 23 1999<br />
Last updated Feb 21 2001<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/message.htm (2 of 2) [5/25/2003 4:21:12 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> Links<br />
Subscribe to jehovahbible<br />
Powered by groups.yahoo.com<br />
Links to other <strong>Bible</strong>s and Places of Interest on the Web<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Purchase a reprint of Newcome's 1808 New Testament-Revised and Corrected<br />
Noah's Ark Discovery by Angelo Palego<br />
Edgar Foster's Homepage-Trippin in Glascow<br />
Make your choice of favorite <strong>Bible</strong> from 15 different versions.<br />
What's Wrong with PBS's Evolution? Download the .pdf document<br />
The Biblical Prohibition from Eating Blood[1] by Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher<br />
Does the <strong>Bible</strong> have a Hidden Code?<br />
Mathematicians on the <strong>Bible</strong> Codes<br />
Time-line of <strong>Bible</strong> History (by Theodore Cobb) -Free .pdf document, simply email the Webmaster<br />
at hector3001@aol.com<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong>'s Power in your Life Video<br />
Personal Notes on the book, "A Creator Who Cares"<br />
Read my article in the High Point Enterprise<br />
NT quotes from the LXX as opposed to the Masoretic Text<br />
The Usage and Meaning of Elohim<br />
The Divine Name in the New Testament<br />
Early Christian Writings (Shepherd of Hermas, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas etc)<br />
Search the New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Search the Concordant Version<br />
Search Die Elberfelder Bibel<br />
Search the Jewish Publication Society <strong>Bible</strong> 1917<br />
Search the "Navigating the <strong>Bible</strong> II" Jewish Translation (Kaplan)<br />
Search the Revised Standard Version<br />
Search the New Revised Standard Version<br />
Search the English Standard Version 2001<br />
Search the J.B. Phillips Translation<br />
Search the Literal Version by Jay P. Green<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/links.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:21:27 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> Links<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Search the Revised King James Version-NT<br />
Search Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words<br />
Search the Modern King James Version<br />
Search the Clarified King James Version<br />
Search the King James Version w/Apocrypha<br />
Preface to the King James Version of 1611<br />
Search the J.N. Darby Version<br />
Search the Catholic New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Search the <strong>Bible</strong> with Strong's Numbers/Linked Word Project<br />
The Translator to the Reader-The Preface to the King James Version 1611<br />
DuTillet Hebrew version of Matthew<br />
Search Young's Literal Translation<br />
Search the NESV<br />
Douay/Rheims <strong>Bible</strong> On-Line<br />
Search the ADAM CLARKE'S COMMENTARIES<br />
N.T. Textual Reference Chart(.pdf)<br />
What is the Tetragrammaton (.pdf)<br />
Westcott-Hort text from 1881, combined with the NA26/27 variants<br />
The Divine Name in the New Testament<br />
Bruce Barnard's Defence of the New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
Ryan Taylor's JW Web-site<br />
The Catholic Encyclopedia<br />
Christian Association of Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
Survey of <strong>Bible</strong> Versions used in local Reformed Churches<br />
Catalogue of New Testament Papyri & Codices 2nd—10th Centuries<br />
Greg Staffords Debate Log Answers to Rob Bowman, James R. White and other critics of the<br />
Trinity<br />
The 3 Wise Men<br />
Books on the Witnesses and the NWT<br />
Steven T.Byington <strong>Site</strong><br />
Witnesses CornerNicely laid out site with news, pictures and other sites with JW's on the Web.<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Foundation<br />
Anthony's JW Links<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/links.htm (2 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:21:27 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> Links<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Top 10 Problems with the Big Bang<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Greek Theology<br />
Download "Faith on the March" by A.H. MacMillan<br />
The Works of Flavius Josephus<br />
My Sweetie's <strong>Site</strong><br />
The NIV-The Making of a Contemporary Translation By Kenneth L. Barker<br />
WOC Research/Trinity<br />
KJV Errors<br />
Is the KJV the ONLY True Word of God?<br />
THE DISCOVERY OF THE SINAITIC MANUSCRIPT by Constantin von Tischendorf<br />
Old Testament Monotheism by Wes Williams<br />
Blue Letter <strong>Bible</strong>/KJV<br />
American Standard Version<br />
<strong>World</strong> English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Gateway<br />
Is Young-Earth Creationism Christian?<br />
Peshitta Translation Project<br />
The Latin Vulgate<br />
Latin Dictionary<br />
Nuremburg Trial Proceedings<br />
Really old <strong>Bible</strong> fragments to download<br />
Virtual <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
MultiLingual <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Isaac Newton vs The Trinity<br />
Second Thoughts on the Majority Text<br />
Hebrew Names Version<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Resources<br />
Original <strong>Bible</strong> Project<br />
The Prince of Egypt<br />
There is One God-A Unitarian View<br />
The Non-Offensive Language in the NLT and CEV<br />
Westcott and Hort and the "Ghostlie Guild<br />
JW Media<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/links.htm (3 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:21:27 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> Links<br />
●<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> in Pig Latin<br />
Updated July 11 2002<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
hector3001@aol.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/links.htm (4 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:21:27 AM]
The King James(Authorized) Version <strong>Bible</strong>-Is it the Best?<br />
The KJV is arguably the greatest piece of English literature ever. Let's take a look at one example: "A vertuous<br />
woman reioyceth her husband, and he shall fulfill the yeeres of his life in peace." Ecclesiasticus 26:2 What is<br />
that you say? That scripture isn't in your copy of the KJV? Why is that? It is because the original KJV of 1611<br />
had the apocrypha(books not canonized). And as you can see, the language is a little different from your copy.<br />
Here is another example from the book of Psalms: "That men may knowe, that thou, whose name alone is<br />
IEHOVAH, art the most high ouer all the earth."Psalmes LXXXIII:18 What does this mean? It means that the<br />
King James Version <strong>Bible</strong> has been revised thru the ages to meet the demands of a changing language.<br />
How Many Revisions?<br />
First, there were printer errors.<br />
● There was the Wicked <strong>Bible</strong> which omitted "not" from 7 of the 10 Commandments.<br />
● The Vinegar <strong>Bible</strong> with its parable of the vinegar<br />
● The Unrighteous <strong>Bible</strong> where the unrighteous inherit the kingdom<br />
● The Ears to Ear <strong>Bible</strong> and an assortment of others<br />
Intentional Changes:<br />
● 1612<br />
● Early editions used either "he" or "she" at Ruth 3:15<br />
● 1613<br />
● 1616<br />
● In fact, between 1611 and 1644 there were 182 editions<br />
● 1629 edition omitted the Apocrypha<br />
● 1638 edition by Goad, Ward, Boyse and Mead<br />
● 1659 William Kilburne found 20,000 errors in 6 different editions made in the 1650's<br />
● 1660 marginal references introduced<br />
● 1683 Dr.Anthony Scargood added 7,250 references<br />
● 1727 thousands of errors were amended by the King's Printer<br />
● 1762 italics extended by Therold and Paris and modernized the language<br />
● 1769 extensive revision by B.Blayney<br />
● The 1795 edition(Murderers <strong>Bible</strong>) rendered Mark 7:27 as "Let the chidren first be killed" (instead of<br />
filled).<br />
● Blayney's edition became standard until....<br />
● 1873 the Cambridge Paragraph <strong>Bible</strong> edited by Scrivener<br />
While the 1611 edition had, "Then cometh Judas" at Matthew 26:36, today's KJV has "Then cometh Jesus".<br />
Quite a remarkable difference!<br />
King James Version Differences and Revisions<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:21:56 AM]
The King James(Authorized) Version <strong>Bible</strong>-Is it the Best?<br />
Passage A.V. KJV (1611) Current KJV (1850)<br />
Genesis 19:21 concerning this thing concerning this thing also<br />
Genesis 23:18 gates gate<br />
Genesis 39:1 hand hands<br />
Genesis 39:16 her lord his lord<br />
Genesis 47:6 any man any men<br />
Exodus 15:25 he made a statute he made for them a statute<br />
Exodus 21:32 thirty shekels thirty shekels of silver<br />
Exodus 23:13 names name<br />
Exodus 35:29 hands hand<br />
Leviticus 2:4 it shall be an unleavened cake it shall be unleavened cakes<br />
Leviticus 10:14 sacrifice sacrifices<br />
Leviticus 19:34 shall be as one born shall be unto you as one born<br />
Leviticus 20:11 shall be put to death shall surely be put to death<br />
Leviticus 25:23 were strangers are strangers<br />
Leviticus 26:23 be reformed by these things be reformed by me by these things<br />
Leviticus 26:40 the iniquity of their fathers<br />
Numbers 4:40 houses house<br />
Numbers 7:55<br />
charger of an hundred<br />
and thirty shekels<br />
their iniquity,<br />
and the iniquity of their fathers<br />
charger of the weight of an hundred<br />
and thirty shekels<br />
Deutnomy 5:29 keep my commandments keep all my commandments<br />
Joshua 3:11 covenant, even the Lord covenant of the Lord<br />
Joshua 7:14 households household<br />
Ruth 3:15 and he went into the citie. and she went into the city.<br />
1 Samuel 18:27 David arose, he and his men<br />
1 Samuel 28:7 servant servants<br />
David arose and went,<br />
he and his men<br />
2 Samuel 16:8 to thy mischief in thy mischief<br />
2 Kings 11:10 in the temple. in the temple of the LORD.<br />
2 Kings 23:21 this book of the Covenant the book of this covenant<br />
1 Chron 7:5 were men of might were valiant men of might<br />
1 Chron 11:15 of David to David<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv.htm (2 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:21:56 AM]
The King James(Authorized) Version <strong>Bible</strong>-Is it the Best?<br />
2 Chron 28:22 this his<br />
Job 33:22 His soul draweth near Yea, his soul draweth near<br />
Psalm 141:9 snare snares<br />
Proverbs 7:21 With much fair speech With her much fair speech<br />
Eccles 2:16 shall be forgotten shall all be forgotten<br />
Sg of Solm 4:6 mountains mountain<br />
Sg of Solm 5:12 water waters<br />
Isaiah 34:11 The cormorant and the bittern But the cormorant and the bittern<br />
Isaiah 49:13 heaven heavens<br />
Isaiah 49:13 God the LORD<br />
Isaiah 57:8 and made a covenant and made thee a covenant<br />
Jeremiah 4:6 standards standard<br />
Jeremiah 31:14 be satisfied with goodness be satisfied with my goodness<br />
Jeremiah 31:18 thou art the Lord my God for thou art the Lord my God<br />
Jeremiah 51:12 watchman watchmen<br />
Jeremiah 51:30 their her<br />
Ezekiel 6:8 that he may that ye may<br />
Ezekiel 12:19 violence of them violence of all them<br />
Ezekiel 24:5 him them<br />
Ezekiel 24:7 poured it upon the ground poured it not upon the ground<br />
Ezekiel 48:8 they ye<br />
Daniel 3:15 the midst of a fiery furnace the midst of a burning fiery furnace<br />
Daniel 12:13 the lot thy lot<br />
Joel 3:13 the wickedness their wickedness<br />
Amos 8:3 Temples temple<br />
Zechariah 7:7 of the plain and the plain<br />
Malachi 3:4 offerings offering<br />
Matthew 12:23 Is this the son of David? Is not this the son of David?<br />
Matthew 14:9 othes oath's<br />
Matthew 16:16 Thou art Christ Thou art the Christ<br />
Mark 6:26 othes oath's<br />
John 11:3 sister sisters<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv.htm (3 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:21:56 AM]
The King James(Authorized) Version <strong>Bible</strong>-Is it the Best?<br />
John 12:22 told tell<br />
John 15:20 the Lord his Lord<br />
Acts 5:34 a doctor of law a doctor of the law<br />
Romans 14:10 we shall all stand for we shall all stand<br />
1 Corinth 10:28 The earth is the Lords for the earth is the Lord's<br />
1 Corinth 12:28 helps in governments helps, governments<br />
1 Corinth 15:6 And After<br />
Philippians 4:6 request requests<br />
2 Thessa 2:14 the Lord Jesus Christ our Lord Jesus Christ<br />
1 Timothy 1:4 rather than edifying rather than godly edifying<br />
2 Timothy 4:8 unto them also unto all them also<br />
Hebrews 3:10 hearts heart<br />
Hebrews 12:1 run with patience unto the race run with patience the race<br />
1 John 5:12<br />
he that hath not the Son,<br />
hath not life.<br />
Revelation 13:6 dwelt dwell<br />
2 Chron 33:19<br />
[Cambridge KJV Editions]<br />
sin<br />
he that hath not the Son of God<br />
hath not life.<br />
[Oxford KJV Editions]<br />
sins<br />
Jeremiah 34:16 whom ye whom he<br />
Will the real King James <strong>Bible</strong> please stand up!<br />
Do you understand these Scriptures from the KJV?<br />
For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I? Eccl.2:25<br />
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing. Ps.5:6<br />
Nevertheless even him [Solomon] did outlandish women cause to sin. Neh. 13:26<br />
Solomon loved many strange women. 1Kings 11:1<br />
Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof. Job 26:5<br />
The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour. Job 36:33<br />
Woe to them that...stay on horses. Is. 31:1; 10:20; 30:12; 50:12<br />
The ships of Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market. Ez. 27:25<br />
I trow not. Luke 17:9<br />
He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. John 15:2<br />
We do you to wit of the grace of God. 2Cor. 8:1<br />
I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified. 1Cor.4:4<br />
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. 2Cor.6:12<br />
Not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand. 2Cor.10:16<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv.htm (4 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:21:56 AM]
The King James(Authorized) Version <strong>Bible</strong>-Is it the Best?<br />
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from<br />
one shepherd. Eccl.12:11<br />
For some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol. 2Cor.8:7<br />
Do You Know These Words in the KJV?<br />
almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, ligure, leasing, maranatha, nard,<br />
neesed, pate, rabboni, raca, ring-staked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood, trode, wimples, ouches, tatches,<br />
brigandine, ambassage, occurent, purtenance, bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban, talitha<br />
cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, quarternion, sanctum sanctorum, let, wot, trow, sod and swaddling clothes.<br />
Different Names for the same Person in the KJV<br />
Sheth and Seth; Pua and Puah; Cis and Kish; Agar and Hagar; Jeremiah, Jeremias and Jeremie; Enos and<br />
Enosh; Henoch and Enoch; Jered and Jared; Noe and Noah; Jonah, Jona and Jonas; Jepthae and Jepthah; Balak<br />
and Balac; Sara and Sarah; Gidion and Gideon; Elijah and Elias; Kora and Core; Elisha and Eliseus; Hosea and<br />
Osee; Isaiah, Esaias and Esay; Hezekiah and Ezekiah; Zechariah and Zecharias; Judas, Judah, Juda and Jude;<br />
Zera, Zara and Zarah; Marcus and Mark; Lucas and Luke; Timothy and Timotheus.<br />
● dabhar('word' or 'thing') is rendered by 84 different English words.<br />
● panim('face') by 34 different English words.<br />
● sim('to set' or 'place') by 59 different English words<br />
● nasah('to lift up') by 46<br />
● abhar('to pass over') by 48<br />
● rabh('much' or 'many') by 44<br />
● tobh('good') by 41<br />
● shubh('to turn back') by 60<br />
● katargein('to make void) by 17<br />
● passover is translated Easter in Acts 12:4<br />
Cockatrice<br />
Isaiah 14:29 serpent-RSV Snake-NWT<br />
Isaiah 11:8 serpents-RSV & NWT<br />
Isaiah 59:5 adders-RSV snake NWT<br />
Unicorn<br />
Deut. 33:17 wild ox-RSV wild bull-NWT<br />
Psalms 22:21 wild oxen-RSV wild bulls-NWT<br />
Isaiah 34:7 wild oxen-RSV wild bulls-NWT<br />
Mythical Creatures in the KJV<br />
Satyr<br />
Isaiah 13:21 goat-shaped demon-NWT wild goats[like demons]-Amplified <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Isaiah 34:14 goat-shaped demon-NWT shaggy wild goat-Amplified <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Doctrinal Problems in the KJV<br />
1John 5:7"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv.htm (5 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:21:56 AM]
The King James(Authorized) Version <strong>Bible</strong>-Is it the Best?<br />
three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these<br />
three agree in one." Omitted by most other versions<br />
1Timothy 3:16"God was manifest in the flesh"<br />
"He who was revealed in the flesh" NASB, NWT, RSV etc<br />
Revelation 1:11"I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" Omitted by most others<br />
Matthew 5:22 "hellfire" Should be "gehenna" NWT, Youngs Literal Translation<br />
Psalms 16:10 "hell" Should be "sheol" NWT, Youngs Literal Translation<br />
Acts 2:27 "hell" Should be "hades" NWT, Youngs Literal Translation<br />
2Peter 2:4 "hell" Should be "tartarus" NWT, Youngs Literal Translation<br />
Headings at Psalm 93 and Isaiah 51 mention Christ.<br />
The Divine Name "Jehovah" is used only at Exodus 6:3, Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4, but it is omitted<br />
everywhere else and replaced by LORD in capital letters.<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Fast Facts on the KJV<br />
The Greek text used for the King James Version, which is the Textus Receptus, took less than a year to<br />
produce by Erasmus.<br />
The Received Text(Textus Receptus, TR) ...."was not based on early manuscripts, not reliably edited,<br />
and consequently not trustworthy." N. Geisler/W. Nix A General Introduction to the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Since the KJV uses Elijah and Elias for the same person(see above), Mormon prophet Joseph Smith<br />
interestingly had a vision of both(Doctrine and Covenants 110:12-16)!<br />
King James was a flaming homosexual with a preference for boys.<br />
There are over 30 different editions of the Textus Receptus(TR) and none are 100% identical.<br />
"The King James translators knew Greek less well than they knew Latin so they constantly relied on the<br />
Latin to get themselves through the Greek."...Dr. Wallace<br />
The original KJV had a calendar of annual Holy days which all believers were to follow such as:<br />
Purification of the virgin Mary, annunciation of our Lady, Innocents day, etc..<br />
In 1851 the American <strong>Bible</strong> Society compared six different editions of the King James <strong>Bible</strong> and<br />
discovered over 24,000 variations between the editions of the same <strong>Bible</strong> translation! How could there<br />
be an inerrant King James <strong>Bible</strong> when even the different editions of the King James <strong>Bible</strong> had ten's of<br />
thousands of variant readings!?<br />
Erasmus, the originator of the so-called "inerrant" Greek text later to be called the "Textus Receptus"<br />
dedicated his work to Pope Leo X<br />
The teaching that the King James translators had a perfect Greek text is denied by the translators<br />
themselves. In the original edition of 1611 are marginal notes as follows: Note on Luke 17:36, "This<br />
36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." Note on Acts 25:6 where their text reads: "When he<br />
had tarried among them more than ten days," they inserted the following marginal note: "or, as some<br />
copies read, 'no more than eight or ten days.'"<br />
There are no paragraph marks after Acts 20:36<br />
Some believe the translators were influenced by the Socinians (Unitarians) because of their referring to<br />
the holy spirit as an "it" (John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; I Peter 1:11). See Emery H. Bancroft,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv.htm (6 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:21:56 AM]
The King James(Authorized) Version <strong>Bible</strong>-Is it the Best?<br />
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961; revised edition], pp. 147-8)<br />
Fun with the KJV<br />
Does anyone know that the K.J version was written in 1610.<br />
Did you know Shakespere was 46 at the time? Connection?<br />
Well, in Psalms 46, the 46th word is shake, from the end of the scripture, ignore Selah, count<br />
backwards 46 words and the word is "spear".<br />
Also, the 14th word is "will". Go to the rear and count back to words 32 and 31(14+32=46) and<br />
get I am. Put them all together and get his signature,<br />
"Will-I am Shake-spear.<br />
Then check any decent encyclopedia and see where King James summoned the greatest writers<br />
of the day to "translate" the Word.<br />
(In all fairness to the above submission, Will probably used the Geneva <strong>Bible</strong>)<br />
Other Links<br />
Errors and Mistranslations in the KJV<br />
KING JAMES VERSION ERRORS<br />
Ages or Eternity and the King James Version<br />
The Majority Text/Byzantine Text vs the Modern Critical Text<br />
With Another Look at the King James Version<br />
Should we accept newer <strong>Bible</strong> revisions and translations? Yes, by doing so we are following King James<br />
tradition. Did you know that the translators preface to the KJV quotes scripture 14 times, each time from the<br />
Geneva <strong>Bible</strong>. If it can quote other bibles, so can you.<br />
"We must sometimes get away from the Authorized Version, if for no other reason, simply<br />
because it is so beautiful and so solemn. Beauty exalts, but beauty also lulls. Early associations<br />
endear, but they also confuse. Through that beautiful solemnity, the transporting or horrifying<br />
realities of which the Book tells may come to us blunted and disarmed, and we may only sigh with<br />
tranquil veneration when we ought to be burning with shame, or struck dumb with terror, or<br />
carried out of ourselves by ravishing hopes and adorations."<br />
... C. S. Lewis (1898-1963), God in the Dock<br />
Updated Jan 21 2001<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjv.htm (7 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:21:56 AM]
Who Was King James?<br />
Who Was King James?<br />
For the last three centuries Protestants have fancied themselves the heirs of the Reformation, the<br />
Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. This assumption is one of<br />
history's greatest ironies. Today, Protestants laboring under that assumption use the King James <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Most of the new <strong>Bible</strong>s such as the Revised Standard Version are simply updates of the King James.<br />
The irony is that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph used a King James <strong>Bible</strong> nor<br />
would they have used it if it had been given to them free. The <strong>Bible</strong> in use by those groups, until it went<br />
out of print in 1644, was the Geneva <strong>Bible</strong>. The first Geneva <strong>Bible</strong>, both Old and New Testaments, was<br />
first published in English in 1560 in what is now Geneva, Switzerland. William Shakespeare, John<br />
Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that<br />
era used the Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> exclusively.<br />
Until he had his own version named after him, so did King James I of<br />
England. James I later tried to disclaim any knowledge of the Geneva <strong>Bible</strong>, though he quoted the<br />
Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> in his own writings. As a Professor Eadie reported it:<br />
"...his virtual disclaimer of all knowledge up to a late period of the Genevan notes and<br />
version was simply a bold, unblushing falsehood, a clumsy attempt to sever himself<br />
and his earlier Scottish beliefs and usages that he might win favor with his English<br />
churchmen."<br />
The irony goes further. King James did not encourage a translation of the <strong>Bible</strong> in order to<br />
enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common<br />
people.<br />
The King James <strong>Bible</strong> was, and is for all practical purposes, a government publication. There were<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjames.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:22:07 AM]
Who Was King James?<br />
several reasons for the King James <strong>Bible</strong> being a government publication. First, King James I of England<br />
was a devout believer in the "divine right of kings," a philosophy<br />
ingrained in him by his mother, Mary Stuart. Mary Stuart may have been having an affair with her Italian<br />
secretary, David Rizzio, at the time she conceived James. There is a better than even<br />
chance that James was the product of adultery. Apparently, enough evidence of such conduct on<br />
the part of Mary Stuart and David Rizzio existed to cause various Scot nobles, including Mary's own<br />
husband, King Henry, to drag David Rizzio from Mary's supper table and execute him. The Scot nobles<br />
hacked and slashed at the screaming Rizzio with knives and swords, and then threw him off a balcony to<br />
the courtyard below where he landed with a sickening smack. In the phrase of that day, he had been<br />
scotched.<br />
Mary did have affairs with other men, such as the Earl of Bothwell. She later tried to execute her<br />
husband in a gunpowder explosion that shook all of Edinburgh. King Henry survived the explosion only<br />
to be suffocated later that same night. The murderers were never discovered. Mary was eventually<br />
beheaded at the order of her cousin, Elizabeth I of England.<br />
To such individuals as James and his mother, Mary, the "divine right of kings" meant that since a<br />
king's power came from God, the king then had to answer to no one but God. This lack of responsibility<br />
extended to evil kings. The reasoning was that if a king was evil, that was a punishment sent from God.<br />
The citizens should then suffer in silence. If a king was good, that was a blessing sent from God.<br />
This is why the Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> annoyed King James I. The Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> had marginal notes that<br />
simply didn't conform to that point of view. Those marginal notes had been, to a great extent, placed in<br />
the Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> by the leaders of the Reformation, including John Knox and John Calvin. Knox and<br />
Calvin could not and cannot be dismissed lightly or their opinions passed off to the public as the mere<br />
ditherings of dissidents.<br />
First, notes such as, "When tyrants cannot prevail by craft they burst forth into open rage" (Note i,<br />
Exodus 1:22) really bothered King James.<br />
Second, religion in James' time was not what it is today. In that era religion was controlled by the<br />
government. If someone lived in Spain at the time, he had three religious "choices:"<br />
1.Roman Catholicism<br />
2.Silence<br />
3.The Inquisition<br />
The third "option" was reserved for "heretics," or people who didn't think the way the government<br />
wanted them to. To governments of that era heresy and treason were synonymous.<br />
England wasn't much different. From the time of Henry VIII on, an Englishman had three choices:<br />
1.The Anglican Church<br />
2.Silence<br />
3.The rack, burning at the stake, being drawn and quartered, or some other form of<br />
persuasion.<br />
The hapless individuals who fell into the hands of the government for holding religious opinions of<br />
their own were simply punished according to the royal whim.<br />
Henry VIII, once he had appointed himself head of all the English churches, kept the Roman<br />
Catholic system of bishops, deacons and the like for a very good reason. That system allowed him a<br />
"chain of command" necessary for any bureaucracy to function. This system passed intact to his heirs.<br />
This system became a little confusing for English citizens when Bloody Mary ascended to the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjames.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:22:07 AM]
Who Was King James?<br />
throne. Mary wanted everyone to switch back to Roman Catholicism. Those who proved intransigent and<br />
wanted to remain Protestant she burned at the stake — about 300 people in all. She intended to burn a lot<br />
more, but the rest of her intended victims escaped by leaving the country. A tremendous number of those<br />
intended victims settled in Geneva. Religious refugees from other countries in Western Europe, including<br />
the French theologian Jean Chauvin, better known as John Calvin, also settled there.<br />
Mary died and was succeeded in the throne by her Protestant cousin, Elizabeth. The Anglican<br />
bureaucracy returned, less a few notables such as Archbishop Cranmer and Hugh Latimer (both having<br />
been burned at the stake by Bloody Mary). In Scotland, John Knox led the Reformation. The<br />
Reformation prospered in Geneva. Many of those who had fled Bloody Mary started a congregation<br />
there. Their greatest effort and contribution to the Reformation was the first Geneva <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
More marginal notes were added to later editions. By the end of the 16th century, the Geneva <strong>Bible</strong><br />
had about all the marginal notes there was space available to put them in.<br />
Geneva was an anomaly in 16th century Europe. In the days of absolute despotism and constant warfare,<br />
Geneva achieved her independence primarily by constant negotiation, playing off one stronger power<br />
against another. While other governments allowed lawyers to drag out cases and took months and years<br />
to get rid of corrupt officials, the City of Geneva dispatched most civil and criminal cases within a month<br />
and threw corrupt officials into jail the day after they were found out. The academy that John Calvin<br />
founded there in 1559 later became the University of Geneva. Religious wars wracked Europe. The<br />
Spanish fought to restore Roman Catholicism to Western Europe. The Dutch fought for the Reformation<br />
and religious freedom. England, a small country with only 4-1/2 million people, managed to stay aloof<br />
because of the natural advantage of the English Channel.<br />
The Dutch declared religious freedom for everybody. Amsterdam became an open city. English<br />
Puritans arrived by the boatload. The 1599 Edition of the Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> was printed in Amsterdam and<br />
London in large quantities until well into the 17th century.<br />
King James, before he became James I of England, made it plain that he had no use for the "Dutch<br />
rebels" who had rebelled against their Spanish King. Another irony left to us from the 16th century is that<br />
the freedom of religion and freedom of the press did not originate in England, as many people commonly<br />
assume today. Those freedoms were first given to Protestants by the Dutch, as the records of that era<br />
plainly show. England today does not have freedom of the press the way we understand it. (There are<br />
things in England such as the Official Secrets Act that often land journalists in jail.)<br />
England was relatively peaceful in the time of Elizabeth I. There was the problem of the Spanish<br />
Armada, but that was brief. Elizabeth later became known as "Good Queen Bess," not because she was<br />
so good, but because her successor was so bad. Elizabeth died in 1603 and her cousin, James Stuart, son<br />
of Mary Stuart, who up until that time had been King James VI of Scotland ascended the throne and<br />
became known as King James I of England. James ascended the throne of England with the "divine right<br />
of kings" firmly embedded in his mind. Unfortunately, that wasn't his only mental problem.<br />
King James I, among his many other faults, preferred young boys to adult women. He was a<br />
flaming homosexual. His activities in that regard have been recorded in numerous books and public<br />
records; so much so, that there is no room for debate on the subject. The King was queer.<br />
The very people who use the King James <strong>Bible</strong> today would be the first ones to throw such a deviant out<br />
of the congregations.<br />
The depravity of King James I didn't end with sodomy. James enjoyed killing animals. He called it<br />
"hunting." Once he killed an animal, he would literally roll about in its blood. Some believe that he<br />
practiced bestiality while the animal lay dying.<br />
James was a sadist as well as a sodomite: he enjoyed torturing people. While King of Scotland in<br />
1591, he personally supervised the torture of poor wretches caught up in the witchcraft trials of Scotland.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjames.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:22:07 AM]
Who Was King James?<br />
James would even suggest new tortures to the examiners. One "witch," Barbara Napier, was acquitted.<br />
That event so angered James that he wrote personally to the court on May 10, 1551, ordering a sentence<br />
of death, and had the jury called into custody. To make sure they understood their particular offense, the<br />
King himself presided at a new hearing — and was gracious enough to release them without punishment<br />
when they reversed their verdict.<br />
History has it that James was also a great coward. On January 7, 1591, the king was in Edinburgh<br />
and emerged from the toll booth. A retinue followed that included the Duke of Lennox and Lord Hume.<br />
They fell into an argument with the laird of Logie and pulled their swords. James looked behind, saw the<br />
steel flashing, and fled into the nearest refuge which turned out to be a skinner's booth. There to his<br />
shame, he "fouled his breeches in fear."<br />
In short, King James I was the kind of despicable creature honorable men loathed, Christians would<br />
not associate with, and the <strong>Bible</strong> itself orders to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). Knowing what King<br />
James was we can easily discern his motives.<br />
James ascended the English throne in 1603. He wasted no time in ordering a new edition of the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> in order to deny the common people the marginal notes they so valued in the Geneva <strong>Bible</strong>. That<br />
James I wasn't going to have any marginal notes to annoy him and lead English citizens away from what<br />
he wanted them to think is a matter of public record. In an account corrected with his own hand dated<br />
February 10, 1604, he ordained:<br />
That a translation be made of the whole <strong>Bible</strong>, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and<br />
Greek, and this to be set out and printed without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches<br />
of England in time of divine service. James then set up rules that made it impossible for anyone involved<br />
in the project to make an honest translation, some of which follow:<br />
1. The ordinary <strong>Bible</strong> read in the church, commonly called the Bishop's <strong>Bible</strong> to be followed and as<br />
little altered as the truth of the original will permit.<br />
Or, since the common people preferred the Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> to the existing government publication,<br />
let's see if we can slip a superseding government publication onto their bookshelves, altered as<br />
little as possible.<br />
3. The old Ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word "church" not to be translated<br />
"congregation," etc.<br />
That is, if a word should be translated a certain way, let's deliberately mistranslate it to make the<br />
people think God still belongs to the Anglican Church — exclusively.<br />
6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek<br />
words,<br />
which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.<br />
All excerpts from Global Insights.<br />
***For verification of King James homosexuality, I got my info from Global Insights. You can also find<br />
more info at Otto Scott's "James I: The Fool As King" (Ross House: 1976), pp. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200,<br />
224, 311, 353, 382; King James-VI of Scotland/I of England by Antonia Fraser (Alfred A. Knopf, New<br />
York 1975)pp. 36, 37, 38; King James VI and I by David Harris Willson, pp.36, 99; James I by his<br />
Contemporaries by Robert Ashton, p114; and A History of England by Samuel Rawson Gardiner, Vol. 4,<br />
p.112. Check also A LITERARY HISTORY OF THE BIBLE by Geddes MacGregor who has devoted a<br />
whole chapter entitled "QUEEN" JAMES.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjames.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:22:07 AM]
Who Was King James?<br />
In the Beginning, by Alister McGrath, pp. 170-71<br />
The Mammoth Book of Private Lives by Jon E. Lewis, pp. 62,65,66<br />
James White also makes mention of it in his book, THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY.<br />
See also King James and the History of Homosexuality by Michael B. Young<br />
and King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire by David Moore Bergeron, both available on<br />
amazon.com<br />
For those people who feel that the above is a result of the attack on King James by the 17th century tobacco industry are<br />
ignorant of the fact that his behavior and personal life were quite well known to his contemporaries. " He disdained women<br />
and fawned unconscionably on his favorite men." ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA-pp. 674,675<br />
"And shall I then like bird or beast forget<br />
For any storms that threatening heaven can send<br />
The object sweet, where on my heart is set<br />
Whom for to serve my senses all I bend?..."<br />
A poem written by King James to his homosexual love interest (pictured above, Esme<br />
Stuart). King James-VI of Scotland/I of England, by Antonia Fraser, New York 1975<br />
Back to <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong><br />
For more on the KJV click here<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
For more on the character of King James click here<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/kjames.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:22:07 AM]
My Vicious Letter from the International Standard Version <strong>Bible</strong><br />
My Vicious Letter From the International Standard Version <strong>Bible</strong><br />
I was just going through the Inclusive <strong>Bible</strong> New Testament(Cross Cultural Productions) and I had<br />
noticed some disturbing changes. In this <strong>Bible</strong> "Son of Man" became "Son of Humanity", "Heavenly<br />
Father" became "Heavenly Parent" and so on. So I went to check on the net for more Inclusive Language<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>s and I came across the International Standard Version which claims to be an idiomatic and literal<br />
translation of the <strong>Bible</strong>. This <strong>Bible</strong> does not change the gender of titles like the above mentioned when it<br />
comes to Jesus or God, but it will do so anywhere else it deems necessary. For instance, in Matthew 4:4<br />
says,"A person must not live on bread alone" instead of the usual, "Man must not live on bread alone".<br />
I should mention that since the writing of this letter, I have educated myself concerning the original<br />
languages in relation to gender. Books like The Inclusive Language Debate by D.A. Carson can help<br />
someone get a better understanding of gender-inclusiveness. I am no longer as hostile to this tendency in<br />
modern versions, but there is still no need for alot of it, and this has also been endorsed by many others who<br />
are scholarly (cf. http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/genderneutral.html ) However, rather than<br />
lovingly answering my query on this issue, like the <strong>World</strong> English <strong>Bible</strong> people concerning my questioning<br />
their use of the Majority Text), they immediately condemned me for daring to question them. This lack of<br />
humility should be a red flag to anyone who picks up this New Testament version.<br />
I also noticed that they did not mention or use the Divine Name(Jehovah, Yahweh) at all. It isn't even<br />
mentioned in the footnotes at Exodus 3:15;6:3. So I wrote them and I told they are bowing to special<br />
interest groups and that they could hardly be called literal if they are refusing to use the Divine Name<br />
which was mentioned in the original <strong>Bible</strong> about 7000 times. Here is the reply I received:<br />
"Your caustic comments are way, way out of line.<br />
In regards to the "inclusive" language policy of the ISV, you have jumped to<br />
a conclusion without having read the ISV. The policy on inclusive language<br />
is reproducted below from the Introduction tot he ISV, page xliv.<br />
The plain fact of the matter is that the words "antropoi" does not always<br />
mean "men" -- in fact, the Greek word "aner" is used when the gender of the<br />
persons referred to are male as opposed to female. The term "anthropoi"<br />
often means "people" -- i.e., without reference to any specific gender.<br />
When Jesus says that He will call "all men" to Himself to be saved, if<br />
"anthropoi" does not mean people, then women cannot be saved because the<br />
wrod translated "men" is "anthropoi."<br />
You can read their policy statement on their web-site.<br />
In regards to your puerile insistence on the "Divine Name" -- I have news<br />
for you. The ISV is in English, not Hebrew. If you want to use the "Divine<br />
Name" -- whatever you may think that it is (how DO you pronouce JHWH, or is<br />
the Divine Name KYRIOS, or is it Lord, lord, LORD, L-rd, L-RD, God, G-d,<br />
G-D?) -- go right ahead and spend two million dollars to prepare your own<br />
English language base translation of the <strong>Bible</strong> like we did. You can call God<br />
anything you want to, mistranslate "anthropoi" to fit your own uninformed<br />
prejudices, and do whatever you want to do with the text, all with your own<br />
petty baseless religious superstitions and prejudices, but with no real<br />
substantive scholarship behind it, just some silly superstitious religious<br />
nonsense which you presume to be more spiritual than our work.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/isv.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:22:13 AM]
My Vicious Letter from the International Standard Version <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Your ridiculous letter has earned a place of hallowed presence in the Learn<br />
Foundation's "tartarus" page at http://isv.org/tartarus.htm (where all the<br />
baseless comments are posted). I shall request that your letter be posted<br />
there, together with our response.<br />
I'm tired of people like you (and people like the woefully ignorant "King<br />
James Only" and "Textus Receptus" crowd) taking pot shots at our work.<br />
Please do not buy the ISV or any of our publications. Just shut up and leave<br />
us alone and don't bother to waste my time with any more email messages.<br />
Charles Welty, Publisher<br />
ISV New Testament<br />
Wow...is that scary or what? Ladies and Gentlemen(or people and people) this is the <strong>Bible</strong> Translator in<br />
the 90's.<br />
First, while antropoi can be used as "human being" as well as "man" in Matthew 4:4, it has a literal<br />
meaning of "man-faced". This scripture is taken from Deuteronomy 8:3, where it uses the hebrew word<br />
adama, which can also be used to translate "human being,person" as well as "man", but I want you to<br />
think about it....was Adam, who this word is translated from, a man or a woman. He was first and<br />
foremost a man. So it does not make sense to change the word mankind or man to appease Gloria<br />
Steinem.<br />
In a proper translation, John 11: 25, where Jesus is speaking to<br />
Martha, he uses the generic "he." "He that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live."<br />
The Inclusive <strong>Bible</strong> renders this as " ... those who believe in me will live<br />
even though they die..." Was Martha here confused. Was she aghast that she was not included in this<br />
promise because Martha was a "she". How do I know that Jesus actually said "He?" Look at Jeremiah<br />
44:24,25 "Moreover Jeremiah said unto all the people, and to all the women, Hear the word of Jehovah,<br />
all Judah that are in the land of Egypt: Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, Ye and<br />
your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and with your hands have fulfilled it." Jeremiah called<br />
all the people and all the women, but when Jehovah addressed Israel it was YOU(Ye) and your wives.<br />
The Men are directly addressed. So if it was they way talked back in Biblical times, why is there a need<br />
to change it now? Let's not forget, political correctness was not an issue in the first century. Antropoi,<br />
like Adama, meant all of mankind here...and mankind means all human beings. Jesus is the Son of Man,<br />
not the Son of People or the Son of Human Beings...or even the Son of Humanity. "Man" is<br />
all-encompassing.<br />
For more on this debate see Wayne Grudem's article at:<br />
http://www.cbmw.org/html/whatswrongwith.html<br />
But the Biggest Problem is the Slippery Slope.<br />
What about future revisions to the International Standard Version? How far will they go to bow to social<br />
and political pressures. What am I talking about? Most of you have heard of the New Revised Standard<br />
Version. It also has some inclusive language when not referring to "deity". Here is a quote(and this is<br />
scary), "The NRSV, based on the latest biblical scholarship, has gone a long way toward greater<br />
specificity in regard to human gender." Where is this quote from? It is from THE NEW TESTAMENT<br />
AND PSALMS...AN INCLUSIVE VERSION by the Oxford University Press. They have made an<br />
entirely inclusive <strong>Bible</strong> based on the NRSV. And it is "Used by Permission". This version has<br />
"Father-Mother" when referring to God. Christ is the "Child" or the "Human One". That should concern<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/isv.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:22:13 AM]
My Vicious Letter from the International Standard Version <strong>Bible</strong><br />
us all.<br />
"The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." 1 Corinthians 3:19<br />
Now About My "Peurile Insistence on the Divine Name!"<br />
"I have news for you. The ISV is in English." Yes, all english <strong>Bible</strong> translations are in....english. But they<br />
are translated from the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. By the tone of that sentence, I would expect<br />
"Jehoshophat" or "Jehoram" to be translated "Man". The fact is, it is the divine name Jehovah or Yahweh<br />
that has been excluded, and only that name. It is that name that is mentioned more often than any other<br />
name in the <strong>Bible</strong>, including Jesus,which incidentally, has a different Hebrew and Greek<br />
equivalent-Yeshua and Iesous. Perhaps we should remove his name from English ISV.<br />
As for Kyrios and God, it is not a name, it is a title. This is stated in 1 Corinthians 8:5, "For though there<br />
be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords(kyrios) many."<br />
The American Standard Version says at Exodus 3:15,16"And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt<br />
thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of<br />
Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial<br />
unto all generations."<br />
So let me introduce you to other peurile(childish,juvenile) <strong>Bible</strong> translators who have petty baseless<br />
religious superstitions and prejudices, but with no real substantive scholarship behind it.<br />
The Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>(Yahweh 6823 times)<br />
The Darby Translation(Jehovah 6823 times)<br />
Youngs Literal Translation(Jehovah 6823 times)<br />
American Standard Version(Jehovah 6823 times)<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation(Jehovah 6961 times)<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>(Yahweh 6823 times)<br />
Rotherham <strong>Bible</strong>(Yahweh 6823 times)<br />
Sharpe's Translation(Jehovah 6823 times)<br />
Boothroyd's Translation(Jehovah 6823 times)<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English-Byington(Jehovah 6823 times)<br />
A Literal Translation of the <strong>Bible</strong>-Jay P. Green(Jehovah 5500 times)<br />
Even the Inclusive Language New Testament includes Yahweh at Matthew 3:3, Mark 12:29, 30, 36 and<br />
11 other places.<br />
To see more <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> with the Divine Name click here.<br />
As it says in Psalms 74:10, "How long, O God, shall the adversary reproach? Shall the enemy blaspheme<br />
thy name for ever?"(ASV)<br />
Did anyone else notice the bad spelling in the letter?<br />
The Vicious Letter II- Welty's Revenge<br />
Since I have posted my original letter, a kind Mr. Bradley O. Browne has come to my defense and has<br />
also had correspondence with the publishers of the International Standard Version <strong>Bible</strong>. But for his<br />
efforts, he was also placed on the ISV Tartarus page. The ISV is threatening Hell on us...but interestingly<br />
enough, while it may translate Tartarus(2 Peter 2:4) as "Hell", this same <strong>Bible</strong> also translates the greek<br />
word Gehenna(Matthew 5:22) as "Hell" and the greek word hades(Matthew 16:18) as "Hell". Obviously,<br />
the translators of the ISV will translate any word as "Hell" that they see fit. NOT a very useful version is<br />
it? You can download the ISV for free at<br />
http://isv.org/isvi.htm<br />
That should save you some money right there.<br />
Bradley O. Browne<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/isv.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:22:13 AM]
My Vicious Letter from the International Standard Version <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Senior Network Coordinator<br />
C.B.I.<br />
Milwaukee, WI 53202 wrote: "I've seen your picture, so you are a mature man physically, I would<br />
recommend you grow up socially."<br />
The ISV wrote:<br />
You've seen my picture on our web site, have you? Too<br />
bad I'm not the person who wrote the flame. You have<br />
slandered me by this statement, and by your entire email.<br />
You are the one who needs to grow up, Mr. Browne. I<br />
suggest you respond in a mature fashion to the writer of<br />
the response to the email. Here's his email address:<br />
mailto:crwelty@ffia.net.<br />
Now, speaking of being grown up, are you grown up<br />
enough to apologize to me for your ad hominum remark?<br />
If so, I'll publish your apology as an addendum to your<br />
original email and my comments thereto, since both are<br />
going to take center stage at the Tartarus page of the ISV.<br />
If anyone's email has deserved publication, it's yours.<br />
William P. Welty, M.Div.<br />
Executive Director<br />
The Learn Foundation<br />
To read more...just go to http://isv.org/Flames%20of%20Tartarus/bradley_o_browne.htm<br />
This link and the one where the fires of hell have been placed besides my name have since disappeared,<br />
thanks to Mr. Bradley's efforts.<br />
Another Addendum<br />
Recently I received this letter from a Mr. Martin who wrote the ISV concerning the above:<br />
Mr. Martin wrote:<br />
> I find this letter highly offensive and out of line for those who are<br />
to<br />
> translate the Holy Word. Did you write this letter?<br />
No. It was written by Davidson Press, one of the publishers of the ISV.<br />
The people who posted the original comments, along with the reply comments by<br />
that publisher, seem to have confused the differences between us as producers<br />
of the translation and the publisher.<br />
> If so, why? Why the rudeness? Why the lack of love?<br />
> Why the unchristlike character displayed therein?<br />
I have no idea why the people who wrote those misguided attacks on the<br />
ISV would display such rudeness, lack of love, unchristlike character, etc.<br />
as to falsely suggest we're liberal and all of the other things they said.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/isv.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:22:13 AM]
My Vicious Letter from the International Standard Version <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Perhaps you could ask them. I was puzzled with the Davidson Press response, but<br />
given the rudeness, lack of love, etc. (your words) displayed by those who<br />
attacked the ISV, I do think I can understand his frustration.<br />
Regards,<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
/ William P. Welty, M.Div., Director<br />
\ // The ISV Foundation<br />
\\ /// 2200 North Grand Avenue, Suite 100<br />
\\\' //// Santa Ana, CA 92705-7016 USA<br />
\\\// _//// Telephone: 714.479.0975<br />
\_-//' / ///< Fax: 630.214.5965<br />
\ /// > \\\`__/_ Internet: http://isv.org<br />
/.)-^>> _\` \\ ICQ#: 7521518<br />
(/ \\ //\\ The letters in "INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY"<br />
// _//\\\\ rearrange as "A ROUGH WHIMPER OF INSANITY"<br />
Updated Jan 10, 2001<br />
Back to <strong>Bible</strong> Page<br />
Email Me<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/isv.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:22:13 AM]
An Inclusive Version-The Feminist <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Main Page<br />
International<br />
Standard<br />
Version<br />
The Message<br />
Comma<br />
Johanneum<br />
King James the<br />
Fop<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> News<br />
Big Bang Bunk<br />
Old Catholic<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Search English<br />
Versions<br />
NET <strong>Bible</strong><br />
<strong>Bible</strong><br />
<strong>Translations</strong><br />
More <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Original <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Project<br />
New American<br />
Standard <strong>Bible</strong><br />
NIV <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Search<br />
Dynamic<br />
Equivalency<br />
E-mail Me<br />
New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation<br />
"If every man's humour were followed, there would be ne no end of<br />
translating."Richard Bancroft -Bishop of London(1604)<br />
An Inclusive Translation-New Testament&Psalms<br />
The foreword of this <strong>Bible</strong> makes reference to Star Trek, which is very important. This<br />
Inclusive Version is a pop(culture) <strong>Bible</strong> that is bowing to the fad of political<br />
correctness. It has changed the person of God and it is as fake as Leonard Nimoy's ears,<br />
as heartfelt as an android(Data). It's molecules got scrambled in the transporter beam.<br />
Why? Well let's take a look.<br />
"Ruler" or "Sovereign" is substituted for King (because that sounds too male).<br />
"Kingdom" is now "Dominion"<br />
Lord is removed(ie...1 Corinthians 6:14)<br />
Sarah is added to John 8:58<br />
"Father" is now "Father-Mother" John 1:18<br />
"homosexuals" changed to "male prostitutes"<br />
1 Corinthians 6:9,10<br />
"Son of Man" is the "Human One" Luke 17:26<br />
I already knew the Trinity was plural, but John 10:30 proves it, "The Father-Mother<br />
and I are one."<br />
The Comma Johanneum at 1John 5:7,8(footnote) introduces to a Quadrinity, "There are<br />
three that testify in heaven, the Father-Mother, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these<br />
three are one."<br />
Will the target groups embrace this version. Probably not. With Scriptures like<br />
Ephesians 5:22,23: "Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the<br />
husband is head of the wife..."(NRSV)<br />
I suspect that hardline feminists will stay clear. So why corrupt the bible we have now.<br />
Another Point<br />
This Inclusive Version is a revision of the New Revised Standard Version, which is a<br />
revision of the Revised Standard Version, which is a revision of the American Standard<br />
Version(an excellent <strong>Bible</strong>), which is a revision of the King James Version.What a<br />
shameful legacy of a once grand <strong>Bible</strong>. Are we looking at the future of <strong>Bible</strong><br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/inclusive.htm (1 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:22:23 AM]
An Inclusive Version-The Feminist <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Old Testament<br />
Monotheism<br />
My Family<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Exegesis<br />
Interlinear <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Trinity Bias<br />
American<br />
Standard<br />
Version<br />
Virtual <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Multi-Lingual<br />
<strong>Bible</strong><br />
21 <strong>Translations</strong><br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Resources<br />
John Wycliffe<br />
Hebrew Names<br />
Version<br />
Translating? Most <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions after 1960 have added at least some<br />
inclusive language. Will they be revised to suit Gloria Steinem as the New Revised<br />
Standard Version was?<br />
The Divine Name<br />
The Divine Name(Jehovah/Yahweh) is completely ignored(and removed) in the<br />
Psalms-and replaced by the title GOD.<br />
This <strong>Bible</strong> is under copyright protection and does not permit quoting from it in any<br />
manner(unlike most <strong>Bible</strong>s that allow up to 500 words). So...exactly what good is this<br />
useless version of the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> Men(I'm sorry, "People!!") may adopt new fads like political correctness and bow to<br />
social pressures, but, "I, the LORD, do not change" Malachi 3:6(NRSV)<br />
WOC<br />
Research/Trinity"I<br />
warn everybody who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to<br />
them, God will add that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away<br />
William from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person's share in<br />
Tyndale the tree of life..." (Revelation 22:18,19) NRSV<br />
Textus Receptus I saw the Light?!<br />
This version also removes the term "darkness" such as in Psalm 107:10 and substitutes<br />
Latin Vulgate it with "captivity". Why? Because "darkness" might discriminate against Black people.<br />
etc<br />
The term "Jews" are altered when it is used in a less than favourable sense.<br />
References to the handicapped are slightly altered too at Matthew 11:5 and "slaves"<br />
Trinity Truth changed to "those enslaved to him."<br />
Rolf Furuli<br />
"For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having<br />
itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and<br />
Blue Letter<br />
<strong>Bible</strong><br />
will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths." 2 Timothy 4:3,4<br />
NRSV<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/inclusive.htm (2 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:22:23 AM]<br />
Last Updated: January 15, 2000
An Inclusive Version-The Feminist <strong>Bible</strong><br />
KJV Online<br />
Matthew <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Janey's <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Research<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/inclusive.htm (3 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:22:23 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> Theology and the Word "HELL"<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Theology and the Word<br />
"Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the<br />
word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions<br />
of the <strong>Bible</strong> has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception."-The<br />
Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81.<br />
As one Danish pastor Kai Jensen acknowledges:<br />
"The talk of everlasting perdition is crazy. It is not Christianity. It was only in times past<br />
that there were hell preachers who from the pulpit thundered about the devil and the<br />
inextinguishable fire. But that time is over."-Hvor gaar vi hen (Where Do We Go?), p. 119.<br />
The following chart has a few instances where <strong>Bible</strong> words are manipulated to support the Hell-Fire<br />
doctrine. There are of course alot more instances where Sheol and Hades are rendered. I will start off<br />
with the New <strong>World</strong> Translation(NWT) as it is one of the few that renders the words from the original<br />
languages faithfully.<br />
Abbreviations:<br />
● A.O.D. = Abode of the Dead<br />
● R.O.D. = Realm of the Dead<br />
● W.O.D. = <strong>World</strong> of the Dead<br />
● R.O.D. = Realm of the Dead<br />
● P.O.D. = Place of the Dead<br />
● P.O.T. = Pit of Torture<br />
● S.O.D. = State of the Dead<br />
● N.W. = Nether <strong>World</strong><br />
● D.U.C. = Dark Underground Caves<br />
● N = New<br />
● S = Standard<br />
● A = American<br />
● I = International<br />
● L = Living<br />
● E = English<br />
● M = Modern<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hell.htm (1 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:22:30 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> Theology and the Word "HELL"<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
B = <strong>Bible</strong><br />
V = Version<br />
T = Translation<br />
W = <strong>World</strong><br />
C = Contemporary<br />
Click Here to go to Complete Chart of the Occurences of Sheol<br />
<strong>Bible</strong><br />
Luke<br />
16:23<br />
Acts<br />
2:31<br />
2Peter 2:4 Matthew<br />
5:22<br />
Mark 9:43 Psalms<br />
6:5<br />
Psalms<br />
16:10<br />
Matthew<br />
7:13<br />
N.W.T. HADES HADES TARTARUS GEHENNA GEHENNA SHEOL SHEOL Destruction<br />
King<br />
James<br />
HELL HELL HELL HELL HELL Grave HELL Destruction<br />
NKJV Hades Hades HELL HELL HELL Grave Sheol Destruction<br />
L.B. HELL HELL HELL HELL HELL Omit Grave HELL<br />
A.S.V. HADES HADES HELL HELL HELL SHEOL SHEOL Destruction<br />
ASV mg TARTARUS GEHENNA GEHENNA<br />
T.E.V. HADES Grave HELL HELL HELL Omit Grave HELL<br />
NASB HADES HADES HELL HELL HELL SHEOL SHEOL Destruction<br />
CEV HELL Grave HELL HELL HELL Omit Grave Destruction<br />
R.S.V HADES HADES HELL HELL HELL SHEOL SHEOL Destruction<br />
RSVmg TARTARUS GEHENNA GEHENNA<br />
N.I.V. HELL Grave HELL HELL HELL Grave Grave Destruction<br />
NEB Hades Death HELL HELL HELL SHEOL SHEOL Perdition<br />
NRSV Hades Hades HELL HELL HELL SHEOL SHEOL Destruction<br />
N.A.B. AOD NW Tartarus Gehenna Gehenna Sheol Sheol Damnation<br />
MLB Hades ROD Hell Hell Hell Grave ROD Destruction<br />
Young Hades Hades Tartarus Gehenna Gehenna Sheol Sheol Destruction<br />
Deaf POD POD HELL HELL HELL POD POD HELL<br />
Darby Hades Hades Pit Judgement HELL SHEOL SHEOL Destruction<br />
Emph<br />
Diag<br />
Hades Hades Tartarus Gehenna Gehenna N/A N/A Destruction<br />
Phillips POD Hades HELL Destruction Rubbish<br />
Heap<br />
N/A N/A Disaster<br />
ConcordantEntombed<br />
Unseen Tartarus Gehenna Gehenna N/A N/A Destruction<br />
A.T. Hades Death Tartarus Pit Pit SHEOL SHEOL Destruction<br />
Rother<br />
ham<br />
Hades Hades<br />
Lowest<br />
Hades<br />
Gehenna Gehenna Hades Hades Destruction<br />
Douay HELL HELL HELL HELL HELL HELL HELL Destruction<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hell.htm (2 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:22:30 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> Theology and the Word "HELL"<br />
Beck HELL Grave HELL Hellfire HELL Grave Grave Destruction<br />
Amp<br />
lified B<br />
Hades<br />
ROD<br />
Hades HELL<br />
Gehenna<br />
HELL<br />
Gehenna<br />
HELL<br />
SHEOL SHEOL<br />
Destruction<br />
SOD POD<br />
Webster HELL HELL HELL Hellfire HELL Grave HELL Destruction<br />
Lamsa SHEOL Grave HELL Hellfire Gehenna SHEOL SHEOL Destruction<br />
Jerusalem<br />
B<br />
Hades Hades D.U.C. Hellfire HELL Sheol Sheol Perdition<br />
Schon<br />
field<br />
Hades HELL Tartarus Gehenna Gehenna N/A N/A Destruction<br />
R.E.B. Hades Death HELL Hellfire HELL SHEOL SHEOL Destruction<br />
Bying<br />
ton<br />
W.O.D ROD Inferno HELL HELL<br />
<strong>World</strong><br />
Below<br />
R.O.D Perdition<br />
Wuest<br />
Unseen<br />
<strong>World</strong><br />
Unseen<br />
<strong>World</strong><br />
Tartarus HELL HELL N/A N/A Misery<br />
Williams Hades Hades Tartarus P.I.T. Pit N/A N/A Destruction<br />
Wey<br />
mouth<br />
Hades Unseen<br />
<strong>World</strong><br />
Tartarus Gehenna Gehenna N/A N/A Ruin<br />
Moffatt Hades Grave Tartarus Gehenna Gehenna<br />
Death's<br />
Realm<br />
Grave Destruction<br />
B. Basic<br />
E.<br />
HELL HELL HELL HELL HELL<br />
Under<br />
world<br />
Under<br />
world Destruction<br />
What is Gehenna?<br />
Catholic periodical Commonweal:<br />
"The final place of punishment, evidently, is Gehenna, the Valley of Hinno[m], which at one time had<br />
been a place where human sacrifice was offered to pagan gods, but in biblical times had already become<br />
the city dump, a refuse heap on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Here the stench and smoke and fire were a<br />
constant reminder to the inhabitants of what happened to things that had served their purpose-they were<br />
destroyed."<br />
Simply put, Gehenna is a garbage dump-See Phillips<br />
"Jewish Views of the Afterlife," by Dr. Simcah Paull Raphael (1994).<br />
Any doctrine of eternal torment or suffering in the afterlife depends on the doctrine of soul immortality.<br />
According to Dr. Raphael, this doctrine did not develop until "the apocryphal period," and was "a<br />
radically new idea that did not exist in biblical times." (p. 83)<br />
Further, it is only "with the First Book of Enoch [that] another new conception enters Jewish<br />
postmortem philosophy -- the notion of Gehenna as a place of eternal damnation," thus<br />
sometime between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. (p. 88) It is with the apocryphal book of<br />
Enoch that "tours of hell," describing with vivid detail the torments and punishments of the<br />
underworld, begin. Interestingly, for some time into the Christian century and beyond,<br />
Jewish scholars argued over whether the torments of Gehenna were temporary and<br />
purgative, or eternal. (pp. 140-149)<br />
It is unfortunate that it is a rare <strong>Bible</strong> version that will translate Gehenna properly, even though it is a<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hell.htm (3 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:22:30 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> Theology and the Word "HELL"<br />
PROPER NAME. Most <strong>Bible</strong>s will do so elsewhere, as in *Valley of Ben Hinnom* in 2 Chronicles 28:3<br />
and *Hinnom Valley* in Joshua 18:6, (which is actually Gehenna). The reason this is not done so is<br />
because the O.T. Gehenna does not have the ability to carry the same theological connotations as those in<br />
Matthew 5:22.<br />
What does the <strong>Bible</strong> actually say about Gehenna? Jeremiah 7:31: "They have built shrines of Topeth in<br />
the valley of Benhinnom [Gehenna], at which to burn their sons and daughters. That was no command<br />
of mine; indeed it never entered my mine."<br />
What is Tartarus?<br />
Their being cast into "Tartarus" refers to their being debased, cut off from God's favor and all<br />
enlightenment. This is evident from the fact that the expression 'throwing into Tartarus' in the original<br />
Greek is a verb. So it refers to an act of debasement and not to a literal place. The idea conveyed is<br />
similar to the English word "debase," which uses the noun "base" but does not in itself suggest the<br />
existence of a literal base. The <strong>Bible</strong> here uses symbolic language that the Greeks would understand with<br />
Homer's Iliad. See Jude 6.<br />
What is Hades and Sheol?<br />
As we see from the above, Hades and Sheol are simply the grave. That is why the Rotherham <strong>Bible</strong> says,<br />
"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do> < with thy might> do, for there is no work nor calculation nor<br />
knowledge nor wisdom, in hades, whither thou art going." Eccl 9:10<br />
Checking the marginal references in the 1611 Edition of the King James Version at Psalms 55:15; 86:13;<br />
Isaiah 14:9; and Jonah 2:2, you will see that "Hell" is indeed the "Grave."<br />
It actually seems that the <strong>Bible</strong> more often uses the term "FIRE" as coming from God and<br />
Heaven:<br />
See Gen 19:24; Ex 9:23; Numbers 11:1; Deut 4:11, 36; 9:3; 18:16; 1 Kings 18:24; 2 Ki 1:10, 12, 14;<br />
2:11; 1 Chron 21:26; 2 Chron 7:1; Job 1:16; Ps 18:13; Ps 50:3; 68:2; 78:21; Isaiah 30:27; 42:25; Jer 5:14;<br />
17:4; Joel 2:30; Luke 9:54; Lu 17:29; 2 Thess 1:7;2 Pet 3:12; Rev 10:1; 13:13; 20:9; Song of Solomon<br />
8:6<br />
Isaiah 66:15, For, behold, Jehovah will come with fire, and his chariots shall be like the whirlwind; to<br />
render his anger with fierceness, and his rebuke with flames of fire. ASV<br />
JER 15:14. And I will make them to pass with thine enemies into a land which thou knowest not; for a<br />
fire is kindled in mine anger, which shall burn upon you. ASV<br />
LAM 4:11. Jehovah hath accomplished his wrath, he hath poured out his fierce anger; And he hath<br />
kindled a fire in Zion, which hath devoured the foundations thereof. ASV<br />
ZEPH 3:8. Therefore wait ye for me, saith Jehovah, until the day that I rise up to the prey; for my<br />
determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine<br />
indignation, even all my fierce anger; for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.<br />
ASV<br />
DEUT 4:24. For Jehovah thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God. ASV<br />
Heb 12:29. for our God is a consuming fire.<br />
God's fiery judgment is reserved for ONE day, "the day of Jehovah:"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hell.htm (4 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:22:30 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> Theology and the Word "HELL"<br />
"For, behold, the day cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness,<br />
shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, that it shall leave<br />
them neither root nor branch." Mal 4:1 ASV<br />
"Behold, the day of Jehovah cometh, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger; to make the land a desolation,<br />
and to destroy the sinners thereof out of it." Isa. 13:9 ASV<br />
"That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of<br />
darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness." Zeph 1:13 ASV<br />
E-mail comments:<br />
"Your approach and understanding of Hell is a parallel of my own. In Luke<br />
16:23, It is my<br />
understanding from a scriptural point of view that this is a parable,<br />
because the word(s)<br />
"There was" is translated from the simple Greek connective DE. Of lately,<br />
on the B-Greek List, there is a good thread along this subject line. The<br />
common understanding is that DE is a weak connective of continuance; thus,<br />
if we translate correctly, it should be "but" or substitute the connective<br />
with a semicolon, which signals a continuing thought or closely related<br />
subject. Another thing to reflect upon is Jesus' words in Matt. 13:10 and<br />
Mark 4:33. They plainly state that Jesus did not speak unto the people<br />
except in parable, especially to the Scribe, Pharisee and Sadducee.<br />
Semper in Christi,<br />
W."<br />
Thermodynamics of Hell<br />
============================================================<br />
A thermodynamics professor had written a take home exam for<br />
his graduate students. It had one question: "Is Hell<br />
exothermic (gives off heat), or endothermic (absorbs heat)?<br />
Support your answer with a proof." Most of the students wrote<br />
proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools off when<br />
it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant.<br />
One student, however, wrote the following:<br />
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time.<br />
So, we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell<br />
and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume<br />
that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no<br />
souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell,<br />
let's look at the different religions that exist in the world<br />
today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member<br />
of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more<br />
than one of these religions and since most people do not<br />
belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people<br />
and all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hell.htm (5 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:22:30 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> Theology and the Word "HELL"<br />
are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increases<br />
exponentially. Second, we look at the rate of change of the<br />
volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the<br />
temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume in<br />
Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:<br />
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which<br />
souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell<br />
will increase until all Hell breaks loose.<br />
2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the<br />
increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure<br />
will drop until Hell freezes over.<br />
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Miss<br />
Therese Banyan during my freshman year that, "It will be a cold<br />
night in Hell before I go bowling with you," and take into account<br />
the fact that I still have not succeeded with her, then #2 cannot<br />
be true, and so Hell is exothermic.<br />
The student got the only "A".<br />
THE DESTINY OF MAN<br />
A POEM<br />
SATAN THE DEVIL INVENTED THE LIE<br />
Listen, dear friends, and I'll tell you a lie,<br />
"The soul is immortal, and cannot die."<br />
Now this is the way that the lie was begun,<br />
That's believed by most men that lives under the sun.<br />
In Eden God planted a garden fair,<br />
And there He placed the first human pair.<br />
To dress it and keep it and make it their home,<br />
Throughout the whole land they had privilege to roam.<br />
In the midst of the Garden of Eden stood,<br />
The Tree of the Knowledge of Evil and Good.<br />
God said, "If you eatest of this certain tree,<br />
Surely your lives I'll require of thee."<br />
But Satan, that Serpent, was lurking there,<br />
Intent on deceiving the first human pair.<br />
"Thou shalt not surely die", Said the Father of Lies,<br />
"Eat of the tree; It shall make thee wise."<br />
So they ate of the tree and Jehovah said,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hell.htm (6 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:22:30 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> Theology and the Word "HELL"<br />
'By the sweat of thy face, shalt thou eat thy bread.'<br />
"Thistles and thorns shall the earth yield for thee,<br />
Because thou didst eat of that certain tree.”<br />
But to Satan The Serpent, Jehovah Said,<br />
The Seed of the Woman shall crush thy head.<br />
Thus also the doom of the Father of lies,<br />
Was first made known in Paradise.<br />
Nine hundred and thirty were the years of his life,<br />
Who disobeyed God just to please his dear Wife.<br />
But a thousand years is to God but a day,<br />
So God in that day Adams life took away.<br />
A precious God gave to man through old faithful Abraham.<br />
Saying, 'tho the whole world is by Satan oppressed,<br />
Thru thee and thy seed shall all Nations be blessed.'<br />
The whole human race is under the curse;<br />
It's the sentence of death but nothing worse.<br />
In the fulness of time God sent His dear Son,<br />
To redeem the whole world from the wicked one.<br />
He who was rich for Our sakes became poor,<br />
That we thru His blood, might have life evermore.<br />
Men scorned and reviled Him, and put Him to shame,<br />
But now He has honor O'er every name.<br />
He is calling a people to be His dear Wife,<br />
And they with the Lord to the world will give life.<br />
These are already wearing their White Wedding Dress,<br />
Called the robe of Christ's righteousness.<br />
We must keep the robe free from all wrinkle or stain,<br />
Thru the merit of the blood, Of the Lamb that was slain.<br />
Men's hearts are fast failing for dread and for fear,<br />
Of the great time of trouble that soon will be here.<br />
Thruout the whole <strong>World</strong> are the Nation's distressed,<br />
They know not that soon shall all nations be Blessed.<br />
For soon the desire of all nations shall come,<br />
They shall learn war no more, for God's will shall be done.<br />
When the very last one of the Bride has been sealed,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hell.htm (7 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:22:30 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> Theology and the Word "HELL"<br />
Then God's Holy arm shall to all be revealed.<br />
The glory of God shall fill the whole earth,<br />
Sorrow and sighing shall give place to mirth.<br />
No evil, no sickness, no sin shall be found,<br />
For a thousand years shall Satan be bound.<br />
But when Christ's reign o'er the world has ceased.<br />
Then old Satan, shall be released.<br />
He shall try everyone to determine if they shall be loyal to God,or<br />
Satan obey.<br />
Those who are loyal to their Father in Heaven,<br />
Shall eternal life on this planet be given.<br />
But if for their leader they Satan shall choose,<br />
Surely forever they their life rights shall lose.<br />
Yes, Satan and all those against God rebel,<br />
Shall be turned into the '<strong>Bible</strong> Hell".<br />
Thanks be to God that we have learned,<br />
That hell's not a place where people are burned.<br />
For God is to be loving and kind and just,<br />
To torture his creatures that He made of the dust.<br />
But all of the wicked will God destroy,<br />
And the righteous Eternal life shall enjoy.<br />
Written by: Milton Moyer 1915<br />
(Father of Gladys Taylor)<br />
(Grandfather of Yvonne Galbraith)<br />
Even apart from the image of a truly merciless God that contradicts everything we can assume from what<br />
Jesus says of the Father of the lost, can we be suprised at a time when retibutive punishments without an<br />
opportunity of probation are being increasingly abandoned in education<br />
and penal justice, that the idea not only of a lifelong, but even eternal punishment of body and<br />
soul, seems to many people absolutely monstrous.<br />
-Hans Kung<br />
The Clergy Take Another Look at Hell:<br />
U.S. Catholic magazine: "There are in fact so many strong biblical, doctrinal, and logical arguments<br />
against the existence of a literal hell that this question naturally arises: Why do the churches teach it and<br />
why do people often believe it?" The minister, Robert Short, suggests that the answer lies in the churches'<br />
"faithless fear of giving up 'the gospel at gunpoint.'" He said: "The churches tend to believe, consciously<br />
or unconsciously, that fear-rather than love-conquers all."<br />
The clergyman asserted that the "most powerful argument against the existence of a literal hell is . . . that<br />
we can know a thing by its fruits. (Matt. 7:16, 20)" Using this test, he observed: "It has become painfully<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hell.htm (8 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:22:30 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> Theology and the Word "HELL"<br />
apparent that the 'Christian' doctrine which has yielded the most poisonous fruits is the teaching of a<br />
literal hell. For not only can it be proven that this doctrine has produced cruel, self-righteous 'Christians'<br />
throughout Western history, Christians who have felt justified in hating and even killing since it can be<br />
argued that any action is justified if it saves more people from hell, but a literal hell's more modern and<br />
even deadlier fruit has been atheism."<br />
In conclusion, Short declared: "Only if the teaching of hell were true would the churches be justified in<br />
retaining it. And a growing number of theologians-both Catholic and Protestant-are now saying it is not<br />
true. If it is not true, then the churches have no time to lose in loudly and clearly saying this to the<br />
world."<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses had a hundred-year head start in "clearly saying this to the world."-U.S. Catholic,<br />
April 1980, pp. 37-40.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Email Me<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/hell.htm (9 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:22:30 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
The New Testament in an Improved Version Upon the Basis of Archbishop<br />
Newcome's New Translation with A Corrected Text, 1808<br />
[A Revision of Archbishop Newcome's New Testament, taken over by the<br />
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge]<br />
John 1<br />
1. The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.<br />
2. This Word was in the beginning with God.<br />
3. All things were done by him; and without him was not any thing done that hath been<br />
done.<br />
4. By him was life; and the life was the light of men.<br />
5. And the light shone in darkness; and the darkness overspread it not.<br />
6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.<br />
7. This man came for a testimony, to testify of the Light, so that through him all<br />
might believe.<br />
8. He was not that Light, but was sent to testify of that Light.<br />
9. That was the true Light, which having come into the world is enlightening every man.<br />
10. He was in the world, and the world was enlightened by him, and yet the world knew<br />
him not.<br />
11. He came to his own; and yet those who were his own received him not.<br />
12. But as many as received him, to them he gave authority to be the children of God,<br />
even to them who believe in his name:<br />
13. who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, [nor of the will of<br />
man], but of God.<br />
14. And the Word was flesh, and full of kindness and truth he dwelt among us: and we<br />
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only son who came from the Father.<br />
16. For of his fulness we all received, and favour for favour.<br />
17. For the law was given by Moses; but favour and truth were by Jesus Christ.<br />
18. No man hath seen God at any time; the only [Son] that is in the bosom of the<br />
Father, he hath declared him.<br />
15. John bare witness of him and cried, saying, "This is he of whom I said, 'He who<br />
cometh after me, is before me, for he is my principal.'"<br />
19. And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from<br />
Jerusalem, to ask him, "Who art thou?"<br />
20. and he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, "I am not the Christ."<br />
21. And they asked him, "What then? Art thou Elijah?" And he saith, "I am not." "Art<br />
thou the prophet?" And he answered, "No."<br />
22. They said unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to those who sent us.<br />
What sayest thou of thyself?"<br />
23. He said, I am the voice of one crying in the desert, 'Make straight the way of the<br />
Lord:' as said the prophet Isaiah."<br />
24. Now those who had been sent were of the Pharisees.<br />
25. They asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not the<br />
Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?<br />
26. John answered them, saying, "I baptize with water: but there standeth one amidst of<br />
you whom ye know not;<br />
27. even he who cometh after me, the latchet of whose sandal I am not worthy to<br />
unloose."<br />
28. These things passed in Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.<br />
29. The next day John beholdeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, "See, the Lamb of<br />
God, who taketh away the sin of the world!<br />
30. This is he of whom I said, 'After me cometh a man who is before me; for he is my<br />
principal.'<br />
31. And I knew him not: but I therefore came baptizing with water, that he might be<br />
made manifest to Israel."<br />
32. And John also bare witness, saying, "I saw the spirit coming down from heaven as a<br />
dove; and it abode upon him.<br />
33. And I knew him not then: but he who sent me to baptize with water said unto me,<br />
'Upon whom thou shalt see the spirit coming down and abiding, this is he who baptizeth<br />
with the holy spirit.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (1 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
34. And I saw, and bare witness that this is the Son of God.<br />
35. On the next day, John was again standing, and two of his disciples:<br />
36. and he looked upon Jesus who was walking, and saith, "Behold, the Lamb of God."<br />
37. And the two disciples heard him speak, and followed Jesus.<br />
38. Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, "What seek ye?" And<br />
they said unto him, "Rabbi (which signifieth, being interpreted, Teacher), where dwelleth<br />
thou?"<br />
39. He saith unto them, "Come and see." They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode<br />
with him that day: (now it was about the tenth hour.)<br />
40. One of the two that heard John speak, and followed Jesus, was Andrew, Simon Peter's<br />
brother.<br />
41. He meeteth with his own brother Simon first of any, and saith to him, "We have<br />
found the Messiah:" (which is, being interpreted, the Christ).<br />
42. And Andrew brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked on him, and said, "Thou art Simon,<br />
the son of Jonah: thou shalt be called Cephas:" (which being interpreted, is a rock).<br />
43. The day following, Jesus purposed to go into Galilee; and meeteth with Philip, and<br />
saith unto him, "Follow me."<br />
44. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.<br />
45. Philip meeteth with Nathanael, and saith unto him, "We have found him of whom Moses<br />
in the law, and the prophets also, wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."<br />
46. Then Nathanael said unto him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip<br />
saith unto him, "Come and see."<br />
47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed,<br />
in whom is no guile."<br />
48. Nathanael saith unto him, "Whence knowest thou me?" Jesus answered and said unto<br />
him, "Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee."<br />
49. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art<br />
the King of Israel."<br />
50. Jesus answered and said unto him, "Because I said unto thee, 'I saw thee underneath<br />
the fig tree,' believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these."<br />
51. Then Jesus saith unto him, "Verily verily, I say unto you, [Hereafter] ye shall see<br />
the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man.<br />
Chapter 2<br />
1. And the third day there was a marriage-feast in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of<br />
Jesus was there:<br />
2. and Jesus and his disciples also were invited to the marriage-feast.<br />
3. And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, "They have no wine."<br />
4. And Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet<br />
come."<br />
5. His mother saith to his servants, "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it."<br />
6. Now six water-pots of stone were placed there, according to the manner of cleansing<br />
among the Jews, containing two or three baths apiece.<br />
7. Jesus saith unto them, "Fill the water-pots with water." And they filled them up to<br />
the brim.<br />
8. Then he saith unto them, "Draw out now, and bear to the governor of the feast." And<br />
they bare it.<br />
9. And when the governor of the feast had tasted the water which was made wine, and<br />
knew not whence it was; (but the servants who drew the water knew;), the governor of the<br />
feast calleth the bridegroom,<br />
10. and saith unto him, "Every man at first setteth on good wine; and when men have<br />
drunk largely, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now."<br />
11. This beginning of miracles Jesus made in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory:<br />
and his disciples believed in him.<br />
12. After this, he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and<br />
his disciples: and they remaines there not many days.<br />
13. Now the passover of the Jews was near; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem;<br />
14. and found in the temple those that sold cattle, and sheep, and doves, and the<br />
money-changers sitting:<br />
15. and when made a scourge of small cords, and drove them all out of the temple, both<br />
the sheep and the cattle; and he poured out the money of the exchangers, and overturned<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (2 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
their tables;<br />
16. and said to those that sold doves, "Take these things hence; make not my Father's<br />
house an house of merchandise.'"<br />
17. And his disciples remembered that it was written, "A zeal for thine house consumeth<br />
me."<br />
18. Then the Jews spake and said unto him, "What sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou<br />
doest these things?"<br />
19. Jesus answered and said unto them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will<br />
raise it up."<br />
20. Then the Jews said, "Forty and six years hath this temple been in building, and<br />
wilt thou raise it up in three days?"<br />
21. But he spake concerning the temple of his body.<br />
22. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had<br />
said this [unto them]; and they believed the scripture, and the words which Jesus had<br />
spoken.<br />
23. Now, when he was in Jerusalem at the feast of the passover, many believed on his<br />
name, when they beheld the miracles which he did.<br />
24. But Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all of them:<br />
25. and because he needed not that any should testify of man; for he himself knew what<br />
was in man.<br />
Chapter 3<br />
1. Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:<br />
2. this man came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, "Rabbi, we know that thou art a<br />
teacher come from God; for no one can do these miracles which thou doest, unless God be<br />
with him."<br />
3. Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Unless a man be<br />
born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."<br />
4. Nicodemus saith unto him, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a<br />
second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"<br />
5. Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Unless a man be born of water and<br />
of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!<br />
6. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit, is<br />
spirit.<br />
7. Wonder not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.<br />
8. The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest its sound, but knowest not whence<br />
it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the spirit."<br />
9. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, "How can these things be?"<br />
10. Jesus answered and said unto him, "Art thou the teacher in Israel, and knowest not<br />
these things?<br />
11. Verily verily I say unto thee, We speak that which we know, and testify that which<br />
we have seen; and yet ye receive not our testimony.<br />
12. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how will ye believe, if I<br />
tell you heavenly things?<br />
13. Now no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he who came down from heaven, even the<br />
Son of man, [who is in heaven.]<br />
14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted<br />
up:<br />
15. that every one who believeth in him may [not perish but] but have everlasting life.<br />
16. For God hath so loved the world, that he hath given his only Son, that every one<br />
who believeth in him may not perish, but have everlasting life.<br />
17. For God hath not sent his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the<br />
world through him might be saved.<br />
18. He who believeth in him, shall not be condemned: but he that believeth not, is<br />
condemned already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only Son of God.<br />
19. And this is the condemnation; that light is come into the world, and yet men have<br />
loved the darkness rather than light: for their deeds were evil.<br />
20. for every one who doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest<br />
his deeds should be discovered.<br />
21. But he who doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made<br />
manifest, that they are wrought through faith in God.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (3 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
22. After these things, Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea; and there<br />
he tarried with them, and baptized.<br />
23. And John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because much water was there;<br />
and the people came, and were baptized.<br />
24. For John was not yet cast into prison.<br />
25. Then a question arose therefore between some of John's disciples and a Jew about<br />
baptizing.<br />
26. And some came to John, and said unto him, "Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond<br />
Jordan, to whom thou hast barest witness, behold, he baptizeth, and all men come to him."<br />
27. John answered and said, "A man can receive nothing, unless it be given him from<br />
heaven.<br />
28. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, 'I am not the Christ, but I am sent<br />
before his face.'<br />
29. He that hath the bride, is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, who<br />
standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly, because of the bridegroom's voice. This my<br />
joy therefore is complete.<br />
30. He must increase; but I must decrease.<br />
31. He that cometh from above, is above all: he that is from the earth, is from the<br />
earth, and speaketh from the earth: he that cometh from heaven [is above all; and]<br />
32. testifieth what he hath seen and heard; and yet none receiveth his testimony.<br />
33. He that hath received his testimony, hath set his seal to confirm that God is true.<br />
34. For he whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God: for [God] giveth him not the<br />
spirit by measure.<br />
35. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.<br />
36. He who believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life: and he who disbelieveth the<br />
Son, will not see life; but the anger of God abideth on him."<br />
Chapter 4<br />
1. When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that he made and baptized<br />
more disciples than John;<br />
2. (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples;)<br />
3. he left Judea, and went again into Galilee.<br />
4. And he must needs go through Samaria.<br />
5. He cometh therefore to a city of Samaria, called Sychar, near to the portion of the<br />
land which Jacob gave to his son Joseph.<br />
6. Now Jacob's well was there. So Jesus, being wearied with his journey, sat afterward<br />
on the well. (It was about the sixth hour.)<br />
7. A woman of Samaria cometh to draw water. Jesus saith unto her, "Give me to drink."<br />
8. (For his disciples were gone to the city, that they might buy food.)<br />
9. Then the Samaritan woman saith unto him, "Why dost thou, being a Jew, ask drink of<br />
me, that am a Samaritan?" (for the Jews have no friendly dealings with the Samaritans.)<br />
10. Jesus answered and said unto her, "If thou knewest the bounty of God, and who he is<br />
that saith unto thee, 'Give me to drink;' thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would<br />
have given thee living water."<br />
11. The woman saith unto him, "Sir, thou hast no vessel to draw with, and the well is<br />
deep: whence then canst thou have that living water?<br />
12. Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and himself drank of<br />
it, and his sons, and his cattle?"<br />
13. Jesus answered and said unto her, "Whosoever drinketh of this water, will thirst<br />
again:<br />
14. but whosoever shall drink of the water which I shall give him, will never thirst;<br />
but the water which I shall give him will be in him a well of water springing up unto<br />
everlasting life."<br />
15. The woman saith unto him, "Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, nor come<br />
hither to draw."<br />
16. Jesus saith unto her, "Go, call thine husband, and come hither."<br />
17. The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus saith unto her,"Thou hast<br />
rightly said, 'I have no husband:'<br />
18. for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast, is not thine husband:<br />
thou hast spoken this truly."<br />
19. The woman saith unto him, "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (4 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
20. Our fathers worshipped on this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place<br />
where men ought to worship."<br />
21. Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall worship the<br />
Father neither on this mountain nor at Jerusalem.<br />
22. Ye worship what ye know not: we worship what we know: for salvation is from the<br />
Jews.<br />
23. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father<br />
in spirit and in truth: for indeed the Father seeketh such worshippers of him.<br />
24. God is a spirit: and the worshippers of him ought to worship him in spirit and<br />
truth."<br />
25. The woman saith unto him, "I know that the Messiah cometh: (which signifieth the<br />
Christ:) when he is come, he will tell us all things."<br />
26. Jesus saith unto her, "I, who talk with thee, am he."<br />
27. And upon this his disciples came, and wondered that he was talking with a woman:<br />
yet none said, "What seekest thou?" or, "Why speakest thou with her?"<br />
28. The woman then left her bucket, and went into the city, and saith to the men,<br />
29. Come, see a man, who told me all things whatever I did: is this the Christ?"<br />
30. Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.<br />
31. In the mean time his disciples besought him, saying, "Master, eat."<br />
32. But he said unto them, "I have food to eat, which ye know not of."<br />
33. The disciples said one to another, "Hath any one brought him anything to eat?"<br />
34. Jesus saith unto them, "My food is, to do the will of him who sent me, and to<br />
finish his work.<br />
35. Say ye not, 'There are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest? Behold, I say<br />
unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; that they are already white for<br />
harvest.<br />
36. And he who reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth a crop, to everlasting life: that<br />
both he who soweth, and he who reapeth, may rejoice together.<br />
37. For herein is that saying true, 'One soweth, and another reapeth.'<br />
38. I have sent you to reap that on which ye have not laboured, others have laboured,<br />
and ye are entered into their labours.<br />
39. And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in him, for of the words of the<br />
woman who testified, "He told me all things whatever I did."<br />
40. When therefore Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would abide<br />
with them: and he abode there two days.<br />
41. And many more believed because of his own words;<br />
42. and said to the woman,"We no longer believe because of thy report: for we ourselves<br />
have heard him, and know that this is indeed [the Christ,] the Saviour of the world.<br />
43. Now after the two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee.<br />
44. For Jesus himself declared that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.<br />
45. So when he was come into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having seen all the<br />
things which he did in Jerusalem at the feast.<br />
46. So Jesus came again to Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was<br />
one of the king's household, whose son was sick at Capernaum.<br />
47. This man, when he heard that Jesus was come out of Judea into Galilee, went to him,<br />
and besought [him] that he would come down and cure his son: for he was at the point of<br />
death.<br />
48. Then Jesus said to him, "Unless ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe."<br />
49. He of the king's household saith unto him, "Sir, come down, before my child die."<br />
50. Jesus saith unto him, "Depart thy son liveth." And the man believed the words which<br />
Jesus had spoken unto him, and departed.<br />
51. And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and told him, saying, "Thy son<br />
liveth."<br />
52. Then he inquired of them the hour when his son began to amend. And they said unto<br />
him, "Yesterday, at the seventh hour, the fever left him."<br />
53. So the father knew that it was at the very hour, in which Jesus had said unto him,<br />
"Thy son liveth." And himself believed, and his whole house.<br />
54. This second miracle Jesus did, when he had come out of Judea into Galilee.<br />
Chapter 5<br />
1. After these things there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (5 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
2. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep-gate, a pool, which is called in Hebrew<br />
tongue Bethesda, having five porches.<br />
3. In these lay a [great] multitude of infirm persons, of blind, lame, withered,<br />
[looking for the moving of the water.<br />
4. For at a certain season an angel went down into the pool, and troubled the water:<br />
whosoever therefore went in first, after the troubling of the water, was made well,<br />
whatever disease he was had.]<br />
5. And a certain man was there, that had an infirmity thirty and eight years.<br />
6. When Jesus saw him lying, and knew that he had been now a long time afflicted, he<br />
saith unto him, "Dost thou desire to be made well?"<br />
7. The infirm man answered him, "Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put<br />
me into the pool: but while I am coming, another goeth down before me."<br />
8. Jesus saith unto him, "Rise, take up thy couch, and walk."<br />
9. And immediately the man was made well, and took up his couch and walked. Now on that<br />
day was the sabbath.<br />
10. The Jews therefore said to him that was cured, "It is the sabbath: it is not lawful<br />
for thee to take up thy couch, and walk."<br />
11. He answered them, "He who made me well, himself said unto me, "Take up thy couch,<br />
and walk."<br />
12. Then they asked him, "What man is that who said unto thee, 'Take up thy couch, and<br />
walk?'"<br />
13. But he that was cured knew not who it was; for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a<br />
multitude being in that place.<br />
14. Afterward Jesus meeteth with him in the temple, and said unto him, "Behold, thou<br />
art made well: sin no more, lest some worse thing befall thee.<br />
15. The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well.<br />
16. And for this the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he had done these things on the<br />
sabbath.<br />
17. But Jesus said unto them, "My Father worketh until now; and I also work.<br />
18. Wherefore for this the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had<br />
broken the sabbath, but also said that God was his Father, making himself like God.<br />
19. Jesus therefore spake and said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son<br />
can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things the Father<br />
doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner.<br />
20. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things which he himself doeth:<br />
and he will show him greater works than these, so that ye will wonder.<br />
21. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth them life, so the Son likewise<br />
giveth life to whom he will.<br />
22. For neither doth the Father judge any man: but he hath committed all judgement to<br />
the Son;<br />
23. that all may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the<br />
Son, honoureth not the Father who sent him.<br />
24. Verily verily I say unto you, He that hearkeneth to my words, and believeth in him<br />
who sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but passeth<br />
from death to life.<br />
25. Verily verily I say unto you, The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear<br />
the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.<br />
26. For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son also to have<br />
life in himself:<br />
27. and he hath given him authority to exercise judgement also, because he is the Son<br />
of man.<br />
28. Wonder not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the graves shall<br />
hear his voice,<br />
29. and shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and<br />
they that have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.<br />
30. Of myself I can do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I<br />
seek not mine own will, but the will of him who sent me.<br />
31. "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.<br />
32. There is another who beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he<br />
witnesseth of me is true.<br />
33. Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness to the truth.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (6 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
34. Yet I receive not witness from man: but I say these things, that ye may be saved.<br />
35. He was that burning and shining lamp: but ye chose to rejoice for a short time only<br />
in his light.<br />
36. But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath<br />
given me to perform, these works which I do, bear witness of me that the Father hath sent<br />
me.<br />
37. And the Father himself, who sent me, hath borne witness of me. Have ye never heard<br />
his voice, nor seen his form?<br />
38. And ye have not his word abiding among you, that on him whom he hath sent, ye<br />
believe not.<br />
39. "Search the scriptures: for in them ye think that ye have everlasting life: and<br />
they bear witness of me:<br />
40. and yet ye are not willing to come unto me, that ye may have life.<br />
41. "I receive not honour from men:<br />
42. but I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.<br />
43. I am come in my Father's name, and yet ye receive me not: if another shall come in<br />
his own name, him ye will receive.<br />
44. How can ye believe, who receive honour from one another, and seek not the honour<br />
which cometh from the only God?<br />
45. Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you,<br />
even Moses, in whom ye trust.<br />
46. For if ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.<br />
47. But if ye believe not his writings, how will ye believe my words?<br />
Chapter 6<br />
1. After these things Jesus went over the lake of Galilee, which is the lake of<br />
Tiberias.<br />
2. And a great multitude followed him, because they saw the miracles which he did on<br />
those who were diseased.<br />
3. And Jesus went up a mountain, and sat there with his disciples.<br />
4. Now the passover, (a feast of the Jews), was nigh.<br />
5. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw that a great multitude was coming to<br />
him, he saith to Philip, "Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?"<br />
6. (Now he said to try him: for he himself knew what he was about to do.)<br />
7. Philip answered him, "Bread, worth two hundred denarii, is not sufficient for them,<br />
that every one of them may take a little."<br />
8. One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him,<br />
9. "There is a child here, that hath five barley loaves, and two fishes: but what are<br />
they among so many?"<br />
10. And Jesus said, "Make the men place themselves on the ground. (Now there was much<br />
grass in the place.) So the men placed themselves on the ground, in number about five<br />
thousand.<br />
11. Jesus took the loaves; and, when he had given thanks, he distributed [to the<br />
disciples, and the disciples]; to those that were on the ground: and in like manner of<br />
the fishes, as much as they would.<br />
12. And when they were filled, he saith to his disciples, "Gather the fragments which<br />
remain, that nothing be lost."<br />
13. They gathered them up, and filled twelve panniers with fragments of the five barley<br />
loaves, which remained to those that had eaten.<br />
14. Then those men, when they had seen the miracle which Jesus did, said, "This is in<br />
truth that prophet who was to come into the world."<br />
15. When Jesus therefore perceived that they were about to come and take him by force,<br />
to make him a king, he withdrew [again] to a mountain himself alone.<br />
16. And when evening came, his disciples went down to the lake;<br />
17. and entered into a ship, and were over the lake toward Capernaum. And it was now<br />
dark; and Jesus was not come to them.<br />
18. And the lake rose, because of a great wind which blew.<br />
19. So when they had rowed about twenty-five or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking<br />
on the lake, and drawing near to the ship: and they were afraid.<br />
20. But he saith unto them, "It is I; be not afraid."<br />
21. Then they were glad to receive him into the ship: and immiediately the ship was at<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (7 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
the land whither they were going.<br />
22. The day following, when the multitude who stood on the other side of the lake saw<br />
that there was none other boat there but one, and that Jesus had gone with his disciples<br />
into the ship, but that his disciples departed alone;<br />
23. (however there came other boats from Tiberias, near the place where they ate bread,<br />
after the Lord had given thanks;<br />
24. when the people therefore saw that neither Jesus was there, nor his disciples, they<br />
took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.<br />
25. And when they had found him on the other side of the lake, they said unto him,<br />
"Rabbi, when camest thou hither?"<br />
26. Jesus answered them and said, "Verily verily I say unto you, Ye seek me, not<br />
because ye have seen miracles, but because ye ate of the loaves, and were filled.<br />
27. Work not for so much for the food which perisheth, as for the food which endureth<br />
unto everlasting life, which the Son of man will give you: for him the Father sealed,<br />
even God."<br />
28. They said therefore unto him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of<br />
God?"<br />
29. Jesus answered and said unto them, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him<br />
whom he hath sent."<br />
30. Then they said unto him, "What miracle [therefore] doest thou, that we may see it,<br />
and believe in thee? what dost thou work?<br />
31. Our fathers ate manna in the desert: as it is written, 'He gave them bread from<br />
heaven to eat.'"<br />
32. Jesus [therefore] said unto them, "Verily verily I say unto you, Moses gave you not<br />
the bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.<br />
33. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the<br />
world.<br />
34. Then they said unto him, "Master, always give us this bread."<br />
35. And Jesus said unto them, "I am the bread of life: he who cometh to me, shall never<br />
hunger; and he who believeth in me, shall never thirst.<br />
36. But I have said unto you, that ye have both seen me and believe not.<br />
37. All whom the Father giveth me, will come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will<br />
in no wise cast out.<br />
38. For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him who<br />
sent me.<br />
39. And this is the will of him who sent me, that of all whom he hath given me I should<br />
lose none, but should raise them up at the last day.<br />
40. For this is the will of my him who sent me, that every one who seeth the Son, and<br />
believeth in him, may have everlasting life: and him I will raise up at the last day.<br />
41. The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, 'I am the bread which came down<br />
from heaven:'<br />
42. and said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?<br />
how therefore doth this man say, 'I came down from heaven?'"<br />
43. Jesus answered and said unto them, "Murmur not among yourselves.<br />
44. No man can come to me, unless the Father, who sent me, draw him: and him I will<br />
raise up at the last day.<br />
45. It is written in the prophets, 'And all shall be taught of God.' Every one that<br />
hath heard and learned from the Father, cometh unto me.<br />
46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, but he that is from God, he hath seen the<br />
Father.<br />
47. Verily verily I say unto you, He who believeth in me hath everlasting life.<br />
48. I am the bread of life.<br />
49. Your fathers ate manna in the desert, and died.<br />
50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat of it, and not<br />
die.<br />
51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he<br />
shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh which I shall give for<br />
the life of the world.<br />
52. The Jews therefore contended among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us<br />
his flesh to eat?"<br />
53. Jesus therefore said unto them, "Verily verily I say unto you, Unless ye eat the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (8 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in you.<br />
54. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life; and him I<br />
will raise up at the last day.<br />
55. For my flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink.<br />
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.<br />
57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he likewise that<br />
eateth me, shall live by me.<br />
58. This is the bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers ate [manna,] and<br />
died. He that eateth of this bread, shall live for ever."<br />
59. He said these things in a synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.<br />
60. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard him, said, "This is a hard<br />
doctrine: who can understand it?"<br />
61. But when Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at this, he said unto<br />
them, "Do ye revolt at this?"<br />
62. What then if ye shall see the Son of man going up where he was before?<br />
63. It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words which I<br />
speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.<br />
64. But there are some of you that believe not." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who<br />
they were that believed not, and who was to deliver him up.<br />
65. Then he said, "For this cause I said unto you, that none can come unto me, unless<br />
it be given unto him by my Father.<br />
66. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.<br />
67. Jesus therefore said to the twelve, "Will ye also depart?"<br />
68. Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of<br />
everlasting life:<br />
69. and we believe, and know, that thou art the Holy One of God."<br />
70. Jesus answered them, "Have I not chosen you twelve? and yet one of you is a false<br />
accuser?<br />
71. Now he spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for he was about to deliver him<br />
up, [being] one of the twelve.<br />
Chapter 7<br />
1. And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Judea,<br />
because the Jews sought to kill him.<br />
2. Now the feast of the Jews, called the feast of tabernacles, was near.<br />
3. His brethren therefore said unto him, "Depart hence, and go into Judea; that thy<br />
disciples also may see thy works which thou doest.<br />
4. For no man doeth any thing in secret, and yet he himself seeketh to be known<br />
publicly. If thou do these things, show thyself to the world.<br />
5. (For neither did his brethren believe him.)<br />
6. [Then] Jesus therefore saith unto them, "My time is not yet come: but your time is<br />
always ready.<br />
7. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it that its works<br />
are evil.<br />
8. Go ye up unto the feast: I go not up now to this feast; for my time is not yet fully<br />
come."<br />
9. When he had said these words unto them, he still remained in Galilee.<br />
10. But when his brethren had gone up, then he also went up to the feast; not openly,<br />
but as it were in secret.<br />
11. Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, "Where is he?"<br />
12. And there was much murmuring among the multitudes concerning him: and some said,<br />
"He is a good man:" others said, :No: but he deceiveth the people."<br />
13. However, no man spake openly of him, for fear of the Jews.<br />
14. But when it was now about the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple,<br />
and taught.<br />
15. The Jews therefore wondered, saying, "How hath this man learning, having never been<br />
taught?"<br />
16. Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me.<br />
17. If any man desire to do his will, he shall concerning the doctrine, whether it be<br />
from God, or whether I speak of myself.<br />
18. Whoever speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory: but whoever seeketh his glory<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (9 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
who sent him, he is true, and unrighteousness is not in him.<br />
19. Did not Moses give you the law; and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why seek ye to<br />
kill me?"<br />
20. The multitude answered and said, "Thou hast a demon: Who seeketh to kill thee?"<br />
21. Jesus answered and said unto them, "I have done one work, and ye all wonder at it.<br />
22. Moses gave you circumcision; (not that it is of Moses, but from the fathers;) and<br />
ye on the sabbath circumcise a man.<br />
23. If a man on the sabbath receive circumcision, that the law of Moses may not be<br />
broken; are ye angry with me, because I made a man altogether well on the sabbath?<br />
24. Judge not according to appearance; but judge righteous judgment.<br />
25. Then some inhabitants of Jerusalem said, "Is not this he whom they seek to kill?<br />
26. but, lo, he speaketh boldly; and nothing is said unto him. Do the rulers know<br />
indeed that this is the Christ?<br />
27. However we know whence this man is: but, when Christ cometh, none knoweth whence he<br />
is.<br />
28. Then Jesus cried out in the temple, as he taught, saying, "Do ye both know me, and<br />
know whence I am? and yet I am not come of myself, but he who sent me is true, whom ye<br />
know not.<br />
29. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me."<br />
30. Then the Jews sought to apprehend him: yet no man laid hands on him, because his<br />
hour was not yet come.<br />
31. But many of the multitude believed in him, and said, "When Christ cometh, will he<br />
do more miracles than [these] which this man hath done?"<br />
32. The Pharisees heard the multitude murmuring such things about him; and the<br />
chief-priests and the Pharisees sent officers to apprehend him.<br />
33. Jesus therefore said, "Yet a little time longer I shall be with you; and then I<br />
shall go to him who sent me.<br />
34. Ye will seek me, and will not find me; and where I shall be, thither ye cannot<br />
come."<br />
35. The Jews therefore said among themselves, "Whither will this man go, that we shall<br />
not find him? will he go to the dispersed Greeks, and teach the Greeks?<br />
36. What words are these which he said, 'Ye will seek me, and will not find me; and<br />
where I shall be, thither ye cannot come?'"<br />
37. Now on the last day, which is the great day, of the feast, Jesus stood and cried<br />
out, saying, "If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink.<br />
38. He who believeth in me, as the scripture hath said, from his belly shall flow<br />
rivers of living water."<br />
39. (Now he spake this of the spirit, which those who believe in him were to receive:<br />
for the [holy] spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.)<br />
40. Many of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said, "In truth this<br />
is a prophet."<br />
41. Others said, "This is the Christ." But others said, "Doth the Christ come out of<br />
Galilee?<br />
42. Hath not the scripture said, that the Christ cometh of the offspring of David, and<br />
from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?"<br />
43. So there was a division among the multitude because of him.<br />
44. And some of them desired to apprehend him: but none laid hands on him.<br />
45. The officers came to the chief priests and Pharisees; who said unto them, "Why have<br />
ye not brought him?"<br />
46. The officers answered, "Never man spake like this [man.]"<br />
47. The Pharisees answered them, "Are ye also deceived?<br />
48. Hath any one of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him?<br />
49. but this multitude, who know not the law, are accursed."<br />
50. Nicodemus saith unto them (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,)<br />
51. "Doth our law judge any man, unless it first hear him, and know what he doeth?"<br />
52. They answered and said unto him, "Art thou also of Galilee? Search and see that a<br />
prophet is not to arise from Galilee."<br />
53. [And they went every man unto his own house:<br />
Chapter 8<br />
1. but Jesus went to the mount of Olives.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (10 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
2. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to<br />
him; and he sat down, and taught them.<br />
3. And the scribes and the Pharisees bring to him a woman taken in adultery: and when<br />
they had set her in the midst,<br />
4. they say unto him, "Teacher, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.<br />
5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: what then sayest<br />
thou?"<br />
6. Now they said this, trying him; that they might have whereof to accuse him. But<br />
Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.<br />
7. But when they continued asking him, he raised himself up, and said unto them, "Let<br />
him that is without sin among you, first cast a stone at her."<br />
8. And he again stooped down, and wrote on the ground.<br />
9. But they, having heard this, being convinced by their conscience, went out one by<br />
one, having begun at the elder, to the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman<br />
standing in the midst.<br />
10. Now when Jesus raised himself up, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her,<br />
"Woman, those thine accusers? hath no man condemn thee?"<br />
11. And she said, "No man, Sir." And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee:<br />
go, and sin no more.]"<br />
12. Then Jesus spake unto them, saying, "I am the light of the world: he who followeth<br />
me, shall by no means walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."<br />
13. The Pharisees therefore said unto him, "Thou bearest witness of thyself; thy<br />
witness is not true."<br />
14. Jesus answered and said unto them, "Though I bear witness of myself, yet my witness<br />
is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye know not whence I come, and<br />
whither I go.<br />
15. Ye judge according to the flesh: I judge no one.<br />
16. And yet if I judge, my judgement is true: because I am not alone, but I and the<br />
Father who sent me.<br />
17. It is written in your law also, that the witness of two men is true.<br />
18. I bear witness of myself; and the Father who sent me beareth witness of me."<br />
19. They said therefore unto him, "Where is thy Father?" Jesus answered, "Ye neither<br />
know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also."<br />
20. Jesus spake these words in the treasury, as he was teaching in the temple: and yet<br />
none laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.<br />
21. Then Jesus said unto them again, "I shall depart, and ye will seek me, and will die<br />
in your sin: whither I depart, ye cannot come."<br />
22. Then the Jews said, "Will he kill himself? because he saith, 'Whither I depart, ye<br />
cannot come.'"<br />
23. And he said unto them, "Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world;<br />
I am not of this world.<br />
24. I therefore said unto you, that ye will die in your sins: for if ye believe not<br />
that I am he, ye will die in your sins."<br />
25. Then they said unto him, "Who art thou?" [And] Jesus said unto them, "Even what I<br />
told you at first.<br />
26. I have many things to say concerning you, and to condemn: but he who sent me, is<br />
true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard from him."<br />
27. They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.<br />
28. Then Jesus said unto them, "When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then will know<br />
that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but speak these things as the Father<br />
taught me.<br />
29. And he who sent me is with me: the Father not left me alone; because I always do<br />
those things which please him."<br />
30. As he spake these words, many believed in him.<br />
31. Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed in him, "If ye continue in my word, then<br />
ye are truly my disciples:<br />
32. and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."<br />
33. Some answered him, "We are Abraham's offspring, and were never slaves to any man:<br />
how sayest thou, 'Ye shall become free?'"<br />
34. Jesus answered them, "Verily verily I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the<br />
slave of sin.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (11 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
35. And the slave abideth not in the house for ever: but the son abideth for ever.<br />
36. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye will be free indeed.<br />
37. I know that ye are Abraham's offspring: yet ye seek to kill me, because my word<br />
hath no place in you.<br />
38. I speak that which I have seen with [my] Father: and ye do that which ye have seen<br />
from [your] father."<br />
39. They answered and said unto him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus saith unto them,<br />
"If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham."<br />
40. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that have spoken to you the truth, which I have<br />
heard from God: Abraham did not act us.<br />
41. Ye do the works of your father." Then they said to him, "We are not born of<br />
fornication: we have one Father, even God."<br />
42. Jesus said unto them, "If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth<br />
from God, and come unto you, for I came not of myself, but He sent me.<br />
43. Why do ye not understand my discourse? because ye cannot hearken to my word.<br />
44. Ye are of your father the devil; and the desires of your father ye are disposed to<br />
do. He was a slayer of men from the beginning, and continued not in the truth; because<br />
there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a<br />
liar, and the father of liars.<br />
45. And because I speak the truth, ye believe me not.<br />
46. Which of you convicteth me of falsehood? If I speak the truth, why do ye not<br />
believe me?<br />
47. He that is of God, hearkeneth to God's words: ye therefore hearkeneth not, because<br />
ye are not of God."<br />
48. The Jews answered and said unto him, "Say we not well, that thou art a Samaritan,<br />
and hast a demon?"<br />
49. Jesus answered, "I have not a demon: but I honour my Father, and ye dishonour me.<br />
50. But I seek not mine own glory: there is one who seeketh it, and judgeth.<br />
51. Verily verily I say unto you, If a man keep my words, he shall never see death."<br />
52. The Jews therefore said unto him, "Now we know that thou hast a demon. Abraham is<br />
dead, and the prophets also: yet thou sayest, 'If a man keep my words, he shall never<br />
taste of death.'<br />
53. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, that is dead? and the prophets are dead<br />
also: whom makest thou thyself?"<br />
54. Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father who<br />
glorifieth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:<br />
55. and yet ye know him not; but I know him: and if I should say, 'I know him not,' I<br />
should speak falsely, like you: but I know him, and keep his words.<br />
56. Your father Abraham earnestly desired that he might see my day; and he saw it, and<br />
was glad."<br />
57. The Jews therefore said unto him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old; and hast thou<br />
seen Abraham?"<br />
58. Jesus said unto them, "Verily verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am<br />
he."<br />
59. Then they took up stones to cast at him: but Jesus concealed himself, and went out<br />
of the temple.<br />
Chapter 9<br />
1. And as he passed by, he saw a man that had been blind from his birth.<br />
2. And his disciples asked him, saying, "Master, who sinned, this man, or his parents,<br />
that he was born blind?"<br />
3. Jesus answered, "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of<br />
God might be manifested in him.<br />
4. We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when<br />
no man can work.<br />
5. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."<br />
6. When he had said this, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and<br />
anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,<br />
7. and said unto him, "Go, wash thyself in the pool of Siloam:" (which is, by<br />
interpretation, Sent). He departed therefore, and washed himself, and came seeing.<br />
8. The neighbors therefore, and those who had seen him before, (for he had been a<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (12 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
beggar), said, "Is not this he who sat and begged?"<br />
9. Some said, "This is he." And others said, "He is like him." But he said, "I am he."<br />
10. They said therefore unto him, "How were thine eyes opened?"<br />
11. He answered and said, "The man, called Jesus, made clay and anointed mine eyes, and<br />
said unto me, 'Go to Siloam, and wash thyself: and I went and washed myself, and received<br />
my sight."<br />
12. Then they said unto him, "Where is he?" He saith, "I know not."<br />
13. Then they bring him to the Pharisees [him, I say, who had been blind.]<br />
14. Now it was the sabbath, when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.<br />
15. Then the Pharisees also asked him again, how he had received his sight. And he said<br />
unto them, "He put clay on mine eyes, and I washed myself, and see."<br />
16. Wherefore some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, because he keepeth<br />
not the sabbath." Others said, "How can a sinner do such miracles?" And there was a<br />
division among them.<br />
17. They say again to the blind man again, "What sayest thou of him, since he hath<br />
opened thine eyes?" And the blind man said, "He is a prophet."<br />
18. Upon this the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had<br />
received his sight, until they called his parents: [the parents, I say, of him that<br />
received his sight.]<br />
19. And they asked them, saying, "Is this your son, of whom ye say that he was born<br />
blind? how then doth he now see?"<br />
20. His parents answered them, and said, "We know that this is our son, and that he was<br />
born blind:<br />
21. but by what means he now seeth, we know not: he is of age; ask him, he will speak<br />
for himself.<br />
22. His parents spake these words, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had<br />
already agreed that, if any man should confess Jesus to be Christ, he should be put out<br />
of the synagogue.<br />
23. For this cause his parents said, "He is of age; ask him."<br />
24. A second time therefore they called the man that had been blind, and said unto him,<br />
"Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner."<br />
25. [Then] he answered and said, "Whether he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know,<br />
that, whereas I was blind, I now see."<br />
26. Then they said to him again, "What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?"<br />
27. He answered them, "I told you already, and ye did not hearken: why desire ye hear<br />
to hear it again? would ye also be his disciples?"<br />
28. Then they reviled him, and said, "Thou art his disciple; but we are disciples of<br />
Moses.<br />
29. We know that God spake to Moses: but we know not whence this man is."<br />
30. The man answered and said unto them, "In this now is a wonderful thing, that ye<br />
know not whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.<br />
31. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God,<br />
and do his will, him he heareth.<br />
32. From the beginning of the world, it hath not been heard that any man opened the<br />
eyes of one born blind.<br />
33. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."<br />
34. They answered and said unto him, "Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou<br />
teach us?" And they cast him out of their synagogues.<br />
35. Jesus heard that they had cast him out: and, when he met him, he said unto him,<br />
"Dost thou believe in the Son of God?"<br />
36. He answered and said, "Who is he, Sir, that I may believe in him?"<br />
37. And Jesus said unto him, "Thou hast both seen him, and he it is who talketh with<br />
thee."<br />
38. And the man said, "Sir, I believe". And he did Jesus obeisance.<br />
39. Then Jesus said, "For judgement I am come into this world: that those who see not,<br />
may see; and that those who see, may become blind."<br />
40. And some of the Pharisees that were with him, heard these things, and said unto<br />
him, "Are we also blind?"<br />
41. Jesus said unto them, "If ye were blind, ye would not have sin: but now ye say, 'We<br />
see;' your sin therefore remaineth."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (13 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
Chapter 10<br />
1. "Verily verily I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheep-fold,<br />
but climbeth up some other way, that man is a thief and a robber.<br />
2. But he that entereth in by the door, is the shepherd of the sheep.<br />
3. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hearken to his voice: and he calleth his<br />
own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.<br />
4. When when he bringeth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep<br />
follow him; for they know his voice.<br />
5. Whereas a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not<br />
the voice of strangers."<br />
6. This parable Jesus spake unto them: but they understood not what things they were,<br />
which he spake unto them.<br />
7. Jesus therefore said unto them again, "Verily verily I say unto you, I am the door<br />
of the sheep.<br />
8. All that have came [before me] are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear<br />
them.<br />
9. I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be safe, and shall go in and out,<br />
and find pasture.<br />
10. The thief cometh not, but to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that the<br />
sheep may have life, and that they may have it abundantly.<br />
11. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep.<br />
12. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not,<br />
seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth; and the wolf seizeth them, and<br />
scattereth the sheep,<br />
13. and the hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.<br />
14. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known by mine;<br />
15. even as the Father knoweth me, and as I know the Father: and I lay down my life for<br />
the sheep.<br />
16. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and<br />
they will hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, and one shepherd.<br />
17. For this my Father loveth me; because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.<br />
18. None taketh it from me; but I lay it down of myself. I have authority to lay it<br />
down, and I have authority to receive it again. This commission I have received from my<br />
Father."<br />
19. There was a division therefore again among the Jews because of these words.<br />
20. And many of them said, "He hath a demon, and is mad; why hear ye him?"<br />
21. Others said, "These are not the words of him that hath a demon. Can a demon open<br />
the eyes of the blind?"<br />
22. And it was the feast of Dedication was kept at Jerusalem;<br />
23. and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch.<br />
24. Then the Jews surrounded him, and said unto him, "How long dost thou keep us in<br />
suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly."<br />
25. Jesus answered them, "I have told you, and ye believe not: the works which I do in<br />
my Father's name, they bear witness of me.<br />
26. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.<br />
27. As I said unto you, my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:<br />
28. and I give unto them everlasting life; and they shall never perish, nor shall<br />
anyone force them out of my hand.<br />
29. My Father, that hath given them to me, is greater than all; and none is able to<br />
force them out of my Father's hand.<br />
30. I and the Father are one."<br />
31. Then the Jews took up stones again, to stone him.<br />
32. Jesus said to them, "Many good works I have shown you from my Father: for which of<br />
those works do ye stone me?"<br />
33. The Jews answered him [saying], "For a good work we stone thee not, but for<br />
blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."<br />
34. Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, ye are gods?'<br />
35. If those be called gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be<br />
made void;)<br />
36. say ye of him, whom the Father hath set apart and sent into the world, 'Thou<br />
blasphemest:' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?'"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (14 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
37. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not:<br />
38. but if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and<br />
believe that the Father is in me, and I in him."<br />
39. Upon this they sought again to apprehend him: but he escaped out of their hand.<br />
40. and departed again beyond Jordan, to the place where John at first baptized: and<br />
there he abode.<br />
41. And many resorted to him; and said, "John did no miracle: but all things which<br />
John spake of this man were true."<br />
42. And many believed in him there.<br />
Chapter 11<br />
1. Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her<br />
sister Martha.<br />
2. (Now it was that Mary who anointed the Lord with balsam, and wiped his feet with her<br />
hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)<br />
3. His sisters therefore sent to Jesus, saying, "Master, behold, he whom thou lovest is<br />
sick."<br />
4. And when Jesus heard it, he said, "This sickness is not unto death; but for the<br />
glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it.<br />
5. (Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.)<br />
6. When he heard therefore that Lazarus was sick, he still abode two days in the place<br />
where he was.<br />
7. Then after this he saith to the disciples, "Let us go again into Judaea."<br />
8. His disciples say unto him, "Master, but now the Jews sought to stone thee; and<br />
goest thou thither again?"<br />
9. Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of the day? If a man walk in the day, he<br />
stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world:<br />
10. but if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth; because the light is not in him."<br />
11. He spake these things; and afterward he saith unto them, "Our friend Lazarus<br />
sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him."<br />
12. Then his disciples said, "Master, if he is sleep, he will recover."<br />
13. But Jesus spake of his death: yet they thought that he was speaking of rest in<br />
sleep.<br />
14. Then Jesus said unto them plainly, "Lazarus is dead.<br />
15. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, that ye may believe: but let us<br />
go to him."<br />
16. Then Thomas, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow-disciples, "Let us also go,<br />
that we may die with him."<br />
17. When Jesus therefore came, he found that Lazarus had already lain four days in the<br />
sepulchre.<br />
18. (Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off:<br />
19. and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, that they might comfort them<br />
concerning their brother.)<br />
20. Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary<br />
sat in the house.<br />
21. Then said Martha to Jesus, "Master, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not<br />
died.<br />
22. But I know that, even now, whatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give thee."<br />
23. Jesus saith unto her, "Thy brother shall rise again."<br />
24. Martha saith unto him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the<br />
last day."<br />
25. Jesus said unto her, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he who believeth in me,<br />
though he die, yet he shall live:<br />
26. and whosoever liveth, and believeth in me, shall never die. Believest thou this?"<br />
27. She saith unto him, "Yes, Master: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of<br />
God, who was to come into the world.<br />
28. And when she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary secretly, saying,<br />
"The Teacher is come, and calleth for thee."<br />
29. As soon as Mary heard this, she riseth quickly, and cometh to him.<br />
30. (Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in the place where Martha met<br />
him.)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (15 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
31. The Jews then, who were with Mary in the house, and were comforting her, when they<br />
saw that she rose up hastily, and went out, followed her, saying, "She goeth to the<br />
sepulchre, that she mat weep there."<br />
32. As soon then as Mary came where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet,<br />
saying unto him, "Master, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died."<br />
33. When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping who came with her,<br />
he groaned in spirit, and was troubled,<br />
34. and said, "Where have ye laid him?" They say unto him, "Master, come and see."<br />
35. Jesus wept.<br />
36. The Jews therefore said, "See how he loved him."<br />
37. But some of them said, "Could not He, that opened the eyes of the blind man, have<br />
caused even that this Lazarus should not died?"<br />
38. Jesus therefore, again groaning in himself cometh to the sepulchre. Now it was a<br />
cave, and a stone lay against it.<br />
39. Jesus saith, "Take away the stone." Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith<br />
unto him, "Master, by this time the smell is offensive: for he hath been buried four<br />
days."<br />
40. Jesus saith unto her, "Said I not unto thee that, if thou wouldest believe, thou<br />
shouldest see the glory of God?"<br />
41. Then they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, "Father, I<br />
thank thee that thou hast heard me.<br />
42. And I knew indeed that thou hearest me always: but because of the multitude who<br />
stand by I have said this, that they may believe that thou hast sent me."<br />
43. And when he had said these words, he cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come<br />
forth."<br />
44. [And] he that had been dead came out, having his hands and feet bound with<br />
grave-clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, "Loose<br />
him, and let him go."<br />
45. Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things which [Jesus]<br />
did, believed in him.<br />
46. But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told them what things which Jesus<br />
had done.<br />
47. The chief-priests therefore and the Pharisees assembled a council, and said, "What<br />
shall we do? for this man doeth many miracles.<br />
48. If we suffer him to go on thus, all men will believe in him: and the Romans will<br />
come and take away both our place and our nation."<br />
49. Then one of them, named Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them, "Ye<br />
know nothing;<br />
50. nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people,<br />
and that the whole nation should not perish."<br />
51. Now he spake not this of himself: but, being high priest that year, he prophesied<br />
that Jesus was to die for that nation:<br />
52. and indeed not for the nation only; but that he should gather also in one the<br />
children of God, who were scattered abroad.<br />
53. From that day forth they took counsel together to kill him.<br />
54. Jesus therefore no more walked openly among the Jews; but went thence to a country<br />
near the desert, to a city called Ephraim; and continued there he with his disciples.<br />
55. And the passover of the Jews was near: and many went up to Jerusalem out of the<br />
country before the passover, to purify themselves.<br />
56. Then they sought for Jesus, and said among themselves, as they stood in the temple,<br />
"What think ye? that he will not come to the feast?"<br />
57. Now both the chief-priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any<br />
man knew where he was, he should discover it; that they might apprehend him.<br />
Chapter 12<br />
1. Six days then before the passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, that<br />
had been dead, whom he had raised from the dead.<br />
2. Upon which a supper was made for him there; and Martha served: and Lazarus was one<br />
of those that were at the table with him.<br />
3. Then Mary took a pound of very precious balsam of spikenard, and anointed the feet<br />
of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (16 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
the balsam.<br />
4. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, [the son of Simon,] who was about<br />
to deliver him up,<br />
5. "Why was not this balsam sold for three hundred denarii, and given to the poor?"<br />
6. Now this he said, not that he cared for the poor: but because he was a thief, and<br />
had the purse, and carried what was put in it.<br />
7. Then said Jesus, "Suffer her: against the day of my embalming she hath kept this.<br />
8. For ye have the poor with you always; but me ye have not always."<br />
9. Now a great multitude of the Jews knew that he was there: and they came, not because<br />
of Jesus only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.<br />
10. So the chief-priests consulted that they might kill Lazarus also;<br />
11. because by reason of him many of the Jews withdrew from them, and believed in<br />
Jesus.<br />
12. On the next day, a great multitude who were come to the feast, when they heard that<br />
Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,<br />
13. took branches of palm-trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried out, "Hosanna:<br />
Blessed be the King of Israel who cometh in the name of the Lord."<br />
14. Now when Jesus had procured a young ass, he sat on it; as it is written,<br />
15. "Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on a foal of an ass."<br />
16. Now these things his disciples understood not at first: but when Jesus had been<br />
glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of him, and that they had<br />
done these things unto him.<br />
17. The multitude then who were with him, bare witness that he had called Lazarus out<br />
of his sepulchre, and raised him from the dead.<br />
18. For this reason also the multitude met him; because they heard that he had done<br />
this miracle.<br />
19. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, "Behold ye that ye prevail nothing?<br />
behold, the world is gone after him.<br />
20. Now certain Greeks were among those who came up to worship at the feast.<br />
21. So these came to Philip, that was of Bethsaida in Galilee, and besought him,<br />
saying, "Sir, we desire to see Jesus."<br />
22. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again, Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.<br />
23. And Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour is come that the Son of man should be<br />
glorified.<br />
24. Verily verily I say unto you, Unless a grain of wheat fall into the ground, and<br />
die, it remaineth a single grain: but if it die, it beareth forth much fruit.<br />
25. He that loveth his life, shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world,<br />
shall keep it unto everlasting life.<br />
26. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant also<br />
be: if any man serve me, him my Father will honour.<br />
27. Now is my soul troubled: and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? But<br />
for this cause came I to this hour.<br />
28. Father, glorify thy name." Then a voice came from heaven, saying, "I have both<br />
glorified it, and will glorify it again."<br />
29. The multitude therefore who stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered. Others<br />
said, "An angel spake to him."<br />
30. Jesus answered and said, "This voice came not for my sake, but for your sakes.<br />
31. Now is the judgment of this world: now the prince of this world will be cast out.<br />
32. And although I shall be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto me."<br />
33. (This he said, signifying what death he was about to die.)<br />
34. The multitude answered him, "We have heard out of the law that Christ continueth<br />
for ever: and how sayest thou, 'The Son of man be lifted up?' Who is this Son of man?"<br />
35. Then Jesus said unto them, "But a little time longer, the light will be among you.<br />
Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in the<br />
darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.<br />
36. While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be sons of light." These<br />
things Jesus spake, and departed, and concealed himself from them.<br />
37. But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not in him:<br />
38. so that the words of the prophet Isaiah were fulfilled, which he spake, "Lord, who<br />
hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been made manifest?"<br />
39. Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah had said again,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (17 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
40. "He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; so that they see not with<br />
their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and turn, that I should heal them."<br />
41. These things Isaiah said, when he saw his glory; and spake of him.<br />
42. Nevertheless many even among the rulers believed in him; but because of the<br />
Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:<br />
43. for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.<br />
44. But Jesus cried out, and said, "He who believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in<br />
him who sent me.<br />
45. And he who seeth me, seeth him who sent me.<br />
46. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth in me may not remain in<br />
darkness.<br />
47. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I condemn him not: (for I came not<br />
to condemn the world, but to save the world:)<br />
48. he who rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath that which condemneth him:<br />
the doctrine which I have spoken, that will condemn him in the last day.<br />
49. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he hath given me<br />
commandment, what I should enjoin, and what I should speak.<br />
50. And I know that his commandment is everlasting life: what therefore I speak, I so<br />
speak as the Father hath given me in charge."<br />
Chapter 13<br />
1. Now Jesus having known before the feast of the passover, that his hour was come that<br />
he should depart out of this world to the Father; and, having loved his own that were in<br />
the world, he loved them to the end:<br />
2. and supper being come, (the devil having already put into the heart of Judas<br />
Iscariot, the son of Simon, to deliver him up;)<br />
3. though he knew, I say, that the Father gave all things into his hands, and that he<br />
came from God, and was going to God;<br />
4. yet he riseth from supper, and layeth aside his upper garments; and took a napkin,<br />
and girt himself.<br />
5. Then he poureth water into a vessel, and began to wash the feet of the disciples,<br />
and to wipe them with the napkin with which he was girded.<br />
6. So he cometh to Simon Peter: [and] Peter saith unto him, "Master, dost thou wash my<br />
feet?"<br />
7. Jesus answered and said unto him, "What I do, thou knowest not now; but thou wilt<br />
know presently."<br />
8. Peter saith unto him, "Thou shalt never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I<br />
wash thee not, thou hast no part with me."<br />
9. Simon Peter saith unto him, "Master, not my feet only, but mine hands and head<br />
also."<br />
10. Jesus saith to him, "He that hath bathed, needeth to wash his feet only; and he is<br />
altogether clean: and ye are clean, but not all."<br />
11. For he knew who was to deliver him up: wherefore he said, "Ye are not all clean."<br />
12. So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his upper garments, and had again<br />
placed himself at the table, he said unto them, "Know ye what I have done to you?<br />
13. Ye call me, Teacher, and, Master: and ye say well: for so I am.<br />
14. If I then, your Master and Teacher, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash<br />
one another's feet.<br />
15. For I have given you an example, that ye also may do as I have done to you.<br />
16. Verily verily I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his master; nor is<br />
the messenger greater than he who sent him.<br />
17. If ye know these things, happy are ye when ye do them.<br />
18. "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but so the scripture is<br />
fulfilled, 'He that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me.'<br />
19. Now I tell you before it come to pass, that, when it shall come to pass, ye may<br />
believe that I am he.<br />
20. Verily verily I say unto you, He that receiveth whom I shall send, receiveth me;<br />
and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."<br />
21. When Jesus had said thus, he was troubled in his spirit, and testified, and said,<br />
"Verily verily I say unto you, that one of you will deliver me up."<br />
22. Then the disciples looked on one another, doubting of whom he spake.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (18 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
23. There was placed on the bosom of Jesus one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.<br />
24. Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, that he should ask who it might be of whom<br />
Jesus spake.<br />
25. He then who leaned on the breast of Jesus, saith unto him, "Master, who is it?"<br />
26. Jesus answereth, "it is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread, when I have<br />
dipped it." And when he had dipped the piece of bread, he giveth it to Judas Iscariot,<br />
the son of Simon.<br />
27. And, after the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Then saith Jesus unto him,<br />
"What thou doest, do quickly."<br />
28. Now no man at the table knew why spake this unto him.<br />
29. For some thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus said had unto him, "Buy<br />
those things which we have need of for the feast;" or, that he should give something to<br />
the poor.<br />
30. He then who had received the piece of bread, went out immediately: now it was<br />
night.<br />
31. When he was gone out, Jesus saith, "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is<br />
glorified by him;<br />
32. Since God is glorified by him, God also will glorify him in himself, and<br />
immediately glorify him.<br />
33. My children, but a little time longer I shall be with you. Ye will seek me: and, as<br />
I said to the Jews, 'Whither I go, ye cannot come;' so now I say to you.<br />
34. A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; that, as I have loved<br />
you, ye also love one another.<br />
35. By this all men will know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love to one<br />
another."<br />
36. Simon Peter saith unto him, "Master, whither goest thou?" Jesus answered, "Whither<br />
I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou wilt follow [me] hereafter."<br />
37. Peter saith unto him, "Master, why cannot I follow thee [now?] I will lay down my<br />
life for thy sake."<br />
38. Jesus answereth him, "Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily verily I say<br />
unto thee, The cock will not crow, till thou have denied me thrice.<br />
Chapter 14<br />
1. Let not your heart be troubled: believe in God; believe in me also.<br />
2. In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I<br />
go to prepare a place for you.<br />
3. And after I shall have gone and prepared a place for you, I will come again, and<br />
receive you to myself; that, where I am, ye also may be.<br />
4. And whither I go, ye know; and the way you know."<br />
5. Thomas saith unto him, "Master, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know<br />
the way?"<br />
6. Jesus saith unto him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh to<br />
the Father but by me.<br />
7. If ye knew me, ye would know my Father also: and henceforth ye know him, and have<br />
seen him."<br />
8. Philip saith unto him, "Master, show us the Father; and it sufficeth us."<br />
9. Jesus saith unto him, "Have I been so long with you, and dost thou not know me,<br />
Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father: how then sayest thou, 'Show us the<br />
Father?'<br />
10. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words which I<br />
speak unto you, I speak not from myself; and the Father, who abideth in me, he doeth the<br />
works.<br />
11. Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: but if not, believe [me]<br />
for works themselves.<br />
12. Verily verily I say unto you, He who believeth on me, the works which I do he also<br />
shall do; and greater works than these he shall do; because I go to my Father;<br />
13. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, I will do; that the Father may be glorified<br />
in the Son.<br />
14. If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.<br />
15. "If ye love me, keep my commandments.<br />
16. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate, that he may abide<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (19 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
with you forever;<br />
17. even the spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive, because it discerneth him<br />
not, nor knoweth him; but ye shall know him; for he shall abide with you, and shall be in<br />
you.<br />
18. I will not leave you destitute: I will come unto you.<br />
19. But a little time longer, and the world shall see me no more; but ye shall see me:<br />
because I live, ye also shall live.<br />
20. In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.<br />
21. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is who loveth me: and he who<br />
loveth me, shall be loved of my Father; and I will love him, and will manifest myself to<br />
him."<br />
22. Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, "Master, how is it that thou wilt soon<br />
manifest thyself to us, and not to the world?"<br />
23. Jesus answered and said unto him, "If any man love me, he will keep my words: and<br />
my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode with him.<br />
24. He who loveth me not, keepeth not my words: and yet the word which ye hear, is not<br />
mine, but the Father's who sent me.<br />
25. "These things I speak unto you, while I abide with you.<br />
26. But the Advocate, even the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, he<br />
shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance that I have said<br />
unto you.<br />
27. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, do I<br />
give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be dismayed.<br />
28. Ye heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and will come again unto you.' If ye loved<br />
me, ye would rejoice, because I go to the Father: for [my] Father is greater than I.<br />
29. And now I tell it you before it come to pass, that, when it cometh to pass, ye may<br />
believe.<br />
30. Hereafter I shall no longer talk much with you; for the prince of this world<br />
cometh: and he hath nothing in me.<br />
31. But this must be, that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father<br />
hath commanded me, so I do. Arise, let us go hence."<br />
Chapter 15<br />
1. "I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman.<br />
2. Every branch in me which beareth not fruit, he taketh away: and every branch which<br />
beareth fruit, he pruneth, that it may bear more fruit.<br />
3. Ye are now clean, through the words which I have spoken unto you.<br />
4. Abide in me; and I will abide in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself,<br />
unless it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, unless ye abide in me.<br />
5. I am the vine; ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, he beareth<br />
much fruit: for, severed from me, ye can do nothing.<br />
6. If a man abide not in me, he shall be cast out as a severed branch, and shall<br />
wither; and men shall gather together such branches, and cast them into the fire, and<br />
they shall be burned.<br />
7. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it<br />
shall be done for you.<br />
8. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit: so ye will be my disciples.<br />
9. As the Father hath loved me, so I have loved you: abide ye in my love.<br />
10. If ye keep my commandments, ye will abide in my love; as I have kept my Father's<br />
commandments, and abide in his love.<br />
11. These things I speak unto you, that my joy in you may abide, and that your joy may<br />
be full.<br />
12. This is my commandment; that ye love one another, as I have loved you.<br />
13. Greater love than this hath no man , that a man lay down his life for his friends.<br />
14. Ye are my friends, if ye whatsoever things I command you.<br />
15. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his master<br />
doeth: but I call you friends; for all things which I have heard from my Father, I have<br />
made known unto you.<br />
16. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and appointed you, that ye may go and<br />
bear fruit, and that your fruit may remain: that whatever ye shall ask the Father in my<br />
name, he may give it you.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (20 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
17. "These things I command you, that ye may love one another.<br />
18. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.<br />
19. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of<br />
the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.<br />
20. Remember the words which I said unto you, 'The servant is not greater than his<br />
master.' If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also: if they have kept my<br />
words, they will keep yours also.<br />
21. But all these things they will do unto you on account of my name; because they know<br />
not him who sent me.<br />
22. If I had not come, and spoken unto them, they would not have had sin: but now they<br />
have no excuse for their sin.<br />
23. He that hateth me, hateth my Father also.<br />
24. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they would not<br />
have had sin: but now they have both seen, and have hated, both me and my Father.<br />
25. But this cometh to pass, that the words are fulfilled which are written in their<br />
law, 'They hated me without a cause.'<br />
26. "But when the Advocate is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the<br />
spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he will testify of me.<br />
27. And ye shall also testify, because ye have been with me from the beginning.<br />
Chapter 16<br />
1. "These things have I spoken unto you, that ye may not offend.<br />
2. They will put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever<br />
killeth you will think that he offereth God service.<br />
3. And these things will they do, because they have not known the Father, or me.<br />
4. But these things I have spoken unto you, that, when the time shall come, ye may<br />
remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you from the<br />
beginning, because I was with you.<br />
5. But now I depart to him who sent me; and none of you asketh me, 'Whither goest<br />
thou?'<br />
6. But because I have spoken these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart.<br />
7. "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away: for if<br />
I go not away, the Advocate will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto<br />
you.<br />
8. And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of<br />
judgment:<br />
9. of sin, because they believe not in me;<br />
10. of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no longer;<br />
11. of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.<br />
12. I have still many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.<br />
13. However, when he cometh, even the spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the<br />
truth: for he will not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that he will<br />
speak: and he will show you things to come.<br />
14. He will glorify me: for he will receive of mine, and will declare it unto you.<br />
15. All things which the Father hath are mine: therefore I have said, that he will<br />
receive of mine, and will declare it unto you.<br />
16. A little time, and ye will not see me: and again a little time, and ye will see me,<br />
because I go to the Father."<br />
17. Then said some of his disciples among themselves, "What is this which he saith unto<br />
us, 'A little time, and ye will not see me: and again, a little time, and ye will see<br />
me:' and, 'Because I go to the Father?'"<br />
18. They said therefore, "What is this which he saith, 'A little time?' We know not<br />
what he speaketh."<br />
19. Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, "Do ye<br />
inquire among yourselves concerning this, that I said, 'A little time, and ye will not<br />
see me: and again, a little time, and ye will see me?'<br />
20. Verily verily I say unto you, that ye will weep and lament, but the world will<br />
rejoice: and ye will be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.<br />
21. A woman, when she is in travail, hath sorrow, because her hour is come; but when<br />
she has brought forth the child, she remembereth no more the affliction, for the joy that<br />
a man is born into the world.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (21 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
22. And thus ye have sorrow now: but I will see you again, and your heart shall<br />
rejoice, and your joy no man shall take from you.<br />
23. And in that day ye shall request nothing of me: Verily verily I say unto you,<br />
Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.<br />
24. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy<br />
may be full.<br />
25. These things have I spoken to you in dark speeches: the time cometh when I shall no<br />
more speak unto you in dark speeches, but shall show you plainly concerning the Father.<br />
26. In that day, ye shall ask in my name; and I say not unto you that I will request<br />
the Father for you:<br />
27. for the Father himself loveth you, because ye love me, and believe that I came<br />
forth from the Father.<br />
28. I came forth from the Father, and come into the world: again, I leave the world,<br />
and go to the Father.<br />
29. His disciples say unto him, "Lo, now thou speakest plainly, and speakest no dark<br />
speech.<br />
30. Now know we that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any one should ask<br />
thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God."<br />
31. Jesus answered them, "Do ye now believe?<br />
32. Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye will be scattered, every man to<br />
his own home, and will leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with<br />
me.<br />
33. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye<br />
will have affliction: but be of good courage; I have overcome the world."<br />
Chapter 17<br />
1. Jesus spake these words; and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the<br />
hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:<br />
2. as thou hast given him power over all men, that he may give everlasting life to all<br />
whom thou hast given him.<br />
3. And this is everlasting life, that they may know thee to be the only true God, and<br />
Jesus thy messenger to be the Christ.<br />
4. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou hast given<br />
me to do.<br />
5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thyself, with the glory which I had with<br />
thee before the world was.<br />
6. "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world:<br />
they were thine, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word.<br />
7. Now they know that all things, whatsoever thou hast given me, are from thee.<br />
8. For I have given then the words which thou gavest me; and they received them, and<br />
have surely known that I came forth from thee, and have believed that thou hast sent me.<br />
9. I request for them; I request not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given<br />
me; for they are thine.<br />
10. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified through them.<br />
11. And now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I shall go to<br />
thee. Holy Father, keep them in than name of thine which thou hast given me; that they<br />
may be one, as we are.<br />
12. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those whom thou gavest<br />
me: I have preserved; and none of them is destroyed, but the son of destruction; so that<br />
the scripture is fulfilled.<br />
13. But now I go to thee; and I speak these things in the world, that they may have my<br />
joy on their account completed in them.<br />
14. I have given them thy words; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of<br />
the world, as I am not of the world.<br />
15. I request not that thou wouldest take them out of the world, but that thou wouldest<br />
keep them from evil.<br />
16. They are not of the world, as I am not of the world.<br />
17. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.<br />
18. As thou hast send me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.<br />
19. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the<br />
truth.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (22 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
20. "Nor do I pray for these only, but for those also who shall believe in me through<br />
their words;<br />
21. that all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may<br />
be [one] in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.<br />
22. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given them; that they may be one, as<br />
we are one:<br />
23. I in them, and thou in me; that they may be perfected in one; and that the world<br />
may know that thou hast send me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.<br />
24. Father, I desire that those also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I<br />
am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before<br />
the foundation of the world.<br />
25. O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these<br />
have known that thou hast sent me.<br />
26. And I have made known unto them thy name, and will make it known: that the love<br />
with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."<br />
Chapter 18<br />
1. When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook<br />
Kidron, where was a garden, into which he and hid disciples entered.<br />
2. And Judas also, who delivered him up, knew the place: for Jesus often resorted<br />
thither with his disciples.<br />
3. Judas then, having received a band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests<br />
and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns, and lamps, and weapons.<br />
4. Upon this Jesus, knowing all things which were to befal him, went forth and said<br />
unto them, "Whom seek ye?"<br />
5. They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus saith unto them, "I am he." And Judas<br />
also, who delivered him up, stood with them.<br />
6. As soon then as he had said unto them, 'I am he,' they went backward, and fell on<br />
the ground.<br />
7. Then he asked them again, "Whom seek ye?" They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth."<br />
8. Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these<br />
depart."<br />
9. (That the words might be fulfilled, which he spake, "Of those whom thou gavest me, I<br />
have lost none.")<br />
10. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and struck a servant of the high priest,<br />
and cut off his right ear. Now the servant's name was Malchus.<br />
11. Then said Jesus to Peter, "Put up the sword into the sheath: the cup which my<br />
Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?<br />
12. Then the band and the commander, and the officers of the Jews, took Jesus, and<br />
bound him,<br />
13. and led him away to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was<br />
high-priest that year.<br />
14. Now Caiaphas was he who had given counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that<br />
one man should die for the people.<br />
15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: and that disciple was<br />
known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the palace of the high priest,<br />
16. But Peter stood at the door without. Then that other disciple, who was known to the<br />
high priest, went out, and spake to her who kept the door, and brought in Peter.<br />
17. Then the maid-servant who kept the door saith to Peter, "Art not thou also one of<br />
this man's disciples?" He saith, "I am not."<br />
18. And the servants and officers stood and warmed themselves, having made a fire of<br />
coals; for it was cold. And Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.<br />
19. Now the high-priest asked Jesus concerning his disciples, and concerning his<br />
doctrine.<br />
20. Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in<br />
synagogue, and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort; and in secret spoke nothing.<br />
21. Why askest thou me? Ask those that heard me, what I have spoken to them: behold,<br />
they know what I said."<br />
22. And when he had said these words, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus<br />
with the palm of his hand, and said, "Answerest thou the high-priest thus?"<br />
23. Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (23 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
why dost thou smite me?"<br />
24. (Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.)<br />
25. And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. Then they said to him, "Art not thou also<br />
one of his disciples?" He denied it, and said, "I am not."<br />
26. One of the servants of the high-priest, being the kinsman of him whose ear Peter<br />
cut off, saith, "Did not I see thee in the garden with him?"<br />
27. Peter then denied it again; and immediately the cock crew.<br />
28. [Then] the Jews bring Jesus from Caiaphas, to the judgement-hall; and it was early:<br />
and they themselves went not into the judgement-hall, lest they should be defiled, but<br />
that they might eat the passover.<br />
29. Pilate therefore went out unto them, and said, "What accusation bring ye against<br />
this man?"<br />
30. They answered and said unto him, "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have<br />
delivered him up unto thee."<br />
31. Then Pilate said unto them, "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law." The<br />
Jews therefore said unto him, "We are not allowed to put any man to death."<br />
32. (So that the words of Jesus were fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death<br />
he was to die.<br />
33. Then Pilate entered again into the judgement-hall, and called Jesus, and said unto<br />
him, "Art thou the King of the Jews?"<br />
34. Jesus answered [him], "Sayest thou this of thyself; or have others told it thee of<br />
me?"<br />
35. Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Thine own nation, and the chief-priests, have<br />
delivered thee up unto me. What hast thou done?<br />
36. Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom had been of this<br />
world, then my servants would have contended, that I might not be delivered up to the<br />
Jews: but indeed my kingdom not hence."<br />
37. Pilate therefore said unto him, "Art thou a king then?" Jesus answered, "Thou<br />
sayest truly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I came into<br />
the world, that I might bear witness to the truth. Every one that is of the truth,<br />
hearkeneth to my voice."<br />
38. Pilate saith unto him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out<br />
again to the Jews, and saith unto them, "I find no fault in him.<br />
39. But ye have a custom that I should release to you one at the passover: will ye<br />
therefore that I release to you the King of the Jews?"<br />
40. They all cried out, saying, "Not this man, but Barabbas." Now Barabbas was a<br />
robber.<br />
Chapter 19<br />
1. Then Pilate upon this took Jesus, and scourged him.<br />
2. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head; and clothed him<br />
with a purple garment,<br />
3. and said, "Hail, King of the Jews." And they struck him with the palms of their<br />
hands.<br />
4. And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, "See, I bring him out to you, that<br />
ye may know that I find no fault in him."<br />
5. Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple garment. And Pilate<br />
saith unto them, "See, the man."<br />
6. When therefore the chief-priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying,<br />
"Crucify him, crucify him." Pilate saith unto them, "Take ye him, and crucify him: for I<br />
find no fault in him."<br />
7. The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he<br />
made himself a son of God."<br />
8. When Pilate therefore heard this words, he was the more afraid;<br />
9. and went again into the judgement-hall, and saith to Jesus, "Whence art thou?" But<br />
Jesus gave him no answer.<br />
10. Pilate saith to him, "Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have<br />
authority to crucify thee, and have authority to release thee?"<br />
11. Jesus answered, "Thou couldest have no authority against me, unless it had been<br />
given thee from above: for this reason, he that delivered me up unto thee hath greater<br />
sin."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (24 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
12. Thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, "If thou<br />
release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend. Whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh<br />
against Caesar."<br />
13. When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the<br />
judgment-seat, in a place called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha:<br />
14. (Now it was the preparation-day of the passover, and about the third hour:). and he<br />
saith unto the Jews, "See, your king."<br />
15. But they cried out, "Away, away with him, crucify him." Pilate saith unto them,<br />
"Shall I crucify your King?" The chief-priests answered, "We have no king but Cesar."<br />
16. Then upon this Pilate delivered him up unto them to be crucified.<br />
17. And they took Jesus, and led him away. And he, carrying his cross, went out to a<br />
place called The place skulls; which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha;<br />
18. where they crucified him, and two others with him, on each side one, and Jesus in<br />
the midst.<br />
19. And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross: and the writing was, JESUS<br />
OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.<br />
20. And many of the Jews read this title: for the place where Jesus was crucified was<br />
near the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.<br />
21. Upon this the chief-priests of the Jews said to Pilate, "Write not, 'The King of<br />
the Jews;' but that he said, 'I am King of the Jews.'"<br />
22. Pilate answered, "What I have written, I have written."<br />
23. Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his outer garments, and made<br />
four parts, to every soldier a part; and his vest also: now the vest was without seam,<br />
woven from the top throughout.<br />
24. They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it,<br />
whose it shall be." So that the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, "They divided my<br />
garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots."<br />
25. These things therefore the soldiers did. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his<br />
mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.<br />
26. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he<br />
saith to his mother, "Woman, behold thy son."<br />
27. Then he saith to the disciple, "Behold, thy mother." And from that hour the<br />
disciple took her to his own home.<br />
28. After this, Jesus, knowing that all things are now finished, that the scripture<br />
might be fulfilled, saith, "I thirst."<br />
29. Now a vessel was set, full of vinegar. And some filled a sponge with vinegar, and<br />
put it upon hyssop, and raised it to his mouth.<br />
30. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he<br />
bowed his head, and expired.<br />
31. The Jews therefore, because it was the day of preparation, that the bodies might<br />
not remain on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a great day), besought<br />
Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.<br />
32. Then the soldiers came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was<br />
crucified with Jesus:<br />
33. but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his<br />
legs:<br />
34. but one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there came<br />
out blood and water.<br />
35. And he who saw these things beareth witness; (and his witness is true, and he<br />
knoweth that he saith truly;) that ye also may believe.<br />
36. For these things were done, that the scriptures was fulfilled, "A bone of it shall<br />
not be broken."<br />
37. And again another part of scripture saith, "They shall look on him whom they<br />
pierced."<br />
38. [Now] after this, Joseph of Arimathea (being a disciple of Jesus, but a concealed<br />
one for fear of the Jews,) besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and<br />
Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.<br />
39. And Nicodemus also came, (he that at first had come to Jesus by night,) bringing a<br />
mixture of myrrh and aloes, about the weight of an hundred pounds.<br />
40. Then they took the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen bands with the spices, as<br />
the manner of the Jews is to embalm.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (25 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
41. Now in the place where he was crucified was a garden; and in the garden a new<br />
sepulchre, in which no man had ever been laid.<br />
42. There they laid Jesus therefore, because of the preparation-day of the Jews; for<br />
the sepulchre was near.<br />
Chapter 20<br />
1. But on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene cometh to the sepulchre in the<br />
morning, when it was yet dark, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.<br />
2. She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom<br />
Jesus loved, and saith unto them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre;<br />
and we know not where they have laid him."<br />
3. Peter therefore went out, and that other disciple; and they came to the sepulchre.<br />
4. Now they both ran together: and the other disciple outran Peter, and came first to<br />
the sepulchre.<br />
5. And when he had stooped down to look in, he seeth the linen bands lying; but he went<br />
not in.<br />
6. Then cometh Simon Peter, following him; and he went into the sepulchre; and seeth<br />
the linen bands lying;<br />
7. and the napkin, which had been about Jesus's head, not lying with the linen bands,<br />
but wrapped apart in another place.<br />
8. Then went in that other disciple also, who came first to the sepulchre, and he saw<br />
and believed not.<br />
9. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that Jesus must rise again from the dead.<br />
10. Then the disciples went again to their own home.<br />
11. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre, weeping; and, as she wept, she stooped<br />
down to look into the sepulchre;<br />
12. and seeth two angels in white, sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet,<br />
where the body of Jesus had lain.<br />
13. And they say unto her, "Woman, why weepest thou?" She saith unto them, "Because<br />
they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him."<br />
14. When she had said thus, she turned herself back, and seeth Jesus standing: but knew<br />
not that it was Jesus.<br />
15. Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou?" She, supposing<br />
him to be the keeper of the garden, saith unto him, "Sir, if thou hast carried him hence,<br />
tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away."<br />
16. Jesus saith unto her, "Mary." She turned, and saith unto him in the Hebrew tongue,<br />
"Rabboni." Which signifieth, My Teacher.<br />
17. Jesus saith to her, "Embrace me not: for I do not yet ascended to my Father: but go<br />
to my brethren, and say unto them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God<br />
and your God.'"<br />
18. Mary Magdalene cometh and telleth the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and<br />
that he had said these things unto her.<br />
19. Then in the evening of that day, being the first day of the week, the doors were<br />
the disciples were assembled having been shut for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood<br />
in the midst, and saith unto them, "Peace be unto you."<br />
20. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. Then the<br />
disciples were glad, when they saw the Lord.<br />
21. Then Jesus said to them again, "Peace be unto you." as the Father sent me, so send<br />
I you."<br />
22. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, "Receive ye<br />
the holy spirit.<br />
23. If ye remit the sins of any, they are remitted unto them; if ye retain, they are<br />
retained."<br />
24. But Thomas, called Didymus, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.<br />
25. Then the other disciples said unto him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said unto<br />
them, "Unless I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the<br />
print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I shall not believe."<br />
26. And, within eight days, his disciples were again within, and Thomas with them: then<br />
Jesus cometh, the doors having been shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace be<br />
unto you."<br />
27. Then he saith to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (26 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
hither thine hand, and put it into my side; and be not unbelieving, but believing."<br />
28. Thomas answered, and said unto him, "My Lord, and my God!"<br />
29. Jesus saith unto him, "Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; happy are<br />
they that have not seen, and yet have believed.<br />
30. Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not<br />
written in this book:<br />
31. but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of<br />
God; and that, believing, ye may have life through his name.<br />
Chapter 21<br />
1. After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the lake of<br />
Tiberias; and in this manner he shewed himself.<br />
2. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in<br />
Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples.<br />
3. Simon Peter saith unto them, "I am going to fish." They say unto him, "We also will<br />
go with thee." They departed, and went into a ship immediately; and on that night they<br />
caught nothing.<br />
4. But when morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: the disciples however knew<br />
not that it was Jesus.<br />
5. Then Jesus saith unto them, "Young men, have ye any food?" They answered him, "No."<br />
6. And he said unto them, "Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye will get<br />
some. They cast it therefore: and now they were not able to draw it, for the multitude of<br />
fishes.<br />
7. Wherefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith to Peter, "It is the Lord." Now, when<br />
Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his upper garment (for he was naked), and<br />
cast himself into the lake.<br />
8. And the other disciples came in the vessel (for they were not far from land, but as<br />
it were two hundred cubits), dragging the net full of fishes.<br />
9. As soon as they landed, they see a fire of coals lying, and fish laid thereon; and<br />
bread.<br />
10. Jesus saith unto them, "Bring of the fishes which ye have now caught."<br />
11. Simon Peter went into the vessel, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes,<br />
an hundred and fifty three: and although there were so many, yet the net was not broken.<br />
12. Jesus saith unto them, "Come and dine." Now none of the disciples durst inquire of<br />
him, "Who art thou?" knowing that it was the Lord.<br />
13. Jesus [then] cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth to them, and fish in like manner.<br />
14. Jesus shewed himself to his disciples now this third time, after he had risen from<br />
the dead.<br />
15. So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, lovest<br />
thou me more than these love me?" He saith unto Jesus, "Yes, Lord: thou knowest that I<br />
love thee." Jesus saith unto him, "Feed my lambs."<br />
16. Jesus saith to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me?" He<br />
saith unto Jesus, "Yes, Lord: thou knowest that I love thee." Jesus saith unto him, "Tend<br />
my sheep."<br />
17. Jesus saith unto him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me?" Peter<br />
was grieved that Jesus said unto him the third time, "Lovest thou me?" and he said unto<br />
Jesus, "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." Jesus saith unto<br />
him, "Feed my sheep.<br />
18. Verily verily I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou didst gird thyself and<br />
walk whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou wilt stretch forth thine<br />
hands, and another will gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not."<br />
19. Now he spake this, signifying by what death Peter would glorify God. And when he<br />
had spoken this, he saith to Peter, "Follow me."<br />
20. Then Peter turned about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; who had<br />
leaned on his breast also at supper, and had said, "Lord, which is he who delivereth thee<br />
up?"<br />
21. When Peter saw him, he saith to Jesus, "Lord, and what shall this man do?"<br />
22. Jesus saith unto him, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to thee?<br />
Follow thou me."<br />
23. This report therefore went abroad among the brethren, that this disciple was not to<br />
die: yet Jesus said not to him, "He shall not die;" but, "If I will that he remain till I<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (27 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt<br />
come, what is that to thee?"<br />
24. This is the disciple who testified these things, and wrote these things: and we<br />
know that his testimony is true.<br />
25. And there were many other things also that Jesus did, which, if they were written<br />
every one, I think that even the world itself could not contain the books which would be<br />
written.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/newcome.txt (28 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]
Science and Religion-Albert Einstein<br />
Science and Religion<br />
Albert Einstein<br />
This article appears in Einstein's Ideas and<br />
Opinions, pp.41 - 49. The first section is taken<br />
from an address at Princeton Theological<br />
Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out<br />
of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical<br />
Library, 1950. The second section is from<br />
Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium,<br />
published by the Conference on Science,<br />
Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the<br />
Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.<br />
1.<br />
During the last century, and part of the one<br />
before, it was widely held that there was an<br />
unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and<br />
belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced<br />
minds that it was time that belief should be<br />
replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that<br />
did not itself rest on knowledge was<br />
superstition, and as such had to be opposed.<br />
According to this conception, the sole function<br />
of education was to open the way to thinking and<br />
knowing, and the school, as the outstanding<br />
organ for the people's education, must serve<br />
that end exclusively. One will probably find but<br />
rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint<br />
expressed in such crass form; for any sensible<br />
man would see at once how one-sided is such a<br />
statement of the position. But it is just as<br />
well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if<br />
one wants to clear up one's mind as to its<br />
nature.<br />
It is true that convictions can best be supported<br />
with experience and clear thinking. On this point<br />
one must agree unreservedly with the extreme<br />
rationalist. The weak point of his conception<br />
is, however, this, that those convictions which<br />
are necessary and determinant for our conduct<br />
and judgments cannot be found solely along this<br />
solid scientific way. For the scientific method<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/einstein.htm (1 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:23:27 AM]
Science and Religion-Albert Einstein<br />
can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are<br />
related to, and conditioned by, each other. The<br />
aspiration toward such objective knowledge<br />
belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe,<br />
and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing<br />
to belittle the achievements and the heroic<br />
efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally<br />
clear that knowledge of what is does not open<br />
the door directly to what should be. One can<br />
have the clearest and most complete knowledge of<br />
what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that<br />
what should be the goal of our human<br />
aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us<br />
with powerful instruments for the achievements<br />
of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself<br />
and the longing to reach it must come from<br />
another source. And it is hardly necessary to<br />
argue for the view that our existence and our<br />
activity acquire meaning only by the setting up<br />
of such a goal and of corresponding values. The<br />
knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it<br />
is so little capable of acting as a guide that<br />
it cannot prove even the justification and the<br />
value of the aspiration toward that very<br />
knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the<br />
limits of the purely rational conception of our<br />
existence. But it must not be assumed that<br />
intelligent thinking can play no part in the<br />
formation of the goal and of ethical judgments.<br />
When someone realizes that for the achievement<br />
of an end certain means would be useful, the<br />
means itself becomes thereby an end.<br />
Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation<br />
of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give<br />
us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends.<br />
To make clear these fundamental ends and<br />
valuations, and to set them fast in the<br />
emotional life of the individual, seems to me<br />
precisely the most important function which<br />
religion has to perform in the social life of<br />
man. And if one asks whence derives the<br />
authority of such fundamental ends, since they<br />
cannot be stated and justified merely by reason,<br />
one can only answer: they exist in a healthy<br />
society as powerful traditions, which act upon<br />
the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/einstein.htm (2 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:23:27 AM]
Science and Religion-Albert Einstein<br />
individuals; they are there, that is, as<br />
something living, without its being necessary to<br />
find justification for their existence. They<br />
come into being not through demonstration but<br />
through revelation, through the medium of<br />
powerful personalities. One must not attempt to<br />
justify them, but rather to sense their nature<br />
simply and clearly. The highest principles for<br />
our aspirations and judgments are given to us in<br />
the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is<br />
a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we<br />
can reach only very inadequately, but which<br />
gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and<br />
valuations. If one were to take that goal out of<br />
its religious form and look merely at its purely<br />
human side, one might state it perhaps thus:<br />
free and responsible development of the<br />
individual, so that he may place his powers<br />
freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.<br />
There is no room in this for the divinization of<br />
a nation, of a class, let alone of an<br />
individual. Are we not all children of one<br />
father, as it is said in religious language?<br />
Indeed, even the divinization of humanity, as an<br />
abstract totality, would not be in the spirit of<br />
that ideal. It is only to the individual that a<br />
soul is given. And the high destiny of the<br />
individual is to serve rather than to rule, or<br />
to impose himself in any other way. If one looks<br />
at the substance rather than at the form, then<br />
one can take these words as expressing also the<br />
fundamental democratic position. The true<br />
democrat can worship his nation as little as can<br />
the man who is religious, in our sense of the<br />
term. What, then, in all this, is the function<br />
of education and of the school? They should help<br />
the young person to grow up in such a spirit<br />
that these fundamental principles should be to<br />
him as the air which he breathes. Teaching alone<br />
cannot do that. If one holds these high<br />
principles clearly before one's eyes, and<br />
compares them with the life and spirit of our<br />
times, then it appears glaringly that civilized<br />
mankind finds itself at present in grave danger,<br />
In the totalitarian states it is the rulers<br />
themselves who strive actually to destroy that<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/einstein.htm (3 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:23:27 AM]
Science and Religion-Albert Einstein<br />
spirit of humanity. In less threatened parts it<br />
is nationalism and intolerance, as well as the<br />
oppression of the individuals by economic means,<br />
which threaten to choke these most precious<br />
traditions. A realization of how great is the<br />
danger is spreading, however, among thinking<br />
people, and there is much search for means with<br />
which to meet the danger--means in the field of<br />
national and international politics, of<br />
legislation, or organization in general. Such<br />
efforts are, no doubt, greatly needed. Yet the<br />
ancients knew something- which we seem to have<br />
forgotten. All means prove but a blunt<br />
instrument, if they have not behind them a<br />
living spirit. But if the longing for the<br />
achievement of the goal is powerfully alive<br />
within us, then shall we not lack the strength<br />
to find the means for reaching the goal and for<br />
translating it into deeds. Next Article Segment<br />
II.<br />
It would not be difficult to come to an<br />
agreement as to what we understand by science.<br />
Science is the century-old endeavor to bring<br />
together by means of systematic thought the<br />
perceptible phenomena of this world into as<br />
thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put<br />
it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior<br />
reconstruction of existence by the process of<br />
conceptualization. But when asking myself what<br />
religion is I cannot think of the answer so<br />
easily. And even after finding an answer which<br />
may satisfy me at this particular moment, I<br />
still remain convinced that I can never under<br />
any circumstances bring together, even to a<br />
slight extent, the thoughts of all those who<br />
have given this question serious consideration.<br />
At first, then, instead of asking what religion<br />
is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the<br />
aspirations of a person who gives me the<br />
impression of being religious: a person who is<br />
religiously enlightened appears to me to be one<br />
who has, to the best of his ability, liberated<br />
himself from the fetters of his selfish desires<br />
and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/einstein.htm (4 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:23:27 AM]
Science and Religion-Albert Einstein<br />
aspirations to which he clings because of their<br />
superpersonal value. It seems to me that what is<br />
important is the force of this superpersonal<br />
content and the depth of the conviction<br />
concerning its overpowering meaningfulness,<br />
regardless of whether any attempt is made to<br />
unite this content with a divine Being, for<br />
otherwise it would not be possible to count<br />
Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities.<br />
Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the<br />
sense that he has no doubt of the significance<br />
and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and<br />
goals which neither require nor are capable of<br />
rational foundation. They exist with the same<br />
necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself.<br />
In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor<br />
of mankind to become clearly and completely<br />
conscious of these values and goals and<br />
constantly to strengthen and extend their<br />
effect. If one conceives of religion and science<br />
according to these definitions then a conflict<br />
between them appears impossible. For science can<br />
only ascertain what is, but not what should be,<br />
and outside of its domain value judgments of all<br />
kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other<br />
hand, deals only with evaluations of human<br />
thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak<br />
of facts and relationships between facts.<br />
According to this interpretation the well-known<br />
conflicts between religion and science in the<br />
past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension<br />
of the situation which has been described. For<br />
example, a conflict arises when a religious<br />
community insists on the absolute truthfulness<br />
of all statements recorded in the <strong>Bible</strong>. This<br />
means an intervention on the part of religion<br />
into the sphere of science; this is where the<br />
struggle of the Church against the doctrines of<br />
Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand,<br />
representatives of science have often made an<br />
attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with<br />
respect to values and ends on the basis of<br />
scientific method, and in this way have set<br />
themselves in opposition to religion. These<br />
conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.<br />
Now, even though the realms of religion and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/einstein.htm (5 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:23:27 AM]
Science and Religion-Albert Einstein<br />
science in themselves are clearly marked off<br />
from each other, nevertheless there exist<br />
between the two strong reciprocal relationships<br />
and dependencies. Though religion may be that<br />
which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless,<br />
learned from science, in the broadest sense,<br />
what means will contribute to the attainment of<br />
the goals it has set up. But science can only be<br />
created by those who are thoroughly imbued with<br />
the aspiration toward truth and understanding.<br />
This source of feeling, however, springs from<br />
the sphere of religion. To this there also<br />
belongs the faith in the possibility that the<br />
regulations valid for the world of existence are<br />
rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I<br />
cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without<br />
that profound faith. The situation may be<br />
expressed by an image: science without religion<br />
is lame, religion without science is blind.<br />
Though I have asserted above that in truth a<br />
legitimate conflict between religion and science<br />
cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this<br />
assertion once again on an essential point, with<br />
reference to the actual content of historical<br />
religions. This qualification has to do with the<br />
concept of God. During the youthful period of<br />
mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy<br />
created gods in man's own image, who, by the<br />
operations of their will were supposed to<br />
determine, or at any rate to influence, the<br />
phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the<br />
disposition of these gods in his own favor by<br />
means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in<br />
the religions taught at present is a sublimation<br />
of that old concept of the gods. Its<br />
anthropomorphic character is shown, for<br />
instance, by the fact that men appeal to the<br />
Divine Being in prayers and plead for the<br />
fulfillment of their wishes. Nobody, certainly,<br />
will deny that the idea of the existence of an<br />
omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal<br />
God is able to accord man solace, help, and<br />
guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it<br />
is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But,<br />
on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses<br />
attached to this idea in itself, which have been<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/einstein.htm (6 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:23:27 AM]
Science and Religion-Albert Einstein<br />
painfully felt since the beginning of history.<br />
That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every<br />
occurrence, including every human action, every<br />
human thought, and every human feeling and<br />
aspiration is also His work; how is it possible<br />
to think of holding men responsible for their<br />
deeds and thoughts before such an almighty<br />
Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He<br />
would to a certain extent be passing judgment on<br />
Himself. How can this be combined with the<br />
goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? The<br />
main source of the present-day conflicts between<br />
the spheres of religion and of science lies in<br />
this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of<br />
science to establish general rules which<br />
determine the reciprocal connection of objects<br />
and events in time and space. For these rules,<br />
or laws of nature, absolutely general validity<br />
is required--not proven. It is mainly a program,<br />
and faith in the possibility of its<br />
accomplishment in principle is only founded on<br />
partial successes. But hardly anyone could be<br />
found who would deny these partial successes and<br />
ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact<br />
that on the basis of such laws we are able to<br />
predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in<br />
certain domains with great precision and<br />
certainty is deeply embedded in the<br />
consciousness of the modern man, even though he<br />
may have grasped very little of the contents of<br />
those laws. He need only consider that planetary<br />
courses within the solar system may be<br />
calculated in advance with great exactitude on<br />
the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In<br />
a similar way, though not with the same<br />
precision, it is possible to calculate in<br />
advance the mode of operation of an electric<br />
motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless<br />
apparatus, even when dealing with a novel<br />
development. To be sure, when the number of<br />
factors coming into play in a phenomenological<br />
complex is too large, scientific method in most<br />
cases fails us. One need only think of the<br />
weather, in which case prediction even for a few<br />
days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one<br />
doubts that we are confronted with a causal<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/einstein.htm (7 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:23:27 AM]
Science and Religion-Albert Einstein<br />
connection whose causal components are in the<br />
main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are<br />
beyond the reach of exact prediction because of<br />
the variety of factors in operation, not because<br />
of any lack of order in nature. We have<br />
penetrated far less deeply into the regularities<br />
obtaining within the realm of living things, but<br />
deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the<br />
rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of<br />
the systematic order in heredity, and in the<br />
effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on<br />
the behavior of organic beings. What is still<br />
lacking here is a grasp of connections of<br />
profound generality, but not a knowledge of<br />
order in itself. The more a man is imbued with<br />
the ordered regularity of all events the firmer<br />
becomes his conviction that there is no room<br />
left by the side of this ordered regularity for<br />
causes of a different nature. For him neither<br />
the rule of human nor the rule of divine will<br />
exists as an independent cause of natural<br />
events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal<br />
God interfering with natural events could never<br />
be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for<br />
this doctrine can always take refuge in those<br />
domains in which scientific knowledge has not<br />
yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded<br />
that such behavior on the part of the<br />
representatives of religion would not only be<br />
unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is<br />
able to maintain itself not in clear light but<br />
only in the dark, will of necessity lose its<br />
effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to<br />
human progress. In their struggle for the<br />
ethical good, teachers of religion must have the<br />
stature to give up the doctrine of a personal<br />
God, that is, give up that source of fear and<br />
hope which in the past placed such vast power in<br />
the hands of priests. In their labors they will<br />
have to avail themselves of those forces which<br />
are capable of cultivating the Good, the True,<br />
and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is,<br />
to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably<br />
more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly<br />
presented in Herbert Samuel's book, Belief and<br />
Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/einstein.htm (8 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:23:27 AM]
Science and Religion-Albert Einstein<br />
refining process indicated they will surely<br />
recognize with joy that true religion has been<br />
ennobled and made more profound by scientific<br />
knowledge. If it is one of the goals of religion<br />
to liberate mankind as far as possible from the<br />
bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and<br />
fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in<br />
yet another sense. Although it is true that it<br />
is the goal of science to discover rules which<br />
permit the association and foretelling of facts,<br />
this is not its only aim. It also seeks to<br />
reduce the connections discovered to the<br />
smallest possible number of mutually independent<br />
conceptual elements. It is in this striving<br />
after the rational unification of the manifold<br />
that it encounters its greatest successes, even<br />
though it is precisely this attempt which causes<br />
it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to<br />
illusions. But whoever has undergone the intense<br />
experience of successful advances made in this<br />
domain is moved by profound reverence for the<br />
rationality made manifest in existence. By way<br />
of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching<br />
emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes<br />
and desires, and thereby attains that humble<br />
attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason<br />
incarnate in existence, and which, in its<br />
profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This<br />
attitude, however, appears to me to be<br />
religious, in the highest sense of the word. And<br />
so it seems to me that science not only purifies<br />
the religious impulse of the dross of its<br />
anthropomorphism but also contributes to a<br />
religious spiritualization of our understanding<br />
of life. The further the spiritual evolution of<br />
mankind advances, the more certain it seems to<br />
me that the path to genuine religiosity does not<br />
lie through the fear of life, and the fear of<br />
death, and blind faith, but through striving<br />
after rational knowledge. In this sense I<br />
believe that the priest must become a teacher if<br />
he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational<br />
mission.<br />
Read the Top 10 Reasons the Big Bang Theory is False.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/einstein.htm (9 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:23:27 AM]
Science and Religion-Albert Einstein<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/einstein.htm (10 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:23:27 AM]
What a Difference a Word Makes in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
What a Difference a Word Makes in Translating the<br />
C. S. Lewis, "Odd the way the less the <strong>Bible</strong> is read, the more it is translated."<br />
Genesis 1:2<br />
"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." KJV<br />
"a mighty wind swept over the waters." New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"a divine wind sweeping over the waters." New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." NWT<br />
"and the power of God was moving over the water." Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-TEV<br />
for more click here.<br />
Genesis 6:2<br />
"sons of the gods" New English <strong>Bible</strong>, S/Goodspeed<br />
"supernatural beings" TEV1, CEV<br />
"heavenly beings" TEV2, New Jewish P.S.,<br />
"the sons of God" NRSV, NKJV, NWT<br />
"beings from the spirit world" Living <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"angels" LXX Codex Alexandrinus, Moffatt<br />
"sons of heaven" NAB<br />
Matthew 5:22<br />
" and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire." Young's NWT<br />
" but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." KJV<br />
" anyone who says to his brother 'You cursed fool!' will have to answer for it in the fiery pit."<br />
Smith&Goodspeed<br />
for more click here.<br />
Zechariah 12:10<br />
"and they shall look unto me whom they have pierced" ASV, KJV<br />
"they will look at the one who they stabbed to death." TEV, NWT, JB<br />
compare John 19:37<br />
First Samuel 13:1<br />
"Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty two years" (NAS)<br />
"Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel" (KJV, NKJV)<br />
"Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years" (NIV)<br />
1 Samuel 28:13<br />
"I see a god coming up out of the earth" ASV, NWT, RSV<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/difference.htm (1 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:23:36 AM]
What a Difference a Word Makes in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
"I see a ghost rising from the earth" New Jerusalem<br />
" I saw gods ascending out of the earth" KJV, Douay<br />
"preternatural being" NAB<br />
"a spirit" CEV<br />
"a god-like form" MLB<br />
"divine being" Smith&Goodspeed, NRSV, NJPS<br />
"a ghostly form" REB, NEB<br />
1 Samuel 2:25<br />
"If one man sin against another, God shall judge him" ASV<br />
"If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him" KJV<br />
Exodus 21:6<br />
"then his master must take him before the judges" NIV<br />
"then his master shall bring him unto God" ASV<br />
"the judges who acted in God's name" NASB ftn<br />
"his master shall bring him to the gods" Douay<br />
2 Corinthians 3:14<br />
"But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of<br />
the OLD TESTAMENT; which [vail] is done away in Christ." KJV, NKJV<br />
"but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the OLD COVENANT the same<br />
veil remaineth, it not being revealed [to them] that it is done away in Christ." ASV, NWT<br />
Colossians 2:9<br />
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." KJV<br />
"For in Him all the fullness of the deity dwells in bodily form." NASB<br />
"For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity." TEV<br />
"For it is in him that the immensity of the Divine Wisdom corporately dwells." Schonfield<br />
"Because in him resides al the fulfillment of the divine." Lattimore<br />
John 6:7<br />
"About a year's wages" (God's Word to the Nations)<br />
"eight months' wages" (NIV)<br />
"six months' wages" (New RSV)<br />
"we would have to work a month" (New Century Version)<br />
"ten dollars" Phillips<br />
"forty dollars" Williams<br />
"fifty dollars" Berkely Version<br />
"two hundred denarii" REB<br />
"two hundred silver coins" TEV<br />
"a small fortune" NLT<br />
This is incredible! You would think translators would be more careful. Perhaps "dynamic equivalence"<br />
isn't such a great idea after all. The REB was careful in keeping it literal, despite being a free<br />
translation.<br />
Matthew 10:29<br />
"pet canary" The Message<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/difference.htm (2 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:23:36 AM]
What a Difference a Word Makes in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
"small bird" The New Life Testament<br />
"sparrow" NKJV<br />
1 Timothy 3:16<br />
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in<br />
the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."<br />
King James Version,Darby, Young's<br />
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh,<br />
Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up<br />
in glory." American Standard Version, RSV, NIV<br />
Revelation 22:12<br />
"Listen!" says Jesus. "I am coming soon!" Today's English Version<br />
"Yes, I am coming soon." New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Colossians 1:15<br />
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" KJV<br />
"who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation"Darby<br />
"his is the primacy over all creation" Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"superior to all created things" TEV<br />
Revelation 3:14<br />
" These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" KJV<br />
"These things saith the Amen, the witness--the faithful and true--the chief of the creation of God"<br />
Young's<br />
"the origin of God's creation" Smith&Goodspeed<br />
"the primeval source of God's creation" Living <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Hebrews 1:6<br />
"And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God<br />
worship him."American Standard Version, RSV, KJV, NAB, NWT(1970)<br />
"And let them bow before him--all messengers of God;"Young's<br />
"Let all the angels of God pay him homage."New English <strong>Bible</strong>, Schonfield<br />
"Let all God's angels do obeisance to him." New <strong>World</strong> Translation(1984)<br />
Matthew 24:36<br />
" But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."<br />
KJV, Young, Darby<br />
"But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father<br />
only." ASV, NIV, NASB etc compare Mark 13:32<br />
Psalms 45:6<br />
"Thy throne, O God, [is] age-during, and for ever, A sceptre of uprightness [Is] the sceptre of Thy<br />
kingdom." Young's<br />
"Your divine throne endures forever" Revised Standard Version<br />
"God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever" NWT<br />
Matthew 5:3<br />
"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs in the kingdom of heaven." KJV<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/difference.htm (3 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:23:36 AM]
What a Difference a Word Makes in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
"Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need..." NWT<br />
"God blesses those who realize their need of him..." New Living<br />
"You're blessed when you're at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God and his rule."<br />
Message<br />
Jude 4<br />
"For there are certain men crept in privily, [even] they who were of old written of beforehand unto this<br />
condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only<br />
Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." American Standard Version, KJV,NIV<br />
"the grace of our God perverting to lasciviousness, and our only Master, God, and Lord--Jesus<br />
Christ--denying" Young's Literal Translation, WEB, Green's<br />
Isaiah 11:11<br />
"Cush" KJV<br />
"Ethipia" RSV<br />
"Sudan" TEV<br />
"Nubia" NRSV<br />
Leviticus 26:3<br />
"images" KJV<br />
"sun-images" RV<br />
"incense altars" GOS<br />
1 Corinthians 15:51<br />
"Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed" ASV<br />
"We shall not all die but we shall be changed." New Berkeley Version<br />
Matthew 24:3<br />
"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the<br />
world?" American Standard Version, KJV<br />
`Tell us, when shall these be? and what [is] the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'<br />
Young's Literal Translation,Rotherham,NWT<br />
Revelation 1:11<br />
`I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last;' and, `What thou dost see, write in a scroll, and<br />
send to the seven assemblies that [are] in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to<br />
Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.' Young's, KJV<br />
"What thou seest, write in a book and send [it] to the seven churches: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna,<br />
and unto Pergamum, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea."<br />
American Standard Version, see also RSV, NAB etc.<br />
Acts 8:20<br />
"But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God<br />
with money." American Standard Version<br />
"But Peter answered him, 'May you and your money go to hell.'<br />
Acts 12:4<br />
"And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/difference.htm (4 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:23:36 AM]
What a Difference a Word Makes in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." King James Version<br />
"And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quarternions of soldiers to<br />
guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people." American Standard Version<br />
John 1:1:<br />
In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word. (Interlineary<br />
Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott)<br />
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.<br />
(Recovery Version)<br />
Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"<br />
Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"<br />
Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god<br />
Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine<br />
Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god<br />
New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"<br />
Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine<br />
Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature<br />
Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"<br />
Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos<br />
Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine<br />
Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was<br />
Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was<br />
Madsen, 1994, "the Word was a divine Being"<br />
Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos]<br />
Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].<br />
Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to<br />
God, yes itself divine Being/being]<br />
Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word]<br />
Baumgarten et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]<br />
Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]<br />
Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]<br />
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine<br />
kind]<br />
Pffflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind]<br />
Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word]<br />
Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]<br />
Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the<br />
Word/word)<br />
Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]<br />
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in<br />
all like God]<br />
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"<br />
Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was<br />
the Word/word]<br />
"At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all<br />
things in their order." John 1:1 Free 21st Century NT<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/difference.htm (5 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:23:36 AM]
What a Difference a Word Makes in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
"In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal]<br />
[Word] was a god." John 1:1 Literal 21st Century NT<br />
John 1:18<br />
King James Version: "the only-begotten Son<br />
New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong>: "the only-begotten God"<br />
An Inclusive Version: "God the only-Child"<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong>: "God the only Son"<br />
Revised Standard Version: "the only Son"<br />
Lattimore: "the only-born God"<br />
New English <strong>Bible</strong>: "God's only Son"<br />
The Original New Testament/Schonfield: "God's only-begotten"<br />
New International Version: "God the one and only"<br />
Ecclesiastes 3:11<br />
"world" KJV<br />
"eternity" NASB<br />
"past and future" REB<br />
"passage of time" NJB<br />
"the timeless" NAB<br />
"mystery" Moffatt<br />
"ignorance" GOS<br />
John 8:58<br />
The New American <strong>Bible</strong>: "I solemnly declare it: before Abraham came to be, I AM."<br />
The Living New Testament: "The absolute truth<br />
is that I was in existence before Abraham was<br />
ever born."<br />
The 20th Century New Testament: "before Abraham<br />
existed I was."<br />
Noyes, G.R. N.T. (1878)<br />
“Jesus said to them, ‘truly, truly do I say to you, from before Abraham<br />
was, I have been.”’<br />
Hanson, J.W. New Covenant (1884)<br />
“Jesus said to them, ‘truly, truly, I say to you, I am before Abraham was<br />
born.’”<br />
Kraeling, E.G. Four Gospels (1962)<br />
“With another amen-saying, Jesus declares to them that before<br />
Abraham was, He (Jesus) is (hint of His preexistence) .”<br />
Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T.“Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed.”<br />
Cotton Patch Version (1970)<br />
“To this Jesus replied, ‘I existed before Abraham was born.”’<br />
Ledyard, G.H. New Life Testament (1969)<br />
“Jesus said to them, ‘for sure I tell you, before Abraham was born, I<br />
was and sum and always will be.’,,<br />
Dr. E.C. Dymond N.T. (1972)<br />
“’Yes, indeed!; said Jesus: ‘He saw me in prospect. The fact is, that<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/difference.htm (6 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:23:36 AM]
What a Difference a Word Makes in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
long before Abraham was conceived in his mother’s womb, that<br />
individual who I now am had been conceived in God’s mind: He had<br />
completed the plan and specifications, so to speak, and therefore He<br />
was able to give Abraham a mental preview of me’”.<br />
Good News for the <strong>World</strong> (1969)<br />
“Jesus answer, ‘I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was<br />
born.’”<br />
The New Testament, An American Translation<br />
Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham<br />
was born."<br />
The Complete <strong>Bible</strong>, An American Translation<br />
Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham<br />
was born."<br />
New Believers <strong>Bible</strong>, New Living Translation:<br />
"I existed before Abraham was even born."<br />
The New Testament, C. B. Williams: "I solemnly<br />
say to you, I existed before Abraham was born."<br />
The Book, New Testament: The absolute truth is<br />
that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."<br />
The Living <strong>Bible</strong>: "I was in existence before Abraham<br />
was ever born."<br />
Lattimore: "Truly, truly I tell<br />
you, I am from before Abraham was born."<br />
The New Testament, From the Peshitta Text,<br />
Lamsa: "Before Abraham was born, I was."<br />
An American Translation, In The Language of<br />
Today, Beck: "I was before Abraham."<br />
New Testament Contemporary English Version:<br />
"I tell you.that even before Abraham was, I was,<br />
and I am."<br />
The Unvarnished New Testament: "Before<br />
Abraham was born, I have already been."<br />
The New Testament, Klist & Lilly: "I am here-and<br />
I was before Abraham."<br />
The New Testament in the Language of the People,<br />
Williams: "I existed before Abraham was born."<br />
The New Testament, Noyes: "From before Abraham<br />
was, I have been."<br />
A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: "Before<br />
Abraham was, I have been."<br />
Wakefield, G. N.T. (1795)<br />
“Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham<br />
was born, I am He.”<br />
The Syriac New Testament, Murdock: "Before<br />
Abraham existed I was."<br />
The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels,<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/difference.htm (7 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:23:36 AM]
What a Difference a Word Makes in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
Burkitt& The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,<br />
Blake & Briere "Before Abraham came to be, I was."<br />
The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant,<br />
Sharpe: "I was before Abraham was born."<br />
The 20th Century New Testament 1904: "Before<br />
Abraham existed I was already what I am."<br />
The New Testament, Stage: "Before Abraham<br />
came to be, I was."<br />
International <strong>Bible</strong> Translators 1981<br />
“Jesus said to them, ‘I am telling the truth: I was alive before Abraham<br />
was born!’”<br />
The Coptic Version the New Testament in the<br />
Southern Dialect, Horner: "Before Abraham became,<br />
I, I am being."<br />
The Documents of the New Testament, Wade:<br />
"Before Abraham came into being, I have existed."<br />
Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961)<br />
“Jesus answered them: ‘Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham<br />
was born.”’<br />
The Concise Gospel and The acts, Christianson:<br />
"I existed even before Abraham was born."<br />
A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida:<br />
"Before Abraham existed, I existed, or.I have existed."<br />
The Simple English <strong>Bible</strong>: "I was alive before<br />
Abraham was born."<br />
The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you<br />
for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born."<br />
The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version,<br />
Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham."<br />
Swann, G. N.T. (1947)<br />
‘!Jesus said to them, ‘verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before<br />
Abraham was born”<br />
Psalms 8:5<br />
"Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and splendour."<br />
Darby, KJV<br />
"a little lower than the gods." <strong>Bible</strong> in Basic English<br />
"a little less than a god" New English <strong>Bible</strong>, New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"a little lower than the heavenly beings" New International Version<br />
"a little lower than God" New American Standard <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"you have made him inferior to yourself" Good News <strong>Bible</strong>(TEV)<br />
"a little less than godlike ones" New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
compare Hebrews 2:7,9<br />
Isaiah 9:6<br />
"For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/difference.htm (8 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:23:36 AM]
What a Difference a Word Makes in <strong>Bible</strong> Translation<br />
be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father,<br />
Prince of Peace." New <strong>World</strong> Translation, KJV, NIV<br />
"Wonder-Counsellor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace." Byington<br />
"Wonderful Counsellor, The Mighty One, The Everlasting God, The Prince of Peace." Lamsa<br />
"A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince." Moffatt<br />
"Wonderful counsellor is God almighty, Father Forever, Prince of Peace." Smith&Goodspeed<br />
"in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like...." New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father...."Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Titus 2:13<br />
"awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" Darby<br />
"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus<br />
Christ" King James Version<br />
"of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ." New American <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us,<br />
Christ Jesus." New <strong>World</strong> Translation<br />
2Peter 1:1<br />
"in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" Young's<br />
"through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" King James<br />
"in the righteousness of our God and [the] Saviour Jesus Christ" American Standard Version, NWT<br />
"beneficence of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ" Schonfield<br />
more to come..................<br />
For some of the above information I am indebted to the <strong>Bible</strong> Museum and Biblical Research Foundation<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
December 25 2000<br />
Back to Main <strong>Bible</strong> Page<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/difference.htm (9 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:23:36 AM]
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
Perceived Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Unless otherwise stated, all quotations are from the New Revised Standard<br />
Version-Catholic Edition<br />
Many apparent contradictions can be explained simply by reading the context. Some<br />
are copyists errors and many others can be explained if only we knew how to read<br />
the original languages. It helps often to use more than one translation because<br />
Hebrew and Greek have their peculiarities that make them difficult to render in<br />
English or other languages.<br />
"The peculiarities of the Oriental idiom are another prolife source of<br />
discrepancies. The people of the East are fervid and impassioned in their modes of<br />
thought and expression. They think and speak in poetry. Bold metaphors and<br />
startling hyperboles abound in their writings and conversation. The shepherd,"<br />
says Eichhorn, "only speaks in the soul of the shepherd, and the primitive<br />
Oriental only speaks in the soul of another Oriental. Without an intimate<br />
acquaintance with the customs of pastoral life, without an accurate knowledge of<br />
the East and it's manners, without a close intimacy with the manner of thinking<br />
and speaking in the uncivilized world,.....you easily become a traitor to the<br />
book, when you would be it's deliverer and interpreter."<br />
Professor Stuart: "I do not, and would not, summon them [the books of scripture]<br />
before the tribunal of Occidental criticism. Asia is one world; Europe and<br />
America, another. Let an Asiatic be tried before his own tribunal. To pass just<br />
sentence upon him, we must enter into his feelings, views, methods of reasoning<br />
and thinking, and place ourselves in the midst of the circumstances which<br />
surrounded him."<br />
Lowth, on Metaphors: "The Orientals are attached to this style of composition;<br />
and many flights which our ears-too fastidious, perhaps, in these respects-will<br />
scarcely bear, must be allowed to the general freedom and boldness of these<br />
writers."<br />
Again, he speaks of the difficulties which arise in reading authors "where<br />
everything is depicted and illustrated with the greatest variety and abundance of<br />
imagery; they must be still more numerous in such of the poets as are foreign and<br />
ancient-in the Orientals above all foreigners; they being the farthest removed<br />
from our customs and manners, and, of all the Orientals, more especially in the<br />
Hebrews." pp. 14, 15, Alleged Discrepancies of the <strong>Bible</strong> by John W. Haley<br />
Lets take a look at some examples that have floated around the internet via email.<br />
David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand<br />
(1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;<br />
Answer: It is a fact there are about 20 numerical discrepancies between the<br />
Samuels,<br />
the Kings and the Chronicles. Why? It seems to be a problem with numbers.<br />
The sopherim, instead of writing out the numbers completely, would just<br />
write a letter, like ALEPH and include dots over it. An ALEPH with 2 dots<br />
indicated 1000. But over time, the manuscript became worn, brittle or moth-eaten,<br />
so the dots were hard to distinguish. Other ways were tried, like the Egyptian<br />
heriatic style, but that produced smudging.This was a problem also with the way<br />
decades were marked. The original text had the right numbers, it was the copyists<br />
and their limited resources that are to blame.(Encyclopedia of <strong>Bible</strong> Difficulties-<br />
Archer)<br />
If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true<br />
(John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31);<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions.htm (1 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
Answer: In John 5, his witness would not be true if he was without the Father.<br />
In John 8 his witness is true because he acknowledges whence he came<br />
from(which is the Father in heaven of course).<br />
Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons<br />
(2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;<br />
Answer: Merab, the sister of Michal, was the wife of Adriel and bore him the<br />
five sons mentioned. But Merab dying early, her royal sister Michal, having<br />
been rejected by David, brought up the five boys. Because<br />
of this they were spoken of as the children of Michal rather than of Merab.<br />
In agreement with this the Isaac Leeser translation (7th Ed., 1922, Bloch<br />
Publishing Co.) reads a 2 Samuel 21:8: “And the five sons of Michal the<br />
daughter of Saul, whom she had brought up for Adriel.” A footnote reads:<br />
“As Michal was David’s wife; but the children were those of Merab, the<br />
oldest daughter of Saul, who were probably educated by her sister.”<br />
Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);<br />
Answer: Both are true. Lot was Abrams' "spiritual brother". "for we are brethren"<br />
Genesis 13:8 Abram says of Lot(NKJV)<br />
Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by<br />
Ishmaelites (Gen.39:1);<br />
Answer: Midianites are Ishmaelites, both are mention frequently in context to<br />
each other in Genesis 37.<br />
Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young<br />
Amalekite (2 Sam.1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);<br />
Answer: Saul killed himself while in battle with the philistines, so it is a<br />
direct result of the Philistines that he died. The Amalekite bragged that he<br />
killed Saul to garner favors for himself.<br />
The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth<br />
forever;<br />
Answer: 2 different uses of earth in 2 different languages with 2 different<br />
contexts. Peter also says the heavens will pass away, so this scripture<br />
is figurative, the former scripture deals with a literal earth.<br />
Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem<br />
(2 Chron. 35:24);<br />
Answer: After Josiah was fatally wounded in Megiddo, “his servants took him<br />
down from the chariot and had him ride in the second war chariot that was his<br />
and brought him to Jerusalem. Thus he died and was buried in the graveyard<br />
of his forefathers; and all Judah and Jerusalem were mourning over Josiah.”<br />
(2 Chron. 35:22-24)There is a timeline and distance here of about 60<br />
miles. It is all a matter of perspective.<br />
Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after<br />
six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days;<br />
Answer: Apparently Matthew and Mark did not count the first and last days;<br />
rather, they counted six whole days as intervening between the promise of the<br />
Lord Jesus to his apostles and the transfiguration itself. (Matt. 17:1; Mark<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions.htm (2 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
9:2) Luke, we should note, does not profess to give the exact interval. He<br />
reports that the transfiguration occurred “about eight days after these<br />
words.” (Luke 9:28) Since Luke counts portions of the first and last<br />
days as whole days, he prefers to give the period in round numbers—“about eight<br />
days.” Thus Luke reported the number of days from a different viewpoint,<br />
and there is really no contradiction.<br />
Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:8),<br />
tenth (Jer.52:12) day of the fifth month.<br />
Answer: The Soncino Books of the <strong>Bible</strong> (Volume of Jeremiah, p. 353) states:<br />
“The interval of three days may be accounted for as representing the date of<br />
Nebuzaradan’s arrival on the scene and the commencement of operations.”<br />
It would appear that Nebuzaradan arrived at Jerusalem on the seventh day<br />
and made his survey from his camp outside the city walls. Finally on the<br />
tenth day he actually entered the city.<br />
The above list was taken from a list that was sent around by email from an<br />
atheist. Next I will tackle a list by Freedom From Religion Foundation at:<br />
http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/lfif/contra.html<br />
The authors state:Please do not distribute copies of this chapter in this form. So<br />
I will make a very different form where I will tackle the questions one at a time.<br />
I have never known the reason why atheists feel the need to proselytize their<br />
"FAITH"!! Here it goes:<br />
Should we kill?<br />
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."<br />
Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."<br />
vs.<br />
Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by<br />
his side, . . .<br />
and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."<br />
I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten<br />
many of the<br />
people with a great slaughter."<br />
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and<br />
utterly destroy<br />
all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant<br />
and suckling, ox<br />
and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and<br />
utterly destroyed all<br />
the people with the edge of the sword."<br />
Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and<br />
stoned him<br />
with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."<br />
Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in<br />
pieces, and their<br />
women with children shall be ripped up."<br />
Answer: The word "kill" is mistranslated here. It should be (ratsahh) Murder. The<br />
fact is that the <strong>Bible</strong> never uses the term ratsahh (murder) regarding any of those<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions.htm (3 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
wars. When the Israelites warred at God's command, they weren't acting illegally.<br />
They were authorized by and were being directed by the Supreme giver of Laws.<br />
(Isa. 33:22; Ps. 19:7)<br />
Should we tell lies?<br />
Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness."<br />
Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."<br />
vs.<br />
I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy<br />
prophets, and the<br />
Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."<br />
II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,<br />
that they<br />
should believe a lie."<br />
Also, compare Joshua 2:4-6 with James 2:25.<br />
Answer: "God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is<br />
false." Are we to understand, then, that God originates the strong delusion to<br />
make them believe falsehood? No; he is not the source of any lie. Referring to his<br />
prophecy and his covenant, his Word says: "God is not a man that he should lie,<br />
neither a son of man that he should feel sorry. Hath he said it and will he not do<br />
it, and has he spoken and will he not carry it out?" "The Eminence of Israel will<br />
not deceive." (Num. 23:19 and 1 Sam. 15:29, NWT, ASV) So Jehovah is not the source<br />
of the "strong delusion" or "operation of error."<br />
How, then, does he "send" it upon them? In that he does not prevent it but<br />
permits it to go to them, just as he did in the case of King Ahab. In the<br />
Scriptures the Hebrew verb meaning "send" is many times translated "let go," as<br />
when Jehovah said to Pharaoh: "Send my people away" (NWT; Young); or, "Let my<br />
people go." (KJV; ASV; RSV; at Ex. 5:1; 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:3) Therefore<br />
the NWT vindicates Jehovah in rendering 2 Thessalonians 2:11: "So that is why God<br />
lets an operation of error go to them that they may get to believing the lie." God<br />
does not make them believe the lie any more than he originates the lie, but he<br />
lets it go to them because they prefer the mistake for the real thing. So he lets<br />
them use their own free will and become responsible for their own destruction.<br />
Should we steal?<br />
Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."<br />
Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him."<br />
vs.<br />
Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians."<br />
Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians."<br />
Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the<br />
village . . . ye shall<br />
find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.<br />
And if any man<br />
ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord<br />
hath need of<br />
him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto<br />
them, Why loose ye<br />
the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions.htm (4 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
Answer:Do you notice that they will only use other versions of the <strong>Bible</strong> when it<br />
suits their purposes, other than that they will stick to the awkwardly worded King<br />
James. If you actually read the entire context in the NRSV you will notice that<br />
the items were "asked" for. That is alot different than stealing.<br />
As for Luke 19:29-34-Again...read the context. There was no argument from the<br />
owners, especially since the colt "had never been ridden." It sounds like a<br />
previous arrangement to me, and it is very likely the colt was returned to its<br />
owner as there was no need to keep it for any great length of time.<br />
Shall we keep the sabbath?<br />
Exodus 20:8 "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy."<br />
Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be<br />
put to<br />
death."<br />
Numbers 15:32,36 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness,<br />
they found a<br />
man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. . . . And all the congregation<br />
brought him<br />
without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord<br />
commanded Moses."<br />
vs.<br />
Isaiah 1:13 "The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot<br />
away with; it<br />
is iniquity."<br />
John 5:16 "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him,<br />
because he<br />
had done these things on the sabbath day."<br />
Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in<br />
respect of an<br />
holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."<br />
Answer: Again, if you read the context at Isaiah chapter 1 you will see that the<br />
observances of the "sinful nation" was akin to hypocracy. "They have become a<br />
burden to me" NRSV. The entire chapter was dedicated to the "Wickedness of Judah."<br />
As for John 5:16, Jesus was well aware of how the Pharisees abused the law,<br />
especially the sabbath. He said,"The sabbath was made for humankind, and not<br />
humankind for the sabbath, so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath." Mark<br />
2:27,28 NRSV There is no prohibition for doing good.<br />
As for Colossians 2:16, this is after the death of Jesus. "Christ redeemed us from<br />
the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us." NRSV<br />
Christians are no longer under the law of Moses, so the old holy days, observances<br />
and sabbaths were no more as they were part of the law. "But we are now discharged<br />
from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under<br />
the old written code, but in the new life of the Spirit." 1Cor 7:6 NRSV<br />
Shall we make graven images?<br />
Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness<br />
of anything<br />
that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water."<br />
Leviticus 26:1 "Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you<br />
up a standing<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions.htm (5 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone."<br />
Deuteronomy 27:15 "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image."<br />
vs.<br />
Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt<br />
thou make<br />
them."<br />
I Kings 7:15,16,23,25 "For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass . . . and<br />
two chapiters of<br />
molten brass . . . And he made a molten sea . . . it stood upon twelve oxen .<br />
. . [and so on]"<br />
Answer: Again, the contexts of the above verses show that these idols and images<br />
were not to be worshipped.(Exodus 20:5; Leviticus 26:1)The entire scriptures are<br />
never mentioned because that would expose how they have twisted the scriptures.<br />
Remember that Moses made a copper (bronze) serpent so that the Isrealites that<br />
looked at it were healed of their snake bites.( Numbers 21:8,9) But as soon as<br />
this copper serpent became and object of worship, it was destroyed-2 Kings 18:4<br />
Are we saved through works?<br />
Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."<br />
Romans 3:20,28 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be<br />
justified in his<br />
sight."<br />
Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law,<br />
but by the faith<br />
of Jesus Christ."<br />
vs.<br />
James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith<br />
only."<br />
Matthew 19:16-21 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what<br />
good<br />
thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he [Jesus] said unto him .<br />
. . keep the<br />
commandments. . . . The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept<br />
from my<br />
youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go<br />
and sell that thou<br />
hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven."<br />
Answer: The top three scriptures pertain to the Jewish Law of Moses(See "Shall we<br />
keep the Sabbath" above). In Paul's time, the Christian consisted of mainly Jewish<br />
members, so the transition from the old Jewish law to the new Christian way was<br />
not always easy. The context of the Ephesians 2 mentioned above dealt with<br />
circumcision, which was a work of the Law of Moses(Jewish), but no longer a<br />
requirement for Christians.<br />
Should good works be seen?<br />
Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good<br />
works."<br />
I Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that . . .<br />
they may by your<br />
good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions.htm (6 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
vs.<br />
Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of<br />
them . . . that<br />
thine alms may be in secret."<br />
Matthew 23:3,5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works. . . . all their<br />
works they do for to<br />
be seen of men."<br />
Answer: The bottom two verses deal with hypocrital Pharisees and the<br />
superficiality of their works. And what works are those? The context at Matthew 23<br />
will tell you."They make their phylacteries long and their fringes long. They love<br />
to have the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and to<br />
be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have people call them rabbi.<br />
How does this compare to the light in Matthew 5? Ephesians 5:9 says, "The fruit of<br />
the light is found in all that is good and right and true.<br />
The pharisees were self-serving as opposed to Christians who help others to come<br />
to the good news(gospel) of Christ. Matt 24:14;28:19,20<br />
Also, the exemplary conduct of Christians should make them stand out noticeably<br />
from among those who are not acquainted with the <strong>Bible</strong>'s message. Their kindness,<br />
generosity, self control, love and other fine qualities should make them appear as<br />
lights in a cruel, loveless world. Galatians 5:22<br />
Should we own slaves?<br />
Leviticus 25:45-46 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn<br />
among you, of<br />
them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be<br />
your bondmen<br />
forever."<br />
Genesis 9:25 "And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants<br />
shall he be unto<br />
his brethren."<br />
Exodus 21:2,7 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in<br />
the seventh<br />
he shall go out free for nothing. . . . And if a man sell his daughter to be a<br />
maidservant, she<br />
shall not go out as the manservants do."<br />
Joel 3:8 "And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the<br />
children of Judah,<br />
and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord<br />
hath spoken it."<br />
Luke 12:47,48 [Jesus speaking] "And that servant, which knew his lord's will,<br />
and prepared<br />
not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many<br />
stripes. But he that<br />
knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few<br />
stripes."<br />
Colossians 3:22 "Servants, obey in all things your masters."<br />
vs.<br />
Isaiah 58:6 "Undo the heavy burdens . . . let the oppressed go free, . . .<br />
break every yoke."<br />
Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even<br />
Christ."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions.htm (7 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
Answer:First off, Isaiah 58 had to do with FASTING because it was at this time<br />
that the nation of Isreal had let FASTING slip by.<br />
Matthew 23:10 has to do with religious titles....and of course all this can be<br />
found out by simply reading the WHOLE scripture or the surrounding context.<br />
Servitude continued even in early christian times. But we are thinking of slavery<br />
in the modern sense. The Hebrew word for "slave" comes from "evedh" which can mean<br />
people owned by others(Gen 12:16; Ex.20:17), subjects of a king(2Sam. 11:21; 2Chr.<br />
10:7) subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal<br />
service, which includes cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers<br />
etc whether owned by others or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10;<br />
32:9). In respectful address, a Jew, instead of using the first person pronoun,<br />
would at times speak of himself as a servant ('e'vedh) of the one to whom he was<br />
talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8) 'E'vedh was used in referring<br />
to servants, or worshipers, of Jehovah(Yahweh) generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23)<br />
and, more specifically, to spokesmen for God, such as Moses. (Jos 1:1, 2; 24:29;<br />
2Ki 21:10) Even if you did not worship Jehovah, one who performed a service that<br />
was in harmony with the divine will could be spoken of as God's servant, an<br />
example being King Nebuchadnezzar.-Jer 27:6.<br />
The Greek term dou'los is the equivalent to the Hebrew word 'e'vedh. It is used<br />
with reference to persons owned by others (Mt 8:9; 10:24, 25; 13:27); devoted<br />
servants of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, whether human (Ac 2:18; 4:29; Ro 1:1;<br />
Ga 1:10) or angelic (Re 19:10, where the word syn'dou·los [fellow slave] appears);<br />
and, in a figurative sense, to persons in slavery to sin (Joh 8:34; Ro 6:16-20) or<br />
corruption (2Pe 2:19).<br />
Does God change his mind?<br />
Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."<br />
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,<br />
that he should<br />
repent."<br />
Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do<br />
it; I will not go<br />
back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."<br />
James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither<br />
shadow of<br />
turning."<br />
vs.<br />
Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto<br />
his people."<br />
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . .<br />
. And the Lord<br />
said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . .<br />
for it repenteth<br />
me that I have made him."<br />
Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would<br />
do unto them;<br />
and he did it not."<br />
See also II Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50.<br />
See Genesis 18:23-33, where Abraham gets God to change his mind about the<br />
minimum<br />
number of righteous people in Sodom required to avoid destruction, bargaining<br />
down from<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions.htm (8 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
fifty to ten. (An omniscient God must have known that he was playing with<br />
Abraham's hopes<br />
for mercy--he destroyed the city anyway.)<br />
Answer: As for omniscience, his fore-knowing is an ability he has...but does not<br />
exercise in many cases. That is why he the <strong>Bible</strong> says at 2Peter 3:9, "The Lord is<br />
not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you,<br />
not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.<br />
God has not changed...he is still the same God as he was thousands and millions of<br />
years ago. His standards are the same as are his justice and mercy. The word<br />
"repent" is of course from the King James. The word has a broader meaning of "was<br />
sorry" NKJV, "regrets" NWT, "relented" NASB. It is this passion and mercy for his<br />
subjects that lead him to say, "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked,<br />
says the Lord GOD, and not rather that they turn from their ways and live? Ezekiel<br />
18:23<br />
"He...showed compassion("repented" KJV) according to the abundance of his<br />
steadfast love." Psalms 106:45<br />
Are we punished for our parents' sins?<br />
Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of<br />
the fathers<br />
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in<br />
Deuteronomy 5:9)<br />
Exodus 34:6-7 " . . . The Lord God, merciful and gracious, . . . that will by<br />
no means clear<br />
the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon<br />
the children's<br />
children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."<br />
I Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, . . ."<br />
vs.<br />
Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."<br />
Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children,<br />
neither shall the<br />
children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for<br />
his own sin."<br />
Answer: Both Ezekiel and Deuteronomy concern the death penalty, while the other<br />
scriptures apply to idolatry, for "God is a jealous God." Another example of this<br />
might be taken from the NT. "Then came Peter and said to him, Lord, how oft shall<br />
my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times? Jesus saith unto<br />
him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven."<br />
Matthew 18:21-22 ASV<br />
But we find that sinning against God's spirit bears NO forgiveness. Matt 12:31<br />
Is God good or evil?<br />
Psalm 145:9 "The Lord is good to all."<br />
Deuteronomy 32:4 "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."<br />
vs.<br />
Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."<br />
Again, the King James is used here...try, "I form light and create darkness."NRSV<br />
Lamentations 3:38 "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions.htm (9 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
good?"<br />
This is in keeping with, "Doth the fountain send forth from the same opening sweet<br />
water and bitter?" James 3:11 ASV<br />
Jeremiah 18:11 "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and<br />
devise a device<br />
against you."<br />
By reading the rest of the scripture you will see that Jehovah(YHWH) wanted them<br />
to turn from their evil ways.<br />
Ezekiel 20:25,26 "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments<br />
whereby they<br />
should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused<br />
to pass through the<br />
fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end<br />
that they might<br />
know that I am the Lord."<br />
Answer: We are all free moral agents. Ezekiel 20:25 can best be explained by<br />
Psalms 81:12:"So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN<br />
COUNSELS."<br />
Does God tempt people?<br />
James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be<br />
tempted with evil,<br />
neither tempteth he any man."<br />
vs.<br />
Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt<br />
Abraham."<br />
Answer: Here you have 2 different words in 2 different languages again. Modern<br />
accurate translations like the NRSV have "tested" instead of "tempted."<br />
Is God peaceable?<br />
Romans 15:33 "The God of peace."<br />
Isaiah 2:4 ". . . and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their<br />
spears into<br />
pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall<br />
they learn war any<br />
more."<br />
vs.<br />
Exodus 15:3 "The Lord is a man of war."<br />
Joel 3:9-10 "Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw<br />
near; let<br />
them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into<br />
spears: let the<br />
weak say, I am strong."<br />
Answer: It is a fact that the nation of Israel fought in wars(see Exodus above),<br />
but Isaiah points to a time when "he makes wars cease" Psalms 46:9. It is after<br />
this point that "he will wipe out every tear from their eyes. Death will be no<br />
more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have<br />
passed away." You have to look at the <strong>Bible</strong> as a cohesive whole, instead of<br />
picking scriptures at random.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions.htm (10 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
Was Jesus peaceable?<br />
John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you."<br />
Acts 10:36 "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching<br />
peace by Jesus<br />
Christ."<br />
Luke 2:14 " . . . on earth peace, good will toward men."<br />
vs.<br />
Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to<br />
send peace,<br />
but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and<br />
the daughter<br />
against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a<br />
man's foes<br />
shall be they of his own household."<br />
Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, . . . he that hath no sword, let him sell<br />
his garment, and<br />
buy one."<br />
Answer: In Luke 22, obtaining a sword was for reasons of self defence as he was to<br />
be delivered up to die. But when he came up against a large group, he instructed<br />
his follower to "Put your sword back into its place, for all who take the sword<br />
perish by the sword." Matthew 26:52<br />
For Matthew 10:34, Jesus' ministry work brought divisions within families (Lu<br />
12:51-53), but it was because of his adherence to, and proclamation of, God's<br />
righteous standards and truth. These division resulted because many individuals<br />
were sour and critical against these truths while others accepted them. (Joh 8:40,<br />
44-47; 15:22-25; 17:14)<br />
But it is after all this that we have peace. Revelation 21:3,4<br />
Shall we call people names?<br />
Matthew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire."<br />
[Jesus<br />
speaking]<br />
vs.<br />
Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind." [Jesus speaking]<br />
Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."<br />
Matthew 5:22 refers to those wrongly judging a brother(see Romans 14:10-12;<br />
Matthew 7:1,2), while Jesus was able to back up his statements.(See Matthew 17-22;<br />
Matthew 15:3)<br />
Has anyone seen God?<br />
John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."<br />
Exodus 33:20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and<br />
live."<br />
John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God<br />
[Jesus], he hath<br />
seen the Father."<br />
I John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions.htm (11 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
vs.<br />
Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face."<br />
Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh<br />
unto his<br />
friend."<br />
Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon<br />
a throne, high<br />
and lifted up, and his train filled the temple."<br />
Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye<br />
seeth thee."<br />
Answer: When an angel of God appeared to Manoah and his wife they viewed this<br />
representative as God himself: “Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD.<br />
And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen<br />
God.”—Judg. 13:3-22. The <strong>Bible</strong> does not hide this fact. Exodus 3:2 says,"And the<br />
Angel of Jehovah appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a<br />
thorn-bush: and he looked, and behold, the thorn-bush burned with fire, and the<br />
thorn-bush was not being consumed." But later it says,"And he said, I am the God<br />
of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And<br />
Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look at God.(Darby) God uses angels to<br />
represent him, and he has also used Jesus to reveal the "God no man hath seen."<br />
John 1:18<br />
Also, Matthew 18:10 states that "angels continually see the face of my Father in<br />
heaven." So face to face simply means to speak to angels.<br />
How many Gods are there?<br />
Deuteronomy 6:4 "The Lord our God is one Lord."<br />
vs.<br />
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image."<br />
Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us,<br />
to know<br />
good and evil."<br />
I John 5:7 "And there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the<br />
Word, and the<br />
Holy Ghost: and these three are one."<br />
Answer: The scripture at 1John 5:7 isn't in any reliable <strong>Bible</strong> version. It was<br />
added later by an unscrupulous scribe. Of course, infidels.org knows this since<br />
the have the New Revised Standard Version(NRSV). As for the other scriptures in<br />
Genesis, the rabbi's have always understood this to be God talking to the angels.<br />
The sons of God were with him at creation, as is stated at Job 38:4-7 "Where wast<br />
thou when I founded the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who set the<br />
measures thereof--if thou knowest? or who stretched a line upon it? Whereupon were<br />
the foundations thereof sunken? or who laid its corner-stone, When the morning<br />
stars sang together, and all the SONS OF GOD shouted for joy?(Darby)<br />
Are we all sinners?<br />
Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Romans<br />
3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."<br />
Psalm 14:3 "There is none that doeth good, no, not one."<br />
vs.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions.htm (12 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
Job 1:1 "There was a man . . . who name was Job; and that man was perfect and<br />
upright."<br />
Genesis 7:1 "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the<br />
ark; for<br />
thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."<br />
Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the<br />
commandments and<br />
ordinances of the Lord blameless."<br />
Answer: The word "perfect" in Job 1:1 comes from the hebrew word TAM which also<br />
means "plain, undefiled and upright." Most versions choose UPRIGHT for even Job<br />
says that he is not perfect at Job 7:1.<br />
In Luke 1 Zechariah is said to be blameless, but Zechariah, the father of John the<br />
Baptizer, manifested lack of faith to the angel Gabriel. (Lu 1:18-20)So the word<br />
blameless is a relative term in the original languages.<br />
Should we swear an oath?<br />
Numbers 30:2 "If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath . . . he<br />
shall do<br />
according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."<br />
Genesis 21:22-24,31 " . . . swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal<br />
falsely with<br />
me . . . And Abraham said, I will swear. . . . Wherefore he called that place<br />
Beersheba<br />
["well of the oath"]; because there they sware both of them."<br />
Hebrews 6:13-17 "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear<br />
by no<br />
greater, he sware by himself . . . for men verily swear by the greater: and an<br />
oath for<br />
confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more<br />
abundantly to shew<br />
unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an<br />
oath."<br />
See also Genesis 22:15-19, Genesis 31:53, and Judges 11:30-39.<br />
vs.<br />
Matthew 5:34-37 "But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven . . .<br />
nor by the earth<br />
. . . . Neither shalt thou swear by thy head . . . . But let your<br />
communication be, Yea, yea;<br />
Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."<br />
James 5:12 ". . . swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither<br />
by any other oath:<br />
but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."<br />
Answer: Jesus Christ, in his Sermon on the Mount at Matthew 5, was correcting the<br />
Jews in the practice of making light, loose, and indiscriminate taking of oaths.<br />
It had become common among them to swear by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem,<br />
and even by their own heads. But since heaven was "God's throne," earth is his<br />
"footstool," Jerusalem is his kingly city, and one's head was dependent on<br />
God-giving life, making such oaths was the same as taking oaths in the name of<br />
God. It was not to be treated lightly. Jesus did not hereby prohibit the making of<br />
all oaths, for he himself was under the Law of Moses(Mosaic Law), which required<br />
oaths under certain circumstances. In fact, when Jesus himself was on trial he was<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions.htm (13 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]
Are there Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>?<br />
put under oath by the high priest, and he did not object to this, but gave an<br />
answer. (Mt 26:63, 64) Jesus was simply showing that a person should not have two<br />
standards. It is that better standard that was carried thru to James 5:12<br />
More On Page 2<br />
September 30 1999<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions.htm (14 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]
More Alleged Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Percieved Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Part 2<br />
Back to Page 1<br />
Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version<br />
1901<br />
When was Jesus crucified?<br />
Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him."<br />
vs.<br />
John 19:14-15 "And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold<br />
your King! But<br />
they cried out . . . crucify him."<br />
Answer: Remember that they did not have watches strapped to their wrists in those<br />
days. Time was doubtless mostly calculated by observing the sun, which could have<br />
been obscured by haze or clouds, and at best would be only an a guesstimate. We<br />
should remember that John wrote his account some 65 years after these events<br />
happened. So put all these factors together and you have a time discrepancy. The<br />
impalement/crucifixion procedure happened in stages(Luke 23:26; John 19:17)<br />
Different persons might give different times for the impalement/crucifixion,<br />
depending on the particular stage of the procedure when they might note the time.<br />
Shall we obey the law?<br />
I Peter 2:13 "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man . . . to the king, as<br />
supreme; Or unto<br />
governors."<br />
Matthew 22:21 "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's."<br />
See also<br />
Romans 13:1,7 and Titus 3:1.<br />
vs.<br />
Acts 5:29 "We ought to obey God rather then men."<br />
Answer: I don't see the problem here. Christians are to be good citizens, they<br />
obey the laws of the land and they pay their taxes. But in Acts 5:29, the apostles<br />
were brought before the Sanhedrin because they were preaching, and that was<br />
something that was forbidden by law, but commanded by God(Matthew 28:19,20). God's<br />
law supercedes human laws.(1 Corinthians 11:3) If not, God's people would still be<br />
Egyptian slaves.See Acts 4:19<br />
How many animals on the ark?<br />
Genesis 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt<br />
thou bring into<br />
the ark."<br />
Genesis 7:8-9 "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of<br />
fowls, and of every<br />
thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into<br />
the ark, the<br />
male and the female, as God had commanded Noah."<br />
Genesis 7:15 "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all<br />
flesh, wherein is<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions2.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:23:54 AM]
More Alleged Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
the breath of life."<br />
vs.<br />
Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male<br />
and his female:<br />
and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."<br />
Answer: The Hebrew frequently indicates distribution merely by repeating the<br />
number used. Harper's Introductory Hebrew Method and Manual, in discussion of<br />
Genesis 7:2, 9, says on page 176: "Words are often repeated in order to express<br />
the distributive relation." Under the heading "Syntax of the Numerals" Gesenius'<br />
Hebrew Grammar (Second American Edition), on page 409, also states that one way of<br />
showing distribution is to repeat the number. The repeated numbers are not to be<br />
added together, but only indicate a distribution.<br />
In 2 Samuel 21:20 there is a giant that has six fingers on each hand and six toes<br />
on each foot. The Hebrew repeats the number "six," not meaning each hand has six<br />
pairs of fingers, or twelve fingers, or that each foot has six pairs of toes, or<br />
twelve toes. The number is repeated because a distribution is involved, and the<br />
repetition shows this. In Numbers 13:2 and Joshua 3:12 it speaks of taking one man<br />
from each tribe, and the Hebrew literally reads "one man one man," repeating to<br />
show distributive relation, and not meaning a pair of men or two men from each<br />
tribe. Numbers 34:18 instructs to take one prince from each tribe, but the Hebrew<br />
literally is "one prince one prince," showing the distributive relation, and not<br />
meaning two princes.<br />
Were women and men created equal?<br />
Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created<br />
he him;<br />
male and female created he them."<br />
vs.<br />
Genesis 2:18,23 "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be<br />
alone; I will<br />
make him an help meet for him. . . . And Adam said, This is now bone of my<br />
bones, and<br />
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of<br />
Man."<br />
Subject:The first chapter of Genesis gives us a general description of the<br />
creation process, while the second chapter deals with man specifically. These 2<br />
seemingly differing accounts of the creation process also leads some to believe<br />
that there were 2 different authors. The author if the first chapter being the<br />
Elohist(because God is referred to as elohim) and the author of the second chapter<br />
being the Yahwist or Jehovist(because God is referred to as Yahweh/Jehovah there).<br />
This is all an interesting theory and not one that I subscribe to as the second<br />
chapter uses elohim anyways, but it does point out the different overall view that<br />
is taken in the creative process.<br />
Did Paul's men hear a voice?<br />
Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a<br />
voice, but<br />
seeing no man."<br />
vs.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions2.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:23:54 AM]
More Alleged Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid;<br />
but they heard<br />
not the voice of him that spake to me."<br />
Answer: Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says "In Acts 9:7,<br />
'hearing the voice,' the noun 'voice' is in the partitive genitive case [i.e.,<br />
hearing (something) of], whereas in Ac 22:9, 'they heard not the voice,' the<br />
construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction.<br />
The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or<br />
message of the voice (this they did not hear)."<br />
It is for this reason that modern translations clarify this fact more: "The men<br />
who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one."<br />
"Those who were with me beheld the light, to be sure, but did not understand the<br />
voice of the One who was speaking to me."NASB<br />
Is God omnipotent?<br />
Jeremiah 32:27 "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything<br />
too hard for<br />
me?<br />
Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is<br />
impossible; but<br />
with God all things are possible."<br />
vs.<br />
Judges 1:19 "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of<br />
the mountain;<br />
but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had<br />
chariots of iron."<br />
Answer: It was not the Jehovah personally, but his army. They were still men and<br />
fearful as we can see at Deutoronomy 20:1, "When thou goest forth to battle<br />
against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, [and] a people more than<br />
thou, thou shalt not be afraid of them; for Jehovah thy God is with thee, who<br />
brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." Also Joshua 17:16, "And the children of<br />
Joseph said, The hill-country is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that<br />
dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are in<br />
Beth-shean and its towns, and they who are in the valley of Jezreel. And Joshua<br />
spake unto the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, Thou art<br />
a great people, and hast great power; thou shalt not have one lot only: but the<br />
hill-country shall be thine; for though it is a forest, thou shalt cut it down,<br />
and the goings out thereof shall be thine; for thou shalt drive out the<br />
Canaanites, though they have chariots of iron, and though they are strong.<br />
Does God live in light?<br />
I Timothy 6:15-16 " . . . the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath<br />
immortality,<br />
dwelling in the light which no man can approach . . ."<br />
James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither<br />
shadow of<br />
turning."<br />
John 12:35 "Then Jesus saith unto them, . . . he that walketh in darkness<br />
knoweth not wither<br />
he goeth."<br />
Job 18:18 "He [the wicked] shall be driven from light into darkness, and<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions2.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:23:54 AM]
More Alleged Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
chased out of the<br />
world."<br />
Daniel 2:22 "He [God] knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth<br />
with him."<br />
See also Psalm 143:3, II Corinthians 6:14, and Hebrews 12:18-22.<br />
vs.<br />
I Kings 8:12 "Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the<br />
thick<br />
darkness." (Repeated in II Chronicles 6:1)<br />
II Samuel 22:12 "And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters,<br />
and thick<br />
clouds of the skies."<br />
Psalm 18:11 "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him<br />
were dark<br />
waters and thick clouds of the skies."<br />
Psalm 97:1-2 "The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice . . . clouds and<br />
darkness are round<br />
about him."<br />
Answer: The mention of darkness comes from 2 hebrew words namely, "araphel" which<br />
can mean "gloom, thick cloud" and "choshek" which can mean "obscurity". For God to<br />
obscure himself is a loving provision as "there shall no man see me and yet live."<br />
Ex. 33:20<br />
LIGHT is often used metaphorically like, "In the light of the king's countenance<br />
is life; And his favor is as a cloud of the latter rain." Prov 16:15<br />
"That I may walk before God In the light of the living?" Ps 56:13<br />
There is no need to mix up the 2 to make an alleged contradiction.<br />
Does God accept human sacrifice?<br />
Deuteronomy 12:31 "Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every<br />
abomination to<br />
the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons<br />
and their<br />
daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods."<br />
vs.<br />
Genesis 22:2 "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou<br />
lovest, and<br />
get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering<br />
upon one of the<br />
mountains which I will tell thee of."<br />
Exodus 22:29 "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits,<br />
and of thy liquors;<br />
the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."<br />
Judges 11:30-39 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou<br />
shalt without<br />
fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hand, Then it shall be, that<br />
whatsoever cometh<br />
forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the<br />
children of<br />
Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt<br />
offering. So Jephthah<br />
passed over unto the children of Ammon . . . and the Lord delivered them into<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions2.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:23:54 AM]
More Alleged Contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
his hands. . . .<br />
And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out<br />
to meet<br />
him with timbrels and with dances: . . . And it came to pass at the end of two<br />
months, that<br />
she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he<br />
had vowed."<br />
II Samuel 21:8-14 "But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and<br />
the five sons<br />
of Michal . . . and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and<br />
they hanged them<br />
in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to<br />
death in the days<br />
of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land."<br />
Hebrews 10:10-12 " . . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body of<br />
Jesus Christ . .<br />
. But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down<br />
on the right hand<br />
of God."<br />
I Corinthians 5:7 " . . . For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.<br />
Answer: I fail to see how the bottom examples(some of which have not even led to<br />
death(Jepthah's daughter,Isaac) compares to the BURNT SACRIFICES of HUMANS to<br />
pagan gods in the above example. Such a sacrifice was something God never even<br />
though of:"For the children of Judah have done that which is evil in my sight,<br />
saith Jehovah: they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my<br />
name, to defile it. And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in<br />
the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the<br />
fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my mind.<br />
Who was Joseph's father?<br />
Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born<br />
Jesus."<br />
was<br />
vs.<br />
Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as<br />
supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."<br />
Answer: Heli was really the father of Mary, so it might be better to paraphrase<br />
that scripture by son(in-law) of Heli. Luke's account traces the geneaology of<br />
Christ through Mary, thus proving Jesus' natural right to be the Messiah, and<br />
still Son of David.<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
yhwhbible@yahoo.com<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/contradictions2.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:23:54 AM]
The Comma Johanneum and the Trinity Conspiracies to add a Triune God to the Holy <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
Comma Johanneum/1 John 5:7,8<br />
"And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy<br />
Ghost. And these three are one."(1 John 5:7,8 King James Version,Catholic Douay-Rheims<br />
Version).<br />
Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote:<br />
“We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by<br />
St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin,<br />
where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 1Jo 5:8: that from the<br />
Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text,<br />
a place to which they had no rightful claim.”—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the<br />
New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.<br />
But what of what John Gill says in his Exposition of the New Testament? In it he writes:<br />
"As to its being wanting in some Greek Manuscripts, as the Alexandrian and others, it need<br />
only be said that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the<br />
Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of<br />
sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens' , nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited<br />
by some of the ancient Fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since<br />
it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the<br />
carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited<br />
by them, they having scripture enough without it to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and<br />
the divinity of Christ: and yet after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by<br />
Fulgentius in the beginning of the sixth century, against the Arians, without any scruple or<br />
hesitation; and Jerome, as had been observed before it in his translation made in the latter<br />
part of the fourth century. In his epistle to Eustochium prefixed to his translation of the<br />
canonical epistles, he complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. It is cited by<br />
Athanasius about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian, in the middle of the 3rd century,<br />
about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian about the year 200; and which was within<br />
100 years, or a little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy<br />
anyone of the genuineness of the passage; and besides there was never any dispute over it<br />
till Erasmus left it out of the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he<br />
himself upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition<br />
of his translation."<br />
So what is wrong with the above quote?<br />
● Gill lived in the 18th century, most of the ancient texts where unknown in his day.<br />
● The Comma Johanneum is not in "many other Greek Manuscripts.<br />
● It is not in 9 of the 16 used by Stephanus.<br />
● It was found in 4 Greek manuscripts that popped up after Erasmus's 2nd edition.<br />
● The "ancient" copies of Stephanus did not predate the 10th century.<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
The "old British Copy" was miniscule 61, which was written after Erasmus's 2nd edition,<br />
apparently so that he was forced to include it in his later editions.<br />
Erasmus protested that he was forced to include it under duress.*<br />
Erasmus claimed the comma johanneum was not original.<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/comma.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:24:13 AM]
The Comma Johanneum and the Trinity Conspiracies to add a Triune God to the Holy <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
● The Fathers cited by Gill were not citing scripture.<br />
● The comma johanneum did not become established until the 5th Century.<br />
● It does not appear in Jerome`s Vulgate(Gill didn`t know that there were revisions made after<br />
Jerome.["This passage is absent from the original Vulgate, but later found its way into the Latin<br />
text and is present in the Clementine edition." The English <strong>Bible</strong>, F.F. Bruce p.204]<br />
● The comma johanneum doesn`t appear in the Vulgate until the 9th century.<br />
● In the Eastern Church(orthodox) where Greek was still being used, not ONE manuscript had the<br />
comma johanneum.<br />
● The Complutensian edition included the comma johanneum because it found it in the Vulgate, not<br />
any greek manuscript that we know of.<br />
● In the fourth century C.E., in a Latin treatise, an overzealous advocate of<br />
the newly framed Trinity teaching evidently included the words "in heaven,<br />
the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one" as if<br />
these were a quotation from 1 John 5:7. Later that passage crept right into<br />
a Latin bible Manuscript. It appears in cursive mss No. 61 (16th century)<br />
and No. 629 (in Latin and Greek, 14th to 15th century) and Vgc (Latin<br />
Vulgate, Clementine recension).<br />
*Erasmus was attacked for not adding the Comma Johanneum(1John 5:7,8). He answered that he had<br />
not found the words in any greek manuscript, including several he examined after publishing his<br />
editions. But he unwisely said that he would insert the Comma Johanneum in future editions if a greek<br />
manuscript could be found that contained the spurious passage. Interestingly, one was found, or made,<br />
that contained the words. The manuscript was made by a Franciscan friar named Froy(or Roy) in 1520<br />
A.D. Erasmus kept his word and added the passage in his 3rd edition, but he added a long footnote<br />
expressing his suspicion that the manuscript had been prepared just so to confute him.<br />
Also,<br />
"Luther used the text prepared by Erasmus. But even though the inserted words taught the<br />
Trinity, Luther ruled them out and never had them in his translation. In 1550 Bugenhagen<br />
objected to these words 'on account of the truth.' In 1574 Feyerabend, a printer, added them<br />
to Luther's text, and in 1596 they appeared in the Wittenburg copies." footnote at 1 John<br />
5:7-9 by William F. Beck(The Holy <strong>Bible</strong> in the Language of Today)<br />
When Erasmus translated his Greek "New Testament," he appealed to the authority of the Vatican<br />
Codex to omit the spurious words from 1 John chapter 5, verses 7 and 8. Erasmus was right, yet as late as<br />
1897 Pope Leo XIII upheld the corrupted Latin text of the Vulgate. This insertion was protected by the<br />
Vatican until 1927. Only with the publication of modern Roman Catholic translations has this textual<br />
error been acknowledged. Thus, a footnote in The Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong>, a Catholic translation, says that these<br />
words are "not in any of the early Greek MSS<br />
[manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the<br />
Vulg[ate] itself."<br />
In the _Interpreter's <strong>Bible</strong>_ which can be found in about any county<br />
library, the following is stated concerning 1 John 5:7ff:<br />
"This verse in the KJV is to be rejected (with RSV). It appears in no<br />
ancient Greek MS nor is it cited by any Greek fathers; of all the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/comma.htm (2 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:24:13 AM]
The Comma Johanneum and the Trinity Conspiracies to add a Triune God to the Holy <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
versions only the Latin contained it, and even this in none of its most<br />
ancient sources. The earliest MSS of the Vulg. do not have it. As [CH]<br />
Dodd (Johannine Epistles, p. 127n) reminds us, "It is first quoted as a<br />
part of 1 John by Priscillian, the Spanish heretic, who died in 385,<br />
and it gradually made its way into MSS of the Latin Vulgate until it<br />
was accepted as part of the authorized Latin text." The mention in the<br />
true text (vs. 8) of the three witnesses which agree naturally led to<br />
an interpretation along trinitarian lines, and this occasioned the<br />
present gloss which appears in various forms in MSS and quotations from<br />
the fifth century onward" (Interpreter's <strong>Bible</strong>, 293-294).<br />
One of the translators of the NIV also writes the following about 1<br />
John 5:7:<br />
"Anyone who uses a recent scholarly version of the NT will see that<br />
these words on the Trinity are not in verse 7. This is because they<br />
have no basis in the Greek text. Under Roman Catholic pressure, Erasmus inserted them<br />
from the Latin Vulgate. They are not a part of the<br />
inspired <strong>Bible</strong>" (Word Meanings in the NT, Ralph Earle. P. 452).<br />
I.H. Marshall's commentary on the Epistles of John states:<br />
"The words in fact occur in none of the Greek manuscripts of 1 John, except for a few late<br />
and worthless ones, and are not quoted by any early church writers, not even by those who<br />
would have joyfully seized upon this clear biblical testimony to the Trinity in their attacks<br />
on heretics: they probably owe their origin to some scribe who wrote them in the margin of<br />
his copy of 1 John: later they were erroneously regareded as part of the text. Beyond any<br />
shadow of a doubt the wording of the NIV text represents what John actually wrote. We<br />
must, therefore, confine our attention to the three witnesses of whom John did write, the<br />
Spirit, the water, and the blood" (236).<br />
"Robert M. Grant makes this comment about 1 John 5:6-8:<br />
"To this mysterious but not theologically useful passage a Spanish<br />
Pricillianist in the late fourth century added explicitly trinitarian<br />
language so that it would mention three witnesses "on earth" and end<br />
thus: "And there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word,<br />
and the Spirit, and these three are one." The addition is suitable in a<br />
Johannine context, for it refers to the Logos as John does and is<br />
ultimately based on "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).<br />
Unfortunately it is not genuine, since it appears in no old manuscript<br />
or versions or in any early [church] fathers" (_Gods and the One God_,<br />
Robert M. Grant. P. 151).<br />
Also read William Barclay's commentary on 1 John<br />
and Raymond Brown's extensive treatment of the subject in his Anchor<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Commentary.<br />
Which texts DO contain these words? "Among the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the<br />
NT examined since the time of Erasmus, only three others are known to contain this<br />
spurious passage. They are Greg. 88, a 12th century manuscript which has the Comma<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/comma.htm (3 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:24:13 AM]
The Comma Johanneum and the Trinity Conspiracies to add a Triune God to the Holy <strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
writen in the margin in a 17th century hand; Tisch. w 110, which is a 16th century<br />
manuscript copy of the Complutensian Polyglot Greek text; and Greg. 629. dating from the<br />
14th century or, as Riggenbach has argued, from the latter half of the 16th century." The<br />
Text of the New Testament-It Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration [Third Enlraged<br />
Edition] by Bruce M. Metzger p.102,103<br />
Or as ERASMUS AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS by William W. Combs states:"That the<br />
Comma is a later addition to the text can be demonstrated from the fact that it is found in the<br />
text of only four manuscripts (61, 629, 918, 2318), the earliest of which is from the<br />
fourteenth century, and in the margin of four others (88, 221, 429, 636), the earliest of which<br />
is the tenth century. It was not cited in the 4th century Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian<br />
and Arian) by any Greek Father, an absolutely inexplicable omission had they been aware of<br />
the passage. The old Scofield Reference <strong>Bible</strong> says that it 'has no real authority, and has<br />
been inserted' (p. 1325)."<br />
Both 61 and 629 have the Comma but with the omission of the hOI TREIS EIS<br />
TO hEN EISIN. (KATA NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE, editione vicesima septima<br />
revisa)<br />
"To trace the history of this gross corruption of the text in modern translations, Catechisms,<br />
and Confessions of Faith, especially the Greek Church since the sixteenth century, and in<br />
modern editions of some ancient versions, as the Peshito Syriac, Armenian, and Slavonic,<br />
might be interesting and instructive, psychologically as well as critically; but there is no<br />
room for it here."<br />
-Critical Essays by Ezra Abbot, 1888, p.463<br />
What I would like to know is, why, if the <strong>Bible</strong> teaches the Trinity like the trinitarians claim, is there<br />
such a need to go thru great lengths to add a triune formula to the text that was never there to begin with,<br />
especially after the <strong>Bible</strong> says,"I testify to everyone who gears the words of the prophecy of this book: If<br />
anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book."(rev.22:18)<br />
WHY? Because the <strong>Bible</strong> does not teach a Trinity:The New Encyclopædia Britannica observes:<br />
“Neither the word Trinity nor the<br />
explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.”<br />
Does 1 John 5:7, 8 Prove that there is a Trinity?<br />
A Review of *A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 by Michael Maynard*<br />
by Doug Kutilek<br />
Visit Professor's Daniel Wallace page on this subject at http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/cyprian.htm<br />
Feel free to visit my page on the Byzantine/Majority Text<br />
http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/byzantine.htm<br />
and http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tr.htm<br />
For Ezra Abbot on the Comma click here<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/comma.htm (4 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:24:13 AM]
Top Ten <strong>Bible</strong> and Religion Lists<br />
Top Ten <strong>Bible</strong> And Religion Lists<br />
BIBLE FACTS:<br />
The system of chapters was introduced in A.D. 1238 by Cardinal Hugo de S. Caro, while the verse<br />
notations were added in 1551 by Robertus Stephanus, after the advent of printing.<br />
A <strong>Bible</strong> in the University of Gottingen is written on 2,470 palm leaves.<br />
According to statistics from Wycliffe International, the Society of Gideons, and the International <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Society, the number of new <strong>Bible</strong>s that are sold, given away, or otherwise distributed in the United States<br />
is about 168,000 per day.<br />
The longest intercontinental telegram ever sent was the text of the New International Version of the<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>, sent from Geneva, where it was translated, to New York for printing.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> can be read aloud in 70 hours.<br />
There are 8,674 different Hebrew words in the <strong>Bible</strong>, 5,624 different Greek words, and 12,143 different<br />
English words in the King James Version.<br />
A number of verses in the <strong>Bible</strong> (KJV) contain all but 1 letter of the alphabet: Ezra 7:21 contains all but<br />
the letter j; Joshua 7:24, 1 Kings 1:9, 1 Chronicles 12:40, 2 Chronicles 36:10, Ezekiel 28:13, Daniel 4:37,<br />
and Haggai 1:1 contain all but q; 2 Kings 16:15 and 1 Chronicles 4:10 contain all but z; and Galatians<br />
1:14 contains all but k.<br />
BIBLE STATISTICS:<br />
Number of books in the <strong>Bible</strong>: 66<br />
Chapters: 1,189<br />
Verses: 31,101<br />
Words: 783,137<br />
Letters: 3,566,480<br />
Number of promises given in the <strong>Bible</strong>: 1,260<br />
Commands: 6,468<br />
Predictions: over 8,000<br />
Number of questions: 3,294<br />
Longest name: Mahershalalhashbaz (Isaiah 8:1)<br />
Longest verse: Esther 8:9 (78 words)<br />
Shortest verse: John 11:35 (2 words: "Jesus wept").<br />
Middle books: Micah and Nahum<br />
Middle verse: Psalm 118:8<br />
Middle chapter: Psalm 117<br />
Shortest chapter (by number of words): Psalm 117 (by number of words)<br />
Longest book: Psalms (150 chapters)<br />
Shortest book (by number of words): 3 John<br />
Longest chapter: Psalm 119 (176 verses)<br />
Number of times the word "God" appears: 3,358<br />
Number of times the word "Lord" appears: 7,736<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/biblist.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:20 AM]
Top Ten <strong>Bible</strong> and Religion Lists<br />
Number of different authors: 40<br />
Number of languages the <strong>Bible</strong> has been translated into: over 1,200<br />
OLD TESTAMENT STATISTICS:<br />
Number of books: 39<br />
Chapters: 929<br />
Verses: 23,114<br />
Words: 602,585<br />
Letters: 2,278,100<br />
Middle book: Proverbs<br />
Middle chapter: Job 20<br />
Middle verses: 2 Chronicles 20:17,18<br />
Smallest book: Obadiah<br />
Shortest verse: 1 Chronicles 1:25<br />
Longest verse: Esther 8:9<br />
Longest chapter: Psalms 119<br />
Largest book: Psalms<br />
NEW TESTAMENT STATISTICS:<br />
Number of books: 27<br />
Chapters: 260<br />
Verses: 7,957<br />
Words: 180,552<br />
Letters: 838,380<br />
Middle book: 2 Thessalonians<br />
Middle chapters: Romans 8, 9<br />
Middle verse: Acts 27:17<br />
Smallest book: 3 John<br />
Shortest verse: John 11:35<br />
Longest verse: Revelation 20:4<br />
Longest chapter: Luke 1<br />
Largest book: Luke<br />
10 Most Mentioned Names in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Jehovah(Yahweh)-6,823 times*<br />
David-1,064 times<br />
Jesus-984 times<br />
Moses-847 times<br />
Jacob-377 times<br />
Aaron-352 times<br />
Solomon-293 times<br />
Joseph-250 times<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/biblist.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:20 AM]
Top Ten <strong>Bible</strong> and Religion Lists<br />
● Abraham-250 times<br />
● Ephraim 183 times<br />
*Based on the original Hebrew or those faithful translations that did not omit the name.<br />
10 Longest Names in the <strong>Bible</strong>*<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Mahershalalhashbaz<br />
Bashanhavothjair<br />
Chepharhaammonai<br />
Chusharishathaim<br />
Kibrothhattaavah<br />
Selahammahlekoth<br />
Abelbethmaachah<br />
Almondiblathaim<br />
Apharsathchites<br />
Berodachbaladan<br />
Helkathhazzurim<br />
Ramathaimzophin<br />
Tilgathpilneser<br />
Zaphnathpaaneah<br />
10 Most Mentioned Animals in the <strong>Bible</strong>*<br />
● Sheep<br />
● Lamb<br />
● Lion<br />
● Ox<br />
● Ram<br />
● Horse<br />
● Bullock<br />
● Ass<br />
● Goat<br />
● Camel<br />
*Based on King James Version<br />
Top 10 Denominations in Christendom<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Roman Catholic(912,636,000)<br />
Orthodox(139,544,000)<br />
Pentecostal(105,756,000)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/biblist.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:20 AM]
Top Ten <strong>Bible</strong> and Religion Lists<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Lutheran(84,521,000)<br />
Baptist(67,146,000)<br />
Anglican(53,217,000)<br />
Presbytarian(47,972,000)<br />
Methodist(25,599,000)<br />
Seventh Day Adventist(10,650,000)<br />
Churches of Christ(6,400,000)<br />
Tallest Churches in the <strong>World</strong><br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Chicago Methodist Temple-Chicago(568 ft.)<br />
Ulm Cathedral-Germany(528 ft.)<br />
Notre-Dame-de-la-Paix-Cote d'Ivoire(519 ft.)<br />
Cologne Cathedral-Germany(513 ft.)<br />
Rouen Cathedral-France(485 ft.)<br />
St. Nicholas-Germany(474 ft.)<br />
Notre-Dame-France(465 ft.)<br />
St. Peter`s-Italy(458 ft.)<br />
St. Stephen's Cathedral-Austria(446 ft.)<br />
Amiens Cathedral-France(440 ft.)<br />
St. Micheal-Germany(440 ft.)<br />
The 10 Latest Popes<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
John Paul II(1978- )<br />
John Paul I(1978)<br />
Paul VI(1963-1978)<br />
John XXIII(1958-1963)<br />
Pius XII(1939-1958)<br />
Pius XI(1922-1939)<br />
Benedict XV(1914-1922)<br />
St. Pius X(1903-1914)<br />
Leo XIII(1878-1903)<br />
Pius IX(1846-1878)<br />
Top 10 Organized <strong>World</strong> Religions*<br />
●<br />
●<br />
●<br />
Roman Catholic(1,062,000,000)<br />
Sunni Muslim(1,061,400,000)<br />
Hindu(767,430,000)<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/biblist.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:20 AM]
Top Ten <strong>Bible</strong> and Religion Lists<br />
● Buddhist(364,875,000)<br />
● Orthodox Christian(225,000,000)<br />
● Shi'ite Muslim(118,000,000)<br />
● Anglican(55,100,000)<br />
● Baptist(54,250,000)<br />
● Sikh(22,900,000)<br />
● Jewish(15,050,000)<br />
*approximately<br />
Back to <strong>Bible</strong> Page<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/biblist.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:20 AM]
Is That In The <strong>Bible</strong>-<strong>Bible</strong> Anomalies<br />
Main Page<br />
International<br />
Standard Version<br />
The Message<br />
Comma<br />
Johanneum<br />
On Birthday and<br />
Wedding Pagan<br />
Origins<br />
New <strong>World</strong><br />
Translation<br />
CARM and the<br />
Misrepresentation<br />
Of "I AM" @ John<br />
8:58<br />
SOUL in the <strong>Bible</strong><br />
<strong>Bible</strong> News<br />
Big Bang Bunk<br />
Christology and<br />
the Trinity<br />
"If every man's humour were followed, there would be ne no end of<br />
translating."Richard Bancroft -Bishop of London(1604)<br />
The Living <strong>Bible</strong><br />
What a difference<br />
"You son of a bitch" 1 Samuel 20:30<br />
(changed in later editions)<br />
a Word makes.<br />
"I am just some drunken bum" 1 Samuel 1:16<br />
King James the "You illegitimate bastard" John 9:34<br />
Fop<br />
"Come to bed with me my, darling." 2 Samuel 13:11<br />
"The Reluctant Dragon" Isaiah 30:7<br />
Godhead or "Israeli" at Exodus 9:4;12:34;14:20;19:1 etc.<br />
Divinity @ Col 2:9 "Hell is licking its chops in anticipation" Isaiah 5:14<br />
"citizens of hell" Proverbs 9:18<br />
HELL in the <strong>Bible</strong> "denizens of hell" Isaiah 14:9<br />
Acts 2:27 mentions "Hell", but the scripture it comes from, Psalms 16:10...mentions<br />
The Jewish "grave".<br />
Rejection of Jesus "Every year when each of Job's sons had a birthday"<br />
Job 1:4<br />
"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden of Jewish<br />
laws on you." Acts 15:29<br />
1 Timothy 6:9 "send them to Hell itself."<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>-Today's English Version<br />
"You bastard" 1 Samuel 20:30<br />
"May you and your money go to hell" Acts 8:20<br />
"For God's sake" Mark 5:7<br />
"Go in through the narrow gate because the gate to hell is wide" Matthew 7:13,14<br />
"penis" Leviticus 15:1; Deuteronomy 23:1<br />
"blood-stained wedding sheet" Deut. 22:15<br />
"I am having my monthly period." Gen 31:35<br />
Sheol is translated "world of the dead"<br />
"You smart aleck you" 1Samuel 17:28<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/anomalies.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:28 AM]
Is That In The <strong>Bible</strong>-<strong>Bible</strong> Anomalies<br />
Search English<br />
Versions<br />
NET <strong>Bible</strong><br />
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong><br />
More <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Original <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Project<br />
New American<br />
Standard <strong>Bible</strong><br />
NIV <strong>Bible</strong> Search<br />
Dynamic<br />
Equivalency<br />
Is Jesus Michael<br />
the Archangel?<br />
What is the Best<br />
New Testament?<br />
Matthew Written<br />
in Hebrew?<br />
Interlinear <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Trinity Bias<br />
Geneva <strong>Bible</strong><br />
WOC<br />
Research/Trinity<br />
William Tyndale<br />
Textus Receptus<br />
Latin Vulgate etc<br />
Trinity Truth<br />
Rolf Furuli<br />
Steven T.<br />
"The Harmless Dragon" Isaiah 30:7<br />
"I had all the women a man could want" Eccl 2:8<br />
1 John 3:2, replaces "he" with "Christ"<br />
1 Timothy 6:15 "God" is added<br />
John 1:1 is "and he was the same as God" in the first edition and "the Word was God<br />
in the second edition<br />
New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
"The terrors of death suddenly beset him and make him piss over his feet." Job 18:11<br />
"all men's knees run with urine" Ezekiel 21:7<br />
"Have nothing to do with loose livers" 1 Corinthians 5:9<br />
"Whitsuntide" 1 Corinthians 16:8<br />
"buffaloes/bison" Isaiah 34:7<br />
"guardian angels" Matthew 18:10<br />
"mother earth" Ecclesiastes 5:15<br />
"porpoise hides" Exodus 35:23<br />
"dragon" Psalms 68:22<br />
"goddesses of the field" Song of Solomon 2:7<br />
"Once upon a time" Genesis 11:1<br />
In Proverbs 18:10 there is a quote from Shakespeare's "Richard III, 5, iii, 12.<br />
Hebrews 12:8 "you must be bastards"<br />
King James Version<br />
Song of Solomon 5:4 "my bowels were moved for him"<br />
I Kings 21:21 "him that pisseth against the wall"<br />
Hebrews 12:8 "bastards"<br />
2 Peter 2:16. "dumb ass"<br />
Contemporary English Version<br />
"You and your money will both end up in hell" Acts 8:20<br />
Gehenna is also translated "hell" Matthew 5:22<br />
Tartarus is also translated "hell" 2 Peter 2:4<br />
Hades is also translated "hell" Luke 10:15<br />
Sheol is "world of the dead" at Eccl. 9:10<br />
Sheol is "in the ground" at Job 14:13<br />
Footnote at John 8:24, 58 reads, "I am: For the Jewish people the most holy name of<br />
God is 'Yahweh' which may be translated 'I am.' In the gospel of John ' I am' is<br />
sometimes used by Jesus to show that he is that one."(It does nothing of the kind)<br />
God's Word-New Testament and Psalms<br />
Colossians 2:9 "All of God lives in Christ's body."<br />
1 John 5:20 "This Jesus Christ is the real God and eternal life."<br />
Revelation 3:14 "the source of God's creation."<br />
2 Peter 2:4, tartarus is "hell"<br />
Matthew 5:22, gehenna is "hellfire"<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/anomalies.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:28 AM]
Is That In The <strong>Bible</strong>-<strong>Bible</strong> Anomalies<br />
Byington<br />
Blue Letter <strong>Bible</strong><br />
American Standard<br />
Version<br />
Virtual <strong>Bible</strong>s<br />
Multi-Lingual<br />
<strong>Bible</strong><br />
21 <strong>Translations</strong><br />
<strong>Bible</strong> Resources<br />
John Wycliffe<br />
Hebrew Names<br />
Version<br />
Canadian<br />
Translators<br />
KJV Online<br />
Phillips<br />
Translation<br />
Matthew <strong>Bible</strong><br />
New Living <strong>Bible</strong><br />
QANAH and<br />
"Created" @ Prov<br />
8:22<br />
LXX Archives<br />
Janey's <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Research<br />
Bay Psalm<br />
Book(1630)<br />
Extended Trinity<br />
Study<br />
Trinity Exposee<br />
Luke 10:15, hades is "hell"<br />
Psalms 139:8, sheol is "hell"<br />
Psalms 6:5, sheol is "grave"<br />
New Living Translation<br />
Matthew 7:13 "highway to hell"<br />
John 1:18 "but his only Son, who is himself God"<br />
Revelation 3:14 "ruler of God's creation"<br />
Philippians 2:6 "though he was God"<br />
2 Peter 2:4, tartarus is "hell"<br />
Matthew 5:22, gehenna is "hell"<br />
Matthew 16:18, hades is "hell"<br />
Psalms 139:8, sheol is"place of the dead"<br />
Psalms 6:5, sheol is "grave"<br />
the New Testament-An Expanded Translation by<br />
Kenneth S. Wuest<br />
John 1:1, "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship<br />
with God the Father. And the word was to His essence absolute deity.<br />
John 1:18, "Absolute deity in its essence no one has ever yet seen. God<br />
uniquely-begotten, He who is in the bosom of the Father, that One fully explained<br />
deity."<br />
Philippians 2:6,7, "[This is the mind] which is also in Christ Jesus, who has always<br />
been and at present continues to subsist in that mode of being in which He gives<br />
outward expression of His essential nature, that of absolute deity, which expression<br />
comes from and is truly representative of His inner being [that of absolute deity], and<br />
who did not after weighing the facts, consider it a treasure to be clutched and retain at<br />
all hazards, this being on an equality with deity [in the expression of the divine<br />
essence], but himself He emptied , himself He made void, having taken the outward<br />
expression of a bondslave, which expression comes from and is truly representative<br />
of His nature [as deity]..."<br />
Colossians 1:15, "who is a derived reproduction and manifestation of absolute deity,<br />
the invisible deity, who [the Son] has priority and sovereignty over all creation"<br />
Matthew 5:22, gehenna is "hellfire"<br />
Matthew 16:18, "councils of the unseen world"<br />
The Cotton Patch Version by Clarence Jordan<br />
Matt. 2:1 "When Jesus was born in Gainesville, Georgia"<br />
Matt. 2:13 "Get moving, and take your wife and baby and highball it to Mexico."<br />
Matt. 2:22 "Herod's Boy Archelaus was governor of Alabama"<br />
Matt. 3:12 "his combine was already running"<br />
Matt. 9:9 "Matthew sitting behind his desk at the Internal Revenue office"<br />
Matt. 9:23 "Y'all get out of here. The little girl isn't dead."<br />
Matt.10:28 "be afraid of the one who can make a hellish hash of both body and<br />
soul."<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/anomalies.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:28 AM]
Is That In The <strong>Bible</strong>-<strong>Bible</strong> Anomalies<br />
Study Articles<br />
James R.White<br />
Mormon<br />
Plagiarism<br />
Conversations on<br />
the Trinity<br />
Trinity Chart 1<br />
Trinity Chart 2<br />
Paraphrased<br />
and<br />
Dynamic<br />
Equivalent<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>s are<br />
fun to read,<br />
but always<br />
have a more<br />
literal<br />
translation<br />
handy, like<br />
the ASV,<br />
NWT,<br />
(N)RSV,<br />
Young,<br />
Darby or<br />
better yet,<br />
an<br />
Interlinear<br />
<strong>Bible</strong>.<br />
If you find<br />
any<br />
interesting<br />
scripture<br />
Matt. 11:19 "He is a no-good bum who runs around with Communists and<br />
peaceniks."<br />
Matt. 16:6 "Now let me warn you to stay away from the yeast of the Protestants and<br />
Catholics."<br />
Crucified/Impaled is "Lynched".<br />
Matt. 22:16 "So they sent him a committee with some FBI men."<br />
Matt. 26:10 "Jesus got wind of it and said, "Why are you bitching at the lady?"<br />
And that is just the book of Matthew:) I could go on, but you get the drift. It is a funny<br />
Version to read actually.<br />
The Black <strong>Bible</strong> Chronicles<br />
Excerpts from the 10 Commandments<br />
"You shouldn't diss the Almighty's name, using it in cuss words or rapping with one<br />
another. It ain't cool and payback's a monster."<br />
"You shouldn't be taking nothin' from your homeboys."<br />
"Don't waste nobody."Don't mess around with someone else's ol' man or ol' lady."<br />
Genesis 3<br />
"And that bad old serpent told the sister, 'Nah, sister, he's feeding you a line of bull,<br />
You won't die. The Almighty just knows that if you eat from the tree you'll be hipped<br />
to what's going down."<br />
Contributed via Email:<br />
Your collection of swearing in translations is priceless: you may wish to add the<br />
following:<br />
New English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
“As she sat on the ass, she broke wind, and Caleb asked her, “What did you mean by<br />
that?” Joshua 15.18<br />
King James Version<br />
Use of the Lord’s name in vain many times by mistranslating the Greek “May it<br />
never be” as “God forbid”.<br />
Example: “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That<br />
thou mightest be justified<br />
in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” Romans 3:4 : 4<br />
CEV: St. Paul’s Language<br />
“I wish that everyone who is upsetting you would not only get circumcised, but<br />
would cut off much more!”<br />
Galatians 5:12<br />
New American <strong>Bible</strong>: Passage about eating human excrement<br />
“For your food you must bake barley loaves over human excrement in their sight,<br />
said the LORD. Thus the<br />
Israelites shall eat their food unclean among the nations where I scatter them. “Oh no,<br />
Lord GOD!” I protested.<br />
“Never have I been made unclean, and from my youth till now, never have I eaten<br />
carrion flesh or that torn by<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/anomalies.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:28 AM]
Is That In The <strong>Bible</strong>-<strong>Bible</strong> Anomalies<br />
anomalies,<br />
please let<br />
me know.<br />
wild beasts; never has any unclean meat entered my mouth.” Very well, he replied, I<br />
allow you cow’s dung in<br />
place of human excrement; bake your bread on that.” Ezekiel 4:12<br />
NRSV: Passage in which Sarah laughs at God because she is going to enjoy sex in<br />
her old age:<br />
So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I have grown old, and my husband is old,<br />
shall I have pleasure?”<br />
Genesis 18:12. The word for pleasure in Hebrew clearly means (sexual) pleasure.<br />
-South Africa<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/anomalies.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:28 AM]<br />
Last Updated: July 4 2000
Angels as Gods<br />
Import from Usenet Newsgroups:<br />
From: "CHARLESVOSE" <br />
THE ANGELS WERE CREATED BY JEHOVAH GOD! Notice what<br />
Job 38:4 and 7 relates:<br />
"Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?<br />
...... When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all the<br />
sons of God ["the godlike ones." (according to the LXX- that is the<br />
Greek Septuagint.) or "my angels" or the "bands of angels" (according<br />
to the Targums- the Jewish "interpretations, translations," of the exile<br />
into Babylon.) began shouting in applause?" (Job 38:4,7- see the<br />
footnote of verse 7 in the 1950 Edition of the "New <strong>World</strong> Translation.)<br />
The angels were created by Jehovah God. (see Psalm 148:1-5)<br />
God is a spirit; (John 4:24) and "He makes his angels spirits."<br />
(Heb 1:7) "A spirit does not have flesh and bones." (Luke 24:39)<br />
The angels did not come from humans that died and transcended<br />
to heaven, because they existed before the earth was created and<br />
were created individually by God. (Job 38:4,7- above )<br />
THE ANGELS WERE CREATED IN HEAVEN AS SPIRITS<br />
AND ARE INVISIBLE TO US AS GOD IS INVISIBLE.<br />
The "angels in heaven always behold the face of my Father who<br />
is in the heavens.." (Matt 18:10) "No man has seen God at any<br />
time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with<br />
the Father is the one that has explained him." (John 1:18)<br />
Man was made, "a little lower than angels." The angels are<br />
powerful "spirits, His ministers..." (Psalm 104:4) "Bless Jehovah,<br />
O you angels of his, mighty in power, carrying out his word, By<br />
listening to the voice of his word... You ministers of his, doing his<br />
will." (Psalm 103:20,21)<br />
ARE THE ANGELS GODS?<br />
In the same way that Moses carried the Word of God to Pharaoh<br />
of Egypt and represented God to him; So, in the same manner, the<br />
angels, in the past, represented God to mankind. "See, I have made<br />
you God to Pharaoh." (Exodus 7:1) Since Christ Jesus, It is Christ,<br />
himself that represents God; He is God's exclusive spokesman.<br />
(John 1:18-- see 1Tim 2:5,6; 1Pet 3:22; Phil 2:9; Hebrews ch 1)<br />
The Law covenant came from God but was transmitted by angels.<br />
The angels served as God to bring to man what God sent them to<br />
speak. (Acts 7:53; Gal 3:19) You will find that when God first<br />
communicated with Moses he appeared in a burning bush. And an<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/angels.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:34 AM]
Angels as Gods<br />
angel spoke from the bush. (Exodus 3:2) and the "angel" said to<br />
Moses: "And he went on to say: 'I am the God of your father, the<br />
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.' Then<br />
Moses concealed his face, because he was afraid to look at the<br />
[true] God." (Exodus 3:5,6) Jehovah was still invisible in the<br />
heavens, but, he sent an angel to represent him. The angel was<br />
God to Moses.<br />
Again, at Psalm 82:1 it reads: "God is stationing himself in the<br />
assembly of the Divine One; (or "God"- Hebrew Masoretic text; or<br />
"gods"- LXX; or "angels" - Syriac Peshitta Version) In the middle<br />
of the gods (godlike ones- Hebrew; "elohim" or "theoi- LXX or<br />
"angels"- Syriac (see Psalm 8:5, footnote b) Or according to<br />
the Targums- "judges.") he judges:" (Psalm 82:1<br />
"I myself have said, 'You are gods, (or "godlike ones." As in the<br />
Hebrew Masoretic text- "elohim"; or "alahin"- Syriac; or "theoi-<br />
LXX; or "like angels" according to the "Targums.") And all of you<br />
are sons of the Most High." (Psalm 82:6)<br />
WHAT DOES THIS PROVE?<br />
All of the above, and other references, prove that the angels are the<br />
"Sons of God." (Job 38:4,7) They are direct creations of Jehovah God<br />
and they are his messengers to carry out His will. They are spirits for<br />
public service. They were sent by God to represent Him.<br />
They are higher than humans. (2Pet 2:11; Heb 2:6,7)<br />
At this time the angels are made subject to Christ. (1Pet 3:22)<br />
In the past, the angels have been spokesmen for Jehovah and<br />
the "Law" was transmitted through them. They were given the<br />
authority to represent Jehovah God. They spoke to men as though<br />
they were God.<br />
It is true that there is only one True God and His name is Jehovah,<br />
yet God sent spokesmen and representatives to speak for him.<br />
Today, Jesus, the "firstborn" and ""beginning of God's creation"<br />
(Col 1:15; Rev 3:14) has been given all authority to speak for God.<br />
(John 1:18)<br />
God will never come down to earth and stand before you and say"<br />
"I am God, listen to me..." But, he has sent angels to speak for<br />
him. Today, God has entrusted all of his communication through<br />
the Scriptures and through his son. The angels are still God's<br />
messengers and still carry out his will, But, they do not speak to<br />
us in place of Christ Jesus. If you pray to Jehovah God, through<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/angels.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:34 AM]
Angels as Gods<br />
Christ Jesus, God will receive your prayers and he will answer all<br />
prayers in harmony with his will. The angels are present to see<br />
that God's will is carried out. But, the angels no longer take on<br />
human form and mediate between us and God.<br />
The angels are "god-like" because they are representatives of<br />
Jehovah God and they are more powerful than men. They are sent<br />
forth to carry out God's will when God decides to have his power and<br />
will carried out. However, the angels will not interfere in your decisions<br />
to do good or evil, only when it effects God's will or purpose toward<br />
the earth or mankind will the angels step in to intervene. It is true<br />
that if you pray earnestly to Jehovah God the angels may play a<br />
part in helping you with your request, But, they will not meddle in<br />
your personal decisions, unless you ask.<br />
In some Scriptures, the angels have been said to be "gods" toward<br />
mankind. This was because they came as God's representatives. But,<br />
they are not equal with God nor are they part of a group that make up<br />
the True God of the <strong>Bible</strong>. Jehovah God is only one Jehovah and there<br />
is no other God besides Him. The angels were created by God and<br />
only when they are sent to carry His messages and actions are they<br />
as God toward us. When they came down to represent God they were<br />
respected. They came in God's name and the people who intertained<br />
them often bowed to them and honored them and treated them as if<br />
they were receiving Jehovah. Yet, those angels were humble and they<br />
refused to be worshipped. (see Rev 22:8,9) Few were ever given names<br />
and one angel when asked refused to give his name. (Gen 32:29)<br />
Another angel said he was the "prince of the army of Jehovah" and<br />
when Samson's parents asked an angel his name, he said: "Just why<br />
should you ask about my name, when it is a wonderful one?"<br />
(Judges 13:17,18) We must be careful not to worship them.<br />
So, are the angels Gods- No! But if they come in the name of<br />
Jehovah and bring Jehovah's message they are to be treated with the<br />
respect that would be given to Jehovah. If we would disrespect those<br />
angels we would be disrespecting Jehovah who sent them.<br />
It is true that angels are not Gods but the angels represent God<br />
and we must respect them as though God were speaking through<br />
them.<br />
Jesus made the point quite clear when the Devil ask him to<br />
worship him and he would give him all the Kingdoms of the <strong>World</strong>.<br />
Jesus said: "Then Jesus said to him: 'Go away, Satan! For it is<br />
written, 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him<br />
alone you must render sacred service." (Matt 4:8-10; Luke 4:5-8)<br />
Only Jehovah is God; Only him must we worship, and we must<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/angels.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:34 AM]
Angels as Gods<br />
know the difference between God and the representatives of God.<br />
The angels are not a part of Jehovah God but they were "gods"<br />
to men only when they represented God.<br />
Addendum<br />
Here is what the Dead Sea Scrolls give as to an insight of the early Jewish belief about Angels.<br />
"Praise him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the firmament of<br />
the highest heavens, all...and its wall, all its structure, its shape. The<br />
spirits of the holy of holies, the living 'gods', the spirits of eternal<br />
holiness above all the holy ones...The divine spirits surround the dwelling<br />
of the King of truth and righteousness; all its walls" (Vermes 226 [4Q403 I<br />
i, 30-46]).<br />
"The figures of the 'gods' shall praise him, the most holy spirits...of<br />
glory; the floor of the marvelous innermost chambers, the spirits of the<br />
eternal gods, all...figures of the innermost chambers of the King, the<br />
spiritual works of the marvelous firmament are purified with salt, spirits<br />
of knowledge, truth and righteousness in holy of holies, forms of the<br />
living 'gods,' forms of the illuminating spirits. All their works of art<br />
are marvelously linked, many-coloured spirits, artistic figures of the<br />
'gods,' engraved all around their glorious bricks of splendour and majesty.<br />
All their works of art are living 'gods,' and their artistic figures are<br />
holy angels. From beneath the marvelous inner most chambers comes a sound<br />
of quiet silence: the 'gods' bless..."(Vermes 228 [4Q405 19ABCD]).<br />
The author here describes the Most Holy chamber of the Temple. In this<br />
chamber was were the Ark of the Covenant was kept. This is where Jehovah<br />
dwelled symbolically. Everything in the Most Holy was made of the finest<br />
gold. The <strong>Bible</strong> tells us that the Temple was ornamented with pictures of<br />
angels (1 Kings 6:27-32). Therefore, this description of the "gods"<br />
ministering to the Almighty fits perfectly with the <strong>Bible</strong>. The curtain<br />
that separated the Holy from the Most Holy even has pictures of angels<br />
("gods") woven into it (2 Chron. 3:14).<br />
"The 'gods' praise him when they take up their station, and all the spirits<br />
of the clear firmament rejoice in his glory...when the gods of knowledge<br />
enter by the doors of glory, and when the holy angels depart the realm, the<br />
entrance doors and the gates of exit proclaim the glory of the King...the<br />
fear of the King of 'gods' is awe-inspiring to all the 'gods,' and they<br />
undertake all his commissions by virtue of his true order" (Vermes 229<br />
[4Q405 23i]).<br />
The War Rule says that "the host of warring 'gods' gird themselves for<br />
the Day of Revenge" (1QMXV, Vermes 121). We also find in the fragment<br />
titled by Vermes as The Song of Michael and the Just (4Q491 fr. II, Ma) an<br />
incomplete sentence that says that there is "a throne of strength in the<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/angels.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:34 AM]
Angels as Gods<br />
congregation of 'gods' so that not a single king of old shall sit on it,<br />
neither shall their noble men...(Vermes 126). The one called Michael is<br />
also held as saying "I am reckoned with the 'gods' and my dwelling place is<br />
in the congregation of holiness" and "for I am reckoned with the 'gods,'<br />
and my glory is with the sons of the King" (Vermes 126).<br />
As D.S. Russell writes: "There is ample evidence to show that [the OT]<br />
conception of monotheism was held in conjunction with a belief in a spiritual<br />
world peopled with supernatural and superhuman beings who, in some ways,<br />
shared the nature, though not the being, of God" ( _The Method and Message of<br />
Jewish Apocalyptic_ P. 235).<br />
Back To Study Page<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
Heinz Schmitz<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/angels.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:34 AM]
New Testament Breakdown<br />
New Testament Breakdown<br />
The New Testament by Richmond Lattimore<br />
Manuscript Used: Westcott and Hort<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Acts 16:5-Church, Philippians 1:1-Bishop, Deacons<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Translator of various Greek works.<br />
Sample Scriptures: Henceforth, let no one give me trouble; for I carry the stigmata of Jesus on my body. Galatians 6:17<br />
Because in him resides, physically, all the fulfillment of the divine. Colossians 2:9<br />
Web-site: Amazon.com<br />
Concordant Literal New Testament<br />
Manuscript Used: Concordant Greek Text<br />
Archaic Language: Some<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: ecclesias, superiors, servants<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: And Jesus said to him, "Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise." Luke<br />
23:43<br />
God no one has ever seen. The only-begotten God, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He unfolds him. John 1:18<br />
Web-site: http://www.concordant.org/version/index.html<br />
Emphatic Diaglott<br />
Manuscript Used: Vatican Manuscript<br />
Archaic Language: Yes<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Congregations, overseers, assistants<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: In the Beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God. John1:1<br />
For David ascended not to HEAVEN, but he says himself, JEHOVAH said to my LORD, sit thou at my Right<br />
hand.Acts2:34<br />
Williams New Testament<br />
Manuscript Used: Westcott and Hort<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Church, overseers, assistant<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: Then Jesus said to them, "I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born." John 8:58<br />
Blesses are those who feel poor in spiritual things, for the kingdom of heaven belong to them. Matthew 5:3<br />
Jewish New Testament by David H. Stern<br />
Manuscript Used: United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies Greek Text 3rd Edition<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Congregations, congregational leaders, shammashim<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible1.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:43 AM]
New Testament Breakdown<br />
Translation Type: Free/Paraphrase<br />
Background: Messianic Jew<br />
Sample Scriptures: In this way, the name of our Lord Yeshua will be glorified in you, and you in him, in accordance with<br />
the grace of our God and the Lord Yeshua the Messiah. 2 Thessalonians 1:12<br />
Do not put Adonai your God to the test. Luke 4:12<br />
The New Testament in Modern English by J.B. Phillips<br />
Manuscript Used: United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies Greek Text<br />
Archaic Language: Some<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Church, Bishop, Deacons<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Translation Type: Free/Paraphrase<br />
Background: Anglican<br />
Sample Scriptures: Happy are those who know their need for God, for the kingdom of Heaven is theirs. Matthew 5:3<br />
That means that tongues are a sign of God's power, not for those who are unbelievers but for those who already believe..<br />
Preaching the word of God, on the other hand, is a sign of God's power to those who do not believe rather than to<br />
believers. 1Corinthians 14:22<br />
The Message New Testament by Eugene H. Peterson<br />
Archaic Language: Some<br />
Inclusive Language: Some<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Congregations, Pastor, Minister<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Translation Type: Paraphrase<br />
Background: Presbyterian<br />
Sample Scriptures: "The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word.The Word was God, in<br />
readiness for God from day one." John 1:1<br />
"Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as<br />
citizens of God's kingdom." 1 Corinthians 6:9,10<br />
Web-site: http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/message.htm<br />
God's Word New Testament 1995<br />
Manuscript Used: Novum Testamentum Graece 26th Edition<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Inclusive Language: Yes<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Church, Bishop, Deacons<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Translation Type: Paraphrase<br />
Background: Evangelical<br />
Sample Scriptures: This Jesus Christ is the real God and eternal life. 1John 5:20<br />
"All of God lives in Christ's body." Colossians 2:9<br />
Web-site: http://www.godsword.org/<br />
The Worrell New Testament by 1904<br />
Archaic Language: Some<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Assemblies, Bishop, Deacons<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh, was justified in<br />
the Spirit, was seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. 1Timothy 3:16<br />
For there crept in stealthily certain men , who of old were set forth for this condemnation, ungodly men, changing the<br />
grace of our God into lasciviousness; and denying the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 4<br />
Montgomery New Testament 1924 by Helen Barrett Montgomery<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible1.htm (2 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:43 AM]
New Testament Breakdown<br />
Archaic Language: Some<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Church, minister, Deacons<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God. John<br />
1:1<br />
No man has ever seen God; God, only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father-he has interpreted him<br />
the New Testament-An Expanded Translation by Kenneth S. Wuest. 1961<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Inclusive Language: Yes<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Assemblies, overseers, deacons<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Translation Type: Paraphrased<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And<br />
the word was to His essence absolute deity. John 1:1<br />
Absolute deity in its essence no one has ever yet seen. God uniquely-begotten, He who is in the bosom of the Father, that<br />
One fully explained deity. John 1:18<br />
John Wesley New Testament<br />
Archaic Language: Yes<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Church, bishops, deacons<br />
Comma Johanneum: Yes<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: Whose are the fathers, and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God<br />
blessed for ever. Romans 9:5<br />
New Testament by Msr Ronald A. Knox 1945<br />
Manuscript Used: Latin Vulgate<br />
Archaic Language: Some<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Church, pastors, deacons<br />
Comma Johanneum: Yes<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Catholic<br />
Sample Scriptures: Hail , thou who art full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women. Luke 1:28<br />
Is not this the carpenter's son? Whose mother is called Mary, and his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?<br />
Matthew 13:55<br />
The New Testament of the Inclusive Language <strong>Bible</strong> 1994<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Inclusive Language: See Title<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Congregation, bishops, servants<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Translation Type: Paraphrase<br />
Background: Feminist<br />
Sample Scriptures: Prepare the way for Yahweh! Make straight paths for our God. Matthew 3:3<br />
I will be a Parent to you, and you will be my child. Hebrews 1:5<br />
The Recovery Version 1985-91<br />
Manuscript Used: Novum Testamentum Graece 26th Edition(Nestle Aland)<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible1.htm (3 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:43 AM]
New Testament Breakdown<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, overseers, deacons<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Translation Type: Literal with TONS of footnotes of the dogmatic variety<br />
Background: Living Streams Ministry<br />
Sample Scriptures: No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared<br />
him.<br />
John 1:18<br />
New Century Version New Testament 1984<br />
Manuscript Used: UBS Greek New Testament 3rd edition<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Inclusive Language: Yes<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, elders, deacons<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Translation Type: Paraphrase<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: Enter through the narrow gate. The road that leads to hell is very wide. Matthew 7:13,14<br />
An Inclusive Version 1995<br />
Manuscript Used: New Revised Standard Version<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Inclusive Language: OH YES<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, bishops, deacons<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Translation Type: Paraphrase<br />
Background: Feminist<br />
Sample Scriptures: Our Father-Mother in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your dominion come, Your will be done on<br />
earth as it is in heaven. Matthew 6:9, 10<br />
The Five Gospels(also known as The Annotated Gospels or the Complete Gospels).<br />
Manuscript Used: Eclectic<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Inclusive Language:Yes<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Jesus Seminar<br />
Sample Scriptures: In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom was there with<br />
God, and it was what God was. John 1:1<br />
Jesus said to them, "As God is my witness, I existed before there was an Abraham. John 8:58<br />
The Unvarnished New Testament by Andy Gaus 1991<br />
Manuscript Used: Novum Testamentum Graece of Nestle-Aland<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Inclusive Language: Yes<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Communities, elders, overseers,<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Catholic-raised, but not belonging to any organized religion.<br />
Sample Scriptures: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and God was what the Word was. Jn<br />
1:1<br />
"Before Abraham was born, I have already been." Jn 8:58<br />
Restoration of Original Name New Testament 1968<br />
Based on Rotherham's Version<br />
Divine Name Rendered:Yahvah<br />
International English <strong>Bible</strong> 2001<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible1.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:43 AM]
New Testament Breakdown<br />
Inclusive Language: Yes<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Congregations, servants, overseers<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Background: God Chasers?!<br />
Sample Scriptures: ..and the Word was God [ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is actually a better translation, because the Greek<br />
definite article is not present]. John 1:1<br />
I was alive before Abraham was born. John 8:58<br />
The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Francis Aloysius Spencer 1940<br />
Archaic Language: Some<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Church, bishops, deacons<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Background: Catholic<br />
Sample Scripture: No one has ever seen God. The Only Begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared<br />
Him.<br />
More to come........<br />
Email Me<br />
Back to Main Page<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible1.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:43 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions with Text of Origin and Divine Name(YHWH) Rendered.<br />
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions<br />
Click here for a Comprehensive List of <strong>Bible</strong> and New Testaments that contain the Divine Name<br />
King James(Authorized)Version1611,with revisions made 1616,1629,1638,1762,1769.<br />
Manuscripts Used:Masoretic Text,Received Text.<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD,Jehovah at Ex.6:3,Ps.83:18,Is.12:2,Is.26:4.<br />
Comma Johanneum(Trinitarian Insertion 1John 5:7,8): Yes<br />
Apocrypha(Deutero-Canonical Books): Some editions<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: Yes<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Acts 16:5-Church, Philippians 1:1-Bishop, deacon<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. 2Cor.6:12<br />
No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John<br />
1:18<br />
Web-<strong>Site</strong>: http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/kjv.htm<br />
Rheims-Douay <strong>Bible</strong>(Catholic)1582-1610<br />
Manuscripts Used: Latin Vulgate<br />
Divine Name Rendered:Lord(Adonai twice) Jod He Vau He and Jehovah at footnote Ex.6:3<br />
Comma Johanneum: Yes<br />
Apocrypha: Yes<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: Yes<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Catholic<br />
Sample Scriptures: Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and<br />
Simon, and Jude. Matthew 13:55<br />
Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Luke 1:28<br />
Web-site: http://www.cybercomm.net/~dcon/drbible.html<br />
Young`s Literal Translation 1862-98<br />
Manuscripts Used: Masoretic and Received Text<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Jehovah<br />
Comma Johanneum: Yes<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: Yes<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant(FreeChurch)<br />
Sample Scriptures: Sing ye to Jehovah a new song, For wonders He hath done, Given salvation to Him hath His right hand<br />
and His holy arm. Psalms XCVIII v.1<br />
Ror there did come in unobserved certain men, long ago having been written beforehand to this judgment, impious, the<br />
grace of our God perverting to lasciviousness, and our only Master, God, and Lord--Jesus Christ--denying Jude 4<br />
Web-site: http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=YLT<br />
English Revised Version 1881-95<br />
Manuscripts Used: Masoretic Text,Westcott and Hort<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Jehovah at Ex.6:2,3,6,7,8;Ps.83:18;Is.12;Is.26:4<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: Added in 1895<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: Yes<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible2.htm (1 of 11) [5/25/2003 4:24:49 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions with Text of Origin and Divine Name(YHWH) Rendered.<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: Whose are the fathers, and of whom is the Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed<br />
forever. Amen. Romans 9:5<br />
For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old set forth unto this condemnation, ungodly men,<br />
turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Jude 4<br />
Emphasized <strong>Bible</strong>(Rotherham)1878-1902<br />
Manuscripts Used: Masoretic(Ginsburg),Westcott and Hort, Tregelles<br />
Divine Name Rendered:Yahweh<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: Yes<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: [Verily] I say unto thee this day: [With me] shalt thou be in Paradise. Luke 23:43<br />
Thy throne, O God, is unto times age-abiding. Hebrews 1:8<br />
Web-site: http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/versions/EBR.htm<br />
American Standard Version 1901<br />
Manuscripts Used:Masoretic and Westcott and Hort<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Jehovah<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: Yes<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that<br />
taketh his name in vain. Exodus 20:7<br />
Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an<br />
equality with God a thing to be grasped Philippians 2:6<br />
Web-site: http://www.churchesofchrist.net/bibles/ASV/asvindex.htm<br />
New American Standard Version<br />
Manuscripts Used:Masoretic , Novum Testamentum Graece/Nestle 26th edition<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD, YHWH mentioned in the footnotes at Exodus 3:15; 6:3<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: Removed in updated edition<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Church, overseers, deacon<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has<br />
explained him. John 1:18<br />
Web-site: http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/<br />
King James II Version by Jay P. Green(1972-82)<br />
Manuscripts Used:Recieved Text(Textus Receptus)Majority Text<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Jehovah<br />
Comma Johanneum: Yes<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible2.htm (2 of 11) [5/25/2003 4:24:49 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions with Text of Origin and Divine Name(YHWH) Rendered.<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: Denying the only Master, God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 4<br />
And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, 1Timothy 3:16<br />
An American Translation-Smith&Goodspeed 1923-39<br />
Manuscripts Used:Masoretic and Westcott and Hort<br />
Divine Name Rendered:LORD, Yahweh at Ex.3:15,Ex.6:3<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: Yes<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, superintendents, assistants<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Liberal<br />
Sample Scriptures: In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine. John 1:1<br />
But of the Son he says, God is your throne forever and ever! Hebrews 1:8<br />
Samuel Sharpe's Translation<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Jehovah<br />
Revised Standard Version 1946-52<br />
Manuscripts Used: Masoretic, Westcott and Hort, Nestle<br />
Divine Name Rendered:LORD, YHWH at footnote Ex.6:3<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: Some Editions<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: Some<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, bishops, deacons<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant with Catholic and Ecumenical Editions<br />
Sample Scriptures: Your divine throne endures forever and ever. Psalms 45:6<br />
But of the Son he says,"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. Hebrews 1:8<br />
Web-<strong>Site</strong>: http://www.hti.umich.edu/relig/rsv/<br />
New Revised Standard Version<br />
Manuscripts Used: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, UBS Greek Text<br />
Divine Name Rendered:LORD, YHWH at footnote Ex.3:15;6:3<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: Some Editions<br />
Inclusive Language: Yes<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, bishops, deacons<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant with Catholic and Ecumenical Editions<br />
Sample Scriptures: Your throne O God endures forever and ever. Psalms 45:6<br />
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the father's heart, who has made him known. Jn 1:18<br />
Added from Dead Sea Scrolls: I will offer him as a nazirite for all time. 4QSam [Compare Mt 2:23]<br />
Web-<strong>Site</strong>: http://www.dallas.net/~ronnew/bible/00bible.htm<br />
Boothroyd's Translation<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Jehovah<br />
New English <strong>Bible</strong> 1970<br />
Manuscripts Used:Masoretic,Kittel`s Biblia Hebraica, Eclectic Text<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Jehovah at Ex.3:15,16; Ex.6:3; Ex.33:19; Ex.34:5,6<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: Some Editions<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible2.htm (3 of 11) [5/25/2003 4:24:49 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions with Text of Origin and Divine Name(YHWH) Rendered.<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: Some<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Congregations, bishops, deacons<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Protestant and Catholic(Liberal)<br />
Sample Scriptures: And he shall be called in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like, Father for all time, Prince of peace. Is.<br />
9:6<br />
When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was. John 1:1<br />
Revised English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Manuscripts Used: , Eclectic Text, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgertensia<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Jehovah,Yahweh and YHWH at footnote at Ex.3:15<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: Some Editions<br />
Inclusive Language: Some<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, bishops, deacons<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Protestant and Catholic(Liberal)<br />
Sample Scriptures: Yet you have made him a little less than a god, crowning his head with glory and honour. Psalms 8:5<br />
Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6<br />
Web-site: http://energion.com/books/bibles/reb.html<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>(Today`s English Version)1976<br />
Manuscripts Used:Masoretic, Kittel`s Biblia Hebraica and The Greek New Testament by United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies<br />
Divine Name Rendered:LORD, Yahweh in footnotes at Ex.6:3,Ex.3:15 and Gen.2:4<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: Some Editions<br />
Inclusive Language: Some<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Church, church leaders, helpers<br />
Translation Type: Free/Paraphrase<br />
Background: Protestant with Catholic Editions<br />
Sample Scriptures: Man cannot live on bread alone, but need every word that God speaks. Matthew 4:4<br />
Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God. John 1:1<br />
Good News <strong>Bible</strong>(Today`s English Version)2nd Edition<br />
Manuscripts Used:Masoretic, Kittel`s Biblia Hebraica and The Greek New Testament by United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies<br />
Divine Name Rendered:LORD, Yahweh in footnotes at Ex.6:3,Ex.3:15 and Gen.2:4<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: Some Editions<br />
Inclusive Language: Yes<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Church, church leaders, helpers<br />
Translation Type: Free/Paraphrase<br />
Background: Protestant with Catholic Editions<br />
Sample Scriptures: Human beings cannot live on bread alone, but need every word that God speaks. Matthew 4:4<br />
In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1<br />
Web-site: Click Here<br />
New King James <strong>Bible</strong> 1982<br />
Manuscripts Used:Masoretic,Kittel`s Biblia Hebraica,Majority Text<br />
Divine Name Rendered:LORD, Yah at Is.12:2,Is.26:4<br />
Comma Johanneum: Yes<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible2.htm (4 of 11) [5/25/2003 4:24:49 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions with Text of Origin and Divine Name(YHWH) Rendered.<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Church, bishop, deacon<br />
Sample Scripture:<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant(Evangelical)<br />
Sample Scriptures: Away with you Satan! For it is written, You shall worship the LORD your God, and him only shall you<br />
serve. Matthew 4:10<br />
Because You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will you allow your Holy One to see corruption. Acts 2:27<br />
Web-site: Click Here<br />
Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> 1966<br />
Manuscripts Used:Eclectic<br />
Divine Name Rendered:Yahweh<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: Yes<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Catholic<br />
Sample Scriptures: Are you not from ancient times Yahweh, my God, my Holy One, who never dies. Habakkuk 1:12<br />
Are you people in Galatia mad? Has someone put a spell on you? Galatians 3:1<br />
Web-site: http://www.op.org/op/ebaf/jerubibl.htm<br />
New Jerusalem <strong>Bible</strong> 1985<br />
Manuscripts Used: Masoretic and Greek Text<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Yahweh<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: Yes<br />
Inclusive Language: Some<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Catholic<br />
Sample Scriptures: In him, in bodily form, lives divinity in all its fullness. Colossians 2:9<br />
Let all the angels of God pay him homage. Hebrews 1:6<br />
Web-site: Click Here<br />
New International Readers Version(NIrV)<br />
Manuscripts Used: New International Version<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Lord<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Translation Type: Paraphrase<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: The Holy Spirit proved that he was the Son of God. 1 Timothy 3:16<br />
Everyone who calls out to me will be saved. Joel 2:32<br />
Web-site: http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/nirv.htm<br />
The Living <strong>Bible</strong> 1971<br />
Manuscripts Used: American Standard Version<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Lord, Jehovah 300 times<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: Some Editions<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible2.htm (5 of 11) [5/25/2003 4:24:49 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions with Text of Origin and Divine Name(YHWH) Rendered.<br />
Translation Type: Paraphrase<br />
Background: Protestant and Catholic Editions<br />
Sample Scriptures: Every year when each of Job's sons had a birthday. Job 1:4<br />
The whole <strong>Bible</strong> was given to us by inspiration from God, and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realized<br />
what is wrong with our lives. 2 Timothy 3:16<br />
Web-site: http://www.dsinclair.com/~dcloud/articles/living.htm<br />
Contemporary English Version 1995<br />
Manuscripts Used: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgertensia, Greek Text by United <strong>Bible</strong> Society<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Yahweh at the footnote at Ex.3:15<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: Yes<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, church officials, officers<br />
Translation Type: Paraphrase<br />
Background: Protestant and Catholic Editions<br />
Sample Scriptures: You and your money will both end up in hell. Acts 8:20<br />
Don't make friends with anyone who has a bad temper. You might turn out like them and get caught in a trap. Proverbs<br />
22:24,25<br />
Web-site: http://www.biblesociety.org.uk/transcev.htm<br />
New <strong>World</strong> Translation 1950-61-84<br />
Manuscripts Used:Kittel's Masoretic, Westcott&Hort<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Jehovah<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Congregation, overseers, ministerial servant<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Jehovah's Witnesses<br />
Sample Scriptures: Keep on asking and it will be given YOU; keep on seeking and you will find; keep on knocking and it<br />
will be opened. Matthew 7:7<br />
Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the kingdom of the heavens belongs to them. Matthew 5:3<br />
Web-<strong>Site</strong>: http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/nwt.htm<br />
Darby Translation 1871<br />
Manuscripts Used: Eclectic<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Jehovah<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: Yes<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the<br />
heavens, and brought [them] to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was<br />
its name. Genesis 2:19<br />
The overseer then must be irreproachable, husband of one wife, sober, discreet, decorous, hospitable, apt to teach; not<br />
given to excesses from wine, not a striker, but mild, not addicted to contention, not fond of money, conducting his own<br />
house well, having [his] children in subjection with all gravity; 1 Timothy 3:2-4<br />
Web-site: http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=Darby<br />
Moffatt <strong>Bible</strong> 1925<br />
Manuscripts Used: Masoretic, Von Soden<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible2.htm (6 of 11) [5/25/2003 4:24:49 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions with Text of Origin and Divine Name(YHWH) Rendered.<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Eternal<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, bishops, deacons<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Protestant/Liberal<br />
Sample Scriptures: He sits over the round earth, so high that it's inhabitants look like grasshoppers. Isaiah 40:22<br />
The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine. John 1:1<br />
Web-<strong>Site</strong>: Click here<br />
New Living Translation 1996<br />
Manuscripts Used: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgertensia, Greek Text by United <strong>Bible</strong> Society, LXX<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: Yes<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, elders, deacons<br />
Translation Type: Free/Paraphrase<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: The highway to Hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose the easy way. Matthew<br />
7:13<br />
Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born." John 8:58<br />
Web-<strong>Site</strong>: http://www.tyndale.com/nlt/about.html<br />
New International Version 1978<br />
Manuscripts Used: Kittel`s,Nestle`s and UBS<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD, YHWH mentioned in preface<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Church, overseers, deacon<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: No one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.<br />
John 1:18<br />
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. 1984 edition<br />
Web-site: http://www.zondervan.com/<br />
Amplified <strong>Bible</strong> 1965<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Lord,Yaweh at Ex.6:3<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, bishops[overseers], deacons[assistants]<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in our image. Genesis 1:26<br />
No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, the only-begotten God, Who is in the bosom [that is the<br />
intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him-He has revealed Him, brought Him out where He can be seen; He<br />
has made him known. John 1:18<br />
Web-site: http://www.zondervan.com/othframe.htm<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible2.htm (7 of 11) [5/25/2003 4:24:49 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions with Text of Origin and Divine Name(YHWH) Rendered.<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> in Living English by Steven T. Byington 1972<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Jehovah<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, visitors, deacons<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Protestant/Congregational<br />
Sample Scriptures: God is your throne forever and ever. Hebrews 1:8<br />
Nobody ever has seen God; an Only Born God, he who is in the Father's bosom, he gave the account of him. John 1:18<br />
Web-site: http://www.zoomnet.net/~wbagnall/byington.html<br />
The New American <strong>Bible</strong> 1970, 1987<br />
Manuscripts Used: Eclectic<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Yahweh and Jehovah at footnote Exodus 3:14<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: Yes<br />
Inclusive Language: Some<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Catholic<br />
Sample Scriptures: The Earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over<br />
the waters. Genesis 1:2<br />
As we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ. Titus 2:13<br />
Web-site: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/<br />
English Version for the Deaf 1987-92<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Lord, Yahweh at Ex.3:15,16;Ex.6:3;Ps.83:18;Is.42:8<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: Some<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Church(groups of believers), elders, special helpers<br />
Translation Type: Paraphrase<br />
Background: Easy to Read Version for the Hearing Impaired<br />
Sample Scriptures: No man has ever seen God. But the only Son (Jesus) is God. He is very close to the Father (God). And<br />
the Son has shown us what God is like. John 1:18<br />
Christ himself was like God in everything. Christ was equal with God. Philippians 2:6<br />
The Holy <strong>Bible</strong> in the Language of Today-An American Translation by William F.Beck 1976<br />
Manuscripts Used: Eclectic<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, pastors, helpers<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: Nobody has ever seen God. The only-begotten God who is close to the Father's heart has told us about<br />
him. John 1:18<br />
Simpletons are gifted with foolishness, but the shrewd wear knowledge as a crown. Proverbs 14:18<br />
The Confraternity Version 1941-63<br />
Manuscripts Used: Latin Vulgate<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible2.htm (8 of 11) [5/25/2003 4:24:49 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions with Text of Origin and Divine Name(YHWH) Rendered.<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Lord, Yahweh and Jehovah at footnote Exodus 3:15<br />
Comma Johanneum: Yes<br />
Apocrypha: Yes<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: Some<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Catholic<br />
Sample Scriptures: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. Luke 1:42<br />
And Jesus said to her, "What wouldst thou have me do woman? My hour has not yet come." John 2:4<br />
The <strong>Bible</strong> in Basic English<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Lord, Yahweh at Exodus 6:2,3,6,8; Psalms 83:18; Jah at Ps. 68:4;89:8;94:7;130:3;135:3<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Translation Type: Free<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: For in him all the wealth of God's being has a living form. Colossians 2:9<br />
And to the angel of the church in Laodicea say: These things says the true and certain witness, the head of God's new<br />
order. Revelation 3:14<br />
Webster <strong>Bible</strong> 1833<br />
Manuscripts Used: Mild correction of the KJV<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Jehovah at Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4; 51:22; Jeremiah 23:6; 32:18;<br />
33:16<br />
Comma Johanneum: Yes<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: Yes<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, bishop, deacon<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: For certain men have crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation,<br />
ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.<br />
Jude 4<br />
Holy <strong>Bible</strong> from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts by George M. Lamsa<br />
Manuscripts Used: Syriac Peshitta<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, elders, deacons<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: And God said to Moses, I am the AHIAH ASHAR HIGH(that is THE LIVING GOD). Exodus 3:14<br />
Jesus said to them, Truly, truly I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was. John 8:58<br />
Modern Language <strong>Bible</strong>-New Berkeley Version 1945-69<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Jehovah at Exodus 3:15;6:3; Numbers 3:13,45;15:41;21:14;35:34; Psalms<br />
8:1,9;16:2;140:7; 141:8; 147:1; Isaiah 12:2; Yahweh at Hosea 12:5; Adonai at Judges 6:24<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: Some<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible2.htm (9 of 11) [5/25/2003 4:24:49 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions with Text of Origin and Divine Name(YHWH) Rendered.<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant(Baptist)<br />
Sample Scriptures: [Phillip assured him, "If you heartily believe, it is permitted." And he replied "I believe that Jesus<br />
Christ is the Son of God."]<br />
<strong>World</strong> English <strong>Bible</strong><br />
Manuscript Used: Masoretic, Majority Text, ASV<br />
Divine Name Rendered: Yahweh<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Assemblies, overseers , deacons<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: For there are certain men who crept in secretly, even those who were long ago written about for this<br />
condemnation: ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master, God, and<br />
Lord, Jesus Christ. Jude 4<br />
"God was revealed in the flesh" 1Timothy 3:16<br />
Web-<strong>Site</strong>: http://ebible.org/bible/web<br />
Hebrew Names Version<br />
Manuscript Used: Masoretic, Majority Text, ASV<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: No<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Assemblies, overseers , shammashim<br />
Translation Type: Literal<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: For there are certain men who crept in secretly, even they who were of old written of beforehand to this<br />
condemnation: ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master, God, and<br />
Lord, Yeshua the Messiah.<br />
Web-site: http://ebible.org/bible/hnv<br />
New English Translation(NET)<br />
Manuscript Used: Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the United <strong>Bible</strong> Societies' 4th edition<br />
Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Yahweh in Exodus<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: Some<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, overseers , deacons<br />
Translation Type: Literal/Free<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: No one has ever seen God. The only One, himself God, who is in the presence of the Father, has made<br />
God known. John 1:18<br />
Web-site: http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm<br />
The Complete <strong>Bible</strong> in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton<br />
Manuscript Used: Westcott/Hort<br />
Divine Name Rendered: EVER-LIVING, Jehovah a few times in Psalms (7:7; 8:2; 9:14, 17, 20 etc)<br />
Comma Johanneum: No<br />
Apocrypha: No<br />
Inclusive Language: nO<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible2.htm (10 of 11) [5/25/2003 4:24:49 AM]
<strong>Bible</strong> <strong>Translations</strong> and Versions with Text of Origin and Divine Name(YHWH) Rendered.<br />
Archaic Language: No<br />
Ecclesiastical Language: assemblies, overlookers , ministers<br />
Translation Type: Literal/Free<br />
Background: Protestant<br />
Sample Scriptures: The Wonderful Counsellor, call His name, Great Leader, Time's Father, the Prince of Peace. Is 9:6<br />
Email Me<br />
May 6 2001<br />
file:///C|/Scans/<strong>Bible</strong>-Files/bible2.htm (11 of 11) [5/25/2003 4:24:49 AM]