Bible Translations Site Map - Robinson World Websites

Bible Translations Site Map 

1. Main Page 

2.Whole Translations with the Divine Name and other info 

3. New Testaments with Info 

4. Angels as Gods 

5. Is That In The Bible-Bible Anomalies 

6. Apologetics forum 

7. Top Ten Bible And Religion Lists 

8. The Comma Johanneum and the Trinity 

9. Are there Contradictions in the Bible? 

10. More Alleged Contradictions 

13. What a Difference a Word Makes in Bible Translation 

16. Science and Religion-Albert Einstein 

18. The New Testament In An Improved Version-Newcome-Gospel of John-Online (Gospel of John 

only) 

21. Bible Theology and the Word "HELL" 

22. An Inclusive Version-The Feminist Bible 

23. My Vicious Letter from the International Standard Version Bible 

24. Who Was King James?/King James the Fop 

25. The King James(Authorized) Version Bible-Is it the Best? 

26. Bible Links 

29. The Message-A Bible in Contemporary Language by Eugene Peterson 

36. 1975 and a History of the End Times 

37. My Bibles 

38. Bible News and Amusements 

39. The New International Readers Version-Rewriting the Bible to fit your Philosophy 

40. Defending the New World Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB 

42. Smoke and Mirrors-Tactics Used by Opposers to Sway Jehovah's Witnesses 

43. The Prince of Egypt 

44. 9 out of 10 "Christians" don't know how to answer Jehovah's Witnesses. 

48. The Seven Deadly Sins and Other Lists that aren't in the Bible 

49. Bible Translations and the word "SOUL". 

50. Bible Study Articles 

51. Why We Need Different Bible Translations 

52. Trinitarian Bias in the Holy Bible(Chart) 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/SITEMAP.HTM (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:08 AM]


53. The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity 

54. More Trinitarian Bias in the Certain Bible Versions(Chart) 

55. The Triplepoint Theory of the Trinity 

57. Facts and Links on the Book of Mormon 

58. The Forgotten Trinity-James R. White tries to Explain the Unexplainable 

59. My Response to Kevin Quick's Attack on the NWT 

60. My Response to Andy Bjorklund and his attack on the New World Translation 

61. Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity 

62. John 1:1 and the Word/Wisdom of God 

63. The Misunderstood Jehovah and the Ridiculous Notion that his name means "Mischief" 

64. Proskuneo and Worship/Obeisance/Homage of Jesus and others. 

65. Jesus Christ the Firstborn/PRWTOTOKOS of all creatures. 

66. Did the Book of Mormon Plagiarize the Bible? 

68. Conversations on the Trinity 

69. More Conversations on the Trinity 

71. Conversations on the Trinity Part 3 



75. A Reply to Jehovah's Witnesses and the Symbol of the Cross 

76. A Reply to "Only Begotten Son" or "Only Son." 


78. The Majority Text/Byzantine Text vs the Modern Critical Text 

With Another Look at the King James Version 

81. A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus" 

83. A Reply to CARM and the use of I AM @ John 8:58 

84. Conversations on the Textus Receptus (Received Text) 

85. Colossians 2:9 and the "divine quality." 

86. Was Constantine the Great a Pagan or a Christian? 

87. Recommended Books 

90. Johannes Greber and John 1:1c 

91. A Chart of Lesser Scriptures used in Support of the Trinity Doctrine 

92. Comprehensive List of Occurences of the Divine Name in the NT 

93. Is the Holy Spirit a Force ot the 3rd Person of the Trinity? 

94. 50 Answer to 50 Questions to ask Jehovah's Witnesseses 

96. Hebrew and Greek Transliteration Chart 

97. Rhodes vs Jehovah-Is it Jehovah, Yahweh, or just plain LORD? 

98. Elohim, Echad and the 3 Angels of Mamre 

99. An Online Response to a Kevin Quick Defender and "Just Believe." 

100. Answering yet Another Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses by the Available Light Web-Site 

101. Ezra Abbot on Luther's Bible and the Comma Johanneum 



102. Is Jesus Jehovah-Heb 1:10/Ps 102 etc 

103. Is Jesus Jehovah Pt. 2/Bible Innerancy and the Mindset of Opposers 

104. Colwell's Rule of Bible Translations-What is the best New Testament? 

105. Let's Read My Email Updated 

106. The Biblical view of Only True God/TON MONON ALHQINON QEON 

107. On Cults, Jesus as Michael the Archangel, and His being raised in the spirit. 

109. On the NIV, the Insertion of the word "other", soul, hell, analusai etc. 

110. The ARCHE at Rev 3:14-Beginning or Ruler/Source? 

111. Should kolasin be translated *cutting-off* or *punishment* at Matthew 25:46? 

112. Ezra Abbot on the Construction of Titus 2:13. 

113. Notes by Ezra Abbot on the Construction of Titus 2:13. 

114. Answers to 65 questions every Jehovah's Witness should be asked using the NWT-A Catholic 

Perspective 

115. Answers to 65 questions every Jehovah's Witness should be asked using the NWT-A Catholic 

Perspective-Pt. 2 

120. The LORD said to my lord: The Use and Abuse of Adoni in Bible Versions 

121. An Open Letter to James White Regarding his "Germans, JWs, and John 1:1" 

122. Sheol and the Mis-abuse of the word Hell in Bible Versions-(with Chart) 

123. Is Jesus the Angel of the Abyss (Abaddon/Apollyon)? 

124. John 1:3, 4, Punctuation, Staircase Parallelism and Caris. 

125. Questions from Hrh on the words "Other","Firstborn" the Spirit, Trinity and Heaven, Lord etc. 

127. Is Organization Necessary for True Believers? Updated 

128. Timeline of Bible Translation History (will be constantly updated). 

129. On the Construction of Romans 9:5 by Ezra Abbott 

130. My Response to Lynn Lundquist's "The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures 

133. A Reply To: Edwin Jardinel's WHY I USE AND PREACH FROM KJV BIBLE 

135. Frequent Words in the Greek Scriptures-A Lexical Aid 

136. The Biblical view of Only True God-Part 2-Now with Additions in RED 

137. Radio Station KKLA (Living By The Word Ministries) and their Dishonest Examination of My 

Research and the New World Translation140. Conversations on the Trinity-Part 7 

141. Why was the Watchtower Society Listed amongst the United Nations Non-Governmental 

Organizations (NGO)? 

141. JW's, Pedophiles...and Selective Discrimination and Hysteria 

142. Answering Universalism-What does the Bible mean by ALL?-An Answer to Tentmaker.org 

143. A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom 

144. What They Don't Tell You-On Dateline, Apostates, and the Gay Agenda 

145. Pagan Wedding and Birthday Traditions-Can They Be Compared?- An Examination of this topic as 

introduced by Greg Stafford in his book, "Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesseses 

146. Jason's Challenge-The Bible and the Deity of Jesus Christ: On Matthew 1:23 and Immanuel; John 

20:28; Men as gods; Psalms 45:6; Colossians 2:9; the Divine Name in the LXX, the worship of Jesus, 



John 1:1, etc. 

147. Jason's Challenge-The Bible and the Deity of Jesus Christ: On Matthew 1:23 and Immanuel; John 

20:28; Men as gods; Psalms 45:6; Colossians 2:9; the Divine Name in the LXX, the worship of Jesus, 

John 1:1, etc.Part 2 

148. A Reply to James Stewart's Review of Rolf Furuli's book on Bible Translation and the NWT 

149. Which Bible Best Retains Most of the Original Wording Prior to the Emendations (Corrections) 

made to the Hebrew Text 

150. More on the Spirit and Quoting-A Response to Guy Bearman 

151. Bible Versions and the "Once Saved Always Saved" Theology 

152. The CARM Anti-Tract 

153. Answering Jay Hess in Support of Jehovah's Witnesses 

154. On Homosexuality in the Bible: A Response to Peter J. Gomes' The Good Book 

155. Are the Online George Howard Letters Genuine or Fake, and how many times can the NWT-NT's 

use of the Divine Name be traced back to the OT? 

Back to Main Page 


How Theology and Bias affect Bible Translations and Versions 

What they don't tell 

you! Explore the 

Bible as you never 

have before. 

· Site Map 

· On Matthew 1:23, 

Colossian 2:9; John 20:28 

and the word "Worship" in 

the Bible 

· On the NIV, the insertion 

of the word "other" etc 

· Prototokos and Col. 1:15 

· Ezra Abbot on Martin 

Luther and the 3 Heavenly 

Witnesses 

· "Adoni" and Bible 

Versions 

· Understanding Greek 

Texts 

· Response to Andy 

Bjorklund on the NWT 

· What a Difference a Word 

Makes in Bible Translation 

· Read My Email 

(Constantly Updated) 

· A Mis- understood 

Jehovah 

· Who Put That in the 

Bible? (Warning!) 

· On Prototokos/Col 1:15 

· 1John 5:7,8 and the 3 

Witness Bearers 

· Bible Links 

· Proskuneo/ Wosrhip and 

Bible Translations 

· New Testament 

Breakdown 

· Bible News & 

Amusements 

· A Reply to Stauros and 

the Cross 

· Bible Hebrew Archives 

· The Message New 

Testament 

· Bibles I Own 

· Tactics Used by Opposers 

· E-mail Me 

· Bible Translations and 

Proverbs 8:22 

How Theology and Bias affects Bible Translation 

The King James(Authorized)Version·The Tetragrammaton · A Reply to James 

Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom · Bible Versions and the Divine Name · 

Hell in the Bible?· Conversations on the Trinity · Conversations on the Textus 

Receptus· John 8:58/EGW EIMI 

The word "Soul" in the Bible · King James the Fop · The Biblical view of Only 

True God-Part II 

What is the Best New Testament? 

50 years ago respected textual critic Ernest Cadman Colwell 

created an apparatus of 64 scriptures to determine which is the best 

New Testament. I created a chart using the same criteria...and the 

results will surprise you!! click here for more 

Which is the Best Old Testament? 

Which Bible best retains the original wording prior to the 

emendations (corrections) made to the Hebrew text. 

Is your mainstream Bible ripping you off? 

Again...the results will surprise you!!click here for more 

Visit the Book Store 

Buy scanned and Xerox copies of Newcome's 1808 Corrected 

New Testament, George Barker Steven's NT, Weigall's "The 

Paganism in our Christianity," Machen's NT Greek for Beginners, 

plus more, for only $9.95. Used copies of Goodspeed's Bible, and 

the Revised English Bible also available. click here for more 

On the Construction of Romans IX:5 

[From the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and 

Exegesis for 1881.] Now complete, sans Notes A & B 

Written by Ezra Abbott click here for more 

Jesus: GOD or the Son of God? 

A new book by Brian Holt, available at 

http://www.tellway-publishing.com 

This is a wonderful book with 366 pages of an easy to understand 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/index.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:13 AM]


· Apologetics Forum 

· Bible Study Articles 

· JW's United 

· Conversations on the 

Trinity Part 3 

· Conversation on the 

Trinity Part 4 

· Parousia 

· Do we need Different 

Versions? 

· 3 Wise Men or 

Astrologers? 

· Interlinear Bible 

· New International readers 

Version 

· Did the Book of Mormon 

Plagiarize the Bible? 

· TON MONON ALHQINON 

QEON 

/False Gods 

· The Two Babylons 

· Lists from the Bible 

· Lists People think are in 

the Bible but Aren't 

· A Response to 

Monogenes at Jn 1:18 

· B-Greek 

· Greek Theology Archives 

· American Standard 

Version 

·News and Business Links 

· Greek Lexicon 

· Jesus as Michael the 

Archangel 

· Trinity Triple Point Theory 

· Search The Revised 

Standard Version 

· King James the Fop 

· International Standard 

Version 

· Why Different Versions? 

· Boobyer on Jesus as 

THEOS 

· NWT Advantages 

· The NIV and Interpolations 

· An Inclusive Version 

· 1975 and other 

Speculations 

· More Alleged 

Contradictions 

· Einstein's Science and 

Religion 

· European List of NT's with 

the Divine Name/ YHWH 

· Blue Letter Bible 

· Johannes Greber and the 

Opposers who Love him 

· Win A Free Bible 

· Bible Gateway 

· Latin Vulgate 

· Prince of Egypt 

· Hebrew Names Version 

· Search the NRSV 

· Westcott/Hort text with 

NA26 variants 

analysis of the Trinity going through all the books of the NT one 

by one. 

For more Book Recommendations, click here 

The Tetragrammaton YHWH/JHVH 

Is it Yahweh, Jehovah, or just plain LORD? 

Why Does Ron Rhodes hate the name? click here 

The ARCHE at Rev. 3:14-Ruler or Beginning? 

The BADG has given more weight to Christ being a created being. 

Was the genitive construction a factor? click here 

John 1:1-The Most Talked about Scripture 

Was the Word "a god", "God" or "divine"? 

Is Logos a substitution for Sophia/Wisdom?click here 

For KKLA Radio misrepresentation of this page, click here 

To purchase Newcome's 1808 Revised New Testament for $7.95 

on CD-Rom-click here. 

The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures 

My response to Lynn Lundquist's book on the topic that was sent 

to every Kingdom Hall in America. 

As posted on JW United. click here 

John 1:3,4-Bible Versions and Punctuation 

Is "without Him nothing was made that was made" wrong? 

also, Staircase Parallelism, Agency and Caris click here 

My Nasty Letter from the INTERNATIONAL STANDARD 

VERSION 

From the publishers 

"In regards to your puerile insistence on the 'Divine Name'"...click 

here 

Colossians 2:9 and QEIOTHS vs QEOTHTOS 

The Fullness of the "Deity" or "divine quality?" 

The NASB against the NWT- an online reply to Mark McFall" 

click here 

The King James Version-Is it the Best? 

Can you understand what you are reading? 

"Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing."click here 

Matt 25:46-How Should kolasin be translated ? 

"Eternal Punishment/Torment" or "Cutting -Off"! 

What is the lexical/Biblical evidence? click here 

Trinitarian Bias in Bible Translations 

Trinitarian differences in different versions. 

A chart with differences in translations of certain scriptures like 



· Works/Salvation 

· On Elohim, Echad and the 

3 angels of Mamre 

· Is Jesus Jehovah? 

· Germans, Jw's and John 

1:1-A Reply 

· Frequent words used in 

the NT-A Lexical Aid 

· My Response to Kevin 

Quick Ministries' Attack on 

the Bible 

· Ezra Abbott on Romans 

9:5 

· KJV Questions Answered 

· Universalism, Bible 

Versions, and the word 

PAS/PANTAS 

· KKLA, Rob Bowman, and 

Misrepresenting the NWT 

· William Loader on John 

1:1c 

· Col 1:16 and the Partitive 

Genitive 

Read Gods Word the Holy 

Bible Daily 

Use more than one 

Translation 

Pick up Lexicons and 

Strong's Concordance with 

Hebrew and Greek 

Dictionary 

Familiarize yourself with 

the original languages by 

going to The Unbound 

Bible 

You can Fax me anything of 

Biblical interest at 707 988 

0235 

John 1:1;Acts 20:28 etc click here 

King James the Fop 

The truth behind the character of the King and the making of the 

Authorized Version. 

A great article by Global Insights. click here 

The Majority Text/Byzantine Text vs the Modern Critical 

Text 


An introduction to Textual Criticism. click here 

The New World Translation vs. the NIV and the NASB 

Making comparisons and answering the charges of bias 

click here for more 

Ezra Abbot on the Construction of Titus 2:13 

Shall we translate, "the appearing of our great God and Saviour 

Jesus Christ"? or, "the appearing of the glory of the great God and 

our Saviour Jesus Christ"? 

click here for more 

Are there Contradictions in the Bible? 

Answering the Atheists 

Scripture by Scripture click here 

Another Trinity Bias Chart 

Differences in Zech 12:10; Jn 8:58; Eph 5:5; 

Col 1:15; Rev 3:14 etc click here 

Which Bible Version Do You Use Most? 

Do you use the most? Is it the NWT, NIV, KJV, NAB, ESV, RSV, 

NEB, REB, NJB, NLT, NASB, NJPS, HCSB, NKJV? click here 

to vote 

In Memory of Jabec Bellehumeur 

Please Don't Drink and Drive 

...by his mother, Joan Brown click here 

On a quick note: "These various readings, though very numerous, do not in 

any degree affect the general credit and integrity of the text: the general 

uniformity of which, in so many copies, scattered through almost all countries 

in the known world, and in so great a variety of languages, is truly 

astonishing, and demonstrates both the veneration in which the scriptures 

were held, and the great care which was taken in transcribing them. Of the 

150,000 various readings which have been discovered by the sgacity and 

diligence of collators, not one tenth, nor one hundredth part, make any 

perceptible, or at least any material variation in any sense. Introduction to the 

New Testament in an Improved Version Upon the basis of Archbishop 

Newcome's New Translation 1808 

World English Bible · Newcome Version Online · Bible Resources · English/Greek Word Search · Recommended Books · JW Media · Steven T Byington · Search 



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· 

More YHWH in the NT·New Revised Standard Version · Nestle Greek Text · Revised English Bible · 50 Answers to 50 Questions to Ask Jehovah's Witnesses 

·Jehovah's Witnesses United · The Name of God YeHoWaH which is Pronounced as it is Written by Gerard Gertoux 

Jerusalem Bible · NKJV · Contemporary English Version · NET Bible · New American Bible ·Rolf Furuli's Book on Theology and Bias in Bible Translation 

Heinz Schmitz 

Jehovah's Witnesses 


Are the George Howard Letters Regarding the New World Translation Genuine? 

Are the Online George Howard Letters Regarding the 

New World Translation Genuine? 

How Many of the 237 Occurences of "Jehovah" in the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures (NT) are 

Traceable back to the Old Testament (OT)? 

Website: Professor Howard’s original article and the two letters reproduced below are 

clear that what be wrote was a "theory". His theory is that the writers of the New Testament 

retained the Tetragrammaton whenever they quoted extracts from the Old Testament that 

contained it. 

The Letters: 

JW publications sometimes cite Professor George Howard (J. of Biblical Literature, Volume 

96, 1977) in a way that makes it seem that he agrees with the introduction of the 

Tetragrammaton (YHWH) into the New Testament. For example see: 

* The Kingdom Interlinear Translation, 1985 pp. 1137-1138; 

* Reasoning from the Scriptures 1985, pp. 194-195. The Watchtower 1978 May 1 pp. 9-10. 

Professor Howard’s original article and the two letters reproduced below are clear that 

what be wrote was a "theory". His theory is that the writers of the New Testament retained 

the Tetragrammaton whenever they quoted extracts from the Old Testament that contained 

it. This theory applies to references in the NT from the OT. It has no relevance to most of the 

237 instances where the JW translators inserted "Jehovah" into their NT. 

The University of Georgia 

College of Arts & Sciences 

June 5, 1989 

Bob Hathaway 

Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 

Dear Mr. Hathaway: 

My conclusions regarding the Tatragrammaton and the New Testament are: 

1) the N.T. writers might have used the Tetragrammaton in their Old Testament 

quotations, and 2) it is possible (though less likely) that the Tetragrammaton 

was used in a few stereotype phrases such as "the angel of the Lord." 

Otherwise it probably was not used at all. I disagree with the Jehovah Witness 

translation that uses Jehovah many times. This goes beyond the evidence. I do 

not believe Jesus Christ is Jehovah. If the Jehovah Witnesses teach this (I’m 

not aware of most of their theology) they are off the mark. 

Sincerely, 

George Howard 

Professor 

The University of Georgia 

January 9, 1990 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/ghoward.htm (1 of 13) [5/25/2003 3:45:24 AM]


Steven Butt 

P.O. _____ 

Portland, ME 04104 

Dear Mr. Butt: 

Thank you for your letter of 3 January 1990. I have been distressed for 

sometime about the use the Jehovah’s Witnesses are making of my publications. 

My research does not support their denial of the deity of Christ. What I tried 

to show was that there is evidence that the Septuagint Bibles used by the 

writers of the New Testament contained the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. I argued 

that it is reasonable to assume that the NT writers, when quoting from the 

Septuagint, retained the Tetragrammaton in the quotations. This does not 

support the JW’s insertion of "Jehovah" in every place they want. To do this 

is to remove the NT from its original "theological climate." My opinion of the 

New World Translation (based on limited exposure) is that it is odd. I suspect 

that it is a Translation designed to support JW theology. Finally, my theory 

about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues 

disagree with me (for example Albert Pietersma). Theories like mine are 

important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and 

implications. Until they are proven (and mine has not been proven) they should 

not be used as a surety for belief. 

Sincerely, 

George Howard 

So what exactly is wrong with these letters attributed to George Howard? 

First off, the very first publication mentioned, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation, 1985 pp. 1137-1138 

admitted that George Howard thought this was a theory. There was no effort to quell this fact, but we 

have been misrepresented as promoting the opposite. 

Secondly, are we to believe that one of the world's leading researchers on the _Tetragrammaton_, cannot 

even spell it (see Tatragrammaton)? Yes, it could have been a spelling error, but what was posted was not 

a scan of Howard's supposed letter, the author should have included a [sic], indicating that the quoted 

passage containing the error, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally. Obviously, 

the person who posted this was unaware of this misspelling. 

Also, we have not used Howard as a "surety for belief" since the NWT-NT was released 27 years prior to 

his landmark article. 

Next, we are now to believe that George Howard had "limited exposure" to the New World Translation. 

This, despite the fact that Howard admitted 13 years prior that the NWT had published fragments of 

P.Fouad 266 in 1950, and that Howard had used this same Bible to transcribe these fragments in his _The 

Oldest Greek Text of Deuteronomy_ HUCA 42, 125-31 in 1971 (see JBL 96/1 1977 pp. 63-83). Howard 

evidently had the NWT in his possession for many decades prior to this posted letter. "Limited Exposure" 

indeed!! 

It seems the author of these letters was unaware that Howard used the NWT so extensively in his 

research. 

Interestingly, we have an embarrassing contradiction in the letters above. In letter One, Howard admits to 

denying the deity of Christ ["I do not believe Jesus Christ is Jehovah"] and is completely unaware of our 

stand on this, but then in letter Two expresses grief that his statements might be used to buttress this 



belief, when it was he that stated: 

"Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were 

unsure whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures were 

brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them. 

Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later 

Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian 

centuries." George Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 

1978), 15 

We may have used this quote, but not in the way this information was either fed by the poster to Howard 

(or Pseudo-Howard). 

Next, once we remove Howard's stipulations that the NT might have used the Divine Name in its OT 

quotations, and that the NT might have used it in a "few stereotype phrases" [see letter above] and the 

"OT paraphristic allusions" and the "traditional phrases" he ponders about in his JBL 1977 article, then, 

how often really, does the NWT go "beyond the evidence?" 

Let us examine each occurrence, wherein I utilized the cross-references the Treasury of Scriptural 

Knowledge, Green's Literal Version (both as supplied by E-Sword), and other resources as stated: 

MATTHEW 

1:20 "angel of the Lord" used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for 

"angel of YHWH." 

1:24 Ex. 40 "angel of the Lord" used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 

substitute for "angel of YHWH." 



2:15 Hos. 11:1; Ex. 4:22; Nu. 24:8 



3:3 Is. 40:3 

4:4 Dt. 8:3 

4:7 Dt. 6:16 

4:10 Dt. 6:13 

5:33 Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2 

21:9 Psa. 118:26 

21:42 Psalm 118:22, 23 

22:37 Deut. 6:5 

22:44 Psa. 110:1 

23:39 Psa. 118:26 

27:10 Zech. 11:12, 13 



It should be noted here that George Howard's own _Hebrew Gospel of Matthew_ has the "Divine Name 

in Shem-Tob's Matthew" 16 times, the NWT has it only 18 times, and each accounted for using 

non-Witness references. By comparison, the Sacred Name Restored Bible [or the Restoration of the 

Original Sacred Name Bible] has it 55 times here, and 1437 times in the entire NT, as opposed to the 



NWT's 237 times. Is it possible that the accusations above were directed to this Bible instead? 

MARK 

1:3 Mal. 3:1; Isa. 40:3 

5:19 Psa_66:16; Isa_38:9-20; Dan_4:1-3, Dan_4:37 TSK ;No-21st Cent NT 

11:9 Psa. 118:26 

12:11 Psalm 118:22, 23 

12:29 Deut. 6:4 

12:29 Deut. 6:4 

12:30 Deut. 6:4, 5 

12:36 Psa. 110:1 

13:20 Isa. 1:9; Zec. 13:8 

LUKE 

1:6 "commandment of the Lord," used 16 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 

substitute for "commandment of YHWH." 

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 

NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for "temple of YHWH." 

1:11 "angel of the Lord" is used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute 

for "angel of YHWH." 

1:15 "eyes of the Lord" is used 10 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute 

for "eyes of YHWH." 

1:16 "Lord their God" is used 38 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for 

"eyes of YHWH." 

1:17 Mal. 4:5, 6; 1Ch_29:18; 2Ch_29:36; Psa_10:17, Psa_78:8, Psa_111:10; Amo_4:12; 

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 

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] 

1:32 2Sa_7:11-13; Psa_132:11 "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in 

NASB/ESV/NRSV as a dynamic equivalent substitute for YHWH God. 

1:38 2Sa_7:25-29; Psa_116:16 

1:45 Gen. 18:4; 21:1 NWT 

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, 

Isa_24:16, Isa_45:25, Isa_61:10; Hab_3:17, Hab_3:18 

1:58 Rth_4:14-17; Psa_113:9 

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 

1:68 "Lord God of Israel" common OT appellation, used 48 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a dynamic 

equivalent substitute for YHWH God of Israel. Gen_9:26, Gen_14:20; 1Ki_1:48; 

1Ch_29:10,1Ch_29:20; Psa_41:13, Psa_72:17-19, Psa_106:48 

1:76 Mal. 3:1 



2:9 "glory of the Lord" is used 35 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute 

for "glory of YHWH." 

2:15 Exo_3:3; Psa_111:2 

2:22 Lev_12:2-6 (see verse 7) 

2:23 "law of the Lord" is used 18 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for 

"law of YHWH." 



2:23 Ex. 13:2 



2:26 Psa_2:2, Psa_2:6; Isa_61:1 



3:4 Isa_40:3-5 

4:8 Deut. 6:13 

4:12 Deut. 6:16 

4:18 Isa. 61:1, 2 

4:19 Isa. 61:1, 2 

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 

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; 

10:27 Deu_6:5, Deu_10:12, Deu_30:6 

13:35 Psa_118:26; Isa_40:9-11 

19:38 Psa. 118:26 

20:37 Ex. 3:6; Gen_17:7, Gen_28:13, Gen_32:9; 

20:42 Psa. 110:1 

JOHN 

1:23 Isa_40:3-5 

6:45 Isa. 54:13 

12:13 Psa. 118:26 

12:38 Isa. 53:1 

12:38 Isa. 53:1 

ACTS 

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, 

Jer_17:10, Jer_20:12 

2:20 "day of the LORD" is used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute 

for "day of YHWH." 

2:21 Joel 2:28-32 

2:25 Psa_16:8-11 

2:34 Psa. 110:1 

2:39 "LORD our God" is used 96 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute 

for "YHWH our God." 

2:47 Ps. 115:14 NWT 

3:19 "presence of the LORD" is used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 

substitute for "presence of YHWH." 

3:22 Deut. 18:15-16, 19 

4:26 Psa. 2:1, 2 

4:29 Isa_37:17-20, Isa_63:15; Lam_3:50, Lam_5:1; Dan_9:18 

5:9 Allusion to "spirit of the Lord" used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 

substitute for "spirit of YHWH." 



7:31 Exo_3:3, Exo_3:4; Ex. 3:6, 15 

7:33 Exo_3:5; Jos_5:15 



7:49 1Ki_22:19; Psa_11:4; Jer_23:24 

7:60 Ezr_9:5; Dan_6:10 

8:22 Deu_4:29, Deu_4:30; 2Ch_33:12, 2Ch_33:13; Isa_55:6, Isa_55:7; Amo_5:6 

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; 

1Ki_13:6; Ezr_6:10, Ezr_8:23; Job_42:8; 

8:25 "word of the Lord," is used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute 

for "word of YHWH." 



8:39 "spirit of the Lord" is used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute 

for "spirit of YHWH." 

9:31 "fear of the Lord" is used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute 

for "fear of YHWH." 

10:33 Deu_5:25-29; 2Ch_30:12; Pro_9:10; 

11:21 Isa_59:1 "hand of the Lord," is used 35 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 

substitute for "hand of YHWH." 



12:11 Allusion to "angel of the Lord" used 56 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 

substitute for "angel of YHWH." 

12:17 Psa_66:16, Psa_102:20,Psa_102:21, Psa_107:21, Psa_107:22, Psa_116:14, Psa_116:15, 

Psa_146:7 



12:24 Allusion to "word of the Lord," is used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic 

equivalent substitute for "word of YHWH." 

13:2 Deu_10:8; 1Sa_2:11; 1Ch_16:4, 1Ch_16:37-43 

13:10 Gen_18:19; 2Ch_17:6; Hos_14:9 

13:11 "hand of the Lord" is used 35 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute 

for "hand of YHWH." 

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. 

4:2 

13:44 "word of the Lord," is used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 

substitute for "word of YHWH." 

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, 

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, 

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; 

Zep_3:9, Zep_3:10; Zec_2:11, Zec_8:20-23; Mal_1:11 





14:3 

14:23 

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, 

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, 



Mic_4:2, Mic_5:7; Zec_2:11, Zec_8:20-23; Mal_1:11 

15:17 See above 





15:40 "grace of the Lord" an allusion to Ezr. 9:8 and Ps. 84:11 

16:14 Isa_50:5 

16:15 



18:21 

18:25 "way of the Lord," is used 10 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute 

for "way of YHWH." 



21:14 1Sa_3:18; 2Sa_15:25, 2Sa_15:26; 2Ki_20:19 

ROMANS 

4:3 Gen. 15:6 

4:8 Psa. 32:1, 2; Isa_53:10-12 

9:28 Isa. 10:22, 23 

9:29 Isa. 1:9 

10:13 Joel 2:32 

10:16 Isa. 53:1 

11:3 1 Kg. 19:10 

11:34 Isa. 40:13 

12:11 Allusion to "serve the Lord," used 26 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 

substitute for "serve YHWH." 

12:19 Deut. 32:35; Psa_94:1-3; Nah_1:2, Nah_1:3 

14:4 Deu_33:27-29; Psa_37:17, Psa_37:24, Psa_37:28 

14:6 Exo_12:14, Exo_12:42 

14:6 Exo_16:25 

14:6 Exo_16:25; Isa_58:5 

14:8 Ps. 146:2 NWT 

14:8 Ps. 116:15 NWT 

14:8 

14:11 Isa. 45:23 

15:11 Psa. 117:1 

1 CORINTHIANS 

1:31 Jer. 9:24 

2:16 Isa_40:13, Isa_40:14; Jer_23:18 

3:20 Psa. 94:11 

4:4 Psa_130:3, Pro_21:2 

4:19 

7:17 

10:9 Exo_17:2, Exo_17:7, Num_21:5; Deu_6:16; Psa_78:18, Psa_78:56, Psa_106:14 



10:21 Jehovah is depicted with a cup 26 times in the OT 27 times from Ps. 16:5 to Hab. 2:16 

10:21 "table of the Lord" used 2 times at Mal. 1:7, 12 in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 

substitute for "table of YHWH." 

10:22 Jehovah is depicted as "jealous" 31 times in the OT between Ex. 20:5 and Zec. 8:2 

10:26 Psa 24:1 

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; 

Zep_3:2 

14:21 Deu_28:49; Isa_28:11, Isa_28:12; Jer_5:15 

16:7 Pro_19:21; Jer_10:23 

16:10 Allusion to "work of the Lord" used 5 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 

substitute for "work of YHWH." 

2 CORINTHIANS 

3:16 Exo_34:34; Deu_4:30, Deu_30:10; Lam_3:40; Hos_3:4, Hos_3:5 





3:18 Allusion to "glory of the Lord" used 35 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 

substitute for "glory of YHWH." 

3:18 "Spirit of the Lord" (NKJV, NLT) is an allusion to "spirit of the LORD used 23 times in NKJV OT 

as a dynamic equivalent substitute for "spirit of YHWH." * 

6:17 Isa. 52:11 Nestle-Aland 

6:18 [2 Sam 7:17; Amos 3:13 Nestle-Aland] 

8:21 Prov. 3:4 (see verse 5) 

10:17 Jer. 9:24 [Jer. 10:17 Nestle-Aland] 

10:18 Pro_21:2 

GALATIANS 

3:6 Gen 15:6 

EPHESIANS 

2:21 Exod. 26:1-37; 1Ki_6:7; Psa_93:5; Eze_42:12 Allusion to "in the Lord," used 70 times in 

NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent substitute for "in YHWH." 

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; 

Jer_4:22 

5:19 Psa_95:2, Psa_105:2 

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, 

Pro_23:14, Pro_29:15, Pro_29:17; Isa_38:19 

6:7 Allusion to "slave [servant] of the Lord," used 21 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic 

equivalent substitute for "servant of YHWH." 

6:8 Psa. 24:5 

COLOSSIANS 

1:10 Mic. 4:5 

3:13 Jer. 31:34 NWT 

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, 

Psa_103:2, Psa_138:1 

3:22 Allusion to "fear of the Lord," used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 

substitute for "fear of YHWH." 



3:23 Psa. 9:1 NWT 

3:24 Gen_15:1; Rth_2:12; Pro_11:18 

1 THESSALONIANS 

1:8 Allusion to "word of the Lord," used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 


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; 

Isa_1:23, Isa_1:24 

4:15 Allusion to "word of the Lord," used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 


5:2 Allusion to "day of the LORD" used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 

substitute for "day of YHWH." 

2 THESSALONIANS 



2:13 Deu_33:12; Jer_31:3; Eze_16:8 

3:1 Allusion to "word of the Lord" used 241 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 


2 TIMOTHY 

1:18 Psa_130:3, Psa_130:4 An allusion to "the day of the LORD" as mentioned 23 times in the 

NASB/ESV/NRSV 

2:19 Num. 16:5, 7 

2:19 Num. 16:5, 7 

4:14 Psa. 62:12 

HEBREWS 

2:13 Isa. 8:18 

7:21 Psa_110:4 

8:2 Exo_28:1, Exo_28:35 

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 

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 

8:10 Jer. 31:31-34 

8:11 Jer. 31:31-34 

10:16 Jer_31:33, Jer_31:34 

10:30 Deut. 32:35, 36 

12:5 Prov. 3:11, 12 

12:6 Prov. 3:11, 12 

13:6 Psa. 118:6 

JAMES 

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 

1:12 Exo_20:6; Deu_7:9; Neh_1:5; Psa_5:11 

2:23 Gen. 15:6; Isa. 41:8 

2:23 Gen. 15:6; Isa. 41:8 

3:9 1Ch_29:10,1Ch_29:20; Psa_34:1, Psa_63:4, Psa_145:1, Psa_145:21 

4:10 1Sa_2:9; Job_22:29; Psa_27:6, Psa_28:9, Psa_30:1, Psa_113:7, Psa_147:6 

4:15 2Sa_15:25, 2Sa_15:26 

5:4 Isa. 1:9; 5:9 

5:10 Isa_39:8; Jer_26:16; Allusion to "name of the Lord" used 105 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as 



a dynamic equivalent substitute for "name of YHWH." 

5:11 Job_42:10-17 

5:11 Job_42:10-17 

5:14 Allusion to "name of the Lord" used 105 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV OT as a dynamic equivalent 

substitute for "name of YHWH." 

5:15 Isa_33:24 (see verse 22) 

1 PETER 

1:25 Isaiah 40:6-8 

3:12 Psa. 34:12-16 

3:12 Psa. 34:12-16 

2 PETER 

2:9 Job_5:19; Psa_34:15-19; 

2:11 Psa_103:20, Psa_104:4; Dan_6:22 

3:8 Psa. 90:4 

3:9 Psa. 130:5, 6; Hab. 2:3 Baptist Study Bible (see verse 2) 



3:12 "day of the LORD" a common OT appellation, used 23 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a dynamic 

equivalent substitute for "day of YHWH." 

JUDE 

5 Exo. 12:51 Baptist Study Bible 

9 Zech. 3:2 

14 Deu_33:2; Job_19:25-27; Psa_50:3-5; Dan_7:9, Dan_7:10; Zec_14:5 

REVELATION 

1:8 Isa 41:4 

4:8 Isa 6:3 

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, 

Psa_96:8 

11:17 Gen 17:1, "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a 

dynamic equivalent substitute for YHWH God. 

15:3 Gen 17:1, "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a 


15:4 Psa_22:23, Psa_86:9; 

16:7 "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a dynamic 

equivalent substitute for YHWH God. 

18:8 Jer_50:31, Jer_50:34; "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV 

as a dynamic equivalent substitute for YHWH God. 



21:22 Psa. 77:18 "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a 




22:6 Dan. 3:28; 6:22 "Lord God" common OT appellation, used 3518 times in NASB/ESV/NRSV as a 




As we can see, there is but a handful of occcurences of the Divine Name in the NWT-NT that I feel 

cannot be in some way directed back to the OT, though, to be fair, occurences of "the Lord" or "God" in 

regards to the Deity can be tied to YHWH in the OT, especially since we know that that all extant copies 

of the LXX and the Hebrew OT that the Christian writers used the Divine Name instead of a surrogate. 

The evidence shows that the OT has "relevance to most of the 237 instances where the JW translators 

inserted 'Jehovah' into their NT". YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) not only fulfills the lexical and semantic 

requirements of KURIOS, but acts as a gender-inclusive and meaning based alternative to the 

ambiguous, male-oriented term "lord", two moves that are all the rage in Bible translation circles today. 

Detractors need to remember that their most of their Bibles remove the Divine Name almost 7000 times 

from the OT, despite the overwhelming evidence that it belongs there. 

For more see http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/ntstudies/tetragram.htm 

Opposer Clark: You can write to Professor Howard and confirm the letters if you like. You 

can go to the website at www.adam.com.au/bsett/ for further information from the scholar 

who has reproduced the letters. 

I have indeed queried George Howard about the letters attributed to him, but this attempt was sabotaged 

by Mr. Clark by making sure Howard's mailbox was inundated with more of the same fanaticism that 

produced these missives in the first place. [It would have been interesting to see exactly what was written 

to Howard by Hathaway and Butt to prompt this type of defense, if it is indeed genuine.] 

I have also asked the owner [I mean "scholar"] of the website quite some time ago for confirmation in the 

form of an original scan of the above 2 contradictory letters. To date, I have received no reply. Forgery 

and hysteria, or the genuine article, which is it? I will leave that up to you. 

What of Pietersma objection? Please note the following: 

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1998-09/27824.html 

RE: Divine name in NT 

From: Rolf Furuli 

Date: Tue Sep 29 1998 - 18:25:16 EDT 

>Subject: Re: tetragram/kyrios 

>To: ioudaios 

>In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 20 Oct 1994 16:17:02 EDT from 

> 

> 

>If I understand it correctly, Al Pietersma's argument regarding theTetragram 

>in the Septuagint is that it was not an invention of the original 

>translators. Al believes that the Tetragram was inserted by later scribes. 

>I'm not as convinced of Al's thesis as Larry is (Al and I have discussed 

>this on several occasions), but if he is right, this is not to suggest that 

>early Christians were not influenced by copies of the Greek Scriptures which 

>contained the Tetragram. Several examples of the pre-Christian Greek Bible 

>contain the Tetragram. And, as I recall, there is no pre-Christian copy of 

>the LXX which reads Kyrios where the Tetragram appears in the Hebrew. At 

>least when I did my original research on this in 1977 this was the case. 

> 



Dear Wes, 

There is an exchange relating to this subject between Larry Hurtado and 

myself on the tc-list from last week (tc-list Syriac pipi and hehe). 

Regarding Pietersma`s thesis, I would like to mention that in july 1998, at 

the Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the 

Septuagint and Cognate studies, in Oslo, I heard Emanuel Tov give a lecture 

about the DSS fragments of the "LXX", where he concluded that Pietersma`s 

thesis was wrong. Pietersma was present. The evidence that the 

tetragrammaton was not present in the original LXX as Pietersma claims, is 

that the tetragrammaton in old Hebrew characters occurs in 8HevXIIgr with 

TWi in the dative case (See E. Tov, 1990, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll 

from Nahal Hever, 1990 pp 59,77). This should not be possible if 

Pietersma«s hypothesis was correct. 

No new "LXX" fragment with the tetragrammaton has been discovered since 

Howard«s research. This means that all "LXX" manuscripts from the second 

and first centuries BCE and from the first century CE either have the 

tetragrammaton in old Hebrew or in Aramaic characters or as the phonetic 

transcription IAW. The word KURIOS as a substitute for the tetragrammaton 

is nonexistent before the second century CE. 

Because of his scholarly background and experience we should always listen 

when Larry Hurtado speaks, and he disagrees with Howard`s view that the 

divine name occurred in the NT autographs. Let me however submit some food 

for thought by pointing out two lines of evidence supporting Howard: 

(1) Howard`s argument is simple: We find the tetragrammaton in some form in 

all "LXX" fragments before the second century CE. In the manuscripts from 

the second century we find KS with a horizontal stroke above (nomina 

sacra). Thus the text has been changed. In the NT manuscripts from the 

second century we also find KS with a horizontal stroke. Such an 

abbreviation could not have been in the autographs, so the text of the NT 

has also been changed. Ana analogous with the case of the "LXX", the change 

in the NT was from the tetragrammaton to KS. 

The corroborating evidence comes from Syriac manuscripts. In Codex 

Syriaco-Hexaplaris, published by Henricus Middeldorph in 1835, we find 

MARYA ("the Lord", technical word for God) in 4 kings 18: 6 (and other 

places) in the text and PIPI in the marigin. In Isaiah 1:2 we find MARYA 

in the text and YHYH in the marigin. Paul of Tella made this strictly 

literal Syriac translation around 600 CE on the basis of Origen`s Hexapla, 

which had the tetragrammaton in the main text. 

In the Syriac manuscripts Codex Ambrosianus we find HEHE in the marigin 

and in the London Codex 

British Museum Add. 14.442. we find PIPI in the marigin. Because we find 

PIPI and YHYH in the marigin of Codex Syriaco-Hexaplaris which is based on 



the Hexapla with the tetragrammaton in the main text, the occurrence of 

PIPI and HEHE in the other two important Syriac manuscripts suggest that 

they also are based on Greek manuscripts with the tetragrammaton in the 

main text. The abbreviations PIPI and HEHE naturally goes back to the 

tetragrammatons in Aramaic and old Hebrew script respectively. If this 

argument holds, the consequence is that other Greek manuscripts with the 

tetragrams than the DSS fragments circulated from the first or second 

centuries CE onward. 

(2) The word KURIOS in the NT MUST translate two different Hebrew (or 

Aramaic) words. 

Take a look at Matt 4:7 and John 21:7, both reading (hO) KURIOS. 

If the beloved disciple in John 21:7 had said "It is ADONAY" (Hebrew) or 

"It is MARE" (Aramaic), he could have been construed to mean: "It is God 

Almighty". It is obvious that the same original word was not used both in 

Matt 4:7 and John 21:7. To substantiate this I quote three versions. In 

Syriac the technical reference to God is MARYA ("the Lord"), and this is 

the word we find in the Peshitta of Matt 4;7. In John 21:4, however, we 

find MARAN ("our Lord"). In Ethiopic (Ge«ez) the technical reference to 

God is «EGZI«ABHER ("the Lord of the land"), and we find this word in 

Matt 4:7. In John 21:4 we find «EGZI« ENA("our lord") In the 

Arabic manuscript Sinai 69 from the 11th century CE we find RABBAKA 

WA-ILAKAKA ("your Lord and your God") in Matt 4:7 but RABBUNA ("our Lord") 

the in John 21:7 (In the second instance of hO KURIOS in the verse we find 

AL-RABB ("the Lord"). 

What is the basis of the same kind of differentiation of the Versions 

between (hO) KURIOS in Matt 4:7 and John 21:7? Is it manuscript evidence or 

just common sense? Any author writes to be understood, and it is very 

confusing to use hO KURIOS in both verses (There are scores of similar 

cases). This also argues for Howard`s view that KS in the earliest NT 

manuscripts does not go back to an original KURIOS (where God is denoted) 

but rather to the tetragrammaton in some form. 

Regards 

Rolf 

Rolf Furuli 

Lecturer in Semitic languages 

University of Oslo 

yhwhbible@yahoo.com 

Main Page 

yhwhbible@ca.tc 


A Review of Peter Gomes' _The Good Book_. Can Homosexuality Be Defended Biblically? 

A Review of Peter Gomes' The Good Book. Can Homosexuality Be Defended Biblically? 

Peter J. Gomes is a Baptist clergyman who preaches for Harvard University’s Memorial Church, and who also teaches at 

the university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In the last several year this professor has produced the controversial release, 

The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart (1996). 

"The design of this book is to neutralize the Scriptures of their doctrinally demanding thrust, thus 

accommodating the ancient volume to the inclinations of modern society." Wayne Jackson, M.A. 

Gomes states: 

"In the case of the Bible and homosexuality in contemporary American culture, the tragic dimensions of this 

biblically sanctioned prejudice among the most devout and sincere people of religious conviction are all the 

greater because NO CREDIBLE CASE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY CAN BE MADE FROM THE 

BIBLE unless one chooses to read scripture in a way that simply sustains the existing prejudice against 

homosexuality and homosexuals." P. 147 The Good Book, Avon Books, New York, NY, 1998 

Peter J. Gomes 

Reason? 

"Given the appeal to the Bible in the case against homosexuality, one would assume that the Bible has much 

to say on the subject. It has not. The subject of homosexuality is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments, 

nor in the Summary of the Law. No prophet discourses on the subject. Jesus 

himself makes not mention of it, and homosexuality does not appear to be of much concern to those early 

churches with which Saint Paul and his successor were involved." P. 147 

Reply: The Ten Commandments, the Law, the prophets, Jesus, and Paul were practically silent on matters pertaining to 

necrophilia, pederesty, ephebophilia, sado-masochism, drug abuse, zoophilia, fetishism, transvestism, paraphilia, 

voyeurism, exhibitionism, telephone scatalogia, frotteurism, autogynephilia, klismaphilia, coprophilia, gender identity 

disorder, hypoxyphilia, autoerotic asphyxiation, bondage, partialism, urophilia and all manner of vices. When 

relationships were discussed, it was relegated to relationships between men and women (husband and wife) only. In the 

Bible, only heterosexual relationships are recognized as approved. So, when the Ten Commandments and Jesus Christ talk 

about adultery and divorce, it was with the man and woman in view, and thus, gay relationships were excluded. 

"Let fornication and uncleanness of every sort or greediness not even be mentioned among YOU, just as it 

befits holy people." Eph. 5:3 NWT 

The book adds: 

"...the word _homosexuality_ itself is an invention of the late nineteenth century and does not occur in any of 

the original manuscripts from which the English Bible is descended." pp. 147, 148 

"All Paul knew of homosexuality was the debauched pagan expression of it. He cannot be condemned for that 

ignorance, but neither should his ignorance be an excuse for our own." 

Reply: This naturally follows that a word "invented" a century ago was not in any Greek manuscripts, since the modern 

term was "invented" to describe a sexual preference long in existence. 

The word _heterosexuality_ was first used in the 1890's, but from this I cannot argue that heterosexual sex was not in 

discussion or on the minds of men 2000 years ago. 

Let us look at it another way. Jesus does not mention "idolatry." In fact, is it proper to condemn idolatry since all the 

ancients really knew of the idolatry are the pagan practises of it? 

Additionally, the Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms as "foot" or 

"thigh" for the genitals, and using other euphemisms to describe coitus, such as "he knew her." 

To state that Paul only knew of homosexuality (if we are allowed to use that word) was from paganism, then this actually 

militates against any point that Gomes is trying to make. Does this not tell you that the early Christians, in fact, all of 

God's people in the past, did not have any homosexuals within their ranks. 

The endeavor that we should all labor under is to BE JUST LIKE THEM: 

"It demands that I write to you and encourage you to continue your fight for the Christian faith that was 

entrusted to God's holy people once for all time." Jude 3 God's Word Bible 

True, as is written in Gomes' book, "David's sin of adultery with Bathsheba does not make all heterosexual expressions 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/gomes.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:45:35 AM]


sinful," but at least "adultery" did make it in the 10 commandments, and it made it to the lips of Jesus Christ. Biblically, 

adultery is just as sinful as homosexuality as it falls outside God's requirements, but it was also more prevalent among 

God's people, thereby deserving a more frequent in the Bible. 

The repercussions that followed from David's sins are famous, and this trickles over in our lives also. Adultery often 

results in unwanted pregnancies, broken families and violence. Similarly, homosexuals die at an earlier age, have more 

partners resulting in more heartbreak, contract more sexually transmitted diseases, and have a higher rate of suicide. 

Frighteningly, homosexuals also abuse more children: 

"homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles, it is estimated that 

approximately 80 percent of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males.” 

[Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate 

(Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press), p. 114, cited in "The Problem of Pedophilia] 

God's ordinances against both adultery and same-sex relationships act as a protection, against ourselves, and against other 

helpless victims. 

The closest we have to any other mention of a sexual union outside the human male-female norm is that of the angels with 

the women on earth. 

"The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they 

chose." Gen. 6:2 

This abnormal cohabitation brought about the hybrid Nephilim (v.4) which necessitated the annihilation of the entire 

human race, save one family: 

"The LORD regretted that he had ever made men on the earth, and he was grieved to the heart. So the LORD 

said, 'I will blot the men that I have created off the face of the ground...for I regret that I ever made them." 

Genesis 6:6, 7 

Marriage outside the divinely instituted male/female standard held dire consequences for mankind, and the breakdown of 

the family unit is often regarded as one of the conditions that caused the fall of the early Empires: 

"This was the sin which had swept like a cancer through Greek life and which, from Greece, invaded Rome. 

We 

can scarcely realize how riddled the ancient world was with it. Even so great a man as Socrates practiced it; 

Plato’s dialogue “The Symposium” is always said to be one of the greatest works on love in the world, but its 

subject is not natural but unnatural love. Fourteen out of the first 15 Roman Emperors practiced unnatural 

vice. At this very time Nero was emperor. He had taken a boy called Sporus and had had him castrated. He 

had then married him with a full marriage ceremony and took him home in procession to his palace and lived 

with him as wife. . . 

In this particular vice in the time of the Early Church the world was lost to shame; and there can be little 

doubt that that was one of the main causes of its degeneracy and the final collapse of its civilization. Paul 

continued in his teachings to offer something which today’s supporters of the homosexual lifestyle refuse to 

do. “And that is what some of you were,” Paul wrote. Notice the past tense. The Christians he was addressing 

had indeed been involved in all of the sins he mentioned, including homosexuality. But now they were 

different. Why? Paul answers: “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of 

the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God.”" William Barclay, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians. 

Heterosexuality is the foundation of mankind, and the hope of its continuance: 

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one 

flesh." 

Gen. 2:24 

Man, in his reproducible state, gives glory to the Giver of Life, Jehovah God. It is not mere chance that in the same 

chapter that tells of the wonderments of our Creator, also condemns the practise of male on male sexual relationships: 

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the 

things that are made..." Romans 1:20 Goodspeed 

Us humans, since we are made in God's image (Gen. 1:26), glorify God in the fact that we can PROCREATE, and in 

doing so, this reflects mightily of YHWH's creatorship. By denying Him that and purposely working against His 

guidelines, those ones even "deserve to die." (Romans 1:32 Goodspeed) 



We are in effect "little creators" standing on the shoulders of the Almighty Creator, Jehovah. 

According to Gomes in The Good Book, 

"... the word abomination does not usually describe something intrinsically evil, such as rape or theft, but 

something that is ritually impure, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation." (Gomes, 

154) 

Or, as one Gomes supporter adds in regards to this word: 

"This means that homosexual sex is ritually unclean, or that it should not be used in religious practices. 

Nowadays, few people would consider sex to be a part of religious practice." 

Is this really true though of the word "abomination?" 

"There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him: Haughty eyes, 

a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are 

swift in running to mischief, A false witness that uttereth lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren." 

Proverbs 6:16 

"For the perverse is an abomination to Jehovah." Proverbs 3:32 

"For my mouth shall utter truth; And wickedness is an abomination to my lips." Proberbs 8:7 

"A false balance is an abomination to Jehovah; But a just weight is his delight...They that are perverse in 

heart are an abomination to Jehovah; But such as are perfect in their way are his delight." Prov. 11:1, 20 

"Lying lips are an abomination to Jehovah. Prov. 12:22 

"The way of the wicked is an abomination to Jehovah; But he loveth him that followeth after 

righteousness...Evil devices are an abomination to Jehovah; But pleasant words are pure." Prov. 15:9, 26 

"Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to Jehovah." Prov. 16:5 

"He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination 

to Jehovah." Prov. 17:15 

"He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, Even his prayer is an abomination." Prov. 28:9 

Idols are an abomination at Isaiah 44:19 

"And one hath committed abomination with his neighbor's wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his 

daughter-in-law; and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father's daughter." 

Eze. 22:11 

To limit this word as only something "ritually unclean" is a case of "special pleading," something indicative of Gomes' 

attempts to Biblicize and normalize homosexuality. 

"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 

Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, Gomes writes: 

"This particular form of the Hebrew verb 'to know' is rarely used in a sexual sense." p. 151 

This form is also a well known Hebrew idiom and euphemism that was not lost on Hebrew experts: 

"While Lot was entertaining his guests with the greatest hospitality, the people of Sodom gathered round his 

house, “both old and young, all people from every quarter” (of the town, as in Jer_51:31), and demanded, 

with the basest violation of the sacred rite of hospitality and the most shameless proclamation of their sin 

(Isa_3:9), that the strangers should be brought out, that they might know them. yada is applied, as in 

Jdg_19:22, to the carnal sin of paederastia, a crime very prevalent among the Canaanites (Lev_18:22., 

Lev_20:23), and according to Rom_1:27, a curse of heathenism generally." Keil & Delitzsche Commentary 

This form is used elsewhere in Genesis, at Gen. 4:1: 

"And the man knew his wife Eve. And she conceived and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man with the help of 

Jehovah." LITV 



"And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived." Gen. 4:17 ASV 

"And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son." Gen. 4:25 ASV 

Josephus adds to the Sodom & Gomorrah account: 

"The Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenance, and this to an extraordinary degree...they 

resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence." [The Works of Josephus, Chap. 11, 

#3, Book 1, Hendrickson Publication 1987, p. 40] 

This force and violence would include "sodomitical practices." [Josephus as quoted in A Commentary on the 

Epistle of Jude, Richard Wolf, p. 75] 

As Wayne Jackson writes in his review: 

"This volume is filled with reckless charges, sweeping generalizations, and invalid arguments. It is utterly 

bereft of scholarly acumen. 

Of late, Gomes has been a frequent guest on the talk-show circuit, and his book has received laudatory 

reviews in the popular press. This is to be expected from media that disregard the authority of the Bible, and 

seek justification for hedonistic lifestyles." 

Lastly, it is no mere coincidence that any and all references to homosexual relationships in the Bible are negative. We 

cannot reasonably regard this negativity as accidental. 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against 

nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men 

with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due." Romans 

1:26, 27 ASV 

As a response to this, the book The X-Rated Bible by Ben Edward Akerly, quotes Alfred Kinsley who says: 

"An unnatural sex act is a sex act which would be impossible to perform." p. 42 

Can we brush this aside so easily though? No, since this was something already in practice at the time, it was therefore 

then not an impossible act to perform. Kinsley's permissive definition is not in line with that of the Bible. Consider it from 

another angle. It is physically possible to perform sexual acts with animals, vegetables, corpses. Can we honestly admit 

that these are "natural?" To the mindset that would use Kinsley's dictum to defend their own practices, it has to be. 

To also cast aside Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality because "the Biblical authors do not manifest the same 

understanding of that reality as we have today" is not fruitful either. It is never explained in the many pro-biblio 

homosexual references how the modern practice differs so greatly from the ancient practice, and neither was God 

concerned with any possible evolution of this lifestyle. The Biblical canon was closed in the 1st century, and the limited 

references hostile to homosexuality at that time was all that was deemed necessary for God's people throughout eternity. 

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction." 2 Tim. 3:16 NASB 


Answering Jay Hess in support of Jehovah's Witnesses 

Reply to "Witnessing to the Jehovah's Witnesses 

in a passive yet effective way" 

Hess: "...loyal J-Ws reject the reasonings of outsiders as being illogical. The only thoughts 

they accept as being *logical* are the teachings of their directors and they have been 

conditioned to doubt even their own thinking abilities. The more loyal they are, the stronger 

they believe their directors are the channel of God, and therefore the more likely they are to 

resist this confrontational method. Only a rare, disloyal J-W who trusts his own thinking 

abilities, will respond positively to this standard approach. 

Reply: I am amused by comments like this. What religious bigotry! Besides the condescending insults, 

Hess builds a strawman to buttress his points, which I will deconstruct below. 

Many detractors, like Ron Rhodes, Walter Martin, James White acknowledge that JW's have a better 

knowledge of the Bible than most nominal Christians. When faced with this though, the common 

response is similar to the one above by Hess, bringing a human face to our superior relationship with 

God's word, instead of focusing on the drought faced in their own circles. The members of nominal 

churches are biblically illiterate, and should be an embarrassment to any anti-JW author. 

According to Barna.org, "The most commonly used verse of the Bible in evangelistic conversations and 

preaching is John 3:16. Two-thirds of the population (63%) has no idea what "John 3:16" refers to, much 

less has the ability to quote that verse. However, 24% of adults know that it is a verse from the Bible that 

addresses salvation. Among born again Christians, 50% were aware of this." 

53% of "born again" Christians reject the belief in absolute truth, and 32% of this same group rejects the 

infallibility of the Bible. 28% of Born-againers believe that Jesus sinned and didn’t rise from the dead, 

47% say Satan is not living being-only a symbol for evil...much more could be said, but this should 

suffice. 

Instead of dealing with this obvious cancer in their own ranks, they try to recruit new members on the 

backs of people like Jehovah's Witnesses. 

I am reminded of a classic joke that will help me illustrate the superior teaching methods of JW's: 

There was a fellow who was walking along a very high bridge one day. He looked and to his 

astonishment, another gentleman had crawled over the railing and was standing preparing to 

jump. The gentleman who saw this fellow ready to jump came up to him and said, "Please, 

don't jump! Let's talk." The other fellow started to leap and the gentleman walking across 

the bridge grabbed hold of his belt and held him there. He said, "Please don't jump. I am a 

Christian. I want to help you." The other fellow over his shoulder said, "I am a Christian 

too." The first fellow said, "Well, I am a Protestant and we believe in God's grace. God will 

forgive you, even right here. You don't even need a priest to be here. You can be forgiven." 

The other fellow said, "Well, I'm a Protestant, too." The first fellow said, "I happen to be a 

Reformed Protestant." The other one said, "I am too." "What denomination are you?" The 

fellow on the bridge answered, "I am a member of the Free Will Church of the Holy 

Trinity." "This is amazing," the first fellow said. "I am a member of that church too." Then 

the fellow holding on to the belt of the gentleman said, "Are you a member of the northern 

branch or southern branch?" The fellow said, "The southern branch." The guy holding on 

pushed him and said, "Die you heretic!" 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/jayhess.htm (1 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:45:54 AM]


It may be a joke, but it is indicative of the argumentative nature that surrounds the churches of 

Christendom. One does not need to look far and find disagreements on 

pre-millenialism/post-millenialism, divine election and/or predestination, the word/faith movement or 

even whether the King James Version is the only Word of God: 

"That evangelicals, all claiming a biblical norm, are reaching contradictory theological 

formulations on many of the major issues they are addressing suggests the problematic 

nature of their present understanding of theological interpretation. To argue that the Bible is 

authoritative, but to be unable to come to anything like agreement on what it says (even with 

those who share an evangelical commitment) is self-defeating. " quoted in EXEGETICAL 

FALLACIES by D. A. Carson p.18 

Like us or hate us, but you have to admit that Jehovah's Witnesses are a unified body, and that they can 

out-scripture the average church-goer. What you need to ask is WHY! We will not abandon this to join 

an ignorant and fractured body. We are a progressive people, and going back to this type of 

indecisiveness is a form of degeneration [and NO, Mr. Hess, Greg Stafford is NOT a JW in good 

standing]. 

Hess: It is easier to lead the J-Ws to affirm doctrines they are supposed to believe than it is 

to persuade them of doctrines they refuse to believe and have been taught to refute....They 

will already believe that True worship is essential. You will only ask a few very logical 

questions that can only be answered with "Yes" or "No". No matter which answer they 

choose, you will not debate or even try to persuade. You will not even need to give them a 

hint as to the right answer. The principle underlying all these presentations is Jesus' 

statement "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other . 

. .” (found at Luke 16:13; Matthew 6:24). While this was said in reference to the love of 

money it applies to human masters as well. A person may imagine he can serve two masters 

but Jesus explained eventually one will be forced to choose between the two and thus, in 

effect, love one and hate the other. The J-Ws, without realizing it, serve two masters, the 

Watchtower directors and "Jehovah" (their preferred name for God - see Psalm 83:18). 

Reply: Hess, though, never really proves here how it is that we "serve the Watchtower directors" at the 

exclusion of the other, which is what the Scriptures he provides imply. True, we have our "leaders" that 

provide spiritual guidance, but, this is Scriptural: 

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority." Heb 13:17 REB 

"Remember your leaders, who spoke God's message to you." Heb 13:7 REB 

"Greet all your leaders and all God's people." Heb 13:24 REB 

Were the first century Christians guilty of serving two masters? 

After all, did not Paul say "Imitate me" (1 Cor. 11:1)? Were not the Israelites instructed to follow Moses, 

even above the rejection of this from pious others? They were not "serving two masters" in the sense 

indicated at Matthew 6:24 because that Scripture was never meant to be taken this way. Money 

(Mammon) was something that worked in opposition to righteousness, as 1Tim. 6:10 says, "For the love 

of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and 

pierced themselves with many griefs." NASB 

Therefore we have a contrast, like the one at 1 Cor. 10:21, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the 

cup of demons as well; you cannot have a share at the Lord's table and the demons' table as well." NJB 

The Nelson Study Bible adds: 

"No one can serve two masters because a time will come when they make opposing 



demands. Jesus advises us to invest our future with Him by giving of ourselves; mammon 

encourages us to collect material objects for our present enjoyment." 

Part of investing our future with Jesus is by becoming part of the structured ekklesia that he instituted: 

"The foundation of the ekklesia are clear in the Synoptic gospels. Jesus formed a group of 

disciples and followers. Of these disciples, He demanded personal attachment to Himself, 

even at the cost of seperation from friends and family indeed,...This group received from 

Him the mission to gain other followers who would grant him the same personal 

allegiance...Against this background the use of the word ekklesia (congregation, church) in 

Mt. 16:18 is clearly identified with this group which Jesus himself formed and which He 

commanded to to be continued by His disciples after His departure." Dictionary of the Bible 

by John McKenzie, p. 134. 

Part of the functions of this ekklesia was the excommunication of certain members, a practise that was 

"instituted by our Lord (Matt. xviii. 15, 18)" [Smith's Bible Dictionary]. Are we in a church that is 

adhering to Christ's demands on us, or are we setting our own bar of what is proper servitude to Jesus, 

and then using that to determine whether others are deprived of our unique "thinking abilities." Truly, it 

is Jay Hess, and others of like-mind that have decided in their own mind that they are the "channel of 

God" by determining that others that do not think like them could not possibly be. 

If by the term "serving" Hess denotes some fanatical devotion, then exactly how is this proven? The 

Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses would never admit to serving any so-called "director", 

and never would such be asked for. 

“The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired 

as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) " [February 15, 1981, page 19] 

Just recently, Milton Henschel, one of Hess's "Watchtower directors" passed away. When I mentioned 

this to my wife, she did not even know who this was. When I mentioned that he was once president of 

the Watchtower Society, she asked me who it was now. I did not know. Yet, I live in a part of the USA 

that builds monuments and names streets after religious leaders like John Wesley, the Reverend Billy 

Graham, and the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. But only the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's 

Witnesses are singled out for "serving two masters" by Hess's definition. I regularly talk religion to 

church-going people that are ignorant of the contents of the Bible, and will only puppet what their pastor 

tells them to believe...but only the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses are singled out for 

"serving two masters" by Hess's definition. 

Here is another example of creating confusion due to ignorance of the facts and issues involved. 

From http://www.biblicalanswers.net/w2jw_charter.html 

Hess: "The JWs have always insisted the name "Jesus" is just another name for Michael the 

archangel. 

Unknown to most JWs, the Watchtower's official charter teaches that all JWs must worship 

Jesus, that is, Michael the archangel. The 1944 amendment stated the purpose of their 

organization was for the "worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus". Thus this charter 

amendment advocated angel- worship. 

Although in 1954 they officially dropped their belief in worshiping Jesus, today they still 

claim this charter amendment fulfilled biblical prophecy and brought their organization into 

a "holy" and right relationship with God (see the References: note below). The 

Watchtower's primary organizational doctrine is that their directors ("the faithful and 



discreet slave" from Matthew 24:45), were appointed by Jesus in 1919 to be the channel of 

true religion on earth with the authority to tell mankind what they should believe. Ever since 

1919 (including 1944!), if they were to teach something incorrect, God would still approve 

of them and they would still be in line to become earth's heavenly rulers. The Watchtower 

organization has always taught that idolatry, including angel-worship, is false worship, 

causing one to be disapproved by God. 

Do you see the conflict?" 

Reply: Now, Hess obviously does not know of two very important things. 50 years ago, the word 

"worship" was commonly used in the existing Bibles in regards to humans and others: 

"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded 

that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him." KJV 

"The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, 

and I will pay thee all." Matthew 18:26 

It was in general use of the language at that time. The _Book of Common Prayer_ has the groom 

promising his bride, "with my body I thee worship" as he places the ring on her finger. 

Even the New World Translation 1950 - 1970 editions says at Hebrews 1:6, "And let all God's angels 

worship him [Jesus]." There was no conflict here as this was in keeping with the usage of the word in the 

Bible, and in common use a half-century ago. Bullinger admits that this word means "to do reverence or 

homage to ANY ONE." p. 903, Bullinger's Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek 

New Testament. 

So to say that there is "worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus" is likened to what God's people did in 

the days of the Davidic kings: 

"And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their 

heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the king." 1 Chron. 29:20 ASV 

So common was the word "worship" that the King James Version NT renders this word as such from a 

variety of Greek words, such as DOXA, EUSEBEW, QERAPEUW, QRHSKEIA, LATREUW, 

NEWKOROS, PROSKUNEW, SEBAZOMAI, and SEBOMAI. 

"The most frequent use of the term, PROSKUNEW [worship] (60 uses in the NT), in its 

many LXX uses can describe reverence or respect given to a variety of figures where no 

deification of the recipient seems implied." The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian 

Worship, p. 188, by Larry. W Hurtado (see also proskuneo.htm and jason1.htm ) 

We even have an angel receiving worship at Joshua 5:14: 

"So He said, "No, but as Commander of the army of the LORD I have now come." 

And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and said to Him, "What does my 

Lord say to His servant?"" NKJV 

An angel receiving worship with absolutely no dire consequences involved? Isn't this the basis of Hess's 

entire attack? Why, most nominal Christian theologians teach that the angel of the LORD is none other 

than God or Jesus: 

Genesis 16:7 "And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the 

wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. (d) Which was Christ, as appears in (Genesis 

16:13,18:17)." Geneva Bible 1599 

"Who is this angel of the LORD? The earliest church fathers and most conservative 



evangelical Bible scholars agree that the angel of the LORD is no one other than Jesus 

Christ, the Word of God, the second person of the God–head." 

http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/gen16v7.html 

Speaking of the Angel of the LORD at Genesis 16, the 

NKJV Baptist Study Edition states: 

“That this is a theophany, or, more precisely, a Christophany, an appearance of the 

pre-incarnate Christ is confirmed…” 

The NKJV MacArthur Study Bible adds: 

“the Angel of the LORD…is often identified as the pre-incarnate Christ.” 

The NIV Ryrie Study Bible notes: 

“the angel of the O.T. is a preincarnate appearance of the Second Person of the Trinity.” 

"Gen 16:7 - 

The angel of the Lord - That Jesus Christ, in a body suited to the dignity of his nature, 

frequently appeared to the patriarchs, has been already intimated." Adam Clarke 

Commentary 

"'The Angel [or Messenger] of the Lord' is a problematic figure. The ambiguous Hebrew 

phrase is best translated without the indefinite article, that is, 'an angel [messenger] of 

Yahweh' (as do the Septuagint or NJV; cf. Matt. 1.20; 2.13, 19; 28.2;Acts 8.26). Later 

Christian theology tended to see the preincarnate Christ in this figure (hence the definite 

article), but the phrase probably referred vaguely to any mediator sent by God." p. 28, The 

Oxford Companion to the Bible by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan. Oxford 

University Press, New York NY, 1993. 

"the angel of the LORD is...the LORD himself in earthly manifestation" p. 18 The New 

Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha-RSV [See also Bullinger's Companion Bible, 

Dake's Annotated Bible] 

"The question still remains, Who is theophanic angel [Angel of Yahweh]? To this many 

answers have been given, of which the following may be mentioned: (1) This angel is 

simply an angel with a special commission; (2) He may be a momentary descent of God into 

visibility; (3) He may be the Logos, a kind of temporary preincarnation of the second person 

of the Trinity." ISBE 

So, let's see!!! Hmmm. If God is to be worshipped, and Jesus is God...and Jesus/God is also this very 

angel, then, isn't this angel-worship? "Do you see the conflict?" The anti-JW who is loyal to his own 

religious doctrines will always be ignorant of the facts involved and create an embarrassing and 

contradictory situation for himself. You see what happens when you draw a line in the sand that you are 

crossing yourself? I have not even delved into the painful fact that many others, including trinitarians 

have insisted that Jesus is/or could be Michael the archangel, and have done so for hundreds of years (see 

wilson.htm ). 

Now, I can run off on a tangent and create a conspiracy wherein modern bibles have changed the 

language used in the above cases (they have, and you can check the above Scriptures in the NASB and 

NIV), but that would not be profitable or honest, and it would betray a lack of scholarship and knowledge 

of the Bible. Unfortunately, that did not stop Hess. 




The CARM Tract and Jehovah's Witnesses 

On January 11, CARM supporters will be distributing a tract attacking Jehovah's Witnesses, and this will 

be done by attaching them to windshields in shopping mall parking lots. What follows is an answer to 

this missive. 

1) The CARM tract says: 

The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach: 

-Their church organization is the prophet of God. 

Truth: The tract references the 1972 Watchtower, where the term “prophet” is used in quotation marks, 

meaning that it is used in a quasi-sense. This expression is used in the same way as it us used of Billy 

Graham in 

the book, "A Prophet With Honor: The Billy Graham Story" by William Martin. 

This is meant to designate Graham as a man with special moral and Biblical insight, but no one would 

ever 

address him as “Prophet” in the sense of “Seer,” and similarly, Jehovah’s Witnesses, not then, nor now, 

have ever 

addressed any other brother, Elder, etc., as “prophet,” as this would be deemed inappropriate. 

In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses have gone out of their way to state that they are not Prophets in the sense of 

Seer: 

"It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any degree, but merely to give 

below what seems to us rather likely to be the trend of events--giving also the reasons for 

our expectations." March 1,1904 Watchtower 

"Someone may ask, Do you, then, claim infallibility and that every sentence appearing in 

"The Watch Tower" publications is stated with absolute correctness? Assuredly we make no 

such claim and have never made such a claim. What motive can our opponents have in so 

charging against us? Are they not seeking to set up a falsehood to give themselves excuse 

for making attacks and to endeavor to pervert the judgments of others?" Zion's Watchtower 

and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 September 1909. 

Early on in this publication the reader is invited to "examine each point carefully ...compare 

the argument with the Scriptures cited, and view the same in the light of present day events 

which are discernible to all eyes, and upon this evidence reach a conclusion." Page 13 

"The Bible is the only true source of knowledge upon which man can base a hope for the 

future...Nothing, then but an understanding and appreciation of the Word of God can lead 

man into the right way and unfold to him visions of the blessings that are to come." Page 68 

"Millions Now Living will never die", Joseph F. Rutherford 

"Many students have made the grievous mistake of thinking that God has inspired men to 

interpret prophecy. The holy prophets of the Old Testament were inspired by Jehovah to 

write as his power moved upon them. The writers of the New Testament were clothed with 

certain power and authority to write as the Lord directed them. However, since the days of 

the apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy, nor has any man been 

inspired to interpret prophecy." "Prophecy" (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 

1929), page 61-62 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/carmtractjw.htm (1 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:46:08 AM]


"IT is not the prerogative of the WatchTower, nor of any forming a part of the 'servant' 

class, to announce its judgment; but it is their duty to call attention to God's judgments as 

they are written, and this must be done as a warning." "Vindication", 3 vols (Brooklyn: 

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1931-1932) 

"This pouring out of God's spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses does 

not mean that those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that 

the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without 

mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is 

inspired and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing so... But we 

confess with the Scriptures that the day of such inspiration passed long before 1870, as the 

apostle Paul showed it would .... Inspired speaking and writing passed away with the last of 

the twelve apostles, by whom the gifts of the spirit were imparted to others. Yet God is still 

able to teach and lead us. While confessing no inspiration for today for anyone on earth, we 

do have the privilege of praying to God for more of his holy spirit and for his guidance of us 

by the bestowal of his spirit through Jesus Christ." Manner of Inspiring the Bible, The 

Watchtower, 15 May 1947, 157-158 under the sub-heading, "No Such Inspiration Today" 

"The Watchtower is founded on the very pinnacle of reliable wisdom, namely, God's Word 

the Bible...because its words find their foundation in God's Word ... However the 

Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic. It invites 

careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures. Its purpose is to 

aid others to know Jehovah and his purposes toward mankind, and to announce Christ's 

established kingdom as our only hope." "Name and purpose of the Watchtower", 15 August 

1950, 262-26 

"Since today we have the complete inspired Scriptures God is not giving any more inspired 

visions or dreams. However, Jehovah's people today are seeing the fulfillment of many of 

the inspired visions and dreams that God's servants had in ancient times, and they are even 

having a share in the fulfillment of the prophecy, "your sons and your daughters will 

certainly prophesy. (Joel 2:28) Not that these prophesy in the sense of foretelling events 

under inspiration, but rather in that they are making public proclamation of the inspired 

dreams and visions long ago recorded." Watchtower Jan 1, 1971. 

"In his day, Ezekiel spoke words that were directly inspired by Jehovah. Today, we speak 

words from Jehovah's inspired Word, the Bible." "Messengers of Godly Peace Pronounced 

Happy", The Watchtower, 1 May 1997, p 22, par. 14 

“Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible.”(December 15, 1896, 

page 306) 

“The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired 

as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been 

necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)” (February 15, 

1981, page 19) 





-Jesus returned invisibly in 1914. 

Jesus gave us signs to shown when he would return (see Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21), and the 

Christian 

Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses feel that the Biblical description of total war, famine, earthquakes, 

and 

diseases point to a time when the First World War set all these things in motion in a heightened state. 

What CARM does not tell you is that Protestant leaders have for many many years in the past predicted 

Christ’s 

return, and the end of the world. 

Martin Luther predicted the end for the 16th century, John Wesley predicted it for 1836. There are many 

such 

instances of this (see http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/1975.htm ). CARM is relying on your 

ignorance 

of Church history to make the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses look bad. 

For more references, read: 

Robin Bruce Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis-Apocalypticism in the Wake of the Lutheran Reformation 

Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End—Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages, Published 1979 

Festinger, Riecken and Schaeter, When Prophecy Fails. 

Isaac Massey Haldeman, The Signs of the Times 

The Weekly Evangel, April 10, 1917 

Soothsayers of the Second Advent by Alnor 

The Last Days are Here Again-A History of the End Times by Richard Kyle 

Apocalypses by Weber 



-Blood transfusions are sinful. 

There has been a Biblical prohibition against the ingestion of blood throughout all stages of human 

existence: 

"It ought to be observed, that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his 

posterity, and repeated to 

the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been 

revoked, but, on the 

contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of 

perpetual 

obligation."-Benson's Notes, 1839, Vol. I, p. 43. 

We are only now beginning to appreciate the wisdom behind this, as non-blood alternatives that higher 

medicine 

is well aware of offers safer alternatives, alternatives not frought with blood-borne diseases, such HIV or 

Hepatitus. 

"Today, about 25% of tranfusion-free procedures are on people who are not Jehovah's 



Witnesses, but who choose the option for health or personal reasons. This is emerging 

medicine...The day may come 

when blood transfusions are a thing of the past." 

Tom Wixon 

Manager, Marketing & Public Relations 

Desert Regional Medical Center 

John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital 

CARM however, would rather keep you from this knowledge, they would rather turn you away from 

safer medicine in order to further their own devious agenda. For more, see 

http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm 



-The Holy Spirit is God’s impersonal active force. 

And this is supported by Non-JW reference works and Non-JW Bibles: 

Spirit, “primarily denotes "the wind" (akin to pneo, "to breathe, blow"); also "breath;" then, especially 

"the spirit," 

which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful.” Vine’s Dictionary 

“In the OT, Heb. Ruah means first of all wind and breath, but also the human spirit in the 

sense of life 

force and even personal energy.” Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible (see also Brown Driver 

Brigg’s 

Lexicon) 

"Spirit is the principle of life and vital activity. The spirit is the breath of life (Gn 6:17; 7:15, 

22; BS 

38:23; WS 15:11, 16; 16:14). The breath is the breath of God, the wind, communicated to 

man by divine 

inspiration....The spirit of Yahweh or the spirit of God (Elohim) is a **force** that has 

unique effects 

upon man...and the spirit of Yahweh is a **force** which operates the works of Yahweh the 

savior and 

the judge. The spirit of Yahweh is often the **force** which inspires prophecy (Nm 11:17 

ff; 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; Zc 7:12). 

The prophet is a man of the spirit (Ho 9:7)." Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, 

S.J. 

“wind, air in motion…breath…an influential principle, a pervading influence…” 

Perschbacher’s The New 

Analytical Greek Lexicon 

“a movement of air, blast…God’s power and agency.” Thayer’s Greek Lexicon 



“blowing, breathing…”, etc BAGD Lexicon 

To sum up, lexically, the spirit is primarily an impersonal force (like wind or breath) 

What can we learn from other Bibles? The New International Version for instance will translate pnuema 

as 

“Spirit” with a capital letter "S" when it wants to bring to the readers mind that it is talking about a 

person, but it 

will also translate the same word without capitals to denote a force. 

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they 

are life.” 

John 6:63 NIV 

It is interesting when Bible translations differ on when to capitalize, and whether to use other words. 

“Life is spiritual. Your physical existence doesn't contribute to that life. The words that I have spoken to 

you are 

spiritual. They are life.” John 6:63 God’s Word Translation 

“The breath of God and the life of God is in these words of Jesus.” Robertson’s Word Pictures in the 

New 

Testament John 6:63 

Take another example: 

Genesis 1:2 

"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." King James Version 

"a mighty wind swept over the waters." New American Bible 

"a divine wind sweeping over the waters." New Jerusalem Bible 

"and the power of God was moving over the water." Good News Bible-TEV 

Fortman says, 

"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old 

Testament writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics and 

in Acts as a divine 

force or power." The Triune God, pp. 6, 15 



-Only their church members will be saved. 

CARM references the 1979 WT, p.30, which says nothing to effect that CARM claims it says. It goes to 

show 

that “God’s Word shows that he has ever had just one visible agency directing his work on earth.” 

The Reasoning book really says, 

“Both those who lived in harmony with God’s righteous ways and people who, out of 

ignorance, did unrighteous things will be resurrected.” Pp. 339, 340 

Make no mistake, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they have true faith, and this makes them no different 

than other 

faiths, like Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox, etc., that feel the same way. The fact that CARM calls The 

Christian 

Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses a “CULT” is clearly an indication that they feel that only they have 



true 

faith, and we do not. 

Jehovah’s Witnesses do SAVE a lot more money though, since unlike many nominal churches, they do 

not 

demand their members pay TEN PERCENT OF THEIR ENTIRE INCOME. Did you know this? 



-Jesus was an angel who became a man. 

Actually, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was simply “an angel who became a man.” They 

believe 

that he was the greatest of all angels, one set apart from the rest by designation ARCHangel. This is a 

view 

shared by the great Reformers, Adam Clarke, and Matthew Henry (see 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wilson.htm ) 

However, it should be noted that the Bibles and commentators that CARM would support promote the 

idea that 

Jesus is an angel: 

Speaking of the Angel of the LORD at Genesis 16, the NKJV Baptist Study Edition states: 

“That this is a theophany, or, more precisely, a Christophany, an appearance of the 

pre-incarnate Christ is confirmed…” 

The NKJV MacArthur Study Bible adds: 

“the Angel of the LORD…is often identified as the pre-incarnate Christ.” 

The NIV Ryrie Study Bible notes: 

“the angel of the O.T. is a preincarnate appearance of the Second Person of the Trinity.” 



-Jesus did not rise from the dead physically. 

“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” 1 Corinthians 15:50 

“if anyone be not born of Water and Spirit, he cannot enter the KINGDOM of God.” John 3:5 Diaglott 

“Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to 

God; 

being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” 1 Peter 3:18 



-There is no Trinity. 

The Bible repeatedly states God’s oneness, never His threeness. 

“Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD.” Deut. 6:4 KJV 

". . . it is a remarkable fact, that no single passage or verse ofthe Old or New Testament is 



received as an 

assured proof-text of the trinity by the unanimous consent of all Trinitarian writers: some 

ground their faith on one passage, some on another." A Religious Encyclopædia: or 

Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, Based on the 

Real-Encyklopädie of Herzog, Plitt, and Hauck." 

Of further note is that the Bible is silent on the word “Trinity”, and its explanation/definition. 



-Good works are necessary for the forgiveness of sins. 

Rather, The Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses say: 

“Jas. 2:14, 26, RS: “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not 

works? Can his faith save him? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart 

from works is dead.” (A person does not earn salvation by his works. But anyone who 

has genuine faith will have works to go with it—works of obedience to the commands of 

God and Christ, works that demonstrate his faith and love. Without such works, his faith is 

dead.)” Reasoning book, under Salvation 

I hope the above will aid those who have been victims to the lies and half-truths distributed by CARM, 

and other 

hostiles. Contact your local Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses at the Kingdom Hall in your 

neighborhood 

for a reasoned, Biblical explanation of their Scriptural faith. 

“Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen.” Isaiah 43:10 

American Standard Version 

Reaction, December 31, 2002: 

Kevin: Heinz responded to the tract's comment about JWs and blood 

transfusions. The tract says that JWs believe: "Blood transfusions are sinful." Heinz says in response: 

"There has been a Biblical prohibition against the ingestion of blood throughout all stages of human 

existence." He then quotes an 1839 work called "Benson's Notes," Vol. 1, p. 43: "It ought to be observed, 

that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites, in 

a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has 

been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation." 

It should be noted that Heinz has here merely stolen this quote from the Watchtower Society's 

publications. 

Reply: The CARM tract quoted the Watchtower publications 10 times, even incorrectly, but it is _I_ that 

will feel the wrath of Kevin, QUOTE-THIEF that I am. Benson only mentioned the obvious, and perhaps 

he STOLE this from Sir Isaac Newton, who said much the same thing. 

Or perhaps, they are echoing what the Bible states, that through the 3 primary stages of the people of 

God, Pre-Mosaic (Genesis 9:4), Mosaic (Leviticus 17:10-14) and Christian (Acts 15:20, 29), there has 

been a prohibition on blood. I guess I STOLE that from the Bible. 



Kevin: Aside from noting Heinz's dependence on the Watchtower Society, all 

the while making it seem as if he is doing some actual independent 

research of his own, 

Reply: My reply to Slick's Warning Tract was meant to brief, since the original tract was brief. What I 

posted is not anything new, and I never promoted it as such. 

Kevin: Heinz does not seem at all focused on the 

point. The Bible itself doesn't say anything about "ingesting" 

blood, unless Heinz is using "ingesting" to mean "eating." 

Reply: From http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=ingestion : 

1 entry found for ingestion. 

Entry: absorption 

Function: noun 

Definition: taking in 

Synonyms: assimilation, consumption, digestion, drinking in, exhaustion, fusion, imbibing, 

impregnation, incorporation, ingestion, inhalation, intake, osmosis, penetration, reception, retention, 

saturation, soaking up, suction, taking in 

Concept: consuming/using 

Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0) 

Copyright © 2002 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved. 

Basically, eating provides us with the same function as nourishment and sustenance for life. 

"In practicing transfusion one can only imitate the example of nature which, in order to nourish the fetus 

in the uterus of the mother, makes a continuous transfusion of the blood of the mother into the body of 

the infant through the umbilical vein. In performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a 

shorter road than ordinary--that is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food 

which only turns to blood after several changes." 

G. W. Crile; Hemorrhage and Transfusion: An Experimental and Clinical Research; 1909, D. Appleton 

and Company: 153 

Kevin: But how 

would that refute the criticism against the Watchtower Society? It 

wouldn't, since transfusing blood is not at all the same as eating 

blood. So why does Heinz make this point in response to a comment 

about the Watchtower Society's position on blood transfusions? 

Please note that even Heinz's source (Benson's Notes by means of the 

Watchtower Society's publication) speaks only about "eating blood." 

Apparently Heinz, like all other Watchtower Witnesses, has no 

response when it comes to providing biblical evidence against blood 

transfusions. 

Reply: In Bible times, people were killed using swords, clubs, spears, etc. When the command was given 

"Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 20:13 KJV) and "put your sword back into its place" (Matt 26:52 NRSV), these 

ancient methods were those that immediately came to mind in Bible times. But this does not mean death 

by means of a machine gun is now permissible simply because such a method was not explicit in 



Scripture. The same goes for the Biblical command to abstain from blood. 

Kevin: This says nothing about the Watchtower's position 

regarding prohibiting certain blood components and allowing others. 

Nor have we even mentioned the details involved in the various 

changes to the Watchtower's blood policy and how they went from 

banning all fractions to allowing all but four components. 

Reply: Primary components are obviously "blood," and can even be categorized 

as "food." Therefore banning its use is soundly derived from Scripture. Additonally, our creator allows 

fractions to be passed between circulatory systems and that non-cellular fractions do not seem to be 

classed as a "food", this gives evidence that perhaps they 

are not to be included in the ban. 

According, in the Bible, blood is "life", it is sacred and thus belongs to Jehovah. 

It is also clear that while all animals were placed "in man's hand", he was still not allowed to use the 

blood. Humans were not given the authority to use this blood as they wished. All blood from all souls 

was sacred. We can conclude that any use of blood by man outside of God's expressed Scriptural 

approval was unacceptable. 

Langston places himself in a dangerous predicament concerning the isssue of God's Sovereignty. When 

was given a vegetable diet for nourishment and sustenance, Jehovah retained for Himself the Tree of 

Knowledge to attest His Sovereignty. When the way was opened up to use meat for nourishment and 

sustenance, he retained a portion thereof also, the blood-to attest that He alone is the Sovereign Giver of 

Life. 

Langston therefore puts himself in a satanic/adversarial position by trying to "open up our eyes" and see 

that this form [blood tranfusions] of nourishment/sustenance/food "is good," "pleasant" and "to be 

desired to make one wise." Genesis 3:4-6 

Kevin: But Heinz did not stop here. He went on to write: "We are only now 

beginning to appreciate the wisdom behind this, as non-blood 

alternatives that higher medicine 

is well aware of offers safer alternatives, alternatives not frought 

with blood-borne diseases, such HIV or Hepatitus." 

Interesting. I wonder why it is the Watchtower Society that has had 

to change their position and allow all blood components but four? 

Reply: Primary components are obviously "blood," and can even be categorized 

as "food." Therefore, the banning of their use is soundly derived from Scripture. Also, since Jehovah 

allows fractions to be passed between circulatory systems and the fact that non-cellular fractions do not 

seem to be classed as a "food" both give evidence that perhaps they 

are not to be included in the ban. 

Kevin: Why has the Society had to give in to their previously "wise" 

position and change it? 

Reply: The book _Blood-An Epic History of Medicine and Commerce_ by Douglas Starr, p. xiv, has this 

to say: 

"The Bible mentions blood more than 400 times: 'The life of the flesh is in the blood,' says Leviticus, 



equating blood with life itself. Blood is considered so holy in the Old Testament that the Law specifically 

forbids its consumption, which is why Jehovah's Witnesses, who interpret the Bible literally, refuse 

transfusions." 

However, if we apply the Biblical mandate STRICTLY, then all blood should be refused. 

The Society's position is that the matter of blood fractions is not directly resolved in 

Scripture and so this decision is *outside* any definite doctrinal or theological decision by the Society. 

Therefore the Witnesses' precise stand is that blood is sacred and not to be used for 

nourishment/sustenance/food," primary components definitely are "blood" according to Scripture. This 

category as "food" is explicitly "Scriptural" and thus primary components are not to be 

taken into our body. However, science and logic dictates that fractions do not fall under the category of 

"food/nourishment/sustenance" or considered "so holy" by Jehovah. Since this modern knowledge 

creates a "grey area" concerning the classification as food/nourishment/sustenance, it is wisely left for 

individuals to make that determination for themselves. This is a loving provision that should be 

applauded, but instead, is again used against JW's by those seeking to further their own devious agenda. 

It is a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of scenario. It is another form of persecution. 

Additionally, Acts 15:29 also demands that we abstain from fornication (porneia), which many struggle 

as to what is to be included within that range. Here again, there may be some "grey areas" and all groups 

decide as to what it is to be included on the concept of porneia. So any "policy change" is really a 

clarification of what should be included in the group (blood/haima). The Encyclopedia Britannica, 

Micropedia II (1974) p. 89 defines the 4 major blood components as _plasma, red blood cells 

(erythrocytes), white blood cells (leucocytes), and platelets (thrombocytes)_. In recent years fractions 

and extracts have been synthesized from these components: Immunoglobulins, coagulation factors, 

albumin, stem cells, interleucines etc. Are these to be included with the 4 major components? We don't 

know because these factors did not exist as products in Biblical times, and therefore the answer has been 

that the use of these components is a matter of individual conscience. This does not mean that anyone has 

authorised the use of these components, but rather that they have pointed out that they represent a "grey 

area" where each individual must decide. 

Kevin: Heinz ends by quoting a medical professional, Tom Wixon, who 

wrote: "Today, about 25% of tranfusion-free procedures are on people 

who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, but who choose the option for 

health or personal reasons. This is emerging medicine...The day may 

come when blood transfusions are a thing of the past. 

This really is meaningless...." yada yada yada 

Reply: I hope what I have submitted above above will clear some heads and misconceptions. JW's are 

pioneers in this area, and the world will again owe them a debt of gratitude for paving the way for safer 

medicine. Dinosaurs like Langston and Slick will try to keep you in the dark ages of medicine, with no 

hope of triumph over and above blood-borne diseases. Tom Wixon has contacted me personally and gave 

me permission to use this quote, as he did Dr. Laura, ending with the statement, "Let's put this canard to 

rest." 

Another recent statement backs him up: 

"Blood products are useful but carry their own set of risks,...Thus whenever we can avoid using them, we 

should - not only in Jehovah's Witness patients, but in every patient." USC Health-Quarterly, Spring 

2000 vol. 12 no.1 

I will have more on this in the future on one of my sites. 



Thank you for your time. 




Is Once Saved Always Saved Eternal Security/Salvation Scriptural? 

Bible Versions and OSAS 

Is "Once Saved Always Saved" Eternal 

Security/Salvation Scriptural? 

According to the Bible, Christians can: 

● drift away (Heb. 2:1) NIV 

● stray (Mt. 18:12,13) NWT 

● wander away from the faith (1 Tim. 6:10,21) 

● deviate from the truth and overturn the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:18) HCSB 

● lose your saltiness (Lk. 14:34,35) NRSV 

● stumble (Mk. 14:27,29) NKJV 

● turn away from grace (Gal. 5:4) Bible in Basic English 

● believe for a time, and in time of trial fall away. (Lk. 8:13) Darby 

● stumble and fall (Mt. 24:10) Wesley NT 

● stray from these things, turn aside to fruitless discussion (1 Tim. 1:5,6) NASB 

● turn back to their old ways of living and not go along with Jesus after that (Jn. 6:66) New Life 

● have your faith shipwrecked (1 Tim. 1:19) Recovery Version 

● leave the right path and wander off to follow the path of Balaam (2 Pet. 2:15) NJB 

● be like a branch that is thrown away and dries up (Jn. 15:6) Beck 

● fall over stumbling blocks (Jn. 16:1) C.B. Williams 

● turn away, become Satan's follower (1 Tim. 5:15) Heinz Casirrer New Covenant 

● desert from the faith (1 Tim. 4:1) Barclay 

● turn their hearing away from the truth and turned aside to myths (2 Tim. 4:4) Concordant 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

develop an evil unbelieving heart that pulls away from the living God (Heb. 3:12) International 

English Bible 

fall away from the faith so that it won't be possible to bring you back (Heb. 6:6) NIrV 

turn away from him who warneth us from heaven (Heb. 12:25) Worrell NT 

become lukewarm and get spit out of the mouth of Christ (Rev. 3:15,16) 21st Century NT 

to be hurt by the second death (Rev. 2:10,11) Byington 

have God take away your rights to the Tree of Life and the holy city (Rev. 22:19) Unvarnished 

NT/Gaus 

be led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. (2 Pet. 3:17) KJV 

be carried away with strange varieities of teachings (Heb. 13:9) 



file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/osas.htm [5/25/2003 3:46:23 AM]

Comparing the Sopherim Emendations between the New World Translation and other Bibles 

Which Bible Best Retains Most of the Original Wording 

Prior to the Emendations (Corrections) made to the 

Hebrew Text 

E. W. Bullinger, in Appendix #33 of The Companion Bible, lists 18 emendations made by the Sopherim 

to the Hebrew Text. 

"These emendations were made at a period long before Christ, before the Hebrew text had obtained its 

present settled form, and these emendations affect the Figure called Anthropopatheia." 

Anthropopatheia: "or Condescension...Ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings, 

irrational creatures, or inanimate things." Bullinger, Figures of Speech 

Does your Bible give you the primitive original reading? Or are you reading a later corrected text? Let's 

find out: 

[Original text readings are exactly as written by E.W. Bullinger, or close to the KJV rendering where 

Bullinger is absent; any Scripture reading that starts with "ftn.," indicates that this is a footnote reading, 

a marginal note and not part of the main text.] 

Emendations to the Torah 

Genesis 18:22 

"And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood 

yet before the LORD." 

But the original text reads: 

"but Jehovah stood yet before Abraham." 

Here the Sopherim felt that it was demeaning to Jehovah to say that He stood before Abraham, so they 

changed it to read otherwise. 

Which Bible version bears the correct reading? 

Bible Version Original Reading 

as for Jehovah, he was 

Emended Reading 

New World Translation 

still standing before 

Abraham 

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 

but, Yahweh was yet 

standing before Abraham 

Byington's Bible in Living English 

but Jehovah still stood 

before Abraham 

ftn. Abraham still stood 

before Jehovah 

New Jerusalem Bible 

Yahweh remained in 

Abraham's presence 

while Abraham was still 

New American Standard Version 

standing before the 

LORD. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/emendations.htm (1 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:52 AM]


The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research 

(PTY) Ltd 

King James Version 

Revised Standard Version 

New American Bible 

New International Version 

Smith & Goodspeed's AT 

English Standard Version 

Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society 

New Revised Standard Version 

New King James Version 

Young's Literal Version 

The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby 

Good News Bible-TEV 

Revised English Bible 

YHWH still stood before 

Abraham 

The LORD remained 


ftn. but the LORD 

remained standing before 

Abraham 

the LORD remained 


but the LORD remained 

with Abraham 

but Abraham stood yet 

before the LORD. 

but Abraham still stood 


but Abraham remained 


LORD. 


before the LORD 

while Abraham 

remained standing 


while Abraham 

remained standing 



before the LORD 

Abraham is yet standing 

before Jehovah 

Abraham remained yet 

standing before Jehovah 

Abraham remained 


LORD 

Numbers 11:15 

"And if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray Thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in 

Thy sight; and let me not see my wretchedness." 

The original text reads: 

"And if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray Thee, our of hand, if I have found favour in 

Thy sight; and let me not see thy evil." 

The Sopherim made the change as they did not want to ascribe evil to God. 




Bible Version Original Reading Emended Reading 

New World Translation ftn. your calamity 

let me not look upon my 

calamity 

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible let me not see my grief, 

Byington's Bible in Living English let me not see my misfortune 


be spared the sight of my 

misery 

New American Standard Version it is too burdensome for me. 

The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture 

Research (PTY) Ltd 

Let me not see my evil 

King James Version it is too heavy for me. 

Revised Standard Version the burden is too heavy for me. 


so that I need no longer face 

this distress 

New International Version do not let me face my own ruin 


let me see no more of my 

trouble 

English Standard Version the burden is too heavy for me. 


let me see no more of my 

wretchedness 

New Revised Standard Version do not let me see my misery 


do not let me see my 

wretchedness 


let me not look on mine 

affliction. 


I won't have to 

that I may not behold my 

wretchedness 


endure your cruelty 

any longer 


spare me this trouble afflicting 

me 

Numbers 12:12 

"Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his 

mother’s womb." 


"Let her not be as one dead, of whom our flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his 

mother’s womb." 



The text was altered to avoid including Aaron in this comment about their flesh being ‘half consumed.’ 

This was thought to be a derogatory comment toward a High Priest such as Aaron. 



New World Translation ftn. our flesh whose flesh 

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible ftn. our flesh its flesh 

Byington's Bible in Living English our flesh ftn. his flesh 

New Jerusalem Bible its flesh 

New American Standard Version whose flesh 

The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research (PTY) Ltd our flesh 

King James Version of whom the flesh 

Revised Standard Version of whom the flesh 

New American Bible its flesh 

New International Version its flesh 

Smith & Goodspeed's AT his flesh 

English Standard Version whose flesh 

Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society his flesh 

New Revised Standard Version whose flesh 

New King James Version whose flesh 

Young's Literal Version his flesh 

The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby whose flesh 

Good News Bible-TEV its flesh 

Revised English Bible whose flesh 

Emendations to the Prophets (NEVI'IM) 

I Samuel 3:13 

"For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; 

because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not." 


"For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; 

because his sons cursed God, and he restrained them not." 

The Sopherim softened this text due to a mistaken sense of reverence. 



New World Translation calling down evil upon God ftn. for themselves 



Rotherham's Emphasized Bible cursing God 

Byington's Bible in Living English insulting God 

New Jerusalem Bible cursing God 

New American Standard Version curse on themselves 



cursed Elohim 

King James Version made themselves vile 

Revised Standard Version blaspheming God ftn., for themselves 

New American Bible its flesh 

New International Version ftn., blasphemed God 

made themselves 

contemptible 

Smith & Goodspeed's AT blaspheming God 

English Standard Version blaspheming God 

ftn., blaspheming for 

themselves 

Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society committed sacrilege 

New Revised Standard Version blaspheming God ftn., for themselves 

New King James Version made themselves vile 

Young's Literal Version making themselves vile 

The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby made themselves vile 


spoken evil things against 

me 

Revised English Bible blasphemies against God ftn., to them 

2 Samuel 12:14 

"Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD 

to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." 


"thou has greatly blasphemed the Jehovah." 

Here the Sopherim made a change so that the esteemed king David would not be seen as having 

blasphemed Jehovah. 





file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/emendations.htm (5 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:52 AM] 

you have unquestionably treated 

Jehovah with disrespect 

thou hast greatly blasphemed 

Yahweh 

ftn., treated the enemies 

of Jehovah with 

disrespect 

ftn., greatly blasphemed 

the enemies of Y.













you did treat Jehovah with 

contempt 

you have outraged Yahweh by 

doing this 

you have greatly scorned 

YHWH 

you have utterly scorned the 

LORD 

you have utterly spurned the 

LORD 

ftn., you have shown utter 

contempt for the LORD 

you have openly spurned the 

LORD 


LORD 

Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society ftn. spurned the LORD 






file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/emendations.htm (6 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:46:52 AM] 


LORD 

you have shown such contempt 

for the LORD 

you have given occasion 

to the enemies of the 

LORD to blaspheme 

thou hast given great 

occasion to the enemies 

of the LORD to 

blaspheme 

ftn. the enemies of the 

LORD 

you have made the 

enemies of the LORD 

show utter contempt 


LORD 

you have spurned the 

enemies of the LORD 

ftn. scorned the enemies 

of the LORD 

you have given great 


of the LORD to 

blaspheme 

thou hast caused the 

enemies of Jehovah 

greatly to despise by this 

thing 

thou hast given great 


of the Jehovah to 

blaspheme



you have shown your contempt 

for the LORD 


LORD 


"It may be that the LORD will look on mine affliction, and that the LORD will requite me 

good for his cursing this day." 


"Jehovah will behold with His eye." 

Bullinger: "This was thought to be to anthropomorphic, and so was altered, and the alteration 

recorded." 




Perhaps Jehovah will 

see with his eye 


Yahweh will behold 

with his eye 


Perhaps Jehovah will look upon 

my wretched state 


Perhaps Yahweh will look on 

my wretchedness 


Perhaps the LORD will look on 

my affliction 


YHWH does look on my 


affliction 


the LORD will look on mine 

affliction 


the LORD will look upon my 

affliction 


Perhaps the LORD will look 

upon my affliction 

New International Version the LORD will see my distress 


the LORD will look on my 

affliction 


the LORD will look on the 

wrong done to me 

Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society ftn., eye 

Perhaps the LORD will look 

upon my punishment 



distress 









affliction 

Jehovah doth look on mine 

affliction 

Jehovah will look on mine 

affliction 

Perhaps the LORD will notice 

my misery 

Perhaps the LORD will mark 

my sufferings 

2 Samuel 20:1 

"And there happened to be there a man of Belial, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, 

a Benjamite: and he blew a trumpet, and said, "We have no part in David, neither have we 

inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to his tents, O Israel." 


"‘We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to 

his gods, O Israel" 

Bullinger: "One of the emendations of the Sopherim by which they transposed the middle two letters of 

the primitive text and made it read 'tents' instead of 'gods.'" 



New World Translation every one to his gods ftn. to his tents 


ftn. every one to his 

gods 

Every man to his home 

Byington's Bible in Living English to your homes 

New Jerusalem Bible Every man to his tents 

New American Standard Version every man to his tents 


(PTY) Ltd 

each one to his tents 

King James Version every man to his tents 

Revised Standard Version every man to his tents 

New American Bible every man to his tent 

New International Version every man to his tent 

Smith & Goodspeed's AT every man to his tents 

English Standard Version every man to his tents 

Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society Every man to his tent 

New Revised Standard Version Everyone to your tents 



New King James Version every man to his tents 

Young's Literal Version each to his tents 

The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby every man to his tents 


Men of Israel, let's go 

home! 

Revised English Bible Every man to his tent 

I Kings 12:16 

"So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the People answered the king 

saying, ‘What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to 

your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David.’ So Israel departed unto their 

tents." 


"to your gods, O Israel" 

Bullinger: "The original text was 'to your gods', because the sin was apostasy from Jehovah's worship in 

Jerusalem. 



New World Translation to your gods ftn., to your tents 

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible to your homes 

Byington's Bible in Living English to your homes 

New Jerusalem Bible to your tents 

New American Standard Version to your tents 


(PTY) Ltd 

to their tents 

King James Version to your tents 

Revised Standard Version to your tents 

New American Bible to your tents 

New International Version to your tents 

Smith & Goodspeed's AT to your tents 

English Standard Version to your tents 

Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society to your tents 

New Revised Standard Version to your tents 

New King James Version to your tents 

Young's Literal Version and Israel goeth to its tents 

The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby to your tents 




People of Israel, let's go 

home! 

Revised English Bible to your tents 

1 Kings 21:10 

"And set two men, sons of Belial, before him to bear witness against him, saying, ‘Thou 

didst blaspheme God and the king.’ And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may 

die.’" 

The original text was emended to read ‘bless’ instead of ‘blaspheme.’ Thankfully, this time, the King 

James translators discovered the change and rendered it correctly. 



New World Translation you have cursed God ftn., blessed 

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible thou hast reviled God 

Byington's Bible in Living English you cursed God ftn. you blessed 

New Jerusalem Bible you have cursed God 

New American Standard Version You cursed God 

The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research You have blasphemed 

(PTY) Ltd 

Elohim 

King James Version Thou didst blaspheme God 

Revised Standard Version you have cursed God 

New American Bible having cursed God 


he has cursed both God and 

the king 

Smith & Goodspeed's AT you have cursed God 

English Standard Version you have cursed God 

Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society you have reviled God 

New Revised Standard Version you have cursed God 

New King James Version you have blasphemed God 

Young's Literal Version Thou hast blessed God 

The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby thou didst curse God 

Good News Bible-TEV of cursing God 

Revised English Bible cursing God 

1 Kings 21:13 

The same situation as in 1 Kings 21:10. 



Jeremiah 2:11 

"Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? But My people have changed 

their glory for that which doth not profit." 


"Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? But My people have changed My 

glory for that which doth not profit." 

Bullinger explains that this change as being made out of a mistaken idea of reverence. 



New World Translation exchanged my glory ftn., its 

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible have changed my glory ftn. his glory 

Byington's Bible in Living English changed its glory 

New Jerusalem Bible exchanged their Glory 


My people have changed 

their glory 


have changed My esteem 

(PTY) Ltd 


my people have changed 

their glory 


my people have changed 

their glory 

New American Bible changed their glory 

New International Version ftn., my exchanged their Glory 

Smith & Goodspeed's AT changed their glory 

English Standard Version changed their glory 


My people has exchanged 

its glory 

New Revised Standard Version changed their glory 

New King James Version changed their glory 


My people hath changed 

its honour 

The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby changed their glory 


my people have 

exchanged me 

Revised English Bible exchanged their glory 

Ezekiel 8:17 

"For they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke Me to anger: and, 



lo, they put the branch to their nose." 


"... For they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke Me to anger: 

and, to, they put the branch to My nose." 

"This is one of the 18 emendations of the Sopherim, by which they record their change of 'aphphi (My 

nostrils), of the primitive text, to 'aphpham (their nostrils), in order to remove what was though to be an 

indelicate and derogatory Anthropomorphism." Bullinger 




they are thrusting out 

the shoot to my nose 

ftn., their nose 

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible branch to my nose ftn., their 


they are sending bad air 

at my nose 

New Jerusalem Bible branch to their nostrils 


they are putting the twig 

to their nose 

The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research they are putting the 

(PTY) Ltd 

branch to My nose 


they put the branch to 

their nose 


they put the branch to 

their nose 

New American Bible branch to my nose 


putting the branch to 

their nose 

Smith & Goodspeed's AT against my very nostrils 

English Standard Version ftn., or my 

put the branch to their 

nose 

Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society ftn. goad Me to Fury 

thrust the branch to their 

nostrils 


putting the branch to 

their nose 



nose 


they are putting forth the 

branch unto their nose! 



nose 





Emendations to the Minor Prophets 

Look how they insult 

me in the most 

offensive way possible! 

holding twigs to their 

noses 

Hosea 4:7 

"As they were increased, so they sinned against Me: therefore will I change their glory into 

shame." 


"As they were increased, so they sinned against Me: My glory they have they changed into 

shame." 

Another instance where the Sopherim displayed a mistaken sense of reverence toward God. 










My own glory they have 

exchanged for mere 

dishonor 

my glory...did they 

exchange 

My esteem they have 

changed 

ftn., their own glory I will 

exchange 

ftn., their glory I will 

change into shame 

I will substitute contempt 

for your honors 

they have bartered their 

Glory for Shame 

I will change their glory 

into shame 


therefore will I change 

their glory into shame 



into shame 


exchanging their glory for 

shame 

New International Version ftn., my they exchanged their Glory 


they have exchanged their 

glory 






New King James Version ftn., my glory 






into shame 

I will change their dignity 

to dishonor 

they changed their glory 

into shame 


into shame 

Their honour into shame I 

change 


into shame 

I will turn your honor into 

disgrace 

their dignity I shall turn 

into dishonour 

Habakkuk 1:12 

"Art Thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O 

LORD, Thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, Thou hast established 

them for correction." 


"Art Thou not from everlasting, O Jehovah my God, mine Holy One? who diest not. ..." 

This change was made as "...it was considered offensive to say this ["who diest not"] of Jehovah; ..." 




Jehovah...my Holy One, you do 

not die 

ftn., we shall not die 


Yahweh, my God...thou diest 

not 

ftn. we shall not die 


Jehovah...God of my 

devotion...you will not die 


Yahweh...my holy God, who 

never dies 


O LORD, my 

God...we will not die 

The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture O YHWH my Elohim...You do 


not die 





New American Bible LORD, my holy God, immortal 


Smith & Goodspeed's AT O LORD,...Thou diest not! 









O LORD, My holy God...You 

never die 

O LORD, my God...You shall 

not die 

You are my God, holy and 

eternal. 

LORD, my God...who is 

immortal 

O LORD my God...we 

shall not die 


shall not die 

O LORD, my 

God...we will not die 


shall not die 

ftn., Heb. "we," a 

change made by a 

pious scribe 

ftn. MT We 

O LORD, my 

God...We shall not die 

O Jehovah, my 

God...We do not die 

Jehovah, my God...We 

shall not die 

ftn. we shall not die 

Zechariah 2:8 

"For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath He sent me unto the nations which 

spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of His eye." 

The original text read: 

"... After the glory hath He sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth 

you toucheth the apple of Mine eye." 

It was considered derogatory and too anthropomorphic to speak of God as having an eye in a literal 

sense. 




he that is touching you 

ftn., his eyeball 

is touching my eyeball 




touches the pupil of 

mine eye 

ftn., apple of his eye 

Byington's Bible in Living English the apple of his eye 


touches the apple of 

My eye 

New American Standard Version the apple of His eye 

The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research touches the apple of 

(PTY) Ltd 

My eye 

King James Version the apple of his eye 

Revised Standard Version the apple of his eye 



my eye 

New International Version the apple of his eye 

Smith & Goodspeed's AT the apple of his eye 

English Standard Version the apple of his eye 

Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society ftn., Heb "My" his own eye 



my eye 

ftn. Heb his eye 


touches the apple of his 

eye 


Is coming against the 

daughter of His eye. 


Anyone who strikes 

the apple of his eye 


you strikes what is 

most precious to me. 

Revised English Bible the apple of his eye 

Malachi 1:12 

"But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, ‘The table of the LORD is polluted; and the fruit 

thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.’" 


"But ye have profaned Me, in that ye say, ‘The table of the Jehovah is polluted; and the fruit 

thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.’" 

Another change made due to a mistaken sense of reverence, and the idea that Jehovah cannot be 

profaned. 






you men are profaning 

me 

ftn., 'him' or 'it' 

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible ye are profaning me 

Byington's Bible in Living English you have profaned it 

New Jerusalem Bible but you have profaned it 

New American Standard Version But you are profaning it 

The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture Research but you are profaning 

(PTY) Ltd 

me 

King James Version But ye have profaned it 

Revised Standard Version But you profaned it 


you behave profanely 

toward me 

New International Version but you profaned it 

Smith & Goodspeed's AT you are defiling it 

English Standard Version but you profaned it 

Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society you profane it 

New Revised Standard Version but you profane it 

New King James Version but you profane it 

Young's Literal Version ye are polluting it 

The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby but ye profane it 

Good News Bible-TEV But you dishonor me 

Revised English Bible but you profaned me 

Malachi 3:9 

"Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed Me, even this whole nation." 


"Ye have cursed Me with a curse: for ye have robbed Me, even this whole nation." 

Bullinger states: "The Sopherim say that they altered the letter (Mem = M) into (Nun = N), thus making 

it passive instead of active, and detaching it from the rest of the sentence. This was done to avoid a 

supposed irreverence." 




with the curse you are 

cursing me 


with a curse ye have been 

cursing, 



Byington's Bible in Living English N/A 

ftn. with the curse you are 

cursed, and me 

New Jerusalem Bible a curse lies on you 


You are cursed with a 

curse 


(PTY) Ltd 

You have cursed Me 

with a curse 


Ye are cursed with a 

curse 



curse 

New American Bible you are indeed accursed 

New International Version you are under a curse 


with a curse are you 

accursed 



curse 


you are suffering under a 

curse 



curse 



curse 


With a curse ye are 

cursed! 


Ye are cursed with a 

curse 

Good News Bible-TEV A curse is on all of you 

Revised English Bible there is a curse on you all 

Emendations to the Writings (KETHUVIM) 

Psalm 10:3 

"For the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD 

abhorreth." 


"For the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, And the covetous man blasphemeth, yea, 

abhorreth Jehovah." 





New World Translation he has disrespected Jehovah 

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible hath blasphemed Yahweh 


a wrongdoer loftily insults 

Jehovah 


by his blasphemies the 

grasping spurns Yahweh 


the greedy man curses and 

spurns the LORD 




the greedy one cursed and 

despised YHWH 


curses and renounces the 

LORD 

New American Bible curse and scorn the LORD 

New International Version reviles the LORD 

Smith & Goodspeed's AT curses and rejects God 

English Standard Version renounces the LORD 

Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society reviles and scorns the LORD 


curse and renounce the 

LORD 

New King James Version renounces the LORD 

Young's Literal Version He hath despised Jehovah 

The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby he contemneth Jehovah 


the greedy curse and reject 

the LORD 


they curse and revile the 

LORD 

Psalm 106:20 

"Thus they changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass." 


"Thus they changed My glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass." 


whom the LORD 

abhorreth 


New World Translation they exchanged my glory ftn., their glory 



Rotherham's Emphasized Bible exchanged my glory ftn., their glory 

Byington's Bible in Living English ftn., his glory changed their glory 


they exchanged their 

glory 



glory 


they changed My esteem 

(PTY) Ltd 

King James Version they changed their glory 


they exchanged the glory 

of God 



glorious God 



Glory 

Smith & Goodspeed's AT they changed their glory 



of God 



glory 


They exchanged the glory ftn. Heb exchanged their 

of God 

glory 

New King James Version they changed their glory 

Young's Literal Version And change their Honour 

The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby they changed their glory 



of God 


they exchanged their God 

for... 

ftn., Heb, their glory 

Job 1:5 

"And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified 

them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number 

of them all for Job said, ‘It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their 

hearts.’ Thus did Job continually." 

Here the Sopherim changed the word ‘cursed’ to ‘bless’ in the Hebrew text, but the translators of the 

King James Version corrected it in the English version. The same is true of three other verses in the book 

of Job: Job 1:11; 2:5 and 2:9). 





New World Translation cursed God in their heart ftn., have blessed 

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible cursed God in their hearts ftn., to bless 

Byington's Bible in Living English cursed God in their hearts 

ftn., sinned and blessed 

God 

New Jerusalem Bible in their hearts blasphemed 

New American Standard Version cursed God in their hearts 

The Scriptures-Institute for Scripture cursed Elohim in their 


hearts 


and cursed God in their 

hearts 

Revised Standard Version cursed God in their hearts 


blasphemed God in their 

hearts 

New International Version cursed God in their hearts 

Smith & Goodspeed's AT cursed God in their thoughts 

English Standard Version cursed God in their hearts ftn., bless 


blasphemed God in their 

hearts 

New Revised Standard Version cursed God in their hearts 

New King James Version cursed God in their hearts ftn. blessed 


yet blessed God in their 

heart 

The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby cursed God in their hearts 


have sinned by insulting 

God 

Revised English Bible have sinned against God 

Job 7:20 

"I have sinned; what shall I do unto Thee, O Thou Preserver of men? Why hast thou set me 

as a mark against Thee, so that I am a burden to myself?" 


"I have sinned; what shall I do unto Thee, O Thou Preserver of men? Why hast thou set me 

as a mark against Thee, so that I am a burden unto Thee?" 

Not believing that any mere man could be a ‘burden’ to God, this Scripture was emended by the 

Sopherim. 




Bible Version Original Reading 

so that I should 

Emended Reading 


become a burden to 

you 

ftn., myself 


have I become unto 

thee a burden 

ftn., unto myself 


have me as a load to 

carry 


why should I be a 

burden to you 


so that I am a burden to 

myself 


(PTY) Ltd 

I am a burden to You 

King James Version I am a burden to myself 


Why have I become a 

burden to thee 

New American Bible take away my guilt 


have I become a 

burden to you? 

ftn. I have become a 

burden to myself 


I am become a burden 

to thee 


have I become a 


Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society a burden to myself 


why have I become a 


New King James Version ftn., You a burden to myself 

Young's Literal Version a burden to myself 

The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby a burden to myself 


Am I so great a burden 

to you? 


become a burden to 

you 

ftn., Heb me 

Job 32:3 

"Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, 

and yet had condemned Job." 


"Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, 



and yet had condemned God." 

Condemning God was considered derogatory, so the above was changed so that the condemnation was 

directed towards Job. 




they proceeded to 

pronounce God wicked 

ftn., Job 

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible condemned God ftn., Job 

Byington's Bible in Living English putting God in the wrong ftn. putting Job 

New Jerusalem Bible putting God in the wrong 


and yet had condemned 

Job 



pronounced Elohim wrong 


and yet had condemned 

Job. 


declared Job to be in the 

wrong 

New American Bible condemned Job 


ftn., and so had condemned 

refute Job 

God 

Smith & Goodspeed's AT put God in the wrong 


declared Job to be in the 

wrong 

Tanakh-New Jewish Publication Society condemned Job 


ftn. had put God in the 

wrong 

had declared Job to be in 

the wrong 

New King James Version yet had condemned Job 

Young's Literal Version and condemn Job 

The Holy Scriptures by J.N. Darby and [yet] condemned Job 


this made it appear that 

God was in the wrong 

Revised English Bible let God appear wrong 

ftn., had not proved Job 

wrong 

2 Chronicles 10:16 

"every man to your tents, O Israel" 




"... every man to your gods, O Israel: ..." 

This is a repeat of the emendation made in 2 Samuel 20:1 and 1 Kings 12:16. See above. 

Of the 21 charts above, the New World Translation ranked the highest, only twice relegating the 

original reading to the footnotes. Rotherham's Emphasized Bible and The Scriptures-Institute for 

Scripture Research (PTY) Ltd, came in second. The worst offender was Young's Literal Translation, with 

the King James Version, New KJV, Darby and the New American Standard Version following closely 

behind. 

The mainstream Catholic Bibles (New American, New Jerusalem, Good News-Catholic Edition) were 

more accurate than the mainstream Protestant Bibles. 

Back To Main Page 



My Review of James Stewart's Review of Rolf Furuli's book, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation 

A Reply to James Stewart's, A book on translation? 

Webmaster: The following is my review of James Stewart's review of Professor Furuli's book, The Role of Theology 

and Bias in Bible Translation. The reason for a review of this review is that it posted in many places in order to 

undermine Jehovah's Witnesses, the New World Translation, and anyone who dares come to its defense. This was 

posted initially on amazon.com, and then used by permission on other sites with an anti-JW agenda. It should be 

noted that of the ten reviews listed of this book on amazon for Furuli's book, this was the only negative one. 

James Stewart: If you are looking for a book on The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation, (in my opinion) 

you won't find it here. This book claims to be, "...a philological and linguistic approach to the issues, rather than a 

theological one."(Page xvii) 

On page 155, Mr. Furuli states, 

As we proceed with our discussion, we should keep in mind that the following section of this chapter (or any other 

part in this book) is not written to defend the renditions of the NWT or the arguments behind them. 

Again on page 292 he states, 

There is therefore, a need for literal Bible translations with extensive footnotes and appendices, so as to inform the 

reader of the different choices that have been made on his or her behalf. Because the NWT is just such a translation, 

it was chosen as the object of our study. 

Mr. Furuli does state in note 8 on page xvii, "Any work will, to a certain extent, be colored by the author's theology, 

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 

have been entitled 'New World Translation Defended.' This book picks out three books critical of the New World 

Translation to refute. These three books are Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and The Gospel of John by Robert M. 

Bowman, Jr.; The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament [Out of print] by R.H. Countess; and So Many Versions [Out 

of print] by S. Kubo and W.F. Specht. 

Considering the author's claims of providing an objective analysis, it is surprising that he attempts to refute books 

that are critical of the New World Translation. 

Reply: Well, the book IS subtitled "With a special look at the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses." The 

Introduction explains further: 

"The Bible translation chosen as the object of study in this book is The New World Translation. As of 

1996, 91 million copies have been printed in 16 languages. It is quite different from the mainline 

translations in its dynamic renderings of Greek and Hebrew verbs, in its many novel renderings of 

traditional and familiar terms, and in its renderings of passages traditionally used as evidence for the 

trinity doctrine. It is extremely literal, closely following the sentence structure of Hebrew and Greek, but 

at the same time has several elegant, idiomatic renderings. The quality of the translation, however, is 

widely disputed. Thus we have an ideal situation for study: A modern, literal Bible translation that, more 

than any other translation, is accused of being dogmatic, biased and at times even dishonest. A study of 

this translation and of the criticisms brought against it will throw light on how theology and bias 

influence Bible translation and the readers dependence upon the translators." p. xvi 

Didn't Mr. Stewart read this?? 

James Stewart: This book is just a Jehovah's Witness apologetic. In the description of the author, it does not state that 

he is one of Jehovah's Witnesses. 

Reply: I own hundreds of books on Bible translation, and Bible theology. Few, and I mean few authors actually list 

the demomination that they belong to. They will, however, list their credentials, just as Rolf Furuli has: 

"The Author: Rolf Furuli has earned his B.A. and mag.art degrees from the University of Oslo, Norway, 

with an emphasis on Hebrew. He has also studied Accadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Greek, Latin, 

Middle Egyptian, Syriac and Ugaritic, and has done postgraduate studies in applied linguistics and 

semantics. At present he is a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo, and is also working 

on a project where the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls and ancient inscriptions are studied with the 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/stewart.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 3:47:07 AM]


goal of redefining the verbal system of classical Hebrew." 

Why should he be held to a different standard than other academic works? Is it because Stewart works under the 

assumption that any author that is a member of a mainstream church will not have biased thoughts clouded by 

theology, and that anyone who is a JW is naturally a liar and cannot work beyond his commitment to "Mother" or the 

"Borg?" Judging from his comments below, prejudice is hard to dismiss. 

James: On pages XV and 45, he states that translation is interpretation. On page 27, he criticizes the TEV for some of 

its translations of SARX stating, ...thus, the interpreting is done for the reader, when it should be done by the reader. 

But didn't he say that translation is interpretation (rhetorical question)? 

Reply: The difference is the level of interpretation involved, as is pointed out even in other books: 

"The dynamic equivalence translator tends to be relatively unrestrained in his theologizing. What a 

formal equivalence [Literal] translator generally does only as a matter of necessity [hence Rolf's 

"interpretation" on pp. xv and 45], the dynamic equivalence translator often does as a matter of choice." 

[See page 27 of Rolf's book] 

P. 70, Accuracy of Translation-The Primary Criterion of Evaluating Bible Versions with Special 

Reference to the New International Version. 

As explained, "human nature" is not the meaning of SARX. "It is not demanded by the context; it is an expression of 

the translators views." AND THEN, Professor Furuli goes on to equate this meaning of "interpretation" as 

"paraphrase", all of this still on page 27. Did the reviewer even read the entire book? 

James: Again on page 31, he states, Idiomatic translations convey words that represent the interpretations of the 

translators. Literal translations convey concepts that the readers can interpret. But didn't he say that translation is 

interpretation (rhetorical question)? 

Reply: There is a point that Stewart failed to grasp in reading this book. The reader takes part in the interpretation 

process. 

As explained by Professor Duthie: 

"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the Bible who are trying to appreciate to learn the 

Hebrew or Greek languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 'gloss' translation, 

especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG, 

DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, Bible Translations and How to Choose Between Them by 

Alan S. Duthie [emphasis his] 

"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages, we suggest either a very literal 

version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version [Kingdom {Interlinear 

Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, Duthie 

With a literal translation as the NWT, the reader becomes the Dynamic Equivalent translator or Paraphraser, and 

hence, becomes the interpreter. The reader though loses out on this when he resorts to using a Bible like the TEV, 

CEV, the Message, etc. He is not given the opportunity to think for himself how the passage should be interpreted, 

but has allowed himself to be spoon-fed by a borg-like, mother-like translator. Others have no problem seeing this. 

Speaking of the NIV, Radmacher and Bible translator Zane Hodges write: 

"It [the NIV] is trying to do the work of a commentary. Yet this is really not a translator's task. A version 

of the Bible cannot try to eliminate the need for elaborations of meaning which commentators provide, 

or for the information found in Bible dictionaries. Here the NIV oversteps its proper role." P. 40, The 

NIV Reconsidered, by Earl Radmacher and Zane C. Hodges 

Robert L. Thomas, Professor of New Testament-The Master's Seminary, states: 

A certain degree of interpretation is unavoidable, no matter how hard the translator tries to exclude it. 

Yet a 

characteristic of formal equivalence is its effort to avoid interpretation as much as possible by 

transferring directly from the surface structure of the source language to the surface structure of the 



receptor language. By omitting the step of analysis that is built into the D-E approach, interpretation can 

be excluded to a much higher degree. Since D-E intentionally incorporates interpretation, it 

obviously has a significantly higher degree of interpretation than formal equivalence and is in a 

much stronger sense a system of hermeneutics than is formal equivalence. 

P. 6, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE: A METHOD OF TRANSLATION OR A SYSTEM OF 

HERMENEUTICS? 

Perhaps it is time for James Stewart to get on the same page. 

James: On page 42, he states that Nida & Taber's translation (interpretation) of Eph. 1:4 is forced upon the reader. 

But this is a two-edged sword. The New World Translation of Eph. 1:4 is forced upon the reader. 

Reply: The reference here is regarding the words PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU, which the NWT-1950, NRSV, 

NKJV, NAB, Byington, NASB, Perschbacher, KJV, Zerwick, Douay, Thayer's, Robertson, BAGD, HCSB, 

Lattimore, RSV, LITV, MKJV, ESV, YLT, render "foundation of the world," the NWT-1984, Thayer's, Strong's, 

BAGD and Rotherham render "founding of the world," while Moffatt and the New Berkeley Version prefer "before 

the world was founded." But Nida & Taber recommended the translation of "(God) creates the world." Now tell me, 

honestly, which one is *forced.* The DE translator has very little use for word-study, and discourages its target 

audience away from lexical references: 

"The 1986 work by de Waard and Nida does refer to standard tools of lexicography, but it casts them in 

a negative light. Traditional bilingual dictionaries are labeled as deficient because they depend almost 

entirely on 

"glosses," i.e. surface structure transfer of meanings. The same authors criticize 

Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker for being very unsystematic and in failing to cover the ranges of meaning 

of individual words. It is evident from these criticisms that the analysis step in the D-E process covers 

the same ground that has traditionally been covered by exegesis, an exegesis based on principles of 

interpretation that compose the field of hermeneutics." Page 5 DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE: A 

METHOD OF TRANSLATION OR A SYSTEM OF HERMENEUTICS? 

James: The largest problem with all of this is that he is contradicting his organization! In The Watchtower, 7/1/73, 

page 402, it stated, 

Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is 

not a sealed book. 

And, in The Watchtower, 10/1/67, page 587, it stated, 

Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to 

individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason, the Bible 

cannot be properly understood without Jehovah's visible organization in mind. 

Reply: So...what is it? Is he or is he not a JW apologist? If the above, according to Stewart, proves that Furuli is 

"contradicting his organization" then he is not a JW, and your entire review was in vain. 

When we look at the context of the above quotes, we get the following from the WT67: 

"All the Law or Torah that Jehovah inspired Moses to write was for this theocratic organization of Israel. 

So were all the other books that now comprise the Hebrew Scriptures, or the “Old Testament” as some 

persons refer to them. But over fifteen centuries later, Paul, himself an Israelite and an apostle of Jesus 

Christ, wrote concerning these books that make up three-quarters of our Bible: “For all the things that 

were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the 

comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.” (Rom. 15:4) By this, Paul meant that the Bible, as an 

instruction book for the theocratic organization of Israel, had now become a book of instructions for the 

organization of the Christian congregation. 

As the canon of books of God’s Word was expanded and the Christian Greek Scriptures were added to 

complete the Bible, each book was written directly to the Christian congregation or to a member of the 

Christian congregation in its behalf." 



I can agree with those comments, can't you. 

The WT73 goes on to quote" 

"For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the 

deep things of God." (1 Cor. 2:10) 

It seems to me that most fundamental and mainstream Christian groups make the same claim, often at the point of 

deriding other groups to prop their supposed superiority: 

"if you present the Bible verses to them, they will not hear them. They are not capable of hearing them. 

They do not have the Holy Spirit living inside them to bring that understanding." 

http://home.earthlink.net/~defender/de01018.htm 

"The Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to glorify Jesus—an indication that they do not have the Holy Spirit." 

http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/cultofjw.htm 

"The unsaved cannot really grasp spiritual teachings because they are not born again and do not have the 

Holy Spirit within to teach them these things." 

http://www.gracenet.org/gnhtml/PEBhtml/PEB1.html 

From a Catholic Website: 

"We have found, in our own personal experiences, that Baptists and other so-called fundamentalists are 

among the least receptive to the fullness of the Gospel message, because they labor under the false 

impression that they, alone among Christians, adhere to the basic doctrines set forth in the Bible." 

http://members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/bibletruth.html 

"This [the NWT] has obviously been changed to support their belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, 

but not God the Son. At this point you have to ask yourself, why do they do this? The answer is that they 

are not saved and do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them." 

http://associate.com/ministry_files/The_Reading_Room/False_Teaching_n_Teachers_3/What_Is_A_Cult.shtml 

"Unfortunately, the pope does not teach rightly. He teaches contrary to God's Word, thus revealing that 

he disobeys God, whose Word proclaims that the Holy Spirit is given ONLY to those that OBEY God." 

http://www.localline2.com/~nicholas/page6.htm 

Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses are often talking out of both sides of their mouths. 

Even Radmacher and Hodges, quoted above, admit that Evangelicals have a superiority complex: 

"In today's evangelical world, biblical scholars are the new class of 'priests' who hold in their hands the 

'secret' knowledge which the average lay person cannot himself comprehend. To be told that a translation 

is done by a large array of evangelical scholars may impart to that translation an aura of authority that it 

does not actually deserve." 

p. 23, The NIV Reconsidered 

Members of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses know what is meant by the WT67 and WT73: 

*** km 12/84 1 What Does the Bible Mean to You? *** 

To great masses of people not professing Christianity, the Bible is, at best, nothing more than the 

sayings of perceptive men who possessed above-average intelligence. In each case, the attitude of people 

toward the Bible has reflected their estimation of its value. 

WHAT IT MEANS TO US 

3 How do we view the Bible? We have “accepted it, not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, 

as the word of God.” (1 Thess. 2:13) We know its contents represent divine wisdom that is “able to 

discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Heb. 4:12) Applying its counsel will ‘equip us for every 

good work.’ (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) Its value cannot be measured in material riches. (Prov. 3:13-15) To us, it 



is a guide in all affairs of life. Truly, we ‘love it.’-Ps. 119:97, 105. 

Our criticism of mainstream Christianity is not as harsh as theirs is of us (see above quotes). We would not lower 

ourselves to using derogatory terms such as "cult." 

James: One glaring deficiency in this book is no discussion of the concepts of 'marked' and 'unmarked' meanings of 

words. This is fundamental to any book on translation. If you want to read a real book on Bible translation, Mr. 

Furuli 

references two books I would highly recommend. They are "The Theory and Practice of Translation by" E.A. Nida & 

C.R. Taber published by Leiden: Brill, 1974 and From One Language to Another by J. de Waard & E.A. Nida 

published by Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986. 

Reply: It would have been nice if James would have expanded on how deficient Professor Furuli's book is in this 

regard, and how the host of other books on Bible translation have remarked on this. The accusation is made, and left 

open. The end. 

Perhaps more reading into "presuppositional pools" and how many are incorporating a later theology into an earlier 

text is demanded. 

At any rate, Stewart's review is unfair and discriminatory. Incorporating quotes from old Watchtowers into a work 

that is not a Watchtower magazine apologetic is unwarranted, especially when it really had nothing to do with the 

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 

light, thereby creating a distinction of superiority for others, in that, "We would never say such a thing." All in all, it 

was inappropriate, and frankly, disturbing. In doing this he has placed himself into the realm of pseudo-scholarship as 

we have seen in Walter Martin, Ankerberg & Weldon, Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, Ron Rhodes, and a host of 

others. 




Jason's Challenge-The Bible and the Deity of Jesus Christ 

Jason's Challenge-The Bible and the Deity of Jesus 

Christ 

On Matthew 1:23 and Immanuel; John 20:28; Men as gods; Psalms 45:6; Colossians 2:9; the 

Divine Name in the LXX, the worship of Jesus, John 1:1, etc. 

Unless other wise stated, all Scriptures will be from the American Standard Version 1901 

Jason: Before I begin sharing some important matters of the Bible, I would first like to get some things out on the table. 

Let me say, first, 

that there are many things about Jehovah’s Witnesses that I admire. Your zeal and involvement in your organization are 

unequaled by most other religious groups. Also your interest in the Bible is commendable. I know that most Jehovah’s 

witnesses spend several hours each week studying the Bible. Also you and I have many things in common. I and other 

Christians share your concern about religious apostasy in much of Christendom, your teaching against evolution, and 

your belief in the coming battle of Armageddon, when God will destroy the forces of Satan and then establish on earth His 

kingdom in which there will be universal peace and righteousness. But Rather than discussing many different teachings, I 

would like suggest that we consider what is the most important issue; the heart of the matter, He being the person of 

Christ. 

You and I both believe that Jesus Christ was a perfect man and that He is a distinct person from God the Father. However, 

you teach 

that before His earthly life, Christ was a spirit creature, Michael the archangel, who was created by God and became the 

Messiah at His baptism. According to the Watchtower publication Let God Be True(p.33), Jesus is “a mighty one, 

although not almighty as Jehovah God is.” According to John 1:1 in the The New World Translation, Christ is “a god” 

but not “the God.” So in other words, you teach that Jesus “was and is and always will be beneath Jehovah” and that 

“Christ and God are not coequal” (The Watchtower, 15 April 1957) 

Dose the Bible teach these statements, or dose it teach the Christ is God? This, and I assume that you agree, is an 

extremely important question. 

I would like to bring to your attention the following points for you to consider and pray about. 

1. Several Bible verses specifically affirm the deity ( deity means to be God) of Christ. In Matthew 1:23, Christ is called 

“Immanuel,” which means “God with us.” When Thomas touched the wounds of the risen Lord, he said, “My Lord and 

my God!”(John 20:28). There is no basis whatsoever for saying, as some Jehovah’s Witnesses say, that Thomas was 

referring to Jesus when he said “my Lord” but was referring to God the Father when he said “my God.” Instead, Thomas 

called Christ his Lord and his God, and interestingly Christ did not correct him. 

Reply: If the statement "my Lord and my God" was indeed referring to the Father, then there is no need 

for correction, is there? 

John 20:28 reads, O KURIOS MOU KAI O QEOS MOU. The KURIOS/Lord here is in the nominative 

form, while the vocative form KURIE is used mainly in direct address. Yes, there is such a thing as the 

"Nominative for the Vocative," but as Edwin Abbott, in his Johannine Grammar puts it: 

"The Egyptian Papyri use KURIE freely, but never, so far as alleged, hO KURIOS vocatively. Thus, a 

great mass of evidence from all extant Greek [shows] that, had the vocative been intended, KURIE 

would have been employed. This is confirmed by the Latin versions, which have 'dominus.'" 94 sec., 

2049 

Let us find some of these occurences of the vocative KURIE with the possessive MOU (using primarily 

Brenton's LXX: 

Judges 4:18 "And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said to him, Turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me, 

fear not." 

1 Samuel (1 Kings LXX) 25:24 "And she fell before David...even to his feet, and said, On me, my lord, 

be my wrong" 

2 Samuel (2 Kings LXX) 7:18, 19, "And king David came in, and sat before the Lord, and said, Who am 

I, O Lord, my Lord, and what is my house, that thou hast loved me hitherto? Whereas I was very little 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/jason1.htm (1 of 21) [5/25/2003 3:47:25 AM]


before thee, O Lord, my Lord" 

see also 2 Samuel 7:20, 22, 25, 28, 29; 14:19, 19; 1 Kings 1:13, 17, and many others. 

The question needs to be asked, since the vocative KURIE with the possessive MOU was not uncommon 

in direct address, it seems odd NOT to employ it at John 20:28. The argument is strong that Jesus was 

NOT being addressed here, especially as the vocative KURIE was also used in the Gospel of John at 

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; 

20:15; 21:15, 16, 20, 21. 

[There is another subcategory not usually mentioned, the Nominative of Exclamation, which according 

to Daniel Wallace, "will not be used in direct address. It is a primitive use of the language where 

emotion overrides syntax." see Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 59, 60] 

Would we even be discussing this if someone else was thus addressed? 

Consider 1 Samuel 20:12 "And Jonathan said unto David, O LORD God of Israel." KJV, Douay, Revised 

Webster 

or "And Jonathan said unto David, OYahweh Elohim of Israel" (Restored Name KJV). 

No one would ever argue that David was God, but if ever there was a movement to think so, this verse 

would be used as a proof-text. 

I have already dealt with this argument in depth already at 50 Questions and 65 Questions, so I will try 

another liine of reasoning here. Officially, Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem with Jesus being the 

"God" referred to in this Scripture, and we can see that looking at their book, Reasoning from the 

Scriptures: 

"There is no objection to referring to Jesus as "God," if this is what Thomas had in mind. 

Such would be in harmony with Jesus' own quotation from the Psalms in which powerful 

men, judges, were addressed as "gods." (John 10:34, 35, RS; Ps. 82:1-6) Of course, Christ 

occupies a position far higher than such men. Because of the uniqueness of his position in 

relation to Jehovah, at John 1:18 (NW) Jesus is referred to as "the only-begotten god." (See 

also Ro, By.) Isaiah 9:6 (RS) also prophetically describes Jesus as "Mighty God," but not as 

the Almighty God. All of this is in harmony with Jesus' being described as "a god," or 

"divine," at John 1:1 (NW, AT). 

The context helps us to draw the right conclusion from this. Shortly before Jesus' death, 

Thomas had heard Jesus' prayer in which he addressed his Father as "the only true God." 

(John 17:3, RS) After Jesus' resurrection Jesus had sent a message to his apostles, including 

Thomas, in which he had said: "I am ascending . . . to my God and your God." (John 20:17, 

RS) After recording what Thomas said when he actually saw and touched the resurrected 

Christ, the apostle John stated: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the 

Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31, RS) 

So, if anyone has concluded from Thomas' exclamation that Jesus is himself "the only true 

God" or that Jesus is a Trinitarian "God the Son," he needs to look again at what Jesus 

himself said (Joh 20 vs. 17) and at the conclusion that is clearly stated by the apostle John 

(Joh 20 vs. 31)." 

Powerful men were indeed addressed as Gods in the Bible: 

Exodus 4:16, "And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he shall be 

to thee a mouth, and thou [Moses] shalt be to him as God." 

"It is as if Moses would be a god, or God, to Aaron, giving him the words to say, inspiring 

him as God would inspire a prophet. The whole process had now been removed one step. 



Instead of God speaking to Moses and Moses telling the people, Aaron would be the speaker 

for a while. But God was still going to work through Moses." NET Bible 

Exodus 7:1, "And Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made thee as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy 

brother shall be thy prophet." 

Dake's Annotated Bible here says "Elohim is thus used of men who were to act in God's 

place before men." 

Bullinger adds in his Companion Bible, "Elohim=one appointed by oath. Elohim is thus 

used of those so given and appointed." 

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary states, "Moses was given divine authority over Pharoah" 

"he was to act in this business as God's representative, to act and speak in His name and to 

perform things beyond the ordinary course of nature. The Orientals familiarly say of a man 

who is eminently great or wise, 'he is a god' among men." Jamieson, Fausset, Brown's 

Commentary Critical and Explanatory 

on the Whole Bible 

"I have made thee a god to Pharaoh - That is, my representative in this affair, as magistrates 

are called gods, because they are God's vicegerents. He was authorized to speak and act in 

God's name, and endued with a divine power, to do that which is above the ordinary course 

of nature." John Wesley's Explanatory Notes 

on the Whole Bible 

"The word ‘elohim is used a few times in the Bible for humans (e.g., Pss 45:6; 82:2), and 

always clearly in the sense of a subordinate to GOD—they are his representatives on earth. 

The explanation here goes back to 4:16. If Moses is like God in that Aaron is his prophet, 

then Moses is certainly like God to Pharaoh. Only Moses, then, is able to speak to Pharaoh 

with such authority, giving him commands." NET Bible 

"For that he was "made a god to Pharaoh," means that he was furnished with supreme 

authority and power, whereby he should cast down the tyrant's pride. Nor did God take 

away anything from Himself in order to transfer it to Moses; since He so communicates to 

His servants what is peculiar to Himself as to remain Himself in His completeness. Nay, 

whenever He seems to resign a part of His glory to His ministers, He only teaches that the 

virtue and efficacy of His Spirit will be joined with their labors, that they may not be 

fruitless. Moses, therefore, was a god to Pharaoh; because in him God exerted His power, 

that he should be superior to the greatness of the king. It is a common figure of the Hebrews, 

to give the title of God to all things excellent, since He alone reigns over heaven and earth, 

and exalts or casts down angels, as well as men, according to His will." Calvin's 

Commentary 

"The word Elohim, as the Hebrews remark, whether applied to God, or to men, or to angels, 

signifies judicial power." -- Grotius in Pol. Syn. (as quoted In Calvin's Commentary) 

Note on Exodus 18:15: "As a judge Moses is speaking for God; but as the servant of 

Yahweh Moses’ words will be God’s words. The psalms would later describe judges as 

“gods” because they made the right decisions based on God’s Law." 



So you see, men who were given authority, could be called "God." John is using a way of speaking at 

verse 20:28 that qualifies 

QEOS by the use of MOU. Therefore, Jesus is QEOS to Thomas in a relative sense as the Father is 

QEOS to Jesus (John 20:17; cf. Ex 4:16, 7:1 where Moses is God to Pharaoh and Aaron). 

Exodus 21:6, "then his master shall bring him unto God ["judges" New International Version]" 

"Others have made a stronger case that it refers to judges who acted on behalf of God; see 

C. Gordon, “


1 Samuel 2:25 "If one man sin against another, God shall judge him" ASV 

"If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him" KJV 

Psalm 45:6, "Thy throne [King Solomon], O God ["the Messianic king", Brown Driver &Briggs], is for 

ever and ever: A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom." 

The NASB Zondervan Study Bible (see also NIV Study Bible) has this footnote: 

"O God. Probably the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed 

regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as "god." The Davidic king 

(the LORD's anointed 2 Sam. 19:21), because of his special relationship with God, was 

called at his enthronement the 'son' of God (see 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 28:6; cf. 89:27). In 

this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his 'splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is 

not unthinkable that he was called 'god' as a title of honor (cf. Is 9:6). Such a description of 

the Davidic king attains its fullest meaning when applied to Christ, as the author of Hebrews 

does (Heb 1:8,9). (The pharoahs of Egypt were sometimes addressed as 'my god' by their 

vassal kings in Canaan, as evidenced by the Amarna letters...Such was the language used 

with respect to kings (see note 21:4). It here gains added significance in the light of God's 

covenant with David (see 89:4, 29, 36; 132:12; 2 Sam 7:16). In Christ the Son of David, it is 

fulfilled." 

The New American Bible reads here in the footnote: 

"The king in courtly language, is called 'god,' i.e., more than human, representing God to 

the people." 

The Interpreters Bible comments: 

"In the ancient world kings were commonly accorded divine titles as viceregents of deity or 

as belonging to a superhuman class." 

The NET Bible states: 

"O God. The king is clearly the addressee here, as in vv. 2-5 and 7-9. Rather than taking the 

statement at face value, many prefer to emend the text because the concept of deifying the 

earthly king is foreign to ancient Israelite thinking (cf. NEB “your throne is like God’s 

throne, eternal”). However, it is preferable to retain the text and take this statement as 

another instance of the royal hyperbole that permeates the royal psalms. Because the 

Davidic king is God’s vice-regent on earth, the psalmist addresses him as if he were God 

incarnate. God energizes the king for battle and accomplishes justice through him. A similar 

use of hyperbole appears in Isa 9:6, where the ideal Davidic king of the eschaton is given 

the title “Mighty God” (see the note on this phrase there). Ancient Near Eastern art and 

literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening 

in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: 

“No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of 

man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (see M. Lichtheim, Ancient 

Egyptian Literature, 2:67). Ps 45:6 and Isa. 9:6 probably envision a similar kind of response 

when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king’s 

enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself." 

See also http://biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430&version=kjv 

To The Hebrews, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, pp.20-21, 



follows this line if thought: 

"Psalm 45 was a poem addressed to a king, not to God.The king, whom God had blessed, 

was urged to gird on his sword in glory and ride victoriously (Ps.45:3-4). His enemies were 

destined to fall before his sharp arrows (Ps.45:5). In the Psalm the king was also addressed 

with reference to his throne and his scepter, but the words could be understood as addressed 

to God. Since the author of Hebrews wanted to use this royal Psalm, he had to deal with this 

difficulty in some way, just as commentators do today. He seems to have handled the 

problem by speaking in reference to the Son, just as he had spoken in reference to the angels 

(1:7) just before. Then, in reference to the Son he spoke of God's throne and the Son's 

kingdom. Next, in the following verse, he continued to deal with the Son in direct address as 

indicated by the Psalm quotation. It seems more likely that the author of Hebrews sensed a 

difficulty here than he intentionally confused the Son with God. For the author, the Son was 

the first-born,the apostle of God,the reflection of God's glory, and the stamp of his 

nature(1:3,6), but he was not God himself." 

The Oxford Bible Commentary, on p. 380 states: 

"The text is in disorder in a number of places, hence the different renderings by modern 

Eng. versions, The meaning of v. 6 has been hotly debated. The most natural way of taking 

the Hebrew is as NRSV, with the king addressed as God. Because this would be unique in 

the OT (although the future king of Isa 9:6 is called 'mighty god'), alternative ways of 

interpreting the Hebrew have been sought. The NRSV marg. is one possibility, another is 

'Your throne is everlasting like that of God'." 

B.F. Wescott acknowledged (see his "The Epistle to the Hebrews"), the Psalm is a reference to an earthly 

King (probably Solomon), so if this verse requires that Jesus be God Almighty, then we have no choice 

but to conclude that Solomon was also God Almighty. 

Psalm 58:1 "Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of 

men?" King James 

"Do you indeed speak righteousness, O gods? Do you judge uprightly, O sons of men?" New American 

Standard 

Psalm 82:1, "God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth among the gods." 

Check out the cross-references of the following Bibles, as they point between Psalm 82:1 and the human 

judges in Exodus: 

The Interpreters Bible Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9; 1 Sam 2:25 

New American Standard Bible-Zondervan Study Bible Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 28 

NASB Reference Edition Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 28 

Dake's Annotated Study Bible KJV Psalm 82:1>Ex. 7:1; 21:6; 22:8, 28 (with footnote, "Heb. elohim, 

Gods. It is used of earthly judges who represent him.") 

New International Version Study Bible ftn, Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8 

Companion Bible KJV Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 28 (with footnote, "gods, Elohim: used of earthly 

judges as representing Him...Hence Moses is so spoken.") 

What does all this mean for John 20:28? 

"Thomas, unlike Judas, had come to recognize the one who was to be the "God" of the 

Coming Age, replacing Satan, the "God" of this present age (2 Cor. 4:4). Thomas had not 



suddenly arrived at a revolutionary new belief that Jesus was ,'very God of very God." There 

was nothing in the Old Testament concerning Jesus' Messiahship which predicted that an 

eternal immortal being was to become a human person as the promised King of Israel. 

Nevertheless the human king could on rare occasions be addressed as "God" as in Psalm 

45:6, where he is also given the title "lord" (v. 11). Both "Lord" and "God" are Messianic 

titles, and appropriately used by John who wrote his whole book to convince us to believe 

that Jesus was the Messiah (John 20:3 1). 

Reality struck home to the skeptic Thomas when he recognized that it was the resurrected 

Jesus through whom God was going to restore the fortunes of Israel. Thus Jesus became 

"God" to Thomas in a way parallel to the sense in which Moses had enjoyed the status of 

"God" in the presence of Pharaoh: "The Lord [had] said to Moses, 'See, I make you God to 

Pharaoh"' (Exod. 7: 1). These titles of high honor bestowed on God's human instruments did 

not infringe upon the strict monotheism of the Old Testament." The Doctrine of the Trinity, 

Anthony Buzzard, p. 86 

Additonally: 

"But let me give another view. Karl Rahner, the eminent Roman Catholic 

theologian,considers that there are reliable applications of "theos" to Christ in six texts 

(Romans ix.5f; John i.1,18,xx.28; 1 John v.20; and Titus ii.13). Rahner, however, 

immediately goes on the say that in none of these instances is "theos" used in such a manner 

as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as "ho Theos", 

that is, the Supreme God. 

Now obviously the very few New Testament passages-possibly only one-which without 

question call Jesus "God" outright do not exhaust the linguistic evidence. Notwithstanding, 

and in comparison with the frequency with which this form of christological confession is 

still required in the christian churches, is not it's rarity in the New Testament surprising? 

Would it, in fact, be unfair to press the point with the following query? If the New 

Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as "God", is the 

almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable? 

JESUS AS "THEOS" IN THE NEW TESTAMENT G.H.BOOBYER (THE JOHN 

RYLANDS BULLETIN.VOL50.1967/8) 

But what of Matthew 1:23, and the word "deity." Does "deity" mean to be "god?" 

www.dictionary.com explains it as: 

de·i·ty (d-t) n., pl. de·i·ties. 

1.A god or goddess. 

2. a.The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity. 

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has: deity \de-e-te, da-\ n, pl -ties 1 : divinity 2 2 cap : god 1 3 : a god 

or goddess 

www.yourdictionary.com has: 

1 a : the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY b capitalized : GOD 1, SUPREME BEING 

2 : a god or goddess 

3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful 

This is why even the Unitarian New Testament in an Improved Version Upon the Basis of Archbishop 

Newcome's New Translation with A Corrected Text, 1808 [A Revision of Archbishop Newcome's New 

Testament, taken over by the 



Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge] also uses "deity" at this verse. 

By these definitions, the humans as gods mentioned can be considered deity, as well as the angels: 

[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, 

22, 23; 13:6, 21; Deut 5:24; Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23; Psalm 8:5; 97:7; 138:1.] 

Consider the deity of Moses in the following article Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God By Michael 

S. Heiser: 

"First, the presumed (traditional) argument actually does nothing to advance Jesus’ claim for 

deity, laid down earlier in verse 30 (“I and my Father are one”), for it amounts to Jesus 

claiming “I can call myself the son of God just like other men had the title 

Elohim.” The point here is that the alleged humans in Psalm 82:1b and 6a were still men, 

despite their designation as Elohim . One wonders where the power is in such an equation. 

Was Jesus merely arguing for a non-ontological title? This is hardly what He was asserting. 

This is no more an argument for the deity of Jesus than one could make for the deity of 

Moses from Exodus 4:16 and 7:1, where he is called an Elohim." 

For Matthew 1:23 The use of the titular name Imanuel had its earlier fulfillment is someone other than 

Jesus Christ: 

"Both the context of Isaiah 7 and the use of "Immanuel" two more times in chapter 8 (vv. 8, 

10) raise the distinct possibility that the sign had a near fulfillment that affected Ahaz 

directly. Such a possibility is supported by the two verses immediately after 7:14 that tell us 

that the boy will still be young when Ahaz's enemies-the kings of Samaria and 

Damascus-will lose their power (a prediction fulfilled in 732 b.c.). The birth of a boy who 

would serve as a sign to Ahaz appears to be closely linked to the birth of Isaiah's son 

Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:1-4. Both Immanuel in 7:15-16 and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 

8:4 are young children when Damascus and Samaria collapse. And in 8:8 the two boys may 

be identified as Isaiah addresses Immanuel as if he were already present in Jerusalem. Verse 

10 contains another occurrence of "Immanuel" in the words "God is with us." The prophet 

was challenging Ahaz to trust God, who was "with" his people just as he had promised to be 

with them constantly. In Numbers 14:9 Joshua and Caleb had urged the Israelites to 

acknowledge that the Lord was with them and to begin the conquest of Canaan, but just like 

Ahaz the people chose the path of unbelief with its tragic consequences. An earlier king of 

Judah, Abijah, believed that God was with his people as they faced the numerically superior 

army of Jeroboam. Abijah's faith was honored as the Lord gave him a resounding victory (2 

Chron 13:12-15)." -- Elwell, Walter A. "Entry for 'Immanuel'". "Evangelical Dictionary of 

Theology". 

http://www.biblestudytools.net/Dictionaries/BakerEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T366. 

1997. 

Was one of Isaiah's sons also God? Of course not! 

Harris, in his Jesus As God, has this long, technical, and interesting statement: 

"Matthew 1:23 is the first of Matthew's "formula citations" and reflects the LXX version of 

Isaiah 7:14, to which the evangelist has added O ESTIN KTL. The issue is whether MEQ 

HMWN O QEOS should be translated "God with us" or "God is with us," that is, whether 

MEQ HMWN is attributive and functions as an adjective or is predicative and functions as 

an adverb. It should be observed immediately that both of the above translations are 

feasible, for in both Hebrew (GKC §141f) and Greek (N. Turner, Syntax 294-98, 309-10) 



the copula may be omitted. 

That Matthew attaches special significance to the name EMMANOUHL is incontestable: he 

has included in his citation of Isaiah 7:14 a line (KAI KALESOUSIN...EMMANOUHL) 

which was not directly germane to his purpose of showing that the virginal conception and 

the birth of Jesus were the fulfillment of Scripture; in addition, he has added a translation of 

the Hebrew expression El Imanuw-'el that the LXX had simply transliterated. 

In arguing in favor of the translation "God with us," J. C. Fenton notes the inclusio in 

Matthew 1:23 and Matthew 28:20 (MEQ hHMWV hO QEOS-EGW MEQ hUMWN EIMI) 

and equates the EGW of 28:20 with the hO QEOS of 1:23: "Matthew is saying that Jesus is 

God" (81). But one may recognize the presence of inclusio without drawing Fenton's 

conclusion. The Messiah Jesus is now always with his obedient disciples (28:20) because 

God once deigned to visit his people in this Messiah (1:23). Is it likely that Matthew, whose 

favorite designation for Jesus is hUIOS QEOU would preface his Gospel with hO QEOS as 

a christological title? 

Fenton also emphasizes that in Matthew META + the genitive almost always means "in the 

company of" rather than "in favor of" and therefore is more readily applicable to the Son 

than the Father (81). In the nature of the case, most uses of META in the Gospels denote a 

literal "being with," but one should not overlook its figurative use "of aid or help be with 

someone, stand by, help someone of God's help" (BAGD 509a, citing [with a "cf."] Matt. 

1:23). Perhaps the closest verbal parallel in the NT to MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS is found in 

2 Corinthians 13:11: hO QEOS ... ESTAI MEQ hUMWN. In both texts (EINAI) META 

denotes divine aid and favor. 

Whereas the MT of Isaiah 7:14 reads the third-person singular qara (referring to the child's 

mother) and the LXX the second-person singular KALESEIS (referring to Ahaz), Matthew 

has the impersonal third-person plural KALESOUSIN "they (= people) will call him 

(Immanuel)." If these people are the followers of Jesus, "Immanuel" could here be portrayed 

as the post-Easter christological confession of the church, comparable to Thomas's 

confession, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28) . It is unnecessary, however, to restrict this 

confession to a post-Easter setting when QEOS became an occasional title of Jesus. For 

when, during the public ministry of Jesus, people glorified God that he had intervened in 

human history to bring physical or spiritual healing through Jesus, they were in effect giving 

Jesus the name "Immanuel"-in the person of Jesus "God is with us" to save. For 

instance, the crowd at Nain who had witnessed Jesus' raising of the widow's son "glorified 

God" with the words "God has visited his people" (Luke 7:16), which is equivalent to saying 

"Jesus is Immanuel" (cf. also Luke 1:68-69). 

In favor of the translation "God is with us," it is true that the translation of El Imanuw-'el 

that Matthew supplies, MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS simply reproduces the word order of the 

Hebrew, but if hO QEOS were in fact a title of Jesus, one might have expected the 

translation to be either hO MEQ hHMWN QEOS or hO QEOS MEQ hHMWN (or the more 

correct Greek hO QEOS hO MEQ HMWN). That is, word order suggests that MEQ 

hHMWN is predicative rather than attributive, functioning as an adverb rather than as an 

adjective. 

There are only three occurrences of El Imanuw-'el in the OT, all in Isaiah. Twice the LXX 

translates the expression by (KURIOS) hO QEOS (Isa. 8:8, 10), and once it transliterates the 

phrase (Isa. 7:14). Matthew cites the transliteration found in Isaiah 7:14, but when he 

chooses to add a translation he uses the rendering found in Isaiah 8:8, 10 where, according 



to BDB 769a, El Imanuw-'el is a "declaration of trust and confidence, with us is God!" That 

is, the meaning of MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS seems almost indistinguishable from hO 

QEOS -hUPER hHMWN (cf. Rom. 8:31). 

There are therefore strong reasons for believing that in Matthew 1:23 MEQ hHMWN hO 

QEOS signifies that in Jesus God is present, to bring salvation to his people rather than that 

Jesus, as hO QEOS is personally present with his people. Matthew is not saying, 

"Someone who is 'God' is now physically with us," but "God is acting on our behalf in 

the person of Jesus."" pp. 257, 258 Jesus as God-The New Testament Use of Theos in 

Reference to Jesus by Murray J. Harris 

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 

bodily form” 

Now in looking at The New World Translation, you’ll find that it renders Colossains 2:9 “In Him all the fullness of the 

Devine Quality dwells bodily” Now according to Greek scholars,“Divine Quality” is an incorrect translation. “Divine 

Quality” would be a correct translation of the Greek word theiotes. But the Greek word that was used in this verse is 

actually the genitive form of theotes, a stronger word that means “deity divinity” (Bauer-Ardnt-Gingrich-Danker, 

Greek-English lexicon, p. 358) or as Thayer’s (a well known Greek scholar) older Greek-English lexicon rightly says, “the 

state of being God, Godhead.”(p.288) So what the apostle Paul is stating to the Colossians is not merely God’s Quality 

but God’s very Nature, God Himself, dwells in Jesus. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and 

forever.(Hebrews 13:8) 

Reply: It is not that Greek scholars universally reject "divine quality" (they don't), but more to the truth, 

it is that YOUR Greek apologists reject it. 

From http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1999-06/31691.html 

"deity" ought NOT, I think, to be categorized as a proper noun here, EVEN if one holds 

monotheistic assumptions; -THS nouns in Greek, like -TAS nouns in Latin, are abstracts 

based upon an adjective and refer to 

quality rather than entity; thus QEOTHS should be understood to mean "what it is be be a 

god" or "the quality of being a god." One may then go on, if one wishes, and apply that in 

monotheistic terms, as "what it is to be God" or "the quality of being God"--but it is still 

erroneous, in my opinion, to equate this with QEOS or KURIOS in the sense of a name. We 

tend in English to use the term "the Deity" as an equivalent of "God." I simply do not think 

that, even with the article, hH QEOTHS is used like that in Greek. Consequently I think that 

in Col 2:9 the 

meaning is rather that "in him dwells bodily the entire fullness of 'what it is to be a god.'" 

One may then, if one 

chooses, understand that monotheistically, but even so, I think, one ought to realize that the 

Greek text is not talking about a divine person as a divine person but about the quality of 

being a god. 

Carl W. Conrad 

Department of Classics, Washington University 

In line with this, we have other Bibles that do not use "Deity" or "Godhead" at Col. 2:9. 

See also http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/fbf/fulness.html 

The following works also have some interesting comments regarding Colossians 2:9: 

"1. The word "Deity" or "Godhead" is a translation of the Greek word theotes. In A Greek 



English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, the classic lexicon of the ancient Greek language, it 

is translated as " divinity, divine nature. " In making their case, Liddell and Scott cite Greek 

authors Plutarch and Lucian, and also reference Heliodorus and Oribasius using the phrase 

dia theoteta ="for religious reasons." The Greek word occurs only once in the Bible, so to 

try to build a case for it meaning "God" or "Godhead" (which is an unclear term in itself) is 

very suspect indeed. Standard rules for interpreting Scripture would dictate that the way 

Paul used theotes in Colossians would be the same way the Colossians were used to hearing 

it in their culture. There is no reason to believe that Paul wrote to the Colossians expecting 

them to "redefine" the vocabulary they were using. Christ was filled with holy spirit 

"without measure," and God him authority on earth to heal, cast out demons, forgive sins, 

etc. Thus, it makes perfect sense Scripture would say that Christ had the fullness of the 

"divine nature" dwelling in him. In fact, the same thing is said about every Christian (2 Pet. 

1:4). 

2. The word "fullness" demonstrates that the verse is speaking of something that one could 

also have just a part of. It makes no sense to talk about the "fullness" of something that is 

indivisible. God is indivisible. We never read about "the fullness of God the Father" because 

by definition, God is always full of His own nature. Therefore, the verse is not talking about 

Christ being God, but about God in someway providing Christ with "fullness." What this 

verse is saying is made clear earlier in Colossians: "God was pleased to have all his fullness 

dwell in him" (Col. 1: 19). That is true. John 3:34 adds clarification: "For the one whom 

God has speaks the words of God, for God gives the spirit without limit." 

3. The fact that Christ has "all the fullness" of God does not make him God. Ephesians says 

that Christians should be filled with "all the fullness of God," and no one believes would 

make each Christian God. 

4. If Christ were God, it would make no sense to say that the fullness of God dwelt in 

because, being God, he would always have the fullness of God. The fact that Christ could 

have the fullness of God dwell in him actually shows that he was not God. 2 Peter 1:4 says 

that by of God's great and precious promises we "may participate in the divine nature." 

Having "divine nature" does not make us God, and it did not make Christ God. The note on 

I Peter in the NIV Study Bible is almost correct when, referring to the divine nature, it 

states: " We are, indwelt by God through His Holy Spirit" (we would say "holy spirit, 

referring to God's gift. Likewise Christ, who was filled with holy spirit without limits, had 

the fullness of "Deity."), dwelling in him. 

5. The context is a key to the proper interpretation of the verse. The Colossians had lost their 

focus on Christ (see Col. 1:15-20 above). Colossians 2:8 shows that the people were danger 

of turning to "hollow and deceptive philosophy" rather than being focused on Christ. What 

could philosophy and traditions offer that Christ could not? The next verse is a reminder that 

there is no better place to turn for answers and for truth than to Christ, in whom all fullness 

of God dwells. There is nothing in the context here that would warrant believing Paul is 

writing about the Trinity. He is simply saying that if you want to find God, look to Christ. , 

Christ himself had said he was "the Way" and "the Truth, " and that " no man comes to the 

Father, except through me." pp. 513, 514 

One God & One Lord by Mark H. Graeser, John E. Less and John W. Schoenheit. 



And from Jesus-God or the Son of God by Brian Holt: 

"Trinitarians believe this verse means God came down and dwelled in a body, that is, 

Christ's body. The Twentieth Century New Testament says, "For in Christ the Godhead in 

all its fullness dwells incarnate." Does Paul mean what these translations appear to say? 

Notice the next words from The Twentieth Century New Testament: "and, by your union 

with him, you also are filled with it." (Colossians 2:10) So we can see that, yes, the 

'Godhead in all its fullness dwells incarnate' in Christ, but we also were filled with it too! 

Does this mean we are God in bodily form? The New World Translation reads "because it is 

in him that all the Fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily" signifying that it is not God 

that dwells in Christ but God's qualities. Jesus could then say, "he that has seen me has seen 

the Father " (See John 14:9.) 

The reader might find it interesting to note this is not the first time Paul said someone was 

filled with 'all the fullness of God.' Notice Ephesians 3:19: 

"That ye might be filled with all the fullness of God"-King James Version 

"and so be filled to the full with God himself"-Twentieth Century New Testament 

"that you may be filled up with all the fullness of God"-The New American Standard Bible 

"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God"-New International Version 

'And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself" -The Living Bible 

Inasmuch as no one would argue Paul was saying we are God since 'all the fullness of God 

dwells in us,' why say Christ is God because all the fullness of God dwells in him? It seems 

Paul was stating Christ was full of God's divine qualities, of which he tells us we should be 

too. 

The context around this verse, besides the fact verse 10 says Christians will also be filled 

with the fullness of God, also confirms this verse is not saying Jesus is God. For instance, 

Colossians 1:19 says, "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him (Christ)." 

Was Paul saying all of the fullness of God was in Christ because Christ was God or that the 

fullness of God was in Christ because it pleased God (note: a separate person from Christ) to 

have His fullness dwell in Christ? The New English Bible says it was "by God's own 

choice" His fullness dwelt in Christ. Thus, far from proving Jesus is God because all the 

fullness of God dwells in him, we see all the fullness of God dwells in Christ only because it 

pleased the Father to do so. As the New Testament in Modern English states, "It was in him 

that the full nature of God chose to live." If God had to make a choice as to whether or not 

all His fullness would dwell in Jesus, then Jesus is obviously not God. Touted by some as 

the strongest evidence for Jesus being God, we find it is quite flimsy. This verse is not 

saying Christ is God." pp. 97, 98 

From the New Testament in an Improved Version Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New 

Translation with A Corrected Text, 1808 [A Revision of Archbishop Newcome's New Testament, by the 

Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge] adds at Colossians 2:9: 

"All those blessings which proceed from the Godhead, and wherewith we are filled, dwell in Christ, 

truly and substantially." 

Take the words of Erasmus, regarding Scripture, and apply it to God and Christ: 

"These holy pages will sum up the living image of His mind. They will give you Christ 

Himself, talking, healing, dying, rising, the whole Christ in a word; they will give Him to 

you in an intimacy so close that He would be less visible to you if He stood before your 

eyes." 



Jesus was not physically the Scriptures themselves, but they portrayed what he was. Jesus was not God 

Himself, but he gave God to us in an intimacy so close.... 

We miss the beauty of these words if we read a later theology into them. 

Jason: Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 

but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in 

appearance of a man, He humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross. 

Philipians 2:5-8 For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in him Colossians 1:9 

Reply: This has already been dealt with at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim7.htm 

No need to repeat it here, but I will add the following from Martin Werner, D.D. Professor Ordinarius of 

the University of Bern: 

"The Pauline portrait of Christ corresponds to the apocalyptic concept of the heavenly 

Messiah as Prince of the Angels and an angelic being. The eternity of the unchanging being 

of God was not attributed to Christ by Paul. The pre-existent Christ also, as a creature, 'had 

come into being', and could, accordingly, be set forth as the Second Adam on analogy with 

the First Adam, who had been created (1 Cor. xv, 45). The preexistent Christ did indeed 

exist in 'divine form'; but Paul himself had expressly denied that, despite this, 'equality with 

God', in the strict sense, could be asserted, i.e. an equality which would render the Christ 

essentially different from all other creatures, not only from men, but also from the angels 

(Phil. ii, 6). Paul attributed the 'image of God', not only to Christ (2 Cor. iv, 4), but also to 

man (1 Cor. xi, 7). This Christ had, as man had, in common with Adam in the creation 

narrative of Gen. i, 27. Paul in naming Christ, as did others in the New Testament, the 'Son 

of God , did not exceed the late Jewish doctrine of angels. In Enoch vi, 2 the angels are 

designated 'sons of heaven', as they are in many places in the Old Testament. It was not only 

in the statement of 1 Cor. viii, 6, that 'through him' all things exist, that Christ, according to 

the contemporary mode of thought, was exalted essentially as God over the angels. The 

conception of Christ as the agent of creation paralleled in a certain manner the other 

statements of Paul in which, in conformity with late Jewish thought, the direction and 

government of the world were ascribed to certain angelic-powers and the Law of Sinai given 

to the people of Israel, not by God, but by angels. The exaltation of the Heavenly Christ to 

cosmic significance here was clearly related to that late Jewish speculation which 

increasingly assigned divine functions to mediators of a celestial kind. This tendency, to 

render God completely transcendental, established itself firmly in the doctrine of angels 

which was so comprehensively developed in late Judaism." p. 122 The Formation of 

Christian Dogma 

Jason: Jesus is Lord 

Stephen called Jesus “Lord” (Acts 7:59-60), and we are to confess 

Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3) “Lord” in these verses is 

the Greek word Kyrios, which is the same word used for Jehovah in the 

Septuagint ( the Greek version of the Old Testament.) And I would also like 

to add that the Septuagint predates Christ by several years. Just from that 

small bit of information, doesn’t seem rather evident that Christ the Lord 

(Kyrios) is Jehovah God? 

Reply: The above information is not really correct. All manuscripts of the Septuagint contained the 

Divine Name right up to the middle of the 2nd century AD. ALL OF THEM. In fact, there is a picture of 

one at http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/requests/3522.htm 



ALL extant copies up to the middle of the 2nd century CE contained the Divine Name. 

Here is a list of LXX mss that contain the Divine Name: 

1) 4Q LXX Lev (b) 

2) LXX P.Fouad Inv. 266 

3) LXX VTS 10b 

4) LXX VTS 10a 

5) LXX IBJ 12 

6) LXX P. Oxy. VII 1007 

and there are 4 others Aquila's (2), Symmachus, and Ambrosian (of a later date). 

You see, there are limitations to Jesus being "Lord", as he was made "Lord." 

"God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Acts 2:36 

Also, from Phillipians 2:9-11: 

"every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 

Jesus is "Lord" only insofar as he was made such by someone higher than he (John 14:28). 

We confess Jesus as "Lord" only insofar as this gives glory to someone higher than him. 

Again, Professor Werner has something to add regarding the use of "Lord." 

"A peculiar situation in this connection is constituted by the use by Paul and the Primitive 

Christians of the Christological title of Kyrios. This title had long been considered, without 

proper evidence, simply as a transference of the Septuagint name for God to Christ. It was 

accordingly, overlooked that while Paul did indeed apply sayings of the Septuagint 

concerning the Kyrios to Christ, there is not one instance of his having done this where the 

saying referred to God (ho theos), an exception which cannot be accidental. The truth is that 

the invocation and designation of Christ by Kyrios prove themselves to be a particular 

instance of the general, but too-long-neglected, fact that late Judaism and Primitive 

Christianity designated and invoked the angels as kyrioi. 

The transference of the title of Kyrios to the angels is already evident in the designation of 

God as the 'Lord of Lords', i.e. of the Kyrioi. In 4 Ezra 'Lord' is 'the term repeatedly used for 

the angels. On the other hand, the Apocalyptist, in converse with the angel of revelation, 

calls himself his 'servant , as Paul did himself in relation to Christ., 

In the Christian apocalyptic literature this transference of the title of Kyrios to the angels 

was preserved, as is seen in the Shepherd of Hermas, the Ascensio Jesaiae, the Apocalypse 

of Sophonias 5 and the Apocalypse of Abrahams 

In this connection certain clear examples from the New Testament may be cited. In Acts x, 3 

f. Cornelius addresses the angel which appears to him as Kyrie, and with the same address 

Peter answers the anonymous voice from heaven in Acts x, 13 f, Particularly notable is the 

passage of Acts ix, 5. Herein Paul does not at first recognise the glorified Jesus, who appears 

to him on the way to Damascus, and he has to ask, 'Who art thou?' However, he addresses 

the heavenly appearance, which was still unknown to him, without further ado with Kyrie. 

It was clear to him from the first that he had to do with a heavenly being (and certainly not 

with God himself, who never thus appeared in late Judaism). To such a being appertained in 

any case the address of Kyrie. Thus certain New Testament evidence is provided of the fact 

that the title of Kyrios had become a designation for 

a particular class of angels in the in the heavenly hierarchy. The title in this sense is 



frequently met in the New Testament 

'Kyriotes', e.g. Eph. i, 21; Col- i, 16; Jude 8; 2 pet. ii, 10. In the New Testament this 

expression generally does not designate any other than a class of angels. In these terms 1 

Con viii, 5 is to be understood, this being a passage in which Paul speaks of the many 

Kyrioi. These were in fact closely related to the many gods, over against whom Paul set 

Christ as the one Kyrios, with whom the faithful ought naturally alone to seek to deal. This 

passage, accordingly, provides effective evidence of the connection between the late Jewish 

and primitive Christian teaching about the Christ and the apocalyptic doctrine of angels. 

Among the many Kyrioi-angels was one who was marked out in a peculiar manner by God 

as the 'Chosen' for the office of the Christ and the world-ruler of the final epoch. Within the 

range of his own late-Jewish apocalyptic thought, Paul meant nothing different from that 

which incidentally appears in other forms in the late Jewish Apocalypse of Enoch and, later 

with variations, in the Christian Ascensio Jesaiae. In Enoch lxi, 10 the Christ is ranked, 

without qualification, among the hosts of angels, and he is, primarily, named together with 

the angels of lordship' (angeloi tes kyriotetos); but he is also 'the Chosen', who will ascend 

the Throne of God as the judge of the World, and is entitled to worship. Finally, reference 

must also be made to a peculiar instance in the speech of Stephen in Acts vii, 30 ff. Herein 

the angel (angelos), which appeared to Moses on Sinai, is identified with the Kyrios as the 

pre-existing Christ. The ascription of the title of Kyrios to Christ thus constitutes a 

remarkable piece of evidence indicative of the fact that, in terms of the Primitive Christian 

conception, related as it was to the apocalyptic doctrine of the Messiah, Christ was a high 

heavenly being of angelic kind." pp. 123, 124, The Formation of Christian Dogma 

Jason: Several verses show that the Christ of the New Testament is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. For example, Isaiah 

wrote about Jehovah in Isaiah 6:1-6, and John, in John 12:31-41 says Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory and spoke of 

Him. 

Reply: John 12:38 refers to the "arm of Jehovah" at Isaiah 53:1. Here, along with Is 40:10, we have the 

"arm of Jehovah" as being the Messiah and differentiated from his Father, Jehovah. In fact, at Isaiah 

53:10, it says, 

"Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief." 

Bruise who? Himself? Please! We can look at Jesus and see God's glory, because it was given to him. 

"And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are 

one." John 17:22 

We should also reflect God's glory, as we are to be "imitators of God." (Eph 5:1) 

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 

Christ. 

Reply: Let us take a look at how the word for "worship" at Exodus 34:14, which is shachah (Strong's 

7812), is used elsewhere, according to the KJV: 

Ge 23:7 And Abraham stood up, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself to 

the people of the land, even to the children of Heth. 

Ge 23:12 And Abraham bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] down himself before 

the people of the land. 

Ge 42:6 And Joseph was the governor over the land, and he it was that sold to all the people of the land: 

and Joseph's brethren came, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] down themselves 

before him with their faces to the earth. 



Ge 43:28 And they answered, Thy servant our father is in good health, he is yet alive. And they bowed 

[the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] down their heads, and made obeisance. 

Ge 47:31 And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed [the same Hebrew 

word used at Exodus 34:14] himself upon the bed's head. 

Ge 48:12 And Joseph brought them out from between his knees, and he bowed [the same Hebrew word 

used at Exodus 34:14] himself with his face to the earth. 

Ex 18:7 And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance [the same Hebrew word used 

at Exodus 34:14], and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare; and they came into the tent. 

Ru 2:10 Then she (Ruth) fell on her face, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] 

herself to the ground (to Boaz). 

1Sa 25:23 And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before David on 

her face, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] herself to the ground, 

1Sa 25:41 And she arose, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] herself on her 

face to the earth, and said, Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my 

lord. 

2Sa 1:2 It came even to pass on the third day, that, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul with 

his clothes rent, and earth upon his head: and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth, 

and did obeisance [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14]. 

2Sa 9:6 Now when Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, was come unto David, he fell 

on his face, and did reverence [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14]. And David said, 

Mephibosheth. And he answered, Behold thy servant! 

2Sa 9:8 And he bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself, and said, What is thy 

servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am? 

2Sa 14:4 And when the woman of Tekoah spake to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did 

obeisance [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14], and said, Help, O king. 

2Sa 14:22 And Joab fell to the ground on his face, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 

34:14] himself, and thanked the king: and Joab said, To day thy servant knoweth that I have found grace 

in thy sight, my lord, O king, in that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant. 

2Sa 14:33 So Joab came to the king, and told him: and when he had called for Absalom, he came to the 

king, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself on his face to the ground before 

the king: and the king kissed Absalom. 

2Sa 15:5 And it was so, that when any man came nigh to him to do him obeisance [the same Hebrew 

word used at Exodus 34:14], he put forth his hand, and took him, and kissed him. 

2Sa 18:21 Then said Joab to Cushi, Go tell the king what thou hast seen. And Cushi bowed [the same 

Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself unto Joab, and ran. 

2Sa 18:28 And Ahimaaz called, and said unto the king, All is well. And he fell [the same Hebrew word 

used at Exodus 34:14] down to the earth upon his face before the king, and said, Blessed be the LORD 

thy God, which hath delivered up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord the king. 

2Sa 24:20 And Araunah looked, and saw the king and his servants coming on toward him: and 

Araunah went out, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself before the king on 

his face upon the ground. 

1Ki 1:16 And Bathsheba bowed, and did obeisance [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] 

unto the king. And the king said, What wouldest thou? 

1Ki 1:23 And they told the king, saying, Behold Nathan the prophet. And when he was come in before 

the king, he bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself before the king with his face 

to the ground. 



1Ki 1:31 Then Bathsheba bowed with her face to the earth, and did reverence [the same Hebrew word 

used at Exodus 34:14] to the king, and said, Let my lord king David live for ever. 

1Ki 1:47 And moreover the king's servants came to bless our lord king David, saying, God make the 

name of Solomon better than thy name, and make his throne greater than thy throne. And the king bowed 

[the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself upon the bed. 

1Ki 1:53 So king Solomon sent, and they brought him down from the altar. And he came and bowed 

[the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself to king Solomon: and Solomon said unto him, Go 

to thine house. 

1Ki 2:19 Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king 

rose up to meet her, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself unto her, and sat 

down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king's mother; and she sat on his right hand. 

2Ki 2:15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The 

spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used 

at Exodus 34:14] themselves to the ground before him. 

2Ki 4:37 Then she went in, and fell at his feet, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 

34:14] herself to the ground, and took up her son, and went out. 

1Ch 21:21 And as David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and went out of the 

threshingfloor, and bowed [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] himself to David with his face 

to the ground. 

1Ch 29:20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the 

congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped [the 

same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] the LORD, and the king. 

2Ch 24:17 Now after the death of Jehoiada came the princes of Judah, and made obeisance [the same 

Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14] to the king. Then the king hearkened unto them. 

Pr 12:25 Heaviness in the heart of man maketh it stoop [the same Hebrew word used at Exodus 34:14]: 

but a good word maketh it glad. 

Even using another word for worship does not lessen the impact of my point: 

"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel" 

My point is cemented when we realize that the Septuagint used the Greek word PROSKUNEW here, the 

same word used at Hebrews 1:6. 

This is why many Bibles do not even use the word "worship" at Hebrews 1:6. For example: 

"Let all the angels of God pay him homage." New Jerusalem Bible 

"And may all the angels of God pay homage to him." God's New Covenant, Heinz Cassirer 

"Let all God's angels pay him homage." Revised English Bible 

"And let them bow before him -- all messengers of God" Young's Literal Translation 

"And let all the angels of God adore him." Douay 

"And let all the angels of Elohim do homage to him." Urim-Thummim Version 

"And all the angels of God must now kneel before Him." Power New Testament 

"Let all God's angels pay him homage." Schonfield's The Original New Testament 

"And let all God's angels bow before him." Goodspeed's An American Translation 

"Now let all the messengers of God honour him." The Complete Bible, Ferrar Fenton 

"Let all God's angels pay him homage." New English Bible 

"And let all the angels of God adore him." Confraternity Version 

"Prostrate yourself before him, all you angels." 21st Century New Testament 

"Before him shall bow all messengers of God." Unvarnished New Testament 

"Let all the angels of God bow down before him." 20th Century New Testament 



"And let all God's angels adore him." Kleist & Lilly New Testament 

"And let all the messengers of God pay homage to him." Newcome's Corrected Version 

"PROSKUNEW-to kiss, to do reverence or homage by kissing the hand; in NT to do 

reverence or homage by prostration,...to pay divine homage, worship, adore." The New 

Analytical Greek Lexicon by Wesley J. Perschbacher 

"from and a probable derivative of (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his 

master's hand); ; v 

AV-worship 60; 60 

1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence 

2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with 

the forehead as an expression of profound reverence 

3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in 

order to express respect or to make supplication 

3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank 

3a1) to the Jewish high priests 

3a2) to God 

3a3) to Christ 

3a4) to heavenly beings 

3a5) to demons" Thayer's Greek Lexicon (who is NOT an Unitarian) 

Jehovah is given worship that is unique to him alone. It is the kind of worship that also entails serving. If 

you do a boolean search on the words "worship" and "serve" in the Bible, the only favorable 

connotations are to Jehovah alone. This is why serving other gods was enough to arouse God to anger 

(Deut 7:4; 11:16, 17; Josh 23:16; 1 Kings 9:6 etc.) 

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 

there can not be two firsts or two lasts, is it not clear that Jehovah and Christ must both be God? 

Reply: I have already dealt with this at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/50questions.htm 

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 

eternal(Micah5:2), all-powerful(Matthew 28:18; Hebrews 1:3) sinless(John 8:46) and unchanging (Hebrews 13:8) Since 

only God possesses attributes, this indicates that Christ possesses deity. 

Reply: We can exclude John 1:48; 2:25; 6:64, since neither one of these says anything about Jesus 

knowing all. John 16:30, for instance, is a good one: 

"Now know we that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we 

believe that thou camest forth from God." 

Jesus' knowledge was evidence that he came FROM God: 

"This is why we believe that you came from God." John 16:30 Simple English Bible 

Jesus "can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing" (John 5:19), as the Father GIVES 

him knowledge and revelation (Rev 1:1). 

But Jesus was even then, limited in the knowledge given to him: 

"But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the 

Father only." Matthew 24:36 

"But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the 

Father." Mark 13:32 

If Jesus was one third of God, and the Father was another third of God, how is it possible that Jesus was 



ignorant of what another part of his Godhead was doing. If Jesus was simply ignorant in his "human 

nature," then how can he, according to you (see John 20:28 above) be Almighty God in his human nature 

at the same time? How can he, according to the creeds, be "fully God and fully man" at the same time 

and still not know any more than the angels? Is it perhaps that he was NOT God, but a representative of 

God who was simply given the power of agency? 

Does Micah 5:2 prove that he is eternal? The Hebrew, which uses the same words here for mere 

humans, does not bear this out. That is why many Bibles do not render this in the extreme as the King 

James Version does: 

"whose origins go back to the distant past, to the days of old." New Jerusalem Bible 

"someone whose family goes back to ancient times." Contemporary English Version 

"whose family line goes back to ancient times." Good News Bible 

"His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago." God's Word 

"whose comings forth, have been from of old, from the days of age-past time." Rotherham 

"his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity." YLT 

"whose origin is from of old, from ancient days." Revised Standard Version 

"whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" New International Version and English Standard 

Version 

"one whose origins are from the distant past." New Living Translation 

"whose origin is from of old, from ancient times." New American Bible 

"whose roots are back in the past, in days gone by." New English Bible 

etc. 

I have more on this at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/email.htm 

Do Matthew 28:18 and Hebrews 1:3 say that Jesus is "all-powerful?" 

"And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven 

and on earth." Matthew 28:18 

Here Jesus is GIVEN all authority. Someone who is "all-powerful" does not need to be given anything. 

"who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by 

the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty 

on high." 

If this Scripture is indeed saying that Jesus is "all-powerful", it is interesting that he only gets to sit on 

God's right hand, instead of in his stead. 

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 

Kings 2:19; Psalm 45:9) for royalty, but not one that is the ultimate power. 

Is sinlessness an indicator of deity? You quoted John 13:8, but it does not say here that only God 

cannot sin. 

In fact, it is the human ideal to one day be sinless: "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever 

sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him." 1 John 3:6 

Does this mean we are also God? 

Does Hebrews 13:8 prove that Jesus is God?: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and 

for ever." 

But yet, Hebrews 5:8 states, "though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he 

suffered." 

How can Jesus LEARN anything if he was always the same? If Jesus was MADE Lord (Acts 2:36) then 



that implies a time when he wasn't. If Jesus was GIVEN authority (Matt 28:18), then that implies a time 

when he did not have it. If Jesus was GIVEN a name (Php 2:9-11), then that implies a time when he did 

not have it. 

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 

perspective, then the meaning becomes clear. 

"No doubt the old teachers believed in the unchangeableness of Jesus Christ; but that fact is 

not represented as the subject of their faith, which would be irrelevant and somewhat flat. 

The emphatic point of the statement is Christ. They lived and died in the faith that Jesus is 

The Christ - the Messiah. The readers were tempted to surrender this faith and to 

return to Judaism which denied Jesus's messiahship (comp. Heb_10:29). Hence the writer 

says, “hold fast and imitate their faith in Jesus as the Christ. He is ever the same. He must be 

to you, today, what he was to them, yesterday, and will be forever to the heavenly hosts - 

Christ. Rend. therefore “Jesus is Christ.” Observe that our writer rarely uses the formula 

Jesus Christ. In Heb_10:10 it occurs in a passage in which the messianic mission of Jesus 

is emphasized (see Heb_10:5, Heb_10:9), and in Heb_13:21, in a liturgical formula. The 

temptation to forsake Jesus as Messiah is treated in the next verse." Vincent's Word Study 

God's purpose via His Son will never change. 

Jason: Certain Works of Christ show that he is God. Jesus Christ has the power to forgive sins(Mark 2:5-7; Ephesians 

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 

God can do these things, dose it not follow that Christ is God? 

Reply: I see that you are working under the assumption that God does not or either cannot delegate 

authority. 

John 5:22, 27 says, "Nor does the Father himself judge anyone. He has given his Son the full right to 

judge...And he has given the Son the right to judge" TEV 

Since Jesus was GIVEN the right to judge, this indicates a transfer of power which the Son did not 

previously have. 

When Jesus forgave a man of his sins, the people understood that this was a transfer of power. 

"When the people saw it, they were afraid, and praised God for giving such authority to people." Matt 

9:8 TEV 

Then Jesus passed on this authority to forgive sins to his apostles (John 20:22, 23). It does not make them 

God. 

Jason: Christ received worship. Christ is worshiped by angels(Hebrews 1:6)and by man(Matthew 14:33) and yet only 

Jehovah is to be worshiped (Exodus 34:14). Christ Himself said that worship is due to God alone(Matthew 4:10) and yet 

he accepted worship. If Christ in his preexistent state were the archangel Michael, how could He have received worship, 

since angels are not allowed to receive worship(Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9)? If Christ were not God, then worship of him 

would be idolatrous. 

Reply: I have answered the "worship" angle above, and the worship of angels has already been handled 

by me at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim7.htm 

See also http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wilson.htm 



More to on page 2........... 




Jason's Challenge-The Bible and Deity of Christ 

Jason's Challenge-The Bible and the Deity of Jesus 

Christ-Part 2 

On Matthew 1:23 and Immanuel; John 20:28; Men as gods; Psalms 45:6; Colossians 2:9; the 

Divine Name in the LXX, the worship of Jesus, John 1:1, etc. 

Back to Page 1 

Unless other wise stated, all Scriptures will be from the American Standard Version 1901 

"When the Grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes before the grammarian 

is through." A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical 

Research, p. 389 

Jason: Now one of the most troubling things to me in Watchtower theology is the rendering of John 1:1. You say “Christ 

the Word is ‘a god’ according to John 1:1 in the New World Translation.” Your translators say the small “g” from the 

word god is required because the Greek word used for God (theos) is not preceded by a definite article “the”(ho). 

(Should you believe in the Trinity? P. 26) 

What the Greek Really Says 

You are right in saying that in John 1:1 the Greek word for God is not preceded by a definite article. However, good 

Greek scholarship agrees that this dose not mean it should be translated “god” with a small “g.” The definite article is 

omitted because of a somewhat technical rule of Greek grammar. 

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t know all that much about Greek grammar, but I do understand enough to know what 

these Greek scholars are talking about, and have enough faith in God that he would inspire these men to translate the 

Greek manuscripts correctly. Now what Greek scholars say is that a definite predicate nominative (theos) that precedes a 

verb dose 

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” 

(theos en ho logos). The subject of the sentence is “the Word,” the verb is “was,” and the predicate nominative is “God.” 

Usually the predicate nominative follows the verb, but in this case it precedes it; and since it precedes the verb no article 

is necessary. I know that it is very hard to understand, and I tried to give you the best understanding possible. 

When a Greek writer wanted to stress the quality of the person or thing that was in the predicate nominative case, he 

would put it before the verb rather than after it. This is what John did to stress the fact that the Word (Christ) possesses 

the qualities of Godhood. This fundamental principle of Greek grammar supports the deity of Christ and gives no support 

whatsoever to the translation “The Word was a god.” The intent of John could be rendered in English, “The Word was 

fully God.” 

Reply: I pressed Jason for more information of this rule, he replied: 

"The rule I was talking about is actually explained in the Letter its self. I know its kind of 

hard to catch, but the rule is that the definite predicate nominative (Theos,God) that 

precedes the verb (En, was) dose not have to have the definite article (Ho, the). You see in 

the actual Greek the verse is rendered "God was the word" (Theos en ho logos) Therefore 

no definite article is needed. Also an interesting thought, is that "God" which is a definite 

predicate nominative, can't be preceded by an indefinite article "a." You can look that up in 

any college English text book. Also for the "rule" we were talking about in Greek grammar; 

look up reference to that in Thayer's Greek-English lexicon. I specifically give you Thayer 

as a reference, because he himself did not believe Jesus was God, and did not believe the 

bible was completely accurate, yet translates just what it says in the Greek, not changing it 

to mold to his believe. That might help you a little I hope =). But im Glad you have decided 

to write back a rebudle to my letter. Rarely do I see witnesses scrutinize what I send them 

with an actual letter back to me. Im very interested to see what you can get out of God's 

word to argue what iv said. Very good brother, God bless you." 

I initially replied: 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/jason.htm (1 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:47:44 AM]


"I think you are being too harsh on Thayer. Despite the ad hominem attack on Thayer, that 

what is called 'Thayer's Lexicon', is mostly the work of Lutherans Wilke and Grimm in 

Greek and Latin, which were translated into English by Joseph Henry Thayer, who was a 

Congregationalist and NOT an Unitarian [see: George Huntston Williams, The Harvard 

Divinity School, Boston, The Beacon Press, 1954, p. 147 and The Encyclopedia Americana, 

1956, Vol. 26, p. 490.] 

Are you referring to Colwell's rule of grammar ["God" which is a definite predicate 

nominative, can't be preceded by an indefinite article "a?"] 

I just finished reading the reference in Thayer's Greek Lexicon, and it mentions nothing of 

this rule of grammar, that I can see. Perhaps you can be more specific, or give me a 

reference I can work with. Sorry to be troublesome, but I am presently working on your 

response, and this information will help me out." 

Jason replied: 

>>You know what, maybe I was mistaken about the reference to the rule, I was just going 

off of memory. Let me go through my notes and get back to you on that. Sorry about that. 

Also, just to let you know, you can be as troublesome as you'd like. You need to be very 

assertive and scrutinize everything when studying the bible. So any mistakes you come 

across, let me know. 

...Here, I don't have this book myself, but im sure it would be in here, try looking at "Dana 

and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament" because there is a section in 

there that talks about Theos with and with out the article on page 139. I hope that helps. 

I appreciate that candor. Since Thayer was not forthcoming, I decided to take a look at Dana and 

Mantey's grammar on page 139: 

"vi. The use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of QEOS is highly instructive. A 

study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Geden's Concordance convinces one 

that without the article QEOS signifies divine essence, while with the article divine 

personality is chiefly in view. There is keen discernment in Webster's statement. published 

as far back as 1864: 

'QEOS occurs without the article (1) where the Deity is contrasted with what is human, or 

with the universe as distinct from its Creator, or with the nature and acts of evil spirits, (2) 

when the essential attributes of Deity are spoken of, (3) when operations proceeding from 

God are appropriated to one of the three Divine Persons, (4) when the Deity is spoken of as 

heathens would speak, or a Jew who denied the existence of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. 

But the article seems to be used (1) when the Deity is spoken of in the Christian point of 

view, (2) when the First Person of the blessed Trinity is specially designated, unless its 

insertion is unnecessary by the addition of PATHR or some distinctive epithet (op. cit., p. 

29).' 

This analysis is doubtless more exact and detailed than the facts will support, but it certainly 

shows admirable discrimination. Surely when Robertson says that QEOS as to the article, 

"is treated like a proper name and may have it or not have it" (R. 761), he does not mean to 

intimate that the presence or absence of the article with QEOS has no special significance. 

We construe him to mean that there is no definite rule governing the use of the article 

with QEOS so that sometimes the writer's viewpoint is difficult to detect, which is entirely 



true. But in the great majority of instances the reason for the distinction is clear. The use of 

QEOS in Jn. 1:1 is a good example. PROS TON QEON points to Christ's fellowship with 

the person of the Father; QEOS HN O LOGOS emphasizes Christ's participation in the 

essence of the divine nature. The former clearly applies to personality, while the latter 

applies to character. This distinction is in line with the general force of the article. It may be 

seen even in the papyri, as O FWS EK FWTOS, QEOS ALHQINOS, 0 Light of light, true 

God, where the emphasis is clearly on God's character rather than His personality (Milligan: 

op. cit., p. 134). 

vii. The articular construction emphasizes identity; the anarthrous construction emphasizes 

character. If the student will turn to Rom. 8:1ff. and apply this principle, be will find how 

illuminating it becomes in actual interpretation. It is certain that one engaged in exegesis 

cannot afford to disregard the article. The New Testament justifies the observation of 

Buttmann that "the use of the article has everywhere its positive reason" (Bt. 88)." 

Dana and Mantey go on to confirm on page 141 that "There are no 'rules' for the use of the definite article 

in Greek..." 

We have an interesting statement though on pages 148 and 149:. 

"The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. 

In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, EMPORION D HN TO CWRION, and the place was a 

market, we have a parallel case to that we have in John 1:1, KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS, and 

the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the 

place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article was also 

used with QEOS. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in 

QEOS." pp. 148, 149 

Again, we have an excellent example of how we can translate John 1:1c with Xenophon's Anabasis, "the 

place was a market, i.e., the Word was a god. But notice how the language becomes confused: 

"Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God." This is not an even parallel at all. 

A truthful and equivalent statement SHOULD be, "Neither was the place the only market, nor was the 

word the only God." The reasons for this strange turn of language is made quite clear in the following 

sentence, where he wants to implicate "the other persons of the Trinity." 

When Dana & Mantey speak of the "essence of divine nature" they are mentioning something of import 

to their target audience, but the idea and words are foreign to the Johannine prologue. 

Additionally, you stated that your "Greek Scholars" make assumptions that the predicate nominative in 

John 1:1c is definite. 

This is referring to Colwell's rule of grammar: 

"A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have 

the article when it precedes the verb. . . . The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one 

of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite 

noun. The absence of the article [before theos] does not make the predicate indefinite or 

qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context 

demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement 

cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the 

confession of Thomas [John 20:28, "My Lord and my God"]. (E. C. Colwell, "A Definite 

Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 

LII (1933), 12-21. Cf. also B. M. Metzger, "On the Translation of John 1:1," Expository 

Times, LXIII (1951-52), 125 f., and C. F. D. Moule, The Language of the New Testament, 



Inaugural Lecture, delivered at Cambridge University on May 23, 1952, pp. 12-14.)" 

If you want to download the free efax viewer at http://www.efax.com, you can download this entire 

article from me at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jehovahbible/files/Colwell.efx 

It is somewhat ironic that one of Jehovah's Witnesses like myself is probably the first person to make this 

entire article available online. 

There are problems with Colwell's Rule, and NO Greek scholar today worth his salt would defend it. The 

following is from an online conversation between Robert Hommel and Professor Jason Beduhn: 

"The problem arises when Colwell himself - and many who followed him - affirmed the 

consequent of his Rule - that is, "Anarthrous pre-copulative PNs are usually definite." His 

perfectly valid descriptive Rule was inverted to become a logically invalid and inductively 

falsifiable prescription for translation. Colwell did not define the converse of his Rule in his 

article, but he begins to assume it, and finally overtly applies it to John 1:1c. 

When most scholars refer to Colwell's rule, they rightly quote the Rule as stated - and it is a 

valid rule (and useful in the field of textual criticism). However, when they commit the 

logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, and then apply the result to John 1:1, they are, 

indeed, creating an "imaginary rule."" 

http://www.republika.pl/arekwis/doktryna/trojca/hommelvsbeduhn.html 

Dr.J.Beduhn and R.Hommel: A Discussion upon the translation of John 1:1c. 

(occurring Jan/Feb, 2002 on Christian Apologetics Research Ministry JW discussion board) 

or http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/beduhn_hommel.htm 

Donald E. Hartley Th.M, Ph.D also has an interesting article on this at 

http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/topics/colwell.htm entitled 

Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns: 

Third, Colwell appears to be responsible, because of his application to John 1:1, for laying 

the groundwork of a logical blunder. Colwell’s rule “Definite predicate nominatives that 

precede the verb usually lack the article” came to be seen as “Anarthrous predicate 

nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite.” We have affirmed, based on our 

study, that Colwell’s original rule is valid but the converse of his rule is inductively 

falsifiable. In fact our study confirms that within the NT as a whole, this semantic category 

(definiteness) is certainly not the expected nuance of the construction, and not the 

predominant sense when it comes to singular count nouns as well. Thus this converse is 

neither true of the whole nor of its parts. So although definiteness is a possible semantic 

category, it is certainly not the probable one regarding anarthrous constructions. In addition, 

although the converse of Colwell’s rule is not formally illogical, it is inductively falsifiable. 

Fourth, Colwell seems to have misunderstood what a definite semantic to the noun entailed 

linguistically. His improper method of prescription, based on his analysis, led him to 

commit a category mistake by foisting a se-mantic upon a certain group of nouns 

(pre-copulative PNs) that he failed to appreciate on their own terms. Because of this, and 

apparently without considering the ramifications of what the semantic suggested, he applied 

it to John 1:1c and argued against the indefinite or qualitative sense. But this was an 

improper use of his own rule, for his rule was only to be applied post hoc to nouns clearly 

understood to be definite from context. But here is where the prob-lem of his method shows 

up starkly. Because John 20:28 has the articular qeov", he assumes that its pre-copulative 

anarthrous occurrence bears the same semantic. But this is simply an example of 



pigeonholing a noun into a semantic box based completely on the semantics born out in a 

separate construction. Count nouns can bear different nuances without the article than it can 

with the article—Colwell has not properly understood this principle. In short he begged the 

question by making his rule prescriptive rather than descriptive of the majority of cases 

involving definite nouns preceding the copulative verb. 

There are also debates on the ineffectiveness of Colwell's Rule and the superiority of the NWT rendering 

at: 

http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/ with even more at http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/metzcolw.htm and 

http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/colwell.htm 

Murray Harris relates according to this rule: 

"b. Evaluation of the Rules 

(1) There can be no doubt that the formulation of these rules that cover NT usage 

represented a significant advance on the three general observations concerning the use of the 

article with predicate nouns that are found in the older NT grammars (e.g., Robertson, 

Grammar 767-68), viz., (a) that predicate nouns tend to be anarthrous; (b) that predicate 

nouns that are generic are anarthrous; 52 and (c) that predicate nouns in convertible 

propositions are articular. 

With this said, one should not overlook the definite limitations of the rules. 

(2) Colwell himself notes ("Rule" 16-17, 17 n. 12) that the rules do not apply to 

constructions where there is an ellipsis of the copula or to qualitative nouns. And it is clear 

from the last two rules that proper names (2c) and predicate nominatives in relative clauses 

(2d) are themselves exceptions to the principal exceptions (viz., 2a and 2b). Examples that 

fitted any of these four categories were not included in Colwell's statistical analysis. 

(3) It must remain uncertain whether the inference Colwell drew from his study may stand, 

viz., that a predicate noun which precedes the copula "is indefinite in this position only 

when the context demands it" ("Rule" 21). In fact the reverse would seem to be the case, as 

Colwell himself first stated it: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be 

translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; 

if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun 

in spite of the absence of the article" ("Rule" 20). The difficulty is simply this. How can one 

determine the definiteness of a noun which is anarthrous? For example, is PROFHTHS 

definite or indefinite in Mark 11:32 and John 4:19? The only indisputable datum about an 

anarthrous noun is that it lacks the article. Particularly in the application of rule 2b-often 

referred to as "Colwell's rule"-a considerable element of subjectivity comes into play and 

there is the constant danger of arguing in a circle by assuming from the context that a 

particular anarthrous predicate noun is definite and then finding in its placement before the 

copula the confirmation of its definiteness. Whether in the subject or predicate, an articular 

noun is definite with regard to what is signified. An anarthrous noun in the subject or 

predicate, on the other hand, may be either indefinite or definite, but the presumption ought 

to be that it is either (1) indefinite (since Greek has, in the article, a means of making 

definiteness unambiguous), until it has been shown to be definite from the context (both 

immediate and general), or (2) qualitative, whatever be its state of definiteness. This leads 

me to affirm that one may not infer (as is often done) from rule 2b that anarthrous predicate 

nouns which precede the verb are usually definite. Indeed, such nouns will usually be 



qualitative 

in emphasis." 

Jesus as God, Murray Harris, pp. 311, 312 

According to Rodney J. Decker: 

"Definiteness is assumed, not proven by the rule. It is not valid to use the rule to establish 

definiteness....The converse of the rule may not be assumed. That is, it is not true that because a predicate 

noun precedes a copulative verb, it is therefore definite." The entire article can be downloaded by 

clicking here. 

Professor Furuli adds: 

"Contrary to what Bowman says, Colwell himself laid the foundation for the misuse of his 

rule by applying it to John 1:1 (See page 21 of Colwell's JBL article.) Bruce M. Metzger, 

"The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today 10.1 (April 1953), pp. 65-85, 

also must share some of the responsibility for the general abuse of the rule. He stated that 

the translators of the NWT, by translating "the Word was a god," overlooked entirely "an 

established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering ... and the Word was 

God." Metzger is a respected scholar who has done much good work with the Greek text of 

the NT. His words may have been written because of his theological differences with 

Jehovah's Witnesses. I think he would have expressed himself more cautiously today. 

However, such inaccurate statements are still used as authoritative, for instance, by Robert 

Countess, The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and 

Reformed, 1982), p. 53." 

P. 215 n.31 The Role Of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation 

What it comes down to is that Colwell's Rule says if a definite predicate noun precedes the copulative, 

then it tends to be anarthrous. It is wrong to deduce from this, "if an anarthrous predicate noun precedes 

the copulative, then it tends to be definite." This is the erroneous conclusion of Colwell himself, and host 

of others have followed suit. It is like saying that if a man is a citizen of North Carolina, then he is a 

citizen of the United States, which is true, but false if we use this to prove the converse, that if a man is a 

citizen of the United States, then he is also a citizen of North Carolina. 

Walter Martin even goes so far as to misquote Colwell's Rule: 

"Colwell's rule clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (Theos-God) never takes 

an article when it precedes the verb." Kingdom of the Cults, 1977, 75 

What Colwell said was that it usually lacks the article, and then submits 15 instances that are exceptions: 

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 

19:8; 20:14 (see Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 18). 

Further recommended reading is Paul Stephen Dixon's article: "The Significance of the Anarthrous 

Predicate Nominative in John" from the Faculty of the Dept. of New Testament Literature and 

Exegesis-Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1975; 

Philip B. Harner's Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1, JBL 92 (1973), pp. 

75-87; and Professor Rolf Furuli's The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation. 

I have another article dealing with this at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htm and 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/kkla.htm 

According to Harner's study, John has 53 examples of anarthrous predicate nominatives occuring before 

the verb, 26 of them being indefinite, with possibly 11 more being indefinite. 



When we use count nouns (nouns that can be counted, as opposed to ones that cannot, like "flesh" or 

"love"), we also arrive at an interesting conclusion. 

The following chart shows pre-verbal singular count nouns, as in, and excluding John 1:1c, as rendered 

in the NIV: 

We must remember that the Greek does NOT have an indefinite article ("a"), but they are deemed 

necessary when translating into English. 

The RED indicates Qualitativeness according to Dixon's Thesis, "The Significance of the Anarthrous 

Predicate Nominative In John." 

The BLUE indicates "Probably Qualitative, but Possibly Definite" according to Dixon. 

Scripture 

NIV Rendering with the 

definite article 

NIV Rendering with 

indefinite article 

No article rendered 

John 1:49 You are the King of Israel Beck's Bible, WEB 

John 3:29 

The bride belongs to the 

bridegroom 

John 4:19 

Sir...I can see that you are 

a prophet 

John 5:10 It is the Sabbath 

John 5:27 he is the Son of Man 

Young's, Rotherham, 

Montgomery 

John 6:70 one of you is a devil 

John 8:33 We are Abraham's descendants 

John 8:34 

everyone who sins is a 

slave to sin 

John 8:37 you are Abraham's descendants 

John 8:42 If God were your Father 

John 8:44 He was a murderer 

John 8:44 for he is a liar 

John 8:48 you are a Samaritan 

John 8:54 you claim as your God 

John 9:17 He is a prophet 

John 9:24 this man is a sinner 

John 9:25 he is a sinner 

John 9:28 you are this fellow's disciple 

John 10:1 the man who...is a thief 

John 10:2 

The man who enters by the 

gate is the shepherd of his 

sheep 

Young's, Rotherham, 20h 

Century NT 

John 10:13 he is a hired hand 

John 10:36 I am God's Son 

John 12:6 he was a thief 



John 18:35 Am I a Jew? 

John 18:37 You are a king then? 

John 18:37 I am a king 

John 19:21 claimed to be king of the Jews 

John 3:29 is rendered indefinitely as "The [one] having the bride a bridegroom is." The Nestle Greek 

Text with a Literal English Translation by the Reverend Alfred Marshall D. Litt. 

John 5:10 is rendered with the indefinite article in the Good News Bible, Beck's Bible, God's Word, 

Emphatic Diaglott, Kleist & Lilly NT, Weymouth's NT, and Young's Literal Translation. 

John 5:27 is rendered with the indefinite article in the World English Bible, Kleist & Lilly NT, Smith & 

Goodspeed's An American Translation, Emphatic Diaglott, Revised Version-Improved and Corrected. 

John 10:2 is rendered with the indefinite article in the Weymouth NT (ftn.), Barclay's NT, Revised 

Version-Improved and Corrected, and the Emphatic Diaglott. 

As we can see, most of the above examples can make a claim for indefiniteness. They are even more 

indefinite than the ones labelled qualitative. 

Qualitativeness does not rule out indefiniteness, just like indefiniteness does not rule out qualitativeness. 

We simply cannot get away from the fact that the majority of Bible translations and versions have 

translated the above in the indefinite, not in the qualitative. John 4:19 was not translated "prophet-like," 

but "a prophet." John 6:70 was not translated "devil-like" or "devilish," but "a devil" despite the fact that 

the New International Version is a dynamic equivalent version. 

Not only is it that "the predicate nominative describes the class to which the subject belongs" (See Greek 

Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace, p. 41), but anarthrousness often proves that you are not the 

only one in that class. 

At Mark 1:3, Wuest says of "The Voice" [FWNH], "no definite article in the Greek text. The Baptist was 

not the only mouthpiece of God sent to Israel." (P. 13, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, 

Kenneth Wuest) 

On Anabasis, 1:4:6, EMPORION D HN TO CWRION, and the place was a market, Dana & Mantey's 

Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament state that the place was not the only market. How does 

this usage compare with the above list? 

At John 1:49, though Jesus was uniquely THE King of Israel, he was not the only one to bear that title. 

He can although, bear the traits of a king. 

The bridegroom at John 3:29 is modified by the present active verb ECWN (echon). 

At John 4:19, Jesus was not the only prophet. 

The Sabbath at John 5:10 was not the only such sabbath. 

At John 5:27, though Jesus was uniquely THE Son of Man, he was not the only one who can claim that 

title. 

Judas, at John 6:70 was not THE devil, or the only slanderer in the Bible, and he certainly shared the 

qualities/traits of Satan without actually being the devil. 

John 8:33 is modified by the possessive construction. 

In John 8:34, the indicated slave was not the only such slave....and so on. 

At John 1:1c, Jesus was not the only God mentioned in the Bible, and he was not THE God. He did share 

the qualities/traits of God. 

"Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an 



identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about 

someone." Appendix 1950 edition NWT 

Note the appendix in the NWT 1984 Ed., where they said that the translations "a god" do so 

"because the Greek word (the·os') is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb 

and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os'. The God with 

whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression, that 

is, the·os' preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os'. Careful translators 

recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, 

whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality 

about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" 

or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a 

certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same 

as God himself. 

In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding 

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 

places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to 

bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted 

before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is 

inserted before the anarthrous in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The 

Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering." 

The above chart also attests that their translation, as that of the Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, 

Belsham, Priestley, etc, are superior. 

The following excerpt is from William Loader, PhD in his excellent book: 

"The Word was 'God' 

The gospel begins with the words, 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with 

God and the Word was theos (`God').' 'The Word was theos' must not be isolated and 

made into a simple equation: the Word 

was God. Grammatically this is a possible translation, but not the only one. The 

statement's meaning, and so its translation, must be determined by its context. It could also 

be translated: 'the Word was a god' or 'the Word was divine'. Grammatical considerations 

alone fail to decide the question, since all three translations can be 

defended on grammatical grounds. 

The Word was God? 

Against the first of these interpretations ('the word was God') is the fact that the 

author has just said that the Word was 'with' God. 

If 'Word' means little more than 'words', then it would be conceivable that the author could 

say: God's words were with him; they are, as his words, part of God himself, in that sense, 

they are God. Dupont comes near to this in claiming that the Logos concept refers not to a 

person but to God's communication of himself. But the 

author goes on to speak of the Word as a person as distinct from God, so that this must be 

assumed also in the opening verses. 



Nor is it likely that the author intends to his opening statement to make a gradual approach 

to what he wishes to say, so that 'the Word was with God' is merely a step along the way to 

the statement, 'the Word was God' which is repeated in 1:2. 

The Word was a God? 

The other two translations fit the context more smoothly at one level. Yet their evaluation 

cannot take place without our making assumptions about the author's wider frame of 

reference. In particular it is unlikely, given his context within the Christian community and 

its roots in Judaism, that he would mean that there is more than one God. Langbrandtner 

reckons with this as the positions of the redactor, whereas the Grundschrift had thought of 

Jesus more as an extension of God into the world, but such a view on the part of the redactor 

is unlikely and unsupported elsewhere. It is true, on the most natural reading of the text, 

that there are two beings here: 

God and a second who was theos but this second is related to God in a manner which 

shows that God is the absolute over against which the second is defined. They are not 

presented as two equal gods. 

The Word was divine? 

This leads us to consider the third translation, 'divine', the equivalent of theios suggested 

already by Origen, and represented often by the phrase 'Gott con Art' or 'God of a kind'. 

Should the author have been concerned to say the Word was divine. why did he write theos 

and not the more usual adjective, theios? The order of 1:1c and lack of the article may be 

idiomatic in relation to the use of predicate nouns, as Colwell suggests, or it may, in 

addition, 

reflect an emphasis on quality shared without exact reciprocity. This would suggest that the 

focus here lies not on the person, but on the quality or nature of the Word. Schnackenburg 

points to 1 John 5:20 ('We know that the Son of God has come and has given us 

understanding, so that we may know the truth and we are in the truth, in his Son, Jesus 

Christ. He is the true God and eternal life') and understands the use of theos for Jesus as 

expressing that in him God reveals himself and that he has the same nature as the Father. 

What was 'was'? 

But what does 'nature' or 'quality' mean in this context? The New English Bible translates, 

'what God was, the Word was.' It still leaves open the question: and what and how was that? 

Brown is right in pointing out that we are dealing with the languase of doxology here. Can 

we go beyond Bultmann's statement that here is paradox? Is, 

as Haenchen argues, the anarthrous theos another indication of subordination of the Son to 

the Father in the gospel? It would be easy to read 1:l in isolation as a statement that the 

Logos had once been with, indeed been part of God and had ceased to be so, a kind of 

emanation, but passages such as 17:5,24 and those considered at the beginning of this 

discussion indicate much more of a personal relationship of union andlove. The claim of 

shared originality ('in the beginning') and the absence of any notion of the Son Logos as, for 

instance, 'firstborn' or 'first created' being, normally associated with Wisdom/Logos 

tradition, is astounding. It is no surprise that such statements provoke cbristological 

reflection in subsequent centuries. But our task must be to interpret as far as 



possible their meaning within the gospel without reading back into the text later attempts at 

a solution. 

The nature of the relationship of Son and Father in the fourth gospel must rest on more than 

1:1 and its grammatical interpretation. The term, theos, is applied similarly to Jesus in 1:l8 

and comes in the confession of Thomas in 20:28. But the issue is much wider than the use of 

theos even in the prologue and presents itself as a repeated focus of contention, as the Son 

makes his claims and the Jews make counterclaims accusing him of ditheism, an accusation 

constantly repudiated. But we return first to the prologue as presupposition and 

prelude to the gospel. 

Analogous relationship In Logos Wisdom Torah tradition 

It is widely recognised that the motif, Word, Logos, belongs within a tradition of thought 

reaching back to such passages as Prov 8:22-31 and reflecting speculalation about wisdom 

or logos as the highest heavenly power in God's service. One strand of this tradition 

identifies heavenly wisdom with Torah, Law, and so personifies Torah. 

In this stream, Torah is God's and in that sense is God. It is not thought of literally as a 

person distinct from God, as we have it in the fourth gospel, but remains a personification. 

Closer to the notion of wisdom or the logos as a person is the stream which finds expression 

in Hellenistic Judaism (Wisdom, Philo). This belongs within a wider tendency Judaism to 

speak of the highest beings under God, sometimes to the extent that the kind of 

interchangeability already present in the Old Testement between the angel of the Lord and 

the Lord, which Justin later exploited so fully as a christological argument extended to other 

high beings, including the Logos. Incipiant gnosticism doubtless heightened this tendency. 

It, too, used the Sophia/Logos speculation. In Philo the logos is not only portrayed as a 

person, the highest heavenly being in the service of God, but can also be called theos, a 

second god (De Somn. I 229f; Leg. All. III 207f; Qu. Gen. II 62). This is all the more 

interesting since Philo clearly does not understand this as compromosing monotheism, 

which he stoutly defends. Rather the bearing of God's name seems related to the 

bearing of God's power and functions." 

The Christology of the Fourth Gospel-Structures and Issues, Page 155 by William Loader, Ph.D. and 

New Testament Lecturer for the Perth Theological Hall, Australia, teacher at Murdoch University as a 

member of the Perth College of Divinity 

Even if we opt for a qualitative-only view, then "the Word was a God" is still superior to the definite 

rendering "the Word was God." 

"Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom is by 

prefacing the noun with 'a.'" -- Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous 

Predicate Nominative in John" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 47. 

Jason: I would like to also point out, too, that even your New World Translation dose not always follow its no article-small 

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 

in the New World Translation. It is correct to use the capital in those verses, but it is inconsistent with the New World 

Translation of John 1:1. 

Reply: You had stated above, which I have placed in bold lettering: 

"Your translators say the small “g” from the word god is required because the Greek 

word used for God (theos) is not preceded by a definite article “the”(ho). (Should you 



believe in the Trinity? P. 26)" 

The Trinity brochure makes no such statement here. This is completely fabricated. What the translators 

have done is show the same contrast that the Greek text makes 

The book, The Elements of New Testament Greek, by J.W. Wenham adds an interesting comment on this 

though: 

"In ancient manuscripts which did not differentiate between capital and small letters, there 

would be no way of distinguishing between QEOS ('God') and QEOS ('god'). Therefore as 

far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: QEOS ESTIN hO 

LOGOS, which would mean either, 'The Word is a god', or, 'The Word is the god'. The 

interpretation of John i. i will depend upon whether or not the writer is held to believe in 

only one God or in more than one god. It will be noticed that the above rules for the special 

uses of the definite article are none of them rigid and without exceptions. It is wiser 

not to use them as a basis for theological argument until the student has reached an 

advanced stage in the knowledge of the language." 

Interesting comments, though they do ignore qualitativeness and the earlier use of QEOS/theos for 

representatives of God. 

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 

in the Greek the first occurrence of the word dose not have the definite article (ho,) and the second occurrence dose. Since 

both obviously refer to the same person- God the Father- it would again be wrong to assume that the no article-small g 

has 

any validity in Greek grammar. 

Reply: John 13 does not necessitate the distinction as is the case with John 1:1. I cannot rightfully say 

that the man was with the prophet, and the man was the prophet, but I can say he was a prophet, or 

qualitatively, he was prophet-like. 

Jason: Another point I would like to bring out is that without the article, theos signifies divine essence, whereas with the 

article theos suggest divine personality (see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 139). 

Also theos is a definite noun and therefore cannot have the indefinite article “a”. 

Reply: Theos is not a definite noun in John 1:1c, or else it would have been rendered with a definite 

article. If you are assuming definiteness for it here, then you are making the same mistake Colwell did, 

and you are now a Sabbellianist. The anarthrous QEOS/theos in John 1:1c is there to make a distinction 

between the articular QEOS at John 1:1b and John 1:2. If the Bible writers wanted a definite QEOS, then 

they could have added the definite article, as they have done elsewhere. There is no grammatical rule 

saying that the one word QEOS is by nature definite. 

Take for instance: 

John 10:33, 

"The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, 

being a man, makest thyself a god." Revised Version-Improved and Corrected 

“Claim to be a god.”—New English Bible 

“Makest thyself a god.”—John Bowes, 1870. 

“[M]akest thyself a god.”—Samuel Sharpe, 1881. 

“Make Yourself out to be a god.”—Ferrar Fenton, 1909. 

“[M]akest thyself ‘a god’ not ‘God’ as in C[ommon].V[ersion, KJV]., otherwise the definite article 

would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses,— ‘gods..[.] gods,’ where the title 



is applied to magistrates, and others, because in a certain sense they are God’s representatives. Compare 

also Acts 28. 6; 2 Cor. 2. 4.”—Robert Young, Concise Commentary, in loc. cit. 

“[F]or making a mortal like yourself into a god.”—Andy Gaus, The Unvarnished New Testament, 1991. 

Acts 12:22, 

"And the people shouted, saying, The voice of a god, and not of a man." ASV 

"And the people shouted, "The voice of a god, and not of man!"" RSV 

Acts 28:6, 

"Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had 

looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a 

god." KJV 

"they changed their minds and said he was a god." NIV 

There are many such instances in the LXX (Septuagint) also, as in Exodus 7:1; Judges 6:31; 1 King 

18:27; Psalm 5:4, etc. (See Brenton's Translation). 

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 

the Father” or “Jesus is the Trinity.” The Watchtower booklet “The Word”-Who is he? according to John(p.6) makes the 

error of trying to suggest that this is what non-Jehovah’s Witnesses mean by their translation “The Word was God.” But 

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 

beginning the Word existed, was with God the Father, and possesses full deity. 

Reply: John 1:1 does not tell us that at all. In fact, if you are trying to argue that the theos (QEOS) in 

John 1:1c is definite, and the QEOS in John 1:1b is the Father, then you are equating the LOGOS with 

the Father, therefore making them the same. I have no problem with Jesus having the qualities of His 

Father, but having the qualities and traits of another does not make you equal or one in substance/essence 

to them. 

Jason: You should also know too that there are verses clearly referring to Christ in which the word God dose have the 

definite article (the), therefore showing that Jesus is “the God,” that is, Jehovah. (Matthew 1:23, for example, which states 

that Jesus is Immanuel, in the Greek is rendered, “With us is the God.” Jesus is therefore the Jehovah God.) 

Reply: We have already discusssed Matthew 1:23 in the previous page, proving of course that this verse 

cannot be used to prove that Jesus is Jehovah. 

But simply using a definite article in the Greek does not prove what you claim. 

Satan is hO QEOS (THE god) at 2 Cor. 4:4. 

King Solomon is hO QEOS (THE god) at Psalm 45:6 LXX. 

The Judges at Ex 21:6; 22:8 that we have talked about earlier are hO QEOS LXX. 

Even the "stomach" is hO QEOS (THE god) at Phil 3:9. 

Jason: You say Christ is “a god,” according to John 1:1 of the New World Translation-one who was created by Jehovah. 

How could Christ be “a god” when Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says there is no God before Him or after Him? No god would 

ever be created by Jehovah because, as he stated, “Before meno God was formed, and after me there continued to be 

none” (NWT). 

John 1:1 says that the Word (Christ) was with God. And yet Deuteronomy 32:39 Jehovah says, “There is no god besides 

Me.” If Christ was not God but “a god,” the Deuteronomy 32:39 is contradicted. I have heard the argument by several 

Jehovah’s Witnesses, that in the Bible many people can be referred to as “a god” and still not be God Almighty. They say 

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 

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 

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 

“gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; 

and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” Notice that it says 



there“is but one God, the Father” and also says there “is but one Lord, Jesus Christ” but yet both titles are used 

interchangably for both God the Father and Jesus throughout the New Testament. 

Also John 17:3 states, “Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you 

sent” So therefore, the fact that there are many “gods” and many “lords” dose not make them true. But to say Jesus 

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 

state there is only “One True God”. 

Reply: The false god/true god argument has been handled elsewhere on my site. See 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/alethinos.htm and 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/sam.htm 

Other than that, all I have to add is that the Father pretty much EXHAUSTS all the uses of QEOS/theos 

in the Bible. 

All other uses of QEOS that might be applied to Jesus falls under heavy scrutiny, even amongst 

Trinitarians. If you people cannot agree on whether John 1:1, 18; Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, etc., apply the 

title GOD to Christ, then why should I accept these Scriptures as proof of anything? 

"When we consider further the fact ...that Christ is nowhere called God in any 

unambiguous passage by any writer of the New Testament and that it is nowhere recorded 

that he ever claimed this title, we cannot reasonably regard this abstinence from the use of 

the term as accidental. " 

Ezra Abbot, ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. by Ezra Abbott from the Journal of the 

Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis for 1881 

"Direct evidence that Jesus was divine, they argue, can no longer be found in the New 

Testament; and here, I believe, they are quite correct; all the texts in which Jesus appears to 

be called 'God' are subject to textual or exegetical ambiguity." 

P. 52, God Incarnate, Story of Belief, by Anthony Harvey, University Lecturer in Theology and Fellow 

of Wolfson College, Oxford 

Jesus was MADE Lord, and GIVEN that title, thereby expressing the limitation of his bearing it. 

Again, it is the Father that exhausts the title of THE GOD (hO QEOS) by the Apostle John: 

"In the New Testament, however, the term 'God' (ho theos) in practice always means the 

Father." 

Does God Exist? Hans Kung, p. 685 

"In fact, for the author of the hymn, as for the Evangelist [John] only the Father was 'God' 

(ho theos; cf. 17:3); 'the Son' was subordinate to him." 

Ernst Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 109 

Jason: Isaiah and the Colossians 

Im sure you are aware that Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus Christ the “mighty God.” No doubt you, like other Jehovah’s Witnesses, 

have a ready answer for this verse. You explain that Christ is the “mighty god” but not “the Almighty.” You say that 

Christ is the mighty, never the Almighty, and that Jehovah is the Almighty God, never the mighty. However, Jeremiah 

32:18 shows that Jehovah is the mighty one. Therefore, since Christ is the mighty God (Jeremiah 32:18), they are both 

God. They both posses full deity. 

Reply: I have already dealt with Isaiah 9:6 at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/kkla.htm and 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/50questions.htm 

Jason: What about Colossians 1:15-17? Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to this passage to support their teaching that Christ 



was created by Jehovah (e.g., Let God Be True, p. 35). This is based primarily on the words “the firstborn of all creation” 

in verse 15. However, if this verse were teaching that Jesus Christ is the first created being made by Jehovah, the word 

“first-created” 

would have been used of Christ, not the word “firstborn.” These are two different words in the Greek, two different 

meanings. “First-created” is protoktistos, and “firstborn” is prototokos. Colossains 1:15 dose not use the word 

protoktistos, “first-created.” Instead it uses prototokos. This latter word means an heir, a begotten one, the first in rank. 

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 

prior to all creation and superior over it as the Lord. Your New World Translation adds the word “other” four times in 

Colossains 1:15-17, so that the passage states that Christ created “all other things,” that is, everything except Himself. 

However, there is no basis for adding the word “other.” It dose not occur in the Greek manuscripts. The translators of the 

New World Translation admit this by putting the word “other” in brackets. Obviously this is done in order to comply with 

the assumption that firstborn means first-created. But, as we’ve seen, this is not the meaning of firstborn, and therefore is 

also wrong to add the word “other.” There is no verse in the entire Bible that states that Christ was created by Jehovah! 

Some might raise a question about Revelation 3:14. This passage, wrongly translated by the New World Translation “ the 

beginning of the creation of God,” should be rendered “the source [or origin] of God’s creation.” The Greek word for 

source or origin is arche. This is consistent with the statement in Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3 that all things were made 

by or had their origin in Jesus Christ. Since all things were made by Jehovah (Hebrews 3:4), both persons possessing this 

omnipotent (all-powerful) creative power are God with full deity. 

Reply: The above has been handled ad nauseum on my web-site. See 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/hrh.htm and 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/firstborn.htm and 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wilson2.htm and 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/sam.htm and 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/prototokos.htm and 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/arche.htm and 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/john13.htm 

What is interesting though, is your comment, 

"Some might raise a question about Revelation 3:14. This passage, wrongly translated by 

the New World Translation “ the beginning of the creation of God,” should be rendered 

“the source [or origin] of God’s creation.” 

This quote is actually NOT from the NWT, but rather the exact translation as it stands in the New 

American Standard Version, the King James Version, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, the American 

Standard Version, the English Revised Version, the New King James Version, the Douay Bible,the 

Modern Language Bible-New Berkeley Version, the Worrell New Testament, the Revised Webster 

Version, the Montgomery Version, etc. Are you saying that these Trinitarian Bibles wrongly translate 

Revelation 3:14 so as to imply that Christ is a created being? Interesting! See more at 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/arche.htm. 

Your additonal references to Philippians 2:6 have been handled at 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim7.htm 

On the created Christ, I highly recommend the book Christology and the Trinity: An Exploration by 

Edgar Foster. 

Back to First Page 

Back To Main 





Online Reply to a Letter on the Holy Spirit-Active Force or Third Person of the Trinity? 

The Holy Spirit-Active Force or the 3rd Person of the Trinity? 

A Reply to http://members.tripod.com/~swampantiques/letter-1.html 

In light of what is taught about the Holy Spirit, and comparing it to what is taught about Satan, would 

someone please "logically" answer the following questions: 

(1) How does being called a manslayer (in a spiritual sense) make Satan a "person," but being a lifegiver (in 

the same spiritual sense) makes the Spirit "an active force"? (2 Cor.3:7 ) 

Reply: It is interesting that the author uses 2 Cor 3:7 to try an make his point, since this scripture 

mentions neither Satan or the holy spirit. It (and the surrounding context) does say something quite 

interesting though: "But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the 

children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, 

which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?" NKJV 

Did you notice how the "ministry of the Spirit" is viewed in the same vein as the impersonal "ministry of 

death." The "ministry of death" is the law of Moses, and the "ministry of the Spirit" is "Paul descriptive 

term for the New Covenant." MacArthur Study Bible/NKJV 

(2) How does being a liar (in a spiritual sense) make Satan a "person, "but being the "spirit of truth" (in the 

same spiritual sense) makes the Spirit "an active force"? (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:3) 

(3) How is it that when Satan "leads" (1 Chr. 21:1) it makes him a "person," but when the Holy Spirit 

"leads" he is just an "active force"? 

(4) How is it that when Satan speaks it makes him a "person," (Job 1:9) but when the Spirit speaks it still 

makes him "an active force"? (Matt.10:20; 1 Tim.4:1;) 

(5) Why is it that personal pronouns are ascribed to Satan because he is a "person," yet personal pronouns 

are used of the Spirit and the Watchtower still calls him an "an active force"? 

Reply: Well, what then, do the words SATAN and SPIRIT mean? 

" 

a Greek form derived from the Aramaic (Heb., Satan), "an adversary," is used (a) of an 

angel of Jehovah in Num. 22:22 (the first occurrence of the Word in the OT); (b) of men, 

e.g., 1 Sam. 29:4; Ps. 38:20; 71:13; four in Ps. 109; (c) of "Satan," the Devil, some 

seventeen or eighteen times in the OT; in Zech. 3:1, where the name receives its 

interpretation, "to be (his) adversary," RV (see marg.; AV, "to resist him"). 

In the NT the word is always used of "Satan," the adversary (a) of God and Christ, e.g., 

Matt. 4:10; 12:26; Mark 1:13; 3:23,26; 4:15; Luke 4:8 (in some mss.); 11:18; 22:3; John 

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. 

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 

mankind, Luke 13:16; Acts 26:18; 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 12:9; 20:7. His doom, sealed at the 

Cross is foretold in its stages in Luke 10:18; Rev. 20:2,10. Believers are assured of victory 

over him, Rom. 16:20. 

The appellation was given by the Lord to Peter, as a "Satan-like" man, on the occasion when 

he endeavored to dissuade Him from death, Matt. 16:23; Mark 8:33. 

"Satan" is not simply the personification of evil influences in the heart, for he tempted 

Christ, in whose heart no evil thought could ever have arisen (John 14:30, 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 

4:15); moreover his personality is asserted in both the OT and the NT, and especially in the 

latter, whereas if the OT language was intended to be figurative, the NT would have made 

this evident. See DEVIL. 

Spirit: " 

primarily denotes "the wind" (akin to pneo, "to breathe, blow"); also "breath;" then, 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/spirit.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:48:58 AM]


especially "the spirit," which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful. The NT 

uses of the word may be analyzed approximately as follows: 

"(a) the wind, John 3:8 (where marg. is, perhaps, to be preferred); Heb. 1:7; cp. Amos 4:13, 

Sept.; (b) the breath, 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 11:11; 13:15; cp. Job 12:10, Sept.; " Vine's 

Expository Dictionary 

Vines does believe in the third person of the Trinity (as the 7th definition of RUAH), but notice that 

even he is forced to give impersonality as the PRIMARY definition of SPIRIT. (see footnote below) 

In the OT, Heb. Ruah means first of all wind and breath, but also the human spirit in the 

sense of life force and even personal energy. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (see also 

Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon) 

What do others say? 


22; BS 38:23; WS 15:11, 16; 16:14). The breath is the breath of God, the wind, 

communicated to man by divine inspiration....The spirit of Yahweh or the spirit of God 

(Elohim) is a **force** that has unique effects upon man...and the spirit of Yahweh is a 

**force** which operates the works of Yahweh the savior and the judge. The spirit of 

Yahweh is often the **force** which inspires prophecy (Nm 11:17 ff; 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; Zc 7:12). 

The prophet is a man of the spirit (Ho 9:7)." Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, 

S.J. 

To sum up, lexically, the spirit is an impersonal force (like wind or breath) while Satan is always used to 

denote a person. These very important points will help us to understand the rest. 

It should be added, that in the Bible, even eagles speak (Rev 8:13). 

(6) Can the Holy Spirit be Grieved? (Eph. 4:30) Is this not a attribute of personality? 

Reply: Do not the "stones cry out" (Luke 19:40)? Do not the "wages cry out" (James 5:4 Revised 

English Bible)? Is this not a attribute of personality? 

(7) Can the Holy Spirit "teach?" (John 14:26) Is this not an attribute of personality? 

Reply: Even your "right hand" teaches in the Bible (Ps 45:4). Is this not an attribute of personality? 

(8) Can the Holy Spirit "see" 

Reply: In the Bible, even the blind can see with "eyes of your understanding" by means of " the spirit of 

wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him." Eph 1:17, 18 

As we can see, the Bible employs terms that are descriptive, and often personifies the impersonal. 

Sheol/Hell has a mouth and can swallow people (Numbers 16:30), it has ropes (2 Samuel 22:6), and it 

has soul (Isaiah 5:14). 

"Sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire" (Gen 4:7 KJV). Here SIN is given desire, it lies 

and it is referred to as "HIS." 

Blood cries out (Gen 4:10). 

Names can rot (Pr 10:7) 

Desire gives birth (Jas 1:15) 

"Hell is naked" (Job 26:6 KJV) 

Mountains give birth (Is 55:12) 

A man of wisdom will see God's name (Mic 6:9) 

God's name is near (Ps 75:1) 



The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as "kings." (Ro 5:14, 17, 21; 

6:12) He writes of sin as "receiving an inducement," 'working out covetousness,' 'seducing,' and 'killing.' 

(Ro 7:8-11) 

Please explain where I went wrong when using the same"logic" in the following! 

I could say that Satan is not a person because In Acts 5:3 he "fills" people. 

Reply: Does Satan indeed fill people in this scripture? No, it says that he fills your heart. What does that 

mean? Take note of how the following versions translate this passage: 

Why do you let Satan take control of you and make you lie TEV 

Why was it that Satan put into your heart to lie Lattimore 

How is it that Satan exercised control over your heart Wuest 

Why has Satan taken such possession of your heart AT 

How did Satan get you to lie Message 

Why has Satan filled your heart to lie&.ftn, Ananias and Sapphira were satanically inspired in contrast 

to Barnabas Spirit-filled gesture. NKJV MacArthur Study Bible 

(Notice here that filling is akin to inspiration). 

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; 

Joel 2:28, 29; Zech 12:10; Acts 2:17, 18, 33; 10:45) 

Show me where Satan can do the same thing? 

I could say that Jehovah is also not a person because in Eph. 3:19 he is spoken of as "filling" people. 

Reply: Remember, only the spirit is spoken of as being "poured out." So what does Ephesians 3:19 

mean? "You will be filled with the fullness of life and power that comes from God." New Living 

Translation 

I could say that because Jesus is not a person because in Romans 6:3 people can be "baptized" into him! 

Reply: What does "baptized" into him" mean? "This does not refer to water baptism. Paul is actually 

using the word "baptized" in a metaphorical sense, as we might in saying someone was immersed in his 

work, or underwent baptism of fire when when experiencing some trouble." NKJV MacArthur Study 

Bible. 

A look at the surrounding context will clear this up. 

Other Bibles say "initiated into Christ Jesus" Unvarnished NT 

"we were baptized to become one with Christ" New Living Translation 

I could say that Jehovah is not a person because in (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38; and Heb. 1:9 people can be 

"anointed" with him! 

Reply: But is that what it really says? 

Luke 4:18, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the 

poor." In this scripture we are not anointed with Jehovah, but with his spirit. 

Acts 10:38, "how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power" Again, there is nothing about 

being anointed with the person of Jehovah, but again, with his spirit. 

Hebrews 1:9, "Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows" 

In this scripture we are not anointed with the person of Jehovah, but with figurative oil. This scripture 

runs parallel to Isaiah 61:3 where people are called "trees of righteousness." 

So, there is nothing in the above mentioned scriptures that says we are anointed with the person of 

Jehovah. Remember, it is his spirit that is poured out. 

The Watchtower would also have us believe that just because the Spirit "Spoke" does not "prove" that he 

was a Person because when he "spoke" it was through humans or angels. Does this in some way prove that 



the Spirit is not a real person? If so, did you know that the same thing could be said of Satan? Do you know 

that the Devil spoke through Serpents? (Gen. 3:1)and thru through man? (1 Sam. 28:2-20) Do you believe 

that it would be blasphemy to say that Jehovah is not God? 

Reply: As we have seen above, the spirit is breath. In the Bible it is associated with "breath" and even 

"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 

my mouth. This is my spirit, not a separate personage. 

That is why in the Bible the holy spirit is often associated with non-persons (see 1Jn 5:8; 2Cor 6:6; 1 

Thess 1:5; Mt 3:11; Acts 11:24; 13:52). 

Would it be blasphemy to say that Jehovah is not a real person? Would it be blasphemy to say that Jesus 

was not a real person? I assume that your answers would be yes. Now, consider this: Would Satan do all in 

his power to cause you to lose your eternal life. And the Bible tells us that blasphemy against the Holy 

Spirit would not be forgiven. (Matt. 12:31-33) 

Reply: Well, since God's spirit is his breath, and the Bible is God-breathed (theopneustos, 2315...you will 

notice that this word comes from the word SPIRIT/PNUEMA) at 2Tim 3:16, then sinning against holy 

spirit implies something else than sinning against 1/3 of God. 

Since spirit is neuter, even the King James Bible calls the spirit an "it" (see Rom 8:16, 26). Spirit can 

even be portioned out (see 2Kings 2:9). 

Now I will indeed admit that there can be more to the word spirit. Spirit can be a temperament or a 

disposition. That is why the Bible can speak of "the spirit of Cyrus" (2 Chron 36:22; Ezra 1:1), and "the 

spirit of Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria" (1Chron 5:26), "the spirit of Jacob" (Gen 45:27), of David 

(1Sam 30:12), and the "spirit of Zerubbabel" (Hag 1:14). 

There are of course spirit persons, like God (John 4:24) and angels, but as we can see, the same meaning 

is used, "Who maketh his angels winds" Heb 1:7. That God is spirit stands as the antithesis of flesh (cf. 

Heb. 11:27, 1Cor 15:50). To worship God means to worship in "spirit and truth." Again, see that "spirit" 

is compared to something impersonal as "truth." 

It is by examining the entire Bible that we do discern between "spirit of truth and the spirit of error." 

1John 4:6 RSV 

Many point out that by applying words and titles equally to Jehovah and Jesus makes them the same 

person, and then a Trinity, then why....: 

Why is the holy spirit never worshipped? 

In the introduction of their letters to the churches, none of the New Testament writers identifies himself 

with the holy spirit as he does with God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Why is this if they are part 

of the same being? 

Why does Paul never send greetings from the holy spirit, only God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ? 

Why do visions of heaven NOT include the person of the holy spirit? 

Why is the holy spirit never called the First and the Last? 

Why doesn't the holy spirit have a name? 

Why isn't the holy spirit a king? 

Why is theos/elohim never applied to the holy spirit? 

Why is the holy spirit never called a saviour? 

Why is the holy spirit given liquidity? 

"Many words associated with God's spirit give it the attributes of a liquid, which by 

definition cannot refer to a person. This liquid language is consistent with the spirit being 

His presence and power. We are baptized (literally 'dipped') with and in it like water (Matt. 



3:11; Acts 1:5). We are all made to 'drink' from the same spirit, as from a well or a fountain 

(1Cor. 12:13). It is written in our hearts like ink (2 Cor 3:3). We are 'anointed' with it, like 

oil (Acts 10:38; 2 Cor 1:30; 1 John 2:27). We are 'sealed' with it as with melted wax (Eph. 

1:14). It is 'poured out' on us (Acts 10:45; Rom. 5:5). It is 'measured' as if it had volume (2 

Kings 2:9; John 3:34-KJV). We are to be filled with it (Acts 2:4; Eph. 5:18). This 'filling' is 

to capacity at the new birth and to overflowing as we act according to its influence." One 

God & One Lord by Graeser/Lynn/ Schoenheit, p.598 

Fortman says, "The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid 

evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented 

in the Synoptics and in Acts as a divine force or power." The Triune God, pp. 6, 15 

"Another text has God's 'Spirit' as His agent in creation. Because they may have been 

considered substitute phrases for God Himself, Judaism never made them separate 'Persons' 

as Christianity did. However, it is virtually certain that this late Judaistic tendency to 

hypostasize [i.e. to symbolize a concept in a concrete form] had a great influence on the 

development of the Christian teaching of the three 'Persons' of God." 

p. 38, The Christian Conspiracy, by Dr Moore 

I suspect that the writer of the above linked site did not get a response due to the *spirit* in which his 

letter was written, The WTS realizes that "God gave them a *spirit of stupor*, eyes that they should not 

see." Romans 11:8 ASV 

So is it blasphemy to say that the holy spirit is not a person, one third of a Triune deity (when this is not 

borne out in the Scriptures)...or is it blasphemous to compare the spirit, breath and inspiration of God to 

Satan the Devil to buttress your point? 

**Vines (p. 241) uses scriptures like Genesis 1:2 to prove that the Spirit is the 3rd person of the Trinity. But does it 

really? Take note of how other Trinitarians have rendered this scripture: 




Question: 

"he uses "spirit" as defining wind etc when speaking of the spirit YET he will not admit that JEHOVAH is 

only some wind will he???? remember its the same exact word being used when the bible says GOD IS 

SPIRIT. so by hectors (wt) logic again a flaw. 

There is no flaw here at all, and you missed the whole point of your missed point. The word SATAN 

deals primarily and only with person(s). The word Spirit/RUAH/PNEUMA does not primarily deal with 

any kind of person. 

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. Jn 4:24 

You said I could not say that God is a wind. But there are similarities that you are missing. Like wind, 

God is invisible (Col 1:15; 1Tim 1:17; Heb. 11:27), as opposed to the physical or material nature of 

man(John 1:18; 3:6). 

When God says he is Spirit (or "a Spirit" KJV, Beck, NWT), he is speaking of his nature (1Cor 15:44). 

That is why Williams NT has "God is a spiritual being." 

[Another way to harmonize this is by comparing John 4:24 PNEUMA O QEOS with O 

QEOS AGAPH at 1 John 4:8, 16. "God is spirit" and "God is Love" are similar in that O 



QEOS ( the God) is the subject, since it is articular (it has the article "the") and PNEUMA 

and AGAPH are not. In each case the predicate nominative, "spirit" or "love" is what some 

call "qualitative," in the above cases expressing nature (like "John is a pussycat" or "Bill is 

divine"). It describes a quality of hO QEOS (c.f. 1John 1:5). In this sense PNEUMA 

functions similar to an adjective. These types of constructions in John have bearing on how 

we interpret Jn 1.1] 

Let me explain the impersonality of holy spirit another way. 2Peter 1:21 states: "For not by the will of 

man was prophecy carried on at any time, but, being carried on by holy spirit, holy men of God speak." 

Concordant Literal NT 

Now read 2Tim 3:16 as a parallel: "Every scripture is God-breathed." Literal English Translation by 

Alfred Marshall 

So we can see that the activity of the holy spirit is equivalent to the activity of God's breath or power, 

hence a force. 

That is why the Unvarnished NT can say, "And suddenly down from the sky came the rush of a driving 

wind of violent force and filled the whole house...and they were all filled with holy breath." Acts 2 

"HOLY SPIRIT, the mysterious power or presence of God in nature or with individuals and 

communities, inspiring them or empowering them with qualities they would not otherwise possess. The 

term spirit...denotes "wind", "breath", and by extension the life-giving element." Harper Collins 

Dictionary of the Bible, p. 432 

Remember, a person, whether it be an angel, Satan, or Jehovah cannot be poured out. They are not given 

the liquidity of the holy spirit. 

However, Jesus can breathe on someone, and they can receive holy spirit, "And when he had said this, he 

breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit." Jn 20:22 ASV 

Question: 

"Dear bro smith: I enjoyed your reply to the web critic on the question of the personality of the Holy 

Spirit-provides great answers. Regarding the pouring out of the holy spirit as evidence of its 

non-personality, this 

critic might refer to phillipians 2:17 and 2 tim 4:6 where paul uses similar language. I know this is 

different-obvious metaphor,but how would you answer this attemt to compare these references? 

Reply: In Tim and Phil the word used for POUR is Strong's Ref. # 4689 spendo which means " to pour 

out as a libation, i.e. (figuratively) to devote (one's life or blood, as a sacrifice) ('spend')" 

This is why the American Standard Version has: 

2Tim 4:6 For I am already being offered, and the time of my departure is come. 

Phil 2:17 Yea, and if I am offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you 

all 

It is also used in Mark 4:31. 

In Acts, a different word is used for POUR as with the holy spirit is Strong's Ref. # 1632 ekcheo which 

means " to pour forth; figuratively, to bestow: KJV--gush (pour) out, run greedily (out), shed (abroad, 

forth), spill." 

It is also used at Matt 9:17 (wine), Matt 23:35 (blood), 

So we see, that it is the spirit again that is given true liquidity. 



Punkish/Guy did bring something interesting to my attention that Vine's uses to promote the personality 

of the holy spirit. "The full title with the article before both pneuma and hagios..."the Spirit the Holy," 

stresses the character of the Person, e.g., Matt. 12:32; Mark 3:29..." 

But is this really so? I collected these examples from the LXX and the Greek NT: 

Dan 9:20 TOU OROUS TOU AGIOU The holy the mountain 

Ex 26:33 ANA MESON TOU AGIOU KAI ANA MESON TOU AGIOU The holy place and the holy 

place 

Is 63:15 TOU OIKOU TOU AGIOU The holy the house 

Ps 104:42 TOU LOGOU TOU AGIOU The holy the word 

Acts 4:30 TOU ONOMATOS TOU AGIOU The holy the name 

Acts 6:13 TOU TOPOU TOU AGIOU The holy the place 

Rev 21:2 THN POLIN THN AGIAN The holy the city 


Rev 22:19 THS POLEWS THS AGIAS The holy the city 

As we see, this is quite a stretch, for no one would really consider the above instances examples of 

something stressing the character of the Person. 

More on this at page 2. 

LB: Oh come on, how can a force be grieved? It has to be a person. 

Reply: According to Scripture an inanimate force can be grieved. 

2Ki. 13:21: "but he did not grieve (ELUPHSE) the spirit of his son Ammon." LXX Did Ammon have 

another part of his essence/substance that was grieved? 

Job 31:39: "If too I grieved (ELUPHSA) the heart of the owner of the soil." And, Lam.1:22: "My heart is 

grieved (LUPEITAI)." LXX 

Esau's pagan wives were "a bitterness of spirit" to Isaac and Rebekah.(Gen. 26:35) Young, Rotherham, 

KJV mg. 

Additionally, other *things* are said to have *emotions*: "hearts" (Job 31:39, Lam.1:22), "God's name" 

(Lev. 24:11), "nations" (Isa. 23:12, LXX), "Armies" (1Ki. 17:10 Al.). 

From an opposer: 

2 Cor 13:14, "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy 

Spirit be with you all." 

Are you upset because this verse wasn't included in the beginning of the lettter, but rather the end? 

How does a JW read this verse and have fellowship with an "active force"? 

Reply: "Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee?" Ps 94:20 

"what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with 

darkness?" 2 Cor 6:14 

"have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Eph 5:11 

Obviously, it is Biblically possible to have FELLOWSHIP with impersonal things. 




Email Me 

For more go to: http://members.aol.com/hector3001/spiritresearch.htm 


A Response to Guy Bearman, and his attack on my person 

More on the Spirit, and Quoting-A Response to 

Accusations by Guy Bearman 

The purpose of this page is to address certain accusations made in public against me recently by Guy 

Bearman, concerning my use of quotes and the personality of the holy spirit, and in so doing I hope to 

demonstrate the poor reasoning that seems to follow: 

As posted elsewhere... 

Punkish/Guy did bring something interesting to my attention that Vine's uses to promote the personality 

of the holy spirit. "The full title with the article before both pneuma and hagios..."the Spirit the Holy," 

stresses the character of the Person, e.g., Matt. 12:32; Mark 3:29..." 

But is this really so? I collected these examples from the LXX and the Greek NT: 

Dan 9:20 TOU OROUS TOU AGIOU The holy the mountain 

Ex 26:33 ANA MESON TOU AGIOU KAI ANA MESON TOU AGIOU The holy place and the holy 

place 

Is 63:15 TOU OIKOU TOU AGIOU The holy the house 

Ps 104:42 TOU LOGOU TOU AGIOU The holy the word 

Acts 4:30 TOU ONOMATOS TOU AGIOU The holy the name 

Acts 6:13 TOU TOPOU TOU AGIOU The holy the place 



Rev 22:19 THS POLEWS THS AGIAS The holy the city 

As we see, this is quite a stretch, for no one would really consider the above instances examples of 

something stressing the character of the Person. 

Replied by Guy, in my absence, on another board: 

> Guy> (minor point) I've dropped the moniker 

> "Punkish" since this was posted 

> on Heinz's site. To be honest, I didn't see the 

> point in responding. But 

> since he wishes to misrepresent the discussions and 

> his own website (!) I 

> will respond. Yes, the primary meaning of "spirit" 

> is "breath" and doesn't 

> have a person attached to it (in terms of wind - 

> this is the exception: a 

> person breathes, while you would not call the breath 

> itself a "person", 

> humanly speaking.) In the case above, we are 

> discussing God. Heinz's reply 

> changes the focus from spirit to created things. The 

> divine Spirit is not a 

> thing (Hebr 9:14) That's a red herring, folks. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/guy.htm (1 of 9) [5/25/2003 3:49:14 AM]


> Observe how he does not deal 

> with the quoted verses first (eg Mark 3:29) That is 

> not exegesis. 

> 

Reply: The point of Vine's bringing up verses, like Mark 3:29, was that this, plus the others mentioned, 

was to prove that the resumptive use of the article (Mark 3:29 has TO PNEUMA TO hAGION) "stresses 

the character of the person." Vine's was using this to prove that the holy spirit is a person. My list showed 

that the resumptive use of the article does nothing of the kind. I finally realized that don't you fully 

understand many of these arguments. In fact, I find that when discussions turn technical, you become 

quiet, or feel the need to leave due to illness, only to see you pop up elsewhere. Perhaps this is all beyond 

you? 

> If we look up the meaning of "holy" (Vine's complete 

> Expository Dictionary 

> pp307-308) we find something interesting. In every 

> case, it defines the 

> calling, the being, or the practise of, a *person* 

> (with the exception of 

> 'things' ie that which is created, BUT the Holy 

> Spirit is eternal cf Hebr 

> 9:14 hence this is excluded) - as a separation to 

> God (something a person 

> does.) It is predicated of God, as the absolutely 

> Holy One, it is used of men 

> and things, in terms of consecration. (A thing 

> cannot consecrate itself, but 

> a person can, and can also consecrate things made - 

> yet the Spirit of the 

> LORD is not made.) Vine's lists the interesting 

> point that a `saint is the 

> temple of God figuratively - a temple is not a 

> person but a saint is! Why 

> didn't Heinz mention this? 

> 

Reply: The question should be, "what is the point of mentioning this?" Despite the attempts at 

capitalization in some Bibles, Hebrews 9:14 does not refer to THE holy spirit, the third person of God. 

Of Hebrews 9:14, Vincent's Word Study says: 

"Heb 9:14 - 

Through the eternal spirit DIA PHEUMATOS AIWNIOU. For the rend. an. through = by 

virtue of. *Not the Holy Spirit*, who is never so designated, but Christ's own human spirit: 

the higher element of Christ's being in his human life, which was charged with the eternal 

principle of the divine life. Comp. Rom_1:4; 1Co_15:45; 1Pe_3:18; Heb_7:16. This is the 

key to the doctrine of Christ's sacrifice. The significance and value of his atonement lie in 

the personal quality and motive of Christ himself which are back of the sacrificial act." 



Robertson's Word Pictures adds: 

"Through the eternal Spirit (dia pneumatos aioniou). *Not the Holy Spirit*, but Christs own 

spirit which is eternal as he is. There is thus a moral quality in the blood of Christ not in that 

of other sacrifices." 

The New American Bible also says at Hebrews 9:14, "this expression does not refer either to the holy 

Spirit or to the divine nature of Christ." 

The anarthrous PNEUMATOS is not referring to an individual here, but has a spiritual significance (See 

PNEUMATOS in Perschbacker's Analytical Lexicon). 

This is why the CEV has at Heb. 9:14: 

"But Christ was sinless, and he offered himself as an eternal and spiritual sacrifice to God. 

That's why his blood is much more powerful and makes our consciences clear." 

It does not even mention the Spirit here. 

Nothing else you have written above proves anything else either, as it really does not make any sense. 

> Vine's does continue to list things similar to 

> Heinz's list but this is 

> secondary in meaning. (eg "the holy place"). Why has 

> Heinz begged the 

> question here? He pre-assumes that the Holy Spirit 

> is not a person, then 

> applies this to the definitions. 

> 

Reply: Again, I really don't think you understand the issue here. Vine's claim was that the resumptive use 

of the article, as in "the Spirit the Holy" was proof of personality. "The holy place" he mentions on page 

307 was not an example of this, in fact, in his list it was often anarthrous. It was not a parallel to my 

examples above, which actually DO destroy this theory. 

> We must also look at HOW the Holy Spirit acts in 

> Scripture, not just the 

> basic meaning. We find the Spirit does things (Gen 

> 1:2, Job 33:4) related to 

> creation, and resurrection (Romans 8:11) and 

> salvation (conversion, John 3) 

> we find we can act towards the Spirit and He reacts 

> (eg grief, blasphemy) 

> that would not be relevant if the Spirit was a 

> non-person (how would a 

> non-person be blasphemed/grieved and know it was, 

> and react accordingly??? cf 

> Mark 3:29). Finally, Heinz has at least one thing 

> wrong in his list - (most 

> of this list is irrelevant) do JWs check up on what 

> apologists write or not? 

> (In case someone checked the list, Psalm 104 is 

> Psalm 105 in modern bibles. 



> This is specific to the Septuagint or LXX) 

> 

Reply: But sir, I was quoting the LXX. It would be nonsense for me to point someone to a Scripture in 

the LXX text that was one chapter away. This however demonstrates the level of Guy's accusations, time 

and again. Most of his counter-points should not even be qualified with a reply. 

The Spirit is involved in creation, but Genesis 1:2 and Job 33:4 do not help you. Genesis 1:2 says 




Job 33:4 actually uses God's spirit as a parallel to "the breath of the Almighty." It is like a worker using 

electricity to perform powerful deeds. This does not make the electricity a person though, does it? 

"The Spirit brooding over the primeval waters (Gn. 1:2) and creating man (Gn. 2:7), the 

Spirit who garnishes the heavens (Jb 26:13), sustains animal life and renews the face of the 

earth (Ps. 54:30), is the ruah ('breath,' 'wind') of God, the outgoing divine energy and 

power." The New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas (1962), page 531. 

Thanks to the poetic structure of the semitic language, inanimate things are often given personality, like 

Death, Sin, blood, etc. This though, does not make them persons. 

Let me give an example here. Literally, Ezra 1:1 speaks of the "spirit of Cyrus." Yet, the New 

International Version uses the expression "the heart of Cyrus" instead. We can do the same thing in 

relation to God's spirit. If the spirit was grieved, it was actually God feeling bad, his heart was made 

heavy with sorrow. 

At Daniel 7:15, Daniel was grieved in his spirit (KJV), yet the New Jerusalem Bible simply says that he 

was "deeply disturbed." 

Also Isaiah 54:6 has "grieved in spirit" (KJV) where the NJB simply has "grief-stricken." 

And "his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel" (KJV) simply means "could bear Israel's suffering no 

longer." NJB Judges 10:16 

"Why is thy heart grieved" (KJV) simply means "Why are you so sad." NJB 1 Samuel 1:8 

As a parallel to this, God's heart can also be grieved: 

"It repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." 

Genesis 6:6 ASV (See also 1 Samuel 2:33; Ezek. 13:22) 

The heart can be grieved, the spirit can be grieved, the heart can also be happy (Judges 18:20), glad (Eccl 

7:3), upright (Job 33:3), it can rejoice (Proverbs 23:16) etc., yet despite these personal emotions, no one 

would say that the heart is a person. Besides meaning "power" and "breath," spirit can also point to our 

dispositions and temperament, as was the case with King Cyrus. 

> 

> Guy> The fact is, Heinz has been shown again and 

> again what is wrong with his 

> website, and while correcting broken links he won't 

> correct things factually 

> wrong. 

Reply: Guy has never actually corrected anything, besides typos and broken links though. Guy suffers 

from a superiority complex in thinking that he is always right, and I am always wrong. I believe that Guy 



is sincere, but he is not actually aware of his own arrogance, something we see alot of in JW-bashers. 

Guy> For instance, he uses Buzzard - who does not 

> believe in the pre 

> existance of Christ - as a means of *arguing* His 

> pre existance! He also 

> admits Buzzard is 'bad' ie his arguments are, so why 

> use them at all? 

Reply: Well, let us nip this in the bud, once and for all. Here is how this went down. 

Back about Feb 2002, Guy wrote: 

"For instance, on your page you sometimes quote the 

unitarian Buzzard (eg on Proverbs 8, as part of your John 1.1 page), 

and I've pointed that out to you on AOL that he denies the preexistance 

of Christ, and have you removed these quotes? How about the 

previous debate we had, where I asked for Colwell's definition 

of "definite" and you give one closer to what Professor BeDuhn says 

(who seems to deny the personality of the pre existant Word), and a 

reading of Colwell (from the quotes given by Harner!) disagrees with 

what you wrote! Please, Heinz, how convincing is this? 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BiblicalChristianity/message/994 

And then from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BiblicalChristianity/message/1016 

"Punkish> This is amazing. Buzzard doesn't believe in the pre 

existance of Christ. In order for your argument to be parallel, 

Heinz, Paul would have had to quote an atheist. How can you use 

Buzzard as the MEANS of your argument *defending* the pre-existance 

of Christ?" 

Now, I did not want to have to do this, but you leave me no choice here. My use of Buzzard's quote on 

my John 1:1 page was NOT about pre-existence at all. I have never even mention pre-existence in any 

argument on this page. It was not for this purpose at all. I used Buzzard's paraphrase of John 1:1, as I 

used many other renditions of this verse, including many of whom I do not even agree with. You simply 

set up a straw man, only to knock it down and claim victory for yourself. I was embarrassed for you then, 

I am embarrassed for you now. Time after time you have brought things up that are completely irrelevant 

to anything being discussed. Again, you have shown yourself inept at handling yourself here, including 

your reference to Colwell, of which you simply do not understand complicated things. You "asked for 

Colwell's definition 

of 'definite'." 

Colwell does not give a *definition of "definite".* 

He doesn't need to. If you don't know what "definite" is before you read his article, then you are not 

going to get anything out of it anyways. I am constantly puzzled as to why you bring these things up, and 

this only hastened my departure from your group. Instead of educating yourself further in these matters, 

here you are, 8 months later, claiming victory over a battle that only existed in your mind. That is one 

cheaply bought trophy. 

As for your hangup on JW's quoting anyone, I do not however have to agree with anyone in toto to quote 

them in certain aspects. To demand such holds me to a standard that is not required of anyone else. 



Does the Apostle Paul, though quoting the pagan Aratus, agree with him totally (see Acts 17:28)? 

To demonstrate how inept your reasoning is, you replied in our Buzzard posts: 

>>Yes, Aratus did share a _similar_ worldview to Paul - they both 

believed God exists!


would in reading the Bible itself. As we noted regarding Rule of Thumb 20, scholars have 

prejudices like everyone else, and these prejudices can color their understanding of certain 

biblical texts in a way that the weight of the evidence will prove to be wrong." 

What They Don't Tell You-A Survivor's Guide to Biblical Studies, pp. 128, 129, under the heading, 

"RULE OF THUMB 24: While a scholar may be correct on some matters, this does not mean he is 

correct on all matters." 

Scholar Edgar Foster puts it succintly and to the point: 

"By saying certain scholars or theologians corroborate the Witness view, I do not mean to 

imply that theologians discussed in this work consciously agree with Jehovahs Witnesses or 

even purposely do so. Nor do I think that these thinkers share the same Weltanschauung as 

that of Jehovahs Witnesses. This type of consensus is neither realistic nor necessary. Those 

who expect Jehovahs Witnesses to only cite authorities who agree in toto with the 

Witnesses are 

manifesting a unique form of bias that is not shown toward more orthodox writers." 

See http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/christology.htm 

I will finish off with a quote from E.H. Broadbent where the much beloved group, the Waldenses and the 

Albigenses, did the same thing 

"They considered that in all times and in all forms of churches there were enlightened men 

of god. They therefore made use of the writings of Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, 

Bernard of Clairvaux and others, not accepting, however, all they wrote, but only that 

which corresponded with the older, purer teaching of Scripture." The Pilgrim Church, p.120 

Oh, and BTW, I do promote Anthony Buzzard's books on my website, and I consider him a friend, 

without having to agree with him 100%. 

Big 

> words, no action! From someone who abandons 

> discussions on the AOL message 

> board? Not once, but twice! I have many witnesses 

> to this. 

Reply: Am I married to the AOL board? I will abandon any board that is lacking in intelligence. 

For instance, here is one post, which, like many others, was simply copied and pasted from another site at 

http://gwest59.tripod.com/ChristIsLord/id28.html 

Subject: Re: THE BIBLE VS THE WATCHTOWER 

Date: 11/18/2001 12:44 PM Pacific Standard Time 

From: Hector3001 

Message-id: 

http://gwest59.tripod.com/ChristIsLord/id28.html 

>>The sentences in italics are quotes from the website


Reply: Lie #1. I cannot find this this quote in my RFTS on page 205. It actually says, "A key factor is 

that the Witnesses really believe that the Bible is God's Word and that what it contains is there for our 

instruction. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11) So they do not resort to philosophical arguments 

to evade its clear statements of truth or to justify the way of life of people who have abandoned its moral 

standards." 

RFTS pages 328, 332-33; 

"Scripture alone is insufficient in learning the things of God." 

Reply: Lie#2: Again, this quote does not exist. What it really says: "The Bible tells about a man who 

held a prominent position but who was humble enough to acknowledge his need for help in 

understanding Bible prophecy. That help was provided by a member of the Christian congregation.-Acts 

8:26-38; compare other 

references to Philip in Acts 6:1-6; 8:5-17. 

Of course, if a person reads the Bible but does not apply it in his life, it does him little good. If he 

believes it and acts on it, he will associate with God's servants in regular congregation meetings. (Heb. 

10:24, 25) He will also join with them in sharing the "good news" with other people.-1 Cor. 9:16; Mark 

13:10; Matt. 28:19, 20." 

RFTS page 328; 

"Without the Watchtower Society and its vast literature, people are incapable of ascertaining the true 

meaning of the Scripture." 

Reply: Lie #3: This quote does not exist here. 


"People are not to think for themselves in interpreting Scripture. They are to submit their minds to the 

Watchtower Society." 

Reply: Lie#4, this quote does not exist. 

RFTS pages 194-95; 

"References to the Father in the New Testament Should be denoted as "Jehovah" 

Reply: Another quote that does not exist here. 

RFTS pages 408-09; 

"Christ was the "firstborn of all creation" and was created billions of years ago." 

Reply: Lie #5: This quote does not exist here. 


"Christ was created as the Archangel Michael." 

Reply: Lie#6, it does not say this here, but for more, go to 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wilson.htm 

RFTS 408-09; 

"It was through this angel (Christ) that all other things in the universe were created." 

Reply: Lie # (I am actually losing count:) 



It does not say this here. 

So tell me Guy, why would I persist amongst such slanderous evil? Why is lying promoted and even 

celebrated amongst your precious AOL group? Does the end really justify the means? Satan is happy 

with people like this (John 8:44), so why should I cast pearls before his swine? Oh, that is not to say I 

might "slum" from time to time, but eventually, we are judged by the company we keep. 

Finally: 

Guy: He also knows I'm unwell continually, so why he 

> assumes I'm up to creating a 

> webpage is beyond me. I'll try though. I have 

> 'threatened' to expose his 

> arguments and have done so. 

Reply: You are extremely active for someone who is "unwell continually." You are on the AOL boards, 

you were co-moderator of Biblical Christianity when I left, you are now one of the moderators of another 

WatchtowerTheology board, you are on the JohnOneOne board, Mona Clark's board, and now evidently, 

the Jehovah's Witnesses Gathering board. And who knows how many other boards. Guy, your words run 

hollow to me as you are the most active continually unwell person I know. If there is a will, there is a 

way. Or perhaps, you lack the Spirit to do so. 

In the meantime, don't prop yourself up at my expense in public. Other than this page, I don't talk about 

you....ever. 


Wedding Traditions and Birthdays-Examining their Origins 

Pagan Wedding and Birthday Traditions-Can They Be 

Compared? 

An Examination of this topic as introduced by Greg Stafford in his book, "Three Dissertations on the Teachings of 

Jehovah's Witnesses" 

The booklet The Facts on Halloween, pp. 8, 17 says: "Since Halloween itself originated with paganism, it is hardly 

surprising that is customs are related to pagan belief." 

It then breaks down certain Halloween practices steeped in paganism that seem to parallel those of the practices 

surrounding the celebration of Jesus' birth (the involvement of the Druids, the worship of the Sun-God). Later, this 

publication states, 

"Based on our discussion to date, we can see that Halloween symbolism and activities today, although 

technically removed from their ancient practices, nevertheless retain the underlying associations for 

which they were intended. In other words, the very act of dressing or costuming oneself heralds back to 

the original purpose for which this was done...Can we truly align ourselves innocently with something 

traditionally and currently involved with the occult and be certain we will never be affected in any 

manner? In other words, in merely participating in Halloween, are we ignorantly skirting the 

territory of the devil?" [Emphasis mine] 

If other nominal Christian groups and individuals, even ones normally hostile to Jehovah's Witnesses like Ankerberg 

and Weldon can find fault with the pagan sources of Halloween, should we not examine Birthdays for the same 

things, even if we celebrate them ignorantly? Can we also compare this the wedding customs that many Witnesses 

cherish. I will be examining these two areas and making comparisons over the next few pages. This exploration will 

also include an examination of some of the statements in a recent book by Greg Stafford entitled, "Three 

Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses." 

Greg Stafford points out that, while Jehovah's Witnesses are quick to point out that the pagan origins of celebrations 

such as Birthdays, he knows of "no Jehovah's Witness would even think twice about partaking of a wedding 

cake...the wearing of veils and wedding rings, customs that are surrounded by superstition"...and are "associated 

with pagan customs." Page 207 

First, I will point out the origins of Birthdays and its customs, which will then be followed by an examination of 

Wedding origins and its customs. The reader will be able to determine the difference, and appreciate the wisdom 

behind these decisions. 

As the Awake of 1981 12/22 12 states: 

"Does that mean that Christians cannot have anything to do with any custom that might have originated 

in false religious rites? No. A great many common practices may have had such origins. But when 

features of the custom, as carried over into modern-day practice, go contrary to Bible principles, then 

true Christians must conscientiously refuse to participate." 

Birthdays: Not until men first charted the stars thousands of years ago, and linked their fates with events in the sky, 

did personal birthdays down to the hour of birth become important. To know ones' moment of birth meant that a 

horoscope could be drawn up. The horoscope was considered critical to a good and happy life. 

"The keeping of birthday records was important in ancient times principally because a birth date was 

essential for the casting of a horoscope," The Lore of Birthdays, Ralph and Adelin Linton. 

Writes Linda Rannells Lewis in Birthdays, "Birthdays have been celebrated for thousands of years. In 

early civilizations, where the development of a calendar made an organized reckoning of birth dates 

possible, the horoscopes of ruling monarchs, their successors and rivals had to be cast with care and 

birthday omens meticulously examined, for the prospects of the mighty would affect the prospects of 

the entire society. By the time of Ptolemy V this practice was well established: 'Ptolemy, the ever 

living, the beloved of Ptah, the son of the two Brother-Gods, was born on the fifth day of the month 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/birthdays.htm (1 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:49:36 AM]


DIOS, and this day was, in consequence, the beginning of great prosperity and happiness of all living 

men and women" (p. 12). 

Ptolemy V was an ancient Egyptian king. It was common in his day for kings and rulers to have their horoscopes 

made by astrologers and their birthdays were considered very important omens of the future. 

Lewis continues, "In Egypt households of the same period birthdays were celebrated similarly. A part 

of the family budget was set aside to buy birthday garlands and animals for sacrifice, just as we might 

plan to spend a certain sum for balloons, party hats, and an ice cream cake" (pages 12-13). 

As with much that is new, the rich and prominent were the first to enjoy birthday celebrations. Egypt's 

Pharaohs ordered businesses to close on their birthdays and gave enormous feasts for their hundreds of 

servants. Cleopatra gave Antony a birthday dinner with gifts so plentiful that some party goers arrived 

poor and left wealthy. 

http://www.openhere.com/holidays/birthday/history.htm 

Celebrating of birthdays was common amongst neighboring pagan nations also, but it was completely foreign to the 

people of God. 

"The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of NT origin. The day of Christ's 

birth cannot be ascertained from the NT, or, indeed, from any other source. The fathers of the first three 

centuries do not speak of any special observance of the nativity."-Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, 

and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1981 reprint), by John McClintock and James 

Strong, Volume II, page 276. 

"Of all the holy people in the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet 

on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day on 

which they were born into this world below."-The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1911), Volume 

X, page 709 (quoting Origen Adamantius of the third century). 

"Most of the Christmas customs now prevailing in Europe, or recorded from former times, are not 

genuine Christian customs, but heathen customs which have been absorbed or tolerated by the Church. . 

. . The Saturnalia in Rome provided the model for most of the merry customs of the Christmas 

time."-Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh, 1911), edited by James Hastings, Volume III, 

pages 608, 609. 

But, God inspired the prophet Jeremiah to write, 

"Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: Thus saith the LORD, 

LEARN NOT THE WAY OF THE HEATHEN, and be not dismayed at the signs of the heaven 

(astrology!); for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the CUSTOMS OF THE PEOPLE ARE 

VAIN..." (Jeremiah 10:1-3). 

Celebrating birthdays was a particularly Egyptian custom. God plainly commands His people, 

"YOU SHALL NOT COPY THE PRACTICES OF THE LAND OF EGYPT where you dwelt...nor 

shall you follow their laws" (Leviticus 18:3 New Jewish PS-Tanakh). 

Most of the customs God mentioned in Leviticus 18 were sexual practices common among the heathen, and 

common in the world around us, today. But verse 3 of this chapter, where God specifically says we are not to do 

"copy the practices of the land of EGYPT," clearly shows that the celebrations of BIRTHDAYS, so common in 

Egypt, was among the prohibitions stated by Jehovah God. As the Nelson Study Bible states here, the fear was that 

the "Israelites would be tempted to imitate the Canaanites physically, culturally, and religiously" as they had been 

when they were dominated by the Egyptians. 

Charles Ryrie adds here, "The standards of God's people were not to be dictated by the practices of Egypt or Canaan 

but by the Lord Himself." Ryrie Study Bible/NIV 

He then cross-references to Deut 18:9, which says, "When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do 

not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there." NIV 



The Companion Bible, Rainbow Study Bible KJV, Life Application Study Bible NASB, New Inductive Study Bible 

NASB, Hebrew-Greek Word Study, Prophecy Study Bible, The NASB Reference Edition Bible, Barnes Notes Bible 

Commentary, New World Translation-Reference Edition, the NASB Study Bible (Zondervan) and the MacArthur 

Study Bible all cross-references Jeremiah 10:2 right back to Lev 18:3, as mentioned above: 

"After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do." Egypt, where birthdays comes from. The 

NIV Study Bible cross-references it with Lev 20:23 stop 

Ryrie's NIV Study Bible acknowledges my intent in using Jeremiah by stating that there is a three-fold contrast 

regarding idolatry, the first of which is as stated: 

"Heathen worship attached great importance to the sun, moon and stars." 

NAB, Jeremiah 10 footnote, "signs of the heavens: phenomena in the sky superstitiously regarded by the pagans as 

dire omens." 

REB Oxford Study Bible, under the heading, "The folly of idolatry and of other 'ways of the nations'", Jeremiah 10 

footnote, "'Omens' were connected with the prohibited worship of astral deities." 

NKJV Nelson Study Bible, Jeremiah 10 footnote, "The signs of heaven were astral deities (8:1-3)." 

RSV Oxford Annotated Bible, Jeremiah 10 footnote, "Signs of the heavens (eclipses, astrological observations)" 

Then too we have the disturbing connection of birthdays with human sacrifices. In 2Maccabees 6:7 there is the 

reference to the monthly celebration of the birthday of Antiochus IV, during which the Jews were forced to partake 

of the sacrifices. Josephus (Wars of the Jews, vii. 3. 1) refers to Titus’ celebration of his brother’s and father’s 

birthdays by slaughtering Jewish captives. 

Could this be why the celebration of Birthdays was shunned by God's people in Bible times? 

"The celebration of the anniversary of an individual's birth, though customary among the ancients, was 

originally frowned upon by the Christians," notes William S. Walsh in his book Curiosities of Popular 

Customs. Historian Walsh goes on to quote from early Christian writings on the subject, saying: "Thus 

Origen, in a homily on Leviticus xii 2, assures his hearers that 'none of the saints can be found who ever 

held a feast or a banquet upon his birthday, or rejoiced on the day when his son or his daughter was 

born. But sinners rejoice and make merry on such days."' 

"The annual celebration of a person's birth probably originated in Egypt, where the birthdays of rulers 

and gods were celebrated with feasts. The early Christians did not celebrate birthdays at all." 

Encyclopedia of Days 

http://www.shagtown.com/days/birthday.html 

"The ancient world of Egypt, Greece, Rome and Persia celebrated the birthdays of gods, kings, and 

nobles...Although the ancient Israelis kept records of the ages of their male citizens, there is no 

evidence that they had any festivities on the anniversary of the birth date" (Encyclopedia Americana 

1991). 

"Christians of the first century did not celebrate the festival honoring the birth of Jesus-for the same 

reason they honored no other birthday anniversary. It was the feeling at that time by all Christians that 

the celebration of all birthdays (even the Lord's) was a custom of the pagans." Dr. John C. McCollister's 

The Christian Book of Why 

To early Christians astrology was associated with Eastern religions, Roman Stoicism and the twisted thinking of the 

Gnostics. Christians wanted no part of that! 

But you may think, what is wrong with astrology and horoscopes? After all, many nominal Christians participate in 

this practice. 

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, 'All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to 

Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to ‘unveil’ the future. 

Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of 

clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last 

analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, 



respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone' (CCC 2116). 

The pagan world was dominated by belief in astrology. Pagans believed that the stars were divinities, or 

that they were controlled by divinities. Apollo was the god of the sun, his sister Diana was the goddess 

of the moon, and the known planets were named after gods as well (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and 

Saturn). Because of this common pagan belief, the Old Testament contains repeated injunctions against 

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). 

In the New Testament age, astrologers taught that all things were in the grip of Fate, which could assign 

one destiny to one man and another destiny to another. Fate was extremely powerful and sometimes 

was even said to rule the gods. However, what destiny Fate would assign to a man could be determined 

by reading the stars. 

Today some Christians are influenced by revived paganism in the form of the New Age movement. 

Some even suggest that Christianity originally held many occult beliefs, such as astrology. But the early 

Christians, like the early Jews, were vehemently opposed to astrology, even attributing it to demonic 

origin. 

The Church Fathers were willing to impose strong sanctions against astrology to protect their flocks. In 

A.D. 120, the noted mathematician Aquila Ponticus was excommunicated from the Church at Rome for 

astrological heresies." 

From http://www.catholic.com/library/Astrology.asp 

Astrology cannot be combined with Christian belief in any way. It is condemned explicitly in the Bible (Isaiah. 

47:13-14), and implicitly in passages condemning divination and worshipping the heavens (Deut. 4:19, 17:3, 

18:9-12; 2 Kings 17:16; Jer. 10:2; Acts 7:42). Attributing special meaning to planetary positions honors celestial 

bodies over God and is a rejection of God's command to seek His advice (Is. 8:19-20; Dan. 2:27-28). 

Thus, 

"In the Bible there is no instance of birthday celebrations among the Jews themselves," points out 

M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopædia, adding: "In fact, the later Jews at least regarded birthday 

celebrations as parts of idolatrous worship." 

"The notion of a birthday festival was far from the ideas of the Christians of this period in general." 

[The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries (New York, 1848), 

Augustus Neander (translated by Henry John Rose), p. 190.] "The later Hebrews looked on the 

celebration of birthdays as a part of idolatrous worship, a view which would be abundantly confirmed 

by what they saw of the common observances associated with these days." [The Imperial 

Bible-Dictionary (London, 1874), edited by Patrick Fairbairn, Vol. I, p. 225.] 

Of course, astrology may not have been the only connection known to early Christians. Birthdays had strong 

connections with pagan religions that are less noticeable today. 

"The custom of commemorating the day of birth is connected . . . in its content, with certain primitive 

religious principles," Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics. 

What principles? 

Spiritism, for one. 

http://www.birthdayexpress.com/bexpress/planning/BirthdayCelebrations.asp 

"History of Birthdays 

Before humans had a way of keeping time, no one paid much attention to the anniversary of important 

events, such as birthdays. Only when ancient peoples began taking notice of the moon's cycles, did they 

pay attention to the changing seasons and the pattern that repeated itself over and over. Eventually, the 

first calendars were formulated in order to mark time changes and other special days. From this 

tracking system came the ability to celebrate birthdays and other significant anniversaries the same day 

each year. 

Evidence of birthday observances dates back before the rise of Christianity. In pagan cultures, people 

feared evil spirits - especially on their birthdays. It was a common belief that evil spirits were more 

dangerous to a person when he or she experienced a change in their daily life, such as turning a year 



older. As a result, birthdays were merry occasions celebrated with family and friends, who surrounded 

the person of honor with laughter and joy in order to protect them from evil. Instead of gifts, most 

guests brought positive thoughts and happy wishes for the upcoming year. However, if well-wishers did 

bring gifts, it was considered an especially good influence for the birthday person." 

"The Greeks believed that everyone had a protective spirit or daemon who attended his birth and 

watched over him in life. This spirit had a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the 

individual was born. The Romans also subscribed to this idea. They called the spirit the genius. This 

notion was carried down in human belief and is reflected in the guardian angel, the fairy godmother and 

the patron saint."-The Lore of Birthdays,p. 8, by Ralph and Adelin Linton. 

"The various customs with which people today celebrate their birthdays have a long history. Their 

origins lie in the realm of magic and religion. The customs of offering congratulations, presenting gifts 

and celebrating - complete with lighted candles - in ancient times were meant to protect the birthday 

celebrant from the demons and to ensure his security for the coming year... Down to the fourth century, 

Christianity rejected the birthday celebration as a pagan custom." [Schwbische Zeitung, April 3/4, 

1981, p. 4.] 

If the Christians of the first-century refused to celebrate their own birthdays, it falls on us to follow that same 

pattern. 

True Christians should "fight on for the faith which once and for all God has given to his people." Jude 3 TEV 

These are the ones prophesied in Zephaniah 3:9, where Jehovah "will restore to the peoples a pure language." NKJV 

The Psalmist asks, "Who shall ascend into the hill of Jehovah? And who shall stand in his holy place?" The answer? 

"He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart." Psalm 24:3, 4, cf. Matthew 5:8 

Additionally, much that is taken for granted in birthday celebrations today retains the flavor of ancient religious 

rites. 

"The custom of lighted candles on the cakes started with the Greeks," say the Lintons. "Philochorus [an 

ancient Greek historian] records that on the sixth day of each month, the birthday of Artemis, [the 

fertility] goddess of the moon and the hunt, honey cakes round as the moon and lit with tapers were 

placed on the temple altars of this goddess." 

What do the candles mean? 

"Birthday candles, in folk belief, are endowed with special magic for granting wishes . . . Lighted tapers 

and sacrificial fires have had a special mystic significance ever since man first set up altars to his gods. 

The birthday candles are thus an honor and tribute to the birthday child and bring good fortune," notes 

the same source. 

How about the traditional greeting "Happy Birthday"? Says The Lore of Birthdays: 

"Birthday greetings and wishes for happiness are an intrinsic part of this holiday. . . . originally the idea 

was rooted in magic. The working of spells for good and evil is the chief usage of witchcraft. One is 

especially susceptible to such spells on his birthday, as one's personal spirits are about at the time. . . . 

Birthday greetings have power for good or ill because one is closer to the spirit world on this 

day."-Page 20. 

Birthdays play a major role even in modern Satanism. 

The Satanic Bible (Anton Szandor LaVey, (Air) Book of Lucifer – The Enlightenment, Avon Books, 1969, Ch XI, 

Religious Holidays, p. 96) has the following to say about Birthdays: 

‘Why not really be honest and if you are going to create a god in your image, why not create that god as 

yourself." Every man is a god if he chooses to recognize himself as one. So, the Satanist celebrates his 

own birthday as the most important holiday of the year. After all, aren’t you happier about the fact that 

you were born than you are about the birth of someone you have never even met? Or for that matter, 

aside from religious holidays, why pay higher tribute to the birthday of a president or to a date in 

history than we do to the day we were brought into this greatest of all worlds? 

Despite the fact that some of us may not have been wanted, or at least were not particularly planned, 



we’re glad, even if no one else is, that we’re here! You should give yourself a pat on the back, buy 

yourself whatever you want, treat yourself like the king (or god) that you are, and generally 

celebrate your birthday with as much pomp and ceremony as possible." 

"The birthday is the most important holiday a member of the Church of Satan can celebrate, as outlined 

by Anton Szandors LaVey in The Satanic Bible. Satanists believe that the most important being is 

themselves, so the day when they first breathe is the best day among all others." Exquisitor 

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Birthday 

What did Satan tell Eve? "You will be like God!" Gen. 3:5 NRSV 

Jehovah's Witnesses have long recognized the selfishness behind celebrating birthdays: 

"Additionally, birthday celebrations tend to give excessive importance to an individual, no doubt one 

reason why early Christians shunned them. (Ecclesiastes 7:1)" sj 17-18 

"A birthday party, however, is a day set aside regularly, each year, to honor a human. Could not such a 

procedure easily result in excessive adulation of sinful creatures? (Rom. 3:23) When the apostle John 

fell down to worship before a sinless heavenly angel who had shown to John visions of future events, 

the angel cautioned: "Be careful! Do not do that! All I am is a fellow slave of you and of your brothers . 

. . Worship God." (Rev. 22:9) Are not we today even more inclined toward adulation of created 

persons?" Awake 76 7/8 27-8 

Satan also told Eve, "You surely will not die!" Genesis 3:4. Another lie. 

Commenting on Genesis 40:20, Dr. Adam Clarke observes: 

"The distinguishing [of] a birthday by a feast appears from this place to have been a very ancient 

custom. It probably had its origin from [the] notion of the immortality of the soul, as the 

commencement of life must appear of great consequence to that person who believed he was to live for 

ever." 

How much more evidence is needed before we completely discard this selfish and destructive practice? 

Some though, like Greg Stafford, have used the pagan background of certain wedding customs accepted by JW's as 

an allowance for the celebration of birthdays amongst Christians. But is this a fair comparison? 

Weddings: 

"In the same light, I know of no Jehovah's Witnesses who would think twice about partaking of a 

wedding cake even though this practice is associated pagan customs. In ancient times, the cake was a 

symboly of fertility. After the bread or cake was broken the bride was the first one to eat it, so as to 

preserve her fertility. Thereafter those partaking would do so as a gesture of 'good luck' for the married 

couple.... The same is true for the wearing of veils and wedding rings, customs that are surrounded by 

superstition. For example, the wearing of the ring on the third finger...of the left hand was done because 

ancient customs believed it had a vein running straight to the heart. In some ancient cultures the ring 

was also thought to protect its wearer from evil spirits...In ancient times veils of various colors, 

especially red and yellow were used to ward of evil spirits. The fact that this tradition is pagan in origin 

does not of itself make it unfit for Christians..." Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah's 

Witnesses, Greg Stafford, p. 207 

I have a few problems with the above statement, as it is used as a pretext to delve into the unscriptural celebrations 

of Birthdays, as mentioned above. For instance, are veils at weddings truly pagan in origin? 

Veils: 

Speaking of marriages in the Bible, the Harper-Collins Bible Dictionary says: 

"The bride wore her finest clothes, many jewels (Isa. 61:10), and a veil (Gen. 29:23-25; Song of Sol. 

4:1)." 

The book, Insight on the Scriptures expands on this: 



"She decked herself with ornaments and jewels, if she was able to do so (Isa 49:18; 61:10; Re 21:2), 

and then covered herself with a light garment, a form of veil, that extended from head to foot. (Isa 3:19, 

23) This explains why Laban could so easily practice a deception on Jacob so that Jacob did not know 

that Laban was giving him Leah instead of Rachel. (Ge 29:23, 25) Rebekah put on a head covering 

when she approached to meet Isaac. (Ge 24:65) This symbolized the subjection of the bride to the 

bridegroom-to his authority.-1Co 11:5, 10." 

Pagan origin indeed?! 

While the yellow and red veils were worn to ward of evil spirits in pagan circles, we can hardly condemn them, 

especially as the Bible mentions them about 55 times. It simply has strong Biblical grounding: 

"Today, prior to a Jewish wedding ceremony, it is the groom who ritually "veils the bride". This reason 

for this tradition goes back to the marriage of Jacob to Leah (the older sister) when he thought he was 

marrying Rachel (the younger sister) whom he loved." HISTORICAL WEDDING TRADITIONS 

AND OTHER TRIVIA, 1997-2002, Kendricks Designer Images 

At best we have overlapping traditions, with the pagan custom not leading us to an occultic function or an heathen 

deity. 

We can thus dismiss veils as a pagan device in honor of any deity or custom deemed abominable in the Bible, and 

henceforth remove it as a comparison to birthdays. 

Rings: The Bible has little mention of rings, though Hosea 2, which is called the "most developed form" of "marital 

metaphor in the OT" [Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 200] describes the unfaithful Jewish bride as someone 

who "has decked herself with her ring and jewelry" [Hosea 2:13 NRSV, no less effective if it is a nose-ring or 

earring]. 

Even if the Bible does not directly mention wedding rings, it is plain that Jehovah's servants could wear rings. (Job 

42:11, 12; Luke 15:22) 

It is true that, "the wearing of the ring on the third finger...of the left hand was done because ancient customs 

believed it had a vein running straight to the heart" but this is only one historical aspect of the ring. 

"THE ENGAGEMENT AND WEDDING RINGS 

Like the cake, the wedding ring also has its origins in early Roman times. During this period, Gold was 

a highly valued substance, and the wedding ring was made of gold as a symbol of eternal love and 

commitment. Some of these had a key carved onto them, as it was thought that the bride could use this 

to unlock her husband's heart. The engagement ring, however, has an entirely different history. In 860 

A.D, Pope Nicholas the first stated that a gold ring was to be the official statement of a couple's 

decision to marry. The gold was intended to signify the financial sacrifice on the part of the groom. 

This ring later became known as the 'engagement ring'. During the 15th century, it became tradition that 

the engagement ring should contain a diamond, as the diamond's hardiness was meant to symbolise that 

the bonds of marriage would last forever." 

http://www.bridalnet.com.au/tradition_01.htm 

That many ancients thought that the third finger was connected to the heart is true, but this was also a view held by 

physicians of the time. It might also be mentioned as a silly romantic notion, but I have yet to see evidence that this 

symbol of commitment had any strong religious association with a pagan deity or occult practice. 

From w72 p.63: 

"It is thus seen that the precise origin of the wedding ring is uncertain. Even if it were a fact that pagans 

first used wedding rings, would that rule such out for Christians? Not necessarily. Many of today's 

articles of clothing and aspects of life originated in pagan lands. The present time divisions of hours, 

minutes and seconds are based on an early Babylonian system. Yet, there is no objection to a Christian's 

using these time divisions, for one's doing so does not involve carrying on false religious practices." 

We can also dismiss rings as a pagan device in honor of any deity or custom deemed abominable in the Bible, and 

thereby removing it as a comparison to birthdays. 



Wedding Cakes: Wedding cakes were indeed used as a symbol of fertility, and many wedding traditions are full of 

fertility symbols. This is only to be expected, since this was the original divine purpose weddings, a view shared by 

pagans also. 

"God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.'" Gen 1:28 

The wedding cake traditions have of course changed over time: 

"The Ancient Romans would bake a cake made of wheat or barley and break it over the bride's head as 

a symbol of her fertility. It became tradition to pile up several small cakes, one on top of the other, as 

high as they could, and the bride and groom would kiss over the tower and try not to knock it down. If 

they were successful, it meant a lifetime of prosperity. 

This is of course a little different from the tradition of today, which was refined in the 17th century. 

In the 1660s, during the reign of King Charles II, a French chef was visiting London and observed the 

cake piling ceremony. Appalled at the haphazard manner in which the British stacked baked goods, 

often to have them tumble, he conceived the idea of transforming the mountain of bland biscuits into an 

iced, multi-tiered cake sensation." 

There are many references in the Bible of God's people eating cakes (1 Ki 17:13; 19:6; 2Ki 20:7 etc), but we can 

hardly compare this to certain wedding customs, such as throwing rice and the bridal toss, which would give glory to 

the "god of Good Luck" (Is 65:11 NWT). Weddings are festive occasions where food and wine are shared by all 

sorts of people, and this is how the Kingdom is described: 

Matt 22:2 "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son." NASB (cf. 

Matt 22:11) 

We certainly do not want to be compared to "the things that demons teach...men with seared consciences who forbid 

people to marry and insist on abstinence from certain kinds of food that God created." 1 Tim 4:3 Goodspeed 

The hope that a couple could conceive held a higher importance in Bible times as it does today. Barrenness was 

considered a social disgrace as children provided valuable security and were viewed as essential links to continue 

each family’s lineage and honor. Barrenness was so hated and spurned, it was often referred to as a curse. Hence, it 

is common to find fertility customs associated with certain wedding practices. 

That there is an overlap in some wedding customs and traditions was long recognized. In the Song of Solomon 3:11 

and Revelation 12:1 we have "crowns" used as part of the Biblical wedding imagery, yet this was also the case with 

pagans: 

"Marriage, too, decks the [pagan] bridegroom with its crown." Tertullian (c. 211, W), 3.101. [As quoted 

in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David W. Bercot, Editor] 

Jehovah's Witnesses have been careful to only partake in celebration, like weddings, that show a divine and Biblical 

origin, and to reject birthdays, as they bear origins leading back to pagan deities and occultic backgrounds. This has 

been the dividing line used. Though accepting weddings as a divine institution, they have even been careful to warn 

of certain customs, like rice-throwing and the bridal-toss, for fear of breaking the commandment at Exodus 20:3, 

and giving honor to the gods of good luck, such as the Aramean Gad, and the unknown god Meni. [See footnote 

Isaiah 65:11 in the New Jerusalem Bible] 

While breaking cakes over the heads of the bride and groom may have signified "good luck," let's face it, no one 

really breaks cakes today. 

What many overlook is the importance that marriages and weddings play in the Bible, and how this compares to our 

relationship with the Creator. 

Consider the following from Smith's Bible Dictionary: 

"The bridegroom prepared himself for the occasion by putting on a festive dress, and especially by 

placing on his head a handsome nuptial turban. (Psalms 45:8; Solomon 4:10,11) The bride was veiled. 

Her robes were white, (Revelation 19:8) and sometimes embroidered with gold thread, (Psalms 

45:13,14) and covered with perfumes! (Psalms 45:8) she was further decked out with jewels. (Isaiah 

49:18; 61:10; Revelation 21:2) When the fixed hour arrived, which was, generally late in the evening, 

the bridegroom set forth from his house, attended by his groomsmen (Authorized Version 

"companions," (Judges 14:11) "children of the bride-chamber," (Matthew 9:15) preceded by a band of 



musicians or singers, (Genesis 31:27; Jeremiah 7:34; 16:9) and accompanied by persons hearing 

flambeaux, (Jeremiah 25:10) 2 Esdr. 10:2; (Matthew 25:7; Revelation 18:23) and took the bride with 

the friends to his own house. At the house a feast was prepared, to which all the friends and neighbors 

were invited, (Genesis 29:22; Matthew 22:1-10; Luke 14:8; John 2:2) and the festivities were protracted 

for seven or even fourteen days. (Judges 14:12; Job 8:19) The guests were provided by the host with 

fitting robes, (Matthew 22:11) and the feast was enlivened with riddles, (Judges 14:12) and other 

amusements. The last act in the ceremonial was the conducting of the bride to the bridal chamber, 

(Judges 15:1; Joel 2:16) where a canopy was prepared. (Psalms 19:5; Joel 2:16) The bride was still 

completely veiled, so that the deception practiced on Jacob, (Genesis 29:23) was not difficult. A newly 

married man was exempt from military service, or from any public business which might draw him 

away from his home, for the space of a year, ( 24:5) a similar privilege was granted to him who was 

’betrothed. ( 20:7)" 

There is rejoicing, there is happiness, the festivities are long and are enjoyed by all. The same is true for those who 

have Jehovah as their husbandly owner (Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 3:14). God's relationship with his wife can be used as 

an example of the commitment and the adoration expected from a husband towards his wife. This relationship bears 

a typical connection to the inexhaustible love that God through Christ has towards those he calls his own (see Eph. 

3:18, 18). This theme is even better developed at Ephesians 5:21-27. 

Jehovah's Witnesses realize this relationship. For us, a celebration of the marriage union is a celebration of the 

family unit, and exemplifies our relationship with Jehovah God. Why, our first commercial in years was a 

celebration of the family (see http://www.jw-media.org/edu_videos/default.htm ) 

The wedding celebration, with all its quirks, becomes a way for Jehovah's Witnesses to celebrate the family, to 

celebrate God's marital arrangement. It is a celebration of the US (and the hope of procreating more of US), not the 

ME. This makes it the anti-Satanism. 

Above all though, it is a celebration of LOVE. 

"Clothe yourselves with love, for it is a perfect bond of union." Col 3:14 NWT 

"Rejoice with the wife of your youth." Prov 5:18 NWT 

"A man's greatest treasure is his wife-she is a gift from the LORD." Proverbs 18:22 CEV 

We do not have this positive praise Biblically with the celebrations of birthdays, or the self. Rather, "It's selfish and 

stupid to think only of yourself and to sneer at people who have sense." Prov 18:1 CEV 

There is little that is positive to be associated with anything having to do with birthdays from a Biblical, common 

sense, historical, pagan and satanic perspective. 

A common objection to the above statement from many, including Mr. Stafford is, "who really makes any such 

association today?" 

Greg Stafford has been a great defender of the Divine Name "Jehovah" and would argue against the disappearance 

of the Name from public view. Yet, most people who purchase a Bible translation from the local store will more 

than likely either buy a New International Version, a King James Version, a New King James Version, a New 

Living Translation, a New American Bible, a New American Standard Bible, a New Revised Standard Version, a 

Good News Translation, a Contemporary English Version etc. All these Bibles have removed the Divine Name [the 

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 Bible 

today do not associate the name YHWH with the God of the Scriptures. Who really makes such an association 

today? This ignorance amounts to negligence on the part of translators and bespeaks of the apathy of those who are 

unwilling to investigate its origins. 

Ignorance may be bliss, but it should never be accomodated. The same goes for our investigations of certain 

customs. 

"Try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead expose 

them." Ephesians 8:10, 11 

"Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good." 3 John 11 

"Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." Romans 12:9 

"What harmony has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has 

the temple of God with idols? 2 Corinthians 6:15 



(The Common Edition New Testament by Timothy E.Clontz) 

By Heinz Schmitz 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

Addition: It should be noted that the same groups that do NOT make such association are not the mindset that we 

should be pandering to. Barna.org gives us an indication of their thought processes: 

http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=92&Reference=D 

"Given the statement "the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches," strong agreement with that 

view ranged from four out of five among those who attend a charismatic or Pentecostal church down to 

just one out of five Episcopalians. Nationally, less than half of all adults (41%) believe the Bible is 

totally accurate in all it teaches. 

Most Americans do not accept evangelism as a personal responsibility: only one-third (32%) claim they 

have an obligation to share their religious faith with those who believe differently. Acceptance of that 

responsibility was most widely adopted by those who attend Pentecostal churches (73%) and least 

widely accepted among Episcopalians (12%) and Catholics (17%). 

The notion that Satan, or the devil, is a real being who can influence people's lives is regarded as 

hogwash by most Americans. Only one-quarter (27%) strongly believes that Satan is real while a 

majority argues that he is merely a symbol of evil. Mormons are the group most likely to accept the 

reality of Satan's existence (59%) while Catholics, Episcopalians and Methodists are the least likely 

(just one-fifth)." 

http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PageCategory.asp?CategoryID=7 

"Almost two out of three adults (62%) know that the Book of Isaiah is in the Old Testament. One out of 

ten people (11%) believe it is in the New Testament. One out of four (27%) don’t know. (1994) 

12% of adults believe that the name of Noah’s wife was Joan of Arc. (The Bible does not provide her 

name.) (1997) 

One out of six people (16%) believe that one of the books in the New Testament is the Book of 

Thomas, written by the apostle Thomas. Another one-third of the population are not sure whether or not 

there is such a book in the New testament of the Bible. (1994)" 

http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PageCategory.asp?CategoryID=6 

"A majority of all born again Christians reject the existence of the Holy Spirit (52%). (2001) 

More than two out of every five adults (43%) believe that Jesus Christ lived on earth He committed 

sins. (2001) 

Across ethnicity, 46% of Hispanics, 43% of whites, and 38% of blacks agree with the idea that "when 

He lived on earth, Jesus Christ was human and committed sins, like other people." (2001) 

One out of four people (22%) believe that Jesus Christ never got married because he was a priest and 

priests did not marry. (1994) 

Nearly three out of five adults (58%) say that the devil, or Satan, is not a living being but is a symbol of 

evil. (2001) 

45% of born again Christians deny Satan's existence. (2001) 

Nearly seven out of ten Catholics (68%) say the devil is non-existent, compared to 60% of Protestant 

mainline church attenders, 51% of Baptists and 50% of Protestant non-mainline church attenders who 

agree that Satan is only a symbol of evil. (2001) 

Men emerge as slightly more likely than woman to believe that Satan is just a symbol of evil (61% to 

55%, respectively). (2001)" 

Why would you want to ingratiate ourselves to such an ignorant lot. The thing that separates Jehovah's Witnesses 

from other faiths is our need to "make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine." 1 Thess. 5:21 

I feel it is wrong to exploit the weaknesses of nominal xtianity to buttress our own position. 



Back to Home 

Email Me 


A Reply to James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom 

A Reply to 

James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom 

at http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html 

and http://www.tektonics.org/jwsandjesus.html 

"My lord has wisdom like that of an angel of God-he knows everything that happens in the land." 2 Sam 

14:20 NIV 

Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the American Standard Version (ASV) 1901 

JPH: In order to support the traditional Christian view of the relationship of Jesus to the Father, we must 

understand the background for certain claims about the nature and identity of Jesus in the New Testament. 

Reply: Should we try to find support for the traditional [Trinitarian] view, or the view "which God 

entrusted to his people once and for all." Jude 3, NEB 

"Inasmuch as their individual salvation depends on holding faith, which involves receiving 

and believing Christian dogma, they find it very difficult to ask themselves how doctrine 

developed. If it developed historically, can it be what it must be in order to be a faith 

capable of saving us, the 'faith once delivered to the saints'? 

It is a simple and undeniable fact historical fact that several major doctrines that now 

seem central to the Christian faith-such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of 

the deity of Christ-were not present in a full and well-defined, generally accepted form 

until the fourth of fifth centuries. If they are essential today-as all of the orthodox creeds 

and confessions assert-it must be because they are true. If they are true, then they must 

always have been true; they cannot have become true in the fourth or fifth century. But if 

they are both true and essential, how can it be that the early church took centuries to 

formulate them?" 

Heresies, p. 20, by Harold O.J. Brown 

"The Christology of the apologies, like that of the New Testament, is essentially 

subordinationist. The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of the 

Old Testament. . . .What we find in these early authors, then, is not a doctrine of the Trinity. 

. . .Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinationist." Grant, 

Robert McQueen (b.1917-d.?). Gods and the One God. 1st ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster 

Press, c1986), pp. 109, 156, 160. BL785 .G69 1986 / 85-011443. 

Instead of a developed Catholic theology that Holding is clinging to desperately, would not the first 

realization of Christianity naturally be the best, as opposed to a later one that is tainted and 

homogenized? 

"It follows from this premise that any 'development' of Christianity must be seen as a decline." p. 68, The 

Real Jesus, Luke Timothy Johnson 

Starting with an incorrect a priori assumption is never a way one must conduct research. 

JPH: Proverbs 8:22-30 "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I 

was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was 

brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, 

before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest 

part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the 

face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 

When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed 

the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, 

rejoicing always before him..." 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/sophia.htm (1 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:09 AM]


This passage is one of several in the Old Testament (see Ps. 58:10, 107:42; Job 11:14) in which abstract 

qualities are 

personified, following an Ancient Near Eastern tradition of personification. (Derek Kidner, The Wisdom of 

Proverbs, Job and 

Ecclesiastes, 44.) Here, and in other parts of Proverbs, Wisdom "makes claims for herself which are 

elsewhere made only by, 

or for, God." 

Reply: Here JPH quotes from the KJV. Another alternative rendering that must strongly be considered is 

from the Revised Standard Version: 

"The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I 

was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was 

brought forth ["I was born" New Jerusalem Bible], when there were no springs abounding 

with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth ["I 

came to birth" NJB]; before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of 

the world. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face 

of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the 

deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his 

command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a 

master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always." 

Are these verses only personified abstract qualities? Let us take a look at JPH's proof-texts, starting with 

Ps 58:10: 

"Sooner than your pots can feel the heat of thorns, whether green or ablaze, may he sweep them away!" 

This verse, and the ones before them give examples of what some are likened to. I don't see 

personification here. 

Ps 107:42: "The upright see it and are glad; and all wickedness stops its mouth." 

Again, no personification here. It simply is another way of saying that "the wicked are stricken silent." 

NLT 

Job 11:14: "If iniquity is in your hand, put it far away, and let not wickedness dwell in your tents." 

Again, this is not really a parallel personification to Wisdom, is it? It basically means to "leave all 

iniquity behind you." NLT 

Where do we any of these supposed examples talking, as Wisdom does? 

Additionally, where does Wisdom make claims only reserved for God, if Wisdom is "created", "born" 

and given "birth" to? 

The Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible Jamieson, Fausset, Brown 

"(1) Though described as with God, wisdom is not asserted to be God." 

JPH: I found Stafford a very amusing read in ways because although he has some hints about Wisdom, he 

doesn't see the connection and how it refutes his view of Jesus -- most likely because he has no view at all 

into the intertestamental literature that founded the "crucial conceptual category" that the NT writers put 

Jesus into. In this light, I found much of Stafford's material quite irrelevant. The question, "Is Jesus 

Jehovah?" doesn't require a yes or no answer from our side. Wisdom covers this -- Jesus may have been 

going around as "Jehovah" (Yahweh) at times in the OT, using that name in his pre-incarnate dealings, but 

Proverbs 8, as we show in the linked essay, would suggest that there isn't a one-to-one correspondence. 

Reply: I find Holding's review of Stafford's book *amusing*, as he absolutely ignores the EVIDENCE, 

and even misrepresents his findings. Why is the birth imagery in Stafford simply glossed over in JPH's 

article? 

In Ps 139:13 we have the psalmist saying that God "knit me together in my mother's womb." Job 10:11 

has Job saying to God "clothe me with skin and flesh, and weave me of bone and sinew." 



"The process of gestation in both cases is described metaphorically in terms of a craft. 

Furthermore, significantly for our structural study is the fact that in Ps 139:13 [qanah] 

parallels [sakhak, 'weave together'], which is the same situation we have here in Prov 

8:22-23. While the usual meaning of the root qanah is >>to buy or acquire,


Is Wisdom used only ONE WAY in the Bible? No (see below)! What does 2 Enoch 33:4 really say? 

"There is no counselor and no successor, only myself, eternal, not made by hands. My unchanging 

thought is (my ) counselor, and (my) word is my deed. And my eyes behold all things. If I turn my face 

away, then all falls into destruction; but if I look at it, then all is stable." 

There is no mention of Wisdom as advisor here at all! The closest mention of wisdom is the preceding 

verse where we have God using wisdom to write books. 

God here is not made by hands, yet Wisdom in Prov 8 is pictured as a handiwork of God. 

Wisdom was not His advisor, His thoughts were. The above should give one pause as to the lengths some 

people will go to, to buttress an errant theology. 

Though not mentioned in JPH's article, Bauckham then goes on to assert, according to 1 Enoch 84:2, 3, 

(and Wisdom 9:4, 10) that Wisdom is sitting besides God's throne, and that this is "not parallel to the 

depictions of exalted angels." 

Firstly, my copy of Enoch 84 says nothing of the kind, and it is described as difficult, as Bauckham's 

translation of it is stated as a scribal "emendation." [1 Enoch, A New Translation by E. Isaac] Secondly, 

Wisdom 9 is sufficient however as one sitting by God's throne, but Bauckham completely ignores Enoch 

3, where we have the "exalted" angel Metatron, "the lesser YHWH", contradicting this professor, as he 

has special privileges in relation to God's position, for he is the "Prince of the Divine Presence." 

See Footnote 2 

In line also with the Lamb sharing the throne of God (Rev 22:1, 3, cf. 1 Chron 29:23), Metatron also 

becomes enthroned (1 Enoch 55:4; 61:8; 62:1-5; 69:29; 3 Enoch 10:1-3; 16:1). 

But back to our subject, wisdom can have many connotations, but not in Prov 8:22-30. 

"The portrayal of Wisdom in 1.20-33 and ch. 8 is not the same as in the instructions. She is 

no longer spoken of in the third person, but is herself a speaker: apart from the short 

introductions which set the scene (1.20-21; 8:1-3). the whole of these two long poems 

consist of her words, which she delivers in public. Instead of being a shadowy if important 

figure, she now appears as a fully fledged character." The Composition of the Book of 

Proverbs, p. 35, R, N Whybray 

Following this we have "15 ways *wisdom* is used" according to Dake's Annotated Bible: 

1) Human education (Acts 7:22) 

2) Man's wisdom (1 Cor. 1:19-22; 2:1-13) 

3) Human philosophy and religion (Col. 2:23; 1 Cor. 3:19; 2 Cor. 1:12; Gal 1:14) 

4) Earthly, sensual, devilish wisdom (Jas. 3:14-16) 

5) Prophetic anointing (Lk. 11:49) 

6) Godly training (Lk. 2:40, 52) 

7) Anointing to speak (Lk. 21:15; Acts 6; 1 Cor. 2:7) 

8) Ministerial ability (Eph. 1:8, 17; 3:10; Col 1:19, 28) 

9) Christ the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24, 30; Col. 2:3; 3:16) 

10) Divine gift of wisdom (1 Cor. 12:8) 

11) Divine attribute of God (Rom. 11) 

12) Heavenly wisdom (Jas. 3:17-17, 33) 

13) Spirit of revelation (2 Pet. 3:15) 

14) Ability of Christ (Mt. 12:42; 13:54) 

15) Native insight (Rev. 13:18; 17:9) 

Again, it is unreasonable to think there was a time when God did not possess wisdom. He did not need to 

acquire it, or even aspects of it at a later time. 



JPH: A "created" interpretation of qanah is based on false suppositions. Note how qanah is used in other 

passages where the context admits no such meaning: 

Gen. 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have 

gotten a man from the LORD. 

Gen. 25:10 The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth: there was Abraham 

buried, and Sarah his wife.(cf. 33:19, 47:20, 50:13, where others qanah land, obviously not 

"creating" it) 

Lev. 25:15 According to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy 

neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee: 

1 Kings 16:24 And he bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver, and built 

on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built, after the name of Shemer, owner of 

the hill, Samaria. 

All of these should provivde substantial object lessons that merely quoting English versions is a hazardous 

exercise! Now that said, what of qanah? It is not "created"; the word for that is bara in the creation account. 

As noted, Vawter sees Wisdom as an "outside acquisition" of an independent being, a view neither 

Trinitarians nor JWs can accept. No one sees God getting Wisdom or Jesus on cash or credit! But there are 

cites that show that qanah is concerned with the "possession" aspect of the interchange process, rather than 

the "transaction" aspect: 

Gen. 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor 

of heaven and earth: 

Prov. 1:5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding 

shall attain unto wise counsels: 

Prov. 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my 

mouth. 

Clearly "wisdom" is not something we create or acquire from outside; we cultivate our own attributes from 

within. 

Reply: We do not create persons called Wisdom, because we are not creators. Jehovah, as being perfect 

in wisdom, has no need to cultivate it. Proverbs 4:5 parallels "wisdom" with "understanding," clearly the 

personified Wisdom is not referred to here. Holding's article also completely ignores the LXX translation 

of this word. 

The LXX (Septuagint), the very first translation of the Holy Scriptures, made several centuries before 

Christ, and was used by him and by the Apostles, had a variety of words it could have used for Qanah at 

Prov 8:22 [for instance KTAOMAI, LAMBANW, DECOMAI], but it settled on one. The Greek word 

for "Created" is EKTISEN (#2936). It is used at Mark 13:19; 1Tim 4:3 and Revelation 10:6. The 

Septuagint uses this word only once in Proverbs, and that is at chapter 8 verse 22. This is how this word 

(qanah) was understood by the Jews and early Christians in this verse. 

Bullinger states in his Companion Bible: "Heb. kanah. Occurs 86 times in O.T.; rendered 'possess' only 

four times...Sept. and Syr. render it 'created.'" 

From a footnote on the NET translation of Proverbs 8:22 found at www.bible.org: 

“There are two roots in Hebrew, one meaning ‘to possess,’ and the other meaning ‘to 

create.’ The older translations did not know of the second root, but suspected in certain 

places that a meaning like that was necessary (e.g., Genesis 4:1; 14:19; Deuteronomy 32:6). 

Ugaritic confirmed that it was indeed another root. The older versions have the translation 

‘possess’ because otherwise it sounds like God lacked wisdom and therefore created it at the 

beginning. They wanted to avoid saying that wisdom was not eternal. Arius liked the idea of 

Christ as the wisdom of God and so chose the translation ‘create.’ Athanasius translated it, 

‘constituted me as the head of creation.’ The verb occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the 



meaning of ‘to acquire’; but the Greek and the Syriac versions have the meaning ‘create.’ 

Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses 

(‘appointed,’ ‘given birth’) argue for the translation of ‘create’ or ‘establish’ (R. N. 

Whybray, ‘Proverbs 8:22-31 and Its Supposed Prototypes,’VT 15 [1965]: 504-14; and W. 

A. Irwin, ‘Where Will Wisdom Be Found?’ JBL 80 [1961]: 133-42).” Many translators 

render qanahas “created.”. 

“Gesenius gives as the primary meaning of qanah: ‘to get, to gain, to obtain, to acquire.’ Davies gives it 

the meaning of ‘to form or make, to get or acquire, to gain or buy.’ Strong defines qanah as ‘to erect, i.e., 

to create; by extension to procure, especially by purchase.’ ” —The Great Debate, by Robert Wagoner 

The following passages translate in the KJV, the word “qanah” as buy, bought or buyer. 

Gen. 25:10 

33:19 

39:1 

47:19,22,23 

49:30 

50:13 

Exodus 15:16 

21:2 

Leviticus 22:11 

25: 15,28,30,44,45,50 

27:24 

Deuteronomy 28:68 

32:6 

Joshua 24:32 

Ruth 4:4,5,9,10 

2 Samuel 12:3 

24:24 

1 Kings 16:24 

2 Kings 22:6 

1 Chron. 21:24 

Nehemiah 5:16 

Proverbs 20:14 

Ecclesiastes 2:7 

Isaiah 24:2 

43:24 

Jeremiah 13:2,4 

32:7,8,9,,15,25,43,44 

Ezekiel 7:12 

Zechariah 11:5 

13:5 

The following places render “qanah” as obtain, gained, get or gotten. 

Gen 4:1 (acquired, NJB) 

Psalms 74:2 



78:54 

Proverbs 1:5 (acquire, NJB) 

4:5,7 (acquire, NJB) 

15:32 

16:16 

17:16 (buy, NJB) 

18:5, 22 

23:23 (purchase, NJB) 

Isaiah 11:11 

It is rendered as “cause” (making, Young's Literal) at Ezekiel 8:3 

It is rendered “redeemed”(bought, NIV) at Nehemiah 5:8 

It is rendered “possessed’ or “possessor” at: 

Genesis 14:19, 22 and Psalm 139:13 

As we can seen “qanah” always indicates something that was not previously possessed. 

C.F. Burney, in his article, stated: 

"[T]he verb kana [Burney's spelling] always seems to possess the sense ‘get, acquire’, never 

the sense ‘possess, own’ simply, apart from the idea of possessing something which has 

been acquired in one way or another. This clearly appears from examination of the 

usages of the verb in Hebrew, and through comparison of the cognate languages.…To this 

evidence for the Hebrew usage of the verb hnq it is important for our purpose to add the 

proper name Elkana, which can hardly mean anything else than ‘(He whom) God has 

begotten or created’….Whether kana here has the sense ‘beget’ or ‘create’ is 

ambiguous….In face of this evidence we must surely conclude that the ground-meaning of 

kana is that of acquiring something not previously possessed, which may be done by 

buying or making it, in the case of a child by begetting it, in the case of wisdom by 

accumulating it through mental application. (emphasis added)." 

Surely, to contend that Almighty God had to acquire wisdom by mental application, is at variance with 

the data given to us about Him in His Word. 

The Hebrew qanah as created can be viewed in passages like the following: 

Genesis 4:1: “And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, “I have 

gotten [qanah] a man with the help of Jehovah.”—ASV. 

Genesis 14:19: “[A]nd he [Melchizedek] blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, 

Creator [qanah, margin, “or, Possessor”] of heaven and earth.”—NIV. 

Genesis 14:22: “But Abram said to the king of Sodom, ‘I have raised my hand to the LORD God Most 

High, Creator [qanah] of heaven and earth.”—NIV. 

Deuteronomy 32:6: “[I]s this the way you repay the LORD foolish and unwise people? Is he not your 

Father, your Creator [qanah, “he-created you”—The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, 

John R. Kohlenberger III] who made and formed —NIV. 

JPH: Ecclesiasticus 1:1-4 All wisdom cometh from the Lord, and is with him for ever. The sand of the sea, 

and the drops of the rain, And the days of eternity who shall number? The height of the heaven and the 

breadth of the earth And the deep and wisdom, who shall search them out? Wisdom hath been created 

before all things, And the understanding of prudence from everlasting. 

The book of Ecclesiasticus was written by Jesus the son of Sirach in about 100 B.C. It describes Wisdom as 

having been "created before all things," as being "from everlasting" and as comparable to "the days of 

eternity." In this we are in harmony with the Trinitarian view of Jesus as created or generated by the Father 

eternally, that is, finding his source in the Father and having no existence apart from Him, yet also having 



existed eternally as God does. 

Reply: There are several problems with the above. One, Wisdom is not said to be "from everlasting," in 

Ecclesiasticus, that statement was reserved for Prudence. This is also something we see in the 

Pseudepigrapha. In a note on the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, Edited by James H. Charlesworth, he 

states, 

"Special attention is given to Wisdom (sophia). Wisdom is personified and represented as 

the instrument of creation (3:19; 4:7, 38; 12:36). Wisdom is not eternal, however, since 

God is her father (4:38) and creator (5:3)." 

The Prayers cross-reference Prov 8:22. 

Two, even if it was, AIWN(ios)(a)(ion) here does not always mean "everlasting." It actually means 

"age," or "a long time." 

This is can be borne out by considering how other versions treat this. The Revised English Bible has at 

verse 4, "Wisdom was first of all created things, intelligent purpose has existed from the beginning." The 

New Jerusalem Bible has, "Wisdom was created before everything, prudent understanding from remotest 

ages." 

JPH is echoing the same sentiment as Robert Bowman in his Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, p. 

61: 

"Thus [Proverbs] 8:23 says, 'From everlasting I was established...' (NASB); the phrase from 

everlasting is the same phrase used of God in Psalm 90:2, where the JW's recognize that 

God is being described as having no beginning." 

The problem here is that God is Creator in regards to everlasting [olam] (Isaiah 40:28). 

Everlasting/olam is used twice at Ps 90:2, whereas, elsewhere it is used only once for created beings. It is 

used of the forefathers (Joshua 24:2) and the prophets (Jer 28:8). The NASB tells us how the olam here 

should be used, if Bowman would only have completed the verse: 

"From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth." NASB 

Other versions of Proverbs 8:23 bear out the limitations in regards to olam where created beings are 

concerned: 

"From of old" New American Bible 

"I was formed in earliest times." Revised English Bible 

"Ages ago" NRSV 

"I was made in the very beginning." TEV 

"In times long past" NEB etc 

Three, it is an oxymoron to say something is created, but has existed from all time. We have no Biblical 

parallel to compare this phenomenal contradiction with. 

Also ignored is the connection with Wisdom/Sophia and the connection with angels. 

Former Priest and author, Tom Harpur writes that Jewish wisdom literature at the time of Christ spoke of 

the descent and ascent of Wisdom: 

"..it is possible to say that the hypostasized Wisdom of late Jewish writing 'is an anonymous 

heavenly redeemer figure' very similar to those in both Greco-Roman and Christian thought. 

At the same time, Jewish theologizing about angels also made use of the descending and 

ascending pattern for figures of redemption. In Isaiah 63 it was the 'angel of [God's] 

presence' who 'saved' the Israelites-and 'in his love and pity...redeemed them.' Dozens of 

similar instances can be found throughout the Old Testament. Talbert also cites numerous 



instances in extra-Biblical writings in which archangels descend in human form. Some of 

the language used of these angelic redeemers is actually paralleled in the fourth Gospel: in 

the Testament of Abraham, for example, the archangel comes down and tells the patriarch 

'everything which he has heard from the Most High,' while in another work an archangel, 

the 'firstborn of every creature,' descends to earth and 'tabernacles' among men. In all these 

writings there is the taking of bodily form, the successful struggle with evil, and the final 

ascent of the heavenly being. Moreover, in some cases the angel and Wisdom traditions 

merge with each other and with the concepts of the Logos and the first-born son...the 

themes of pre-existence, descent and glorious ascent are found in Philippians 2:6-10, and 

those of descent and exaltation in Romans 1:3-4, while in Galatians 4:4 there is a clear 

reference to Christ as an angel: 'You have received me as an angel of God, even as Christ 

Jesus.'In teaching about Christ as pre-existent, 'the image of the invisible God, the first-born 

of every creature [by whom] all things were created' (Col. 1:15), clearly Paul is describing 

not the historical Jesus whose profile we can discern, however dimly, in the Gospels, but 

with a figure cast in the Wisdom literature speculation-that is, with a mythological 

construct." 

For Christ's Sake, pp. 108, 109 

The mythological construct is in accord with JPH's acknowledgement that cultures also had their 

Wisdom traditions, and the Jews have borrowed this language (as they have with the words hades and 

tartarus) and made it their own. 

The Dictionary of Demons and Deities states, under Wisdom: 

"Philosophers such as the author of the Book of Wisdom took great care not to lose the 

mythological connection which made for good literature, and also attracted those who 

adopted a view of the divine world which retained its plurality while placing Israel's God at 

the top. Christians were no doubt indebted to a two-deity system which reckoned with a 

major god with whom a minor, mediating deity was associated. The minor deity could be 

identified as Yahweh (with El Elyon being the high god; Deut 32:8, 9 with note in BHS), as 

the Son of Man (Dan 7:13, 14) or as the archangel Michael (Dan 12:1). The old 

mythological tradition and the two-deity system helped early Christians in their attempt to 

define the nature and function of Christ." 

Even the suggestion that Wisdom is merely God's attribute does not provide a means of escape. 

Scholar Frances Young observes in talking of Wisdom, 

"Interestingly enough, some of the names of those concretely envisaged beings, the 

archangels, suggest the personification of divine attributes; Gabriel - might of God, Phanuel 

- face of God." 

From Two Roots or a Tangled Mass-The Myth of God Incarnate 

In a review of *Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence*, by Gieschen, the 

following comments are made: 

"Gieschen's conclusions are (1) that angelomorphic traditions "were profoundly employed in 

earliest extant expressions of Christology," (2) that Angel of the Lord traditions in 

particular were very important in contributing to the linking of angelomorphic figures 

intimately identified with YHWH (i.e., the Angel, the Glory, the Name, the Word, 

Wisdom) to the fleshly Jesus who had ascended and was now enthroned," (3) that early 

Christians combined various antecedent traditions in formulating their Christology, and (4) 



that traditions about the invisibility of God were important contributors to the development 

of angelomorphic traditions and to early Christology. Overall, Gieschen contends that 

angelomorphic traditions "were some of the oldest and most significant traditions that 

inspired the Christology which we now find in early Christian literature, including the New 

Testament." Indeed, Gieschen holds that "the central root" from which various early 

christological traditions developed (e.g., Wisdom/Spirit/Name/Glory/Son of 

Man/Image/Anthropos Christologies) is "the angelomorphic tradition in which the Angel of 

the Lord is God appearing in the form of a man."" 

http://www.bookreviews.org/Reviews/9004108408.html 

Metzger makes an interesting point: 

"The dividing line between Wisdom the woman and God can grow hazy. Without the 

introductory verses to Proverbs 1:22-33 one might easily assume that the speaker is not 

Wisdom but God! Theologians have observed that Wisdom functions as a mediator between 

God and humanity...Wisdom's mediating role may have answered a spiritual need earlier 

fulfilled by the king (see Ps. 72:1; 1 Kings 8:22-53)." Oxford Companion to the Bible, 

(under Wisdom) 

That Wisdom often looks indistinguishable from God is also echoed in other works that find it hard to 

tell between God's angel and God Himself. But the language of this use of agency is quite common. 

A.R. Johnson in a monograph entitled The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, states 

the following regarding this form of speech: 

"In Hebrew thought a patriarch’s personality extended through his entire household to his wives, his sons 

and their wives, his daughters, servants in his household and even in some sense his property. The "one" 

personality was present in the "many" who were with him. In a specialized sense when the patriarch’s as 

lord of his household deputized his trusted servant as his malak (i.e. his messenger or angel) the man was 

endowed with the authority and resources of his lord to represent him fully and transact business in his 

name. In Semitic thought this messenger-representative was conceived of as being personally-and in his 

very words-the presence of the sender" (Christology and The Angel of the LORD by John Cunningham). 

Consider the following few examples: 

An angel spoke out of the bush, yet it was God speaking through the angel. In this same event, God gave 

Moses the law and specifically the Ten Commandments. It says in Exodus 20:1-17: 

"I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou 

shalt have no other gods before me." ASV 

But, it was actually God speaking through the angel. Stephen again verifies this in Acts 7:53: 

"You received the law as transmitted by angels, but you did not observe it." NAB 

The law was given to Moses through the angels. As a matter of fact, the whole episode on Mount Sanai 

was God speaking through the angels. Act 7:38 states: 

"This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai, 

and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us." ASV 

In Deuteronomy 29:1-6 we have Moses is speaking to Israel, but then, he is speaking in the first person 

as God. 

"These are the words of the covenant which Jehovah commanded Moses to make with the 



children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made with them in 

Horeb. And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that Jehovah 

did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto 

all his land; the great trials which thine eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders: but 

Jehovah hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. 

And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxed old upon you, 

and thy shoe is not waxed old upon thy foot. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk 

wine or strong drink; that ye may know that I am Jehovah your God." 

These verses start off with Moses speaking as himself and ends with Moses speaking as God in the first 

person. But it is God speaking through Moses to Israel. There are many examples in the Bible of this 

custom of speech. 

"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is 

regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is 

regarded as having been committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish 

Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder 

The idea is that God gives His authority to His representatives. This idea is pivotal in the understanding 

of Jesus because Jesus will be God’s representative par excellence, and Jesus will speak on behalf of 

God. To illustrate the point of God giving His authority to His representatives, take note of the following: 

"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the 

place which I have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke 

him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him. ["He is my 

representative" NLT; "My power is around him" Fenton; "My authority rests in him" REB; 

"I am giving him complete authority" CEV] 

But if thou shalt indeed hearken unto his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an 

enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries." (Exodus 23:20-22 

ASV). 

YHWH’s authority resides in this angel. The angel is God’s representative and thus has the authority of 

God, but the angel is not God. If we apply this concept to our understanding of Jesus, then this will 

provide some clarification. Jesus represents God on earth and will thus speak for God and have His 

authority to forgive sins and to judge. 

"For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I 

should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49). 

"and he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man." (John 5:27). 

"And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven 

and on earth." (Matthew 28:18) 

"Now is come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ" 

(Revelation 12:10). 

" But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins...when the multitudes 

saw it, they were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority unto men."(Matthew 9:6-8). 

Jesus is representing God to the people. He is speaking on behalf of God. He is God's Word. 

This is not a new concept, Moses said exactly this about the future Messiah in Deuteronomy 18:18: 



"I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put my 

words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." 

He is God's word, like others were before him. Under "word" in the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary: 

"Prophets hear and speak what the Lord has spoken to them (Isa. 1:2; 6:8-10), for they are 

primarily recipients and transmitters of the word of the Lord (Jer. 1:2). The NT...usage can 

be seen as a development of the OT. 

Under Word in McKenzie's Bible Dictionary: 

"The word of God in the OT refers most frequently to the word of the prophet." 

Interestingly, Metzger's comments above make mention of 1 Kings 8, which states, 

"But will God in very deed dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens 

cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded!" ASV 

Jehovah far transcends containment by anything he has created. The destructive power that results from 

gazing at God (Ex 33:20) is echoed at 3 Enoch 3 22B:5, 6: 

"What does YHWH, the God of Israel, the glorious king, do? The great God, mighty in 

power, covers his face...otherwise the heaven of Arabot would burst open in the middle, 

because of the glorious brilliance, beautiful brightness, lovely splendor, and radiant praises 

of the appearance of the Holy One, blessed be he." 

We cannot see God, and as a loving result, he is invisible to us. (1 Tim 1:17; John 1:18; Col 1:15) 

So he sends a lesser Jehovah, Jesus Christ, whom we can see, just as he has sent his angels in the past. 

When we again, through the view of angelic agency, consider the Wisdom literature and the 

Pseudepigrapha, we are given an insight long ignored: 

Wisdom 10:18 "She brought them over the Red Sea, and led them through deep waters" 

RSV 

Compare: 

Exodus 14:19 "Then the angel of God who went before the host of Israel moved and went 

behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them." See 

also Num 20:16 RSV 

Ex 23:20,21 "Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way and to bring you 

to the place which I have prepared. Give heed to him and hearken to his voice, do not rebel 

against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him. [Compare 3 

Enoch 12:5] 

Wisdom 10:19 "but she [Wisdom] drowned their enemies,and cast them up from the depth of the sea." 

Compare: 

Rev 7:1 "After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four 

winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree." 

Wisdom 10:13 "When a righteous man was sold, wisdom did not desert him, but delivered 

him from sin. She descended with him into the dungeon." 

Compare: 

Daniel 3:25 "He answered, "But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and 

they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the 

gods...Nebuchadnez'zar said, 'Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego, 



who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set at nought the 

king's command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except 

their own God.'" 

Dan 6:22 "Then Daniel said to the king, 'O king, live for ever! My God sent his angel and 

shut the lions' mouths, and they have not hurt me, because I was found blameless before 

him; and also before you, O king, I have done no wrong.'" 

“Then wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people, but she found no dwelling-place. So 

wisdom returned to her place and she settled permanently among the angels.” 1 Enoch 42:1, 2 

Compare: 

"So the Logos (Word) became flesh and dwelt among us." (John 1:14) 

Even when discussing Philo, many have realized that his writings on Wisdom/Logos can be best 

understood with an angelology in view. 

In her "Logos and Its Function in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria: Greek Interpretation of Hebrew 

Thought and Foundations of Christianity: Part One," Marian Hillar writes: 

"The Angel of the Lord, Revealer of God: 

Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture (Gen. 31:13; 

16:8; etc) by an angel of the Lord (Somn. 1.228-239; Cher. 1-3). The Logos is the first-born 

and the eldest and chief of the angels. 

Intermediary Power: 

The fundamental doctrine propounded by Philo is that of Logos as an intermediary power, a 

messenger and mediator between God and the world. 

And the father who created the universe has given to his archangel and most ancient Logos a 

pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separate that which had been created 

from the Creator. And this same Logos is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on 

behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the 

ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Logos rejoices.... saying 

"And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and you" (Num. 16:48); neither being uncreated 

as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a 

hostage, as it were, to both parties (Her. 205-206)." 

From the Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman: 

"Philo, as far as I know, ascribed no 'condescension' to his Logos, for he considered him a 

creature, or, at least, an emanation, as well as his companion Angel. He speaks of him as a 

second God (vid. Euseb. Præp. Ev. vii. 13, p. 323, ed. 1688); as an Archangel between God 

and man, neither increate nor a creature, an intercessor with God, a messenger from Him 

(Quis hæres, p. 509), as the first-born Son, His Viceroy (de Agricult. p. 195), the created 

idea or plan, the [kosmos noetos] on which the visible world was made (de Opif. mund. p. 5, 

Quis hæres, p. 512). There is nothing then in him which needs explanation when he speaks 

of the Almighty and His two ministering attendants; but if a writer such as Irenæus uses 

language of a like character, he must be interpreted, not by Philo, but by other statements of 

his own and by the doctrine of his brother theologians. Indeed, when closely inspected, the 

doubtful language of this great Father explains itself." 

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/arianism/section10.html 



From A Dictionary of Angels, by Gustav Davidson: 

"In Enoch II, 33, wisdom is hypostasized. God orders wisdom, on the 6th day of Creation, 

'to make man of seven substances.' In Reider, The Book Of Wisdom, wisdom is the 'assessor 

on God's throne,' the instrument or divine agent (i.e. angel) 'by which all things were 

created.' [Cf. the Logos of Philo.] According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, 'Angel,' the term 

'angel of the Lord' finds a 'counterpart in the personification of wisdom in the Sapiential 

books, and in at least one passage (Zachariah 3:1) it seems to stand for that Son of Man 

whom Daniel (Daniel 7:13) saw brought before the Ancient of Days." p. 312, 

The belief that Michael the Archangel was the same as the Word/Wisdom, was carried over by Philo of 

Judea who, ‘identified the Logos with the archangel Michael.’ (Formation of Christian Dogma, Professor 

Martin Werner, page 133) 

"The counterpart of this is afforded by an identification of Christ with the archangel Michael, an 

identification which is made in the Shepherd of Hermas. ... According to the early Christian writing Of 

The Threefold Fruits, Christ, as one of the seven archangels of God, was created ‘from fire’ and exalted 

to the status of ‘Son.’" (Formation of Christian Dogma, 

Professor Martin Werner, page 135) 

FIRST OXFORD LECTURE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTOLOGY 

by Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis: 

"1. Most discussion of the LOGOS has, understandably focused on Philo. I don't want to get 

embroiled in the highly sophisticated world of Philo, except to say that there is a steadily 

increasing body of opinion that, in actual fact his ideas are very Jewish in origin if not in 

expression. His use of LOGOS/LOGOI language is best understood as an adaptation to 

a Hellenistic idiom of the peculiarly Jewish language of angels. 

Long before Philo, Greek speaking Jews had used Logos language as an alternative to Angel 

of LORD. As Jarl Fossum has pointed out, a key passage in this respect in Ezekiel the 

Tragedian's Exagoge 96-99. In this passage Moses' encounter with the burning bush is retold 

and where the biblical account (Exodus 3) has the Angel of the LORD in the bush, Ezekiel 

has a divine Logos. Logos language, then, is Angel of the Lord language, (cf. also Wisdom 

of Solomon 18:15f, reworking 1Chron 21:16. 

2. Similarly, though Wisdom has had her own independent history within Israelite culture, 

she has already been identified with the Angel of the LORD long before early Christianity. 

This is clear from Sirach 24:4 where Wisdom takes up the position of the Angel of the 

LORD in the cloud of Exodus 14:19 and Wisdom of Solomon 9:1-2, 18:15-16 where 

Wisdom, Logos and Angel of the Lord are equated. 

Wisdom and Logos, then, both point to the importance of angelic categories as the common 

denominator in Jewish mediatorial speculation." 

"In the 19th century the Berlin Old Testament student, who was also editor of a church newspaper and an 

ecclesiastical politician, Ernest Wilhelm Hengstenberg, in his many-volumed work on the Christology of 

the Old Testament, concentrated upon the Early Christian identification of Christ with the angelic figures 

of the Old Testament, particularly the archangel Michael." (Formation of Christian Dogma, Professor 

Martin Werner, page 137) 

"In the Primitive Christian era there was no sign of any kind of Trinitarian problem or 

controversy, such as later produced violent conflicts in the Church. The reason for this 



undoubtedly lay in the fact that, for Primitive Christianity, Christ was . . . a being of the high 

celestial angel-world, who was created and chosen by God for the task of bringing in, at the 

end of the ages, . . . the Kingdom of God." The Formation of Christian Dogma, pages 122, 

125. "Finally, we bring back for our readers a brief note on Col. 1:15. 

JPH concludes: 

Our friend "Heinz" declared to a reader that Col. 1:15 was in a partitive genitive which made Christ the 

"firstborn" of creation out to be a part of that creation. This would in no sense eliminate an idea of Christ as 

an eternal creation of the Father, but even so, as Helyer points out ("Arius Revisited," JETS Mar. 

1998)there are actually four possible interpretations of the genitive here: 1) partitive (preferred by the 

Arians and the JWs); 2)comparitive (which would exclude Christ from the creation; 3) place (defines the 

sphere of Christ's rule over creation) or 4) objective (relates to the action of the "firstborn" upon the 

creation). Helyer notes that option 1) is excluded by virtue of a) the hoti clause of v. 16 and the pro panta of 

v. 17, which clearly exclude Christ from the realm of created things; b) the language of eikon in v. 15 and 

pleroma in v. 19, which includes Christ in the full deity; c) the parallels to the Wisdom tradition, in which 

Wisdom is not a creation as the rest of creation, but is eternally begotten; d) that the partitive would 

emphasize the -tokos aspect of prototokos (firstborn), something paralleled in the NT only in Luke 2:7. 

Helyer therefore opts for the objective genitive as the intent of the passage." 

Reply: Does the "hoti clause of v. 16 and the pro panta of v. 17" "clearly exclude Christ from the realm 

of created things"? 

The clause at verse 16 says, hOTI EN AUTWi EKTISQH TA PANTA, which Barclay's NT renders, "For 

he is the agent by whom all things were created." 

The 21st Century NT has "It was he that formed all other things in heaven...all came into existence as a 

result of him and by means of him." 

The reason the above Bibles have a different view of this is because Helyer has ignored the passivity of 

the verbs involved. 

The verb EKTISQH ("were created") is passive, hence the subject and object are reversed from the active 

voice. The "him" of AUTWi cannot be the subject because it is part of an adverbial phrase headed by the 

preposition EN ["by means of']. Thus, the TA PANTA ["all things"] was created by an unnamed EN, the 

PRWTOTOKOS. Who created all things EN ["by means of"] Christ? 

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, 

the Father is still the subject while the Son is the intermediate agent identified by the EN clause (EN 

hWi). Verse 15 concentrates on the indirect agent of v. 14, that the indirect agent is EIKWN ["image"] 

and PRWTOTOKOS ["firstborn"], and in verse 16, the Son is indirect agent again because of the EN 

AUTWi ["for he is the agent by whom" Barclay]. 

stop 

The conclusion is that the Father is creator and he creates "EN", or "by means of" the Son. Passive verbs 

and prepositions are used in those verses also in Hebrews 1:2 and John 1:3, and describe Jesus as an 

intermediate agent. 

The concept of *time* is prominent in Col 1:15 - 18 with temporal words like PRWTOTOKOS ( a 

temporal word), ARXH (v. 18) and that he is PRO (before) TA PANTA (v.17). It was the Father's 

purpose (v.18) that the Son be prominent (PRWTEUWN) in all things because of being temporally first, 

as Paul's use of language shows. 

Also ignored is the use of EK, or lack of, in regards to Jesus. 

E. Lohse, "A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon", (The Hermeneia Series) p. 

50, note 125 says: "It should be noted that EN (in), DIA (through), and EIS (for) are used, but not EK 



(from). 'From whom are all things' ( EX hOU TA PANTA) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He is and 

remains the creator, but the pre-existent Christ is the mediator of creation." 

The Son is never called "creator", but he is what Robertson calls "the intermediate agent" According to 

Robertson (Grammar p. 820) the source (direct agent) is most commonly expressed by the Greek 

preposition hUPO ("by"), and sometimes by APO ("from") and EK ("out of"). The intermediate agent is 

often identified by DIA ("through"). Matthew 1:22 points this out nicely: "All this took place because 

what was spoken [aorist passive participle] by [ hUPO] the Lord through [DIA] the prophet must be 

fulfilled [aorist passive subjunctive]." Here "the Lord" is the source and "the prophet" is the intermediate 

agent. In John 1:3 we read " Through (DIA) him all things were made." In Colossians 1:16 we read: "For 

by (EN) him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones 

or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by (DIA) him and for (EIS) him. " Please note 

that the verbs are passive and note the use of prepositions. In the verse we find the preposition EN ("in," 

"by means of"). This preposition governs AUTW ("him," in the dative case). Most of the 74 occurrences 

in the NT of EN AUTWi in the dative case are locative, that is, they refer to something or someone being 

in some place. Only one of the examples points to a source. In the last part of verse 16 we find the 

preposition DIA which governs AUTOU in the genitive case. This is the typical marking of an 

intermediate agent, so this must be the proper way to view the Son in this context. God is the source of 

the passive verbs which speak about creation, and that the Son is the intermediate agent? In Colossians 

1:12 "the Father" is mentioned, and he is active through verse 20. This is seen in verse 19 where God is 

the implied subject for the verb, and it is particularly evident in verse 20, because here both the source 

(God) and the intermediate agent (Jesus) are mentioned. It is said that the reconciliation is "through" 

(DIA) Jesus and "to" (EIS) God. The same thought is expressed in verse 22. The implied source 

(grammatical subject) of the active verb "reconciled" is "God." The intermediate agent is Jesus, for it is 

said that reconciliation occurred "by means of" (EN) his fleshly body and "through" (DIA) his death. 

Even Robert H Countess, though no friend of the NWT, had the following interesting remarks: 

"Even though Liddell-Scott state that the radical sense of DIA is 'through' there can be 

produced instances where the genitive appears to be causal and the accusative to signify 

agency. In general this writer would observe that the so-called causal uses of DIA seem to 

be inextricably linked with agency (i.e. 'by' or 'through'). 

For example, one lexicon cites as causal John 1:3-DI AUTOU EGENETO. [cf. Col. 

1:16-TA PANTA DI AUTOU KAI EIS AUTON EKTISTAI.] God apparently worked 

*through* the Son in creating all things and, therefore, the Son Himself in some sense 

*caused* or created. Another example given is Acts 3:18- O DE QEOS A 

PROKATHGGEILEN DIA STOMATOS PANTWN TWN PROFHTWN. Here the mouth 

of all the prophets is the channel or medium *through which* God announced beforehand 

the sufferings of Christ. The prophets indeed *caused* the message to be proclaimed but 

only inasmuch as their mouths had been selected as channels or media for the divine 

communication." THANK GOD FOR THE GENITIVE, Robert H. Countess, p. 118, JETS, 

Spring 1969 

It is interesting that even Countess has to concede that Christ is the agent of creation, and, as a parallel, 

uses Acts 3:18, denoting a separate body/being as agent. 

All of this works well with Proverbs 8:22-30, where we have the created angel Wisdom/Jesus, helping 

his creator in the creation of the earth, standing beside him as a "master workman." 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 



*Ftn. 1: "The personal commitment and pattern of life of contemporary religious groups orthodox 

Christianity calls deeply heretical, such as Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses, frequently shame 

the orthodox churches. The missionary zeal of both Mormons and Witnesses, for example, is precisely 

what one ought to be able to expect from orthodox Christians of they really believe in the truth of the 

doctrines to which their credal and confessional positions formally commit them." 

*Ftn. 2 Being that it is such a brief book, it cannot anticipate nor deal with all the evidence thoroughly. 

As one reviewer puts it: 

"For example, given Bauckham's thesis, how does divine identity explain the subordination of the Son to 

the Father, a notion found throughout the New Testament? Also, how does divine identity account for the 

counter or ambiguous evidence? In particular, Bauckham admits the exaltation of the Son of Man in 1 

Enoch runs counter to the way Jews distinguished God from all other created beings. Perhaps more 

problematic is the mysterious and allusive Angel of the Lord, a figure with whom Bauckham does not 

deal. Another question needing some clarification has to do with the reasons early Christians included 

Jesus within the unique identity of Israel's God. Obviously, creative scriptural exegesis played an 

important role in how these early theologians envisaged Jesus and expressed their faith. But what caused 

them to read the texts in such a way? Finally, Bauckham writes that the inclusion of Jesus within the 

identity of God was radically novel and "almost unprecedented in Jewish theology" (p. 4). Yet it remains 

unclear what Bauckham thinks the precedents are or the reason why there had to be precedents at all." 

It appears JPH has written a review of my article, but has not bothered to contact me, or link back to me, 

so neither will I. His sub-heading pokes fun at my name Heinz (57 Varieties), something that is 

disturbing and inappropriate in an text aimed at defending the word of God in a Christian manner (see 1 

Peter 3:15). This is something I had noticed in his emails to me also. It is sad that ad hominem jabs must 

be taken by those who cannot control their emotions while failing to admit defeat. 

His criticisms lie in certains words, of which I take the normal definition. Words pertaining to Jesus take 

on a magical transformation in the mind of the brain-washed trinitarian. Anything that contradicts their 

understanding of Christ and God must be incorporated into their view of the godhead. The 3 men at 

Genesis 18 must be understood to be YHWH, as must Wisdom, as must any "intermediate agent", 

"mediators" and even "angel of the LORD", though as I have shown here, this is impossible. 

The trinitarian godhead is so crowded that it would embarrass the average Hindu. 

JPH also does not realize that it was trinitarian theologians that first made the Jesus/Archangel Michael 

connection, a connection that adds to the Wisdom as an angel separate, distinct, a subordinate being other 

than YHWH. 

Trinitarians have to invent words, such as "triune," "uniplural," and of course, "trinity" to make up for the 

Biblical absence of any clear representative to their view of God. Even the words "subordinate" and 

"ONE" must be redressed to meet the theological requirement of a God of substances and essences 

reminiscient to a bowl of Jello. 

Words must be redefined to meet theological requirements, and this can be seen as early as Jerome, who 

changed qanah to "possessed" in Prov 8:22 as a response to Arius, though it was clearly understood as 

"created" or "made" by the ANF. 

"Only-begotten" at John 1:18 has been changed to "God the only Son" (NAB, NRSV) in various Bibles, 

though we have absolutely no mss that bear such a reading. 

"Firstborn" at Col 1:15 has been changed to "primacy" [NEB, REB], even "Producer" [Fenton] in various 



Bibles. 

"The beginning of God's creation" at Rev 3:14 has been changed to "beginner" [Fenton], "originator" 

[HCSB] or "source" [NEB, NAB] despite the fact that translators with out a trinitarian bias, like the 

Jewish Schonfield states that "Clearly, John the Elder himself believed that the heavenly Christ was a 

created being, as did the early Christians" at this Scripture. 

I am sorry that JPH is confined to the prison of words that trinitarians find themselves chained to, words 

that often bear the opposite meaning to those commonly understood by men now, and of ages past. 

The simple fact is, Jesus/Wisdom was made/created the same way that Adam/human beings were 

made/created: 

"Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning" [Prov 8:22 NJB] compare Wisdom 10:1, "It was 

Wisdom who protected the first man to be fashioned, the father of the world, who had been created all 

alone." [NJB] 

Addition to Christ as creative agent: 

"In this connexion the truth which we have already seen acquires new significance, that the 

world, it is true, was created THROUGH--DIA--the Son, but not by--hUPO--the Son, that it 

has been created IN Him and unto Him, but that He Himself is never called the Creator. It 

has pleased God the Creator to create the world in the Son, through the Son, and unto the 

Son. The fact that between the Creator and the Creation there stands the Mediator of 

creation means that the world is an act of the freedom of God, that it does not proceed from 

the Logos" (Emil Brunner, Dogmatics I, page 308). 

-Webmaster 

Addition to Angel as Wisdom: 

"Purpose of Angelic Appearances 

Aquinas in a few passages indicates what the purpose of angelic appearances is. In Ia 51, 2 

ad 1 he says that the purpose of angelic conversation is to "give evidence of that intellectual 

companionship which men expect to have with them in the life to come," and in the Old 

Testament, "as a figurative indication that the Word of God would take a human body." In Ia 

51, 3 ad 1 & 2 he claims that angels appear so that spiritual properties and works may be 

manifested more fittingly than by men. In all cases, the purpose of the appearances of angels 

is to inform humankind of divine realities, and so to lead people to God. 

Hence Angels propose the intelligible truth to men under the likeness of sensible things and 

strengthen the human mind by an intellectual operation. In this twofold action consists 

angelic illumination of men. By adding to the human understanding to pierce the mysteries 

of being, the pure intelligences enable it to derive greater truth from the species abstracted 

from sensible things. Thus men rise with angelic assistance to a more perfect knowledge of 

God drawn from a knowledge of his creation (p. 322). 

Angelic power is truly cosmic in its range according to the Thomistic account. On every 

level in the heirarchy of created being, angelic agency has a proper function to fulfill in 

accordance with the designs of divine wisdom. Although creativity cannot belong to them 

[since only God can create from nothing] angels are nevertheless the chief ministers 

employed by God in the governance of the universe, in securing His own glory and in 

distributing His goodness to all creation. Everywhere there is a gracious adaptation to the 

capacity of the various orders of nature to participate in the divine likeness which all things 



desire in their proper way (p. 328)." 

James Collins, The Thomistic Philosophy of 

the Angels, a Dissertation, 

(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1947) 




JW's, Pedophiles...and the Selective Information Native to Anti-Cult Hysteria 

JW's, Pedophiles...and Selective Discrimination and 

Hysteria 

Who is really "SILENT?" 

Read my thoughts on Dateline, Apostate Web-sites, and Silent Lambs...and has Silent Lambs owner Bill 

Bowen collaborated with a Pornographer to promote his web-site? 

See also http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/2122827332/7163532856.htm 

1 Cor 5:9-13 "I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; But actually, I wrote to you 

not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a 

reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one." NASB 

How Reliable are the Views of Dissidents? By Dr. Rodney Stark (in .pdf format) 

New!!Abortion Clinics Do Not Report Statutory Rape: 

An undercover investigation reveals that abortion clinic workers know what statutory rape is and the 

laws requiring them to report it. Yet most of the time, they say nothing. By Karla Dial 

One book reports of a leader in a congregation that had for some time sexually abused children, and 

though the elders in the congregation knew, nothing was said about it. The above description would lead 

some opposers to view this with Jehovah's Witnesses in view, but this was written regarding an 

Evangelical Pastor, not JW's. See The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by Johnson and VanDoren, p. 

140. 

The fact that there are pedophiles anywhere, in any churches, including those of Jehovah's Witnesses is 

indeed lamentable. But what is also lamentable is that many think that this story is indigenous to JW's 

alone. It is not, despite the emails I receive that speak of a "pedophile paradise" or that pedophiles are 

running amuck in Kingdom Halls everywhere, when it really only amounts to a few high profile cases 

latched upon by opposers of JW's. 

To accuse JW's, and JW's alone of this is simply the product of a twisted and bigotted imagination. Any 

sins committed by individual members cannot even compare to the wholesale sexual deviance of the 

members of the mainstream churches. 

I know that in my own area, these crimes are generally perpretrated by members of other churches, but 

this fact is generally not made known. The reason for this is as follows: 

"Differences of power and size go far towards explaining what we know, or think we know, 

about differences in the conduct of small and large religious groups. If we observe that small 

groups are likely to have scandals involving sexual misconduct, particularly involving 

children, we might suggest that this type of misbehavior is a cult characteristic, and that 

would lead us to propose theories about the pernicious nature of leadership in these settings. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/pedo.htm (1 of 19) [5/25/2003 3:50:31 AM]


But numerous recent scandals have taught us that sexual abuse is a common difficulty in all 

religious groups and denominations, including the largest and most respected, and some of 

the most outrageous instances of abuse by mainstream clergy occured in the 1970s and early 

1980s, when the cults were drawing such intense fire. 

As always, the media reacted very differently to the churches and the cults. Stories of 

sexual deviance meshed precisely with public expectations of cult leaders. But they seemed 

improbable and atypical for established clergy, so that rumors would be such more likely to 

be investigated and published in the context of the small groups than the large. Also, while 

nothing was to be lost by offending the members of a quirky local commune, it took a brave 

editor to run a story attacking a mainstream denomination, which could respond with an 

advertising boycott or a venomous letter-writing campaign. Hence, the "pedophile priest" 

scandals in the mainstream churches were largely kept from public view for decades, until 

the explosion of public concern in the mid-1980s. And though financial manipulation and 

tax evasion have attracted less notoriety than sexual issues, the same principles apply to 

reporting ecclesiastical misdeeds in these other areas: larger and more powerful groups are 

let off more easily than the small and unpopular." 

Mystics and Messiahs, by Philip Jenkins, p. 15 

23,720 websites hostile to Jehovah's Witnesses, and counting&.. 

Media bias even enters into the discussions regarding the problems with Catholic Priests: 

Defining the Catholic Church's Scandal 

By Stuart Shepard, correspondent 

The Catholic Church has been rocked by scandal recently, but is the problem properly defined as 

"pedophilia," or could it be something less politically correct? 

The newspapers are full of stories on scandal in the Catholic Church. Priests sexually involved with 

young boys betrayed trust. But some argue the language chosen by many pundits reveals media bias and 

hypocrisy. 

Focus on the Family psychologist Dr. Bill Maier said "pedophilia" is often the wrong word to use. 

"The American Psychiatric Association describes (pedophilia) as sexual activity with a pre-pubescent 

child, generally age 13 years or younger," Maier said. 

But, he noted, most of the recent allegations against Catholic priests involve teen-age boys. 

"Technically, if we have a man having sex with an adolescent boy, that would be considered 

homosexuality, not pedophilia." 

While quick to add that in no way mitigates the gravity of the situation, the fact that many in the media 

have called it something other than homosexuality is revealing. 

Andrew Dibley, a chiropractor in Indiana and a Catholic, believes the media is engaging in Catholic 

bashing. 

"I think that they do not want to be seen as homophobic," Dibley said. "They have always, in my 

opinion, championed the cause of homosexuals." 

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, 

agreed, contending "the media is anti-religious, but pro-gay." 

He compared the media's handling of the Boy Scouts with its treatment of the Catholic Church. 



"They are shocked at the Catholic Church scandal, but they also denounce a policy of the Boy Scouts to 

prevent and to avoid such a crisis." 

He said if the Boy Scouts give in to the pressure, they will wind up in the same predicament. 

Even the Washington Blade a newspaper for homosexuals argues that pedophilia is not the correct 

term, but stopped short of calling it homosexuality. 

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0020332.html see also http://www.frc.org/get/is02e3.cfm 

"One-third of Episcopal Priests Gay? A homosexual lay delegate at an Episcopal convention 

said 33 per cent of Episcopal priests are lesbian or gay (2/24 Chr. News). He said: "They 

have lied to their bishop, they have lied to their congregations, and they have lied to 

themselves." He said, "They have had to lie to answer the call to the priesthood."" --CC 

http://www.llano.net/baptist/nv087.htm#One-third 

The upshot of all this is [in interview form] 

"...Mainstream organized religions often have the same problems (e.g. child abuse, misused 

funds) as some new religious sects, yet the former get off the hook. Although there may be 

some outcry about the specific incidents, no one in the mainstream uses these occcurences to 

smear organized religions as a whole....generally, if (say) a rabbi sins, he is seen as a bad 

rabbi, not as proofs of the evils of Judaism; if a 'cult leader' sins, that is proof of the evils of 

cults. Jews (and other mainstream believers) buy newspapers and will complain if their 

religion is abused; whereas cults are not seen as a serious constituency." 

You Are Being Lied To/Russ Kick editor, p. 288 

The bashing and media assault of certain groups is also indicative of their organizational structure and 

record-keeping. Protestant groups like the Baptists abhor the structure as what we see in the Catholic or 

JW organizations. Therefore, scandals in churches like the Baptists will remain localized, instead of 

national. One of the more extreme cases was one of Tony Leyva, a Pentecostal minister who had abused 

hundreds of boys in the 1980's, yet his case is NEVER mentioned in any case study of sex-abuse in the 

Churches. 

"There is no Catholic case comparable to that of three brothers, all Baptist ministers, all 

facing simultaneous of child molestation, although this case too enjoyed only local 

notoriety." 

Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests, p. 12, 

All churches struggle as to what to do with pedophiles who reach out spiritually. 

From http://www.shasta.com/sphaws/pastors.html 

"Clerical Sexual Misconduct...including "pedophilia"...IS NOT just a Catholic problem. In 

fact, if anything, it is more of a Protestant problem, as show by these quotes from the 

Catholic League link: 

Jenkins asks us to consider why there is no such term as "pastor pedophilia"? It is not for 

lack of pastors involved in sexual abuse, rather it has much to do with the way the issue of 

pedophilia has been "framed" by our social constructionists. For example, who ever heard of 

[Protestant Pastor XXXXX. ED NOTE: Decided to conceal name on my page. It's on the 

Catholic League link. SPH] 

In the 1980s, [Protestant Pastor XXXXX] had abused perhaps one hundred boys in several 

southern states, but few of us ever learned of it. [Protestant Pastor XXXXXX] had the 



distinction of being a Pentecostal minister and was, therefore, not within the "frame" of 

those who were busy constructing reality. The same is true of the three brothers, all Baptist 

ministers, who were charged with child molestation in the 1990s: the public learned little 

about this highly unusual series of cases because it was not deemed worthy of dissemination 

by those fixated on Catholic scandals.... 

Notwithstanding the difficulties that such data comparisons hold, the available information 

on clergy sexual misconduct shows that the problem is bigger among Protestant clergy. 

For example, the most cited survey of sexual problems among the Protestant clergy shows 

that 10 percent have been involved in sexual misconduct and "about two or three percent" 

are "pedophiles." With regard to the "pedophile" problem, the figure for the Catholic clergy, 

drawn from the most authoritative studies, ranges between .2 percent to 1.7 percent. Yet we 

hear precious little about these comparative statistics. 

I am not acting from the position of trashing Protestants with this information. Rather, I am 

acting more from a sense of relief...relief that Clerical Sexual Misconduct IS NOT really just 

a Catholic problem. (No, please don't confuse this statement with a perceived callousness 

towards Protestant clergy or, especially, their victims.)" 

From Catholic World News, Date: 29-Jun-00: 

British Methodists To Welcome Pedophiles Into Their Churches 

LONDON (CWNews.com) - The British Methodist Conference on Wednesday announced 

plans to welcome 

pedophiles into their churches without alerting other members of the congregation in order 

to create a "community 

of love, forgiveness, and reconciliation" for offenders. 

The Conference had decided some time ago not to allow sex offenders to hold office in the 

church and to insist they were chaperoned at all times when they might be near children. 

And a working party set up in 1999 on Wednesday urged to the Conference's meeting in 

Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, to accept that it was more appropriate to talk of sex offenders 

as "recovering" rather than "recovered" or "cured." 

However, their report also noted that 25 percent of convicted sex offenders attended prison 

chapels while serving 

their sentences and that a large proportion wanted to continue in faith on their release. It 

would be wrong, the report said, to turn them away. 

From smh.com National News: 

Anxious Anglicans in a flap over sex claims 

By Kelly Burke, Religious Affairs Writer 

The Anglican Church moved into top gear yesterday on a mission of damage control over 

the escalating Governor-General controversy. 

Bishops across the nation were busy composing statements for tomorrow's services to ease 

the anger and confusion of parishioners. 

Sydney churchgoers will get the full version of Archbishop Peter Jensen's pastoral letter, 

released on Wednesday. 

"Morale is at an all-time low," said one Sydney Diocese insider. 

"Procedures might be in place now to handle sex abuse, but we all know that in the past 



these things haven't always been handled very well. There's a feeling that nobody knows 

who's going to be next ... what awful 

incident that happened 50 years ago might suddenly surface." 

The Archbishop of Adelaide, the Most Rev Ian George, issued a plea to South Australian 

Anglicans yesterday to come forward if they had been victims of sexual misconduct or 

abuse within the church. 

The Archbishop of Melbourne, the Most Rev Peter Watson, posted the diocese's sexual 

harassment protocol principals on the Internet. The Bishop of Tasmania, the Right Rev John 

Harrower, did the same. 

On Thursday, the Anglican Primate, the Archbishop of Perth, the Most Rev Peter Carnley, 

admitted that the Governor-General controversy and his handling of sex abuse cases while 

archbishop of Brisbane in the 1990s 

had "damaged the public standing" of the Anglican Church. 

A spokesman for the Primate confirmed yesterday that Dr Carnley's statement, which also 

expressed deep regret at the pain and suffering caused by sex abuse in the church and wider 

community, would be distributed in churches across Western Australia for Sunday services. 

Policies on reporting abuse allegations vary among religious denominations 

By PETER SMITH, The Courier-Journal, Lousville Kentucky, Sunday, February 4, 2001 

Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, seven other religious denominations surveyed by The 

Courier-Journal expect their clergy to report all suspected child abuse in states where they 

are required to by law. 

The approach among religions varies in states that do not mandate reporting. 

Even in reporting states, variations are possible. For example, Kentucky and Indiana require 

citizens to report suspected child abuse. Indiana allows no exceptions. Kentucky allows 

exceptions for clergy-penitent and attorney-client privilege. 

Roman Catholic Church: Policies vary by diocese. The archdioceses of Louisville and 

Indianapolis require priests to report suspected child abuse in all circumstances except when 

they learn of it in confession. Even in that setting, priests can counsel someone confessing a 

crime to go to a counselor or police. Archdiocese of Indianapolis spokeswoman Susan 

Schramm knew of no instance where that exception conflicted with Indiana law. 

Southern Baptist Convention: Churches are self-governing, so regional bodies do not dictate 

policies. However, the Kentucky Baptist Convention trains staff and volunteers to recognize 

and report suspected child abuse to authorities, according to Wendy Dever, preschool and 

children's associate for the convention. 

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): Policies vary by regional governing body but are often 

shaped to follow state law. Pastors in the Louisville-based denomination are forbidden to 

reveal anything told them in confidence. The church does not make an explicit exception for 

suspected child abuse but pastors can violate confidentiality when there is a "risk of 

imminent bodily harm to any person." 

Rabbinical Assembly (Conservative Judaism): Congregations are self-governing, but rabbis 

are expected to do everything to protect an abuse victim, including calling authorities. "One 

doesn't need a specific secular mandate that says protect somebody in trouble," said Rabbi 

Joel Meyers, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly. 



Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: Policies are determined by regional governing 

bodies but often follow state law on who is required to report, according to the Rev. Lowell 

Almen, secretary of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. 

United Methodist Church: The church does not have a policy that requires clergy to report 

suspicions of child abuse, but clergy training emphasizes that laws often mandate reporting. 

If a pastor learns of abuse in a confidential setting such as a counseling session, "that's a 

decision a pastor would make on a case-by-case basis," Robert Kohler, assistant general 

secretary of the Division of Ordained Ministry. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons): Church leaders are instructed to 

call a denominational help line if abuse issues arise in the congregation. Those staffing the 

phone line include professional counselors as well as lawyers who advise local ministers on 

their state's laws. "The law of the land must be obeyed," said a statement from the 

Latter-day Saints public affairs department. "If a report is required, help line personnel assist 

the local church leader . . . as who should make the report -- whether . . . a family member, 

whether the perpetrator can be persuaded to self-report, etc." 

No religious denomination contacted has even considered what some Jehovah's Witnesses 

are demanding of their church: that congregations be told of pedophiles in their midst. 

[The official JW policy is "without equal in the religious comunity, see 

http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/2122827332/7163532856.htm ] 

But many churches bar sex offenders from working with children, according to Dever of the 

Kentucky Baptist Convention. 

And they increasingly conduct criminal background checks of potential pastors, youth 

workers and other volunteers. 

"Small churches have a hard time with that, because they know everybody," Dever said. 

"But we really don't know everybody. We live in 2001. We have to be concerned about 

this." 

Staff writer Megan Woolhouse contributed to this story. 

PRIESTS, PEDOPHILIA AND PREACHERS, from "AS I SEE IT" Volume 5, Number 7, July 2002, 

compiled and edited by Doug Kutilek (http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly) 

"Having held Romes latest scandal up to the light for examination, let us now turn the light 

on ourselves. We profess to have the light of Scripture in its purity, uncorrupted by human 

tradition. We profess to follow the teachings of the Bible alone (sola scriptura). We 

profess to have the Holy Spirit living within us as our Divine Teacher, Illuminator, and 

Guide. These things being claimed, and rightly so, there is far less excuse for any 

Rome-like conduct among fundamentalists. And yet it is tragically common; I dare 

say, practically the rule. 

If I were to sit down and write a list of all the fundamentalist preachers, pastors, 

evangelists and professors known to me in my limited experience who jumped (not fell 

as though it were a passive act) into sexual immorality (usually adultery, but in at 

least a few cases involving homosexuality or pedophilia), it would be a very long and 

very troubling list. 

And just like Rome, in many cases the scandals were covered up and the pernicious 

deeds concealed (for the sake of the church), leaving the perpetrator unrepentant, 



unpunished, and free to move on to another ministry, as though ones conduct had no 

bearing on qualifications for the ministry. Rather than concealing the sin and shielding the 

sinner, Paul gives explicit instructions: Do not entertain an accusation against an elder, 

unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so 

that the others may take warning. (I Timothy 5:19, 20) 

I think of one appalling instance from the 1970s--a noted long-standing professor in a Bible 

college undeniably engaged in homosexual activity with a student who came to him for 

counseling. To save face for the college and the individual, a cover story (in plain English, 

a public lie) was fabricated to the effect that the individual was leaving the college to 

complete a doctorate degree (which of course never happened--he stayed in town, and in his 

church, undisciplined, and merely got alternate employment as a public school teacher). 

Or the notorious case from the 1980s of a now-dead Chicago-area pastor whose son, known 

by his father to be guilty of repeated acts of adultery while on staff at his fathers church, 

was sent off to pastor a church in Texas, where he repeated and multiplied his adulteries 

until publicly exposed. (The father himself was known to be scandalously involved for 

decades in an adulterous relationship, and yet a large number of fundamentalist preachers 

came to his defense when his sin was exposed publicly after repeated private admonitions in 

the spirit of Matthew 18:15-18 proved fruitless.) 

And there is the (to me) infuriating case of a famous national ministry in which a prominent 

teacher/writer/editor has been removed for adultery at least twice and yet each time 

ultimately restored to a high profile place. When is enough enough? 

We who profess to have the truth and to follow it are solemnly bound to live up the standard 

we profess, if we wish to honor God and maintain any degree of credibility with the world. 

Let Romes scandal humble us, and lead us to carefully examine ourselves. There is no 

room here for us to gloat or boast or sneer. Let us rather beware (see Galatians 6:1)." 

There are, of course other news stories that you will never hear of: 

Special Bulletin - From http://www.reformation.com/ 

Welcome! Catholic sex scandals dominate the news. Are we next? 

A sample of our own scandals is below: 

ALL denominations - 312 instances 

Baptist Ministers - 59 instances 

"Bible" Church Ministers (fundamentalist/evangelical) - 150 instances 

Episcopalean Ministers - 31 instances 

Lutheran Ministers - 22 instances 

Methodist Ministers - 25 instances 

Presbyterian Ministers - 10 instances 

various Church Ministers - 13 instances 



We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has 

nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church. Sin and 

abusive behavior know no ecclesial or other boundaries." Rt. Rev. William Persell, Bishop 

of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, Good Friday Sermon, 2002. 

From http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=17865 

"Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of 

the worst involve non-Catholics. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals 

aplenty, as have Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah´s Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Hare 

Krishnas -- and the list goes on. One Canadian Anglican (Episcopal) diocese is currently on 

the verge of bankruptcy as a result of massive lawsuits caused by decades of systematic 

abuse, yet the Anglican church does not demand celibacy of its clergy. 

However much this statement contradicts conventional wisdom, the "pedophile priest" is not 

a Catholic specialty. Yet when did we ever hear about "pedophile pastors"?" 

ABUSE SCANDALS DIFFER FOR CATHOLICS, PROTESTANTS 

as reported in the High Point Enterprise April 2002 

"The flood of sex abuse allegations against priests this year has focused attention on the 

Roman Catholic Church, but Protestants denominations have also faced sex scandals 

involving clergy over the years. In fact, while data are sketchy, at least one expert believes 

the incidence of clergy molesting young children may be about as frequent-or in frequent-in 

Protestantism as it is in Catholicism. 

Others have found Protestant scandals have a tendancy to surface in cases where male 

ministers are counselling women or teen-age girls, while the allegations against priests have 

frequently involved underage males. Penn State historian Philip Jenkins argued in his 1996 

book, "Pedophiles and Priests," that both secular and Catholic media exaggerate the extent 

of Catholic cases involving minors, while downplaying Protestant abuse. For instance, the 

Rev. Robert Eckert of Grand Rapids, Mich., a minister in the African Methodist Episcopal 

Church, was sent to prison in 2000 for sexual involvement with a 15-year-old girl who 

worked as his baby sitter - but the case recieved rekatively little attention. 

Jenkins, an Episcopalian, thinks a 1992 survey from the Chicago Archdiocese is more 

representative of the true picture in Catholicism. 

Among 2,252 priests serving over four decades, 39 priests (1.7 percent) apparently abused 

minors. Only one abuser could be termed a pedophile under the strict, clinical definition of 

the word. 

"I am prepared to be convinced that Catholics have a bigger problem" than Protestants, 

Jenkins said, but nobody has good data, partly because Protestant groups are too numerous. 

"I certainly haven't seen anything, and I'm looking hard." Minneapolis psychologist Gary 

Schoener agreed. 

"There are no real scientific data" on Protestants, he said. Since 1974, his Walk-In 

Counseling Center has been consulted on more than 2,000 cases of clergy sexual 

misconduct of all types, two-thirds of them with Protestants." 

From Jewsweek: Grappling with Sexual Abuse in the Orthodox Community: 

April 15, 2002 

"Orthodox pedophiles? 

For years, most people in the Orthodox world assumed their religious way of life and 



tight-knit communities insulated them from problems rocking the larger world, like sexual 

abuse. 

There is still a great deal of resistance to discussing the issue, and a lingering feeling among 

many victims and advocates that Orthodox institutions are more concerned with protecting 

the reputations of men accused of sexual abuse than with believing or helping victims. 

But fueled by a combination of factors recent scandals, a growing cadre of Orthodox 

psychotherapists in whom Orthodox Jews feel comfortable confiding, and American 

society's growing openness about sensitive social problems that sense of insularity is 

eroding both among the fervently and centrist Orthodox communities. 

Just as it has begun to acknowledge that there are Orthodox child abusers and Orthodox 

drug addicts, the community is gradually coming to grips with the fact that it, too, has sexual 

abusers in its midst. .... 

In addition, there is a historic Jewish tendency, particularly acute in the Orthodox world, to 

keep quiet about sensitive issues for fear of publicly scandalizing the community. 

Many Orthodox Jews also fear that embarrassing information could jeopardize future 

wedding matches for individuals and their families. 

Another obstacle is that the many demands of an Orthodox lifestyle and the fact that 

Orthodox Jews must live within walking distance of synagogue make Orthodox 

communities tight-knit. That can make it hard for a victim to come forward, particularly if 

the abuser is prominent or well-liked." From http://www.jewsweek.com/society/080.htm 

Also from Jewsweek: 

The case of Rabbi Baruch Lanner, an Orthodox Union official who was accused of 

molesting more than 20 teenage girls over a period of 30 years, was a watershed event in 

forcing the centrist Orthodox world to begin dealing more seriously with sexual abuse. 

What many people found most disturbing about the Lanner case were the allegations that 

victims' complaints 

had gone unheeded. 

The National Conference of Synagogue Youth Special Commission investigating the O.U.'s 

handling of the Lanner case reported that it had received evidence of four occasions where 

some leaders were "put on direct and 

specific notice of serious sexual misconduct by Lanner, but did not remove him from his 

position with NCSY." 

See also http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63807-2002Jun28.html 

More cases: 

13-year-old girl raped in church Kissimmee Methodist Church 

March 21 2000 

Russian Orthodox Church-Leader, Jeremiah Hitt (AKA Jonathan Hitt) 

Profile: Convicted on eight counts of indecency with a child in 1999. Victim: teen-aged boy. The 

punishment will be up to ten years in prison. A civil case is still pending. 

Hitt's colleague, Benedict Greene, founder of the Blanco monastery pled guilty of similar charges in 

2000. 

http://www.pokrov.org/phitt.html 

1989: Bible School teacher Stanley Cummings sentenced to more than 2,000 years in prison after 



conviction on 60 counts of child molestation and sexual exploitation of minors. Cummings molested, 

sodomised, photographed and tape recorded beating his victims whom he met through his church. 

1989: Foster parent Reverend Robert Schultz, 52, who had been honoured for his voluntary services to 

the community was sentenced to 30 years after confessing to acts described as 'horribly perverse' on 

foster children in his care. 

1989: Baptist minister William Hendricks, 50, pleaded guilty to sexual assault on his 7 year old girl 

victim whom he molested on consecrated ground. 

Pentecostal evangelist Antonio S Martinez 'married' a 12 year old girl whose grandmother forced her into 

the arrangement. He first assaulted her when she was 11. He was found guilty of aggravated sexual 

assault after taking her to a doctor to ask why she wasn't pregnant. (1989) 

1989: Christian Childcare worker Heath Turner, employed by First United Methodist Church convicted 

of sexually abusing a child in his care with toy boat, finger, and ice. 

1990: Pentecostal Minister D Stenhouse from Solihull sent to jail after admitting five charges of 

indecently assaulting boys aged 12 to 15. 

There were six girls abused by Rev Francis Haight, Baptist leader, sentenced to 20 years (1989). 

1991: Evangelist preacher Alan Bradley of Skipton convicted of indecent behaviour. Caught by police 

after revealing himself to young girls. 

Baptist Minister Ashby Breneman (1991) gets 18 yrs for molesting six boys at a Christian Youth Camp. 

On July 22, 1999, a Melbourne factory hand, Earl Ross Blennerhasset, 27, was found guilty of trying to 

steal a young girl from a Seventh Day Adventist Church. A Melbourne court heard Blennerhasset had 

been listening to a sermon minutes before asking the 12-year-old girl to go to the toilets with him ... 

A similar incident occurred in a Methodist Church at Kissimmee in the US, where it was revealed a 

13-year-old girl had been raped while awaiting choir practice ... During the Blennerhasset trial it was 

revealed the girl was released as soon as she started screaming. But this appeared not to be the case at the 

Kissimmee church, which claimed some 2000 members ... The girl told police she had arrived early for 

practice at the First United Methodist Church and was standing alone near some vending machines. 

A man allegedly approached the girl as a church service was about to begin and asked what she was 

waiting for. She told him she was waiting for choir practice and turned away. 

It was then that the man grabbed her and, like Blennerhasset, dragged her into a men's toilet. The girl was 

then raped police told reporters ... "Our hearts are broken," Senior Pastor Grant Siegfried said in the Sun 

Sentinel on March 21, 2000. "Our first concern is our children and youth. We have a lot of safety 

measures in place. "We may have to hire security guards ..." 

Rev. Thomas Streitferdt, 59, a Pastor in charge of the 700-member True Church of God in Harlem, was 

charged with rape and sodomy of two young sisters (ages 14 and 16) in his congregation. 

1991: 62 yr old Sunday School teacher sentenced to 10 years for sexually assaulting numerous children 

who attended Sunday School classes. 

1991: Baptist Minister Rev. Robert Burton charged after admitting long-term serious sexual abuse of his 



six and eight year old stepsons. 

1991: Pentecostal Religious teacher who already had convictions for indecency against chldren was 

allowed to teach bible classes at a Cornwall church and used his position to sexually assault an 8 year old 

boy who attended his classes. 

1991: Minister Alfred Gatehouse 62, sentenced to 10 years for sodomy and soliciting paid sex with 

teenage girls. 

1991: Baptist Minister Larry Bernard 45, sentenced to 7 years for molesting a boy of 14. 

San Gabriel Valley Tribune 6/18/88 

Rev. Randall Wayne Brewer, a youth minister of Faith Community Church in West Covina, Calif., is 

charged with 3 counts of oral copulation with a Redlands teenager who said he was bribed and molested 

after being befriended at home Bible studies in 1985. The youth, now 17, testified that Brewer gave him 

$200 from a church checking account for running naked 

across an empty church hallway in a game called chicken. "I was told to tell everyone that I got the 

money for doing work at the church." 

Samuel David Allen (AKA Symeon or "Brother" Symeon or Michael) 

Profile: Samuel David Allen joined the Holy Order of MANS in the late 1960s before they claimed to be 

Orthodox. In 1989 while on parole for child molestation and registered as a sex offender, Mr. Allen 

broke the parole by attending church services out of his county at Holy Trinity Cathedral (OCA) in San 

Francisco. He was chrismated at Holy Trinity Cathedral on November 17, 1990. The offenses for which 

Mr. Allen received a fifteen year prison term were committed on November 29, 1990, and December 6, 

1990 in Marin County. Mr. Allen was also accused of molesting several children at Holy Trinity 

Cathedral. "Brother Sam" was good friends with Holy Order of MANS leader, David Finkelstein, who 

appeared in court on his behalf in 1991. http://www.pokrov.org/pallen.html 

Youth minister arrested for teen sex 

May 2000< 

A former youth minister at a US Baptist church and school was charged in May 2000 with having sex 

with a 17-year-old girl who was a member of his youth group. 

Timothy John Dougherty, 29, was charged in Jacksonville, Florida, with having unlawful sex with a 

minor. Dougherty faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted of violating a state law that prohibits anyone 

24 or older from having sex with 16 and 17 year olds. 

Police said the relationship began about two years ago when the First Coast Baptist Church and Christian 

School group visited Jamaica. Investigators said they were alerted by the girl's father and have since 

gathered love letters the two allegedly exchanged. 

The Associated Press reported that Dougherty was married and had children ... 

A few more newspaper clippings from a list of many hundreds: 

Christian televangelist William Wasmus of Church of the Living Savior: had sex with children and 

video-taped it on church equipment. (Columbus, Ohio, 1994) 

Christian Pentecostal evangelist Mario Leyva: sodomized more than 100 little boys. (Columbus, Georga, 

1990) 



Washington Post 5/13/88 

U.S. Rep. Floyd Flake, pastor of Allen African Methodist Episcopal Church in New York, and a first 

term Democrat, is accused of harassing a church assistant into leaving her job because she ended a sexual 

affair with her. 

Thelma M. Singleton-Scott complained that a panel of "elders" at the 4,000-member church held a 

"kangaroo court" review of the charges in January. She is now demanding back wages and Flake's ouster 

as pastor. She said that the church bishop was involved in offering her hush money. 

Christian Chaplan assistant Steven Ritchie: raped a six-year-old girl. (Fort Lewis, Washington, 1990) 

Father Emmanuel Koveos 

Profile: Emmanuel Koveos was a Greek Orthodox Priest with the GOA. In 1997 while a priest, "Father" 

Koveos molested a young girl in his parish while giving her Greek language lessons. Koveos was 

convicted by the courts. After an uproar over his working as a chanter in a Massachusetts parish, the 

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese finally announced Koveos defrocked in January, 2000. 

http://www.pokrov.org/pkoveos.html 

Christian Evangelist Dom McCary: sodomized four little boys. (Chattanooga, Tennessee, 1992) 

Christian Lutheran James Allen Weller: molested several children, some as young as ten years old. 

(Redwood, City, California, 1991) 

Florida Times-Union 5/13/88 and 6/9/88 

Rev. Joe Marino, host of Christian talkshow "Inner Visions" in Jacksonville, Fla., and youth 

minister/counselor at Beaches Chapel in Neptune Beach, plead no contest to custodial sexual battery and 

soliciting sex from a 16 year old member of his church. Other charges were dropped. The abuse was 

disclosed after a victim from the church had attempted suicide. 

A British Moslem man ritually killed his daughter in 1989 by saying Bismilla and then slitting her throat 

and allowing her to bleed to death because she had declared that she was to convert to Christianity after 

she had been enticed into a meeting held by Jehovah's Witnesses. 

1989: Baptist minister Henry Waters, convicted of sexually abusing young boys whose souls he claimed 

would be 'saved' through his 'sex instruction'. 

1989: Salvation Army Captain Jack Holcomb, 50, pleaded guilty to unlawful intercourse with a 14 year 

old girl Salvation Army member. 

Christian deacon Henry Meinholz: raping and suffocating to death a 13-year-old girl. (Kingston, 

Massachusetts, 1991) 

Christian Reverend Lloyd David of First Christian Fellowship: child pornography and sexual abuse of 

teen-age boys. (Waukegan, Illinois) 

A Duval county minister, Rev. Roy Lynn Gaskins of Edgewood Heights Baptist Church, was accused of 

forcing a 13 year old boy at gunpoint to have sex. 

New York Times 6/10/88 

Former Mormon missionary Arthur Gary Bishop, 36, was executed on June 10th in Utah for killing 5 

boys (ages 4-13) for sexual gratification, saying he was "misled by Satan." 



Kenneth Lasky (AKA Father Konan, Father Kenneth, Kenneth Laskovsky) 

Profile: Father "Konan" was a monk in a Michigan monastery (ROCOR) where he was convicted of 

repeatedly raping and having oral sex with two of the boys who lived there. One of the victims was the 

adopted son of the monastery's abbot, Father Gabriel Loynes. http://www.pokrov.org/plasky.html 

Christian Reverend Virgil Carpenter of Bible Missionary Church: sodomized a nine-year-old girl. 

(Ontario, Oregon) 

Christian Presbyterian minister Bruce Brigden: molested 11 girls, some as young as four years old (Alva, 

Oklahoma) 

Father John Liadis (John Michael Liadis) 

Profile: According to court documents from 1989, John Liadis: did knowingly commit a lewd and 

lascivious act on or in the presence of a child under the age of sixteen years, to-wit: [victim's name 

omitted] born January 29th, 1974, by touching...in violation of Florida statute 800.04. 

http://www.pokrov.org/pliadis.html 

Kansas City Times 6/1/88 

Barry L. Deaton was charged with taking indecent liberties with a child for abducting a 14 year old girl 

from a gathering of Youth for Christ of Greater Kansas City. 

1988: Born Again Christian Tate who works for a religous magazine, confesses to seducing ten year old 

girl. 

Christian Reverand Richard Jones of Family Life Church: molested boys and told them the Bible 

sanctioned the abuse (Park Hills, Missouri, 1994) 

Tampa Tribune 5/31/88 

Rev. Cleveland "Rapper" Mack, 24, of Tampa. Fla., was charged with sexually abusing 2 young boys 

during "Bible lessons", including a charge of sexual battery which carries a possible death sentence. He 

struck a boy in the face when he tried to flee. 

1989 A 'devout Christian; and a Sunday School teacher, Scott Williams, 29, admitted to raping a 13 year 

old girl and strangling and beating her to death. 

1989: Christian Evangelist Darlene Jackson, 33, starved her 4 year old daughter to death to exorcise her 

of evil spirits. She was sentenced to 7 years. 

Christian youth minister Keith Geren of Wayside Baptist Church charged with child molestation. 

(Miami, Florida, 1994) 

[Little Rock Arkansas] Gazette 6/10/88 

Rev. J.D. Henderson, 51, of Russellville, Ark., was convicted of molesting twin 6 year old girls, and 

sentenced to 4 years in prison. Henderson is an ordained Free will Baptist minister. 

In 1989, Minister Bernard Ponder 46, already on probation for the sexual abuse of boys now accused of 

sexually abusing a deaf boy. 

1989: Salvation Army member sexually abuses 14 year old girl whom he met at Sunday School. Jailed at 

York Crown Court. 



Chapel child care volunteer (1989) charged with 50 counts of child molestation, kidnapping, child abuse 

and other offences at Spring Valley church. A former youth minister was convicted of molesting 

teenagers at the church in the early 1980s. 

Father Benedict Greene (AKA Samuel A. Greene) 

Profile: Benedict Greene is the founder of Christ of the Hills Monastary in Blanco, Texas. Greene and 

Jeremiah Hitt were indicted of indecency with a child in 1999. Charges stated that they sexually abused a 

religious student at their monastery. 

http://www.pokrov.org/pgreene.html 

[Rome] Daily Sentinel 5/28/88 

Rev. Leon Dupree, 47, pastor of Lily of the Valley Church of God in Christ in Rochester, NY, is charged 

with first degree sexual assault and first degree burglary of a 26 year old woman. She said he was armed 

with a hammer and struck her with a screwdriver. Dupree was convicted of second degree manslaughter 

in a 1978 drunken driving fatality and served time in state 

prison. 

Christian Fundamentalist school operator Reverand Duane Smith: molesting children (Laporte, Indiana, 

1992) 

Arizona Republic 7/2/88, Phoenix Gazette 7/1/88 

Rev. James Anthony Colyn, 39, former pastor of the Glendale (Az.) Bible Baptist Church, received a 

SENTENCE of seven and a half years in prison. Colyn was described by police as a "sexual predator" 

who molested a teenage girl who asked him for counseling because she was being abused by her 

stepfather. 

Christian Mormon Sunday-school teacher John Midgett: molesting 8 girls, some only five years old. 

(California) 

Oregonian 6/1/88 

Todd S. Clark, 26, and Ralph W. Gantt, 26, both former youth leaders of the Royal Rangers boys' 

program at First Assembly of God church, Albany Oregon, were INDICTED for sexual abuse and 

sodomy of young boys. Hamilton Spectator (Canada) 7/9/88 Rev. Peter O'Hanley, 37, a priest from 

Fredericton, Ontario, was SENTENCED on July 8 to 3 months in jail after 

PLEADING guilty to sexual exploitation and abuse of three teenage boys. 

Christian Reverend Jon Walker of Springfield Baptist Church: molested a 13 year old girl (California). 

Los Angles Times 7/2/88 

Gilbert Crowell, 27, commander of the Salvation Army in Burbank and an ordained minister with a wife 

and 3 children, was CONVICTED on July 1 of molesting 3 girls inside the Army's office. He was 

convicted of 4 misdemeanor counts of child molestation and two counts of battery but was acquitted by a 

jury of 7 related charges. 

Rev. Pangratios Vrionis (AKA Metropolitan Pangratios of the Archdiocese of Vasiloupolis, Queens, 

New York or Demetrios Vrionis) 

In 1968 Father Vrionis was a GOA priest in Pennsylvania. He was apparently suspended and defrocked 

for "disobedience," and at the same time he was also charged with rape of two teen-aged boys by 

Dauphin county, Pennsylvania. After serving his sentence, Vrionis founded a children's school and his 



own Orthodox Jurisdiction in Queens, New York (the Archdiocese of Vasilupolis). 

http://www.pokrov.org/pvrionis.html 

Christian Reverand James Randazzo of Spiral of Friends Church: drug use and child molestation 

(Molina, Colorado, 1989, brough to justice in 1992). 

Scrantonian Tribune 6/29/88 

Rev. Ronald Terry Litz, 50, of Riverside, Penn., SENTENCED to 2-5 years in jail for morals offences in 

Luzerne, Co., was SENTENCED in June to 6-23 months in the Northumberland Co. Prison on similar 

charges. He PLEADED guilty Feb. 4 to 3 counts of corrupting the morals of minors. Litz, former pastor 

of the Danville Apostolic Church, molested 2 boys at a church camp. His sentences are concurrent. 

1988: Congregational Church Minister Ian Garvock 45, of Lanarkshire found guilty of raping a four year 

old girl in park. Judge said "The offence was an appalling one of a very severe kind with incalcuable 

consequences to the young child. 

Christian minister and evangelist Tony Alamo reciently went to prison for tax evasion. During his trial it 

was discovered that he had "married" two fifteen-year-old children and was abusing them. 

That's just a small sample from a vast collection. Missing from the above are the killings, maimings, and 

assorted inhuman atrocities Christians have inflicted upon American citizens in the past five years. Also 

missing are the tens of hundreds of Christian Catholic priests convicted of molesting children. 

Hamilton Spectator 6/30/88 

Rev. Russel Nicolle, 50, an Anglican minister from Elliot Lake, Ontario, RECEIVED 8 months in jail for 

"repulsive, disgusting and degraded" sexual abuse of a 12 year old and 16 year old boy. Judge M.C. 

DiSalle said he "seriously breached" his position of trust as rector of St. Peter the Apostle Anglican 

Church. 

1988: Massive child porn ring smashed when police officers arrested a church official and siezed cache 

of indecent video tapes magazines and child pornography photos in a raid on a church in London. 

1985: Rev. John Gargano 67 convicted of 14 counts of rape, sodomy, sexual abuse and child 

endangerment. His four victims, who were repetitively abused said that the minister represented himself 

to them as the angel Gabriel. 

Scranton Times 7/14/88 

Rev. Thomas J. Hunt, former pastor of East Benton United Methodist Church, of Scranton, New York, 

was ARRESTED for molesting a young boy. Rev. Hunt already faces TRIAL for sex crimes against a 

young girl. 

Art Phillips, 43, of Arizona, was arrested in March and arraigned in April for fondling a 15-year-old girl 

and "solicitation to commit commercial sexual exploitation of a minor" (read: he wanted to take nude 

photos of her). Phillips is a Mormon sunday school teacher. 

1983: Methodist Choirmaster admits repetitive abuse of five year old girl but is only cautioned by police. 

Parents begin private prosecution but Crown Prosecution Service stymie them. 

Rev. Carey Mavor, an Arizona Methodist, pleaded guilty to 1 count of continuous sexual abuse and 2 

counts of lewd acts with a child under 14. 



In 1984, Methodist Minister Edgar Ford , 69, admitted to running a mailing list of 100 'young things' and 

housewives who wanted to pose for amateur and professional photographers' that he had taken 

photographs of housewives and models himself and that on one occasion he did submit to being 

photographed by a lady whilst they were both nude. 

1988: Church of England Vicar Michael Walter, already having served time for indecently assaulting 

little boys yet allowed to continue his clerical career by the church, is found guilty of further assaults on 

children. 

Rev. Wilputte Alanson Sherwood admitted recently to having sex with 1,800 males since 1984, at least 

22 of whom were under 18. He also kept records and videotapes of the sexual encounters. He was 

sentenced July 29 by Superior Court and was on PAID LEAVE until then. Also from Arizona. 

Philadelphia Inquirer 6/27/88 

Richard J. Wagner, 26, a volunteer youth leader at the Warminister Hts. Community Church in 

Philadelphia, was CHARGED with assaulting a 14 year old boy and 3 others between the ages of 7 and 

15 years of age, all part of the church youth program. 

In California, Rev. Richard Allen Henry, 47, was sentenced to 8 years in state prison for having sex with 

4 boys, all brothers, over a 6 year period. The Los Angeles archdiocese -- get this -- told the court not to 

imprison a "broken man" and unsuccessfully, praise Dobbs, offered to pay for treatment if probation was 

granted. 

Sarasota Herald-Tribune 6/30/88 

Rev. John Paul Marlow, pastor of Gospel Tabernacle, Inc. of Bradenton, Florida is ACCUSED of 

assaulting, battering and raping a member of his congregation. Pamela and John R. McLean charged 

Marlow with assaulting her when she sought psychological and religious counseling. They seek damages 

of $5,000 plus medical costs and lost wages. 

Rev. Maurice McInerney was charged with sexually abusing an incest survivor who had trusted him to 

counsel her. McInerney has been relieved of his duties but IS STILL RECEIVING HIS SALARY. 

Journal Tribune 7/15/88 

Rev Jonathan Hamlin, 24, of Vicksburg, Miss., was CHARGED with shooting his live in girlfriend, Lula 

Sims, and burying her on July 3 hours before giving a Sunday sermon. 

Rev. Mike Williams, 47, also of Colorado, was charged with SPANKING a man during a counseling 

session. He was acquitted of similar charges last year. 

Dallas Times Herald 6/29/88 

Rev. Gregory Charles Goben, a 28 year old Southern Baptist minister, was termed the "Village Rapist." 

The minister of Outreach Baptist Church in suburban Garland, married with 2 

sons, is CHARGED with a series of sexual assaults in the Village Apartment area of North Dallas. 

Goben, who has a masters degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, is linked to 4 sexual assaults, 1 

aggravated sexual 

assault and a charge of attempted burglary. That attacks all involved break-ins in which the assailant 

wore a ski mask and tied the victims' hands. 

1985: Methodist minister Emyr Owen a homosexual later found to possess a collection of 



sado-masochistic pornography was imprisoned by Chester Crown Court for secretly cutting the genitals 

off corpses of his parishoners which were placed in his care for burial and for threatening to murder a 

four year old girl. 

In Illinois, Rev. David Stalzer was REINSTATED to his parish despite a civil lawsuit accusing him of 

sexual misconduct with a minor. 

Today's Sunbeam [Salem N.J.] 7/1/88 

A new book "On Thin Ice" by Roy Howard Beck, former investigative writer for the United Methodist 

Reporter, claims knowledge of "outlandish behavior by ministers" around the country. "Caught in the act 

of bizarre moral actions involving sex, violence and finances were television evangelists, mainline 

preachers, bishops, well-known charismatic leaders, revered small 

church pastors--Pentecostals, liberals and conservatives alike." Beck says moral turpitude by ministers 

cannot be excused because "they do a lot of good." He writes: "What people do along the way is just as 

important as what happens in the end. How many times have we watched as a person's legacy is reduced 

after one finds out about the people who were crushed or 

hurt along the way." 

FIVE priests from Belleville, Illinois were removed from the ministry (exception, not the rule) due to 

allegations, investigations etc. of sexual misconduct. 

1986: Minister Richard Kearney found guilty of molesting 4 boys over a 5 year period. One victim said 

he had been abused 20 times and another said he was molested whilst under Confirmation instruction by 

Kearney. 

Rev. Kevin Sullivan, of Decatur, Illinois, is being sued. Why? Because he impregnated Susan Hertel and 

then encouraged her to have an abortion. 

In Indiana, Rev. Raymond Weber is being sued. He allegedly used LSD and alcohol to seduce a teenage 

boy. 

Also in Indiana, deacon A.V. Ballenger was convicted of fondling a 7-year-old girl in Sunday school 

class and sentenced to 8 years in prison. 

In Iowa, the pastor of the Wesleyan Church is accused of placing an ad under the name "Diamond 

Dreams" and agreeing to sex for $150 with an undercover officer while DRESSED IN DRAG. Rev. 

Jennfrey Dean McKelvey quit his job after his arrest. 

In Kentucky, Rev. Earl Bierman attempted to seduce two boys by telling them all about other 

parishioners' confessions of sexual aberrations. He pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of 6 boys and was 

sentenced to 20 years. 

Rev. Ronald D. Provost of Barre, Massachusetts was convicted for taking over 100 nude photos of boys. 

He refused to apologize to the victims' families, and the mother of one boy said that the diocese has 

"expressed no concern at all." 

C. Eric Lincoln, a Methodist minister, is charged with assault, attempted rape and battery of a woman at 

Duke University, where Lincoln is a professor emeritus. 

Donald J. Heydens, a priest in Grand Rapids, Michigan, admitted to molesting 5 girls. The girls claimed 



that Heydens submitted them to repeated assaults over a period of one year. 

Rev. Wilson Smart molested or had sexual contact with 31 boys since 1950. His Helena, Montana 

diocese has encouraged parishoners not to sue but instead accept church counseling. 

In lovely New Mexico, Rev. David Holley gets up to 275 years in prison for molesting 8 boys. 

A third priest, Rev. Edward Pipala, was removed from a Hudson Valley, NY pastorate for accusations of 

sex abuse. He has ADMITTED to turning the parish boys' club into a sex club he called "The Hole," at 

which he provided beer to 30-50 minors and engaged in anal and oral sex and masturbation, all under an 

oath of secrecy (and threat of excommunication, I'll bet). 

Martin Louis, a priest of the Cleveland, Ohio diocese, was sentenced to 25 years in prison. A woman 

testified that he molested her when she was 10 following her first communion. He repeatedly raped her, 

threatening her with hell and telling her that this was what all priests do (Possibly, but not probably). 

I have not even gone into the myriads of allegations of sexual abuse by Catholic Priests. At any rate, the 

incidents involving Jehovah's Witnesses are dwarfed by those of mainstream faiths, it is just easier to 

pick on the little ones. 

According to NY Times, Sunday August 11, 2002, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of 

Denver had the following to say regarding Jehovah's Witnesses who were "no different from many other 

insular religions that aspire to theological and moral purity" that: "Groups that tend to be very tight-knit 

and ingrown historically have a higher incidence if sexual abuse and incest." 

This fallacy does not (a) account though for the higher incidence of cases amongst mainstream faiths, 

and (b) the media silence of many other smaller and close-knit groups. What it comes down to is one or 

two groups who are unfairly targetted by the media. It is comparable to the anti-Semitism described in 

Jenkin's book on Pedophilia: 

"If a newspaper accurately describes the dishonest or criminal activitiy of an individual who is Jewish, 

that would not of itself be anti-Semitic. It would however be grossly anti-semitic if the paper repeatedly 

described the criminal activities of Jews without noting the similar role of other ethnic groups, and 

further proposed that this form of criminality was peculiarly characteristic of Jews or arose from features 

of the Jewish religion or ethnicity." 

Pedophiles and Priests, p. 13, Philip Jenkins (Oxford University Press) 

This is nothing new. 

"During the latter years of the nineteenth century, the climate for the new sects became chillier as the 

news media became more sensational in tone, finding rich material in the religious fringe... In the first 

decade of the new century, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle successively declared war upon Christian Science, 

the Emmanuel Movement, and the Watch Tower Society 

The media found a continuing stream of ludicrous and scandalous material in various sects, some of 

which recalled the great days of communal expansion...Apart from depicting cult leaders as cranks, news 

stories also reinforced images of sexual excess and immorality." Mystics and Messiahs, pp. 42, 43 

It is hate, it is discrimination, pure and simple, by those who seek to profit off the allegations of others 

and further prejudice a public that is already hostile to Jehovah's Witnesses. 

The WTS Letter to Dateline 





Accusation, Agendas and Pedophilia 

What They Don't Tell You! 

Warning:Extreme Language from Opposers Below!! 

Dateline Transcript: 

Ms. E. GARZA: So I called my elders and I said, `Look, I'm taking it to the 

police.' 

LARSON: What did they say? 

Ms. E. GARZA: `Don't. Or else.' 

LARSON: Or else what? 

Ms. E. GARZA: That's what I said. I said, Òr else what?' And he said, `Just 

don't.' I said, `What? I'll be disfellowshipped if I take it to the police? 

Is that what's going to happen to me?' And he said, `Yes. You will be 

disfellowshipped.' And I was just, like, `What? You're going to disfellowship 

me for being raped, yet the guy who raped me is still a Jehovah's Witness?' 

And they said, `Don't. Don't take it to the police. You will be condemned by 

God.'" 

Reply: My reactions to statements like these are: "Who talks like this?!" 

I have been a JW most of my life, and the above statements are absolutely foreign to me. They are simply 

not true, or at least, quite embellished. If something like this happened to my child, I, the PARENT will 

go to the proper authorities, the Police. I will not leave it in the hands of religious elders to that for me. It 

is my duty as a parent to protect my child, something these parents were unable to do. 

"In addition to making a report to the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the elders may 

be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the 

authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to 

report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so. In the 

United States, reporting requirements vary from state to state. It can be quite a challenge to 

keep abreast of the reporting requirements, but our Legal Department makes every effort to 

do so." 

http://www.jw-media.org/releases/default.htm?content=bbc020509.pdf 

Nothing is holding anyone from reporting crimes to the authorities, except their own misapplied fears. 

Thanks to the Dateline program, we now have more victims. JW school-children will no doubt be teased, 

harassed, if not beaten for this. We had a similar situation in Russia, when Ray Franz's book was posted 

online there in Russian, in order to fuel the persecution and killings of brothers there. 

You see, when a priest or clergyman commits a felony or makes a mistake, it comes down to him being a 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/pedo2.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:51:44 AM]


bad priest. When this happens with JW's, even in smaller numbers, to the public, it is symptomatic of all 

JW's. 

[I am also receiving reports that brothers are being sent pictures of mutilated and naked babies in their 

email box. This action is the product of a sick and twisted mind...the mind of a JW opposer. 

SunshineConcern writes to tell me that Jesus would not have acted as I did (?), yet she will take sides 

with the same individuals who perpetuate this garbage.] 

This whole pedophile problem could have been averted if, the perpretator was reported to the authorities, 

not by the elders or the WTS, but by either the victims families, or the family of the perp. Amazingly, 

NONE of those who were the closest to the situation reported these fiends, but saw fit to blame this on 

elders who were only trying to help, albeit poorly. This of course also hearkens to the "shift the blame 

mentality" prevalent in society today. 

No one gets disfellowshipped/excommunicated for reporting crimes to the authorities, no one! 

The hysteria will continue, and Bill Bowen and the apostate sites that support him will have made "Silent 

Lambs" the new "Protocols of the Elders" of JW's, accusations blown out of proportion, selectively 

designed to fuel the public's disdain for JW's that already exists. 

Dateline also made it a point, that one accuser was reinstated and in field service. However he is doing 

11 years jail time. The basis of his imprisonment was that he admitted in court that he molested the girl, 

however, he claimed he only touched her inappropriately and didn't have sex with her. He got a much 

longer sentence for this type of crime than is usual, a sentence that, from what I am told, would not have 

been posssible had it not been for his initial confession to the elders. Once you shake the bottle up to see 

what is really inside, things are not as clear as hoped. 

Anti-JW websites have been having a field-day with this, yet their reasoning in this matter is 

contradictory. They have often attacked us in the past for "shunning" certain members. This Biblically 

required mandate is called excommunication or disfellowshipping (click here for more.) 

Now they are upset because JW's did NOT shun THESE members with sexual problems. 

Sites like the Freeminds and the Watchtower Observer defend Ex-JW's who are gay, and Jehovah's 

Witnesses are painted as homophobic. In fact, the Observer compares JW's to Dr. Laura. 

When I heard the term "pedophile paradise", I realized that I had heard this term before, it was from 

apostate Kent Steinhaug (caution: Extreme Language Warning) 

Scroll Down... 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 


> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 


To: ,, 

Subject: Hi there, moron! 

From: "Kent Steinhaug" 

Date: Thu, Nov 15 2001 1:15:36 AM +0100 

Cc: "Watchtower-Observer" 

Also, I'm sure you enjoy the fact that all the assholes inside the pedophile paradise is being 

exposed. I'm convinced you feel that's an awful attach on your "christian" way of life as well 

- being an asshole who protects child molesters and pedophiles - supports these bastards to 

go around knocking doors - finding more victims to abuse! 

Also, I'm sure you are happy to know the AidAfrique is my next target to expose. They 

cooperate, as you know, with womens Liberation, Governments, UN, Military - you name it. 

And, don't let us forget the JW running for president in Africa! 

You really should publish this mail as well, and I guess you will do as you use to. Edit my 

mail to look different than I wrote it. 

But I'm sure you will leave this sentence un-edited: 

You're still a pathetic moron! 

Still laughing my ass off! 

Kent 

,,, 

Subject: RE: Hi there, moron! 

From: "Frank" 

Date: Wed, Nov 14 2001 7:44:51 PM -0500 

Cc: "Watchtower-Observer" 

Who is this moron, Kent? He sounds like he’s a cut below the average JW ignorant ass-hole. 

Seems like the JWs are coming in two flavors now. The militarist, “My God is better than 

your God,” child-fondling cretin whose attachment to the Borg is so thin they don’t mind 

breaking with them and actually having actual social intercourse with apostates. There’s one 

type. Then there’s the other flavor. And this is the meeting-going, suit wearing, 

watchtower-reading, song-singing, “My God is better than your god,” dip-shit who is barely 

self-aware and hasn’t the sense to pour piss out of a shoe: the typical boot-licking, 

anti-thinking, mote-loving, scripture out of context quoting, Jehovah’s Witness pig-dog. I 

thing Heinz 57 is one of the former. But is there more to this story? 

Francois 

[As you can see, a dog really does return to his own vomit, Prov 26:11; 2 Peter 2:22] 

Reply: According to the above, even I am a pedophile, because he "thinks" it, [I have never solicited any 

emails with the above 2 men from the Observer] which goes to show you that the numbers used by 

JW-Haters in regards to pedophiles amongst JW's are completely inflated. 



If, as Bowen claims, the JW's are a "pedophile paradise*" then any group that protects and defends Gays 

must also be seen as such. 

[*Pedophile Paradise*:This kind of language is quite common amongst those with an agenda: 

See http://kosnoff.com/construction/ and http://www.skeptictank.org/utahpedo.htm which both refer to 

Salt Lake City (Mormons) as "Pedophile Heaven." There are no more pedophiles amongst Mormons than 

there are any other segment of the population. Anti-Roman tirades would describe it as a "pornographers 

paradise." (Marcus, The Other Victorians, pp. 62-63) 

The term "Silencing of the Lambs" was also used of Catholics (Pedophiles and Priests, p. 56)by those 

hostile to these groups. This type of language is sensational and tends to stigmatize certain groups, often 

beyond repair.] 

The Observer, and Freeminds are both pro-Gay, and yet, it is from this demographic that child-abuse 

rates are highest. 

Kevin Bishop, from North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) says “Scratch the 

average homosexual and you will find a pedophile,” said Bishop in an interview with the Electronic 

Mail & Guardian ( June 30, 1997) 

The Gay Report,published by homosexual researchers Jay and Young in 1979, revealed that 73 percent 

of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger. [K. Jay 

and A. Young, The Gay Report (New York: Summit Books, 1979), p. 275.] 

Although homosexuals account for less than two percent of the population, they constitute about a third 

of child molesters. [K. Freund and R.I. Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual 

Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital 

Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443, cited in "The Problem of Pedophilia," op. cit. Also, K. Freund and R.I. 

Watson, "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 

(Fall 1984): 197, cited in NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) 

Fact Sheet.] 

Further, as noted by the Encino, Calif.-based National Association for Research and Therapy of 

Homosexuality (NARTH), 

“since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles, 

it is estimated that approximately 80 percent of pedophilic victims are boys who have been 

molested by adult males.” 

[Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality 

Debate 

(Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press), p. 114, cited in "The Problem of Pedohilia] 

Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D., conducted a content study of the personal ads 

in the Advocate, the “national gay and lesbian newsmagazine,” and discovered that “chickens,” a 

common term for underage boys sought for sex, were widely solicited. Many of the advertisements in the 

magazine solicited boys and teens from within a larger pool of prostitution ads, which constituted 63 

percent of all personal ads.32 The authors also note a statement from a book review by homosexual 

activist Larry Kramer that the work, 

“like much canonized male homosexual literature, involves sexually predatory white men on 

the prowl for dark-skinned boys to gratify them.” 

[Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., "A Content Analysis of ‘The Advocate,’" unpublished manuscript p. 18, 

quoted in "Pedophilia: The Part of Homosexuality They Don’t Want You to See," 



"Larry Kramer’s Reading List," The Advocate, January 24, 1995, p. 99, cited in "Status Report," 

The Reisman & Johnson Report of Partner Solicitation Characterisitics as a Reflection of More Sexual 

Orientation and the Threat to Children, First Principles Press, January 1995.] 

"The homosexual rights movement has tried to distance itself from pedophilia, but only for 

public relations purposes. In fact, homosexual activists around the world are working 

aggressively to lower the age of sexual consent for children and to normalize sex with 

children. They are accomplishing their goal through legislation, psychiatry, the courts, 

academia, and the entertainment industry." Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia by Frank 

V York and Robert H.Knight 

A homosexual activist writing under the name of Michael Swift, quoted by Frank York and Charles and 

Donna McIlhenny in When the Wicked Seize a City (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 

1993), pp. 212-213, stated: 

"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams 

and vulgar lies. … Your sons shall become our minions to do our bidding. They will be 

recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us." 

Need I say more? 

Are we going to see an accurate reporting of this? No! 

"It’s not hard to speculate why the media have been squeamish. The church is steadfast in its 

doctrine of sexuality, so there is nothing like a whiff of hypocrisy to make the media wolves 

ravenous. But reporting negatively about homosexuality sours the stomach, because in the 

elite media, homosexuals are a protected class. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that these 

same outlets were scorching the Boy Scouts for their firm resolve against hiring 

homosexuals as Scout leaders." 

http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/departments/a0021237.html 

If JW's or Catholics relaxed their policies against homosexuals, this will be applauded by the media, and 

certain other agendaized groups. If these same homosexuals start preying on the children, it will be 

reported as a serious problem for that respective church. A Catch-22 really. 

See also http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0020332.html and http://www.frc.org/get/is02e3.cfm 

Bill Bowen, owner of Silent Lambs, when asked in an email message by me if he would also include 

other faiths (see http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/pedo.htm) on his website, especially as the 

numbers of abuse therein are higher, he declined. He was only interested in providing "an outreach to 

victims of child molestation and abuse within the Jehovah's Witness community." Yet his statements of a 

"pedophile paradise" belie his claims of being "fair to JW's" and reveals a devious agenda that is 

promoted and praised by the very ones whose words are filled with the profanity and hatred in the letters 

above. It is comparable to the anti-Semitism described in Jenkin's book on Pedophilia: 

"If a newspaper accurately describes the dishonest or criminal activitiy of an individual who is Jewish, 

that would not of itself be anti-Semitic. It would however be grossly anti-semitic if the paper repeatedly 

described the criminal activities of Jews without noting the similar role of other ethnic groups, and 

further proposed that this form of criminality was peculiarly characteristic of Jews or arose from features 

of the Jewish religion or ethnicity." 

Pedophiles and Priests, p. 13, Philip Jenkins (Oxford University Press) 

It is hate, it is discrimination, pure and simple, by those who seek to profit off the allegations of others. 

Email: 



Sunshineconcern-Because states vary on whom they require to report allegations of child molestation 

does not mean they vary on whether people can always encourage victims to report for themselves. This 

is the point you stubbornly refuse to even discuss, let alone reason on it logically or even answer the 

simple questions I have asked you throughout our conversation relevant to the issue. Your reaction is 

more like those who want to dodge a point rather than objectively analyze a real concern. This is not how 

Jesus reacted to the cries of victims. 

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 

really a JW [as you have claimed]). The point of my webpages on this topic is to show that people like 

you are discriminatory in your handling of the facts. 

If someone, like Bill Bowen for instance, creates a web site or prints newsletters decrying the criminal 

activities of one or a few JW's, that is not discriminatory. If however he only reports these activities only 

as they pertain to JW's as a whole, and repeatedly so, without noting similar activities of other groups, 

religious or otherwise, that is hate literature. It is anti-JW, and smacks of the tactics used by Hitler in 

order to perpetuate the already deep-seated hatred people have for Jehovah's Witnesses. It is highly 

inflammatory to describes JW's as a "pedophile paradise" when similar activities by others groups 

actually dwarf those of JW's. Pedophiles are predators and you will find them wherever there is access to 

children. That cases were handled badly is the same accusation across the board everywhere. The fact 

remains that no one chopped of the dialing fingers of the people closest to the situation....the victims 

families, and those of the perpetrator. If someone touched my child, nothing would prevent from going to 

the Police...NOTHING!! Would I be disfellowshipped for doing so? Absolutely not! Even IF (and that is 

a big IF) that were a threat, I still would go to the authorities. It would be unconscionable NOT to. 

> 

> It is inexcusable that we do not encourage all victims of serious crime like child molestation to report it 

to the police, regardless of what state they happened to be victimized in. 

> 

I agree, but this problem is ecumenical, and not derivative of JW's. All churches have failed in this 

regard, and it really has only been in the last 20 years that all organizations, religious or secular, have 

better educated themselves as to the issues involved. 

It is not a JW problem, unless you want to see it that way. The problem is entirely of your own making. 

"If the world is not be represented as a jumble of of random and chaotic events, then they 

must be identified (i.e., named, identified related to other events known to the audience). 

This process-identification and contextualization-is one of the most important through 

which event are 'made to mean' by the media." Stuart Hall, Policing the Crisis [1978] 

To do this, things are framed in a certain context. Frames are "cultural combinations and 

constructions that put selected phenomena into comprehensible and consumable focus" 

which means, for JW's and Catholics, that these frames are "highly selective...which 

emphasizes certain aspects of the cases to the exclusion of others and concentrates on these 

instances rather than others that could equally well have been chosen." Pedophiles and 

Priests, p. 6, Philip Jenkins 

The predatory nature of pedophiles will ensure their presence in areas where they will have access to 

children, areas where they can enjoy their trust, and what better arena than the religious one: 

"Child Molesters are predators who will often use a church to find victims. Churches 

typically have a very trusting atmosphere regarding teachers and our children. In today's 

society with morals breaking down at an astronomical rate, we find this occuring more 



frequently than ever before. Your children could be in danger, even at church. The last thing 

you want to do is stay at home because of the potential problem, so we are attempting to 

offer a solution to churches to assist with this situation. 

Do not be fooled. Child molesters are some of the best actors in the world. This is HOW 

they obtain their victims and prevent being caught. They can pretend to be Christians and 

will even join evangelism training in order that other adults do not suspect their true 

motives." http://www.baptist-church.org/predator.html 

This is sad, but hardly indigenous to ONE group. 

Has Bill Bowen (of Silent Lambs) collaborated with a Pornographer? 

Written by a non-JW: 

"Plot Thickens: SilentLambs Now Has Silent Partner 

Approximately one month ago, it was discovered that William Bowen, president and 

founder of child advocacy group SilentLambs Inc., had entered into a partnership with a 

German citizen, who agreed to host and translate the group's website into the German 

language. 

German supporters of SilentLambs were shocked at this news, since Bowen's German 

partner is a former Jehovah's Witness who is known to own pornographic websites, in 

addition to websites that publish anti-Watchtower material of questionable accuracy. 

Conscientious supporters of SilentLambs were disillusioned by Bowen's weak response 

when this fact became public knowledge. Bowen's response did not seem to indicate 

surprise with his partner's business activities, nor did he seem overly concerned with having 

his child advocacy group linked with a known pornographer. 

Bowen initially indicated that he planned to proceed with the partnership. However, Bowen 

now says that the German version of the SilentLambs website will not be hosted by the 

same ISP that hosts the two pornographic websites referenced above. It seems that Bowen 

hopes that it will be assumed from this switch in ISPs that he is no longer partners with the 

pornographer. 

However, SilentLambs supporters strongly suspected that the move to a different ISP is 

nothing more than misdirection intended to deceive supporters, with the German 

pornographer continuing to provide financing, and working behind the scenes as a silent 

partner." 


heinzschmitz@canoemail.com 


The Watchtower and the United Nations 

Why was the Watchtower Society Listed amongst the United Nations 

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO)? 

In 1991, one of the legal corporations of the WTS registered with the United Nations as an NGO for the 

sole purpose of getting access to the extensive library of the United Nations. This enabled a writer who 

received an identification card, to enter the library, to enter the library for research purposes and to obtain 

information that has been used in writing articles in our journals about the United Nations. There was 

nothing secret about it. 

At the time of the initial application, no signature was required on the form. Years later, unbeknown to 

the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, the United Nations published "Criteria for Association", 

stipulating that affiliated NGO's are required to support the goals of the UN. 

After learning of the situation, our membership as NGO was withdrawn and the ID card was returned. 

From a reader: The WT says that the UN is the unclean thing and its not to be touched. 

Reply: That is not really true. The Bible and the WTS says that of Babylon the great, not the government 

(that is why the NWT cross-references 2 Cor 6:17 with Revelation 18). What the WTS has actually 

pooh-poohed is that the UN is mankinds last hope, or "God's kingdom on earth." 

To defend other JW's, the Watchtower has also recently filed with the European Court, in order to protect 

our rights under the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. see 

http://www.jw-media.org/rights/european_court.htm 

The original principles and goals expressed in the UN charter are: to maintain international peace and 

security; to suppress acts of aggression that threaten world peace; to encourage friendly relations among 

nations; to protect the fundamental freedoms of all peoples without discrimination based on race, sex, 

language, or religion; and to achieve international cooperation in solving economic, social, and cultural 

problems." 

There isn't anything here which compromises our beliefs as Christians? Many JW's sign documents 

which state that we will protect the constitution or laws of the country he resides in, because there is no 

Christian conflict in protecting the stated principles of these governments. 

God is going to use the UN to destroy false religion so why shouldn't we use it to promote religious 

freedom and human rights as long as we do not join it. We can promote it's "ideals" without promoting it 

as a replacement for God's Kingdom. 

The Society has also stated: 

"Registration papers filed with the United Nations that we have on file contain no statements that conflict 

with our Christian beliefs." 

Additionally, the WTS has previously called the UN objectives "nobel." Also, there is no conflict 

between the WTS's purpose and the Charter's allowance for governments to take military action. The 

Bible clearly states that God himself has given these governments the authority to "carry the sword" and 

we do not deny that authority (Rom.13:4). At the same time God requires Christians to personally reject 

warfare. (Matt 26:52) 

A 1994 UN brochure gives evidence to the fact that there was beginning to be a change in the official 

requirements for participation and an NGO. On page six we find this statement: "A new relationship 

between the UN and NGOs is now being created. We have seen this new relationship begin to mature. 

NGOs are taking on important new responsibilities." 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/ngo.htm (1 of 3) [5/25/2003 3:52:12 AM]


Then we find the current Criteria for Association of NGOs describing the work of NGOs using language 

that Witnesses clearly cannot agree with; encouraging political participation, strengthening and support 

of the UN System etc. Also, in the latest NGO brochure we find that there was in fact an official change 

in the relationship and requirements of NGOs. () 

Quoting from the brochure: 

"After three years of negotiation, ECOSOC reviewed its arrangements for consultation with 

NGOs in July 1996. One outcome was ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, which revised the 

arrangements for NGO consultation with ECOSOC....A second outcome...Decision 

1996/297, which recommended that the General Assembly examine, at it 51st session, the 

QUESTION OF THE PARTICIPATION OF NGOS IN ALL AREAS OF WORK OF THE 

UN...Subsequently, in the General Assembly Working Group looking into the 

STRENGTHENING OF THE UN SYSTEM a sub-group on NGOs was formed." 

The above clearly confirms exactly what the WTS has said: That *after* they applied for NGO status 

there was a change in the language of the "Criteria for Association." When this was brought to their 

attention they *immediately* withdrew their participation. 

In a nutshell: The WTS applied for a library card at the UN. After they had received this card, the 

requirements for holding this card changed, so they returned it. Everything was done properly, despite 

what our enemies say regarding the matter. 

From a reader: 

****There is [sic] any reason to get this library card to get access to the books because the 

UN has what is called “Depository Library”. In these places, you may found nearly all the 

books that you may found at the UN library. This libraries are around the world and what 

you need is a library card because these libraries are often found in public libraries or 

university libraries. But there is any political policy or other weird thing to apply for this 

library card. 

Reply: Certainly, all the available information is not available at the depository libraries, contrary to 

some opposers claims. Looking closely, the WTS did not say that they registered as an NGO just to get a 

library card for the "main library." They also wanted to gain access to research material at the UN 

"library facilities" or the "extensive library of the UN." This library system includes more than just the 

Dag Hammarskjold library. It includes DPI photo, film and audio libraries, access to the NGO Resource 

Center which offers current UN documents, access to selected meetings, briefings, seminars, 

conferences, film screenings, and language courses. Are all these resources accesible with out an NGO 

pass? Probably not! 

Why have access to the UN's public information anyways? JW's are often the brunt of violations of the 

UN's charter of Rights and Freedoms. According the Encyc;. Americana 2000, Jehovah's Witnesses have 

faced more persecution in the 20th Century than any other religious group, save the Jews. But when we 

take steps to protect our members, even this is demonized by those that hate us and make an issue out of 

all this. THIS IS ANOTHER FORM OF PERSECUTION. See: 

http://www.jw-georgia.org/eng/rights/00sep08UN.htm 

http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webeurcountries/GEORGIA?OpenDocument 

http://www.ihf-hr.org/appeals/981023.htm 

http://www.cacianalyst.org/July_18_2001/July_18_2001_News_Bites.htm 

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Abuses/Chronology.asp 



http://www.hrw.org/wr2k2/pdf/czech.pdf 

http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord1998/vol5/romaniatr.htm 

http://www.ips.org/rights/news/nup051299_11.htm 

and many many more. 


Email Me 


Answering Universalism-What does the Bible mean by ALL? 

Refuting Universalism-What does the Bible mean by 

ALL? 

An Answer to Tentmaker.org 

"For as IN ADAM all die, even so IN CHRIST all shall be made alive." 1 Cor 15:22 (NKJV) 

Gary A: "There is only one translation which had the audacity to put into print that which 

many Christian teachers, pastors, and commentators imply and that is the Jehovah's 

Witnesses New Testament. What orthodoxy adds in their commentaries, the Jehovah's 

Witnesses' put directly into the text. Their translation reads, 

"And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw men of all sorts to me." 

Yet it is rather peculiar that in their Interlinear Translation, the word "sorts" does not 

appear in their word-for-word translation. Therefore, we can conclude that they did not get 

"sorts" from the Greek. They got it from their twisted theology, just like every other 

denomination which refuses to believe that Jesus is indeed the Savior of the whole world. 

Some will say that "PANTAS" (transliterated: pantas, all) which is a masculine accusative 

plural adjective from "PAS" (transliterated: pas) does not really mean all mankind. Well let 

us see. The Expositor's Greek Testament on page 504 in Volume 3 renders it "The universe 

in its widest sense regarded as a collective whole." Professor John Eadie, professor of 

Biblical Literature in the United Presbyterian Divinity Hall renders it, "The universe, the 

whole that exists, all things, whether they be things on earth, or in heaven." (Taken from 

Commentary of the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians, page 52, 73) Dr. J.B. Lightfoot D.D., 

D.C.L., L.L.D. speaking of the phrase "ta panta" says, "The whole universe or things, 

material as well as spiritual, shall be restored to harmony to God." (St. Paul's Epistles to 

the Colossians and Philemon, page 160 by Dr. Lightfoot) "Ta panta is the existing all, the 

totality of things [The universe, Alford-R], panta would be all that actually is." (Winer's 

Grammar p.105) I think mankind certainly falls within the parameter of the universe, don't 

you think? 

Reply: Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains Volume 1 By: Louw 

& Nida says of PAS, PASA and PAN, "a totality of kinds or sorts-'every kind of,' 'all sorts of.'" 

"Everything belonging, in kind, to the class designated by the noun, every kind of, all sorts of..." BDAG 

p. 784 

This lexicon gives the following as some examples: 

Mt. 4:23, 

QERAPEUWN PASAN NOSON KAI PASAN MALAKIAN EN TW LAW 

"healing every disease and every infirmity among the people." Revised Standard Version (RSV) 

"curing every sort of disease and every sort of infirmity among the people." NWT 

"curing all kinds of disease and ailments among the people." New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) 

Mt. 23:27, 

PASHS AKAQARSIAS 

"all uncleanness" RSV 

"every sort of uncleanness" NWT 

"every kind of corruption" NJB 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/pas.htm (1 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:52:32 AM]


Acts 13:10, 

W PLHRHS PANTOS DOLOU KAI PASHS RADIOURGIAS 

"full of all deceit and all recklessness" RSV 

"full of every sort of fraud and every sort of villainy" NWT 

"full of all kinds of evil tricks" Today's English Version (TEV) 

1 Cor. 6:18, 

PAN AMARTHMA O EAN POIHSH ANQRWPOS EKTOS TOU SWMATOS ESTIN 

"Every sin, whatever a man may do, is outside the body" 

"Every other sin that a man may commit is outside his body" NWT 

"ALL other sins a man commits are outside his body" New International Version (NIV) 

Eph. 4:19, 

PAREDWKAN TH ASELGEIA EIS ERGASIAN AKAQARSIAS PASHS EN PLEONEXIA 

"every kind of uncleanness" RSV 

"uncleanness of every sort with greediness." NWT 

Eph. 5:3, 

PORNEIA DE KAI AKAQARSIA PASA H PLEONEXIA MHDE ONOMAZESQW EN UMIN 

"But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting 

among saints." RSV 

"Let fornication and uncleanness of every sort or greediness not even be mentioned among YOU" NWT 

Titus 1:16, 

QEON OMOLOGOUSIN EIDENAI TOIS DE ERGOIS ARNOUNTAI BDELUKTOI ONTES KAI 

APEIQEIS KAI PROS PAN ERGON AGAQON ADOKIMOI 

"They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for 

any good deed." RSV 

"They publicly declare they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable 

and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort." NWT 

Vine's Dictionary says of PAS, "Used without the article it means 'every,' every kind or variety." 

The UBS Greek New Testament Dictionary says of PAS, PASA, PAN, gen. PANTOS, PASHS, 

PANTOS "without the article *each*...*every kind of.*" 

None of the above examples have a definite article with PAS, and neither does John 12:32 or Romans 

5:18. 

The argument that Gary puts forth for TA PANTA, has no bearing on the argument. 

Let us take a look at some examples of PAS et al in Scripture to see how it holds up. Many think "all" as 

is commonly referred to in the Bible is "all, with no exceptions." This is clearly refuted by many of the 

following verses, as taken here from Rotherham Bible: 

Matt 10:22 "And ye will be hated by all (PANTWN), because of my name." Those IN Christ will not 

really be hated by ALL, only those in opposition to them. 

Matt 12:31 "All (PASA) sin and profane speaking, shall be forgiven unto men,-but, the speaking 

profanely of the Spirit, shall not be forgiven" 

"ALL" here in Matthew 12:31 is used with an exception---the exception of blasphemy against the spirit. 

Matt 21:22 "And, all (PANTA) things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." 

Does ALL THINGS include evil things? 



Matt 26:33 "Now Peter, answering, said unto him-Though, all (PANTES), shall find cause of stumbling 

in thee, I, shall never find cause of stumbling." 

The ALL here does not include Peter. 

Matt 27:25 "And all (PAS) the people, answering, said-His blood be upon us and upon our children!" 

The ALL here does not include Jesus' disciples. 

Mark 1:5 "and there were going out unto him all (PASA) the Judaea country and all (PANTES) they of 

Jerusalem, and were being immersed by him in the Jordan river, openly confessing their sins" 

Not everyone in Judaea and Jerusalem were actually baptized, but only those from those regions in the 

immediate vicinity. 

Mark 3:28 "Verily, I say unto you-All (PANTA) things shall be forgiven unto the sons of men,-the sins 

and the profanities wherewithal they shall profane" 

That would be ALL except sins against the spirit (Mark 3:29, Matthew 12:31; Luke 12:10.) 

Mark 5:20 "And he departed, and began proclaiming, in the Decapolis, how many things Jesus had done 

for him,-and, all (PANTES), were marveling." 

All, except his enemies, like the Pharisees. 

Luke 2:1 "Now it came to pass, in those days, that there went forth a decree from Caesar Augustus, for 

all (PASAN) the inhabited earth to be enrolled" 

"All" the inhabited earth was not registered by Caesar. Caesar did not rule the entire world. 

Luke 3:6 "And all (PASA) flesh shall see the salvation of God." 

"All" here pertains only to Jews and Gentiles that will hear the message of salvation. 

Luke 21:29 "See the fig-tree, and all (PANTA) the trees" 

ALL the trees here excludes the fig-tree. 

Acts 2:17 "And it shall be, in the last days saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon 

all (PASAN) flesh; And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy..." 

Here, again, "ALL" is used in a more restricted sense. The Spirit will hardly be poured out upon "ALL 

flesh" PASAN SARKA, since this verse refers exclusively to those IN Christ in the upper room. 

Rom 9:6 "not all (PANTES) they who are of Israel, the same are Israel." 

There are different kinds of ALL here. Some are Jews, some are Gentiles. 

1 Cor 10:33 "Even as I please all (PANTA) men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of 

many, that they may be saved." 

Paul did not please "all men", as some men put him in prisons and wanted him dead. But he could say he 

pleased all kinds of men. 

2 Cor 3:2 "Our letter, ye, are, inscribed in our hearts, noted and read by all (PANTWN) men" 

Did ALL men really read Paul's letter? 

Php 2:21 "For, they all (PANTES), their own things do seek, not the things of Christ Jesus" 

The ALL here refers to those outside the faith, not those IN Christ. 

Col 1:20 "And, through him, fully to reconcile all (TA PANTA) things unto him." 

I think it is safe to say that Satan and his demons are exempt here, even though PANTA is used with the 

definite article (TA PANTA). 

1 Tim 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all (PANTWN) evil" KJV, but ASV has "For the love of 

money is a root of all kinds of evil." The ASV is accurate, as the love of money is NOT the roots of ALL 

evil, but many types of evil. 

2 Tim 1:15 "You are aware of the fact that all (PANTES) who are in Asia turned away from me, among 

whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes."--NASB 

Not ALL the people in Asia turned away, though alot of them did. This passage refers specifically to 

certain Christians. 



Let us look at all uses of TA PANTA in the NWT: 

Mark 4:11 "And he proceeded to say to them: "To YOU the sacred secret of the kingdom of God has 

been given, but to those outside all things (TA PANTA) occur in illustrations." 

Acts 17:25 "And he proceeded to say to them: "To YOU the sacred secret of the kingdom of God has 

been given, but to those outside all things (TA PANTA) occur in illustrations" 

Romans 8:32 "He who did not even spare his own Son but delivered him up for us all, why will he not 

also with him kindly give us all other things (TA PANTA)?" 

[The NWT in Romans 8:32 has added the "other," for the reason that the Scripture differentiates the Son, 

who was already given, with "all other things." Nothing is lost though by removing the "other."] 

Romans 11:36 "Because from him and by him and for him are all things (TA PANTA). To him be the 

glory forever. Amen." 

1 Cor 8:6 "there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things (TA PANTA) are" 

1 Cor 8:6 "and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things (TA PANTA) are, and we 

through him." 

1 Cor 12:6 "and there are varieties of operations, and yet it is the same God who performs all (TA 

PANTA) the operations in all persons (EN PASIN)." [Here the Greek does not use TA PANTA for "all 

persons."] 

1 Cor 15:27, 28 "For [God] "subjected all things (PANTA) under his feet." But when he says that 'all 

things (PANTA) have been subjected,' it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected 

all things (TA PANTA) to him. But when all things (TA PANTA) will have been subjected to him, then 

the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things (TA PANTA) to him, that 

God may be all (PANTA) things to everyone (PASIN)." [Interesting use of PANTA here. The Father is 

excluded from PANTA, even TA PANTA.] 

Gal 3:22 "But the Scripture delivered up all things [TA PANTA] together to the custody of sin" 

All (The All) are under custody of sin...yet it is only the anarthrous PANTAS [John 12:32..in other words 

"all sorts of"] that are drawn to Jesus' as Savior. 

Eph 1:10, 11 "for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, namely, to gather all things 

(TA PANTA) together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. [Yes,] in 

him, in union with whom we were also assigned as heirs, in that we were foreordained according to the 

purpose of him who operates all things (TA PANTA) according to the way his will counsels" 

"Paul goes on to speak, not of the world as a whole, but of those who respond to God's call." NIV Study 


Eph 1:23 "to the congregation, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things (TA 

PANTA) in all (PASIN)." 

We see here that the TA PANTA (The All)in vss 10,11 refers to the congregation. 

Eph 3:9 "and should make men see how the sacred secret is administered which has from the indefinite 

past been hidden in God, who created all things (TA PANTA)." 

Eph 4:10 "The very one that descended is also the one that ascended far above all the heavens, that he 

might give fullness to all things (TA PANTA)." 

Or, "In order to fill the whole universe" NIV, CB Williams NT, NLT, Goodspeed, REB etc. 

Eph 4:15 "But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things (TA PANTA) into him who is the 

head, Christ." 

Or, "So shall we fully grow up into Christ." REB 

Php 3:8 "Why, for that matter, I do indeed also consider all things (TA PANTA) to be loss on account of 

the excelling value of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord." 

Php 3:21 "who will refashion our humiliated body to be conformed to his glorious body according to the 



operation of the power that he has, even to subject all things (TA PANTA) to himself." 

Col 1:16, 17 "because by means of him all [other] things (TA PANTA) were created in the heavens and 

upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships 

or governments or authorities. All [other] things (TA PANTA) have been created through him and for 

him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things (PANTWN) and by means of him all [other] things (TA 

PANTA) were made to exist." 

Again, an interesting use of ALL here in the Greek text. His pre-existence ("he is before all things") is 

not as definite as his part in creation. But the NWT also uses "other" for TA PANTA as well, since all the 

verb pertaining to creation are passive. Or, as Barclay's NT puts it, "For he is the agent by whom all 

things were created, in heaven and upon earth, visible and invisible, spiritual powers and beings, whether 

they be thrones or lordships or authorities or powers. He is the agent and the goal of all creation. He 

exists before everything *else,* and everything *else* holds together in him." 

The 21st Century NT has "It was he that formed all other things in heaven...all came into existence as a 

result of him and by means of him." 

Col 1:20 "and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things (TA PANTA) by making peace 

through the blood" 

I think it is safe to say that Satan is excluded by ALL here. Romans 8:21 says, "that the creation itself 

also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of 

God." Believers will be those "children" (see John 1:12). 

Col 3:8 "But now really put them all (TA PANTA) away from YOU, wrath, anger, badness, abusive 

speech, and obscene talk out of YOUR mouth." 

1 Tim 6:13 "In the sight of God, who preserves all things (TA PANTA) alive." The footnote in the NWT 

says "who brings all things to life," see also NIV. 

This verse could be used to promote Universalism, if it wasn't for the previous Scripture, "Fight the fine 

fight of the faith, get a firm hold on the everlasting life for which you were called and you offered the 

fine public declaration in front of many witnesses." If we will all achieve universal salvation, then why 

do we need to fight for anything, why do we need to firmly hold on to eternal life" 

Heb 1:3 "he sustains all things (TA PANTA) by the word of his power" 

Heb 2:8 "'All things (TA PANTA) you subjected under his feet.' For in that he subjected all things (TA 

PANTA) to him [God] left nothing that is not subject to him." 

Heb 2:10 "For it was fitting for the one for whose sake all things (TA PANTA) are and through whom all 

things (TA PANTA) are, in bringing many sons to glory" 

Rev 4:11 "You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, 

because you created all things (TA PANTA)." 

The main reason for posting the above was to show that the New World Translation Committee was 

careful in their use of ALL, and the differing forms of it, and I think they handled it quite well. 

But Gary adds, 

"Let's face it, the image of Jesus that the church is portraying to the world is an utter 

failure. This Jesus says He has all power and authority given to Him, that He loves the 

whole world and died for it, and yet He will consign the greatest part of humanity to 

sufferings which would make Hitler's holocaust more humane than God's behavior. And we 

are surprised that the world does not find the image of Jesus which the church is presenting 

desirable. If this Jesus loses most of mankind this time around, how can anyone be certain 

He will fare better on the other side of the grave?" 



Reply: Gary also has used this quote, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways," 

says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, 

and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9) 

Does God indeed promise Universal Salvation? 

"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those 

who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who 

find it are few." Matt 7:13, 14 RSV 

Is the "few" here the "one" you were hoping for in our conversation Gary? Does it apply to Satan alone? 

The Greek word here, oligos, is also used at Matt 9:37, "Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is 

plentiful, but the laborers are few" and Matt 15:34, "And Jesus said to them, "How many loaves have 

you?" They said, "Seven, and a few small fish." RSV 

Even looking at other occurrences, it usually seems to denote a small, but plural number. 

In Matthew 13:30 Jesus in a parable said, "Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I 

will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat 

into my barn.'" RSV 

Here unbelievers and believers are spoken of as weeds and wheat. Two classes! 

In Matthew 13:49 Jesus said, "So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate 

the evil from the righteous." RSV 

Again, two classes are mentioned - unbelievers and believers spoken of as the evil and the righteous. 

In Matthew 25:32 Jesus said that following His parousia, "Before him will be gathered all the nations, 

and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." RSV 

Here believers and unbelievers are differentiated by the terms "sheep" and "goats." The sheep will enter 

into God's kingdom (vs. 34) and inherit eternal life (vs. 46). The goats go into eternal punishment (vs. 

46). Again, two classes. 

2 Thess. 1:9, "They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of 

the Lord and from the glory of his might." RSV 

Rev. 21:8, "As for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, 

idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second 

death." RSV 

God should never be compared to the evils of Hitler, who gave no one a chance at salvation. It was 

enough for Hitler to kill you simply if you were born into a certain race or religion. No claims of loyalty 

to him or his cause would have warranted your salvation. God, lovingly, does give eternal life to those 

knowing him, and His Son (John 17:3). 

Gary: "The following scriptures present a strong case of universal salvation in ALL English 

translations including those that contain the concept of a Hell of everlasting punishment: 

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; 

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 

John 3:8; Rom. 8:20,21; Rev. 5:13; Isa. 25:6-8; Phil. 3:21; John 12:47; Gal. 3:8; John 

3:17; Psalm 138:4; 2 Cor. 5:14-20; 1 Cor. Chapter 13 all especially verse 8; Psalm 

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 

dozens more." 

Reply: Well, let us take a look at all these: 



1 Tim 2:1-7, "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and 

thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may 

lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is 

acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to 

the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and 

men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which 

was borne at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling 

the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth." RSV 

All the occurrences of ALL here are anarthrous, remember: 

"Used without the article it means 'every,' every kind or variety." Vine's 

"Without the article *each*...*every kind of.*" UBS Greek New Testament Dictionary 

This is why Bishop J.W.C. Wand can render it "all sorts of men" in his New Testament Letters and "all 

classes of men" in The Epistles of Paul in Modern English by George Barker Stevens, Ph.D., D.D. 

Ryrie says of "who desires all men to be saved" that it is "An expression of God's wish, not His decree." 

NIV Ryrie Study Bible 

Weymouth adds Bishop Ellicott's words in a footnote here saying, "All mankind to be saved] 

Redemption is universal yet conditional; all may be saved, yet all will not be saved, because all will not 

conform to God's appointed conditions." 

1 Tim 4:9-11 "The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and 

strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, 

especially of those who believe. Command and teach these things." 

The "all men" is PANTWN ANQRWPWN, which is again, anarthrous. 

Remember: 



This is rendered wonderfully by George Barker Stevens in his The Epistles of Paul in Modern English as 

"Our hope in God's salvation, which is freely offered to all; but is realized by those who believe IN 

Christ." 

What is really interesting is the way that 1 Timothy ends. Not only do we have an admonishment to fight 

the fine fight of the faith (6:12), but we "are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, 

thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life 

which is life indeed. O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and 

contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as 

regards the faith." 6:18-21 RSV 

How can we "miss the mark" if we are all destined to be saved? Why should store up treasures by good 

works if everyone will be universally saved anyways? 

Rom. 5:18-21 

First, let us look at Romans 5:12: 

"For this cause,-just as, through one man, sin into the world entered, and through sin, 

death,-and, so, unto all men death passed through, for that all had sinned." 

Death here did not really spread to ALL men, as it did not spread to Adam. It spread FROM Adam to all 

men. 

Rom 5:18-21 says, "Hence then, as through one fault, the sentence was unto all (PANTAS) 



men unto condemnation, so, also, through one recovery of righteousness, the decree of 

favour is unto all (PANTAS) men for righteous acquittal unto life; For, just as, through the 

disobedience of the one man, sinners, the many were constituted, so, also, through the 

obedience of the one, righteous, the many shall be constituted- 

Law, however, gained admission, in order that the fault might abound, but, where the sin 

abounded, the favour greatly superabounded: 

In order that-just as sin reigned in death, so, also, favour, might reign through righteousness 

unto life age-abiding, through Jesus Christ our Lord." 

Reply: Again, the PANTAS here lacks the definite article. 

Remember: 



Also, the ALL here is qualified by the use of the word POLLOI, the MANY. 

As it stated in the International English Bible, "through the obedience of one man, many people will be 

made righteous." 

The next chapter of Romans tells us that there are two possibilities, not one universal one. 

"For the wages of sin is death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus our Lord." NIV 

So eternal life is a gift that must first be received, and it is given to those IN Christ. 

Is it fair though, to have all mankind suffer because of the misdeeds of one? 

Was it fair for the Hebrews to be denied the Promised Land 

Romans 11:25-36: 

Rom 11:25 "For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you 

will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until 

the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 

Rom 11:26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The Deliverer will come 

from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob." 

Rom 11:27 "This is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins." 

Rom 11:28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the 

standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 

Rom 11:29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 

Rom 11:30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy 

because of their disobedience, 

Rom 11:31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to 

you they also may now be shown mercy. 

Rom 11:32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. 

Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How 

unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 

Rom 11:34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? 

Rom 11:35 Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? 

Rom 11:36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory 

forever. Amen." NASB 

Reply: Will ALL Israel (v. 26) really be saved? The scribes and Pharisees won't! "Matt 5:20 says "For I 

say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter 

the kingdom of heaven." 



These Scriptures are a reference to Isaiah 59:20, where it says, "'The Redeemer will come to Jerusalem,' 

says the LORD, 'to buy back those in Israel WHO HAVE TURNED FROM THEIR SINS.'" 

NLT [Emphasis Mine] Again, we see a qualification to those ALL being saved. 

Does "fullness of the Gentiles" indicate that ALL people will be saved? Thayer's has on PLHRWMA, 

"Etymologically, it has a passive sense...In the NT the body of believers, as that which is filled with the 

presence, power, agency, riches of God and of Christ." 

Wand's translation puts it nicely, "to allow time for the non-Jews to *make up their number* and achieve 

their goal." 

Acts 15:14 says, "Simeon has declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a 

people for his name." AKJV 

God TAKES OUT of the Gentiles a people for His Name, he does not take out ALL. 

Next: 1 Cor. 15:20-28: Discussed above 

Next: Eph. 1:7-11 

"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, 

according to the riches of his grace that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and insight he 

has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set 

forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in 

heaven and things on earth. In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been 

destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his 

counsel and will." NRSV 

Reply: The ALL THINGS here (TA PANTA) is qualified by the following Scriptures: 

"And you also became God's people WHEN YOU HEARD THE TRUE MESSAGE, THE GOOD 

NEWS THAT BROUGHT YOU SALVATION. You believed in Christ, and God put his stamp of 

ownership on you." Ephesians 1:13 TEV 

You see, when reading these Scriptures, you cannot make broad assumptions without looking at the 

context. For instance, when you read "In Christ" this lets you know that this does not include those who 

are IN ADAM (1 Cor 15:22). I was once IN ADAM, but when responded to the True Message, I became 

IN CHRIST. 

Next: Phil. 2:9-11 

"Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every 

(PAN) name; that in the name of Jesus every (PAN) knee should bow, of things in heaven 

and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every (PASA) tongue should confess 

that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 

Reply: Was Jesus GIVEN a Name above even God's Name? 

So the ALL here is being used in a qualified way, so it can read: 

"God...gave him the name which is above all other names." New Jerusalem Bible or 

"God...gave him the name that is greater than any other name." Good News Bible 

Every knee should bow, IN the name of Jesus. We certainly would not see Satan and his demons bowing, 

would we? All those IN Christ will bow to him. 

Col. 1:12-23: Discussed above 

Click here and here for more. 

Heb. 2:5-10: "Thou didst make him for a little while lower than the angels, thou hast 

crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.' Now in 



putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. As it is, we do 

not yet see everything in subjection to him." RSV 

Reply: This verse, like all verses that make mention of this subjection under Jesus' feet is expanded upon 

at Ephesians 1:10, 11: "And this is his plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the 

authority of Christ--everything in heaven and on earth. Furthermore, because of Christ, we have received 

an inheritance from God, for he chose us from the beginning, and all things happen just as he decided 

long ago." Eph 1:10-11 (NLT) 

God will bring everything together under Him, when the tent of God is with mankind, but only after we 

see "a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared." Rev 21:1-4 

This will happen only after certain destruction, and in the meantime, "see to it, brothers and sisters, that 

none of you has an unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another 

daily...so that one of you may be hardened by sins deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ, if 

indeed we hold firmly till the end our original conviction." Hebrews 3:12-14 TNIV 

Again, a little context tells us that there is a struggle for salvation, and nothing is assured. Paul made this 

abundantly clear when even he, the greatest of the saints, said at 1 Cor 9:27, "I beat my body and make it 

my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize." (NIV) If 

there was truly a doctrine of universal salvation, why did Paul not embrace it? 

Heb. 9:23-26: Whatever you may think of these passages, it has all been numbed by quoting the 

following verses at Hebrews 9:27, 28: "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face 

judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a 

second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." (NIV) Those IN 

CHRIST will have salvation, those not IN CHRIST will face judgment. 

John 3:35,36: These verses do not support universal salvation, quite the opposite in fact: 

"The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand. He who believes in the 

Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of 

God rests upon him." 

John 12:32,33: See above 

1 John 3:8: "He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this 

purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil." 

NKJV 

Reply: No universalism here, especially in light of the following: 

"If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 

But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of 

Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin." 

1 John 1:6-7 (NKJV) Again, salvation rests on fellowship IN Christ. 

Rom. 8:20,21: "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him 

who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage 

of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." (NKJV) 

Reply: Does "the creation" mean everyone will be delivered? It is difficult to be dogmatic about it, as 

even BDAG shows, "The mng. [meaning] of KT [KTISIS] is in dispute in Ro 8:19-22, though the pass. 

is usually taken to mean the waiting of the whole creation *below* the human level (animate and 

inanimate)." That is one interpretation, though, if we want humans referred to here also, then we must 

move ahead, where we again see a limitation in vss. 28-30: 



"And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of *those who love God* and 

are *called according to his purpose* for them. For God knew *his people* in advance, and he *chose 

them* to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn, with many brothers and sisters. And 

*having chosen them, he called them to come to him.* And he gave them right standing with himself, 

and he promised them his glory." (NLT) 

Again, would not this "chosen" group of the creation represent those IN Christ? 

Rev. 5:13: "And then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and 

in the sea. They also sang: "Blessing and honor and glory and power belong to the one 

sitting on the throne and to the Lamb forever and ever." (NLT) 

Reply: Every creature seems to include the fishes and insects, so this verse, like many others in 

Revelations, must be taken in a figurative way where there is no possibility of certain things happening. 

The BDAG says of KTISIS, that it can be a "system of established authority that is the result of some 

founding action, governance system, authority system." 

This works well with what we read in verse 10, where we have the elect reigning over earthly ones, 

chosen from "every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation." Rev 5:9 ASV 

Hence, all sorts of men......see above 

Isa. 25:6-8: "On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all 

peoples, a banquet of aged wine-- the best of meats and the finest of wines. On this 

mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all 

nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears 

from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth. The LORD has 

spoken." (NIV) 

Reply: If we look at the preceding chapter, it tells us, "The earth is defiled by its people; they have 

disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse 

consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt. Therefore earth's inhabitants are burned up, and very 

few are left." Isaiah 24:5-6, cf. Rev 21:3, 4 (NIV) 

This parallels what the book of Revelations tells us, that after Armageddon, the great day of God the 

Almighty, where the wicked are removed and the only people left on earth, are those that can truly say, 

"Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is Jehovah, we have waited 

for him; we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation." Isa. 25:9 Darby 

Who exactly has waited/hoped on Jehovah? Has everyone on earth made known his name and renown? 

(Is 26:8) No indeed, and this is why "Yahweh emerges from his dwelling to punish the inhabitants of the 

earth for their guilt." Isa. 26:21 NJB 

Again, no universal salvation here. 

Phil. 3:21: "who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to 

the body of his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things 

unto himself." Revised Version IC-Parkinson 

Reply: Have you even read this entire chapter? Let us take a look at a few verses previous. Paul talks 

about his "pressing on" towards the goal of salvation, knowing he has not attained it yet (vss. 13, 14, and 

then, "Many people live like enemies of the cross of Christ. I have often told you about them, and it 

makes me cry to tell you about them now. In the end, they will be destroyed. They do whatever their 

bodies want, they are proud of their shameful acts, and they think only about earthly things. But our 

homeland is in heaven." Phil 3:18-20 (NCV) 

Jesus may have the power to bring everything under his control, but he uses this power on those "who 



work out" their "salvation with fear and trembling," "children of God without fault in a crooked and 

depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe." Php 2:13-15 NIV 

Again, two classes of people, those that are wicked, and the "all people/things" that will survive the 

coming destruction. 

John 12:47: "And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I 

did not come to judge the world but to save the world." (NKJV) 

Reply: The Universalist application of this verse is refuted by the following passage, "He who rejects 

Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge 

him in the last day." 

John 12:48 (NKJV) The Son will not judge the world, but his Father will, based on our rejection or 

acceptance of Christ. 

Gal. 3:8: "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, 

preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be 

blessed." (NKJV) 

Reply: This, again, applies to Christians, as verse 14, tell us "that the blessing of Abraham might come 

upon the Gentiles IN CHRIST Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Gal 

3:14 (NKJV) 

John 3:17: "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it." NLT 

Reply: Again, reading the following passage clears up any confusion, as was the case with John 12:47 

above: 

"There is no judgment awaiting those who trust him. But those who do not trust him have already 

been judged for not believing in the only Son of God." John 3:17-18 (NLT) 

Psalm 138:4: "All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the 

words of thy mouth." KJV 

Reply: This prophetic verse has a millennial application. "This prophecy will not be fulfilled until the 

millenial reign of Christ." See footnote Ps 72:8 Ryrie Study Bible 

There will, of course be a time when all will praise God, but not before He "shall break in pieces and 

consume all" the kingdoms of the world. Dan 2:44 KJV 

2 Cor. 5:14-20. These Scriptures only back my claim, that those IN CHRIST take part in the new 

creation, and this salvation has stipulations, "Wherefore Come ye out from among them, and be ye 

separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, 

And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Cor 6:17 ASV 

1 Cor. 13 all especially verse 8. No universalism here either. 

Psalm 22:27,29: "All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto Jehovah; And all 

the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee...All the fat ones of the earth shall eat 

and worship: All they that go down to the dust shall bow before him, Even he that cannot 

keep his soul alive." ASV 

Reply: Another apocalyptic prophecy, much like the one at Psalm 37:8, "For evil-doers shall be cut off; 

But those that wait for Jehovah, they shall inherit the land." ASV 

When the evil-doers are done away with, then all the earth will be ones that have waited on Jehovah. 

Psalm 65:2-4: "O You who hear prayer, To You all men come. Iniquities prevail against me; 

As for our transgressions, You forgive them. How blessed is the one whom You choose and 



bring near to You To dwell in Your courts. We will be satisfied with the goodness of Your 

house, Your holy temple." NASB 

Reply: The above talks of the one God chooses. Hence, there are those whom God does not choose, and 

it for these that the Psalmist can say at Ps 69:27, 28 "Add iniquity to their iniquity, And may they not 

come into Your righteousness. May they be blotted out of the book of life And may they not be recorded 

with the righteous." There is no Universalism in the book of Psalms. 

John 1:9-13: There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every 

[PANTA] man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world 

did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, 

even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the 

flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." NASB 

Reply: The ALL/PANTA here is anarthrous, remember: 



In other words, all sorts of men can receive the light of Christ, as long as they receive him. 

Psalm 66:3,4: "Say to God, "How awesome are your deeds! So great is your power that 

your enemies cringe before you. All the earth bows down to you; they sing praise to you, 

they sing praise to your name." (NIV) 

Reply: If Satan is walking on earth (Job 1:7), and is certainly an enemy, will he also bow before God and 

become a recipient of this universal salvation? Let us be reasonable. Looking further on in Psalms, we 

read, "God, arise and defend yourself. Remember the insults that come from those foolish people all day 

long. Don't forget what your enemies said; don't forget their roar as they rise against you always." Psalms 

74:23 (NCV) 

Gen. 18:18: "seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the 

nations of the earth shall bless themselves by him?" RSV 

Reply: "God's original blessing on all mankind (Gen 1:28) would be restored and fulfilled through 

Abram and his offspring." NIV Study Bible Gen 12:2-3 

But it will be Abraham's spiritual descendants who bear this fulfillment in its greatest form: 

"Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." So you see that it is men of 

faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by 

faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So 

then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith." Gal 3:6-10 RSV 

1 Tim. 4:9-11; and many dozens more." 

Reply: This one was already used above. 

As we have seen though, the use of ALL in the Bible has its limitations based in the Greek. Having 

checked every occurrence of ALLOS and hETEROS (usually rendered OTHER, as in ALL OTHER) in 

the Greek text, and I could not find any occurrence of these words alongside PAS/PANTA. Obviously, 

the target audience for the Greek knew of the limitations of this word. 

The Bible does NOT advocate Universal Salvation, but a God who will render Justice and will save small 

remnant. When God destroyed the world in Noah's time, only eight persons survived (1 Peter 3:20). 

When the Israelites wandered the wilderness for 40 years, only Joshua and Caleb were guaranteed entry 

into the Promised Land (Numbers 14:29, 30). And again, at the end of the age, only a few are promised 



life: 

"Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, 

and many are they that enter in thereby. For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto 

life, and few are they that find it." Matt 7:13, 14 ASV 

"And one said unto him, Lord, are they few that are saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in by 

the narrow door: for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able." Luke 13:23, 24 

ASV 

The OLIGOS (few) mentioned here is not the ONE, as has been explained to me, but it is in the plural 

form, OLIGOI. 

Other occurrences of this word are at Matthew 9:37, "the laborers are few." 

Matt 22:14, "For many are called, but few chosen." 

1 Pet 3:20, "when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, 

wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water." 

Consider also the following that speak against Universalism, from the ASV: 

Matt 5:5, "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." 

Luk 13:26, 27, "then shall ye begin to say, We did eat and drink in thy presence, and thou didst teach in 

our streets; and he shall say, I tell you, I know not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of 

iniquity." 

Romans 9:27, "And Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand 

of the sea, it is the remnant that shall be saved." 

Gal. 5:2-4 "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen 

away from grace." 

Lk. 8:13 "Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have 

no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away." 

Rev 21:8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who 

practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This 

is the second death." 

1 Tim 1:19, 21: "holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have 

shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to 

Satan to be taught not to blaspheme." 

Gal 6:8,9 "The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one 

who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing 

good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." 

Rom 2:7 "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give 

eternal life." 

Jn. 5:29 "Those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be 

condemned" 

Heb. 6:6 "and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they 

crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." 

2 Pet. 1:10: "Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if 

ye do these things, ye shall never stumble." 

2 Pet. 3:17: "Ye therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware lest, being carried away 

with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own stedfastness." 

"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." 

(Mt. 10:22). 

"Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to 



test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will 

give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who 

overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death." (Rev. 2:10,11). 

"We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first." (Heb. 

3:14). 

"By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have 

believed in vain." (1 Cor. 15:2). 

"But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, 

without blemish and free from accusation—if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not 

moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been 

proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant." (Col. 1:22,23). 

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither 

the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor 

thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 

Cor 6:9-10). 

"the path of the wicked is doomed." Ps 1:6 NJB 

There is a frequent Old Testament phrase which is gow we should view the KOLASIN at Matt 25:46: 

*shall be cut off from his people*" 

Let us take a look at those scriptures: 

Gen 17:14, "And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul 

shall be cut off from his people. He hath broken my covenant." 

Ex 30:33, 38, "Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, he 

shall be cut off from his people...Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereof, he shall be cut 

off from his people." 

Lev 7:20, 21, 25, 27, "But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain 

unto Jehovah, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people... And when 

any one shall touch any unclean thing, the uncleanness of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean 

abomination, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which pertain unto Jehovah, that 

soul shall be cut off from his people... For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an 

offering made by fire unto Jehovah, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his 

people...Whosoever it be that eateth any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people." 

Num 9:13. "But the man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, that 

soul shall be cut off from his people." 

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; 

19:13, 20; Deut 12:29; 19:1; 2Sam 7:9 etc 

Biblically, the antithesis of life is...death. See Num 35:31; Deut 30:15, 19; Jg 16:30; 2Sam 15:21; 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; 

8:6, 38, 1Cor 3:22; 2Cor 2:16; 4:11,12; Php 1:20; 1Jn 3:14; 

5:16; Rev 2:10; 12:11. 

The Bible has always held out one hope to the opposite of another: 

Prov 11: 19 He that is stedfast in righteousness shall attain unto life; And he that pursueth evil 

doeth it to his own death. 

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus our Lord. 

"For evil-doers shall be cut off; But those that wait for Jehovah, they shall inherit the land." Ps 37:9 

That there are differing viewpoints of salvation should not surprise us, as it was foretold, "Behold, the 



days come, saith the Lord Jehovah, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a 

thirst for water, but of hearing the words of Jehovah." Amos 8:11 ASV 

-BT&V Webmaster 

Eze. 33:12-19 -- "Therefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, The righteousness of the righteous 

man will not save him when he disobeys, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to 

fall when he turns from it. 

The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness. 

If I tell the righteous man that he will surely live, but then he trusts in his righteousness and does evil, 

none of the righteous things he has done will be remembered; he will die for the evil he has done. 

And if I say to the wicked man, You will surely die, but he then turns away from his sins and does what 

is just and right -- if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows 

the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the sins he has 

committed will be remembered against him; he will surely live. 

Yet your countrymen say, "The way of the Lord is not just." But it is their way that is not just. If a 

righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, he will die for it. 

And if a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he will live by 

doing so." 



John 1:1, KKLA and their Failure to Deal with the Evidence. 

Radio Station KKLA (Living By The Word Ministries) and their Improper 

Examination of a List on My Site, and the New World Translation 

"Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom is by prefacing 

the noun with 'a.'" -- Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in 

John" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 47. 

Daniel Wallace, speaking of Mark Noll, in his book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind talks about 

how 

"American evangelicals have decided to chuck their brains for the sake of the party line, or 

for experience, or for emotionalism, etc. But the history of Christianity up through last 

century was of a different ilk. The Church felt that at least some of its number should be 

scholars--men and women who dedicated their minds to God, who cultivated the life of the 

mind. The fact that conspiracy theories about Bible translations are getting readily accepted 

in several circles indicts evangelicalism. To be blunt, this trend is symptomatic of the 

dumbing down of Christians in this country. Evangelicals are increasingly holding down the 

anti-intellectual fort, without engaging in serious debate with others." 

The above critique might seem harsh, but we will soon see why this is brought to the fore. 

In January 2002 the Radio station KKLA (Living By The Word Ministries) talked of a list of translations 

of John 1:1c on my web-page ( http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htm ). Interestingly, no 

one from the radio station made any efforts to contact me. 

First, I want to point out that the list on my web-page was to provide various and different interpretations 

of John 1:1c, with an emphasis on the non-traditional rendering. The Recovery Bible certainly does not 

support my view, as is quite evident by their traditional rendering of this verse, and the frequent 

references to the "Triune Jehovah," in their footnotes. I also take issue with some of the other renderings. 

It was not intended to promote renderings exactly equivalent to the NWT, the list is there as examples of 

translations that do not render John 1:1c traditionally, except for the one, the group that Rob Bowman at 

KKLA called an "aberrant sect", the Recovery Bible by Living Streams Ministry. [Interestingly, I 

included them because they were very Trinitarian, yet they are discarded as "aberrant" even though their 

New Testament is extremely similar to most mainstream Bibles in use.] 

This list does not support the NWT 100%, it is there to show people that some do not render John 1:1c in 

the traditional manner. I can't believe that this program wasted alot of time on something that the source 

was never intended to do. This could easily have been cleared up if anyone, just one person from the 

radio program had actually bothered to contact me. 

I would instead have hoped that the substance of the program was on the grammatical possibility of other 

renderings of John 1:1c, but it turned out to be a focus on the lack of biographical data on the translators 

and a few misspellings in foreign languages. 

The source of many of my quotes are from someone who is NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses. He is an 

author that is known by everyone involved with this debate on KKLA Radio. He has given me 

permission to use these quotes that he has collated on the condition that I not use his name. This source 

is listed on my page (Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation), and was not hidden. 

I now see why he wanted anonymity. 

From the tone of the accusations made, there is a witch-hunt mentality involved with anyone who 

translates John 1:1c similar to that in the New World Translation (hereafter, NWT). Is it any coincidence 

that Witch/Wicca Hunter Craig Hawkins is involved? There are scholars that do agree with the NWT, but 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/kkla.htm (1 of 24) [5/25/2003 3:53:13 AM]


for fear of being attacked, have decided to remain silent. Greg Stafford brings up a good point at 

http://jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/hommel1.htm 

"the very fact that you would have to ask me for such a list shows that 1) you have not 

thoroughly investigated this issue, and 2) you are therefore speaking out of order, making 

dogmatic claims about what scholars say about the passage prior to having checked into the 

history of this passage, as understood by NON-Trinitarians. At any rate, I will here give a 

partial list, as I do not have time to list the over 80 scholars that I have on file as endorsing 

the translation "a G-god." 

1) "a god" - A. N. Jannaris, Ph.D, author of An Historical Greek Grammar and Lecturer on 

Post-Classical and other Greek dialects at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland (in ZNW 

2 [1901], 24-25). 

2) "a God" - Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages 

of Scripture Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and 

Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ 

[Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). 

3) "a God" - Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 

1809], 156). 

4) "a god" - Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the 

Doctrines of Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). 

5) "a God" - Herman Heinfetter, author of Rules for Ascertaining the Sense Conveyed in 

Ancient Greek Manuscripts, Objections to Bishop Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek 

Article, and An Enquiry Respecting the Punctuation of Ancient Greek (in A Literal 

Translation of the Gospel According to St. John on Definite Rules of Translation, and an 

English Version of the Same, 6th ed. [London: Evan Evans, 1864]). 

6) "a God" - Robert Young, LL.D. (in his Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand 

Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 

7) "a God" - Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the 

University of Basil (in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 

16). 

8) "a god" - William Loader, Ph.D. and New Testament Lecturer for the Perth Theological 

Hall, Australia, teacher at Murdoch University as a member of the Perth College of Divinity, 

and author of several books and journal articles (in The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: 

Structure and Issues [Peter Lang 1992], 155). Loader refers to "a god" as the "most natural 

reading of the text." 

Other translations throughout the past two centuries could be cited, but I am through doing 

the work you should have done on your own, prior to making the claims you make about 

how scholars understand this verse. Or are you only interested in what Trinitarian scholars 

have to say?" 

I have not even mentioned Professor Jason Beduhn's support of the reading "a god." [Though I do own 

some of the listed translations, I have personally found that the BULK of the other translators were easily 

found doing a search on the internet.] Again, why not contact me? If they wanted to find out more, why 

not come to me, the person who posted this list. The reason? They really weren't interested in answers. If 

looking through the Fuller Library proved a waste, then the next logical step would for normally have 

been to write to me. Obviously, those involved with this objection were really not that interested in 

culling this information for themselves. Case in point, they were not able to trash my list of variant 



translations of John 8:58, it was merely dismissed as "another list." After having heard of the use of my 

list, I have also had my phone number, fax number and mailing address forwarded to those involved, and 

to date, I still have not been contacted. Had I actually wanted to submit a series of quotes that hands 

down supported the NWT rendering, I would have used Stafford's list, as stated above. 

Rob Bowman, who was on the show, has had numerous debates with Greg Stafford in the past. The list 

that Stafford offers was placed on the internet on a website that should be quite well-known to Bowman, 

This list WAS offered in support of the NWT's rendering, but instead, Bowman completely ignored 

these references and placed all of his evidence on the weaker points on my list that to some extent, had 

no bearing on the subject he was discussing. Shame on you for misleading your radio audience! 

This witchhunt reminds me of James White (who incidentally had no problem finding the Jehovah's 

Witnesses German quotes on John 1:1c in the KIT ) at http://aomin.org/GERM_JWS.html and found that 

they belonged to the following groups: 

Baptist, Liberal, or Unitarian. He goes on to say. 

"Jehovah's Witnesses are experts at quoting individuals that come from completely different 

perspectives and world-views in such as way as to make it sound as if they (the person being 

quoted) support or lend credence to the Watchtower's teachings. This is clearly seen here. 

None of these scholars are classically Arian in their theology." For my rebuttal, go to 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/germans.htm 

All I can do here is answer with a resounding "DUH!!!" The Bibles I mainly carry with me, and use often 

are the RSV, NJB and I have a beautiful Vine's Expository Edition of the NKJV I use out in service. I am 

aware that none of these translators are JW's. What good would it do me if I only quoted JW's. Mormons 

are notorious for quoting other Mormons, which they fail to see as ineffective as other Mormons would 

naturally have a similar bias. If I can't quote from Unitarian and Liberal Bibles simply because they are 

Unitarians and Liberals, and I can't quote from Trinitarian Bibles, as James White seems to suggest, 

because we do not share similar worldviews, then we are forced to use only the NWT. This is silly! 

Those who expect Jehovah’s Witnesses to only cite authorities who agree 100% with the Witnesses 

manifest a unique form of bias that is not shown toward evangelical writers. 

Also, instead of dealing with the evidence, the people at KKLA and Living By The Word Ministries have 

harped on the spelling errors of the non-English sources on this list, this of course, coming from the same 

site that cannot spell the English word 'Deity" correctly, even in big bold letters, (see Jehovah’s 

Witnesses and the *Diety* of Jesus Christ by Angel Arellano Jr. Make Sure of All Things - A Christian 

Outreach to Jehovah’s Witnesses at http://64.177.177.176/new_page_29.htm which I am sure will be 

changed after this post is read.) Is Angel discussing Jesus' inclusion into the Godhead, or is he promoting 

a divine weight-loss program? 

This radio station has brought Robert Bowman on board in helping out with the JW apologetics. On his 

site, he states as one of his Criteria for Evaluating and Choosing a Translation 

(http://www.atlantaapologist.org/q2.html) as, 

"Interdenominational vs. denominational. Generally, a translation committee representing 

several denominations rather than a single church or denomination will tend to have less 

theological biases. High: all except the NAB and NJB." 

Nothing is going to dethrone the supremacy of certain Bibles like the NASB and NIV in the minds of 

those like Bowman. The NAB (New American Bible), for example, had FIVE Protestants on the 

translating committee, yet this same Bible was given a black eye from Bowman for NOT being 

interdenominational. I wonder, how many Catholics were on the NIV and NASB translation committees? 



These facts were clearly overlooked by Bowman because he really didn't care. Bowman though wants 

full biographical data on all other Bibles that translate differently from the traditional so it can be 

discovered what the translators motives were for translating a certain clause as they did. I have heard this 

before, but it is not quite true. The NWT's translation of John 1:1c has been accused of as promoting 

"polytheism" even though JW's are not polytheists. People like Bowman don't like any other possible 

alternative and must label them negatively. They must be of his (Protestant/Evangelical) mindset for 

them to be right. Protestant Evangelicals suffer from a superiority complex that is recognized by others, 

despite the fact that its members (as well most of nominal Christianity) are lazy and ignorant when it 

comes to the Bible (a fact that was addressed by Bowman on his site at 

http://www.apologeticsresctr.org/siren_song.htm). Getting back to the Catholics, I once asked Bowman 

if Jesuit John L. McKenzie, S.J. was a good source to use on the Trinity. He answered back "NO!" The 

reason being is that McKenzie is a bit more realistic when it comes to viewing the Trinity as a Church 

doctrine, not a Biblical one. When looking at a list of Bible Translators that translate John 1:1c 

differently than the mainstream Bibles, Rob Bowman had this to say in an email: 

"Nearly every public and university library in the country has copies of the KJV, NKJV, 

NIV, NRSV, NASB, and so forth. 

The scholars that we can cite in support of our exegesis of such biblical texts as John 1:1 

and 8:58 include most of the renowned scholars specializing in that portion of the Bible, in 

this case, scholars who have specialized in the study of John’s writings. No introduction is 

needed to names such as C. K. Barrett, F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Leon Morris, and James 

Montgomery Boice to those at all familiar with contemporary New Testament studies. I’m 

embarrassed for you when you think a list with names like Lant Carpenter, Robert Harvey, 

J. L. Tomanek, and Charles A. L. Totten in any way enhances the credibility of your 

position." Click here for full email. 

What is wrong with Bowman's list of scholars? First, he picks what he thinks is the weakest scholars on 

my list, and then for his own, chooses scholars who are not only Trinitarian, but Evangelical, just like 

Bowman, as if this makes them unbiased. Bowman touts the strengths of inter-denominational Bibles 

(http://www.atlantaapologist.org/q2.html) but he is not as accommodating with scholars as he is with 

translators. 

Professor Jason Beduhn, when given a series of negative quotes on the NWT from those of Bowman's 

ilk, responded thusly (attributed to Beduhn in an online forum): 

"does anyone besides me see the common denominator of all of these scholars? They are all 

members of religious schools attached to specific denominations of Christianity. I have no 

reason to question the integrity of any of these gentlemen. On the contrary, I am sure they 

have perfect integrity in their primary commitment, namely their religious beliefs. Isn't it 

fair to presume that their affiliations already testify to their theological commitments? I 

would imagine that these gentlemen read the bible in line with those commitments, and I 

would not fault them for that; that is their prerogative, and I am sure they are supported in 

this by their institutions. Anyone who wants the Presbyterian or Catholic or Evangelical 

reading of the bible, I would urge you to consult with such experts. If, however, you want an 

objective assessment of bible translation, don't ask theologians, ask secular bible scholars at 

public universities. Our jobs are not on the line if we seem to contradict church dogma, and 

we are not in the business of apologetics or polemics. We are historians and linguists trying 

to find out what was said and what was meant in ancient texts. I wouldn't expect you to turn 

to us for spiritual guidance. But if you want to know what the original Greek of the NT can 



and cannot mean, we have the training and self-discipline to provide it without special 

pleading. That's no proud boast; that's a comment on the kind of education we value in a 

nation committed to the separation of church and state (for the protection of both), and on a 

profession which will let no unexamined claim stand unchallenged.... 

None of the major modern translations have been accomplished by groups of linguists 

working with the same methods employed in the translation of Homer or Plato. Instead, 

every translation committee has consisted of denominationally-affiliated bible scholars, 

most of whom had theological commitments which, when push came to shove, superseded a 

strictly linguistic approach. The kinds of considerations that are made by these committees 

concerning the meaning and proper translation of a verse simply do not occur in secular 

translation work. There is always a concern for the theological implications of the words. 

The Lockman foundation and the NIV committee openly avowed their primarily theological 

concerns in their translation work. The RSV/NRSV editors have gone so far as to modify 

translations to please specific denominational groups. The RSV/NRSV committee has, over 

the years, included a handful of "non-trinitarian" scholars, but this was simply part of the 

RSV editors' goal to make the RSV THE Bible of the English speaking world, and the tiny 

minority of dissenting voices within the committee could have little impact on the finished 

product." 

In fact, a Bible made by Protestant/Evangelicals is no guarantee of an accurate translation, quite the 

opposite in fact. They have all removed the Divine Name from their Bibles. They might take a lesson 

here from the New Jerusalem Bible. 

The reason for the "Word was God" rendering is that Evangelical Protestants are us much slaves to 

tradition as the Catholics are. 

"People who adhere to 'Sola Scriptura' ['we follow the Bible only'] (as they believe) often 

adhere in fact to a traditional school of interpretation of 'Sola Scriptura.' Evangelical 

Protestants can be as much slaves of tradition as Roman Catholics or Greek Orthodox 

Christians; only they don't realize it is tradition." 

F.F. Bruce, in correspondence, June 13, 1981, as quoted in *Our Fathers Who Aren't In 

Heaven* by Anthony Buzzard, p. 33 

Protestants are merely Catholics in disguise, a Romish religion without the Mitre. 

Moving away from the traditional though is their peculiar way of dealing with John 1:18. Let's look at 

John 1:18 in the newly released Today's New International Version, "No one has ever seen God, but the 

one and only Son, who is himself God..." This is simply a perverse and corrupted translation, as there are 

absolutely NO MANUSCRIPTS IN EXISTENCE that have both God (QEOS, theos) AND Son (hUIOS) 

together with only-begotten (MONOGENHS, monogenes) [there is not one single example in the GNT 

of an adjective being substantivized when it precedes a noun of the same inflection]. 

The Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version, New 

Century Version, New International readers Version, New Evangelical Translation, etc., have all done 

the same. 

Suddenly, the NWT looks like a model others should follow. If very learned men can make such 

demonstrably bad decisions when translating, then this does not speak well of the learning institutions 

they are a part of, nor does it bode well for the religious denominations they are representing. 

I might add, that had the predicate nominative in John 1:1c been anything else BUT QEOS, we would 

not even be discussing it. The NWT translation would be universally considered correct. 



Bowman adds, 

"The bottom line is this: If we limit ourselves to known, bona fide scholars whose 

credentials we can check and prove to be academically respectable and whose exegesis of 

the texts in question supports our position, we will have a very long list of scholars indeed, 

from a wide variety of religious perspectives. We don’t need translations, commentaries, or 

other works by unknown individuals to show that our position is scholastically tenable. On 

the other hand, in many cases, you do. It’s just that simple." Click here for full email. 

The Protestant Evangelist superiority complex rears its ugly head again. Professor Beduhn adds to his 

above comment: 

"The "broad spectrum" (of scholars) you refer to is in fact very safely in the mainstream of 

modern Christianity. Now I think it safe to say that you assume modern mainstream 

Christianity to be correct and "true" Christianity, and a tiny minority like the JWs to be in 

error. But imagine if the situation were reversed. Imagine that your "true" Christianity was 

the minority, and the huge majority to have followed a wrong turn somewhere down the 

road to "error." This is just a hypothetical situation. In such a situation, any claim based on 

numbers, on majority rule, would have no meaning for you. It's pretty nice to speak with the 

confidence that you are in the majority isn't it? But has it ever occurred to you that in 

attacking the JWs and insisting that they give up their "different" beliefs and conform to 

your "true" beliefs and "correct" translations that you are pressuring them to do precisely 

what you would never do: yield in your faith, your truth, to the pressure of the outside 

world? I have often been struck by this irony." 

The radio show also used A.T. Robertson in support of their theological stance in regards to John 1:1. 

Again, un-beknownst to many, here we have yet another scholar with an anti-JW bias. Dr. Robertson, in 

the early thirties, went on a smear campaign against A. E. Knoch's Concordant Version of the NT. to 

accomplish this, he lied. He falsely accused the Concordant Version as " propaganda for Russellism" 

(Jehovah's Witnesses, as they were then known). This kind of accusation was meant to devastate, as 

JW"s were universally persecuted and vilified for various reasons. One of these recriminations is that we 

are, in the minds of the religious majority, the new arch-heretics, the new Arians. To A. T. Robertson, 

attaching the "Russellite" label was to produce the same effect as the racial and sexually demeaning slurs 

hurled about by those who consider themselves superior. It was meant to damage the reputation of a man 

and his Bible. See UNSEARCHABLE RICHES, SEPTEMBER, 1931 BEING THE FIFTH NUMBER 

OF VOLUME TWENTY-TWO. 

Let us though look at Bowman's list of Bibles that we should consult, as they are readily available in any 

University Library: KJV, NKJV, NIV, NRSV, NASB 

All these Bibles have one thing in common, they are Protestant Bibles, and they have all removed the 

Divine Name (YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah), thereby blurring the distinction between Father (Isaiah 64:8) 

and Son (John 3:16). Only the KJV has "Jehovah" a scant 4 times out of the textually required 6828 

times. Everyone agrees that Colwell was a better textual critic than he was a grammarian. When he 

created an apparatus on determining the best New Testament, his results were quite surprising. The KJV 

was on the bottom of the list. He says, 

"No scholar today employs this text for any scholarly purpose except as he may use it in 

writing the history of the Greek New Testament. The King James version is undoubtedly the 

most inaccurate English New Testament in common use today...The King James stands at 



the bottom of the list also in regard to three spurious passages selected as tests (Mk 16:9-20; 

Jn 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7-8)." pp. 99, 100 

This would also include the NKJV. When others were compared to his apparatus, the NWT succeeded 

the NIV, NASB and NRSV as more accurate. In fact, it reigned supreme. Click here for more. 

I am now going to do something KKLA did not have the guts to do, and that is deal with the evidence. 

I want to concentrate on is Hawkins comment. Craig Hawkins’s claims that the “a god” translation of 

John 1:1 would get a failing grade in a modern university Greek course, such as the one at UC Irvine 

where he studied.But exactly how are these students taught? 

Before we go into the following, we have to remember that the Trinity, as it is known today, did not exist 

in the first century. 

"You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St 

Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor 

does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly equal to 

his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest). 

"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is 

one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth 

century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the 

nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- Encyclopedia 

Americana (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L. 

Knowing this, we can move on. 

Consider the following from Mounce's Basic's of Biblical Greek ( a good first year grammar). 

Going on to page 28, where it discusses the Definite Article, as an example of a subject and predicate 

nominative, it gives "John is a man." 

But when we move on to John 1:1, to phrase it similarly (the Word was a god) is considered "Arianism" 

and outside the framework of "Orthodoxy." But let us look at how they import a later theology into this 

verse: "Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with 

the person of 'God' (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine 

attributes of God that the Father has: lack of article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father." [Emphasis 

theirs] 

Mounce is aiming for a qualitative (divine attributes) exegesis of the passage. The problem is that he has 

to import the words "person" and "Father," neither of which are in the text. An honest examination with 

quality in view SHOULD read, "Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the the Word 

(Jesus Christ) with the 'God.' That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine 

attributes God has: lack of article tells us that Jesus Christ is not God." 

Unfortunately, first year NT Greek students, are not allowed to think outside the confines of orthodoxy. 

Any questioning of this would maybe have resulted in a "failing grade ." 

Let us move on to Dana & Mantey's Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. 

"The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. 

In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, EMPORION D HN TO CWRION, and the place was a 

market, we have a parallel case to that we have in John 1:1, KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS, and 

the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the 

place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article was also 

used with QEOS. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in 

QEOS." pp. 148, 149 



Again, we have an excellent example of how we can translate John 1:1c with Xenophon's Anabasis, "the 

place was a market, i.e., the Word was a god. But notice how the language becomes confused: 

"Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God." This is not an even parallel at all. 

A truthful and equivalent statement SHOULD be, "Neither was the place the only market, nor was the 

word the only God." The reasons for this strange turn of language is made quite clear in the following 

sentence, where he wants to implicate "the other persons of the Trinity." 

Let us look at another grammar, the ever popular Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace. 

On page 41, explaining the semantics and exegetical significance of the subject - predicate nominative 

construction (in John 1:1c, the LOGOS (the Word) is the subject, as it has the article, and QEOS (God) is 

the predicate nominative, which, according to Wallace, means that it is "approximately the same as the 

subject, and is joined to it by an equative verb." [Emphasis his] He also points out that "the predicate 

nominative describes the class to which the subject belongs." 

So far, so good, I agree. The Word belongs to a class called "God." Just like the place was not the only 

market (see above), the word was not the only god. There are others also. 

But notice the jab that he takes (and this is not the only one) at the Witnesses. 

Wallace says, 

"The assumption that the grammatical equative verb bears the same force as the 

mathematical equal sign is one of the fundamental flaws in the thinking of Jehovah's 

Witnesses regarding the deity of Christ. On John 1:1, c.f. their booklet, Should You Believe 

in the Trinity? (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989), where it is argued 

that since John 1:1b states that "the Word was with God," John 1:1c cannot mean "The 

Word was God"; "Someone who is 'with' another person cannot be the same as that other 

person" (27). This argument seems to assume that all S-PN constructions are of the 

convertible type." 

Do you see the problem here? Truth is, the Witnesses do not view John 1:1c as equative on the grounds 

that the LOGOS and QEOS are joined by an equative verb, they view the Word and the anarthrous God 

as equative because the preceding clause (John 1:1b) tells us that the Word was WITH the articular God. 

None of Wallace's examples have a Scripture where one subject is said to be with another. Why, 

because, to my knowledge, there are none. Our stance does not "assume that all S-PN constructions are 

of the convertible type," as the discussion here only centered around John 1:1. 

We get our view from examining the context, not only one single clause. 

Moving on to Page 267, Wallace again, erroneously goes on the attack against the NWT by using a quote 

from Countess. He says, "The grammatical argument here that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often, 

those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that 

the term is anarthrous" and from there goes on to quote Countess, who also assume this. This is simply 

not true. Note the appendix in the NWT 1984 Ed., where they said that the translations "a god" do so 

"because the Greek word (the·os') is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb 

and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os'. The God with 

whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression, that 

is, the·os' preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os'. Careful translators 

recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, 

whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality 

about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" 

or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a 



certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same 

as God himself. 

In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding 

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 

places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to 

bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted 

before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is 

inserted before the anarthrous in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The 

Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering." 

The base their translation of "a god" NOT solely on the grounds that it is anarthrous, but that is 

anarthrous AND that it is a predicate nominative that precedes the verb, as well as being used in a 

context of with God. So the rest of the examples of the anarthrous QEOS that Wallace uses to make his 

point (as does Countess) is actually based on a strawman argument and does not accurately represent our 

position. Compare any other Bible that translates John 1:1c with a quality in view and you will see that 

they also do not apply this to John 1:6, 18 etc. 

As Dixon says, "Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom 

is by prefacing the noun with 'a.'" -- Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate 

Nominative in John" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 47. 

When Robert Countess was corrected by Nelson Herle in a letter dated December 10, 1997, Countess 

compared him to "a son of a bi&%hing ba$&ard that shovels me $%it." This, coming from a man who is 

known to sign off his letters "Sincerely, in the ONLY Savior, who as the Second Person of the 

Ontological Trinity died to save the Elect from their sins, the Lord and Savior-God Jesus Christ. 

The reason for this profane outburst from Countess is the same we would expect from a criminal who has 

been cornered and exposed for what he is, a liar. 

Wallace also makes the following misleading statement on p. 269: 

"The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he 

could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father." [Emphasis 

his] {Bowman and Hawkins insisted on the same thing.} 

That's not true. John uses the term "Father" well over 100 times in his Gospel, so he was not scared to 

use this term. He could simply have said "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with the God the 

Father, and the Word was God the Son." However, he did not. He did however tell us that Jesus could be 

God-like, Divine, or a god (John 1:1c), which as he explains, was also a term used for humans Judges or 

perhaps angels (John 10:34 cf. Psalm 82:1). 

Let us now move on to David Alan Black's "It's Still Greek to Me-An Easy to Understand Guide to 

Intermediate Greek [Second Printing, 1999]," he employs Colwell's Rule (which is now considered 

useless in regards to John 1:1) to pull for a definite classification of the predicate nominative. Why? 

Because to him, "the other persons of the Trinity are implied in QEOS." p. 79 

Again, it is 4th century theology written back into John 1:1. 

Majority Text advocate, Wilbur Pickering, in his translation of the New Testament, has this footnote at 

John 1:1: 

"The New World Translation (of the JW's) renders "a god". They defend their choice 

because the noun 'God' occurs without the definite article [again, not completely true, see 

above...but do you see how this lie perpetuates?], and the absence of the article in Greek has 



the effect of the indefinite article in English - hence 'a god'. However, another frequent use 

of the absence of the definite article (in Greek) is to emphasize the quality inherent in the 

noun - in this case 'God'. Grammatically, the construction is ambiguous, so those who wish 

to deny the deity of Christ will naturally translate 'a god'. Since John will make himself 

perfectly clear that Christ is very God, we take that it is here emphasizing that inherent 

quality." 

Pickering is a bit more allowable, though he also makes a few mistakes. Those that render "a god" do not 

wish to deny the deity of Christ, as they properly wish to promote the deity of the Father. Of the 

thousands of occurrences of the word GOD in the Bible, how many of them refer to someone other than 

the Father? Of the scant few references to Christ (and even these are debatable) how many others refer to 

Prophets, Judges, Angels, etc.? Jehovah, our God and Father pretty much exhausts all the references to 

Deity in the Bible. Hence, it is the holy Scriptures, and even Jesus himself, that deny that Christ is "very 

God." 

Jesus said, "I seek not mine own glory." John 8:50 Why can't we help him in this quest? 

That John will make himself perfectly on Jesus is very God is a gross overstatement. 

"When we consider further the fact ...that Christ is nowhere called God in any 

unambiguous passage by any writer of the New Testament and that it is nowhere recorded 

that he ever claimed this title, we cannot reasonably regard this abstinence from the use of 

the term as accidental. " 

Ezra Abbot, ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. by Ezra Abbott from the Journal of the 

Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis for 1881. Pickering statement is a reflection of his theology, 

as he immediately thereafter refers to Jesus as "Jehovah the Son," a term never used in the Bible. In fact, 

Jehovah was given many titles in the Bible, but "Son" was never one of them. Jehovah though, is the 

Father (Isa 64:8). 

Moving along, Murray J. Harris's "Jesus as God" makes the following comment, 

"from the point of view of grammar alone, QEOS HN hO LOGOS could be rendered 'the 

Word was a god,' just as, for example, if only grammatical considerations were being taken 

into account, UMEIS EK TOU PATROS TOU DIABOLOU ESTE (John 8:44) could mean 

'You belong to the father of the devil.'" 

Again, this is unfair. Murray himself, in the footnote admits that "John 1:1 is unique with regards to its 

construction" but he compares it with the genitive of apposition and also the resumptive use of the article 

in John 8:44, which are often awkward when rendered literally (see John 2:21; 14:26 etc). We must 

differentiate between a possible translation and a probable one. "The Word was a god" is not only 

possible, but also probable, and it, unlike the traditional "The Word was God" actually gives us a 

qualitative translation that tells us that Jesus is not the Father. 

Did you get that? All of the above would defend "the word was God" as the best translation, but yet they 

argue, as Wallace does, that the force of the construction in John 1:1 is most likely to emphasize the 

nature and quality of the Word, which is something the NWT translation does, and the NASB does not. 

As Dixon says, "Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom 

is by prefacing the noun with 'a.'" 

The bashing from those with influence does not end here. The Nelson NKJV Study Bible furthers the 

error, by again, attacking Jehovah's Witnesses as "cultists" right in its footnote. 

The following is posted online by Paul S. Dixon at 



http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/97-08/0168.html 

"This morning I purchased the new Nelson Study Bible. This is what I found on p. 1756 

regarding the translation of Jn 1:1c: 

'The best understanding of the translation, however, as recognized by Greek scholars, is that 

since theos is a predicate and precedes the noun logos and a verb, it is natural for it to 

occur here without the article.' 

Zounds! Colwell's error revisited. This statement clearly reflects the erroneous thinking 

whereby the converse of Colwell's rule is affirmed. Only if one assumes that QEOS is 

definite here can one appeal to Colwell's rule. But, then that would be begging the question. 

The question is, what is the significance of the anarthrous predicate construction here? It is 

qualitative, both because of the immediate context where QEOS is set in contrast to the 

qualitative SARZ in a similar construction in v. 14, and because of the normal significance 

of the construction in John. Furthermore, if QEOS in 1:1c were definite, then this 

definiteness would point to the preceding TON QEON identifying the LOGOS with God the 

Father. Would this not be Sabellianism and a denial of the trinity? 

Carl Conrad adds at http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/97-08/0169.html: 

"Methodologically, however, the last sentence bothers me: it seems to imply that we should 

judge the meaning and intent of the Greek text in terms of what later becomes a recognized 

heresy and in terms of what is later declared to be right theology. I would think that one 

ought to determine first what the Greek text CAN mean, and only then go on to make a 

judgment about whether that accords with this or that theological position. That is to say, I 

would think that right theology derives from a right reading of the text, not a right reading of 

the text from right theology." 

A theology derived through conflict and won at the edge of the sword should not be the determining 

factor of a clause should be translated. The text should be translated from the writers view, one of Jewish 

monotheism. 

Bowman also made the assumption on the Radio, that if John 1:1c was rendered qualitatively (for 

instance, "the Word was divine") then this is trinitarian, as the qualitative rendering is what trinitarians 

are arguing for. Or as Bowman had written: 

"Inasmuch as this may be a fair statement, at least from one perspective, these 

middle-ground renderings cannot be viewed as providing legitimacy for the “a god” 

rendering. Think of it this way. Let’s say you’re right and 

these are “middle ground” renditions. We may say, then, that “God” is the “right-wing” 

rendering and “a god” is the left-wing rendering. I assume you would not agree that the 

middle-ground rendering “divine” is support for the right-wing rendering “God.” Right? 

Well, by the same reasoning, the rendering “divine” cannot be support for the left-wing 

rendering “a god.” "If “divine” means “a spiritual being of some exalted status,” then yes, 

“of 

course” Jesus can be described as “divine” within a Jehovah’s Witness doctrinal 

framework. However, if “divine” means “having the same essence and nature as God,” then 

no, Jesus cannot be described as “God” consistently 

with Jehovah’s Witness theology. So, to answer your question, Jesus could be “a god” but 

not be “divine” if “a god” meant that he were a being of godlike characteristics but “divine” 



meant a being of the same nature and 

essence as God." 

Since I am to limit myself to Evangelical only sources, D.A. Carson, in his book "The King James 

Version Debate" on p. 64 (paperback edition) posts a chart (similar to the one here) where he gives a 

checkmark for those renderings that "directly ascribe deity to Christ." He gives an "x" to those that do 

not. Carson gives an "x" to the NWT's rendering of John 1:1, as well as Moffatt's and Goodspeed's (the 

Logos/Word was divine). In fact, he castigates Moffatt and Goodspeed as those with "liberal 

propensities." 

Speaking of Moffatt's translation, Daniel Wallace says "'divine' is acceptable only if it is a term that can 

be applied to true deity." But the word "divine" does not alone mean "true" or "fully" deity, does it? 

Wallace adds, 

"However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! 

Thus 'divine' could be misleading in a modern translation." 

It is only misleading to Wallace, who in his own translation, the NET Bible, mistranslates John 1:1c as 

"the Word was fully God." 

I think the weight is on the side of Jehovah's Witnesses as far as "divine" is concerned. What Bowman, 

and others fail to realize is that "divine" and "a god" are both qualitative, and both renderings are very 

comfortable with each other. 

When we translate the Bible, we must NOT import into it a later Nicean or Cappadocian view of God, 

but we must translate as 1st Century Christians with strong Jewish roots. 

Robert Bowman's inability to deal with Scriptures as translated by other scholars is evident when you 

examine some of the statements made by him in the past. In the CRI Journal-CRJ0049A, Bowman writes 

of the NWT: 

"There are nine texts where Jesus is definitely called God (Isa. 9:6; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; 

Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 5:20; possible also Acts 20:28). Of these, 

four are translated so that Jesus is not called God at all (Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb 1:8; 1 Pet. 

1:1). Two are rendered so that he is 'a god' or 'god' (John 1:1, 18)." 

This is where Bowman, like Ron Rhodes, seriously fail as an apologist. I have many people writing to 

me puppetting what these men say, and they are devastated to learn that the accusations made are simply 

not true. Both of these men seem to experience a certain type of myopia when it comes to translating the 

Bible. They cannot see beyond the NASB or the NIV. Their view of the world does not go beyond the 

confines of Evangelicals. Examine these: 

Isaiah 9:6 

"Mighty God, Eternal Father." New World Translation 

"Wonder-Counsellor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace." Byington's The Bible in Living 

English 

"A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince." Moffatt's The Bible 

"in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like...." New English Bible 

"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father...."Revised English Bible 

"Great Leader, Time's Father, the Prince of Peace." The Complete Bible in Modern English by Ferrar 

Fenton 

"his name is called the Messenger of great counsel." Brenton's LXX 



"divine hero, father of spoil, prince of peace" Isaiah 1:12 Old Testament Library-A Commentary by Otto 

Kaiser 

There can be no complaint of the above rendering in the NWT, but why do other Bibles not render it so? 

Isaiah 9:4 makes a reference to the Midian's defeat at the hands of the Judge Gideon. Mentioning him 

here is no coincidence, as Jesus is the greater Gideon, and all judgement will be committed to him (John 

5:22). Now, Judges were also called "God," not only at Psalm 82:1, but also at Exodus 21:6 ("then his 

master must take him before the judges ["God" footnote]" NIV; "then his master shall bring him to God" 

NASB) and Exodus 22:8 ("the owner of the house must appear before the judges ["God" footnote]" NIV; 

"then the master of the house shall come near unto God" ASV). 

Romans 9:5 

"...Christ, who is God over all, forever praised. Amen." New International Version 

"...God, who is over all, [be] blessed forever. Amen." NWT 

"May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen" New English Bible 

"God, who is over all be blessed for ever." Revised Standard Version 

"Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all!" Moffatt 

"May God, who rules over all, be praised forever!" Good News Bible/TEV 

"God who is over all be blessed forever." Smith&Goodspeed's An American Translation 

"God who is over all be forever praised." NIV footnote 

"May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen" Revised English Bible 

"I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever!" Contemporary English Version 

"He who is over all, God, blessed unto the ages." Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 

"God is over everyone, Praise Him forever." Simple English Bible 

"God be blessed who is above all things forever." Unvarnished NT/Andy Gaus 

God who is over all be blessed forever." New American Bible 

"God is over everyone, Praise Him forever." International English Bible 

Many many others translate it similar to the NASB, "and of whom is the Christ according to the flesh, 

who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen" which also does not contain a reference to Christ's deity. 

By translating this properly, we maintain the proper focus of this verse. 

"Some editors punctuate this verse differently and prefer the translation, 'Of whom is Christ 

according to the flesh, who is god over all.' However, Paul's point is that God who is over all 

aimed to use Israel, which had been entrusted with every privilege, in outreach to the entire 

world through the Messiah." Romans 9:5 footnote, New American Bible w/Revised New 

Testament and Revised Psalms 

For more info on this scripture click here and here. 

Also http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/translation/romans95.htm 

So again, Christ is NOT "definitely God" at Romans 9:5. 

Titus 2:13 

"our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." New International Version 

"of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ." NWT 1950 

"of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ." New American Bible 



"of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." American Standard Version 

"of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." King James Version 

"of the great God and our Saviour." Revised English Bible margin 

"of the great God and our Saviour." New English Bible margin 

"of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus." Moffatt 

"the magnificent God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus." 21st Century NT 

"the great God and our Savior." New Revised Standard Version margin 

"the great God and our Savior." Revised Standard Version margin 

"our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." Contemporary English Version margin 

"great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ." Concordant Literal NT 

"the great God and our Savior Christ Jesus." Rotherham 

"the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" Worrell New Testament 

"the great God and our Savior" New American Standard Bible margin 

"the Great God, and of our Deliverer Jesus Christ" The Original New Testament, Schonfield 

"our Great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah" Jewish NT 

"our great God and our Savior Jesus Messiah." The Power New Testament-Revealing Jewish Roots 

"the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" Catholic Douay Bible 

"the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" Good News Bible margin 

Again, the consensus is that Christ is NOT "definitely God" at Titus 2:13. 

For more info click here, and here. 

(Let me know if the Fuller library fails to find any of these!) 

Hebrews 1:8 

"But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever." New International Version 

"God is your throne forever." NWT 1950 

"God is your throne forever and ever." Smith&Goodspeed's An American Translation 

"God is thy throne" Revised Standard Version margin 

"God is thy throne" Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews [Macmillan And Co., NY, 1903] 

"God is your throne forever and ever." Byington's Bible in Living English 

"God is your throne" New Revised Standard Version margin 

"It is God who is your throne for ever and ever." God's New Covenant-A New Testament Transl., by 

Heinz W. Cassirer 

"God is thy throne" New English Bible margin 

"Your throne is God for an age of ages." Unvarnished NT 

"Thy throne is God" 21st Century NT 

"Thy throne is God" American Standard Version margin 

"God is your Kingdom" Good News Bible margin 

"Great Prince, your throne is for ever and ever" The Complete Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton 

"God is thy throne" Moffatt 

As to the Nominative for the Vocative use "Your throne, O God," the New American Bible says in the 

footnote here, 

"O God; the application of the name 'God' to the Son derives from the preexistence 

mentioned in vv. 2-3; the psalmist already used the it of the Hebrew king in the court style 

of the original. See the note on Ps 45, 7 [which says, "The king in courtly language, is called 



'god,' i.e., more than human, representing God to the people."]" 

Once more, the consensus is that Christ is NOT "definitely God" at Hebrews 1:8. 

2 Peter 1:1 

"the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" NIV 

"the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ" ASV 

"the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" KJV 

"of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ" Revised Standard Version margin 

"our God and the savior Jesus Christ" New American Bible margin 

"the righteousness of our God and of our Savior Jesus Christ" International English Bible-God Chaser's 

Extreme NT 

"the righteousness of our God and our Savior, Jesus Christ" Literal Translation of the HOLY BIBLE by 

Jay P. Green Sr. 

"of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ" New Revised Standard Version margin 

"the righteousness of our God and of our Savior Jesus Christ" Simple English Bible 

"the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." Wesley's NT 

"the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ" Third Millenium Bible 

"our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" Kleist & Lilly New Testament and Lamsa's Bible 

"of our God and our Savior Jesus Christ" Webster Bible 

"our God and our Saviour" God's New Covenant by Heinz W. Cassirer 

"of God and of Jesus our Master." Schonfield's Original New Testament 

"of our God and of our Deliverer Yeshua the Messiah" Jewish New Testament 

"of our God, and the Saviour, Jesus Christ" Concordant Literal New Testament 

"share the faith that God in his justice has equally allotted to us; as well as that of our Saviour Jesus 

Christ." 21st Century NT 

Again, the consensus is that Christ is NOT "definitely God" at 2 Peter 1:1, especially as he differentiates 

between God and Jesus in the following Scripture, "Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the 

knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord." NIV 

Couple this with how the Epistles are usually started, we have to come to the honest conclusion that 

Jesus was not called God at 2 Peter 1:1: 

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God" Romans 1:1 

NIV 

"Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,... Grace and peace to you from God our 

Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 1:1-3 NIV 

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,... Grace and peace to you from God our Father and 

the Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Corinthians 1:1-3 NIV 

"Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father...Grace and 

peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" Galatians 1:1-3 NIV 

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,...Grace and peace to you from God our Father and 

the Lord Jesus Christ." 

Ephesians 1:1-3 NIV 

"Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Php 1:2 NIV 

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,...We always thank God, 

the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you" Col 1:1-3 NIV 



"To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" 1 Thess 1:1 NIV 

"To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ...Grace and peace to 

you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thess 1:1,2 NIV 

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our 

hope,...Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord." 1 Tim 1:1,2 

"Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord." 2 Tim 1:2 

"Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ...Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ 

Jesus our Savior." Titus 1:1-4 NIV 

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Phm 1:3 NIV 

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in 

these last days he has spoken to us by his Son..." Heb 1:1 NIV 

"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" James 1:1 NIV 

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" 1 Pet 1:3 NIV 

"our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3 NIV 

"Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in 

truth and love." 2 John 1:3 NIV 

Granville Sharp had other recommendations besides Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 also. He stated that 2 

Timothy 4:1 should be translated, " I charge (thee,) therefore, before Jesus Christ, the God and Lord..." 

while our Bibles have, "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus..." NASB 

He stated 1 Timothy 5:21 be translated, "before Christ Jesus, the GOD and LORD. and (before) the elect 

angels," whereas we instead have "in the presence of God, and of Christ Jesus, and the his chosen angels" 

NASB. 

He stated that 2 Thess. 1:12 be rendered, "to the grace of Jesus Christ, our God and Lord," while our 

Bibles have "the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." NASB 

He stated that Php 3:3 should be rendered "who worship the spirit of our God" instead of "we who 

worship by the Spirit of God." NIV 

Granville Sharp was merely an extremist who looked in the NT for instances where Jesus COULD be 

named God. While many complain of the "lack of scholarship" of the translators of the NWT, Granville 

Sharp had none to speak of either, yet his rule is embraced and unquestioned where Titus 2:13 and 2 

Peter 1:1 are rendered in many Bibles. (see Remarks on the Uses of the Definite Article [ISBN 

0-9626544-4-2] pp. 43-54 

1 John 5:20 

"We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him 

who is true. And we are in him who is true--even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal 

life." NIV 

The NIV Study Bible (also NASB Study Bible/Zondervan) footnote, 

"Him who is true. God the Father. He is the true God. Could refer to either God the Father 

or God the Son." 

What do others say? 

"it should be noted that precisely in St. John's First Epistle [O QEOS] ho theos, "the true 

God" so often certainly means the Father that it must be understood of the Father throughout 

the Epistle, unless we are to suppose that some incomprehensible change has taken place in 

the subject referred to by O QEOS." Theological Investigations, Vol. 1 by Karl Rahner, 

Third printing: 1965, pages 136, 137. Compare John 17:3 



"houtos: as a climax to vv.18-20 the ref[erence] is almost certainly to God the real, the true, 

opp[osite of] paganism(v.21.)"- "A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, 

Zerwick/Grosvenor, Rome Biblical Institue, 1981. 

"[1 John 5:]20f. Christ has revealed the one true God, the source of eternal life(cf. 5:12; Jn 

17:3, 20:31). 'This is the true God' does not refer to Jesus as Stauffer thinks(Theology of the 

NT.(English translation 1955), 114)." G. Johnston, Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 

Thomas Nelson and Sons, reprint of 1964. 

"Conclusion: Although it is certainly possible that houtos["this one"] refers back to Jesus 

Christ, several converging lines of evidence points to "the true one," God the Father, as the 

probable antecedent. This position, houtos = God, is held by many commentators, authors of 

general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the 

matter."-M. Harris, "Jesus as God, The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus," 

Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992, p.253. 

"We are also aware that the Son of God came and gave us discernment so that we know who 

is true, so we are one with him who is true, Jesus Christ the Son of the God who is true." 

21st Century NT 

Once more, the consensus is that Christ is NOT "definitely God" at 1 John 5:20 

John 1:1 

See Stafford's comments above. 

As to capitalization of the word "God" KKLA radio has made the following accusation and used it 

against Jehovah's Witnesses on another one of their programs, listed online besides the above program. It 

was mentioned that the NWT does not capitalize some instances of theos/God, though the ancient 

manuscripts used all capitals. 

Now, there are ancient manuscripts called Uncials, and they wrote in only capitals. For instance, in uncial 

script, Satan is called, "O QEOS TOU AIWNOS/THE GOD OF THE AGE." Yet, most Bibles, like the 

NASB, HCSB, Smith&Goodspeed will not capitalize theos here, even though it is articular, and in all 

capitals. Uncial manuscripts capitalized EVERYTHING, every word and every letter. It was not a 

doctrinal statement, and should never be used for a defense in such a way. To do this would be careless.# 

John 20:28 

"My Master, and my God" 20th Century NT. 

Why did this NT render it thusly? Consider the construction" 

O KURIOS MOU KAI O QEOS MOU/the Lord of me the God of me. Has anyone checked other 

occurences of the same type of construction? 

Mt 12:47, H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you 

49 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU/the mother of me and the brothers of me 

Mark 3:31, H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI AUTOU/the mother of him and the brothers of him 

32 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you 


Mk 6:4 TH PATRIDI AUTOU KAI EN TOIS SUGGENEUSIN AUTOU/the father of him and the 

relatives of him 

7:10 TON PATERA SOU KAI THN MHTERA SOU/the father of you and the mother of you 

Lk 8:20 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of thee and the brothers of thee 



Lk 8:21 MHTHR MOU KAI ADELFOI MOU/mother of me and brothers of me 

Jn 2:12 H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI [AUTOU] KAI OI MAQHTAI AUTOU/the mother of 

him and the brothers of him and the disciples of him 

Jn 4:12 OI UIOI AUTOU KAI TA QREMMATA AUTOU/the sons of him and the cattle of him 

Acts 2:17 OI UIOI UMWN KAI AI QUGATERES UMWN/the sons of you and the daughters of you 

Rom 16:21 TIMOQEOS O SUNERGOS MOU KAI LOUKIOS KAI IASWN KAI SWSIPATROS OI 

SUGGENEIS MOU/Timothy the fellow-worker of me of me and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater the 

kinsmen of me. 

1 Thess. 3:11 QEOS KAI PATHR HMWN KAI O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS/God and Father of us and 

the Lord of us Jesus. 

2 Thess. 2:16 O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS CRISTOS KAI [O] QEOS O PATHR HMWN/the Lord of 

us Jesus Christ and the God the Father of us 

1 Tim. 1:1 QEOU SWTHROS HMWN KAI CRISTOU IHSOU THS ELPIDOS HMWN/God savior of 

us and Christ Jesus the hope of us 

2 Tim 1:5 TH MAMMH SOU LWIDI KAI TH MHTRI SOU/the grandmother of thee Lois and the 

mother of thee Eunice 

Heb 8:11 EKASTOS TON POLITHN AUTOU KAI EKASTOS TON ADELFON AUTOU/each one the 

citizen of him and each one the brother of him 

Rev 6:11 OI SUNDOULOI AUTWN KAI OI ADELFOI AUTWN/the fellow-slaves of them and the 

brothers of them 

This same construction usually refers to TWO different people. 

"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the 

man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of 

what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the 

other." Augustine in "Tractate CXXI" 

Acts 20:28 ("possible also") 

Bowman has a knack for picking the most ambiguous texts as "proof" of his theology. But, I guess, you 

must, if that is all you have. This is the Scripture where Ron Rhodes says in his 'Reasoning from the 

Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses' the following regarding the NWT's rendering of the verse at Acts 

20:28, "The New World Translation rendering of this verse GOES AGAINST ALL LEGITIMATE 

TRANSLATIONS OF SCRIPTURE" (p. 86). 

The NWT renders this, "shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his 

own [Son]." 

The NIV says, "Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood." 

But what do others say? 

"care for the church of God, which he has bought for himself at the price of the blood of his own One." 

William Barclay 

"be the shepherds of the church of God, which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." Revised 


"Be shepherds of the church of God, which he made his own through the sacrificial death of his Son." 

Good News Bible 

"to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son." New Revised Standard 

Version 

"to feed the church of God that he bought with the blood of his own Son" New Jerusalem Bible 



"Be like shepherds to God's church. It is the flock that he bought with the blood of his own Son." 

Contemporary English Version 

"Tenderly care for God's congregation, which he acquired by the blood of his own Son." 21st Century 

NT 

See also The Concordant Literal New Testament, The Translator's New Testament, The Holy Bible in 

Modern English, by Ferrar Fenton and the Darby, Rotherham and Alfred Marshall footnotes. 

Acts 20:28 has also suffered at the hands of "orthodox" corruptors of Scripture (see The Orthodox 

Corruption of Scripture by Bart Ehrman, pp. 87-88, which has many Bibles and manuscripts reading 

"Lord" instead of "God." The same could be said for John 1:18 

I will make a prediction. Bowman will reject all the above, and will dwell on the weaker points and 

weaker translators. But the evidence is hard to ignore, and the facts are, that many in the lists above 

were/are Trinitarians and excellent grammarians. Perhaps they suffered some form of dementia, or it was 

overlooked by the committee. Of course I am being facetious, but this is the view I get when Walter 

Martin (Kingdom of the Cults) merely brushes off the New English Bible's rendering of "a god" at John 

10:34 as a simple "mistranslation." There MUST have been something wrong, right?. Adherents of 

Martin, Rhodes and Bowman are dumbfounded when presented with the evidence that they failed to 

provide. Why this silence? We can discuss the Bible together, but JW's have an unfair advantage as we 

can go beyond what our pastors tell us. 

Case in point, consider Bowman's misuse of mss evidence: 

"JWs argue that "Jehovah" was used in the original LXX and NT manuscripts, and that the 

versions which used kurios were produced after the first century by apostate scribes. They 

base this claim on some pre-NT manuscripts of the LXX containing the divine name 

which have been discovered in this century. 

It is unnecessary here to discuss all the pros and cons of this theory. Several recent studies 

have been done which show that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the divine 

name was used in the original LXX, though everyone admits that some (not many) copies 

of the LXX did use it." http://www.mvcf.com/bible/religion_beliefs/cache/cri/crj0031a.html 

This is simply a lie. ALL extant copies up to the middle of the 2nd century CE contained the Divine 

Name. 

Here is a list of LXX mss that contain the Divine Name: 

1) 4Q LXX Lev (b) 

2) LXX P.Fouad Inv. 266 

3) LXX VTS 10b 

4) LXX VTS 10a 

5) LXX IBJ 12 

6) LXX P. Oxy. VII 1007 

and there are 4 others Aquila's (2), Symmachus, and Ambrosian (of a later date). 

"We know that the the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not 

translate the Divine Name by Kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was 

retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the 

divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood anymore". (Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 

Oxford, 1959, p.222) 



The LXX you use probably comes from the Alexandrian mss dated hundreds of years after Christ. 

In fact, you will be hard-pressed to find any manuscript before the 4th century that used the word kyrios 

or theos. You see, they were all abbreviated. 

For more see click here and go to http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/ntstudies/tetragram.htm and 

http://www.divinename.net/ 

Bowman: "Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we know our union with 

God is secure "owing to the _spirit_ which he gave us" (3:24). The next sentence (4:1) in the 

NWT reads, "Beloved ones, believe not every _inspired expression,_ but test the _inspired 

expressions_ to see whether they originate with God..." 

(4:1a; emphases added). One would never suspect from this rendering that "inspired 

expression" translates the same Greek word (_pneuma_) as was translated "spirit" in 3:24 

(see also 4:2,3,6). John's whole point is that although the Spirit's presence in us gives us 

assurance of God's love, we are not to believe every "spirit" that claims to be from God, but 

test them by the teachings which their prophets espouse, "because many false prophets have 

gone out into the world" (4:1b). The NWT obscures this point of God's Word in order to 

avoid its implication that His "Spirit" is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic 

"spirits" are personal entities and not impersonal forces, as JWs recognize). 

The same doctrinal bias is seen in 1 Timothy 4:1 where the NWT reads, "However, the 

_inspired utterance_ says...." A straightforward "the spirit says" would too obviously imply 

the personality of the "spirit."" 

Reply: 1 John 4:1-3 An American Translation by Smith & Goodspeed, 

"Dear friends, do not believe every inspired utterance, but test the utterances to see whether they 

come from God, for many false prophets have come out into the world. 

You can tell the Spirit of God in this way: every inspired utterance that acknowledges that Jesus Christ 

is come in human form is from God, 

and any inspired utterance that does not acknowledge Jesus does not come from God: it is the 

inspiration of the Antichrist." 

1 Timothy 4:1 The New Testament by Monsignor Ronald A. Knox, 

"We are expressly told by inspiration that, in later days, there will be some who abandon the faith, 

listening to false inspirations" 

Are these men showing a "doctrinal bias?" 

Commenting on 1 Cor 12:10, David Aune writes: 

"The term 'spirits' in the phrase might more appropriately be understood as 'prophetic 

utterances' or 'revelations of the Spirit,' on analogy with the use of the term 'spirit' 

(PNEUMA) in 2 Thess 2:2, 1 John 4:1; and particularly 1 Cor 14:12" (Prophecy in Early 

Christianity, page 220). 

Marion Soards (re: 1 Cor 12:10) "has generated considerable discussion among interpreters" (1 

Corinthians, page 260) when he cites Gordon Fee, who thinks that PNEUMA there refers to a Christian 

"making inspired assessments of inspired utterances" which Soards concludes is "exegetically grounded 

and judicious" (260). 

Consider what the online LSJ observes about the semantic range of PNEUMA: 

pneu=ma, atos, to/, (pne/w) blast, wind, first in Anaximen.2, o(/lon to\n ko/smon p. kai\ 

a)h\r perie/xei: freq. in Trag., etc., a)ne/mwn pneu/mata pa/ntwn Aesch. PB 1086 (anap.), cf. 

au=Aesch. PB 1047 (anap.); qala/ssas . . pneu/mati la/brw| IDEM=Aesch. Pers. 110(lyr.); 



pneuma/twn e)pombri/a| IDEM=A.Fr.300.3; te/ws de\ kou/fois pneu/masin bo/skou Soph. 

Aj. 558; pneu/masin qalassi/ois e)cwsqe/ntes Eur. Cycl. 278 (but pnoh/ is commoner in 

Poets; Hom. uses pnoih/); pneu/mata a)ne/mwn Hdt. 7.16.a/; to\ p. kath/|ei Thuc. 2.84; kata\ 

pru/mnan i(/statai to\ p. IBID=au=Thuc. 2.97=lr; to\ p. lei=on kai\ kaqesthko\s labei=n 

Aristoph. Frogs 1003; to\ p. e)/latton gi/gnetai IDEM=Aristoph. Kn. 441; ei) foro\n p. ei)/h 

Xen. Hell. 6.2.27; kata\ pneu=ma sth=nai tou= a)/rrenos to leeward of him, 

Arist.HA560b14; but kata\ p. prosio/ntes down wind, IBID=au=Arist. HA 535a19; 

pneu/matos a)nei/lhsis, e)kpu/rwsis, Epicur. Ep.2pp.44,45 U.; as an element, air, 

Corp.Herm.1.9, au=Corp.Herm. 1.16=lr; to\ p. to\ peri\ th\n yuxh/n Plot.2.2.2, cf. 

Porph.Sent.29. 

2. metaph., qalerwte/rw| p. with more genial breeze or influence, Aesch. Seven 708(lyr.); 

lu/sshs p. ma/rgw| IDEM=Aesch. PB 884(anap.); ai)doi/w| p. xw/ras with air or spirit of 

respect on the part of the country, IDEM=Aesch. Supp. 29(anap.); p. tau)to\n ou)/pot' . . e)n 

a)ndra/sin fi/lois be/bhken the wind is constantly changing even among friends, Soph. OC 

612; p. sumfora=s Eur. IT 1317; o(/tan qeou= soi p. metabalo\n tu/xh| IDEM=Eur. Her. 216. 

II. breathed air, breath, sa/lpigc brotei/ou pneu/matos plhroume/nh Aesch. Eum. 568; 

au)lw=n, lwtou= p., Eur. Ba. 128(lyr.), ti=Eur. Phoen. 787 (lyr., pl.); p. a)pe/rrhcen bi/ou the 

breath of life, Aesch. Pers. 507; p. a)pw/lesen IDEM=Aesch. Seven 984 (lyr.); p. a)/qroison 

collect breath, Eur. Phoen. 851; p. a)fei=nai, a)nei=nai, meqei=nai, to give up the ghost, 

IDEM=Eur. Hec. 571, ti=Eur. Orest. 277, ti=Eur. Tro. 785 (anap.); p. deimai/nwn lipei=n 

IDEM=Eur. Supp. 554; p. . . dusw=des h)fi/ei Thuc. 2.49; pneu/matos diarroai/ the 

wind-pipe, Eur. Hec. 567; ta\s tou= p. dieco/dous a)pofra/tton Plat. Tim. 91c (v. pneu/mwn 

); pneu/matos r(w/mh Plu.2.804b: prov., a)/nqrwpo/s e)sti p. kai\ skia\ mo/non S.Fr.13. 

2. breathing, respiration, freq. in Hp., p. pukno/n, a)raio/n, e)ktei=non, katepei=gon, ti=Hp. 

Epid.2.3.7; p. pukno/teron ti=Hp. Acut.16; p. prosko/pton checked, difficult breathing, 

Aph.au=Hp. Acut. =lr; p. a)/shmon indistinct, feeble breathing, Epid.au=Hp. Acut. 6.7.8; p. 

bhxw=des ti=Hp. Coac.622; p. mete/wron shallow breathing, Epid.au=Hp. Coac. =lr; to\ p. 

e)/xein a)/nw to be out of breath, Men.23, cf. Sosicr.1; to\ p. a)nh/negkan recovered their 

breath, Hp.Prorrh.2.12 (so without to\ p. ti=Hp. Aph.2.43); but a)nafe/rousin . . klai/onta/ te 

kai\ e)s ta\s r(i=nas a)ne/lkonta to\ p. they sob . . , IDEM=Hp.Hebd.51. 

b. pl., of the air imagined as filling the veins, pneuma/twn a)polh/yies a)na\ fle/bas 

IDEM=Hp.Acut.(Sp.)au=Hp. Hebd. 7,al. 

3. flatulence, in pl., Eub.107.9, Arist.Pr. 948b25, Dsc.2.112, D.L.6.94. 

4. breath of life, p. zwh=s LXXGe.6.17, au=LXX Ge. 7.15, cf. Plut. Per. 13,etc.; p. e)/xein 

retain life, Plb.31.10.4; living being, e)gw\ *ni/nos pa/lai pot' e)geno/mhn p. Phoen.1.16; ou) 

p. pa/nta bro/teia soi\ (sc. *plou/twni) ne/metai; IG14.769 (Naples). 

5. that which is breathed forth or exhaled, odour, w)= qei=on o)dmh=s p. Eur. Hipp. 1391; 

p. baru\ a)fiei=sa, of a tree, Plu.2.647b. 

6. Gramm., breathing with which a vowel is pronounced, IBID=au=Plu. 1009e (pl.), 

A.D.Adv.147.18; p. dasu/, yilo/n, IDEM=A.D.Pron. 78.6, ti=A.D. Adv.148.9. 



III. divine inspiration, a)/gria . . pneu/mata qeufori/hs AP6.220.4 (Diosc.); ei) mh/ ti qei=on 

. . e)nh=n p. th=| yuxh=| Pl.Ax.370c; to\ i(ero\n kai\ daimo/nion e)n mou/sais p. Plu.2.605a; 

kaqaro\n di/kaion . . p. qeou= swth=ros BMus.Inscr.1062(Cyrene, ii A. D.). 

IV. the spirit of God, p. qeou= LXXGe.1.2, etc.: freq. in NT, to\ p. to\ a(/gion 

Ev.Marc.3.29,al. 

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 

Ep.Thess.5.23, cf. Ep.Rom.8.2; tw=| p., opp. tw=| sw/mati, 1 Ep.Cor.5.3; also, opp. 

gra/mma, Ep.Rom.2.29. 

V. spiritual or immaterial being, angel, Ep.Hebr.1.14, Apoc.1.4; ta\ a)/xranta p., ta\ kaka\ p., 

Iamb.Myst.3.31; p. ponhro/n, yeude/s, LXX Jd.9.23, 3 Ki.au=LXX Jd. 22.21, cf. 

Act.Ap.19.12, au=Act.Ap. 19.15=lr, Apoc.16.14, Porph.ap.Eus.PE4.23, etc.; a)la/lou kai\ 

kakou= p. ou)=sa plh/rhs (sc. h( *puqi/a) Plu.2.438b. 

VI. Rhet., sentence declaimed in one breath, Hermog.Inv.3.10,au=Hermog. Inv. 4.4,al. 

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (p. 126) says: 'By this the Apostle intends a spiritual 

suggestion, pretended prediction, utterance of a prophet.' (Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976) 

Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament states: 'By spirit. By prophetic utterances of individuals in 

Christian assemblies, claiming the authority of divine revelations.' (1957, Vol. IV, p. 63) 

Consider also these variations: 

"Spirit" NASB Romans 8:6 

"spiritual" NKJV Romans 8:6 

"mystically" NASB Rev. 11:8 

"Spiritually" KJV Rev. 11:8 

"symbolic" NAB Rev. 11:8 

"prophetically" NRSV Rev. 11:8 

In John 3:8 PNUEMA is mentioned twice in the same scripture. The first time it is translated "wind", the 

second time "spirit". 

"the spirit of his mouth" KJV, NWT 2 Thess 2:8 

"the breath of his mouth" NASB 

Moving along: 

Bowman: "prepositions do have recognizable functions and meanings and cannot be 

translated in whatever manner one chooses. 

In violation of this, the NWT translates the simple preposition "in" (Greek, _en_) with 

unnecessary variations which often obscure or alter the meaning of the passage. This is 

illustrated in 1 John 5:20 where the NWT reads in part, "And we are in union with the true 

one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ." Reading this translation, one would never suspect 

that _in union with_ and _by means of_ translate the same simple Greek preposition. There 

is no sound reason for this variation. 

Reply: What pray tell, does being "In Christ" or "in the true one" mean to a modern reader? Bowman 

makes the fallacy that only an extremely literal or word-for-word translation will convey accurately the 

author's words through 2 milleniums. 



"He[the translator] thinks that as long as he keeps the "same" words he cannot be too far 

wrong with the meaning. Instead, what he has done is not translation at all- he has put a 

new, and therefore wrong message in the bible. Whenever this happens, the problem has 

become very serious indeed." Norman Mundhenk, What Translation are you Using, The 

Bible Translator, Oct 1974, pp 419,420 

For instance, in 1Samuel 24:3 the NWT uses the phrase "ease nature" while the original has "cover his 

feet". Is this is a mistranslation? After all the New World Translation is supposed to be literal Bible. But 

other literal Bibles such as the NKJV and the NASB also do not use the words "cover his feet". They use 

"relieve himself." This follows the original meaning better and it is an improvement. 

No one is trying to obscure anything. Thayer's Lexicon under EN has, 

"ingrafted as it were in Christ, in fellowship and union with Christ, with the Lord...Since 

such union with Christ is the basis on which actions and virtues rest, the expression is 

equivalent in meaning to by virtue of special fellowship or union with Christ." 

See also Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 372-75 and BDAG under _EN_ (4c) 

The Good News Bible has at 1 John 5:20, 

"We live in union with the true God - in union with his Son Jesus Christ." 

An American Translation by Smith & Goodspeed has, "we are in union with him who is true, through 

his Son Jesus Christ." 

The Charles B. Williams New Testament has, "We are in union with the True One, through his Son 

Jesus Christ." 

The Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech has, "We are in union with the True One - that is, we 

are in union with his Son Jesus Christ." See also 21st Century NT. 

The Contemporary English Version uses the term "because of" here at 1 John 5:20, and Barclay uses 

"indissolubly bound." 

The Revised English Bible frequently uses similar terms in place of "the simple preposition "in" (Greek, 

_en_)" so obviously, there is sound reason for this variation. You just never bothered looking beyond 

your own prejudice Rob. 

Bowman: In Colossians 1:16-20 the word "other" is added four times in the NWT to make 

it appear that Christ is part of creation. Paul is thus made to say that "all [other] things" were 

created in and for Christ, as if Christ were one of the created things. It is, of course, 

legitimate for translators to add the word "other" where this does not change the meaning 

but simply makes for smoother English (e.g., Luke 11:41-42; 13:2,4). In Colossians 1:16-20, 

however, adding "other" substantially changes the meaning. 

Reply: First, if you look at Col 1 from another angle, the insertion of the word "other" actually 

EXCLUDES Christ from the creative process in these Scriptures. 

You people are so busy complaining about the NWT, that you never actually stopped to think if you 

should. 

With Bibles like the RSV adding the word "other" about 100 times, is Bowman sure that the "meaning" 

has not changed? 

The NIV has been criticized for adding the word *other* at 1Cor 6:18, as this changes the meaning and 

adds the translators theology on the matter. 

Let us take a look at that: "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that 

committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." ASV 

The RSV, NIV, NJB, Smith & Goodspeed have "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man 



commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body." 

Consider Luther's translation of Romans 3:28 where he adds the word *alone* to the word *faith.* The 

NIV Study Bible says here, "When Luther translated this passage, he added the word 'alone,' which, 

though not in the Greek, accurately reflects the meaning." You cannot condemn one version, and then 

have your people praise another for doing exactly the same thing. You cannot have it both ways. 

Why doesn't Bowman speak the same way about the NIV, NKJV, NET Bible, etc. regarding the 

insertion of the word "over" in Col. 1:15?. "The firstborn 'over' all creation". Is the word "over" in the 

Greek text here? Why doesn't the NASB say "over" as well? And doesn't that totally change the meaning 

of this verse away from what it would have meant the other 30+ times this genitive clause "The firstborn 

of...." is used in scripture in both the N.T. and LXX Greek? That is a partitive genitive, making Jesus a 

part of the group mentioned in the genitive inflection, the creation?. 

#Careless also was the radio station's explanation of Colossians 1:15 and 16. There was no explanation at all of the 

partitive genitive (for more click here and here, and here) but with the reading of Colossians 1:16, as it is in the NASB, 

"BY Him all things were created" leading the listener to conclude the Jesus is the active creator of all things. The problem 

is that all the verbs pertaining to Christ as creating are passive, not active. (For more click here) This passivity is just what 

we would expect from someone who was a Master Worker, besides Jehovah helping him create, as the Bible says at 

Proverbs 8:22-30. 

This use of language was never explained at all to the listening audience, and in the midst of this rhetoric they have lost the 

full force of what the Apostle was trying to convey. 

"He is a likeness of the unseen God, born before any creature, for it was through him that everything was created." Smith 

and Goodspeed's An American Translation 

"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 

result of him and by means of him." 21st Century NT 

The bottom line is this, the NWT, like all Bibles, is not a perfect translation, though it is a very good one. 

It has been praised by those who do not have a religious affiliation to promote. It has been dumped on, of 

course, by Protestant/Evangelicals, not realizing that they are promoting a weakness of God as it pertains 

to divine providence in the process. 

If you feel comfortable using the NASB and KJV, then use it. But don't do so at the cost of undermining 

God's Word in another translation. 

"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the Bible who are trying to appreciate 

to learn the Hebrew or Greek languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 

'gloss' translation, especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the 

NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG, DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, Bible 

Translations and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie 

"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages, we suggest either a 

very literal version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version 

[Kingdom {Interlinear Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, 

Duthie 


Email Me 


A Reply To: Edwin Jardinel's WHY I USE AND PREACH FROM KJV BIBLE 


By Webmaster 

Unless Otherwise Stated, All Scriptures Are From The King James Version 

1. It supports the fact that God's words are preserved forever. Psalm 

12:6-7. Other versions such as the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, etc. have changed 

the meaning of the context making you think that in verse 7 the context is God's people 

instead of God's words. 

Reply: I also believe in divine providence, but can this scripture support it. The KJV has "thou shalt 

preserve them" while the NIV has "you will keep us safe." When the Jews first translated the Scriptures 

into Greek (LXX), they used the term HMAS which is also used at Matt 6:13, "lead US not into 

temptation." The KJV translators realized this, and in the 1611 edition, they put these words in the 

footnote: "Heb. him, i. every one of them." 

2. It supports the fact that Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. He is both God and man. I 

Tim.3:16. 

Reply: The reading in the KJV may have the support of most of the later Greek manuscripts, but the 

oldest manuscripts, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and even the scriptures cited during the Trinitarian 

controvery surrounding the Nicene Council did not have this scripture at their disposal. The latter would 

surely have used it had it actually existed at that time. The following is a chart giving support AGAINST 

QEOS/Theos/God at 1 Tim 3:16. 

Period 

Sources that Do Not Support Major English Versions that 

KJV Reading do not Support the KJV Reading 

254 A.D. Origen Douay - Rheims Bible 

362 A.D. Victorinus-Rome English Revised Version 

3-4 Century Sahidic Coptic American Standard Version 

3-4 Century Boharic Coptic J.N.Darby Version mg 

325 A.D. Nicene Council Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 

367 A.D. Hilary Revised Standard Version 

4th Century Codex Sinaiticus New American Standard Bible 

4th Century Gothic mss New World Translation 

4th Century Ambrosiaster New English Bible 

401 A.D. Latin Vulgate New International Version 

403 A.D. Epiphanus Good News Bible 

412 A.D. Pelagius Phillips N.T. 

430 A.D. Augustine New International Version 

5th Century Codex Alexandrinus Jerusalem Bible 

5th Century Armenian text New American Bible 

420 A.D. Jerome 20th Century N.T. 

428 A.D. Theodore 21st Century N.T. 

5th Century Codex Ephraimi Bible in Living English 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/kjv_25questions.htm (1 of 10) [5/25/2003 3:53:34 AM]


434 A.D. Eutherius Contemporary English Version 

444 A.D. Cyril Jewish New Testament 

5th Century Cyril to Ps Oecumenius International English Bible 

5th Century Bezae Cantabrigiensis The Original New Testament 

566 A.D. Liberatus New Revised Standard Version 

6th Century Codex Claromontanus English Standard Version 

Harclean Syriac Holman Christian Standard Bible 

Palestinian Syriac Modern Language Bible 

6th Century Ethiopian (Platt&Praetorius) New Jerusalem Bible 

6th Century Ethiopic Rome Concordant Literal N.T. 

9th Century ms G (012) Westcott Hort Greek Text 

9th Century Ardmachanus Latin Nestle Greek Text 

9th Century Augiensis Latin Nestle Aland Greek Text 

9th Century Bodleianus Latin United Bible Societies Gk Text 

9th Century Boernerianus Latin New Living Translation 

10th Century ms 33 An American Translation 

10th Century Monza Latin New Century Version 

11th Century Lectionary 599 English Revised Version 

ms 365 Unvarnished New Testament 

ms 2127 William Barclay N.T. 

12th Century Colbertinus Latin Lamsa's Holy Bible 

13th Century ms 442 Weymouth New Testament 

13th Century Harleianus/Lodiniensus Williams New Testament 

13th Century Demidovianus Latin The Complete Bible/Fenton 

13th Century Divionensis Latin The Common Bible 

14th Century ms 61 Smith&Goodspeed Bible 

17th Century Isaac Newton NET Bible 

But what does it really mean for God to be manifest in Christ Jesus anyways? Consider the following 

scriptures: 

Romans 1:18-20 says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all 

ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because 

that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being 

understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they 

are without excuse." 

God is "manifest" in his very creation, and by looking at that creation, we see what God is like. The 

Greek word for manifest, phaneroo, means "to make visible, clear, manifest." (Vine's) 

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 

begotten of the Father" then God was manifest in him also. John 1:14 



It only makes sense to have John 1:18 say, 

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the 

Father, he hath declared him." 

The Son, like the rest of creation, reveals to us the unrevealable God. 

In fact, a closer look at the word "manifest" in the KJV seems to indicate a revealing of certain 

impressions with certain connotations, and often times something previously unrevealable. 

For instance, Jesus' life after his ascension is revealed in us Christians: 

2 Cor 4:10,11, "Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life 

also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered 

unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal 

flesh." 

Mark 4:22 "For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, 

but that it should come abroad." 

We cannot physically see glory in any embodied form, but we can see it revealed to us in Jesus' miracles: 

John 2:11, "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth 

his glory; and his disciples believed on him." 

We cannot physically see "deeds" in any embodied form, but we can see it in the light of truth: 

John 3:21, "But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made 

manifest, that they are wrought in God." 

We cannot physically see "God's works" in any embodied form, but we can see it in our actions: 

John 9:3 "Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works 

of God should be made manifest in him." 

Jesus will manifest himself to us, by showing us Christians what he is like: 

John 14:21 "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and 

he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself 

to him." 

We cannot physically see "God's name" (Ps 83:18) in any embodied form, but we can learn of it, thanks 

to Jesus: 

John 17:6 "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the 

world" 

We cannot physically see "the works of the flesh" in any embodied form, but we can see it in our actions: 

Gal 5:19 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, 

uncleanness, lasciviousness..." 

When we read "God manifest in the Flesh" it means we cannot physically see God (John 1:18; Ex 33:20) 

but we can see what he is like by looking at Jesus. Translator Barclay made an interesting statement 

about John 1:1 

"When John said 'The Word was God' he was n o t saying that Jesus is identical with God, 

he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in 

Jesus we perfectly see what God is like" (The Icily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol.1) 



3. It supports the fact that Jesus is born of a virgin. Isaiah 7:14. Other versions have "young 

woman" such as NRSV, REB. 

Reply: Most modern versions that I have looked at still render it "virgin" or "maiden." I agree with the 

rendering of "virgin" or "maiden" though "young woman" cannot be argued against from a grammatical 

point of view. For more, click here. 

4. It supports the fact that Joseph is not Christ's real father. Luke 2:23. KJV stated "Joseph" 

but other version such as the NIV has "The child's father". 

Reply: The NIV is following the reading of the oldest manuscripts here, which do not contain the name 

"Joseph" here. But let us not assume that the NIV has no mention of Joseph as the earthly father of Jesus. 

"Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" John 6:42 NIV 

5. It supports the fact that Christ is eternal and has no beginnings. Micah 5:2. 

Reply: The same words used in Micah 5:2 are used for others who are not God. The psalmist could 

remember qedem AND olam (Ps 77:5). 

To Jehovah, OLAM and QEDEM are consistent with the time of Rahab and Creation, "Awake, awake, 

put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou 

not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon? Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters 

of the great deep; that hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over? Is 51:9, 10 

KJV 

It does not have to mean eternity. 

6. It supports the fact that Jesus existed in the Old Testament times. Daniel 3:25. Other 

versions such as the NIV, NASB, NWT, have stated "a son of the gods" but the KJV stated 

"The Son of God". 

Reply: In question 19 you object to Jesus as an angel, yet 3 verses later at Daniel 3:28, it reads, 

"Nebuchadnezzar spake and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath 

sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and have 

yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." 

Is Jesus an Angel by the KJVO mindset? 

King Nebuchadnezzar was a Babylonian who had many gods, he was not accepting Jesus Christ as his 

savior at this or any other point of his existence. 

It is interesting to note that the word "god" used by the King to denote pagan gods in verse 28, is the 

same word used in verse 25. 

7. It supports the fact that redemption and forgiveness of sins is through the blood of Jesus 

Christ. Colossians 1:14. Other versions omitted the words "through his blood". 

Reply: This reading is not even in the Majority (Byzantine text-type) of manuscripts. It actually seem to 

be native to the Textus Receptus and the Clementine Vulgate, which is why we also have it in the older 

Catholic versions, like the Douay and Knox. It is simply an interpolation of Ephesians 1:7, which all 

Bibles have: "through his blood, we gain our freedom, the forgiveness of our sins." New Jerusalem Bible 

8. It supports the fact that Christ is God and will be the one to judge at the "Judgment Seat 

of Christ". Other versions have "God's judgment seat" (NIV) and "Judgment seat of God" 

(NASB, NRSV). 

Reply: If God the Father "hath committed all judgment unto the Son...And hath given him authority to 

execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man," (John 5:22,27) then it follows that both can Judge, 

especially as it all reverts back to the Father anyways, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have 



delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father." 1 Cor 15:24 

However, the above criticism by you is not really based on fact, as all Bibles speak of the "Judgment Seat 

of Christ" anyways at 2 Cor 5:10. 

On an interesting sidenote, the KJV already realizes that Judges can be God. 

1 Sam 2:25 

"If one man sin against another, God [Strong's #430] shall judge him" ASV 

"If one man sin against another, the judge [Strong's #430] shall judge him" KJV 

Ex 21:6 

"Then his master shall bring him unto the judges [Strong's #430]" KJV 

"then his master shall bring him unto God [Strong's #430]" ASV 

9. It supports the fact that faith in Christ is a requisite to baptism 

in water. Acts 8:37. Other versions have the entire verse missing. 

Reply: The verse in itself is not objectionable, however I cannot find any other occurences of the term 

TON IHSOUN CRISTON as we have it at Acts 8:37. This is one reason why we know it was added to 

the later manuscripts. The reading that we have in the KJV is missing from P74, P75, Aleph, A,B,C, 33, 

81, 614, vg, syr(p)(h), cop(sa)(bo), and the Ethiopic mss. 

We though have many other instances in the book of Acts where faithful followers were baptized in 

Christ. Acts 2:38; 8:12, 16; 10:48; 19:5. 

10. .It supports the Biblical fact that there are so called "science" but are false teachings. I 

Tim.6:20. An example of this is the Evolution Theory which many people call "science" but 

is a false teaching. The NKJV replaced the word "science" with "knowledge". 

Reply: The NKJV does NOT replace it with "knowledge", but "contradictions." 

The Greek word here is ANTIQESEIS (Antitheseis), which even, KJV and TR advocate Jay P. Green 

translates as "opposing theories" in his translation of the TR (Textus Receptus). Strong's Concordance 

(which is respected KJVO advocates) fives this meaning for 477, "opposition, i.e. a conflict (of 

theories)." It does not even mention "Science." 

11. It supports the fact that a heretic must be rejected, not just a divisive person. Titus 3:10. 

Other versions replaced the word "heretic" with the word "divisive". Such is favorable to 

the ecumenical because they will only reject those who will cause division in their unity but 

won't reject the heretic. 

Reply: An heretick IS a divisive person. It comes from a word meaning "to choose" (See Matthew 

12:18) Other Bibles, including Catholic ones also have "heretic" (see Catholic Douay Rheims Bible). 

12. It supports the fact that believers must STUDY the Word of God carefully with an 

analytical mind in order to have a proper understanding of God's word. II Tim.2: 15. Other 

versions omitted the word "study". This is the only verse in the NT where the word "study" is 

being commanded. 

Reply: The word "study" as it is used in the KJV simply has a different meaning than it does today" as 

even my word for word TR gives the right meaning, "Be eager." This is borne out by the use of the same 

word in the KJV at 1 Thess 4:11 "and that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to 

work with your hands, even as we charged you" 

This should be proof enough that we need not be shackled to 400 year old English anymore, lest we 

ascertain the wrong meaning, as Edwin has done. 

13. It supports the fact that men must teach the truth and must not corrupt the Word of God. 



II Cor.2:17. Other versions changed the word "corrupt" to "peddle"(NIV), "peddlers" 

(NRSV), "peddling" (NASB). 

Reply: The American Standard Version also has "corrupt," but it seems both meaning can be used. 

Strong's has "from kapelos (a huckster); to retail, i.e. (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively)." My 

word for word TR gives "hawking" as the correct meaning, but the KJV seems to follow more closely the 

Catholic Bibles and the Latin Vulgate, "adulterantes verbum Dei." 

14. It is harmonious to the biblical fact that Mary had other children by Joseph because of 

the word firstborn". Jesus is the firstborn of Mary in her virginity and did not remain to be a 

perpetual virgin. Other versions have omitted the word "firstborn" in Matt.1:25. 

Reply: This is a strawman argument as the older Catholic Bibles (of which the KJV is greatly indebted) 

also had "firstborn" here (Lat. primogenitum). 

15. It supports the doctrine of the Trinity. I John 5:7. 

Reply: The Greek text underlying the King James Version comes to us thanks to Erasmus. Let us now 

take the words of Erasmus himself regarding this text: 

"That in the Greek, only these words are found: for there are three that bear record, the 

spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. 

That this passage is so cited by Cyril in the 14th book of his Thesaurus, and that an orthodox 

father, as he was, would infallibly have cited the whole passage against the Arians, if he had 

found it in any copies of his time. 

That the same may be said of Augustin, who also cites it thus against Maximinus the Arian, 

although he omits nothing to establish the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, and 

although he pretends that the spirit, the water, and the blood, signify the Father, the son and 

the Holy Ghost. 

That Beda cites the passage in the same manner as Augustin. 

That the controverted words are not in a manuscript of the Minor Friers of Antwerp, which 

he had examined. 

That indeed the authority of Jerom is urged on this occasion; but that this father seems to 

complain, in a preface which is prefixed to the Catholic Epistles, not of the Greek 

manuscripts, but of those who translated the Greek Testament into Latin; and that at present 

the words, which, as he complains, were omitted, are not to be found in the Greek 

manuscripts, but only in some of the Latin ones. 

But whence could Jerom discover this error of the translators? It must have been by the help 

of the Greek copies. But these Greek copies either were or were not comformable to our 

version. If they varied, as well as the Latin versions, by what indications can we show which 

is the best reading which he censures was publicly used in the Church. If this were not the 

case, I know not what can be made of the following words: Sed tu, virgo Christi, 

Eustochium, dum a me impensius Scripturae veritatem inquiris, meam quodammodo 

senectutem invidorum dentibus corredendam exponsis, quie me falsarium corruptoremque 

sacrarum pronunciant Scripturarum. For who would have called him a forger and a 

falisifier, unless he changed the common reading of the place. If Cyril amongst the Greeks 

did read what we read now in our Greek manuscripts, if Augustin and Beda did read so, or if 

they fouind both the one and the other reading, I see not what reason Jerom could give to 

prove that his way of reading was the true one. Some will say, This text furnisheth us with a 

strong argument against the Arians. But first, since it is certain that the manner of reading 



this passage hath varied amongst the Greeks and Latins, we cannot object it to them, 

because they will have the same right to claim that reading which favors them. But let it be 

supposed that the passage is incontestable, since what is said of the testimony of the water, 

the blood, and the spirit, that they are one (unum sunt, or rather that they amount to one, 

hEIS TO hEN EISI), relates not to an unity of nature, but to an uniformity of testimony, 

could the Arians, think we, be so stupid as not to interpret in the same manner what is said 

of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit? especially since the orthodox explain in the same 

way a passage in the Gospel of St. John; since Augustin rejects not this interpretation, when 

he disputes with Maximinus the Arian; and since the interlineary gloss explains it thus; 

Unum sunt, id est, de eadem re testantur. This is not the way to establish the faith, but to 

make it suspected, by trusting to such weak surmises. Perhaps it would be better to use our 

pious endeavors to become one with God and with Christ, than to discuss, with an 

over-curious zeal, how the Son differeth from the Father, and how the Holy Ghost from the 

one and the other. In truth, I see not how we can prove what the Arians denied, except by 

satisfactory arguments. In a word, this whole passage, being obscure, can be of small service 

for the confutation of heretics, &c. 

But not to dissemble anything, one single Greek manuscript hath been discovered in 

England, wherein what is wanting in other manuscripts is found thus: "hOti TREIS EISIN 

OI MARTUROUNTES hEN TW OURANW, PATHR, LOGOS, KAI PNEUMA, KAI 

OUTOI OI TREIS hEN EISIN. KAI TREIS EISIN MARTUROUNTES hEN TH GH, 

PNEUMA, UDWP, KAI AIMA hEIS THN MARTURIAN TWN ANQRWPWN, &c., yet, I 

know not by what accident, what is in our Greek copies is not repeated here, KAI OI TREIS 

hEIS TO hEN EISIN, and these three agree in one. From this English manuscript we have 

supplied what is said to be deficient in our copies, that no one might take occasion to 

calumniate us; although I suspect that this manuscript hath been corrected and accomodated 

to some of our [Latin] copies. I have consulted two Latin manuscripts of very great antiquity 

in the library of St. Donatian at Bruges. Neither of them have the testimony of the Father, 

the Word, and the Spirit; and in one of them were no the words in earth; there was only 

There are three who bear record, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood. In two manuscripts of 

Constance, after the testimony of the Water, the Blood, and the Spirit, were added these 

words; as in heaven there are three, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and three are one. 

There was neither testimonium dant, nor the pronoun hi. In a manuscript which I had from 

the public library of the University of Basel, there was not the testimony of the Spirit, the 

Water, and the Blood; Paulus Bombasius, at my request, copied out this passage from a very 

old manuscript in the Vatican Library. which had not the testimony of the Father, the Word, 

and the Spirit; and with this manuscript agree the edition of Aldus." 

Jortin's Life of Erasmus, Vol. II. pp. 230-233 

If the Reformers can see the spuriousness of this verse (click here for Martin Luther's comments etc.), a 

verse that is grossly under-represented in the manuscript evidence on every scale (Majority and ancient), 

a verse that is rejected especially by those who would embrace its theological value, then we should also 

reject this verse as highly troublesome and dangerously agendaized. 

16. It proves the truth that Jesus is God and is coming again. Rev.11:17. Other versions 

omitted "art to come". 

Reply: This addition to the KJV is not even highly favored by those who hold highly the 

Byzantine/Majority text-type (it is not included in the Hodges-Fartad Majority Text). 



Nothing is lost, as even the New World Translation shows us: 

"'I am the Al'pha and the O·me'ga,' says Jehovah God, 'the One who is and who was and who is coming, 

the Almighty.'" 

The Lord God can come and execute judgement through his agent, Christ Jesus. 

"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by [dia, through] Jesus Christ according to my 

gospel." Romans 2:16 

17. It proves the fact that Christ is going to defeat and conquer the kingdoms of this world 

and such kingdoms will become His kingdoms. Revelation 11:15 talks about the kingdoms of 

this world, (plural) not the Kingdom of God (singular). 

Reply: The Textus Receptus is a family text of the larger Byzantine text type. This reading is not in the 

majority (Byzantine) text and of course, it is not in the older manuscripts which all read BASILEIA not 

BASILEIAI. 

"Note the difference here between the AV translation, "the kingdoms of the world," and the 

more accurate ASV rendering of Kingdom, singular, as in the Greek text. The whole world 

now appears to be under one powerful universal government." Wycliffe Bible Commentary. 

However, nothing is lost with either reading. It is this kind of nit-picking that leads one to become as the 

following: 

"He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, 

strife, railings, evil surmisings" 1 Tim 6:4 

18. It proves that Jesus is not just a man, rather He is God who became man as you read I 

John 4:3 and relate it with John 1:1-3, and verse 14. 

Reply: Or rather it proves that the scribes of the KJV text added what was already mentioned in verse 2, 

"every inspired utterance that acknowledges that Jesus has come in human form [flesh] comes from God" 

An American Translation by Smith&Goodspeed 

This no more makes him the Almighty as does the earlier spirits that came in human form (Gen 6:2; 19:1, 

5; Josh 5:14, 15). 

19. It proves the fact that Jesus is not an archangel as the "Jehovah Witnesses" cult 

believes. But He is God who chose to become man and to have the nature of man as the 

phrase in Heb.2:16 says, "...took on him the seed of Abraham". Compare with Heb.2:14, 17; 

5:4, Phil.2:7). Other versions has the leaning that Jesus just helps the descendants of 

Abraham. 

Reply: Actually it is the KJV that has helped Jesus to the position of an angel (despite the fact that the 

KJV has actually added words in Hebrews 2:16...notice the words in italics, they are not in any Greek 

text). Where the Hebrew text uses ADONI of Jesus at Psalm 110:1, it capitalizes this word (Lord) as it 

refers to Jesus. This same word is used 195 times of others, but when it refers to Christ, it is capitalized. 

The KJV capitalizes this word THREE other times, at Joshua 5:14; Judges 6:13 and Daniel 12:8, each 

time referring to an angel, who is also considered to Jesus. 

The angel at Joshua 5:14 is also capitalized in the NIV and Young's Literal Translation. 

The MacArthur Study Bible, which uses the New King James Version, mentions in the footnote at 

Judges 6:13 of the Hebrew word used, "Heb. adoni, used of man." But at Joshua 5:14 it says in the 

footnote, "The Lord Jesus Christ in a pre-incarnate appearance (Christophany). He came as the Angel 

(Messenger) of the Lord, as if he were a man (cf. the one of 3 'angels,' Gen 18)." 

Is this something new. No! The King James translators quoted from the Geneva Bible extensively. It had 

a great impact on them. In fact, the KJV 1611 cross-references Joshua 5:14 with Acts 7:33. The Geneva 



Bible mentions in the footnote at Acts 7:30, 

"Now he calleth the Sonne of God an Angel of the great counsell, and therefore straight wayes after hee 

sheweth him, saying to Moses, I am the God of thy Fathers." 

John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3, 

page 2048 states: 

"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support 

for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the 

attributes ascribed to him in Dnl . 

Protestant Reformer JOHN CALVIN said regarding "Michael" in its occurence at 

Daniel 12:1: 

"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of 

Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing 

forward for the defense of his elect people." 

J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. Myers (Grand 

Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369 

20. It supports the fact that the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer will not lead him to do 

or speak anything or pray something out of his mind or without proper understanding. The 

Charismatic and the Pentecostals today claim that when one is filled with the Spirit, he can 

pray without understanding it. But such practice is unscriptural. (II Tim.1:7, I Cor.14:15, 

Mark 12:30). 

Reply: All Bibles clearly tell us that "speaking in tongues" was understandable speech: 

"and they all became filled with holy spirit and started to speak with different tongues, just as the spirit 

was granting them to make utterance...each one heard them speaking in his own language." Acts 2:4-7 

NWT 

And the Bible teaches that this will stop: 

"Love never fails. But whether there are gifts of prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there 

are tongues, they will cease."-1 Cor. 13:8. NWT 

What the KJV has done is paraphrase a word like NOUS as "understanding." 

Let us compare 2 different versions of 1 Cor 14:15: 

"What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding [NOUS] also: I will 

sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding [NOUS] also." KJV, ASV 

"What should I do then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also; I will sing praise 

with the spirit, but I will sing praise with the mind also." NRSV 

Edwin is condemnatory of the other Bible's use of "mind" where he thinks "understanding" is correctly 

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 

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, 

where the KJV uses the word "mind." 

21. It shows us that the Bible is harmonious because it teaches that Jesus is the bright and 

MORNING STAR according to Rev.22:16 (KJV) but Lucifer is "Son of the morning" 

according to Isaiah 14:12 (KJV). However other versions have Satan also called "Morning 

Star" in Isaiah 14:12. 

Reply: And the KJV calls both Jesus AND Satan a "Lion" (1 Peter 5:8 & Rev 5:5). It is interesting that 

you bring this up, in light of the above, as "Stars are sometimes used as symbols for angels. Job 38:7 

alludes to the sons of God (angels) as morning stars. Similarly, in Rev. 1:20 the seven stars of the vision 



are identified as angels of the seven churches. This is probably also the sense of Dan. 8:10, where the 

little horn caused some of the "host of heaven" and the stars to fall to the earth (cf. Isa. 14:12-13; Rev. 

12:4). Jude 13 calls certain apostates in the Church "wandering stars" (cf. the unfaithful angels in 1 

Enoch)." Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 1250 

22. It supports the truth that God is glorified in the church founded BY Christ Jesus, not in 

the churches founded by men, Eph.3:21. 

Reply: This is somewhat misleading, as NO Bible uses the word "men" here. The Bible record clearly 

tells us otherwise (see 1 Thess 1:1; 2:14; 2 Thess 1:1). 

23. It supports the fact that a newly born again person must grow by God's word. I Peter 

2:2. Other versions such as the Today's English Version (TEV) mentioned that one must 

grow to be saved. 

Reply: Let us take a look then: "Be like newborn babies, always thirsty for the pure spiritual milk, so that 

by drinking it you may grow up and be saved." TEV 

"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby" KJV 

The Greek text, including the one used by the KJV, the Textus Receptus, reads thus: "as newborn babes, 

the soul-nourishing pure milk desire, that by it you may grow." TR (Jay P Green) 

But the Greek text the TEV uses has the words "hEIS SWTHRIAN" (into salvation). 

The KJV added "of the word" and the TEV was actually more faithful to its Greek text. 

The KJV actually paraphrased here. 

What does all this mean? A variety of Bible translations and version can help us to understand better 

God's written word. A word that was not given to us in the English (or the KJV old English), but in 

Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The King James Version is a remarkable historical achievement, and every 

home should have one. But to deny the use of all others and condemn them as *heretical,* *corrupt,* or 

*perVersions* is anti-God, anti-Bible....and anti-KJV. Notice here was the translators of the KJV had to 

say: 

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very 

meanest [poorest] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, 

(for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, 

is the word of God." 

The Translators to the Reader, preface of the 1611 King James Version. 

Every Bible is the Word of God. Read God's Word, the Holy Bible daily. 

For more on the King James Bible, click here, and here. 

Search the King James Version w/Apocrypha 


hector3001@aol.com 


My Response To Lynn Lynn Lundquist's The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures 

My Response to Lynn Lundquist's 

"The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures" 

"A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if then I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I 

am a master, where is my fear? saith Jehovah of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name." Malachi 

1:6, American Standard Version 

Lynn Lundquist has undergone a major work (at http://www.tetragrammaton.org) addressing, and 

criticizing the New World's Translation insertion/addition/interpolation/substitution/restoration of the 

Divine Name "Jehovah" in the New Testament. I will try as best as I can to this ot this voluminous work 

by Lundquist. I realize also that Greg Stafford and Hal Fleming have also responded. I am privy to what 

Brother Fleming has written, but not Brother Stafford. I hope there will be no overlapping, and any that 

is would be quite unintentional. 

Also, we will see, that by Lundquist's criteria of accuracy, few Bibles would pass his test of accuracy in 

regard to Divine Names and titles. 

P. 23 After quoting Wilbur Pickering's statement on the negligence of copyists lengthening or 

shortening as they please, Mr. Lundquist goes on to say, 

"As ones who love and respect God's written word, we would strongly denounce any 

attempt to alter Scripture. We would correctly demand a faithful reproduction of God's 

revelation by both the scribal copyists in early centuries and a translator's rendering of the 

text into another language today." 

This is one tactic Lundquist uses to undermine the addition of the Divine Name in the NWT-NT, 

especially as the Name does not appear in the earlier Alexandrian mss. 

Choosing Pickering's statement is an interesting choice, as he is an advocate of the later Byzantine text as 

opposed to the earlier Alexandrian texts, and points out that most errors were introduced into the mss 

within the first two centuries.* (See The New Testament Text, p. 108) 

Commenting on Pickering, D.A. Carson points out, 

"Errors were not added one per generation, generation by generation, but wholesale, as it 

were." The King James Version Debate, p. 115 

It is this dramatic "wholesale" error/change that I will try to focus on, and the reasons, whether 

theological or even, anti-semitic, that I will bring up later. 

P. 51 Lundquist: 

"It is particularly interesting to note the variety of English words used by the New World 

Translation for the 714 occurences of the word Kyrios throughout the Christian Greek 

Scriptures." 

Of these, some examples are: Lord, Jehovah, master, sir, owners, and in one situation, God. 

The word Kyrios and the Hebrew equivalent, adon, has always held a variety of meanings, as the 

following helps us to realize from Vine's Dictionary of Bible Words: 

" 

properly an adjective, signifying "having power" (kuros) or "authority," is used as a noun, 

variously translated in the NT, "'Lord,' 'master,' 'Master,' 'owner,' 'Sir,' a title of wide 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/tetragrammaton.htm (1 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:54:13 AM]


significance, occurring in each book of the NT save Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used 

(a) of an owner, as in Luke 19:33, cp. Matt. 20:8; Acts 16:16; Gal. 4:1; or of one who has 

the disposal of anything, as the Sabbath, Matt. 12:8; (b) of a master, 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, Acts 

25:26; Rev. 17:14; (d) of idols, ironically, 1 Cor. 8:5, cp. Isa. 26:13; (e) as a title of respect 

addressed to a father, Matt. 21:30, a husband, 1 Pet. 3:6, a master, Matt. 13:27; Luke 13:8, a 

ruler, Matt. 27:63, an angel, Acts 10:4; Rev. 7:14; (f) as a title of courtesy addressed to a 

stranger, John 12:21; 20:15; Acts 16:30; from the outset of His ministry this was a common 

form of address to the Lord Jesus, alike by the people, Matt. 8:2; John 4:11, and by His 

disciples, Matt. 8:25; Luke 5:8; John 6:68; (g) kurios is the Sept. and NT representative 

of Heb. Jehovah ('Lord' in Eng. versions), see Matt. 4:7; Jas. 5:11, e.g., of adon, Lord, Matt. 

22:44, and of Adonay, Lord, Matt. 1:22; it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Pet. 1:25." 

And McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible under the heading, "Lord:" 

"The use of kyrios in the Synoptic Gospels...is also a designation of God in quotations from 

the LXX or as a substitute for the name of God, and in the common profane sense of 

owner or master." p. 517 

Of further note is the lexical evidence pointing to Kyrios as YHWH: 

"In the NT, likewise, KURIOS, when used as a name of God...most usually corresponds to 

hwhy Jehovah, and in this sense is applied." A Greek and English Lexicon to the New 

Testament, by J. Parkhurst, revised ed. of 1845, p. 347 

A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament by J.H. Thayer, 1889 ed., p.365 says inder 

Kurios: "c. This title is given a. to God, the ruler of the universe (so the Sept. for adonai, 

eloah, elohim, Jehovah and Jah)." 

A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddel and Scott, 1968 ed., on p. 1013, under Kurios: "B....4. 

O KURIOS, = Hebr. Yahweh, LXX Ge. II. 5, al." 

This is what we should remember. When asked as to why he defends the NWT, even when it uses 

"Jehovah" in the NT, Professor Jason Beduhn replies that it is merely a substitute, much like most Bibles 

substitute "LORD" for YHWH in the OT. 

The Divine Name certainly falls within the dictionary, lexical (see above) and semantic range of 

Lord/Kyrios, and that is why many other versions/translations have seen fit to also include the Name in 

their NT's. See http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/yhwh.htmand 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/jhvh.htm 

I have printed out about 500 pages of material from your site, Mr. Lundquist, and frankly I would have 

been more impressed if you had addressed your concerns against mainstream Bibles that have allowed 

tradition, and not the Hebrew to influence their decision in this regard. To me, the crime and focus 

should be on those who have removed this Name 6828 times, not on those who seek to restore it. But 

more on this further down. 

P. 82 

All Hebrew versions trace their source to ancient Greek manuscripts of the Christian Greek 

Scriptures. (The only exception is J 9 which comes from the Latin Vulgate.) Inasmuch as 

these versions were published in the 16th century and later, we are able to verify the Greek 

text used as their source. In 223 instances, the Greek word Kyrios (), rather than the 



Tetragrammaton, is found in the Greek text. The Tetragrammaton used in these Hebrew 

translations was never derived from hwhy in the Greek text. 

The Greek texts and many modern Bible versions in circulation now are based on an eclectic text. Daniel 

Wallace is heavily involved with the NET Bible, and though he uses the Nestle-Aland Greek text, he 

disagrees with it in about 500 places. Wallace calls this position reasoned eclecticism. When the 

NWBTC committee deviated from their source text (W/Hort), this was not to supplant this text and 

neither were they saying that the Hebrew versions were consistently more accurate, just as Wallace 

would never say that the later Byzantine or TR text is consistently better, but there are instances where 

they are useful. For the NWT to include the Tetragrammaton from these versions is, based on the facts, 

reasoned eclecticism. 

We realize that the Name does not appear in the two major Alexandrian texts, and we do not hide that 

fact, as seen from our production of the Westcott and Hort Text. We also know, as seen above, that the 

Divine Name falls within the semantic, lexical and dictionary range of Kyrios. In fact, each subsequent 

release of Nestle-Aland's Greek text allows for more readings from a later tradition, thus moving away 

from the older Alexandrian text. Most Greek manuscripts in existence are of the later Byzantine tradition 

(also called the Majority Text) that contain many embellishments in certain areas as opposed to the older 

Alexandrian text. Where do these come from? The debate rages on. 

Is relying on Versions for how we translate the Divine Name solely an NWT practice. No it is not. Take 

note: 

"In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators 

adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as "LORD".." New 

International Version Preface 

The RSV, NRSV and the Good News Bible read much the same, along with note indicating an incorrect 

understanding of the ancient LXX. 

Most others appeal to tradition, not on any text, for their exclusion of the Divine Name. 

Yet it seems that the NWT is always unfairly singled out in its zeal to promote the name of the almighty 

God Jehovah. 

P.86, 91 and 104 

...our understanding of the limit of inspiration leads us to a single conclusion. No 

supplementary information can be added to the inspired revelation of the Christian Greek 

Scriptures beyond that which was written by the inspired Christian writers themselves. This 

is the reason why we categorically dismiss the writings of Joseph Smith, the Gnostic 

Gospels, or even the early non-canonical writings of the Christian congregation as being 

outside the limit of inspiration. 

To accept late Hebrew translations as a higher authority than the best preserved Greek 

manuscripts from which they were translated violates our understanding of the canon of the 

Christian Greek Scriptures. The New World Translation cites only 12 Greek manuscripts 

and eight early versions in support of the Greek word Kyrios ( Kuvrio") in the 237 Jehovah 

passages. On the other hand, the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament actually cites 

754 Greek manuscripts, 86 versions, and 149 lectionaries in support of the Kyrios passages 

within the Christian Greek Scriptures. In all, there are a total of over 5,000 extant Christian 

Greek manuscripts. 

We fully acknowledge that the transmission of the Sacred Scriptures was under the careful 



plan and supervision of Jehovah. Nonetheless, there was an apparent randomness in the 

method he used to preserve these texts. The accuracy of the various texts which have been 

safeguarded, and their geographical location which made preservation possible, were 

random events. On the other hand, removal of all traces of the Tetragrammaton would, of 

necessity, have been a deliberate and planned undertaking. It would represent a statistically 

impossible series of events for t he 

Tetragrammaton to have been removed from copies of the original writings, leaving no trace 

of that heresy today. 

I think the question that everyone SHOULD be asking, is why has the Divine Name, used in the Hebrew 

text 6828 times, more than all other divine titles put together, and more than any other name,... 

completely disappeared? 

Regarding the Hebrew versions, one scholar writes" 

"Supposing a Christian scholar were engaged in translating the Greek Testament into 

Hebrew, he would have to consider, each time the word Kurios occured, whether there was 

anything in the context to indicate its true Hebrew representative; and this is the difficulty 

which would arise in translating the N.T. into all languages if the title Jehovah had been 

allowed to stand in the [LXX]." Synonyms of the Old Testament, Girdlestone, p. 43 

Moving along though, any discussion on textual criticism inevitably involves including the Ante-Nicene 

Fathers (hereafter, ANF). How did they feel about God's name? 

"God has no name, for everything that has a name is related to created things." Aristides (c. 

125, E) 9.264 

"He has many virtues as are distinctive to a God who is called by no proper name." Justin 

Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.165 

"To the Father of all, there is no name given" Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.190 

"As to the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe,... if anyone dares to say that 

there is a name, he raves with hopeless madness." Justin Martyr (c. 160, E) 1.183 

"God cannot be called by any proper name. For names are given to mark out and distinguish 

various subject matters, because these matter are many and diverse. However, no one 

existed before God who could give Him a name, nor did He Himself think it right to name 

Himself. For He is one and unique... On this account, He said to Moses, "I am the Being." 

By the participle *being,* He taught the difference between the God who is and the gods 

who are not. 

Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.281 

"If we name Him, we do not do so properly." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E) 2.464 

"The name of God the Father had been published to no one." Tertullian (c. 198, W) 3.682 

"Neither must we ask for a name of God. God is His name. We have no need of names when 

a multitude are to be separated into individuals...To God, who is alone, the name "God" is 

the whole. Mark Minucius Felix (c. 200, W) 4.183 

"We say the name Sabaoth, Adonai, and the other names treated with so much reverence 

among the Hebrews, do not apply to any ordinary created things. Rather, they belong to a 



secret theology concerning the Framer of all things." Origen (c. 248, E), 4.407 

"Christians in prayer do not even use the precise names that divine scriptures applies to 

God." Origen, 4.653 

"God's own name also cannot be declared, for He cannot be conceived....For the name is the 

significance of whatever thing can be comprehended from a name." Novatian, 5.615 

"Neither must you ask the name of God. God is His name. Where a multitude is to be 

distinguished by the appropriate characteristics of names, there is a need of names. 

However, to God - who alone is - belongs the whole name of God." Cyprian 5.467 

Here, despite the fact that the Name occurs so many times in the Hebrew text, there is evident hostility 

towards the name. Is it because of the Name's association with the Jews the early Christians were trying 

to disassociate and distinguish themselves from? 

"the Torah is not the itself the name of God but the explication of the Name of God. To him (the 

Kabbalist] meant exactly what it meant for Jewish tradition, namely the tetragrammaton YHWH. And 

this is the true meaning of "God's Torah." on The Meaning of the Torah/On the Kaballah and Its 

Symbolism, by Gershom Scholem, p.42 

The Jews and the Name were solidly bound together. Perhaps, this is why the ANF were not only hostile 

to the Name, but to the people of the Name. 

"In Christian sources, the charge of Jewish hate is unrelieved. St. Justin (A.D. 100-65), in 

his Dialogue with Trypho, returns again and again to the point. On one occasion he 

confronts Trypho the simple declaration, 'You hate and (wherever you have the power), you 

kill us." Tertullian (c. A.D. 155-c. 222) labels Jews 'the seed-plot of all calumnies against 

us;' and in the early fourth century, Emperor Constantine (A.D. 306-37) said, 'Let us have 

nothing to do with the most hostile Jews.' 

Taken from many available accusations, these few samples convey the seriousness of the 

charge. The answer has been made that the accusers, having entertained few relations with 

real Jews, constructed a theological abstraction having little relation to reality." 

What did this lead to? 

"In steering a course between the extremes of Judaeo-Christianity and the anti-Judaism of 

Marcion and the Gnostics, that Church had to prove to the gentiles - and to the Jews - that it 

was the true Israel, that Judaism was a pretender that refused to abdicate a lost kingdom - 

and all this from Judaistic sources....Exegetical disputes inevitably arose between the 

apologists and the rabbinate. The latter accused the former of mutilating the text of the 

Septuagint...and replaced it with several new Hebrew translations. Christian 

polemicists countered with charges of textual suppressions by the Jews." Anguish of 

the Jews, Edward Flannery, p. 32 

Do you see that the fighting between the two factions initially involved allegations of textual corruption? 

The move away from Judaism, the formation of a new religion and the great apostasy foretold in the NT 

was enough fuel to create "wholesale" changes in the text. This was helped in part by the abbreviations of 

divine names and titles. You recommend the Book, The Jesus Papyrus by Carston Thiede, which says: 

"With the first Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, YHWH acquired the visible form 

of an abbreviation - initially, because the Hebrew consonants were inserted in the Greek 

text wherever "God" appeared. This custom was continued into the Middle Ages and had its 



variations, which made the abbreviating nature of the exercise more obviousv - such as 

writing only the first letter of the Hebrew word yod, doubling to to look like a twinfold z 

and drawing a horizontal bar throught the middle of both letters. A find from Qumram 

dating from the period just before the 'birth' of the first Christian texts documents the use of 

Greek rather than Hebrew letters to abbreviate God's unpronouncable name. 

In a fragmentary Greek papyrus scroll discovered in Cave 4 - Pap4QLXXLev b, with parts 

of Leviticus - "God" is written neither with the full Greek word theos nor with the Greek 

translation of Adonai, kyrios ('Lord'), but with the Greek vowels alone (!) iota/alpha/omega, 

to souund something like Ya-oh or Ya-ho. In brief, by the time the first Christians wrote 

their own Greek manuscripts rather than copying Old Testament texts, they were already 

accustomed to the concept of contracting the name and title of God. We do not know if 

kyrios was already contracted as this earliest stage, the period of the scrolls. It could have 

been abbreviated in Greek consonants (KS) or with the Hebrew tetragrammaton or with the 

Greek vowels IAO. But we have no direct Christian manuscript evidence of this word dating 

from this period. However, if the identification and reconstruction of 7Q4 as 1 Timothy 3:16 

- 4:3 is any indication of standard practice, the word 'God' itself, theos, was apparently not 

abbreviated, nor was another extant nomen sacrum...Let us suppose then, that the first 

(Jewish)-Christian scribes initially did what they had always done as Jews, resisting the 

temptation - if temptation it was - to break with the traditional practice. 

As we see above, in fact, as we see often, divine titles are usually abbreviated. But the Divine Name is 

substituted for a circumlocution. We will come back to this later. 

Let us continue on with Thiede, and let's take note of the following "wholesale" change: 

"Suddenly, however, all of this changed. 

Almost at a stroke, at the beginning of the second phase of transmission, the phase of the 

codex. 'holy names' were being abbreviated in Christian papyri....this was also the period 

when Jews and Christians were becoming estranged, beginning with the killing of St. 

James...This was the moment for the scribes to make a statement - a statement of faith. It 

was no longer necessary to show diplomatic or missionary consideration for Jewish 

sensitivities. Christian documents could begin to assert unequivocally the divinity of Jesus. 

It was a final step, from oral preaching via the more cautious scroll documents to the boldly 

unambiguous handwritten signs in the oldest codex and its successors: Jesus Christ is Lord 

and God." p. 143 

From reading your book, you seem to think the removal of the Divine Name must be a gradual change, 

but as we see above, by Thiede's and Carson's comments, the changes took place abruptly. Couple this 

anti-semitism with the neo-Platonic thought rampant amongst the ANF (Plato's trinity included a 

NAMELESS 'ONE') and you have enough of a push for change. The one thing that I have learned while 

studying textual criticism, is that corruption happened almost immediately. As you said: 

"For a heresy of this magnitude to take place so soon after the Apostles' deaths is most 

difficult to believe?" 

Exactly how many mss do we actually have that can be dated within one generation of the Apostles? 

Very few, and even they are disputed. 

G. D. Kilpatrick states in his Etudes de Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme that between the periods 70-135 

C.E. that there were three major changes in the transmission of the text. The change from scroll to codex, 

the tetragrammaton was replaced by Kyrios and nomina sacra (sacred names) were abbreviated. See pp. 



221, 222 

You have provided a list of manuscripts, a list that is also available to anyone who has the Nestle-Aland 

or UBS Greek text. But even the oldest and most reliable of these are centuries removed from the 

autographs. 

You and I can both agree that it is heresy to remove the name from the OT, but yet that did not stop later 

LXX copyists from removing it, and it did not prevent Jerome from removing it in his Vulgate. As we 

have seen above, the ANF, as representing the mindset of the post 1st century Christian, simply did not 

like the Name. 

Again, as is your habit, you repeat: 

"We fully acknowledge that the transmission of the Sacred Scriptures was under the careful 

plan and supervision of Jehovah. Nonetheless, there was an apparent randomness in the 

method he used to preserve these texts. The accuracy of the various texts which have been 

safeguarded, and their geographical location which made preservation possible, were 

random events. On the other hand, removal of all traces of the Tetragrammaton would, of 

necessity, have been a deliberate and planned undertaking. It would represent a statistically 

impossible series of events for t he 

Tetragrammaton to have been removed from copies of the original writings, leaving no trace 

of that heresy today." 

We have to look at preservation from the viewpoint of history as a whole. For over 1000 years all we 

have had was the divine Name-less Latin Vulgate. There were no vernacular versions or translations, and 

the penalty for owning one was death. Our oldest manuscripts were not even discovered until after the 

dark ages. It is evident that Jehovah WAITED until nearly our day to reveal his Bible in its oldest form. 

The message of the Bible though has not changed. 

Can changes happen in a short period of time in regards to Bible translation? Yes. 

In the 1400's we had no English Bible versions, yet 100 years later, there were several. In the 19th 

Century, Bibles containing the Divine Name Jehovah were quite common, but not so a century later. 100 

years ago, Versions were largely Formal Equivalent (literal), now they are largely Dynamic Equivalent 

(meaning-for-meaning, thought-for-thought, paraphrase). 

On pages 158-160 you address your displeasure with the New American Standard Version policy on not 

translating the Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures, yet you still end this chapter with a diatribe 

against the NWT. 

Simply doing the math leads me to the conclusion that removing the name over 6800 times is far more 

serious than adding it over 200 times. 

I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the New American Standard Version or Lockman 

Foundation and had spent any time writing lengthy polemics against them? 

I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the New Revised Standard Version or the National 

Council of Churches or Oxford and had spent any time writing lengthy polemics against them? 

I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the New King James Version or Nelson book 

publishers and had spent any time writing lengthy polemics against them? 

I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the New International Version or Zondervan and had 

spent any time writing lengthy polemics against them? 

I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the New Living Translation or Tyndale publishers and 

had spent any time writing lengthy polemics against them? 

I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the New American Bible and their publishers and had 




I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the English Standard Version or Crossway and had 


I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the Contemporary English Version and their publishers 

and had spent any time writing lengthy polemics against them? 

I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of the Revised English Bible and Oxford University Press 

and the Churches that sponsored this in the UK and had spent any time writing lengthy polemics against 

them? 

I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of New Century Version and had spent any time writing 

lengthy polemics against them? 

I wonder if you are equitable in your treatment of The Message and had spent any time writing lengthy 

polemics against their publishers? etc., etc., etc., ... 

I think I already know the answer. According to you, the above Bible are wrong 6828 times, the NWT is 

wrong only 237 times, in other words, the NWT is almost 97% more correct (by your criterion) than the 

above versions, yet all your energy has been directed against the NWT, which leads to the inescapable 

conclusion that you have a devious agenda in mind, an agenda directed against Jehovah's Witnesses and 

the NWT. (This explains why your book is available from web-sites hostile to Jehovah's Witnesses) 

There is another way of looking at the above though. The above translated as they have, for the sake of 

their target audience, and the same can be said for the NWT. Where the Zondervan (NIV and NASB) 

Study Bibles have extensive (and often helpful) footnotes, yet these same footnotes fail to even capitalize 

LORD where it refers to YHWH in the OT. On the other hand, the NWT has supplied its target audience 

with a Reference edition and an interlinear (AT NO CHARGE YET) explaining the facts in regards to 

the Greek text used. There is not attempt to hide our translation philosophy in this regard, quite the 

opposite in fact. 

To top this off, the WTS also prints the KJV, ASV, Byington's Bible in Living English, and had 

distributed the Jerusalem, New English, Good News and New American Bibles (amongst others) in order 

to promote study and comparisons between various versions with differing styles and theories of 

translation. It has been my experience that my brothers use and own more versions and translations than 

any other religious group. 

Then there is the fact that many of the Bibles listed above are "meaning-based" translations, and even the 

most literal use some form of Dynamic Equivalence. The NASB is touted as the most literal, yet it 

chooses the dynamic equivalent "LORD" in place of the divine name in the OT. The inclusion of the 

divine name in the NT certainly counts as a meaning based equivalent, especially in light of the fact that 

YHWH falls within the dictionary, lexical and semantic range of Kyrios. 

Another note needs to be made in regards to the embellishment of Jesus' status in the NT, which has 

happened so much that it is now difficult to know exactly how many times the words "Jesus" and 

"Christ" actually appear. Take note: 

NIV Jesus = 1226 Christ = 499 

KJV Jesus = 943 Christ = 522 

NASB Jesus = 881 Christ = 493 

NRSV Jesus = 1088 Christ = 45 

RSV Jesus = 926 Christ = 534 

Darby Bible Jesus = 904 Christ = 507 

Young's Literal Version Jesus = 932 Christ 529 



Wesley N.T. Jesus = 951 Christ = 497 

God's Word Jesus = 1504 Christ = 516 

New Living Translation Jesus = 1404 Christ = 536 

Douay Jesus = 932 Christ = 534 

ASV Jesus = 883 Christ = 501 

Bible in Basic English Jesus = 905 Christ = 496 

Good News Bible/TEV Jesus = 1543 Christ 502 

New Century Version Jesus = 1846 Christ 604 

NKJV Jesus = 941 Christ = 530 

How do we get from 883 occurences of the name "Jesus" (American Standard Version) to 1846 in the 

NCV. It seems I have already mapped out your next project, Mr. Lundquist. 

This is not a recent phenomenon. 

Here are a few ancient examples: 

John 19:40, "They took the body of Christ" to "they took the body of God" 

Luke 2:26 changed to "Christ, namely God." Old Latin ff 

Luke 9:20 "the Christ of God" changed to "Christ, God" Coptic 

Mark 3:11 "You are the Son of God" changed to "You are God, the Son of God." MS69 

Luke 7:9 "when Jesus heard this" changed to "when God heard this" 124 

Luke 8:28 "Jesus, Son of the highest God" changed to "Jesus, the highest God" 2766 

Luke 20:42 "the lord said to my lord" changed to "God said to my God" Persian Diatesseron 

2 Peter 1:2 changed to "in the knowledge of God, our Lord Jesus" P72 

Jude 5 changed to "Jesus" or "the God Christ" who saved the people from Egypt P72 

Gal 2:2 "Son of God" changed to "God the Son" MS1985 

Acts 20:28 "church of God" changed to "church of the Lord" or "church of the Lord and God" various 

1 Cor 10:5, "God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness" changed to "Christ" 

MS81 

Rom 14:10, "we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God." changed to "judgment-seat of 

Christ" 048, 0209 Byz etc 

Matt 24:36, "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, 

but the Father only." The Byx mss omit "neither the Son." Interestingly, the Codex Siniaticus originally 

had "neither the Son", but was removed by a later scribe...and then was restored by yet another scribe. 

The New Testament manuscripts were not produced impersonally by machines capable of 

flawless production. They were copied by hand, by living, breathing human beings who 

were deeply rooted in the conditions and controversies of their day. Did the scribes' 

polemical context influence the way they transcribed sacred Scriptures? The burden of 

the present study is that they did....." 

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by B. Ehrman, p. 3 

In fact, the early scribes were more prone to omit than they were to add. 

P45 has 28 additions, but 63 omissions. 

P46 has 55 additions and 167 omissions. 







These changes did not stop early on: 

"When an intentional change affects the meaning of the passage, there is a demonstrable 

tendency to move the meaning in the direction of the orthodoxy of the time, not away from 

it. By 'demonstrable' I mean that even within the Byzantine tradition, the later witnesses are 

inclined to change things in favor of giving more titles to Christ, not fewer" 

D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, p. 62 

It must be remembered that these intentional scribal changes were made by those in the orthodox 

position, not by fringe "heretical" groups. 

But even here again, allegations went the other way. 

"The number of deliberate alterations made in the interests of doctrine is difficult to assess. 

Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Eusebius, and many other Church Fathers 

accused the heretics of corrupting the Scriptures in order to have support for their special 

views. In the mid-second century Marcion expunged his copies of the Gospel according 

to Luke of all references to the Jewish background of Jesus. Tatian's Harmony of the 

Gospels contains several textual alterations which lent support to ascetic or encratic views. 

Even within the pale of the Church one part often accused the another of altering the text of 

the Scriptures. Ambrosiaster, the fourth-century Roman commentator on the Pauline 

Epistles, believed that where the Greek manuscripts differed on any important points from 

the Latin manuscripts which he was accustomed to use, the Greeks 'with their presumptuous 

frivolity' had smuggled in the corrupt reading." 

The footnote reads: 

"Such changes prove that the autographs of the books of the New Testament were no 

longer in existence, otherwise an appeal would have been made directly to them. Their 

early loss is not surprising, for during persecutions the toll taken by imperial edicts aiming 

to destroy all copies of the sacred books of Christians must have been heavy. Furthermore, 

simply the ordinary wear and tear of the fragile papyrus, on which at least the shorter 

Epistles of the New Testament had been written (see the reference to CARTHS in 2 John, 

vs. 12), would account for their early dissolution. It is not difficult to imagine what would 

happen in the course of time to one much-handled manuscript, passing from reader to 

reader, perhaps from church to church (see Col. iv. 16), and suffering damage from the 

fingers of eager if devout readers as well as from climatic changes." The Text of the New 

Testament, 3rd Edition, by Bruce M. Metzger, p.201 

So here (and further above) we have allegations of corruption from all circles. Some of this even being 

influenced by anti-semitism. [Eldon Jay Epp follows this anti-Semitic conclusion on the book of Acts in 

the Western Text in his Theological Tendency, pp. 165-71; see also D.C. Parker's Codex Bezae: An Early 

Christian Manuscript and Its Text, pp. 189-92 and 279-86. These anti-Semitic tendencies have also been 

suggested for the papyri in H. Eshbaugh's Textual Variants and Theology: A Study of the Galatians Text 

of Papyrus 46, JSNT 3 (1979) 60-72; and Mikael C. Parsons A Christological Tendency in p75, JBL 105 

(1986) 463-79]. 

Couple this with the fact that early Christian scribes were zealous to promote a cetain viewpoint, and you 

have a dangerous mixture: 

The scribe of P66 made nearly five hundred corrections to his own manuscript....the early 

Christians did not necessarily treat the NT text as a 'sacred' text - i.e., as a fixed, written, 

canonized text, sacred to the very letter...By contrast, the Jews had come to regard the OT 



text with deep reverence and therefore copied it with extreme fidelity." p. 6, Early 

Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament, by Philip Wesley Comfort. 

"The story of the manuscript tradition of the New Testament is the story of progression from 

a relatively uncontrolled tradition to a rigorously controlled tradition....The general nature of 

the text in the earliest period has long been recognized as 'wild,' 'uncontrolled,' 'unedited.'" 

Colwell, Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program, pp 195, 166n3 

"The plain fact of the matter is that early Christians did not take nearly the pains with their 

Scriptures that the Jews did with theirs; and this is evidenced not only by the Christians 

handling of the New Testaments documents but also in their handling of the LXX." D.A. 

Carson, The King James Only Controversy, p.116 

"In the earliest time of our tradition, one can as a scribe still deal relatively freely with the 

text of an author....Circumstances change fundamentally from the ninth century on. The 

demands on exactness and discipline become incomparably higher in a scribal tradition 

carried on chiefly by monks." B. Aland, "Neutestamentliche Textfortschung und 

Textgeschichte" NTS 36 (1990) 339-40 

The textual/corruptional debate continues to this day. A growing number of people feel that the later 

Byzantine text (Majority text) is a truer form of the autograph (pointing to the many corruptions of the 

Alexandrian texts), while the other side feels the older Alexandrian text is truer to the autographs, 

because of age. The supporters of the Byzantine text that the King James is part of, want to preserve 

scriptures that defend the belief that "God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Tim 3:16) and the hard-core 

Textus Receptus defenders want to preserve the trinitarian formula in the Comma Johanneum (1 John 

5:7). 

The supporters of the Alexandrian text realize that while there are corruptions in the older text, the above 

examples are cases of even clearer corruption. Again, the debate rages on. The differences between the 

two text-types are judged to be between 60-85%. I believe they are closer, as many involve word order 

and embellishments in titles belonging to Jesus. But if you are arguing for preservation, and the majority 

of texts preserved are of a later date, then the inescapable conclusion lies in the fact the God must have 

preserved and preferred the later text over the older ones, which lies at odds with your argument. Again, 

it should be noted to others that these difference do not affect the overall message of the Bible, and it is 

this message, that was preserved by God. 

The Divine Name and the LXX 

You repeat the statement that the LXX used the divine name, but only when it was used for Jews, not for 

Christians. The problem with this is, when Jesus was reading from the LXX, it was one made for Jews. 

There were no Christians then making copies of the LXX, as there were no Christians then, period. We 

also have nothing in the writings of the Apostles indicating that were members of the EKKLHSIA 

involved in the copying of the LXX. In fact, all copies of the LXX in the first century were made by 

Jews, for Jews, and were doubly enjoyed by Jewish Christians. 

"My research is accomplishing just this, documenting and discussing this divine name's 

surprisingly frequent appearance in Christian copies of originally Jewish onomastica 

of the LXX, in definitely two and possibly up to four classical authors, in ecclesiatical 

sources, and in the Mishnah. Taken together, this evidence indicates that some Jews 

continued to use and indeed pronounce this Greek form of the divine name in the 

Greco-Roman period, and this helps provide a background for understanding the name's 



appearance in 4QLXX Levb." Presentation by Frank Shaw, Univ of Cincinnati at the 1999 

SBL/AAR conference 

This leads to my next question. If later copies by an apostate church can remove the Tetragrammaton 

from the LXX without any hint of discussion among the ANF of this heresy, then why is it so hard to 

admit that this could have happened with the later copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures? Is it because 

we don't want to see it? Is it because we are trying to promote a later teaching of the Trinity? 

On a side note, there is no indication that later copies of the LXX made by Christians were better, in fact, 

quite the opposite seems to be the case. Origen, after discussing several Apocryphal books in the LXX, 

made this statement: 

"And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies 

in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current 

among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be 

untampered with, and free from forgery." The Ante-Nicene Fathers, IV, 387 

P. 301 

"We can only assume that the New World Bible Translation Committee was aware of the 

Nomina Sacra, yet chose not to bring this material into their textual apparatus to establish 

the presence of the Tetragrammaton in a limited 237 instances within the Christian 

Scriptures. The great number of occurrences of Nomina Sacra (surrogates) within the text of 

the Christian Scripture Greek manuscripts would preclude such an attempt. Any appeal to 

the Nomina Sacra with the intent of establishing the presence of the divine name in the 

Christian Greek Scriptures would, of consequence, identify the person of Christ with 

Jehovah. If it were to be argued that the Nomina Sacra in the form of k—"— (for kuvrio") is 

a derivative of hwhy, then it could be forcefully argued—with a large number of examples 

of k—"— referring to Jesus—that the inspired Christian writers used hwhy of Jesus 

himself." 

There is a very big difference between Nomina Sacra (which were not really surrogates as much as they 

were abbreviations) and the use of actual substitutions (surrogates, circumlocutions, Paleo-Hebraic 

letters) in regards to the Divine Name. It is because of the use of circumlocutions for the Divine Name 

(which as you know was even used in Shem Tob's Matthew) that differentiates, and therefore elevates it 

above the abbreviated Nomina Sacra. The same Nomina Sacra that held words like "Man/human" 

(ANQRWPOS), Israel, David and mother also as sacred. I do not know of any occurences of the Nomina 

Sacra as being substituted for Hashem, Name, PIPI, or even as we have discovered, a triangle. 

Your argument is what happens when we fall into the trap of partitioning the Bible into the Old and New 

Testaments, when we really should be arguing from within the corpus of the entire Bible. If the name 

"Jesus" indeed replaces "Jehovah", then why exactly the name "Jesus?" Why simply another "Joshua?" 

Why another Jesus Barabbas? Why another Jesus ben Sirach? 

When we take the Bible as a whole, without the man-made division, the name YHWH reigns supreme, 

and no other name can touch it. 

From "Hallelujah in the Christian Greek Scriptures: 

"It is also interesting to note that the divine name [ALLHLOUIA] was not removed from 

these four verses [Rev 19:1, 3, 4 and 6]. To anyone familiar with the language background 

during the second and third centuries C.E., these four occurences of the word hallelujah 

were obviously a reference to Jehovah. Why then, if there had been a heresy aimed at 



removing his name, were these verses overlooked?" 

You yourself acknowledge that Jerome was aware of the Name, and that the earlier copies of the LXX 

contained it. Yet later copies of the LXX that had removed the Name, as had Jerome's Vulgate, still 

contained the word ALLHLOUIA at Psalms 135, 136, 146, 147, 147, 149, 150 and 3 Macc 7:13, Tobit 

13:18. The reason for this is due to the fact that translators and copyists are generally less hostile to the 

Name if it is part of another word or name. This is why translators, even of English versions that do not 

consistently use the Name, will use it as part of a place name at Gen 22:14 [Jehovah-jireh]; Ex 17:16 

[Jehovah-nissi]; Jg 6:24 [Jehovah-shalom] and Ezek 48:35 [Jehovah-shammah]. And then there are the 

common names of persons that contain parts of the Divine Name, like Jehoaddah, Jehoaddan, Jehoahaz, 

Jehoash, Jehohanan, Jehoiachin, Jehoiada, Jehoiakim, Jehoiarib, Jehonadab, Jehonathan, Jehoram, 

Jehoshabeath, Jehoshaphat, Jehosheba, Jehoshua, Jehozabad, Jehozadak etc. It would be ridiculous to 

have to rename these, as for example, TheLORDshaphat. 

Is the NWT consistent in its use of the Hebrew Versions? 

No, and why should they be? The Greek texts in use today, be it the Nestle Aland or the United Bible 

Societies, Von Soden's etc., construct a critical apparatus, whereby certain scriptures in, lets say, 

Vaticanus or Siniaticus are accepted or rejected based on what is deemed accurate or corrupted. Even the 

two Majority Texts in publication (Hodges-Farstad vs. Robinson-Pierpont) disagree over 200 times. 

Bible Translators even pick and choose what scriptures they accept or reject in those texts. As we have 

seen, Professor Wallace rejects the Nestle Aland text 500 times in his NET Bible. Let us take on 

example. Had we faithfully followed Shem Tob's Matthew, then the NWTTC could have rejected any 

mentioned of the Father Son and holy spirit at Matt 28:19. However, Shem Tob's reading of this text and 

omission of the three was rejected as inferior. One important mss, Codex Alexandrinus, reads the word 

"firstborn" at Revelation 1:18, thereby watering down one of your favorite chapters as a "proof-text" for 

the deity of Christ. This reading was rejected by the NWTTC, W/Hort, UBS etc., as an inferior reading. 

The Hebrew versions simply do not have any critical apparatus, so it was necessary, and required, to 

accept and reject many occurences of the Divine Name, whereby creating our own apparatus, in a sense. 

Westcott and Hort do not use every scripture as it is laid out in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, and neither does 

the NWTTC need to use faithfully every occurence of YHWH or the varying occurences of Adon from 

the Hebrew versions, especially since the Hebrew versions are not the base text, but are used as 

exemplars for proof that it could be done in some circumstances. As we have seen above, bias can play a 

part as to how a translator might view a certain chapter. When a Hebrew version has, "Sanctify the Christ 

as Jehovah in your heart," (1 Peter 3:15) we realize that the translators bias (since some do come from 

the Trinitarian Bible Society) also play a part. What is commendable though is that the NWT Reference 

Edition does not hide this fact, and includes this reading in the margin. This leads to another question 

though. 

Are there Scriptures used of Jehovah that apply to Jesus, and does that make them the same or 

equal? 

This is something Yes, there certainly circumstances in the Bible where Jesus and Jehovah have 

scriptures applied to each other. This kind of adaption is not uncommon, and dangerous if exegeted 

consistently by your average "evangelical Protestant." 

Let us compare 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chron 21:1: 

2 Sam reads, "And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against 

them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah." ASV 

1 Chron reads, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel." ASV 



Are we here to conclude, by the argument mentioned in Lynn's book, that Jehovah and Satan are the 

same person or equal? 

In the book of Job we have the same situation ("and comforted him concerning all the evil that Jehovah 

had brought upon him" Job 42:11 ASV, when we know it was Satan). 

The book "Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible" by John W. Haley had this comment: 

"It is consistent with Hebrew modes of thought that whatever occurs in the world, under the 

overruling providence of God, what he suffers to take place, should be attributed to his 

agency." 

The Jews obviously understood this. 





GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish 

halachic law as follows: "One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger 

[the Shaliach] is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of 

the one who sent him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier 

times the messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 18). 

Furuli adds: 

"He, therefore, can fill any position in the God's universe, and represent his Father in any 

purpose. This is something to keep in mind when we are looking at the various quotes that 

are applied to Jesus. As we consider how the NT quotes the OT, we must stress that an 

"ontological" identity between the persons mentioned in the quotes is not at all obvious." p. 

195, Theology and Bias in Bible Translation by Rolf Furuli 

Professor Furuli then goes on to point out some examples of this. In Hosea 11:1 the reference is to Israel, 

but the same words are later applied to Jesus at Matt 2:15. In Jeremiah Rachel is described as weeping 

over her sons, but this is later applied to the children of Bethlehem.(Mt 2:17, 18) Paul applied Habakkuk 

1:5, 6 in his sermon at Acts 13:40, 41, but the earlier application was to the Chaldeans, the later was not. 

"Then there is the identification of John the Baptist with the prophet Elijah. Malachi 4:5 

prophecied that Elijah the prophet would come before the great and fear-inspiring day of 

YHWH. Jesus quoted these words in Matthew 17:12 and said that "Elijah has already 

come." Verse 13 tells us that the disciples perceived that he spoke about John the baptist. In 

Matthew 11:14 Jesus states the matter clearly, 'He himself is Elijah who is destined to 

come." There can hardly be a more way to express ontological identity that to say John the 

baptist is Elijah! But this is not what is meant, because John was neither the resurrected nor 

the re-incarnated Elijah. But John did the same work as Elijah, under circumstances which 

were comparable to 

those of Elijah." Furuli, p 195 

Buchanan puts it nicely: 

"Like other scholars of his time, the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament 

passage out of context and attributing it to the Messiah. For example in LXX Deut 32:43, in 

which the object of worship for the sons of God according to the Proto-Massoretic text was 

Israel, the author of Hebrews applied it to the first-born, namely Jesus (1:6). Since the term 



"first-born" could be applied either to Israel (Exod 4:22) or to the Messiah, the author made 

the shift. By the same logic, since the "Lord" was a title of respect used both for God and for 

kings, such as Jesus, he may also have made the shift here to apply to Jesus the durability of 

God in contrast to the temporal nature of the angels. If this were the case, then Jesus would 

also have been thought of as a sort of demiurge through whom God created the heaven and 

the earth.as well as the ages (1:2, 10). In either case it does not mean that Jesus was 

believed to be God or was addressed as God." 

Hebrews 1:10 Anchor Bible/Buchanan 

A Trustworthy Greek Text, P. 140: 

"We are told that the Greek text of the Christian Scriptures is trustworthy for faith. Do we 

accept these Scriptures as published in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, or do we 

acknowledge the alternate wording of the New World Translation in these 237 instances as 

having precedence over the Greek text?" 

In my vehicle I always have a copy of the Revised Standard Version, and I often have a little pocket-size 

RSV in my shirt pocket. To me, the RSV is a trustworthy Bible for faith, even though, it has wrongly 

removed the Name from the Hebrew text 6828 times. The WTS also provides and prints other Bibles that 

have also removed the Name, at the same time, we acknowledge what you are unwilling to do, that 

YHWH falls within the dictionary, lexical and semantic range of Lord/kyrios. It seems that Jehovah's 

Witnesses, and others, have a healthier view of preservation and inspiration. We even print the King 

James Version, which, as a 50's Awake magazine points out, contains 50,000 errors. Yet we still deem 

this version trustworthy enough to print it. 

"It should be pointed out that providential preservation is not a necessary consequence to of inspiration. 

Preservation of the Word of God is promised in Scripture, and inspiration and preservation are related 

doctrines, but they are distinct from each other, and there is a danger in making one the necessary 

corollary of the other. The Scriptures do not do this. God, having given the perfect revelation by verbal 

inspiration, was under no special obligation to see that man did not corrupt it." 

The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism, by Harry A. Sturz, p. 38 

A Note for all Opposers of the New World Translation: 

Professor Alan S. Duthie once wrote that the NWT was no more "full of heresies" than any other version. 

Yet, considering the constant attacks on it, in print, and on the web, opposers are involved in an 

diabolical task...they are providing fodder for atheists and Muslims in their constant attack on the Bible. 

The New World Translation has not changed the message of God. The New International Version has not 

changed the message of God despite having homosexuals working on it. Johannes Greber has not 

changed the message of God, despite his new-ageism. Catholic Bibles have not changed the message of 

God, despite what Baptists are telling me. The sign at the Watchtower headquarters reads, "Read God's 

Word, the Holy Bible daily," it does not say to only read a certain version. Perhaps we should all be 

promoting a return to the Bible rather than promoting an agendaized partisan opposition against a certain 

group. God has obviously blessed the NWT with a distribution of 100 million copies worldwide, as he 

has also blessed the myriads of copies of other versions. Let us simply take comfort in that fact, instead 

of attacking it. 

-Webmaster 

Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the 

God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my 

memorial unto all generations. ASV 



You must tell the Isrealites this, that it is JEHOVAH the God of their forefathers, the God of Abraham, 

The God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, who has sent you to them. This is my name forever; this is my title in 

every generation." The New English Bible 

ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. (Romans 9:5) 

ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5. by Ezra Abbott 

[From the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis for 1881.] 

We shall understand better the passage to be discussed, if we consider its relation to what precedes and 

follows and the circumstances under which it was written. 

In the first eight chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle has set forth the need and the value of 

the gospel as "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jews first, and also to 

the Greek." In view of the present blessings and the glorious hopes of the Christian believer, he closes 

this part of the Epistle with an exultant song of triumph. 

But the doctrine of Paul was in direct opposition to the strongest prejudices of the Jews and their most 

cherished expectations. It placed them on a level, as to the conditions of salvation, with the despised and 

hated Gentiles. The true Messiah, the king of Israel, the spiritual king of men, had come; but the rulers of 

their nation had crucified the Lord of glory, and the great mass of the people had rejected him. They had 

thus set themselves in direct opposition to God. They had become ANAQEMA APO TOU CRISTOU, 

outcasts from the Messiah and his kingdom. Christians, a large majority of them Gentiles by birth, were 

now the true Israel. No rite of circumcision, no observance of the Jewish Law, was required, as the 

condition of acceptance with God and the enjoyment of the Messianic blessings; no sacrifice but 

self-sacrifice; the only condition was faith, as Paul uses the term, - a practical belief and trust in Christ, 

and thus in God revealed in his paternal character; a faith that carried with it the affections and will 

PISTIS DI AGAPHS ENERGOUMENH. 

How could these things be? How was this gospel of Paul to be reconciled with the promises of God to the 

"holy nation"? how with his justice, wisdom and goodness" Had God cast off his people, "Israel his 

servant, Jacob his chosen, the seed of Abraham his friend"? These are the great questions which the 

Apostle answers in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of this Epistle. The first five verses are to be 

regarded as conciliatory introduction to his treatment of this subject, on which he had so much to say that 

was not only hard for the unbelieving Jews, but for Jewish Christians, to understand and accept. 

The unbelieving Jews regarded the Apostle as an apostate from the true religion and as an enemy of their 

race. Five times already he had received from them forty stripes save one; he had been "in perils from his 

own countrymen" at Damascus, at Antioch in Pisidia, at Iconium and Lystra, at Thessalonica, Beroea, 

and Corinth, - often in peril of his life. By a great part of the believing Jews, he was regarded with 

distrust and aversion. (See Acts xxi. 20, 21) His doctrines were indeed revolutionary. Though he was 

about to go to Jerusalem to carry a liberal contribution from the churches in Macedonia and Achaia to the 

poor Christians in that city, he expresses in this Epistle great anxiety about the reception he should meet 

with (anxiety fully justified by the result), and begs the prayers of the brethren at Rome in his behalf 

(Rom. xv. 30-32). As the Jews hated Paul, they naturally believed that he hated them. 

These circumstances explain the exceedingly strong asseveration of his affection for his countrymen and 

of his deep sorrow for their estrangement from God, with which this introduction begins. So far from 

being an enemy of his people, he could make any sacrifice to win them to Christ. They were his brethren, 

his kinsmen, as to the flesh. He gloried in sharing with them the proud name of Israelite. He delights to 

enumerate the magnificent privileges by which God had distinguished them from all other nations, - "the 

adoption, and the glory, and the giving of the Law, the covenants, the temple service, and the promises." 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/ezra_rom95.htm (1 of 44) [5/25/2003 3:54:36 AM]


Theirs were the fathers; and, from among them, as the crowning distinction of all, the Messiah was born, 

the supreme gift of God's love and mercy not to the Jews alone, but to all mankind. All God's dealings 

with his chosen people were designed to prepare the way, and had prepared the way, for this grand 

consummation. How natural that, when, in his rapid recital of their historic glories, the Apostle reaches 

this highest distinction of the Jews and greatest blessing of God's mercy to men, he should express his 

overflowing gratitude to God as the Ruler over all; that he should "thank God for his unspeakable gift"! I 

believe that he has done so, and that the fifth verse of the passage that we are considering should be 

translated, "whose are the fathers and from whom is the Messiah as to the flesh: he who is over all, God, 

be blessed forever. Amen," or "he who is God over all be blessed forever. Amen." The doxology springs 

from the same feeling and the same view of the gracious providence of God which prompted the fuller 

outburst at the end of the eleventh chapter, where, on completing the treatment of the subject which he 

here introduces, the Apostle exclaims: "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! 

How unsearchable are his judgments and untraceable his ways!...For from him, and through him, and to 

him, are all things: to him be (or is) the glory forever. Amen." 

I believe there are no objections to this construction of the passage which do not betray their weakness 

when critically examined; and that the objections against most of the other constructions which have 

been proposed are fatal. 

The passage is remarkable for the different ways in which it has been and may be punctuated, and for the 

consequent variety of constructions which have been given it. The Greek is as follows:- 

KAI EX WN O CRISTOS TO KATA SARKA O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS 

AIWNAS AMHN. 

It grammatically admits of being punctuated and construed in at least seven different ways 

1. Placing the comma after SARKA, and also after QEOS, we may translate the last clause, "who (or he 

who) is God over all, blessed forever." 

2. Putting the second comma after PANTWN instead of QEOS, "who (or he who) is over all, God, 

blessed for ever." 

3. With a comma after PANTWN and also after QEOS, "who (or he who) is over all, God, blessed 

forever." 

4. Placing a comma after O WN, and also after QEOS,-"He who is, God over all, blessed forever." See 

Wordsworth's note, which, however, is not consistent throughout; and observe the mistranslation at the 

end of his quotation from Athanasius (Orat. cont. Arianos, i./ 24, p. 338). 

[ftn., Perhaps I ought to add here as a curiosity a construction proposed in the Record newspaper, in an 

article copied in Christian Opinion and Revisionist for March 22, 1882, p. 222. The writer would 

translate, "Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God. Blessed be he forever! 

Amen."] 

5. Placing a comma after SARKA and a colon after PANTWN, the last part of the verse may be 

rendered: "amd from whom is the Messiah as to the flesh, who (or he who) is over all: God be blessed for 

ever. Amen. 

6. Placing the comma after SARKA, QEOS may be taken as predicate, thus: "he is who over all is God, 

blessed for ever"; so Professor B. H. Kennedy, D.D., Canon of Ely; or thus, "he who was over all being 

(literally, was) God, blessed for ever." So Andrews Norton. 

7. With a colon after SARKA, O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS may be taken as the subject, and 



EULOGHTOS as predicatem with the ellipses if EIH or ESTIN, making the last part of the verse a 

doxology, thus: "he whois over all, God, be blessed (or is to be praised) for ever"; or "God, who is over 

all, be blessed (or is to be praised) for ever." 

I pass over other varieties of translation and interpretation, depending on the question whether 

PANTWN is to be taken as masculine or neuter, and on the wider or narrower application of the word in 

either case. 

In Nos. 1-4 inclusive, it will be seen that the O WN, with all that follows, including the designation 

QEOS, is referred to CRISTOS; in Nos. 6 and 7, O WN introduces an independent sentence, and QEOS 

denotes God, the Father. No. 5 refers the first part of the sentence in debate to O CRISTOS, the last part 

to god. 

The question of chief interest is whether in this passage the Apostle has called Christ God. Among 

those who hold that he has done so, the great majority adopt one of the other of the constructions 

numbered 1 and 2; and it is to these, and especially to No. 2, followed both in King James's version and 

the Revised Version (text), that I shall give special attention. Among those who refer the last part of the 

sentence to God, and not Christ, the great majority of scholars adopt either No. 5 or No. 7. I have already 

expressed my preference for the latter construction, and it is generally preferred by those who find here a 

doxology to God. 

I. We will first consider the objections that have been urged against the construction which makes the 

last part of the sentence, beginning with O WN, introduce a doxology to God. I shall then state the 

arguments which seem to me to favor this construction, and at the same time to render the constructions 

numbered 1 to 4 each and all untenable. Other views of the passage will be briefly noticed. Some 

remarks will be added on the history of its interpretation, though no full account of this will be attempted. 

1. It is objected that a doxology here is wholly out of place; that the Apostle is overwhelmed with grief 

at the Jewish rejection of the Messiah and its consequences, and "an elegy or funeral discourse cannot be 

changed abruptly into a hymn." He is, indeed, deeply grieved at the unbelief and blindness of the great 

majority of his countrymen; but his sorrow is not hopeless. He knows all the while that "the word of God 

hath not failed," that "God hath not cast off his people whom he foreknew," that at last "all Israel shall be 

saved"; and nothing seems to me more natural than the play of mingled feelings which the passage 

presents, - grief for the present temporary alienation of his countrymen from Christ, joy and thanksgiving 

at the thought of the priceless blessings of which Christ was the minister to man and in which his 

countrymen should ultimately share. 

Flatt, Stuart, and others put the objection in a very pointed form. They represent a doxology as making 

Paul say, in effect: "The special privileges of the Jews have contributed greatly to enhance the guilt and 

punishment of the Jewish nation; God be thanked that he has given them such privileges!" But they 

simply read into the passage what is not there. There is nothing in the context to suggest that the Apostle 

is taking this view of the favor which God has shown the Jewish nation. He is not denouncing his 

countrymen for their guilt in rejecting the Messiah, and telling them that this guilt and its punishment are 

aggravated by the privileges they have abused. So tender is he of their feelings that he does not even 

name the cause of his grief, but leaves it to be inferred. He is assuring his countrymen. who regarded him 

as their enemy, of the sincerity and strength of his love for them. They are his brethren: the very name 

"Israelite" is to him a title of honor; [see ch. xi. I; 2 Cor. xi.22] and he recounts in detail, certainly not in 

the manner of one touching a painful subject, the glorious distinctions which their nation had enjoyed the 

favor of God. Calvin, who so often in his commentaries admirable traces the connection of thought, here 

hits the nail on the head: "Haec dignitatis elogia testimonia sunt amoris. Non enim solemus adeo benigne 

loqui, nisi de iis quos amamus." 



[ftn., The view which I have taken accords with that of Dr. Hodge. He says: "The object of the Apostle in 

the introduction to this chapter, contained in the first five verses, is to assure the Jews of his love and of 

his respect for their peculiar privileges." Comm. on the Ep. to the Romans, new ed. (1864), note on ix. 4, 

p. 469; see also p. 463.] 

At the risk of being tedious, I will take some notice of Dr. Gifford's remarks in his recent and valuable 

Commentary to the Romans. 

[ftn., With the paragraphs which follow compare the additional comments in Essay XVII., p. 415f.] 

He says: "Paul's anguish is deepened by the memory of their privileges, most of all by the thought that 

their race gave birth to the Divine Saviour, whom they have rejected." But in Paul's enumeration of the 

privileges of the Jews he has in view not merely their persent condition, but their whole past history, 

illuminated as it had been by light from heaven. Will it be seriously maintained that Paul did not regard 

the peculiar privileges which the Jewish nation had enjoyed for so many ages as gifts of God's goodness 

for which eternal gratitude was due? But "his anguish is deepened most of all the thought that their race 

gave birth to the Divine Saviour whom they have rejected"! 

[ftn., The last four words were added by Dr. Abbot subsequently, for reasons apparent, p.415] 

Paul's grief for his unbelieving countrymen, then, had extinguished his his gratitude for the inestimable 

blessings which he personally owed to Christ: it had extinguished his gratitude for the fact that the God 

who rules over all had sent his Son to be Saviour of the world! The dark cloud which hid the light just 

then from the mass of countrymen, but which he believed was soon to pass away, had blotted the sun 

from the heavens. The advent of Christ was no cause for thanksgiving: he could only bow his head in 

anguish, deepened most of all by the thought that the Messiah had sprung from the race to which he 

himself belonged. 

"His anguish is deepened by the memory of their privileges." Paul does not say this; and Dr. Gifford 

quite sure that this way in which these privileges presented themselves to his mind? May we not as 

naturally suppose that the thought of God's favor to his people in the past, whom he had so often recalled 

from their wanderings, afforded some ground for the hope that they had not stumbled so as to fall and 

perish, but that their present alienation from Christ, contributing, as it had done, in the over-ruling 

providence of God, to the wider and more rapid spread of the gospel among the Gentiles, was only 

temporary? If we let Paul be his own interpreter instead of reading unnatural thoughts between the lines, 

we shall take this view. "God hath not cast off HIS PEOPLE, whom he foreknew," "whose is the 

adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the promises." "A hardening in part hath befallen Israel," 

but only "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and so (or then) all Israel shall be saved." It is not 

for nothing that "theirs are the fathers"; that they had such ancestors as Abraham, "the friend of God," 

and Isaac, and Jacob. "As touching the gospel, they are enemies for the sake of the Gentiles, but as 

touching the election," as chosen people of God, "they are beloved for the father's sake." "If the first fruit 

is holy, so is the lump; and, if the root is holy, so are the branches." "God doth not repent of his of his 

calling and his gifts." "God hath shut up all [Jews and Gentiles] unto disobedience, that he might have 

mercy upon all." For the ancient prophecy is now fulfilled: the Deliverer hath come out of Zion; and "he 

shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." "O the depth of riches," etc. Such were the thoughts which the 

past privileges of the Jews, in connection with the advent of Christ, as we see from the eleventh chapter 

of this Epistle, actually suggested to the mind of Paul. 



[ftn., This appreciative recapitulation of the distinctions of the Jewish people would also serve to check 

the tendency of the Gentile Christians to self-conceit, and would lead them to recognize the important 

part of the despised Hebrews in the drama of the world's history. It would virtually say to them, "Glory 

not over the branches; but if thou gloriest, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." (Rom. xi. 18) 

Can we, then, reasonably say that, when, in his grand historic survey and enumeration of the distinctive 

privileges of the Jews, the Apostle reaches the culminating point in the advent of the Messiah, sprung 

from that race, a devout thanksgiving to God as the beneficent ruler over all is wholly out of place? 

Might we not rather ask, How could it be repressed? 

We may then, I conceive, dismiss the psychological objection to the doxology, on which many have 

laid great stress, as founded on a narrow and superficial view of what we may reasonably suppose to 

have been in the Apostles mind. And I am happy to see that so fair-minded and clear-sighted a scholar as 

Professor Dwight takes essentially the same view of the matter. (See Journ. Soc. Bibl. Lit., etc., as above, 

p. 41) 

2. A second objection to a doxology here is founded on the relation of the first five verses of the 

chapter to what follows. A doxology, it is thought, unnaturally breaks the connection between the sixth 

and what precedes. 

This argument is rarely adduced, and I should hardly have thought it worthy of notice, were it not that 

Dr. Dwight seems to attach some weight to it, thought apparently not much. (See as above, p. 41 f.) 

The first five verses of the chapter, as we have seen, are a conciliatory introduction to the treatment of a 

delicate and many-sided subject. This treatment begins with the sixth verse, which is introduced by the 

participle DE, "but." Whether the last part of verse 5 is a doxology to God, or simply the climax of the 

privileges of the Jews, the DE cannot refer to what immediately precedes. In either case, it refers to what 

is implied in verses 2 and 3, and meets the most prominent objection to the doctrine set forth by the 

Apostle in the preceding part of the Epistle. The thought is, The present condition of the great mass of 

my countrymen is indeed a sad one, and not the Jews as a nation, but Christians, are true people of God; 

but it is not as if the promises of God have failed. (Comp. iii.3,4) This simple statement of the connection 

of verse 6 with what precedes seems to me all that is needed to meet the objection. The argument that a 

doxology is inconsistent with the Apostle's state of mind has already been answered. 

3. A third objection, urged by many, is founded on the alleged abruptness of the doxology and the 

absence of any mention of God in what precedes. Some also think that a doxology here would need to be 

introduced by the participle DE. 

I cannot regard this objection as having any force. It is quite in accordance with the habit of Paul thus to 

turn aside suddenly to give expression to his feelings of adoration and gratitude toward God. See Rom. i. 

25; vii. 25 (where the genuineness of DE is very doubtful); 2 Cor. ix. 15, where note the omission of DE 

in the genuine text; 1 Tim. i. 17, where the doxology is suggested by the mention of Christ. The 

doxology xi. 36, as has already been noticed (p. 334) is completely parallel in thought. Far more abrupt is 

the doxology 2 Cor. xi. 31, O QEOS KAI PATHR TOU KURIOU IHSOU OIDEN O WN 

EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS AIWNAS OTI OU YEUDOMAI, where the ascription of praise is interposed 

between OIDEN and OTI in an extraordinary manner. 

It is very strange that it should be urged as an argument against the doxology that God is not mentioned 

in the preceding context. The name does not occur, but almost every word in verses 4 and 5 suggest the 



thought of God. So, to a Jew, the very name "Israelites"; so "the adoption and the glory and the giving of 

the Law and the covenants and the service and the promises"; and so, above all O CRISTOS, the 

Anointed of God, the Messiah: as to the flesh, sprung from the Jews; but, as to his holy spirit, the Son of 

God, the messenger of God's love and mercy, not to the Jews alone, but to all the nations of the earth. 

That the mention of Christ in such a connection as this should bring vividly to the mind of the Apostle 

the thought of GOD and his goodness, and thus lead to a doxology, is simply in accordance with the 

conception of the relation of Christ to God which appears everywhere in the Epistle, and in all his 

Epistles. While Christ, DI OU TA PANTA, is the medium of communication of our spiritual blessings, 

Paul constantly views them in relation to God, EX OU TA PANTA, as the original Author and Source. 

The gospel is "the Gospel of God," "a power of God unto salvation"; the righteousness which it reveals is 

"a righteousness which is of God"; it is God who has set forth Christ as ILASTHRION, who 

"commendeth his love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," who "spared not 

his own Son, but freely gave him for us all"; it is "God who raised him from the dead"; "what the Law 

could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful 

flesh, and on account of sin," has done; the glory to which Christians are destined, as sons and heirs of 

God and joint heirs with Christ, is "the glory of God"; in short, "all things are of God, who hath 

reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ," and "nothing shall separate us from the love of God, 

which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." 

Though no one can doubt that Paul was full of love and gratitude to Christ, so that we might expect 

frequent ascriptions to him of praise and glory, it is a remarkable fact that there is no doxology or 

thanksgiving to Christ in any of his Epistles except those to Timothy, the genuineness of which has been 

questioned by many modern scholars. These Epistles, at any rate, present marked peculiarities of style 

and language, and, if written by Paul, were probably written near the close of his life. And in them there 

is but one doxology to Christ, and that not absolutely certain, on account of the ambiguity of the word 

KURIOS (2 Tim. iv. 18); while the thanksgiving is a simple expression of thankfulness (1 Tim. i. 12), 

CARIN ECW, gratias habco (not ago). One reason for this general absence of such ascriptions of Christ 

on the part of the Apostle seems to have been that habit of mind of which I have just spoken, and which 

makes it a priori more probable that the doxology in Rom. ix. 5 belongs to God. But this is a matter 

which will be more appropriately treated in another place. 

As to the DE, which Schultz insists would be necessary, one needs only to look fairlay at the passage to 

see that it would be wholly out of place; that a doxology to God involves no antithetic contrast between 

God and Christ, as Schultz and some others strangely imagine. Now does DE, as a particle of transition, 

seem natural here, much less required. It would make the doxology too formal. 

4. It is urged that "O WN, grammatically considered, is more easily and naturally construed in 

connection with CRISTOS than as the subject of a new and doxological clause." (See Dr. Dwight's 

article, as above, pp. 24, 25.) 

Much stronger language that this is often used. Dr. Hodge, for example, assuming that O WN must be 

equivalent to OS ESTI, says the interpretation which refers the words to Christ in the only one "which 

can, with the least regard to the rules of construction, be maintained." (Comm. in loc., p. 472.) 

Dr. Dwight, whose article is in general so admirable for the fairness, clearness, and moderation of its 

statements, has expressed himself here in such a way that I cannot feel perfectly sure of his meaning. He 

says, speaking of the connection of O WN with O CRISTOS, "This construction of O WN, in cases 



similar to that which is here presented, is the almost universal one, both in the New Testament and in 

other Greek." If "cases similar to that which is here presented" means cases which in which O WN (or 

any participle with the article) is preceded by a noun to which it may easily be joined, while it also 

admits of being regarded as the subject of an independent sentence, and it is affirmed that, in such 

grammatically ambiguous cases, it almost invariably does refer to the preceding subject, - the argument 

is weighty, if the assertion is true. But not even one such case has ever, to my knowledge, been pointed 

out. Till such a case, or, rather, a sufficient number of such cases to serve as the basis of a reasonable 

induction, shall be produced, I am compelled to consider the statement as resting on no evidence 

whatever. Yet that this is what is meant by "similar cases" seems necessarily to follow from what is said 

further on (l.c., p. 24) about "the peculiarity of Rom. ix. 5." Cases in which O WN, grammatically 

considered, can only refer to a preceding subject are certainly not "similar cases to that which is here 

presented," in which, as Dr. Dwight admits, "there is, at the most, only a presumption in favor of this 

construction of the clause against the other" (l.c., p. 25). 

But, if Dr. Dwight's statement means, or is intended to imply, that O WN with its adjuncts, or, in 

general, the participle with the article, almost universally forms a descriptive or a limiting clause 

referring to a preceding subject, while its use as the independent subject of a sentence is rare, the 

assertion is fatally incorrect. The latter use is not only very common, but in the New Testament, at least, 

is more frequent than the former. We have (a) O WN, or OI ONTES, in the nominative, as the subject of 

an independent sentence, Matt. xii. 30; Mark xiii. 16 (text. rec.); Luke vi. 3 (t.r., Tisch.); xi. 23; John iii. 

31; vi. 46; viii. 47; ix. 40; Acts xxii. 9; Rom. viii. 5, 8. Contra (b), referring to a preceding subject, and 

forming, as I understand it, an appositional clause, John i. 18; iii. 13 (text. rec.); (Acts v. 17); 2 Cor. xi. 

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, 

Eph. ii. 13, where the clause is in apposition with or describes HMEIS or UMEIS, exrpessed or 

understood; and perhaps John xviii. 37 (PAS O WN, K.T.L.). 

[The examples of O WN and other participles with PAS belong, perhaps, quite as properly under (a). 

Without PAS, the O WN, K.T.L. is the subject of the sentence, and the meaning is the same; PAS only 

strengthens the O WN. See Kruger, Gr. Sprachlehre, 5te Aufl. (1875), / 50, 4, Anm. 1.] 

It is uncertain whether Col. iv. 11 belongs under (a) or (b). See Meyer in loc. For the examples of WN, 

I have relied on Bruder's Concordance, p. 255, No. VI. But as there is nothing peculiar in the use of this 

particular participle with the article so far as the present question is concerned, I have, with the aid of 

Bruder, examined the occurrences of the participle in general, in the nominative, with the article, in the 

Gospel of Matthew, the Epistle to the Romans, and the First Epistle to the Corinthians. I find in Matthew 

eighty-six examples of its use (a) as the subject, or in very few cases (nine) as the predicate, of a verb 

expressed or understood, and only thirty-eight of its use (b) in a descriptive or limiting clause, annexed to 

a preceding subject; in the Epistle to the Romans, twenty-eight examples of the former kind against 

twelve of the latter, one of these being a false reading. 

[In this reckoning, to prevent any cavil, I have included under (b) all the examples of PAS O or PANTES 

OI, of which there are eight in Matthew, two in Romans, and one in 1 Cor.; also, the cases of the article 

and participle with OU or UMEIS as the subject of the verb, expressed or understood, of which there are 

four in Matthew and seven in Romans. I have not counted on either side Rom. viii. 33, 34, and ix. 33: the 

first two, translated according to the text of the Revised Version, belong under (a), according to its 

margin, under (b); Rom. ix. 33, if we omit PAS, with all the critical editors, would also belong under (a).] 



In general, it is clear that the use of the participle with the article as the subject of an independent 

sentence, instead of being exceptional in the New Testament, is far more common that its use as an 

attributive. Nor is this strange; for O WN properly signifies not "who is," but "he who is." The force of 

the article is not lost. 

["Participles take the article only when some relation already known or especially noteworthy (is qui, 

quippe qui) is indicated, and consequently the idea expressed by the participle is to be made more 

prominent."-Winer, Gram. 7te Aufl., /20, 1, b. a. c. p. 134, Thayer).] 

While in some of its uses it may seem interchangeable with OS ESTI, it differs in this: that it is generally 

employed either in appositional or in limiting clauses; while OS with the finite verb is appropriate for the 

latter. For examples of the former, see John i. 18, xii. 17; of the latter, Rom. v. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 4. To 

illustrate the difference by the passage before us: if O WN here refers to O CRISTOS, the clause would 

be more exactly translated as appositional, not "who is," etc., but "he who is God over all, blessed 

forever," implying that he was well known to the readers of the Epistle as God, or at least marking this 

predicate with special emphasis; while OS ESTIN would be more appropriate if it were simply the 

purpose of the Apostle to predicate deity of Christ, and would also be perfectly unambiguous. 

There is nothing, then, either in proper meaning of O WN or in its usage which makes it more easy and 

natural to refer it to O CRISTOS than to take it as introducing an independent sentence. It is next to be 

observed that there are circumstances which make the latter construction easy, and which distinguish the 

passage from nearly all others in which O WN, or a participle with the article, is used as an attributive. In 

all other instances in the New Testament of this use of O WN or OI ONTES in the nominative, with the 

single exception of the parenthetic insertion in 2 Cor. xi. 31 (see above, page 341), it immediately 

follows the subject to which it relates. The same is generally true of other examples of the participle with 

the article. (The strongest cases of exception which I have noticed are John vii. 50 and 2 John 7.) But 

here O WN is separated from O CRISTOS by TO KATA SARKA, which in reading must be followed by 

a pause, - a pause which is lengthened by the special emphasis given to the KATA SARKA by the TO; 

and the sentence which precedes is complete in itself grammatically, and requires nothing further 

logically; for it was only as to the flesh that Christ was from the Jews. 

[If O CRISTOS were placed after KATA SARKA, the ambiguity would not, indeed, be wholly removed, 

but it would be much more natural to refer the O WN to Christ than it is now. Perhaps the feeling of this 

led Cyril of Alexandria to make this transposition as he does in quoting the passage against the Emperor 

Julian, who maintained that "neither Paul dared to call Christ God, nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark, 

ALL O CRHSTOS IWANNHS." (See Cyril cont. Julian. lib. x. Opp. v. pars ii. b. pp. 118 a, 148 e; 

though he usually follows the order of the present Greek text.] 

On the other hand, as we have seen above, the enumeration of blessings which of the advent of Christ, 

naturally suggests an ascription or praise and thanksgiving to God as the Being who rules over all; while 

a doxology is also suggested by the AMHN at the end of the sentence. 

[In fifteen out of the eighteen instances in the N.T., besides the present, in which AMHN at the end of a 

sentence is probably genuine, it follows a doxology; namely, Rom. i. 25, xi. 36, xvi. 27; Gal. i. 5; Eph. 

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); 

Jude 25; Rev. i. 6, vii. 12. Contra, Rom. xv. 33; Gal. vi. 18 (Rev. i. 7).] 

From every point of view, therefore, the doxological construction seems easy and natural. The ellipsis of 



the verb ESTI or EIH in such cases is simply according to rule. The construction numbered 6 above is 

also perfectly easy and natural grammatically (see 2 Cor. I. 21, v. 5; Heb. iii.4). 

The naturalness of a pause after SARKA is further indicated by the fact that we find a point after this 

word in all our oldest MSS. that testify in the case, - A,B,C,L,- and in at least eight cursives, though the 

cursives have been rarely examined with reference to their punctuation. 

[The MSS. Aleph, D, F, G, cannot be counted one side or the other; respecting K, we have no 

information. For a fuller statement of the facts in the case, see Note A at the end of the essay.] 

It has been urged, that, if the writer did not intend that O WN should be referred to Christ, he would 

have adopted another construction for his sentence, which would be exposed to no such 

misapprehension. But this argument is a boomerang. Mr. Beet in his recent Commentary on the Epistle to 

the Romans (2d ed., p. 271 f.) well says, on the other hand:- 

"Had Paul thought fit to deviate from his otherwise unvarying custom, and to speak of Christ as God, 

he must have done so with a serious and set purpose of asserting the divinity of Christ. And, if so, he 

would have used words which no one could understand. In a similar case, John i. 1, we find language 

which excludes all doubt. And in this case the words OS ESTIN, as in i. 25, would have given equal 

certainty....Moreover, here Paul has in hand an altogether different subject, the present position of the 

Jews. And it seems to me much more likely that he would deviate from his common mode of expression, 

and write once "God be blessed" instead of "to God be glory," than that, in a passage which does not 

specially refer to the nature of Christ, he would assert it in language which may either mean this or 

something quite different." 

Many writers, like Dr. Gifford, speak of that construction which refers O WN, etc., to Christ as "the 

natural and simple" one, "which every Greek scholar would adopt without hesitation, if no doctrine were 

involved." It might be said in reply, that the natural and simple construction of words considered apart 

from the doctrine it involves, and with reference to merely lexical and grammatical considerations, is by 

no means always the true one. For example, according to the natural construction of the words UMEIS 

EK TOU PATROS TOU DIABOLOU ESTE (John viii. 44), their meaning is, "you are from the father of 

the devil"; and probably no Greek scholar would think of putting any other meaning on them, if no 

question of doctrine were involved. Again, in Luke 11. 38, "she gave thanks unto God, and spake of him 

to all of them that were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem." How unnatural, it may be said, to refer 

the "him" to any subject but "God," there being no possible antecedent mentioned in this or the three 

preceding verses. But I do not make or need to make this reply. We have already considered the 

grammatical side of the question, and have seen, I trust, that the construction which makes O WN, etc., 

the subject of a new sentence is perfectly simple and easy. I only add here that the meaning of words 

often depends on the way they are read, - on the pauses, and tones of voice. (If we could only have heard 

Paul dictate this passage to Tertius!) And it is a matter of course that, when a person has long been 

accustomed, from whatever cause, to read and understand a passage in a particular way, any other mode 

of reading it will seem to him unnatural. But this impression will often be delusive. And it does not 

follow that a mode of understanding the passage which was easy and natural in the third and fourth 

centuries, or even earlier, when it had become common to apply the name QEOS to Christ, would have 

seemed the most easy and natural to the first readers of the Epistle. I waive here all considerations of 

doctrine and call attention only to the use of language. When we observe that everywhere else in this 

Epistle the Apostle has used the word QEOS of the Father in distinction from Christ, so that it is virtually 

a proper name, that this is also true of the Epistles previously written - those to the Thessalonians, 



Galatians, Corinthians, how can we reasonably doubt that, if the verbal ambiguity here occasioned a 

momentary hesitation as to the meaning, a primitive reader of the Epistle would naturally suppose that 

the word QEOS designated the being everywhere else denoted by this name in the Apostle's writings, and 

would give the passage the construction thus suggested? 

[It is used in the first eight chapters about eighty-seven times, and so in the verse which immediately 

follows the one under discussion.] 

But this is a point which will be considered more fully in another place. 

The objection that, if we make the last clause a doxology to God, "the participle WN is superfluous and 

awkward," will be noticed below under No. 6. 

5. It is further urged that TO KATA SARKA requires an antithesis, which is supposed to be supplied 

by what follows. Some even say that KATA SARKA must mean "according to his human nature," and 

therefore requires as an antithesis the mention of the divine nature of Christ. But the proper antithesis to 

KATA SARKA is KATA PNEUMA, not KATA THN QEOTHTA, which there is nothing in the phrase 

itself to suggest: KATA SARKA, as will at once appear on examining the cases of its use in the New 

Testament, does not refer to a distinction of natures, but often denotes a physical relation, such, for 

example, as depends on birth or other outward circumstances, in contrast with a spiritual relation. We 

need only to refer to the third verse of this very chapter, which certainly does not imply that Paul or his 

"kinsmen KATA SARKA" had a divine nature also. The phrase KATA SARKA undoubtably implies an 

antithesis" "as to the flesh," by his natural birth and in his merely outward relations, the Messiah, the Son 

of David, was from 

the Jews, and in this they might glory; but as Son of God, and in his higher, spiritual relations, he 

belonged to all mankind. It was not to the Apostles purpose to describe what he was KATA PNEUMA, 

as he was speaking to the peculiar distinctions of the Jews. Indeed, the antithesis to KATA SARKA is 

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; 

Col. iii. 22), so that Alford judiciously says: "I do not reckon among the objections the want of any 

antithesis to KATA SARKA, because that might well have been left to the readers to supply." We have 

an example strikingly parallel to the present in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (c. 32), 

first adduced, so far as I know, by Dr. Whitby, in his Last Thoughts, which at least demonstrates that, in 

a case like this, the expression of an antithesis is not required. Speaking of the high distinctions of the 

patriarch Jacob, Clement says: "For from him were all the priests and Levites that ministered to the altar 

of God; from him was the Lord Jesus as to the flesh (TO KATA SARKA); from him were kings and 

rulers and leaders in the line of Judah." See also Iren. Haer. iv. 4 / 1: EX AUTWN GAP TO KATA 

SARKA O CRISTOS EKARPOFORHQH, KAI OI APOSTOLOI (mistranslated in the Ante-Nicene 

Christian Library); and Frag. xvii. ed. Stieren, p. 836: EK DE TOU LEVI KAI TOU IOUDA TO KATA 

SARKA, WS BASILEUS KAI IEPEUS, EGENNHQH [O CRISTOS]. 

The eminent Dutch commentator, Van Hengel, maintains in an elaborate note on this passage, citing 

many examples, that the form of the restrictive phrase used here, TO KATA SARKA, with the neuter 

article prefixed, absolutely requires a pause after SARKA, and does not admit, according to Greek usage, 

of the expression of an antithesis after it, so that the following part of the verse must be referred to God. 

(Comp. Rom. i. 15; xii. 18.) He represents his view as supported by the authority of the very 

distinguished Professor C. G. Cobet of Leyden. who as a master of the Greek language has perhaps no 

superior among European scholars. 



[See Van Hengel, Interp. Ep. Pauli ad Rom., tom. ii. (1859), pp. 348-353, and pp. 804-813. Speaking of 

his citations, he says (p. 350), "Allatorum unum alteremque mecum communicavit COBETIUS noster, se 

multo plura, quibus interpretatio mea confirmaretur, suppeditare posse dicens." {See p. 432 sq.}] 

It may be true that Greek usage in respect to such restrictive expressions, when TO or TA is prefixed, 

accords with the statement of Van Hengel, indorsed by Cobet. In my limited research I have found no 

exception. The two passages cited by Meyer in opposition (Xen. Cyr. 5, 4, 11; Plat. Min. 320 C.) seem to 

me wholly irrelevant: the former, because we have MEN with the TO EP EMOI, which of course 

requires an antithetic cluase with DE; the latter, because the essential element in the case, the TO or TA, 

does not stand before KATA TO ASTU. But I must agree with Dr. Dwight (l.c. p. 28) that Van Hengel's 

argument is not conclusive. On the supposition that O WN, etc., refers to Christ, we have not a formal 

antithesis. such as would be excluded by Van Hengel's rule, but simply an appositional, descriptive 

clause, setting forth the exalted dignity of him who as to the flesh sprang from the Jews. I cannot believe 

that there is any law of the Greek language which forbids this. 

We may say, however, and it is a remark of some importance, that the TO before KATA SARKA, laying 

stress on the restriction, and suggesting an antithesis which therefore did not need to be expressed, 

indicates that the writer has done with that point, and makes a pause natural. It makes it easy to take the 

O WN as introducing an independent sentence, though it does not, as I believe, make it necessary to do 

so. 

I admit, further, that, if we assume that the conception of Christ as God was familiar to the readers of the 

Epistle, and especially, if we suppose that they had often heard him called so by the early preachers of 

Christianity, the application of the O WN, etc., to Christ here would be 

natural, and also very suitable to the object of the Apostle in this passage. I am obliged to say, however, 

that this is assuming what is not favored by Paul's use of language or by the record of the apostolic 

preaching in the Book of Acts. 

On the other hand, there was not need of such an appendage to O CRISTOS. We have only to consider 

the glory and dignity with which the name of the Messiah was invested in the mind of a Jew, and the still 

higher glory and dignity associated with O CRISTOS in the mind of a Christian, and especially in the 

mind of Paul. 

6. It is further objected that, in sentences which begin with a doxology or an ascription of blessing, 

EULOGHTOS (or EULOGHMENOS) always precedes the subject; and that "the laws" or "rules of 

grammar" (Stuart, Alford) require that it should do so here to justify the construction proposed. Luke i. 

68, 2 Cor. i. 3, Eph. i. 3, 1 Pet. i. 3; and so EULOGHTOS and EULOGHMENOS precede in a multitude 

of places in the Septuagint. (See Trommius's 

Concordance and Wahl's Clavis librorum Vet. Test. apocryphorum.) 

Great stress has been laid on this objection by many; but I believe that a critical examination will show 

that it has no real weight. 

We will begin by considering a misconception of the meaning of O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS which has 

led to untenable objections against the doxological construction, and has prevented the reason for the 

position of EULOGHTOS from being clearly seen. It has been assumed by many that the phrase is 

simply equivalent to "the Supreme God" (so Wahl, s.v. EPI, omnibus superior, 

omnium summus), as if the Apostle was contrasting God with Christ in respect to dignity, instead of 



simply describing God as the being who rules over all. 

[Wahl gives a more correct view of the use of EPI in his Clavis libr. Vet. Test. apocr. (1853), p. 218, col. 

1, C. b., where EIMI EPI with the genetive is defined, praesum alieni rei, moderor s. administro aliquam 

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 

Palm's Passow, vol. 1. p. 1035, col. 1, 3; and the references given by Meyer and Van Hengel in loc. See 

Acts viii. 27; Gen. xliv. 1; Judith xiv. 13, EIPAN TW ONTI EPI PANTWN AUTOU; 1 Macc. x. 69, 

TON ONTA EPI KOILHS SURIAS.] 

This misunderstanding of the expression occasioned the chief difficulty felt by De Wette in adopting the 

construction which places a colon or a period after SARKA. It seemed to him like "throwing Christ right 

into the shade," without any special reason, when we should rather expect something said in antithesis to 

TO KATA SARKA, to set forth his dignity; though he admits that 

this objection is removed, if we accept Fritzsche's explanation of the passage. 

[De Wette, Kurze Erklarung des Briefes and die Romer, 4te Aufl. (1847), p. 130.] 

On this false view is founded Schultz's notion (see above) that DE would be needed here to indicate the 

antithesis. On it is also grounded the objection of Alford, Farrar, and others, that the WN is "perfectly 

superfluous," as, indeed, it would be, if that were simply the meaning intended. To express the idea of 

"the God over all," "the Supreme God," in contrast with a being to whom the term "God" might indeed 

be implied, but only in a lower sense, we should need only O EPI PANTWN QEOS, - a phrase which is 

thus used numberless times in the writings of the Christian Fathers; see, for examples, Wetstein's note on 

Rom. ix. 5. But, as I understand the passage, the WN is by no means superfluous. It not only gives an 

impressive fulness of to the expression, but converts what would otherwise be a mere epithet of God into 

a substantive designation of him, equivalent to "the Ruler over All," on which the mind rests for a 

moment by itself, before it reaches the QEOS qualified by it; of QEOS may be regarded as added by way 

of apposition or more precise definition. The position of this substantive designation of QEOS, between 

the article and its noun, gives it special prominence. Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 7, OUTE O FUTEUWN ESTIN TI 

OUTE O POTIZWN ALL O AUXANWN QEOS; Addit. ad Esth. viii. 1. 39, O TA PANTA 

DUNASTEUWN QEOS, cf., 11. 8, 35, Tisch.; O PANTWN DESPOZWN QEOS, Justin Mart. Apol. i. 

15; O POIHTHS TOUDE TOU PANTOS QEOS, ibid. i. 26. In expressions of this kind, the definite 

article fulfils, I conceive, a double function; it is connected with the participle or other adjunct which 

immediately follows it, just as it would be if the substantive at the end were omitted; but, at the same 

time, it makes that substantive definite, so that the article in effect belongs to the substantive as well as 

the participle. Thus, O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS is equivalent to O QEOS O WN EPI PANTWN in 

everything except the difference of prominence given to the different parts of the phrase in the two 

expressions. In the latter, O QEOS is made prominent by its position: in the former, prominence is given 

to the particular conception expressed by O WN EPI PANTWN, "the Ruler over All." 

[If this account is correct, it follows that neither of the renderings which I have suggested above as 

expressing my view of the meaning represents the original perfectly. Nor do I perceive that the English 

idiom admits a perfect translation. If we render "he who is over all, God, be blessed for ever," we make 

the word "God" stand in simple apposition to "he who is over all," which I do not suppose to be the 

grammatical construction. If, on the other hand, we translate, "he who is God over all be blessed for 

ever," we lose in a great measure the effect of the position of the WN EPI PANTWN before QEOS.] 

Let us now look for a moment at the connection of thought in the passage before us, and we shall see this 



distinction is important. The Apostle is speaking of the favored nation to which it is his pride to belong. 

Its grand religious history of some two thousand years passes rapidly before his mind, as in a panorama. 

Their ancestors were the patriarchs, - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Theirs were "the adoption, and the 

glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the temple service, and the promises." But God's 

choice and training his "peculiar people," and the privileges conferred upon them, were all a providential 

preparation for the advent of the Messiah, whose birth from among the Jews was their highest national 

distinction and glory; while his mission as the founder of a spiritual and universal religion was the 

crowning manifestation of God's love and mercy to mankind. How could this survey of the ages of 

promise and preparation, and the great fulfilment in Christ, fail to bring vividly before the mind of the 

Apostle the thought of God as the Being who presides over all things, who cares for all men and controls 

all events? 

[Erasmus has well presented the thought of the Apostle: "Ut enim haec omaia quae commemorat de 

adoptione, gloria, testamentis, legislatione, cultibus, ac promissis, deque patribus, ex quibus Christus 

juxta carnem ortus est, declaret non fortuito facta, sed admirabili Dei providentia, qui tot modis 

procuravit salutem humani generis, non simpliciter dicit Deus, sed is qui rebus omnibus pracest, omnia 

suo divino consilio dispensans moderansque, cui dicit deberi laudem in omne aevum, ob insignem erga 

nos charitatem, cui maledicebant Judaei, dum Filium unicum blasphemiis impeterent." Note in loc., in his 

Opp. vi. (Lugd Bat. 1705), col. 611. 

So Westcott and Hort, in their note on this passage in vol ii. of their Greek Testament, remarking on the 

punctuation which places a colon after SARKA as "an expression of the interpretation which implies that 

special force was intended to be thrown on EPI PANTWN by the interposition of WN" observe: "This 

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 

purpose is the suggest that the tragic apostasy of the Jews (vv. 2, 3) is itself part of the dispensations of 

'Him who is God over all.' over Jew and Gentile alike, over past present and future alike; so that the 

ascription of blessing to him is a homage to his divine purpose and power of bringing good out of evil in 

the course of the ages (xi. 13-16; 25-36)." Dr. Hort remarks that "this punctuation alone seems adequate 

to account for the whole of the language employed, more especially when it is considered in relation to 

the context."] 

Because this conception is prominent in his mind, he places the O WN EPI PANTWN first in the 

sentence. A recognition of this fact removes all the difficulty about the position of EULOGHTOS. There 

is no "law of grammar" bearing on the matter, except the law that the predicate, when it is more 

prominent in the mind of the writer, precedes the subject. In simply exclamatory doxologies, the 

EULOGHTOS, or EULOGHMENOS comes first, because the feeling that prompts its use is 

predominant, and can be expressed in a single word. But here, where the thought of the overruling 

providence of God 

is prominent, the O WN EPI PANTWN must stand first in the sentence, to express that prominence; and 

the position of EULOGHTOS after it is required by the very same law of the Greek language which 

governs all the examples that have been alleged against the doxological construction of the passage. This 

thought of God as the Ruler of All reappears in the doxology at the end of the eleventh chapter (xi. 36), 

where the Apostle concludes his grand Theodicy: "For from him and through him and to him are ALL 

THINGS: to him is the glory forever! Amen." Compare also Eph. i. 11, cited by Mr. Beet: "foreordained 

according to the purpose of him who worketh ALL THINGS after the counsel of his will"; and so in 

another doxology (1 Tim. i. 17) suggested by the mention of Christ, the ascription is, TW BASILEI 

TWN AIWNWN,-"to the King OF THE AGES." 



[This seems to me the true rendering rather than "to the King eternal," though eternity is implied. Comp. 

Rev. xv. 3, Westcott and Hort; Sir. xxxvi. 22 (al. xxxiii. 19); Tob. xiii. 6, 10; Ps. cxliv. (cxlv) 13; Clem. 

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 

BASILEUWN TWN AIWNWN, as cited by Philo, De Plant. Noe, c. 12, bis (Opp. i. 336, 337, ed. 

Mang.), De Mundo, c. 7 (Opp. ii. 608), and read in many cursives MSS.; Joseph. Ant. i. 18, / 7, 

DESPOTA PANTOS AIWNOS. Contra, Test. xii. Patr., Ruben, c. 6.] 

I prefer on the whole, to take PANTWN as neuter; but much might be said in favor fo the view of 

Fritzsche, whose note on this passage is especially valuable. He, with many other scholars, regards it as 

masculine: "Qui omnibus pracest hominibus (i.e. qui et Judaeis et gentilibus consulit Deus, der ueber 

allen Menschen waltende Gott) sit celebratus perpetuo, amen." (C.F.A. Fritzsche, Pauli ad Rom. Epist. 

tom. ii. {1839} p. 272.) He refers for the PANTWN to Rom. x. 12, xi. 32, iii. 29. 

We may note here that, while the Apostle says WN OI PATERES, he does not say WN, but EX WN O 

CRISTOS. He could not forget the thought which pervades the Epistle, that the Messiah was for all men 

alike. Nor does he forget that, while by natural descent, KATA SARKA, Christ was "from the Jews," he 

was KATA PNEUMA, and in all that constituted him the Messiah, "from GOD," who anointed him with 

the Holy Spirit and with power," who "made him both Lord and Christ," who marked him out as his 

"Son" by raising him from the dead (Acts xiii. 33; Rom. i. 4), and setting him at his right hand in the 

heavenly places, and giving him to be the head over all things to the Church (Eph. i. 20-22), - that 

Church in which there is no distinction of "Greek and Jew," "but Christ is all in all." 

That such words as EULOGHTOS, EULOGHMENOS, MAKARIOS, and EPIKATARATOS should 

usually stand first in the sentence in expressions of benediction, macarism, and malediction, is natural in 

Greek for the same reason that it is natural in English to give the first place to such words as "blessed," 

"happy," "cursed." It makes no difference, as a study of the examples will show, whether the expressions 

be optative, as is usually the case with EULOGHTOS, ESTI being understood. 

[I believe that EULOGHTOS in doxologies is distinguished from EULOGHMENOS as laudandus from 

laudatus; and the doxology in Rom. ix. 5 is therefore strictly a declarative, not an optative one. The most 

literal and exact rendering into latin would be something like this: 

"Ille qui est super omnia Deus laudandus (est) in aeternum!" Where the verb is expressed with 

EULOGHTOS (as very often in the formula EULOGHTOS EI), it is always, I believe, in the indicative. 

Here I must express my surprise that Canon Farrar (The Expositor, vol. ix. p. 402; vol. x. p. 238) should 

deny that Rom. 1. 25 and 2 Cor. xi. 31 are "doxologies." What is a doxology but a pious ascription of 

glory or praise? If OS ESTIN EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS AIWNAS, AMHN, Rom. i. 25, is "not a 

doxology at all" on account of the ESTIN, then Matt. vi. 13 (text rec.) and 1 Pet. iv. 11 are, for the same 

reason, not doxologies.] 

The ellipsis of the substantive verb gives rapidity and force to the expression, indicating a certain glow of 

feeling. But in Greek as in English, if the subject is more prominent in the mind of the writer, and is not 

overweighted with descriptive appendages, there is nothing to hinder a change of order, but the genius of 

the language rather requires it. 

The example commonly adduced of this variation in the case of EULOGHTOS is Ps. lxvii. (Heb. 

lxviii.) 20, KURIOS O QEOS EULOGHTOS, EULOGHTOS KURIOS HMERAN KAQ HMERAN, 

where we find EULOGHTOS in both positions. This peculiarity is the result of a misconstruction and 

perhaps also of a false reading (Meyer) of the Hebrew. The example shows that the position of 



EULOGHTOS after the subject violates no law of the Greek language; but, on account of the repetition 

of EULOGHTOS, I do not urge it as a parallel of Rom. ix. 5. (See Dr. Dwight as above, p. 32 f. and cf. 

Essay XVII. p. 436 below.) On the other hand, the passage cited by Grimm (see as above, p. 34) from the 

Apocryphal Psalms of Solomon, viii. 41, 42, written probably about 48 B.C., seems to me quite to the 

purpose: - 

AINETOS KURIOS EN TOIS KRIMASIN AUTON EN STOMATI OSIWN, KAI SU 

EULOGHMENOS, ISRAHL UPO TON AIWNA. 

[See O.F. Fritzsche, Libri apoc. V.T. Gr. (1871), p. 579, Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorum (1869), p. 14.] 

Here in the first line, AINETOS precedes, because the predicate is emphatic; but in the second, the 

subject. SU, precedes, becuase it is meant to receive emphasis. I perceive no antithesis or studied 

chiasmus here. The sentence is no more a "double" or "compound" one than Gen. xiv. 19, 20; 1 Sam. 

xxv. 23, 33; Ps. lxxi. (lxxii) 18, 19; Tob. xi. 13, 16 (Sin.); Judith xiii. 18; Orat. Azar.. 2; and I see no 

reason why the fact that the clauses are connected by KAI should affect the position of EULOGHTOS 

here more than in those passages, - no reason why it should affect it at all. 

Another example in which the subject precedes EPIKATARATOS and EULOGHMENOS in an 

optative or possibly a predictive sentence is Gen. xxvii. 29, O KATARWMENOS SE EPIKATARATOS, 

O DE EULOGWN SE EULOGHMENOS. Here the Greek follows the order of the Hebrew, and the 

reason for the unusual position in both I suppose to be the fact that the contrast between O 

KATARWMENOS and O EULOGWN naturally brought the subjects into the foreground. It is true that 

in Rom. ix. 5, as I understand the passage (though others take a different view), there is not antithesis, as 

there is here; but the example shows, that, when for any reason the writer wishes to make the subject 

prominent, there is no law of the Greek language which imprisons such a predicate as EULOGHMENOS 

at the beginning of the sentence. 

Another example, in a declarative sentence, but not the less pertinent on that account (the verb not 

being expressed), is Gen. xxvi. 29), according to what I believe to the true reading, KAI NUN SU 

EULOGHTOS UPO KURION, where the SU being emphatic, as is shown in the corresponding order in 

Hebrew, stands before EULOGHTOS. Contrast Gen. iii. 14; iv. 11; Josh. ix. 29 (al. 23). This reading is 

supported by all the uncial MSS. that contain the passage, - namely, I. Cod. Cotton. (cent. v.), III. Alex. 

(v.), X. Coislin. (vii.), and Bodl. (viii. or ix.) ed. Tisch. Mon. Sacr. Ined., vol. ii. (1857), p. 234, with at 

least twenty-five cursives, and the Alpine edition, also by all the ancient versions except the Aethiopic, 

and the Latin, which translates freely, against the KAI NUN EULOGHMENOS SU of the Roman 

edition, which has very little authority here. 

[The statement above about the reading of the ancient versions in Gen. xxvi. 29 lacks precision. The 

versions made already from the Hebrew, of course, do not come under consideration. Of those made 

from the Septuagint, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Old Slavic (Cod. Ostrog.) support SU 

EULOG.; the Aethiopic, EULOG, SU; the Old Latin has perished; and the Coptic, As I am informed by 

Professor T.O. Paine, omits the last clause of the verse.] 

Still another case where in a declarative sentence the usual order of subject and predicate is reversed, 

both in the Greek and the Hebrew, is 1 Kings ii. 45 (al. 46), KAI O BASILEUS SALWMWN 

EULOGHMENOS, the ellipsis being probably ESTAI. Here I suppose the reason for the exceptional 

order to be the contrast between Solomon and Shimei (ver. 44). 



It is a curious fact that MAKARISTOS, a word perfectly analoguos to EULOGHTOS, and which 

would naturally stand first in the predicate, happens to follow the subject in the only instances of its use 

in the Septuagint which come into comparison here, - namely, Prov. xiv. 21; xvi. 20; xxix. 18. The 

reason seems to be the same as in the case we have just considered: there is a constrast of subjects. For 

the same reason EPIKATARATOS follows the subject in Wisd. xiv. 8 (comp. ver. 7). 

These examples go to confirm Winer's statement in respect to contrasted subjects. And I must here 

remark, in respect to certain passages which have been alleged in opposition (see Dr. Dwight as above, p. 

36), that I can perceive no contrast of subjects in Gen. xiv. 19, 20; 1 Sam. xxv. 32, 33; or in Ps. lxxxviii. 

(lxxxix.) 53, where the doxology appears to have no relation to what precedes, but to be rather the formal 

doxology, appended by the compiler, which concludes the Third Book of the Psalms (comp. Ps. xl. (xli.) 

14). 

It may be said that none of the examples we have been considering is precisely similar to Rom. ix. 5. 

But they all illustrate the fact that there is nothing to hinder a Greek writer from changing the ordinary 

position of EULOGHTOS and kindred words, when from any cause the subject is naturally more 

prominent in his mind. They show the principle of the rule which governs the position may authorize or 

require a deviation from the common order. I must further agree with Meyer and Ellicott on Eph. i. 3, 

and Fritzsche on Rom. ix. 5, in regarding as not altogether irrelevant such passages as Ps. cxii. (cxiii) 2, 

EIH TO ONOMA KURIOU EULOGHMENON, where, though EIH precedes, as a copula it can have no 

emphasis; and the position of EULOGHMENON is determined by the fact that the subject rather than the 

predicate here naturally presents itself first to the mind. The difference between such a sentence and 

EULOGHMENON TO ONOMA KURIOU is like that in English between "May the name of the Lord be 

blessed" and "Blessed be the name of the Lord." It is evident, I think, that in the latter sentence the 

predicate is made more prominent, and in the former the subject; but if a person does not feel this, it 

cannot be proved. Other examples of this kind are Ruth ii. 19; 1 Kings x. 9; 2 Chron. ix. 8; Job i. 21; 

Dan. ii. 20; Lit. S. Jac. c. 19; Lit. S. Marci, c. 20, a. (Hammond, pp. 52, 192). In Ps. cxii. (cxiii.) 2 and 

Job i. 21, the prominence given to the subject is suggested by what precedes. 

I will give one example of the fallacy of merely empirical rules respecting the position of words. 

Looking at Young's Analytical Concordance, there are, if i have counted right, one hundred and 

thirty-eight instances in which, in sentences like "Blessed be God," "Blessed are the meek," the word 

"blessed" precedes the subject in the common English Bible. There is no exception to this usage in the 

Old Testament or the New. "Here," exclaims the empiric, "is the law of the language. To say 'God be 

blessed' is not English." But, if we look into the Apocrypha, we find that our translators have said it, - 

namely, in Tobit xi. 17; and so it stands also in the Genevan version, though the Greek reads 

EULOGHTOS O QEOS. Why the translators changed the order must be a matter of conjecture. Perhaps 

it was to make a contrast with the last clause of the sentence. 

There is a homely but important maxim which has been forgotten in many discussions of the passages 

before us, that "circumstances alter cases." I have carefully examined all the examples of doxology or 

benediction in the New Testament and the Septuagint, and in other ancient writings, as the Liturgies, in 

which EULOGHTOS or EULOGHMENOS precedes the subject; and there is not one among them 

which, so far as I can judge, justifies the assumption that, because EULOGHTOS precedes the subject 

there, it would probably have done so here, had it been the purpose of Paul to introduce a doxology. The 

cases in which a doxology begins without a previous enumeration of blessings, but in which the thought 

of the blessing prompts an exclamation of praise or thanksgiving, - "Blessed be God, who" or "for he" 



has done this or that, - are evidently not parallel. All the New Testament doxologies with EULOGHTOS, 

and most of those in the Septuagint, are of this character. 

[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. 

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 

(Sept.) 6, xxx. 22, lxv. 20, lxxi. 18, cxxiii. 6, cxliii 1, Dan. iii. 28 Theodot., 95 Sept.] 

In these cases, we perceive at once that any order would be strange. The expression of the feeling, which 

requires but one word, naturally precedes the mention of the ground of the feeling, which often requires 

very many. But there is a difference between EULOGHTOS and EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS AIWNAS. 

Where it would be natural for the former to precede the subject, it might be more natural for the latter to 

follow. In the example adduced by Dr. Dwight in his criticism of Winer (see as above, pp. 36, 37), it is 

evident that EULOGHTOS more naturally stands first in the sentence; at the end, it would be abrupt and 

unrhythmical. But I cannot think that a Greek scholar would find hard or unnatural in the sentence if it 

read, O DIATHRHSAS TON EAUTOU TOPON AMIANTON EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS AIWNAS, 

AMHN. 

To make the argument from usage a rational one, examples sufficient in number to form the basis of an 

induction should be produced in which, in passages like the present, EULOGHTOS precedes the subject. 

Suppose we should read here, EULOGHTOS O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS hEIS TOUS AIWNAS, we 

instantly see that the reference of hEIS TOUS AIWNAS becomes, to say the least, ambiguous, the "for 

ever" grammatically connecting itself with the phrase "he who is God over all" rather than with 

"blessed." If, to avoid this, we read EULOGHTOS hEIS TOUS AIWNAS O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS, 

we have a sentence made unnaturally heavy and clumsy by the interposition of hEIS TOUS AIWNAS 

before the subject, - a sentence to which I believe no parallel can be produced in the whole range of 

extant doxologies. Wherever EUOLOGHTOS precedes, the subject directly follows. These objections to 

the transposition appear to me in themselves a sufficient reason why the Apostle should have preferred 

the present order. But we must also consider that any other arrangement would have failed to make the 

particular conception of God, which the context suggests, as the Ruler over All. If, then, the blessings 

mentioned by the Apostle suggested in his mind the thought of God as EULOGHTOS hEIS TOUS 

AIWNAS, in view of that overruling Providence which sees the end from the beginning, which brings 

good out of evil, and cares for all men alike, I must agree with Winer that "the present position of the 

words is not only altogether suitable, but even necessary." (Gram., 7te Aufl., /61. 3. e.p. 513; p. 551 

Thayer, p. 690 Moulton.) Olshausen, though he understands the passage as relating to Christ, well says: 

"Ruckert's remark that EULOGHTOS when applied to God, must, according to the idiom of the Old and 

New Testament, always precede the noun, is of no weight. Kollner rightly observes that the position of 

words is altogether [everywhere] not a mechanical thing, but determined, in each particular conjuncture, 

by the connexion and by the prupose of the speaker." 

[Olfhausen, Bibl. Comm. on the N.T., vol. iv., p. 83, note, Kendrick's trans. The remark cited from 

Ruckert belongs to the first edition of his Commentary (1831), Ruckert changed his view of the passage, 

and adopted the construction which makes the last part of the verse a doxology to God.] 

7. The argument founded on the notion that the Apostle here had in mind Ps. lxvii. (lxviii.) 20, and was 

thereby led to describe Christ as QEOS EULOGHTOS hEIS TOUS AIWNAS, is one which, so far as I 

know, never occurred to any commentator, ancient or modern, before the ingenious Dr. Lange. Its 

weakness has been so fully exposed by Dr. Dwight (as above, p. 33, note) that any further notice of it is 



unnecessary. 

8. The argument for the reference of the O WN, etc., to Christ, founded on supposed patristic authority, 

will be considered under IV., in connection with the history of the interpretation of the passage. 

II. I have thus endeavored to show that the construction of the last part of the verse as a doxology suits 

the context, and that the principal objections urged against it have little or no weight. 

But the construction followed in the common version is also grammatically unobjectionable; and if we 

assume that the Apostle and those whom he addressed believed Christ to be God, this construction 

likewise suits the context. 

How then shall we decide the question? If it was an ambiguous sentence in Plato or Aristotle, our first 

step would be to see what light was thrown on the probabilities of the case by the writer's use of language 

elsewhere. Looking then at the question from this point of view, I find three reasons for preferring the 

construction which refers the last part of the verse to God. 

1. The use of the word EULOGHTOS, "blessed," which never occurs in the New Testament in reference 

to Christ. If we refer EULOGHTOS to God, our passage accords with the doxologies Rom. i. 25; 2 Cor. 

i.3; xi. 31; and Eph. i.3. In Rom. i.25, we have EULOGHTOS hEIS TOUS AIWNAS, as here; and 2 Cor. 

xi. 31, "The God and Father (or God, the Father) of the Lord Jesus knows - he who is blessed for ever! - 

that I lie not," strongly favors the reference of the EULOGHTOS to God. 

[For the way in which the Rabbinical writers are accustomed to introduce doxologies into the middle of a 

sentence, see Schoettgen's Horae Hebraicae on 2 Cor. xi. 31.] 

It alone seems almost decisive. The word EULOGHTOS is elsewhere in the New Testament used in 

doxologies to God (Luke i. 68; 1 Pet. i. 3); and in Mark xiv. 61, O EULOGHTOS, "the Blessed One," is 

a special designation of the Supreme Being, in accordance with the language of the later Jews, in whose 

writings God is often spoken of as "the Holy One, blessed be He!" 

I have already spoken (see above) of the rarity of doxologies to Christ in the writings of Paul, the only 

instance being 2 Tim. iv. 18, though here Fritzsche (Ep. ad Rom. ii. 268) and Canon Kennedy (Ely 

Lectures, p. 87) refer the KURIOS to God. Doxologies and thanksgivings to God are, on the other hand, 

very frequent in his Epistles. Those with EULOGHTOS are given above; for those with DOXA, see 

Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27; Gal. i. 5; Eph. iii. 21; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 16. (Comp. DOXAZW, Rom, xv. 6, 9.) 

Thanksgivings, with CARIS first, Rom. vi. 17, vii. 25 (Lachm., Tisch., Treg., WH.); 2 Cor. ii. 14; 

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 

Thess. i. 3, ii. 13; Philem. 4. Note especially the direction, "giving thanks always for all things in the 

name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father," Eph. v. 20; comp. Col. iii. 17, "do all in the 

name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." These facts appear to me to 

strengthen the presumption founded in the usage of EULOGHTOS, that in this passage of ambiguous 

construction the doxological words should be referred to God rather than through Christ. 

It may be of some interest to observe that, in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Christians, - 

probably the earliest Christian writing that has come down to us outside the New Testament, - there are 

eight doxologies to God; namely, cc. 32, 38, 43, 45, 58, 61, 64, 65, and none that clearly belong to 

Christ. Two are ambiguous; namely cc. 20, 50, like Heb. xiii. 21, 1 Pet. iv. 11, which a majority of the 

best commentaries refer to God as the leading subject; see Dr. Dwight as above, p. 46. The clear cases of 



doxologies to Christ in the New Testament are Rev. i. 6; 2 Pet. iii. 18 (a book of doubtful genuineness), 

and Rev. v. 13, "to Him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb"; comp. vii. 10. But our concern is 

chiefly with the usage of Paul. 

The argument from the exclusive use of the word EULOGHTOS in reference to God has been 

answered by saying that EULOGHTOS also applied to man; and Deut. vii. 14, Ruth ii. 20, and 1 Sam. 

xv. 13 are cited as examples of this by Dr. Gifford. But he overlooks the fact that EULOGHTOS is there 

used in a totally different sense; namely, "favored" or "blessed" by God, or to pray that he may be so, and 

to address a doxology to him, are very different things. [See Essay XVII. p. 437.] 

Note further that EULOGHMENOS O ERCOMENOS EN ONOMATI KURION, Ps. cxvii. (cxviii.) 

26, applied to Christ in Matt. xxi. 9 and the parallel passages, is not a doxology. Comp. Mark xi. 10; 

Luke i. 28, 42. 

On the distinction between EULOGHTOS and EULOGHMENOS, see Note B, at the end of this 

article. 

2. The most striking parallel to O WN EPI PANTWN in the writings of Paul is in Eph. iv. 5, 6, where 

Christians are said to have "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all 

(O EPI PANTWN), and through all, and in all." Here it is used of the one God, expressly distinguished 

from Christ. 

3. The Apostle's use of the word QEOS, "God," throughout his Epistles. This word occurs in the 

Pauline Epistles, not including that to the Hebrews, more than five hundred times; and there is not a 

single clear instance in which it is applied to Christ. Alford, and many other Trinitarian commentators of 

the highest character, find no instance except the present. Now, in a case of ambiguous construction, 

ought not this uniform usage of the Apostle in respect to one of the most common words to have great 

weight? To me it is absolutely decisive. 

It may be said, however, that Paul has nowhere said that Christ is not God; and that, even if he has not 

happened to give him this title in any other passage, he must have believed him to be God, and therefore 

might have so designated him, if occasion required. 

[See Dr. Dwight's Essay, as above, pp. 25, 30, 43.] 

As to the statement that Paul has nowhere expressly affirmed that Christ was not God, it does not 

appear that, supposing him to have believed this, he ever had occasion to say it. It is certainly a 

remarkable fact that, whatever may have been the teaching of Paul concerning the nature of Christ and 

the mode of his union with God, it appears, so far as we can judge from his writings, to have raised no 

question as to whether he was or was not God, jealous as the Jews were of the divine unity and disposed 

as the Gentiles were to recognize many gods besides the Supreme. 

It is important to observe, in general, that in respect to the application to Christ of the name "God" 

there is a very wide difference between the usage not only of Paul, but of all the New Testament writers, 

and that which we find in Christian writers of the second and later centuries. There is no clear instance in 

which any New Testament writer speaking in his own person, has called Christ God. In John i. 18, the 

text is doubtful; and, in 1 John v. 20, the hOUTOS more naturally refers to the leading subject in what 

precedes, - namely, TON ALEQINON, - and is so understood by the best grammarians, as Winer and 

Buttman, and by many eminent Trinitarian commentators. [See Essay XVIII. Note C. sub fin.] In John i. 



1, QEOS is the predicate not of the historical Christ, but of the antemundane Logos. The passages which 

have been alleged from the writings of Paul will be noticed presently. 

[On John xx. 28 and Heb. i, 8,9, which do not belong to the category we are now considering, I simply 

refer for the sake of brevity, to Norton's Statement of Reasons, etc., new edition (1856), p. 300 ff., and 

the note of E.A., or to the note of Lucke on the former passage, and of Professor Stuart on the latter. On 2 

Peter i. 1, see Huther.] 

But it may be said that, even if there is not other passage in which Paul has called Christ God, there are 

many in which the works and attributes of God are ascribed to him, and in which he is recognized as the 

object of divine worship; so that we ought to find no difficulty in supposing that he is here declared to be 

"God blessed for ever." It may be said in reply, that the passages referred do not authorize the inference 

which has been drawn from them; and that, if they are regarded as doing so, the unity of God would seem 

to be infringed. A discussion of this subject would lead us out of the field of exegesis into the tangled 

thicket of dogmatic theology: we should have to consider the questions of consubstantiality, eternal 

generation, the hypostatic union, and the kenosis. Such a discussion would here be out of place. But it is 

certainly proper to look at the passages where Paul has used the clearest and strongest language 

concerning the dignity of Christ and his relation to the Father, and ask ourselves whether they allow us to 

regard it as probable that he has here spoken of him as "God over all, blessed for ever," or even as "over 

all, God blessed for ever." 

In the Epistles which purport to be written by Paul there is only one passage beside the present that in 

which any considerable number of respectable scholars now suppose that he has actually called Christ 

God; namely Titus ii. 13. Here the new Revised Version, in the text, makes him speak of "our great God 

and Saviour Jesus Christ." But the uncertainty of this translation is indicated by the marginal rendering, 

"the great God and our Saviour"; and, in another paper, I have stated my reasons for believing the latter 

construction was preferred by a large majority of the American Company of Revisers, and it has the 

support of many other eminent Trinitarian scholars. Surely, so doubtful a passage cannot serve to render 

it probable that Christ is called "God blessed for ever" in Rom. ix. 5. 

Acts xx. 28 has also been cited, where, according to the textus receptus, Paul, in his address to the 

Ephesian elders, is represented as speaking of "the Church of God, which he purchased with his own 

blood." This reading is adopted by the English Revisers in their text, and also by Scrivener, Alford, and 

Westcott and Hort; but its doubtfulness indicated by the marginal note against the word "God," in which 

the Revisers say, "Many ancient authorities read *the Lord*." Here, again, the marginal reading is 

preferred by the American Revisers, as also by Lachmann, Tregelles, Green, Davidson, and Tischendorf. 

I have given my reasons for beleiving this is the true reading in an article in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 

April, 1876 [see Essay XV.]. And, although Westcott and Hort adopt the reading *God,* Dr. hort well 

remarks that "the supposition that by the precise designation TOU QEOU, standing alone as it does here, 

with the article and without any adjunct, St. Paul (or St. Luke) meant Christ is unsupported by any 

analogies of language." Calling attention to the fact that the true text has the remarkable form, DIA TOU 

AIMATOS TOU IDIOU, he would understand the passage, "on the supposition that the text is 

incorrupt," as speaking of the Church of God which he purchased "'through the blood of his own,' i.e., as 

being his Son's.""This conception," he remarks, "of the death of Christ as a price paid by the Father is in 

strict accordance with St. Paul's own language elsewhere (Rom. v. 8; viii. 32). It finds related expression 

in the Apostolic Constitutions in language evidently founded on this passage (ii. 57. 13; 61. 4; vii. 26. 1; 

viii. [11. 2] 12.18; 41. 4)." On the supposition that QEOU is the true reading, the passage has been 



understood in a similar manner not merely by Socinian interpreters, as Wolzogen and Enjedinus, but by 

Erasmus (in his Paraphrase), Pellican*, Limborch (though he prefers the reading KURION), Milton (De 

Doctrina Christiana, Pars 1. c. v. p. 86, or Eng. trans. p. 148 f.), Lenfant and Beausobre as an alternative 

interpretation (Le Nouveau Test., note in loc.), Doederlein (Inst. Theol. Christ., ed. 6ta, 1797, / 105, Obs. 

4, p. 387), Van der Palm (note in his Dutch translation), Granville Penn (The Book of the New Covenant, 

London, 1836, and Annotations, 1837, p. 315), and Mr. Darby (Trans. of the N.T., 2nd ed. [1872]). 

[* "Erga congregationem dei quae vobis oscitanter curanda non est, ut quam deus adeo charam habuit, ut 

unigenite sui sanguine eam paraverit." Comm. in loc., Tiguri, 1537, fol.] 

Dr. Hort, however, is disposed to conjecture that UIOU dropped out after TOUIDIOU "at some very 

early transcription, affecting all existing documents." Granville Penn had before made the same 

suggestion. It is obvious that no argument in support of any particular construction of Rom. ix. 5 can be 

prudently drawn from such a passage as this. 

A few other passages, in which some scholars still suppose that the name God is given to Christ by 

Paul, have been examined in the paper on Titus ii. 13 (see Essay XVIII notes to pp. 440, 447; also Dr. 

Dwight, as above, p. 44). 

Let us now look at the passages in which Paul has used the most exalted language respecting the person 

and dignity of Christ, and ask ourselves how far they afford a presumption that he might here describe 

him as "God blessed for ever." 

The passage in this Epistle most similar to the present is ch. i. vv. 3, 4, where Christ is said to be " born 

of the seed of David as to the flesh," but "declared to be the Son of God with power as to the spirit of 

holiness by his resurrection from the dead," or, more exactly, "by the resurrection of the dead." Here the 

antithesis to KATA SARKA is supplied. It is not, however, KATA THN QESTHTA, or KATA QEIAN 

FUSIN but KATA PNEUMA AGIWSUNHS, "as to his holy spirit,"- his higher spiritual nature, 

distinguished especially by the characteristic of holiness. There are many nice and difficult questions 

connected with this passage which need not be here discussed; I will only say that I see no ground for 

finding in it a presumption that the Apostle would designate Christ as "God blessed for ever." Some, 

however, suppose that the title "Son of God" is essentially equivalent to QEOS, and that the resurrection 

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 

supposition supported by the use of the term in the Old Testament or in the New (see John x. 36); and, as 

to the second, it may be enough to say that it contradicts the uniform representation of the Apostle Paul 

on the subject, who everywhere refers his resurrection to the power of "God the Father." See Gal. i. 1; 

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; 

Acts xiii. 30-37, xvii. 31. 

Another striking passage is Phil. ii. 6-11, where the Apostle says that Christ, "existing in the form of 

God, counted not the being on an equality with God* a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking 

the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men." 

[Or, as the Rev. Dr. B. H. Kennedy, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge, translates 

it, "the being like God"; compare Whitby's note on the use of ISA. See Kennedy's Occasional Sermons 

preached before the University of Cambridge, London, 1877, p. 62, or Ely Lectures (1882), p. 17 f.] 

Without entering into any detailed discussion of this passage, it may be enough to remark that being in 

the form of God, as Paul uses the expression here, is a very different thing from being God; that the 



MORFH cannot denote the nature or essence of Christ, because it is something of which he is 

represented as emptying or divesting himself. The same is true of the TO EINAI ISA QEW, "the being 

on an equality with God," or "like God," which is spoken of as something which he was not eager to 

seize, according to one way of understanding hARPAGMON, or not eager to retain, according to another 

interpretation. 

[See Grimm's Lexicon Novi Testamenti, ed. 2da (1879), s.v. MORFH, for one view; for another, Weiss's 

Biblische Theol. des N.T. /103 c,p. 432 ff., 3te Aufl. (1880)] 

The Apostle goes on to say that, on account of this self-abnegation and his obedience even unto death, 

"GOD highly exalted him and gave him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus 

every knee should bow . . . and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of 

God the Father." I cannot think that this passage, distinguishing Christ as it does so clearly from God, 

and representing his present exaltation as a reward bestowed upon him by God, renders it at all likely that 

Paul would call him " God blessed for ever." 

We find a still more remarkable passage in the Epistle to the Colossians, I i. 15-20, where it is affirmed 

concerning the Son that "he is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him 

were all things created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or 

powers; all things have been created through him and unto him; and he is before all things, and in him all 

things consist [or hold together]. And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the 

first-born from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence [more literally, become first]. 

For it was the good pleasure [of the Father] that in him should all the fulness dwell; and through him to 

reconcile all things unto himself." In this passage, and in Col. ii. 9, 10, where the Apostle says of Christ 

"in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in him ye are made full, who is the head of 

all principality and power," we find, I believe, the strongest language which Paul has anywhere used 

concerning Christ's position in the universe and his relation to the Church. I waive all question of the 

genuineness of the Epistle. Does, then, the language here employed render it probable that Paul, would, 

on occasion, designate Christ as "over all, God blessed for ever"? 

Here, certainly, if anywhere, we might expect that he would call him God; but he has not only not done 

so, but has carefully distinguished him from the being for whom he seems to reserve that name. He does 

not call him God, but "the image of the invisible God" (Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4, and 1 Cor. ix. 7). His agency 

in the work of creation is also restricted and made secondary by the use of the prepositions EN and DIA, 

clearly indicating that the conception in the mind of the Apostle is the same which appears in the Epistle 

to the Hebrews, i. 3; that he is not the primary source of the power exerted in creation, but the being 

"through whom God made the worlds, "DI OU APOIHSEN TOUS AIWNAS; comp. also 1 Cor. viii. 6, 

Eph. iii. 9 (though here DIA IHSOU CRISTOU is not genuine), and the well-known language of Philo 

concerning the Logos. 

[Philo calls the Logos the "Son of God," "the eldest son," "the first-begotten," and his representation of 

his agency in creation is very similar to that which Paul here attributes to "the Son of God's love" (ver. 

13). He describes the Logos as the "image of God, through whom the world was framed," EIKWN 

QEOU, DI OU, K.T.L. (De Monarch, ii. 5, Opp. ii. 225 ed. Mangey); "the instrument, through which [or 

whom] the world was built." ORGANON DI OU K.T.L. (De Cherub. c. 35, Opp. i. 162, where note 

Philo's distinction between TO UF OU, TO EX OU, TO DI OU, and TI DI O); "the shadow of God, 

using whom as an instrument he made the world" (Legg. Alleg. iii. 31, Opp. i. 106). In two or three 



passages he exceptionally applies the term QEOS to the Logos, professedly using it in a lower sense (EN 

KATA CRHSEI). and making a distinction between QEOS, without the article, "a divine being," and hO 

QEOS, "the Divine Being." (See De Somn. i. 38, Opp. i. 655, and comp. Legg. Alleg. iii. 73, Opp. i. 128, 

1. 43.) In a fragment preserved by Eusebius (Praep. Evang. vii. 13, or Philonis Opp. ii. 625) he names the 

Logos hO DEUTEROS QEOS, "the second [or inferior] God," distinguished from "the Most High and 

Father of the universe," "the God who is before [or above, PRO] the Logos." So he applies the term to 

Moses (comp. Ex. vii. 1), and says that it may be used of one who "procures good (TO AGAQON) for 

others," and is "wise." De Mut. Nom. c. 22, Opp. i. 597, 598; see also De Mos. i. 28, Opp. ii. 105 

[misprinted 108], where Moses is called OLOU TOU EQNOUS QEOS KAI BASILEUS; Quad det. pot. 

insid. c. 44, Opp. i. 222; De Migr. Abr. c. 15, Opp. i. 449; Legg. Alleg. i. 13, Opp. i. 151; Quod omn. 

prob. liber., c. 7. Opp. ii. 452; De Decem. Orac., c. 23, Opp. ii. 201. But, though he speaks of the Logos 

in language as exalted as Paul uses concerning the Son, he would never have dreamed of calling him O 

WN EPI PANTWN QEOS EIS 

TOUS AIWNAS.] 

Neither Paul or any other New Testament writer uses the preposition UPO, "by," in speaking of the 

agency of the Son or Logos in creation. The designation "first-born of all creation" seems also a very 

strange one to be applied to Christ conceived of as God. Some of the most orthodox Fathers of the fourth 

and fifth centuries, as Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and 

Augustine, were so perplexed by it that they understood the Apostle to be speaking here of the new 

spiritual creation*; and the passage has been explained as relating to this by some eminent modern 

interpreters, as Grotius, Wetstein, Ernesti, Noesselt, Heinrichs, Scleiermacher, Baumgarten-Crusius, 

Norton, - though, I believe, erroneously. 

[See Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 214 ff. {p. 148 ff. 7th ed.}] 

But I shall not here discuss the meaning of PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS. I would only call 

attention to the way in which the Apostle speaks of the good pleasure of God, the Father, as the source of 

Christ's fulness of gifts and powers. "For it was the good pleasure [of God] that in him should all the 

fulness dwell" (ver. 19). 

[hO QEOS or hO PATHR must be supplied as the subject of EUDOKHSEN; comp. ver. 20, and 

Lightfoot's note. So Meyer, De Wette, Alford, Eadie, and the great majority of expositors.] 

This declaration explains also Col. ii. 9; comp. Eph. iii. 19, iv. 13, John i. 16. See also John xiv. 10, iii. 

34 (?). 

It thus appears, I think, first, that there is no satisfactory evidence that Paul has elsewhere called Christ 

GOD; and, secondly, that in the passages in which he speaks of his dignity and power in the most exalted 

language he not only seems studiously to avoid giving him this appellation, but represents him as 

deriving his dignity and power from the being to whom, in distinction from Christ, he everywhere gives 

that name, - the "one God, the Father." 

We have considered the strongest passages which have been adduced to justify the supposition that 

Paul might apply this title to Christ. I have already intimated that they do not seem to me to authorize this 

supposition. But, admitting for the sake of argument that we must infer from these and other passages 

that he really held the doctrine of the consubstantiality and co-eternity of the Son with the Father, and 

that on this account he would have been justified in calling him God, this does not remove the great 



probability that he has so designated him, incidentally, in Rom. ix. 5, in opposition to a usage of the term 

which pervades all his writings. The question still forces itself upon us, What was the ground of this 

usage ? Why has he else-where avoided giving him this title. In answering this question here, wishing to 

avoid as far as possible all dogmatic discussion and to confine myself to exegetical considerations, I shall 

not transgress the limits of recognized orthodoxy. The doctrine of the subordination of the Son to the 

Father, in his divine as well as his human nature, has been held by a very large number, and, if I mistake 

not, by a majority of professed believers in the deity of Christ. The fourth and last Division or "Section" 

of Bishop Bull's famous Defensio Fidei Nicaenae is entitled De Subardina~ tione Filii ad Patrem, ut ad 

sui originem ac principium. He maintains and proves that the Fathers who lived before and many, at 

least, of those who lived after the Council of Nice unequivocally acknowledged this subordination 

(though the post-Nicene writers were more guarded in their language), and that on this account, while 

calling the Son QEOS and QEOS EK QEOU, as begotten from the substance of the Father, they were 

accustomed to reserve such titles as O QEOS used absolutely, EIS QEOS and O EPI PANTWN or EPI 

PASI QEOS for the Father alone. The Father alone was "uncaused," "unoriginated," "the fountain of 

deity" to the Son and Spirit. 

["The ancient doctors of the church," as Bishop Pearson remarks, "have no stuck to call the Father 'the 

origin, the cause, the author, the root, the fountain, and the head of the Son,' or the whole Divinity." 

Exposition of the Creed, chap. i. p. 38, Nichol's ed.] 

Now the word QEOS was often used by the Fathers of the second and later centuries not as a proper, but 

as a common name; angels, and even Christians, especially in their beatified state, might be and were 

called QEOI. It had also a metaphorical and rhetorical use, quite foreign from the style of the New 

Testament. 

[For proof and illustration of what has been stated, see Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, 2d ed., vol 

iii. Addit. Note D, "On the Use of the Words QEOS and deus"; Statement of Reasons, 12th ed., pp. 113, 

114 note , 120 note, 300 f., 314, 319 f., 365 note, 468; Sandius, Intepretationed Paradoxae (1669), p. 227 

ff.; Whitston's Primitive Christianity Reviv'd, vol. iv. p. 100 ff.; LeClerc (Clericus), Ars Critica, Pars. II 

Sect. 1. c. 111., vol. i. p. 145 ff., 6th ed., 1778; Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement od 

Alexandria, by John [Kaye], Bp. of Lincoln, 1835, p. 253; Bretschneider, Handbuch der Dogmatik, 4te 

Aufl. (1838), i. 596, note 333.] 

All this made it easy and natural, especially for the Fathers who were converts from heathenism, to apply 

the title in a relative, not absolute, sense to the Son, notwithstanding the pre-eminence which they 

ascribed to the Father. We find traces of this loose use of the name in Philo, as I have observed (see p. 

369, note). But there is no trace of such a use in the writings of Paul. The points, then, which I would 

make are these : that, even granting that he believed in the deity of the Son as set forth in the Nicene 

Creed, he yet held the doctrine of the subordination of the Son so strongly in connection with it that we 

cannot wonder if on this account he reserved the title QEOS 

exclusively for the Father; and that the way in which he has expressed this subordination, and the way in 

which he has used this title, render it incredible that he should in this single instance (Rom. ix. 5) have 

suddenly transferred it to Christ, with the addition of another designation, "blessed for ever," elsewhere 

used by him of the Father alone. 

I do not see how any one can read the Epistles of Paul without perceiving that, in speaking of the 

objects of Christian faith, he constantly uses QEOS as a proper name, as the designation of the Father in 



distinction from Christ. See, for example, Rom. i. 1-3, "the gospel of God, which he had 

before promised . . . concerning his Son"; ver. 7, "God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ"; ver. 8, "I 

thank my God, through Jesus Christ"; ver. 9, "God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel 

of his Son"; and so all through the Epistle; 2 Cor. v. i8, 19, "All things are of God, who reconciled us to 

himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ 

reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses"; Eph, v. 20, "giving thanks 

always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God, even the Father"; though among the 

heathen there are gods many and lords many (1 Cor. viii. 6), "to us there is one God, the Father, from 

whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we 

through him"; Eph. iv. 5, 6, There is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is 

over all, and through all, and in you all"; "For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, 

[himself] a man, Christ Jesus"; v. 21, "I charge thee before God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels"; 

Titus iii. 4-6, "God our Saviour" poured out upon us the Holy Spirit "through Jesus Christ our Saviour." 

Observe how strongly the subordination of the Son is expressed in passages where his dignity and 

lordship are described in the loftiest strain: Eph. i. 16-23, "- in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus 

Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of 

him;...that ye may know what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according 

to the working of the strength of his might which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the 

dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule, and authority, and 

power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to 

come: And he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to 

the Church"; 1 Cor. iii. 22, 23, "all things are yours and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's"; xi. 3, "the 

head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God"; xv. 

24, "Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father"; vv. 27, 28, 

"But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that He is excepted who did subject all 

things unto him. And when all things have been subjected unto him, THEN shall the Son also himself be 

subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." 

Can we believe that he who has throughout his writings placed Christ in such a relation of subordination 

to the Father, and has habitually used the name GOD as the peculiar designation of the Father in 

distinction from Christ, who also calls the Father the one God, the only wise God (Rom. xvi. 27), the 

only God (1 Tim. i. 17), and the God of Christ, has here, in opposition to the usage elsewhere uniform of 

a word occurring five hundred times, suddenly designated Christ as "over all, God blessed for ever"? At 

least, should not the great improbability of this turn the scale, in a passage of doubtful construction? 

4. There is another consideration which seems to me to render it very improbable that Paul has here 

deviated from his habitual restriction of the name God to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 

If he has spoken of Christ in this passage as "God blessed for ever," he has done it obiter, as if those 

whom he addressed were familiar with such a conception and designation of him. But can this have been 

the case with the Roman Church at so early a stage in the development of Christian doctrine? 

It is the view of many Trinitarians that the doctrine that Christ is God was not explicitly taught in the 

early preaching of the Apostles. We find no trace of such teaching in the discourses of Peter or of 

Stephen in the Book of Acts, and none in those of the Apostle Paul (the passage Acts xx. 28 has already 

been examined), as we find none in the Synoptic Gospels, which represent the instruction concerning 

Christ given by the Apostles and their companions to their converts. 

["There is nothing in St. Peter's sermon upon the Pentecost which would not, in all probability, have been 



acknowledged by every Ebionite Christian down to the time when they finally disappear from history. 

Yet upon such a statement of doctrine, miserably insufficient as all orthodox would now call it, three 

thousand Jews and proselytes were, without delay, admitted to the Sacrament of Baptism....We must 

carefully bear in mind what was St. Peter's object. It was to convince the Jews that Jesus Christ was the 

great appointed Teacher whom God had sent, - the true spiritual Prince whom they were to obey. The 

Apostle felt that, if they acknowledged these great truths, everything else would follow in due time." T. 

W. Mossman, B.A., Rector of Torrington. A history of the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ, etc., London 

1873, pp. 192, 190. (Gess naively asks, "Wie durfte man von dem galilaischen Fischer, welcher der 

Wortfuhrer der junger Gemeinde war, eine befriedigende Dogmatik erwarten?" Christi Person und Werk, 

II i. 13. See also Dr. John Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, Book III. Chap. V. (vol. ii. p. 

151 ff, 5th ed.).] 

Nor does it appear in the so called Apostles' Creed. When we consider further the fact already mentioned 

above (see p. 364), that Christ is nowhere called God in any unambiguous passage by any writer of the 

New Testament and that it is nowhere recorded that he ever claimed this title, we cannot reasonably 

regard this abstinence from the use of the term as accidental. 

[I speak of the historical Christ, which is the subject of Rom. ix. 5. The unique prologue of John's 

Gospel, in which the Logos or Word is once called QEOS (i. 1, comp. v.18 in the text of Tregelles and 

Westcott and Hort), cannot reasonably be regarded as parallel to the present passage. This is candidly 

admitted by Schultz, who has most elaborately defended the construction which refers the last part of 

Rom. ix. 5 to Christ. He says, "Nach unseren Pramissen versteht sich von selbst, das wir nicht etwa 

daraus, das der LOGOS QEOS gennant wird, Beweise ziehen wollen fur die Zulassigkeit des Namens 

QEOS fur den verklarten Jesus." (Jahrbucker fur deutsche Theol., 1868, xiii. 491.) I of course do not 

enter here into the difficult questions as to what was precisely John's conception of the Logos, and in 

what sense he says "the Word became flesh," language which no one understands literally. We must 

consider also the late date of the Gospel of John as compared with the Epistle to the Romans.] 

In reference to the early apostolic preaching in particular, many of the Christian Fathers, and later 

Trinitarian writers, have recognized a prudent reserve in the communication of a doctrine concerning 

Christ and the application of a title to him which would have provoked vehement opposition on the part 

of the unbelieving Jews, which would have been particularly liable to be misunderstood by the Gentiles, 

and must have required much careful explanation to reconcile it with the unity of God and the humanity 

of Christ. 

[For superabundant quotations from the Christian Fathers confirming the statement made above, 

notwithstanding a few mistakes, see Priestley's History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ, Book 

III. Chap. IV.-VII. (vol. p. 86 ff., ed. of 1786). Or see Chrysostom's Homilies on the Acts, passim. How 

this doctrine would have struck a Jew may be seen from Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho.] 

We nowhere find either in the Acts or the Epistles any trace of the controversy and questionings which 

the direct announcement of such a doctrine must have excited. The one aim of the early apostolic 

preaching was to convince first the Jews, and then the Gentiles, that Jesus, whose life and teaching were 

so wonderful, whom God had raised from the dead, was the Messiah, exalted by God to be a Prince and a 

Saviour. 

To acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, or Jesus as Lord, which is essentially the same thing, was the one 

fundamental article of the Christian faith. 



[See Neander, History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles, Book I. 

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. 

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.] 

Much, indeed, was involved in this confession; but it is now, I suppose, fully established and generally 

admitted that the Jews in the time of Christ had no expectation that the coming Messiah would be an 

incarnation of Jehovah, and no acquaintance with the mystery of the Trinity. 

[See the art. Messias, by Oehler, in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie der prot. Theol. und Kirsche, ix. 437 ff., 

or in the new ed., vol. ix. (1881), p. 666 ff.; Ferd. Weber, System der altsynagogalen palastin. Theol. 

(1880), p. 146 ff., 339ff. Passages from the Rabbinical writings are sometimes adduced by commentators 

on Rom. ix. 5 in which the name Jehovah, or Jehovah our righteousness, is said to be given to the 

Messiah. but the irrelevance of these citations has been repeatedly exposed; see Fritzsche, Ep. ad Rom. ii. 

269, note; Weber, ut supra, p. 342. Weber says, "Und wenn Baba bathra 75b gesagt wird, der Messias 

werde nach dem Namen Jehova's () gennant, so stehen an dieser Stelle in gleicher Beziehung die 

Gerechten und Jerusalem." Comp. Jer. xxiii. 6 with xxxiii. 16, and on this passsage see Oehler, Theol. 

des A.T. ii. 263; Rhiem, Messianic Prophecy, p. 262, note 36; Schultz, Alttest. Theol. 2te Aufl. (1878), p. 

740. On Isa. ix. 6, see Schultz, p. 727; Hitzig, Vorlesungen uber bibl. Theol., u.s.w. (1880), p. 206 ff., 

and the commentators, as Gesenius, Knobel, Ewald, Cheyne. That the Memra da Yeya or "Word of 

Jehovah" is not identified in the Targums with the Messiah is certain. See Smith's Dict. of the Bible, art. 

"Word," vol. iv. p. 3557b, Am. ed., and Weber, ut supra, p. 339. It is time that the book Zohar, which 

figures so conspicuously in Schoettgen, Bertholdt, and other writers, but is now proved to be a 

pseudograph of the thirteenth century, should cease to be quoted as an authority for Jewish opinions in 

the time of Christ. See Ginsburg, The Kabbala (London, 1865). p. 78 ff., espec.p. 90 ff. One who is 

disposed to rely on Hengstenberg's Christology in relation to this subject should compare the review of it 

by Dr. Noyes in the Christian Examiner (Boston) for January, May, and July, 1836.] 

Such being the state of the case, it seems to me that, on the supposition that the Apostles were fully 

enlightened in regard to the mystery of the Trinity and the hypostatic union, the only tenable ground to 

be taken is that they wisely left these doctrines to develop themselves gradually in "the Christian 

consciousness." As Dr. Pye Smith remarks, "The whole revelation of the Christian system was given by 

an advancing process. It cannot therefore, be a matter of surprise that the doctrine concerning the person 

of the Messiah was developed gradually, and that its clear manifestation is to be found in the latest 

written books of the New Testament." (Ut Supra, p. 155.) Canon Westcott observes, "The study of the 

Synoptics, of the Apocalypse, and of the Gospel of John in succession enables us to see under what 

human conditions the full majesty of Christ was perceived and declared, not all at once, but step by step, 

and by the help of the old prophetic teaching." (Introd. to the Gospel of John in the so-called "Speaker's 

Commentary," p. lxxxvii.) Canon Kennedy even says: "I do not think that any apostle, John or Peter or 

Paul, was so taught the full MUSTHERION QEOTHTOS as that they were prepared to formulate the 

decrees of Nicaea and Constantinople, which after three hundred years and more, of the Trinitarian 

exegesis, which was completed after six hundred years or more. But they, with the other evangelists, 

guided by the Holy Spirit, furnished the materials from which those doctrines were developed." (Ely 

Lectures, p. xix.) 

Taking all the facts into consideration, is it probable that at this early day the Jewish Christians and 

Gentile believers at Rome, who needed so much instruction in the very elements of Christianity, were 

already so fully initiated into the mysterious doctrine of the deity of Christ that the application of the 



term God to him, found in no Christian writing that we know of till long after the date of this Epistle, 

could have been familiar to them? Accustomed to the representation of him as being distinct from God, 

would they not have been startled and amazed beyond measure by finding him described as "over all, 

God blessed for ever"? But if so, if this was a doctrine and a use of language with which they not 

familiar, it is to me wholly incredible that the Apostle should have introduced it abruptly in this 

incidental manner, and have left it without remark or explanation. 

Dr. Hermann Schultz, whose elaborate dissertation on Rom. ix.5 has already been referred to. admits that 

if EPI PANTWN QEOS was used here to designate the LOGOS, the eternal Son of God,-in other words, 

if QEOS was used here in reference to the nature of Christ,-"the strict monotheism of Paul would 

certainly require an intimation that the honor due to God alone was not trenched upon" (beeintrachtigt). 

[Schultz, Jahrbucker f. deutsche Theol., 1868, xiii. 484] 

The expression he maintains, describes "the dignity conferred on him by God" : the QEOS here is 

essentially equivalent to KURIOS. "The predicate QEOS must be perfectly covered by the subject 

CRISTOS, i.e. the Messianic human King of Israel." 

[This view of Schultz appears to be that of Hofmann (Der Schriftbeweis, 2te Aufl, 1857 i 143) and Weiss 

(Bibl. Theol. d. N.T., 3te Aufl. 1880, p. 283, note 5), as it was formerly of Ritschl (Die Entstchung der 

Alkath Kirche, 2te Aufl., 1857, p. 79 f.). This is the way, also, in which the old Socinian commentators 

understood the passage, as Socinus, Crell, Schlichting, Wolzogen. They did not hesitate to give the name 

"God" to Christ any more than the ancient Arians did, understanding it in a lower sense, and referring 

especially in justification of this to John x. 34-36, and various passages of the Old Testament. So it 

appears to have been taken by some of the Ante-Nicene, who referred the last clause of the verse to 

Christ, as probably by Novatian, who quotes the passage twice as proof that Christ is Deus (De Regula 

Fidei or De Trin. cc. 13, 30), but who says, "Dominus et Deus constitutus esse reperitur" (c. 20); "hoc 

ipsum a Patre proprio consecutus, ut omnium et Deus esset et Dominus esset" (c. 22); "omnium Deus, 

quoniam omnibus illum Deus Pater praeposuit quem genuit" (c. 31). So Hippolytus (Cont. Noet. c. 6) 

applies the verse to Christ, and justifies the language by quoting Christ's declaration, "All things have 

been delivered to me by the Father." He cites other passages in the same connection, and says, "If then all 

things have been subjected unto him with the exception of him who subjected them, he rules over all, but 

the Father rules over him."] 

But these concessions of Schultz seem to me fatal to his construction of the passage. If QEOS, used in 

the metaphysical sense, describing the nature of Christ, would confessedly need explanation, to guard 

against an apparent infringement of the divine unity, would not Paul's readers need to be cautioned 

against taking it in this sense, - the sense which it has everywhere else in his writings? Again, if Paul by 

QEOS here meant only KURIOS, why did he not say KURIOS, this being his constant designation of the 

glorified Christ (comp. Phil. ii. 9-11)? 

This leads me to notice further the important passage, 1 Cor. viii. 6, already quoted (see above, p. 373). It 

has often been said that the mention here of the Father as the "one God" of Christians no more excludes 

Christ from being God and from receiving this name. 

[See, e.g., Chrys. De incomprehens. Dei nat. Hom. v. c. I, Opp. i. 48I f. (509), ed. Montf.: EI GAP TO 

ENA LEGESQAI QEON TON PATERA EKBALLEI TON UION THS QEOTHTOS, KAI, TO ENA 

LEGESQAI KURION TON UION EKBALLEI TON PATERA THS KURIOTHTOS.] 



But, in making this statement, some important considerations are overlooked. In the first place, the title 

"god" is unquestionably of far higher dignity than the title "lord"; and because godship includes lordship, 

with all the titles that belong to it, it by no means follows that lordship includes godship, and has a right 

to its titles; in other words, that one who is properly called a lord (KURIOS), as having servants or 

subjects or possessions, may therefore be properly called a god (QEOS). In the second place, the lordship 

of Christ is everywhere represented not as belonging to him by nature, but as conferred upon him by the 

one God and Father of all. This lordship is frequently denoted by the figurative expression, "sitting on the 

right hand of God." 

[See Knapp, De Jesu Christo ad dextram Dei sedente, in his Scripta varii Argumenti, ed, 2da (1823), i. 

39-76.] 

The expression is borrowed from Ps. cx., so often cited in the New Testament as applicable to Christ, and 

particularly by Peter in his discourse on the day of Pentecost, who after quoting the words, "The Lord 

[Jehovah] said unto my Lord [Adoni], 'Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool,'" 

goes on to say, "Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God hath MADE him both Lord 

and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts ii. 35, 36). It is he to whom "all authority was given in 

heaven and on earth," whom "God exaltedwith his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour"; "the God of 

our Lord Jesus Christ...put all things in subjection under his feet and gave him to be head over all things 

to the Church"; "gave unto him the name which is above every name,...that every tongue should confess 

that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father." Such being Paul's conception of the relation of 

Christ to God, is it not the plain meaning of the passage that, while the heathen worship and serve many 

beings whom they call "gods" and "lords," to Christians there is but one God, the Father, - one being to 

whom they give that name, "from whom are all things" and who is the object of supreme worship; and 

one being "through whom are all things," through whom especially flow our spiritual blessings, whom 

"God hath made both Lord and Christ," and whom Christians therefore habitually call "the Lord"? The 

fact that this appellation of Christ, under such circumstances, does not debar the Supreme Being from 

receiving the name "Lord" obviously affords no countenance to the notion that Paul would not hesitate to 

give to Christ the name "God." As a matter of fact, "the Lord" is the common designation of Christ in the 

writings of Paul, and is seldom used of God, except in quotation from, or references to the language of 

the Old Testament. 

["On the meaning of KYRIOS in the New Testament, particularly on the manner in which this word is 

employed by Paul in his Epistles," see the valuable article of Professor Stuart in the Biblical Repository 

(Andover) for October, 1831, i. 733-776. His view is that the KURIOTHS which Christ as the Messiah is 

a designated dominion.] 

There, in the Septuagint, KURIOS is used of God sometimes as a proper name, taking the place of 

Jehovah (Yahweh) on account of a Jewish superstition, amd sometimes as an appellative. 

Glancing back now for a moment over the field we have traversed, we mat reasonably say, it seems to 

me, first, that the use of EULOGHTOS, elsewhere in the New Testament restricted to God, the Father, - 

in connection with the exceeding rarity, if not absence, of ascriptions of praise and thanksgiving to Christ 

in the writings of Paul and their frequency in reference to God, - affords a pretty strong presumption in 

favor of that construction of this ambiguous passage which makes the last clause a doxology to the 

Father; secondly that some additional confirmation is given to this reference by the EIS QEOS KAI 

PANTWN, O EPI PANTWN in Eph. iv. 6; and, thirdly, that the at first view overwhelming presumption 



in favor of the construction, founded on the uniform restriction of the designation QEOS, occurring more 

than five hundred times, to God, the Father, in the writings of Paul, is not weakened, but rather 

strengthened, by our examination of the language which he elsewhere uses respecting the dignity of 

Christ and his relation to God. And, though our sources of information are imperfect, we have seen that 

there are very grave reasons for doubting whether the use of QEOS as a designation of Christ belonged to 

the language of Christians anywhere at so early a period as the date of this Epistle (cir. A.D. 58). 

Beyond a doubt, all the writers of the New Testament and the early preachers of Christianity believed 

that God was united with the man Jesus Christ in a way unique and peculiar, distinguishing him from all 

other beings; that his teaching and works and character were divine; that God had raised him from the 

dead, and exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour; that he came, as the messenger of God's love and 

mercy, to redeem men from sin, and make them truly sons of God; that "God was in Christ reconciling 

the world unto himself." But no New Testament writer has defined the mode of this union with God. 

How much light has been thrown upon the subject by the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, 

Ephesus and Chalcedon, and the so-called Athanasian creed, is a question on which there may be 

differences of opinion. The authority of councils is another question. But it has been no part of my 

object, in discussing the construction of the passage before us, to argue against the doctrine of the Nicene 

Creed. My point is simply the use of language at the time when this Epistle was written. The questions of 

doctrine and language are, of course, closely connected, but are not identical. It seems to me that a 

believer in the deity of Christ, admitting the fact that we have no clear evidence that the "mediator 

between God and men" was ever called "God" by any New Testament writer, or an very early preacher 

of Christianity, may recognize therein a wise Providence which saved the nascent Church from 

controversies and discussions for which ot was not then prepared. 

III. We will now consider some other constructions of the passage before us. (See above, p. 335.) 

1. I refrain from discussing in detail the comparative merits of Nos. 1 and 2. The advocates of No. 1 

observe correctly that it describes Christ as only EPI PANTWN QEOS, which they say would identify 

him with the Father. But if the Father is "God over all," and Christ is also "God over all," the question 

naturally arises how the Father can be "the God over all," unless the term "God" as applied to Christ is 

used in a lower sense. The answers to this question would lead us beyond the sphere of exegesis, and I 

pass it by. Meyer thinks that, if we refer the O WN to Christ, this is the most natural construction of the 

words; and it seems to have been adopted by most of the ancient Fathers who have cited the passage, at 

least after the Council of Nicaea, and in nearly all the generally received modern translations, from 

Luther and Tyndale downwards. 

2. Construction No. 2 aims to escape the difficulty presented by No. 1, but involves some ambiguities. 

Does the sentence mean, who is over all (Jews as well as Gentiles), and who is also God blessed for ever 

(so Hofmann, Kahnis, Die Luth. Dogm. i. 453 f.)? or does it mean, celui qui est elevé sur toutes choses, 

comme Dieu béni éternellement as Gudet translates it (Comm. ii. 256), contending that iwl EPI 

PANTWN is not to be connected with QEOS, but with WN, though he had before translated, 

inconsistently it would seem, lui qui est Dien au-dessus de toutes choses béni éternellement 

(pp. 248, 254). Lange finds in the last clause a quotation from the synagogical liturgy, together with a 

strong Pauline breviloquence, the ellipsis in which he supplies in a manner that must always hold a high 

Place among the curiosities of exegesis. He says, however, that every exposition is attended with great 

difficulties. I cannot discover that "God blessed for ever, as a kind of compound name of the Supreme 

Being, occurs in Jewish liturgies or anywhere else. 



3. Construction No. 3 is defended particularly by Gess, who maintains, in opposition to Schultz and 

others, that QEOS here nicht Christi Machtstellung sondern seine Wesenheit bezeichnet. (Christi Person 

und Werk 207.) But on this supposition he admits that the connecting of QEOS with O WN EPI 

PANTWN would present a serious difficulty. The care with which Paul elsewhere chooses his 

expressions in such a way that the supreme majesty of the Father shines forth would be given up. Meyer 

thinks that the punctuation adopted by Morus and Gess makes die Rede noch zerstuckter, ja 

kurzathmiger, than construction No. 5. But this is rather a matter of taste and feeling. The objections 

which seem to me fatal to all the constructions which refer the name QEOS here to Christ have been set 

forth above, and need not be repeated. If the view of Westcott and Hort is correct, the construction of this 

passage adopted by Hippolytus (Cont. Noet. c. 6) agrees with that of Gess in finding three distinct 

affirmations in the clause beginning with O WN, in opposition to those who would read it 

MONOKWLWS. But the passage in Hippolytus is obscure. See below under IV. 

4. Under No. 4 I have noticed a possible construction, for which, as regards the essential point, I have 

referred to Wordsworth's note in his N. T. in Greek, new ed., vol. ii. (1864). He translates in his note on 

ver. 5: He that is existing above all, God Blessed for ever, and remarks: 

"There is a special emphasis on O WN. He that is; He Who is the being One; JEHOVAH. See John i. i8; 

Rev. i. 4,8; iv. 8; xi. 17; xvi. 5, compared with Exod. iii. 14, EGO EIMI O WN. And compare on Gal. iii. 

20." He Who came of the Jews, according to the flesh, is no other than O WN, the BEING ONE, 

JEHOVAH. We have an assertion of His Existence from Everlasting in O WN. He mistranslates the 

last part of Athanasius, Orat. cont. Arian. i. § 24, p. 338, thus: "Paul asserts that He is the splendour of 

His Father's Glory, and is the Being One, over all, God Blessed for ever. In his note on vv. 4, 5, on the 

other hand, he translates the present passage: Christ came, Who is over all, God Blessed for ever. 

There is some confusion here. The verb EIMI may denote simple existence; it may (in contrasts) denote 

real in distinction from seeming existence; it may be, and commonly is, used as a mere copula, 

connecting the subject with the predicate. As applied to the Supreme Being in Exod. iii. 14 (Sept.), Wisd. 

Sol. xiii. I, etc., O WN, He who Is, describes him as possessing not on1y real, but independent and 

hence eternal existence. This latter use is altogether peculiar. To find it where WN is used as a copula, or 

to suppose that the two uses can be combined, is purely fanciful and arbitrary. It was not too fanciful and 

arbitrary, however, for some of the Christian Fathers, who argue Christ's eternal existence from the use 

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 

Athanasius, as above ; Epiphanius, Ancorat. C. 5; Gregory of Nyssa, Adv. Eunom. lib. x., Opp. (1638) ii. 

680-4582; Pseudo-Basi1, Adv. Ennom. iv. 2, Opp. i. 282 (399); Chrysostom, Opp. i. 476 f., viii. 87, ed. 

Montf.; Hilary, De Trin. xii. 24; cf. Cyril. Alex. Thes. i. 4. So Proclus of Constantinople, Ep. ad Armen. 

de Fide, c. 14, quoting Rom. ix. 5, says: EIPEN AUTON ONTA, INA ANARCON BRONTHSH, "he 

spoke of him as being, that he might declare in thunder his existence without beginning. (Migne, Patrol. 

Gr. lxv. 872c.) 

5. The construction, from whom is the Messiah as to the flesh, he who is over all: God be blessed for 

ever! has found favor with some eminent scholars (see below under IV.), and deserves consideration. If 

adopted, I think we should understand O WN EPI PANTWN not as meaning he who is superior to all 

the patriarchs" (Justi and others), which is tame, and would hardly be expressed in this way; nor he who 

is over all things, which, without qualification, seems too absolute for Paul; but rather, "who is Lord of 

all (Jews and Gentiles alike), comp. Acts x. 36 ; Rom. x. 12, xi. 32; who, though he sprang from the 

Jews, is yet, as the Messiah, the ruler of a kingdom which embraces all men. (See Wetstein's note, near 



the end.) The natural contrast suggested by the mention of Christ's relation to the Jews KATA SARKA 

may justify us in assuming this reference of PANTWN, which also accords with the central thought of 

the Epistle. The doxology, however, seems exceedingly abrupt and curt; and we should expect O QEOS 

instead of QEOS as the subject of the sentence, though in a few cases the word stands in the nominative 

without the article. Grimm compares QEOS MARTUS, I Thess. ii. 5, with MARTUS O QEOS, Rom. i. 

9; also 2 Cor. v. 19; Gal. ii. 6, vi. 7; Luke xx. 38(?). We should also rather expect EULOGHTOS to stand 

first in the doxology; but the position of words in Greek is so largely subjective, depending on the feeling 

of the writer, that we cannot urge this objection very strongly. The thought, so frequent in Paul, of God 

as the source, in contrast with, or rather in distinction from, Christ as the medium of the Messianic 

blessings, may have given the word QEOS prominence. (See above, p. 356 f., in regard to the position of 

the subject in contrasts.) Gess accordingly dismisses the objection founded on the position of 

EULOGHTOS, remarking, die Voranstellung von QEOS batte durch den Gegensatz gegen Christum ein 

zureichendes Motiv (ubi supra, p. 206). Still, on the whole, construction No. 7 seems to me much easier 

and more natural. 

6. The construction numbered 6 was, I believe, first proposed by Professor Andrews Norton, in his 

review of Professor Stuart's Letters to Dr. Channing. This was published in the Christian Disciple 

(Boston) for 1819, new series, vol. i. p. 370 ff.; on Rom. ix. 5, see p. 418 ff. The passage is discussed 

more fully in his Statement of Reasons, etc. (Cambridge and Boston), 1833, p. 147 ff.; new ed. (ster. 

1856), r. 203 ff., 470 ff., in which some notes were added by the writer of the present essay. There, after 

giving as the literal rendering, He who was over all was God, blessed for ever, Mr. Norton remarks : 

He who was over all,' that is, over all which has just been mentioned by the Apostle. Among the 

privileges and distinctions of the Jews, it could not be forgotten by the Apostle, that God had presided 

over all their concerns in a particular manner. 

There is no grammatical objection to this construction of the passage. (See above, p. 346, 1st paragr.) Mr. 

Norton, in translating vv. 4 and 5, uses the past tense in supplying the ellipsis of the substantive verb. 

This is done by other translators; e.g., Conybeare and Howson. It may be questioned, however, whether 

this is fully justified here. Canon Kennedy uses the present tense, but seems to take the same general 

view of the bearing of the passage as Mr. Norton. See his Occasional Sermons, pp. 64, 65, and Ely 

Lecturcs, pp. 88, 89. 

As regards this view of the passage, I will only say here that the thought presented in Mr. Norton's 

translation did not need to be expressed, as it is fully implied in the nature of the privileges and 

distinctions enumerated. (See above, p. 341.) Taking Professor Kennedy's rendering, I doubt whether the 

Apostle would have used this language in respect to the relation existing between God and the Jewish 

people at the time when he was writing. The Jews gloried in God as their God in a special sense (Rom. ii. 

17); but, in Paul's view, it was Christians, now, who rightfully gloried in God through our Lord Jesus 

Christ (Rom. v. 11; comp. iii. 29). 

7. I add a single remark, which might more properly have been made before. I have rendered O 

CRISTOS here not Christ, as a mere proper name, but the Messiah. Not only the use of the article, but 

the context, seems to me to require this. Westcott and Hort observe in regard to the word CRISTOS We 

doubt whether the appellative force, with its various associations and implications, is ever entirely lost in 

the New Testament, and are convinced that the number of passages is small in which Messiahship, of 

course in the enlarged apostolic sense, is not the principal intention of the word. (The N.T. in Greek, vol. 

ii., Introd., p. 317.) 



IV. We will now take notice of some points connected with the history of the interpretation of Rom. ix. 

5. The fullest account of this is perhaps that given by Schultz in the article already repeatedly referred to; 

but he is neither very thorough nor very accurate. 

The application of the passage by the Christian Fathers will naturally come first under consideration. 

The fact that the great majority of the Fathers whose writings have come down to us understood the last 

part of the verse to relate to Christ has been regarded by many as a very weighty argument in favor of 

that construction. I have had occasion to consider the value of this argument in connection with another 

passage. (See Essay XVIII., p. 445.) The remarks there made apply equally to the present case. The fact 

that the Fathers, in quoting a passage grammatically ambiguous, have given it a construction which 

suited their theology, does not help us much in determining the true construction. We must remember, 

also, the looser use of the term QEOS which prevailed in the latter part of the second century and later. 

(See above, p. 371 f.) Those in the second and third centuries who held strongly the doctrine of the 

inferiority of the Son, and the Arians in the fourth, like the Socinians at a later period, did not hesitate to 

apply the name God to Christ, and would find little difficulty in a construction of the passage which 

involved this. They might hesitate about the expression God over all; but, as we have seen, though 

natural, it is not necessary to connect the EPI PANTWN with QEOS. 

The specimen of patristic exegesis in the construction given to 2 Cor. iv. 4, where so many of the Fathers 

make the genitive TOU AIWNOS depend not on O QEOS, but TWN APISTWN (see Essay XVIII., u.s.), 

will be sufficient for most persons who wish to form an estimate of their authority in a case like the 

present. I will only ask further, taking the first examples that occur to me, how much weight is to be 

attributed to the judgment of Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Isidore of Pelusium, 

Gennadius, Theodorus Monachus, Joannes Damascenus(?), Photius, Ecumenius (or what passes under 

his name), and Theophylact, when, in their zeal for the freedom of the will, they explain PROQESIS in 

Rom. viii. 28 (TOIS KATA PROQESIN KLHTOIS), not as denoting the Divine purpose, but the purpose 

or choice of the subjects of the call? (Cyril of Alexandria gives the words both meanings at the same 

time.) What is the value of the opinion of Chrysostom, Joannes Damascenus, Ecumenius, and 

Theophylact, that DIA IHSOU CRISTOU in Rom. xvi. 27 is to be construed with STHRIZAI in ver. 25? 

Shall we accept the exegesis of Chrysostom and Theophylact when they tell us that in the injunction of 

Christ in Matt. v. 39 not to resist TW PONHRW TW PONHRW means the devil? 

Dean Burgon, in his article on New Testament Revision in the Quart. Rev. for Jan., 1882,* has given (p. 

54 if.) perhaps the fullest enumeration yet presented of ancient Christian writers who have referred the O 

WN, K.T.L. in Rom. ix. 5 to Christ. He counts up 55 illustrious names, forty of Greek writers, from 

Irenaeus in the latter part of the second century to John of Damascus in the eighth, and fifteen of Latin 

writers, from Tertullian at the beginning of the third century to Facundus in the sixth, who all see in 

Rom. ix. 5 a glorious assertion of the eternal Godhead of CHRIST. 

[Reprinted in The Revision Revised (London, 1883); see p. 212.] 

An examination of his list will show that it needs some sifting. Most of the Latin writers whom he 

mentions, as Augustine, knew little or nothing of Greek, and their authority cannot be very weighty in 

determining the construction of an ambiguous Greek sentence. Of his illustrious names, six are 

unfortunately unknown, being writers of whom, as Mr. Burgon mildly puts it, 3 have been mistaken 

for Athanasius, and 3 for Chrysostom. Another is the illustrious forger of the Answers to Ten Questions 

of Paul of Samosata, fathered upon Dionysius of Alexandria, certainly spurious, according to Cardinal 

Newman and the best scholars generally, and marked as pseudonymous by Mr. Burgon himself. 



Methodius should also have been cited as Pseudo-Methodius (see p. 391 f), and Caesarius as 

Pseudo-Caesarius. Among the other illustrious names, we find 6 of the Bishops at the Council of 

Antioch, A.D. 269. On looking at the names as they appear in Routh's Rell. Sacrae, ed. alt. (1846), iii. 

289, I regret my inability to recall the deeds or the occasion that made them illustrious, unless it is the 

fact that, as members of that Council, about half a century before the Council of Nicaea, they condemned 

the use of the term hOMOOUSIOS consubstantial, which was established by the latter as the test and 

watchword of orthodoxy. 

Next to the six bishops and ps.-Dionysius Alex. in Mr. Burgon's list of the illustrious Fathers who see 

in Rom. ix. 5 a glorious assertion of the eternal Godhead of Christ, we find Constt. App., that is, the 

Apostolical Constitutions, with a reference to vi. c. 26. He does not quote the passage. It reads as 

follows : Some of the heretics imagine the Christ [so Lagarde; or the Lord, Cotelier and Ueltzen] to be 

a mere man. . . ; but others of them suppose that Jesus himself is the God over all, glorifying him as his 

own Father, supposing him to be Son and Paraclete ; than which doctrines what can be more 

abominable? Compare Const. Apost. iii. 17: The Father is the God over all, O EPI PANTWN QEOS; 

Christ is the only-begotten God, the beloved Son, the Lord of glory. See also vi. 18. 

One is surprised, after this, to find that Mr. Burgon did not cite for the same purpose Pseudo-Ignatius ad 

Tars. cc. 2, 5, and ad Philip. c. 7, where it is denied emphatically that Christ is O EPI PANTWN QEOS; 

and also Origen, Cont. Cels. viii. 14, who says: Grant that there are some among the multtitude of 

believers, with their differences of opinion, who rashly suppose that the Saviour is the Most High God 

over all; yet certainly we do not, for we believe him when he said, The Father who sent me is greater 

than I. The very strong language which Origen uses in many other places, respecting the inferiority of 

the Son, renders it unlikely that he applied the last part of this verse to Christ. See, e.g., Cont. Cels. viii. 

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 

Commentary on Romans, which is the only authority for ascribing to Origen the common interpretation 

of this passage, is no authority at all. He, according to his own account of his work, had so transformed it 

by omissions, additions, and alterations, that his friends thought he ought to claim it as his own. 

[See his Peroratio at the end of the Epistle; Origenis Opp. iv. 688 f., ed. De Ia Rue. Mattaei remarks: 

Rufini interpretatio, quae parum fidei habet, in epistola ad Romanos, quod quihbet ipse intelligit, non tam 

pro Origenis opere, quam pro compendio Rufini haberi detet, quod haud dubie alia omisit, alia, sicut in 

ceteris libris, invito Origene admisit. Pauli Epp. ad Thess., etc. (Rigae, 1785), Praefatio, sig. b 2. See 

more fully to the same purpose Redepenning's Origenses, ii. 189 ff., who speaks of his "Ausscheidung 

ganzer Stucke, and Umgestaltung des Heterodoxen in der Trinitatslehre. See also Cave, Hist. Lit, art. 

Origenes.] 

It was in accordance with his professed principles to omit or alter in the works which he translated 

whatever he regarded as dangerous, particularly whatever did not conform to his standard of orthodoxy. 

His falsification of other writings of Origen is notorious. Westcott and Hort remark that in the 

Rufino-Origenian commentary on this verse there is not a trace of Origenian language, and this is one of 

the places in which Rufinus would not fail to indulge his habit of altering an interpretation which he 

disapproved on doctrinal grounds. They also remark, It is difficult to impute Origen's silence to accident 

in the many places in which quotation would have been natural had he followed the common 

interpretation. 

Origen should therefore be henceforth excluded from the list of Fathers cited in support of the common 

punctuation. It is even probable, as Westcott and Hort maintain, though not certain, that he and 



Eusebius gave the passage a different construction. 

[I have represented the eminent scholars named above as regarding it as probable though not certain that 

these Fathers understood the last clause as relating to God. Their note does imply that they are inclined to 

this view; but subsequent examination leads me to suppose that the words quoted were intended to apply 

to the Apostolic Constitutions and the Pseudo-Ignatius. Westcott and Hort also refer, for the application 

of the phrase O EPI PANTWN QEOS to the Father in distinction from Christ, to Melito p. 413 Otto, 

i.e., to his Apol. fragm. 2; comp. Routh, 1. 118, ed. alt.] 

As regards Eusebius, the presumption is perhaps even stronger than in the case of Origen. He has 

nowhere quoted the passage; but in very numerous places in his writings he uses O EPI PANTWN 

QEOS as a title exclusively belonging to the Father, and insists upon this against the Sabellians. 

[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 

c, d), and a multitude of other places, some of which are quoted in Wetstein's note. The apparent 

exception, Hist. EccL viii. II, TON EPI PANTWN QEON CRISTON EPIBOWMENOUS (ed. Vales.), is 

a false reading: Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Dindorf omit CRISTON on the authority of important 

MSS.; on the other hand Hernichen in his recent edition (1868) omits EPI PANTWN QEON and reads 

TON CRISTON simply.] 

I admit that these consideratiohs are not decisive; he and Origen may have given the passage an 

interpretation similar to that of Hippolytus; but, if they understood it to relate to Christ, it is certainly 

strange that they have nowhere quoted it in their numerous writings. 

The assumption that Irenaeus referred the last part of this verse to Christ must be regarded as doubtful. 

The only place where he has quoted it is Haer. iii. i6. (al. i8.) 

§ 3, where his text is preserved only in the Old Latin version, which of course cannot determine the 

construction which Irenaeus put upon the Greek. He does not quote it to prove that Christ is QEOS, - the 

Gnostics gave the name QEOS to their AEons, and also to the Demiurgus, but to prove the unity of the 

Christ with the man Jesus, in opposition to the Gnostics who maintained that the AEon Christ did not 

descend upon Jesus till his baptism. He had just before (~2) quoted Matt. i. 18 for this purpose (reading 

TOU DE CRISTOU); he now quotes Rom. 1. 3, 4; ix. 5; and Gal. iv. 4, 5, for the same purpose. His 

argument rests on the EX WN O CRISTOS TO KATA SARKA, and not on the last part of the verse, on 

which he makes no remark. Throughout his work against Heresies, and very often, Irenaeus uses the title 

the God over all as the exclusive designation of the Father. 

[Semler (Ep ad Griesbachium, 1770, p. 77 ff.; Antwort, etc. 1770, p. 45) and Whitby (Disq modestae, p 

125 f.) take the above view of this passage of Irenaeus. For the use of the designation God over all, see 

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; 

iii. 8. /3; iv. 5. (al. 10.)/ 1; v. 18. § 1, and many other passages. (Cf. iv. 1. § 1.) 

The passage in which Hippolytus quotes Rom. ix. 5 (Cont. Noet. c. 6) has already been noticed. (See 

above, pp. 378, 383.) The Noetians and Patripassians, according to him, quoted the text to prove the 

identity of Christ with the Father. (Ibid cc. 2, 3.) He complains that they treat the words MONOKWLWS 

(or ,MONOKWLA); comp. Epiph. Haer lvii. 2. Westcott and Hort understand this to mean that they read 

all the words from KAI EX WN to AIWNOS as a single clause. Semler once took nearly the same view 

(Hist. Einl. zu S. J. Baumgarten's Unters. theol. Streitigkeiten, 1762, i. 217, n. 205), but was afterwards 

doubtful about it (ibid p. 236, n. 235). Fabricius in his note on the passage, and Salmond in his translation 



of Hippolytus in the Ante-Nicene Christ. Library, ix. 53, give a very different explanation. To discuss the 

matter here would require too much space, but it seemed well to mention it. Possibly in Cont. Noet. c. 6 

EULOGHTOS is misplaced through the mistake of a scribe, and should stand before EIS TOUS 

AIWNOS. 

Dean Burgon refers also to Phil. 339, that is to the Philosophumena or Ref omit. Haer. x. 34, ad fin. But 

O KATA PANTWN QEOS there should not, I think, be alleged as a quotation of Rom. ix. 5 applied to 

Christ. Bunsen's easy emendation of the passage (Anal. Ante-Nic. i. 392 ; comp. his Hippolytus, 2d ed., i. 

413) seems to me the true reading, and is suppported by x. 33, ad init. (p. 334), where OUTOS MONOS 

KAI KATA PANTWN QEOS is distinguished from the Logos. Hippolytus could hardly have called 

Christ the God over all. (See p. 378, note) 

I note in passing that Tischendorf cites incorrectly for the reference of the O WN, etc., to Christ Meth. 

conviv 805 (Gall 3). The passage referred to is not from the Convivium, but from the discourse of the 

Pseudo-Methodius De Simeone ct Anna, c. 1, ad fin., where we have the mere expression THS 

ASTEKTOU DOWHS TOU EPI PANTWN QEOU SUGKATABASIN. This is also one of Dean 

Burgon's authorities; but, as the writer explains himself (c. 2, ad fin.), he seems to mean by the glory of 

the God over all not the glory of the Son considered by himself, but the glory of the whole Trinity. There 

is no quotation of Rom. ix. 5 here. 

The passage of Amphilochius (Gallandi vi. 409, or Migne xxxix. 101) which Tischendorf adduces, with a 

videtur; as a reference of Rom. ix. 5 to the Father, seems analogous to the above, and hardly proves 

anything on one side or the other. 

In the quotation of Rom. ix. 5 in the Antiochene Epistle to Paul of Samosata (see above, p. 388) it is 

probable that the six bishops make a slight pause at PANTWN. The subordination of the Son is very 

strongly expressed in the Epistle. Among other things it is said, To think that the God of the universe is 

called a messenger (AQQELON) is impious; but the Son is the messenger of the Father, being himself 

Lord and God. (Routh, ut supra, p. 294.) 

The Emperor Julian has already been referred to. (See above, p. 346, note.) He was as good a judge of 

the construction of a Greek sentence as Cyril of Alexandria, or any other of the Fathers, and quite as 

likely to interpret impartially. Well acquainted with the writings of the Christians, he could hardly have 

overlooked passages so frequently quoted in the controversies on the nature of Christ as Rom. ix. 5 and 

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. 

16) in the writings of Paul. 

Among the orthodox Greek Fathers, Diodorus (of Antioch and Tarsus) and Photius appear to have 

understood the O WN, etc., to refer to God. The comment of Diodorus on this passage is preserved in the 

important Catena on the Epistle to the Romans published by Cramer from a MS. in the Bodleian Library 

(Cramer's Catenae in N.T., vol. iv., Oxon. 1844). The essential part of it reads : KAI TO MENISTON, 

EX WN O CRISTOS, TO KATA SARKA. EX AUTWN, FHSIN, O CRISTOS. QEOS DE OU 

MONWN AUTWN, ALLA KOINH EPI PANTWN ESTI QEOS. (p. 162.) This appears to mean, From 

them, he says, is the Messiah. But GOD belongs not to them alone, but is God over all men alike. 

Meyer, Tholuck, Philippi, and Schultz understand it as relating to the Father. I do not perceive that this 

reference is affected by the fact that Theodore of Mopsuestia, a pupil of Diodorus, who has borrowed 

much of the language of this comment, gives the last part a different turn: KAI TO DH MENISTON, EX 

AUTWN KAI O CRISTOS TO KATA SARKA, OS ESTI QEOS OU MONON AUTWN, ALLA 



KOINH PANTWN. (Migne, Patrol Cr. lxvi. 833.) Had it been the purpose of Diodorus to express this 

meaning, he would probably have inserted ESTIN after QEOS DE or have written OS ESTIN. The 

omission of the article before QEOS creates no difficulty in taking QEOS as the subject of the sentence. 

It is often omitted in such a case by these later Greek writers. 

Diodorus, it will be remembered, was the founder of a comparatively rational, grammatico-historical, and 

logical school of interpretation, in opposition to the arbitrary exegesis of Scripture which had prevailed 

among the Fathers. 

The passage in Photius (Cont. Manich. iii. 14) appears to be unequivocal: He cries with a loud voice, 

whose are the covenants, and the laws (AI NOMOQESIAI), and the promises, and the holy serviccs (AI 

LATREIAI); and showing most clearly whence these things are and on whose providence they have 

depended [he adds] O WN EPI PANTWN QEOS EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS AIWNOS. AMHN." 

So the laws and the holy services and the promises, in the observance of which the fathers pleased God, 

and from whom as to his humanity sprang the Messiah, are from the God over all, TOU EPI PANTWN 

QEOU. (Migne, Patrol. Gr. cii. i57.) 

Schultz, in the essay so often referred to (p. 480, note 2), says that Theodulus in loc. seems to refer the 

last part of our verse to God. He misapprehends the meaning of the passage in Theodulus, and does not 

observe that it is taken from Ecumenius. 

[ See Biblioth. max. vet Patrum, viii. 605, or the Monumenta S. Patrum Orthodoxographa of Grynaeus, ii 

1163.] 

The Enarratio in Ep. ad Romanos, which, in a Latin translation, passes under the name of Theodulus, 

does not belong to the presbyter or bishop in Ceole-Syria of that name, who died A.D. 492, but is a very 

late Catena. (See Cave.) 

A few words now respecting the Latin Fathers who have quoted Rom. ix. 5. 

Tertullian is the first. He quotes it once as below, and once (Prax. c. 15) with super omnia before deus. 

[After remarking that he never speaks of Gods or Lords, but following the Apostle, when the Father and 

Son are to be named together, calls the Father God and Jesus Christ Lord, he says " Solum autem 

Christum potero deum dicere, sicut idem apostolus. Ex quibus Christus, qui est, inquit, deus super omnia 

benedictus in aevum omne. Nam et radium solis seorsum solem vocabo; solem aütem nominans, cuius 

est radius, non statim et radium solem appellabo." (Prax. C. 13, ed. Oehler.) This accords with his 

language elsewhere : "Protulit deus sermonem . . . sicut radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, et sol radium. 

(Prax. c. 8.) " Cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio . . . nec separatur 

substantia, sed extenditur. (Apologet. C. 21.) " Pater tota substantia est; filius vero derivatio totius a 

portio; sicut ipse profitetur, Quia pater maior me est. (Prax. c. 9.) Sermo deus, quia ex deo. . . . Quodsi 

deus dei tanquam substantiva res, non erit ipse deus (AUTOQEOS), sed hactenus deus, qua ex ipsius 

substantia, ut portio aliqua totius. (Prax. c. 26.) 

Cyprian simply cites the passage to prove that Christ is deus (qui est super omnia deus benedictus in 

saecula), without remark.. (Testim. ii. 6.) Novatian has already been spoken of. (See above, p. 378, note.) 

I know of no trace of the reference of the last part of the verse to God among the Latin writers, except 

what may be implied in the language of the Pseudo-Ambrosius (Ambrosiaster), commonly identified 

with Hilary the deacon, in his commentary on the Epistle. He remarks : Si quis autem non putat de 

Christo dictum, qui est Deus, det personam de qua dictum est. De patre enim Deo hoc loco mentio facta 



non est. This is repeated in the commentary of Rabanus Maurus (Migne, Patrol. Lat. cxi. col. 1482). The 

same in substance appears in the Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test, qu. 91, formerly ascribed to Augustine, and 

printed in the Benedictine edition of his works, Opp. III. ii. 2915, ed. Bened. alt. : Sed forte ad Patris 

personam pertinere dicatur. Sed 

hoc loco nulla est Paterni nominis mentio. Ideoque si de Christo dictum negatur, persona cui competat 

detur. (This work is generally ascribed to the Hilary mentioned above.) The writer seems to have heard 

of those who interpreted the passage of God; and, relying apparently upon the Latin version, he meets 

their interpretation of the Greek with a very unintelligent objection. 

The Greek Fathers in Mr. Burgons list who have not already been mentioned are the following : 

Athanasius, Basil, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Theodorus Mops., Eustathius, Eulogius, 

Theophilus Alex. , Nestorius, Theodotus of Ancyra, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gelasius Cyz., Anastasius 

Ant., Leontius Byz., Maximus. Of the Latins, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, Victorinus, the Breviarium, 

Marius Mercator, Cassian, Alcimus Avit., Fulgentius, Ferrandus. 

"Against such a torrent of Patristic testimony, says Mr. Burgon, "it will not surely be pretended that the 

Socinian interpretation, to which our Revisionists give such prominence, can stand. 

But to what does it all amount? Simply to the fact that a mass of writers, to the judgrnent of most of 

whom an intelligent scholar would attach very little weight in any question of exegesis, have followed 

that construction of an ambiguous passage which suited their theological opinions. Out of the whole list, 

the two, I suppose, who would be most generally selected as distinguished from the rest for sobriety and 

good sense in interpretation are Chrysostom and Theodoret. Yet both of them adopted that excessively 

unnatural, if not impossible, construction of 2 Cor. iv. 4 of which I have spoken above. (See p. 387.) 

The same general considerations apply to the ancient versions, some of which are ambiguous here, as 

Westcott and Hort remark, though the translators probably intended to have the last part of the verse 

understood of Christ. 

We will now dismiss the Fathers, and notice some facts belonging to the more recent history of the 

interpretation of our passage. 

[Literature.- The older literature is given by Wolf (Curae) and Lilienthal (Biblischer Archivarius, 1745). 

For the more recent, see Danz, and especially Schultz an the article so often referred to; also, among the 

commentators, Meyer and Van Hengel. E. F. C. Oertel (Christologie, Hamb. 1792, p. 216 ff.) gives a 

brief account of the controversy excited by Semler (1769,71); see also the works named by Schultz, 

especially Hirts Orient. u. exeg. Bibliothek, 1772, 1773. The name Bremer (Schultz, p. 463, note 2) is a 

misprint for Benner.] 

I take up the different constructions in the order in which they are numbered above, p. 335. 

The three most important recent discussions of the passage outside of the commentaries, before that of 

Dr. Dwight, are by Dr Hermann Schultz. in the Jahrbucher f. deutche Theol., 1868, pp. 462-506, who 

defends constructions Nos. 1-3, with a slight preference for No. 1 (p. 483) ; Dr. C. L. Wilibald Grimm, in 

Hilgenfelds Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1869, pp. 311-322, who adopts No. 5; and Pastor Ernst Harmsen, 

ibid., 1872, pp. 510-521, who adopts No. 7. There is a brief discussion of the passage by Dr. G. Vance 

Smith, Canon Farrar, and Dr. Sanday, in the Expositor for May, 1879, ix. 397-405, and Septembur, 1879, 

x. 232-238. There was a more extended debate in the Independent (New York) for Aug. 12, Oct. 14, 21, 

28, and Nov. 18, 1858, in which Dr. John ProudfIt (anonymously), the Rev. Joseph P. Thompson (the 



editor), Dr. Z. S. Barstow, and K A. took part. 

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. 

Among the commentators, perhaps the more eminent and best known are Calvin, Beza, Hammond, 

LeClerc, Limborch, Bengel, Michaelis, Koppe, Flatt, Tholuck, Olshausen, Stuart, Hodge, Philippi, Lange 

(with Schaff and Riddle), Hofmann, Weiss, Godet, Alford, Vaughan, Sanday (very doubtfully), Gifford. 

That the Roman Catholic commentators, as Estius, Klee, Stengel, Reithmayr, Maier, Beelen, Bisping (not 

very positively), Jatho, Klofutar (188o), should adopt this explanation, is almost a matter of course. This 

construction of the verse is accepted by all the Fratres Poloni, who did not hesitate to give the name God 

to Christ, and to worship him, recognizing of course the supremacy of the Father, to whom they applied 

the name God in a higher sense; so 

Socinus. Opp. ii. 581, 582, 600 a; cf. ii. 377 f.; John Crell, in loc. Opp. i. 147 ; also Respons. ad Grotium, 

Opp. iv. 230 b; De Uno Deo Patre, p. 23 a; De Deo ejusque Attrib. p. 35 b; Eth. Christ. p. 348 a; 

Schlichting (Lat. Slichtingius), Comm. post. i. 254; Wolzogen, Opp. i. 710, 712 ; ii. 301 ; iii. 5 ; Sam. 

Przipcovius or Przpkowsky in loc, p. 51. So also the Racovian Catechism, §§159, 160. 

[Socinus speaks of the punctuation and construction proposed by Erasmus, a believer in the deity of 

Christ, which makes the O WN, etc., a doxology to God, the Father, and says: "Non est ulla causa, cur 

haec interpretatio, vel potius lectio et interpunctio Erasmi rejici posse videatur; nisi una tantum, quam 

Adversarii non afferunt; neque enim illam ammadverterunt. Ea est, quod, cum simplex nomen 

Benedictus idem significat quod Benedictus sit, semper fere solet anteponi ei, ad quem refertur, perraro 

autem postponi." 

Some of those who are shocked at what they call "Socinian glosses" might perhaps learn a lesson of 

candor and fairness from this heretic.] 

With a singular disregard of these historical facts, Dean Burgon holds up his hands in holy horror at the 

marginal renderings of the Revised New Testament at Rorn. ix. 5, ascribed to some modern Interpreters, 

and stigmatizes them as the Socinian gloss! (Quart. Rev., Jan., 1882, p. 54 [Revision Revised].) The 

Italics are his. He seems throughout his article to imagine himself to be writing for readers who will take 

an opprobrious epithet for an argument. The real "Socinian gloss" is adopted, and the arguments for it are 

repeated, as we have seen, by the latest prominent defender of the construction which Mr. Burgon 

himself maintains. Among English commentators, compare Macknight on the passage. 

A slight qualification or supplement of the above statement is, however, required. Schlichting, though he 

does not object to the common construction, misled by Erasmus, is inclined to suspect the genuineness of 

the word QEOS. It is important, in reference to the history of the interpretation of this passage, to 

observe that the statement of Erasmus, in regard to the omission of this word in the quotations by some 

Fathers, led many astray; among others, Grotius, who also incorrectly represents the word God as 

wanting in the Syriac version. Schoettgen misrepresented the case still worse, saying, by mistake of 

course, "Hoc verbum quamplurimi Codices, quidam etiam ex Patribus, non habent." 

Schlichting also suggests, as what venire alicui in mentem posset, the somewhat famous conjecture of 

WN O for O WN, but rejects it. It was taken up afterwards, however, by a man far inferior in judgment, 

Samuel Crell (not to be confounded with the eminent commentator), in the Initium Ev. S. Joannis 

restitum (1726), published under the pseudonym of L.M. Artemonius. Its superficial plausibility seems to 

have fascinated many; among them Whitby (Last Thoughts), Jackson of Leicester (Annot. ad Novat p. 

341), John Taylor of Norwich, Goadby, Wakefield (Enquiry), Bishop Edmund Law (Wakefields 



Memoirs, i. 447), Belsham (Epistles of Paul), John Jones, and David Schulz (so says 

Baurngarten-Crusius). Even Doddridge and Harwood speak of it as ingenious, and Olshausen calls it 

scharfsinnig. It is quite indefensible. 

Among the writers on Biblical Theology, Usteri (Paulin. Lthrbcgit, 5te Ausg., 1834, p. 324 1.) refers the 

clause in question to Christ, but strongly expresses his sense of the great difficulties which this involves. 

He is influenced especially by Ruckert (1831), who afterwards changed his mind. Messner (1856, p. 236 

f.) regards this reference as probable, though not certain; somewhat more doubtful is C. F. Schmid (2d 

ed., 1859, p. 540 f., or p. 475 f. Eng. trans.). Dorner in his recent work, System der Christi. 

Glaubenslehre (1879), i. 345, only ventures to say that the reference to Christ is the most natural. 

Schott, August Hahn, De Wette, Reuss, Ritschl, are sometimes cited as supporting this construction; but 

later they all went over to the other side. See below, under No. 7. 

For the most elaborate defences of the construction we are considering, besides those which have already 

been mentioned, one may consult Dr. John Pye Smiths Scripture Tcstimony to the Messiah, 5th ed. 

(1859), vol. ii. pp. 370-377, 401-405, and the commentaries of Flatt (from whom Professor Stuart has 

borrowed largely) and Philippi. 

4. Construction No. 4 has akeady been sufficiently noticed. (See above, p. 383.) 

5. The construction which puts a colon or a period after PANTWN, making the clause beginning with 

QEOS a doxology to God, seems to have been first suggested by Erasmus in the Annotations to his third 

edition of the Greek Testament 

(1522), repeated in the fourth (1527). In his later writings, and in the note in his last edition (1535), while 

recognizing the possibility of this construction, he gave the preference to No. 7. 

[Erasmi Opp., Lugd. Bat. I703 ff., vol. vi. 610 f. ; ix. 1002 f., 1045 f.] 

It was adopted by Locke in his posthumous Paraphrase, etc. (London, 1705, and often) : and of them, as 

to his fleshly extraction, Christ is come, he who is over all, God be blessed for ever, Amen. Lockes 

construction was preferred by Wetstein in the important note on the passage in his Greek Testament, vol. 

ii. (1752), and was adopted by Prof. L. J. C. Justi in Pauluss Memorabilieu, 1791 , St. i. pp. 1-26, treated 

more fully in his Vèrmischte Abhandlungen, 2te Samml., 1798, pp. 309-346; also by E. F. C. Oertel, 

Christologie (1792), p. 209 f. He has a pretty full discussion of the passage (pp. 195-218). So by G. L 

Bauer, Bibl. Theol. des N. T.:, Bd. iv. (1802), pp. 10-14, and by C. F. Ammon ; for though in his Bibl. 

Theol., 2te Ausg. (1801), pp. 220-222, he does not decide between constructions No. 5 and No. 7, he 

favors the former in his note on the passage in the third edition of Koppe on Romans (1824). J. J. Stolz 

adopts it in the fourth edition of his Uebersetzung des NT. (1804), and the third edition of his 

Erlauterungen (1808), iii. 170-191. He gives there an interesting extract from Semlers Hist. u. krit. 

Sammlungen uber die sogennanten Beweisstellen in der Dogmatik, St. ii. pp. 284-287. So De Wette in 

the text of the third edition of his German translation of the Bible (1839), though he gives constructions 

Nos. 1 and 7 as alternative renderings; in the note in the fourth and last edition of his commentary on the 

Epistle (1847), though undecided, he seems on the whole rather inclined to No. 7. This construction (No. 

5) is supported also by Baumgarten-Crusius, a scholar to be spoken of with high respect, in his Comm. on 

the Epistle (Jena, 1844), comp. his Grundzuge der bibl. Theol. (1828), p. 385 f., and his Exeget Schriften 

zum N.T. II. i. (Jena, 1844) p. 266, the latter cited by Ernesti. So by Schumann in his Christus (1852), ii. 

545, note; H. Fr. Th. L. Ernesti, Vom Ursprunge d. Sunde nach paulin. Lehrgehalte, i. (1855) pp. 

197-204 ; Märcker (cited by Meyer), whose work I have not seen; and Reuss, Les Epitres Pauliniennes 



(1878), ii. 88. 

The best defence of this view, perhaps, is to be found in the article of Grimm, referred to above. 

6. On construction No. 6, see above, p. 385 f. 

7. Erasmus in his translation renders the words of the last part of our verse thus : et ii, ex quibus est 

Christus quantum attinet ad carnem, qui est in omnibus detis laudandus in secula, amen. His paraphrase 

seems a little ambiguous. 

[At Christus sic est homo, ut idem et Deus sit, non huius aut illius gentis peculiaris, sed universorum 

Deus, et idem cum patre Deus, qui (Christus? pater? or Pater cum Christo?) praesidet omnibus, cuiusque 

inscrutibili consilio geruntur haec omnia, cui soli . . . debetur iaus, etc. One suggestion of Erasmus is 

that the word God in the last clause may denote the whole Trinity.] 

But in the note in his last edition (1535), and in his later writings, he clearly indicates his preference for 

construction No. 7. 

[See especially his Apol. adv. monachos quosdam Hispanos(written in 1528), Opp. ix. IO43-47 : Ego 

coram Deo Profiteor mihi videri Paulum hoc sensisse, quod modo significavimus, nec hunc sermonem 

proprie ad Christum pertinere, sed vel ad Patrem, vel ad totam Trinitatem 

(col. 1045). Cump. Resp. ad Juvenem Gerontodidascalum (written 1532), col 1002: "ipsa res loquitor, 

verba Pauli nullum sensum evidentius reddere quam hunc: Deus, qui est super omnia, sit benedictus in 

secula. Cui precationi accinitur, Amen. See also above, under No. 5.] 

Bucer (or Butzer) in loc. (1536?), as quoted by Wetstein, suggests this construction as an alternative 

rendering. Curcellaeus (Courcelles) in his edition of the Greek Testament published in 1658 (also 1675, 

1685, 1699) notes that Quidam addunt punctum post vocem SARKA quia si id quod sequitur cum 

praecedentibus connecteretur, potius dicendum videatur OS ESTI, vel OS WN, quam O WN." 

Among thosc who have adopted or favored this construction are Whiston, in his Primitive Christianity 

Reviv'd, vol. iv. (1711), p. 13 ff. ; and Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, 

London, 1712, 3d ed., 1732, p. 85 ff. He gives also as admissible constructions No. 5 and No. 2, but 

places No. 7 first. He was, as is well known, one of the best classical scholars of his day, as well as one 

of the ablest metaphysicians and theologians. So John Jackson of Leicester, in his Annot. ad Novatianum 

(1726), p. 341, 

401 

though captivated by the specious but worthless conjecture of WN O; Wetstein, as an alternative 

rendering, but rather preferring to place the stop after PANTWN (see the end of his note) ; Semmler, 

Paraph. Ep. ad Rom. (1769), p. 114 ff., and in many other writings; on the literature of the Semler 

controversy, see the references given above, p. 396 n. Semler was not so well acquainted with the 

writings of the later as with those of the earlier Fathers, and in this part of the field of debate his 

adversaries had the advantage. But he gave a stimulus to a freer and more impartial treatment of the 

question. Eckermann adopted the construction we are now considering in the sccand edition (1795) of his 

Theologische Beytrage Bd. I. St. iii. pp. 160-162, though in the first edition he had opposed it. 

Coming now to the present century, we find this construction adopted by the commentators C. F. 

Boehme (Lips. I806), and H. E. G. Paulus, Des Apostels Paulus Lehr-Briefe an die Galater- und 

Romer-Christen (Heidelb. 1831), where he translates (p. 102) : Der uber alle (Juden und Heiden) 

seyende Gott sey gepriesen auf (alle) die Zeitalter hinaus by Professor J . F. Winzer of Leipzig in a 



Programma on Rom. ix. 1-5 (Lips. 1832), which I have not seen, but find highly praised; and Karl 

Schrader, Der Apostel Paulus (1833), p. 75, and Theil iv. (1835), p. 355. He translates, Der uber Allem 

Seiende (der welcher uber Allem ist,) Gott, gelobt (sei gelobt) in Ewigkeit ! It is adopted in three 

commentaries of remarkable independence and ability which appeared in 1834, namely : those of 

Proffessor J. G. Reiche of Gottingen, whose note (Theil ii. pp. 268-278) is one of the fullest and best 

discussions of the passage, though he makes some mistakes about the Fathers; Professor Eduard Koellner 

of Gottingen ; and Dr. Conrad Glockler, whom Professor Stuart calls a Nicenian as regards his 

theological position. K. G. Bretschneider, in the fourth edition of his Handbuch der Dogmatik (1838), i. 

604 f., adopts the same construction, though in the earlier editions of this work he had referred the QEOS 

to Christ. He translates : Der Herr uber alles, Gott, sei gepriesen in Ewigkeit. In 1839, Professor L. J. 

Ruckert of Jena, in the second edition of his elaborate and valuable commentary (vol. ii. pp. 13-17), 

discusses the passage fully, and though in the first edition (1831) he had strenuously contended for the 

reference of the last part of the verse to Christ, now pronounces the construction which makes it a 

doxology to God far more probable. This year is also signalized in the history of the interpretation of 

our passage by the publication of vol. ii. of the commentary of Professor C. F. A. Fritzsche of Rostock, 

who discusses the passage in a masterly manner (ii. 260-275). His translation has been given above, p. 

354. In the fourth edition of his Greek Testament with a Latin version, published in 1839, Professor H. 

A. Schott of Jena adopted the punctuation and construction which make the clause beginning with O WN 

a doxology to God, though in previous editions he had followed the common construction. In his essay 

De Invocatione Jesu Christi Partie. I. (1843), p. 8, the highly esteemed commentator Dr, Friedriche 

Lucke, Professor at Gottingen, refers the last Part of our verse to God. Professor A. L. G. Krehl, of 

Leipzig, does the same in his Der Brief an die Romer ausgelegt, 

u.s.w. (1845), p. 322, though in an earlier work, Neutest. Handworterbuch (1843), art. Christus, p. 114, 

he had cited Rorn. ix. 5 in proof that Christ is called God. 

Baur, who makes the passage a doxology to God, has some valuable remarks upon it in his Paulus 

(1845), p. 624 f., 2te Aufl. (1866-67), ii. 263 f. ; comp. his Lehre von der Dreienigkeit (1841), i. 84, note, 

and Neutest. Theol. (1864), p. 194. Zeller agrees with him (Theol. Jàhrbucher, 1842, p. 55). So J. F. 

Rabiger, a believer in the divine nature of Christ, in his De Christologia Paulina contra Baurium 

Commentatio (1852), pp. 26-28. 

We may notice here the great commentators De Wette and Meyer. De Wette, not perfectly satisfied with 

any view, yet wavers between constructions Nos. 5 and 7 ; see abovc under No. 5. in his Bibl. Dogmatik, 

3te Aufl. (1831), 

p. 249, and in the second edition of his translation of the New Testament (1832), he had taken the name 

God here 

as a designation of Christ ; but in the third edition of his translation (1839) he makes it begin a doxology. 

Meyer in his Das N.T. griechisht mit einer neuen deutschen Ueberstezung (1829) followed the common 

construction; but in the first edition of his Comm. (1836), and all later editions, he makes the passage a 

doxology to God. His collaborator, Huther, maintains in his note on Titus ii. 13 that the name QEOS is 

not given to Christ in any of the New Testament Epistles. 

In 1855 appeared the first edition of Jowetts work on four of the Epistles of Paul (2d ed., 1859). He 

translates: 

God, who is over all, is blessed for ever. Amen. So Bishop Colenso, St Pauls Ep. to the Romans, etc., 

London, 1861; Am. ed., New York, 1863. 



Ewald, Die Sendschreiben des Ap. Paulus, u. s. w. (1857), translates : der uber allen ist Gott sei gelobet 

in die ewigkeiten, Amen ! (p. 323 ; comp. p. 398 f.) See also his Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott, Bd. iii. 

(1874), p. 416, n. 3. Professor J. H. Scholten of Leyden, in his Dogmatices Christ. Initia, ed. 2da, Lugd. 

Bat. 1858, p. 193 f., adopts the same construction. So Athanase Coquerel, Christologie (Paris, 1858), i. 

76, note. So the celebrated Dutch commentator, Van Hengel, who in tome ii. of his Interpretatio (1859), 

pp. 343-360, discusses the passage very fully. He mentions some Dutch scholars that agree with him, as 

Vissering and Scheffer (Godgel. Bijdragen), whose writings I have not seen. The eminent Danish 

commentator, Dr. 

H. N. Clausen, Pauli Brev til Romerne fortolket (Copenhagen, i 863), p. 124, translates : Han som er 

over Alt, Gud, (eller, "Gud, som er over Alt") vaere priset i Evighed!" He is the author of Hermeneutik. 

The Germans spell his name Klausen.) Holtzmann, in his translation of the Epistle in Bunsens 

Bibelwerk (I864), vol. iv., gives the same construction to the passage ; and so Profess sor Willibald 

Bcyschlag of Halic, in his CIeristalo,gie des ~v: r., Berlin, i866, ~. 209 f. 

Professor R. A. Lipsius of Jena, in the Protestantentenp-Bibel Neuen Testamentes (1872-73), p. 572, 

translates : Der da 

ist uber Alles, Gott, sei gelobt in Ewigkeit"; p. 32 : Der uber Allen seiende Gott sei gelobt in Ewigkeit! 

His comment is (p. 97): "Der Gott, der uber allen (Volkern) waltet, sei dafur gepriesen, dass er aus Israel 

den Heiland (fur Alle) hervorgehen liess." The Rev. John H. Godwin, Hon. Prof. New Coll., Lond.," 

and Congregational Lecturer, translates, God who is over all be praised for ever. Amen, and has a good 

note. (Ep. to Rom., London, 1873.) Professor Lewis Campbell, the editor of Sophocles, in the 

Contemporary Review for August, 1876, p. 484, adopts the rendering of Professor Jowett. The Rev. 

Joseph Agar Beet, Wesleyan Methodist, in a Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans of very marked 

ability (London, 1877, 2d ed., 1881), defends this view in an excellent note (pp. 267-272, 2d ed.). The 

same construction is followed in Herm. Bartelss Exeget Uebersetzung des Briefes, etc. (Dessau, 1878), 

which I mention because Professor Woldemar Schmidt of Leipzig, in a notice of the book (Theol. 

Literaturzeitung, 1879, No. 22), expresses his approval of this. C. Holsten, in an article in the Jahrbucher 

f. prot Theol., 1879, P. 683, translates : Der über allen Volkern waltende Gott (der doch Israels Volk so 

begnadet hat) sei gepriesen in Ewigkeit ! 

Some of the best recent translations adopt this construction of the passage ; c.g. Het Nieuwe Testament, 

etc. (published by the authority of the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church), Amsterdam, 1868 

: Hij, die over alles is, God, zij geprezen tot in eenwigheid! and the versions by Dr. George R. Noyes 

(Boston, 1869), Hugues Oltramare (Genéve, 1872), Que celui qui gouverne toutes choses, Dieu, en soit 

beni éternellement! Carl Weizsackcr, Das N.T. uebersetzt, Tubingen, 1875, and Dr. Samuel Davidson, 

London, 1875. 2d ed. 1876. 

No one who knew the scholarship and the impartiality of the late Dr. Noyes will wonder that I have cited 

him here. A dispassionate, judicial spirit in the examination of such questions as the one before us is not 

the exclusive possession of the Dean of Chichester and of the Church" in distinction from the "the 

Sects," though there are many noble examples of it in the Church of England. 

Among critical editors of the Greek Testament who have placed a period after SARKA, making the 

passage a doxology to God, I may mention Harwood (1776), Lachmann (1831-50) Schott (4th ed., 1839), 

Tischendorf (1841-73), Muralt (1846-48), Buttman (1856-67), Aug. Hahn, assisted by his son G.L. Hahn 

(1861), Kuenen and Cobet (1861), and Westcott and Hort (1881) in their margin, representing the 

judgment of Dr. Hort. 



To these authorities may be added the names of the grammarians Winer and Wilke. See Winer, Gram., 

7te Aufl., 1867,// 61, 3, e., and 64, 2, b., pp. 513, 545, or 551, 586 Thayer, 690, 733 Moulton; and Wilke, 

Hermeneutik (1844), ii. 88. 

It is worthy of notice that many scholars who had already in their publications adopted or even strongly 

contended for the common construction of this passage, afterwards saw reason to change their minds. 

Such was the case with Eckermann, De Wette, Meyer, Ruckert, Bretschneider, Schott, Krehl, Hahn 

(perhaps both father and son); and it is so with Ritschl, as I am assured by a very intelligent student (the 

Rev. Alfred Gooding), who took full notes of his exegetical lectures on Romans in the semester of 

1879-80. I know of only one instance of a conversion in the opposite direction, that of Dr. G. V. Lechler, 

who, in the first edition of his Das Apost. u. das nachapost. Zeitalter (1851), pp. 38, 39, made the last part 

of the verse a doxology to God, but in the second edition (1857), p. 63 f. [and 3d ed. (1886), Eng. trans., 

vol. ii. p. 27 f.], applies it to Christ. He expressly admits, however, as regards the two opposing views, 

that "sprachlich und logisch sind beide gleichberechtigt." 

"The awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socinians in their perversions of this passage." says 

the Scotch commentator Haldane, "more fully manifests the depravity of human nature, and the rooted 

enmity of the carnal mind against God, than the grossest works of the flesh. 

[Exposition of the Ep. to the Romans, Am. reprint of the fifth Edinburgh edition, p. 454.] 

The dishonest shifts, says Dean Burgon, by which unbelievers seek to evacuate the record which they 

are powerless to refute or deny, are paraded by our Revisionists in the following terms. 

[The Quarterly Review for January, 1882, p. 54 (see the Revision Revised, p. 211); see also the same for 

April, 1882, p. 370 (The Revision Revised, p. 353 f.)] 

(Here Mr. Burgon quotes the margin of the Revised Version at Rom. ix. 5, regarding these renderings as 

not entitledi to notice in the margin of the N. T. and their admission as a very grave offence.) SU TIS 

EI O KRINWN ALLOTRION OIKETHN, O KATHGWP TWN ADELFWN HMWN. (Rom. xiv. 4; 

Rev. xii. 10) 

In contrast with these utterances, not addressed to the reason of men, and not adopted to promote 

Christian charity or Christian humility, it is refreshing to read a discussion so calm, so clear, so fair, and 

so able as that of Professor Dwight. 




Important Moments in Bible Translation History 

Year Bible/Text Language Link 

2nd Temple Aramaic Targums Aramaic Info 

300bc-70ad Apocryphal Writings Search 

280 B.C. The Septuagint (LXX) Greek Download 

200bc-200ad Pseudepigrapha Writings Search 

170 A.D. Tatian's Diatessaron Syriac Read 

2nd Century Theodotion's LXX Greek 

2nd Century Aquila's LXX Greek 

2-3rd Century Symmachus Translation Greek 

200 A.D. Papyrus Bodmer 2, 14, 15 Greek 

200 A.D. Sahidic Old Testament Coptic 

240 c. Origen's Hexapla Various 

3rd Century Chester Beatty Papyrus 1,2,3 Greek 

4th Century Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) Greek 

4th Century Vatican Mss 1209 (B) Greek 

405 A.D. The Latin Vulgate/Jerome Latin Download 

5th Century Codex Alexandrinus (A) Greek 

5th Century Syriac Peshitta Aramaic Download 

5th Century Curetonian Syriac Old Syriac 

5th Century Codex Ephraemi Greek 

450 A.D. Ulfilas Gothic Bible Gothic Info 

5-6th Cent. Codex Bezae Greek/Latin 

6-11th Cent. Masoretic Text Hebrew 

8th Century Book of Kells Celtic Buy 

895 A.D. Cairo Codex Hebrew 

930 A.D. Aleppo Codex Hebrew 

950 A.D. Lindisfarne Gospels Latin 

9th Century Latin Vulgate-Clementine Edition Latin 

9th Century Cyril&Methodius Slavinoc Bible Slavonic 

9th Century King Alfred's translation (partial) O. English 

10th Century Aelfric translates Genesis-Judges O. English 

1008 A.D. Leningrad Codex Hebrew 

10-11 Cent. West Saxon Gospels Saxon Info 

10-11 Cent. Notker Labeo Job&Psalms Latin/German 

1180 A.D.c Waldenses Ancient Vaudois version Provencal 

1370 A.D. Psalter by Henry of Mugeln German 

13-14th Cent. Catalan Bible Spanish 

1380-82 Wycliffe Bible (Nicholas) English 

1384-90 Wycliffe Bible (J Purvey) English 

1385 A.D. Shem Tob's Gospel of Matthew Hebrew Buy 

1422 A.D. Alba Bible Spanish 

1456 A.D. Gutenberg Bible Latin see press 

1514-17 Polyglot Bible Various 

1516 A.D. Erasmus Greek NT Greek/Latin 

1518 A.D. Erasmus Greek NT-2nd Edition Greek 

1522 A.D. Erasmus Greek NT-3rd Edition Greek 

1522-34 Martin Luther's Bible German Download 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/biblehistory.htm (1 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:54:48 AM]

1525 A.D. Tyndale's Version English Buy 

1527 A.D. Erasmus Greek NT-4th Edition Greek 

1530-32 Brucioli Italian 

1537 A.D. Coverdale's Version English 

1537 A.D. Matthew Bible (from Coverdale) English 

1539 A.D. The Great Bible English 

1539-52 Taverner (from Matthew) English 

1550 A.D. Stephanus Greek Text Greek Download 

1555 A.D. J. du Tillet's Gospel of Matthew Hebrew 

1557-1602 Geneva Bible English Buy 

1565-1604 Theodore Beza's Greek NT Greek 

1568-1606 The Bishop's Bible English 

1575-79 Latin Bible of Tremellio and Junio Latin 

1582-1610 Douay-Rheims Bible English Download 

1610 A.D. Reina-Valera Spanish Download 

1611 A.D. King James Version English Download 

1633 A.D. Elzevir's Textus Receptus/Received Text Greek 

1637 A.D. Statenvertaling Dutch Download 

1640 A.D. Bay Psalm Book English Search 

1653 A.D. A Paraphrase/Annotation of N.T. by Hammond English 

1653 A.D. John Milton's Psalms English 

1657 A.D. Dutch Annot. On the Whole Bible/Haak English 

1661 A.D. Eliot Indian Bible Algonquin 

1681-91 Almeida Portuguese 

1685 A.D. New Testament with Paraphrase/R. Baxter English 

1690 A.D. Samuel Clarke Bible English 

1703 A.D. Paraphrase/Comm. On the N.T. by D Whitby English 

1718 A.D. The New Testament by Cornelius Nary English 

1724 A.D. The Common Trans. corrected by E. Wells English 

1729 A.D. New Testament in Grk and Eng. By Dav. Mace Grk/English 

1730 A.D. Annotations on the N.T./Robert Witham English 

1730 A.D. New Testament by William Webster English 

1745-90 John Wesley New Testament English Search 

1745 A.D. Primitive New Testament by W. Whiston English 

1752 A.D. Exposition of N.T. by John Guyse English 

1755 A.D. The Family Expositor by P. Doddridge English 

1761 A.D. An Interpretation of the N.T./John Heylin English 

1764 A.D. A New and Literal Translation/Purver English 

1764 A.D. New Testament collated w/Grk by Rich. Wynne English 

1765 A.D. New Trans. of New Testament by Sam. Palmer English 

1768 A.D. A Liberal Translation of the N.T./Ed. Harwood English 

1770 A.D. John Worsley New Testament English 

1773 A.D. Universal Family Bible/Henry Southwell English 

1774 A.D. Old Testament by Anselm Bayly English 

1775-77 Griesbach New Testament Text Greek 

1778 A.D. Bible in Verse/John Fellows English 

1790 A.D. The Four Gospels by George Campbell English 

1790-93 Scio Bible Spanish 

1791-95 G.Wakefield New Testament English 


1795 A.D. A New Literal Translation by J. MacKnight English 

1795 A.D. Thomas Haweis New Testament English 

1795 A.D. Samuel Clarke/Thomas Pyle New Testament English 

1796 A.D. William Newcome New Testament English 

1798 A.D. Nathaniel Scarlett New Testament English 

1799-1815 a Revised Translation & Interpretation/McRae English 

1808 A.D. Septuagint by Charles Thomson English 

1808 A.D. NT in an Improved Version/Newcome English Download 

1812 A.D. William Williams New Testament English 

1815 A.D. Gospels by Charles Thomson English 

1816 A.D. NT in an Improved Version/Newcome/Belsham English 

1816 A.D. William Thomson New Testament English 

1822 A.D. Abner Kneeland New Testament English 

1823 A.D. A New Family Bible by Boothroyd English 

1824 A.D. John Wilkins Revised Testament English 

1826 A.D. Alexander Campbell New Testament English 

1827 A.D. G.R. Noyes New Testament English 

1828 A.D. J.G. Palfrey New Testament English 

1830 A.D. Egbert Benson Epistles English 

1831 A.D. Lachmann's Greek Testament Greek 

1833 A.D. Webster's Bible English Download 

1833 A.D. The Sacred Writings by MacKnight/Campbell English 

1833 A.D. Rodolphus Dickinson New Testament English 

1833-37 G.R. Noyes Prophets English 

1834 A.D. Holy Bible by George Townsend English 

1835 A.D. Holy Writings of the 1st Christians/Caldecott English 

1836 A.D. G. Penn New Covenant English 

1841 A.D. Holy Bible with 20,000 emendations/Conquest English 

1841-72 Tischendorf's Greek Text-8 Editions Greek Download 

1842 A.D. A.C. Kendrick Bible English 

1842-50 Lachmann's Greek Testament-2nd Edition Greek 

1844 A.D. Holy Bible by T.J. Hussey English 

1845 A.D. Isaac Leeser O.T. English 

1848 A.D. Jonathan Morgan New Testament English 

1849-60 F.P. Kenrick Bible English 

1849 A.D. J.W. Etheridge New Testament English 

1849 A.D. Nathan Whiting New Testament English 

1850 A.D. Cone & Wyckoff New Testament English 

1851 A.D. Septuagint w/Apocrypha by Brenton Greek/English Buy 

1852 A.D. The New Testament from the Syriac/J.Murdock English 

1852 A.D. Hezekiah Woodruff New Testament English 

1854 A.D. Emphatic New Testament by John Taylor English 

1855 A.D. Andrews Norton Gospels English 

1855-71 Elberfelder German Search 

1856 A.D. The New Testament by Samuel Sharpe English 

1857 A.D. John Bengel New Testament English 

1857-72 Tregelles Greek Text Greek 

1858 A.D. Alexander Vance Old Testament English 

1858-64 Leicester Sawyer Bible English 


1861 A.D. Jewish School&Family Bible/A. Benisch English 

1861 A.D. Leonard Thorn New Testament English 

1862-64 American Bible Union New Testament (partial) English 

1862-98 Young's Literal Translation English Download 

1864 A.D. H.T. Anderson New Testament English 

1864 A.D. Emphatic Diaglott Greek/English Contact 

1865 A.D. Twofold New Testament/Thomas Green English 

1867 A.D. Inspired Version by Joseph Smith English 

1869 A.D. Henry Alford N.T. English 

1869 A.D. Robert Ainslie New Testament English 

1869 A.D. Nathaniel Folsom Gospels English 

1870 A.D. J. Bowes New Testament English 

1870 A.D. Gotch&Jacob Holy Bible English 

1871-90 J.N. Darby Translation English Download 

1873-80 Louis Segond French Download 

1875 A.D. John McLellan New Testament English 

1875 A.D. Samuel Davidson New Testament English 

1876 A.D. Julia Smith Bible English 

1878-1902 The Emphasized Bible/Rotherham English 

1880 A.D. Hermann Gollancz Bible English 

1881 A.D. The Greek Testament Englished/Crickmer English 

1881 A.D. Westcott and Hort Greek Text Greek Download 

1883 A.D. Cortes Jackson New Testament English 

1884 A.D. The Englishman's Bible/Thomas Newberrry English 

1884-86 A.D. New Covenant by J.W. Hanson English 

1885 A.D. Teaching & Acts of Jesus by W.D. Dillard English 

1885 A.D. Helen Spurrell Old Testament English 

1885-95 English Revised Version English 

1892 A.D. Biblia Innocentium by John Mackail English 

1893 A.D. Reina-Valera Spanish 

1894 A.D. F.H.A. Scrivener's Received Text/TR Greek Download 

1894-1905 Crampon French 

1893 A.D. John Peters and Edward Bartlett Scriptures English 

1895 A.D. Ferrar Fenton English 

1897 A.D. New Dispensation by Robert Weekes English 

1898 A.D. Epistles of Paul in Modern English/Stevens English 

1900 A.D. 20th Century New Testament English 

1901 A.D. American Standard Version English Download 

1902-13 Von Soden's Apparatus Greek 

1904 A.D. Worrell's New Testament English 

1905 A.D. Godbey New Testament English 

1910 A.D. Alexander Souter's Greek NT Greek 

1912 A.D. Weymouth's New Testament English Download 

1917 A.D. The Holy Scriptures/Jewish Publication Society English Search 

1922 A.D. James Moffatt Bible English 

1924 A.D. Centenary Version New Testament English 

1924 A.D. Montgomery New Testament English 

1926 A.D. Concordant Literal New Testament English Search 

1929 A.D. Westminster Version English 


1933 A.D. George M. Lamsa Translation English 

1934 A.D. Riverside New Testament/Ballantine English 

1935 A.D. An American Translation/Smith&Goodspeed English 

1937 A.D. Charles B. Williams New Testament English 

1938 A.D. The Book of Books/R.M. Wilson English 

1940 A.D. Spencer New Testament English 

1941 A.D. Confraternity Bible English 

1941 A.D. Bible in Basic English English Download 

1942 A.D. Nestle's Greek Text Greek 

1943 A.D. Jose Bover's Text Greek 

1945 A.D. Modern Language Bible/New Berkeley Version English 

1945 A.D. Nag Hammadi Library Discovered 

1945 A.D. New Testament by Monsignor Ronald A. Knox English 

1946-51 Revised Standard Version English Search 

1947 A.D. Swann New Testament English 

1947 A.D. New Testament Letters by J.W.C. Wand English 

1947 A.D. 1QIs Dead Sea Scrolls Greek 

1948 A.D. Augustinus Merk Text Greek 

1948 A.D. Letchworth Version English 

1950-63 Holy Name bible/Traina English 

1950-61 New World Translation English Contact 

1951-55 Kittel's Biblia Hebraica Hebrew 

1951-61 Simplified New Testament by Norlie English 

1956 A.D. Laubach's Inspired Letters of the N.T. English 

1956 A.D. Kleist&Lilly New Testament English 

1960 A.D. New Testament in Modern English/J.B.Phillips Search 

1960-71 New American Standard Version English Search 

1961 A.D. New Testament-Expanded Translation/Wuest English 

1961 A.D. Noli New Testament English 

1961 A.D. Dartmouth Bible English 

1962-82 New Testament by Richmond Lattimore English 

1965 A.D. The Amplified Bible English 

1966 A.D. Good News Bible/Today's English Version English 

1966 A.D. The Jerusalem Bible English 

1969 A.D. Kingdom Interlinear Translation Greek/English Contact 

1969 A.D. Barclay New Testament English 

1969 A.D. New Life New Testament/Ledyard English 

1970 A.D. The New American Bible English Search 

1970 A.D. Restoration of the Sacred Name Bible English 

1970 A.D. New English Bible English 

1972 A.D. The Living Bible English 

1972 A.D. Common Bible-RSV English 

1972 A.D. The Bible in Living English/S.T. Byington English 

1973 A.D. Cotton Patch Version English 

1973 A.D. Jewish Family Bible English 

1975 A.D. Word Made Fresh/Edington English 

1975 A.D. United Bible Societies Text Greek 

1976 A.D. Hodges-Farstad Majority Text Greek 

1976 A.D. An American Translation by William F. Beck Hebrew 


1977 A.D. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Hebrew 

1978 A.D. New International Version English Search 

1978 A.D. Simple English Bible English 

1979 A.D. King James Version II/Jay P Green Greek/English 

1979 A.D. New King James Version English Search 

1979 A.D. Nestle-Aland Greek Text Greek Download 

1980 A.D. Versified Rendering of the Gospels/Faw English 

1980-96 The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible English Search 

1983-88 New Century Version English 

1984 A.D. Inclusive Language New Testament English 

1985 A.D. The Original New Testament/Schonfield English 

1985 A.D. Tanakh-New Jewish P. Society English 

1985-91 Recovery Version English 

1985 A.D. New Jerusalem Bible English 

1987-99 World Bible Translation English Download 

1989 A.D. Jewish New Testament English 

1989 A.D. Revised English Bible English 

1989 A.D. Heinz Cassirer New Testament English 

1989 A.D. McCord's New Testament English 

1989 A.D. New Revised Standard Version English Search 

1990 A.D. New Evangelical Translation English 

1991 A.D. Unvarnished New Testament by Andy Gaus English Buy 

1995 A.D. Contemporary English Version English 

1993 A.D. Worldwide English Bible English Search 

1993 A.D. The Five Gospels/Jesus Seminar English 

1993 A.D. The Message-New Testament English 

1994 A.D. 21st Century King James Version English Search 

1995 A.D. An Inclusive Version English 

1995 A.D. Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text Greek Download 

1995-98 New International readers Version English 

1995-2001 NET Bible English Download 

1996 A.D. Schocken Bible/Everett Fox English 

1996 A.D. Three Gospels/R. Price English Buy 

1996 A.D. God's Word Bible English Search 

1996 A.D. New Living Translation English Search 

1999 A.D. 21st Century New Testament English 

1999 A.D. Modern King James Version English Search 

1999 A.D. New Millenium Bible/Wallace English 

1999 A.D. World English Bible English Download 

1999 to… Original Bible Project English View 

2000 A.D. HCSB New Testament English Buy 

2000 A.D. International English Bible English Buy 

2000 A.D. New English Trans. of Septuagint/Pietersma English 

2001 A.D. English Standard Version English Buy 

Back to Main 

Email Me 


Is Organization Necessary for True Christianity? 

Is Organization Necessary for True Believers? 

Unless otherwise stated, all Scriptures are from the Revised English Bible 

Is it "Just me and Jesus?" 

"I appeal to you my friends, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: agree among yourselves, and avoid 

divisions; let thee be complete unity of mind and thought." 

Ron Rhodes, in his book (pp 40-44) states: 

Where in 1 Corinthians 1:10 is there any reference or allusion to an organization? 

Where in 1 Corinthians 1:10 does it say unity is to be achieved by submission to such an 

organization. 

And then he points to Romans 14:2-5: 

"For instance, one person may have faith strong enough to eat all kinds of food, while 

another who is weaker eats only vegetables. Those who eat meat must not look down on 

those who do not, and those who do not eat meat must not pass judgement on those who do; 

for God has accepted them. Who are you to pass judgement on someone else's servant? 

Whether he stands or falls is his own Master's business; and stand he will, because his 

Master has power to enable him to stand. Again, some make a distinction between this day 

and that; others regard all days alike. Everyone must act on his own convictions." 

[The same question can be asked of Rhodes here. Where does Romans 14: 2-5 condemn 

organization? 

Where does Romans 14:2-5 say unity is NOT to be achieved by submission to such an 

organization?] 

Speaking of Romans 14:2-5, he asks, "Doesn't this passage indicate that it is acceptable for Christians to 

differ on certain religious issues?" 

The Ryrie Study Bible correctly states here, "Paul here discusses the proper attitude Christians should 

have toward each other in debatable areas of conduct (things which are not clearly stated to be wrong)." 

The dietary matters talked about at Romans 14 are not clearly stated religious issues. They are minor 

compared to the more important things (Col 2:16). These are not differences of doctrine. 

Adam Clarke on 1 Cor 1:10 also says, "On every essential doctrine of the Gospel all genuine Christians 

agree." 

Paul does clarify himself right at the end of this epistle to the Romans when he says, "I implore you, my 

friends, keep an eye on those who stir up quarrels and lead others astray, *contrary to the teaching 

(doctrine NKJV) you received. Avoid them." Romans 16:17 

My Oxford Study Bible then cross-references this to Gal 1:6-9, which states, " I am astonished to find 

you turning away so quickly from him who called you by grace and following a different gospel. Not 

that it is in fact another gospel; only there are some who unsettle your minds by trying to distort the 

gospel of Christ. But should anyone, even I myself or an angel from heaven preach a gospel other than 

the gospel I preached to you, let him be banned! I warn you again: If anyone preaches a gospel other 

than the gospel you received, let him be banned!" 

Banishment?! Which churches these days use this kind of authority? Which churches actually bother to 

excommunicate as the first century has done? 

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 

prevalent in the 1st Century Church, as if to assume that this disunity is in fact very Christian. 

1 Corinthians 6:13, 8:10, and 10:25 again, deal with dietary matters, which we have dealt with above. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/organization.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:55:04 AM]


But what of 1 Cor 1:12? 

"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 

am for Christ.'" But does Paul give approval for this kind of division? Not if you read verses 10 and 13. 

Paul even goes so far as to that some were "on the way to destruction." 

This is the same Paul that says, "And I shall go on doing as I am doing now, to cut the ground from under 

those who would seize any chance to put their vaunted apostleship on the same level as ours." 2 Cor 

11:12 

This Paul was very assured of his leadership and control in the church, and did not suffer any opposition 

in this matter. 

1 Corinthians 11:2-16, (and chapters 14 and 15 for that matter) do not support Rhodes view, in fact, quite 

the opposite. 1 Cor 11:3 states, "every man has Christ for his head, a woman's head is man, as Christ's 

head is God." Here you have a structured organizational system. The following verses then go on to 

explain the woman's role in the church, and the regulations that she should follow. As you and I know, 

the Southern Baptist Convention is split due to opposition of the Bible's view of women in the pulpit. 

Remember, this is the same Paul that said: 

"For the time will come when people will not stand sound teaching, but each will follow his own whim." 

2Tim 4:3 

Why? Ps 18:1 says "A solitary person pursues his own desire; he quarrels with every sound policy. The 

foolish have not interest in seeking to understand, but only in expressing their own opinions." 

There is no getting away from it, the pattern of the early church was one that stressed organization, and a 

far reaching organization at that. Paul could say that "We boast about you among the churches" (2 Thess 

1:4) as his leadership was felt through all the churches. 

Paul had written letters from himself to the different churches, and then he asked them to spread the 

epistle around to the other churches. (Col 4:16) Where does this happen today, unless you are part of a 

unified organization. 

Paul speaks of "our authority" (2 Cor 10:8) and with this authority he gave rules: "You know THE 

RULES we gave you in the name of the Lord Jesus." 1 Thess 4:4 

Heb 10:25 says "We should not stay away from our meetings" 

We are again admonished to "Agree together in the Lord" Php 4:2 

"The reason I left you behind in Crete was for you to get everything organised there."- Tit 1:5, The 

Jerusalem Bible. 

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority." Heb 13:17 

"Remember your leaders, who spoke God's message to you." Heb 13:7 

"Greet all your leaders and all God's people." Heb 13:24 

"Acknowledge those who are working so hard among you, and are your leaders." 

The apostle Paul also pointed out that "God has organized the body" of Jesus Christ's anointed followers 

as it pleases Him. Hence, we should expect "God's congregation" to be well organized and to function 

peacefully, harmoniously.-1 Cor. 14:33; 12:24, The Riverside New Testament; 1 Tim 3:5. 

1. The Apostles speaking of INDIVIDUAL AND GROUPS OF CHURCHES: 

* "the church which was at Jerusalem" (Acts 8:1) 

* "the church that was at Antioch" (Acts 13:1) 

* "the church which is at Cenchrea" (Rom 16:1) 



* "the church of the Thessalonians" (1 Thess 1:1) 

* "the church of the Ephesians" (2 Tim 4:22) 

* "the churches of Galatia" (1 Cor 16:1) 

* "the churches of Judaea" (Gal 1:22) 

(thereby indicating they kept tabs on all of them.) 

2. ...but also spoke GENERICALLY FOR ALL CHURCHES: 

* "I will build my church, and the powers of death shall never conquer it." (Matt 16:18) 

* "tell it unto the church" (Matt 18:17) 

* "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth" (1 Tim 3:15) 

* "every church" (1 Cor 4:17) 

* "the church of God." (1 Cor 10:32) 

* "the churches of God." (1 Cor 11:16) 

* "the church" (Eph 1:22, 3:21, Phil 3:6) 

“The word ekklesia occurs in AA [Acts of the Apostles] 23 times. In no passage does it certainly mean 

anything except the local church, usually the church of Jerusalem, but also the local church of Antioch 

and other cities. The church of Jerusalem was the parent and the prototype of the other churches, 

and possible the first foundations were considered as expansions of the Jerusalem community. 

…The church of Jerusalem sends men to investigate conditions in other churches (AA 15:3) and 

itself in assembly makes decisions that are referred to it by other churches (AA 15:22).” P. 135 

Dictionary of the Bible, by John L. McKenzie 

Is your church patterned after the church of the first century? 

Consider the following example, as taken from Will The Real Heretics Stand Up by David W. Bercot: 

"Another example illustrates both the brotherly love of Christians and their uncompromising 

commitment to Jesus as Lord. A pagan actor became a Christian, but he realized he had to 

change his employment because most plays encouraged immorality and were steeped in 

pagan idolatry. Furthermore, the theater sometimes purposefully turned boys into 

homosexuals so they could better play the roles of women on stage. Since this 

newly-converted actor had no other job skills, he considered establishing an acting school to 

teach drama to nonChristian students. However, he first submitted his idea to the leaders 

of his church for their counsel. 

The leaders told him that if acting was an immoral profession then it would be wrong to 

train others in it. Nevertheless, since this was a rather novel question, they wrote to 

Cyprian in nearby Carthage for his thoughts. Cyprian agreed that a profession unfit for a 

Christian to practice was also unfit for him to teach, even if this was his sole means of 

support. 

How many of us would be so concerned about righteousness that we would submit our 



employment decisions to our body of elders or board of deacons? How many church leaders 

today would be so concerned about offending God that they would take such an 

uncompromising position?" 

As we can see, the early Church members submitted to the authority of its leaders. 

Who Keeps the Church Clean if it is just "Me and Jesus" 

The 1st century Church was actually very judicious, as the following from Smith's Bible Dictionary: 

"Excommunication, as exercised by the Christian Church, is not merely founded on the natural right, 

possessed by all societies, nor merely on the example of the Jewish Church and nation. It was instituted 

by our Lord (Matt. xviii. 15, 18), amd it was practised and commanded by St. Paul (1 Tim. i. 20; 1 Cor. 

v. 11; Tit. iii.10). In the Epistles, we find St. Paul frequently claiming the right to exercise discipline over 

his converts (comp. 2 Cor. i. 23, xiii.10). 

...The Nature of Excommunication is made more evident by the acts of St. Paul than by any investigation 

of Jewish practice or of the etymology of words. We thus find, 

(1) that it is a spiritual penalty, involving no temporal punishment, except accidentally; 

(2) that it consists in seperation from the communion of the Church; 

(3) that its object is the good of the sufferer ( 1 Cor. v.5), and the protection of the sound members of the 

Church ( 2 Tim. iii. 17); 

(4) that its subjects are those who are guilty of heresy (1 Tim. i. 20), or gross immorality (1 Cor. v. 1); 

(5) that it is inflicted by the authority of the Church at large (Matt. xviii. 18), wielded by the 

highest ecclesiastical officer (1 Corinthians 5:3; Titus 3:10) 

(6) that this officer's sentence is promulgated by the congregation to which the offender belongs, (1 

Corinthians 5:4) in defence to his superior judgment and command, (2 Corinthians 2:9) and in spite of 

any opposition on the part of a minority, (2 Corinthians 2:6) 

(7) that the exclusion may be of indefinite duration, or for a period; 

(8) that its duration may be abridged at the discretion and by the indulgence of the person who has 

imposed the penalty, (2 Corinthians 2:8) 

(9) that penitence is the condition on which restoration to communion is granted, (2 Corinthians 

2:8) 

(10) that the sentence is to be publicly reversed as it was publicly promulgated. (2 Corinthians 2:10) " 

This point is re-iterated by the following: 

Excommunicaton 

"The permanent or temporary exclusion of a church member from fellowship within the 

community. This practice, specifically mentioned in Matthew's Gospel (Matt. 18:15-17) and 

the Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:6), served 2 purposes. First, it protects 

the community from the harmful influence of the sinner (1 Cor. 5:6-7). Second, it reminds 

the sinner of the sin (2 Cor. 2:7) in the hope that repentance (7:9) and redemption occur. 

Excommunication is never an individual or (2 Cor. 2:6) or judgmental activity (v.8) and it is 

not a withdrawal of concern for the sinner. It always has restoration as its ultimate goal. 

Although the term ‘excommunication’ does not appear in Scripture, the concept is clearly 

present. Matthew instructs the Church to treat unrepentant members like ‘a Gentile and a tax 

collector’ (Matt. 18:17), and Paul wants the guilty party delivered ‘over to Satan’ (1 Cor. 

5:5), i.e., delivered over to the realm of Satan, the world outside the Church. 

Church discipline, ending in excommunication, should only be used for serious matters such 

as blatant sexual sins (1 Cor. 5:1), unrepentance (Matt. 18:15-17), factiousness (Tit. 



3:10-11), and the propagation of heresy (Rom. 16:17). Sinners should be dealt with quickly 

and seriously for both the health of the community and the spiritual health of the offender.” 

p. 438, Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible 

If you are not part of an organizational structure, who is enforcing the removal of the wicked from your 

church? 

Even the conservative publications like the NIV and NASB Study Bible have this to say in a footnote at 

1 Cor. 5:11-13, 

“Calling oneself a Christian who continues to live an immoral life is reprehensible and 

degrading, and gives a false testimony to Christ. If the true Christian has intimate 

association with someone who does this, the non-Christian world may assume that the 

church approves such immoral, ungodly living and thus the name of Christ would be 

dishonored. Questions would arise concerning of the Christian’s own testimony, …judge 

those who are within, The church is to exercise spiritual discipline over the professing 

believers in the church.” 

“REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.” 1 Cor 5:13 NASB 

(emphasis theirs) 

According to Dake's Annotated Bible, there are: 

"16 Bible reasons for excommunication: 

1. Refusing to make peace (Mt 18:15) 

2. Causing divisions (Rom 16:17) 

3. Fornication (1 Cor 5:11-13) 

4. Covetousness (1 Cor 5:11-13) 

5. Idolatry (1 Cor 5:11-13) 

6. Trouble Making (1 Cor 5:11-13) 

7. Drunkeness (1 Cor 5:11-13) 

8. Extortion (1 Cor 5:11-13) 

9. Refusal to Love God (1 Cor 16:22) 

10. Unbelief, infidelity (2 Cor 6:14) 

11. Backsliding (2 Cor 13:1, 2, 10) 

12. Disorderly conduct (2 Th. 3:6) 

13. Defying the truth (2 Th. 3:14) 

14. Denying faith (1 Tim. 1:19, 20) 

15. False teaching (1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 John 10) 

16. Being a heretic (Tit. 3:10, 11)" 

P. 179, footnote 1 Cor 5:13* 

Yet, excommunication, as a whole, is not practiced by the majority of nominal churches of today. This is 

because organization is pooh-poohed by many. It is "Just Me and Jesus." Fortunately, the early church 

did not trust each individual member to police themselves should they fall. The results today are 

disastrous. 

The latest Barna and Gallup research reveals the shocking but true statistics of how the 

church is being molded by or postmodern culture rather than vice-versa. 70% of Americans 

are members of a church, temple, or synagogue, however, only 31% attend weekly. It gets 

worse. Only 17% attend Sunday School weekly (1996), down from 23% in 1991. 



67% of the general population reject belief in absolute truth and also believe that all 

religions will equally get one to heaven if one is faithful (universalism). As alarming as this 

is, even more so is that 53% of "born again" Christians agree with this and reject the belief 

in absolute truth while 41% of the "born again population embrace the belief of 

universalism! 

20% of Americans identify themselves as New Age practitioners, 53% believe in ESP, 24% 

have practiced Transcendental Meditation, 34% believe in a New Age form of God, 36% 

read their horoscopes regularly and 26% believe that astrology is scientifically accurate (a 

recent Life Magazine poll indicated 48% believe that astrology is probably or definitely 

valid). Belief in reincarnation grew from 25% in 1992 to an astonishing 30% in 1996. 

Especially troubling is of the "born again" population: 28% believe that Jesus sinned and 

didn’t rise from the dead, 47% say Satan is not living being-only a symbol for evil...As you 

read the above incredible statistics remember that 84% of those polled identified themselves 

as "Christians." 

"Disunity is disobedience to the commandment of love, and it is the same thing as unbelief (1 John 

5:1-3). Church unity is not a "desirable feature" in the life of the Church; it is a condition of the Church's 

existence, a test of whether the Church is the Church. A divided Church is a contradiction of its own 

nature as Church; it is witnessing to falsehood. Its evangelism cannot be effective. Jesus prayed "that 

they all may be one, even as you, Father, are in unity with me and I with you, that they may also be in 

unity with us; that the world may know that you sent me" (John 17:21; cp. 17:23). If we took the New 

Testament point of view seriously, we should expect to find that the single most serious obstacle to the 

evangelization of the world is the disunity of "the churches." Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the 

Theology of the New Testament 

Is your church patterned after the church of the first century? 

See also http://www.jw-media.org/vnr/2122827332/3111312856.htm 

"The earthly church is the image of the heavenly." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.421 

God, the great designer (Ps 147:4), also had a structured organization in heaven. (Daniel 7:9,10; Psalms 

103:20,21; Isaiah 6:1-4; 40:26; Ezek 1:24-28; Rev 4:1-11; 14:6,7) 

God is the Almighty and has his Son at his right hand (Ps 110:1) who is "second in authority to God 

himself" footnote at Ps 110:1 NIV Study Bible. 

He has angels, an archangel (Jude 9), cherubim (Gen 3:24) seraphim (Is 6:2), kingdom and priests as 

co-rulers (Rev 5:10), elders (Rev 4:4) etc. 

Any reading of the Torah will impress anyone with the organizational structure of the pre-Christian 

congregation. It is only natural that this was carried over into the 1st century congregation (see above). 

It should not surprise one that the ante-Nicene congregation/church was also organizational. 

I Clement is a letter that was sent from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth around A.D. 95-96. 

Circa A.D. 107, Ignatius of Antioch wrote letters to several Churches. Seven of those letters are extant. 

They provide an invaluable insight into Church life at the beginning of the second century. 

"It is said, 'In the church, God has set apostles, prophets, teachers,' and all the other means 

through which the Spirit works. Those who do not join themselves to the church are not 

partakers of these things. Rather, they defraud themselves of life through their perverse 



opinions and infamous behavior. For where the church is, there is the Spirit of God. And 

where the Spirit is, there is the church, and every kind of grace." Irenaeus (c. 180. E/W), 

1.458. 

J. L. von Mosheim wrote: 

"If . . . what no Christian can doubt, the apostles of Jesus Christ acted by a divine command 

and guidance, then that form of the primitive churches which they derived from the church 

of Jerusalem, erected and organized by the apostles themselves, must be accounted divine." 

-Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, Volume I, pages 67-8. 

"The pre-eminence of the church is its oneness. It is the basis of union. In this, it surpasses 

all other things and has nothing like or equal to itself." Clement of Alexandria (c. 195. E), 

2.555 

Do we see this kind of union in the churches of today? No: 

"That evangelicals, all claiming a biblical norm, are reaching contradictory theological 

formulations on many of the major issues they are addressing suggests the problematic 

nature of their present understanding of theological interpretation. To argue that the Bible is 

authoritative, but to be unable to come to anything like agreement on what it says (even with 

those who share an evangelical commitment) is self-defeating. " EXEGETICAL 

FALLACIES by D. A. Carson p.18 

Conclusion: People generally accept atheism so they can indulge their own selfish desires and ideals, the 

"Just Me and Jesus" Christian that adopts this faddish non-organizational stance is much the same, only 

dressed in a backwards collar. It is selfishness cloaked with the delusion of eternal security/salvation in 

the guise of a self-described "born-again" hysteria that enables them to block any intellectual intrusions 

into their emotional outcries of "I'm Saved!" 

"He who isolates himself pursues his desires; He disdains all competence. The fool does not desire 

understanding, But only to air his thoughts." Prov 18:1 Tanakh 

Comments on Hebrews 13:17: 

"The second mention of leaders in this chapter (v. 17) refers to the current leadership, whom the 

addresses 

are enjoined to OBEY" (Gordon, RP. Hebrews. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Page 172). 

"Leaders are to be OBEYED as those intent on presenting 'souls' (i.e., people destined for eternal life; see 

6:19) intact at the final judgment. Ready OBEDIENCE will make the leaders' task joyful; grudging 

compliance will make them sigh or grumble (v. 17c)" (Pfitzner, VC. Hebrews. Nashville: Abingdon 

Press, 1997. Page 202). 

"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. 

7:2 BIS; Bauer 3b; R. Bultmann in TDNT 6.3f; BD [Sec.] 187.6). PEIQESQE suggests continuous 

action" 

(Ellingworth, P. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Page 723). 

Some people are upset at the prospect that a church would excommunicate/disfellowship another 

member, and some Christians even put forth that doing such is not the same as "shunning." 



Let us though consider 1 Corinthians 5: 

"What I meant was that you should not associate with a person who calls himself a believer 

but is immoral or greedy or worships idols or is a slanderer or a drunkard or a thief. Don't 

even sit down to eat with such a person." 5:11 TEV 

Refusing to break bread with such a person is shunning. It is part of excomunication. 

The NIV and NASB Study Bible have this to say in a footnote at 1 Cor. 5:11-13: 

"If the true Christian has intimate association with someone who does this, the 

non-Christian world may assume that the church approves such immoral, ungodly living 

and thus the name of Christ would be dishonored. Questions would arise concerning of the 

Christian’s own testimony, …judge those who are within, The church is to exercise spiritual 

discipline over the professing believers in the church.” 

Again, Shunning is part of Excommunication. 

Charles Ryrie adds, "Paul says it is improper to have fellowship with a Christian who is under 

discipline." Ryrie Study Bible, NIV 

Also the NKJV Nelson Study Bible said that to be cut off from fellowship is "extremely painful to the 

offender." Matthew 18:15-17 footnote. 

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary adds to 1 Cor 5, "the brother under discipline was to be denied 

fellowship, and particularly were the believers not to eat with such a one, the most obvious act of 

fellowship." 

"Social contacts with such "a brother" are forbidden." Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament 

Shunning is part of the Biblical plan to restore another brother back to faith, and it does work. 




A Response to Jerry and his Mis-Abuse of the Bible 

Questions from Hrh on the word "Other" in Colossians 1, the word 

"Firstborn" the Spirit, Trinity and Heaven etc. 

Webmaster: People like Jerry do not realize that their complaints against the NWT are completely 

fabricated. When these same complaints are held against other Bibles, they do not match up. Jerry is a 

prime example of those caught up in the anti_JW propaganda that is much too eagerly swallowed. All 

this could simply be avoided by investigating the issues for yourself as I have done, but you cannot force 

someone from believing what it is that they want, despite the facts. 

I've done my homework my friend. I know this because you did not answer direct questions or comment on 

half of what I sent you. So I'll shall try again. 

Also when answering questions please don't refer me to other passages in other bibles, and ask me why the 

change. You are defending the NWT so let's stick to the NWT. I have numbered my questions so we can 

stay together this time. 

Reply: Why, are you afraid of other Bibles. Is it because it is devastating to your attack on the NWT 

when other Bibles play the same game. Oh, BTW, you are not setting the rules here. I will use any 

Protestant and Catholic Bible at my disposal, but you may use the NWT if you wish. It is good also. 

Let's begin. In reference to Col l:15-17 your answer was all bibles insert the word "other" where translators 

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 

in this passage. Now here is the first question. 

1. Why is the word "other" inserted in this passage. Again there are two words Paul could have used if he 

wanted to show that Jesus was another. First is Allos which means another of the same kind (#243 Strongs 

Con) Next is Heteres means another of a different kind (#2087-2088) By using brackets NWT 

acknowledges that it is not in Greek. There is no linguistic reason at all to insert this word here four 

times.... unless you are trying to support the presupposition that Jesus is not God. 

Reply: Col 1:20 says that Jesus will "reconcile all things unto himself." Will he also reconcile Satan 

unto himself? No! That is because there are exceptions to the word ALL/PAS/PANTA. 

Why doesn't the Greek text uses ALLOS or hETEROS here? Because "other" is a legitimate part of 

PAS/PANTA. 

In fact, had you bothered to investigate the additions of "other" in the RSV, KJV etc., you would have 

seen that it most often followed PAS/PANTA, just like it does in the NWT. [The New Living Translation 

adds the word "else" in verse 17, "He existed before everything else began"] In fact, I have gone so far as 

to check every occurence of ALLOS and hETEROS in the Greek text, and I could not find any occurence 

of these words alongside PAS/PANTA. Obviously, it was not common to do so, showing again, the 

superiority of the NWT. 

As we can see, the linguistic reason here is strengthened by the fact that Jesus here (verse 15) is the 

firstborn, a part of creation. More on this below: 

2. Why do the JWs interpret the word "first born" to mean first created. This is not correct because there is 

a Greek word for "First Created" and it was not used. The Greek for firstborn is proto with tikto: 

Firstborn. The Greek for first created would be proto with ktizo: first created. Paul did not use the second 

but the first. (3) Your comments please. 

Reply: Again, you are falling into the trap you did with ALLOS and hETEROS. Protoktizo was not in 

common use back in the first century, and would not be for a 100 to 200 years after Christ. Interestingly 

though, when this word was eventually used, it was used of Christ. John Patrick, in his Clement of 

Alexandria notes: 

"Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet refers to Wisdom 

as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and 

in another "First-begotten," to the Word." p.103,104, note 6. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/hrh.htm (1 of 11) [5/25/2003 3:55:16 AM]


The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Volume 1 Faith, Trinity, Incarnation, by Harry Austryn Wolfson, 

2nd Edition, Revised: 

"Zahn casually remarks that Clement 'always makes a sharp distinction between the only 

uncreated God the Father and the Son or Logos who was begotten or created before the rest 

of creation.'...1. cf. Th. Zahn, "Supplementum Clementinium", (1884), 144, p. 204, 92 

"It is undoubtably with reference to this "coming forth" of the Logos prior to the creation of 

the world that Clement speaks of the Logos as "firstborn" [protogonos] and of wisdom, 

which he idtentified with the Logos, as the "first-created" [protoktistos]...30 Strom. VI, Ibid. 

V. 14., ibid. p 209 

The prototokos in Col 1:15 is a partitive genitive. Let us look at the Greek here, "hos estin eikOn tou 

theou tou aoratou, prOtotokos [firstborn] pasEs [of all] ktiseOs [creation]" 

All the words in red are genitives, but the ones we are interested in are the ones following prOtotokos. 

This means "firstborn" is in the genitive construction, hence we have the translation, "firstborn of." When 

checking this with other uses in the LXX (Septuagint), the outcome is devastating for Trinitarians, as 

"firstborn of" always indicates that the referent is part of the class or group it is joined to. 

For example: LXX Genesis 4:4 And Abel also brought of the first born of his sheep 

(This makes the firstborn a member, or part, of the sheep) 

LXX Exodus 11:5 And every first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharao that 

sits on the throne, even to the first-born of the woman-servant that is by the mill, and to the first-born 

of all cattle. 

(The firstborn of Pharoah is of the house of Pharoah, the firstborn of cattle was one of the cows, etc). 

There are no exceptions to this. Jesus, as the firstborn of creation, is a member of creation, he is a created 

being. For more click here, and here 

When the NIV translates Col 1:15 as "the firstborn over all creation," it is actually being dishonest and 

biased. 

see also An Examination of Colossians 1:15-20 by Mark Larson 

Next in reference to John 8:58 in the 1969 Kit the footnote reads, "This is not the Being, or the "I Am" at 

Exodus 3:14. Also in the 1985 Kit appendix 2F, page 1145 it reads, "Attempting to identify Jesus with 

Jehovah some say that "E-GOEI-MI is the equivalent of the Hebrew expression "I Am" which is used by 

God. 

4. Where is the NWT is the Hebrew expression "I Am" that was used by God? And if it is in Exodus 3:14 

5. Why was it changed to I shall prove to Be? If Jesus was not using the divine name used by God in 

Exodus 3:14 KJV "I Am", and if he was not claiming to be God in John 8:58/10:30-33 

Reply: The expression "I am" is indeed used by God, as it is also used of those who are not God. [Even 

in the NWT, looking up phrases like "I am Jehovah" will bring back a positive result] 

A few verses after Jesus' statement in John 8:58, a blind beggar also uses the words I AM/EGW EIMI. 

Does this make him God? 

Let me ask you a question. In Exodus 3:12 we have the same Hebrew words that we have in verse 14. 

But in verse 12, in most of the Bibles I own, it is translated "I will be." Yet, 2 verses later, it is translated 

"I AM. Why was it changed to I AM? It seems the NWT (and Moffatt etc) are the only ones consistent 

here. I have more on this already (click here), so there is no need to repeat everything here. 

6. What misunderstanding did they have about what it was Jesus said that led them to claim that he was 

making himself out to be God? 

Reply: In John 8, they never understood Jesus as claiming to be God. In John 10:30-33, Jesus quoted 

Psalm 82 where even Judges are called gods. Like Ryrie says of John 10:34, "Christ's point is that if the 



O.T. uses the word "God" (Elohim) of men who were representative of God, then the Jews should not 

oppose Him for calling Himself the Son of God." If Jesus were really "Equal to God" as the Jews have 

wrongly claimed by making God his Father, then here would have been a great opportunity to explain the 

Trinity to an unbeleiving nation. But what does he do? He answers, "The Son can do nothing of himself, 

but what he seeth the Father doing. No explanation whatsoever of a Triune Deity. Amazing! 

7. Also, why did the soldiers fall to the ground in John 18:5-6? 

Reply: "As Jesus said to them, 'I am he,' they retreated and fell to the ground." NAB 

Maybe they tripped over each other, the Bible does not explain, but it was probably for the reason 

mentioned in the NIV Study Bible, "They came to arrest a peasant, but they were met in the dim light by 

a majestic person." 

Jesus uses EGW EIMI 5 times in John 8, yet no one ever lost their footing. Does this mean that we 

should read into this that Jesus was claiming to be God the Son, the second person of a triune deity? 

Don't be silly. 

We should be thankful that Jesus was not the Almighty, as then they would have died (Ex 33:20). Even 

when Moses was approached in Exodus 3, it was actually an angel doing all the talking (see verse 2 and 

Acts 7:30). 

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, 

and in Romans 8:ll the Holy Spirit raised Jesus. 

8. Who raised Jesus? If the three are not one 

9 Which two lied? 

Reply: The Spirit is not a person. 


22; BS 38:23; WS 15:11, 16; 16:14). The breath is the breath of God, the wind, 

communicated to man by divine inspiration....The spirit of Yahweh or the spirit of God 

(Elohim) is a **force** that has unique effects upon man...and the spirit of Yahweh is a 

**force** which operates the works of Yahweh the savior and the judge. The spirit of 

Yahweh is often the **force** which inspires prophecy (Nm 11:17 ff; 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; Zc 7:12). 

The prophet is a man of the spirit (Ho 9:7)." 

Fortman says, 

"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old 

Testament writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics and 

in Acts as a divine force or power." The Triune God, pp. 6, 15 

God did raise Jesus with His spirit, as he does all things with His power. 

That is why the Good News Bible can call the Spirit of God the "power of God." Gen 1:2. 

But what of John 2:19-21? 

"As with His usage of parables, Jesus' cryptic statement most likely was designed to reveal the truth to 

His disciples but conceal its meaning from unbelievers who questioned Him (Matt. 13:10, 11). Only 

after his resurrection, however, did the disciples understand the real significance of this statement (v.22; 

cf. Matt. 12:40). Importantly, through the death and resurrection of Christ, temple worship in Jerusalem 

was destroyed (cf. 4:21) and reinstituted in the hearts of those who were built into a spiritual temple 

called the church (Eph. 2:19-22)." 

-footnote at John 2:19, NKJV MacArthur Study Bible 

Says A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament: 



"Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: 'And in three days I will raise it up.' He did not mean that he will 

raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11)."-(New York, 

1932), Vol. V, p. 183. 

We have the prophet Ezekiel doing the same thing in Ezekiel 43:3, "I came to bring the city [Jerusalem] 

to ruin," that is, by predicting its destruction. Ezekiel actually did not destroy Jerusalem; but by 

prophecying it, he could speak of himself as doing it in a predictive sense. (cf. Jeremiah 1:10.) Similarly, 

the Father resurrected his Son, but Jesus could speak of doing so in a prophetic sense. 

Now there three in the Bible called God. First is the Father (2 Peter 1:17) Next the son John 1:1, Isaiah 

9:6, John 5:18/10:30, and the Holy Spirit Acts 5:3,5. Before we get on active force again, please remember 

you cannot lie to an active force only a personality. You cannot lie to a table, chair, book or an active force, 

only a personality. Peter recognized the Holy Spirit as a person (Acts 13:2) Also, you cannot quote an 

active force. 

Reply: Can you quote the Bible? Is the Bible a person? Is not the Bible given to us via God's spirit? (2 

Pet 1:21). The scriptures are "God-breathed", theopneustos which comes from the word Pneuma/spirit. 

Can you lie/play falsely to the Scriptures and the Law? Yes, but does that make it a person? 

"God's Word lives, and is active...it can judge thoughts and purposes of the heart." Heb 4:12 Beck. 

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. 

5:18; Jas 4:5). Does this make it a person, or a force that impacts our lives? 

The Bible is a book of the Sacred Name. The Name that you can give thanks to (Ps 106:47; 138:2), a 

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 

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 

Name that saves ((Ps 54:1), a Name that is feared (Ps 61:5), a Name that is loved (Ps 69:36). The Name 

is part of God, just as is his breath/spirit. You cannot think of one without the other. 

Does this make it a person though? "A record was written before him of those who feared him and had 

respect for his name." Mal 3:16 Revised English Bible 

The Law, ...your Heart 

Is the spirit God in Acts 5:3-4? Let us see what it says: 

"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of 

the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in 

thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto 

God." ASV 

Do you notice that the last part is directed towards Peter when it says, "thou has not lied unto men?" See, 

they lied to Peter, who was "filled with holy spirit" Acts 4:8 

And when they lied to Peter, they lied to God. Later on, in the same chapter, we have a similar situation 

in vss 38 and 39 where these words were directed towards Peter and the disciples, "Refrain from these 

men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: but if it is of 

God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God." 

Peter and his men were not God, but representative standing in place of God, and when something is 

done against them, it is done against God. "Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own eye." Zech 

2:8 New Jewish Publication Society/ Tanakh That is why the Scofield Study Bible cross-references Acts 

5:4 to Scriptures like Numbers 16:11, 1Samuel 8:7 and 1 Thess 4:8 which says, " Therefore he that 

rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you." ASV 

The OT condemns polytheism and declares that God is one and is to be worshipped and loved as such. 

(Deut. 6:4,5/ Isaiah 45:21) 

10. Please explain to me how there are three called God in the Bible, but only one God. Either its the 

Trinity or the JWs are guilty of polytheism. 



Reply: Actually, in the Bible, prophets are called God (Ex 4:16; 7:1), as are Judges (Ex 21:6; 22:8; Ps 

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 

4:4). But we obviously do not refer to these as God. That is why the Bible uses the term "almighty," a 

term never used of Jesus Christ or any of the others mentioned above. 

Jane Schaberg writes: "The term 'ELOHIM' is applied to Melchizedek five times in 11Q Melchizedek, 

and Philo calls Moses QEOS" (Jane Schaberg, The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit: The Triadic 

Phrase in Matthew 28:19b_,page 8). 

"The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question 

whether Christ was an angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an 

angel, rank as God. The explanation which was offered by the supporters of the 

Angel-Christology was that Christ, according to his nature, was a high angel, but that he was 

named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The word 'God' did mean, in the first 

place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the beings who served this 

deus verus [Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods' implies 

reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus represented. 

Consequently in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28), not only 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 according them 

the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius [260-330 C.E.] had thought in this way2 ... 2 

Latantius, inst. Epitome [The Epitome Of The Divine Institutes], 37." 

-Martin Werner, The Formation Of Christian Dogma, p. 140. 

"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred 

an honourable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His 

Son] is far more worthy of this honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John 

10:34] is in Psalm lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the 

Most High; where God expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically 

abuse the authority and power for their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for 

every evil action ... Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of 

gods, because they are God's ministers for governing the world. For the same reason 

Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world 

... In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them 

authority." 

-John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 419, 20. 

In the New International Dictionary of the Bible (Editor J.D. Douglas & Merrill C Tenney) page 1070 

under "worship" says to prostrate, do obeisance In your (69 & 85) Kit when translating the word "worship" 

is translated "did obeisance" every time for Jesus, and the exact same word says worship toward Jehovah. 

ll. What happened to the word for word translation promise in the foreword of both books? 

The fact is Jesus was worshipped as God many times according to the Gospel accounts, and he always 

accepted such worship as appropriate. 

Jesus accepted worship from Thomas (John 20:28), the angels (Hebrews l:6) the wise men (Matt 2:ll), a 

leper (Matt 8:2, a ruler (Matt 9:18), a blind man (John 9:38), an anonymous woman (Matt 15:25; Mary 

Magdalene (Matt 28:9, and his diciples (Matt 28:l7) In the book of Rev, God the Father (4:l0) and Jesus 

Christ (5:ll-l4) are clearly portrayed as receiving the exact same worship. 

12. Who do you honestly think is wrong here, Jesus or the JWs? 

In Hebrew l:6 Jehovah said let all God's angels do obeisance to him (Now we know what that means) And 

in Luke 4:8 Jesus said, "It is Jehovah your God you must worship and it is him alone you must render 

sacred service. 

13. How do you explain this? 



Now let's read Rom 14:11 Jehovah says "to me every knee will bend down and every tongue will make 

open knowledgement to God. I think both of us will agree this is worship. So let's read Phil. 2:10,ll. 

Imagine that!! It says the exact same thing about Jesus. 

14. Your comments please. 

Reply: Have you ever really bothered to check out the meanings of these words. We will start of the with 

the Hebrew equivalent, Shachah. Ex 34:14 says, " for thou shalt worship (shachah) no other god: for 

Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" ASV 

However, this same word for worship, shachah [proskuneo, LXX], was also often used of mere men of 

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 

etc.), and angels (Jos 5:14; Num 22:31; Gen 18:2; 19:1). 

In the Greek, according to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary, PROSKUNEO means "to make 

obeisance, do reverence 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 18:26)...to the Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of 

the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to demons(Rev 9:20)...to idols(Acts 7:43)." 

Remember, the LXX uses this word when it comes to shachah. It simply means that the word does not 

hold the same connotations as it does today. 

"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV 

"And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and 

worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV 

Here, king David is given the same worship as Jehovah. 

Even the American Standard Version mentions at Matt. 2:2, "The Greek word denotes an act of 

reverence, whether paid to man (see chap. Matt. 18:26) or to God (see chap. Matt. 4:10)'" ? 

So it is necessary for Bible versions to make a distinction, as they all do (see Matt 18:26). 

Is the Kingdom Interlinear Translation discriminatory in its inconsistency. I checked this with other 

interlinears that I own. My NKJV/Majority Text has "obeisance" at Matt 18:26, but "worship" at Heb 

1:6. My Marshall/Nestle Interlinear has the same thing in the same places. It appears that they, like the 

translators of the KIT gave "as literal a translation as possible" and "as nearly as possible word for word" 

renderings. (see forward KIT). 

See also NEB, Young, Byington, NJB, Goodspeed, Newcome, REB, 20th Cent, Schonfield, 

Confraternity, Douay and Kleist&Lilly etc 

In Ephesians 4:4-6 Paul said there is one hope. 

15. How can the JWs have two, one for the l44,000 and one for the JWs. 

Reply: Eph 4:4 says "even as also ye were called in one hope **of your calling**" 

The entire scripture gives a different spin on this, because the "one hope" pertains to the one we are 

called for. Try this from another direction. The scripture right after this says that there is, "one Lord, one 

faith, one baptism," but 2Cor 4:13 says, "we have the same kind of faith as the psalmist had when he 

said, 'I believed in God, and so I speak.'" New Living Translation (cf. Ps 116:10) 

The psalmist was not baptized, the psalmist did not accept Jesus Christ as his saviour, in fact, the 

psalmist "David never ascended into heaven." Acts 2:34 NLT 

But we all worship the same God, all have the hope of life eternal. 

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 

{the} Lord. 16. If there are two Lords why didn't they say "A" Lord in Luke 2:ll? Ver 6 reads "one God", 

the JWs have two. 

Reply: Reply: JW's do not have 2 gods, as we are one of the few that actually recognize the Biblical use 

of the word "God." (see above) 

Luke 2:11 OTI ETECQH UMIN SHMERON SWTHR OS ESTIN CRISTOS KURIOS EN POLEI 



DAUID 

As you can see, there is actually no article here in the Greek by Lord (KURIOS), it is supplied by the 

translators of Bible versions (you will notice that the article *the" is often supplied in brackets). 

As far as the OT goes, the scripture that is definintely applied to Christ (Psalm 110:1) uses the word 

adoni, a form of the word that is never used of YHWH, but only humans and angels. Click here for more. 

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 

16:16; Gal. 4:1; or of one who has the disposal of anything, as the Sabbath, Matt. 12:8; (b) of a master, 

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, 

Acts 25:26; Rev. 17:14; (d) of idols, ironically, 1 Cor. 8:5, cp. Isa. 26:13; (e) as a title of respect 

addressed to a father, Matt. 21:30, a husband, 1 Pet. 3:6, a master, Matt. 13:27; Luke 13:8, a ruler, Matt. 

27:63, an angel, Acts 10:4; Rev. 7:14; (f) and as a title of courtesy addressed to a stranger, John 12:21; 

20:15; Acts 16:30. 

The Bible has many references to a "lord and king" that refer to human kings. (See 1 Sam 24:8; 26:15, 

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 

(1 Chron 29:23). Like Jesus, they were GIVEN authority. 

But isn't the term used for both the Father and the Son? 

Consider the following verses: 

Rom. 15:6 

"you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" 

2 Cor. 1:3 

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" 

2 Cor. 11:31 

"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus" 

Eph. 1:3 

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" 

Eph. 1:17 

"...the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" 

1 Pet. 1:3 

"...the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" 

These verses present a few problems: 

God the Father is Lord. But when one Lord is the God of another who is also Lord, then they are not the 

same, or even equal. 

If Jesus is subordinate to God only as to his "human nature," then this contradicts the above verses, for 

there Jesus, in his divine state, has someone who is God to him. 

Also it reads "One Father", Jesus is all eternal Father and Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6. And in Isaiah l0:21 

Jehovah is called a "Mighty God". Imagine that!! They both are God, Lord, Father, when Paul said there is 

only one. In latter part of verse 6 reads "who is over all and through all and in all" But if you read Matt 

28:18 Jesus said "All" authority (not half) has been given me in Heaven and on the Earth. Either you have 

one of each or you have a lot of contradictions. 

17. Your comments please. 

Reply: And you forget the optimum word here. It is the word GIVEN. Almighty God does not need to be 



GIVEN anything. By handing over all authority to Christ, he, as Michael, can oust Satan from the 

heavens (Rev 12:7-12). 

"And I heard a great voice in heaven, saying, Now is come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom 

of our God, and the authority of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuseth 

them before our God day and night." 

But he eventually hands it back to God, who is excepted from the word "ALL." 

1 Cor 15:24-28 says, "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father; after 

destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies 

under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For God has put all things in subjection under his 

feet. But when it says, All things are put in subjection under him, it is plain that he is excepted who put 

all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected 

to him who put all things unto him, that God may be everything to everyone." RSV 

As for Isaiah 9:6, read how it is used in other Bibles: 

"Wonder-Counsellor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace." Byington 

"A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince." Moffatt 



"great leader, time's father"...Fenton 

Why, because this verse has an earlier reference to a human king, like King Hezekiah, the son of 

Ahaz; or to Hezekiah initially and Christ finally. Note what some from former years have said regarding 

this account: 

"Hezekiah, who was very unlike his father Ahaz. This passage 

is acknowledged, not only by Christians, but by the Chaldee 

interpreter, to relate in the same manner, but in a more 

excellent sense, to the Messiah––(Annotationes ad vetus et 

Novum Testamentum, by Hugo Grotius, a Dutch Arminian, 

1583-1645). 

"In several places of his Expositions and Sermons, he [LUTHER] 

maintains that the epithets belong, not to the person of 

Christ, but to his work and office. He understands [ale; 

Strongs 410] in the sense of power or ability, citing for his 

authority Deut. Xxviii. 32, where, as in about four other 

places, the expression occurs of an action's being or not 

being "in the power of the hand,"––(Scripture Testimony to the 

Messiah, Third ed. Lond. 1837, 3 vol., by Dr. J.P. Smith [it 

should fairly be noted that Dr. Smith disapproves of Luther's 

rendering]) 

"The word la [ale] here used is applicable, not only to God, 

but to angels and men worthy of admiration. Whence it does 

not appear, that the Deity of Christ can be effectually 

gathered from this passage."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, SASBOUT 

[as quoted in Concession, by Wilson]) 



"The words of Isaiah, Deus fortis, "strong God," have been 

differently interpreted. It is evident, that the term God is 

in Hebrew applied figuratively to those who excel – to angels, 

heroes, and magistrates; and some render it here, not God, but 

brave or hero."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, Esromus Rudingerus [as 

quoted in Concessions, by Wilson]) 

"It is evident that la [ale] properly denotes strong, 

powerful, and is used in Ezek. Xxxi. 11, of king 

Nebuchadnezzar, who is called... "the mighty one of the 

heathen."––(Scholia in Vetus Testamentum. Lips. 1828-36, 6 

vol, E.F.C. Rosenmuller [Prof. of the Arabic Language at 

Leipzig; d. 1836]) 

...and, do you really think both of them are the Father, as you have stated above? If you do, then you are 

a Sabellianist, not a trinitarian. 

While you are in the 28 Chapter read verse 9, then turn to Acts 2:38 and read. 

18. Why didn't it say Jehovah? 

There is something else that bothers me, that Rom l0:13. Now read Acts 4:10-12, If both names are equally 

important 19. Why are they not listed together? Unless he is the same.-given name 20. Please comment. 

Reply: Because Jesus was GIVEN a better name. "Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave 

unto him the name which is above every name." Php 2:9 

Almighty God does not need to be exalted, he does not need to be given a name above all others. 

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), 

but unlike these, including the angels, "he hath inherited a more excellent name than they." Heb 1:4 

Jn 17:2 just as you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all you gave 

him. NAB 

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. 

Holy Father, keep them in yourname that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are. 

NAB 

We don't need to know that Almighty God is better than the angels, for that is already understood. 

Almighty God does not need to inherit anything, for that is understood. 

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 

8. I am the Alpha and the Omega says Jehovah God "the one who is and who was and who is coming the 

Almighty." Now back up to verse 7 and it says he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, 

and those who pierced him. 

21. Who pierced the Almighty? In verse 17,18 reads I am the first and the last, verse l8 and the living one, 

and I became dead. So this is Jesus. Could this explain the one "who was" in verse 8? So let's get this 

straight Jehovah is the Alpha & Omega (I know you know what that means), and Jesus is the First and last 

in ver 17,18. 

22. Who is speaking in Rev 22:14? 

You know now that I'm thinking about it you have two of everything else you might as well have two first 

and last!! 

Reply: Well, let us take a closer look at this. 

In verse 4, we have John talking, until verse 7, which ends with "Amen." 

Verse 7 refers to Jesus, and it ends with "Amen." 

Verse 8 we have the Lord God talking, but then, in verse 9, it starts off with John talking again. 

To confuse things even further, all this was sent via an angel. (Rev 1:1). 



Jesus is "the first and the last" with reference to his death and resurrection." 

All references to Jesus as being the "first and the last" have this limitation. Let us take a look? "I am the 

first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18 (Actually, one of the oldest 

manuscripts that we have (A) has the word "firstborn" here. 

"These things saith the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]" Rev. 2:8 

"Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead" Rev 1:5 See also Romans 14:9 and 

Col 1:18. 

Just a few more questions. In verse 3 it reads, "But the throne of God (Jehovah), and of the lamb (Jesus) 

will be in the city and his slaves will render him sacred service. Ver 4 and they will see his face. 

23. Should this have read their throne, and see their faces? According to previous passages both are 

coming (ver 12,13 & Jesus in ver 20) According to Matt 25:31 the son of man arrives in his glory (Isaiah 

42:9) and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Now back in Rev. 22:3 it reads, 

"the throne of God" 

24. Do we now have two thrones?So back to Rev 22:3,4 

25. Who is on the throne? Now verse 4 and they will see his face, and his name (singular) will be on their 

foreheads. Well guess what? Read Rev l4:l now you've got two names on one forehead!!! Unless......they 

are the same God. This reminds me. 

Reply: Rev 22:3 actually mentions THREE different parties, God, the Lamb, and the servants. When the 

name is mentioned, we can exclude the other 2. as it is definitely the Lord God that is the referent (see 

verse 5), which is a term (i.e. Lord God) never used of Christ (the Lamb) or his slaves (servants). 

Do we have 2 thrones? Yes we do. Remember that the Jewish kings sat on Jehovah's throne (1 Chron 

29:23) and that Jesus would be at God's right hand, "thus he is made second in authority to God himself." 

Footnote at Ps 110:1 NIV Study Bible 

Jesus gets his glory from the Father (John 1:14), and we share in that glory (John 17:22), but are to 

acknowledge that "Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Everything eventually comes 

back to the Father. 

Remember too that Jesus, God's agent, his hands the kingdom BACK to God the Father (1 Cor 15:24) so 

in this way, we can speak of both of them as coming. 

Jesus, as agent, represents God in such a way that he hold a functional equality with him. 


regarded as the person himself. Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is 

regarded as having been committed by the principle." 

The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder (click here for 

more) 

Question? Why is it that the person of the holy spirit is never pictured in the visions of heaven? 

26. Why would Jesus say your treasure is in heaven (Matt 6:l9-21, Mark l0:21, Luke 12:33/l8:22 if only 

l44,000 are going to heaven? 

Reply: Matt 6:9 says, "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." NAB 

So what does the heavenly hope have to do with earth? Those in heaven are to rule over those on earth 

(Rev 5:10). 

One last question 

27. Did you know that Jesus and Jehovah have their own individual angel Rev 22:6,l6? 

Reply: So does Satan (Rev 12:9) and Michael (Rev 12:7). Angel simply means "messenger." 

Why does the person of the holy spirit not have any of his own individual angels? 

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 



Reply: I like those scriptures also, but when is the last time you knocked on our door to preach "Jesus 

Christ as Lord", to "give us the light of the knowledge of God in the face of Christ?" NIV 

Jesus said he seeks not his own glory, but he honors his Father (John 8:49, 50). When have you really 

honored the Father? 

"every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 

Php 2:11 ASV 

When is the last time you had done this? 

Isaiah 64:8 says, "O Jehovah, thou art our Father." ASV 

But do you really honor the Father? Mal 1:6 says, "A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if 

then I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I am a master, where is my fear? saith Jehovah of hosts 

unto you, O priests, that despise my name." ASV 

When is the last time you honored his great and holy name? 

"For the Name of Jehovah I proclaim, Ascribe ye greatness to our God! The Rock! --perfect 

[is] His work, For all His ways [are] just; God of stedfastness, and without iniquity: 

Righteous and upright [is] He. It hath done corruptly to Him; Their blemish is not His sons', 

A generation perverse and crooked! To Jehovah do ye act thus, O people foolish and not 

wise? Is not He thy father--thy possessor? He made thee, and doth establish thee." Deut 32 


"Let them praise the name of Jehovah; For his name alone is exalted; His glory is above the earth and the 

heavens." Ps 148:13 American Standard Version 

"I will protect those who know my name." Psalm 91:14 NRSV 

There is no salvation Jerry, without the Name! 

"a book of remembrance was written before him, for them that feared Jehovah, and that thought upon 

his name." Mal 3:16 ASV 




John 1:3, Punctuation and Staircase Parallelism 

John 1:3, 4, Punctuation, Staircase Parallelism and Caris. 

"What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of men." New American Bible 

..."and without Him nothing was made that was made." New King James Bible 

I often have people writing to me and quoting John 1:3 as it is rendered in the New King James Version, 

in order to prove to me that Jesus was creator. As it is written, in the NKJV, it certainly seems to say that, 

but once we read it in the New American Bible above, we get quite another picture. Going along with the 

NAB, is the 20th Century NT, NRSV, NAB, NJB, JB, NEB, BBE, HCSB ftn., RSV ftn., RV ftn., 

Weymouth ftn, ASV ftn, Anchor Bible, Fenton, Schonfield, Lattimore, Translator's New Testament, 

Funk/Hoover and Rotherham." 

John 1:3 cannot be used to promote a certain dogmatism, as a rule of hermeneutics is that no ambiguous 

text can be a proof text. 

So what happened with John 1:3? As the NAB says in its footnote, 

"WHAT CAME TO BE, while the oldest manuscripts have no punctuation here, the 

corrector of Bodmer P75, some mss, and the ANF take this phrase with what follows, as 

staircase parallelism. Connection with verse 3 reflects 4th century anti-Arianism." 

Has this verse been corrupted to quell a certain doctrine (Arianism) as the NAB claims? 

The Anchor Bible has this reading, "That which had come to be in him was life, and this life was the 

light of men" as opposed to the other reading we have in the NKJV. To support their reading, Raymond 

E. Brown writes, 

"These lines are sometimes divided in another way, thus: 3b and apart from him there came 

to be not a thing which came to be./4 In him was life.' In such a division, the clause 'which 

came to be' - instead of beginning in vs. 4 - completes vs. 3. This alternate division is found 

in the Clementine Vulg.; and according to Mehlmann, 'De mente,' it was Jerome's own 

division (except for one instance). But De la Potterie, 'De interpretatione,' insists that 

Jerome changed to this division only about A.D. 401 for apologetic reasons. Most 

modern commentators use the division we have chosen in our translation; Barrett and 

Haenchen are exceptions. In an attempt to prove our division is the most ancient Boismard, 

p. 14, gives an impressive list of patristic writers who used it; and he suggests that the above 

alternate translation was introduced only in the 4th century as anti-Arian apologetics." 

JR Michaels, in his commentary on John, also writes: 

"But the overwhelming evidence of ancient manuscripts and church fathers is that in the 

early centuries hO GEGONEN was read as the beginning of v. 4, not the conclusion of v. 3" 

(John, 25). 

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament has this to say: 

"It is doubtful also whether the relative clause "that hath been made" (o gegonen) is a part of 

this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect 

active indicative of ginomai. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before 

Chrysostom all began a new sentence with o gegonen. The early uncials had no 

punctuation. 

Bruce Metzger, while stating that none of the arguments are conclusive, does put forth the following in 

his Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/john13.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:55:30 AM]


"Should the words O GEGONEN be joined with what goes before or with what follows? 

The oldest manuscripts (P66, P75, Aleph, A [Codex Alexandrinus] B [Vatican Manuscript 

1209]) have no punctuation here, and in any case the presence of punctuation in Greek 

manuscripts, as well as in versional and patristic sources, cannot be regarded as more than 

the reflection of current exegetical understanding of the meaning of the passage. 

A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene writers 

(orthodox and heretical alike) who took O GEGONEN with what follows. When, however, 

in the fourth century Arians and the Macedonian heretics began to appeal to the passage to 

prove that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things, orthodox writers 

preferred to take O GEGONEN with the preceding sentence, thus removing the possibility 

of heretical use of the passage. 

The punctuation adopted for the text [O GEGONEN as part of verse 4] is in accord with 

what a majority regarded as the rhythmical balance of the opening verses of the Prologue, 

where the climactic or 'staircase' parallelism' seems to demand that the end of the line 

should match the beginning of the next. (For discussion in support of taking O GEGONEN 

with what follows, see K. Aland, "Uber die Beduetung eines Punktes. (Eine Untersuchung 

zu Joh. 1, 3 4)." in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of 

Kenneth Willis Clark, ed. by Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs (=Studies and Documents, 

XXIX; Salt Lake City, 1967), pp. 161 

-187 (an expanded form of the study appeared in Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche 

Wissenschaft, LIX [1968], pp. 174-209), and Ed. L. Miller, Salvation-History in the 

Prologue of John. The Significance of John 1:3/4 (Leiden, 1989), pp. 17-44." 

Note how all the early Fathers took this 

verse and how it is when we get closer to Nicaea, the sentiment changes. These stats 

can all be derived from the Nestle Aland 27th edition. 

"What came to be through him was life, ..."and without Him nothing was made 

and this life was the light of men." NAB that was made." New King James Bible 

Naassenes II/III 

Theodotus (ac. to Cl) II 

Valentinians(ac.to Ir) 160 

Diatessaron II 

Ptolemy II 

HeracleonII 

Theophilus 180 

Perateni III 

Irenaeus 202 

Clement 215 

Tertullian 220 

Hippolutus 235 

Origen 254 Adamantius 300 

Eusebius 339 Alexander 373 



Ambrosiaster IV Ephraem 373 

Hilary 367 Didymus 398 

Athanasius 373 Epiphanus 403 

Cyril (Jerusalem) 386 Chrysostom 420 

Epiphanus 403 Jerome 420 

Nonnus 431 

Pseudo Ignatius V 

We can see from the above that the closer one gets to Trinitarian controversy surrounding Nicaea, the 

more the punctuation changes in favor of showing Jesus as creator. The change is evidently theological, 

promoting a certain doctrine. It does not reflect the ancient text. 

What is "Staircase Parallelism?" Let's start with Verse 1, with the punctuation as supplied the W/Hort 

Greek Text: 

EN ARCH HN O LOGOS, KAI 

O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON, KAI 

QEOS HN O LOGOS 

Now let us try verses 3 and 4: 

PANTA DI AUTOU EGENETO, KAI 

CWRIS AUTOU EGENETO OUDE EN. 

O GEGONEN EN AUTW ZWH HN, 

KAI H ZWH HN TO FWS TWN ANQRWPWN 

Verse 5: 

KAI TO FWS EN TH SKOTIA FAINEI, 

KAI H SKOTIA AUTO OU KATELABEN 

Or, in English, 

In the beginning was the Word, and 

the Word was toward the God, 

and god was the Word. 

All (things) thru him came-to-be, and 

apart from him came-to-be nothing not but one (thing). 

which has come to be in him life was, and 

the life was the light of the men; 

and the light in the darkness is shining 

and the darkness it not overpowered. 

It only makes sense here to leave "what has come to be" as part of verse 4. 

What this leaves us with, is to focus on the agency of the LOGOS/Word through the use of 

CWRIS/Caris. 

On page 793 (volume I, Louw-Nida's Greek-English Lexicon ) under semantic domain 89.120, this 

source makes this observation about XWRIS Jn 1:3: 

"It would be wrong to restructure Jn 1:3 to read 'he made everything in all creation,' for in 

the Scriptures God is spoken of as the Creator, but the creation was done 'through the 

Word.' If one must restructure Jn 1:3, it may be possible to say 'he was involved in 

everything that was created' or 'he took part in creating everything.' 



Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament says: 

All things (panta). The philosophical phrase was ta panta (the all things) as we have it in 1 

Corinthians 8:6; Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16. In verse 1:10 John uses o kosmoß (the 

orderly universe) for the whole. Were made (egeneto). Second aorist middle indicative of 

ginomai, the constative aorist covering the creative activity looked at as one event in 

contrast with the continuous existence of hn in verses 1,2. All things "came into being." 

Creation is thus presented as a becoming (ginomai) in contrast with being (eimi). By him (di 

autou). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is 

John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 1:2) 

names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that 

"the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him 

and unto him" (Colossians 1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here 

enunciates. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary 

source (ex ou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di ou). 

Without him (cwriß autou). 

Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of CWRIS in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or 

co-operation) of one." 

BAGD has "without, or apart from=apart from someone's activity or assistance" 

In this way, the Bible in Living English handles it superbly, "Everything was made by his agency." Jn 1:3 

Even Origen acknowledged this, 

"And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of the days He spoke to 

us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages, " 

showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when 

the ages were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage 

also, THROUGH [DIA] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger 

and greater than He. And who else could this but the Father?" 

Origen's Commentary on John, ANF 10, Book 2, chap. 6, p. 328 

The assistance of whom though? Why, by His created Wisdom, Jesus Christ himself: 

"The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago.. 

Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. 

When there were no depths, I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with 

water. 

Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills was I brought forthwhen 

he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil. 

When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, 

when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, 

when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, 

when he marked out the foundations of the earth, 

then I was beside him, like a master worker, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before 

him always." Prov 8:22-30 NRSV 

Many do not usually like it when you connect this verse with Jesus, but the parallels are too 

overwhelming to be ignored. Check out the cross-references of the following Bibles, as they point 

between Wisdom and the Logos. 

New American Bible: John 1:1-> Prov 8:22-25 



New Scofield Study Bible/KJV: Prov 8:22-> John 1:1; Prov 8:30->John 1:1, 2 

Nelson Study Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3, 18 

Oxford Annotated Bible/RSV: John 1:3->Prov 8:27-30; Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3 

NIV Study Bible: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3 

MacArthur Study Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3 

Zondervan NASB Study Bible: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3 

New American Standard Bible Reference Edition: Prov 8:30->John 1:2,3 

Geneva Study Bible: Prov 8:22-John 1:1 

Matthew Henry: John 1-5->Prov 8:22 

John Wesley: John 1:1-> Prov 8:23 

Harper Collins Study Bible/NRSV: John 1:1->Prov 8:22 

Ryrie Study Bible/NIV: John 1:1->Prov 8 

New Jerusalem Bible: John 1:1->Wisdom; Prov 8:22, 23-> John 1:1-3 

Vine's Expository Reference Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3 

Prophecy Study Bible/KJV by Tim LaHaye: Prov 8:22->John 1:1; Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3 

NIV Rainbow Study Bible: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3 

Men's Study Bible/NIV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3 

Nestle-Aland 27th Edition: John 1:1->Prov 8:22; Prov 8:22->John 1:1,2 

Oxford Study Bible/REB: Prov 8:22->John 1:1-3; John 1:1-18->Wisd. 9:1-4:8; Ecclus 24:1-12 

Even Jesus acknowledges that he is this Wisdom: 

"Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles; and some of them 

they shall kill and persecute; that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of 

the world, may be required of this generation" Luke 11:49 ASV 

But in a parallel account we read, "Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and 

scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, 

and persecute from city to city" Matthew 23:34 ASV 

Even Paul states confirms Jesus as Wisdom, "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." 1 Cor 

1:24 ASV 

It should be considered a very important point that Jesus is here, in the Johannine prologue, referred to as 

"the Word." This gives us an indication as to why Jesus was also referred to as God/a god/Divine/deity in 

"the Word was God." ASV 

As God's Word, or mouthpiece, he represents God in every way. 

In the Bible, Angels were representatives of God, and yet are referred to as GOD. 

Let us see what happened to Hagar in Genesis 16. Verse 7 says, "And the angel of Jehovah found her by 

a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur." The angel then conversed with 

her. 

Then it goes on to say, "And she called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou art a God that 

seeth. For she said, Have I even here looked after him that seeth me?" 

The context clearly says that it was an angel that spoke to her, but her reaction is that Jehovah God spoke 

to here. 

Let us go to Judges 13 where again, the angel of Jehovah spoke to Manoah and his wife. Verse 21 and 22 

says, "But the angel of Jehovah did no more appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he 

was the angel of Jehovah. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen 

God." 



Angels were allowed to appear in behalf of God, and even use his name. 

Take Exodus 3:2, "And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a 

bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed." But further 

on down this angel speaks, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the 

God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God." Look at what this angel 

further says, " I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath 

sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, 

Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent 

me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." 

Even God admits that angels can bear his name, "Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the 

way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto 

his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him." Ex 23:20 

Angels represented God, appeared as God, and were everything that God was to those who saw them. It 

is more than interesting that the word angels means, "messenger." They were the word(s) of God. 

This did not stop with Angels, it also worked with humans as representatives of God. 

Judges were representatives of God, as in 1 Sam 2:25: 

"If one man sin against another, God shall judge him" ASV 


The king of Israel sat on Jehovah's throne (1 Chron 29:23) and as such, was God to the people (Ps 45:6, 

7). "O god: the king in courtly language, is called "god," i.e., more than human, representing God to the 

people." Ps 45:7 footnote New American Bible. 

Jehovah made Moses "God to Pharoah." Ex 4:16; 7:1. 

To go against Moses was to go against God. (Number 16:11; Ex 16:8). 

To act against the apostles was to act against God (Acts 5:39). 

There is something called the Schaliach Principle which I have explained elsewhere on this site, and I 

will repeat here: 




The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder 

GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic 

law as follows: 

"One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach] 

is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who 

sent him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the 

messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 18). 

George Buchanan also appears to take this position in his commentary on Hebrews (Anchor 

Bible series). Buchanan notes that 

"a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power of 

attorney for the one who sent him" (Buchanan 7). He then adds "The New Testament 

apostles were apostles of Jesus, and Jesus was an apostle of God. It is against this 

background that Jesus, in the same context, could say both, "He who has seen me has seen 

the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). 

What does this all mean? 



"When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was n o t saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was 

saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we 

perfectly see what God is like” Barclay 




Is Abaddon/Apollyon a demon, devil or Jesus Christ? 

Abaddon/Apollyon-Demonic Devil or Angelic Christ? 

"And they had as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, but 

in Greek he has the name Apollyon." 

Who really is Abaddon/Apollyon mentioned at Revelation 9:11? 

The New Life Study Testament lists Abaddon/Apollyon as one of "Satan's names." p. 104 

The Nelson Study Bible/NKJV says, "The angel of the bottomless pit is demonic and controls the 

demonic locusts." Interestingly, it then contradicts itself by saying, "If this angel serves God, this is 

another instance where the activity of Satan or his demons is under the Lord's sovereign control (see 2 

Cor. 12:7, 9)." 

Why is there a tendency to view the angel at Rev 9 in a bad light? 

In Rev 9:1 the angel is described as a star fallen from heaven, hence it is thought of as "a fallen angel" 

(see Oxford Annotated Study Bible/RSV). However, stars/angels are also referred to in Revelation as 

fallen (Rev 6:13; 8:10), but without the sinister connotations applied to them. 

The confusions lies in that very little is written concerning Abaddon/Apollyon. Can Jesus be tied to 

Abaddon/Apollyon? Consider the following: 

1) Abaddon, or better, Apollyon, means Destroyer. 

James 4:12 says "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and destroy." 

NASB Here the Judge is able to destroy, yet God "hath given all judgment unto the Son." Jn 5:22 ASV 

Many commentarians believe that the Angel of the LORD (malak YHWH) is Jesus, yet the "Angel of the 

LORD" destroys 185,000 men. (2 King 19:3, 5) 

The NIV and Young's Literal Version both capitalize adoni at Ps 110:1 and Joshua 5:14, because they 

believe that they both refer to Christ. Yet the angel at Jos 5:14 is a captain of God's army "to take charge 

of the battle on earth." NIV Study Bible (Sounds like a Destroyer to me) 

2)The angel Abaddon is given a key ot the abyss (Rev 9:1), 

Jesus also has a key to the abyss Hades. (Rev 1:18) 

3)The demons at Luke 8:31 entreat JESUS not to command then to depart into the abyss. It seems Jesus 

had authority over this part of their destiny. 

4)Keys "is used in the NT to denote power and authority of various kinds." Thayer 

If the Abaddon is a demon (as many incorrectly assume), then why does he hurl Satan into the abyss 

(Rev 20:1, 2), and bound him for 1000 years. Abaddon here seems to defeat Satan, but then so does Jesus 

in Rev 19:13, 19. 

5)If Abbadon/Apollyon was really a demon, why is he given a key to lock up, and then eventually 

release/cast out Satan and the other demons (Rev 20:1-3)? 

Did not Jesus say.... 

"But the teachers of the law from Jerusalem said that he (Jesus) was possessed by Beelzebub, and that it 

was only by means of the ruler of the demons that he cast out demons. So he called them over, and using 

metaphors asked them: 'How can Satan cast out Satan?'" Mark 3:22, 23, 21st Century NT 

It simply does not make sense to have one evil angel keeping all the other evil angels suppressed for a 

certain time, only to eventually release them, especially as, Apocryphally, God is called, "You who close 

and seal the Abyss with your fearful and glorious name." (Prayer of Manasseh, 3) cf. Ex 23:20-22 

6)Interestingly, my NIV Ryrie Study Bible cross-references the angel of Rev 20:1 with Jesus at Rev 1:18. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/abaddon.htm (1 of 3) [5/25/2003 3:55:41 AM]


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 

cross-references Abaddon at Rev 9:11, with Rev 9:1. 

Now my NASB Reference Edition 1971 cross-references Luke 8:31 (see above) to Rev 9:11. Rev 9:11 is 

then cross-referenced BACK to Luke 8:31 and Rev 9:1, 2. Rev 9:1 is cross-referenced to Luke 8:31, and 

to Jesus again at Rev 1:18 

My Nelson Study Bible/NKJV cross-references the angel at Rev 20:1 to Jesus at Rev. 1:18 and the angel 

of the abyss at Rev 9:1. It then adds more confusion to its footnote at 9:11 by cross-referencing this same 

angel at 9:1 with Jesus statement at Luke 8:31. 

The Prophecy Study Bible/KJV by Tim LaHaye cross-references Rev 9:11 to Rev 20:1. 

The it cross-references Jesus at Luke 8:31 to Rev 20:1. 

The Leadership Study Bible/NIV by Zondervan cross-links Rev 9:1 and verse 11 back and forth to each 

other, then it cross-references 9:1 to Jesus at Luke 8:31. 

The Baptist Study Edition cross-references Rev 9:1 with Rev 9:11 and also to Jesus at Luke 8:31. 

The Novum Testamentum Graece/Nestle-Aland 27th Edition cross-references Jesus at Luke 8:31 with 

Abaddon at Rev 9:11. 

The Life Application Study Bible/NLT mentions that the angel in 9:1 is possibly "Christ" or a "good 

angel." The Mens Study Bible/NIV cross-references Rev 9:11 to 9:1, and then to Luke 8:31. The Full 

Life Study Bible/NIV cross-references Rev 9:11 to Luke 8:31. 

Commenting on Revelation 9:11, The Interpreter’s Bible says: “Abaddon, however, is an angel not of 

Satan but of God, performing his work of destruction at God’s bidding.” 

The Geneva Study Bible adds at Revelation 9:1 

"(2) That is, that the angel of God glittering with glory, as a star fallen from heaven. He may 

be Christ, who has the keys of hell by himself and by princely authority, #Re 1:18 or some 

inferior angel who has the same key entrusted to him and holds it ministerially, or by office 

of his ministry, here and #Re 20:10 so the word "falling" is taken; #Ge 14:10, 24:46, Heb 

6:6." 

It seems to make sense to apply the language in regards to the angel in Rev 9 to Jesus, as many in the 

past have even tied Jesus to Michael and one of the Angels of the LORD (Jehovah), malak YHWH. 

etalk99 says: It's intriguing that the following quotes from Aid to Bible Understanding 

CONTRADICTS the above. 

MICHAEL... The only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible (Michael 

p.1152) 

GABRIEL... The only holy angel other than Michael named in the Bible (Gabriel 

p.612) 

Gabriel is a holy angel, & IF JESUS is 'Michael' & 'Abaddon' & 'Apollyon', 

then Michael & Gabriel are NOT the only holy angels named in the Bible. 

Reply: The Aid book and the Insight book do not mention Apollyon as a holy angel for the same reason 

they do not mention Jehovah as a holy angel. Consider: 

Apollyon is a name derived from the pagan god Apollo (which also means Destroyer), not that they were 



the same, but the name carried some semantic value. Also, Tartarus is a Bible name borrowed from 

paganism, again, to display the semantic in the meaning, not to imply that they were the same. 

What am I saying? The angel in Exodus 3:2-15 was called Jehovah, not that he was Jehovah, or that we 

should go around calling angels by that name, but that the angel was representative of the task he was 

performing. 



The word Hell and Sheol in the King James Bible and other versions. 

The Occurences of Sheol in the Old Testament-And what it says about 

"A little child is in this red-hot oven. Hear how it screams to come out! See how it turns and twists itself 

about in the fire! It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet on the floor. You 

can see on the face of this little child what you see on the faces of all in hell--despair, desperate and 

horrible!" from the Children's Apostle 

On further investigation though, we learn that the above amounts to nothing more than a propagandist 

scare-tactic of the worst kind. Consider the OT uses of the word Sheol, where we get our Hell from in 

most common versions: 

Scripture KJV Douay NWT NIV MLB/NBV Fenton NLT Brenton 

Genesis 37:35 grave hell sheol grave grave grave die Hades 

Genesis 42:38 grave hell sheol grave death's realm grave grave Hades 

Genesis 44:29 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave grave 

Genesis 44:31 grave hell sheol grave grave grave grave grave 

Num 16:30 pit hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades 

Num 16:33 pit hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades 

Deut 32:22 hell hell sheol realm of death underworld pit grave hell 

1 Sam 2:6 grave hell sheol grave grave grave grave grave 

2 Sam 22:6 hell hell sheol grave grave grave grave death 

1 Kings 2:6 grave hell sheol grave grave grave die grave 

1 Kings 2:9 grave hell sheol grave grave grave death grave 

Job 7:9 grave hell sheol grave underworld grave die grave 

Job 11:8 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave underworld hell 

Job 14:13 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave dead* grave 

Job 17:13 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades 

Job 17:16 pit pit sheol death Sheol grave grave Hades 

Job 21:13 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave grave 

Job 24:19 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave death N/A 

Job 26:6 hell hell sheol death Sheol grave underworld hell 

Psalm 6:5 grave hell sheol grave grave grave grave Hades 

Psalm 9:17 hell hell sheol grave Sheol pit grave Hades 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/sheol.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:55:52 AM]


Psalm 16:10 hell hell sheol grave realm of the dead grave grave hell 

Psalm 18:5 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave N/A 

Psalm 30:3 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades 

Psalm 31:17 grave hell sheol grave realm of the dead grave grave Hades 



Psalm 55:15 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades 

Psalm 86:13 hell hell sheol grave lower world beyond grave death hell 

Psalm 88:3 grave hell sheol grave death's portals grave death Hades 

Psalm 89:48 grave hell sheol grave grave grave grave Hades 

Psalm 116:3 hell hell sheol grave grave grave grave hell 

Psalm 139:8 hell hell sheol depths underworld grave dead grave 

Psalm 141:7 gravk hell sheol grave grave nil nil pit 

Prov 1:12 grave hell sheol grave dead-realm grave grave Hades 

Prov 5:5 hell hell sheol grave hell grave grave grave 

Prov 7:27 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave hell 


Prov 15:11 hell hell sheol death Sheol grave death hell 


Prov 23:14 pit hell sheol death Sheol grave death death 

Prov 27:20 hell hell sheol death Sheol grave death hell 

Prov 30:16 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave N/A 

Eccl 9:10 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades 

Cant. 8:6 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave grave 

Isa 5:14 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave# hell 

Isa 14:9 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave dead hell 

Isa 14:11 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave nil Hades 

Isa 14:15 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave dead hell 

Isa 28:15 hell hell sheol grave Sheol pit grave Hades 

Isa 38:10 grave hell sheol death grave grave dead grave 

Isa 38:18 grave hell sheol grave grave grave dead grave 

Isa 57:9 hell hell sheol grave Sheol hell dead hell 

Eze 31:15 grave hell sheol grave realm of the dead grave grave Hades 

Eze 31:16 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades 

Eze 31:17 hell hell sheol grave realm of the dead grave grave hell 

Eze 32:21 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades 

Eze 32:27 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades 

Hosea 13:14 grave death sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades 



Hosea 13:14 grave hell sheol grave Sheol grave grave Hades 

Amos 9:2 hell hell sheol grave Sheol grave dead hell 

Jonah 2:2 hell hell sheol grave Sheol nil dead hell 

Hab 2:5 hell hell sheol grave grave grave death grave 

* often "place of the dead* 

# its predecessor, the Living Bible, has "Hell" here. 

A Dictionary of the Bible (1914), edited by William Smith, sates: "Hell . . . is the word generally and 

unfortunately used by our translators to render the Hebrew Sheol. It would perhaps have been better to 

retain the Hebrew word Sheol, or else render it always by 'the grave' or 'the pit'. . . . In the N[ew] 

T[estament], the word Hades, like Sheol, sometimes means merely 'the grave' . . . It is in this sense that 

the creeds say of our Lord 'He went down into hell,' meaning the state of the dead in general." 

Collier's Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) says: "Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply 

to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word 'hell,' as understood today, is not a 

happy translation." Better versions simply transliterate the word into English as "Sheol." 

The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1971, Vol. 11, p. 276): "Sheol was located somewhere 'under' the earth. . 

. . The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor 

punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and the bad alike, tyrants and saints, 

kings and orphans, Israelites and gentiles-all slept together without awareness of one another." 

The Bible record shows that Sheol refers to mankind's common grave, despite the changes it has taken in 

the minds of many others. 

" For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a 

reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.... Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; 

for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol (Hell, Douay/Brenton) whither 

thou goest. (Ec 9:5, 10 ASV) 

If Hell is such a bad place that is over looked by the Devil, then why is it in front of God? 

"Sheol (hell, KJV/Douay) and Abaddon are before Jehovah: How much more then the hearts of the 

children of men!" Prov 15:11 ASV 

"Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, 

thou art there: If I make my bed in Sheol (hell, KJV/Douay), behold, thou art there." Ps 139:7,8 ASV 

[See also Amos 9:1, 2] 

If Hell is such a bad place that is over looked by the Devil, then why did Job pray to go there? 

"Oh that thou wouldest hide me in Sheol (hell, KJV/Douay), That thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy 

wrath be past, That thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!" Job 14:12-15. 

Throughout the Bible, Sheol is often associated with death , not some afterlife. (1Sa 2:6; 2Sa 22:6; Ps 

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 

is "the land of darkness" (Job 10:21) and a place of silence. (Ps 115:17) 

Not something you expect from a place that constantly lit by fire where people are tortured continuously 

Regarding the word "Sheol," Brynmor F. Price and Eugene A. Nida noted: "The word occurs often in the 

Psalms and in the book of Job to refer to the place to which all dead people go. It is represented as a dark 

place, in which there is no activity worthy of the name. There are no moral distinctions there, so 'hell' 

(KJV) is not a suitable translation, since that suggests a contrast with 'heaven' as the dwelling-place of 

the righteous after death. In a sense, 'the grave' in a generic sense is a near equivalent, except that Sheol 



is more a mass grave in which all the dead dwell together. . . . The use of this particular imagery may 

have been considered suitable here [in Jonah 2:2] in view of Jonah's imprisonment in the interior of the 

fish."-A Translators Handbook on the Book of Jonah, 1978, p. 37. 

When asked why the NIV (New International Version) translated Sheol as "grave," Kenneth Barker gave 

this answer, "Sheol frequently occurs in synonymous parallelism with Hebrew qeder, which clearly 

means grave....more recent studies support the NIV." 

The Accuracy of the NIV, p. 34 

Back to Hell page 




A Reply To "Germans, JW's, and John 1:1" 

An Open Letter to James White Regarding his 

"Germans, JWs, and John 1:1" 

To James White. 

On one of your web-pages, you try to discredit anyone who would translate John 1:1c as "a god." You 

narrow in on a few examples, but it appears to me that you use the same tactics that the King James Only 

people use, to buttress your point. Let us continue: 

You: "So what does all of this mean? It seems to be important that we cannot find any scholar who 

actually believes that the Bible is the Word of God and is inspired and consis-tent with itself that renders 

John 1.1 as "a god." We have found spirit mediums that do so, and Unitarians who have to use someone 

else's translation as a basis upon which they make "corrections"." 

Reply: The problem with this statement is that it is not true. You have simply checked only a handful of 

German translators, and stopped at that. If you were really interested in finding more, you could have. 

You also wrote though: "None of these scholars are classically Arian in their theology. Dr. Schneider 

was a Baptist." Does this mean, according to you, that Baptists do not believe the "Bible is the Word of 

God and is inspired and consis-tent with itself "? 

[The others he is referring too are considered "Liberal."] 

Are you saying that only those with the highest regard for scripture would translate John 1:1c as you 

would like? 

Consider Dr. Bratcher, the main translator behind the Good News Bible/Today's English Version (which 

now does translate John 1:1 as "the Word was God") in Faith for the Family reported that at the 

Southern Baptist Life Commission seminar, Dallas, Texas, 1981, Bratcher made this statement: 

"Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and 

infallible ... To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to 

transform it into a false god." (Faith for the Family, Greenville: Bob Jones University, Sept. 1981) 

Further quotes from Bratcher's speech were printed in the Baptist Press report written by Dan Martin, 

news editor, and printed in the Baptist Courier: 

"Often in the past and still too often in the present to affirm that the Bible is the Word of God implies 

that the words of the Bible are the words of God. Such simplistic and absolute terms divest the Bible 

altogether of its humanity and remove it from the relativism of the historical process. No one seriously 

claims all the words of the Bible are the very words of God. If someone does so it is only because that 

person is not willing thoroughly to explore its implications. ... 

"The Word of God is not words; it is a human being, a human life ... Quoting what the Bible says in the 

context of its history and culture is not necessarily relevant or helpful--and may be a hindrance in trying 

to meet and solve the problems we face. .. 

"We are not bound by the letter of Scripture, but by the spirit. Even words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic in 

the thirties of the first century and preserved in writing in Greek, 35 to 50 years later, do not necessarily 

wield compelling authority over us today. The focus of scriptural authority is not the words themselves. 

It is Jesus Christ as the Word of God who is the authority for us to be and to do. 

"As a biblical scholar, I view with dismay the misuse of scriptures by fundamentalists; as ... Christians 

we listen with alarm to the simpleminded diagnoses and the simplistic panaceas proposed with smug 

selfassurance by Moral Majority people intent on curing the evils of this age." (The Baptist Courier, Apr. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/germans.htm (1 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:56:02 AM]


2, 1981; the Courier is the South Carolina SBC state paper.) 

In conclusion he said; 

"We are given authority by the Lord the Spirit to speak and to act, but we can never know in advance that 

we are doing the will of God. It is the height of presumption and arrogance to say, Ì know this is God's 

will, and I am doing it.' No greater responsibility; no higher privilege is given to us than to hear and 

obey." 

These statements caused quite a stir among conservative Christians, so much so that the American 

Bible Society began losing financial support. 

Then there is the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version (again, reading 

"the Word was God), both of which come under considerable influence from Bruce Metzger. 

The same Bruce Metzger that cut out 40% of inspired scripture to give us the Readers Digest Condensed 


The same Bruce Metzger who said of Deuteronomy: "It's compilation is generally assigned to the seventh 

century B.C., though it rests upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses' time." 

The same Bruce Metzger who said of Daniel: "Most scholars hold that the book was compiled during the 

persecutions (168-165 B.C.) of the Jewish people by Antiochus Epiphanes." 

The same Bruce Metzger who said of John: "Whether the book was written directly by John, or indirectly 

(his teachings may have been edited by another), the church has accepted it as an authoritative 

supplement to the story of Jesus' ministry given by the other evangelists." 

The same Bruce Metzger who said of James: "Tradition ascribes the letter to James, the Lord's brother, 

writing about A.D. 45, but modern opinion is uncertain, and differs widely on both origin and date." 

The same Bruce Metzger who said of the Old Testament: 

"The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. ... 

The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early 

as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the 

earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised 

Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time 

before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form. ... The process by which 

the Jews became 'the people of the Book' was gradual, and the development is shrouded in the mists of 

history and tradition. ... The date of the final compilation of the Pentateuch or Law, which was the first 

corpus or larger body of literature that came to be regarded by the Jews as authoritative Scripture, is 

uncertain, although some have conservatively dated it at the time of the Exile in the sixth century. ... 

Before the adoption of the Pentateuch as the Law of Moses, there had been compiled and edited in the 

spirit and diction of the Deuteronomic 'school' the group of books consisting of Deuteronomy, Joshua, 

Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in much their present form. ... Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long 

period of time." 

There is much more that could be added on Metzger, but this should suffice, except for the fact that you, 

James White, had also used his research for your book, The King James Only Controversy, while 

obviously differing on some views. 

The RSV is considered by many to be a "Liberal" version, which is why they had public burnings of it in 

the early 50's (see In Discordance of Scripture). 

Martin Luther was an evil person, ( 



http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html) but no one is complaining 

about his rendering of John 1:1! 

The American Standard Version is hailed as probably one of the most accurate versions of the Bible, yet 

there were Unitarians involved in its translation (Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot). Should we discard it? 

Even the King James Version comes under attack, as some believe the translators were influenced by 

the Socinians (Unitarians) because of their referring to the holy spirit as an "it" (John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 

26; I Peter 1:11). See Emery H. Bancroft, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961; 

revised edition], pp. 147-8) 

J.B. Phillips (whose version certainlly does not shy away from the deity of Christ), as I am told by KJV 

advocates, has an autobiography detailing his necromancy and communication with the dead. 

Did you see that I make mention of the KJVO people. You have written a good book on the King James 

Only debate, yet you employ their tactics to make your point. 

I am now going to take some of your words, and use them properly. Most of the time a translation that 

differs from the NWT 

"is just as valid and reliable as the one found in the AV itself, and frequently, it is more clear and 

understandable. When differences are examined in a context of seeking to understand the reasons for the 

differences, rather than in one of fear and emotion, we learn more about the Word and the original intents 

of the authors. This is how Christian dialogue and discussion should take place. Whenever you encounter 

a supposed "change" in the Bible's text take the time to look carefully at the available information. You 

will discover that there are reasons for the differences, and that there is no rationale at all for running to 

theories of conspiracies or evil intentions..." The King James Only Controversy, James White, p. 146 

There is much available information out there, and the conclusion is that the NWT rendering has much 

going for it. Consider: 

Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person" 

Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god 

Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god" 

Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was" 

Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God" 

Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" 

"In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal] 

[Word] was a god." John 1:1 21st Century NT Literal 

Belsham N.T. 1809 the Word was a god 

Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god" 

J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god" 

George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word" 

James L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God" 

Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" 

Madsen, 1994, "the Word was a divine Being" 

Becker, 1979, [a God/god was the Logos/logos] 

Stage, 1907, [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being]. 

Bohmer, 1910, [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being] 

Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought] 

Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word] 

Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being] 



Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was 

the Word/word]. 

John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God" 

Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god" 

Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)" 

Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should 

rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.' 

Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. "a God" 

Lant Carpenter, LL.D "a God" 

Andrews Norton, D.D. "a god" 

Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church "a God" 

Couple this with others who have chosen an alternative rendering focusing on the quality of the Logos, 

and we have a very strong case: 

Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine 

Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god 

New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was" 

Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine 

International English Bible, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better 

translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek 

word] 

Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity" 

Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly] 

International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 

In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity. 

Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature" 

Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God" 

Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine" 

Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature 

Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" 

Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos 

Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine 

Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was 

Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One 

Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it 

was what God was 

Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, [the Word was of divine kind] 

Haenchen, 1980, [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] 

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, [He was with God and in all like God] 

Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos" 

William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And the Word was divine." 

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 

1943, "And the Word was Divine" 

For a fuller expanded list of various translations of John 1:1 see 

hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wisdom.htm 



Do I agree with the 100 % world-views of all the above translators? No! Just like I do not agree 

completely with the world-view of the translators of the other Bibles the WTS prints and distributes, like 

the ASV, KJV, Byington, NEB, JB, NAB, TEV or others like the RSV or Phillips...but I could never in 

good conscience tell people to stop using them. 

White: We've also found German scholars who try to differentiate between the Father and the Son by 

coming up with unusual translations of John 1.1, though none of these would identify Jesus as some kind 

of created being like Michael the Archangel - 

Reply: That is because John 1:1 was not written to support such a view. But let us take a look at what 

some have written: 

Methodist Adam Clarke: And the Word was God.] Or, God was the Logos: therefore no subordinate 

being, no second to the Most High, but the supreme eternal Jehovah. 

But regarding the occurrence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10, he remarks: 

"By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume commentary 

-- not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon Press, vol. 6, page 952). 

John Wesley in his version also translates, "the Word was God," but notice what he says: 

Chapter XII 

A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of 

these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 For the children - The meaning 

seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater 

deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your 

salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, 

probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming. 

Wesley on Daniel 10:21 

Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes 

of the earth desert or oppose it. 

The Geneva Bible also follows the traditional rendering of John 1:1, but note what it says at Da 12:1 

"And at that {a} time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy 

people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since 

there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that 

shall be found written in the book. 

(a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's 

coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning 

Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel." 

You: Hopefully you will be able to share these life-changing truths with the next follower of the 

Watchtower Society who knocks at your door. 

Reply: And therein lies the rub. You have to wait for me to knock on YOUR door because your lazy and 

re-active theology bars you from knocking on mine. Can you imagine if Jesus only sat and waited for 

someone to call on him! 

"Be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." 2 Tim 4:5 

NASB 



If I may, I am going to employ your words in closing, but suit them to fit the NWT, rather than the KJV: 

*The anti-NWT movement is a human tradition. It has no basis in history. It has no foundation in fact. It 

is internally inconsistent, utilizing circular reasoning at its core, and involves the use of more double 

standards than almost any system of thought I have ever encountered.* 

I like you, also "fully believe the Word of God is inerrant," but arguing against the NWT contradicts your 

claim. Like Professor Duthie says, "It is no more 'full of heresies' than any other translation." [p. 103, 

Bible Translations And How To Choose Between Them, The Paternoster Press] 

Until you realize this Mr. White, then you are only providing fodder for atheists who also argue for the 

corruption of the Bible. 

Go to John 1:1 Page 

Go to Johannes Greber Page 




The LORD said to my lord and the use of ADONI in the Bible 

The LORD said to my lord... 

Adoni and the Divine Title 

The MacArthur Study Bible/NKJV states of Psalm 110.1, "Using this passage, Christ also declared His 

deity in the Gospels (Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42-43) by arguing that only God could have been 

lord to King David." 

Ron Rhodes puppets this argument also. In his Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses 

on p. 162 he writes: "Ask the JW's: Did you know that the same word used for "Lord" (adonai) in Ps. 

110:1 of Jesus Christ is also used of the Father numerous times in Scripture…?" The argument is 

basically a lie, because the word in Psalm 110 is not adonai, but adoni, which is never a reference to 

Deity and always (195 times) a reference to someone who is not God. 

Anthony Buzzard writes: 

"Psalm 110:1 provides a major key to understanding who Jesus is. The Hebrew Bible 

carefully distinguished the divine title adonai, the Supreme Lord, from adoni, the form of 

address appropriate to human and angelic superiors. Adoni, 'my lord,' 'my master' on no 

occasion refers to the deity. ...The difference is one which depends on the Hebrew vowel 

points. It is clear that the distinction between adonai and adoni has been faithfully preserved 

since ancient times. The translators of the LXX in the 3rd century BC attest to a careful 

distinction between the forms of adon used for divine and human reference by translating 

adoni as ho kurios mou, 'my lord.'" 

The Doctrine of the Trinity-Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound, p. 47 

Finding this very interesting, I decided to test it out myself. Below you will see all, if not most evidences 

of adoni straight from your own Bible. I will start off with the King James Version (KJV) and then split 

off with other popular versions. The results are quite telling: 

KJV 

Gen 23:6 Hear us, my lord: thou art a mighty prince among us. 

Gen 23:11 Nay, my lord, hear me: the field give I thee. 

Gen 23:15 My lord, hearken unto me: the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver; what is that betwixt me and thee? 

bury therefore thy dead. 

Gen 24:12 And he said O LORD God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew 

kindness unto my master Abraham. 

Gen 24:14 thou hast shewed kindness unto my master. 

Gen 24:18 And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink. 

Gen 24:27 Blessed be the LORD God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his 

truth: I being in the way, the LORD led me to the house of my master's brethren. 

Gen 24:35 And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly 

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 

hath. 

Gen 24:37 And my master made me swear 

Gen 24:39 And I said unto my master, Peradventure the woman will not follow me. 

Gen 24:42 O LORD God of my master Abraham 

Gen 24:44 my master's son 

Gen 24:48 my master Abraham 

Gen 24:49 deal kindly and truly with my master 

Gen 24:65 And the servant had said, It is my master 

The rest I will present in chart form comparing different versions: 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/adoni.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 3:56:19 AM]


Scripture KJV NIV NWT Young's RSV NJPS CEV TEV NASB 

Gen 31:35 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T sir lord 

Gen 33:8 lord lord lord lord lord lord master N/T lord 

Gen 33:13 lord lord lord lord lord lord master N/T lord 

Gen 33:14 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord 

Gen 33:15 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord 

Gen 39:8 master master master lord master master master master master 

Gen 42:10 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord 

Gen 43:20 sir sir lord lord lord lord sir sir lord 

Gen 44:5 lord master master lord lord master N/T master lord 


Gen 44:18 lord lord master lord lord lord sir sir lord 

Gen 44:19 lord lord master lord lord lord N/T sir lord 

Gen 44:20 lord N/T master lord lord lord N/T N/T lord 

Gen 44:22 lord lord master lord lord lord N/T N/T lord 

Gen 44:24 lord lord master lord lord lord N/T N/T lord 



Ex 21:5 master master master lord master master N/T master master 

Ex 32:22 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord 

Num 11:28 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord 



Num 32:27 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord 

Num 36:2 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir N/T lord 

Jos 5:14 Lord Lord lord Lord lord lord N/T sir lord 

Jg 4:18 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir master 

Jg 6:13 Lord sir lord lord sir lord N/T sir lord 

Ruth 2:13 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord 

1 Sa 1:15 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord 


1 Sa 22:12 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty sir lord 

1 Sa 24:10 lord master lord lord lord N/T N/T N/T lord 


1 Sa 25:25 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord 

1 Sa 25:26 lord master lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord 

1 Sa 25:27 lord master lord lord lord lord N/T sir lord 







1 Sa 26:17 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord 

1 Sa 26:18 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T sir lord 

1 Sa 26:19 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T Majesty lord 


1 Sa 30:13 master master master lord master master N/T master master 

1 Sa 30:15 master master master lord master master Majesty master master 


2 Sa 3:21 lord lord lord lord lord Majesty N/T Majesty lord 


2 Sa 11:11 lord lord lord lord lord Majesty N/T N/T lord 


2 Sa 13:33 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord 

















2 Sa 19:30 lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T Majesty lord 






1 Ki 1:13 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T Majesty lord 



1 Ki 1:17 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord 

1 Ki 1:18 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord 


1 Ki 1:21 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord 



1 Ki 1:31 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty lord lord 

1 Ki 1:36 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty N/T lord 





1 Ki 18:7 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T sir master 

1 Ki 18:10 lord master lord lord lord lord N/T N/T master 

1 Ki 20:4 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty lord lord 

2 Ki 2:19 lord lord master lord lord lord N/T sir lord 

2 Ki 4:16 lord lord master lord lord lord N/T sir lord 

2 Ki 4:28 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord 

2 Ki 5:3 lord master lord lord lord Master N/T master master 

2 Ki 5:18 master master lord lord master master N/T N/T master 

2 Ki 5:20 master master master lord master master N/T master master 

2 Ki 5:22 master master master lord master master master master lord 

2 Ki 6:5 master lord master lord master master sir sir master 


2 Ki 6:15 master lord master lord master master sir sir master 

2 Ki 6:26 lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty Majesty lord 

2 Ki 8:5 lord N/T lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord 

2 Ki 8:12 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord 


2 Ki 18:23 lord master lord lord master master N/T N/T master 



1 Chr 21:3 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord 

1 Chr 21:23 lord lord lord lord lord lord Majesty Majesty lord 

2 Chr 2:14 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord 

Is 36:8 master master lord lord master master N/T N/T master 





Dan 1:10 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T N/T lord 

Dan 10:16 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir N/T lord 

Dan 10:17 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T master lord 

Dan 10:19 lord lord lord lord lord lord N/T sir lord 

Dan 12:8 Lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord 

Zech 1:9 lord lord lord lord lord lord sir sir lord 





Ps 110:1 Lord Lord Lord Lord lord lord Lord lord Lord 

N/T= "Not Translated" 

All the above scriptures use adoni, and none of them refer to Deity. It is interesting that it is this form of 

"lord" that is used of Jesus, in Psalm 110:1. There are two other scriptures that are often applied to Jesus, 

and these are highlighted at Joshua 5:14 and Daniel 12:8. 

Notice how the highly trinitarian CEV (Contemporary English Version), uses the term "lord" only once, 

and it is at Ps 110:1. Others have capitalized "Lord" at Psalm 110:1 knowing that it applies to Jesus, and 

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 

Christ. 

The following are all the occurences that I have found in the LXX of TW KURIW MOU, which again, 

bear out interesting results, in that this expression is not used for YHWH (as the following, in brackets, 

gives the referent). 

Ps 109: 1(110:1) O KURIOS TW KURIW MOU 

"The Lord said to my lord, 'Sit at my right hand..." Pietersma (David, speaking) 

Ps 153:1 KAI TIS ANAGGELEI TW KURIW MOU AUTOS KURIOS AUTOS EISAKOUEI 

"But who will report to my lord? The Lord himself, he listens." Pietersma (David) 

1 Chron 21:3 KURIOU MOU TOU BASILEWS BLEPONTES PANTES TW KURIW MOU PAIDES 

INA TI ZHTEI O KURIOS MOU 

"may the eyes of my lord the king see it" Thomson (David) 

1 Sam 24:7 TW KURIW MOU TW CRISTW KURIOU EPENEGKAI CEIRA MOU EP' AUTON OTI 

CRISTOS KURIOU ESTIN OUTOS 

"And David said to his men, The Lord forbid it me, that I should do this thing to my lord the anointed of 

the Lord" Brenton (Saul) 

1 Sam 25:26 KAI NUN KURIE ZH KURIOS KAI ZH H YUCH SOU KAQWS EKWLUSEN SE 

KURIOS TOU MH ELQEIN EIS AIMA AQWON KAI SWZEIN THN CEIRA SOU SOI KAI NUN 

GENOINTO WS NABAL OI ECQROI SOU KAI OI ZHTOUNTES TW KURIW MOU KAKA 

"those that seek evil against my lord, become as Nabal" Brenton (David) 

1 Sam 25:27 TW KURIW MOU KAI DWSEIS TOIS PAIDARIOIS TOIS PARESTHKOSIN 

TW KURIW MOU 

1 Sam 25:28 POIHSEI KURIOS TW KURIW MOU OIKON PISTON OTI POLEMON KURIOU O 

KURIOS MOU POLEMEI 

1 Sam 25:30 KAI ESTAI OTI POIHSEI KURIOS TW KURIW MOU PANTA OSA ELALHSEN 



AGAQA EPI SE KAI ENTELEITAI SOI KURIOS EIS HGOUMENON EPI ISRAHL 

1 Sam 25:31 KAI OUK ESTAI SOI TOUTO BDELUGMOS KAI SKANDALON TW KURIW MOU 

EKCEAI AIMA AQWON DWREAN KAI SWSAI CEIRA KURIOU MOU AUTW KAI AGAQWSEI 

KURIOS TW KURIW MOU KAI MNHSQHSH THS DOULHS SOU AGAQWSAI AUTH 

[ 27. And now this present which thy servant hath brought unto my lord, let it be given unto the young 

men that follow my lord. 28. Forgive, I pray thee, the trespass of thy handmaid: for Jehovah will 

certainly make my lord a sure house, because my lord fighteth the battles of Jehovah; and evil shall not 

be found in thee all thy days. 30. And it shall come to pass, when Jehovah shall have done to my lord 

according to all the good that he hath spoken concerning thee, and shall have appointed thee prince over 

Israel, 31. that this shall be no grief unto thee, nor offence of heart unto my lord, either that thou hast 

shed blood without cause, or that my lord hath avenged himself. And when Jehovah shall have dealt well 

with my lord, then remember thy handmaid. (David)] ASV 

2 Sam 1:10 AUTOU KAI ENHNOCA AUTA TW KURIW MOU WDE 

"I have brought them hither to my lord." Brenton (David) 

2 Sam 18:28 EN TW KURIW MOU TW BASILEI 

"against my lord the king" Brenton (David) 

2 Sam 19:29 TW KURIW MOU TW BASILEI 

"before my lord the king." Brenton (David) 

1 Kings 18:13 H OUK APHGGELH SOI TW KURIW MOU 

"Has it not been to thee my lord" Brenton (Elijah) 

Isaiah 36:8 TW KURIW MOU TW BASILEI 

"make an agreement with my lord the king of the Assyrians" Brenton (self-explanatory) 

Judith 11:5 KAI OUK ANAGGELW YEUDOS TW KURIW MOU 

"I will say nothing false to my lord this night. NRSV (Holofernes) 

Judith 12:14 EIMI EGW ANTEROUSA TW KURIW MOU OTI PAN O ESTAI 

"Who am I to refuse my lord? NRSV (Holofernes) 

Gen 24:14 TW KURIW MOU ABRAAM * 

"my master Abraam." Brenton (self-explanatory) 

Gen 24:36 KAI ETEKEN SARRA H GUNH TOU KURIOU MOU UION ENA TW KURIW MOU 

And Sarrha my master's wife bore one son to my master after he had grown old; and be gave him 

whatever he had. Brenton 

Gen 24:39 EIPA DE TW KURIW MOU MHPOTE OU POREUSETAI 

And I said to my master, Haply the woman will not go with me. Brenton 

Gen 24:44 TW KURIW MOU ABRAAM 

and she shall say to me, Both drink thou, and I will draw water for thy camels, this shall be the wife 

whom the Lord has prepared for his own servant Isaac; and hereby shall I know that thou hast wrought 

mercy with my master Abraam. Brenton 

Gen 32:5 KAI ENETEILATO AUTOIS LEGWN OUTWS EREITE TW KURIW MOU 

And there were born to me oxen, and asses, and sheep, and men-servants and women-servants; and I sent 

to tell my lord Esau, that thy servant might find grace in thy sight. Brenton 

Gen 32:6 KAI APESTEILA ANAGGEILAI TW KURIW MOU 

And there were born to me oxen, and asses, and sheep, and men-servants and women-servants; and I sent 

to tell my lord Esau, that thy servant might find grace in thy sight. 

Brenton 

Gen 32:19 APESTALKEN TW KURIW MOU HSAU KAI IDOU AUTOS OPISW HMWN 

Thou shalt say, Thy servant Jacob's; he hath sent gifts to my lord Esau, and lo! he is behind us. 



Brenton (18) 

Again, we see that every time TW KURIW MOU is used, it is used in reference to lesser beings, never to 

deity. Is it any wonder that the Bible says: 

"The Lord God will make him a king, as his ancestor David was." Luke 1:32 TEV 

Sit at My Right Hand: 

To better understand Jesus inferiority to YHWH (Jehovah/Yahweh), we must look at the phrase in Psalm 

110:1, "Sit at my right hand." Many say that this implies equality, but can this be proven scripturally? 

The NIV Study Bible has this to say: 

"The place of honor beside a king (see 45:9; 1 Kings 2:19); thus he is made second in authority to God 

himself." 

It is interesting that the 2 scriptures used by the above study Bible mention queens. Since trinitarians 

argue that Psalm 110:1 affirms Jesus' deity, are then we also to assume that the above 2 scriptures affirm 

the queen's kingship? 

The Conclusion: 

"...those who actually companied with Jesus found him fully and naturally a man. He did not seem to 

them to be some indeterminate person from some halfway land in which human and divine were 

intermingled; he did not seem to them a kind of Greek demigod, neither fully human or fully divine; he 

did not seem to them to be so divine as to be inhuman." p.15, Jesus As They Saw Him, by William 

Barclay 

We can see with the frequent references to Psalm 110:1, that the early Christians did not expect 1/3 of the 

Trinity to appear. What they did expect was a man, an agent of YHWH. 

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 

22:69; Rev 3:21. 

Peter: Acts 2:33-34, Acts 5:31. I Pet. 3:22. 

Stephen: Acts 7:55-56. 

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. 

"For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on 

my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. Let all the house of Israel therefore 

know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified." Acts 

2:34-36 ASV 



A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked 

Answers to 65 questions every Jehovah's Witness should be asked using the 

NWT 

A reply to http://www.webshowplace.com/question/65quest.html 

Click here to go to 50 Questions Answered 

It appears that gene854 is Catholic, or at least sympathetic to them, so my answers will approach the issues from that 

angle. 

All MY answers, unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the following Catholic Bibles: NJB (New Jerusalem 

Bible), NAB (New American Bible), Spencer (New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Francis Aloysius 

Spencer, 1940), K&Lilly (The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek by Kleist and Lilly, 1956) and references 

to McKenzie are to the Dictionary of the Bible, Touchstone, 1995, and references to NWDC are from the New World 

Dictionary to the New American Bible, 1970) all of which bear the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur giving them the 

approval of the Catholic Church. 

Gene: These questions have been put together using information from many different sources. All verses 

are from the NWT so that the translation of these verses cannot be questioned by Jehovah's Witnesses. If 

the Watchtower Society decides to change any of these verses (like they did with Heb 1:6), then the obvious 

question for the individual Jehovah's Witness is why did the WTS change their own Bible. 

Reply: Most Bibles I know make changes with each revision, like the Good News Bible, New 

International Version, New American Standard Bible, King James etc. The above complaint is obviously 

a reference to proskuneo in Heb 1:6. It is rendered "Let all the angels of God worship him" in the 

Jerusalem Bible, but changed to "Let all the angels of God pay him homage" in the New Jerusalem 

Bible. This is not the only Catholic Bible that has done this. The Confraternity Version had "And let all 

the angels of God adore him", but when it was updated in the New American Bible, it read, "Let all the 

angels of God worship him." 

So, to paraphrase, "the obvious question for the individual Catholic is why the Church change their own 

Bible?" 

1.The WTS claims it uses the Bible as it's "supreme authority". Where in the Bible does anyone count 

their time in preaching on a slip of paper and are assigned record cards of activity, determining this as a 

"gauge to their spirituality"? Where in the Bible are Pioneers, Auxiliary Pioneers, District Overseers, 

Circuit Overseers, Bethelites, and Kingdom Halls? 

Reply: The reader will notice that some of these questions are a little puerile. This is almost like asking 

why I carpool, as the ancients did not. God's people in Bible times were generally meticuluos about 

keeping records, hence the recorders, genealogies, etc (Mt 1; Lk 3; 2 Sam 8:16; 2Ki 18:37; 1Chr 4:22; 

2Chr 34:8; Ezra 4:15; 6:2; Heh 12:22; Esther 6:1; Is 8:2; 

Ex 38; Numbers 1:19; Jg 20:15 etc). JW's are a relatively small number of who are trying to fulfill the 

great commission (Mt 28:19, 20; 24:14) and the most effective of way of doing that is in an organized 

manner. (2Tim 4:5, Col 3:23) 

2.To what was Jesus referring to by the term "this temple" in Jn 2:18-19? In Jn 2:21 John clearly states 

that when Jesus used the term "this temple", he was referring to his body. If what the WTS teaches about 

Jesus' body after his death is correct, then how do you explain these verses? 

Reply: "As with His usage of parables, Jesus' cryptic statement most likely was designed to reveal the 

truth to His disciples but conceal its meaning from unbelievers who questioned Him (Matt. 13:10, 11). 

Only after his resurrection, however, did the disciples understand the real 

significance of this statement (v.22; cf. Matt. 12:40). Importantly, through the death and 

resurrection of Christ, temple worship in Jerusalem was destroyed (cf. 4:21) and reinstituted in 

the hearts of those who were built into a spiritual temple called the church (Eph. 2:19-22). 


file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/65questions.htm (1 of 23) [5/25/2003 3:56:48 AM]


Or as the New American Bible states in the footnote, "This saying about the destruction of the temple 

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 

destroy the temple of God..."; see the note there. In Mk 14, 58, there is a metaphorical contrast with a 

new temple....here it is symbolic of Jesus resurrection and the resulting community...*In three days*: an 

Old Testament expression for a short, indefinite period of time; cf. Hos 6, 2" Italics mine. Sorry, no 

mysterious Trinity here. 

3.If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal "active force", why does he speak directly and refer to himself as 

"I" and "me" in Acts 13:2? 

Reply: "Spirit is the principle of life and vital activity. The spirit is the breath of life (Gn 6:17; 7:15, 22; 

BS 38:23; WS 15:11, 16; 16:14). The breath is the breath of God, the wind, communicated to man by 

divine inspiration....The spirit of Yahweh or the spirit of God (Elohim) is a **force** that has unique 

effects upon man...and the spirit of Yahweh is a **force** which operates the works of Yahweh the 

savior and the judge. The spirit of Yahweh is often the **force** which inspires prophecy (Nm 11:17 ff; 

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; 

Zc 7:12). The prophet is a man of the spirit (Ho 9:7)." Dictionary of the Bible by Catholic Scholar, John 

L. McKenzie, S.J. 

As we can see, the spirit is breath. In the Bible it is associated with "breath" 

and even "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 my mouth. This is my spirit, not a separate person. click here for more 

4.Col 1:16, in talking about Jesus, says that"... All [other] things have been created through 

him and FOR HIM". If Jesus were Michael the Archangel at the time of creation, would an 

angel have created all things for himself? Isa 43:7 says God created "everyone ... for my 

OWN glory ..." 

Reply: But the Bible does not says he created all things FOR HIMSELF (AUTON) but FOR HIM 

(AUTOU). The NAB links this scripture and the surrounding ones with Prov 8, 22-31; Wis 7, 22-8, 1; 

and Sir 1, 4, so lets take a look at those. 

"Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works." Pr 8:22 NJB 

"Then I was beside him as his craftsman, and I was his delight day after day." Pr 8:30 NAB 

"For she [Wisdom] is an aura of the might of God and a pure effusion of the glory of the Almighty." Wis 

7:25 NAB 

"Before all things wisdom was created" Sir 1:4 NAB 

The NJB has an interesting comment here at Prov 8, "Wisdom's creation by God was on a different plane 

to all his other works, Wisdom almost seems to be a distinct personality, sharing in God's activity, and 

his agent in the world. The concept given here will be used in the NT to express Christ's relationship to 

his Father." 

So here we see that Christ/Wisdom was a created being who was God's agent in creation. The NAB even 

says in a footnote at Col 1:16, 17 that "Christ (though not mentioned by name) is preeminent and 

supreme as God's agent in the creation of all things" 

God was happy with Jesus/Wisdom (his delight). Jesus is part of God's glory (John 1:14), and we get to 

share in that glory, "I have given them the glory you gave me, that they may be one as we are one." John 

17:22 NJB 

5.The WTS claims that Ezekial's prophecy of the Jews returning to their land is fulfilled in 

their organization. Ezek 36:24, 28 says "and I will take you out of the nations and collect 

you together out of all the lands and bring you in upon your own soil" and "You will 

certainly dwell in the land that I gave to your forefathers, and you must become my people 



and I myself shall become your God." If this is fulfilled in the Watchtower organization, 

then how are they returning to the land of CANAAN as promised to the forefathers? Ps 

105:8-11 

6.Consider also what is said concerning those who fulfill this prophecy. Ezek 36:22 says, 

"Therefore, say to the house of Israel, this is what the sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: 

'not for your sakes I am doing [it] 0 house of Israel but for my holy name, which you have 

PROFANED among the nations where you have come in." Since the WTS claims that it is 

spiritual Israel and fulfils these prophecies in Ezekial, how do Jehovah's Witnesses 

believe they have profaned God's name among the nations? 

Reply: To understand typography you need to understand that, Biblically, it need not encompass the 

minutest details of one type to another. For instance, Jesus is called the "last Adam," but that does not 

mean that Jesus will eventually sin and fall. Scriptures pertaining to King Solomon (Ps 45:6) have been 

later applied to Jesus (Heb 1:8), but that does not mean that Jesus will marry many wives and worship 

their gods. 

"The Church also is the new Israel and the new Jerusalem, the people of God and the city of God." 

McKenzie p. 904 

7.Since the WTS prohibits the use of blood transfusions, why does it permit the infusion of albumin, 

clotting factors, and gamma globulins, all of which are derived from human blood? Since Acts 15:29 clearly 

refers to the old Jewish law of not EATING blood (Gen 9:4, Lev 3:17, Deut 12:16), and since the WTS has 

changed its teachings so many times on major issues like organ transplantation, the definition of 

"generation", the year of Armageddon, etc, etc, and simply calls these changes "New Light", how can you 

be sure they won't some day change their teachings on blood transfusions and refer to the change as "New 

Light" also? 

Reply: The prohibition on blood was there before the Jewish system (Gen 9:4), during it (Le 17:3, 4 etc), 

and after it, in Christian times (Acts 15:28, 29). In this regard, the following is found in The Chronology 

of Antient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir 

Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): "This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter than 

the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and 

therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles 

were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of 

abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on 

the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the 

dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or 

false Gods, and from fornication."-Italics his. 

We should try to view “abstain” as Jehovah God does. God allows plasma proteins to be passed from a 

pregnant woman’s blood to the separate blood system of her unborn child. There are of course, no 

Biblical laws against childbirth. White blood cells (leukocytes) appear in milk and animal meat, yet there 

are no Biblical sanctions against drinking milk or eating meat. Acts 15:28, 29 explicitly states that we 

should *abstain* from blood just as we would from fornication (PORNEIA). I think we can tell the 

difference between an illicit sexual act of penetration compared to a stolen kiss. You will find that the 

changes that we have had in regards to medicine reflects the changes that have been made in medicine. 

Our basic doctrines have not changed, at least not to the effect as it has in Vatican II (are there still 

people in Hell because they ate meat on Fridays)? The Protestant and Catholic Churches have all made 

changes. 

8.Does Prov 4:18 really justify an organization replacing doctrines and failed prophecies with new 

doctrines and prophecies, or does it simply contrast the benefit to the "righteous" of obeying a wise father 

(Prov 4:10-19)? False teachings can be called "false words" and Prov 13:5 says, "A false word is what the 

righteous hates..." When the WTS changes a teaching to something that is totally different, is it like a light 



that is getting brighter and 

brighter or more like having one false light (word) completely turned off and a totally different light turned 

on? Do you think the WTS would be critical of any other organization that changed its teachings as many 

times on as many different issues over the last 100 years as the WTS has? 

Reply: Does Prov simply have filial connotations, or a wider application? The New American bible has 

this to say about it, "The way of Wisdom leads directly to life (10-13); it is a light that grows brighter 

(18). The wise man is bound to shun (14-17) the dark and violent path of the wicked (19)." It appears to 

me that the further we can work our way away from the *dark and violent path* of the Catholic past, the 

better we are off. 

9.Regarding Jesus' return to earth, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it occurred in l914 as an invisible 

return. That event is described in Zechariah 14:4, which states, "... and his feet will actually stand in that 

day upon the mountain of the olive trees which is in front of Jerusalem on the east." If Jesus has no body 

and if his return was invisible, how do you explain this verse? 

Reply: If he is really standing "upon the mountain of the olive trees which is in front of Jerusalem on the 

east," then how will every eye see him, as you feel they literally must (see 20)? The book of contains 

"symbolic visions" (NAB forward/Zech.) and therefore should not be taken literally. 

10.Paul said, "... for as often as you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the 

death of the Lord, until he arrives." (1Cor 11:26). If Christ arrived in 1914, why do 

Jehovah's Witnesses continue to partake of the bread and wine? Shouldn't they have 

stopped in 1914? 

Reply: Because the ELQH/erchomai of 1Cor 11:26 is not the PAROUSIA (presence) of Matt. 24:3. The 

word that is used in 1Cor is also used in the Lord's Prayer at Matt. 6:10, "Your kingdom *come*, your 

will be done on earth as it is in heaven." NAB 

Jesus started ruling in heaven at the beginning of his PAROUSIA, but God's will has not yet completely 

been done on earth. 

Revelations tells us that the Kingdom Rule will come at the same time as trouble for the earth, so it is 

imperative that we seperate the two, like the Bible does (Rev 12:10, 12). 

Now, if Popes are infallible, and Gregory I, who was Pope from 590-604 C.E., predicted that the end of 

the world was imminent in a letter he wrote to Ethelbert, a European monarch, then why are we still 

here? (Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End—Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages, Page 64, 

Published 1979.) 

11.Since the WTS claims "apostolic succession", can it trace its roots all the way back to 

Christ (Mt 16:18)? If so, who was it that "passed the torch of God's spirit" to C. T. Russell 

when he founded the organization? What was the name of this individual or individuals? 

Reply: Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim "apostolic succession." In fact, you will even find them quoting 

Jesuit John McKenzie, who wrote: "Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession 

of church authority."-The Roman Catholic Church (New York, 1969), p. 4. 

12.The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as "... and the Word was WITH God, and the word was a god." 

How can the Word (Jesus) be "a god' if God says in Deut 32:39, "See now that I -- I am he, 

and there are NO gods together with me..."? 

Reply: But yet the Bible talks of others as gods, such as Moses (Ex 4:16; 7:1), angels (Ps 8:5; 97:7; 

138:1) and King Solomon (Ps 45:6). Deut 32 must be read in its historical context, which includes 

strange gods (v. 16), new gods (v. 17) and obviously, idols (v. 37). 

The NAB-St. Joseph's Edition in a footnote at John 1:1 says that, "The Roman writer Pliny mentions the 

Christians of Asia Minor as singing hymns of Christ as *a god.* 

The NAB also says at Ps. 45:7/Heb. 1:8, "The king in courtly language, is called 'god,' i.e., more than 



human, representing God to the people." 

Though they of course believe in a Trinity, the NWDC candidly admits, "In the New Testament, the 

Greek Theos with the article (The God) means the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (see Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 

1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; etc.). Thus God is almost the name of the first person of the blessed Trinity. Without the 

article, God designates the divinity, and so is applicable to the pre-existing Word (Jn. 1:3). The term God 

is applied to Jesus in only a few texts, and even their interpretation is under dispute (Jn. 20:28; Rom. 9:5; 

Tit. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1)." 

13.The WTS teaches that the 144,000 of Rev 7:4 is to be taken literally. If chapter 7 of 

Revelation is to be taken literally, where then does the Bible say that the 144,000 will 

come from? See Rev 7: 5-8. 

Reply: Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger says of it: "It is the simple statement of fact: a definite number in 

contrast with the indefinite number in this very chapter." 

The number, while antithetical to the countless Great Crowd, uses the 12 tribes to denote that it is indeed 

the New Israel (as the tribes do not completely match the old Israel). 

14.Since the WTS currently rejects most of the teachings of its founder, Charles Taze Russell (who was 

president of the organization from 1879-1916), and since they also reject "judge" Joseph Franklin 

Rutherford, who succeeded Russell as president from 1916-1942, how can you be sure that in 25 more 

years, the WTS won't reject the current president, Milton Henschel (1992-present), as they did Russell and 

Rutherford? What kind of confidence can you have in an organization that rejected its founder and first two 

presidents for the first 63 years of its existence - over 50% of the time they have existed?! 

Reply: Who said we rejected MOST of their teachings? Did not Russell/Rutherford reject the Trinity, 

Hellfire, Immortality of the Soul etc, so it is special pleading to say that we reject *most* of what they 

taught, in fact, you will find the opposite is probably the case. As with most of the info that I am 

gathering from you Gene, I am noticing that they start with a false premise, and then lead off from there. 

We do reject some minor details (as seen in 18 below), but then the Catholic Church has seen fit to reject 

some of its teachings via the Vatican Councils. Tell me Gene, why have some Popes rejected other 

Popes? 

15.If there is no conscious awareness after death, how could the "spirits in prison", who lived during the 

time of Noah, be preached to by Christ after His death (I Pet 3:18-20) and howcould the good news be 

"declared even unto the dead" (I Pet 4:5-6)? 

Reply: What does 1 Peter 3:19, 20 mean? "and in the spirit, he went to preach to the spirits in prison. 

They refused to believe long ago, while God patiently waited to receive them, in Noah's time, when the 

ark was being built. In it only a few, that is eight souls, were saved through water." NJB 

A comparison of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 with Genesis 6:2-4 shows that these spirits were angelic sons of 

God that had materialized and married in Noah's day. At 1 Peter 3:19, 20 the Greek word for "spirits" is 

PNEUMASIN, while the word rendered "souls" is YUCAI. 

We have seen above from McKenzie what the Catholic view of the SPIRIT is, but what of the SOUL? 

"The word *soul* is used in English Bibles to translate the Hb nepes. The translation is unfortunate; soul 

in common speech reflects a complex of ideas which go back to Gk philosophy as refined by madieval 

scholasticism...[and in the NT] the Greek concept of psyche as a distinct spiritual principle is usually read 

into the term, and thus the concept of salvation and eternal life may become Platonic rather than 

biblical." Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie pp 836-839 

What is the meaning of 1 Peter 4:6? "For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that 

though judged in to the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God." RSV Catholic Edition 

The NAB footnote here is unsure as to the meaning, so it would not be wise to place too much emphasis 

that even the top Catholic exegetes cannot figure out. But if we look at the spirits as disobedient angels, 



the preaching would not have benefited physically dead humans because, as Ecclesiastes 9:5 says, they 

"know nothing," and Psalm 146:4 adds that at death a person's "plans perish." But Ephesians 2:1-7, 17 

does refer to persons who were dead spiritually and who came to life spiritually because they accepted 

the gospel. 

16.Since the WTS has received "new light" regarding the 1914 generation, and completely changed their 

views on this, does this mean that all the former Witnesses who were disfellowshipped years ago for the 

same view the organization is now teaching will automatically be accepted back into fellowship again? 

Were these ex-Witnesses in fact disfellowshipped for what is now taught as "the Truth"? 

Reply: This is a fantasy of JW-Haters. Disfellowshipping occurs not because of differences of opinion, 

but of rebellion, sexual miscinduct and a lack of humility. "Expel the wicked man from your midst." 1 

Cor 5:13 NAB 

"We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises, the Scriptural 

basis for which is already in the hands of our readers in the six volumes of 

SCRIPTURE STUDIES. We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our 

interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely 

laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt 

in respect to them." -- "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion's Watch Tower and 

Herald of Christ's Presence, 1 January 1908, reprint, 4110. 

Now, I am more interested in the Priests that have NOT been excommunicated despite the sexual 

scandals that have ravaged the Church of late. 

17.If there are 144,000 spirit anointed people who have a heavenly hope, and a great crowd of people who 

have another hope of everlasting life on paradise earth, why does Paul say that 

there is only ONE hope (Eph 4:4), instead of two? 







psalmist "David did not ascended into heaven." Acts 2:34 K/Lilly 

But yet we all worship the same God, all have the hope of life eternal. 

18.On pgs. 66, 69, 211, 423, 560, 648, and 719 of Jehovah's Witnesses--Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, 

reference is made to The Finished Mystery, which was the 7th of the Studies in the Scriptures series 

published by the WTS in 1917 (pg 66, 719), and was the major publication of the WTS at that time. On pgs. 

88, 648, and 651, a picture of this book appears, complete with the winged disk symbol of the Egyptian sun 

god Ra on its front cover. Is it true that The Finished Mystery taught that Christ was the Almighty of Rev 

1:8 (pg 15), that Christ established a "Church" (pg 17), that Christ returned invisibly in 1874 (pg 54, 60, 

68). that the Holy Spirit has a personality (pg 57), that the great pyramid of Giza was God's stone witness 

and was used to predict the year of Armageddon (pg 60), that Armageddon would definitely occur in the 

spring of 1918 (pg 62), that Christ was crucified (pg 68), that Leviathan of the Bible refers to the steam 

locomotive (pg 85), and that Michael is the Pope of Rome and the angels are his bishops (pg 188)? 

According to "current" WTS teachings, Christ returned invisibly in 1914 and in 1918 chose the WTS as his 

earthly organization because they were the only ones teaching "the Truth". If this was so, then Jesus would 

have known the teachings of the WTS as put forth in The Finished Mystery, published in 1917. Do you 

really think that Jesus would have chosen an 

organization which taught so many things that were not correct according to "current" WTS teachings and 

are no longer taught as "the truth"? 

Reply: The difference between JW's and Catholics is that we can and have discarded the nuisances of the 



past, while the Roman church has simply revelled in them. Cardinal John Henry Newman says: 

"The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions 

with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy 

water, asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal 

vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage.., are all of pagan or sanctified by their adoption into the 

Church." Cardinal John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 373 

We do not apply infallibility to our actions, in fact, quite the opposite: 

"We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding 

former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good 

reason for the change,-in fact, it is important that we should be willing to 

unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth. . . . It is our duty 

to "prove all things."-by the unerring Word,-"and hold fast to that which is 

good." -- "The Ten Virgins," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's 

Presence, October 1879, reprint, 38. 

Perhaps we should do what Pope Stephen did to Pope Formosus, who dug up his corpse and put him 

back on trial, and then after finding him guilty, have his remains tortured and dismembered. Vicars of 

Christ indeed! 

I am not even going to venture into the Catholic involvement in Hitler's plan, there have been many 

books of late that have covered that, but I will quote Catholic historian Paul Johnson on his comment of 

JW's during Nazi era Germany, 

"Except for a few individuals, the clergy were hardly ever imprisoned for long. Of 17,000 

Evangelical pastors, there were never more than fifty serving long terms at any one time. Of 

the Catholics, *one* bishop was expelled from his diocese, and another got a short term for 

currency offences....Only the free sects stuck to their principles enough to merit outright 

persecution. The bravest were the Jehovah's Witnesses, who proclaimed their outright 

doctrinal opposition from the beginning and suffered accordingly. They refused any 

cooperation with the Nazi state which they denounced as totally evil. The Nazis believed 

they were part of the Jewish-Marxist conspiracy. Many were sentenced to death for refusing 

military service and inciting others to do likewise; or they ended in Dachau or lunatic 

asylums. A third were actually killed; ninety-seven per cent suffered in one for or another. 

They were the only Christian group which aroused Himmler's admiration: in September 

1944 he suggested to Kaltenbrunner that, after victory, they should be resettled in the 

conquered plains of Russia." p. 489, A History of Christianity 

It is sad that we are still being persecuted online by the likes of people like Gene854. 

19.In Jn 20:28, John refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy". This translates literally 

as "the Lord of me and THE God of me". Why does Jesus, in Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for having come to 

this realization? If Jesus really wasn't the Lord and THE God of Thomas, why didn't Jesus correct him for 

making either a false assumption or a blasphemous statement? 

Reply: Who says that Jesus cannot be a Lord, when Acts 2:36 says that God *MADE* him Lord, and 

how can he not be a god when John 1:18 calls him an "only-begotten God" (Spencer). But we know from 

the context of Jn 20:28 that Jesus calls his Father "my God." (v. 17) How can almighty God Jesus have a 

God...and one that is greater than him yet? (14:28) So let us look at Jn 20:28: 

O KURIOS MOU KAI O QEOS MOU and compare it with Mt 12:49 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI 

ADELFOI MOU. 

What does this mean? "In native [not translation] KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects two 



substantives of personal description in regimen [i.e. both or neither have articles] and the first substantive 

alone is modified by the personal pronoun in the genitive or repeated for perspicuity [Winer 

147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in view." 

Possessive pronoun repeated for perspicuity - 

Mt 12:47, H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you 


Mark 3:31, H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI AUTOU/the mother of him and the brothers of him 

32 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you 


Mk 6:4 TH PATRIDI AUTOU KAI EN TOIS SUGGENEUSIN AUTOU/the father of him and the 

relatives of him 

7:10 TON PATERA SOU KAI THN MHTERA SOU/the father of you and the mother of you 

Lk 8:20 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of thee and the brothers of thee 

Lk 8:21 MHTHR MOU KAI ADELFOI MOU/mother of me and brothers of me 

Jn 2:12 H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI [AUTOU] KAI OI MAQHTAI AUTOU/the mother of 

him and the brothers of him and the disciples of him 

Jn 4:12 OI UIOI AUTOU KAI TA QREMMATA AUTOU/the sons of him and the cattle of him 

Acts 2:17 OI UIOI UMWN KAI AI QUGATERES UMWN/the sons of you and the daughters of you 

Rom 16:21 TIMOQEOS O SUNERGOS MOU KAI LOUKIOS KAI IASWN KAI SWSIPATROS OI 

SUGGENEIS MOU/Timothy the fellow-worker of me of me and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater the 

kinsmen of me. 

1 Thess. 3:11 QEOS KAI PATHR HMWN KAI O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS/God and Father of us and 

the Lord of us Jesus. 

2 Thess. 2:16 O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS CRISTOS KAI [O] QEOS O PATHR HMWN/the Lord of 

us Jesus Christ and the God the Father of us 

1 Tim. 1:1 QEOU SWTHROS HMWN KAI CRISTOU IHSOU THS ELPIDOS HMWN/God savior of 

us and Christ Jesus the hope of us 

2 Tim 1:5 TH MAMMH SOU LWIDI KAI TH MHTRI SOU/the grandmother of thee Lois and the 

mother of thee Eunice 

Heb 8:11 EKASTOS TON POLITHN AUTOU KAI EKASTOS TON ADELFON AUTOU/each one the 

citizen of him and each one the brother of him 

Rev 6:11 OI SUNDOULOI AUTWN KAI OI ADELFOI AUTWN/the fellow-slaves of them and the 

brothers of them 

[Heb 1:7 is a LXX quote and is therefore translation Greek.] 

As we can see, everytime this same construction is used, it is refering to TWO different people. NO 

EXCEPTIONS!! 

"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and 

acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, 

he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other." Augustine in "Tractate CXXI" 

"It is extremely significant that on the one occasion where there is no argument, in the case of Thomas, 

the statement is not a theological proposition but a lovers cry; it is not the product of intellectual 

reasoning but of intense personal emotion." p. 33, Jesus As They Saw Him, by William Barclay 

Some have taken Thomas's exclamation as directed towards the Father, hence you have, "My Master, and 

my God" as in the 20th Century NT. 

Winer , as does Beza, thinks it is simply an exclamation, not an address. (see G.B. Winer, A Grammar of 

the Idiom of the New Testament, 1872, p. 183 



Brown reads it as "my divine one" The Gospel According to John, 1966 

Fortna finds a problem with the high Christology of v.28 and the more primitive messianism of v.31. (see 

The Gospel of Signs, 1970, pp. 197, 198 

Burkitt paraphrases it as "It is Jesus himself, and now I recognize him as divine." 

While I may not agree with Harris on everything, he does say, "Although in customary Johannine and 

NT usage (O) QEOS refers to the father, it is impossible that Thomas and John would be personally 

equating Jesus with the Father, for in the immediate historical and literary context Jesus himself has 

explicitly distinguished himself from God his Father." p. 124 

John Martin Creed, as Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, observed: "The adoring 

exclamation of St. Thomas 'my Lord and my God' (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to 

Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ 

himself to Mary Magdalene (v. Joh 20:17): 'Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my 

Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'" 

The translator Hugh J. Schonfield doubts that Thomas said: "My Lord and my God!" And so in a 

footnote 6 on John 20:28 Schonfield says: "The author may have put this expression into the mouth of 

Thomas in response to the fact that the Emperor Domitian had insisted on having himself addressed as 

'Our Lord and God', Suetonius' Domitian xiii."—See The Authentic New Testament, page 503. 

AS Margret Davies says in her book RHETORIC AND REFERENCE IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL, 

125-126, 

"Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words was hotly debated by early church 

theologians who wanted to use it in support of their own christological definitions. Those 

who understood "My Lord' to refer to Jesus, and 'my God' to refer to God[the Father], were 

suspected of heresy in the 5th cent CE. Many modern commentators have also rejected that 

interpretation and instead they understand the confession as an assertion that Jesus is both 

Lord and God. In doing so they are forced to interpret 'God' as a reference to LOGOS. But it 

is perfectly for Thomas to respond to Jesus' ressurection with a confession of faith both in 

Jesus as lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the confession in this way 

actually makes much better sense in the context of the 4th gospel. In 14:1 beleif in both God 

and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which Thomas is particularly singled out.... If we 

understand Thomas's confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20:31 

becomes an anti-climax." 

Does Jn 20:28 say what trinitarians think it says? No. There is nothing there that talks of Jesus as being 

God the Son, the second person of a consubstantial Trinity. 

"For any Jew or Greek in the first century A.D. who was acquainted with the OT in Greek, 

the term QEOS would have seemed rich in content since it signified the Deity, the Creator 

of heaven and earth, and also could render the ineffable sacred name, Yahweh, the 

covenantal God, and yet was able of exremely diverse application, ranging from the images 

of pagan deities to the One true God of Israel, from heroic people to angelic beings. 

Whether one examines the Jewish or the Gentile use of the term QEOS up to the end of the 

1st century A.D., there is an occasional application of the term to human beings who 

perform divine functions or display divine characteristics." Harris' Jesus as God, p.270 

Don Cupitt describes the relationship between God and Jesus as "something like that between King and 

ambassador, employer and omnicompetent secretary, or Sultan and Grand Vizier. Christ's is God's right 

hand man; all God does he does through Christ, and all approach to God is through Christ. All traffic, 



both ways, between God and the world is routed through Christ." The Debate about Christ, p. 30 

This reminds me of a scripture at II Kings 18:28 in the LXX, which reads: 

"And Achimaaz cried out and said to the king, Peace. And he did obeisance to the king with 

his face to the ground, and said, Blessed be the Lord thy God, who has delivered up the men 

that lifted up their hand against my lord the king." (Brenton) 

Here we have Achimaaz bowing before the king, and exclaiming thanks to YHWH. No one here 

supposes that David is almighty God, and there is nothing strange about this type of vocalizing. Yet 

when Thomas does it, it carries all kinds of heavy theological baggage that was never intended in the 

framework of 1st Century Christianity. 

"...those who actually companied with Jesus found him fully and naturally a man. He did not 

seem to them to be some indeterminate person from some halfway land in which human and 

divine were intermingled; he did not seem to them a kind of Greek demigod, neither fully 

human or fully divine; he did not seem to them to be so divine as to be inhuman." p.15, 

Jesus As They Saw Him, by William Barclay 

"The NT designation of Jesus as QEOS bears no relation to later Greek speculation about substance and 

natures." O. Cullman's Christology of the New Testament as quoted in Harris' Jesus as God, p.289. 

If Thomas was actually calling Jesus hO QEOS and hO KURIOS--it is strange that Thomas used the 

nominative forms of KURIOS and QEOS instead of the vocative. So it still seems that Theodore of 

Mopsuestia could have been correct. The Father may well be the referent in John 20:28. 

Do you remember and earlier conversation Jesus had with Thomas (and Phillip)? It was at John 14:5-9, 

and at verse 8 Philip said to Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father." and Jesus replied, "Anyone who has seen 

me has seen the Father." NJB 

Nobody, including Trinitarians or Catholics believe that Jesus is his own Father. After all, verse 28 of the 

same chapter has Jesus saying, "The Father is greater than I." Thomas, after realizing like Paul, that it 

was "God the Father who raised Him from the dead," finally saw in Jesus the one way to approach the 

Father, just like Jesus was earlier trying to show to him. "No one comes to the Father, but by me." Jn 

14:6 Spencer 

20.If Christ will not have a visible return to earth, then how will he be seen by "ALL the tribes of the earth" 

(Mt 24:30), and by "EVERY eye" (Rev 1:7) when he returns? How can Christ "APPEAR" a second time 

(Heb 9:28) if he will not have a visible return to earth? 

Reply: But you said above (9) that he was returning on the mountain of the olive trees in front of 

Jerusalem. How will every eye and all tribes of the earth see him then? 

McKenzie,s Dictionary of the Bible, "Parousia (Gk parousia, "presence" or "arrival") ...In the Synoptic 

Gospels the Parousia is described as the coming of the Son of Man in glory (the glory of the Father) with 

the angels (Mt 16:27; 25:31; Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26), as a coming on the clouds with power and glory (Mt 

24:30; 26:64; Mk 13:26; 14:62; Lk 21:27, omitted in Lk 22:69). The Parousia will be preceded by signs 

in the heavens...The coming will be like a flash of lightning (Mt 24:27; Lk 17:24); this image no doubt 

refers primarily to the sudden and unannounced appearance of the Son of Man, but it also suggests the 

brilliance of his appearance. He will come in the manner in which he ascended into heaven (AA 1:11). 

He takes his throne in the heavens (Mk 25:31)." 

Did you notice that he is coming on the clouds...in glory...brilliance etc. It seems to me that Jesus' return 

will be something invisible to the naked eye. "He will come in the manner in which he ascended" and 

then McKenzie takes us to Acts 1:11, but if we read just before that it says, "he was lifted up before their 



eyes, and a cloud took him out of their sight." K/Lilly 

21.In Rev 19:1, where does it say that the great crowd will be? 

Reply: A great crowd (multitude) is a term used to describe *many*, even if they are evil in intent (Matt 

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; 

20:29; 1Kings 20:13; 28; 2 Chron 13:8; 20:2; Is 16:14 etc. 

22.If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, how could he: Be referred to as "he"and "him" in Jn 

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 things (Ezek 3:24, Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, and Heb 10:15-17): Desire (Gal 5:17); Be outraged (Heb 

10:29); Search (I Cor 2:10); Comfort (Acts 9:31); Be loved (Rom 15:30); Be lied to and be God (Acts 

5:3-4)? 

Reply: In the Bible, even the blind can see with "eyes of your understanding" by means of " the spirit of 

wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him." Eph 1:17, 18 

As we can see, the Bible employs terms that are descriptive, and often personifies the impersonal. 











(Ro 7:8-11) 

Wisdom speaks (Prov 8)....see spirit.htm 

...but is the spirit God according to Acts 5:3, 4? 

Let us see what it says: 

"Peter said, Ananias, how can Satan have so possessed you that you should lie to the Holy Spirit, and 

keep back part of the price of the land? While you still owned the land, wasn't it yours to keep, and after 

you had sold it wasn't the money yours to do with as you liked? What put this scheme into your mind? 

You have been lying, not to men, but to God." NJB 

Do you notice that the last part is directed towards Peter when it says, "You have been lying not to men?" 

See, they lied to Peter, who was "filled with holy spirit" Acts 4:8 


in vss 38 and 39 where these words were directed towards Peter and the disciples, "What I suggest 

therefore, is that you leave these men alone and let them go. If this enterprise, this movement of theirs, is 

of human origin, it will break up of its own accord; but if it does in fact come from God, you will be 

unable to destroy them. Take care not to find yourself fighting against God." Peter and his men were not 

God, but representative standing in place of God, and when something is done against them, it is done 

against God." NJB "Whoever touches you touches the apple of my eye." Zech 2:12 NJB 

Acts 5 works quite well with 1 Thess 4:8 which says, "anyone who rejects this is rejecting not, but God, 

who gives you his Holy Spirit." NJB 

23.What is the correct spelling of God's proper name, "Yahweh" or "Jehovah"? If Jehovah's Witnesses 

maintain that "Yahweh" is more proper, why do they misspell it "Jehovah"? If the name of God is so 

important, then should you not only pronounce it correctly, but spell it correctly too? 



Reply: JW's also maintain, like many others, that Jesus was called Yeshua, yet but a few purists really 

call him that. The Catholic Jerusalem Bible at Ps 83:18 says that God is Yahweh, the Living 

Bible-Catholic Edition says it is Jehovah, and the Catholic New American Bible says it is LORD! It 

seems WE are not the ones with the problem. To see what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about 

*Jehovah* and more info on the pronunciation of his Name, click here. 

24.Jn 1:3 says that Jesus created "all things", but in Isa 44:24, God says that he "by myself created the 

heavens and the earth" and asks the question "Who was with me?" when the heavens and the earth were 

created. How can this be since if Jesus had been created by God, then he would have been with God when 

everything else was created? 

Reply: All questions and no answers, aren't you? :) John 1:3 does not say that Jesus created all things. " 

All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made." ASV 

The New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV, and others have linked/cross-referenced Proverbs 8:22-30 with 

John 1:3, where it describes the created Wisdom/Jesus as a master workman beside God as he is creating. 

Click here for more. 

The use of the terms, "alone", "who was with me" and "by myself" does not necessarily mean what you 

would like it to mean, especially where a king is concerned: 

Look at Daniel 4:30 and Isaiah 63:3. Daniel 4:30 has been translated in the following ways: 

1) "The king reflected and said, 'Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built.' " NASV. 

2) "The king was saying, 'Great Babylon! Imperial palace! Did I 

not build it alone.' " —Jerusalem Bible ("JB"). 

3) "The king spake and said, Is this not Babylon the great, - which I myself have 

built," — J.B. Rotherham ("RO") 

4) "The king was answering and saying: "Is this not Babylon the Great, that I myself have 

built".— NWT. 

Was Nebuchadnezzar really the only person in Babylon who took part in the construction and building of 

the whole city by himself? Or, was the construction during his time, accomplished by his authority, his 

word and no other's? 

Isaiah 63:3 proclaims: "I [Jehovah] have trodden the wine press alone of the peoples there was no man 

with me." (ASV) Did Jehovah personally punish the peoples and nations that had offended Him? Who 

was it exactly that destroyed 185,000 men in Sennacherib's army? It was Jehovah's angel acting on the 

word of Jehovah. (2 Kings 19:35, 36) Did Jehovah personally punish Babylon or did He use the Medes 

and Perians to accomplish His will? (Daniel 5:26-28, 30-31) All these acts were done by Jehovah's 

permission and authority; and by His alone, but it was others who carried it out.—Ezekiel. 36:33, 36. 

25.If the soul is the body, why does Jesus make a distinction between the body and the soul in Mt 10:28? 

Reply: Who says the soul is the body? 

"The LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, 

and so man became a living being." Gen 2:7 NAB 

"The Lord God formed man out of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and 

man became a living soul." Gen 2:7 Douay 

Souls are living people, not just the vessels (bodies) they are carried in. 

The book Catholicism, by Richard P. McBrien tells Catholics under the caption *Biblical Views,* 

"Unlike the Greeks, who look upon a human being as an incarnated spirit, the Hebrews regarded the 

human person as an animated body. We do not have a soul and a body, we are soul and body....The idea 

of immortality of the soul, on the other hand, is not developed in the writings of the later Old Testament 

period nor in the New Testament. The notion of immortality reflects a world view different from the 



Bible's anthropology. Indeed, it is more akin to Greek philosophy (i.e., the human person as embodied 

spirit) than to the Hebrew mentality (i.e., the human person as animated body)." p. 159 Italics theirs 

26.In Col 1:15-17, the NWT inserts the word "other" 4 times even though it is not in the original Greek 

(See Gr- Engl Interlinear). Why is the word "other" inserted? How would these verses read if the word 

"other" had not been inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6. 

Reply: All Bibles add the word *other.* THE RSV-Catholic Edition has added this word 100 times. 

"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." (NAB) The word *other* here is not in the Greek. Now, 

Prov 30: 5-6 is best applied to the 3 Heavenly Witnesses in early Catholic Bibles at 1 John 5:7,8. 

As late as 1897 a papal decree was issued forbidding the faithful to doubt the “comma Johanneum.” In 

part it said: 

“Secretariat of the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Concerning the 

authenticity of the text of 1 John V. 7. (Wednesday, Jan. 12, 1897). 

“In a General Congregation of the Holy Roman Inquisition . . . the following doubtful 

question was presented: 

“‘Whether we may safely deny, or even treat as a matter of doubt, the authenticity of that 

text (1 John V. 7). . . ’ 

“All things having been most diligently examined and weighed, and the opinion of the Lords 

Consultors having been taken, the aforesaid Most Eminent Cardinals gave out ‘the answer is 

in the negative.’ On Friday the 15th of the aforesaid month and year, in the usual audience 

granted to reverend father the lord Assessor of the Holy Office, after that he had made an 

exact report of the aforesaid proceedings to our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, His 

Holiness approved and confirmed the resolution of these Most Eminent Fathers . . . ”—Acta 

Sanctae Sedis, vol. 29. 1896-7. p. 637. 

Pope Leo, in 1902 re-established a commission to study the Comma more closely. Because the report 

was unfavorable to the earlier decree it had to be put aside, but the pope continued to be worried by the 

situation right up to his death. Some Roman Catholic scholars began to ignore the decree. Dr. Vogels 

omitted the text from his Greek Testament published in 1920. Others were at first more cautious. In the 

Roman Catholic Westminster Version of the New Testament published in 1931 the footnote to 1 John 

5:7, 8 after calling attention to its omission in the original text continues, 

“Until further action be taken by the Holy See it is not open to Catholic editors to eliminate 

the words from a version made for the use of the faithful.” 

But in the same version republished as one volume in 1947 the interpolation is omitted, editor Cuthbert 

Lattey citing the Greek text published by Jesuit scholar A. Merk, which also omits it. 

Since the Confraternity Version of a half a century ago, Catholic Bibles do not contain this spurious 

verse, but ALL Catholic Bibles before that time had it. Jerome did not include it in his Vulgate, it was 

added in the Clementine Edition of the Vulgate centuries later. "What does scripture say about adding 

words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6." 

27.In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word "other" even though it doesn't appear in the original Greek (See 

Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for inserting this word? 

Reply: Do you even know what you are talking about? The same word is used in the Jerusalem Bible, 

New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible Catholic Edition, Living Bible Catholic Edition, and Monsignor 

Ronald A. Knox's version. 

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 

"other" had not been inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6. 



Reply: Again, see the Catholic Bibles above. I might suggest a bit more research to avoid this type of 

embarrasment in the future. 

If Christians are persecuted for the sake of Jehovah's name, why did Christ tell the first Christians that they 

would be persecuted for the sake of his (Jesus') name, instead of Jehovah's (Mt 24:9, Mk 13:13, Lk 

21:12,17, Jn 15:21, and Acts 9:16)? If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say, 

"There is salvation in no one else; for there is not another name [vs 10 Jesus Christ] under heaven that has 

been given among men, by which we must get saved"? If the teachings of the WTS are correct, would this 

not have been the logical place for God to have used the name "YHWH" or "Jehovah"? 

Reply: Any lexicon will tell you that the Greek word for NAME (Onomo) also means *Authority*. 

Notice how the 2 words interchange: 

Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among 

men by which we must be saved." RSV 

Mt 9:8 When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such 

authority to human beings. NAB 

Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 

RSV-Catholic Edition 

Jn 17:2 just as you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all you gave 

him. NAB 

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. 

Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are. 

NAB 

Php 2:11 And for this God raised him high and gave him the name which is above all other names. NJB 

The Almighty God does not need to be given a NAME, he has one, and he uses it 6828 times in the OT 

alone. Jesus is GIVEN a NAME, but we are never told what that NAME is. The only obvious conclusion 

is that the NAME is the equivalent to AUTHORITY. 

Now all of Gene's efforts is supposed to plant in the readers mind the idea that God is a Trinity. But have 

all Catholics embraced this belief as Biblical and reasonable? 

"After a long resistance to a seperate liturgical development on Gallic soil, the Feast of the Trinity was 

inaugarated by the Avignon Pope John XXII only in 1334 for the Church as a whole. It is a feast on 

which even in Catholic Churches it is frequently possible to hear either a scarcely intelligible explanation 

of traditional teaching or a deafening silence. There is a story about a Bavarian parish priest who 

announced to his congregation on the Feast of the Trinity that this was so great a mystery, of which he 

understood nothing, that there would unfortunately be no sermon. Actually in both the Catholic and the 

Protestant churches sermons explicitly on the Trinity are very rare.... 

Is it not more understandable, more illuminating, than the many speculations of later times - often very 

remote from the New Testament and little more than pure philosophizing - on the one divine nature 

(physis, ousia, essence, substance) in the three divine persons (hypostases, subsistences, prosopa, 

relations)? ...Might not preaching too, perhaps be better if it were based on what is said in Scripture about 

this God who forms with Jesus a unity in the Spirit? Catholic scholar Hans Kung, Does God Exist, pp. 

699, 701 

I agree, let's step away from the Catholic traditions that gave us these teachings, and let's go back to the 


Since the word "Jehovah" didn't appear until at least the 12th century, and since the term "Jehovah's 

Witnesses" wasn't used by the WTS until the early 1930's, doesn't this mean that the first century Christians 

were not known as "Jehovah's Witnesses"? 

Reply: *Jehovah*, as well as *Jesus* are anglicized forms of earlier names for these. The letter J was the 



last letter introduced into the English alphabet. Catholics seem to prefer *Yahweh* which is a 

supra-literal form of the Divine Name. Other options are *Yahowah, Yahoweh* etc. All of God's people 

people are Jehovah's/Yahweh's Witnesses. "You yourselves are my witnesses-it is Yahweh who 

speaks-my servants whom I have chosen." Is 43:10 Catholic Jerusalem Bible For more click here 

Since the Catholic church claims St. Peter as their first pope, then why is never called *pope*? Why is 

there no mention of *Catholic" anything in the Bible? 

28.The WTS makes the claim, "Like the Primitive Christian Community - the religious publication 

'Interpretation' stated in July 1956: 'In their organization and witnessing work, they [Jehovah's Witnesses] 

come as close as any group to approximating the primitive Christian community..."- Jehovah's Witnesses- 

Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, pg 234, and on pg 677 of the same book, a caption appears titled "Like the 

early Christians". Do 

Jehovah's Witnesses pray the "Our Father" (Mt 6:9-13), ... 

Reply: Why is it, that outside of the mention of the model prayer in the gospels, the primitive Christian 

community did not repeat the "Our Father?" (see Acts 1:24; 8:15; Rom 1:9 etc etc etc) 

McKenzie has this to say on Prayers, "The allusions to prayer in the epistles show a variety of objects of 

prayer: a safe journey (Rm 1:10), the salvation of the Jews (Rm 10:1), deliverance from enemies (Rm 

15:31), spiritual strength (Eph 3:14-17), for various spiritual goods (Eph 6:18-20)...."etc. The Lord's 

Prayer was an example of the things we should ask for. It was not intended for meaningless repetition. 

What does it say right before the "Our Father?" "Don't recite the same prayer over and over again as the 

heathen do, who think prayers are answered only by repeating then again and again." Matt 6: 7, 8 Living 

Bible-Catholic Edition 

break bread together (celebrate the Eucharist) frequently (1Cor 10:16-17, 1Cor 11:26-27), 

Reply: Where does it say in these scriptures that we should do this every Sunday or even every day? The 

original Eucharist was held on the Passover...which is once a year. 

come together on Sunday to break bread (Acts 20:7), 

Reply: Jesus 'broke bread' when food was being shared at a meal even before the Last Supper. (Mark 

6:41; 8:6) The bread used by the Jews at that time was not what many people are accustomed to today. 

When eating it, they would often break or tear off a piece. 

confirm the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:15-17, 19:5-6, Heb 6:2, 2Tim 1:6), ordain 

(appoint) priests (elders) through the laying on of hands (Acts 6:5-6, 13:2-3), pray to Jesus (Mt 11:28, Acts 

7:59-60, 1Cor 16:22-23, Rev 22:20), anoint the sick with oil (Mk 6:12-13, Jas 5:14), 

Reply: The footnote in the NAB at Jas 5:14 states that "oil was used for medicinal purposes in the 

ancient world." Are part of your requirements for 1st Century Christians that we wear sandles also? Acts 

7:59 and Mt 11:28 mention coming and calling to Jesus, not praying. The laying on of hands often 

implies the passing on of gifts of the spirit. This was something that was to end in this way (1Cor 13:8). 

often kneel down to pray (Acts 9:40, 20:36, 21:5, Lk 22:41), 

Reply: Sure, why not. But they also stood to pray (Mk 11:25). 

consider themselves to be witnesses of Christ (Acts 1:8, 10:39, 13:31), 

Reply: Yes. 

have deacons (1Tim 3:8, 10, 12), 

Reply: Yes, the greek word used here means "one who serves." "In a metaphorical sense the word may 

be translated minister or servant." McKenzie p. 182 

The Good News Bible-Catholic Edition translates this as "church helper." 

fast from than Jesus Christ (Acts 4:10-12), 



Reply: I don't understand this question. Fasting is not mentioned here. 

celebrate Pentecost (Acts 2:1, 20:16, 1Cor 16:8), have special people that look after widows and orphans 

(Acts 6:1-4, Jas 1:27), occaisionally drink wine (1Tim 5:23)? If not, then how can Jehovah's Witnesses 

consider themselves to be like the primitive Christian community? 

Reply: Pentecost was the festival of the harvest that took on spiritual significance AFTER it was Jewish 

celebration. I celebrate the Christian harvest work all the time. (Mt 9:37, 38; 13:30) 

29.In Rev 14:13, how can the dead be "happy" and find "rest", if there is no conscious awareness after 

death? 

Reply: Actually, it is the Bible that tells us this "For the living at least know that they will die! But the 

dead know nothing; they don't even have their memories. Whatever they did in their lifetimes - loving, 

hating, envying - is long gone....Whatever you do, do well, for in death, where you are going, there is no 

working or planning or knowledge or understanding." Eccl 9:5, 10 Living Bible Catholic Edition 

[Because Christendom has a problem with this, the footnote in this Bible says, "These statements are 

Solomon's discouraged opinion, and do not reflect a knowledge of God's truth on these points." What 

arrogance!] 

So what is a dynamic equivalent of the above scripture? "At last the time has come for his martyrs to 

enter his full reward." Living Bible Catholic Edition 

"Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on" New Living Translation 

"Happy are the dead who die in the faith of Christ!" New English Bible-Ecumenical 

"Blessed are the dead who from this time die as Christians." Williams NT 

"From now on, the Lord will bless everyone who has faith in him when they die." Contemporary English 

Version 

Why are they blessed/happy? "For you died to this world, and now you have entered with Christ into the 

secret life of God. When Christ, who is your life, comes again for all the world to see, then all the world 

will see that you too share his glory." Col 3:3 Barclay's NT 

Hardly an eerie other-wordly experience. 

30.Is it true that the WTS's prophecy that Armageddon will come before "the end of the 

generation of 1914" (You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth, pg 154), is no longer 

taught as "the Truth"? If so, then does this mean that this teaching of the WTS, which they 

have taught as "the Truth" for decades, was really a false teaching? Since the WTS claims 

that they are the "one channel that the Lord is using during the last days of this system of 

things" (Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, pg 626) and that the 

governing body is "the mouthpiece of Jehovah God", does this mean that God changed His 

mind about this teaching and the definition of "generation"? Is it possible that God could 

change His mind? Has the WTS ever changed their mind before about a teaching that they 

once taught as "the Truth"? The WTS has taught that Armageddon was going to occur in: 

1914 - The Time Is At Hand, 1888 (1911 ed.), pg 101; Zion 's Watchtower, 1/15/1892, pg22 

1918 - The Finished Mystery, 1917, pg 62, 485 

1925 - Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920, pg 89-90, Watchtower, 7/15/24, pg 211 

WWII - Watchtower, 9/15/41, pg 288 

1975 - Kingdom Ministry, 6/69, pg 3; AWAKE!, 10/8/68, etc. 

Before the end of the generation of 1914 - You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth, pg 154; A 

WAKE} 10/8/95, pg 4 

Since the WTS claimed that their teaching that Armageddon would come before "the end of 

the generation of 1914" was "Jehovah's prophetic word" (WT, 5/15/84, pg 6) and "the 

Creator's promise" (AWAKE! 10/8/95. 9/22/95, 9/8/95, etc. pg 4), therefore speaking "in 

the name of God" (Deut 18:22), then according to Deut 18:20- 22, doesn't this mean that the 

WTS is truly a modern day false prophet? See Mt 7:15, 24:11, Mk 13:22, 2Pet 2:1, 1Jn 

4:1, Rev 19:20,20:10. 



Reply: Well, you missed out on a few things that I will clear up for you. The preceding words in your 

snipped quote from the Proclaimers Book stated that they do NOT claim infallibility (unlike the Catholic 

Church, who is also a *false Prophet* according to your criteria..see below). The Awake 10/8/95 

mentioned no such thing, in fact, the page referenced was on Single Parenthood. I also can't find 

anything for 9/22/95, 9/8/95 

But what of the Catholic Church? Early Church fathers Hilarianus and Hippolytus predicted the end in 

500 A.D.(Paula Fredriksen-Tyconius and Augustine on the Apocalypse). But there is more: 

● In the 5th century, the Council of Ephesus decided the millenium had already begun. 

● Pope Gregory I, 590-604 C.E., predicted the imminent end of the world. 

● Spanish Monk Beatus predicts it for 800 A.D. 

● Aelfric, the Abbott of Eynsham predicts it for the year 1000. 

● Abbo of Fleury, the French Abbott predicts it for predicts it for 994/996. 

● Richard of St. Vaast leads a pilgrimage for the predicted end in 1033. 

● 1184 is the target date for the return of the Antichrist according to many... 

● and again in 1345-1385 

● Joachim of Fiore(1135-1202) used the New Testament and the Trinity to proclaim the coming of 

the anti-christ in 1260 A.D. This was greatly endorsed by the Catholic Church, and his writings 

had influenced Catholics for many years. 

● Speaking of the Trinity, the Church Father who first coined the term, Tertullian was a Montanist(a 

deeply apocalyptical sect). 

● Jean de Roquetaillade announced it for 1366 

● Roman Catholic, Arnald of Villanova, predicted the appearance of the Antichrist in 1378 

It seems that Catholic are just as much "false prophets" as you claim JW's are! 

"Apocalyptic speculations were more widespread than once believed. They were embraced not only by 

the people on the margins of society, but also by its more secure members. Indeed, apocalytpic thinking 

formed an important component of the madieval mentality." p. 24, The Last Days Are Here Again by R. 

Kyle. But there were many others as well: 

● The Taborites predict it for 1420. 

● Hans Hut announced the end for1528 

● Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa announced it for 1533 

● Melchior Hoffman announced it for 1593 

● The Fifth Monarchists predicted between 1655-57 

● A Lutheran named Adam Nachenmoser announced it for 1635 

● Lutheran leader, Andreas Osiander announced it for 1672 

● Jan Matthys announced for 1534 

● Archbishop of York and Primate of England, Edwin Sandys (1519-1588) proclaimed the imminent 

end 

● John Wycliffe announced it for 1379 

● One of the first Baptist groups, The Anabaptists believed that the Millenium would occur in 1533 



● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Reformer John Foxe believed the last days would start in 1600. He was shared in this view by 

Robert Pont 

The Father of Protestantism himself, Martin Luther taught Christ would return by 1564. 

New England Minister Jonathan Edwards predicts 1866 

The Puritans predict it for 1700 

Emanuel Swedenborg predicts the end for 1757 

Anglican rector Thomas Beverly predict 1697 

Anglican rector John Mason for 1694 

Pierre Jurie predicts the end for 1689 

Sir Walter Raleigh, Hugh Broughton and Thomas Brightman thought it would not be until 1700 

Christopher Columbus said the world was going to end in 1656 

Deacon William Aspinwall (General Court) predicts the end for 1673 

Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly announced it for 1789 

The Shakers announced it for 1792 

Lavater announced it for 1795 

Some Christian believers in Russia thought that Peter the Great was the Anti-Christ in the 1660's. 

Historic Jews in the 17th century believed that the Messiah would come in the year 1648. 

John Napier announced it for 1688 or 1700 

John Cummings of the Scottish National Church, predicted Jesus would return in 1865. 

Isaac Newton announced it for about another 90 years in his day 

Richard Brothers announced it for 1795 

Reverend M. Baxter (Church of England) predicts it for 1868 

Scottish National Church official, the "Reverend" John Cumming (1807-1881) proclaimed 

"Redemption draweth Nigh" in 1867 

In 1832 Pope Gregory XVI indicated that the time of the "plague of locusts 

(Revelation 9:3)" had arrived in his Encyclical "Mirari vos arbitramur." 

Pat Robertson announced it for 2007(in a novel) 

Chuck Smith, Pastor of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa proclaimed it for 1981 

Tommy Hicks, a noted evangelist, received visions of the end in 1961 

Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, predicted the world's end in the 19th. Century. 

Elizabeth Claire Prophet announced it for 1989 

Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California predicted the Rapture in 1981. 

Hon-Ming Chen predicted Christ's return on March 31, 1998. 

Methodist Joanna Southcott(1750-1814 announced she was the Bride of the Lamb and began to 

seal the 144,000 

Early in the 20th century, Dr. Isaac M. Haldeman, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in New York 

City, predicted that the Antichrist would appear before the Jews return to Palestine 

Assemblies of God official, Thomas M. Chalmers, announced it for the early 1920's 



● Pentecostal leader, Lester Sumrall predicts 1985 

● Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth, predicted the Rapture would occur in 1988. 

● Nationally syndicated TV show host (Prophecy in the News), J.R. Church predicted the rapture for 

1988. 

● David Webber and Noah Hutchings of the Southwest Radio Church (SRC) announced it for "1981 

or '88" 

● Salem Kirban - Bible prognosticator, predicted "the Rapture" would take place in 1989. 

● Benny Hinn predicted the Rapture would occur in 1993. 

● Irish Bishop James Ussher's prediction was for 1996. 

● Dr. Jack van Impe has speculated that the end will come between September 1999 and 2000. 

● Grant Jeffrey predicts it for October 9, 2000 

● Texe Marrs predicts it for 2000 (Storming toward Armageddon, 1992) 

● Philip B. Brown has stated that the millennial reign of Christ will begin April 6, 2008. 

Dr. Harold Camping, president of Family Radio, expected the end of the world in 1994. 

Is Christianity a religion completely awash with false prophets, or are they, like the anxious followers of 

Jesus in the 1st century, simply and anxiously awaiting for the incoming Kingdom promised to them 

(Acts 1:6)? 

31.If the name Jehovah is so important, then why is it never used in the entire Greek New Testament? If 

men edited out the proper name of God, "YHWH", when they copied the New Testament, as only the WTS 

claims, thereby altering God's word, then how can we have confidence in ANY of the New Testament? 

Should we discard the New Testament or the WTS as unreliable? 

Reply: It is Scholars that have determined that the name was removed. Professor George Howard has 

done extensive study on the Divine Name in the New Testament and has this to say: 

"The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the 

surrogates KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and 

the Lord Christ, and in many passages made it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the 

Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure 

whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures were brought into 

even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them. Thus it may be 

that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later Christological 

and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries." George 

Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 15 

"We know that the the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for 

Jews did not translate the Divine Name by Kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with 

Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the 

Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not 

understood 

anymore". 

(Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p.222) 

When did they remove the name? In a commentary on the manuscript P Fouad 266, Professor G. 

D. Kilpatrick, on talking about the period between 70-135 C.E. said that 3 important changes 

were made in this period. The change from scroll to Codex, the Tetragrammaton was replaced by 



KYRIOS and abbreviations were introduced for divine names. See Etudes de Papyrologie Tome 

Neuvieme 1971 pp. 221,222 

32.If Jesus was executed on a torture stake, with both hands together over his head, as only the WTS 

teaches, why does Jn 20:25 say "... unless I see in his hands the print of the nailS...", indicating that there 

was more than one nail used for his hands? Two nails would have been used if he was crucified on a cross. 

Reply: And the parallel account at Luke 24:39 mentioned hands AND his feet. 

The Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by M'Clintock and Strong, 

comments: 

'Much time and trouble have been wasted in disputing as to whether three or four nails were used in 

fastening the Lord. Nonnus affirms that three only were used, in which he is followed by Gregory 

Nazianzen. The more general belief gives four nails, an opinion which is supported at much length and 

by curious arguments by Curtius. Others have carried the number of nails as high as fourteen.'-Volume 

II, page 580. For more, click here. 

33.Can Jehovah's Witnesses hold and discuss openly with other Witnesses opinions that differ from 

orthodox WTS teachings? If no, why not? 

Reply: Why would you be a JW if you did not agree with their teachings? 

34.The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" as "is" in almost every instance in the New Testament (Mt 

26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate the same 

Greek word as "means" in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the 

translation of the word "esti"? If the NWT were consistent and translated the Greek word "esti" as "is" in 

these verses, what would these verses say? Why did so many of Jesus' disciples leave him when he told 

them they must eat his body in order to have eternal life? See Jn 6:25-69, Mt 26:26-28. 

Reply: Actually, the Greek word ESTIN occurs almost 1000 times in the NT, and it is rendered as 

"means" about 49% of the time in the NWT, not just in the few isolated cases as mentioned above. 

"Means" falls within the allowable lexical range of meaning for this word, as is evident in Matthew 1:23 

in most versions. 

"The broken bread is a symbol of Christ's body." NASB Zondervan Study Bible, 1Cor 1:24 ftn. 

35.Rev 20:10 says, "And the Devil... the wild beast and the false prophet [already were]; and they will be 

tormented day and night forever and ever". Where will the Devil, the wild beast, and the false prophet be 

"tormented day and night forever and ever"? Likewise, Rev 14:9-11 says, "... If anyone worship the wild 

beast... he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur... And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and 

ever..." Where could "anyone" be "tormented... forever and ever"? 

Reply: Rev 14 doesn't really say that though, does it? It is the figurative "smoke" that lasts forever, in 

other words, the lingering after-effects, the memory will last forever. Fire and Sulphur is used to 

extinguish something forever, to remove them completely. So when the Bible says, " And hell and death 

were cast into the pool of fire," we know that God will get rid of them forever. Rev 20:14 Douay 

As for *torment,* we see that the people on earth will be tormented by the 2 prophets (Rev 11:10), so the 

word does not have the meaning that you are hoping to get from this. The same basic Greek word is used 

to apply to a jailer, certainly NOT the endless torture of a later apostate teaching. 

36.Jesus Christ is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 9:6 ("For there has been a child born to us, there has 

been a son given to us... And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God..."). Jehovah is 

referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 10:20-21. How can this be if there is only ONE God? 

Reply: The Revised English Bible and the New English bible were directed by representatives of the 

Catholic and Protestant churches in the UK. The NEB uses "God-like" at Is 9:6, but uses "God their 

champion" at Is 10:20, 21. The REB has "Mighty Hero" at Is 9:6, but the Is 10:20, 21 has "God their 



strength." Incidentally, the NAB renders them differently also. 

A close parallel with this scripture can be found at Ezekiel 31:11, where the "mighty ONE" (Hebrew 

El/God the same word used at Is 9:6), RSV Catholic Edition, is used of a human king (probably 

Nebuchadnezzar). 

37.If the WTS claims they are not "inspired" but does refer to themselves as "God's spirit-directed 

Prophet", what is the difference? Is there such a thing as an "uninspired prophet"? Why would anyone be 

part of a religious organization which claimed that their teachings were NOT inspired? 

Reply: For one thing, where does it say that they are "God's Spirit-directed Prophet?" They do they say 

they are "God's spirit-directed organization." Is this a stretch? As far the spirit goes, there is nothing here 

that Trinitarians haven't said before. Most people feel their Church organization is Spirit-directed, and 

this is borne out in the Bible: 

Scofield, "the Church, which is Christ's body, formed 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; John 14:26,Matt. 18:20. 

Harper Bible Commentary, "The Spirit is the Church. 

What of the ANF: 

"It is said, 'In the church, God has set apostles, prophets, teachers," and all the other means through 

which the SPIRIT works. Those who do not join themselves to the church are not partakers of these 

things. Rather, they defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behavior. 

For where the church is, there is the SPIRIT of God. And where the SPIRIT of God is, there is the 

church, and every kind of grace." Irenaeus (c.180, E/W), 1.458. 

38.In the NWT, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" () is used in reference to God, it is translated as 

"worship" (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in reference to Jesus, 

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 

word in the Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). Especially compare the Greek word "prosekunhsan" used with 

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, 

and 28:17. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If the NWT was consistent in translating "proskuneo" 

as "worship", how would the verses above referring to Christ reads. 

Reply: Well, let us see how other Bibles have been translating this word? 

Scripture Revised English Bible New J. Bible New English Bible Kleist/Lilly N.W.T. 

Matt 14:33 fell bowed fell prostrated Obeisance 

Matt 28:9 kneeling Homage prostrate prostrated Obeisance 

Matt 28:17 Worship fell down prostrate adored Obeisance 

Heb 1:6 Homage Homage homage adore Obeisance 

John 4:20 Worship Worship Worship Worship Worship 

Rev 5:14 Worship Worship Worship Worship Worship 


Rev 11:16 adoration Worship Worship Worship Worship 


The accusations against the NWT are quite unfair, as other Catholic Bibles follow suit in a similar 

fashion. What does PROSKUNEO mean? According to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary 

PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence 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 18:26)...to the Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the 



Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to demons(Rev 9:20)...to idols(Acts 7:43)." See 

Above. 

Is PROSKUNEO the highest form of worship? According to Roman Catholic Theology it is not. The 

highest form is LATREUO(Latin Latria). In the RC Church this distinction is necessary as only God 

recieves LATREUO and the Blessed Virgin Mary can receive a lesser form of worship(such as dalia). 

For more on Latria and Dalia see the Catholic Encyclopedia at: 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm 

The NWT consistently renders LATREUO as "sacred service" while Catholic Bibles only make a 

distinction between LATREUO or PROSKUNEO when they are mentioned together. click here for more 

39.The NWT translates the Greek word "kyrios" ( Gr - lord) as "Jehovah" more than 25 times in the New 

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.). 

Why is the word "Jehovah" translated when it does not appear in the Greek text? Why is the NWT not 

consistent in translating kyrios (kurion) as "Jehovah" in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1. and 

Rev 22:21 (see Gr- Engl Interlinear)? 

Reply: Catholic Bibles like the New American Bible translate the Hebrew word YHWH 6828 times as 

LORD. Why is the word "LORD" translated when it does not appear in the Hebrew text. Why are 

Catholics not consistent in translating YHWH in other Bibles, like the New Jerusalem Bible as compared 

to the NAB? (see Hb-Engl Interlinear...or simply the other objections I have already listed several times 

above). The NWT is not the first nor the last Bible to follow this practise, which is quite common 

amongst missionary translations. Click here and here for more. The Catholic Magazine Rivista Biblica 

had an interesting article on this. Click here for more. 

40.The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" () as "I am" every time it appears 

(Jn 6:34, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.), except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as "I have 

been". What is the reason for the inconsistency in this translation? If "ego eimi" was 

translated in Jn 8:58 the same way it is translated in every other verse in which it appears, 

how would Jn 8:58 read? See Exo 3:14. 

Reply: Is this really native to the NWT? Let us look at the use of EGW EIMI in context: 

Version John 8:12 John 8:18 John 8:24 John 8:28 John 8:58 John 9:9 

NWT I am I am I am [he] I am [he] I have been I am [he] 

AT I am I am I am I am I existed I am 

New Living Trans I am I am I am I am [he] I existed I am 

Williams I am N/A I am I am I existed I am 

Beck I am N/A I'm I am I was I'm 

Lamsa I am N/A I am I am he I was I am he 

Simple English I am I am I am I am I was alive I'm 

Moffatt I am N/A I am I am I have existed I am 

NASB Reference 

Edition 1960-73 

I am I am I am He I am He 

I am... 

ftn: I have been 

I am 

Five Gospels I am N/A I am I am I existed It's me 

Living Bible I am I am I am I am I was in existence I am 



Kleist&Lilly NT I am I am I am he I am he I am here and I was I am 

20th Century NT I am N/A I am I am I was I am he 

21st Century NT I am I am I am I am came into being I am 

As you can see, the NWT is not alone in this way, and the reason for this can be explained better by 

going to egweimi.htm. If we simply look up the words in Strong's, we get "I" for ego [1473], and "I 

exist...am, have been." Notice too that the chart points to John 9:9 where a blind beggar says the same 

words, egw eimi, as Jesus did in John 8:58. Does this also make him the YHWH of Ex 3:14? 

On to Page 2 




Answers to 65 Questions every Jehovah's Witness Should ask using the New World Translation-A Catholic Perspective. 

Answers to 65 questions every Jehovah's Witness should be asked using the 

NWT- Pt 2 


A reply to http://www.webshowplace.com/question/65quest.html 

41.In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is "coming quickly", says of himself," I am the Alpha and the 

Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one who "became dead, 

but, look! I am living forever and ever", refers to himself as the first and the last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of 

God, says, "...I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end .,.". God is also referred to as the 

"first" and the 

"last" in Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this be since by definition of these words there can only be one 

first and one last? 

Reply: Revelation 22:12-13 does not have Jesus speaking, but his Father, God. In fact, this verse is 

speaking of Jehovah in Isaiah 40:10, but referring to his son, the Arm of Jehovah. 

" Behold, the Lord Jehovah will come as a mighty one, and his arm will rule for him: Behold, his reward 

is with him, and his recompense before him." ASV 

I am not alone in this. The following references agree with me by noting the relevance of Isaiah 40:10 to 

Revelation 22:12 in the marginal references: 

· The Nestle-Aland Greek Text (27th edition). 

· The Jerusalem Bible. 

· The New American Bible. 

· The New American Standard Bible (1973, reference edition) 

Compare that with Isaiah 53:1, 5, " Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of 

Jehovah been revealed?...But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; 

the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." [see also John 12:38] 

Here, along with Is 40:10, we have the "arm of Jehovah" as being the Messiah and differentiated from his 

Father, Jehovah. Remember, Jehovah is the Father (Is 64:8), which, according to Trinitarian theology, the 

Son cannot be. When you take the entire book of Revelation into consideration, the conclusion that Jesus 

is the Lord God is not even possible. Jesus cannot be the very God who is *his* God (Rev. 1:6; 3:2; 

3:12). The Father's superiority to Christ is shown in the very first verse of Revelation, where Christ is 

described as one who was *given* 

knowledge by God. Then come the aforementioned verses where the Father is described as Christ's 

God. Finally, in recognition of this, in chapter 15 vs 3 we find Christ joining Moses as they sing a song 

of *praise* to his God and Father, who Christ himself calls "the Almighty." 

But why do they both bear the title "first and the last, beginning and the end?" 

Well, how have others in the past viewed this? 

"Principium Christus, quia ipse inchoavit perficienda; finis 

Christus, quia ipse perficit inchoata"; [that is] "Christ is 

the beginning, because he himself commenced the work to be 

accomplished; Christ is the end, because he accomplished the 

work begun."--(Fulgentius (the Latin Father), Ad Transimundum, 

Lib. II. c. 5; in Migne's Patrol. Tom. LXV. vol. 250, C. [as 

quoted by Snedeker, ibid]) 

The First and the Last 

"Attend well to the comfortable words of your heavenly Master, 

whom God has appointed to be the original Lord, the continual 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/65questions2.htm (1 of 16) [5/25/2003 3:57:02 AM]


Preserver, and at last the righteous Judge of 

mankind"--(Thomas Pyle, M.A., Paraphrases on the Acts, the 

Epistles, and the Revelation, New edit. Oxford, 1817 [quoted 

in Concessions, by John Wilson]) 

"...the first, that is, chief in dignity, having much greater 

power than any one before possessed...the last, that is, the 

most despised of men, Isa. liii. 3; having been betrayed, 

mocked, beaten, scourged, and even condemned to be punished as 

a slave"--(Hugo Grotius, Annotationes ad Vetus et Novum 

Testamentum. [quoted in Concessions]) 

"Christ is called, in the Apocalypse, chap. i. 17, the first 

and the last; and this expression, if taken in the same sense 

as that in which it is used, Isa. xli.4; xliv.6; xlviii. 12, 

may denote Christ's eternal Godhead. Yet it is not absolutely 

decisive; for the meaning of chap. i.17 may be, "Fear not; I 

am the first (whom thou knewest as mortal), and the last (whom 

thou now seest immortal), still the same, whom thou knewest 

from the beginning." The same explanation may be given of 

chap. ii. 8, where the expression, the first and the last, 

again occurs, and is used in connection with Christ's 

resurrection from the dead.--(J.D. Michaelis: Introduction to 

the New Test., vol. iv. pp. 539-40. [as quoted in 

Concessions]) 

All of these examples show that there have even been trinitarians who have not viewed these titles as 

denoting any ontological oneness of identity between Christ and the Father. The last example, by 

Michaelis, is especially interesting, because he realizes that the title "first and last" was being applied to 

Christ in reference to his death and resurrection. This is how I view it, though in a slightly different 

manner, namely, that Christ is the first to be resurrected by the Father directly, and last to be so 

resurrected. All references to Jesus as being the "first and the last" have this limitation. Let us take a 

look? "I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18 "These things saith 

the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]" Rev. 2:8 


Col 1:18. 

Can you really believe that God can die? I cannot. Hab 1:12, (before the scribal changes/ Tiqqune 

Sopherim) reads, "Art not thou from everlasting, O Jehovah my God, my Holy One? you do not die." see 

also New Jerusalem Bible. I believe that almighty God cannot be confined by his own creation. Since 

God created life, and death is a by-product of life, this would be included. The bible never speaks of only 

Jesus' human-self/human nature/second nature dying. This is a 5th century Cappadocian thought read 

back into the scriptures. 

42.Jesus uses the phrase "Truly I say to you,..." over 50 times in the Bible. In the NWT, the comma is 

placed after the word "you" every time except in Lk 23:43, where the comma is placed after the word 

"today". Why is the comma placed after "today" instead of after "you" in this verse? If the translation of this 

phrase in Lk 23:43 was consistent with the translation of this phrase in all the other verses in which it 

appears (see concordance), and 



the comma was placed after the word "you", how would it read? 

Reply: The above statement is neither accurate or fair. The original languages did not have commas, so it 

is left up to the translator to determine where to put the comma. In the book How To Enjoy The Bible by 

E. W. Bullinger, it states, "The word 'verily'[truly] points us to the solemnity of the occasion, and to the 

importance of what is about to be said. The solemn circumstance under which the words were uttered 

marked the wonderful faith of the dying malefactor; and the Lord referred to this by connecting the word 

'to-day' with 'I say.' 'Verily, I say unto to thee this day.' This day, when all seems lost, and there is no 

hope; this day, when instead of reigning I am about to die. This day, I say to thee, 'Thou shalt be with me 

in paradise.' 

'I say unto thee this day' was the common Hebrew idiom for emphasizing the occasion of making a 

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, 

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, 

11, 15, 16, 18, 19; xxxii. 46). p. 48 5th ed. 1921 

See also Syriac versions of the Bible, along with Rotherham, Concordant Literal NT and The Riverside 


Greg Stafford, in his book "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended. Elihu Books," makes an excellent point with 

regards to the "precise wording of the text." He says on page 552 that "Luke 23:43 is the only instance 

apart from Luke 23:34 where a verb of speech is used with semeron and where hoti does not separate it 

from that verb." 

Below is the Vatican Manuscript 1209 (one of the oldest surviving mss) and they have placed the comma 

similarly to the NWT. 

Other sources: 

Tines men houtos anaginoskousin* _Amen lego soi semeron*_ kai hypostizousin* eita epipherousin, 

hotiet' emou ese e to paradeiso._("Some indeed read this way: 'Truly I tell you today,' and put a comma; 

then they add: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'"--Hesychius of 



Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E. Greek text found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 

93, columns 432, 1433. 

Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to hin' e to legomenon toiouton* eita to,


being if ALL things came into existence through him? If Jesus was a created being, then 

according to Jn 1:3, Jesus would have had to create himself. 

Reply: I think we already dealt with this scripture above. Jn 1:3 uses the words "apart from" in reference 

to Jesus (Spencer). In looking at the Greek word here for "apart from" CWRIS, Thayer's Greek Lexicon 

says of its occurence in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or co-operation) of one." 


Jn 1:3 also uses the words *through him.* 

Origen acknowledged this, "And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of the 

days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages, 

" showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when the ages 

were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage also, THROUGH [DIA] 

the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else 

could this but the Father?" 


The Kleist&Lilly NT often use the term *ambassador* for Jesus, and most Catholic Bibles 

cross-reference John 1:3 with the created Wisdom (an earlier description of Christ) of Prov 8:22-30 that 

aided God in creation. 

44.If the great crowd is to have everlasting life on paradise EARTH, why does IThess 4:17 say, "...we the 

living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to MEET THE LORD IN THE 

AIR; and thus we shall always be with the Lord"? 

Reply: Verse 7 refers this to those who were *called,* which is exactly what we believe. Verse 16 says 

that he is an archangel, but I doubt if you believe that. 

45.If Christians are persecuted for the sake of Jehovah's name, why did Christ tell the first Christians that 

they would be persecuted for the sake of his (Jesus') name instead of Jehovah's (Mt 24:9, Mk 13:13, Lk 

21:12, 17, Jn 15:2 and Acts 9:16)? 

Reply: Jesus never said we would be persecuted for the sake of his name "instead of Jehovah," but we 

have already seen above that Jesus was GIVEN a name/authority, and we also know that Jesus, like other 

kings, "took his seat on Yahweh's throne." 1Chron 29:23 NJB 

When we are persecuted for Jesus, this falls to Jehovah also. 

46.In Mt 1:23, who is Matthew referring to here that has been given the name which means "With Us Is 

God"? 

Reply: Simply naming someone Imanuel does not make him God anymore than naming someone Jehu 

(meaning "Jehovah is He") makes someone Jehovah. 

47.The Bible says that ONLY God is our savior (Hos 13:4, Isa 43:11,45:21, etc.). How can it be then, that 

the Bible repeatedly says that Jesus Christ is our savior (Lk 2:11, Phil 3:20. Tit 2:13, 3:6, 2Pet 1:1, 2:20, 

3:18, etc.)? 

Reply: For the same reason Jehovah raised up saviours in the past: 

"And when the Israelites cried out to the LORD, he raised for them a savior, Othniel, son of Caleb's 

younger brother, Kenaz." Judges 3:9, 15 NAB 

"...he raised for them a savior, the Benjaminite Ehud" Judges 3:15 

"Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their adversaries, who distressed them: and in the time 

of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest from heaven; and according to thy manifold 

mercies thou gavest them saviours who saved them out of the hand of their adversaries." Neh 9:27 

Why, the very name "Jesus" points to God as the source of salvation. It means "Jehovah Is Salvation" 

and thus honors the Father as the Saviour to whom even the Son looked. 



The Bible as a whole thus makes it clear that there is but one Saviour, Jehovah God. All others who have 

rightly been called saviours, including Jesus Christ, are not rival saviours. Rather, they were willing to be 

used by Jehovah God in this capacity. Hence, those desiring to gain divine approval must acknowledge 

that salvation proceeds from the Father through his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. 

"This is good and pleasing to God our Saviour; who will everyone to be saved, and come to the 

knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, there is also one mediator between God and the human 

race, Christ Jesus, himself human." 1Tim 2:3-5 NAB 

48.Referring to Isa 14:9-17, if there is no conscious awareness after death, how could Sheol "... become 

agitated at you in order to meet you on coming in..." (v.9), how could the souls in Sheol "... speak up and 

say to you..." (v.10-11), how could the souls in Sheol when "...seeing you will gaze even at you; they will 

give close examination even to you, [saying,] This this the man'..." (v. 16-17), and how would you be aware 

that this was happening? 

Reply: According to my Catholic Dictionary, Sheol is the underworld, grave, or death. Now think about 

it...How can Death become agitated? It is quite obvious that the context is not meant to be taken literally, 

but figuratively. Isaiah also says that "Hell is licking its chops in anticipation" Living Bible Catholic 

Edition (51:4), but we know, like the above statement in chapter 14, that this is a figurative statement, not 

a literal one. 

49.Heb 3:1 refers to "holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling". In Mk 3:35, Jesus says, "Whoever 

does the will of God, this one is my brother..." Therefore, according to the Bible, whoever does the will of 

God is a brother of Jesus and a partaker of the heavenly calling. How can this be if the Watchtower Society 

teaches that only 144,000 people go to heaven? 

Reply: Perhaps it would be wise to quote the entire scripture at Mark 3:35, "Whoever does the will of 

God is my brother and sister and mother. The previous scriptures dealt with Christ's fleshly family, this 

one heals with his "spiritual family" (see NIV Study Bible). 

50.Heb 11:16, in speaking about some of the faithful people of the Old Testament (Abel, Noah, Abraham, 

etc.) says, "But now they are reaching out for a better [place], that is, one belonging to heaven..." and,"... 

their God for he has made a city ready for them." The footnote on the word "city" refers to HEAVENLY 

Jerusalem of Heb 12:22 and Rev 21:2. How can this be since according to the teachings of the Watchtower 

Society, the only 

people who will go to heaven are the 144,000 spirit anointed who have been chosen from people who lived 

after Christ died? 

Reply: God has indeed made a city ready for them, the "new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven 

from God." Rev 21:2 NJB 

They can now look toward a theocratic kingdom government which is a spiritual one that will envelope 

the whole earth. I do notice that many who hold this exclusive heavenly view often ignore scriptures like 

John 3:13, Acts 2:34, Psalm 37:9, 11, 22, 27, 29, 34; Isaiah 45:18, Jeremiah 27:5, Matthew 5:5, Proverbs 

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 

heaven are to rule over the earth, then there must be persons on earth), Genesis 1:28 (cf. Isaiah 55:11). 

"What we are waiting for, relying on his promises, is the new heavens and the **new earth**, where 

uprightness will be at home." 2Peter 3:13 NJB 

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 

resurrection. If Jesus' body had been destroyed by God after he died, how could Jesus show the disciples his 

body which had the wounds in his hands, feet, and side and claim that he is not just a spirit, "because a 

spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you behold that I have" (Lk 24:39)? 

Reply: Now think about it. Why did Jesus even have to show the wounds in his body if he was the same 

bodily Jesus? The truth is, Jesus kept showing up in bodies that were unrecognisable to his followers. He 



appeared to Mary at John 20:14, but "she did not realize it was Jesus." NJB 

We have the same thing happening in Luke 24:16, "their eyes were prevented from recognising him." 

NJB 

Jesus materialised into bodies just like the angels of old had done (Gen 19:1-3). 

So why did he make the above statement about spirits not having flesh? Because, in the minds of those in 

the 1st century, spirits often denoted demonic activity (see Luke 4:33; 8:29; 9:39, 42). 

Jesus had to reassure them that he was not a demon spirit. 

52.If Christ was created by God and was the wisdom of God (Prov 8:1-4, 12, 22-31), then before Jesus 

would have been created, God would have had to have been without wisdom. How is it possible that God 

could have ever been without wisdom? 

Reply: Actually, it has been primarily Catholics that have tuoted Jesus as Wisdom. see wisdom.htm. I 

can just as easily turn this around and ask, why, if God always had wisdom, does the Catholic Bible say 

that Yahweh created wisdom (NJB) at the above scriptures. Obviously, it is a different wisdom, a 

personified one, because in Prov 8...Wisdom speaks...and talks of its enjoyment with Yahweh its creator. 

53.Rev 7:11 says that "before the throne" is in heaven where "all the angels were standing". Rev 14:2-3 

says "And I heard a sound out of heaven ... And they were singing as if a new song before the throne ...". 

Rev 7:9 says,"... look, a great crowd ... standing before the throne...". Rev 7:14-15 says, "...There are the 

ones that come out of the great tribulation ... That is why they are before the throne of God ..." Therefore, if 

"before the throne " means in heaven (Rev 7:11, 14:2-3), and the "great crowd" is "before the throne" (Rev 

7:9, 7:14-15), where does that mean that the great crowd will be? 

Reply: Well let us take an inventory of all things before the throne. 7 burning lamps (7 spirits of God), a 

sea of glass, 4 living creatures, 24 elders (Rev 4), a golden altar (Rev 8:3), the 144,000 (Rev 14), the 

dead (Rev 20:12). There seems to be alot going on before the throne. A good lexicon like Thayers and 

BAGD tells us that *before*, enopion, often means, *in the sight or presence of.* That is why the 

EARTH is "before God" (Gen 6:11), as is Moses' father-in-law (Ex 18:12), the tribes of Israel with 

Joshua (Josh 24:1), Bethel (Jg 21:2) etc etc. 

54.In Lk 20:37-38, how could Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be "all living to him (God)", since they all died 

hundreds of years before Jesus said this? 

Reply: The context of this scripture talks about the resurrection. If as you claim, nobody really dies but 

their soul lives on, then what need is there of a resurrection? To God, the resurrection is such a sure 

thing, that all are then living to him. But this view does not contradict scripture where it shows that 

people and souls actually DO DIE. (Eccl 9:5, 10; Ps 146:4; Ezek 18:4; Rom 6:23) 

55.If the soul dies when the body dies, how could the "souls" of Rev 6:9- 11, who were of those who had 

been "slaughtered" (i.e., killed), cry out "with a loud voice, saying: 'Until when Sovereign Lord ..."? 

Reply: The following scriptures say that the sun turned black and the moon became like blood, the stars 

fell to earth and the sky was divided...all of which we know can't happen. The NAB got it right when it 

says in the footnote, "Symbolic rather than literal description of the cosmic upheavals..." 

56.In Mt 28:19, Jesus tells his disciples to baptize "people of all the nations ...in the name of the Father and 

of the Son and of the holy spirit". Why would the disciples be instructed to baptize in the name of anybody 

or anything who was not God? Do Jehovah's Witnesses follow the command of Jesus and baptize "in the 

name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit"? 

Reply: As was stated above, Name/ONOMA often denotes authority. If a policeman tells you to stop *in 

the name of the law,* would you suppose the Law is a person or God? 

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 

person (1 Kings 17:21)? 



Reply: My Catholic Bibles often translate SOUL as LIFE, in fact, the NAB uses BREATH at these 2 

scriptures, which captures the thought quite nicely, don't you think? 

58.The Watchtower Society teaches that the earth will never be destroyed or depopulated. How can it be, 

then, that God says in Isa 51:6,"... the earth itself will wear out, and its inhabitants will die like a mere 

gnat...", and that Jesus says in Mt 24:35, "Heaven and earth will pass away...", and that John says in Rev 

21:1 that he saw"... a new heaven and a NEW earth, for the former heaven and the FORMER earth had 

passed away, and the sea is NO MORE."? 

Reply: Again, I ask you to think about, why will the heavens, God's dwelling place (1Kings 8:30; Ps 

115:16), need destroying? The footnote in the NAB says that they are symbols. I think you are placing 

too much literalism into the symbolism that the Bible often uses. 

59.Referring to Lk 12:4-5, what would be left of a person after they were killed that could be thrown into 

Gehenna? 

Reply: According to the NAB, Gehenna (Mt 5:29, 30 ftn) means total destruction. The second death 

(Rev 20:6, 14). 

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 

possible that the spirit of Christ could come into our hearts? How is it possible that the spirit of CHRIST 

could reside in someone? If what the Watchtower Society teaches is true, how could Paul make this 

statement if Christ was a spirit person residing in heaven? 

Reply: Who are what does the spirit of Jacob (Gen 45:27) wisdom (Ex 28:3) jealousy (Num 5:14) Pul 

king of Assyria and Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria (1 Chron 5:26) the Philistines (2 Chron 21:16) 

Cyrus (2 Chron 36:22) etc, refer to? The spirit can often denote a temperament, and why would we not 

want the mild temperament of Jesus. 

61.In Jn 8:56, Jesus says, "Abraham your father rejoiced greatly in the prospect of seeing my day, and he 

saw it and rejoiced". Since Abraham died hundreds of years before Jesus said this, how could Jesus say that 

Abraham "saw it and rejoiced", if there is no conscious awareness after death? 

Reply: Perhaps you should read your own Bible. The NAB says here in the footnote, "This seems a 

reference to the birth of Isaac (Gn 17, 7; 21, 6), the beginning of the fulfillment of promises about 

Abraham's seed." 

62.In Jn 6:51, Jesus says that a person must eat "of this bread" in order to "live forever", and that "the 

bread that I give IS my flesh". In Jn 6:63, Jesus says "... Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and 

drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves." In Jn 6:54-55, Jesus says, "He that feeds on my flesh and 

drinks my blood has everlasting life..." and "... for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." Do you 

partake of the flesh of Christ, as Jesus commanded, in order to have life in yourself and in order to live 

forever? 

Reply: Interestingly, the NAB says in a footnote at v. 63, "probably not a reference to the eucharistic 

body of Jesus but to the supernatural and natural." This is not to say that these Catholics do not believe 

there might be a tie in somewhere, but let us look closely at these words. Verse 34 has, "Jesus said, I am 

the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." 

NAB 

You are simply missing out on the beautiful symbolism provided by the bread. "Why spend your money 

on what is not bread." Is 55:2 NAB 

When Jesus told Simon to "feed my sheep" (Jn 21:17) are we to take this literally? No, but we are to long 

for spiritual milk. (1Pet 2:2) 

63.In Acts 17:31 Paul says, "Because he has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in 

righteousness by a MAN whom he has appointed, and he has furnished a guarantee to all men in that he has 



resurrected him from the dead". Did Paul believe that the future judge of the world, Jesus Christ, would be 

an immortal MAN or an invisible spirit creature? 

Reply: Since you are taking everything supra-literally, does this also mean that during the judgement 

hour that he will also be a *Lamb* (Rev 6:16), and that the Lamb is also their shepherd (Rev 7:17), a 

rider of the white horse (Rev 6:2). But the reasonable conclusion is that Jesus is the archangel Michael: 

Michael has authority over the angels (Rev.12:7) and so does Jesus Christ (Mat.16:27; 25:31; 2Thes.1:7). 

Michael leads the angels to defeat Satan and hurl him to earth (Re 12:7). So does Jesus. (Re 19:13,19). 

At 1Thes.4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel. 

The Greek for 'with an archangel's voice' is literally 'EN FWNHi ARXAGGELOU', in the oblique dative 

case. In all other occurrences of this idiom in the Greek New Testament it describes the voice of the 

subject in the clause. 

See: BAG, page 878, [FWNH/phone - 1. Voice] 

All these references have 'phone' (FWNH) in an oblique case, genitive or dative, thus signifying not just a noise, but a 

voice. 

+ [Re 5:2] NWT And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice: 

[ EN FWNHi (dat.) MEGALH (WH)] 

+ Re 14:7 (cf 9)] NWT saying in a loud voice: [ LEGWN EN FWNHi (dat.) 

MEGALH (WH) ] 

+ Joh 5:28] NWT Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in 

which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice [ AKOUSOUSIN 

THS FWNHS (gen.) AUTOU (WH) ] 

+ 1Th 4:16 ] NWT because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with 

a commanding call, [ EN KELEUSMATI (WH) ] with an archangel's voice [ EN 

FWNHi (dat.) ARXAGGELOU (WH) ] and with God's trumpet, and those who are 

dead in union with Christ will rise first. 

+ Ac 9:7 ] NWT (not referenced in BAG) Now the men that were journeying 

with him were standing speechless, hearing, indeed, the sound of a 

voice, [ AKOUONTES MEN THS FWNHS (gen.) (WH) ] but not beholding any man 

>>>>>>> 

See also: Lu 4:33; Rev 5:2; 7:2; 10:3; 14:7,9,15,18;19:17; Ac 7:60. 

What about Heb 1:5, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I 

begotten thee?" The main point of Hebrews 1 is to elevate Jesus above the angels (an elevation that an 

Almighty would not need). Hence the ARCH in ARCHangel. 

If the title "archangel" also applied to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel's voice" would not 

be appropriate. 

Jesus has been given authority by his Father to raise the dead. (Jn.5:25,26). 

But the voice of the archangel also raises the dead (1Thes. 4:16; cf Dan.12:2). 

Michael is called "the great prince" (Dan. 12:1). 

Christ is called a "princely ruler" and "prince of peace" (Isa.9:6). 

In Daniel chapter 7, there is a prophecy about the march of world powers to the end of the age. At the 

climax of that prophecy we read that "someone like a son of man" was "given rulership and dignity and 

kingdom," and that one is Jesus Christ. (Dan.7:13, 14) In another prophecy Daniel wrote that reached 

down to "the time of the end" (Dan.10:13;11:40) Michael would stand up: "And during that time Michael 

will stand up." (Da 12:1) In Daniel's prophecy, 'standing up' frequently refers to the action of a king, 

either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as King. (Dan.11:2-4,7,16,20,21) 

Michael's "standing" indicates a ruler and supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since 

Jesus is Jehovah's/Yahweh's appointed King. 

Both prophecies deal with the same time and the same event...thus the conclusion is obvious. 

Satan is abyssed by an *angel* for a thousand years. (Rev.20:1, 2, 10) 



The demons identified Christ as the one who was to hurl them into the "abyss" (Mt 8:29). 

The nations are destroyed by Jesus and *his* army of angels. (Rev.12:12; 17:16, 17; 19:11-16) 

Jesus is also prophesied as the seed that is to crush Satan's head (Gen.3:15), but yet Michael with "his 

angels" who does this in Revelation 12. 

And yet, did not angels appear as men (Gen 18:3; cf. Heb 13:1). 

This is not just a JW teaching: 



"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, 

finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel 

in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl . 


Daniel 12:1: 




J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. 

Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369. 

WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER, DOCTOR OF DIVINITY, stated: 

There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the 

best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael 

agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), 

and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--William L. Alexander, 

ed., A CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, originally edited by John Kitto, 

3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158 

From Brittanica.com: 

"Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology, which had already played a role in 

Rome in the early 2nd century--namely, the so-called angel-Christology. The descent of the 

Son to Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who 

became man in Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael. 

In the old angel-Christology the concern is already expressed to preserve the oneness of 

God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all 

paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is 

moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim--i.e., 

defending the idea of the oneness of the Christian concept of God against all reproaches that 

Christianity introduces a new, more sublime form of polytheism." 

http://mamma66.mamma.com/Search?eng=MSN&cb=Mamma&dest=http%3A%2F%2 

Fwww.britannica.com%2Fbcom%2Feb%2Farticle%2F1%2F0%252C5716%252C1083 

01%2B3%252C00.html&engid=599&af=0&qtype=0&qw=angel+christology&idx=0 

A Bible Dictionary published by Logos International, an evangelical 

Protestant outfit, says: 

"Michael ... in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish 

nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of the angelic army. So exalted are the position and 

offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." -- INTERNATIONAL 



BIBLE DICTIONARY -- ILLUSTRATED (Plainfield, NJ, Logos Internatioanl, 1977), p. 35 

Regarding the occurence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10, Methodist 

commentator ADAM CLARKE remarked: 

"By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume 

commentary -- not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon 

Press, vol. 6, page 952). 

LANGE"S COMMENTARY calls the figure here(Rev 12:7-10) "the warlike form of 

Christ." J.P. Lange's COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, s.v. Rev. 12:7 

AN EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE, produced by 27 different scholars, says of 

Michael: 

"It is even itself probable that the Leader of the hosts of light (in Rev. 12:7-9) will be no 

other than the Captain of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.... Above all, the 

prophecies of Daniel, in which the name Michael first occurs, may be said to decide the 

point." -- publ. in Hartford, CT, 1910, by the Scranton Co., vol. 6, p.882 

Matthew Henry Commentary: 

Concerning Revelation 12:9 in Henry’s unabridged and concise commentaries. 

2. The parties-Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the 

other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all 

his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to 

the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their 

salvation. 

Verses 7-11 The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to 

his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom 

of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful 

followers; and Satan and his instruments. 

Concerning Daniel 10 in Henry’s unabridged commentary. 

Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but 

injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but 

an archangel of the highest order, 1 Th. 4:16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the 

archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the 

angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5. 

John Wesley: 

Chapter XII 

A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning 

the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 For the 

children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some 

deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael 

your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of 

Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time 

of Christ, from his first, to his last coming. 






Geneva Study Bible: 

Da 12:1 

12:1 And at that {a} time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the 

children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since 

there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, 

every one that shall be found written in the book. 

(a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and 

trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here 

calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel. 

Da 10:1310:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty 

days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there 

with the kings of Persia. (h) Meaning Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence, and 

did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if 

God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church. 

(i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of 

his love he sends forth double power, even 

Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels. 

"The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm 

the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the 

Logos, has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage. Hofmann 

(Schriftbeweis i., p. 296) objects to this explanation, and says, 'in this case it is impossible to 

imagine why the Archangel should be mentioned as fighting with the dragon, and not the 

child that was caught up to the throne of God.' But we have already replied to this in the 

commentary, where we said, 'if Michael be Christ, the question arises why Michael is 

mentioned here instead of Christ'. The answer to this is, that the name Michael [Who is like 

God?, that is, 'Who dares to claim that they are like God?'] contains in itself an intimation 

that the work referred to here, the decisive victory over Satan, belongs to Christ, not as 

human, but rather as divine [compare 1 John iii. 8]. Moreover, this name forms a 

connecting link between the Old Testament and the New. Even in the Old Testament, 

Michael is represented as the great prince, who fights on 

behalf of the Church (Dan. xii. 1).' The conflict there alluded to was a prediction and 

prelude of the one mentioned hero. The further objections offered by Hofmann rest upon 

his very remarkable interpretation of chap. xii., which is not likely to be adopted by any who 

are capable of examining for themselves." 

—Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the 

Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel 

publication). 

Paul says, 'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, 

with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" and the dead 

in Christ will rise first.' I Thes. iv. 16. From this text it appears 

that when the Lord shall descend with a shout, his voice will be that of 



the Archangel, or head Messenger; therefore the Lord must be that head 

Messenger. This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the 

Archangel; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be raised by his 

voice. He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, 

and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and 

they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, 

in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come 

forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they 

that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John v. 26, 

28, 29. 

Brown's dictionary of the Bible on the words Michael, and Angel says, that both these words do 

sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel. Wood's Spiritual Dic- tionary 

teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown's does. The former was a Calvinist, the 

latter a Methodist. Buck in his Theological Dictionary says, under the article Angel, d) that Christ is in 

scripture frequently called an Angel.[1] Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert 

that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ. 

Doc- tor Coke, a Methodist bishop, in his notes on the Bible, acknowledges that Christ is sometimes 

called an Angel. See his notes of that passage where the Angel of the Lord spake to the people at 

Bochim. Winchester has taught the same doctrine in the 152 page of the first volume of his lectures on 

the prophecies. Whitefield, in his sermon on the bush that burnt and was not consumed, says that the 

Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush was Christ. Pool, in his Annotations, explains those passages 

where the Lord appeared to the Patriarchs under the character of an Angel, as referring to Jesus Christ. 

Bunyan makes the pilgrim ascribe his deliverance from Apollyon to Michael. He says, "Blessed 

Michael helped me." Pilgrim's Progress, Cincinnati edition, page 54. Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New 

Testament, on Rev. 

xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it 

as his opinion. 

Doctor Watts in his [G]lories of Christ, page[s] 200, 201, 202, 218, 223, and 224, teaches the same 

doctrine. Watts, Dodridge and some others have called this Angel of the covenant, or Angel of God's 

presence Christ's human soul, whom they think was the first Being that God ever created. I agree with 

them that Christ is the first Being that God created, but I cannot see the propriety of calling the 

pre-existent Christ a human soul, seeing he did not descend from humans but existed before the human 

family was created. 

Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her 

mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that 

appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was 

Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii 

throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7. 

Clement of Alexandria, 153—193—217 C.E. explains: 

Formerly the older people [the Israelites] had an old covenant, and the law disciplined the 

people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but the fresh and new people [the Christians] 

has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear turned into love, 

and that mystic angel is born—Jesus.—The Instructor, Book I, chapter VII (7); ANF, Vol. 



II, p. 224. 

Hippolytus, 170—236 C.E.: 

"And lo, Michael." and Who is Michael but the angel assigned to the people? As (God) says 

to Moses. "I will not go with you in the way, because the people are stiff-necked; but my 

angel shall go with you.—Scholia On Daniel, 13; ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 190. (Compare, 

Exodus 14:19; 23:20, 3; 32:34; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Insight On The Scriptures, Volume 2, p. 

816, paragraph 9.) 

Melito, 160-170-177 C.E.: (estimated dates of composition): 

He who in the law is the Law; among the priests, Chief Priest; among kings, the Ruler; 

among prophets, the Prophet; among the angels, Archangel; in the voice of the preacher, the 

Word; among spirits, the Spirit; in the Father, the Son; in God, God; King for ever and ever. 

(bold italics added)—On Faith; ANF, Vol. VIII (8), pp. 756-7. 

In Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning The Shepherd of Hermas, of the 2nd or 3rd 

century: 

In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God's 

inner council, and who is regularly described as 'most venerable', 'holy' and 'glorious'. This 

angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas 

saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael...Christ's 

pre-existence, was generally taken for granted, as was His role creation as well as 

redemption. This theme, which could point to Pauline and Johannine parallels, chimed in 

very easily with creative functions assigned to Wisdom in later Judaism...There is evidence 

also...of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel ... Of a doctrine of the Trinity 

in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church's triadic formula left its 

mark everywhere—pp. 94-5. 

(see also Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible)-The Shepherd of Hermas was so near and dear to the 

ante-Nicene Fathers that many of them considered it canonical scripture. 

64.The WTS teaches that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will not reside with Christ in his heavenly kingdom. 

How then do you explain Mt 8:11 in which Jesus says," But I tell you that many from eastern parts and 

western parts will come and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the 

heavens"? 

Reply: Again, you are looking for something literal when it should be figurative. In a parallel account, 

the NAB footnote calls it a parable (Luke 13:22-30) and it figuratively shows the Gentiles reclining at a 

table of salvation that was originally reserved for Jews. 

65.Every true Christian would agree that we should follow the commands of God. In Mk 9:7, 

God the Father commands us to listen to Jesus. Do you follow this command and listen to 

Jesus? After all, Jesus died for your personal sins (1Jn 2:2, 1Pet 2:24). Jesus tells us to go 

directly to him (Mt 11:28-30), and the Father commanded us to listen to Jesus. Why? 

Because JESUS gives us everlasting life (Jn 10:28), and so that JESUS will enter our 

house and be with us and give us the right to sit on his throne (Rev 3:20- 21). Do you pray 

to Jesus as Paul and the early Christians did (1Cor 1:2)? Do you partake of the flesh of 

Christ as Jesus commanded (Jn 6:51)? If not, then are you following the command of the 

Father who said "Listen to him"? 

Reply: You make it sound as if the literal denial of the eucharistic transubstantiation is indigenous to 



JW's. 

The verses at John 6 are much disputed amongst scholars who also don't see it with canabalisitic 

overtones. 

Leon Morris: "The objections already urged [against a eucharistic interpretation] remain. The very 

strength of the language is against it. The eating and drinking spoken of are the means of 

bringing eternal life (v. 54), and they are absolutely unqualified. Are we to say that the one thing 

necessary for life is to receive the sacrament? Again, "flesh" is not commonly used with reference to the 

sacrament. In every other New Testament passage referring to it the word is "body" 

"I am not contending that there is no application to the sacrament. But I very strongly doubt whether this 

is the primary meaning. It seems much better to think of the words as meaning first of all the 

appropriation of Christ" (Morris, Leon. _John_ [The New ICC]. Page 377). 

"The concept of Jesus as the Bread of Life can be related not alone to Jewish thought but to other 

cultures of the nearer and remoter East. The most remarkable parallel to John 6, however, is found in an 

utterance of Rabbi Hillel, son of Gamaliel III . . . He astonished his contemporaries by saying, 'there shall 

be no Messiah for Israel, for they have already eaten him in the days of Hezekiah' " GRB Murray, 

"Theology in the Fourth Gospel" p. 98. 

Jewish translations of the Talmud into English render the word for "have eaten" as "enjoy." 

"The means to life, accordingly, is not eating and drinking communion elements, but believing is the 

means of inwardly accepting the suffering death of the Passover Lamb who gave his life for the sin of the 

world" (Borchert, 272). 

"This is my body: That Jesus is speaking FIGURATIVELY should be clear. The bread SYMBOLIZES 

his body, just as Jesus speaks figuratively of being a gate, a shepherd, or a vine (see John 10:7, 11; 

15:1)." Evans' NIB Commentary on Luke, page 321. 

The transubstantiation was a bone of contention for hundred of years, as this ancient poem goes to show: 

A Roman Miracle 

A pretty maid, a Protestant, was to a Catholic wed; 

To love all Bible truths and tales, quite early she`d been bred. 

It sorely grieved her husband's heart that she would not comply, 

And join the Mother Church of Rome and heretics deny. 

So day by day he flattered her, but still she saw no good 

Would ever come from bowing down to idols made of wood. 

The Mass, the host, the miracles, were made but to deceive; 

And transubstantiation, too, she`d never dare believe. 

He went to see his clergyman and told him his sad tale. 

"My wife is an unbeliever, sir; you can perhaps prevail; 

For all your Romish miracles my wife has strong aversion, 

To really work a miracle may lead to her conversion." 

The priest went with the gentleman-he thought to gain a prize. 

He said, "I will convert her, sir, and open both her eyes." 

So when they came into the house, the husband loudly cried, 

"The priest has come to dine with us!" "He`s welcome," she replied. 



And when, at last, the meal was o'er, the priest at once began, 

To teach his hostess all about the sinful state of man; 

The greatness of our Savior`s love, which Christians can`t deny, 

To give Himself a sacrifice and for our sins to die. 

"I will return tomorrow, lass, prepare some bread and wine; 

The Sacramental miracle will stop your soul's decline." 

"I`ll bake the bread," the lady said. "You may," he did reply, 

"And when you`ve seen this miracle, convinced you`ll be, say I." 

The Priest did come accordingly, the bread and wine did bless. 

The lady asked, "Sir, is it changed?" The priest answered, "Yes, 

It`s changed from common bread and wine to truly flesh and blood; 

Begorra, lass, this power of mine has changed it into God!" 

So having blessed the bread and wine, to eat they did prepare. 

The lady said unto the priest, "I warn you to take care, 

For half an ounce of arsenic was mixed right in the batter, 

But since you have its nature changed, it cannot really matter." 

The priest was struck real dumb-he looked as pale as death. 

The Bread and Wine fell from his hands and he did gasp for breath. 

"Bring me and my horse!" the priest cried, "This is a cursed home!" 

The lady replied, "Begone; tis you who shares the curse of Rome." 

The husband, too, he sat suprised, and not a word did say. 

At length he spoke,"My dear," said he, "the priest has run away; 

To gulp such mummery and tripe, I`m not for sure, quite able; 

I`ll go with you and we`ll renounce this Roman Catholic fable." 

-Author Unknown 


Back to 65 Questions Pt. 1 



ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II 

ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13. 

[From the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1881] 

The Greek reads as follows: PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS 

DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN IHSOU CRISTOU (or CRISTOU IHSOU). 

Shall we translate, "the appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ"? or, "the appearing of the 

glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"? 

It was formerly contended by Granville Sharp, and afterwards by Bishop Middleton, that the absence of 

the Greek article before SWTHROS in Tit. ii. 13 and 2 Pet. i. I, and before QEOU in Eph. v. 5, is alone 

sufficient to prove that the two appellatives connected by KAI belong to one subject. 

[ftn. Sharp applied his famous rule to 2 Thess. i. 12, but Middleton thinks that this text afford no certain 

evidence in his favor. Winer disposes of it summarily as merely a case in which KURIOU is used for O 

KURIOU taking, in a measure, the character of a proper name. In 2 Thess. i. 11, O QEOS HMWN 

denotes God in distinction from "our Lord Jesus" (ver. 12); it is therefore unnatural in the extreme to take 

this title in the last clause of the very same sentence (ver. 12) as a designation of Christ. We may then 

reject without hesitation Granville Sharp's construction, which in fact has the support of but few 

respectable scholars. 

As to I Tim. v. 21 and 2 Tim. iv. 1, it is enough to refer to the notes of Bishop Middleton and Bishop 

Ellicott on the former passage. Compare the remarkable various readings in Gal. ii. 20, adopted by 

Lachmann and Tregelles (text), but not by Tischendorf or Westcott and Hort, - EN PISTEI ZW TH TOU 

QEOU KAI CRISTOS. 

In Eph. v. 5, EN TH BASILEIA TOU CRISTOU KAI QEOU, the CRISTOU and QEOU are regarded as 

being distinct by a large majority of the best commentators, as De Wette, Meyer, Olshausen, Meier, 

Holzhausen, Flatt, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Ewald, Schenkel, Braune and Riddle (in 

Lange's Comm., and Prebendary Meyrick in "the Speaker's Commentary" (1881). 

In the Revised New Testament, the construction contended for so strenuously by Middleton in Eph. v. 5, 

and Sharp in 2 Thess. i. 12, has not been deemed worthy of notice.] 

"It is impossible," says Middleton in his note on Tit. ii. 13, "to understand QEOU and SWTHROS 

otherwise than of one person." This ground is now generally abandoned, and it is admitted that, 

grammatically, either construction is possible. I need only refer to Winer, Stuart, Buttman, T.S. Green, 

and S.G. Green among the grammarians, and to Alford, Ellicott, Bishop Jackson, and other recent 

commentators. 

[ftn. See Winer. Gram. 19, 5, Anm. I, p. 123, 7te Aufl (p. 130 Thayer's trans., p. 162 Moulton); Stuart, 

Bibl. Repos. April, 1834, vol. iv. p. 322 f.; A. Buttman, Gram. 125, 14-17, pp. 97-100, Thayer's trans.; 

T.S. Green, Gram. of the N.T. Dialect (1842), pp. 205-219, or new ed.(1862), pp. 67-75; S.G. Green, 

Handbook to the Gram. of the Greek Text., p. 216; and Alford on Tit. 11. 13. Alford has some good 

remarks on the passage, but I find no sufficient proof of his statement that SWTHR had become in the 

N.T. "a quasi proper name."] 

It will be most convenient to assume, provisionally, that this view is correct; and to consider the 

exegetical grounds for preferring one construction to the other. But as some still think that the omission 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/abbott_sharp.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 3:57:25 AM]


of the article, though not decisive of the question, affords a presumption in favor of the construction 

which makes TOU MEGALOU QEOU a designation of Christ, a few remarks upon this point will be 

made in Note A, at the end of this paper. It may be enough to say here that QEOUhas already an 

attributive, so that the mind naturally rests for a moment upon TOU MEGALOU QEOU as a subject by 

itself; and that the addition of IHSOU CRISTOU to SWTHROS HMWN distinguished the person so 

clearly from TOU MEGALOU QEOU, according to Paul's constant use of language, that there was no 

need of the article for that purpose. 

The question presented derives additional interest from the fact that, in the recent Revision of the English 

translation of the New Testament, the English Company have adopted in the text the first of the 

constructions mentioned above, placing the other in the margin; while the American Company, by a large 

majority, preferred to reverse these positions. 

I will first examine the arguments of Bishop Ellicott for the construction which makes TOU MEGALOU 

QEOU an appellation of Christ. They are as follows:- 

"(a) EPIFANEIA is a term specially and peculiarly applied to the Son, and never to the Father." The facts 

are these. In one passage (2 Tim. 1. 10) the word EPIFANEIA is applied to Christ's first advent; in four to 

his second advent (2 Thess. ii. 8; 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8); and as EPIFANEIA denotes a visible 

manifestation, it may be thought that an EPIFANEIA of God, the Father, "whom no man hath seen nor 

can see," could not be spoken of. 

But this argument is founded on a misstatement of the question. The expression here is not "the 

appearing of the great God," but "the appearing of the glory of the great God," which is a different thing. 

When our Saviour himself had said, "The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his 

angels" (Matt. xvi. 27, comp. Mark viii. 38), or as Luke expresses it, "in his own glory and the glory of 

the Father, and of the holy angels" (ch. ix. 26), can we doubt that Paul, who had probably often heard 

Luke's report of these words, might speak of "the appearing of the glory" of the Father, as well as of 

Christ, at the second advent? 

[ftn, Even if the false assumption on which the argument were correct, that is, if the expression here used 

were THN EPIFANEIAN TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN IHSOU CRISTOU, the 

argument would have little or no weight. The fact that EPIFANEIA is used four times of Christ in 

relation to the second advent would be very far from proving that it might not be so used of God, the 

Father, also. Abundant examples may be adduced from Jewish writers to show that any extraordinary 

display of divine power, whether exercised directly and known only by its effects, or through an 

intermediate visible agent, as an angel, might be called an EPIFANEIA, an "appearing" or 

"manifestation" of God. The word is used in the same way in heathen literature to denote any supposed 

divine interposition in human affairs, whether accompanied by a visible appearance of the particular 

deity concerned, or not. See Note B.] 

This view is confirmed by the representations of the second advent given elsewhere in the New 

Testament, and particularly by 1 Tim. vi. 14-16. The future EPIFANEIA of Christ was not conceived of 

by Paul as independent of God, the Father, and more than his first EPIFANEIA or advent, but as one 

"which in his own time the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who only 

hath immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man hath seen nor can see, shall show" 

(DEIXEI). The reference is to the joint manifestation of the glory of God and of Christ at the time when, 

to use the language of the writer to the Hebrews (i. 6), he again bringeth [or shall have brought] his 



first-begotten into the world, and saith, Let all the angels of God pay him homage." 

[ftn. "See also Acts iii. 20: "-and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even 

Jesus."] 

That God and Christ should be associated in the references to the second advent, that God should be 

represented as displaying his power and glory at the EPIFANEIA of Christ, accords with the account 

given elsewhere of the accompanying events. The dead are to be raised at the second advent, a glorious 

display of divine power, even as Christ is said to have been "raised from the dead by the glory of the 

Father" (Rom. vi. 4). But it is expressly declared by Paul that, "as Jesus died and rose again, even so shall 

GOD, through Jesus, bring with him them that have fallen asleep" (1 Thess. iv. 14; comp. Phil. iii. 21); 

and again, "GOD both raised the Lord, and he will raise up us by his power" (1 Cor. vi. 14). There is to 

be a general judgement at the second advent; but Paul tells us that "God hath appointed a day for which 

HE will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he hath ordained" (Acts xvii. 31), or, as it is 

elsewhere expressed, "the day in which He will judge the secrets of men, through Jesus Christ." (Rom. ii. 

16, comp. ver. 5, 6); and that "we shall stand before the judgement seat of GOD" (Rom. xiv. 10). So the 

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 

Christ Jesus" (Phil. i. 6), or "the day of Christ" (Phil. 1. 10, ii. 16), but "the day of GOD" (2 Pet. iii. 12). 

Here, as throughout the economy of salvation, there is EIS QEOS O PATHR EX OU TA PANTA KAI 

HMEIS EIS AUTON KAI EIS KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS DI OU TA PANTA (1 Cor. viii. 6). 

It appears to me, then, that Bishop Ellicott's "palmary argument," as he calls it, derives all its apparent 

force from a misstatement of the question; and when we consider the express language of Christ 

respecting his appearing in the glory of his Father, the express statement of Paul that this EPIFANEIA of 

Christ is one which God, the Father, will show (1 Tim. vi. 15), and the corresponding statement of the 

writer to the Hebrews (i. 6, when he bringeth," etc.); when we consider that in the concomitants of the 

second advent, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgement of men, in which the glory of Christ will 

be displayed, he is everywhere represented as acting, not independently of God, the Father, but in union 

with him, as his agent, so that "the Father is glorified in the Son," can we find the slightest difficulty in 

supposing that Paul here describes the second advent as an "appearing of the glory of the great God and 

our Saviour Jesus Christ"? 

(b) Bishop Ellicott's second argument is "that the immediate context so specially relates to our Lord." He 

can only refer to ver. 14, "who gave himself for us," etc. The argument rest on the assumption, that when 

a writer speaks of two persons, A and B, there is something strange or unnatural in adding a predicate to 

B alone. If it is not instantly clear that such an assumption contradicts the most familiar facts of language, 

one may compare the mention of God and Christ together in Gal. 1. 3, 4, and 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6, and the 

predicate that in each case follows the mention of the latter. The passage in Galatians reads: "Grace to 

you and peace from God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might 

deliver us to God," etc. 

(c) The third point is "that the following mention of Christ's giving Himself up for us, of His abasement, 

does fairly account for St. Paul's ascription of a title, otherwise unusual, that specifically and 

antithetically marks His glory." - "Otherwise unusual"! Does Bishop Ellicott mean that "the great God" is 

an unusual title of Christ in the New Testament? But this is not an argument, only an answer to an 

objection, which we shall consider by and by. It is obvious what is said in ver. 14 can in itself afford no 

proof or presumption that Paul in what precedes has called Christ "the great God." He uses similar 



language in many passages (e.g. those just cited under b from Gal. i. 3, 4, and 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6), in which 

Christ is clearly distinguished from God. 

(d) The fourth argument is "that MEGALOU would seem uncalled for if applied to the Father." It seems 

to me, on the contrary, to have solemn impressiveness, suitable to the grandeur of the event referred to. It 

condenses into one word what is more fully expressed by the accumulation of high titles applied to God 

in connection with the same subject in 1 Tim. vi. 14-16, suggesting that the event is one which the power 

and majesty of God will be conspicuously displayed. The expression "the great God" does not occur 

elsewhere in the New Testament, but it is not uncommon in the Old Testament and later Jewish writings 

as a designation of Jehovah. See Note C, p. 456 

(e) Bishop Ellicott's last argument is that "apparently two of the ante-Nicene (Clem. Alexand. Protrept. 7 

[ed. Pott.] and Hippolytus quoted by Words.) and the great bulk of post-Nicene writers concurred in this 

interpretation."-As to this, I would say that Clement of Alexandria does not cite the passage in proof of 

of the deity of Christ, and there is nothing to show that he adopted the construction which refers the TOU 

MEGALOU QEOU to him. 

[Winstanley well remarks, in his valuable essay on the use of the Greek article in the New Testament, the 

"the observation of Whitby that Clem. Alex. quotes this text of St. Paul, when he is asserting the divinity 

of Christ, if it mean that he quotes it as an argument, or proof, is a mistake. Clemens is all along speaking 

of a past experience only, and therefore begins his quotation with a former verse, H CARIS TOU 

QEOU...etc., and then proceeds TOUTO ESTIN TO SWMA KAINON [I omit the quotation], etc., so that 

his authority inclines the other way; for he has not appealed to this text, though he had it before him, 

when he was expressly asserting the divinity of Christ, as QEOS, and O QEOS LOGOS, but not as O 

MEGAS QEOS." (Vindication of certain passages in the Common English Version of the N.T., p. 35f., 

Amer. ed., Cambridge 1819.) 

The supposition of Wordsworth and Bishop Jackson that Ignatius (Eph. c. 1) refers to this passage has, as 

far as I can see, no foundation.] 

Hippolytus (De Antichristo, c. 67), in an allusion to the passage, uses the expression EPIFANEIAN TOU 

QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN of Christ, which may seem to indicate that he adopted the construction 

just mentioned. But it is to be observed that he omits the THS DOXHS, and the MEGALOU, and the 

IHSOU CRISTOUafter SWTHROS HMWN, so that it is not certain that if he had quoted the passage fully, 

instead of merely borrowing some of its language, he would have applied all the terms to one subject. My 

principal reason for doubt is, that he has nowhere in his writings spoken of Christ as O MEGAS QEOS, 

with or without HMWN, and that it would hardly have been consistent with his theology to do this, 

holding so strongly as he did the doctrine of the subordination of the Son. 

It is true that many writers of the fourth century and later apply the passage to Christ. At that period, and 

earlier, when QEOS had become a common appellation of Christ, and especially when he was very often 

called "our God" or "our God and Saviour," the construction of Tit. ii. 13 which refers the QEOU to him 

would seem the most natural. But the New Testament use of language is widely different; and on that 

account a construction which would seem most natural in the fourth century, might not even suggest 

itself to a reader in the first century. That the orthodox Fathers should give to an ambiguous passage the 

construction which suited their theology and the use of the language in their time was almost a matter of 

course, and furnishes no evidence that their resolution of the ambiguity is the true one. 



The cases are so numerous in which the Fathers, under the influence of dogmatic bias, have done 

extreme violence to very plain language, that we can attach no weight to their preference in the case of a 

construction really ambiguous, like the present. For a notable example of such violence, see 2 Cor. iv. 4, 

EN OIS O QEOS TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU ETUFLWSEN TA NOHMATA TWN APISTWN, where fear of 

Gnosticism or Manichaeism, Iranaeus (Haer. iii. 7, / 1; comp., iv. 29 (al. 48), / 2), Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 

v. 11), Admantius or Pseudo-Origen (De recta in Deum fide, sect. ii. Orig. Opp. i. 832), Chrysostom, 

Theodoret, (Ecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, Primasius, Sedulius Scotus, Haymo, and others make 

TOU AIWNOS TOUTOU depend on APISTWN instead of O QEOS, a construction which we should 

hardly hesistate to call impossible. 

[ftn., For many of these writers see Whitby, Diss. de Script. Interp. secundum Patrum Commentarios, p. 

275 f. Alford's note on this passage has a number of false references, copied without acknowledgement 

from Meyer, and ascribes this interpretation (after Meyer) to Origen, who opposes it (Opp. iii 497, ed. De 

la Rue).] 

I have now considered all the arguments of Bishop Ellicott, citing them in full in his own language. It 

seems to me that no one of them has any real weight; and that a consideration of his "palmary argument," 

which is the onemainly urged by the advocates of his construction of the passage, really leads to the 

opposite view. The same is trus also, I conceive, of his reference to the expression "the great God." 

But there is a new argument which it may be worth while to notice. In the English translation of the 

second edition of his Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N.T. Greek, Cremer has added to the article QEOS a 

long note on Tit. ii. 13 which is not in the German original, and has made other alterations in the article. 

He here contends that TOU MEGALOU QEOU refers to Christ. He gives up entirely the argument from 

the want of the article before SWTHROS, on which he had insisted in the German edition. Nor does he 

urge the argument from the sense of EPIFANEIA. His only arguments are founded on assertion that ver. 

14 "by its form already indicates that in ver. 13 only one subject is presented" - an argument which has 

already been answered (see p. 443, under b), and to which, it seems to me, one cannot reasonably attach 

the slightest weight - and the fact that ver. 14 contains the expression LAON PERIOUSION, "a peculiar 

people," an expression used in the O.T. to denote the Jewish nation as the chosen people of God. The 

argument rests on the assumption that because in ver. 14 that Apostle has transferred this expression to 

the church of Christ, "the great God" in ver. 13 must be taken as a predicate of Christ. 

The case seems to me to present no difficulty, and to afford no ground for such an inference. The relation 

of Christians to God and Christ is such that, from its very nature, the servants of Christ are called the 

servants of God, the church of Christ the church of God, the kingdom of Christ the kingdom of God (1 

Pet. ii. 9, 10). 

[ftn., Comp. Clement of Rome, I Ep. ad Cor. c. 64 (formerly 58): "May the All-seeing God and Master of 

Spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ and us through him for a peculiar people 

(EIS LAON PERIOUSION), grant," etc.] 

If Christians belong to Christ, they must also belong to God, the Father, to whom Christ himself belongs 

(1 Cor. iii. 23, "ye are Christ's and Christ is God's"). To infer, then, that because in ver. 14 Christians are 

spoken as Christ's peculiar people, the title "great God" must necessarily be understood as applied to him 

in ver. 13 is a very extraordinary kind of reasoning. 

Such are the arguments which have been urged for the translation, "the appearing of the glory of our 



great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." Let us now consider what is to be said for the construction which 

makes TOU MEGALOU QEOU and IHSOU CRISTOU distinct subjects. 

In the case of a grammatical ambiguity of this kind in any classical author, the first inquiry would be, 

What is the usage of the writer respecting the application of the title in question? Now this consideration, 

which certainly is a most reasonable one, seems to me here absolutely decisive. While the word QEOS 

occurs more than five hundred times in the Epistles of Paul, not including the Epistle to the Hebrews, 

there is not a single instance in which it is clearly applied to Christ. 

[ftn., The passages in the writings of Paul in which the title QEOS has ever been given to Christ are very 

few, and are all cases of very doubtful construction or doubtful reading. Alford finds it given to him only 

in Rom. ix. 5; but here, as is well known, many of the most imminent modern scholars make the last part 

of the verse a doxology to God, the Father. So, for example, Winer, Fritzsche, Meyer, De Wette, Ewald; 

Tischendorf, Kuenen and Cobet, Buttmann, Hahn (ed. 1861); Professor Jowett, Professor J.H. Godwin, 

Professor Lewis Campbell of the University of St. Andrews, the Rev. Dr. B. H. Kennedy, Regius 

Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Hort. Of the other passages, Eph. v. 5 and 2 

Thess. i. 12 have already been considered. In 1 Tim. iii. 16 there is now a general agreement among 

critical scholars that OS EFANERWQH and not QEOS EFANERWQH is the true reading. In Col. ii. 12, 

the only remaining passage, the text is uncertain; but if we adopt the reading TOU MUSTHRION TOU 

QEOU CRISTOU, the most probable construction is that which regards CRISTOU as in apposition with 

MUSTHRION, which is confirmed by Col. i. 27. This is the view of Bishop Ellicott, Bishop Lightfoot, 

Wieseler (on Gal. i.1), and Westcott and Hort. Others, as Meyer, Huther, and Klopper, translate "the 

mystery of the God of Christ" (comp. Eph. i. 3, 17, etc.). Steiger takes CRISTOU as in apposition with 

TOU QEOU, and thus Christ here called God; but to justify his interpretation the Greek should rather be 

CRISTOU TOU QEOU (comp. De Wette). 

The habitual, and I believe uniform, usage of Paul corresponds with his language 1 Cor. viii. 6. 

Here and elsewhere I intentionally pass by the question whether Paul's view of the nature Christ and his 

relation to the Father would have allowed him to designate Christ as O MEGAS QEOS KAI SWTHROS 

HMWN. This would lead to a long discussion of many passages. My argument rests on the undisputed 

facts respecting his habitual use of language.] 

In the case then of a question between two constructions, either of which is grammatically possible, 

should we not adopt that which accords with a usage of which we have five hundred examples, without 

one clear exception, rather than that which is on opposition to it? The case is made still stronger by the 

fact that we have here not only QEOU, but MEGALOU QEOU. 

Even if we do not regard the Pastoral Epistles as written by Paul, and confine our attention to them only, 

we reach the same result. Observe how clearly God, the Father, is distinguished in 1 Tim. i. 1,2; ii. 3-5; v. 

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), 

4; iii. 4-6. Observe, particularly, that the expression "God our Saviour" is applied solely to the Father, 

who is distinguished from Christ as our Saviour; God being the primal source of salvation, and Christ the 

medium of communication, agreeably, to the language of Paul, 2 Cor. v. 18, TA DE PANTA EK TOU 

QEOU TOU KATALLAXANTOS HMAS EAUTW DIA CRISTOU; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6. See 1 Tim. i. 1; ii. 

3-5; iv. 10; Tit. i. 1-4; iii. 4-6; compare also Jude 25. Such being the marked distinction between QEOS 

and CRISTOS in other passages of these Pastoral Epistles, should we not adopt the construction which 

recognizes the same here? 



An examination of the context will confirm the conclusion at which we have arrived. I have already 

shown that the title "God our Saviour" in the Pastoral Epistles belongs exclusively to the Father. This is 

generally admitted; for example by Bloomfield, Alford and Ellicott. Now the connection of ver. 10 in 

which this expression occurs, with ver. 11 is obviously such, that if QEOU denotes the Father in the 

former it must in the latter. Regarding it then as settled that QEOU in ver. 11 denotes the Father (and I 

am not aware that it has ever been disputed),* is it not harsh to suppose that the QEOU in ver. 13, in the 

latter part of the sentence denotes a different subject from the QEOU in ver. 11 at the beginning of the 

same sentence? 

[ftn., *It should be questioned, all doubt will probably be removed by a comparison of the verse with Tit. 

iii. 3-7 and 2 Tim. i. 8, 9.] 

It appears especially harsh, when we notice the beautiful correspondence of 

EPIFANEIANin ver. 13 with the EPEFANH of ver. 11. This correspondence can hardly have been 

undesigned. As the first advent of Christ was an appearing or visible manifestation of the glory of God, 

as well as of Christ. 

To sum up: the reasons for which are urged for giving this verbally ambiguous passage the construction 

which makes "the great God" a designation of Christ, are seen, when examined, to have little or now 

weight; on the other hand, the construction adopted in the common English version, and preferred by the 

American Revisers, is favored, if not required, by the context (comparing ver. 13 with ver. 11); it 

perfectly suits the references to the second advent in other parts of the New Testament; and it is 

imperatively demanded by a regard to Paul's use of language, unless we arbitrarily assume here a single 

exception to a usage of which we have more than five hundred examples. 

I might add, though I would not lay much stress on the fact, that the principal ancient versions, the Old 

Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito and Harclean Syriac, the Coptic, and the Arabic, appear to have given the 

passage the construction which makes God and Christ distinct subjects. The Aethiopic seems to be the 

only exception. Perhaps, however, the construction in the Latin versions should be regarded as somewhat 

ambiguous. 

Among the modern scholars who have agreed with all the old English versions (Tyndale, Coverdale, 

Cranmer, the Genevan, the Bishop's Bible, the Rhemish, and the Authorized) in preferring this 

construction are Erasmus, Calvin, Luther, Grotius, LeClerc, Wetstein, Moldenhawer, Michaelis, Benson, 

MacKnight, Archbishop Newcome, Rosenmuller, Heinrichs, Schott, Bretschneider, Neander (Planting 

and Training of the Christian Church, Robinson's revised trans., p. 468,) De Wette, (and so Muller in the 

3d ed. of De Wette, 1867), Meyer (on Rom. ix. 5), Fritzsche (Ep. ad Rom. ii. 266 ff.), Grimm, 

Baumgarten-Crusius (N.T. Gr. ed. Schott, 1839), Krehl, H. F. T. L. Ernesti (Vom Ursprunge der Sunde, 

p. 235 f.), Schumann (Christus, 1852, ii. 580, note), Messner (Die Lehre der Apostel, 1856, p. 236 f.), 

Huther, Ewald, Holtzmann (in Bunsen's Bibelwerk, and with more hesitation in his Die Pastoralbriefe, 

1880), Beyschlag (Christol. des N.T., 1866, p. 212, note), Rothe (Dogmatik, II. i. (1870), p. 110, note 3), 

Conybeare and Howson, Alford, Fairbarn, with some hesitation (The Pastoral Epistles, Edin. 1874, pp. 

55, 282-285), Davidson, Prof. Lewis Campbell (in the Comtemp. Rev. for Aug., 1876), Immer (Theol. d. 

N.T., 1877, p. 393). W.F. Gess (Christi Person und Werk, Abth. II. (1878), p. 330), in opposition to the 

view expressed in his earlier work, Die Lehre von der Person Christi (1856), p. 88 f., Reuss (Les Epitres 

Pauliniennes, Paris, 1878, ii. 345), Farrar (Life and Work of St. Paul, ii. 536, cf. p. 615, note 1); and so 



the grammarians Winer and T.S. Green (comp. his Twofold N.T.). In the case of one or two recent 

writers, as Pfleiderer and Weizsacker, who have adopted the construction, there is reason to regard them 

as influenced by their view on the non-Pauline authorship of the Epistle, disposing them to find in its 

Christology a doctrine different from that of Paul. 

Very many others, as Heydenreich, Flatt, Tholuck (Comm. zum Brief an die Romer, 5te Ausg., 1856, p. 

482), C. F. Schmid (Bibl. Theol. des N. T., 2te Aufl., p. 540), Luthardt, leave the matter undecided. Even 

Bloomfield, in the Addenda to his last work (Critical Annotations, Additional and Supplementary, on the 

N.T., London, 1860, p. 352), after retracting the version given in his ninth edition of the Greek 

Testament, candidly says: "I am ready to admit that the mode of interpreting maintained by Huther and 

Al[ford] completely satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence; that it is both structurally 

and contextually quite as probable as the other, and perhaps more agreeable to the Apostle's way of 

writing." 

The view of Lange (Christliche Dogmatik, Heidelb. 1851, ii. 161 f.), Van Hengel (Interp. Ep. Pauli ad 

Romanos, ii. 358, note), and Schenkel (Das Christusbild der Apostel, 1879, p. 357), that IHSOU 

CRISTOU is here an apposition to THS DOXHS, the words which precede (TOU MEG. QEOU KAI 

SWT. HMWN) being referred to the Father, has little to commend it that it may be passed over without 

discussion. 

[ftn., The punctuation in the margin in Westcott and Hort's N. T. in Greek is also intended to represent 

this view.] Click here to go to Part 2...Ezra Abbot's Notes 



. 

Ezra Abbot's Notes on the Construction of Titus II. 13 

On the Construction of Titus 2:13 

Note A. (see p. 440.) 

On the omission of the Article before SWTHROS HMWN. 

[From the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1881] 

Go to Previous Article here. 

Middleton's rule is as follows: "When two or more attributives joined by a 

copulative or copulatives are assumed of [assumed to belong to] the same person or 

thing, before the first attributive the article is inserted; before the remaining 

ones it is omitted. 

By attributes he understands adjectives, participles, and nouns which are 

"significant of character, relation, or dignity." 

He admits that the rule is not always applicable to plurals (p. 49); and. again, 

where the attributes "are in their nature plainly incompatible." "We cannot 

wonder," he says, "if in such instances the principle of the rule has been 

sacrificed to negligence, or even to studied brevity....The second article should 

in strictness be expressed; but in such cases the writers knew that it might be 

safely understood" (pp. 51,52). 

The principle which covers all the cases coming under Middleton's rule, so far as 

that rule bears on the present question, is, I believe, simply this: The definite 

article is inserted before the second attributive when it is felt to be needed to 

distinguish different subjects; but when the two terms connected by a copulative 

are shown by any circumstance to denote distinct subjects, the article may be 

omitted, for the excellent reason that it is not needed.* 

[ftn., See the remarks (by Andrews Norton) in the American edition of Winstanley's 

Vindication of Certain Passages in the Common Eng. Version of the N. T., p. 45ff.; 

or Norton's Statement of Reasons, etc., 2d ed. (1856), pp. 199-202.] 

Middleton's rule, , with its exceptions, applies to the English language as well 

as the Greek. Webster (Wm.) remarks in his Syntax and Synonyms of the Greek 

Testament - 

"In English, the Secretary and Treasurer means one person; the Secretary and the 

Treasurer means two persons. In speaking of horses, the black and white horse 

means the piebald, but the black and the white horse mean two different horses." 

(pp. 35, 36) 

But this rule is very often broken when such formal precision of expression is not 

felt to be necessary. If I should say, "I saw the President and Treasurer of the 

Boston and Albany Railroad yesterday," no one, probably, would doubt that I spoke 

of two different persons, or (unless perhaps Mr. G. Washington Moon) would imagine 

that I was violating the laws of the English language. The fact that the two 

offices referred to are generally or always in such corporations held by different 

persons would prevent any doubt as to the meaning. Again, the remark that "Mr. A. 

drove out to-day with his black and white horses" would be perfectly correct 

English and perfectly unambiguous if addressed to onw who knew that Mr. A. had 

only four horses, two of them black and the other two white. 

Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus "cast 

out all those that were selling and buying in the temple," TOUS PWLOUNTAS KAI 

AGORAZONTAS. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are described as 

both selling and buying. In Mark, the two classes are made distinct by the 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/ezra.htm (1 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:57:40 AM]


insertion of TOUS before AGORAZONTAS; here it is safely left to the intelligence 

of the reader to distinguish them. 

In the case before us, the omission of the article before AGORAZONTAS seems to me 

to present no difficulty, - not because SWTHROS is made sufficiently definite by 

the addition of HMWN (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called 

"our Saviour," H DOXA TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN, standing alone, would 

most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the 

addition of IHSOU CRISTOU to SWTHROS HMWN changes the case entirely, restricting 

the SWTHROS HMWN to a person or being who, according to Paul's habitual use of 

language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as O QEOS, 

so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. 

So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression KATA THN CARIN TOU QEOU HMWN KAI KURIOU would 

naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required before 

KURIOU if two were intended; but the simple addition of IHSOU CRISTOU to KURIOU 

makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of 

the article. 

But the omission of the article before the second of two subjects connected by KAI 

is not without effect. Its absence naturally leads us to conceive of them as 

united in some common relation, while the repetition of the article would present 

them to the mind as distinct subjects of thought. The differences between the two 

cases is like the differences between the expressions "the kingdom of Christ and 

God" and "the kingdom of Christ and of God" in English. The former expression 

would denote one kingdom, belonging in some sense to both; the latter would permit 

the supposition that two distinct kingdoms were referred to, though it would not 

require this interpretation. The repetition of the preposition, however, as of the 

article, brings the subjects seperately before the mind. In the present case, the 

omission of the article before SWTHROS, conjoining the word closely with QEOU, may 

indicate that the glory spoken of belongs in one aspect to God and in another to 

Christ (comp. Eph. v. 5); or that the glory of God and the glory of Christ are 

displayed in conjunction (comp. 2 Thess. i. 12, KATA THN CARIN TOU QEOU HMWN KAI 

KURIOU '1. X.; Luke ix. 26). 

There may still be another reason for the omission of the article here before 

SWTHROS HMWN, or perhaps I should say, another effect of its absence. 

It is a recognized principle that the omission of the article before an 

appellative which designates a person tends to fix the attention on the quality or 

character or peculiar relation expressed by the appellative, while the insertion 

of the article tends to throw into the shade the inherent meaning of the term, and 

to give it the force of a simple proper name. For example EN TW UIW would simply 

mean "in (or by) the Son," or "his Son"; but the omission of the article (EN UIW) 

emphasizes the significance of the term UIOS-by one who is a Son," and in virtue 

of what the designation expresses is far above all "the prophets." (Comp. T. S. 

Green, Gram. of the N. T., 2d ed., pp. 47 f., 38 f.) So here the meaning may be, 

"the appearing of the glory of the great God and a Saviour of us," one who is our 

Saviour, "Jesus Christ"-essentially equivalent to "of the great God and Jesus 

Christ as our Saviour" (comp. Acts xiii. 23); the idea suggested being that the 

salvation or deliverance of Christians will be consummated at the second advent, 

when Christ "shall appear, to them that wait for him, unto salvation." Comp. Phil. 

iii. 20, 21, "For our citizenship is in heaven, from whence also we wait for a 

Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, EX OU KAI SWTHRA APEKDECOMEQA KURION IHSOUN 

CRISTON, who shall change the body of our humiliation,"etc.; Rom. viii. 23, 24, 

xiii. 11; 1 Thess. v. 8, 9; Heb. ix. 28; 1 Pet. i. 5. The position of SWTHROS HMWN 

before IHSOU CRISTOU, as well as the absence of the article, favors this view; 



comp. Acts xiii. 23; Phil. iii. 20, and contrast Tit. i. 4. 

The points which I would make, then, are that the insertion of the article before 

SWTHROS was not needed here to show that the word designates a subject distinct 

from TOU MEGALOU QEOU; and that its absence serves to bring out the thoughts that, 

in the event referred to, the glory of God and that of Christ are displayed 

together, and that Christ then appears as Saviour, in the sense that the salvation 

of Christians, including what St. Paul calls "the redemption of the body," is then 

made complete. There are conceptions which accord with the view which the Apostle 

has elsewhere presented of the second advent. 

But as many English writers still assume that the construction of Tit. ii. 13 and 

similar passages has been settled by Bishop Middleton, I will quote in conclusion 

a few sentences, by way of caution from one of the highest authorities on the 

grammar of the Greek Testament, Alexander Buttman. He says:- 

"It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or 

to the N. T., to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception, the inquiry 

when with several substantives connected by conjunctions the article is repeated, 

and when it is not. ...From this fact alone it follows, that in view of the 

subjective and arbitrary treatment of the article on the part of individual 

writers (cf. /124, 2) it is very hazardous in particular cases to draw important 

inferences affecting the sense or even of a doctrinal nature, from the single 

circumstance of the use or omission of the article; see e.g. Tit. ii. 13; Jude 4; 

2 Pet. i.1 and the expositors of these passages." (Gram. of the N. T. Greek, / 

125, 14; p. 97, Thayer's trans.) 

Note B. (See p. 441 n.*) 

The Use of EPIFANEIA and Kindred Terms with Reference to God. 

It has already been observed that the expression used In Tit. ii. 13 is not 

EPIFANEIAN TOU MEGALOU QEOU but EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU, and that 

the reference of the title " the great God " to the Father accords perfectly with 

the representation elsewhere in the New Testament that the glory of God, the 

Fathert, as well as of Christ, will be displayed at the second advent. This 

reference, therefore, presents no difficulty. 

But the weakness of the argument against it may be sti1l further illustrated by 

the use of the term EPIFANEIA and kindred expressions in Josephus and other Jewish 

writings. It will be seen that any extraordinary manifestation of divine power, 

whether exerted directly or through an Intermediate agent, is spoken or as an 

EPIFANEIA of God. 

I. For example, the parting of the waters of the Red Sea is described as the 

"appearing" or "manifestation" of God." MWUSHS DE ORWN THN EPIFANEIAN TOU QEOU, 

K.T.L. (Joseph. Ant. ii. 16. § 2.) 

2. Speaking of the journey through the wilderness, Josephus says : "The cloud was 

present, and, standing over the tabernacle, signified the appearing of God," THN 

EPIFANEIAN TOU QEOU (Ant. iii. 14. § 4.) 

3. Josepbus uses both H PAROUSIA TOU QEOU and H EPIFANEIA [TOU QEOU] in reference 

to a miraculous shower of rain (Ant. xviii. 8. (al. 10) § 6). 

So a violent thunder storm, which deterred the army of Xerxes from attacking 

Delphi, is described by Diodorus Siculus as H TWN QEON EPIFANEIA (Bibl. Hist. xi. 

14). Comp. Joseph. Ant. xv. 11. (al. 14)§ 7, where , H EPIFANEIA TOU QEOU is used 

in a simIlar way. Observe also how, in Herod's speech (Ant. xv. 5. (al. 6) § 3), 

angels are spoken of as bringing God EIS EPIFANEIAN to men. 

4. In reference to the miraculous guidance of Abraham's servant when sent to 



procure Rebecca as a wife for Isaac, the marriage is said to have been brought 

about UPO QEIAS EPIFANEIAS, where we might say, "by a divine interposition." 

(Joseph. Ant.i. 16. § 3.) 

5. After giving an account of the deliverance of Elisha from the troops sent by 

Ben-hadad to arrest him, which were struck with blindness, Josephus says that the 

king "marveled at the strange event, and the appearing (or manifestation) and 

power of the God of the Israelites (THN TOU QEOU ISRAHLITHS EPIFANEIAN KAI 

DUNAMIS), and at the prophet with whom the Deity was so evidently present for 

help." (Ant. ix. 4. § 4.) Elijah had prayed that God would "manifest" (EPIFANEIA) 

his power and presence (PAROUSIA). (Ibid. § 3.) 

6. In Josephus, Ant. v. 8. §§ 2, 3. the appearance of an angel sent by God is 

described as "a sight of God," EK THS OYESQE TON QEON...TOU QEOU AUTOIS ORAQHNAI. 

7. In 2 Macc. iii. 24, in reference to the horse with the terrible rider, and the 

angels that scourged Heliodorus, we read, O TWN PNEUMATWN KAI PASHS EXOUSIAS 

DUNASTHS EPIFANEIAN MEGALHN EPOIHSEN, and In ver. 30. TOU PANTOKRATOROS 

EPIFANENTOS KURIOU, the Almighty Lord having appeared," and farther on, ver. 34. 

Heliodorus is spoken of as having been "scourged by him, UP AUTOU, i.e. the Lord, 

according to the common text, retained by Grimm and Keil. But here for UP AUTOU, 

Fritzsche reads EX OURANOU, which looks like a gloss (comp. ii. 21,EX OURANOU 

GENOMENAS EPIFANEIAS). 

8. The sending of a good angel is described as an EPIFANEIA TOU QEOU, 2 Macc. xv, 

27, comp. vv. 22, 23. Observe also that in 2 Macc. xv, 34 and 3 Macc. v. 35 TON 

EPIFANH KURION or QEON does not mean "the glorious Lord (or God) " as it has often 

been misunderstood, but EPIFANHS designates God as one who manifests his power in 

the deliverance of his people, a present help in time of need, " the interposing 

God (Bissell). Compare the note of Valesius (Valois) on Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 

6. § 2. 

9. See also 2 Macc. xii, 22 EK THS TOU TA PANTA EFORWNTOS EPIFANEIAS GENOMENHS EP' 

AUTOUS; comp. 2 Macc. xi. 8, 10, 13. 

10. "They made application to him who...always helpeth his portion [his people] 

MET' EPIFANEIAS 2 Macc. xiv. 15. 

11. In 3 Macc. v. 8, we are told that the Jews "besought the Almighty Lord to 

rescue them from imminent death META MEGALOMEROUS EPIFANEIAS," and again, ver. 51, 

"to take pity on them META EPIFANEIAS." The answer to the prayer is represented as 

made by the intervention of angels (vi. 18). 

In ch. i. 9, God is spoken of as having glorified Jerusalem EN EPIFANEIA 

MEGALOPREPEI. 

12. In the Additions to Esther, Text B, vii. 6 (Fritzsche, Libr. Apoc. 

V. T. p. 71), the sun and light in Mordecai's dream are said to represent the 

EPIFANIA TOU QEOU "appearing" (or manifestation) "of God" in the deliverance of 

the Jews. 

13. In the so-called Second Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, c. 12, 

§ 1, we read: "Let us therefore wait hourly [or betimes, Lightf.] for the kingdom 

of God in love and righteousness, because we know not the day of the appearing of 

God, THS EPIFANEIAS TOU QEOU." The TOU QEOU, employed thus absolutely must, I 

think, refer to the Father, according to the writer's use of language. This 

consideration does not seem to me invalidated by c. 1, § 1, or by the use of 

EPIFANEIA in reference to Christ, c. 17; but others may think differently. 

The use of the term EPIFANEIA in the later Greek classical writers corresponds 



with its use as illustrated above. Casaubon has a learned note on the word in his 

Exercit. ad. Annales Eccles. Baronianas II. xi., Ann. I., Num. 36 (p, 185, London, 

1614), in which be says: " Graeci scriptores EPIFANEIA appellaut apparitionem 

numinis quoquo tandem modo deus aliquis suae praesentiae signum dedisse 

crederetur." (Comp. his note on Athanaeus, xii. II. al. 60.) Wesseling in his note 

on Diodorus Siculus, i. 25, repeats this, and adds other illustrations from 

Diodorus, namely; iii. 62; iv. 82 [v. 62?]; xi. 14; and xiv. 69 (a striking 

example). See also the story of the vestal virgin in Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. ii. 68 

(cf. 69), and of Servius Tullius, ibid., iv. 2. Other examples are given by 

Elsner, Obss. Sacr. on 2 Pet. i. 16, and by the writers to whom he refers. But it 

is not worthwhile to pursue this part of the subject further here. One who wishes 

to do so will find much interesting matter in the notes of the very learned 

Ezechiel Spanheim on Callimachus, Hymn. in Apoll. 13, and in Pallad. 101, and in 

his Dissertationes de Praestantia et Usu Numismatum antiquorum, ed. nova, vol. i. 

(London, 1706), Diss. vii., p. 425 sqq. 

I will only add in conclusion: If Paul could speak of the first advent of Christ 

as an EPIFANEIA of the grace of God (see EPEFANH, Tit. ii. 11; iii. 4), can we, in 

view of all that has been said, regard it as in the least degree strange or 

unnatural that he should speak of his second advent as an 

EPIFANEIA of the glory of God? 

Note C. (See p. 444) 

On the Expression, TOU MEGALOU QEOU. 

There is no other passage in the New Testament in which this expression occurs, 

the reading in the "received text" in Rev. xix. 17 having very slender support. 

But the epithet "great" is so often applied to God in the Old Testament and later 

Jewish writings, and is so appropriate in connection with the display of the 

divine power and glory in the event referred to, that it is very wonderful that 

the use of the word here should be regarded as an argument for the reference of 

the QEOS to Christ on the ground that "God the Father did not need the exalting 

and lauditory epithet MEGAS," as Usteri says (Paulin. Lehrbegriff, 5te Aufl., p. 

326). It might be enough to answer, with Fritzsche, "At ego putaveram, Deum quum 

sit magnus, jure etiam magnum appelari" (Ep. ad Rom. ii. 268). But the following 

references show how naturally Paul might apply this designation to the Father: 

Deut. viii. 21 (Sept. and Heb.), x. 17; 2 Chron. ii. 5(4)l Neh. i. 5, vii. 6, ix. 

32, Ps. lxxvii. 13, lxxxvi. 10; Jer. xxxii. 18, 19; Dan. ii. 45, ix. 4; Psalt. 

Sal. ii. 33; 3 Macc. vii. 2. Comp. TOU MEGISTOU QEOU, 3 Macc. i. 16, iii. 11, v. 

25, vii. 22, "the great Lord," Ecclus. xxxix. 6, xlvi. 5; 2 Macc. v. 20, xii. 15. 

So very often in the Sibylline Oracles. I have noted thirty-one examples in the 

Third book alone, the principal part of which was the production of a Jewish 

writer in the second century before Christ. 

Though all will agree that God, the Father, does not "need" exaltating epithets, 

such epithets are applied to him freely by the Apostle Paul and other writers of 

the New Testament. For example, he is called by Paul "the incorruptible God," "the 

living God," "the invisible God," "the living and true God," "the blessed God,"; 

and since there is no other place in which the Apostle has unequivocally 

designated Christ as QEOS, much less QEOS with a high epithet, it certainly seems 

most natural to suppose that O MEGAS QEOS here designates the Father. The Bishop 

of London (in the "Speakers Commentary") appeals to 1 John v. 20, where he assumes 

that Christ is designated as "the true God." But he must be aware that this 

depends on the reference of the pronoun OUTOS, and that many of the best 

expositors refer this to the leading subject of the preceeding sentence, namely, 



TON ALHQINON ; so, e.g., Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Michaelis, Lucke, De Wette, 

Meyer, Neander, Huther, Dusterdieck, Gerlach, Bruckner, Ewald, Holtzmann, Braune, 

Haupt, Rothe, C. F. Schmid, Gess, Reuss, Alford, Farrar, Westcott, and Sinclair 

(in Ellicott's N. T. Comm.); and so the grammarians Alt, Winer, Wilke, Buttman, 

and Schirlitz; comp. also John xvii. 3. So doubtful a passage, and that not in the 

writings of Paul, but John, can hardly serve to render it probable that Paul has 

here applied the designation O MEGAS QEOS to Christ rather than to God, the 

Father. 




Should kolasin be translated *cutting-off* or *punishment* at Matthew 25:46? 

KAI APELEUSONTAI OUTOI EIS KOLASIN AIWNION OI DE DIKAIOI 

EIS ZWHN AIWNION Matthew 25:46 NA26 

Should kolasin be translated cutting-off or punishment? 

Unless otherwise indicated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901 

Ankerberg/Weldon say: "*Punishment,* kolasin, is translated *cutting off* [In the New World 

Translation] in order to escape the text's teaching or eternal punishment and to support their theology of 

annihilation of the wicked or conditional immortality." 

They then provide the two differing translations: 

"And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life." NWT 

(the Norwegian Church Bible of 1978/75 has "evig avskjaerelse" ["everlasting cutting off"] in the first 

case and "for frykt virker hemmende" ["because fear causes restraint"] in the 

second case.) 

"These will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life." 

What nominal Christians hope this means is that *everlasting punishment* should be read as *eternal 

torment in a fiery hell.* But is this actually the case? 

The Greek word for *punishment/cutting off* is KOLASIS, which comes from the greek word 

KOLAZO which means to cut off or prune. The Emphatic Diaglott also uses the phrase "cutting off" and 

it gives the explanation that most versions confuse KOLASIN with BASINOS conveying the meaning of 

"torment". It goes on further to say that KOLAZOO "which signifies ,1. to cut off, as lopping off 

branches of trees, to prune, 2. To restrain, to repress.....3, to punish, to chastise. To cut off an individual 

from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment." p.106 

The Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament (A.T. Robertson) has this 

to say: 

"Eternal punishment (kolasin aiwnion). The word kolasin comes from kolazw, to mutilate or prune. 

Hence those who cling to the larger hope use this phrase to mean age-long pruning that ultimately leads 

to salvation of the goats, as disciplinary rather than penal." 

Interestingly, The New Testament in Modern English, By Ferrar Fenton, and Rotherham's Emphasized 

Version has "into a long correction." 

Those who own a copy of Young’s Analytical Concordance will see from it (page 995) that 

the definition of the word kolasis is "pruning, restraining, restraint." 

The Classic Greek Dictionary - Sixteenth Edition 1962, by George Ricker Berry, Ph D 

The Late Professor of Semitic Languages at Colgate University and University of Chicago 

had, "kolazw - To prune, retrench: ... metaph. ... confine: then to chastise, correct, punish." 

At http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2849&version=nas 

"Kolazo - from kolos (dwarf) 

Definition 

1. to lop or prune, as trees and wings 

2. to curb, check, restrain 

3. to chastise, correct, punishment 

4. to cause to be punished 

Here are the glosses given for KOLAZW in Liddel and Scott: 

1) "check" or "chastise" (the desires); passive: "to be corrected"; 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/kolasin.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 3:57:55 AM]


"chastened." 2) "chastise, punish" (someone), "use" your proud words "in 

reproving them"; middle: "get" a person "punished"; passive: "to be 

punished"; of divine "retribution"; "suffer injury." 3) of a drastic method 

of checking the growth of the almond-tree. 4) passive: "to be badly in need 

of." 

Here are the glosses for KOLASIS 

1) "checking the growth of" trees, especially almond trees. 2) 

chastisement, correction"; of divine "retribution.">> 

Vine's has "kolazo (2849) primarily denotes 'to curtail, prune, dock'" 

Thayer's has "1. prop. to lop, prune, as trees, wings." 

We see from the lexical evidence that kolazo means "to Prune or to lop" is one of the original primary 

meanings of the Greek word. 

Why are we so overly vengeful, when we do indeed know that the unrighteous will not get any reward; 

they will indeed get "eternal punishment" in the sense that "These will suffer the *punishment of eternal 

destruction*" (NRSV) as 2 Thessalonians 1:9. 

Commenting on this, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D. has this to say: 

"Eternal Punishment." Christ's solemn declaration: "They will go away into eternal 

punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt 25:46) is generally regarded as the clearest 

proof of the conscious suffering the lost will endure for all eternity. Is this the only legitimate 

interpretation of the text? John Stott rightly answers: "No, that is to read into the text what is not 

necessarily there. What Jesus said is that both the life and the punishment would be eternal, but 

he did not in that passage define the nature of either. Because he elsewhere spoke of eternal life 

as a conscious enjoyment of God (John 17:3), it does not follow that eternal punishment must be 

a conscious experience of pain at the hand of God. On the contrary, although declaring both to be 

eternal, Jesus is contrasting the two destinies: the more unlike they are, the better."34 

Traditionalists read "eternal punishment" as "eternal punishing," but this is not the meaning of 

the phrase. As Basil Atkinson keenly observes, "When the adjective aionios meaning 

'everlasting' is used in Greek with nouns of action it has reference to the result of the action, not 

the process. Thus the phrase 'everlasting punishment' is comparable to 'everlasting redemption' 

and 'everlasting salvation,' both Scriptural phrases. No one supposes that we are being 

redeemed or being saved forever. We were redeemed and saved once for all by Christ with 

eternal results. In the same way the lost will not be passing through a process of punishment for 

ever but will be punished once and for all with eternal results. On the other hand the noun 'life' 

is not a noun of action, but a noun expressing a state. Thus the life itself is eternal."35 

A fitting example to support this conclusion is found in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, where Paul, 

speaking of those who reject the Gospel, says: "They shall suffer the punishment of eternal 

destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." It is 

evident that the destruction of the wicked cannot be eternal in its duration, because it is difficult 

to imagine an eternal, inconclusive process of destruction. Destruction presupposes annihilation. 

The destruction of the wicked is eternal–aionios, not because the process of destruction 



continues forever, but because the results are permanent. In the same way, the "eternal 

punishment" of Matthew 25:46 is eternal because its results are permanent. It is a punishment 

that results in their eternal destruction or annihilation." 

http://www.intowww.org/bible/death6.htm 

He goes on to say, 

"The Meaning of "Punishment." Note should also be taken of the word "punishment" used to 

translate the Greek word kolasis. A glance at Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek 

Testament shows that the word was used at that time with the meaning of "pruning" or "cutting 

down" of dead wood. If this is its meaning here, it reflects the frequent Old Testament phrase 

*shall be cut off from his people*" 

Let us take a look at those scriptures: 

Gen 17:14, "And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul 

shall be cut off from his people. He hath broken my covenant." 

Ex 30:33, 38, "Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, he 

shall be cut off from his people...Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereof, he shall be cut 

off from his people." 

Lev 7:20, 21, 25, 27, "But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain 

unto Jehovah, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people... And when 

any one shall touch any unclean thing, the uncleanness of man, or an unclean beast, or any unclean 

abomination, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which pertain unto Jehovah, that 

soul shall be cut off from his people... For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an 

offering made by fire unto Jehovah, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his 

people...Whosoever it be that eateth any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people." 

Num 9:13. "But the man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, that 

soul shall be cut off from his people." 

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; 

19:13, 20; Deut 12:29; 19:1; 2Sam 7:9 etc 

Hence, is it any wonder that Bible translators choose the alternative reading with the best evidence 

internally, "And these will go into agelasting [cutting off] [restraint], but the righteous into agelasting 

life." 21st Century NT 

Interestingly, we read in this scripture what should be the antithesis of everlasting life, which is of 

course, everlasting death (not some medieval notion of living souls suffering torment). Biblically, the 

antithesis of life is...death (not eternal torment). See Num 35:31; Deut 30:15, 19; Jg 16:30; 2Sam 15:21; 

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; 

8:6, 38, 1Cor 3:22; 2Cor 2:16; 4:11,12; Php 1:20; 1Jn 3:14; 

5:16; Rev 2:10; 12:11. 

The Bible has always held out one hope to the opposite of another: 

Prov 11: 19 He that is stedfast in righteousness shall attain unto life; And he that pursueth evil 

doeth it to his own death. 

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. 

"For evil-doers shall be cut off; But those that wait for Jehovah, they shall 

inherit the land." Ps 37:9 





Click here for more Ankerberg/Weldon complaints on the Bible. 


H ARCH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU...Is Christ a Created Being or the 


Ruler/Source of Creation! 

Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901 

The words "of" or "of the" is characteristic of genitive phrases.Greek has five 

cases—nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and vocative. How a word is 

spelled can vary depending on the case in which it is used. In Greek as well 

as in English the genitive case can mean a number of different relations or 

connections that the word in the genitive case has to the person or thing 

that it modifies. 

Wherever in scripture, both the NT and the Septuagint OT, arche is followed 

by a genitive phrase "of the ...", that which is called the "arche" is a 

always a member of the group referred to in the genitive phrase. 

But Ankerberg/Weldon quote Metzger as saying , 

"Actually, the word ARCHE, translated "beginning" carries with it the Pauline idea 

expressed in Colossian 1:15-18, and signifies that Christ is the origin, or primary source, of 

God's creation (compare also John 1:3, "Apart from him not one thing came into 

existence)." 

We can see that Metzger's theory has been put into motion by the change of the RSV's "the beginning of 

God's creation" to "the origin of God's creation" in the New RSV. Other Bibles in recent times have 

followed this faddish move, as we will see in the list below. 

There are three other scriptures that use the words *beginning/ARCH* and *creation/ KTISEWS* 

(which are also genetive constructions). 

Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them." 

Mark 13:19. "For those days shall be tribulation, such as there hath not been the like from the beginning 

of the creation which God created until now, and never shall be." 

2Peter 3:4 "Where is the promise of his coming? for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things 

continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." 

Let us see how faithfully these have been rendered: 

Bible Version Mark 10:6 Mark 13:19 2 Peter 3:4 Revelations 3:14 

New Revised Standard Version beginning beginning beginning Origin 

Good News Bible beginning beginning N/A* origin 

New International Version beginning beginning beginning ruler 

Contemporary English Version beginning N/A N/A source 

New American Bible beginning beginning beginning source 

New English Bible beginning beginning N/A source 

Ferrar Fenton beginning beginning beginning beginner 

Holman Christian Standard beginning beginning beginning Originator 

Jerusalem Bible beginning beginning began source 

New Jerusalem Bible beginning N/A beginning Principle 

Revised English Bible beginning beginning N/A source 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/arche.htm (1 of 6) [5/25/2003 3:59:59 AM]


Williams NT beginning beginning beginning origin 

Beck beginning beginning first Origin 

James Moffatt Translation beginning beginning beginning origin 

Amplified Bible beginning beginning beginning origin/beginning 

/author 

Jewish New Testament beginning beginning beginning ruler 

Wuest's Expanded NT beginning N/A beginning originating source 

God's Word NT beginning beginning beginning source 

New Life New Testament beginning beginning beginning 

the one who 

made everything 

LITV Jay P Green beginning beginning beginning Head 

Simple English Bible beginning beginning beginning Source 

Smith & Goodspeed beginning beginning beginning origin 

* Left untranslated 

As we can see, there is a particular bias at play here in regards of the inconsistency of translating this 

expression as it relates to Christ. 

The Bibles that have not allowed bias to change the meaning of beginning/creation with the genetive are 

as follows: King James Version, New King James Version, Revised Version, American Standard 

Version, Aitken Bible, Tyndale's Bible, Geneva Bible, Douay, New American Standard Bible, New 

World Translation, Kleist & Lilly, Confraternity, Worrell NT, Webster Bible, the Message, Lattimore 

NT, Montgomery NT, Schonfield, 20th Century, Darby, 21st Century, Emphatic Diaglott, Weymouth 

NT, Revised Standard Version etc. 

Perhaps it is this genetive construction that has prompted the BAGD , A Greek-English Lexicon of the 

New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker (Editor), 

William F. Arndt (Translator), F. Wilbur Gingrich, to make some changes in their revision, the BDAG. 

On page 138 that the interpretation that ARXH means that 

Christ was created at Rev 3:14 has been upgraded from poss. [possible] to prob. [probable]. 

It cites the JTS article "Christ as ARCH of Creation," 

by C.F.BURNEY, JTS XXVII. Burney considers the Hebrew ReSHit [beginning] 

in detail and concludes strongly against ARCH as "source": 

"Another New Testament allusion to Prov. viii 22 in reference to Christ is found in Rev. iii 

14 H ARXH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU, [the beginning of the creation of/by God] a title 

of the risen Christ which Dr Swete and Dr Charles have not a shadow of authority for 

limiting in meaning to 'the Source of God's Creation'. There is every reason to suppose that 

ARXH is here used with all the fullness and meaning which St Paul extracts from ReSHiT 

... " 

The BAGD/BDAG reference also cites Job 40:19 ARCH, speaking of Behemoth "He {is} ARCH [a 

beginning, first] of the ways of God". Behemoth was certainly not the source or "first cause" of God's 

ways, but rather was one of them, or a partitive genitive. 

The primary meaning of ARCH at Rev. 3:14 admits that Christ is a part of creation. It is for theological 

considerations that "source" and "first cause" are translated for ARCH, re: Alford: 

"The mere word ARCH would admit the meaning that Christ is the first created being; see 



Gen [49].3; Deut. [21].17; and Prov. [8].22." - Alford's Greek New Testament." 

This is not something that Alford personally believes and he Alford borrows meanings for ARCH from 

the apocryphal Wisdom and The Gospel of Nicodemus. Now if others could just be as honest. 

As Jewish translator Hugh J. Schonfield (The Original New Testament) states at Rev 3:14 in a footnote, 

"Clearly, John the Elder himself believed that the heavenly Christ was a created being, as did the early 

Christians." 

Let us consider other examples of this to better explain it. 

Examples from the LXX: Gen. 10:10 

And the beginning (arche) of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of 

Shinar. 

Babel, Erech, Accad and Calneh were PART of Nimrod's kingdom. 

Gen. 49:3 Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of 

dignity, and the excellency of power: 

Rueben was the beginning, the first one of/PART of Jacob's generative strength. 

Deuteronomy 11:12 A land which the LORD thy God careth for: the eyes of the LORD thy God are 

always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the year. 

The beginning of the year was the first PART of the year. 

Deuteronomy 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a 

double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his. 

The firstborn was the beginning, the first one/PART of his generative strength. 

Ruth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out 

of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest. 

The beginning was the first PART of the harvest. 

2 Samuel 21:9 And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill 

before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the 

first days, in the beginning of barley harvest. 

21:10 And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the 

beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the 

air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night. 

The beginning was the first PART of the harvest. 

2 Kings 17:25 And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the LORD: 

therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which slew some of them. 

The beginning was the first PART of their dwelling there. 

Daniel 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew 

thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. 



The beginning was the first PART of the supplication. 

Examples from the NT: 

Matthew 24:8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. 

The beginning was the first PART of the sorrows. 

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to 

this time, no, nor ever shall be. 

The beginning was the first PART of the world. 

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 

The beginning was the first PART of the gospel according to Mark. 

Mark13:8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be 

earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of 

sorrows. 

The beginning was the first part of the sorrows. 

John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and 

his disciples believed on him. 

The beginning was the FIRST miracle among the miracles of Jesus. 

Phillipians 4:15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed 

from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. 

The beginning was the first PART of the gospel. 

Hebrews 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast 

unto the end; 

The beginning of their confidence was PART of their confidence. 

These examples and the ones in the chart clearly demonstrate the manner in which the phrase 

"beginning of the creation" at Revelation 3:14 should be understood. As in all the other Biblical 

examples the "arche" is a part "of the ...". This demonstrates that Christ is a PART, the FIRST part of the 

creation of God. 

Although "arche" can mean ruler, it must be noted that John NEVER uses "arche" in this manner. He 

consistently uses "arche" in the sense of "beginning". 

It should be noted as well that among the times "arche" is used to designate "ruler" in the NT 11 times, 

10 of those occurences the word appears in the plural or is signified to be understood as a plural by the 

word "every" or "all" along with it. Once, in Luke 20:20 it is used in a 'genitive' phrase and is a PART of 

that which is signified by the genitive. 

Can the word "arche" can mean "source" or "cause?" 

This claim however can not be substantiated in the Septuagint (LXX) or NT. We do not have any 



examples (except for attempts to do so with Rev 3:14) within the Bible where "arche" can be shown to 

clearly mean "cause" or "source". 

Again, we have to keep in mind, again, that John NEVER used "arche" except in the sense of 

"beginning". The Bible has other words for "ruler" (archon), and "source/cause/author" (rhiza or aitios). 

We simply cannot find where"arche" is used in the sense of "author" or "source". 

So, the evidence clearly shows that the Apostle John considered Jesus Christ to be a "creation" of God. 

It is interesting that Metzger parallels Rev 3:14 with Col 1:15-18, which also has a genetive construction. 

Everytime the phrase, "the firstborn of" is used, it is used as part of a group. If it is "the firstborn of" 

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 

of the house of Pharoah, if it is "the firstborn of" beasts(Ex. 13:15) then it is an animal also. Why then 

should this rule be changed as it applies to "the firstborn of" creation? For more click here. 

In dealing with an objection similar to Metzger's, the following was pointed out on B-Greek: 

"In any event, you invoke what is said in Col. 1:15-18 and John 1:1-3 as support for your 

view that Christ created all things. However, Colossians 1:15 uses a term (PRWTOTOKOS) 

that could, just as with ARCH, invoke temporal notions with respect to Christ's being. But, 

putting that aside as an accepted area of dispute, in verse 16 the passive verb EKTISQH is 

used in reference to what someone else did EN AUTWi (= Christ). This could not 

grammatically be construed as an instance where it is said that Christ created all things, but 

where it is said that all things were created "in him" by someone else. 

The same is true of EKTISTAI in verse 17, where we also find DI' AUTOU, which, together 

with the passive verbs, clearly involves the idea of agency, namely, Christ as the medium or 

instrument through which someone else created (this concept of mediation does recall what 

is said of Wisdom in Proverbs 8, regardless of who/what we think Wisdom might be, there). 

This is significant for we also find this construction in John 1:1-3, to which you also refer. 

When we compare these texts with 1Cor 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2-3 it is hard, if not reasonable 

impossible, to escape the conclusion that God created through Christ. 

Significantly, in Revelation 3:14 we find that Christ is the hH ARCH THS KTISEWS 

**TOU QEOU**. Thus, even if we accepted "source" for ARCH, here, it is still hH KTISIS 

TOU QEOU, and, hence, shows that the position of creator belongs to someone other than 

hH ARCH, namely, the God mentioned. 

So, if a temporal beginning is not meant for Christ's being in this verse, as the first of God's 

creation (which is *strikingly* similar to what we read in the LXX of Proverbs 8 [KURIOS 

EKTISE ME ARCHN hODWN AUTOU EIS ERGA AUTOU]), then it would seem to me 

that "ruler" would be a better fit; however, we are then confronted with the fact that where 

ARCH has the meaning of "ruler," in the NT it is always accompanied by words denoting 

authority, power, etc., as Wes pointed out and which BAGD suggests." 

Metzger also complains about the NWT's use of *by God* rather than *of God* in Revelation 3:14. He 

is right about the wording of *by God* usually requiring a preposition (like UPO for instance), but Rev 

3:14 is different in that the last 4 words, THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU, are all genetive. 

Subscribe to jehovahbible 



Powered by groups.yahoo.com 


Email Me 


A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson 

A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's 

Witnesses 

On Cults, Jesus as Michael the Archangel, His being raised in the spirit, and the sorry state of 

*Orthodoxy*! 


Mr Hansen's page on Dr Wilson's is at http://www.jehovahswitnessesandthetruth.com/7ways.html 

Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses are a "cult," that is, they believe they are right and that all others are wrong 

and will not be saved unless they become Jehovah's Witnesses, too. 

All strands of Christianity have minor variations. What unites Christians, however, is our belief in Jesus as 

the unique and divine Son of God. This gives us a sense of unity with all Christians as brothers and sisters 

despite differences in history and style. 

It is typical of cults, however, to see themselves as the only right way of serving God, and the only ones 

who will be saved when God judges mankind. In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, they systematically 

proselytize people who attend Christian churches, categorizing Christendom as "false religion," "the 

Harlot," and "Babylon the Great."[1] 

Reply: This reminds me of a comment I read in the book, "True for you, but Not for Me" by Copan. In it 

he writes, "The Hindu philosopher Swami Vivekenanda came to Chicago in 1893 to address the World's 

Parliament of Religons. He told the delegates, 'We [Hindus] accept all religions to be true,' and '[it] is a 

sin to call a man [a sinner].' What a problematic and self-contradictory view! The swami calls someone a 

sinner - because that person has called another a sinner. If the exclusivist is a sinner for calling all people 

sinners, then the Hindu is just as much a sinner for calling the exclusivist a sinner." p.34 

JW's are called a cult by those who have arrogantly elevated themselves above JW's. In doing so, the 

opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses are spreading hatred and bigotry against them. This is especially 

troubling as JW's also view Jesus as "the unique and divine Son of God." 

Dr Wilson condemns JW's for saying that they are the only right way of serving God, yet the whole point 

of his article is to show that Wilson is right and JW's are wrong. You can't have it both ways, sorry. 

If we take a look at say, Bob Larson's Book of Cults, we realize that according to mainstream 

evangelicals, there are many many cults. According to the criteria set out in this book, five american 

presidents are cultists, as is Isaac Newton and other prominent people. People write to me to tell me that 

Catholicism is a cult, as is Islam and the Eastern religious cults. This accounts for most of the world's 

population. Evidently, anyone is a cultist if they simply don't believe the same as you. The word "cult" is 

so overused it has completely lost its power. 

I have been tracking fundamentalists Baptists online for awhile, and people might be interested in what 

they are thinking. Fundamentalist David Cloud on the Gideons as posted by Baptist John Henry: 

"Another foundational problem with the Gideons is their ecumenism. They go to all sorts of 

unscriptural churches, including modernistic Protestant ones, such as United Methodist, 

Presbyterian Church USA, and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, that are affiliated 

with the World Council of Churches." 

Yet more by Baptist John Henry: 

"Dear Hinez, [sic] 

Independent fundamental local church Baptists do hold the only true saving faith 

(salvation by grace through faith in Christ apart from any works), but we are not the only 

ones that have this saving faith. 

Independent fundamental local church Baptists are, however, Christ's true churches 

whereas the Roman Catholic "Church", all Protestant "churches", Universal "Church", and 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/wilson.htm (1 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:00:39 AM]


cults [including SDA] are not." 

Mr Henry has a strong web presence, and it is difficult for him to admit that anyone else also shares "the 

only true saving faith." 

Also: 

"Now, when I was growing up, I heard that the Baptists were the only true faith because we 

went back past Peter, to John the Baptist, who baptized Jesus by immersion. Anybody that 

had not received believer's baptism by being dunked under the water, not some little 

sprinkling, had a defect." 

By Pastor Lanny Peters 

http://www.oakhurstbaptist.org/obc/Sermons/Sermon_2000_10_01_WorldCommunion=.htm 

"It is not to be understood that each of these groups was entirely free from error or entirely 

embraced the truth. Through these groups can be traced the people called Baptists. In these 

groups is to be found the true church -- not in Catholicism. 

http://members.aol.com/libcfl/history.htm 

"Baptists did not come out of the Reformation under Martin Luther, for they were never a 

part of the Catholic Church. In fact Baptists were on the scene long before the Catholic 

Church ever came into existence. For those who are interested in studying more on this 

subject we highly recommend The Trail of Blood, by J. M. Carroll. 

We do not believe in a so-called "Universal Invisible Church." We believe that Jesus 

established a local, visible church, and we are sure that this is the only kind of true church 

that is in existence today. 

http://www.victorybaptist.org.uk/whatwebelieve.html 

"At another extreme, the follower of one faith approaches the other from a position of 

superiority. She/he assertively presents theirs as the only true religion. Other faiths, 

including the religion of the listener, may [sic] described as inferior, filled with errors, and 

even Satan-inspired. The proselytizer might state that the other will spend eternity being 

tortured in Hell unless they convert to the proselytizer's religion...."However, the implicit 

suggestion in Southern Baptist prayer guides is that 'others, including Christians, who 

do not practice the Christian faith as they do are not as Christian,' contended United 

Methodist Bishop C. Joseph Sprague, a member of the inter-faith council. 'That is insulting 

to us and conducive to real hurt.' With the recent defamation of synagogues and deaths 

attributed to hate crimes in the Chicago area, the bishop said, 'it's no stretch to look back at 

history and see cause and effect.' " 

"Sprague said the incident reflects the theological divide between Christians about 

evangelism. Evangelical Christians, like Southern Baptists, believe that salvation comes 

only by accepting Jesus Christ as savior. Others consider Christ as the decisive revelation 

and that believers witness their faith by living life 'with Jesus Christ as savior, living and 

proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ.' It is clear as the Southern Baptist leadership 

has communicated that they have a hold on truth, and others who do not agree are 

outside the fold of salvation,' the bishop said. 'That is offensive and theologically 

suspect...This raises deep historic wounds, particularly in the Jewish community. It is 

important for us as Christians to remember that this is still the century of the Holocaust.' " 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chi_decl.htm 



Of course, it is not only Baptists: 

"Is Evangelism the only true faith? It is the truest. The Lord decides [I'm a big believer in 

the absolute sovereignty of God] what is best for each of us and guides us to what food we 

can digest." 

http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?action=oct99_1&startwith=40 

"The Pentecostals of Clearwater is part of the United Pentecostal Church International, 

which has 2.6-million members around the world. Greg Bowe, 30, an analyst at an insurance 

and security firm, said he began attending a year ago "because it's the only true faith ... it 

doesn't cut things out of the Bible." "The spirit of God is like nothing else," he said about 

speaking in tongues. "It's a joy no amount of alcohol, money or drugs can give you." 

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/07/06/NorthPinellas/Congregation_is_thril.shtml 

"the only true Church of Christ is the Catholic Church." 

http://www.truecatholic.org/baltapx.htm 

"I would like to teach this week on the deity of Christ, and the truth concerning the Jesus 

only faith, which is the only true faith set forth by God's apostles and the old testament 

writings that firmly establish the oneness of God." 

http://truelightpentecostal.org/042902.html 

"The Slavophils thought that Russian people live by the Orthodox faith, which is the only 

true faith containing the entire 

truth... http://www.earlham.edu/archive/opf-l/May-2001/msg00043.html 

"it has Apostolic foundations and it has the Apostolic Succession. The Orthodox Church 

believes it is the only true Church which has kept all these distinctive marks." 

http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/ortho.htm 

Orthodox Church 

"Thinking (like so many others) that they are the One And Only True Church" 

http://www.godulike.co.uk/az.php?order=o 

You cannot condemn Jehovah's Witnesses for believing they have true faith, and at the same time 

embrace the same view for yourself. When you talk out of both sides of your mouth, you are simply 

blowing alot of hot air. 

JESUS CHRIST was accused of being a drunkard, a glutton, a Sabbath breaker, a false witness, a 

blasphemer of God, and a messenger of Satan. He was also accused of being subversive.—Matthew 9:34; 

11:19; 12:24; 26:65; John 8:13; 9:16; 19:12. 

After Jesus' death and resurrection, his disciples were likewise the target of serious accusations. One 

group of first-century Christians were dragged to the city rulers by people yelling: 'The men who have 

made trouble the whole world over have now come here.' (Acts 17:6 REB) 

Of Paul they said that he was a "pestilent mover of sedition among the Jews throughout the world" and 

accused of "a violation of the temple." (Acts 24:5, 6 Knox) It was these Christians "The only thing we 

do know about this sect is that there is universal opposition to it."—Acts 28:22 Barclay. 

It is obvious that this new group established by Jesus Christ was considered by some to be a religious 

group with radical views and practices that clashed with what was accepted in those days as "orthodox" 

or "mainstream." Their accusers were often prominent and respected members of the community, and 



this seems to have added weight to the allegations. Many believed the accusations against Jesus and his 

disciples. Yet, as you probably know, every one of these charges was false! 

How do we identify Jesus followers? Jesus said, "You must have love for one another. This is how 

everyone will know that you are my disciples." How has this love shown itself in "orthodox" or 

"mainstream" Xtianity. Let us see: 

Rwanda: The general secretary of the Catholic Institute for International Relations, Ian Linden, made the 

following admission in the journal The Month: "Investigations by African Rights in London provide one 

or two examples of local Catholic, Anglican and Baptist Church leaders being implicated by omission or 

commission in militia killings. . . . There is absolutely no doubt that significant numbers of prominent 

Christians in parishes were involved in killings." Sadly, fighting between so-called Christians continues 

to plague central Africa. 

As Daniel Defoe wrote in his work The True-Born Englishman: "And of all plagues with which mankind 

are curst, ecclesiastic tyranny's the worst." 

The Christian Century: "The earliest Christians did not serve in the armed forces. Roland Bainton notes 

that 'from the end of the New Testament period to the decade A.D. 170-180 there is no evidence 

whatever of Christians in the army.' . . . Only gradually did Christians abandon their opposition to 

military service . . . Once Augustine endorsed 'just war' as authorizing Christians' participation in military 

activities, 'just war' soon became whatever war their government engaged in." 

The article then exposes the real issue for Christians: "Can anyone seriously conceive of Jesus hurling 

hand grenades at his enemies, using a machine gun, manipulating a flamethrower, dropping nuclear 

bombs or launching an ICBM which would kill or cripple thousands of mothers and children? . . . If 

Jesus could not do this and be true to his character, then how can we do it and be true to him?" 

"Augustine's ['just war'] perversion of Christianity on this critical issue was the greatest calamity that 

ever befell the faith. It has cost Christians endless opportunities to witness for their central ethical 

principle: love your enemies and do good to them who despitefully use you. It may have done as much to 

hamper Christian evangelism as anything that has ever occurred." 

British Brigadier General Frank P. Crozier said of the situation during World War I: "The Christian 

Churches are the finest blood-lust creators which we have, and of them we made free use." 

That the position of the churches was indeed hypocritical was acknowledged by the late Protestant 

clergyman Harry Emerson Fosdick. He admitted: "Our Western history has been one war after another. 

We have bred men for war, trained men for war; we have glorified war; we have made warriors our 

heroes and even in our churches we have put the battle flags . . . With one corner of our mouth we have 

praised the Prince of Peace and with the other we have glorified war." 

The situation did not change during World War II. Friedrich Heer, a Roman Catholic professor of history 

at Vienna University, later acknowledged in his book God's First Love: 

"In the cold facts of German history, the Cross and the swastika came ever closer together, 

until the swastika proclaimed the message of victory from the towers of German cathedrals, 

swastika flags appeared round altars and Catholic and Protestant theologians, pastors, 

churchmen and statesmen welcomed the alliance with Hitler."—Page 247. 

"I bring you this stately matron named Christendom, returning bedraggled, besmirched, and 

dishonored from pirate raids in Kiao-Chow, Manchuria, South Africa, and the Phillipines, 

with her soul full of meanness, her pocket full of boodle, and her mouth full of pious 

hypocrisies. Give her soap and a towel, but hide the looking-glass."--Mark Twain, Speech 



to the Red Cross 

"Then the Holy Inquisition was born...thousands of torn and mutilated heretics shrieking 

under the torture, and other thousands and thousands of heretics and witches burning at the 

stake, "always in the pleasant shade flung by the peaceful banner of the cross," as Satan 

remarked. 

And in the midst of these fearful spectacles, as an incidental matter, we had a marvelous 

nightshow, by the light of fitting and flying torches the butchery of Christian by Christian in 

France on Bartholomew's Day.--- Mark Twain 

Taking into account the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the violence surrounding the Councils, 

Christendom has become the most blood-thirsty of faiths 

For more go to http://www.mcauley.acu.edu.au/~yuri/ethics/war.html 

John Calvin had Michael Servetus killed for differences over doctrine, and Martin Luther was a vicious 

anti-semite and a tyrant. see 

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html 

See also http://www.world-hi.com/LeopoldsLettter.htm for an example of the racism in today's churches. 

"To bind eveything together and complete the whole, there must be love." Titus 3:10 REB 

Couple this with the gross ignorance that the members of "Christian churches" have towards the Bible, 

(see 50questions.htm#ignorance) then there is ample reason for JW's to "systematically proselytize 

people who attend Christian churches, categorizing Christendom as "false religion," "the Harlot," and 

"Babylon the Great." 

Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is the fully divine Son of God. 

Several heretical groups deny that Jesus is the fully divine, unique Son of God--Unitarians, Mormons, 

Christian Science, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses revive the ancient heresy put forward by 

Arius in the Fourth Century[2] and rejected by faithful Christians at the Council of Nicea. 

Reply: Regarding the Nicene Council and those that followed, Hans Kung in Christianity says, 

"The conciliar decisions plunged Chrisitianity into undreamed-of theological confusions 

with constant entanglements in church politics. They produced splits and sparked off a 

persecution of heretics unique in the history of religion. This is what Christianity became as 

it changed its nature from a persecuted minority to a majority persecuting others." 

The Nicene Council and the decisions surrounding it were marked by violence and death. 

(See "When Jesus Became God-The Epic Fight over Christ's Divinity in the Last Days of Rome" by 

Richard E. Rubenstein). 

Constantine was indifferent to the questions at hand. 

"Constantine, who treated religious questions solely from a political point of view, assured 

unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new profession of faith. In 

this way unity was achieved/ 'It was altogether unheardof that a universal creed should be 

instituted solely on the authority of the emperor, who as a catechumen was not even 

admitted to the mystery of the Eucharist and was totally unempowered to rule on the highest 

mysteries of the faith. Not a single bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing." 

[Walter Nigg, The Heretics, Heresy Throught the Ages, p127] 

For more go to Constantine.htm 

"Faithful Christians" indeed... 

"The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism 



official. The subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . . 

Finally, cart-loads of saints raised to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain 

old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, it was the most polytheistic 

religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This untenable 

contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt 

with by accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later 

Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - 

Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. " 

"The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely 

on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must 

therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit 

from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages." -- The Doubter's Companion 

(John Ralston Saul) 

Wilson: For Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus is not fully God, but "a god." 

Reply: I really don't see why people harp on this as the Bible also calls Jehovah "a god." Deut 4:7. For 

what great nation is there, that hath a god so nigh unto them, as Jehovah our God is whensoever we call 

upon him? American Standard Version For more on John 1:1c and "a god" go to wisdom.htm. 

The Bible calls Jesus "God," but every time it does the context always shows that Jesus is less than the 

Eternal, Almighty God. Jesus is a "begotten god," he is "*with* The god" and he has a God (Jn 1:18; 1:1; 

Mt 27:46). The Bible always places Jesus as subject and less than Almighty! (Jn 14:28; 1Cor 15:28) 

Jesus has a God over him at every period of his existence. He always has a God above him (Mic.5:4, 

Jn.20:17, Rom.15:6, Rev.3:12). 

Before he came to earth Jesus was less than Almighty God, while he was 

on earth he was less than Almighty God and after he is in heaven and as 

high as he will ever get he is still less than Almighty God 

(1Cor.15:27,28, Eph. 1:17; 19-22). There is absolutely no support for any belief 

that makes Jesus equal or the same as the Almighty God YHWH at 

anytime in his existence. 

Wilson: They identify him as Michael the archangel. 

Reply: Is it just JW's that identify Jesus as Michael? 



"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, 

finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel 

in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl. 


Daniel 12:1: 




J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. 

Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369. 

WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER, DOCTOR OF DIVINITY, stated: 



There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the 

best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael 

agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), 

and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--William L. Alexander, 

ed., A CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, originally edited by John Kitto, 

3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158 








paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is 

moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim--i.e., 






A Bible Dictionary published by Logos International, an evangelical 

Protestant outfit, says: 

"Michael ... in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish 

nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of the angelic army. So exalted are the position and 

offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." -- INTERNATIONAL 

BIBLE DICTIONARY -- ILLUSTRATED (Plainfield, NJ, Logos International, 1977), p. 35 

Regarding the occurence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10, Methodist 

commentator ADAM CLARKE remarked: 

"By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume 

commentary -- not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon 

Press, vol. 6, page 952). 

LANGE"S COMMENTARY calls the figure here(Rev 12:7-10) "the warlike form of 

Christ." J.P. Lange's COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, s.v. Rev. 12:7 

AN EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE, produced by 27 different scholars, says of 

Michael: 

"It is even itself probable that the Leader of the hosts of light (in Rev. 12:7-9) will be no 

other than the Captain of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.... Above all, the 

prophecies of Daniel, in which the name Michael first occurs, may be said to decide the 

point." -- publ. in Hartford, CT, 1910, by the Scranton Co., vol. 6, p.882 

Matthew Henry Commentary: 

Concerning Revelation 12:9 in Henry’s unabridged and concise commentaries. 

2. The parties-Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the 

other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all 



his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to 

the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their 

salvation. 

Verses 7-11 The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to 

his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom 

of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful 

followers; and Satan and his instruments. 

Concerning Daniel 10 in Henry’s unabridged commentary. 

Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but 

injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but 

an archangel of the highest order, 1 Th. 4:16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the 

archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the 

angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5. 

John Wesley: 

Chapter XII 

A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning 

the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 For the 

children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some 

deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael 

your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of 

Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time 

of Christ, from his first, to his last coming. 




Geneva Study Bible: 

Da 12:1 

12:1 And at that {a} time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the 

children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since 

there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, 

every one that shall be found written in the book. 

(a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and 

trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here 

calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel. 

Da 10:1310:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty 

days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there 

with the kings of Persia. (h) Meaning Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence, and 

did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if 

God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church. 

(i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of 

his love he sends forth double power, even 

Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels. 



"The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm 

the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the 

Logos, has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage. Hofmann 

(Schriftbeweis i., p. 296) objects to this explanation, and says, 'in this case it is impossible to 

imagine why the Archangel should be mentioned as fighting with the dragon, and not the 

child that was caught up to the throne of God.' But we have already replied to this in the 

commentary, where we said, 'if Michael be Christ, the question arises why Michael is 

mentioned here instead of Christ'. The answer to this is, that the name Michael [Who is like 

God?, that is, 'Who dares to claim that they are like God?'] contains in itself an intimation 

that the work referred to here, the decisive victory over Satan, belongs to Christ, not as 

human, but rather as divine [compare 1 John iii. 8]. Moreover, this name forms a 

connecting link between the Old Testament and the New. Even in the Old Testament, 

Michael is represented as the great prince, who fights on 

behalf of the Church (Dan. xii. 1).' The conflict there alluded to was a prediction and 

prelude of the one mentioned hero. The further objections offered by Hofmann rest upon 

his very remarkable interpretation of chap. xii., which is not likely to be adopted by any who 

are capable of examining for themselves." 

—Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the 

Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel 

publication). 

Paul says, 'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, 

with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" and the dead 

in Christ will rise first.' I Thes. iv. 16. From this text it appears 

that when the Lord shall descend with a shout, his voice will be that of 

the Archangel, or head Messenger; therefore the Lord must be that head 

Messenger. This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the 

Archangel; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be raised by his 

voice. He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, 

and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and 

they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, 

in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come 

forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they 

that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John v. 26, 

28, 29. 

Brown's dictionary of the Bible on the words Michael, and Angel says, that both these words do 

sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel. Wood's Spiritual Dictionary 

teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown's does. The former was a Calvinist, the 

latter a Methodist. Buck in his Theological Dictionary says, under the article Angel, d) that Christ is in 

scripture frequently called an Angel.[1] Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert 

that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ. 

Doctor Coke, a Methodist bishop, in his notes on the Bible, acknowledges that Christ is sometimes called 

an Angel. See his notes of that passage where the Angel of the Lord spake to the people at Bochim. 

Winchester has taught the same doctrine in the 152 page of the first volume of his lectures on the 

prophecies. Whitefield, in his sermon on the bush that burnt and was not consumed, says that the Angel 



that appeared to Moses in the bush was Christ. Pool, in his Annotations, explains those passages where 

the Lord appeared to the Patriarchs under the character of an Angel, as referring to Jesus Christ. Bunyan 

makes the pilgrim ascribe his deliverance from Apollyon to Michael. He says, "Blessed Michael helped 

me." Pilgrim's Progress, Cincinnati edition, page 54. Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on 

Rev. 

xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it 

as his opinion. 

Doctor Watts in his [G]lories of Christ, page[s] 200, 201, 202, 218, 223, and 224, teaches the same 

doctrine. Watts, Dodridge and some others have called this Angel of the covenant, or Angel of God's 

presence Christ's human soul, whom they think was the first Being that God ever created. I agree with 

them that Christ is the first Being that God created, but I cannot see the propriety of calling the 

pre-existent Christ a human soul, seeing he did not descend from humans but existed before the human 

family was created. 

E.W. Hengstenberg, in his Christologie des Alten Testaments und Kommentar uber die messianischen 

Weissagungen, Bd. iii. 2 Aufl. 1857 identifies the archangel Michael with the Logos-Christ. 

Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her 

mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that 

appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was 

Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii 

throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7. 

"the influence of the late-Jewish speculation about the archangel Michael in the earlier 

period of Post-Apostolic Christianity helped to preserve the Angel-Christology: indeed it 

even provided new stimulus for the further development of Christology. In his day Wilhelm 

Bousset had already alluded to the fact, being the first to do so, in his writing about the 

'Antichrist'. The figure of the archangel Michael had perhaps already influenced Philo's 

speculation about the Logos, and Philo bad affected Christian authors of the Post-Apostolic 

period. in any case Philo did not identify the Logos with the Messiah, but with an 

archangel,s and he predicated to him that which was appropriate to the archangel Michael. 

Thus the late-Jewish speculation about Michael (which imparted Messianic traits to the 

archangel), the Philonic Logos-doctrine and the PostApostolic Logos-Christology appear in 

a sequence and indicate that the late-Jewish doctrine of angels was their common 

presupposition." 

Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 133 

Clement of Alexandria, 153—193—217 C.E. explains: 

Formerly the older people [the Israelites] had an old covenant, and the law disciplined the 

people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but the fresh and new people [the Christians] 

has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear turned into love, 

and that mystic angel is born—Jesus.—The Instructor, Book I, chapter VII (7); ANF, Vol. 

II, p. 224. 

Hippolytus, 170—236 C.E.: 

"And lo, Michael." and Who is Michael but the angel assigned to the people? As (God) says 

to Moses. "I will not go with you in the way, because the people are stiff-necked; but my 

angel shall go with you.—Scholia On Daniel, 13; ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 190. (Compare, 



Exodus 14:19; 23:20, 3; 32:34; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Insight On The Scriptures, Volume 2, p. 

816, paragraph 9.) 

Melito, 160-170-177 C.E.: (estimated dates of composition): 

He who in the law is the Law; among the priests, Chief Priest; among kings, the Ruler; 

among prophets, the Prophet; among the angels, Archangel; in the voice of the preacher, the 

Word; among spirits, the Spirit; in the Father, the Son; in God, God; King for ever and 

ever.—On Faith; ANF, Vol. VIII (8), pp. 756-7. 

In Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning The Shepherd of Hermas, of the 2nd or 3rd 

century: 

In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God's 

inner council, and who is regularly described as 'most venerable', 'holy' and 'glorious'. This 

angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas 

saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael...Christ's 

pre-existence, was generally taken for granted, as was His role creation as well as 

redemption. This theme, which could point to Pauline and Johannine parallels, chimed in 

very easily with creative functions assigned to Wisdom in later Judaism...There is evidence 

also...of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel ... Of a doctrine of the Trinity 

in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church's triadic formula left its 

mark everywhere—pp. 94-5. 

(see also Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible)-The Shepherd of Hermas was so near and dear to the 

ante-Nicene Fathers that many of them considered it canonical scripture. 

"For Justin the Logos-Christ was, therefore, the archistrategos, the highest angel-prince and 

leader of the angelic host." Werner, ibid. 135 

Scripture Proof: Michael has authority over the angels (Rev.12:7) and so does Jesus Christ (Mat.16:27; 

25:31; 2Thes.1:7). 

Michael leads the angels to defeat Satan and hurl him to earth (Re 12:7). So does Jesus. (Re 19:13,19). 

At 1Thes.4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel. 

The Greek for 'with an archangel's voice' is literally 'EN FWNHi ARXAGGELOU', in the oblique dative 

case. In all other occurrences of this idiom in the Greek New Testament it describes the voice of the 

subject in the clause. 

See: BAGD, page 878, [FWNH/phone - 1. Voice] 

All these references have 'phone' (FWNH) in an oblique case, genitive or dative, thus signifying not just a noise, but a 

voice. 

+ [Re 5:2] NRSV And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice: 

[ EN FWNHi (dat.) MEGALH (WH)] 

+ Re 14:7 (cf 9)] NRSV said in a loud voice: [ LEGWN EN FWNHi (dat.) 

MEGALH (WH) ] 

+ Joh 5:28] NRSV Do not astonished at this; for the hour is coming in 

which all those who are in their graves will hear his voice [ AKOUSOUSIN 

THS FWNHS (gen.) AUTOU (WH) ] 

+ 1Th 4:16 ] NWT because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with 

a commanding call, [ EN KELEUSMATI (WH) ] with an archangel's voice [ EN 

FWNHi (dat.) ARXAGGELOU (WH) ] and with God's trumpet, and those who are 

dead in union with Christ will rise first. 

+ Ac 9:7 ] NRSV (not referenced in BAGD) The men who were traveling 

with him stood speechless because they heard the voice, [ AKOUONTES MEN THS FWNHS (gen.) (WH) ] but saw no one. 

See also: Lu 4:33; Rev 5:2; 7:2; 10:3; 14:7,9,15,18;19:17; Ac 7:60. 



What about Heb 1:5, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I 

begotten thee?" The main point of Hebrews 1 is to elevate Jesus above the angels (an elevation that an 

Almighty would not need). Hence the ARCH in ARCHangel. For more click here. 

If the title "archangel" also applied to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel's voice" would not 

be appropriate. 

Jesus has been given authority by his Father to raise the dead. (Jn.5:25,26). 

But the voice of the archangel also raises the dead (1Thes. 4:16; cf Dan.12:2). 

Michael is called "the great prince" (Dan. 12:1). 

Christ is called a "princely ruler" and "prince of peace" (Isa.9:6). 

In Daniel chapter 7, there is a prophecy about the march of world powers to the end of the age. At the 

climax of that prophecy we read that "someone like a son of man" was "given rulership and dignity and 

kingdom," and that one is Jesus Christ. (Dan.7:13, 14) In another prophecy Daniel wrote that reached 

down to "the time of the end" (Dan.10:13;11:40) Michael would stand up: "And during that time Michael 

will stand up." (Da 12:1) In Daniel's prophecy, 'standing up' frequently refers to the action of a king, 

either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as King. (Dan.11:2-4,7,16,20,21) 

Michael's "standing" indicates a ruler and supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since 

Jesus is Jehovah's/Yahweh's appointed King. 

Both prophecies deal with the same time and the same event...thus the conclusion is obvious. 

Satan is abyssed by an *angel* for a thousand years. (Rev.20:1, 2, 10) 

The demons identified Christ as the one who was to hurl them into the "abyss" (Mt 8:29). 

The nations are destroyed by Jesus and *his* army of angels. (Rev.12:12; 17:16, 17; 19:11-16) 

Jesus is also prophesied as the seed that is to crush Satan's head (Gen.3:15), but yet Michael with "his 

angels" who does this in Revelation 12. 

Wilson: They believe he is God's first creation, and thus a creature rather than the Creator. 

Reply: It is the Bible that calls Jesus "the firstborn of all creation," "the beginning of God's creation," the 

"only-begotten Son" and links Jesus to the "created" Wisdom of Proverbs (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14; Jn 3:16; 

Prov 8:22-30 cf. Lu 11:47/1Cor 1:24 RSV). 

Wilson: The Bible, on the contrary, says of Jesus, "In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily 

form." 

Reply: Dr Wilson and others who use this scripture to buttress their views should be careful here. Since 

Trinitarians view the Godhead/Deity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then it would be impossible for all 

of them to live in Christ, as according to Trinitarian theology, Jesus is neither the Father not the Spirit. 

For more on Colossians 2:9 go to theotes.htm. 

Wilson: For Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus' resurrection was not physical but spiritual.[7] Like the angels, "he 

was obliged to materialize a body of flesh in order to make himself visible."[8] This is how Jehovah's 

Witnesses explain that Jesus' second coming--his second "presence," as they call it--"is unseen to natural 

human eyes."[9] True Christians believe that Jesus' resurrection was physical. The body was gone. He told 

his disciples. "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have 

flesh and bones as you see that I have."[10] True Christians also expect to see Jesus return in the same way 

he was taken up into heaven.[11] 

Jehovah's Witnesses deny Jesus' full divinity, his physical resurrection, and his visible return. 

Reply: We believe that all who dwell in heaven are spirit beings. The angelic "sons of God" at Gen 6:2 

are called "supernatural beings" TEV1, CEV or "heavenly beings" TEV2, New Jewish P.Society. 

"God is a spiritual being" Jn 4:24 Weymouth 

Paul said, "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth 



corruption inherit incorruption." 1Cor 15:50 

To counteract the problem that this scripture causes, the NASB Zondervan Study Bible (NIV Study 

Bible) says at 1Cor 15:50, "*Flesh and blood* stands for perishable, corrupt, weak, sinful human 

beings." 

If this is truly the case, then why does Jesus share in it also (Heb 2:14)? 

Instead of giving "flesh and blood" new meaning, how do different Bible versions translate the phrase 

SARX KAI AIMA/Flesh and Blood? 

At Matthew 16:17 "flesh and blood" is rendered as "man/men" by the Amplified Bible, REB, NIV, NIrV, 

Simple English Bible and Williams NT, "human/human being" by TEV, Barclay, God's Word, Living 

Bible, REB and NLT and "person" by NCV and Deaf Version. 

At Gal 1:16 "flesh and blood" is rendered "human being" by Phillips, 21st Century NT, NEB, Simple 

English Bible, Barclay and New Jerusalem Bible, and "man/person" by the NIV, REB, NCV and Deaf 

version and God's Word. 

At Eph 6:12 "flesh and blood" is rendered "humans" by CEV,"human beings" by TEV and NIrV, men by 

the Simple English Bible, and people bt the New Life NT, NCV and Deak version. 

In fact, in 1Cor 15:50; Mt 16:17 and Eph 6:12 fleshly bodies are contrasted to spirit beings. Would it not 

be better to leave the meaning then as Williams NT puts it, "Our physical bodies cannot take part in the 

kingdom of God [w/footnote Lit., flesh and blood (bodies) so physical]." 

It is special pleading to try to associate the term "flesh and blood" with a negative connotation. 

Other Scripture Proofs for Jesus' Spiritual Ascension: 

"even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more." 2Cor 5:16 

"The bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world." Jesus gave up up his human body as a 

sacrifice. 

Paul explains that it is not the body that is resurrected, but rather, he likens their experience to the 

planting and sprouting of a seed, in that "God giveth it a body even as it pleased him." (1Co 15:35-40) 

"He was manifested in the body, vindicated in the spirit." 1Tim 3:16 NEB 

"We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Heb 10:10) 

Jesus gave up his body once for all time. 

"Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to 

God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" (1Peter 3:18) 

"The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit." (1 Cor 

15:45) 

Well, then, what happened to Jesus' fleshly body in the tomb? Did not the disciples find his it empty? 

Yes they did, because God removed Jesus' body. Why did God do this? It fulfilled what had been written 

in the Bible. (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:31) Thus God removed Jesus' body, even as he had done before with 

Moses' body. (Deuteronomy 34:5, 6) If the body had been left in the tomb, Jesus' disciples could not have 

understood that he had been raised from the dead, since at that time they did not fully appreciate spiritual 

things. 

It should be noted that when Jesus did materialize in a human body following his resurrection, he was 

often not recognized, indicating that he did not use the same body to materialize into. 

Thus Mary Magdalene at first thought that Jesus was a gardener. At other times his disciples did not at 

first recognize him. In these instances it was not his personal appearance that served to identify him, but 

it was some word or action that they recognized.-(John 20:14-16; 21:6, 7; Luke 24:30, 31; Matt. 28:16, 

17) 

Supposing that Jesus has his earthly human body in heaven. Since clergymen who insist that Jesus has 

his human body in heaven teach that he is also God himself, then we know what God looks like. He 



looks exactly like Jesus when He was on earth; perhaps six feet tall with a Jewish nose and curly hair, a 

beard, sex organs, and weighing about 200 pounds. However, Jesus told the Jews: "And the Father that 

sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his 

form[morphé]." (John 5:37) The apostle John also said to Christians: "Beloved, now are we children of 

God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall 

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 

his human body with him in heaven, for then we would know what Christians will be like in heaven after 

their resurrection from the dead. 

If Jesus has his human body in heaven, then he must have his whole digestive system, and his faithful 

disciples, on going to heaven, would also have the same things. Jesus said to them: " I appoint unto you a 

kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom." 

(Luke 22:29, 30) But Jesus also said: "Whatever goes into the mouth passes through the stomach and 

discharges into the sewer" (Matt. 15:17, NJB) So now that there are physical human bodies in heaven, 

something that was never true of any heavenly being before Jesus' *bodily* resurrection, all of a sudden 

there is a need for a divine sewer system. See, when you think things through to their logical conclusions 

you eventually see the fallacy of orthodoxy as it is viewed by nominal Christianity. 

The Bible knows what it is talking about when it says "flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom"! (1 

Cor. 15:50) In explaining the annual Atonement Day (Yom Kippur) of the Jews, Paul proves that Jesus 

Christ did not take his fleshly body with him to heaven but left it behind as a human sacrifice. This is all 

the more evident when you consider sacrifices done before Christ's death. 

In Leviticus 16, on the yearly Atonement Day the high priest carried the blood of the sacrificial bull and 

the sacrificial goat into the Most Holy of the sacred tabernacle made by human hands. The skins, the 

flesh and the dung of the bull and goat had to be burned outside the camp and be completely disposed of. 

In the same way, Jesus disposed of his body. 

Here, now, is how God's own Word explains this, in Hebrews 9:11, 12, 24-26: 

"But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and 

more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet 

through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into 

the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. For Christ entered not into a holy place 

made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the 

face of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into 

the holy place year by year with blood not his own; else must he often have suffered since 

the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to 

put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." 

More on page 2 

This page is brought to you by John C's persistence (http://www.geocities.com/jcostouros/jw2.html), who 

notes: 

JohnC: "When I wrote to him, I believed all along that our correspondence was private and at a basic level. 

Certainly, I did not think to create a dissertation to impress him or the internet public. However, that was 

not the case with Heinz. He chose to take parts of my letters and publish them in his web site." 

Reply: John, your emails to me, much like this one, consisted of copying and pasting someone else's 

material attacking the Jehovah's Witnesses. There is nothing private or basic about a long diatribe bigoted 

against a certain group. 

Go to Part 2 of this reply 






A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses! 

A Reply to Dr Ralph Wilson and his Unscholarly Attack on Jehovah's 

Witnesses-Pt. 2 

On the Trinity, Predictions, the word "other", Analusai (Php 1:23), Hell, Soul, the New International 

Version, Blood, etc 


Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses deny the Christian teaching of the Trinity. 

In addition to denying the divinity of Jesus, Jehovah's Witnesses also deny the personhood of the Holy 

Spirit. ....While the Bible does not use the term "Trinity," the idea is clearly there. For example, Jesus 

directed that people be baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." 

Reply: A already have a page completely dealing with these supposed proofs of the *personhood* of the 

holy spirit at spirit.htm . 

In short, 

"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament 

writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics and in Acts as a divine force 

or power." The Triune God, Fortman pp. 6, 15 

As for Mt 28:19, 20 since when is being baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the 

Holy Spirit," supposed to be the same as saying that they are of the same substance and essence? 

McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though 

advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: "This text, however, taken 

by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their 

equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552) Why? Let us look at one reason. 

Using a singular form of NAME does not necessarily denote singularity. 

Genesis 5:2 "Male and female created he them: and blessed them, and called their NAME Adam, in the 

day when they were created." 

Here two distinct and separate individuals are called by one NAME. 

Genesis 48:6 "And thy issue, that thou begettest after them, shall be thine; they shall be called after the 

name of their brethren in their inheritance." All the brothers had 

different names although the text represents that by the singular, "name". 

It is interesting that the NIV and NEB distributes the term by translating it "names". 

Genesis 48:16: "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named 

on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a mulititude in the midst 

of the earth." Did Abraham and Isaac have the same name? Clearly, the singular term here "name" is 

used in a distributive sense. 

Mark 5:9: "Then Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ ‘My name is Legion,’ he replied, ‘For we are 

many.’" In this case one name was given to a plural number of distinct demons. 

The Bible clearly distinguishes between the name of the Father and the name of the Son. 

Proverbs 30:4 (NIV):" Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the 

hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of 

the earth? What is HIS NAME, AND THE NAME OF HIS SON? Tell me if you know!" 

Revelation 14:1 (NIV): "Then I looked, and theme before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, 

and with him 144,000 who had HIS NAME AND HIS FATHER’S NAME written on their foreheads." It 

is quite obvious that the Father has one name and that the Son has another. 

To look for anything else in Matt 28:19 also ignores the "authority" that is placed within the lexical range 

of ONOMA itself. 

If simply mentioning the 3 together ensures triunity, then God, and the Son and the angels must be some 

mysterious triad, as they are mentioned together more often, (Matt 18:10,11; Matt 16:27; Matt 24:36; Mk 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/wilson2.htm (1 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:01:00 AM]


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: 

21,22) 

..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 

32:11; Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 27; 29:13; 2Kings 13:23; Jer 33:26; etc). 

Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses predicted the date of Jesus' return several times. When they were proved 

wrong, they covered it up. 

Reply: Wilson is deceitful here. If it was covered up, how did he find out about it? Fact is, anything 

Witnesses write are a matter of public record. We have nothing to hide, and we certainly do not claim 

infallibility. 

We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding 







So does date-setting suggest cult activity? 

"Apocalyptic thinking has been highly adaptable,and, as a result, it has persisted through 

two thousand years of Western history. These two characteristics - elasticity and 

persistence- have marked end-time thinking in the West for nearly two millenia. Both the 

great minds and the rank and file of the Christian church have thought 

about how the world will end - often with strikingly different conclusions. Such apocalyptic 

expressions show no sign of abating; they are alive and well as we approach 2000." p. 185 

The Last Days Are Here Again- A History of the End Times by Richard Kyle 

What does Kyle mean? Consider the past: 

Early Church fathers Hilarianus and Hippolytus predicted the end in 500 A.D.(Paula Fredriksen-Tyconius 

and Augustine on the Apocalypse) 

Irish Bishop James Ussher's prediction was for 1996. 

Puritans Issac Watts, Joseph Mede and the Mathers in America were date-setters. 


Does that mean that all Protestants or Lutherans are false prophets? No, of course not, but they are by the 

reasoning of a certain few. 

German Reformer Philip Melanchton was a date-setter too, as was German theolgian Johann Alsted. 

Remember the booklet, "88 Reasons Why the Rapture will be in 1988" by Edgar Whisenant? Also 

"Christ Returns by 1988: 101 Reasons Why" by Colin Deal. 

Or the Korean Christians(Pentecostals) for October 1992? 

The most famous one was actually a Baptist....William Miller who predicted 1843. 

Wait...there's more 







● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Abbo of Fleury, the French Abbott predicts it for predicts it for 994/996. 

Richard of St. Vaast leads a pilgrimage for the predicted end in 1033. 

1184 is the target date for the return of the Antichrist according to many... 

and again in 1345-1385 

Joachim of Fiore(1135-1202) used the New Testament and the Trinity to proclaim the coming of 

the anti-christ in 1260 A.D. 

Speaking of the Trinity, the Church Father who first coined the term, Tertullian was a Montanist(a 

deeply apocalyptical sect). 

Jean de Roquetaillade announced it for 1366 

Roman Catholic, Arnald of Villanova, predicted the appearance of the Antichrist in 1378 

The Taborites predict it for 1420. 

Hans Hut announced the end for1528 

Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa announced it for 1533 

Melchior Hoffman announced it for 1593 

The Fifth Monarchists predicted between 1655-57 

A Lutheran named Adam Nachenmoser announced it for 1635 

Lutheran leader, Andreas Osiander announced it for 1672 

Jan Matthys announced for 1534 

Archbishop of York and Primate of England, Edwin Sandys (1519-1588) proclaimed the imminent 

end 

John Wycliffe announced it for 1379 

One of the first Baptist groups, The Anabaptists believed that the Millenium would occur in 1533 

Reformer John Foxe believed the last days would start in 1600. He was shared in this view by 

Robert Pont 

New England Minister Jonathan Edwards predicts 1866 

The Puritans predict it for 1700 

Emanuel Swedenborg predicts the end for 1757 

Anglican rector Thomas Beverly predict 1697 

Anglican rector John Mason for 1694 

Pierre Jurie predicts the end for 1689 

Sir Walter Raleigh, Hugh Broughton and Thomas Brightman thought it would not be until 1700 

Christopher Columbus said the world was going to end in 1656 

Deacon William Aspinwall (General Court) predicts the end for 1673 

Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly announced it for 1789 

The Shakers announced it for 1792 

Lavater announced it for 1795 

Some Christian believers in Russia thought that Peter the Great was the Anti-Christ in the 1660's. 



● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Historic Jews in the 17th century believed that the Messiah would come in the year 1648. 

John Napier announced it for 1688 or 1700 

John Cummings of the Scottish National Church, predicted Jesus would return in 1865. 

Isaac Newton announced it for about another 90 years in his day 

Richard Brothers announced it for 1795 

Reverend M. Baxter (Church of England) predicts it for 1868 

● Scottish National Church official, the "Reverend" John Cumming (1807-1881) proclaimed 

"Redemption draweth Nigh" in 1867 

● In 1832 Pope Gregory XVI indicated that the time of the "plague of locusts 


● Pat Robertson announced it for 2007(in a novel) 

● Chuck Smith, Pastor of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa proclaimed it for 1981 

● Tommy Hicks, a noted evangelist, received visions of the end in 1961 

● Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, predicted the world's end in the 19th. Century. 

● Elizabeth Claire Prophet announced it for 1989 

● Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California predicted the Rapture in 1981. 

● Hon-Ming Chen predicted Christ's return on March 31, 1998. 

● Methodist Joanna Southcott(1750-1814 announced she was the Bride of the Lamb and began to 

seal the 144,000 

● Early in the 20th century, Dr. Isaac M. Haldeman, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in New York 

City, predicted that the Antichrist would appear before the Jews return to Palestine 

● Assemblies of God official, Thomas M. Chalmers, announced it for the early 1920's 


● Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth, predicted the Rapture would occur in 1988. 

● Nationally syndicated TV show host (Prophecy in the News), J.R. Church predicted the rapture for 

1988. 

● David Webber and Noah Hutchings of the Southwest Radio Church (SRC) announced it for "1981 

or '88" 



● Dr. Jack van Impe has speculated that the end will come between September 1999 and 2000. 




Dr. Harold Camping, president of Family Radio, expected the end of the world in 1994. 

For more see 1975.htm 

Perhaps we are all cultists! After all, what is the dictionary definition of Cult but: 

cult \kelt\ n 1 : formal religious veneration 2 : a religious system; also : its adherents 3 : 



faddish devotion; also : a group of persons showing such devotion cultist n 

(C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by 

Merriam-Webster, Incorporated 

To think that this kind of zeal for the last days is indigenous to Jehovah's Witnesses shows the same kind 

of ignorance of the Bible in people like Ralph Wilson, as we shall see... 

Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses deny Jesus' teaching about hell. 

Nobody likes to think about hell. But to twist Jesus' words to pretend he didn't teach it is dishonest. Jesus 

described hell (both hades and gehenna) as a place of "torment," of "agony" in the fire,[Luke 16:23 (NIV), 

describing the rich man in hades. ] where "the fire never goes out," and where "their worm does not die, and 

the fire is not quenched."[Mark 9:48 (NIV), describing gehenna. ] What does it matter that Jesus taught it? 

Jehovah's Witnesses pronounce that it is unloving and unjust for God to punish the wicked forever. Are 

they going to correct Jesus? 

Reply: Dr Wilson's "proof-texting" is quite interesting, and devastating. The New Jerusalem Bible 

rightly calls this passage a "parable." The Jerusalem Bible, in a footnote, says that it is a "parable in story 

form without reference to any historical personage." Why? First, v. 24 says that all it takes is for 

someone to "dip the tip of his finger to cool my tongue." Not a very hot place this hell is. Second, when 

we die, do we all go to Abraham's side (bosom)? Obviously, this illustration has deeper meaning. 

At Luke 16 in the NIV, where hades is translated as "hell." But did you know, that the very next time the 

NIV (New International Version) uses the Greek word hades, it translates it as "grave." 

(Acts 2:27, 31). At Matthew 5:22, gehenna is translated "hell" in the NIV. At 2Peter 2:4, tartarus is 

translated "hell" in the NIV. Earlier editions of the NIV also had son of destruction translated as "child of 

hell". 

Where the NASB has "accursed" at Galatians 1:8,9, the NIV has "eternally condemned". It sounds like 

the NIV wants to make sure that the Bible teaches hell-fire. 

It is unfortunate that the NIV will not translate Gehenna properly, even though it is a PROPER NAME. 

Most Bibles will do so elsewhere, as in *Valley of Ben Hinnom* in 2 Chronicles 28:3 and *Hinnom 

Valley* in Joshua 18:6, (both of which are actually Gehenna). The reason this is not done so is because 

the O.T. Gehenna does not have the ability to carry the same theological connotations as those in the NT 

like Matthew 5:22. 

What does the Bible actually say about Gehenna? Jeremiah 7:31: "They have built shrines of Topeth in 

the valley of Benhinnom [Gehenna], at which to burn their sons and daughters. That was no command 

of mine; indeed it never entered my mine." 

And again, can be hell be that hot if "their worm does not die?"[Mark 9:48 (NIV)] The Bible says of 

worms in Isaiah 14:11 "Thy pomp is brought down to Sheol (Hell Douay; grave NIV), and the noise of 

thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and worms cover thee." 

A parallel account of Mark 9 exists at Isaiah 66:24, "And they shall go forth, and look upon the dead 

bodies (carcasses, Young's Literal Version) of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm 

shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." So you 

see, the bodies/carcasses in Gehenna are dead, not suffering endlessly. Gehenna was nothing but landfill 

site (rubbish heap, Phillips NT) that was kept burning (see hell.htm) which came to prefigure the 

"second death." Even hell is cast into Gehenna, which serves to differentiate the two: "And death and hell 

were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." Rev 20:14 KJV, Douay, NIrV, Webster, Living 

Bible, Confraternity. 

"It also represented death; then end of every human being is worms and maggots (Job 21:26; 25:6; Isa. 

14:11)." Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, p.1389 

"The worm is an agent of destruction which often appears in metaphors describing the 



corruptibility and the mortality of the flesh....The worm which does not die (Is 66:24; Mk 

9:48) is a metaphor of *eternal death* rather than of some eternal punishment." Dictionary 

of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, p. 944 

Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses have not corrected Jesus nor the Bible as Hell has no place in it. 

The King James Bible contained the word "Hell" 54 times from Genesis to Revelation. The New 

King James Bible contains the word "Hell" 32 times and the American Standard Version and New 

American Standard Bible (both revisions of the KJV) only 13 times. There are many Bible translations 

which do NOT contain the word "Hell" even ONCE! The reason? It is not a Biblical term, it is not of 

God! 

"The talk of everlasting perdition is crazy. It is not Christianity."-Hvor gaar vi hen (Where Do We Go?), 

p. 119. 

Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses deny that a human being has an immortal soul at all. "If ... man does not have 

a soul but is a soul," they teach, "then there is no conscious existence after death. There is no bliss, and 

there is no suffering. All the illogical complications of the `hereafter' disappear." When a person dies, they 

believe, he (i.e., soul) goes to the grave. Those who are righteous will rise at the resurrection; the evil not 

will not return but be annihilated. Convenient, but certainly not what Jesus taught. 

Reply: Wilson seems to be confusing Greek philosophical thought with what the Bible teaches. 

"The word *soul* is used in English Bibles to translate the Hb nepes. The translation is 

unfortunate; soul in common speech reflects a complex of ideas which go back to Gk 

philosophy as refined by madieval scholasticism...[and in the NT] the Greek concept of 

psyche as a distinct spiritual principle is usually read into the term, and thus the concept of 

salvation and eternal life may become Platonic rather than biblical." Dictionary of the Bible 

by John L. McKenzie pp 836-839 

In fact, it appears that many of the doctrines of "mainstream Christianity" seem to have importet pagan 

concepts and merely "christianized" them. Historian Will Durant was right when he said, "Christianity 

did not destroy paganism; it adopted it." 

For more on the Biblical view of the word "Soul" click here. 

Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses distort the Bible's true meaning. Jehovah's Witnesses practice "proof-texting," 

plucking out and isolating individual Bible verses from their context. Then they use them to prove some 

point which may have nothing whatsoever to do with the verse's original meaning. The Bible was not 

written to be understood by quoting little snippets, but by reading the whole context. 

Perhaps we should follow Wilson's example and simply not quote scriptures. Am I proof-texting? Well, 

let's see, the Bible does not mention a Trinity... 

"The New Testament does not actually speak of tri-unity. We seek this in vain in the triadic 

formulae of the N.T."—Kittles Theological Dictionary of the N.T. 

-Jesus never says he is God- 

St Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. 

Nor does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly equal 

to his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest). 

-The Bible does not teach an immortal soul- 

D.R.G. Owen, "Body and Soul in the New Testament," In Readings and Christian Theology, 

ed. M.J. Erickson (Baker Book House, 1967), 86: "In Hebrew thought, as we have seen, the 

word translated 'Soul' regularly stands simply for the personal pronoun and means the self, 

and the phrase 'body and soul'...stands for the Hebrew idea that man is an 'animated body' 



and not for the Greek view that he is an 'incarnated soul.'" 

-Regarding Hell- 

U.S. Catholic magazine: "There are in fact so many strong biblical, doctrinal, and logical 

arguments against the existence of a literal hell that this question naturally arises: Why do 

the churches teach it and why do people often believe it?" 

For more click here 

As you can see, the Witness's views are well grounded scholarly and Biblically. And unlike Dr Wilson, 

we are certainly not in it for the money (see http://www.joyfulheart.com/admin/donations.htm ) 

Wilson: Another concern is the Jehovah's Witness' New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. 

Translated by a committee of five, none of whom were trained in Hebrew and Greek, it changes the 

meaning of the Greek and Hebrew texts in order to support spurious Jehovah's Witness doctrines. For 

example, their translation of Colossians 1:16 reads, "By means of him all [other] things were created...." 

The word "other" is added so that Jesus would be seen as a created being, and not as the divine, uncreated 

Creator. 

Reply: Does the insertion of the word "other" indicate a lack a training in the original languages? 

The Revised Standard Version inserts the word "other" 100 times, the King James Version, 67 times, and 

the New Revised Standard Version New Testament 31 times. Here are some examples: 

Luke 21:29 

"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV) 

"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News Bible (TEV) 

"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American Bible(NAB) 

Luke 11:42 

"and every herb." Revised Version(RV) 

"and all the other herbs." TEV 

"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version 

In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put 

it in there. Can they do that even without brackets? 

"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Christian Literature" by F. Blass and A. 

Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other". 

The book Theology and Bias in Bible Translations by Professor Rolf Furuli when talking about the word 

"other" in the Col. 1:16 in the NWT says, "This means that the brackets that NWT uses around OTHER 

may be removed, because the word OTHER is no addition or interpolation, but in a given context it is a 

legitimate part of PAS." 

Even the NIV has been strongly criticized for adding the word *other* at 1Cor 6:18, as this changes the 

meaning and adds the translators theology on the matter. 

The NIV has been criticized thusly in other Scriptures also: 

"It is surprising that translators who profess to have 'a high view of Scripture' should take 

liberties with the text by omitting words or, more often, by adding words that are not in the 

manuscripts." 

Chapter 12, The New International Version, The Bible in Translation by Bruce M. Metzger 

[Baker Academic, 2001] 

Consider Luther's translation of Romans 3:28 where he adds the word *alone* to the word *faith.* The 

NIV Study Bible says here, "When Luther translated this passage, he added the word 'alone,' which, 



though not in the Greek, accurately reflects the meaning." You cannot condemn one version, and then 

praise another for doing exactly the same thing. You cannot have it both ways. 

All Bibles add words, simply put. Have you ever noticed all those words in italics in the King James 

Version and the New American Standard Bible? Those are words that are not in the original text, yet 

there are thousands of them. 

Wilson: Philippians 1:22 in their translation reads "what I do desire is the releasing and the being with 

Christ," rather than "I desire to depart and be with Christ." Their strange, awkward rendering is intended to 

support a belief in "soul sleep," since this verse in its true form tells believers that they will be with Christ 

in heaven the very moment they die. 

Reply: I think you are referring to verse 23 and the word ANALUSAI. 

The Liddell Scott Greek Lexicon has as one of it's renderings into English, "releasing." Liddell Scott, 

page 112, Section I.2 gives this as a meaning of analusai. [ LJS9 I.2 "releasing", Gr., analy'sai; Lat., 

dissol'vi] 

A careful reading of the Nestle Aland Greek text shows an interesting marginal note for Philippians 1:23. 

There is also a cross-reference from 1Thessalonians 4:17 pointing back to Philippians 1:23. 

SUNEXOMAI DE EK TWN DUO THN EPIQUMIAN EXWN EIS TO ANALUSAI KAI [1Th 4,17 

SUN XRISTW EINAI ] POLLW GAR MALLON KREISSON (NA27) 

1Th 4,17! EPEITA HMEIS OI ZWNTES OI PERILEIPOMENOI AMA SUN AUTOIS 

ARPAGHSOMEQA EN NEFELAIS EIS APANTHSIN TOU KURIOU EIS AERA KAI OUTWS 

PANTOTE [Ph 1,23! SUN KURIW ESOMEQA] (GRK) 

The context of 1Thessalonians clearly points to the "being with" the Lord Christ Jesus to the future 

parousia of Christ, at the resurrection. 

Greek Professor Gerald Hawthorne has this to say: "Interestingly, Paul now refrains from boldly saying, 

"I desire to die" (APOQNHSKEIN), preferring rather to use a euphemism (ANALUSAI) for death" 

(Word Commentary Vol. 43, P. 48). He adds that ANALUSAI can refer to "a ship 'being released from 

its mooring,' 'weighing anchor' and sailing off." (Ibid.) 

Vine's explains ANALUO as "to unloose, undo", and he explains it metaphorically as "...the unyoking of 

baggage animals". I think the NWT has handled this verse quite marvelously. 

Wilson: In their translation, Matthew 24:3 reads "What will be the sign of your presence" rather than "What 

will be the sign of your coming," to support their teaching that Christ's coming is an "invisible presence." 

Reply: "Presence" is truer to the lexical meaning of PAROUSIA. Any argument otherwise smacks of 

ignorance. For more on this go to parousia.htm 

Wilson: John 1:1 reads "the Word was a god," rather than "the Word was God," in an attempt to hide the 

full divinity of Christ. The New World Translation twists scripture to make it say what the Jehovah's 

Witnesses want it to say. 

Reply: But why have many other non-JW's done the same thing? Perhaps scripture twisting applies to 

the traditional rendering. "*The word was a god* is more literal, and an improvement over *The word 

was God*" says Professor Jason Beduhn, Northern Arizona University 

Department of Humanities Arts and Religion 

For much more, go to wisdom.htm 

Wilson seems to like the New International Version (NIV), and yet many questions are raised by others 

concerning this version, and its translators: 

"Once the committee got at its task, one discovered that his preparation was far too scanty. 

If one had written a PhD dissertation on each verse that was to be considered, he might have 



been qualified to deal with all the questions that could be raised. The individual traits of 

each committee member quickly surfaced. One had a special 

talent for recalling where a particular form had occurred before. Another could offer his 

training in Akkadian and Ugaritic; another in Latin and Greek. The Old Testament 

specialists were sometimes not aware that a passage was also used in the New Testament." 

Jack Lewis, The New International Version, Restoration Quarterly 24, p. 3 

"Our conclusion is that the goal of accuracy frequently has been badly missed. In terms of 

style the NIV manifests many weaknesses, although very often it is extremely readable. But 

the number of stylistic problems is large, and the overall style seems to lack a certain 

cohesiveness. The lack of consistency in the NIV is also a major problem." The NIV 

Reconsidered by Radmacher/Hodges, p. 131 

"The NIV is not worthy of becoming the standard version of the English-speaking world. Its 

accuracy is suspect in too many ways." P. 70, Accuracy of Translation-The Primary 

Criterion of Evaluating Bible Versions with Special Reference to the New International 

Version 

Why? This same author goes on to say, "The dynamic equivalence translator tends to be 

relatively unrestrained in his theologizing. What a formal equivalence [Literal] translator 

generally does only as a matter of necessity, the dynamic equivalence translator often does 

as a matter of choice." 

Hardly glowing references for this very popular Bible. Even the KJV does not fare well: 


writing the history of the Greek New Testament. The King James version is undoubtably the 



Jn 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7-8)." pp. 99, 100 see colwell.htm 

Wilson: In a rather well-known distortion of scripture, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions on the 

basis that the ancient Jews were forbidden to eat the blood of animals (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 7:26-27; Acts 

15:29; etc.). It should be obvious to any reasonable person that eating blood (a pagan practice) has nothing 

to do with receiving someone's blood donated to save your life. Unfortunately, from this kind of scripture 

twisting, many lives have been lost. 

Reply: Listen to this pompous rhetoric. Wilson thinks that he has made such good points, but yet it 

displays all the ignorance of the Bible and the subject at hand that so resembles his kind. The prohibition 

on blood was there before the Jewish system (Gen 9:4), during it (Le 17:3, 4 etc), and after it, in 

Christian times (Acts 15:28, 29). 

In this regard, the following is found in The Chronology of Antient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac 

Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): "This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter than the days of 

Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the 

Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be 

circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things 

strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, 

while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of 

abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from fornication."-Italics his. 

"It ought to be observed, that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his 

posterity, and repeated to the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic 



dispensation, has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the 

New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation."-Benson's Notes, 1839, 

Vol. I, p. 43. 

What of early Christians? 

In 177 C.E., in Lyons (France), when Christians were falsely accused of eating children, a woman named 

Biblis said: "How would such men eat children, when they are not allowed to eat the blood even of 

irrational animals?"-The Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, V, I, 26. 

Tertullian backed the prohibition of ingesting ANY kind of blood in his work Apology (IX, 13, 14): 

"Let your error blush before the Christians, for we do not include even animals' blood in our 

natural diet. We abstain on that account from things strangled or that die of themselves, 

that we may not in any way be polluted by blood, even if it is buried in the meat. Finally, 

when you are testing Christians, you offer them sausages full of blood; you are thoroughly 

well aware, of course, that among them it is forbidden; but you want to make them 

transgress." 

Minucius Felix made the same point: "For us it is not permissible either to see or to hear of human 

slaughter; we have such a shrinking from human blood that at our meals we avoid the blood of animals 

used for food."-Octavius, XXX, 6. 

Clement of Alexandria on Blood (Instructor 3.56.2ff) 

"To the nomad the horse is at once conveyance and sustenance; and the warlike youth of the 

Arabians (these are other nomads) are mounted on camels. They sit on breeding camels; and 

these feed and run at the same time, carrying their masters the whilst, and bear the house 

with them. And if drink fail the barbarians, they milk them; and after that their food is spent, 

they do not spare even their blood, as is reported of furious wolves. And these, gentler than 

the barbarians, when injured, bear 

no remembrance of the wrong, but sweep bravely over the desert, carrying and nourishing 

their masters at the same time. 

Perish, then, the savage beasts whose food is blood! For it is unlawful for men, whose body 

is nothing but flesh elaborated of blood, to touch blood. For human blood has become a 

partaker of the Word: it is a participant of grace by the Spirit; and if any one injure him, he 

will not escape unnoticed. Man may, though naked in body, address the Lord. But I approve 

the simplicity of the barbarians: loving an unencumbered life, the barbarians have 

abandoned luxury. Such the Lord calls us to be--naked of finery, naked of vanity, wrenched 

from our sins, bearing only the wood of life, aiming only at salvation" (Clment of 

Alexandria, 

Instructor 3.56.2ff). 

"For the apostle says, 'All other things buy out of the shambles, asking no questions,' with 

the exception of the things mentioned in the Catholic epistle of all the apostles, 'with the 

consent of the Holy Ghost,' which is written in the Acts of the Apostles, and conveyed to the 

faithful by the hands of Paul himself. For they intimated 'that they must of necessity abstain 

from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from 

fornication, from which keeping themselves, they should do well' " (Clement of Alexandria, 

Miscellanies 4.97.3ff). 



Scripturally though, is there a basis for distinguishing between "eating" blood and transfusing blood? Is 

killing someone with a *gun* not breaking God's law against murder, since the original law was only 

talking about stabbing, cutting or smashing, etc? 

Think about it, Acts 15:29 equates the prohibition on blood with the prohibition on fornication. 

"That ye abstain from...blood, ...and from fornication" Are we going to employ a BillClintonism and say 

that certain types of fornication are not really fornication...and then carry that forward and say certain 

ways of not ingesting blood does not fall within the perimeters of "abstaining"? 

Illustraton: A doctor tells a drunk not to "drink" any more alcohol or he will die. So the drunk goes home 

and hooks himself up to an IV to directly infuse the alcohol in his veins. Has the drunk followed the 

doctor's directions in this matter? Obedience to God is far more important than obeying a doctor, and 

beneficial too. Think of how many people have/and will be helped by the pioneering spirit of Jehovah's 

Witnesses in the area of higher medicine. Somebody called Dr Laura and spewed the same kind of 

rhetoric that you did about blood transfusions. Here is the response they received from some doctors: 

Subject: Non-Blood Transfusions 

Date: 1999-03-04 

RE: Your Caller Concerned About Father's Refusal of Blood 

Transfusion 

"I'm a long-time listener, fan, supporter and defender of all 

that you teach, preach (& nag). Today a man called you and voiced 

concern over his father, a JW who is facing surgery and will refuse a blood 

transfusion. After some personal chat with the man, you said you 

understood his feelings: he'd lost his wife and now stood to lose his father. 

The assumption his father was as good as dead without blood transfusion is a 

common one, but there's almost no truth to that anymore. At our hospitals, we have a 

Transfusion-Free Medicine & Surgery Program and the results are phenomenal. Outcomes 

are better and the hospital stays are shorter. We've eliminated the risks associated with blood 

transfusions (and there are many, ranging from the best known, AIDS, to Hepatitis C and 

other infections and complications). 

Our Palm Springs-area hospitals, part of the Tenet Healthcare Corp., are part of a 

network of Southern California facilities with this program. Included among them are our 

prestigious USC University Hospital and the USC/Norris Cancer Hospital. Hospitals and 

doctors all over the country are climbing aboard this bandwagon; I could introduce you to 

surgeons who haven't transfused blood in years. 

We're doing open heart, cancer, neuro, ortho (including total hip and knee 

replacement) neonatal and pediatric, gynecological and urological, transplant, and vascular 

surgeries successfully without blood transfusions. Much of this is due to advances in 

equipment and technology, and credit also goes to the JW population for their stand on 

blood which brought about these changes. Today, about 25% of tranfusion-free procedures 

are on people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, but who choose the option for health or 

personal reasons. 

This is emerging medicine. Your caller would have benefited from this 



knowledge (his father probably already knows about it). The day may 


So, let's put this canard to rest." 

Tom Wixon 




Phone: (760) 323-6690 

Fax: (760) 323-6580 

Or Call: 

Bradford Ray 

Transfusion Free Medical & Surgery Coordinator 



Phone: (760) 323-6311 

Wilson: Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that true religion remains "untainted by worldly politics and 

conflicts. It is neutral in time of war." As a result, they do not participate or serve in our government. Nor 

do they help defend our country and freedoms when threatened. Perhaps they forget faithful Daniel, who 

was prime minister of the Babylonian empire under several pagan kings, and the military leaders who 

followed Jehovah, such as David, Gideon, and Joshua in the Old Testament, and the centurions and soldiers 

who were believers in the New Testament. 

Reply: Daniel, David, Gideon and Joshua were Jews, not Christians. 

A scripture earlier applied to the Jewish Davidic king states, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A 

sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness: 

Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows." (or the New 

Jerusalem Bible's genetival "Your throne is from God") Ps 45:6 

Can the scriptures say this about a human king? Yes, the Kings back in OT times sat on God's throne, 

"Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah as king" 1Chron 29:23 

Psalm 45:6, which was first applied to Solomon, was later applied to Jesus after his death (Heb 1:8). 

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 

do not need any human ruling alternatives so that God can say to me, "Is there a limit to my power? 

Numbers 11:23 TEV 

We don't see anything Biblically that suggests soldiers or Centurions, after their conversion, kept to their 

older ways. In fact, if we look at history, we see the opposite: 

"A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of 

Marcus Aurelius [Roman emperor from 161 to 180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; 

and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service."-The Rise of 

Christianity (London, 1947), E. W. Barnes, p. 333. 

"We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each 

through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,-our swords into ploughshares, and 

our spears into implements of tillage,-and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, 

faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was 

crucified."-Justin Martyr in "Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew" (2nd century C.E.), The 



Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.; reprint of 1885 Edinburgh edition), edited by A. 

Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. I, p. 254. 

"They refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of 

the empire. . . . it was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, 

could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes."-History of Christianity 

(New York, 1891), Edward Gibbon, pp. 162, 163. 

Why is this? "They are not of the world even as I [Jesus] am not of the world."John 17:16 

"Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king, 

withdrew again into the mountain himself alone." John 6:15 

Later, he told the Roman governor: 

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my 

servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 

18:36 

But why? Matthew 4 shows the devil trying to tempt Jesus, "Again, the devil taketh him unto an 

exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 

and he said unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." 

vv. 8, 9 Think about it! How could the devil offer Jesus the kingdoms of the world, if they were not in his 

control already? That is why the Bible says, "the whole world is under the rule of the evil one." 1John 

5:19 TEV 

Satan is also called "the ruler of this world" and "the god of this world" (John 14:30; 2Cor 4:4). 

Jas. 4:4: "Ye adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever 

therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God." 

For more on the early Christian view of war go to http://www.mcauley.acu.edu.au/~yuri/ethics/war.html 

Wilson: Jehovah's Witness teaching denies full Christian privileges to present-day believers. 

When the Jehovah's Witnesses began in the 1880s, they believed that a literal 144,000 people, and only a 

total of 144,000, would go to heaven (the "heavenly Kingdom class," they call it). That worked when they 

were a small sect. But as the movement grew, their cumulative numbers swelled to more than 144,000. In 

1965 we are told that less than 12,000 of this original 144,000 still remained alive. What about the next 

generation of Jehovah's Witnesses? They think of themselves as the "great crowd" of Revelation 7:9 who 

will rule with Christ on the earth. 

The problem is that the wonderful promises of the Bible--being born again by the Holy Spirit, the comfort 

of partaking of the Lord's Supper, and the joy of heaven--these promises are "already taken." Present-day 

Jehovah's Witnesses believe they will never experience them. 

How sad to have the most precious promises of the Bible be reserved for someone else. How sad to believe 

in a Jesus stripped of his deity, his physical resurrection, and his visible return. How sad to believe that you 

were born a generation too late to go to heaven when you die. How sad to read, "No one can see the 

kingdom of God unless he is born again," and know that doesn't mean you. To ponder "If anyone does not 

have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" and wonder if you are excluded. How sad. 

Reply: What is truly sad is how you *proof-text* what we write! Again, we must turn to the Bible for 

answers. What was God's original purpose for us humans and the earth? 

God told the first human pair, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it" Gen 1:28 

He backs this up at Isaiah 45:18, "For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed 

the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am 

Jehovah; and there is none else." 

God keeps his promises, as he solidified at Is 55:11, "so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my 

mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in 

the thing whereto I sent it." 



His original purpose was not to take us to heaven. The heavens are not for us, but they are for God, "The 

heavens are the heavens of Jehovah; But the earth hath he given to the children of men." Ps 115:16 

Why give us the earth, if we were meant to go to heaven? Why does he continue to promise us the earth: 

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." Mt 5:5 

"For evil-doers shall be cut off; But those that wait for Jehovah, they shall inherit the land [earth/ 

ERETS, the same Hebrew word found at Genesis 1:1]. Ps 37:9 

"But the meek shall inherit the land [earth], And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace." Ps 

37:11 

"For such as are blessed of him shall inherit the land [earth]; And they that are cursed of him shall be cut 

off." Ps 37:22 

"The righteous shall inherit the land [earth], And dwell therein for ever." Ps 37:29 

"Wait for Jehovah, and keep his way, And he will exalt thee to inherit the land [earth]: When the wicked 

are cut off, thou shalt see it." Ps 37:34 

"I have made the earth, the men and the beasts that are upon the face of the earth, by my great power and 

by my outstretched arm; and I give it unto whom it seemeth right unto me." Jer 27:5 

"For the upright shall dwell in the land [earth], And the perfect shall remain in it." Prov 2:21 

Wilson has quoted John 3:3, "Except one be born anew [again], he cannot see the kingdom of God." But, 

10 verses later it says, "And no one hath ascended into heaven" In fact, we are told that King David never 

went to heaven, "For David ascended not into the heavens." Acts 2:34 

Jesus even alluded to John the Baptist as not being in heaven after his death, "Among them that are born 

of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is but little in the kingdom of 

heaven is greater than he." 

It seems like anyone who was born a generation too early was born too early to go to heaven. Is this sad 

though? Absolutely not. Only a few are really needed to go to heaven. Their purpose as "kings and 

priests for God, to rule the world." Anyone who is to "rule over the earth" (Williams NT) will 

undoubtably need someone to rule over. That is why the Bible differentiates between the limited 144,000 

and the great crowd (multitude) in Revelations 7, as Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger says of it: "It is the 

simple statement of fact: a definite number in contrast with the indefinite number in this very chapter." It 

only makes sense that the majority would stay on earth, the place that God has given unto men (Ps 

115:16). [Notice that Wilson wrongly attributes this ruling to the great crowd...it is obvious that he does 

not really know much of what JW's believe.] Commenting on Psalm 115:16, the Zondervan NASB Study 

Bible says, "The one [heavens] the exclusive realm of the exalted, all-sovereign God; the other [earth] 

the divinely appointed place for man, where he lives under God's rule and care, enjoys His abundant 

blessings and celebrates His praise." 

Jehovah's Witnesses have indeed changed their viewpoints on these matters, and others, "for it is not 

possible the Christian world should come so lately out of such thick anti-Christian and that perfection of 

knowledge should break forth at once." John Robinson, 1620 A.D. as quoted in the Pilgrim Church, by 

E.H. Broadbent, p.257 

Wilson, however, is promoting the same doctrines that were believed during the dark ages. It is his 

"orthodoxy" that has led to the darkest, most evil and bloodthirsty period in the history of man. We 

should embrace new light, because the time is now ready for it. The apocalyptic book Daniel backs me 

up on this, "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many 

shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." Dan 12:4 

"But the path of the righteous is as the dawning light, That shineth more and more unto the perfect day." 

Prov 4:18 



Wilson's Christianity is the Christianity of the great apostasy foretold in Scripture. What is truly sad is 

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 

John 9, 10; 2 Timothy 2:16-19; 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 2 Peter 2:1, 3, 20-22 etc). 




The ONLY TRUE GOD and False Gods. 

The Biblical view of Only True God/TON MONON ALHQINON QEON 


A Partial Reply to Sam Shamoun indicated to me that he did not write this, or parts of this. 

http://pionet.net/~cultrsch/biblical_monotheism_examined.htm 

The classic argument usually lies with a few scriptures, like John 17:3: 

"And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, 

even Jesus Christ." 

Since Jesus Christ is also called God (a god) at John 1:1, the argument goes that Jesus must then be a 

"false god." 

The point that Trinitarians are hoping to further is that, since Jesus cannot be a false God, he must be the 

True God. 

Or as Sam Shamoun has sent to me, 

"It is our understanding that the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is not a lesser god but the 

true God, Jehovah. The biblical data also teaches that there are more than one person who 

are addressed as the one true God, namely the Father and the Holy Spirit. (Cf. Jn. 17:3; 

Acts 5:3, 4) Yet, they are not three Gods but only one true God. (Cf. Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20) 

I will show how this arguments is damaging to Trinitarians, and insulting to the Biblical view of God, 

and the language it uses. 

When you really think about, these are diversionary, smoke and mirror tactics. It says, "Let's get you, the 

hoi polloi, to think about something that is never mentioned in the Bible, the Trinity, and focus on the 

deity of Jesus, as if this will make up for the other, rarely mentioned Father and Holy Spirit." 

One way they do this is to use the "True God vs False God" argument. I have dealt with the fallacies of 

this argument briefly, but at this time I will go deeper, thanks to a push by Sam. 

When we look into the Bible, we see that there is actually very little mention of "false gods." 

The King James Version never uses the expression once, the American Standard Version only uses it at 

Jeremiah 18:15. My RSV uses it several times in the apocryphal Letter of Jeremiah. 

The stuff Sam Shamoun sent to me makes much of what he thinks Stafford ignores in the BAGD, which 

says, "genuine, real . . . Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real." Stafford does not hide this, 

and if you take a closer look, it does not really say what you hope it says. The BAGD has italicized the 

word "real," and the reason for this is plain. The scriptures posted in lexicons, such as BAGD, Thayers, 

etc, to determine false gods are never directed to anything living. They almost always refer to a worthless 

idol, or something equally without any substance. 

That is why the RSV Annotated Study Bible says of the false gods, "Idols are helpless, useless, and not 

to be compared with celestial phenomena." (ftn. Letter of Jeremiah) You will be hard pressed to find an 

example lexically of a living being described as a false god. 

This does not rule out living beings as being false gods, but according the Bible, early Jewish and 

Christian thought, the true/false enigma is not as restrictive as Trinitarians wish. 

We have already mentioned John 17:3, where the "only true God" is distinguished FROM Jesus Christ. 

So damaging was this scripture to "Saint" Augustine, that he tried to change it so that "only true God" 

was read after "Jesus Christ" to make it sound like Jesus was the only True God. 

Couple this with 1 Cor 8:6, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as 

there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/alethinos.htm (1 of 18) [5/25/2003 4:01:18 AM]


we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." 

This scripture alone is disastrous to a Trinitarian, as Jesus is excluded from the term, "One God." 

In fact, if you take a look at QEOS as it is mentioned in the NT, the term is almost exclusively used of 

the Father. Trinitarian and Biblical theology both teach that Jesus cannot be the Father. So if Jesus is not 

the "One God" or "only True God," as he is clearly distinguished from him, then where does that leave 

him? 

Why would Jesus call the Father the ONLY true God, if in fact that Son and the holy spirit are also the 

ONLY true God? Why would the Bible call the Father the "one God" if the one God were really the 

Father, Son and holy spirit? Nowhere does the Bible call the Son or the holy spirit the true God or the 

one God, but both terms are used of the Father, and restricted to Him by His Son. (John 17:3) 

Does not the New Testament call Jesus a God/QEOS? Yes it does, but only with qualification. As 

Thayer's Lexicon states, "Whether Jesus is called God must be determined from Jn. i. 1; xx. 28; 1Jn. v. 

20; Ro. ix. 5; Tit. ii. 13; Heb. i. 8 sq.., etc.; the matter is still in dispute amongst theologians." 

Why, if we take the whole Bible in context should there be a dispute at all? 

Sam sent me that Moses is called a god at Exodus 4:16; 7:1, but notes, 

"Moses is called God since he is acting on God’s behalf as his spokesman and prophet, not 

that he was divine in any sense." 

But further down he states, 

"Hence, it seems likely that angels are being referred figuratively as gods in the same sense 

that Moses and the Israelite judges are viewed as gods, i.e. God's servants speaking on his 

behalf and faithfully doing his will" 

So...the angels are called God in the same sense as Moses, but yet, are not angels "divine?" 

Take note of Genesis 6:2: 

"supernatural beings" TEV1, CEV 

"heavenly beings" TEV2, New Jewish P.S., 

"the sons of God" NRSV, NKJV, NWT 

"angels" LXX Codex Alexandrinus, Moffatt 

"sons of heaven" NAB 

Some might take me to task with the above scripture (like Rob Bowman who insists that all angels 

mentioned in the Bible bear some negative connotation, so they are false gods), as it is referring to angels 

in a negative light (see context), but with all the other scriptures referring to angels as gods (Ps 8:5; 97:7, 

and one that Sam missed, Ps 138:1), we see that it will take some work to always paint these beings 

negatively. When angels are specifically painted in a positive light, as in Judges 13:22, then Trinitarians 

need to change this angel to an uncreated, mysterious "angel of the LORD/malak YHWH". 

Historically though, those familiar with the Biblical way angels were portrayed, had no problem 

addressing angels as gods. 

Here is what the Dead Sea Scrolls give as to an insight of the early Jewish belief about Angels. 

"Praise him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the firmament of the highest heavens, 

all...and its wall, all its structure, its shape. The spirits of the holy of holies, the living 'gods', 

the spirits of eternal holiness above all the holy ones...The divine spirits surround the 

dwelling of the King of truth and righteousness; all its walls" (Vermes 226 [4Q403 I i, 

30-46]). 

"The figures of the 'gods' shall praise him, the most holy spirits...of glory; the floor of the 

marvelous innermost chambers, the spirits of the eternal gods, all...figures of the innermost 



chambers of the King, the spiritual works of the marvelous firmament are purified with salt, 

spirits of knowledge, truth and righteousness in holy of holies, forms of the living 'gods,' 

forms of the illuminating spirits. All their works of art are marvelously linked, 

many-coloured spirits, artistic figures of the 'gods,' engraved all around their glorious bricks 

of splendour and majesty. All their works of art are living 'gods,' and their artistic figures are 

holy angels. From beneath the marvelous inner most chambers comes a sound of quiet 

silence: the 'gods' bless..."(Vermes 228 [4Q405 19ABCD]). 

The author here describes the Most Holy chamber of the Temple. In this chamber was were the Ark of 

the Covenant was kept. This is where Jehovah dwelled symbolically. Everything in the Most Holy was 

made of the finest gold. The Bible tells us that the Temple was ornamented with pictures of angels (1 

Kings 6:27-32). Therefore, this description of the "gods" ministering to the Almighty fits perfectly with 

the Bible. The curtain that separated the Holy from the Most Holy even has pictures of angels ("gods") 

woven into it (2 Chron. 3:14). 

"The 'gods' praise him when they take up their station, and all the spirits of the clear 

firmament rejoice in his glory...when the gods of knowledge enter by the doors of glory, and 

when the holy angels depart the realm, the entrance doors and the gates of exit proclaim the 

glory of the King...the fear of the King of 'gods' is awe-inspiring to all the 'gods,' and they 

undertake all his commissions by virtue of his true order" (Vermes 229 [4Q405 23i]). 

The War Rule says that "the host of warring 'gods' gird themselves for the Day of Revenge" 

(1QMXV, Vermes 121). We also find in the fragment titled by Vermes as The Song of 

Michael and the Just (4Q491 fr. II, Ma) an incomplete sentence that says that there is "a 

throne of strength in the congregation of 'gods' so that not a single king of old shall sit on it, 

neither shall their noble men...(Vermes 126). The one called Michael is also held as saying 

"I am reckoned with the 'gods' and my dwelling place is in the congregation of holiness" and 

"for I am reckoned with the 'gods,' and my glory is with the sons of the King" (Vermes 126). 

As D.S. Russell writes: 

"There is ample evidence to show that [the OT] conception of monotheism was held in 

conjunction with a belief in a spiritual world peopled with supernatural and superhuman 

beings who, in some ways, shared the nature, though not the being, of God" ( _The Method 

and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic_ P. 235). 

It is my position that Jesus, like the angels and Moses and King Solomon at Ps 45:6 is a "figurative 

God." The Catholic NAB footnote on Ps. 45:7 says that "the Hebrew king was 

called ELOHIM, "God," not in the polytheistic sense common among pagans, but as meaning "godlike," 

or taking the place of God." 

Sam: Stafford is simply wrong when he asserts that "The angels are not true gods, nor are 

they false gods; rather, they are 'copies' (derivative images) of the true God, and receive 

their authority and power from Him in order to carry out His word..." (Stafford, J.W.D., p. 

200) They are neither true nor false, nor derivative copies but messengers created to do the 

will of God; no more, no less. 

Reply: But is not Jesus also a messenger of God? 

"He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." Jn 5:23 KJV 

"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine 

own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." Jn 5:30 KJV 



"the Father hath sent me." Jn 5:36 

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me" Jn 6:39 KJV 

" For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be 

saved." Jn 3:17 KJV 

"For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God" Jn 3:34 KJV 

etc etc etc. 

But yet we read that angels we also sent from God (Num 20:16; 1Chron 21:15; 2Chron 32:21 etc), 

amongst others. 

Everyone knows what John 1:1 says regarding Jesus, but few take into account the words PROS TON 

QEON (with/toward the God). Interestingly, according to my software, the only other time John uses the 

term PROS TON THEON is at John 13:3, "Jesus knew that the Father had given everything into His 

hands, that He had come from God, and that He was going back to God (PROS TON THEON)." HCSB 

The Catholic Kleist&Lilly NT translates "come from God" as "messenger from God." This same NT 

translates "sent from" as "ambassador" in regards to Jesus. I think this is very important. 

"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as 

the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been 

committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey 

Wigoder 

Kittel's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" under "APOSTOLOS (XYL$) in Judaism" 

states: "A saying of the Rabbis was: 'The emissary of a King is as the King himself.'"–Vol. I, pg.416 

"Moses, Elijah, Elisha and Ezekiel are called MYXWL$ of God because there took place through them 

things normally reserved for God. Moses causes water to flow out of the rock; Elijah brings rain and 

raises a dead man; Elisha 'opens the mother's womb' and also raises a dead man; and Ezekiel receives the 

'key to the tombs at the reawakening of the dead' according to Ex. 37:1 ff...These four were distinguished 

by the miracles which God empowered them to perform and which He normally reserved for 

Himself."—Vol. I, pg. 419 

Jesus, as "coming from God/God's messenger" acts as God agent/ambassador, and therefore he is God to 

those he is bringing God's message to. 

Rienecker's "Linguistic Key to the Greek N.T." says at "Jn.1:6: APOSTELLO: Sent forth; pass...to send, 

to commission, to send as an authoritative personal representative." Significantly, on Jn. 7:29 he says: 

"To send as an authoritative representative." 

But what of Sam's sent objection coupled with his quote of Psalm 86?: 

""Among the gods there is none like you, O Jehovah; no deeds can compare with yours... 

For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you ALONE are GOD." Psalm 86:8, 10 

These passages make it difficult for anyone to believe that although Jehovah is the true God, 

there are gods of a lesser kind since Scripture clearly states that no gods have ever been 

formed at all." 

Reply: Next to Jehovah, there really are no other gods, for as Sam himself allows, the others are simply 

"figurative gods." These figurative or "functional gods" magnify the almighty God Jehovah. No one else 

in the Bible is called almighty, and Jehovah is the God of gods, "Oh give thanks unto the God of gods; 

For his lovingkindness endureth for ever." Ps 136: 2 

Let us not forget Sam's other sent position: 

The biblical data also teaches that there are more than one person who are addressed as the 



one true God, namely the Father and the Holy Spirit. (Cf. Jn. 17:3; Acts 5:3, 4) Yet, they are 

not three Gods but only one true God. (Cf. Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20) 

Is the holy spirit really called God at Acts 5:3, 4 though? Let us see what it says: 




God." ASV 







Peter and his men were not God, but representative stand in place of God, and when something is done 

against them, it is done against God. "Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own eye." Zech 2:8 

New Jewish Publication Society/ Tanakh That is why the Scofield Study Bible cross-references Acts 5:4 

to Scriptures like Numbers 16:11, 1Samuel 8:7 and 1 Thess 4:8 which says, " Therefore he that rejecteth, 

rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you." ASV 

So we have only one true, almighty God, Jehovah, and he is the Father (Is 64:8), which, according to 

Trinitarian theology, the Son cannot be. And when we break it down, Stafford is correct in his assertion 

of almighty God being the archetype, and all others copies. Even Vine's points out in reference to the true 

tent as the, "the spiritual, antitypical tabernacle, Heb. 8:2; 9:24, not that the wilderness tabernacle was 

false, but that it was a weak and earthly copy of the heavenly." 

Origen knew of the correct way to understand the difference between true and false: 

Origen seemed to understand the use of alethinos in John 17:3, for in his Commentary on John he wrote: 

"God on the one hand is VERY God (autotheos, God of himself); and so the Savior says in 

His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; " but that all beyond 

the Very God is made God by participation in his divinity, and is not to be called simply 

God (with the article), rather God (without the article). And thus the first-born of all 

creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to himself divinity, is a being of more 

exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The 

God of gods, the Lord [Jehovah], hath spoken, and called the earth." [Ps. 136:2] It was by 

the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for the drew from God in generous 

measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His 

own bounty. The true God, then, is "THE GOD," and those who are formed after him are 

gods, images, as it were, of Him the Prototype."" 

Ante-Nicene Fathers (Eerdmans' reprint series) Book 2, p. 323) 

Does that make us henotheistic? After discussing Deut. 32:8 and Ps. 82:1-6, Ralph Smith poses the 

timely question: was Israel henotheistic or monotheistic? His answer is that Israel 

was monotheistic. But in what sense? Quoting G.E. Wright, Smith notes that monotheism (in this case) 

can be defined as: "the exclusive exaltation of the one source of all power, authority, and creativity" ( 

_Old Testament Theology_. R. Smith. P. 232). By defining monotheism in this way, we allow room for 

others to be called gods (in that they are superhuman and supernatural) without compromising our 

monotheistic position. 



The Dictionary of the Bible by Catholic Jesuit John L. McKenzie, S.J. God, p. 317,says 

"The unique character of Yahweh is the answer to the question about the monotheism of 

early Israel. Monotheism as a speculative affirmation is simply not found in the earlier 

books of the Bible; the affirmation presupposes a pattern of philosophical thinking which 

was foreign to the Israelite mind. Nor is there a clear and unambiguous denial of the reality 

of other Elohim before Second Isaiah in the 6th century. This does not mean that early Israel 

was polytheistic or uncertain about the exclusive character of Yahweh. They perhaps would 

have said that there are many Elohim but only one Yahweh, and would have denied to any 

Elohim the unique character which they affirmed of Yahweh." 

Sons of God as members of a class: 

Sam sent: 

Thus, Stafford’s reasoning is that the term "sons of God" must mean that angels are divine 

beings since this is the way Scripture uses the phrase "sons of"; to refer to membership or 

participation in a particular class. What Stafford failed to note is that although the phrase is 

used at times to denote participation in a given class, it is not always used in this sense. 

"As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, sons of Belial, 

surrounded the house... " Judges 19:22 

"The sons of Eli were sons of Belial, having no regard for Jehovah." 1 Samuel 1:12 

The Israelites are also addressed as the sons or children of God: 

"You are the children (Heb.- beney) of the LORD your God." Deut. 14:1 NIV 

"Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or 

counted. In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called 

‘sons of the living God.’ " Hosea 1:10 NIV 

This presumably being the case, JWs face further difficulties since Adam is another one who 

is addressed as God’s son: 

"... the son of Adam, the son of God." Luke 3:38 NIV 

Hosea is probably the only exception where you will see the term "sons of God" to someone other than 

angels. What Stafford printed in his book that Sam takes aim at are quotations from Gesenius and Sam 

Cooke. Stafford explains alot more that Sam let's on, including the following, 

"The description "sons of God" are given to the Israelites in Hosea 1:10. That this 

description has a much different meaning than when used of the angels is clear from the fact 

that the description in Hosea is figurative, relating to their newfound relationship 

with God, as oppsed to His rejection of them mentioned in the same verse. The angels in 

Genesis (6:4), Job (1:6; 2:1; 38:7) and the book of Psalms (89:6; compare 29:1) are not 

described as sons of God in such a context. Rather, they, as "sons of God," "take their 

situation before Jehovah" in the heavens (Job 1:6; 2:1), and witnessed the creation of the 

heavens and the earth (Job 38:7)." JWD2 pp. 114, 115 

This is why "sons of God" are the primary definition for angels in such publications like Eerdman's 

Dictionary of the Bible, McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible, and the Oxford Companion to the Bible 

(which also includes "gods" as another definition). You will find that this is not the case with Adam, or 

Israel or the other cases presented. 

Sam: Another major weakness in the argument is that it leaves JWs with a serious problem. In the Old 

Testament, Jehovah is pictured as the Light: 



"Jehovah is my light and my salvation... " Ps. 27:1 

"... for Jehovah will be your everlasting Light... Jehovah will be your everlasting Light..." Isaiah 60:19, 

20 

"... Though I sit in darkness, Jehovah will be my light." Mic. 7:8 

If as JWs assume that Jesus is not Jehovah, this implies that Jehovah is not the true light but a copy of 

the true one. Using Stafford’s reasoning, Jesus as the one true light is the one reality and source from 

which others can only reflect, but never possess. Therefore, since Jesus is the true light and Jehovah is 

not Jesus, then Jehovah’s light is not "true in the sense of the reality only possessed by the archetype 

alone," but one of its derivative copies. The only way to resolve this problem is to affirm that Jesus is 

Jehovah, since what is true of Jehovah is true of Jesus. 

Reply: This was written before Jesus time, where Jehovah was the only true light to contend with. The 

scriptures mentioned preceeded Jesus time on earth. 

Heb. 1:1 says that in times past, God was represented by prophets. 

Moses was a prophet who reflected God's glory: 

Interestingly, the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible says this of Moses, 

"In the OT as well as the NT Moses is above all the mediator or revelation. Several times his 

most intimate relation with the LORD is emphasized (e.g., Exod 19:9.19; 20:18-21; 24:18; 

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 

8:5), evidently to emphasize that Moses' words and prescriptions really are the words and 

rules of the LORD himself. In connection with his role as a mediator of revelation, Moses is 

portrayed with superhuman traits (cf. also Deut 34:5; Sir 45:20. According to Exod 34:29-35 

the skin of Moses' face radiated after his meeting with the Lord on Mount Sinai (Exod 

34:29.30.35), i.e.his face was enveloped in a divine aura. By this nimbus Moses was 

legitimated as the true representative of the LORD (cf. Matt 17:2, Acts 6:15)." 

But according to Heb 1:1-3, it is now Jesus who is the reflection of God's glory...."glory as of the only 

begotten from the Father". 

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 

of lights"(Jas 1:17), meaning obviously, that there would be other lights. 

As McKenzie puts it: 

"The Servant of Yahweh is a light to the nations, an agent of salvation (Is 42:6; 49:6)." Dictionary of the 

Bible, p. 511 

When Jesus came down to earth, he revealed the invisible God (John 1:18), and as the true light, to see 

Jesus was to see the Father (John 14:9). 

For more on OT Monotheism go to http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/otstudies/elohim.htm 

Added April 5, 2001, Response from Sam/or that which he sent: 

Jesus states emphatically that eternal life is this: Knowing the Father in an intimate way as well as His 

Son. Salvation depends on knowing both Father and Son. Jesus is the "way, the truth, and the life." No 

one comes to the Father but through the Son, for it is the Son who "explains" the Father, the beloved and 

One and Only Son who is in the heart of the Father. 

The Son does everything the Father shows Him, is one with the Father, and assures us that when we have 

seen Him, we have seen the Father as well. The Son is God in every sense the Father is (1:1), does 

whatever the Father does (5:19); is to be honored equally with the Father (5:23), and is confessed as 



Lord and God (20:28). 

Reply: And what really does any of this have to do with a Trinity? If eternal life is knowing "the only 

true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent," then why is the holy spirit not factored into the 

equation? Does John 1:1 teach a trinity? Absolutely not. It does not mention the holy spirit, in fact, the 

Word is indeed not the same god he is with? Even Origen understood this: 

"We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences [John 1:1]. He does not write 

without care in this respect nor is he unfamiliar with the Greek tongue. In some cases he 

uses the article, and in some cases he omits it...He uses the article when the name of God 

refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God...The 

God who is over all is God with the article, not without it." 

I just came across an interesting bit in Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture where a scribe altered 

John 1:1c in order to elevate the divine status of Jesus. 

"I should observe that a similar addition of the article occurs in the 8th century Alexandrian 

manuscript L of John 1:1, so that the text now reads *O QEOS HN O LOGOS*-making it 

clear that the Word actually was God himself (not simply divine). I am somewhat reluctant 

to exclude this singular reading from consideration here, but am nonetheless under the 

distinct impresssion that it derives from the later Arian controversies. At the same time, it is 

worth pointing out that Origen already used the *absence* of the article in John 1:1 to 

demonstrate Christ's subordination to God (Jn. Com 2.2.17-18)." p. 179 

I think Ehrman's comment is interesting, and the fact that John 1:1c, as it should read, is simply not 

enough to elevate Christ to almightihood even from a historical perspective. 

What of John 5? John 14:9 says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" 

Nobody believes Jesus is the Father, but he is the only-begotten god who shows us the Invisible God (Jn 

1:18). It is with this qualification that Jesus is also called god, much like YHWH's past representatives 

were also called gods. 

There is something called the Schaliach Principle which I have explained above, and I will repeat here: 




The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder 


law as follows: 

"One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach] 

is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who 

sent him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the 

messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 18). 

George Buchanan also appears to take this position in his commentary on Hebrews (Anchor 

Bible series). Buchanan notes that 

"a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power of 

attorney for the one who sent him" (Buchanan 7). He then adds "The New Testament 



the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). 



Sam sent: The Only True God 

Had Jesus said, "Only you, Father, are the true God," He would, indeed, be proclaiming what the 

Watchtower says. However, that's not precisely what Jesus said. He said to the Father, "you, the only 

true God." The word "only" does not modify "Father," but rather "God." Does this fact change the 

meaning of the what Jesus is saying? 

Reply: But what does the context say? Verse 5 says "And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own 

self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." It is quite obvious that he is referring to 

the Father. The footnote just prior to this in the Zondervan NASB/NIV Study Bible says, "Jesus 

emphasized the supreme place of the Father." The New American Bible adds in a footnote that these 

words were, "addressed directly to the Father." 

Stafford reasons: 

While in certain contexts the word "only" might not mean only in the absolute sense, there is no 

indication that we have such use here in John 17:3. Also, there is no example that I am aware of where 

the person who makes the assertion that another person is the "only" something, means to include himor 

herself in the description. (IBID, p. 120). 

But is there a subtle presupposition in this line of reasoning? I would submit there is: The presupposition 

is that the person in question is a unipersonal being. That is, human nature is such that there is a 

one-to-one correspondence between Person (or Identity, Consciousness, or Will) and Being (the essence 

or nature that makes a human, human); therefore, any 

example of a human person saying that that another person is the "only" something, indeed does not 

mean to include him- or herself in the description - because it is impossible for a being to be the "only" 

something if there is another being who is also that something. But what if there is Biblical evidence of a 

Being that subsists in more that one person 

- a multi-personal being? If such a Being exists (and Trinitarians believe the Bible teaches that God is 

such a Being), it must be admitted that each Person of a multi-personal Being can be described as the 

"only" something, without necessarily excluding other Persons of that Being from that description. Put 

another way, Jesus includes the Father in the identity of 

the True God. However, if Jesus is the same Being as the Father, He does not logically exclude Himself 

from that category. 

Reply: Have you noticed there was never a scripture cited to back up any of this mind-boggling rhetoric. 

I understood none of this mumbo jumbo. Why? Because it is not common sense, and definitely NOT 

Biblical. All this ignores the point of agency that I put forth above. There is only one President of the 

United States, but he has ambassadors abroad that represent him. We even have a vice-president that acts 

in his stead when he is not here. This is how the Bible speaks of other humans, angels as God (Ex 4:16; 

7:1; Ps 8:5; 45:6, 7; 82:1; 97:7; 138:1), and this is how the Bible speaks of Jesus as an "only-begotten 

God" (NASB) or "only-born God" (Lattimore, Byington) at John 1:18 who EXHGHSATO the God that 

"No man hath seen." 

Sam sent: Witnesses who argue as Stafford does deny the possibility of a multipersonal God from the 

outset. They therefore place considerable emphasis on their preferred definition of "true," for without it, 

they would be forced to concede that the Son is a false god. However, we may ask how it is that John 

17:3 excludes Jesus from the category of "true" God, when Jude 4 does not exclude the Father from the 

category of Lord? 



Reply: Because, the Son was "MADE LORD." (Acts 2:36) The Father was never MADE anything, and 

as almighty, does not need to be made anything. Again, you can see what is happening here. Again, there 

is no proof of a tri-personal/triune anything, as it is all about the Dynamic Duo, never the Triune Trio. 

This is sheer trickery at work. 

Sam sent: Indeed, here, there is not even the qualifying adjective that provides the basis of the Witness 

interpretation of John 17:3. Matthew 19:17 presents Witnesses with a similar problem, for here Jesus 

says that there is only "One" who is good; Witnesses must interpret this to mean that Jesus in His 

humility is denying His own goodness. In practice, Witnesses acknowledge Jesus as "good," and Jehovah 

as their Lord. Their exegetical methodology appears inconsistent and subject to their theology; whereas 

Trinitarians are consistent in 

holding that an exclusive title may be given to any member of the Trinity, without excluding other 

members from that category. 

Reply: Are you puttting words in our mouths to buttress your point? 

Consider the WT 1951: 

"Jesus said that Jehovah "makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good". Concerning 

Barnabas the record is, "He was a good man." Young Christian women were instructed to be 

"good". House servants were told to be in subjection to their owners, "not only to the good 

and reasonable, but also to those difficult to please." (Matt. 5:45; Acts 11:24; Titus 2:5; 1 

Pet. 2:18, NW) For other instances see Matthew 12:35; 20:15; 22:10; 25:21, 23; Luke 6:45; 

19:17; 23:50. In all of these cases "good" translates the one Greek original word, agathós. 

The same Greek word is used where the record tells of the rich young ruler who questioned 

Jesus: "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?" Jesus said to him: "Why 

do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God."—Mark 10:17, 18; Luke 18:18, 19, 

NW. 

Certainly if imperfect men could be called "good", Jesus would qualify even more so as 

such. Nor would he object to the term "teacher"; he accepted that designation. (John 13:13, 

NW) Then why did he answer this young man as he did? It seems that the rabbis of Jewry 

affected this title, which would explain Christ's rejection of it. When this ruler addressed 

him thus it amounted to classing him with the rabbis. Jesus wanted no rabbinical titles, and 

by this rebuke Jesus showed the impropriety of using such titles. (Job 32:21, 22; Matt. 

23:7-10, NW) Christ had no objections to being properly identified as the teacher or master 

or leader, as he said it was well that they called him such, but when designations were linked 

in a title-setting commonly used to address rabbis in a flattering way he did protest. He 

drove the point home forcefully by taking the extreme and highest view of the matter, 

spotlighting Jehovah God as the one deserving of such title. Incidentally, this shows Jehovah 

no part of the trinity with two others equal with him, and trinitarian attempts to offset this by 

referring to Matthew's wording of this meeting do not erase the two accounts by Mark and 

Luke.—Matt. 19:16, 17, NW. 

That the rich ruler was using "Good Teacher" as a formalistic title rather than as expressing 

his honest conviction concerning Jesus is shown by his rejection of Jesus' advice. 

Apparently he did not consider Jesus such a good teacher in reality, for he went off without 

following Christ's counsel. He deserved rebuke." 

Sam sent: More importantly, Stafford and the WT cannot interpret verses like John 5:44, 1 Timothy 1:17, 

or Jude 25, in which we find the phrase "[the] only God," without denying the absolute use of "only," 



though there is no more contextual reason for doing so in these verses than there is in John 17:3. For if 

God is the "only" God, the Jesus of WT theology cannot be "a god;" certainly not in the sense that the 

WT means. Stafford says that nothing contextually precludes the "absolute sense" in John 17:3, but the 

point must be pressed that MONOS means "only, alone" (so BAGD) in all contexts, and while in some 

contexts it may be used in a hyperbolic sense, if one argues against the natural meaning, one should 

provide some reason for doing so, which the Watchtower typically does not in regard to these other 

verses. 

Stafford argues that the exclusive use of MONOS in this verse need not exclude the Son from being a 

non-false "god" but is excluded from the category of true God, that is, God Almighty. 

Reply: And since the Father seems to exhaust the title God, or even, "only true God", and Trinitarian 

theology teaches that Jesus is not the Father, then no matter which way you slice it, Jesus is excluded, 

and according to the reasoning of Sam, He must then be a false god. 

But since we have seen, which even Sam admits, there are "figurative gods" that are not false, as the 

bible clearly shows, he is only arguing against himself. 

Sam sent: But then we may ask why it is that this same exclusive connotation does not exclude the 

Father from being "Lord" and "Master" in Jude 4? 

Reply: Again, like I said, the Father was never made Lord (Acts 2:36). He GAVE Jesus authority (Mt 

28:18). Obviously there was a time when he was not Lord, and did not have authority. Oh what 

confusion this terrible Trinity brings with it. 

Robert Wilken wrote in _The Myth of Christian Beginnings: 

"From the very beginning, the Christian tradition had struggled with the question of JESUS' 

relation to God . . . Very early Christians tried to account for his extraordinary life and 

accomplishments and his Resurrection, and it was not long before he was called Son of 

God--then God. EVEN SO, HE WAS NOT GOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE 

FATHER WAS GOD--OR WAS HE? Was he creator, was he eternal, should he be 

addressed in prayer? These and other questions troubled thoughtful Christians for almost 

three centuries. During these years, MOST CHRISTIANS VAGUELY THOUGHT OF 

JESUS AS GOD; yet they did not actually think of him IN THE SAME WAY THAT 

THEY THOUGHT OF GOD THE FATHER. They seldom addressed prayers to him, and 

thought of him somehow as SECOND TO GOD--DIVINE, YES, BUT NOT FULLY GOD . 

. . When the controversy over the relation of Jesus to God the Father broke out in the early 

fourth century, most Christians were "SUBORDINATIONISTS," i.e. they believed that 

Christ was God BUT NOT IN PRECISELY THE SAME WAY THAT THE FATHER 

WAS GOD" (See pp. 177-183). 

The new BDAG - QEOS 2 - provides an interesting parallel to John 1:1b,c when it 

quotes Dg 10:6. It says: 

“hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN ECEI, TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS 

CORHGWN, QEOSGINETAI [QEOS as predicate nominative preceeding copulative verb] 

TWN LAMBANANTWN (one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God 

proves to be a god to the recipients). (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother). Such understanding 

led to the extension of the mng. of Q. to pers. who elicit special reverence.” 

So again, we see that Biblically and historically, other Gods were not viewed in the same way as 

Trinitarians desperately wish it to be. 



Also, the Bible makes it clear that there is someone else who is God to Jesus: 

Micah 5:1-4 "In the majesty of the name of the LORD, his God." Smith&Goodspeed 

Matt 27:46 "Jesus cried out...My God, my God, why have you abandoned me." God's Word 

Jn 20:17 "I am going to ascend to My God and your God" New Berkeley Version 

Rom 15:6 "So that you may together give glory to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ with one 

heart. NJB 

2 Cor 1:3 "Let us give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." TEV 

2 Cor 11:31 "To God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" Geneva Bible 

Eph 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" BLE 

Eph 1:17 "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ" Moffatt 

Heb 1:7-9 " That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your 

partners." NWT 

1 Pet 1:3 "Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Lattimore 

Rev 1:6 "unto his God and Father" Montgomery 

Rev 3:2 "in the sight of my God" Phillips 

Rev 3:12 "the temple of my God....the name of my God...out of heaven from my God" Jewish NT 

Sam sent: The Meaning of "True" 

Reply: Here Sam just expands on the same rhetoric which I have already exposed. He quotes several 

sources which point to John 17:3 and say that the opposite of true is false. I do not argue that, but the 

point that I have already made is that all the cases of false have to do with something inanimate, like an 

idol, never anything living. "In the OT Yahweh is distinguished from the other gods by the designation 

*living*." Dictionary of the Bible/ McKenzie p. 385 

Sam sent: Origen's Understanding of the True God 

..."Thus, Origen understands that the Word is God by derivation....Here Origen 

is directly indebted to the Platonism of his day" (Rusch, p. 14).... 

Reply: Snip…here Sam makes a big case to show that Origen is influenced by Plato and not one of 

Jehovah's Witnesses. Nobody argues that. But then pretty much all the ANF were. To assume that one 

has to agree with someone in toto to quote him is ridiculous, and nonsense. What Stafford does is give an 

example of how the word "true" was used early on, Sam has no argument for this, so, like all Trinitarians 

do, they try to find dirt, or anything else to discredit your use of any sources. Even looking at 

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101501.htm for Origen's Commentary on John we see again how he 

viewed the word *true,* 

"Christ, again, the light of the world, is the true light as distinguished from the light of sense; nothing that 

is sensible is true. Yet though the sensible is other than the true, it does not follow that the sensible is 

false, for the sensible may have an analogy with the intellectual, and not everything that is not true can 

correctly be called false." 

Again, no one really believes all that Origen believes, but we do have a record of how he viewed the 

word *true.* 

Sam sent: Immediately preceding the quote provided by Stafford, we read: Now there are many who are 

sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may 

be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either 

they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom 



they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate 

existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are 

separable from each other (Commentary on John 2:2:10-13). 

Reply: And immediately following this quote we read: 

"Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the 

one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by 

having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may 

be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. We drew this distinction between 

Him and them that we showed God the Word to be to all the other gods the minister of their 

divinity." 

Hmmm, why no mention of false gods in regards to "all the other gods?" So the quote stands, no matter 

what desperate attempts follow. 

Sam sent: Thus, the Son is distinct in person, but of one "essence" with the Father. 

For Origen, though he may speak at times of "a secondary God," he is also 

quite comfortable speaking of Father, Son, and Spirit as One God. In his 

Dialog with Heraclides, Origen refers to Scripture in order to show in what 

sense two can be one:.... 

Reply: "Elsewhere, in his Commentary on John, he writes: "there are three hypostases, the Father and the 

Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father" 

(Burgess 73). 

Origen clearly the Holy Spirit was a creation of God through the Logos. Origen definitely espoused a 

Neo-Platonic view that the Son and Spirit were subordinate to the Father while in some way viewing 

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 

that Origen taught the later view of the Trinity, but of course, "he was evidently influenced by 

Middle/Neo-Platonism's divine hierarchy of being (Bigg 152-234)." 

But even Plato in his _Symposium_, writes: 

"Heaven forbid, she said. But do you really think that if a thing isn't beautiful it's therefore 

bound to be ugly? . . . Don't you know, she asked, that holding an opinion which is in fact 

correct, without being able to give a reason for it, is neither true knowledge--how can it be 

knowledge without a reason?--nor ignorance--for how can we call it ignorance when it 

happens to be true? So may we not say that a correct opinion comes midway between 

knowledge and ignorance. Yes, I admitted, that's perfectly true." 

So even from this world view we see a middle ground between true and false. 

Origen also expressed subordinationist sentiments when he wrote: 

"We can say that the Saviour and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures without possible 

comparison, in a wholly transcendent way, but that they are exceeded by the Father by as 

much or even more than they exceed the other beings" (Commentary On John 130, 25, 

151)." 

Concerning this passage, eminent Origenist Henri Crouzel tells us: 

"Of course later orthodoxy would not express it like that, it would avoid anything that could 

express a superiority of the Father over the other two" (Crouzel 203). 

Origen's theological view of God is further summed up by Ian McGreal when he cites Origen as follows: 



"the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); 

and the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone" (McGreal 65)." Origen also manifestly 

stated that the Father made the Holy Spirit through Christ: 

"We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and 

that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through 

Christ. And this, perhaps, is the reason why the Spirit is not said to be God's Son" (Commentary on John 

2.6). This proclamation is a sure sign of essential subordination in the "Godhead." 

From Origen: 

"And therefore we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is 

called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. 

For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: "The Lord created 

me—the beginning of His ways and among His works, before He made any other thing; He 

founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth ... before all the 

hills, He brought me forth ... He is styled First-born, as the apostle declared "who is the 

first-born of every creature." [Colossians 1:15] The first-born however, is not by nature 

a different person from the Wisdom but one and the same ... the Apostle Paul says that 

"Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God. [1 Corinthians 1:24]" (bold italics 

added)—Origen, De Principiis, Book I, chapter II, § 1; ANF, Vol. IV (4), page 246. 

It is interesting to note that many of the Fathers felt that they too would get to share in being a god. Were 

they worried about being false gods? 

"We have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and 

virtue."-Justin Martyr, The First Apology Of Justin, chapter XXI (21); ANF, Vol. I, p. 170. 

"For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but 

at first merely men, then at length gods;"-Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV (4), 

chapter XXXVIII (38), § 4; ANF, Vol. I, p. 52 

"[the Son] having bestowed on us the truly great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the 

Father, deifying man by heavenly teaching,"-Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The 

Heathen (or, The Greeks, or, The Gentiles), chapter XI (11); ANF, Vol. II, p. 203. 

"But let us, O children of the Father-nurslings of the good Instructor [Christ]-fulfil the 

Father's will ... and meditating on the heavenly mode of life according to which we have 

been deified, let us anoint ourselves with the perennial, immortal bloom of 

gladness."-Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Peadagogus), Book I, chapter XII (12); 

ANF, Vol. II, p. 234. 

"The Creator did not wish to make him [mankind] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an 

angel-be not deceived-but a man. For if He had wished to make thee a god, He could have 

done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos [the Word, the Son]"-Hippolytus, The 

Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10), chapter XXIX (29); ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 151. 

"And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved 

by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God ... For 

the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the dignity of His divine 

perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!"-ibid., chapter XXX (30); ibid., p. 

153. 



"If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by 

water and by the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also 

joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection of the dead."-Hippolytus, Discourse On The 

Holy Theophany, § 8; ANF, Vol. V, p. 237. 

"For He [the Son of God] was made man that we might be made God."-Athanasisus, 

Incarnation Of The Word, (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei), The Nicene and Post-Nicene 

Fathers, Edinburgh, T&T Clark; Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 

Second Series, Vol. IV (4), p. 65, reprinting of October, 1987. 

"For He has become Man, that He might deify us in Himself, and He has been born of a 

woman, and begotten of a Virgin in order to transfer to Himself our erring generation, and 

that we may become henceforth a holy race, and 'partakers of the 

Divine Nature,' as blessed Peter wrote. (2 Peter 1:4)-Athanasius, Letters of Athanasius, (Lx. 

Ad Adelphiun), 60.4; ibid., p. 576. 

And the ANF almost all accepted a different faith that was later developed in the 4/5th centuries. 

"With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some 

form of subordinationism at least up the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the 

denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." (Hanson, The 

Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 

p.xix) 

Sam sent: Let's first consider what Origen means by the "true God." It would be a mistake to read a 

post-Arian meaning into Origen's use of autotheos or the distinction his draws between theos with the 

article and without. In terming the Father autotheos, Origen does not mean 

that the Father possesses a "true" divine nature, and the Son a "lesser" divine nature. Origen taught that 

the "begetting" of the Son by the Father cannot be compared to human begetting (First Principles 1:2:4), 

that the Son and Father share the same nature (Commentary on John 2:2:16; 2:10:76; 19:2:6;), and that 

there was never a time when the Son did not exist (Commentary on Romans 1:5; First Principles 1:2:9; 

4:4:1 in both Rufinus' Latin 

translation and Athanasius' Greek). 

The begetting of the Son is a part of the Divine Being and is from all eternity (First Principles, 1:2:9; 

4:41, again in both Rufinus and Athanasius) and is also continual (Homily on Jeremiah 9:4); the 

Father is the "source" of divinity, and the Son "attracts" that 

same divinity to Himself through his eternal contemplation of theFather (Commentary on John 2:2:18). 

Sam also knows just how damaging Origen's words were, that translators, again, had to corrupt them to 

fit the later theology of the Trinity. Jaroslav Pelikan says that Rufinus' translation is all we have of First 

Principles. (see The Emergence of Catholic Tradition-A History of the Development of Doctrine, p. 109) 

This is an ongoing situation with these type of people: 

"We know for certain that the translations, especially those made by Rufinus [of 

Aquileia] are not accurate. ... Rufinus says himself in his introduction that he followed the 

example of Jerome in his translation of the homilies, "Here and there" he says, "things are 

found in the Greek that might give offense". Jerome whittled all that down when he made 

his translation and expurgated the text so that no one reading the Latin would find anything 

in it at variance with our [Roman Catholic] faith. He [Rufinus] was all the more convinced 

of his right to do this in that he thought that Origen's books had been altered by heretics, as 



he explains in his De Adulteratione Liborum [Of (The) Adulteration (of the) Books (of) 

Origen]. Jerome produced a more faithful translation of the book to take the field against 

Rufinus's but it is now lost. Rufinus's translation therefore has to be used, but with 

caution."—Jean Danielou (in French) Paris, La Table Ronde, (no date given); English 

translation by Walter Mitchell, New York, Sheed And Ward, 1955; Nihil Obstant: Carolus 

Davis, S.T.L. Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard Vic[ar] Gen- [eral]., 

1955, pp. xi, xii. (The "Nihil Obstant" and "Imprimatur" show this work to be accepted by 

the Roman Catholic Church.) 

"The work has come down to us in the Latin translation of his admirer Rufinus; but, from a 

comparison of the few fragments of the original Greek which have been preserved, we see 

that Rufinus was justly chargeable with altering many of Origen's expressions, in order to 

bring his [Origen's] doctrine on certain points more into harmony with the orthodox views 

of the time [of Rufinus c. 398 C.E.]."—ANF, Vol. IV, p. 231. 

Now no one is saying that Origen was not influenced by Plato, but all the Fathers were to some extent. Is 

this not how we arrived at the Trinity after all? 

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge points out: 

"Many of the early Christians, in turn, found peculiar attractions in the doctrines of Plato, 

and employed them as weapons for the defense and extension of Christianity, or cast the 

truths of Christianity in a Platonic mold. The doctrines of the Logos [Greek for "the Word"] 

and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who, if not trained in the schools, 

were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy, particularly in its 

Jewish-Alexandrian form." 

Hastings' Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics explains: 

"Christianity took over from Greek philosophy, and to some extent developed 

independently, the profound and fruitful idea of the distinction between time and eternity, 

and between becoming and being. First clearly stated by Parmenides, c. 500 B.C. . . . , it is 

worked out in considerable detail by Plato, c. 390 B.C., especially in his Phædrus and 

Symposium." 

"Christian theology," notes the Encyclopædia Britannica, "took the Neoplatonic metaphysics of 

substance as well as its doctrine of [essences, or natures] as the departure point for interpreting the 

relationship of the 'Father' to the 'Son.'" 

What, though, did Jesus mean when he said, "I and the Father are one"? J. H. Bernard, D.D., states in A 

Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John: 

"A unity of fellowship, of will, and of purpose between the Father and the Son is a frequent theme in the 

Fourth Gospel . . . , and it is tersely and powerfully expressed here; but to press the words so as to make 

them indicate identity of ousia [Greek for "substance," "essence"], is to introduce thoughts which were 

not present to the theologians of the first century."—Compare John 5:18, 19; 14:9, 23; 17:11, 22. 

Interestingly, the French encyclopedia Alpha states: "Most religious traditions or philosophical systems 

set forth ternary [threefold] groups or triads that correspond to primeval forces or to aspects of the 

supreme God." Another French work points to the Greek philosopher Plato (of about 427 to 347 B.C.E.) 

and declares: 

"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier 

peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three 



hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's 

conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] 

religions."—Dictionnaire Lachatre. 

Naturally, Christendom's priests and clergymen, for the most part, deny this pagan philosophical origin 

of the Trinity dogma. The authoritative French Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique devotes 16 columns 

of small type to its arguments against the relationship between Plato's trinity and Christendom's triune 

God. Yet, this work has to admit that Catholic "Saint" Augustine himself—said to have been "of decisive 

importance for the Western [Roman] development of the Trinitarian doctrine"—recognized this 

relationship. Moreover, the Encyclopædia Britannica (1976, Macropædia) states: 

"Such a Hellenization did, to a large extent, take place. The definition of the Christian faith 

as contained in the creeds of the ecumenical synods of the early church indicate that 

unbiblical categories of Neoplatonic philosophy were used in the formulation of the doctrine 

of the Trinity." 

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, 

"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier 

peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three 

hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's 

[Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the 

ancient [pagan] religions."—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467. 

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: 

"The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' 

which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The 

trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and 

others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some 

theologians."—(New York, 1965), p. 899. 

The Church of the First Three Centuries says: 

"The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its 

origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it 

grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers." 

By the end of the third century C.E., "Christianity" and the new Platonic philosophies became 

inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine 

became "firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to 

the great majority of Christians." 

The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: "In reality it 

legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan 

mystery-worship." 

In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: 

"We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian 

revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his 

Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists." 

'Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.'—The Encyclopedia 

Americana 



On to Part 2 



Alethinos and False Gods-A Reply to Sam Shamoun 

The Biblical view of Only True God/TON MONON ALHQINON QEON 

Part II 


from http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/heinz-rebuttal.html 

Additions in Red 

Back to Part 1 

Sam Shamoun makes much use of the term Henotheism, and applies it to Jehovah's Witnesses. 

Henotheism is when you only believe in one God, but you allow for the existence of others. But, unlike 

other trinitarians, Sam allows for a third category of gods, "figurative gods." 

As he says, 

"the terms 'God' or 'gods' are also applied figuratively to entities functioning as God's 

emissaries, speaking to humanity on behalf of Yahweh, having God's authority to function in 

his place." 

This position is how I would describe Jesus' role as a divine being, and it closely mirrors what Martin 

Werner has said: 

"The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question 

whether Christ was an angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an 

angel, rank as God. The explanation which was offered by the supporters of the 

Angel-Christology was that Christ, according to his nature, was a high angel, but that he was 

named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The word 'God' did mean, in the 

first place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the beings who served 

this deus verus [Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods' 

implies reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus 

represented. Consequently in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28), not only 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 

according them the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius [260-330 C.E.] had thought in 

this way2 ... 2 Latantius, inst. Epitome [The Epitome Of The Divine Institutes], 37."-Martin 

Werner, The Formation Of Christian Dogma, p. 140. 

Does that make us, or the early believers henotheists? As I had said in my previous reply to Sam: 

After discussing Deut. 32:8 and Ps. 82:1-6, Ralph Smith poses the timely question: was 

Israel henotheistic or monotheistic? His answer is that Israel 

was monotheistic. But in what sense? Quoting G.E. Wright, Smith notes that monotheism 

(in this case) can be defined as: "the exclusive exaltation of the one source of all power, 

authority, and creativity" ( _Old Testament Theology_. R. Smith. P. 232). By defining 

monotheism in this way, we allow room for others to be called gods (in that they are 

superhuman and supernatural) without compromising our monotheistic position. 

The Dictionary of the Bible by Catholic Jesuit John L. McKenzie, S.J. God, p. 317,says 

"The unique character of Yahweh is the answer to the question about the monotheism of 

early Israel. Monotheism as a speculative affirmation is simply not found in the earlier 

books of the Bible; the affirmation presupposes a pattern of philosophical thinking which 

was foreign to the Israelite mind. Nor is there a clear and unambiguous denial of the reality 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/sam.htm (1 of 19) [5/25/2003 4:01:45 AM]


of other Elohim before Second Isaiah in the 6th century. This does not mean that early Israel 

was polytheistic or uncertain about the exclusive character of Yahweh. They perhaps would 

have said that there are many Elohim but only one Yahweh, and would have denied to any 

Elohim the unique character which they affirmed of Yahweh." 

I have also provided evidence that others, like angels, were very much called 'gods' by the early Jews. 

But labels are important for people like Sam, because people like this feel that it gives them a 

psychological advantage over others. 

It is too bad that SSham has to resort to ad hominem attacks ad nauseum to further his message (when I 

found his reply to me online, it was via a link stating "More JW Lies.") For instance, I am already on 

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 

character and religion. He complains about me calling him SamSham, yet, if memory serves me correct, 

this was a combination of his email address at the time. You will find throughout my many responses on 

my web-site that I often refer to people by their email address. If I am wrong, then I apologize in 

advance. I am sorry Sam, and I have removed and reference to SamSham. At the same time I would like 

to point out that this response by Sam was not sent to me, nor I was notified of its being posted in the 

internet. At one time he did write to me tell me had written a lengthy response, but never actually sent it 

to me. I did reply to tell him that I thought the length was designed to keep me from responding, and I 

still think so. I trust this time that Sam actually wrote it, and that it was not a cut and paste from Robert 

Hommel, as last time. 

Let us move on: 

Sam:Paul himself in Galatians 4:8 distinguishes those who are "not God by nature" (me ousis theois) from 

the One who is. Heinz may try to respond that Paul allows for others who are gods by nature, because theois 

is plural – however, the context precludes this interpretation – for Paul certainly wouldn't condone being a 

slave to any but the true God. Heinz may say the "gods" here are idols. Yet as I had already demonstrated in 

my monotheism paper both Paul and the OT indicate that there is an actual spiritual presence, more 

specifically a demonic presence, behind every idol: 

"What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? Rather, that the 

things which the Gentiles sacrificed they sacrificed to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to 

have fellowship with demons." 1 Corinthians 10:19- 20 NKJV 

"They made him jealous with their foreign gods and angered him with their detestable idols. They sacrificed 

to DEMONS which are not God- gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared, gods your fathers 

did not fear." Deuteronomy 32:16-17 NIV 

"They worshiped their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters 

to DEMONS." Psalm 106:36-37 NIV 

Reply: Nothing here negates the fact that idols are not real, therefore not "gods by nature." 

[By way of explanation, my original response mentioned that the few scant places the Bible refers to a 

"false god" it is to a lifeless idol, not to anything living. The RSV Annotated Study Bible says of the 

false gods, "Idols are helpless, useless, and not to be compared with celestial phenomena." (ftn. Letter of 

Jeremiah) ] 

But they are still false gods, as the Bible is quite insistent on showing. 

The Bible makes it clear, if you are not with God, you are with Satan or his demons. 

Sam mentions 1 Corinthians 10, yet had he continued we would have the following: 

"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, 

and of the table of demons." 

My NIV and NKJV Bibles cross-reference this scripture with 2 Cor. 6: 

"Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what 

communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a 



believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols?" 

The NIV Study Bible says here that false teachers "are in reality servants of Satan." 

So even those "who are not of the same nature" (MacArthur Study Bible NKJV 2 Cor 6:14 ftn.) have, as 

Sam would call, "an actual spiritual presence, more specifically a demonic presence" behind them. 

There is more: "Proud arguments that keeps people from knowing God" are "the Devil's strongholds." 2 

Cor 10:4, 5 NLT 

The ruins of Babylon are demonic (Rev 18:2). 

Anyone and anything that takes an adversarial position against God has the Devil behind him. 

Judas is called "a devil." John 6:70 

Peter, taking an adversarial position opposite to the divine plan is even called Satan twice (Mt 16:23 and 

Mk 8:33). 

The Angel of Jehovah is called an Adversary (DIABELEIN in the Lxx). 

Hadad, as an adversary to Solomon, was SATAN according to the LXX at 1 Ki 11:14. 

People can be taken captive by the snare of the devil, as he seeks to devour people (2 Tim 2:26; 1 Pet 

5:8). 

Of course, the numerous instances in the Bible of demon possession indicates that people also can also 

have a demonic presence. As the Zondervan NASB Study Bible says of demons at Rev 9:20, "Spiritual 

beings in league with Satan and exerting an evil influence on human affairs." 

The only Scripture that I can find where "idol" and "demon" are mentioned together, is Revelation 9:20, 

"that they should not worship demons, and the idols of gold" of which Bullinger's Companion Bible says, 

"Devils=demons...Distinguished from worship of idols." 

The Bible though is still clear as to the uselessness of idols: 

"Don't go after false gods; they cannot help you or save you, FOR THEY ARE NOT REAL." 1 Sam 

12:21 TEV [emphasis mine] 

When Jehovah said "besides me there is no God" in Isaiah 44:6, he was comparing his Deity to the idols. 

Let us start from verse 9 to see exactly how ineffectual these idols really are. 

"The makers of idols 

All work to no purpose; 

And the things they treasure 

Can do no good, 

As they themselves can testify. 

They neither look nor think, 

and so they shall be shamed.... 

They have no wit or judgment: 

Their eyes are besmeared, and they see not; 

Their minds, and they cannot think." Isaiah 44:9-19 NJPS 

So my original point stands. 

And: 

"Let all be put to shame who serve CARVED IMAGES, Who boast of IDOLS. Worship Him, all you 

GODS… For You, LORD, are most high above all the earth; You are exalted far above all gods." Psalm 

97:7, 9 NKJV 

Interestingly, the translators of the LXX understood the above reference to gods as referring to angelic 

beings: 

"Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his ANGELS 

(angeloi)." Psalm 96:7 

So we see that according to early Jewish thought, not only were there demons standing behind every idol 

but angels as well. This clearly establishes that not only are the idols considered nothing, but also the 



spiritual presence behind these idols is categorized as nothing. 

Reply: I think you are reading WAY too much into this scripture. 

Let us look at how the following bible cross-reference Psalm 97:7: 

NA27 Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6 

UBS3 Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6 

NKJV Nelson Study Bible Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6 

NAB Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6 

Darby Bible Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6 

Scofield Bible Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6 

Douay Bible Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6 

English Standard Bible Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6 

AV1611 Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6 

NASB Ref. Edition Ps 97:7 -> Heb 1:6...And your site. 

Are you inferring that the *idolatry* of Psalm 97:7 compares to the "worship/PROSKUNEW" given to 

Christ by these same angels [who by your own words are categorized as nothing]? I can not see why you 

never actually sent me this reply 

Sam: Finally, another reason why the Holy Bible infrequently uses the phrase "false gods" stems primarily 

from the fact that not all who are called "gods" are necessarily false, nor are they true gods by nature. 

Rather, as I argued in my paper which Heinz mentions in his article, the terms "God" or "gods" are also 

applied figuratively to entities functioning as God's emissaries, speaking to humanity on behalf of Yahweh, 

having God's authority to function in his place. 

Reply: And that is exactly how we should view Jesus, the unique Son of God. 

Heinz: 

Sam Shamoun makes much of what he thinks Stafford ignores in the BAGD, which 

says, "genuine, real ... Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real." Stafford 

does not hide this, and if you take a closer look, it does not really say what you hope it 

says. The BAGD has italicized the word "real," and the reason for this is plain. The 

scriptures posted in lexicons, such as BAGD, Thayers, etc, to determine false gods are 

never directed to anything living. They almost always refer to a worthless idol, or 

something equally without any substance. 

That is why the RSV Annotated Study Bible says of the false gods, "Idols are helpless, 

useless, and not to be compared with celestial phenomena." (ftn. Letter of Jeremiah) 

You will be hard pressed to find an example lexically of a living being described as a 

false god. 

Response: 

It is rather unfortunate that Heinz makes very little of Stafford's misuse of BAGD. 

Proof that Stafford misused this source (whether willfully or not is not for me to say) 

can be seen from his very own writings. In the first edition of his book, Stafford wrote: 

"The Greek word translated 'true' (… alethinos) can have one of several meanings, 

depending on the context and usage of the author or speaker. According to BAGD, 

alehtinos can mean: 'genuine, real… Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not 

real… true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its 

copies.' To illustrate this meaning of a 'reality possessed only by the archetype, 

not by its copies,' consider John 1:9, where John says concerning Jesus, 'The true 

light [… to phos to alethinon] that gives light to every sort of man was about to come 

into the world' (compare 1 Jo 2:8). Does this mean that Jesus' disciples (Mt 5:14) are 

'false' lights? No. It means they are not the original light, but copies of it, giving forth 



the light they received from Jesus." (Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended- An 

Answer to Scholars and Critics, first edition, pp. 196-197 bold emphasis mine) 

The implication of Stafford's statement is that BAGD seemingly understood and 

applied alethinos in the same way that Stafford understood it, namely that John17:3 

teaches that the Father is "true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the 

archetype, not by its copies". This is clearly false. Stafford was seemingly aware of 

his misapplication of BAGD and corrected himself in the second edition of his book: 

"The Greek word translated 'true' (… alethinos) can have one of several meanings, 

depending upon the context and usage of the author or speaker. According to BAGD, 

alethinos can mean: genuine, real… Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not 

real… true in the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its 

copies. While BAGD does not attribute the archetypal meaning to alethinos in 

John 17:3, WE BELIEVE this sense best fits the use of 'true' in this and other 

passages." (Stafford, second edition, p. 121 bold and capital emphasis mine) 

The fact that Stafford clarified his use of BAGD affirms that Stafford misapplied at 

least this source and thereby gave a misleading impression to his readers. 

Reply: So, "it is for you to say" exactly how he used his sources after all! 

All revisions have changes and clarifications. If you have recently checked the newly released BDAG 

against the older BAGD under the heading of alethinos, you will notice more than a changes and 

clarifications, but that does not mean the BAGD gave a misleading impression. You might have a 

complaint had the opposite actually happened. Both of the above uses by Stafford are acceptable. We can 

take "true" in the sense of the archtypal versus its copy, as the New American Bible says in a footnote at 

Hebrews 8:2, "True means 'real' in contradistinction to a mere 'copy and shadow.'" [Emphasis theirs] 

This brings me to Sam misuse of the word "misuse." Ask most trinitarians like Sam what the ARCH at 

Rev. 3:14 means, and they will tell that it means "ruler," or "originator." Yet this is not the definition 

assigned to Rev. 3:14 by the BAGD. In fact, the BDAG has upgraded Christ as created first from poss. 

[possible] to prob. [probable]. This does not stop Bibles like the NIV from using "ruler" here, as the 

translators, driven by their theology, feel it best works here. [The NIV translators do use the BAGD...see 

The Accuracy of the NIV by Kenneth L. Barker]. 

One webmaster (see http://www.forananswer.org/Rev/Rv3_14.htm) accuses Stafford of limiting himself 

in regards to ARCH and the BAGD, you do quite the obvious and accuse him of branching out to other 

definitions in regards to alethinos. 

Thankfully, the BAGD is not Thayer, for fear that he would again be labelled an Unitarian by you 

trinitarians (he is not). 

I could go on, but I think my point is made. Next, we could move on to Colwell's Rule of grammar. 

Walter Martin says in his Kingdom of the Cults, "Colwell's rule clearly states that a predicate nominative 

never takes an article when it precedes the verb as in John 1:1." Not only did Colwell not state this (he 

said usually instead of never, and he even gives 15 exceptions to the rule), his rule is now considered of 

no value in determining the translation of John 1:1c. But this does not stop anti-JW Apologists from still 

using it against Jehovah's Witnesses regarding John 1:1c. It is quite embarrassing really. 

This also demonstrates that Stafford's rejection of BAGD's understanding of the use 

of "true" in John 17:3 stems from Stafford's post-biblical 19th century JW henotheistic 

theology that he imposes upon the text of scripture. Stafford's commitment to the JW 

organization does not allow him to exegete scripture in light of its context, since the 

Society forbids its members from thinking independently in regards to assessing JW 

doctrine for biblical accuracy. 



Reply: You must be desperate Sam. Much of what you find in JWD and JWD2 you will not see in any 

Society publication. Rather, it is trinitarians that are not allowed to veer outside the confines of 

"orthodoxy" and its man-made creeds, lest they be labelled "liberal" "cultish" or "heretic" and thereby 

lose their funding, backing and support. It is YOU that is not allowed to exegete Scripture outside of 

Nicaea and the other early Catholic/Platonic formulations, which are simply not articulated in the Bible, 

period. 

Furthermore, Heinz's claim that these lexicons are not contrasting the true God with other living beings 

is erroneous. How does Heinz know this to be the case? Do any of these lexicons state this explicitly, or is 

Heinz simply imposing his own erroneous understanding into these sources? We challenge Heinz to show 

us where the sources alluded to above state that the term alethinos is used solely to contrast the true God 

with non-living entities who are not gods at all. 

Reply: The fact that you cannot list any non-idol false gods is an answer to your challenge. 

Heinz is apparently aware of his blunder and therefore ends up contradicting his 

own statement. We reproduce his statement here with bold and capital emphasis: 

"…The scriptures posted in lexicons, such as BAGD, Thayers, etc, to determine 

false gods are NEVER directed to anything living. They ALMOST always refer to a 

worthless idol, or something equally without any substance…" 

So which is it Heinz? Is it never or almost always? If it is almost always then you 

proceed to refute your own assertion since the use of "almost" negates the term 

"never". If it is never then how can it be almost always? Perhaps Heinz can explain 

this obvious paradox for us. 

Reply: It is *almost always* since I have not checked every lexicon in the world. I suppose you might 

find one that makes a mistake. 

Finally, BAGD is not alone in understanding alethinos in John 17:3 as implying that there is only one 

true God and that the rest are all false since other lexical sources are in agreement. Robert Hommel points 

out: 

If BAGD is reliable in both their understanding of the various connotation of alêthinos and their specific 

definition in John 17:3, we would expect that other authorities would corroborate it. Similarly, if BAGD got 

it wrong with regard to John 17:3, we would expect other authorities to disagree. 

Reply: Let us see what these lexicon really have to say regarding false gods. The BDAG has on P. 281 

(under EIDWLON/Idols), "Polytheists know that the images of gods are lifeless....through metonymy the 

image and the deity or divinity the image and the deity or divinity alleged to be represented are freq. 

associated in such a manner that the image factor is less significant than the component of unreality or 

spuriousness of what is represented." and then it points to Isaiah 44:6-20; 46:1-7and Wisdom 13 and 14. 

Read it! Lets continue with the BDAG under Idols, "the cult object as alleged image is evident, but its 

subject has no real existence as a god; Paul means that if any transcendent reality is at all to be assigned 

to EIDWLON, its status is not that of a god, but of the lesser beings known as DAIMONES 1Cor 

10:20....no idol has any real existence in the universe (20th Century NT) 1 Cor 8:4." What does it say? 

"We are aware that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one." 

Grimm/Thayer defines alêthinos as "contrasts realities with their semblances" for Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24, 

but "opposed to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated, pretended" for John 17:3 (p. 27). So, 

Grimm/Thayer, too, recognizes the correct connotation of alêthinos in John 17:3 as "true contrasted with 

false." 

Reply: I would now like you to turn over to page 174 under EIDWLO-LATREIA which is "the worship 

of false gods, idolatry: Gal. v. 20." 

Also under EIDWLOLATRHS..."a worshipper of false gods, an idolater." 



In fact, under DIAMWN (demon) we have "an inferior deity" instead of your desperate "false god." 

In his Expository Dictionary, Vine recognizes Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24 as requiring the meaning: "the 

spiritual, archetypal tabernacle," but defines alêthinos in John 17:3 as: "'very God,' in distinction from all 

other gods, false gods" (p. 645). 

Reply: And under Idol (EIDWLON) "*an idol,* an image to represent a false god...*the false god* 

worshipped in an image." 

Louw and Nida similarly recognize several connotations for alêthinos, including those discussed. They 

define alêthinos in John 17:3 as: "pertaining to being real and not imaginary ... 'that they may know you, the 

only one who is really God'" (p. 667). Moulton and Milligan list a number of contemporary extra-biblical 

examples of alêthinos, including several by Christians in reference to God, and all carry the meaning 'real'; 

'genuine'; 'true, as opposed to false' (p. 22). 

Reply: Louw and Nida, under Idol (EIDWLON, 12.23) states: "an unreal supernatural being - 'false 

god'...A 'false god' may be rendered as 'that which seems to be a god.' In 1 Jn. 5:21 one may speak of 

'those that seem to be gods but really are not.' " 

Finally, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) does not specifically reference John 

17:3 in its discussion of alêthinos, but says "As a divine attribute it has the sense of 'reliable,' 'righteous,' or 

'real,'" and cites 1 John 5:20, a verse Stafford relates to John 17:3 (IBID, p. 120). This meaning is contrasted 

with the 

archetype connotation: "In Heb 8:2 the heavenly tabernacle is 'true' in contrast to the earthly, and in Heb. 

9:24 the human sanctuary is a copy of the true one, which is genuine as divine" (Abridged edition, p. 39). 

Reply: As we can see above, and as the Bible record shows, the only false gods are stupid lifeless gods 

"who are not gods by nature." The archetype explanation, used by Greg Stafford, fits the best when we 

harmonize everything. 

Jesus, and the following, are, using Sam's own words, "functioning as God's emissaries, speaking to 

humanity on behalf of Yahweh, having God's authority to function in his place." 

Moses is a god (Ex 4:16; 7:1) 

Judges are gods (Ex 21:6; 22:8; Psalm 82) 

Kings are O QEOS (Psalm 45:6) 

Angels are gods, and they even act functionally as Jehovah himself. 

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 

6:12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23; 13:6, 21; Deut 5:24; Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23. 

But what happens when the angels turn bad. If they can be called "God" easily in the Bible as functioning 

for the God, if they cease acting for God, do they not them become a "false God?" 

It's like the "vessels" mentioned by the apostle Paul. He spoke of a "vessel for honor, another for 

dishonor." (Romans 9:21) Both are still "true" vessels though, irrespective of how they use themselves. 

The true man is one in which brings delight to our God, and speaks the truth, and applies truth in all 

things. He is a Godly man, he is a good man. Yet, in the Bible, a good man is contrasted with an evil 

man, not a false man. (Lu 6:45; Matt 12:35) 

Jesus said at Luke 18:18,19 that none except God were "good". Does this make everyone else 

bad? Acts 11:24 says that the disciple Barnabas "was a good man". 

On top of the Ark of the Covenant were two cherubs with wings overshadowing the cover. These 

"cherubs" were not true "cherubs," but neither were they false. They were copies. 

The ANF did not burden themselves with the true God/false God strawman, as Martyr, Athanasius, 

Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus all believed that they also could be deified. (click here 

for more) Does this mean they would be false gods? They certainly never thought so. In light of Hebrews 

1:1-3, they certainly would not be figurative/functional gods, as the Son only speaks in God's behalf now. 



If, to a trinitarian, the divine nature encompasses all that God is, are Christians false gods because they 

are partakers in the divine nature? (2 Peter 1:4) The more we examine this issue, the more we see the 

need to abandon it all costs. It makes a mockery of all that is holy, good and true. 

Heinz: 

This does not rule out living beings as being false gods, but according the Bible, 

early Jewish and Christian thought, the true/false enigma is not as restrictive as 

Trinitarians wish. 

Response: 

Heinz has apparently not read the article he claims to be rebutting, or at least did not 

read it carefully. Had he done so he would have found sufficient evidence where 

certain living beings are in fact classified as false gods.Seeing that the Holy Bible 

does refer to actual living beings as false gods the "true/false EMIGMA" is only an 

enigma for henotheists!The point is that the Bible says that the true God has a 

nature that is not shared by those CALLED "gods," (legomenoi theoi [1 Corinthians 

8:5]; cf., Galatians 4:8), but this nature IS shared by the Son. (Cf. John 1:1c; 

Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:3) 

Reply: We have already seen how the BDAG uses 1 Cor 8:4 to denote "idols" when it uses the quote 

from the 20th Cent. NT, "We are aware that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but 

one." 

Gal 4:8 also refers to idols (see Wycliffe Bible Commentary). Yet, while doing a check in the American 

Standard Version of the term "true God" I, again, found something interesting. Of the 5 times it mentions 

the phrase "true God," the majority of those the term was held in opposition to false "idol" gods. 

1) "Jehovah is the true God; he is the living God." Jer 10:10 ASV 

Yet this "true God" is compared in vss 3-5 to...IDOLS, who are false gods and NOT living. 

"Their stands their god like a helpless scarecrow in the garden! It cannot speak, and it need to be carried 

because it cannot walk." NLT 

2) 1 Thess 1:9, "For they themselves report concerning us what manner of entering in we had unto you; 

and how ye turned unto God from idols, to serve a living and true God" 

Again, the "true God" is a living God, the exact antithesis to an "idol" that is not living. 

3) 1 John 5:20, 21, "This is the true God, and eternal life. My little children, guard yourselves from idols. 

Again, the Bible comes to my defense in declaring that false gods were in reality simply "idols." 

Since you mentioned Hebrews 1:3 to show how Jesus can share God's nature, let us look at how Jesus 

compares to Moses. 

The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible says this of Moses, 








34:29.30.35), i.e. his face was enveloped in a divine aura. By this nimbus Moses was 


Now, read Hebrews 1:1-3 again. 



"Long ago God spoke to our fathers in many different ways by the prophets, but in these last days He has 

spoken to us by His Son...who shines with God's glory and is the copy of His being." An American 

Translation/Beck. We not only have Moses and Jesus sharing many aspects as figurative and functional 

"gods" (with Jesus of course being a greater Moses, cf. Heb 3:3) but the nature Jesus shared was a COPY 

of the true God. What did BAGD say again of ALHQINOS? "true in the sense of the reality possessed 

only by the archetype, not by its copies." Jesus is indeed a copy of the only true God, his Father (John 

17:3). 

It is in this way Barclay could say: 

"When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was n o t saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was 

saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we 

perfectly see what God is like” 

Heinz: 

We have already mentioned John 17:3, where the "only true God" is distinguished 

FROM Jesus Christ. So damaging was this scripture to "Saint" Augustine, that he tried 

to change it so that "only true God" was read after "Jesus Christ" to make it sound like 

Jesus was the only True God. 

Response: 

Heinz introduces irrelevant issues and red herring arguments by bringing up St. 

Augustine. Since the issue is monotheism not Augustine's integrity or "infallibility", 

Heinz is now introducing the very same type of diversionary tactics he accuses 

Trinitarians of. Heinz needs to be careful in slinging mud against his opponents since 

the same accusations he uses against Christians can be used more forcefully against 

him. 

One only needs to read the NWT translation of the Greek Scriptures in such places 

as Philippians 2:9-11 and Colossians 1:16-17 to discover that the JWs have 

deliberately inserted the word "other" into the text. This was done primarily to avoid 

the implication these passages have in accurately understanding the true nature and 

person of Christ. The NWT translation committee seemingly knew that these passages 

clearly teach that Jesus is Yahweh God, the Creator of all things and could not 

therefore be the first creation of God. Hence, in order to avoid this they willfully 

manhandled God's Word to suit their theological presuppositions. 

Reply: Uhm, when I mentioned Augustine, it actually had some bearing on what we were talking about. 

How does the word "other" fit into this? 

Let us take a look at your assumptions of the word "other" in Php 2: 

"God...gave him the name that is above every [other]name." NWT 

"God...gave him a name that is above every other name." New Living Translation 

"God...has given Him the name that is above every other name." CB Williams NT 

"God...gave Him the name that is above every other name. Beck 

"God...gave him the name which is above all other names." New Jerusalem Bible 

"God...gave him the name that is greater than any other name." Good News Bible 

"God has...given him that name which is greater than any other name." Knox Bible 

"God...has conferred on Him the Name which is supreme above every other." Weymouth NT 

"God...gave him the Name which stands above all other names." 20th Century NT 

"God...giving him a name that is above every other name." 21st Century NT 

"God has...given him the name above all others. Smith&Goodspeed's An American Translation 

"God...gave him the name which is above all other names." Jerusalem Bible 



"God...gave him a name which is above every other name." Living Bible 

"God made the name of Christ greater than every other name." New Century Version 

"God...gave Him a name that is greater than any other name." New Life Study Testament 

"God has given him...the name honored above all other names." God's Word Bible 

Do not these translators "understand the true nature and person of Christ" according to Sam? 

The reason for the insertion of the word "other" (and you have to notice that the NWT is the only one that 

actually has it in brackets), as 1 Corinthians shows, is that God is excluded by the word "ALL." 

"In that quotation All things are put under him, it is evident that God is excepted, who put all things 

under Him." 1 Cor 15:27 Montgomery NT [emphasis hers] 

Commenting on this, John V. Dahms points out, 

"I submit that a responsible reading of Philippians 2 finds the doctrine of the eternal 

subordination of the Son implied in it. AS J.J. Muller has said in commenting on this text: 

'The glorification of the Father is the ultimate purpose of all things.'" The Subordination of 

the Son, JETS, September 1994, 351-64 

Moises Silva adds, "EIS DOXAN QEOU PATROS: Clearly, the worship of Jesus as Lord does not imply 

competition with the Father, who receives even greater glory through the glorification of the Son." p. 

133, The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary 

This leads us to Colossians 1:16. 

E. Lohse, "A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon", (The Hermeneia Series) p. 

50, note 125 says: "It should be noted that EN (in), DIA (through), and EIS (for) are used, but not EK 

(from). 'From whom are all things' ( EX hOU TA PANTA) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He is and 

remains the creator, but the pre-existent Christ is the mediator of creation." 

The Son is never called "creator", but he is what Robertson calls "the intermediate agent" According to 

Robertson (Grammar p. 820) the source (direct agent) is most commonly expressed by the Greek 

preposition hUPO ("by"), and sometimes by APO ("from") and EK ("out of"). The intermediate agent is 

often identified by DIA ("through"). Matthew 1:22 points this out nicely: "All this took place because 

what was spoken [aorist passive participle] by [ hUPO] the Lord through [DIA] the prophet must be 

fulfilled [aorist passive subjunctive]." Here "the Lord" is the source and "the prophet" is the intermediate 

agent. In John 1:3 we read " Through (DIA) him all things were made." In Colossians 1:16 we read: "For 

by (EN) him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones 

or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by (DIA) him and for (EIS) him. " Please note 

that the verbs are passive and note the use of prepositions. In the verse we find the preposition EN ("in," 

"by means of"). This preposition governs AUTW ("him," in the dative case). Most of the 74 occurrences 

in the NT of EN AUTW in the dative case are locative, that is, they refer to something or someone being 

in some place. Only one of the examples points to a source. In the last part of verse 16 we find the 

preposition DIA which governs AUTOU in the genitive case. This is the typical marking of an 

intermediate agent, so this must be the proper way to view the Son in this context. God is the source of 

the passive verbs which speak about creation, and that the Son is the intermediate agent? In Colossians 

1:12 "the Father" is mentioned, and he is active through verse 20. This is seen in verse 19 where God is 

the implied subject for the verb, and it is particularly evident in verse 20, because here both the source 

(God) and the intermediate agent (Jesus) are mentioned. It is said that the reconciliation is "through" 

(DIA) Jesus and "to" (EIS) God. The same thought is expressed in verse 22. The implied source 

(grammatical subject) of the active verb "reconciled" is "God." The intermediate agent is Jesus, for it is 

said that reconciliation occurred "by means of" (EN) his fleshly body and "through" (DIA) his death. 



Even Robert H Countess, though no friend of the NWT, had the following interesting remarks: 

"Even though Liddell-Scott state that the radical sense of DIA is 'through' there can be 

produced instances where the genetive appears to be causal and the accusative to signify 

agency. In general this writer would observe that the so-called causal uses of DIA seem to 

be inextricably linked with agency (i.e. 'by' or 'through'). 

For example, one lexicon cites as causal John 1:3-DI AUTOU EGENETO. [cf. Col. 

1:16-TA PANTA DI AUTOU KAI EIS AUTON EKTISTAI.] God apparently worked 

*through* the Son in creating all things and, therefore, the Son Himself in some sense 

*caused* or created. Another example given is Acts 3:18- O DE QEOS A 

PROKATHGGEILEN DIA STOMATOS PANTWN TWN PROFHTWN. Here the mouth 

of all the prophets is the channel or medium *through which* God announced beforehand 

the sufferings of Christ. The prophets indeed *caused* the message to be proclaimed but 

only inasmuch as their mouths had been selected as channels or media for the divine 

communication." THANK GOD FOR THE GENETIVE, Robert H. Countess, p. 118, JETS, 

Spring 1969 

It is interesting that even Countess has to concede that Christ is the agent of creation, and, as a parallel, 

uses Acts 3:18, denoting a separate body/being as agent. 

So, yes you can translate the following without violating anything: 

"It was he that formed all other things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. Whether 

kingdoms or dominions, governments or authorities, all came into existence as a result of 

him and by means of him." 21st Century NT 

Keep in mind that God is exempted from "all things" 1 Cor 15:27, and when you think about, Jesus is 

also exempted from the creative process with the wording "other" in the NWT. You would think that this 

is something Trinitarians would like. 

Sam does bring up Scriptures where Jehovah says he created alone. 

We know that Jehovah, was not really alone at the time of creation because Job 38:6, 7 tells us: "When I 

laid the foundation of the earth ... all the sons of God shouted for joy". The angels shouted for joy when 

Jehovah, through His Son, "laid the foundations of the earth". 

We see also that the created Wisdom (Jesus) was helping god during creation creation, 

"when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman (ftn. 

little child)." Prov 8:22-30 RSV 

The use of the term, "alone", "by myself" etc do not necessarily mean the same thing to those in power, 

even in the Bible. What do I mean? 

Let us look at Daniel 4:30 and Isaiah 63:3. Daniel 4:30, "The king reflected and said, 'Is this not Babylon 

the great, which I myself have built.' " NASB. 

"The king was saying, 'Great Babylon! Imperial palace! Did I not build it alone.' " Jerusalem Bible. 

"The king spake and said, Is this not Babylon the great, - which I myself have built," J.B. Rotherham 

Nebuchadnezzar was not the only person to have built Babylon, was he? But it was built by his 

authority, his word and no other's. 

Isaiah 63:3 says: "I [Jehovah] have trodden the wine press alone, and of the peoples there was no man 

with me." Again, it was not Jehovah who personally punish these people. It was His angel acting on the 

Jehovah's authority. (2 Kings 19:35, 36) Did Jehovah personally chastise the Babylonians or did He use 

the Medes and Perians to accomplish His will? (Daniel 5:26-28, 30-31) All these acts were done by 

Jehovah's authority; and by His alone.—Ezekiel. 36:33, 36. 



But this again, is where agency comes in, such as was mentioned in the first reply to Sam. Nave's Topical 

Bible rightly says under *Worship,* "to be rendered to God only." 

Yet, the worship to God (Shachah, OT), is again, contrasted between Jehovah and the false idol gods. 

Ex 20:3-4, " Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image..." 

Ex 34:14, 17 "for thou shalt worship no other god: for Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous 

God...Thou shalt make thee no molten gods." 

...and interestingly, Deut 29:26, "and went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods that they 

knew not, and that he had not given unto them." 

It is of no small note that the Bible also uses the same word (Shachah) used in exclusive WORSHIP to 

Jehovah, to others as well. 


"And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and 



An angel even receives worship(NKJV, ASV) at Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23. 

Angels were even allowed to use God's name. In Exodus 3:2 [Acts 7:30-32], "the angel of Jehovah 

appeared unto him [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 used the name Jehovah for himself [v. 16], even the "I AM"[v.14] you find so 

important to your theology. As Ex 23:20, 21 says, 

"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I 

have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not 

pardon your transgression: for my name is in him." 

So as representatives of God, angels were allowed to use his name, and to act as God. You will find other 

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, 

22, 23; 13:6, 21, and Deut 5:24. 

[It should be noted that Sam will say that the "Angel of the LORD" is also a member of the Trinity, or 

even Jesus. This may be true some of the time, but not always. Consider a few examples: 

In Zechariah 1:11-13 we have a conversation between this angel and Jehovah. 

"And they answered the angel of Jehovah that stood among the myrtle-trees, and said, We have walked to 

and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest. 

Then the angel of Jehovah answered and said, "O Jehovah of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy 

on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and 

ten years?" 

And Jehovah answered the angel that talked with me with good words, even comfortable words." 

If the angel of the LORD is the LORD himself (or a member of the LORD...I can't believe I just said that) 

then how did he not know the answer to the question he posed to the LORD? 

The text indicates that the Angel really is perplexed over the present state of Judah. He does not know 

what the LORD knows and so poses the aforesaid question to Him. 

Next, we have the angel of the Lord appearing to Joseph, while Mary was pregnant (Matt 1:20), and 

while Jesus was a child (Matt 2:13). If Jesus is the Angel of the Lord, then how many members of the 

trinity are there? 

Just to show you the level of dishonesty that goes into these theories, read the follwing from Charles 

Ryrie: "That He [the angel of the Lord] is a member of the Trinity is indicated by the fact that the 

appearances of the Angel of Yahweh cease after the Incarnation." (To Ryrie the "Angel of Yahweh" is the 

same as the"Angel of the Lord"...see index). p. 236, Basic Theology, by Charles Ryrie. 



Not only do the above 2 Scriptures contradict him, but so do the mention of the "angel of the Lord" at 

Acts 5:19; 8:26; 12:7, 23. Can we believe ANYTHING these people say regarding the Trinity, if they are 

even willing to lie about it? 

"He is distinguished from God in that God refers to the angel (Ex 23:23; 32:34) and speaks 

to him (2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chron 21:27) and the angel speaks to Yahweh (Zech 1:12). The 

evidence for the view that the angel of the Lord is a preincarnate appearance of Christ is 

basically analogical and false short of it being conclusive. The NT does not clearly show 

make that identification." Evangelical Dictionary of Theology by Elwell, p. 62 

"Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this 'angel' was a preincarnate 

manifestation of Christ as God's messenger-Servant. It may be, however, that, as the Lord's 

personal messenger who represented him and bore his credentials, the angel could speak 

on behalf of the (an so be identified with) the One who sent him (see especially 19:21; cf. 

18:2, 22; 19:2). Whether this 'angel' was the second person of the Trinity remains therefore 

uncertain." NIV Study Bible, Genesis 16:7] 

Heinz: 

Couple this with 1 Cor 8:6, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in 

heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God, 

the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, 

through whom are all things, and we through him." 

Response: 

Heinz needs to answer who the legomenoi theoi of this passage are…(answer: gods 

many AND lords many).Since theoi and kurioi are BOTH the "so-called gods," 

Paul is EQUATING the two terms.If he intends a distinction (essential to WT 

theology), then both Witnesses and Trinitarians have a dilemma.For then we are 

to have one [true] God and one [true] Lord – two different beings.Yet as I will 

point out below, Jude 4 refutes this attempt of positing two distinct beings, with one 

being God and the other Lord. As I will demonstrate the JW apologist is stuck at this 

point, if he is to remain logically consistent. The JW must explain how Jesus is his one 

and only Sovereign Master and Lord (regardless of HOW Jesus became DESPOTES 

and KURIOS), and how he honors (values) the Son equally with the Father, when the 

Son is inferior in NATURE to the Father. (Cf. John 5:22-23) 

Heinz: 

This scripture alone is disastrous to a Trinitarian, as Jesus is excluded from the 

term, "One God." 

In fact, if you take a look at QEOS as it is mentioned in the NT, the term is almost 

exclusively used of the Father. Trinitarian and Biblical theology both teach that Jesus 

cannot be the Father. So if Jesus is not the "One God" or "only True God," as he is 

clearly distinguished from him, then where does that leave him? 

Response: 

Heinz shows that he really has not taken the time to read the Trinitarian responses to 

the JW misapplication of 1 Corinthians 8:6. Had he done so he would not have made 

such an outlandish claim. This verse no more proves that Jesus cannot be God then 

Jesus being Lord proves that the Father cannot be Lord also. In fact, the Holy Bible 

clearly states that Jesus is our only Sovereign Master and Lord while at the same time 

acknowledging that the Father is also our Sovereign Master and Lord: 



My reason is that certain men have slipped in who have long ago been appointed by 

the Scriptures to this judgment, ungodly men, turning the undeserved kindness of our 

God into an excuse for loose conduct and proving false to our only Owner and Lord 

(ton monon despoten kai kurion hemon), Jesus Christ. Jude 4 NWT 

Reply: There are no trinitarian responses to 1 Cor 8:6, as it does not mention the Spirit. 1 Cor. 8:4-6 

states that there are many gods "as (indeed) there are" [Zerwick's A Grammatical Analysis]. Thayers 

thinks the gods mentioned here are the angels. Angels are indeed called gods in the Bible and most 

certainly in the intertestamental period. But we do not refer to angels as God, and neither do we refer to 

Moses as God or the Judges as God, though these were referred to as such in the Bible. To me, though 

QEOS is used in reference to Jesus (though disputed, cf Thayers) we should not call Jesus God either. 

What every glory, honor, title, and authority the above had or shared, it was GIVEN to them by the 

Father, and it was "to the glory of God the Father." BDAG - QEOS 2 - provides an interesting thought 

when it quotes Dg 10:6. It says: 

"hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN ECEI, TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS 

CORHGWN, QEOS GINETAI [QEOS as predicate nominative preceeding copulative verb] 

TWN LAMBANANTWN (one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God 

proves to be a god to the recipients). (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother). Such understanding 

led to the extension of the mng. of Q. to pers. who elicit special reverence." p. 450 

None of this devalues the term as it is applied to God Jehovah, as he alone is the true God, which can 

also mean "better" (see Zerwick, 1 John 5:21). 

Sam: Whereas JW apologists must squirm their way through these passages, a Trinitarian 

is able to account for all these passages with no problems. The reason why Jesus can 

be our only Sovereign Master and Lord without this excluding the Father is because 

both the Father and the Son share the same eternal Being of the one true God. Hence, 

what is true of One is also true of the Other as far as their divine nature and attributes 

are concerned. 

Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 8:6 actually affirms the essential equality that exists 

between the Father and the Son since Paul states that all things are from the Father and 

through the Son: 

Reply: Still, as H Conzelman points out, "The interpretation of ...'Lord'...is deliberately set in contrast to 

that of the concept 'God.'" 1 Corinthians, p. 144, as quoted in The Subordination of the Son, JETS, 

September 1994, 351-64, Dahms. 

As for Jude 4, You have to look at the Bible from a Biblical point of view. 

Rev 15:4 also uses the word MONOS (alone, only): 

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy." 

But yet, others are called HOLY (Acts 3:21; 10:22; 1 Corinthians 7:14 etc). 

Jesus is called the "only Son" (John 1:18 RSV), yet God has other Sons (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). 

The referent at 1 Tim 6:16 is called the MONOS DUNASTHS "only Potentate." Yet, the same word 

"DUNASTHS" is used for the Eunuch "of great authority" at Acts 8:27. 

The monarchs who were dethroned are also referred to as DUNASTHS at Luke 1:52. 

It can refer to a "prince" (Thayer's) or "gen. one who is in a position to command others" BDAG. 

In this, it is similar to DESPOTHS ("one who has legal control and authority over person, such as 

subjects or slaves" BDAG. Jesus is also called TON MONON DESPOTHS "our only Sovereign" NIV. 

The word DESPOTHS is also used of humans at 1 Tim 6:1; Titus 2:1; 1 Peter 2:18 etc. 

Jesus is our only Lord and Master as he was "MADE Lord" (Acts 2:36) and he was GIVEN a Name (Php 

2:9-11) and Authority (Matt 28:18), but everything he does is to "the glory of God the Father." He is our 



only way to God, as he is mediator (1 Tim 2:5) between God and men. 

The Bible also says, 

If all 2 members of the Trinity are co-equal, why does the Spirit not share in these titles? Why is there so 

little mention of the Spirit amongst trinitarian apologists? Why does the Dynamic Duo seem to make up 

the Triune Trio in these discussions? 

This leads me to another point of interest. Why do all the Trinity "proof texts" suffer from one or another 

form of ambiguity? This includes John 1:1, John 1:18, John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 

3:16; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:6, 8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:7,8; Jude 4; Revelations 1:11... 

Sam: Additionally, elsewhere in the NT Jesus is credited with the actual creation of the universe in 

much the same way that the Father is, further implying that the Son is Jehovah God (but not 

the Father). For instance, the inspired author of Hebrews writes: 

“But about the Son he says… ‘In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations 

of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but 

you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like 

a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never 

end.’” Hebrews 1:8a, 10-12 

The author has the Father addressing the Son as the actual Creator of the cosmos. The author 

applies an OT passage, Psalm 102:25-27, referring to Jehovah’s work in creation and applies it 

to the Son. The author is affirming that the Son personally laid the foundations of the earth and 

that the heavens are the work of the Son’s hands. This inarguably demonstrates that at least to 

this writer Jesus is actually Jehovah God, the eternal Creator (yet not the Father)! 

Reply: What does any of this have to do with an actual Trinity. I am sick and tired of Trinity "proof 

texts" that have nothing to do with the 3rd person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. All Sam is doing is 

converting Sabellianism to Trinitarianism. 

On Hebrews 1:10-12, imminent scholar, George W. Buchanan has this to say, 

"The connective "and" relates verses 10-12 to verses 7-9. "Now, (on the other hand,) [with 

reference] to the angels, it says" (1:7) "but [with reference] to the Son, [it says,]" (1:8) "and" 

(1:10). The "Lord" in Ps 102 clearly referred to God. Here it might also 

mean God, with the implication that since the Son was "heir or all" (1:2) and since it was 

through the Son that the Lord "made the ages" (1:2), any reference to the endurance of God 

would also be a reference to the endurance of the Son. In other places the author of Hebrews 

quoted Old Testament passages that mention the name of the Lord, and in every case the 

author held the same meaning (7:21; 8:8, 10, 11; 10:16, 30; 12:5, 6). On the other hand, the 

author did use the name "Lord" when referring to Jesus (2:3; 7:14). Like other scholars of 

his time, the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and 

attributing it to the Messiah. For example in LXX Deut 32:43, in which the object of 

worship for the sons of God according to the Proto-Massoretic text was Israel, the author of 

Hebrews applied it to the first-born, namely Jesus (1:6). Since the term "first-born" could be 

applied either to Israel (Exod 4:22) or to the Messiah, the author made the shift. By the same 

logic, 

since the "Lord" was a title of respect used both for God and for kings, such as Jesus, he 

may also have made the shift here to apply to Jesus the durability of God in contrast to the 



temporal nature of the angels. If this were the case, then Jesus would also have been thought 

of as a sort of demiurge through whom God created the heaven and the earth.as well as the 

ages (1:2, 10). In either case it does not mean that Jesus was believed to be God or was 

addressed as God." 


Hebrews 1 and 2 stresses the superiority of Jesus over the angels, something that almighty God does not 

have to defend nor explain. 

We have to be real careful how we apply ontology or equality regarding certain Scriptures: 



them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah." 

1 Chron reads, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. 

At Job 1:12 we have Satan moving against Job, but at Job 42:11 it was "the LORD had brought on him." 

Are we here to conclude, by the arguments listed above that Jehovah and Satan are the same person (or 

equal?) 

The Bible calls both Jesus AND Satan a "Lion" (1 Peter 5:8 & Rev 5:5). 

Satan is called a morning star (Lucifer KJV) at Isaiah 14:12, but Jesus is also called one at Revelation 

22:16. No one suggest that Jesus and Satan are the same. 

A scripture in Matthew 2:15 applies to Jesus, but the earlier reference in Hosea 11:1 applies to Israel. 

Does than make them the same/equal? No! There is a prophecy about Elijah in Malachi 4:5 that is 

applied to John the Baptist in Matthew 17:12,13; 11:14. Is John the Baptist really Elijah? No! 

And none of this makes for anything TRIUNE. Like I said, it is all smoke and mirrors. 

(Have you noticed that Sam moved away from the discussion of alethinos?) 

Continued... 

Sam: Stafford also commits a categorical fallacy since he assumes that because the Father is said to be 

Jesus’ God and the source of his authority, this somehow proves that Jesus is not the same kind of God that 

the Father is. This fails to take into consideration that at the incarnation Christ truly became man and set 

aside his authority in order to take the form of a slave. (Cf. John 1:14; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:5-8.) 

In order for Stafford’s argument to work either he or Heinz must present one single passage where the 

Father is said to be Jesus’ God even before the Incarnation. If they can show a verse demonstrating that 

prior to Christ’s human birth the Father was Jesus’ God while the latter existed alongside the Father in 

heaven, then they have a case. If they cannot produce such a passage then Stafford’s claim that Jesus has a 

God does nothing to refute the Trinitarian position.Stafford might offer Micah 5:4 as evidence that the 

Father was God to the Son in His preexistence. 

Yet this is a messianic prophecy, and as such refers to the Messiah AFTER the incarnation. (Cf. Micah 5:2) 

Therefore the appeal to Micah 5:4 will not establish the JW position. 

Reply: C'mon Sam, even Jesus admits that the references to him in the OT are with the future in mind. 

"Everything thing written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be 

fulfilled." Luke 24:44 HCSB 

What is most important is that Jesus, in his divine exalted state in heaven, just when he is as high as he 

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. 

1:17; 1 Pet. 1:3) When does the Bible ever state that the Holy Spirit or the Father has a God over them? 

We must remember that the createdWisdom of Proverbs 8:22-30 also applies to Jesus Christ, who even 

applies this to himself at Luke 11:49; Matthew 23:34. All creatures, great and small, have been created 

by the Father, Jehovah, and this includes Jesus (cf. Col 1:15; Rev. 3:14). 



"Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?" 

Sam: We see that JW apologists are inconsistent in their methodology. They claim that it is wrong for 

Trinitarians to conclude that Jesus is Jehovah despite the fact that OT passages referring to Jehovah along 

with titles, attributes, functions and the worship given exclusively to Jehovah alone are applied to Christ. 

Yet, it is perfectly all right for JWs to assume that Jesus is the archangel Michael due to similarities shared 

by the two, despite the fact that not a single NT passage explicitly states that Jesus is an angel, or more 

specifically the archangel Michael. 

Reply: It should be noted here, that Trinitarians have no problem considering Jesus as the 

*Angel of the LORD*, despite the fact "that not a single NT passage explicitly states that 

Jesus is an angel." 

JW apologists are therefore guilty of assuming that similarities somehow prove sameness along with 

employing a methodology that they only too quickly condemn Trinitarians for using. This is known as 

religious hypocrisy. 

Reply: The difference between our two methodologies is that my belief system does not hinge on Christ 

being Michael. It is actually rarely talked about amongst JW's. JW's though want to best represent 

Christianity in its most ancient form. 








paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he 

is moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim--i.e., 






But I think the biggest difference here that Sam is missing is being able to distinguish between typology, 

ontology and agency. 

Typology, according to McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible is, "an impression; then 'a copy,' 'image,' 

'pattern,' or 'model,' 'example'). The type and typological interpretation of the Bible is an exposition 

which presents the persons, institutions or events of the OT as 'types' of persons, institutions or events in 

the NT." 

For instance, Jesus is called the "last Adam" but no one supposes they are the same as Adam no longer 

existed in the NT. 

Matthew 2:18 compares Rachel to Bethlehem. 

Moses was a type of Christ, as was Joseph and many others. But the archangel Michael is different in 

that he appears again in the NT (Jude 9; Revelation 12), in fact, he only appears when Christ is in 

heaven, not on earth. When Jesus was on earth, there was still a God in heaven whom he prayed to. It is 

not the same situation at all. 

God's representatives/agents are designated as "God" also in the Bible, but no one will argue that Jesus is 

an agent for Michael. 

"Jewish angelology in apocalyptic writings describes Michael as 'general' and 'chief captain' (2 En. 22:6; 



33:10),...He is characterized as 'merciful, charitable, and long-suffering"...a 'mediator and 

intercessor...and in intermediary between God and Moses at the time when the Law was given at 

Sinai...As the true representative of God, identified with the 'angel of Yahweh,' Michael withstood 

Satan's accusations and vindicated Israel at the heavenly tribunal." p. 896, Eerdman's Dictionary of the 


Subj: Hello 

Date: 01/22/2002 2:22:19 PM Pacific Standard Time 

From: sam_shmn@hotmail.com (sam shamoun) 

To: hector3001@aol.com 

Hello Hector, 

I see that my refutation has unnerved you. :-) 

Needless to say I was left unimpressed with your alleged rebuttal and will 

write a final refutation of your points exposing the logical fallacies such 

as rd herring, equivocation, straw man etc. But that will come in the 

distant future since I have tons of rebuttals to write regarding Muslim 

apologetics. 

Please try to make your rebuttals at least accurate and to the point, and 

avoid the logical fallacies since that will save me another 78 page 

response. :-) 

I promise you that you will be the first to know when my rebuttal is 

finished. 

Sam 

P.S. 

Thanks for the citations on the Idols. It seems you failed to realize that 

those citations actually cut your own throat and reinforces my arguments. 

Thanks bud for all the help, I sure will use it! 

Reply: You have to understand how people like Sam think. They are trained to think this way. I don't 

know the level of Sam's training in Greek, though he seems to be very intelligent. But from the outset, 

students are taught to have a certain mindset when it comes to learning Greek. Consider the following 

from Mounce's Basic's of Biblical Greek ( a good first year grammar). 

Talking about the punctuation, Mounce has this to say, 

"Obviously this has created some difficulties for contemporary scholars since the way a verse is 

punctuated can have a significant effect on the interpretation of the verse. One outstanding example is 

Romans 9:5. If a major stop is placed after KATA SARKA ("according to the flesh"), then the final 

section of the verse is a statement about God the Father (the NEB has "May God, supreme above all, be 

blessed for ever! Amen"). However, if a minor stop is placed at that point, the final words of the sentence 

speak of Christ (the NIV has "Christ, who is God over 

all, forever praised! Amen"). 

Does it make any difference? Most scholars believe it does. If the latter punctuation brings out what Paul 

intended, then we have in this verse a clear-cut statement affirming the deity of Jesus Christ. He is, in 

fact, God. The way a translation handles an ambiguous verse such as this reveals the theological 

leanings of the translator." 

The language here is quite clear. If you don't apply full deity to Christ, no matter how ambiguous the 

passage, you are rejecting Christ as the God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. Yet, it gives the 

NEB as an example of this, and it was directed by representatives of Protestant and Catholic Churches in 



the UK. Are they Unitarians? No! The same could be said for the Revised Standard Version, the Good 

News Bible etc. But this warning is set in the book right at the outset (p. 13). Let us move on to page 28, 

where it discusses the Definite Article. Right in the beginning, as an example of a subject and predicate 

nominative, it gives "John is a man." 

But when we move on to John 1:1, to phrase it similarly (the Word was a god) is considered "Arianism" 

and outside the framework of "Orthodoxy." But let us look at how they import a later theology into this 

verse: "Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with 

the person of 'God' (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine 

attributes of God that the Father has: lack of article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father." [Emphasis 

theirs] 

Mounce is aiming for a qualitative (divine attributes) exegesis of the passage. The problem is that he has 

to import the words "person" and "Father," neither of which are in the text. An honest examination with 

quality in view SHOULD read, "Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the the Word 

(Jesus Christ) with the 'God.' That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine 

attributes God has: lack of article tells us that Jesus Christ is not God." 

Unfortunately, NT Greek students, and Sam, are not allowed to think outside the confines of orthodoxy. 

To elevate themselves though, they embrace an air of superiority, and they do this by labelling other 

groups who are allowed free thought as "cults." 

As one atheist points out: "This superiority complex lies at the core of evangelism. I seriously doubt 

that this attitude has anything to do with you being in any state of vulnerability: evangelicals tend to see 

the rest of us as being flat-out inferior to them simply because we're not one of them. This clannishness 

brings their behavior into the realm of bigotry: it's as if they are a privileged few, and the best we could 

hope for would be to be like them." 

Sam, you can reply to me ad nauseum, but at some point I will have to follow the Bible's lead and move 

on. 

"If they don't welcome you, quietly withdraw. Don't make a scene. Shrug your shoulders and be on your 

way. You can be sure that on Judgment Day they'll be mighty sorry-but it's no concern of yours now." 

Matthew 10:14 The Message 


Email Me 


Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology. 

The E-Mail Bag 

Emerson: It doesn't import me what will say. It matters it is the truth. NWT is a confused 

translation and full of interpolations. 

Reply: No, it is no more full of interpolations than any other Bible, and even less so for Bibles that use 

the Dynamic Equivalent approach to Bible translating. 

res172vi@verizon...: The WBTS will not allow their members to read any literature not 

published by their sect. They will not allow any other bible to be studied at home or in 

church other than the NWT. These are undeniable facts. It seems like you are searching for 

the truth and that is why you continually show disregard for the WBTS rules. 

Reply: The misinformation wagon keeps rolling. The only "undeniable fact" is that people want to 

believe the worst about Jehovah's Witnesses. The WTS also prints the King James Version, The 

American Standard Version, The Emphatic Diaglott, The Bible in Living English, and I have also 

recieved from them, the New English Bible, the New American Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, Rotherham's 

Emphasized Bible, and others have been available. I often use other Bibles in my ministry, sermons 

(talks) and service. 

I also own hundreds of books on theology and New Testament history and grammar, a passion shared by 

many of my brothers. We have though criticized owning books considered junk, like romance novels, 

and those written by apostates (former members). 

SS777: I wanted to talk about the WT's murder of the English language when translating the 

Hebrew Scriptures in the New World Translation. I remember my first few encounters with 

JW's and I remember reading a Watchtower magazine and being surprised at how bad their 

OT scriptures seemed to be in comparison to the KJV or NASB... 

It doesn't take long for someone reading the WT Bible to realize that it is very wooden, 

wordy, graceless, stiff, awkward, unwieldy, dull, unfortunate and odd. Things like the word 

"grace" being translated as "undeserved kindness" are a bit weighty at first, but it is still 

being true to the text. The question is, is it a translation that maintains the beauty of the 

Bible, or is it devoid of the beauty that has been captured and inspired by God? 

Starting off in Genesis, we find that the NWT uses the term "bad" as opposed to "evil." 

Gen 2:17 "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it." 

Bad can mean many things. Someone can have a bad back. In can be meant as ïincorrectÍ. 

The room you live in could have bad lighting. An untrained puppy is a "bad puppy." Satan 

rebelling against God and causing death and pain and the fall of 20 or 30 billion souls is 

none other than "EVIL." Hitler was not bad for killing 10 million people, he was evil. You 

get the point? You may say this is nit picking, but stick with me for a moment. 

Reply: The problem with this is, the fruit was not meant for Satan, and the prohibition put on the tree 

was not directed towards spirit creatures such as Satan, but mere humans. Yes, the word "bad" can also 

mean a "bad puppy" or "bad lighting," but it is used in the context of Genesis 2 as the antithesis to 

"good." Good knowledge as opposed to bad knowledge. Ask anyone what the opposite of good is, and 

you will get "bad" as an answer, before you get "evil." 

Evil might have a better ring to it, but the Hebrew and Greek (LXX) words used indicate that it has "bad" 

as a meaning before "evil." (See BAGD, BDB, Strong's, Vine's etc) 

The word "bad" is also used in the Living Bible, The Holy Bible in the Language of Today by William F. 

Beck, Tanakh-The New Jewish Publication Society, The New American Bible, Good News Bible, and 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/email.htm (1 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:02:05 AM]


Byington's Bible in Living English. 

SS777: Judges 14:3 is a passage where Samson spots a lovely Philistine woman and says to 

his parents enthusiastically Her get for me(NWT). ... 

The Bible is filled with beautiful literature, even atheists can admire its poise and 

gracefulness. The Psalms overflow with the exhortations to worship the Lord in the beauty 

of holiness. It seems the NWT has taken the beauty out of the Bible, and even the word itself. 

Reply: If you want beauty, then read the Revised English Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible, if you want 

word study, then choose the NWT. 

"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the Bible who are trying to appreciate 

to learn *the Hebrew or Greek* languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 

'gloss' translation, especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the 

NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG, DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, Bible 

Translations 

and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie [emphasis his] 

"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages. we suggest either a 

very literal version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version 

[Kingdom {Interlinear Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, 

Duthie 

For instance, in Judges 14:3, most Bibles will remove the references to "eyes." The Hebrew Interlinear 

(Jay P. Green) reads, "for she is pleasing in my eyes." 

But what do most Bibles say? 

"for she pleaseth me well" ASV, KJV 

"pleases me very much" LITV 

"she is the one that suits me" Smith & Goodspeed 

"she looks good to me" NASB 

If you are fortunate to have the NASB Study Bible, it gives the literal rendering in the margin...and it 

reads exactly like it is in the NWT, and THAT is the value of having the NWT. 

Question: The Bible says that Jesus forgave people their sins and everyone knows that only 

God Himself can forgive sins. 

Reply: It was the hateful Jews who said that only God can forgive sins (Mark 2:7), but the Bible clearly 

show that Jesus got his power from God (Luke 5:17; John 10:32). What did Jesus say? "All authority 

hath been GIVEN unto me in heaven and on earth." Matt 28:18 

God does not need to be GIVEN anything. Jesus' disciples were also given power to forgive sins (John 

22:22, 23). Does this mean they are God also? 

Question: How are people baptised. I was told they were baptised in the name of the father, 

son, and watchtower organization. 

Reply: The last baptism I was at specifically had a sermon on what it meant to be baptized in the name 

of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and before baptism, this is made clear to the baptismal candidates. 

Baptismal candidates are given instruction as to what it means to be baptized "the name of the Father and 

of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and this is re-iterated by the Watchtower April 1, 2002, pp. 11, 12. 

Though it is common to use the language of "God's Spirit-directed organization." 

Is this a stretch? As far the spirit goes, there is nothing here that Trinitarians haven't said before. Most 

people feel their Church organization is Spirit-directed, and this is borne out in the Bible: Scofield, "the 



Church, which is Christ's body, formed 

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; 

John 14:26,Matt. 18:20. Harper Bible Commentary, "The Spirit is the Church. 

What of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: "It is said, 'In the church, God has set apostles, prophets, teachers," 

and all the other means through which the SPIRIT works. Those who do not join themselves to the 

church are not partakers of these things. Rather, they defraud themselves of life through their perverse 

opinions and infamous behavior. For where the church is, there is the SPIRIT of God. And where the 

SPIRIT of God is, there is the church, and every kind of grace." Irenaeus (c.180, E/W), 

1.458. 

Barclay writes that there is truth in the statement that we cannot have God for our Father if we do not 

have the Church for our Mother. (see The Gospel of Mark-Daily Bible Series, p. 331) 

On an interesting note, the baptismal formula is never repeated for subsequent baptism in the Greek 

Scriptures (NT). 

From: J. Cejka+ 

I was a student of E.C. Colwell. You have misused his material. I often recall his critiques of 

the NWT's deliberate mistranslation and its violation of Colwell's rule. 

Oh, well. 

Canis meus id comedit. 

J. Cejka + 

Adjunct Faculty, University of Phoenix 

Adjunct Faculty, Bakersfield College 

Reply: Rather, it is those who have used the converse of Colwell's rule to advertize their theology, even 

so far as misquoting him, that are in error. Walter Martin misquotes Colwell, yet no one complains about 

that. Colwell's rule is obsolete as far as any practical use is concerned in determining definiteness in John 

1:1c, which is what many try to do. 

Mr. Cejka wrote: Thanks for your reply. You have not proved your case. You've still misused 

Pomp's material and methodology. And, as Momma says, just cause someone else does it, 

don't make it right. 

J. Cejka+ 

Adjunct, University of Phoenix 

Adjunct, Bakersfield College 

Reply: But sir, you have not proved your case where I have not proved my case. I simply applied 

Colwell's 

apparatus to as many versions as I could, and these are the results (see 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/colwell.htm ). 

This is called verifiable FACT. You may not like the outcome, but that is something YOU have to deal 

with. 

Experiments like these often produce results that make us question our own prejudices. 

From Sharon: 

IF THE STAR OR 'LIGHT' SHINES BRIGHTER AS 

> TIME GOES ON, WHEN DO YOU THINK JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES 

> CAN STOP HAVING TO TURN IN A TICKET EVERY MONTH TO 

> PROOVE THEY ARE WHO THEY ARE? IN REALITY, DO YOU 



> REALIZE, SOME WILL AT THE END OF THE MONTH MAKE A 

> QUICK PHONE CALL TO RELATIVE OR SOMEONE AND TRY TO 

> GET IN 15 MORE MINUTES TO MAKE THE QUOTA? WHOSE 

> BEHIND THIS. NO TICKET THAT WE SIGN WILL GET US INTO 

> THE NEW ORDER. 

Reply: Any slip of paper is not as important as our attitude towards serving God, and doing the work of 

an evangelizer (2 Tim 4:5). It is not about filling quotas if it is not done joyously: 

"Each one should give as much as he has decided on his own initiative, not reluctantly, or under 

compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." 1 Cor 9:7 New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) 

"Preaching the gospel gives me nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion and I should be in trouble 

if I failed to do it." 1 Cor 9:16 NJB 

Personally, counting may not be the best route for some people, but all in all, it is harmless. Is is 

scripturally required? No. 

But you have to remember that all denominations keep records of some sort, and I think JW's do a better 

job at this than most. For instance, because I was baptized a Catholic, I am still considered Catholic by 

the church and they will not remove me from membership in that organization. I just finished talking to a 

Methodist minister who quit due to the practices of fudging the membership count in order to 

embellish/swell their member-rolls. JW's aren't that dishonest, but the way we count our members....is if 

you keep a monthly service record. You see how one complements the other. While the Methodists will 

count anyone who steps inside a church a member, JW's only count those who are active. 

Thanx for writing 


IN JOHN 3:15-16 VS 15 TRANSLATES THE BELIEVING TO BELEIVING, BUT IN VS. 16 

THE SAME WORD IS TRANSLATED TO "EXCERISING FAITH" PLEASE EXPLAIN 

THIS. 

Reply: The NWT was making a distinction between PISTEUWN EN in verse 15, and PISTEUWN EIS 

in verse 16. The expression in verse 16 is continual. 

IN ROMANS 5:9 THE GREEK "WE WILL BE SAVED" IS TRANSLATED TO "SHALL WE 

BE SAVED" IN VS 10 THE SAME WORD IS TRANSLATED THE SAME ON BOTH SIDE. 

PLEASE EXPLAIN. 

Reply: The translators were probably making a distinction between SWQHSOMEQA DI in verse 9 ("we 

shall be saved" CB Williams NT) and SWGHSOMEQA EN in ver 10 ("we shall finally be saved" CB 

Williams NT) as Williams NT has. 

1 JOHN 3:24 WHY WAS THE "WE ARE KNOWING" CHANGED TO "GAIN THE 

KNOWLEDGE". 

Reply: Vine's dictionary gives as the primary definition of GINWSKW as "to be taking in knowledge, to 

come to know." The NWT translators felt the above was the best option as the Greek word is in the first 

person present. 

LUKE 17:19 THE FAITH OF YOU HAS SAVED YOU, CHANGED TO "HAS MADE YOU 

WELL. PLEASE EXPLAIN 

Reply: This is actually the common rendering of the text (see NASB, NKJV etc). 

This falls within the semantic range (see Louw&Nida 23.136) and we have to remember that it is not 

always the best idea to translate word for word, as we must find the best way to express it so that people 



can properly understand the meaning behind it. 

IN JOHN 14:10 WHY IS THE WORD"IN" (EV) TRANSLATED TO "IN UNION" IN 

ENGLISH? 

Reply: They felt that "in union with" best describes what is trying to be said. The Revised English Bible 

and CB Williams New Testament does this also at John 14:10. 

"Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and that the Father is in union with me? I am not 

saying these things of my own authority, but the Father who always remains in union with me is doing 

these things himself." Williams NT 

See also Romans 6:23; 8:1; 8:2; 12:5 and many others in the Good News Bible. 

stop>>Here 

are some verses with my translations and understanding that support the 

Trinity 1Cor. 12:4-6, 2Cor. 13:14, 2Th. 2:13. 

Sir, simply mentioning the three together does not have them share a substance, essence or ousia, or in 

any way imply an equality shared in one body. 

Did you notice that all your scriptures actually apply the word GOD to only one of them. When the three 

are together, only one is actually God, and that excludes the Son and the Spirit. Interesting. These 

Scriptures actually work against you. 

There are a lot more Scriptures that mention God, Jesus and the angels together. 

From a King James Only Person: 

Carmine: Wescott and Hort were luceferian heretics. Just an article I recently read below. 

If your bible is the closest one to their ideas, then it would be obvious why the JW have 

confused and messed up prophecy and why they are NOT allowed to talk to any christians 

who try to talk sense into them. I pray for your souls... No wonder there is so much 

heretical teachings from the Watchtower... 

Reply: Hello Carmine 

Jehovah's Witnesses actually came by our teachings by using the King James Version. We still print and 

distribute the KJV. 

Thank you for writing. 

BFM was looking for an NWT online, and I offered to help him get one. Here is his reply: 

Dear Friend, that was very nice of you to offer a free copy, but I already 

have one. Thanks, Bob from Michigan, Conservative Presbyterian Minister. 

Please do not PROSELYTIZE me and I will not attack your beliefs. 

I wish you well, B. 

Where did that come from? Not a very Christian way of handling things, is it? 

From a woman desperately trying to get me to see that the trinity is true: 

Hector, read this thoroughly... Chapter 4 Don't dismiss it...read it, please. 

The interesting thing is, the linked page did not mention a Trinity once, as it was done by Oneness 

Pentectostals who reject the Trinity, but believe that Jesus is God (the Father also). This is 

Sabellianism/Modalism.This view is rejected by everyone, but it is of more than passing interest that they 



use EXACTLY THE SAME SCRIPTURES to prove their doctrine that the Trinitarians do. 

The woman, upon being asked, did not even know what a Oneness Pentecostal was. 

A Reader Regarding Jesus as Michael: 

In Hebrews 1; 5 it reads For example; to which one of the angels did he ever say: "you are 

my son;I today,I have become your Father". Objection 1) the word ( one ) is not in many 

translations only on the NWT. Objection 2) the words ( did I ever say) is a question that is 

being answered at the sametime. It is in the negative as in( no I did not ). 

Reply: My versions seem to be split as whether "angels" should be rendered in the plural or the singular. 

Consider: 

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time" KJV, Barclay 

"For to what angel did God ever say" Williams NT, Montgomery, Smith&Goodspeed 

"to any of the messengers" Ferrar Fenton 

"an angel" New English Bible, Simple English Bible 

As for 2) 

An Archangel is no mere angel. 

Jesus has always been set apart from one of the angels. For instance, the angels are called "sons of God" 

(Gen 6; Job 38:7), but yet, Jesus is called the: 

"only Son" RSV 

"only-begotten Son" KJV, NWT and 

"one and only Son" NIV at John 3:16 

The same, yet different/unique. For more click here. 

BP: Hi, 

I am hoping that you can explain something for me from 'Reasoning from the Scriptures'. 

On page 202 under the sub-heading 'How old is the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses' the 

book states "According to the Bible, the witnesses of Jehovah reaches back to faithful Abel." 

Abel was clearly killed by Cain. There is no mention in the Bible that Abel had any progeny 

and it would be incorrect to suggest he has. How can the line of Witnesses reach back 

directly to Abel? 

Thanks in anticipation. BP. 

Reply: Thank you for writing. The book was not implying a blood-line. The name "Abel" here is 

qualified by the term "faithful." 

Hebrews 11 verses 3 to 9 connects " a great cloud of witnesses" (Heb 13:1) by FAITH, and one of these 

witnesses was Abel (see verse 4). 

Hence, this makes him one of Jehovah's Witnesses. 

"You are my witnesses, says Jehovah, and My servant whom I have chosen; that you may know and 

believe me, and understand that I am He. Before me there was no god formed, nor shall any be after me." 

Isaiah 43:10 Jay P Green's Interlinear Old Testament 

AMoore: 

You are hereby given notice that I will block any and all emails from you. Be forewarned 

Hector.....if you attempt to contact me any other way, I will immediately contact the web site 

of the WTBTS, provide your email address and web site with a brief, but detailed synopsis of 

your demeanor, attitude and general conduct in reference to our discussions. I will let your 

leadership deal with you in their own "special" way. 



Reply: All humor aside, if you don't want me to answer your queries people, then the solution is a simple 

one..."Don't write to me asking questions!" 

Alan could not answer the problem of the partitive genetive of the firstborn as it relates to Christ's 

creation in Colossians 1:15 (for more on this click here and here). This is of course devastating for 

trinitarians and indefensible. 

His only retort was to quote old Watchtowers (see below) and attack the scholarship of the NWT (though 

I do not use these in my responses). 

These arguments, along with the theology of nominal churches simply do not hold up to biblical or 

logical scrutiny, and people end having their belief system threatened by the pure logic of the Bible and 

history, which in turn, upsets them, resulting in ad hominems. 

Fear God, not the truth. 

As sent to me by one writer hoping to put a bad light on the WTS: 

*** w65 3/1 151 Basis for Reliance on Prophecy *** 

"The best method of proof is to put a prophecy to the test of time and circumstances. The 

Bible invites such a test. "The Watchtower is not the instrument of an man or any set of men, 

nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in the 

Watchtower [Note: Emphasis added] 

Reply: The only problem with this, is that the sentence highlighted is not actually in the article. This 

smacks of desperation. I too often find that people who just want to quote old Watchtowers against me 

(even fabricated ones as above), do so because they cannot quote scripture. Too sad. 

In about 1895 a document was fabricated to incite hatred against the Jews. This document eventually fell 

into the hands of one Adolf Hitler, and the rest, as they say, is history. Since I tend to get alot of email 

from so-called "Christians," I have been finding a disturbing trend lately. Old Watchtower (and other 

WTS publications) quotations are floating around wherein the words quoted simply do not exist. These 

of course, are written in a way to make Jehovah's Witnesses look bad. It is sad, and ultimately 

frightening, that people are resorting to these kinds of tactics. 

I always ask these people for a hard-copy, to date, I have never received one. I usually get the same 

answers, "I lost mine," or, most often, "I got it from a web-site, but I lost the URL." 

Warning! Any document posted on a web-site AGAINST JW's that makes Witnesses look real bad, has 

an extremely high probability of being fabricated. People, this is not "Christian," this is evil. 

Matt Paulsen (CARM) asks: How can a Christadelphian (the translator of the Diaglott) 

have a Trinitarian bias at Hebrew 1:6 when he is an Arian? 

Reply: I guess for the same reason Wilson (the translator of the Diaglott) did so at 2 Thess 1:12, Titus 

2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. I guess "Trinitarian bias" is not the best phrase to use (and I have since amended it 

somewhat) , but we adopt traditional renderings based on previous translations by trinitarians. 

MattP: Have you thought that the Greek grammar allows for that rendering? 

Reply: Greek grammar does allow for the word "Worship", but in the sense that it is used in the 

following: 




MattP: How many years of Koine Greek do you have to be able to determine Tritarian bias? 

Reply: How many years of Koine Greek do you have to have to NOT mention this to your 



followers at http://www.carm.org/jw/heb1_6.htm ? 

How many years of Koine Greek do you have to have to NOT mention that even the ASV mentions at 

Matt. 2:2, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to man (see chap. Matt. 18:26) or 

to God (see chap. Matt. 4:10)'" ? 

How many years of Koine Greek do you have to have to NOT mention that many other Bibles are doing 

the same thing in this regard as the NWT? 

Nvs: As quoted by Charles Russell, "Beware of 'organization.' It is wholly unnecessary." 

Reply: And if this is what Russell said, then I disagree. (Though I am sure he was concerned about the 

negative side of organization that brought about the horrors of the dark ages, ...as indicated by the word 

organization being set aside by quotation marks). I am not a follower of Russell, or any human. The 

Bible clearly teaches an organizational structure. The 1st century Church was actually a very judicious 

and authoritative organizational structure, as the following from Smith's Bible Dictionary will show you: 

"Excommunication, as exercised by the Christian Church, is not merely founded on the natural right, 

possessed by all societies, nor merely on the example of the Jewish Church and nation. It was instituted 

by our Lord (Matt. xviii. 15, 18), amd it was practised and commanded by St. Paul (1 Tim. i. 20; 1 Cor. 

v. 11; Tit. iii.10). In the Epistles, we find St. Paul frequently claiming the right to exercise discipline over 

his converts (comp. 2 Cor. i. 23, xiii.10). 

...The Nature of Excommunication is made more evident by the acts of St. Paul than by any investigation 

of Jewish practice or of the etymology of words. We thus find, 

(1) that it is a spiritual penalty, involving no temporal punishment, except accidentally; 

(2) that it consists in seperation from the communion of the Church; 

(3) that its object is the good of the sufferer ( 1 Cor. v.5), and the protection of the sound members of the 

Church ( 2 Tim. iii. 17); 

(4) that its subjects are those who are guilty of heresy (1 Tim. i. 20), or gross immorality (1 Cor. v. 1); 

(5) that it is inflicted by the authority of the Church at large (Matt. xviii. 18), wielded by the 

highest ecclesiastical officer (1 Corinthians 5:3; Titus 3:10) 

(6) that this officer's sentence is promulgated by the congregation to which the offender belongs, (1 

Corinthians 5:4) in defence to his superior judgment and command, (2 Corinthians 2:9) and in spite of 

any opposition on the part of a minority, (2 Corinthians 2:6) 

(7) that the exclusion may be of indefinite duration, or for a period; 

(8) that its duration may be abridged at the discretion and by the indulgence of the person who has 

imposed the penalty, (2 Corinthians 2:8) 

(9) that penitence is the condition on which restoration to communion is granted, (2 Corinthians 

2:8) 

(10) that the sentence is to be publicly reversed as it was publicly promulgated. (2 Corinthians 2:10) " 

The result is, that you "faith alone" people are so fractured it is funny. I work with people like you. They 

recieve the Spirit at church on Sunday, but they also dabble in the occult and promiscuity, both which are 

clearly condemned in the Bible. There is no move on their part to clean up their act, as no one is allowed 

to tell them they are doing anything wrong. That is not Christianity, but Permissive Theology that has 

resulted by denying the Church any authority. 

For more click here. 

Aaron: You said, "The quote: "It [excommunication] was instituted by our Lord (Matt. xviii. 

15, 18), " is in error. " 

Reply: That quote wasn't by me, but by Smith's Bible Dictionary. 



But I checked the footnote in my Nelson Study Bible/NKJV, and it says, "If the erring one will not 

respond, that person is to be disciplined by being cut of from the fellowship." 

It appears Smith's was right after all. 

A message to me from someone trying to put forth that JW's have claimed to be prophets (hence the 

reason he simply posts quotes where we seem to say such), so they must then be false prophets: 

"The Nations shall know…", 1971: 

There is an authentic prophetic class of Christians among us. Jehovah has raised up a 

genuine "prophet" within our generation. Regardless of how Christendom views or regards 

this group of anointed witnesses of Jehovah, the time must come, and that shortly, when 

those making up Christendom will know that really a "prophet" of Jehovah was among 

them." 

Reply: Often when the WTS uses the word "prophet" concerning themselves, you will notice that the 

word is surrounded by quotation marks, indicating not a seer, but a prophet in a quasi-sense. It is just like 

the Billy Graham is called a prophet (see amazon.com's "A Prophet With Honor : The Billy Graham 

Story" by William Martin) 

and another Church leader, Klemp (see amazon.com's "Autobiography of a Modern 

Prophet" 

by Harold Klemp). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language uses 

the word *prophet* also as "A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional 

powers of expression" and "The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause." This is 

how the word prophet is used of these men in a quasi-sense, just like JW's use it. 


I have to disagree with your chart on Colwelland Bible Versions. Colwell 

would never have promoted a New Testament that uses the Divine Name. 

Reply: The use of the Divine Name was not part of Colwell's criteria. He chose the Centenary New 

Testament as one of his picks, and yet it had the Divine Name. 

Dby: 

I have a question that maybe you can answer for me. When Jesus Christ was teaching his 

followers how to pray, why did he not use the name Jehovah in "The Model Prayer"? In 

Matt.6:19(The Living Bible)he says,"Our Father in heaven,we honor your holy name". 

If it is SO IMPORTANT that we use the name Jehovah in our worship, then why didn't Jesus 

Christ our Lord specifically use the the name Jehovah when instructing his disciples how to 

pray to God The Almighty??? 

Reply: Who says he didn't? I mean, let's face it, when is this prayer ever repeated in the New Testament. 

It simply teaches us what things to pray for, but it was never repeated in exactly the same way. My 

MacArthur Study links the Model Prayer to Malachi 1:11 which says in the American Standard Version: 

" For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the 

Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name 

shall be great among the Gentiles, saith Jehovah of hosts." 

I think his disciples caught the tie-in. 

Dby: 



I personally feel more comfortable addressing God as "Heavenly Father" when praying. I 

feel this way because I want to have a "parent to child" kind of close relationship with God. 

Reply: But what is more important? How you FEEL, or what the Bible says? 

Father is quite an interchangeable title. Consider John 8. The Jews said Abraham was 

their Father (v. 39), then they said God is their Father (v. 41) and then Jesus says their Father is Satan 

(v.44). 

Personally, and Biblically, I could never dishonor my Father by NOT using His name. 

"A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if then I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I 

am a master, where is my fear? saith Jehovah of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye 

say, Wherein have we despised the name?" Malachi 1:6 ASV 

From Hrh: 

Just a few questions. First,why are there 2 greek translation books? [I am assuming he is 

talking about the Kingdom Interlinear] The 1969 and the 1985 version,and why are they 

different?why are words added in brackets when there are greek words that could have been 

used?Why have some footnotes have been removed or changed from 1969 to 1985?Why is it 

not a word for word translation ? [ like it says in front of both books] 

Reply: I own many interlinears in Greek made by different Bible societies and people. You will find 

that none of them agree together 100% (even the ones made by the same people in multiple editions...like 

Jay P. Green's Greek Interlinear). We all grow in understanding. Case in point: You will also find that the 

older New World Translations differ slightly from the newer ones. But you will also find that this is the 

case with the NIV, NRSV, NASB, NAB, the Jerusalem Bible, TEV etc. It is common, and does not 

indicate a devious agenda. The intent of both the KIT and NWT is to be "as literal as possible." 

Hrh: Also the title of your web-site ,DEFENDING THE NWT, Friend, the TRUTH does not 

need defending . 

Reply: "Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is 

in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" 1 Peter 3:15 RSV 

"My child, how happy I will be if you turn out to be wise! Then I will be able to answer my critics." Prov 

27:11 NLT 

RonA wrote: 

Why does the WTS put sich a rigid standard of dress code for men? I mean EVERYONE at a 

Kingdom hall gathering wears a suit,shirt and tie.Does Jehovah 

only accept people who wear business suits and are clean shaven? When did all this 

conformity start? 

Reply: I dress the same way at the Hall as I would for someone's wedding or funeral...*I dress to respect 

the person I am attending for.* Certainly, Jehovah affords more respect than mere humans. When I dress 

up for meetings, I am showing that I am taking God seriously. There used to be an expression in this 

country: "Sunday-go-to-meetin clothes." But now I see people going to churches dressed like they would 

for anything else. To me it says that worship is not much 

more important to them than anything else. 

From Email: The New World Translation used to have the word "worship" at Hebrews 1:6, 

but in later editions, it changed it to "obeisance." I can show you if you don't believe me. 

What do you think of that? 

Reply: I know that it was changed. We are not alone in this. The Jerusalem Bible had "worship" at 



Hebrews 1:6, but the New Jerusalem Bible changed it to "homage." No one is going to call these 

translators biased against the Trinity. So why the change? 50 years ago, the word *worship* does not 

have the same connotations as it does today. For instance, the bible could speak of Daniel and King 

David as being worshipped: 




All Bible versions make a distinction with this word, as it is lexically possible to do so (see Matt 18:26). 

According to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence 

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 

18:26)...to the Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to 

demons(Rev 9:20)...to idols(Acts 7:43)." 

AOC writes: The NWT (New World Translation) translates EGW EIMI as I AM each time, 

except at John 8:58. How do you explain that? 

Reply: Is this really exceptional? Let us look at the use of EGW EIMI in context: 

Version John 8:12 John 8:18 John 8:24 John 8:28 John 8:58 John 9:9 

NWT I am I am I am [he] I am [he] I have been I am [he] 

AT I am I am I am I am I existed I am 

New Living Trans I am I am I am I am [he] I existed I am 

Williams I am N/A I am I am I existed I am 

Beck I am N/A I'm I am I was I'm 

Lamsa I am N/A I am I am he I was I am he 

Simple English I am I am I am I am I was alive I'm 

Moffatt I am N/A I am I am I have existed I am 

NASB Reference 

I am 

Edition 1960-73 

I am I am He I am He 

I am... 

ftn: I have been 

I am 

Five Gospels I am N/A I am I am I existed It's me 

Living Bible I am I am I am I am I was in existence I am 

Kleist&Lilly NT I am I am I am he I am he I am here and I was I am 

20th Century NT I am N/A I am I am I was I am he 

21st Century NT I am I am I am I am came into being I am 

As you can see, the NWT is not alone in this way, and the reason for this can be explained better by 

going to egweimi.htm. If we simply look up the words in Strong's, we get "I" for ego [1473], and "I 

exist...am, have been." Notice too that the chart points to John 9:9 where a blind beggar says the same 

words, egw eimi, as Jesus did in John 8:58. Does this also make him YHWH? 

AOC on John 14:28: [He is] Greater in terms of position only...Is the president greater then 

I am? Yes, but only in position (such as his rank), but on a substance and essence level, he is 



not. We are equal, in terms of form, and substance, and essence, just as Christ and God are. 

Reply: Think about the Creed: 

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, 

the only Son of God, 

eternally begotten of the Father, 

God from God, light from light, 

true God from true God, 

begotten, not made, 

of one Being with the Father" 

Are you ONE BEING with the president? Are you president from president? Are you son of the 

president? 

You do not share a substance/essence with the president according to Trinitarian theology. You are not 

homoousian with him, and therefore you are comparing apples to oranges. 

The president is greater than you because you are TWO different people, seperate and subordinate. 

TWO, not ONE in TWO. 

Conversation taken from Darkness to Light's Email page: 

> I seek this information because I have family and friends who disagree on what JW's believe regarding 

Bible translations. Some say that JW's have no problems with the NIV or other modern versions but reject 

the King James version. Others say that JW's prefer the King James over the other modern versions. Please 

help me dispel rumors. Could you also tell me where I might find more information on which translations 

JW's prefer. 

This information is very important to me. Thank-you 

Sincerely 

Damien 

9/29/1999< 

DTL's answer: JWs would definitely have "problems" with almost any version other than their own, if only 

for 

the translation of John 1:1. That said, the NIV might appeal to them since it is based on the CT, 

but since it is not a literal version they probably wouldn't agree with it. The KJV they definitely 

reject, since as I said, it is based on the TR and includes 1John 5:7. 

Reply: This is incredible. Folks, don't believe the lies and misinformation that you read on these anti-JW 

sites. Why is this a lie? Because the Watchtower Society also PRINTS the King James Version. I know, I 

received one from them 2 months ago. They also print the American Standard Version, The Bible in 

Living English (and check out their KJV-based translation of John 1:1), and in the past they have 

distributed Bibles such as the Good News Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Rotherham Bible, New American 

Bible, New English Bible etc. I have a Ukrainian brother that goes to my meetings and all he uses is a 

Bible made from the TR/Byzantine tradtion. I use an NKJV at my meetings (it has a Vine's Dictionary 

attached to it). and I usually always have a small RSV in my shirt pocket. DTL has their own version of 

the Bible (Analytical Literal Version), which uses not the TR, but mainly the Majority Text of a later 

tradition (it also does not contain the spurious words at 1John 5:7). By utilizing the later tradition of the 

Byzantine text, "Darkness to Light" has gone from *light* right back to the *dark ages.* 

Inquiry One: Is Jesus God in the flesh? 

Jeremiah 23:5-6 

"Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD (Yahweh), "That I will raise to David a 

Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and 



righteousness in the earth. 6 In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; 

Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD (Yahweh) OUR 

RIGHTEOUSNESS. Here, YHWH is prophecizing the coming of Jesus, who he also refers to 

as YHWH. I consider this a strong point towards the fact that this is a prophecy of God 

coming as Jesus in the flesh. What do you think? 

Reply: His becoming entitled to that name does not mean that Jesus is Jehovah God himself. The 

Israelite called Jehozadak, whose name means "Jehovah Declared Righteous" or "Jehovah Is Righteous," 

was not Jehovah himself. (1 Chron. 6:14, 15) Jeremiah 33:16 tells us that even Jerusalem was to be 

called "Jehovah Is Our Righteousness," but does that mean that Jerusalem was Jehovah himself? No! The 

name of the last reigning king of Jerusalem was Zedekiah, and that name means "The Righteousness of 

Jah." The king who was to be called "Jehovah Is Our Righteousness," namely, Jesus Christ, contrasts 

sharply with King Zedekiah. 

Same writer, Question 2 

Matthew 4:4,6,7,10 

When Satan tempted Jesus, He answered not just as a man but as God rebuking Satan. 

(Specifically 4:6-7, Satan said to Jesus "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down.". 

Jesus answered "You shall not tempt the LORD your God". Here, Jesus is responding to 

Satan, stating that you shall not tempt God. Here, it shows that Jesus refers to himself as 

God. 

Reply: No, Satan said he was the Son of God. The correct wording here should be "You shall not put the 

Lord you God to the TEST" New American Standard Bible. 

This is common to say, especialy if you consider Exodus 17:2 where Moses says, "Why do you quarrel 

with me" Why do you TEST the LORD." NASB 

Where in the past God spoke thru prophets, he now speaks thru his Son. (Hebrews 1:1-3) It does not 

make them the same or equal. 

AOC: Now let me ask you something. Why is it that in the JW assemblies, one does not need 

to go to an accredited school (like a bible college, and get a bachelors, and learn 

extensively Hebrew and Greek), in order to become a preacher? I think the cult is smart, in 

keeping it's leaders education to a minimum. 

Reply: And yet, your own scholars cannot seem to agree on anything with all those degrees. But we JW's 

have the same credentials as those in the Bible: 

Acts 4:13, Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were 

unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with 

Jesus. 

Matt 11:25, At that season Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, 

that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes: 

1Cor 1:27, "But God has chosen what the world calls foolish to shame wise. He has chosen what the 

world calls weak to shame what is strong." 1Cor 1:27 New Life NT 

Is 29:14, therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous 

work and a wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their 

prudent men shall be hid. 

Lu 10:21, In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of 

heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and did reveal them 

unto babes: yea, Father; for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight. 



From GS, after viewing information like the one I have at wilson.htm where the Reformers admit that 

Jesus is Michael: 

"Your quotes are misquotes because nowhere does Calvin even hint that Jesus Christ was 

Michael the angel, and neither does Wesley. More importantly the Holy Scriptures are 

absolutely clear in honoring Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God, and nowhere can 

you quote a single verse in the Bible that shows Michael and Jesus Christ are the same. I 

have rebuked you in the Name of Jesus Christ before, but you continue in your satanic 

teachings. May the Lord Jesus Christ deal with you accordingly and destroy your work of 

deceit and obstinate pride. I command you, Satan, in the Name of Jesus Christ to stop trying 

to deceive us any further and remove yourself from our company. Amen. In Christ Jesus, 

G-n 

PS. For everybody else reading this e-mail I can assure you that there is no teaching from 

any Christian that teaches Jesus Christ was Michael. Such an idea is stupid, false, deceitful, 

and contrary to any and every teaching of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God and Jesus 

Christ created all the angels and everything else that was made. It is foolish and evil to 

suggest otherwise. Such people that continue teaching that Jesus Christ is Michael will 

soon spend eternity in HELL wishing they had never been born......... 

Reply: Read what made G-n so upset by clicking here! 

Cs: Micah 5:2 says that Jesus always existed. 

Reply: The New Jerusalem Bible has "whose origins are back to the distant past, to the days of old." My 

Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon says it of OLAM (5769) "long duration, 

antiquity" It is even used of the forefathers (Joshua 24:2) and the prophets (Jer 28:8). 

Cs: Taken together (qedem AND yown owlam) these communicate, as Jamieson, Fausset 

and Brown say, "the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language 

is capable" Renowned Old Testament scholar Merrill F. Unger, commenting on Micah 5:2 

in Unger's Bible Handbook says, "He [Jesus] is the Bethlehem-born pre-existent, eternal 

One" 

Reply: Obviously, many other Bible versions do not agree with this. The fact that the Bible says he is the 

first being created would obviously indicate that he is older than anything else, thus necessitating the 

stress at Mic 5:2. In Prov 8:23, the 2 words are used again of Jesus/Wisdom, right after the scripture says 

he was created. The same words used in Micah 5:2 are used for others who are not God. The psalmist 

could remember qedem AND olam (ps 77:5). 

To Jehovah, OLAM and QEDEM are consistent with the time of Rahab and Creation, "Awake, awake, 

put on strength, O arm of Jehovah; awake, as in the days of old, the generations of ancient times. Is it not 

thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces, that didst pierce the monster? Is it not thou that driedst up the sea, the 

waters of the great deep; that madest the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over? Is 51:9, 

10 ASV 


MTP writes: It seems to me that you twist the words in some of the quotes that you use in 

your website. You are correct in saying that the word Trinity does not appear anywhere in 

the Bible. However, neither does the word Bible and, yet, no one ever seems to attack its 

name. 

Reply: Actually, that's not true. The equivalent word "scriptures" is in the Bible, and has been translated 



as *Bible* by various translators such as Beck (Matt 21:42) and the Living Bible (2Tim 3:16). We have 

no equivalent for the word or concept of the Trinity. It is simply not in the bible, period. 

RobertN: Hi again, 

Thank you for another opportunity to ask the question and taking the time to answer it. 

Enclosed is email address. This is also an opportunity for you to give us your feedback 

publicly, so others can read. Thanks again, (re:Using Fortman's quote) 

Reply: This issue has already been dealt with on my site, but I will humor you anyways. 

If I remember correctly, your question was concerning the use of Fortman's quote.Did you know that the 

verse in question is quoted also by G.A.T. Robinson "There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the 

New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine 

persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and 

triadic formulas are there... The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or 

formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine 

persons." (Jesuit Scholar Edmund J. Fortman, "Triune God", pp. 32,35) (Fortman, pp. 22-23, as cited by 

Robinson, p. 74) The book, The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit-The Triadic Phrase in Matthew 

28:19 from Jane Schaberg, SBL Dissertation Series 61 as borrowed from Southeastern Baptist 

Theological Library also quotes from Fortman, "Fortman also remarks, however, that nowhere in the 

N.T. do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same 

Godhead." p.16 Are the above quoting Fortman out of context, even though they are Trinitarians? No, 

they are stating a fact that Fortman, while believing in the Trinity, and stating traces might be evident in 

the NT, he was wise and honest enough to admit the obvious. Fortman himself directs us to this in the 

index in the back of his book he points to the pages where the Trinity is not supportable in the OT etc. 

(Author Anthony Buzzard also quotes Fortman the same way). 

What else does Fortman admit to? 


writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a 

divine force or power." —The Triune God, Edward J. Fortman, pp. 6, 15. 

"These passages give no doctrine of the Trinity... Paul has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut 

realization of a Trinitarian problem......there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts... nowhere 

do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same 

Godhead" (Fortman, "Triune God", pp. 22-23) 

"The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who 

is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected 

the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead.... Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions 

or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the Trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and 

intent of the sacred writers" (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God, Baker Book House, 1972, pp. 

xv, 8, 9). 

"For Thomas [Aquinas] natural reason can neither demonstrate nor know the Trinity: 'that God is triune 

is uniquely and object of belief, and one cannot prove it in any demonstrative way." p.204 

Fortman's conclusion: "The basic trinitarian dogmas are still substantially in procession today, and 

always will be. But some Catholic theologians feel they are in need of reappraisal. They see problems 

everywhere: **a tension between the outlook of the Biblical writer and that of the Trinitarian 

theologian;** a tension between the rigid Hellenic though and patterns of trinitarian theology...." p.316 

We must remember that Catholics do not rely heavily on the Bible for a complete definition of the 

Trinity. That is why most of Fortman's "The Triune God" deals with how the Trinity was viewed and 



explained by various philosophers/theologians over different periods of time. You will find very few 

scriptures actually used in the book. When Fortman says that is an elemental trinity in the scripture, his 

view is not expanded upon nor does he quote scripture to back this statement. However, the word 

"Mystery" is used quite liberally throughout the book. 

You see, Fortman, like all Catholics, know that the Trinity is not in the Bible, and is only revealed 

through papal revelation, "My belief in the Trinity is based on the authority of the Church: no other 

authority is sufficient...I have now proved the Trinity opposed to human reason." Catholic Priest James 

Hughes, Bible Christian for January, 1839 

By the way, I actually read Fortman's book. Did you? 

GCM (on his objection to my article on "Only-Begotten or Unique and Monogenes Theos): 

This gets very confusing to me when we are told that "begetting" someone denotes a 

physical act. This makes it sound as if God came around a got a young teenaged girl 

pregnant. Certainly, this would be a corrupt interpretation of the scripture. 

Reply: Biblically, begetting does not denote a physical act, and I don't know anyone besides you who 

thinks that. 

Matt 1:2: "Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; and 

Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram etc etc etc" ASV 

Begetting denotes a filial relationship, like the one between Father and Son. 

GCM: I appreciate your response. Using this reference in your reply, a man cannot beget a 

child without the agency of a woman. Yes, Abraham did beget Isaac. He needed Sarah to do 

that. Your response substaniate the fact that begetting is physical. These were physical 

people, made by sperm and ovum. My purpose was to only point out why I thought the word 

Unique is a better translation. The superimposing of our beliefs, fears, and predjudices on 

the word of God is the evil that seperates. 

Reply: If we look at the parallel genealogy in Luke 3, we see 

something interesting in verse 38: 

"the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." 

Again, the Bible does not look upon "begetting" or the parallel "the son of" as having to include a 

woman, as God did not need a woman to produce his son, Adam. Adam's birth then, is also *unique.* By 

robbing the text of "begotten" in place of unique, again, removes the filial father/son relationship that is 

important to the theology of the Greek scriptures. 

JKRZ: Well I "m sure you know what has happened in New York and Washington, DC It has 

got me very convicted about what I am doing here. I want to talk to you about the trinity, 

yet at the same time I feel as though I should be telling you that you are a lost soul. You are 

trusting in yourself your so-called intellect and what ever else you think will get you saved, 

STOP THAT. You are playing with fire (hell fire). Jesus came to this earth to save us from 

our sins and the payment there of. 

The watchtower is like those men that hijacked the plains and crashed them into the 

buildings. those men didn't just want to die but they wanted to take as many people with 

them as they could. The watchtower is no different. 

Reply: What an evil and outrageous statement. Mr. JKRZ has had a hard time convincing me of his 

beliefs, as many of the beliefs of nominal Christianity are simply not sustainable from the Bible. In his 

anger, instead of dealing with the issues, he compares me to this terroristic evil. The term JW Terrorism 



is actually an oxymoron. Jehovah's Witnesses do not kill people, not even in war. There are in fact, 

Protestant and Catholic terrorists in Northern Ireland (and the Christian Militia in the Middle East), but 

according to the above, it is JW's that are bad. Consider: 

"Then the Holy Inquisition was born...thousands of torn and mutilated heretics shrieking 

under the torture, and other thousands and thousands of heretics and witches 

burning at the stake, "always in the pleasant shade flung by the peaceful banner of the 

cross," as Satan remarked. 

And in the midst of these fearful spectacles, as an incidental matter, we had a 

marvelous nightshow, by the light of fitting and flying torches the butchery of Christian 

by Christian in France on Bartholomew's Day.--- Mark Twain 

On an interesting side note, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are spreading the blame around also: 

"Falwell, a Baptist minister and chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., said 

Thursday on Robertson's religious TV program ``The 700 Club'' that he blames the attacks 

on pagans, abortionists, feminists, homosexuals, the American Civil Liberties Union (news - 

web sites) and the People for the American Way." 

http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010914/us/attacks_robertson_falwell_1.html 

I demand an apology from you Mr Jkrz. If you cannot bring yourself to do that, then leave me alone. 

Your statement above is evil and malicious. 

Thus far, there has been one confirmed death of Jehovah's Witnesseses in the WTC bombing, 13 

others are still missing. (Sept, 2001) 


Email Me 

Updated July 19 2002 


What is the best New Testament? Colwell's Rule of Bible Translation. 

What is the Best New Testament: Colwell's Apparatus 

Colwell's apparatus was taken from his book, "What Is The Best New Testament" University of Chicage 

Press, 1951. 

Colwell's Rule of Bible Translations 

Versions in bold italics are those Colwell had printed, the others are added by me using the same criteria. 

Translation 

Agrees with the Critical 

Text 

Agrees with the later Textus 

Receptus 

Other 

New World Translation 64 0 0 

21st Century NT* 64 0 0 

Goodspeed* 64 0 0 

Rotherham 62 2 0 

Byington/BLE 61 3 0 

New Revised Standard 60 3 1 

20th Century NT 59 4 1 

Lattimore 59 5 0 

New American Standard 59 5 0 

Westminster 58 6 0 

American Standard Ver. 58 6 0 

Revised Version 1885 57 7 0 

Beck's An American Trans 56 8 0 

New Jerusalem Bible 56 8 0 

Revised Standard Version 56 8 0 

New American Bible 56 7 1 

Moffatt 56 7 1 

New Berkeley Version 56 7 1 

Riverside New Testament 55 9 0 

Barclay's New Testament 55 8 1 

Kleist & Lilly New Test. 55 9 0 

Wuest's Expanded Trans. 54 10 0 

New English Bible 53 9 2 

Holman Christian Standard 53 11 0 

God's Word Translation 53 11 0 

Weymouth's New Test. 53 11 0 

Williams New Testament 52 12 0 

English Standard Version 52 10 2 

Spencer 51 13 0 

New International Version 51 10 3 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/colwell.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:16 AM]


Basic English Bible 51 12 1 

New Century Version 51 12 1 

International Standard Ver 50 14 0 

Ferrar Fenton 50 14 0 

Good News Bible 50 12 2 

Jerusalem Bible 49 15 0 

Recovery NT 49 15 0 

NET Bible 49 13 2 

Jewish NT 49 13 2 

The Message 48 13 3 

Centenary Version 47 16 1 

Contemporary English Ver 46 15 3 

JB Phillips 45 17 2 

Living Bible 42 15 7 

New Living Translation 41 19 4 

Amplified Bible 37 27 0 

Confraternity Version 35 27 2 

Concordant Literal NT 25 28 1 

Knox Version 33 29 2 

Challoner 25 27 2 

Hebrew Names Version 8 55 1 

New King James Version 0 63 1 

Revised Webster 0 64 0 

King James Version 0 64 0 

*The 21st Century NT has 64 points due to its being a dual Literal/Free Translation. Where one side 

(usually the Free side) had the weaker reading, it was usually corrected by the truer reading on the 

literal side. At the same time, each side held alone would have done remarkably well, especially the 

literal side. I think it is encumbent on any Free/Dynamic Equivalent/Paraphrased Bible to include a 

literal text, if nothing else, than for ease of mind and conscience. 

*Colwell chose Goodspeed version as his top New Testament, but I disagree. While taking him at his 

word for the most part, I cannot agree when it comes to the reading at John 1:18. Colwell's true reading 

of this verse has "the only begotten God," a faithful rendering of MONOGENHS QEOS. Goodspeed 

actually has "divine Only Son," a weaker reading as it seeks to combine the reading of both the Textus 

Receptus (TR) and the Westcott and Hort (WH) text. I left it at the top out of respect for Colwell, but it 

really deserves a reading of 63, placing the New World Translation as the best stand alone version of the 

New Testament in English. 

Below are the 64 scriptures that Colwell uses to determine accuracy in a New Testament. The message 

being: 



*Is your Bible faithful to the best manuscripts available? If not, then why not? What is the 

motivation behind choosing a weaker reading?* 

Why is the TR (Textus Receptus/Received Text) weaker. According to Colwell, 


writing the history of the Greek New Testament. The King James version is undoubtably the 



Jn 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7-8)." pp. 99, 100 

The list of 64: TR = Textus Receptus; WH = Westcott and Hort Text 

1:15 TR This was he of whom I spake 

WH For it was he who said it 

1:18 TR the only begotten Son 

WH the only begotten God 

1:27 TR He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me 

WH He is to come after me 

1:28 TR Bethabara 

WH Bethany 

1:39 TR Come and see 

WH Come and you will see 

1:49 TR Nathanael answered and saith unto him 

WH Nathanael answered 

1:51 TR Hereafter ye shall see heaven 

WH you will see heaven 

3:15 TR That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal 

life 

WH That whoever believes in him may have eternal life 

3:25 TR between John's disciples and the Jews 

WH between John's disciples and a Jew 

4:15 TR come hither to draw 

WH come all this way to draw 

4:35-36 TR they are white already to harvest. And he that reapeth 

WH they are white for harvesting. The reaper is already 

4:42 TR is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world 

WH is indeed the Saviour of the world 

4:43 TR departed thence, and went into Galilee 

WH went on to Galilee 



5:2 TR Bethasda 

WH Bethzatha 

5:3 TR a great multitude 

WH a multitude 

5:3-4 TR waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a 

certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first 

after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever 

disease he had. 

WH omitted 

5:12 TR Take up thy bed, and walk? 

WH pick it up and walk? 

5:16 TR persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because 

WH persecute Jesus because 

5:30 TR of the Father which hath sent me 

WH him who hath sent me 

6:11 TR he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were 

set down 

WH he distributed to them that were set down 

6:17 TR Jesus was not come to them 

WH Jesus had not yet come to them 

6:22 TR none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were 

entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat 

WH no other boat there except one and that Jesus had not gone into the boat 

with his disciples 

6:39 TR of the Father who has sent me 

WH of him who has sent me 

6:40 TR of him who has sent me 

WH of may Father 

6:47 TR He that believeth on me hath everlasting life 

WH He that believeth hath everlasting life 

6:51 TR and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for 

the life of the world 

WH and the bread that I will give is my flesh, on behalf of the life of the 

world. 

6:58 TR not as your fathers did eat manna 

WH not as your fathers ate and died 

6:63 TR the words which I speak 



WH the words which I have spoken 

6:69 TR thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God 

WH you are the Holy One of God 

7:20 TR the crowd answered and said 

WH the crowd answered 

7:26 TR Do the rulers know truly that this is truly the Christ? 

WH Do the rulers know that this is the Christ? 

7:39 TR for not yet was the Holy Spirit 

WH for not yet was the Spirit 

7:40 TR many of the crowd 

WH some of the crowd 

7:53-8:11 TR Pericope Adulterae 

WH omits (or in appendix) 

8:59 TR and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so 

passed by. 

WH and went out of the temple 

9:4 TR it is necessary for me to work 

WH it is necessary for us to work 

9:11 TR to the pool of Siloam 

WH to Siloam 

10:4 TR whenever he puts out his own sheep 

WH whenever he puts out all his own 

10:26 TR because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you 

WH because ye are not of my sheep 

10:29 TR he who gives to me is greater than all 

WH that which he gives me is greater than all 

11:30 TR but he was in the place 

WH but he was still in the place 

11:41 TR Then they took away the stone from the place where the corpse was 

lying 

WH Then they took away the stone 

12:4 TR Judas Iscariot, Simon's son 

Judas Iscariot 

12:22 TR and again Andrew and Philip 

WH Andrew and Philip went 



12:41 TR These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory 

WH These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory 

12:47 TR my words, and believe not 

WH my words, and does not keep them 

13:18 TR the one who eats bread with me 

WH the one who eats my bread 

14:4 TR you know where I am going and you know the way 

WH you know where I am going 

14:28 TR because I said I am going 

because I am going 

16:4 TR whenever the time comes 

WH whenever their time comes 

16:16 TR and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father 

WH and ye shall see me 

16:27 TR I came out from God 

WH I came out from the Father 

17:11 TR keep those whom you gave me in your name 

WH keep them in your name which you gave me 

17:21 TR let them be one in us 

WH let them be "in us" 

18:20 TR where the Jews always meet together 

WH where all the Jews meet together 

18:40 TR and they all cried out again 

WH and they cried out again 

19:3 TR and they said 

WH and they marched up to him saying 

19:29 TR and they filled a sponge with the wine 

WH a sponge soaked with wine 

19:39 TR a mixture of myrrh and aloes 

WH a roll of myrrh and aloes 

20:16 TR she said to him Rabbouni 

WH she said to him in Hebrew Rabbouni 

20:29 TR Is it because you have seen me, Thomas, that you believe 

WH Is it because you have seen me that you believe 

21:3 TR they went out and embarked in the boat immediately 



WH they went out and embarked in the boat 

21:15 TR Simon son of Jonah 

WH Simon son of John 

Colwell's apparatus was taken from the Book, "What is the Best New Testament" by E.C. Colwell, 

University of Chicage Press. 




Is Jesus Jehovah-A Reply to John C. 

Is Jesus Jehovah? 

Unless other stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901 

In introduction, we have to remind ourselves of the immensity of God. God is bounded by neither time 

nor space. His life in times past is boundless. His lifetime in the future is 

unbounded. To this unbounded One Moses said: " Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." 

(Ps 90:2) This God lives to endless time, to keep on producing and creating beyond the present universe, 

expanding it. He is the bottomless reservoir of energy. All the things of the universe are bundles of 

particles of energy from him. Is 40:26 says, "Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these, 

that bringeth out their host by number; he calleth them all by name; by the greatness of his might, and for 

that he is strong in power, not one is lacking." 

When we think just of the energy tied up in the sun of our solar system, which is a furnace of nuclear 

explosions like the explosion of hydrogen bombs, we are utterly amazed. And then when we think of the 

unnumbered billions of stars many of which are larger than our sun, we get some idea of the outflow of 

dynamic energy from God 

"The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork." Ps 19:1 

It is a good thing for us that God is invisible to humans. He himself says, "Thou canst not see my face; 

for man shall not see me and live." Ex 33:20 No man has seen God at any time (Jn 1:18). 

King Solomon knew of his immensity, for he said, "But will God in very deed dwell on the earth? 

behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have 

builded!" 1Kings 8:27. 

God, as a bundle of dynamic energy could never be restricted by his own creation. He lives in the 

heavens, the earth he has given to men. Ps 115:16 

Even Jesus himself prayed to the God "which art in 

heaven." Mt 6:9 

But people keep insisting that the Almighty God can indeed negate all of the above. The following letter 

was sent to me to promote the "Orthodox" position that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was also God 

Almighty, something Jesus never claimed for himself. Let us proceed: 

"Is Jesus Yahweh?" John: The name Yahweh (or Jehovah) appears nearly 7,000 times in the Old 

Testament. Most English translations render the Hebrew name for God as LORD, while some (like the New 

Jerusalem Bible and Rotherham's Emphasized Bible ) use "Yahweh" and others (like the American 

Standard Version of 1901 and the New World Translation ) use "Jehovah." But, between Malachi and 

Matthew the Name suddenly disappears! There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, 

and not one of them has the Name in either Greek or Hebrew letters. The Watchtower Society claims that 

the Name was there in the original Greek N.T., but that it was later removed. They claim this with no real 

evidence, for they are unable to produce even one manuscript of the Greek New Testament with the Name! 

Besides, some of those manuscripts of the N.T. date from within one generation of the original writings. 

That leaves very little chance for the Society's theory of a conspiracy to remove the Name from the N.T. 

writings. If we accept the facts the way they are (without trying to change them to fit a preconceived theory) 

we are forced to admit the Name is not in the N.T. 

Reply: John's information starts off with a false premise and builds from there. We will see that the 

Name has been removed, and that the consequence has been the unbiblical doctrine of the Trinity. It is by 

killing off Jehovah/Yahweh that Trinitarians can deify and worship "the creature rather than the Creator." 

Rom 1:25 

John: In the New Testament we meet up with another name. The name that is emphasized in the N.T. is the 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/jcostouros.htm (1 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:02:30 AM]


name of Jesus. (This makes for an interesting comparison in the New World Translation. While the 

Watchtower Society "restores" the name Jehovah 237 times to the N.T., their Comprehensive Concordance 

lists the name Jesus over 900 times!) In the book of Acts we particularly notice the emphasis of the name of 

Jesus. If you have an exhaustive concordance look up the word "name" in the book of Acts. Over and over 

again you will see the Name the early Christian church emphasized was the name of Jesus! At Acts 3:6 

Peter healed the lame beggar in the name of Jesus Christ. In Acts 4:7,10,12,17,18 we read about the first 

disciples defending themselves before the Sanhedrin, proclaiming their use of the name of Jesus. In Chapter 

5 they are back before the Jewish high court. For whose name did they suffer? Acts 5:41 tells us: "These, 

therefore, went their way from before the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy to be 

dishonored in behalf of his name." They suffered for the name of Jesus! Space does not permit us to look at 

all the relevant verses. Take time to consider these few: Acts 8:12; 9:13-16,27,28; 15:26; 16:18; 19:17; 

21:13; 26:9. In Acts the Name that is emphasized is the name of Jesus Christ! 

Reply: It should be noted the New World Translation was neither the first nor the last Bible to restore the 

Divine Name to the New Testament, You can see a list of them here and here. It is also interesting to see 

that, when you compare Bibles, it is actually difficult to determine how many times "Jesus" was 

mentioned. Take note: 

NIV Jesus = 1226 Christ = 499 

KJV Jesus = 943 Christ = 522 

NASB Jesus = 881 Christ = 493 

NRSV Jesus = 1088 Christ = 45 

RSV Jesus = 926 Christ = 534 

Darby Bible Jesus = 904 Christ = 507 

Young's Literal Version Jesus = 932 Christ 529 

Wesley N.T. Jesus = 951 Christ = 497 

God's Word Jesus = 1504 Christ = 516 

New Living Translation Jesus = 1404 Christ = 536 

Douay Jesus = 932 Christ = 534 

ASV Jesus = 883 Christ = 501 

Bible in Basic English Jesus = 905 Christ = 496 

Good News Bible/TEV Jesus = 1543 Christ 502 

New Century Version Jesus = 1846 Christ 604 

NKJV Jesus = 941 Christ = 530 

In fact it is hard to determine even in the KJV using differing software helps. 

 

983 (in 942 vrs) QuickVerse 4.0 

973 (in 935 vrs) BibleWorks 3.5 

983 (in 942 vrs) Logos Research Systems 

Why the difference? It was common to inflate the position and deity of Christ by adding to the text, and 

this is something that happened quite early on. When researching Textual Criticism (and reading books 

like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Ehrman), it becomes clear that corruption in favor of the 

theology of the mainstream theology of the time happened almost immediately. Here are a few examples: 

John 19:40, "They took the body of Christ" to "they took the body of God" 

Luke 2:26 changed to "Christ, namely God." Old Latin ff 

Luke 9:20 "the Christ of God" changed to "Christ, God" Coptic 

Mark 3:11 "You are the Son of God" changed to "You are God, the Son of God." MS69 



Luke 7:9 "when Jesus heard this" changed to "when God heard this" 124 

Luke 8:28 "Jesus, Son of the highest God" changed to "Jesus, the highest God" 2766 

Luke 20:42 "the lord said to my lord" changed to "God said to my God" Persian Diatesseron 

2 Peter 1:2 changed to "in the knowledge of God, our Lord Jesus" P72 

Jude 5 changed to "Jesus" or "the God Christ" who saved the people from Egypt P72 

Gal 2:2 "Son of God" changed to "God the Son" MS1985 

Acts 20:28 "church of God" changed to "church of the Lord" or "church of the Lord and God" various 

1 Cor 10:5, "God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness" changed to "Christ" 

MS81 

Rom 14:10, "we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God." changed to "judgment-seat of 

Christ" 048, 0209 Byz etc 

Matt 24:36, "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, 

but the Father only." The Byx mss omit "neither the Son." Interestingly, the Codex Siniaticus originally 

had "neither the Son", but was removed by a later scribe...and then was restored by yet another scribe. 

"In the second or third centuries, there were, of course, Christians who believed in only One 

God; others, however, claimed that there were two Gods; yet others subscribed to 30, or 

365, or more. Some Christians accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as a revelation of the one 

true God, the sacred possession of all believers; others claimed that the Scriptures had been 

inspired by an evil deity. Some Christians believed that God created the world and was soon 

going to redeem it; others said that God neither had created the world nor had ever had any 

dealings with it/ Some Christians beleived that Christ was somehow both a man and God; 

others said that he was a man; but not God; others claimes that he was God, but not a 

man....the controversies that ensued impacted the surviving literature on virtually every 

level. ...The New Testament manuscripts were not produced impersonally by machines 

capable of flawless production. They were copied by hand, by living, breathing human 

beings who were deeply rooted in the conditions and controversies of their day. Did the 

scribes' polemical context influence the way they transcribed sacred Scriptures? The 

burden of the present study is that they did....." 

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by B. Ehrman, p. 3 

These changes did not stop early on: 

"When an intentional change affects the meaning of the passage, there is a demonstrable 

tendency to move the meaning in the direction of the orthodoxy of the time, not away from 

it. By 'demonstrable' I mean the even within the Byzantine tradition, the later witnesses are 

inclined to change things in favor of giving more titles to Christ, not fewer" D.A. Carson, 

The King James Version Debate, p. 62 

It must be remembered that these intentional scribal changes were made by those in the orthodox 

position, not by fringe "heretical" groups. 

John: Why the change of emphasis between the Old Testament Yahweh and the New Testament Jesus? Are 

we being introduced to some rival deity in the New Testament when we encounter so much emphasis on the 

name of Jesus? That is the way some nearly react when it is suggested that the answer lies in the fact that 

the N.T. identifies Jesus with Yahweh. Bear in mind that I am not saying Jesus is the Father! Rather, what I 

am saying is that Jesus and the Father share the same Name and are not in some sort of competition. 

Reply: The NT writers had use of the LXX (Septuagint). Did the early LXX use the divine name? 







understood anymore". (Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p.222) 

When did they remove the name? In a commentary on the manuscript P Fouad 266, 

Professor G. D. Kilpatrick, on talking about the period between 70-135 C.E. said that 3 

important changes were made in this period. The change from scroll to Codex, the 

Tetragrammaton was replaced by KYRIOS and abbreviations were introduced for divine 

names. See Etudes de Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme 1971 pp. 221,222 

That's right, the Divine Name WAS at one time in the New Testament! Here is a quote from 

the Catholic magazine "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, april-june 1997, p. 183-186. 

JHWH. The tetragrammaton in the New Testament: 

"The Tetragrammaton in the christian Scriptures according to the Babylonian Talmud. 

The first part of this Yewish work is called Shabbath (Sabbath) and it contains an immense 

code of rules that establishes what could have been done of a Sabbath. Part of it deals with if 

on the Sabbath day Biblical manuscripts could be saved from the fire, and after it reads: 

"The text declares: 'The white spaces ("gilyohnim") and the books of the Minim, can't be 

saved from the fire'. Rabbi Jose said: 'On working days one must cut out the Divine Names 

that are contained in the text, hide them and burn the rest'. Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury 

my son if I don't burn them toghether with the Divine Names that they contain if I come 

across them". From the English translation of Dr. H.Freedman. 

The word "Minim" means "sectarians" and according to Dr. Freedman it's very probable that 

in this passage it indicates the Jewish-Christians. The expression "the white spaces" 

translates the original "gilyohnim" and could have meant, using the word ironically, that the 

writings of the "Minim" where as worthy as a blank scroll, namely nothing. In some 

dictionaries this word is given as "Gospels". In harmony with this, the sentence that appears 

in the Talmud before the above mentioned passage says: "The books of the Minim are like 

white spaces (gilyohnim)." 

So in the book Who was a Jew?, of L.H.Schiffman, the above mentioned passage of the 

Talmud is translated: "We don't save the Gospels or the books of Minim from the fire. They 

are burnt where they are, together with their Tetragrammatons. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: 

"During the week one should take the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the 

rest". Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my children! If I would have them in my hands, I 

would burn them with all their Tetragrammatons'". Dr. Schiffman continues reasoning that 

here "Minim" is refered to Hebrew Christians. 

And it's very probable that here the Talmud refers to the Hebrew Christians. It is a 

supposition that finds agreement among the studious people, and in the Talmud seems to be 

well supported by the context. In Shabbath the passage that follows the above mentioned 

quotations relates a story, regarding Gamaliel and Christian judge in which there is an 

allusion to parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, this passage of the Talmud is a 

clear indication that the Christians included the Tetragrammaton in their Gospel and their 

writings." 

We have seen above that the omission is due to the expansion of piety, and to honor the Son more than 



the Father. It was important to lessen or blurr the role of the Father. 

"In pre-Christian manuscripts for Greek-speaking Jews, God's name was not paraphrased 

with kurios [Lord], but was written in the tetragram form [YHWH] in hebrew or archaic 

characters....We find recollections of the name in the wroting of the Church Fathers; but 

they are not interested in it. By translating this name kurios (Lord), the Church Fathers were 

more interested in attributing the grandeur of the kurios to Jesus Christ." Entschluss/Offen, 

1985, Feneberg 

"The strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was 

they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be "updated" by blurring or even obliterating 

the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son." 

Rubenstein's When Jesus Became God, p. 74. 

John: Let's consider a few quotations from the Old Testament and see if the New Testament writers had 

any problem in applying passages containing the name Yahweh to Jesus. We will use the New World 

Translation for these comparisons. 

The apostle Paul quoted Psalm 68:18 and applied it to the Ascension of Jesus Christ. Psalm 68:18 says: 

"You 

have ascended on high; you have carried away captives; you have taken gifts in the form of men, Yes, even 

the 

stubborn ones, to reside among them, O Jah God." ("Jah" is an abbreviated form of the name Jehovah.) 

Notice how Paul applies this passage at Ephesians 4:7-10: "Now to each one of us undeserved kindness was 

given according to how the Christ measured out the free gift. Wherefore he says: `When he ascended on 

high he carried away captives; he gave gifts in men.' Now the expression `he ascended,' what does it mean 

but that he also descended into the lower regions, that is, the earth? The very one that descended is also the 

one that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might give fulness to all things." 

Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes the Greek Septuagint version of Psalm 102:25-27 and applies it to Christ: "You at 

the 

beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are the works of your hands. 

They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually ; and just like an outer garment they 

will grow old, and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed, but 

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. 

passage about Yahweh to Jesus Christ-notice to what lengths this N.T. writer will go in his scripture 

application. He openly identifies Christ as the Creator of heaven and earth. And he contrasts the 

impermanence of creation against its 

Creator, who is unchangeable and eternal. Does it make sense to think the writer of Hebrews felt Christ was 

only a creature after seeing how he applies Scripture? 

Notice this comparison between 1 Peter 3:14,15 and Isaiah 8:12,13. 1 Peter says: "But even if you should 

suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are happy. However, the object of their fear do not you fear, 

neither become agitated. But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense 

before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper 

and deep respect." Now, Isaiah says: "`You men must not say, "A conspiracy!" respecting all that of which 

this people keep saying, "A conspiracy!" and the object of their fear you men must not fear, nor must you 

tremble at it. Jehovah of armies-he is the One whom you should treat as holy, and he should be the object of 

your fear, and he should be the One causing you to tremble.'" This comparison is even more striking if one 

compares the Greek word order of 1 Peter with the Greek Septuagint of Isaiah. The Hebrew says: "Sanctify 

Jehovah of hosts" (according to Jay 

Green's The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible ) but the Greek Septuagint has "Sanctify ye the Lord 

himself." (From Brenton's translation of the Septuagint.) Now, Peter, writing in Greek, would most 

naturally quote from the standard Greek translation of the O.T.- the Septuagint. The Septuagint here says: 

kurion auton hagiasate (Greek word order: "Lord himself sanctify"). Peter's quotation in 1 Peter 3:14,15 is 

practically identical except here he exchanges the word auton (himself) for who is Christ. Peter writes: 

kurion de ton christon hagiasate (Greek word order: "Lord but the Christ sanctify"-compare the Watchtower 

Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation.) It is as if Peter were adding a parenthetical thought to his 



quotation from Isaiah: "The object of their 

fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. The Lord (who is Christ ) you should sanctify." Peter was 

making sure we knew that the Lord we are to sanctify is Christ! 

Notice this prophecy from Isaiah 40:3-5: "Listen! Someone is calling out in the wilderness: `Clear up the 

way of Jehovah, you people! Make the highway for our God through the desert plain straight. Let every 

valley be raised up, and every mountain and hill be made low. And the knobby ground must become level 

land, and the rugged ground a valley plain. And the glory of Jehovah will certainly be revealed, and all flesh 

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 

Baptist's preparatory work before the ministry of Jesus. 

It becomes undeniable that New Testament writers applied Old Testament passages about Yahweh to Jesus. 

Can we be sure they were thereby identifying Jesus with Yahweh? ...... 

Reply: John has given other examples also, but I think the main thrust of his argument are wonderfully 

demonstrated in the above. To be sure, there are scriptures that have indeed connected Jesus with 

Jehovah. Does this make them the same person though? 



them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah." 

1 Chron reads, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. 

Are we here to conclude, by the arguments listed above by John, that Jehovah and Satan are the same 

person? These 2 scriptures were handled in the book "Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible" by John W. 

Haley, and his comments were: 

"It is consistent with Hebrew modes of thought that whatever occurs in the world, under the overruling 

providence of God, what he suffers to take place, should be attributed to his agency." 

Did you understand this? The Jews obviously did. 


the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been 

committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey 

Wigoder 

GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic law as 

follows: "One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach] is thereby 

granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This is the more 

remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 

18). 

For more on this go to availablelight.htm 

Jesus holds a unique position in the Bible, a functional equality if you will. Rev 5:13 tells us "Unto him 

that sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb, be the blessing, and the honor, and the glory, and the 

dominion, for ever and ever." 

Also Rev 22:1, 3:" And he showed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the 

throne of God and of the Lamb... And there shall be no curse any more: and the throne of God and of the 

Lamb shall be therein: and his servants shall serve him." 

Jesus is often portrayed on the "right hand of God." (Ps 110:1; Mt 22:44; 26:64; Acts 7:55) 

"He, therefore, can fill any position in the God's universe, and represent his Father in any 

purpose. This is something to keep in mind when we are looking at the various quotes that 

are applied to Jesus. As we consider how the NT quotes the OT, we must stress that an 

"ontological" identity between the persons mentioned in the quotes is not at all obvious." p. 



195, Theology and Bias in Bible Translation by Rolf Furuli 

Professor Furuli then goes on to point out some examples of this. In Hosea 11:1 the reference is to Israel, 

but the same words are later applied to Jesus at Matt 2:15. In Jeremiah Rachel is described as weeping 

over her sons, but this is later applied to the children of Bethlehem.(Mt 2:17, 18) Paul applied Habakkuk 

1:5, 6 in his sermon at Acts 13:40, 41, but the earlier application was to the Chaldeans, the later was not. 

"Then there is the identification of John the Baptist with the prophet Elijah. Malachi 4:5 

prophecied that Elijah the prophet would come before the great and fear-inspiring day of 

YHWH. Jesus quoted these words in Matthew 17:12 and said that "Elijah has already 

come." Verse 13 tells us that the disciples perceived that he spoke about John the baptist. In 

Matthew 11:14 Jesus states the matter clearly, 'He himself is Elijah who is destined to 

come." There can hardly be a more way to express ontological identity that to say John the 

baptist is Elijah! But this is not what is meant, because John was neither the resurrected nor 

the re-incarnated Elijah. But John did the same work as Elijah, under circumstances which 

were comparable to 

those of Elijah." Furuli, p 195 

What of Hebrews 1:10 though? George Wesley Buchanan says, 

"The connective "and" relates verses 10-12 to verses 7-9. "Now, (on the other hand,) [with 

reference] to the angels, it says" (1:7) "but [with reference] to the Son, [it says,]" (1:8) "and" 

(1:10). The "Lord" in Ps 102 clearly referred to God. Here it might also 

mean God, with the implication that since the Son was "heir or all" (1:2) and since it was 

through the Son that the Lord "made the ages" (1:2), any reference to the endurance of God 

would also be a reference to the endurance of the Son. In other places the author of Hebrews 

quoted Old Testament passages that mention the name of the Lord, and in every case the 

author held the same meaning (7:21; 8:8, 10, 11; 10:16, 30; 12:5, 6). On the other hand, the 

author did use the name "Lord" when referring to Jesus (2:3; 7:14). Like other scholars of 

his time, the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and 

attributing it to the Messiah. For example in LXX Deut 32:43, in which the object of 

worship for the sons of God according to the Proto-Massoretic text was Israel, the author of 

Hebrews applied it to the first-born, namely Jesus (1:6). Since the term "first-born" could be 

applied either to Israel (Exod 4:22) or to the Messiah, the author made the shift. By the same 

logic, 

since the "Lord" was a title of respect used both for God and for kings, such as Jesus, he 

may also have made the shift here to apply to Jesus the durability of God in contrast to the 

temporal nature of the angels. If this were the case, then Jesus would also have been thought 

of as a sort of demiurge through whom God created the heaven and the earth.as well as the 

ages (1:2, 10). In either case it does not mean that Jesus was believed to be God or was 

addressed as God." 


Hebrews 1and 2 is stressing the superiority of Jesus over the angels, something that almighty God does 

not have to defend nor explain. 

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology; _Type, Typology_ 

“The "type" is perhaps the least understood but most important concept 

in the hermeneutics of biblical prophecy. Typological prophecy occurs 



throughout the Bible and can be considered the "normal" way that the 

prophets, including Jesus, spoke of the future. Failure to take this 

method of speaking into account can lead to gross distortions of the 

prophetic message. 

The non-Christian biblical interpreters of the NT era accepted and used typological 

perspectives in their hermeneutical work. The NT writers are accordingly using 

STANDARD approaches of their day to understanding the OT. 

The typological interpretation of prophecy asserts that the prophets did not so much make 

singular predictions as proclaim certain theological themes or patterns and that these themes 

often have several manifestations or fulfillments in the course of human history. 

The type may have its own place and meaning, independently of that which it prefigures. 

Typology differs from prophecy in the strict sense of the term only in the means of 

prediction. Prophecy predicts mainly by means of the word, whereas typology predicts by 

institution, act or person.” 

Scofield and others new about typology and they described in terms like "Type of Christ." 

John MacArthur in his NKJV Study Bible describes Joseph as a "Type of Christ." 

He provides the following of similarities between Joseph and Jesus: 

Both Joseph and Jesus were A SHEPHERD OF HIS FATHERS SHEEP (Gen 

37:2/Jn 10:11,27-29) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were LOVED DEARLY BY THEIR FATHER (Gen 37:3/Mt 

3:17 

Both Joseph and Jesus were HATED BY THEIR BROTHERS (Gen 37:4/Jn 7:45) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were SENT BY FATHER TO BROTHERS (Gen 

37:13,14/Heb 2:11) 

Both Joseph and Jesus had OTHERS TO HARM THEM (Gen 37:20/Jn 11:53) 

Both Joseph and Jesus had ROBES TAKEN FROM THEM (Gen 37:23/Jn 

19:23,24) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were TAKEN TO EGYPT (Gen 37:26/Mt 2:14,15) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were SOLD FOR A PRICE OF A SLAVE (Gen 37:28/Mt 

26:15) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were TEMPTED (GEN 39:7/mT 4:1) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were FALSELY ACCUSED (Gen 39:16-18/Mt 26:59,60) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were BOUND IN CHAINS (Gen 39:20/Mt 27:2) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were PLACED WITH 2 OTHER PRISONERS, ONE WHO 

WAS 

SAVED AND THE OTHER LOST (Gen 40:2,3/Lu 23:32) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were EXALTED AFTER SUFFERING (Gen 41:41/Phil 

2:9-11) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were BOTH 30 YEARS OLD AT THE BEGINNING OF 

PUBLIC RECOGNITION 

(Gen 41:46/Lu 3:23) 

Both Joseph and Jesus BOTH WEPT (Gen 42:24; 45:2, 14, 15; 46:29/Jn 

11:35) 

Both Joseph and Jesus FORGAVE THOSE WHO WRONGED THEM (Gen 

45:1-15/Lu 



23:34) 

Both Joseph and Jesus SAVED THEIR NATION (Gen 45:7/Mt 1:21) 

Both Joseph and Jesus had WHAT MEN DID TO HURT THEM, GOD TURNED 

TO 

GOOD (Gen 50:20/ 1Cor 2:7,8 

Does this mean Jesus must be Joseph? Of course not. 

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 

God, 

and there is no one else. By my own self I have sworn-out of my own mouth in righteousness the word 

has gone forth, so that it will not return- that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear, 

saying, `Surely in Jehovah there are full righteousness and strength.'" Notice how Paul makes a 

direct allusion to this passage at Philippians 2:9-11 (NIV): "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place 

and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in 

heaven 

and on the earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God 

the Father." At Isaiah 45:23 we were told that every knee would bend in worship and every tongue swear to 

Jehovah. Paul alludes to this and says this would happen "at the name of Jesus." Why? Because Paul adds 

that God has shared with Christ "the name that is above every name "-the Divine Name. So, when every 

knee bows before Jesus and every tongue confesses Jesus Christ as LORD, does this detract from the 

Father? Not at all! Rather, Paul said this would glorify God the Father!-compare John 5:23. 

(Interestingly, early editions of the N.T. part of the New World Translation had a cross-reference at 

Philippians 2:10 pointing to Isaiah 45:23. Their 1984 Reference Bible edition has removed that 

cross-reference.).... 

(Above written by Mr. Dave Brown; originally appeared as an article in "The Dividing Line", the newsletter 

of Alpha and Omega Ministries. Printed copies available.) 

Reply: 1Cor.8:6 identifies the "one God" as the Father who is the source of creation. Jesus is explicitly 

excluded when he is next identified as the "Lord" who is the agent of the one God. 1Tim.2:5 states there 

is "one God" but then specifically EXCLUDES Jesus from being that one God by saying he is the 

"mediator" between GOD and humans. Without equivocation or replacing the word God with father, 

explain how can Jesus be the same God he is mediator for? 

Far from being Almighty, Jesus is said to have a God over him before, during and after he came to earth 

(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 

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 

when Jesus returned to heaven he had to be "given" all authority (power-KJV). If Jesus were equal to 

God in power, then why exactly would 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, Dan.7:13-14, Phil.2:9). 

So what of the NAME in Php 2:9-11. We have to keep in mind the context of the passage. 

"Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name." 

God had to exalt Jesus, and give him a name above all others. Obviously, it is something he did not have 

before his exaltation, and again, why would Almighty God need to be given anything? 

Any authority Jesus has was given to him (see Mt 9:8; 28:18; Jn 17:2). 

It never says God shared his name. 

But how does this authority tie into his exalted name? Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of NAME/ONOMA, 

"for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc." 

Vine's Bible Dictionary says of ONOMA/Name in reference to Jesus (as "in the name of Christ"). 

"representing the authorityof Christ." 

Christians are persecuted for recognizing his authority. Interestingly, the New Living Translation renders 

Matthew 24:9 as "You will be hated all over the world because of your allegiance to me." 

The Message translates Php 2:9 as "God lifted him high and honored him far beyond anyone or 



anything." 

What else can we learn from the preceeding verses in Php 2? 

"Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not 

the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a 

servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, 

becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross." ASV 

Jesus, as the last Adam (1Cor 15:45) would never do what Adam did, that is, trying to be "be as God, 

knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:5) Jesus humbled himself and was obedient to God, and in this, we 

should be of the "same mind." For this ultimate humility, Jesus was honored by being given more 

authority than the angels. 

Does the exaltation of Jesus push his Father, Jehovah into the background? No, for the Bible never tells 

us to stop honoring the Father, and this is where I agree with you. Honoring Jesus means honoring the 

Father, as Jesus definitely made God's name known. 

"Hallowed be thy name" Matt 6:9 Revised Version 

"I have made known to them your name, and will make it known," John 17:26 NASB 

"Around the time of Christ the Jewish copyists began to leave off writing the Divine Name 

in their Hebrew MSS and substituting the titles Lord and God. The reason was the 

development of a tradition of superstitious fear over pronouncing or writing the Divine 

Name. Old worn-out MSS were not destroyed but were buried, because they contained the 

Name. One Jewish tradition credits the miracles of Jesus to his possessing a writing 

containing the Name that he stole from the temple. Each time scribes scribes wrote the 

Name they reverently wiped their pens, some even took a bath! Little wonder that the 

copying of the Name was eventually dropped altogether by Jewish scribes. 

Jesus was no respecter of Jewish traditions (Matt 15:3,6) especially when his Father's Name 

was at stake (John 17:26). So he and his apostles would scarcely have approved or followed 

this practice. In the original Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures as used by 

the apostles, the Name appeared in the form of the four Hebrew letters. This is shown by its 

appearance in ancient fragments of the Septuagint such as the Fouad 266 papyrus of the 2nd 

century B.C. It also can be seen in Aquila's version of the second century A.D., in Origen's 

Hexapla of the third century, and is attested to by Jerome in the fourth century. It can also be 

seen in the Dead Sea fragment of Habakkuk in Greek. 

The Divine Name would thus have been spoken by Jesus and the apostles whenever they 

quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, either directly or from the Greek version, and so would 

have appeared in their writings when they made such quotations." 

Appendix, 21st Century N.T. 

George Howard has done extensive study on the Divine Name in the New Testament and has this to say: 

"The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the 

surrogates KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and 

the Lord Christ, and in many passages made it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the 

Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure 

whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures were brought into 

even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them. Thus it may be 

that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later Christological 

and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries." George 

Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 15 



In fact, the name Jesus means, "Jehovah is Salvation." 

Does the Bible ever tell us to stop using the Divine Name though? 

No, definitely not. This name is in the Hebrew scriptures almost 7000 times. This name was in the LXX 

in Jesus time and it was definitely in the Hebrew scriptures. When Jesus read scriptures, whether he was 

using the the LXX (Septuagint) or the Hebrew, he read the Divine Name. This name is mentioned more 

than any other name, and more than all the other titles put together. The math and common sense alone 

tells us this repetitive emphasis means the Name was meant to last forever. 

"You must tell the Isrealites this, that it is JEHOVAH the God of their forefathers, the God of Abraham, 

The God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, who has sent you to them. This is my name forever; this is my title 

in every generation." The New English Bible(Protestant and Catholic). 

"Then have those fearing Jehovah spoken one to another, And Jehovah doth attend and hear, And written 

is a book of memorial before Him Of those fearing Jehovah, And of those esteeming His name." Malachi 

3:16 Young's Literal Version 

"Jehovah our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy majesty above the 

heavens." Ps 8:1 Darby 

"That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the 

earth." Ps 83:18 King James Version 



'From the sun's rising even to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place 

sacrificial smoke will be made, a presentation will be made to my name, even a clean gift; because my 

name will be great among the nations,' Jehovah of armies has said."-Mal 1:11 NWT 

"And in very deed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you; and that my 

name may be declared in all the earth." NKJV 

"And I will sanctify my great name, which hath been profaned among the nations, which ye have 

profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am Jehovah, saith the Lord Jehovah, 

when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes." Ezekiel 36:23 ASV 

"Praise Yahweh! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his doings. Bring to remembrance 

that exalted is his Name. Praise in song Yahweh, for a splendid thing he has done. Well known is this in 

all the earth."-Isaiah 12:4, 5. Rotherham 

Simeon has reported how God first intervened to take from the Gentiles a people for His name. Acts 

15:14 HCSB 


"For the Name of Jehovah I proclaim, Ascribe ye greatness to our God! The Rock! --perfect [is] His 

work, For all His ways [are] just; God of stedfastness, and without iniquity: Righteous and upright [is] 

He. It hath done corruptly to Him; Their blemish is not His sons', A generation perverse and crooked! To 

Jehovah do ye act thus, O people foolish and not wise? Is not He thy father--thy possessor? He made 

thee, and doth establish thee." Deut 32 Young's Literal Version 



Don't be fooled by those who argue that the Divine Name is not in the New Testament. The Bible is not 

divided up into Testaments, that is something that man did. The Scriptures tell us, "The whole Bible was 

given to us by inspiration from God." 2Tim 3:16 The Living Bible 

When this was written by Paul, he mainly had the existing Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) in mind. 

We must do our utmost to embrace the entire Bible, the book that contains the Sacred Name 

Jehovah/Yahweh/YHWH about 7000 times. 

The Bible anticipated that there would be those that hate his name. "How long, O God, will you allow 

your enemies to dishonor your name? Will you let them get away with this forever?" Ps 74:10 Living 


When Jesus was given a name above all others, he was given authority. "Hence God saw fit to endow 

him with all authority and power." Col 1:19 21st Century NT 

With this authority, he is able to sit at God's right hand, not supercede him (Ps 110:1; Mt 22:44; Mt 

26:64; Acts 2:32, 33; 5:31; 7:55). 

Jesus as Savior, knows that there is "and a book of remembrance was written before him, for them that 

feared Jehovah, and that thought upon his name." 

Jesus glorified his Father. In the Bible, Jehovah is identified as our Father (Deut 32:6; Isaiah 64:8). Even 

according to trinitarian theology, Jesus cannot be the Father. 

Acts 2:36, "God hath made him both Lord and Christ" 

"as there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, 

and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." 1 Cor 

8:6 

"That they may know that thou alone, whose name is 

Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth." 

Psalm 83:18 King James Version 

Thank you for this opportunity John. 


Email Me 

Heinz Schmitz 



Is Jesus Jehovah Pt. 2-Are JW Opposers Brainwashed? 

Is Jesus Jehovah Pt. 2/ Bible Inerrancy and the Mindset of JW Opposers 

Are they just like the King James Only Cult? 

Unless otherwise states, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 

John: Since you are so eager to mention the Pharisees , why don't you check out the activities of your 

group and see how close you resemble them. 

Reply: The Pharisees were the religious rulers in the early 1st century and keepers of strict tradition, 

whereas, Jesus, in contrast, was part of a minority group that placed God and the Scriptures over 

tradition. Trinitarian Christendom are the religious rulers of today and uphold the unbiblical traditions if 

idolatry, the Trinity and other Greek philosophical beliefs, while Jehovah's Witnesses stress God and the 

Bible and return to the Christianity taught in the Bible. 

John: The Bible makes it clear that salvation is a gift. All the door knocking in the world won't do you any 

good. No-one and I mean no-one is good enough to make it to Heaven on their own merit. If that was the 

case the Mosaic law would have been sufficient , provided that one could conceivably keep all the 

commandments. 

Reply: No one is saying anything different. You are being fed dirt on us that is simply geared towards 

hatred, and nothing else. Jesus Christ, did give us a work to do though, and we would be less than 

Christian if we did not follow his grand commision. 

Mk 16:15, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole 

creation." Mt 28:19, 20, "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the 

name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 

I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." 

True Christians would share in the preaching work. We are even told to imitate Paul in this regard (1Cor 

4:16). We are told to evangelize, "I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge 

the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be urgent in season, out 

of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they 

will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their 

own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables. But be thou sober in all 

things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry." 2 Tim 4:1-5 

This is starting to sound like works, does it not? "Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by 

faith." Jas 2:24 Yes, faith, accompanied by works is what eventually saves us. The Bible has always 

promoted this type of works. 

John: However , it was necessary for God to become a man in order to reconcile us to Himself. The Son 

gave up his position in Heaven [ his equality with the Father] [ see Philippians 2:6-8], became a human and 

died on the cross for our sins, past , present and future. Because of this the Father exalted Him and gave 

Him a name [authority, position] that is above every other name in the visible and invisible universe. 

Reply: It was not necessary for God to become man, and it certainly was not an equivalent to the life we 

lost in Adam. The Bible tells us how things are paid back, "But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give 

life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" Ex 21:23, 24 What does the bible 

say we lost? We lost our Adamic (perfect) life via Adamic sin. And Jesus, as an Adamic (perfect) man, 

can get that back for us. 

"Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed 

unto all men, for that all sinned" Rom 5:12 

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." 1Cor 15:22 

"So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/johnc.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:02:37 AM]


spirit." 1Cor 15:45 

"For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave 

himself a *ransom* for all" Jesus as a perfect man fulfilled the duties of a ransom. He died for us, and 

that is something God simply cannot do. 

" Surely you Yahweh are from ancient times, my holy God, who never dies." Hab 1:12 NJB 

"Now unto the King eternal, *immortal*, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. 

Amen." 1Tim 1:17 

The death of the Almighty God Jehovah is far too big a price to pay for the perfect life we lost in Adam. 

Moving on...it is special pleading to say that the harpazo at Phil 2:6 means Jesus had equality with the 

Father. Ralph Martin, says in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: 

"It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning 

of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'" The Expositor's Greek Testament 

also says: "We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of its derivatives has the sense 

of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. 

Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally 

different, 'hold fast.'" 

If we read the preceeding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean 

that we should try to be equal with God? Of course not. That is why many versions read differently than 

the way you propose (and others think) it should say.. 

"though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." RSV "who, 

existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped" ASV 

"did not count equality with God something to be grasped" NJB, NIV 

"he never considered seizing the chance to be equal to God" 21st Century NT 

"did not regard equality with God something to be grasped" NAB 

"he laid no claim to equality with God" REB 

"he did not think to snatch at equality with God" NEB etc etc etc.... 

After all, isn't trying to grasp at equality with God is how we reached our state of Adamic sin in the first 

place (see Genesis 3:5). 

John: Before you jump and tell me that this proves that the Father is greater than the Son, let me tell you 

that I agree. He is greater in terms of function and not substance. That is why Jesus said that the Father and 

I are one[ not the same person but the same substance]. The Jews certainly understood what He meant [but 

not the Jehovah's witnesses]. They [Jews] wanted to stone Him for blasphemy and "because that ,thou, 

being a man, makest thyself God." [John 10:33]. Again when the disciples asked Him to show them the 

Father what did He say? " Have I been such a long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me,..He that 

hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?"[John14:9] Did Jesus 

imply that He was the same person as the Father? Certainly not! He was simply indicating what Paul said in 

a later letter about the equality of the Son to the Father: "God [the Father] ...had spoken through the Son , 

whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds [ Jesus=creator]; Who, being the 

brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, [ all about substance ,Heinz ]and upholding all 

things by the word of his power,[ Not even Michael the archangel could do that- wake up Heinz] when he 

had by himself purged our sins [ all by himself, hmmm that is POWER ], sat down on the right hand of the 

Majesty on high [Hebrews 1:2-3] In today's language, the CEO told the V.P. of Human Affairs: " A job 

well done Son, you be the King of Kings, Lord of Lords " And that is what my faith is all about my friend. I 

only trust in the cleansing work of the blood of Jesus and I answer to no human organization in regards to 

how I ought to worship. 

Reply: Perhaps you should join an organization, as then you would not be troubled with erroneous and 

unbiblical ideas like those mentioned above. As for John 10:33, "Any difficulty in understanding this 

verse is caused the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verse 



34 and 35, then it would read, "...you a man, claim to be a god." One God/One Lord by Graeser, Lynn 

and Schoenheit p.482 

Consider the following exceptions... 

"claim to be a god" NEB 

"Makest thyself a god" Bowes, Sharpe, Robert Young's Concise Commentary 

"Make yourself out to be a god" Fenton 

"Are deifying yourself" Wuest 

"For making a mortal like yourself into a god" Unvarnished NT 

Torrey's translation lowercases the word as "god," while the interlinear reading of The Emphatic 

Diaglott says "a god." 

Why? Because Jesus goes on to quote Psalm 82. Like Ryrie says of John 10:34, "Christ's point is that if 

the O.T. uses the word "God" (Elohim) of men who were representative of God, then the Jews should not 

oppose Him for calling Himself the Son of God." 

Also, you again mentioned Hebrews 1, which shows Jesus superiority over the prophets, and mainly the 

angels. Why? In the past these were used to mediate between God and men. As such, prophets like 

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 

judges (or perhaps angels) were called gods at Psalm 82, as we have seen above. Moses, the angels, and 

the judges were God to whomever they were mediating for. Those that have seen them, have seen the 

Father they were representing. But they have been superceded. As Hebrews points out, now we have 

Jesus. He has been given a functional equality with God, but just like these other gods, he is not one in 

substance with God. To be one in substance means to be that same being. The words "substance" or 

"essense" do not appear in the Bible, these are 4th century philosophical innovations that were introduced 

into Xtian theology, but they have no bearing on Bible truth. I have already gone into detail about some 

of the terms used above in our previous letter, but let me expand. 

Jesus is the image of God, but then, we are also made in God's image. (Gen 1:26) 

How else does the Bible use the term "image/eikon?" 

Consider Matt 22:20 where Jesus asked, while pointing to a coin, "Whose is this image (eikon) and 

superscription? They say unto Him, Caeser's." Does this mean that coin bears the substance/essence of 

Caeser, that the coin was fully Caeser and fully coin? Absolutely not. There are prototypes, and then 

there are representatives, which is what Hebrews 1 is driving at. As you pointed out "CEO told the V.P. 

of Human Affairs"....the CEO is never the same substance/essence as the next in command. They are 2 

different people. When God says "Sit thou at my right hand" to Jesus, is he mocking our intelligence 

when we fully know that to sit at someone's right hand not only makes you seperate in substance, but it 

puts you in a different position altogether? 

John: More Bible Truths Dear Heinz: I checked some of our previous correspondence and guess what I 

found: {Their New World Bible translation done by "scholars" who knew neither Greek nor Hebrew was 

full of errors. Meanings of words in the original languages were twisted to fit their particular viewpoint and 

doctrines. >>Do you think that God would allow someone to ruin his word, and make it full of errors? Is 

God so weak in your mind? Give me a "for instance" of the above fallacious statement. } Well, well, it's my 

turn to ask you the same question: You quoted the following in your rebuttal of my so-called article 

>>John's information starts off with a false premise and builds from there. We will see that the Name has 

been removed, and that the consequence has been the unbiblical doctrine of the Trinity. It is by killing off 

Jehovah/Yahweh that Trinitarians can deify and worship "the creature rather than the Creator." Rom 1:25 


that there would not be some minor tampering. In fact, you might say, that by the closing words of the 

Bible, that he even anticipated it (Rev 22:18, 19). Many textual scholars like Colwell and Metzger agree 

that the text of the King James Version is the most corrupt that there is. Yet, when the average person 

examines them, we are hard-pressed to find them. That is because the Word of God and especially the 

message has remained virtually unchanged, despite the variations. 

You, however, said "Their New World Bible translation done by "scholars" who knew neither Greek nor 

Hebrew was full of errors." That is a little different than an occasional corruption creeping in. 

Professor/AuthorAlan S Duthie says that the New World Translation is no more "full of heresies" than 

any other version. The reason that some, like Professor Jason Beduhn can praise the NWT, and others 

damn it comes down to bigotry and prejudice, pure and simple. 

As for God's seeming inability to preserve his Name, this is false. He has in fact preserved it 6828 times 

in the Hebrew mss. It is the Christians that revile God's name that have even then, failed to translate it. 

Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote about failing to include the 

Divine Name: 

"Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and 

ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a 

sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh 

is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have 

used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and 

practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get 

two million to read itâ€”that is how many have bought it to dateâ€”and to follow the King 

James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It 

was a hard decision, and many of our translators 

agree with you." 

The ISV commitee has also refused to translate the Sacred Name due to financial considerations. For 

more click here. I think that is pathetic and unchristian. 

It is also Christians that have divided up the Bible into Old and New Testaments, something God never 

did. The Bible tells us that there are those that revile his name. (Psalm 74:10) It also tells us that the 

Church would be over-run with apostasy. 

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus stated: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is 

easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is 

hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in 

sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 

7:13-16, Revised Standard Version) True Christianity is a hard, cramped road, found by only the "few." 

These "few" were warned that seemingly harmless "false prophets" would try to sidetrack them onto the 

"easy" way "that leads to destruction." 

Over 30 years later the apostle Peter wrote: "But there arose false prophets also among the people, as 

among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even 

the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 

And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil 

spoken of. And in covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose sentence 

now from of old lingereth not, and their destruction slumbereth not. ."—2 Peter 2:1-3. 

"The way of the truth," the way "that leads to life," is the way of true Christianity. The "false prophets," 

or "false teachers," are the apostate 'wolves in sheep's clothing' who began to make their presence felt 

among the early Christians even before the death of the apostles. (1 John 2:18, 19; 4:1-3) The apostle 



Paul also gave warning about such "oppressive wolves." He identified them as men who would "speaking 

perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." (Acts 20:29, 30) From the second half of the first 

century onward, these false teachers 'quietly brought in destructive sects,' exploiting the early Christians 

"with counterfeit words." Because of these apostates, "the way of the truth," true Christianity, was 

"spoken of abusively." 

Consider the fruits of orthodoxy. The Christological/Trinitarian controversy that plagued the Church 

known for its violence. 

"Bishop Athanasius, a future saint and uninhibited faction fighter, had his opponents excommunicated, 

and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped and imprisoned and exiled to different 

provinces....Athanasuis possessed a power independent of the emperor which he built up and perpetuated 

by violence...Like a modern gangster, he evoked widespread mistrust.." When Jesus Became God by 

Rubenstein, pp. 6, 107 

Even Constantine, under who's direction we have the Trinity, Christmas and the Cross, was a Sun 

Worshipper who killed his Son and had his wife boiled alive...and this was done AFTER he gave us 

these things. Food for thought, is it not? For more click here. 

John: You also stated that >>It was common to inflate the position and deity of Christ by adding to the 

text, and this is something that happened quite early on. When researching Textual Criticism (and reading 

books like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Ehrman), it becomes clear that corruption in favor of 

the theology of the mainstream theology of the time happened almost immediately. Here are a few 

examples: >>>> Then you go on to quote examples that are not relevant with what is happening today. 

When I checked my King James Bible I did not find any of these anomalies. i.e. your examples don't apply 

today. 

Reply: Oh believe me, the changes are well documented. You can ask any KJV-Only person, like the 

ones at: 

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nasv.txt 

av1611.org 

The examples I gave you were in ancient mss...and the important thing to remember is that these changes 

were made by the victors, not the fringe "heretical" groups. The orthodox Trinitarian Xtians were the 

ones that have attempted time and again to corrupt scriptures to fit their theology, so your complaint is 

flat and unwarranted. The NWT translators have not changed the Hebrew or Greek text like those in 

times past. I asked you to give me a "for instance," and you have ignored this query. It seems to be that 

many have a conplaint, but few can back it up with facts. 

This leads to something else though. There are a plethora of newer Bible versions that termed 

"paraphrased," "dynamic equivalent,""thought for thought," or "meaning based" like the Good News 

Bible, The Message, The Living Bible, New Living Translation, God's Word, NIrV, Contemporary 

English Version etc that have taken many more liberties than the NWT, but few complain about these 

since the changes favor the "orthodox/mainstream" position. 

John: In previous letters I asked you to tell me why Jesus claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath when the 

Jews knew very well that the title referred to their covenant God Jehovah. Do you think He was saying that 

just to "piss them off"? Jesus also claimed that He is the Truth and the Life, the Good Shepherd, the living 

bread, the vine etc, etc which are clearly attributes of the almighty Jehovah. If He has all of the 

characteristics of Jehovah, He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords [ Revelation 19:16] is it not possible that 

He may be equal to Him or be Him ? The name Jehovah applies to the one and only God who acts in 

history in the persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

Reply: It is sad to see a good man like you resort to bad language like using the vernacular for "urinate" 

to make your point. True, the Bible does employ this word,...but not in the same sense as you do. (2Ki 

18:27; Is 36:12; 1Sam 25:22, 34; 1Ki 14:10) 



Many in the Bible share titles, but that does not make them same being/essence/substance. Consider: 

Son of God (angels) Gen 6:1,2; Job 1:8; 38:7; (Solomon) 2Sam 7:14; (Adam) Lu 3:38 

King of Kings (Artaxerxes) Ezra 7:12; (Nebuchadrezzar) Ezekiel 26:7/Dan 2:37 

Apostle (Jesus) Hebrews 3:1; (Peter) 1Peter 1:1; (Paul) Rom 1:1 etc 

God (Jesus) Jn 1:1; angels (Ps 8:5;97:7;138:1); Solomon (Ps 45:6); Moses (Ex 4:16; 7:1) 

Lord (Abraham) 1Pet 3:6 (Saul)1Sam 24:8; (David) 2Sam 11:9; (Joab) 2Sam 11:11 etc 

Savior (Jesus) Ac 13:23; (Jehovah) Is 43:3; (Othniel) Jg 3:9; (Ehud) Jg 3:15 

Judge (Jehovah) Jg 11:27; (Jesus) Jn 5:22; (Humans) see Book of Judges 

Satan/Devil (Judas) John 6:70; (Peter) Matt 16:23 

Interestingly, the King James Only crowd makes much of the similarities between Jesus and Satan in 

newer Bibles: 

"1) Just about everybody knows the word "Lucifer" as another name for Satan. The word 

"Lucifer" is found one time in the King James Bible. Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from 

heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst 

weaken the nations! 

(2) But what about the NIV? The word "Lucifer" is clean, bald-headed gone and now this 

creature is identified as the "morning star". Lucifer is the "morning star" in the NIV. How 

you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to 

the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 

(3) So we know that in the NIV the "morning star" is a negative, evil figure. Right? He 

was fallen from heaven. He was cast down to the earth. Can we find the "morning star" 

anywhere else in the NIV? Yes! The following passages in the NIV show the 

"morning star" as Jesus Christ! But the NIV just called the fallen creature of Isaiah 14:12 

"morning star". Lucifer AND Jesus are ONE in the NIV! Lord have mercy, Jesus! Help 

me, Lord. 

NIV: Revelation 22:16, 

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root 

and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." 

NIV: 2 Peter 1:19, 

And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay 

attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day 

dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 

NIV: Revelation 2:28-- 

I will also give him the morning star." 

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivsatan.htm 

Since, in the Bible Kings can be referred to as "stars" (cf Num 24:17...the scripture in Isaiah had its 

earlier fulfillment in the King of Babylon at Is 14:4, and we cannot argue that the Babylonian King is 

ontologically one with Satan), it is quite evident in the Bible that positioning and titles are relative to the 

context and the almighty King Jehovah. 

The point that I am making is that the mindset that condemns Jehovah's Witnesses and the New World 

Translation can also be seen in the KJVO Cult crowd. Much of the arguments used by you John, are 

reminiscent of the anti-intellectual arguments used by this misguided crowd. I would like to help you 



come out of this darkness to the light of God's truth, given the chance. 

In conclusion. Jehovah cannot be the Son, and he is never referred to as a Son. Jehovah is only described 

as the Father (Is 64:8; Deut 32:6). 

Jesus is God's perfect agent, better than his agents in the past. 


the person himself." 

Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by 

the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey 

Wigoder 


law as follows: "One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach] 

is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent 

him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger 

was commonly a slave" (Murray 18). 

William Barclay points to something interesting in his commentary on The Letter to the 

Hebrews, "he [the writer of Hebrews] calls him the mediator, the mesites. Mesites comes 

from mesos, which, in this case, means in the middle. A mesites is, therefore, one who 

stands in the middle between two people and brings them together. When Job is desperately 

anxious that somehow he should be able to put his case to God, he cries out hopelessly: 

'There is no umpire, mesites, between us.' (Job 9:33)" 

This is interesting as the Zondervan NASB Study Bible says of this verse, "God is so immense that Job 

feels he needs someone who can help him, someone who can argue his case in court." 

By pushing a Trinity doctrine you are robbing God of his grandeur and Jesus of his role as mediator. 

The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older 

trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave 

birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek 

philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the 

ancient [pagan] religions." -- (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. LachÃ¢tre, Vol. 2, p. 1467. 

We should strive to keep the Bible pagan-free, don't you think? 

vale amice 


Email Me 

Heinz Schmitz 



1 JOHN V. 7 AND LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE by Ezra Abbot 

1 JOHN V. 7 AND LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE 

By Ezra Abbot 

[From the Christian Intelligencer for May 15, 1879] 

In my reply to Dr. Todd (Christian Intelligencer for April 24), I pointed out the futility of his objection 

to President Woolsey’s statement that I John v. 7 was a “passage which Luther would not express in his 

translation.” – a statement which, in the plain fact that Luther did not insert it in any one of the numerous 

editions of his translation published in his lifetime, Dr. Todd presumed to call a “mistake.” I will here 

simply remind the reader that Erasmus introduced the passage into his third edition of the Greek 

Testament in 1522, and that Luther died in 1546. It has been contended, however, by some writers, that, 

at least in the latter part of his life, the great Reformer changed his mind, and received the text as 

genuine. (See Knittel’s Neue Kritiken, Braunschw. 1785, p. 133 ff.) The argument rests on the fact that 

in an exposition of the First Epistle of John, written probably between the years 1543 and 1545, Luther 

commented on the verse without expressing any doubt of its genuineness. The question whether Luther 

changed his mind is not important in itself, but is on several accounts not without interest. I will therefore 

state the circumstances of the case. 

There are two exceptions by Luther of the First Epistle of John, both of which may be found, translated 

from the original Latin into German, in vol. Ix. Of Walch’s edition of Luther’s Sammtliche Schriften. The 

first was written somewherew between the years 1522 and 1524. (See Walch’s ed., ix. 908-1079, and 

Vorrede, pp. 18, 19.) In this, Luther, after quoting the passage of the three heavenly witnesses, remarks: - 

“These words are not found in the Greek Bibles; but it seems as if this verse had been inserted by the 

Orthodox against the Arians. This, however, has not been done even fittingly, for he [the Apostle] speaks 

here and there not of the witnesses in heaven, but of the witnesses on earth.” (Col. 1059.) 

We see here that Luther felt not merely the deficiency of the external evidence for the passage, but its 

internal incongruity. 

The other exposition was certainly written after 1532, and probably between 1543 and 1545. (See 

Knittel, ubi supra, pp. 134, 135.) It first appeared in 1743, in Walch’s edition of Luther, vol. ix. Coll. 

1080-1251. In this exposition Luther not unfrequently remarks upon Greek words, showing that he had 

the Greek text before him. He is said to have used as a manual in the later years of his life the edition of 

the Greek Testament published at Basle in 1540 by Thomas Platter, which reproduces substantially the 

text of the third edition of Erasmus, (See Luther’s Bibelubersetzung kritisch bearbeitet von Blindseil und 

Niemeyer, Theil vii., Vorrede, p. xv. note +.) This edition contains 1 John v. 7, like nearly all of the 

editions of the sixteenth centuries published after 1522. In his remarks under 1 John v. 6, which include 

the larger part of what he says about the seventh verse, Luther begins with observing that “this passage is 

certainly very difficult and obscure.” Speaking of the three heavenly witnesses, he rejects the supposition 

that the apostle refers to their testimony at the baptism and the transfiguration of Jesus, because that was 

a testimony borne on earth, not “in heaven”; and then explains it as given in what some later theologians 

would call “the covenant of redemption” made between the three persons of the Trinity. Apparently, 

however, not very well satisfied with this explanation, he concludes with saying, “If this is not the true 

meaning of these words, I confess that I know of no other.” (Col. 1225) 

On the seventh verse itself, after quoting the words, he only says: “This is the testimony which is borne 

by the three witnesses, [which] is in heaven, and also remains there. The order here should be observed, 

namely, that the witness which is the last among the witnesses in heaven is the first among the witnesses 

on earth; and with reason.” He then proceeds to expound the eighth verse. 

In this second exposition, Luther could no longer say that 1 John v. 7 was not in the Greek Bibles: it had 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/abbot.htm (1 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:02:48 AM]


already appeared in a large number of editions of the Greek Testament. Having it before him, he gave 

such an explanation of it as he could. It does not necessarily follow that he had re-examined the subject, 

and convinced himself of the genuineness of the passage; but only that he did not choose to go into the 

critical question. If he had really found any new evidence in favor of the text, here was the place for him 

to have said so. That he had not become convinced of its genuineness appears from the fact that he did 

not insert it in the edition of his translation published in 1545, the year before his death. This is 

confirmed by the circumstance that he seems never to have quoted the passage as a proof-text for the 

doctrine of the Trinity, though he has often treated of this doctrine in his voluminous writings. 

For example, in his Auslegung der letzten Worte Davids, 2 Sam. xxiii. 1-7, 65-96 (Walch, iii. 2835-59), 

he sets for the doctrine at length, quoting as proof-texts Ps. Xxxiii. 6; Matt. Xxvii. 19; Luke iii. 22; John 

v. 17, x. 30, 33, and other passages, but ignoring 1 John v. 7. This treatise was written in 1543. See also, 

other discussions of the Trinity by Luther, his works as edited by Walch, x. 1215-30; xi. 1548-55; xii. 

852-69; xiii. 1508-29, 2624-39. Neither here nor anywhere else have I been able to find the passage 

quoted by Luther, though it was interpolated into his Catechism by Lyser in 1600. (Rickli, Johannes 

erster Brief, Anhang, p. 40.) It is omitted in his Auslegung der Epistel [I John v. 4-12] am Sonntage nach 

Ostern. (Walch, xii. 698, 710.) 

In view of all these facts, the judgment of Michaelis seems reasonable. His remarks : - “As for the 

circumstance that Luther in his lecture explained I John v. 7, after he had read it from the Greek 

Testament, without entering into any critical inquiry into its authority, it shows nothing more than that 

Luther distinguished exegetical from critical lectures, and that in explaining the Greek Testament he 

interpreted what he and his hearers had before them. That he received it as genuine is an inference which 

we are not authorized to make.” (Introd. To the N. T., trans. by Marsh, 2d ed., iv. 440 f.) 

Bengel takes the same view. He says, “It is clear that the passage was omitted by Luther not 

accidentally, but deliberately; nay, his colleague Bugenhagen, with solemn adjuration, warned all person 

against ever inserting it.” (Apparatus criticus ad N.T., ed. 2da. 1763, p. 459.) Luther’s own warning; 

prefixed to editions of his own translation of the New Testament from 1530 onward, ought to have been 

sufficient. His words were as follows: - 

“Martin Luther. I beg all my friends and enemies, my masters, printers and readers, to let this 

Testament be mine. If they find it faulty, let them make one of their own for themselves. I know well 

what I make; I see well what others make. But this Testament shall be Luther’s German Testament. For 

of playing the master and the critic [or “of conceited correcting and criticising,“ meisterns und klugelus] 

there is nowadays neither measure nor end. And let every man be warned against other copies. For I have 

had full experience how carelessly and falsely others reprint what I have printed.” (See Luther’s 

Bibelubersetzung von Bindseil und Niemeyer, Theil vi. P. 15. Compare also the Warnung prefixed in 

Luther’s Bible of 1541. Ibid., Theil vii. P. 21 f.) 

The warning of Luther and the protest of Bugenhagen (occasioned by the interpolation of I John v.7 in 

an Evangelieu – und Epistelbuch printed at Wittenburg in 1549) were not without effect, for at least one 

generation. The first edition of Luther’s German Bible which contains I John v.7 appears to have been 

printed at Frankfurt-am-Main in 1582, 4to. Panzer and Monckenberg are wrong in saying that the verse 

was inserted in a Hamburg edition in 1574. 

(See Huther, Krit. Exeg. Handb. Uber die drei Briefe des Ap. Johannes, 3te Aufl., p. 222, note.) It is 

found in none of the numerous editions printed at Wittenberg before 1596. In the Swiss-German version 

(not published under Luther’s name) printed by Froschover at Zurich in 1529, it was inserted in smaller 

type, and so in the edition of 1531; in nearly all the later editions from 1534 to 1589 (that of 1561 is said 

by Ebrard to be an exception), in brackets; in 1597 without brackets, at which time it was also introduced 

as a proof-text into the Zurich Catechism. The Basle edition by Byrlinger in 1552 is said to have it 



without brackets. It was still omitted in Meissner’s Wittenberg edition of 1607, and in a quarto edition 

printed at Wittenberg in 1620; also, in Hamburg editions of 1596, 1619, and 1620. Since this last date the 

interpolation has appeared in the numberless editions of Luther’s German Bible without mark of doubt, 

except that it has been bracketed in the recent authorized “revised edition” of his version of the New 

Testament (Halle, Canstein’sche Bibelanstalt, 1871), with the following note: “The bracketed words are 

wanting in Luther’s translation, and were not added till later.” It should be understood that the words auf 

Erden, “on earth,” in verse 8, are not included in the brackets. They were inserted by Luther in the five 

editions of his German Bible printed at Wittenberg from 1541 to 1545 inclusive; but this very fact shows 

that his attention was directed to the passage, and that the omission of the three heavenly witnesses was 

intentional. 

(Perhaps I may be pardoned for turning aside a moment to correct two errors which have been repeated 

from Rickli (1828) by a large number of respectable scholars. As De Wette, Tischendorf in his editions 

of 1841, 1849, 1859, and 1869-72, Berthau in his edition of Lucke on the Epistles of John (1856), 

Davidson, Braune in Lange’s Commentary, etc. They all speak of Robert Stephens as receiving the 

passage in his editions of 1546-69, and Beza in his editions 1565-76. They should have said “Robert 

Stephens the elder in his editions of 1546-51, and Robert Stephens the younger in his edition of 1569” 

(the great Robert died ten years before); also, “Beza in his editions 1565-98.” Beza published no edition 

in 1576: the one of that date erroneously ascribed to him by several writers was edited by Henry 

Stephens.) 

We may observe, finally, that the other early reformers and friends of Luther generally rejected the 

passage; so Zwingli, Bullinger, CEcolampadius, Bugenhagen (Rickli, ubi supra, pp. 35, 36). So, also, 

according to Kettner (Historia dicti Johannei…I John v.7, etc., 1713, cap. 13), Melanchton, Cruciger (or 

Creutziger), Justus Jonas, Forster, Aurogallus. (See Semler, Hist. U. krit. Sammlungen uber I John v. 7, I. 

248.) Bugenhagen, as we have seen, was especially strenuous against it; see his Expositio Jonae, 1550, 

cited by Rickli, p. 39. It was also omitted in the celebrated Latin version of the Bible by Leo Judae, 

Pellicanus, Peter Cholin, Rudolph Gualther, and others, printed at Zurich in 1543, fol., and commonly 

called the Zurich Bible or Versio Tigurina. A marginal note explains the reasons for its rejection. The 

passage was received, though with hesitation, by Calvin, and without hesitation by Beza. Both of them, 

however, explain “these three are one” as relating not to unity of essence, but agreement in testimony. 

To trace the history of this gross corruption of the text in modern translations, Catechisms, and 

Confessions of Faith, especially the Greek Church since the sixteenth century, and in modern editions of 

some ancient versions, as the Peshito Syriac, Armenian, and Slavonic, might be interesting and 

instructive, psychologically as well as critically; but there is no room for it here. 


For more on the Comma Johanneum click here 

For more on the Byzantine/Majority Text click here 

For more on the Textus Receptus click here 

Email me 


Yet Another Reply to an Attack on the Deity of the Father! 

A Response to 

http://availablelight.org/discipleship/track01/cult_jehovahs_witnesses.html 

Words in small letter from: gabrielkushin@webtv.net (Gabriel Kushin) 


Here is some info on Jehovah's Witnesses that I have gathered. I 

suggest to anyone trying to witness to a Witness, to stick to the deity 

of Christ and salvation by grace. Do not go into the eternal substance 

of the soul and various other weird winds of doctrines. 

>From the New World Translation, these verses prove the deity of Jesus 

Christ (the first reference is for God and the second one is for Jesus): 

No other gods...Deut 32:29>John 1:1 

Reply: But there were other gods in the Bible, and they were designated so by God himself. 

"The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question whether Christ 

was an angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an angel, rank as God. The 

explanation which was offered by the supporters of the Angel-Christology was that Christ, according to 

his nature, was a high angel, but that he was named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The 

word 'God' did mean, in the first place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the 

beings who served this deus verus [Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods' 

implies reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus represented. Consequently 

in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28), not only 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 according them the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius 

[260-330 C.E.] had thought in this way2 ... 2 Latantius, inst. Epitome [The Epitome Of The Divine 

Institutes], 37."-Martin Werner, The Formation Of Christian Dogma, p. 140. 

"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred an 

honourable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His Son] is far 

more worthy of this honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John 10:34] is in Psalm 

lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; where God 

expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically abuse the authority and power for 

their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for every evil action ... Christ applies this to the 

case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, because they are God's ministers for governing the 

world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams 

forth on the world ... In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them 

authority."-John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 419, 20. 

Mighty God...Isa 10:20,21>Isa 9:6 

Reply: 1 Cor 8:6 says "there is only one God, the Father," which pretty much excludes the Son, Jesus. 

The context of Isaiah 4x deals with the pagan gods of the nations, and as we have seen above, others can 

be called God. It is interesting how other versions made by trinitarians have handled this verse at Isaiah 

9:6: 





Interestingly, this verse has not been understood by all trinitarians as 

a reference to Christ at all, but, rather, to King Hezekiah, the son of 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/availablelight.htm (1 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:03:02 AM]


Ahaz; or to Hezekiah initially and Christ finally. Note what some 

trinitarians from former years have said regarding this account: 






1583-1645). 










rendering]) 


















Immutable...Mal 3:6>Heb 13:8 

Reply: The Zondervan NASB Study Bible says Heb 13:8 pertains to faith. As for what is implied here, a 

trinitarian does not really believe in God's immutability. Let us look at the 2 scriptures to see why not: 

"For I, Jehovah, change not."Mal 3:16 

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever." Hb 13:8 

For Jesus to be Almighty God, then he obviously changed his name. This is remarkable since Jehovah 

said "this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." Ex. 3:15 

God cannot be tempted (Jas 1:13), but Jesus can (Matt 4). 

God cannot die (Hab 1:12 NJB/1 Tim 1:17/Rev 15:3), and Jesus did. 

God cannot be contained by the Temple (1Kings 8:27), Jesus entered the Temple (Mt 21:12) 



God cannot be seen without death (Ex 33:20, Jn 1:18), many have seen Jesus. 

It is quite obvious that if you take the entire Bible into view, then what you have is NOT one immutable 

being, but 2 different distinct beings. 

Created alone...Isa 44:21>John 1:2,3 [Ed. should be Isa 44:24] 

We know that Jehovah, was not really alone at the time of creation because Job 38:6, 7 tells us: "When I 

laid the foundation of the earth ... all the sons of God shouted for joy". The angels shouted for joy when 

Jehovah, through His Son, "laid the foundations of the earth". 

The use of the term, "alone", "by myself" etc do not necessarily mean the same thing to those in power, 

even in the Bible. What do I mean? 

Let us look at Daniel 4:30 and Isaiah 63:3. Daniel 4:30, "The king reflected and said, 'Is this not Babylon 

the great, which I myself have built.' " NASB. 

"The king was saying, 'Great Babylon! Imperial palace! Did I not build it alone.' " Jerusalem Bible. 

"The king spake and said, Is this not Babylon the great, - which I myself have built," J.B. Rotherham 

Nebuchadnezzar was not the only person to have built Babylon, was he? But it was built by his 

authority, his word and no other's. 

Isaiah 63:3 says: "I [Jehovah] have trodden the wine press alone, and of the peoples there was no man 

with me." Again, it was not Jehovah who personally punish these people. It was His angel acting on the 

Jehovah's authority. (2 Kings 19:35, 36) Did Jehovah personally chastise the Babylonians or did He use 

the Medes and Perians to accomplish His will? (Daniel 5:26-28, 30-31) All these acts were done by 

Jehovah's authority; and by His alone.—Ezekiel. 36:33, 36. 

Worshipped...Matt 4:10>Rev 5:11-14 

Reply: Daniel is worshipped at Dan 2:46 ASV, KJV 

So is the king, "And David said to all the assembly, Now bless Jehovah your God. And all the assembly 

blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the 

king. 1Chron 29:20 

Why is worship used for both Jesus, God, Daniel, and the king? Because the Hebrew (SHACHAH) and 

Greek (PROSKUNEW) words were such that they can be applied to others as well. According to W.E. 

Vine's Expository Dictionary PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence 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 18:26)...to the 

Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to demons(Rev 9:20)...to 

idols(Acts 7:43)." 

But worship, in conjunction with "serve", is used only of Jehovah God the Father, never the Son. 

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, 

2Chron 7:19, 22; 33:3, Jeremiah 8:2; 13:10; 16:11; 22:9; 25:6, Daniel 3:12, 14, 18, 28 

Matthew 4:10; Luke 4:8 and Romans 1:25 

Omnipotent...Jer 32:17>Php 3:21 

Reply: "Ah Lord Jehovah! behold, thou hast made the heavens and the earth by thy great power and by 

thine outstrethed arm; there is nothing too hard for thee" Jer 32:17 

"who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, 

according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself." Php 3:21 I think 

this is special pleading to assume omnipotence on the part of Christ here. 

Omniscient...1 John 3:20>Col 2:3 

Reply: "because if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things." 1John 

"Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden." Col 2:3 



Since Jesus is the created Wisdom of Proverbs 8:22-30, it is only reasonable to consider him as 

containing wisdom and knowledge. No trinity here. 

When Jesus claimed to be the "Son of God" this was a claim to be God 

(John 5:18). 

Reply: John 5:17-19 says "And for this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did 

these things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I 

work. For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the 

sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 

About this scripture the Ryrie Study Bible says, "The Jews were perfectly aware that Jesus was 

claiming full deity" Was this what Jesus was doing though? Remember, these were the Jews 

talking, and they were saying that Jesus was equal to God because he was calling God his Father. But in 

John 8:41, the Jews said, "we have one Father, God." Were the Jews then, Equal with 

God also? Exactly how were the Jews "perfectly aware" in this context of anything. They had a 

few verses prior to this misapplied the Law as for as doing good deeds on the Sabbath. Jesus had said: "it 

is lawful to do good on the sabbath day". Matt. 12:10-12 In fact, Jesus had few nice 

words to say about the Jews/Pharisees in toto: 

Matt. 15:6 "And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. Ye hypocrites, 

well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart 

is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of 

men." 

Matt. 12:34 "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the 

abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." 

Matt. 22:29 "But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor 

the power of God." 

It is probably for this reason that Gerald O'Collins, though believing that the Son is the Creator, says of 

John 5, "Here let me add that, whatever we recognize the earthly Jesus to have claimed implicitly or 

explicitly about himself, he did not present himself as the pre-existent Creator of the world....these are 

later theological reflections rather than historical traditions that reach back to Jesus himself." p. 67, 

Christology 

J.A.T. Robinson adds, "Jesus refuses the claim to be God (John 10:33) or in any way usurp the position 

of the Father...Jesus is prepared to ignore the charge that by calling God his own Father he is claiming 

equality with God (John 5:18) and accepts that of being the Son of God (10:36), while vigorously 

denying the blaspemy of being God or His substitute." Twelve More New Testament Studies, 175, 176 

When people who use this to promote a Trinity, they are forgetting the agency of Jesus. 

"Jesus is not God but God's representative and, as such, so completely and totally acts on God's behalf 

that he stands in God's stead before the world. The Gospel clearly states that God and Jesus are not to be 

understood as identical persons. as in 14:28, 'The Father is greater than I." 

The Trinity: 

Who raised Jesus from the dead? 

God>Acts 4:10 

Father>Gal 1:1 

Son>John 2:19-21 

Spirit>Rom 8:11 

Reply: I counted 4 up there, but then math is relative to a Trinitarian. 

As for John 2:19-21, One Study Bible says, "As with His usage of parables, Jesus' cryptic statement most 



likely was designed to reveal the truth to His disciples but conceal its meaning from unbelievers who 

questioned Him (Matt. 13:10, 11). Only after his resurrection, however, did the disciples understand the 

real significance of this statement (v.22; cf. Matt. 12:40). Importantly, through the death and resurrection 

of Christ, temple worship in Jerusalem was destroyed (cf. 4:21) and reinstituted in the hearts of those 

who were built into a spiritual temple called the church (Eph. 2:19-22). -footnote at John 2:19, NKJV 

MacArthur Study Bible 

As for Romans 8:11, since SPIRIT is the "power of God" (Good News Bible/Gen 1:2), then it only 

makes sense that God would use his power to raise Jesus. God's spirit/breath gives life. 

"Spirit is the principle of life and vital activity. The spirit is the breath of life (Gn 6:17; 7:15, 22; BS 

38:23; WS 15:11, 16; 16:14). Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, S.J. 

Plurality in the Godhead...Gen 1:26, 3:22, 11:7...God refers to Himself as "us". 

Reply: The Jews have always regarded this as God speaking to his heavenly assembly of angels. (Job 

1:6) Were they not with him at creation? (Job 38:4-7) 

Did God not also have Jesus as a master worker beside him? (Prov 8:22-30) 

Jehovah was hardly alone in the heavens. 

Matt 28:19 says that we are to baptise in the name (onoma is the 

singular form of name in the Greek) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

Reply: Using a singular form of NAME does not necessarily denote singularity. 

Genesis 5:2 "Male and female created he them: and blessed them, and called their NAME Adam, in the 

day when they were created." 

Here two distinct and separate individuals are called by one NAME. 

Genesis 48:6 "And thy issue, that thou begettest after them, shall be thine; they shall be called after the 

name of their brethren in their inheritance." All the brothers had 

different names although the text represents that by the singular, "name". 

It is interesting that the NIV and NEB distributes the term by translating it "names". 

Genesis 48:16: "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named 

on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a mulititude in the midst 

of the earth." Did Abraham and Isaac have the same name? Clearly, the singular term here "name" is 

used in a distributive sense. 

Mark 5:9: "Then Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ ‘My name is Legion,’ he replied, ‘For we are 

many.’" In this case one name was given to a plural number of distinct demons. 

The Bible clearly distinguishes between the name of the Father and the name of the Son. 

Proverbs 30:4 (NIV):" Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the 

hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of 

the earth? What is HIS NAME, AND THE NAME OF HIS SON? Tell me if you know!" 

Hebrews 1:4 (New Jerusalem): "So he is now as far above the angels as the title which he has inherited is 

higher than THEIR OWN NAME." 

Revelation 14:1 (NIV): "Then I looked, and theme before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, 

and with him 144,000 who had HIS NAME AND HIS FATHER’S NAME written on their foreheads." It 

is quite obvious that the Father has one name and that the Son has another. 

To look for anything else in Matt 28:19 also ignores the "authority" that is placed within the lexical range 

of ONOMA itself. 

Jesus is called God (John 20:28) and the Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3,4). 

Reply: Is the spirit God in Acts 5:3-4? Let us see what it says: 






God." ASV 







Peter and his men were not God, but representative stand in place of God, and when something is done 

against them, it is done against God. "Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own eye." Zech 2:8 

New Jewish Publication Society/ Tanakh That is why the Scofield Study Bible cross-references Acts 5:4 

to Scriptures like Numbers 16:11, 1Samuel 8:7 and 1 Thess 4:8 which says, " Therefore he that rejecteth, 

rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you." ASV 

What of John 20:28? Some have taken Thomas's exclamation as directed towards the Father, hence you 

have, "My Master, and my God" as in the 20th Century NT. 





















125-126, 

"Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words was hotly debated by early church theologians who 

wanted to use it in support of their own christological definitions. Those who understood "My Lord' to 

refer to Jesus, and 'my God' to refer to God[the Father], were suspected of heresy in the 5th cent CE. 

Many modern commentators have also rejected that interpretation and instead they understand the 

confession as an assertion that Jesus is both Lord and God. In doing so they are forced to interpret 'God' 

as a reference to LOGOS. But it is perfectly for Thomas to respond to Jesus' resurrection with a 

confession of faith both in Jesus as lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the confession 

in this way actually makes much better sense in the context of the 4th gospel. In 14:1 belief in both God 



and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which Thomas is particularly singled out.... If we understand 

Thomas's confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20:31 becomes an anti-climax." 



"For any Jew or Greek in the first century A.D. who was acquainted with the OT in Greek, the term 

QEOS would have seemed rich in content since it signified the Deity, the Creator of heaven and earth, 

and also could render the ineffable sacred name, Yahweh, the covenantal God, and yet was able of 

extremely diverse application, ranging from the images of pagan deities to the One true God of Israel, 

from heroic people to angelic beings. Whether one examines the Jewish or the Gentile use of the term 

QEOS up to the end of the 1st century A.D., there is an occasional application of the term to human 

beings who perform divine functions or display divine characteristics." Harris' Jesus as God, p.270 










This brings us to Smart's Rule as discussed on B-Greek. The rule is stated as: "In native [not translation] 

KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects two substantives of personal description in regimen 

[i.e. both or neither have articles] and the first substantive alone is modified by the personal pronoun in 

the genitive or repeated for perspicuity [Winer 147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in 

view." 

Possessive pronoun repeated for perspicuity (21) - (Mt 12:47,49; 

Mk 3:31 ,32 ,33 ,34 ; 6:4 7:10 ; 8:20, 21 Lu 8:21 ; Jn 2:12; 

4:12; Ac 2:17; Ro 16:21 ; 1Th 3:11 ; 2Th 2:16 ; 1Ti 1:1; 

2Ti 1:5; Heb 8:11; Re 6:11) [Heb 1:7 is a LXX quote and is 

therefore translation Greek.] 

Single possessive - both substantives anarthrous (10) - (Mk 3:35; 

Ro 1:7; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Ga 1:3; Ep 1:2; Php 1:2; 2Th 1:1,2; 

Phil 1:3) 

Single possessive pronoun - both substantives arthrous (12) - 

(Mk 6:21; 10:7,19; 16:7; Lk 2:23; 14:26; 18:20; Jn 11:5; Eph 6:2; 

Ac 7:14; 10:24; Re 11:18) 

There are no exceptions to this rule. 

"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and 

acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, 

he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other." Augustine in "Tractate CXXI" 

Explainations: 

Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" in Col 1:15. The word 

firstborn refers to Him being the first in rank over all creation. He 

is also called "the firstborn from the dead" in Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5. 

This refers to His resurrection. The word for firstborn in the Greek is 

prototokos. This does not mean first created (as Jehovah's Witnesses 

say). If Jesus were the first created the word protoktistos would have 



been used. 

Reply: It should be noted that protoktizo was not in common use back in the first century, and would not 

be for a 100 to 200 years after Christ. Interestingly though, when this word was eventually used, it was 

used of Christ. John Patrick, in his Clement of Alexandria notes: "Clement repeatedly identifies the Word 

with the Wisdom of God, and yet refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in one passage he 

attaches the epithet "First-created," and in another "First-begotten," to the Word." p.103,104, note 6. 

When PROTOTOKOS is used with the genitive OF, like "the firstborn of" it is used as part of a group. If 

it is "the firstborn of" Israel(Ex. 6:14 LXX), it is one of the sons of Israel, if it is "the firstborn of" 

Pharoah(Ex. 11:5 LXX) it is a member of the house of Pharoah, if it is "the firstborn of" beasts(Ex. 13:15 

LXX) then it is an animal also. Why then should this rule be changed as it applies to "the firstborn of" 

creation. Jesus is part of creation. Obviously Jesus is a created being, as he was historically always 

thought to be the created Wisdom of Proverbs. 

For more go to http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/firstborn.htm 

First and Last...Isa 44:6>Rev 1:17,18 

Reply: When you take the entire book of Revelation into consideration, the conclusion that Jesus is the 

Lord God is not even possible. Jesus cannot be the very God who is *his* God (Rev. 1:6; 3:2; 3:12). 

The Father's superiority to Christ is shown in the very first verse of Revelation, where Christ is described 

as one who was *given* 






"Christ is called the beginning and the end, because he is the 

beginning and the consummation of the Church, which was 

founded by his first, and will be completed by his second 

appearance."--(Erasmus, Opp. Tom. VI. col. 376, E. [quoted in 

"Our Heavenly Father has no Equals", by unitarian Donald R. 

Snedeker]) 



































Concessions]) 










Col 1:18. 

Can you really beleive that God can die? I cannot. Hab 1:12, (before the scribal changes/ Tiqqune 



God created life, and death is a by-product of life, this would be included. The Bible never speaks of only 

Jesus' human-self/human nature/second nature dying. This is a 4/5th century Cappadocian thought read 


Only Savior...Isa 43:11>Acts 4:12 

Reply: But there were other saviours. "And when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah 

raised up a saviour to the children of Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's 

younger brother." Judges 3:9, 15 

"Jehovah raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera" Judges 3:15 












"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who would have all men to be saved, and 

come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, 

himself man, Christ Jesus" 1Tim 2:3-5 ASV 

Lord of lords...Deut 10:17>Rev 17:11 

Holy...1 Sam 2:2>Acts 3:14 

Source of Lving Waters...Jer 17:13>John 4:10-14 

Stone of Stumbling...Isa 8:14,15>1 Pet 2:7,8 

King of Israel (In a spiritual sense)...Isa 44:6>John 1:49 

Judgement Seat...Rom 14:10>2 Cor 5:10 

Sent Holy Spirit...John 14:26>John 16:7 

Jesus is on with (John 10:30), and the exact representation of (Heb 1:3) 

the Father. In Him dwells all the fulness of the divine quality (Col 

2:9). 

No man has seen God at any time (Exo 33:20; John 1:18, 6:46; 1 Tim 

6:16), but God is seen (Gen 32:30; Exo 24:9-11, 33:11). This apparant 

contradiction can be explained by the preincarnate Christ (who is God). 

Reply: There is a simple and less confusing way to explain the above. There is something called the 

Schaliach Principle which is explained this way, "The main point of the Jewish law of agency is 

expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act 

committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." The 

Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder 




remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger was 

commonly a slave" (Murray 18). 

George Buchanan also appears to take this position in his commentary on Hebrews (Anchor Bible 

series). Buchanan notes that "a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the 

power of attorney for the one who sent him" (Buchanan 7). He also adds "The New Testament apostles 

were apostles of Jesus, and Jesus was an apostle of God. It is against this background that Jesus, in the 

same context, could say both, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is 

greater than I" (John 14:28). 

In the Bible, Angels were representatives of God, and yet are referred to as GOD. 

Let us see what happened to Hagar in Genesis 16. Verse 7 says, "And the angel of Jehovah found her by 

a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur." The angel then conversed with 

her. 

Then it goes on to say, "And she called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou art a God that 

seeth. For she said, Have I even here looked after him that seeth me?" 

The context clearly says that it was an angel that spoke to her, but her reaction is that Jehovah God spoke 



to here. 

Let us go to Judges 13 where again, the angel of Jehovah spoke to Manoah and his wife. Verse 21 and 22 

says, "But the angel of Jehovah did no more appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he 

was the angel of Jehovah. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen 

God." 

Angels were allowed to appear in behalf of God, and even use his name. 

Take Exodus 3:2, "And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a 

bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed." But further 

on down this angel speaks, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the 

God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God." Look at what this angel 

further says, " I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath 

sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, 

Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent 

me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." 

Even God admits that angels can bear his name, "Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the 

way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto 

his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him." Ex 23:20 

Angels represented God, appeared as God, and were everything that God was to those who saw them. 

Why? Because God cannot be confined by his own creation. 1 Kings 8:27 says, "But will God in very 

deed dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less 

this house that I have builded!" 

The temple that Solomon built is not enough to hold Jehovah, and then v. 49 tells us that God dwells in 

heaven. Why. 

Because Jehovah says, "Thou canst not see my face; for man shall not see me and live." The awesome 

power, glory and being of Jehovah cannot be restricted by his own creation. The footnote at 1 Kings in 

the MacArthur Study Bible NKJV tells us that Jehovah "far transcended containment by anything in 

creation." (cf. Zondervan NASB Study Bible) Also, as a "spiritual Being" (Jn 4:24 Williams NT), God is 

invisible, and the Bible stresses this over and over. (John 1:18; 6:46, Col 1:15, Rom 1:20, 1 Tim 1:17, 

Heb 11:27, 1John 4:12). 

What of Heb 1:3 though? Vincent says, "We come nearer to the sense of the word in this passage in the 

story of Moses' vision of the divine glory, Exod xxxiii. 18-23; xxxiv. 5, 7." 

Interestingly, the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible adds this of Moses, 










So there were similarities in the representational aspects of both Moses and Jesus, without either having 

to share nature or essence or Godhood in a consubstantial manner. 

Hebrews chapter 1 starts off by making the comparison of the prophets of old, "God, having of old time 

spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these 



days spoken unto us in his Son." 

What did Jehovah say to Moses? "I have made thee as God to Pharaoh" (Ex 7:1; 4:16), and in this same 

way, God had made Jesus a god to us (Jn 1:1, 18). Both represent the true God. 

It should be noted that we are also ONE with God. John 17:11 says, "Holy Father, keep them in thy name 

which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are." 

Jesus says, "...the Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28) This 

refers to the Father having a greater position when Christ was on earth. 

He did not say that the Father is better than Him because they are equal 

in essence. 

Reply: But the text does not say that this only refers to Christ when he was on earth. This is a 4th century 

interpretation read back into this verse. Jesus showed us how to use this same Greek word right in the 

next chapter, "Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord." A 

relationship between servant and his lord is one of rank, authority and superiority. 

Is this the same for Jn 14:28? In the Grimm-Thayer Lexicon, it says of John 14:28 that MEIZON "is used 

of those who surpass others-either in nature and power, as God"p. 395 

The same word is used at John 1:50. "Jesus said...thou shalt see greater things than these." 

Then Jesus continues, "And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heaven 

opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." Is heaven not BETTER 

than anything we have yet seen? 

It is unfortunate that Trinitarians have to change the common meanings of words to buttress an errant 

theology. 

Embrace the freedom of the One God, and rid yourself of the shackles of an errant theology. 


Email Me 

Heinz Schmitz 



Does ONE mean THREE in the Hebrew Scriptures? 

A Reply to: One God 

As posted athttp://acharlie.tripod.com/one_God.html 

Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures will be from the American Standard Version 1901 

Holy Scripture flatly proclaims that there is one and only one God. Throughout the Bible we are reminded 

time and again that there is one God. So as not to fill the page with page upon page of verse references, I 

will limit them to just a few. 

(Note don't go running off because you see the word "Jehovah" In the following verses. I will explain this at 

the end of the page.) 

Isa 44:6 " Thus said Jehovah, king of Israel, And his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: Ì [am] the first, and I the 

last, And besides Me there is no God." 

Isa 43:10-11 "Ye [are] My witnesses, an affirmation of Jehovah, And My servant whom I have chosen, So 

that ye know and give credence to Me, And understand that I [am] He, Before Me there was no God 

formed, And after Me there is none. I--I [am] Jehovah, And besides Me there is no saviour." 

Deut 4:35 "Thou, thou hast been shewn [it], to know that Jehovah He [is] God; there is none else besides 

Him." 

From these few verses, and the multitude of others I have not cited, we can conclude that there is only one 

God. Yet, what about the statements made throughout Scripture concerning Jesus Christ. (If you haven't 

been to my page "Who is Jesus Christ?" you will find listings of verses there, which apparently contradict 

the verses cited above). What are we to conclude? Is Scripture flawed? How can we possibly resolve the 

seeming disparity between these two groups of verses? 

In the three verses cited at the beginning of this page the word 'besides' is used. This word is translated from 

the Aramaic 'milebad' and the Hebrew 'bilade' both of which are only used in the context of 'apart from'. To 

sum up the verses, "there is no God apart from Jehovah". So, I ask you to consider, "Is Scripture trying to 

tell us that Jesus is part of Jehovah?" How can that possibly be? It doesn't make sense; or, does it? 

To reconcile the two different sets of verses would mean that the being (entity) God (JHVH) is comprised 

of more than one being. Does Scripture give us any indication that this is true? 

Gen 1:26 "And God saith, `Let Us make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness-." 

(In Genesis 1:26 the original word which has been translated "God" is "elohiym" which is again a plural 

word.) 

Gen 11:6-7 "And Jehovah said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is 

what they begin to do: and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do. Come, let 

US go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." 

Gen 19:24 "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of 

heaven;-." 

It seems that, especially considering the last verse, there is a multiplicity in the God Jehovah. If you read 

Gen 18 & 19 you find that Jehovah appeared to Abraham in the guise of three travelers, Abraham addressed 

them as Jehovah. Later in the chapter, Jehovah goes down to Sodom; yet the following verse clearly states 

that Jehovah was still with Abraham. Is this another hint as to the true nature of God? I believe that it is! 

Scripture abounds with references, which point to the Triune nature of the living God, Jehovah. 

Reply: Well, let us take a look at the above verses. In Genesis 18 and 19, do we have a multiplicity of 

the God Jehovah? 

Gen 19:1,2, "And Jehovah appeared unto him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat 

of the day. And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him." ASV 

Who are these three men? Are they really Jehovah? To find out, we have to use other Bible texts to 

figure this out. 

1 Kings 8:27 says, "But will God in very deed dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of 

heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded!" 

The temple that Solomon built is not enough to hold Jehovah, and then v. 49 tells us that God dwells in 

heaven. Why. 

Because Jehovah says, "Thou canst not see my face; for man shall not see me and live." The awesome 

power, glory and being of Jehovah cannot be restricted by his own creation. The footnote at 1 Kings in 

the MacArthur Study Bible NKJV tells us that Jehovah "far transcended containment by anything in 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/mamre.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:03:21 AM]


creation." (cf. Zondervan NASB Study Bible) Also, as a "spiritual Being" (Jn 4:24 Williams NT), God is 

invisible, and the Bible stresses this over and over. (John 1:18; 6:46, Col 1:15, Rom 1:20, 1 Tim 1:17, 

Heb 11:27, 1John 4:12). 

So this leaves us with one question! Who were the three men in Genesis 18? The surrounding context 

will help us here. Let us go to chapter 16 and Hagar. "And the angel of Jehovah found her by a fountain 

of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur." (see also vss. 9, 10, 11) How does Hagar 

respond? "..she named the LORD {Jehovah} who spoke to her El-roi [a God who can be seen]. 'For,' said 

she, 'I have actually seen God, and am still alive after seeing him.'" v13 

She did not really see Jehovah, but His angel. The context tells us that much. 

Angels came down to represent Jehovah in every way. They even bore His name. Let us take a look at 

Exodus 3:2, " And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush." 

But we read on that his angel is being presented as Jehovah Himself. In fact, this angel tells Moses, "And 

God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I 

AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of 

Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, 

hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." 

How can an angel bear God's name? Because God allows this. Exodus 23:20, 21 says, "Behold, I send an 

angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take 

ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your 

transgression: *for my name is in him*." 

Is this also true of the context at Genesis 18 and 19? Yes it is. In fact, at 19:1, the three *angels*" split 

up. "And the two angels came to Sodom at even." So, they were not God at all, but angels all along. (cf. 

Oxford Annotated Study Bible-RSV) 

"It is also clear that the messenger of Yahweh is not clearly distinguished from Yahweh Himself; cf Gn 

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 

Yahweh to speak in His name or to work wonders in his name..." Dictionary of the Bible by John L. 

McKenzie (cf. Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 28, where it refers to the men at Gen 18:2 as angels). 

What of Gen 1:26 and the Hebrew word Elohim? Gn 1:26 says, "And God said, Let us make man in our 

image, after our likeness." Does this mean that God is plural? "The plural form does not indicate multiple 

gods, but God and the retinue of the divine court." Harper Collins Study Bible NRSV (cf. Zondervan 

NASB Study Bible, Oxford Annotated Bible-RSV, and Oxford Study Bible - REB) What divine court? 

God is not alone in heaven (Ps 82:1; 89:5-7) and he was not alone during creation (Job 38:4-7; Prov 

8:22-30). 

"Christians have traditionally seen this verse [Gen 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is 

now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author" (Genesis 1-15, 

Word Biblical Commentary, G.J. Wenham, 27). 

How do we know this? Examine Ezra 4:17, 18 which says, "Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum 

the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and 

in the rest of the country beyond the River: Peace, and so forth. The letter which ye sent unto us hath 

been plainly read before me." King Artaxerxes was not a Trinity, yet he can refer to himself as "us." 

What does Elohim mean? Aaron Ember wrote: "That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely 

given up the idea of plurality in . . . [Élo·him'] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by 

the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular 

adjectival attribute. . . . [Élo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness 

and majesty, being equal to The Great God."-The American Journal of Semitic Languages and 



Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208. 

"Rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and 

power." Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon under Elohim. 

Hebrew grammarian Gesenius says of Elohim, "The plural of Majesty...sums up the several 

characteristics belonging to the idea, besides posing the secondary sense of an intensification of an 

original idea...that the language has entirely rejected the idea of a numerical plurality in elohim 

(whenever it denotes one God), is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular 

attribute." Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, 398-399 

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as Elohim. The word Elohim is also used when referring to 

idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply "gods." (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the 

plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not 

trinities.-1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 ("goddess" Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk). 

"It is exegesis of a mischievous kind, if pious, sort that would discover the doctrine in the plural form 

'Elohim,' of the Deity's name, in the recorded appearance of three angels to Abraham, or even in the ter 

sanctus of the prophecies of Isaiah." Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 

German scholar Franz Delitzsch observed that "the idea that the Trinity is represented in the three is in 

every point of view untenable." 

What then of Genesis 19:24, "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire 

from Jehovah out of heaven." 

Are there 2 Jehovahs here? Or, maybe, 2/3rds of the required three for a Trinity? 

A similar expression is used at Ex 24:1, where the Harper Study Bible NRSV has a footnote that says, 

"The Lord refers to himself in the third person as in 19:24." Is this unusual? King Solomon did the same 

thing, "Solomon assembled the elders of Israel . . . unto King Solomon." 

Gen 49:1,2, " And Jacob called unto his sons, and said: gather yourselves together, that I may tell you 

that which shall befall you in the latter days. Assemble yourselves, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; And 

hearken unto Israel your father." Here we another example of speaking of yourself in the 3rd person. 

This was common back then, so it can be dismissed as the New English Bible has in its reading of Gen 

19:24, "The LORD rained down fire and brimstones from the skies on Sodom and Gomorrah." (see also 

Revised English Bible, Contemporary English Version, New Jerusalem Bible, NIrV, Bible in Basic 

English, New Century Version-ICB, New Living Translation) 

The name 'Jehovah' does not exist anywhere in the original manuscripts of Scripture. What does exist is the 

tetragrammation 'JHVH'. This is used to signify the incommunicable name of the One True God. It has been 

rendered both as Jehovah and Yahweh; however, by definition neither is the correct name. Many 

translations render "JHVH" as LORD, and LORD in a smaller print. This has lead to a lot of confusion 

among readers of the Bible. With each version, or translation, of the Bible subtle, and some not so subtle, 

changes have been introduced to God's Word the Holy Bible. One translation, the New World Translation, 

has undertaken to rewrite various key verses of Scripture to support their own beliefs. 

Reply: Is neither Jehovah or Yahweh by definition a correct name? To say this is intirely misleading, and 

somewhat dishonest and unfair. It is just as correct for me to say that Jesus is incorrect, since nobody 

actually called him that in Bible times. For more on the pronunciation of the Divine Name click here. 

There have been glosses introduced into the Bible, but by far, the majority of these have been introduced 

by people trying to promote a Trinity (see The Orthodox Corruption by Bart D. Ehrman, the Comma 

Johanneum, and The Text of the New Testament-It;s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration). We can 

be thankful though that God has seen fit to help us uncover the many thousands of manuscripts so that 

we have virtually have the Bible that God gave us. The interpolations can be weeded out. As for the New 



World Translation, those against it are often guilty of religious prejudice and bigotry, as can be seen by 

following these links. 






"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages. we suggest either a very literal 



What about the various verses that flatly proclaim :there is one God"? 

A study into the original manuscripts, or at least checking Concordances & Lexicons, reveals that the word 

translated as "one" is "echad" this word was not used to denote a singular entity. It was however, used to 

denote a unit composed of more than one- for example, it would be used in the context "One Army" but 

would NOT be used in the context of "One Person." Since, "All Scripture is God-breathed" it is no mistake 

that the original wording is "echad". 

Reply: Again, the above is a lie. ECHAD is indeed used to denote a single entity. Even Abraham is 

referred to as ONE(Echad) at Isaiah 51:2. Exekiel 33:24, "Àbraham was only one (ECHAD) man, yet he 

possessed the land." NIV 

Is Abraham not a singular entity? 

When the LXX translators made the first translation into another language, Greek, they rendered the 

word ECHAD with the singular "hEIS." Deut 6:4 "KURIOS O QEOS HMWN KURIOS EIS ESTIN" 

LXX/Septuagint. This was carried over into the NT. Consider Mark 12:29: 

"KURIOS O QEOS HMWN KURIOS EIS ESTIN." That which was a characteristic of the Hebrew 

language, was not carried over into the Bible by the pre-Christian Jews nor the 1st century Christians. 

God is simply ONE...not THREE. Sorry. 

Trinitarian professor of theology Gregory Boyd admits, "Even weaker [than the argument for Elohim] is 

the argument that the Hebrew word for "one" (echad) used in the Shema...refers to a unified one, not an 

absolute one. Hence some Trinitarians have argued, the Old Testament has a view of a united Godhead. 

It is, of course, true that the meaning of the word may in some contexts denote a unified plurality (eg 

Gen. 2:24, they shall become one flesh). But this really proves nothing. An examination of the Old 

Testament usage reveals that the word echad is as capable of various meanings as our English word one. 

The context must determine whether a numerical or unified singularity is intended." Oneness 

Pentecostals and the Trinity, 47, 48 


Email Me 


Why Does Ron Rhodes Hate Jehovah? 

Ron Rhodes vs Jehovah 

Jehovah, Yahweh or LORD? 

Excerpt from the book, The Complete Book of Bible Answers by Ron Rhodes, on page 59, when asked 

"Does the fact that the word 'Trinity' is not in the Bible mean the doctrine is unbiblical?" To answer this 

in the negative, Ron Rhodes, the Bible Answer Man, puts himself at odd with the Bible, God, and 

common sense. 

Rhodes retorts, "It is generally the Jehovah's Witnesses who say the Trinity is an unbiblical doctrine 

because it is not in the Bible." 

Actually, it is a great many people that hold that the Trinity is not in the Bible? 


To follow up with this, Ron Rhodes drops a whopper, "A good response to them is to point out that 

the word Jehovah does not appear as such in the Bible." 

Is this really so? On page 67 Ron Rhodes has to admit that the name Jehovah is used in some legitimate 

translations such as the American Standard Version and the King James Version. So which is it? Is it in 

the Bible or isn't it? It may seem that the Bible Answer Man is the subject of Romans 10:2,3, "For I bear 

them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of God's 

righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of 

God." 

In fact, as I have constantly shown, the Jehovah/Yahweh is rendered in many many Bibles, as can be 

seen at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/jhvh.htm and 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/yhwh.htm and 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/jehovah.htm 

Let us examine Ron's argument further: 

"In fact, the word Jehovah does not appear does not appear in any legitimate Hebrew or Greek 

manuscripts of the Bible." 

Does Ron know of any illegitimate Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the Bible that do contain the name 

Jehovah? The fact is, even the name "Jesus" does not appear in any Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the 

Bible. Why? Because Jesus is an Anglicized form of the Hebrew word Yeshua or Yehoshua and the 

Greek word Iesous. So, in this vein, the word Jehovah does not appear in Hebrew or Greek manuscripts 

of the Bible just as EVERY OTHER NAME in the Bible does not appear in Hebrew or Greek 

manuscripts of the Bible. The Bible was not written in English, simply put. The Bibles that Rhodes' likes 

are the New American Standard Version and maybe the New International Version. Instead of using any 

Divine Name, these use the word LORD in its place. Did you know the word LORD is not in any 

Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the Bible. It comes from the Hebrew word ADONAI and the Greek 

word KYRIOS. 

But let's move on. The best way to determine Bible pronunciations by looking at how the Bible renders 

other names with the same letters. How does the Bible use other names that incorporate part of the 

Divine Name? 

Here are Bible names that use the 1st part of the Divine Name: 

Jehoaddah (literally YEHOADDA) 

Jehoaddan (literally YEHOADDAN) 

Jehoahaz (literally YEHOAHAZ) 

Jehoash (literally YEHOAS) 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/rhodes_jhvh.htm (1 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:03:37 AM]


Jehohanan (literally YEHOHANAN) 

Jehoiachin (literally YEHOYAKIN) 

Jehoiada (literally YEHOYADA) 

Jehoiakim (literally YEHOYAQIM) 

Jehoiarib (literally YEHOYARIB) 

Jehonadab (literally YEHONADAB) 

Jehonathan (literally YEHONATAN) 

Jehoram (literally YEHORAM) 

Jehoshabeath (literally YEHOSABAT) 

Jehoshaphat (literally YEHOSAPAT) 

Jehosheba (literally YEHOSEBA) 

Jehoshua (literally YEHOSUA) 

Jehozabad (literally YEHOZABAD) 

Jehozadak (literally YEHOSADAQ) 

The words above, starting with "J" are the ones that we have in pretty well all English Bibles. But none 

of these words are in the Hebrew Bible, according to the same reasoning that Ron Rhodes uses. None of 

the above words that start with "J" appear in any Hebrew or Greek manuscript. In fact, neither are the 

literal renderings, since they are transliterations. Why? Because Hebrew is Hebrew, and English is 

English. 

But what about words the end with the latter element of the Divine Name? Here are some that are: 

Puvah 

Kibbroth-Hattaavah 

Ivvah 

Ishvah 

Hodevah 

Chavvah 

Alvah 

(I am indebted to the excellent book The Divine Name Controversy by Firpo W. Carr, Ph.D. for some of 

the above information...see also Petrus Galatinus', De arcanis catholicae veritatis, 1518 A.D.) 

As we can see, Jehovah is an acceptable form of the Tetragrammaton in the English language, in fact, it 

is more acceptable the oft transliterated Yahweh. Francis B. Denio, who studied and taught Hebrew for 

40 years says: 

"Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more that Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu. The settled 

connotation of Isaiah and Jeremiah forbid questioning their right. Usage has given them the connotations 

proper for designating the personalities which these words represent. Much the same is true of Jehovah. 

It is not barbarism. It has already many of the connotations needed for the proper name of the covenant 

God of Israel. There is no other word which can faintly compare with it. For centuries it has been 

gathering these connotations. No other word approaches this name in fullness of associations required. 

The use of any other word falls so far short of the proper ideas that it is a serious blemish in a 

translation." On the Use of the Word Jehovah, JBL 46, 1927, 147-148 

Notice the very interesting statements in the Catholic Encyclopedia 

(1913) (http://www.newadvent.org) 

"Jehovah (Yahweh): The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by 



excellence, the great name, the only name,.... Finally, the word is found even in the "Pugio fidei" of 

Raymund Martin, a work written about 1270 (ed. Paris, 1651, pt. III, dist. ii, cap. iii, p. 448, and Note, p. 

745). PROBABLY THE INTRODUCTION OF THE NAME JEHOVAH ANTEDATES EVEN R. 

MARTIN. No wonder then that this form has been regarded as the true pronunciation of the Divine name 

by such scholars as Michaelis ("Supplementa ad lexica hebraica", I, 1792, p. 524), Drach (loc. cit., I, 

469-98), Stier (Lehrgebäude der hebr. Sprache, 327), and others." 

What of Michaelis? Johann David Michaelis in his German translation of the Old Testament of the 

eighteenth century...said in part: "On the other hand, the name Jehovah [ Jehova in German] is used. . . . 

so I considered it to be a matter of integrity in translation to identify it, even though it might not always 

be pleasing to the German ear." ....Several of my friends insisted that I not at all insert this foreign word. . 

. . Jehovah is a Nomen Proprium, and, just as properly as I retain other nomina propria [such as] 

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob... In the translation of a classical author one would not have the slightest hesitance 

toward the use of the names Jupiter, Apollo [and] Diana; and why then should the name of the Only True 

God sound more offensive? I do not therefore see why I should not use the name Jehovah in the German 

Bible." 

"How God's Name Was Pronounced 

Biblical Archaeology Review, Mar./Apr. 1995 Volume 21 Number 2; page 30: 

"1) Among the magical papyri the name appears as IAWOUHE (Ya-oh-oo-ay-eh), but it is difficult to 

know how much this pronunciation had to do with the Tetragrammaton...so it is not certain how many of 

these syllables were thought to belong to the name. At least, however, it has more syllables than two, and 

the central vowel is not omitted, as is done in Yah-weh. 

"2) Clement of Alexandria spelled the Tetragrammaton IAOAI (Ya-oo-ai), IAOE (Ya-oo-eh), and IAO 

(Ya-oh). In none of these is the central oo or oh vowel omitted. 

"3) Rabbis often deduced the meaning of a word by taking the word apart and interpreting each part...By 

this logic Clement argued that the Tetragrammaton had the same consonants as the verb "to be," so it 

meant the one who caused things to be, but he did not pronounce the word 

according to any form of that verb. His conjecture was homiletic ally thought provoking, but not 

scientifically or historically correct...Reams of paper and gallons of ink have been expended over the 

years justifying a pronunciation Westerners deduced on the basis of Clement's conjecture. It may all be 

irrelevant to the subject....The word spelled Ya-hoo or Ya-hoh may have been pronounced Yahowah or 

Yahoowah, but in no case is the vowel oo or oh omitted. The word was sometimes abbreviated as "Ya," 

but never as "Ya-weh." This can be illustrated further by studying the proper names of the Bible that 

were based on the Tetragrammaton....Yah-ho-na-than..."Yaho-cha-nan"...Eli-yahoo ...Anyone who cares 

to check the concordances will find that there is no name in the entire Scriptures that includes the 

Tetragrammaton and also omits the vowel that is left out in the two-syllable pronunciation Rainey 

upholds. 

"There is still one other clue to the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton Hebrew poetry. For example, 

from the poem of Exodus 15, read aloud verses 1, 3, 6, 11, 17 and 18, first pronouncing the 

Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh" and then read it again, pronouncing the same 

word as "Yahowah." Notice the rhyme and poetic beat of the two. In this way the reader can judge which 

one is the more likely pronunciation used in antiquity. 

"The name "Yahowah" is not a ghost word, as Rainey declared. Clement of Alexandria's conjecture that 



the Tetragrammaton was based on the verb "to be" overlooks the pronunciation of the proper names in 

the Scripture that include some portion of the Tetragrammaton. Clement did not have access to the 

scrolls and may never have seen the Aramaic Papyri. 

Nevertheless, he spelled the Tetragrammaton in Greek employing the central vowel that Rainey omitted 

in his determination that the proper name was Yahweh.... 

The way Rudolf Kittle translates YHWH is more accurate than "Yahweh", he translates it "Yehowah. 

Why? Became YHWH is a 3 syllable word, not a two syllable word like "Yahweh" is. George 

Buchanan of Wesley Theological Seminary favors the use of "Yahowah" or "Yahoowah." 

He explains how he came up with those: "In ancient times, parents often named their children after their 

deities. That means that they would have pronounced their children's names the way the deity's name 

was pronounced. The Tetragrammaton was used in people's names, and they always used the middle 

vowel." A few examples of proper names found in the Bible that 

include the shortened form of God's name are Jonathan, which appears as Yohnathan or Yehohnathan in 

Hebrew. It means "Yaho or Yahowah has given." Elijah's name is Eliyah or Eliyahu in Hebrew, which 

means: "My God is Yahoo or Yahoo-wah." Also, Jehoshaphat is Yehohshaphat meaning "Yaho has 

judged." 

The two syllable pronunciation of YHWH as "Yahweh" would not allow for the "o" vowel sound to exist 

as part of God's name. But in dozens of Biblical names that incorporate the divine name, this middle 

vowel sound appears in both the original and the shortened forms, as in Jehonathan and Jonathan. 

Professor Buchanan says about God's name: "In no case is the vowel oo or oh omitted. The word was 

sometimes abbreviated as 'Ya,' but never as 'Ya-weh.'... When the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in 

one syllable it was 'Yah' or 'Yo.' When it was pronounced in three syllables it would have been 

'Yahowah' or 'Yahoowa.' If it was ever abbreviated to two syllables it would have been 'Yaho.' " 

(Biblical Archaeology Review) 

Gesenius in his Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament Scriptures agrees saying: "Those 

who consider that YHWH [Yehowah] was the actual pronunciation are not altogether without ground on 

which to defend their opinion. In this way can the abbreviated syllables YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo], 

with which many proper names begin, be more satisfactorily explained." -George Wesley Buchanan 

Professor Emeritus, Wesley Theological Seminary Washington, DC 

However, if the word were 

spelled with four letters in Moses' day, we would expect it to have had 

more than two syllables, for at that period there were no vowel 

letters. All the letters were sounded. At the end of the OT period the 

Elephantine papyri write the word YHW to be read either yahu (as in 

names like Shemayahu) or yaho (as in names like Jehozadek). The 

pronunciation yaho would be favored by the later Greek from iao found in 

Qumran Greek fragments (2d or 1st centuries B.C.) and in Gnostic 

materials of the first Christian centuries.Theological Wordbook of the 

Old Testament 

"In the history of the English language however, the letter J has a written counterpart in the German J, 

although the latter J in German is pronounced like an English Y. The bulk of theological studies having 

come from the German sources, there has been an intermixed usage in English of the J and the Y. Our 



English translations of the bible reflect this, so we have chosen to use J, thus Jehovah, rather than 

Yahweh, because this is established English usage for Biblical names beginning with this Hebrew letters. 

No one suggests that we ought to change Jacob, Joseph, Jehoshaphat, Joshua etc. to begin with a Y, and 

neither should we at this late date change Jehovah to Yahweh." -Bible Translator Jay P. Green, Sr. 

Girdlestones says: "It is generally agreed that Jehovah [unlike Elohim] 

is not a generic or class name, but a personal or proper name. 

Maimonides says this is called the Plain name. [Another] says: It is 

every where a proper name, denoting the person of God, and Him only; 

whence Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun. 

"The Hebrew may say the Elohim, the true God, in opposition to all false 

Gods; but he never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is the name of the true 

God only! He says my God, but never my Jehovah; the God of Israel, but 

never the Jehovah of Israel, for there is no other Jehovah, the living 

God but never of the living Jehovah. 

"God's personal existence, the continuity of His dealings with man, the 

unchange-ableness of his promises, and the whole revelation of his 

redeeming mercy gather round the name Jehovah. 

"In the 3rd chapt. of Genesis it may be noted that THE SERPENT AVOIDS 

THE USE OF THE NAME."Girdlestones Synonyms of the Old Testament; 36-38: 

"Knowing another's name was a special privilege that offered access to 

that persons thought and life...God favored His people by revealing [his 

name] which offered special insight into his love and righteousness." 

-Illustrated Bi. Dict. 

It might be added here that the meaning of Jesus, is, according to Weymouth: "Jehovah is Salvation." So 

every time anyone uses this name, Jesus, (which is not the original pronunciation of it in the 1st century) 

he is using and supporting the form of The Divine Name JEHOVAH 

in the N.T. 

So Why Does Ron Rhodes Hate the Name Jehovah? 

Because, according to Ron, "Jesus is Yahweh" (same book, p.101). [Rhodes himself says that "Jesus is 

not the Father." p. 127 Yet the Bible clearly says that Yahweh/Jehovah is the Father at Isaiah 64:8 

"Yahweh, you are our Father" Jerusalem Bible]. If Jesus is Yahweh/Jehovah, then to translate it as such 

does not really promote a Trinity teaching. Rhodes likes the NASB, which, unlike its predecessor refuses 

to translate the Divine Name properly. This causes confusion between the Father and the Son, something 

that was done purposely even back in the Nicene controversy: 

"The strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was they who 

demanded, in effect, that Christianity be "updated" by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted 

distinction between the Father and the Son." When Jesus Became God by Richard E. Rubenstein,p. 74 

By creating a confusion between the Father and Son, you end up with an unholy incest. Take note of Ps 

110:1 in the NASB: 

"The LORD says to my Lord: Sit at my right hand." 

It sounds like God talking to another part of himself. This is what trinitarians want. God as a community. 



Yet, if you look in any Hebrew Interlinear, you will see that this is not the case. The first Lord is the 

Divine Name, the second is the word is ADONI. 

"I.e., adon with the personal suffix 'i' ('my'). It is amazing that that a number of commentaries wrongly 

assert that the second lord is adonai. See, for example, The Bible Knowledge Commentary (ed. Walvoord 

and Zuck, representing Dallas Theological Seminary faculty, Victor Books, 1987) which states 

mistakenly that 'my lord' in Ps. 110:1 'translates the Hebrew adonay, used only of God' (73). 

Unfortunately this comment suggests that the Messiah is God Himself. In fact, the Hebrew for 'my lord' 

is not adonai but adoni, which is never used of God but often of the king of Israel and other human 

superiors. This surprising error of fact is symptomatic of the widespread confusion of God with the 

Messiah. 1 Sam. 24:6 it typical of the Hebrew manner of distinguishing 'my lord, the king' from the Lord 

God. No one reading Ps. 110:1 could imagine that the Messiah was the Lord God. The Messiah is the 

Lord's anointed. See Luke 2:11, 26 for Luke's carefully worded titles. The 'Lord Christ' (Luke 2:11) is the 

'my lord' of Ps. 110:1. There are thus two Lords: the one Lord God and the one Lord Messiah, Jesus. 

That is exactly Paul's creed in 1Cor. 8:4-6. Robert Sumner in his Jesus Christ is God (Biblical 

Evangelism Press, 1983) bases his major argument for the Trinity on Ps. 110:1:'Jesus' reference was to 

the oft-quoted Ps. 110:1, readily acknowledged by the Jews of His day to be both Davidic and Messianic, 

where both King David called the Christ 'my lord' using one of the names of deity, Adonai' (321) He then 

goes on to find the complete Trinity in Jehovah, Adonai, Spirit. Accurate reporting of the language facts 

would make that conclusion impossible." 

The Doctrine of the Trinity-Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound, p.46, Anthony Buzzard. 


"The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates 

KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in 

many passages made it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and 

replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time went 

on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish 

between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the 

later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries." 

George Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 15 

There would be less confusion if Bibles would just translate this name accurately. In the book Bible 

Translations and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie says, 

"In the Old Testament, God's name should appear as a name, either 'Jehovah' [BLE] or 'Yahweh' [NJB] 

(ch. 6); while other proper names should take their most familiar English form [top five] preferably with 

assistance in their pronunciation [NWT; cf. RSV]. p.111 

He also says, "One of the forms of the divine name should appear for the original YHWH throughout the 

Old Testament, and especially in Exodus 6:3, 'by my name JEHOVAH' and 1Kings 18:39, 'Jehovah, he is 

God', which hardly makes sense without the actual name. However, in place of the name, many Bible 

translations use 'the LORD' (in capitals)...but capitals are inaudible when read aloud and are readily 

ignored. A few Bible translations do not even use capitals for Lord (LB, AB, etc)." p.38 

Does the Bible ever tell us to stop using his name? 

No, definitely not. This name is in the Hebrew scriptures almost 7000 times. This is more than any other 

name, and more than all the other titles put together. The math and common sense alone tells us this 



repetitive emphasis means the Name was meant to last forever. 

"You must tell the Isrealites this, that it is JEHOVAH the God of their forefathers, the God of Abraham, 

The God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, who has sent you to them. This is my name forever; this is my title 

in every generation." The New English Bible(Protestant and Catholic). 

"Then have those fearing Jehovah spoken one to another, And Jehovah doth attend and hear, And written 

is a book of memorial before Him Of those fearing Jehovah, And of those esteeming His name." Malachi 

3:16 Young's Literal Version 

"Jehovah our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy majesty above the 

heavens." Ps 8:1 Darby 

"That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the 

earth." Ps 83:18 King James Version 



'From the sun's rising even to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place 

sacrificial smoke will be made, a presentation will be made to my name, even a clean gift; because my 

name will be great among the nations,' Jehovah of armies has said."-Mal 1:11 NWT 

"And in very deed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you; and that my 

name may be declared in all the earth." NKJV 

"And I will sanctify my great name, which hath been profaned among the nations, which ye have 

profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am Jehovah, saith the Lord Jehovah, 

when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes." Ezekiel 36:23 ASV 

"Praise Yahweh! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his doings. Bring to remembrance 

that exalted is his Name. Praise in song Yahweh, for a splendid thing he has done. Well known is this in 

all the earth."-Isaiah 12:4, 5. Rotherham 

Simeon has reported how God first intervened to take from the Gentiles a people for His name. Acts 

15:14 HCSB 

"Hallowed be thy name" Matt 6:9 Revised Version 

"I have made known to them your name, and will make it known," John 17:26 NASB 


"For the Name of Jehovah I proclaim, Ascribe ye greatness to our God! The Rock! --perfect [is] His 

work, For all His ways [are] just; God of stedfastness, and without iniquity: Righteous and upright [is] 

He. It hath done corruptly to Him; Their blemish is not His sons', A generation perverse and crooked! To 

Jehovah do ye act thus, O people foolish and not wise? Is not He thy father--thy possessor? He made 

thee, and doth establish thee." Deut 32 Young's Literal Version 

Here are some fast facts on the Divine Name and the sinister agenda behind its removal. 

Most English Bibles, like the New American Standard Bible, New Revised Standard Version, New 

American Bible, New King James Version etc refuse to translate YHWH. Yet, the average Bible contains 



the name Satan about 50 times. Satan, it seems, is afforded more respect than the Bibles own author. ** 

In the Bible, Satan never uses the Divine Name, preferring the title God, (Gen 3) a parallel situation to 

the average Bible translator. 

How did Jesus view Gods name when confronted with Satan? When Jesus was tempted by the Devil, he 

answered each and every time with a scripture that highlighted the Divine Name. At Matthew 4:4, Jesus 

quotes Deut 8:3 which says, man doth not live by bread only, but by everything that proceedeth out of 

the mouth of Jehovah doth man live. 

At Matthew 4:7, Jesus quotes Deut 6:16, Ye shall not tempt Jehovah your God, and at Matthew 4:10, 

Jesus quotes from Deut 6:13/10:20, Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; him shalt thou serve. 

**Many may argue that some, like the Jews, stopped saying the Divine Name in order that they may not 

break the commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain." (Ex 20:7). Yet, I do 

not see the same kind of zeal to remove the sex organs for fear of breaking the commandment at v. 14, 

"Thou shalt not commit adultery." This is the height of piety and arrogance, and nothing else. 

Marmorstein (1927: 17, 13) "The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God": 

"Greek philosophy, Jewish Alexandrian theology, christian apology and Gnostic lore concur in the 

idea of God`s namelessness. That God has no name was taught by Aristotele, Seneca, Maxim of Tyre, 

Celsus and Hermes Trismegistus." 

"We notice a very far-reaching difference between Palestinian and Alexandrian theology concerning the 

Tetragrammaton. A bitter struggle between Hellenists and Hasidim /forerunners of the pharisees, my 

note/centered around the pronunciation of the Divine Name. A similar 

controversy arose afterwards around the use of the Name Elohim and even as to the substitution of the 

Tetragrammaton." 

One Bible Translator who opted to translate the Name, John W. Davis, a missionary in 

China during the 19th century. He explained why he translated the Name: 

"If the Holy Ghost says Jehovah in any given place in the Hebrew, why does the translator not say 

Jehovah in English or Chinese? What right has he to say, I will use Jehovah in this place and a substitute 

for it in that? . . . If any one should say that there are cases in which the use of Jehovah would be wrong, 

let him show the reason why; the onus probandi [burden of proof] rests upon him. He will find the task a 

hard one, for he must answer this simple question,-If in any given case it is wrong to use Jehovah in the 

translation then why did the inspired writer use it in the original?" 

-The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal, Volume VII, Shanghai, 1876. 

For more of a detailed discussion I highly recommend The Divine Name that Lasts Forever 

The books The Divine Name Controversy by Firpo W. Carr, Ph.D. 

Jehovah's Witnesses Defended by Greg Stafford 

and The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation by Rolf Furuli 

"In the Scriptures there is the closest possible relationship between a person and his name the two being 

practically equivalent' so that to remove the name is to extinguish the person.( Num. 27:4; Deut. 7:24)To 

forget God's name is to depart from Him." -571 Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary.1964 




Email Me 

Heinz Schmitz 



50 Answers to 50 Questions 

Answers to 50 Questions Every Jehovah's Witness Should Be Asked 

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the ASV-American Standard Version 1901 

1. Since Fred Franz admitted under oath that he and nobody else on the (New World Translation) 

committee could read either Greek or Hebrew, how could they "translate" the manuscripts and be accurate? 

Reply: Actually, your information is not true, and that from several different angles. But, the proof is in 

the pudding, and many experts have viewed the NWT as very good Bible (click here for more). To argue 

otherwise would be to argue against divine providence, which makes you anti-Bible and anti-God. (cf. 

Psalm 12:6, 7; Daniel 12:4; 1 Peter 1:24, 25) 

The following will also show that this movement is also anti-intellectual and religiously bigoted. 

2. In the New World Translation, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" is used in reference to God, it is 

translated as "worship" (Rev.5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in 

reference to Jesus, 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 word in the Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for this inconsistency? 

If the NWT was consistent in translating "proskuneo" as "worship", how would the verses above referring 

to Christ read? 

Reply: Did you know that the New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, Smith & Goodspeed's An 

American Translation, the 20th Century NT does the exact same thing as the NWT? Is it because they are 

also made by Jehovah's Witnesses and therefore trying to mislead the public? No, it is because 

PROSKUNEW as well as the Hebrew equivalent SHACHAH has a wider application, and it is often the 

same word used to bow to mere humans. Take note of the following: 





So it is necessary for Bible versions to make a distinction, as they all do (see Matt 18:26). 

3. The NWT translates the Greek word "kyrios" (Gr-lord) as "Jehovah" more than 25 times in the New 

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, 

etc.). Why is the word "Jehovah" translated when it does not appear in the Greek text? Why is the NWT not 

consistent in translating kyrios (kurion) as "Jehovah" in Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2 Thess 2:1, and 

Rev 22:21 (see Gr-Engl Interlinear)? 

Reply: Why are there absolutely NO Bible translations that are consistent in translating "kyrios"? What 

does "kyrios" mean? 

"ltA-1,Noun,2962,kurios> 

properly an adjective, signifying "having power" (kuros) or "authority," is used as a noun, 

variously translated in the NT, "'Lord,' 'master,' 'Master,' 'owner,' 'Sir,' a title of wide 

significance, occurring in each book of the NT save Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used 

(a) of an owner, as in Luke 19:33, cp. Matt. 20:8; Acts 16:16; Gal. 4:1; or of one who has 

the disposal of anything, as the Sabbath, Matt. 12:8; (b) of a master, 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, Acts 

25:26; Rev. 17:14; (d) of idols, ironically, 1 Cor. 8:5, cp. Isa. 26:13; (e) as a title of respect 

addressed to a father, Matt. 21:30, a husband, 1 Pet. 3:6, a master, Matt. 13:27; Luke 13:8, a 

ruler, Matt. 27:63, an 

angel, Acts 10:4; Rev. 7:14; (f) as a title of courtesy addressed to a stranger, John 12:21; 

20:15; Acts 16:30; from the outset of His ministry this was a common form of address to the 

Lord Jesus, alike by the people, Matt. 8:2; John 4:11, and by His disciples, Matt. 8:25; Luke 

5:8; John 6:68; (g) kurios is the Sept. and NT representative of Heb. Jehovah ('Lord' in 



Eng. versions), see Matt. 4:7; Jas. 5:11, e.g., of adon, Lord, Matt. 22:44, and of Adonay, 

Lord, Matt. 1:22; it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Pet. 1:25. " Vine's Expository Dictionary 

So sometimes, the title applies to God, sometimes to Jesus, other times to angels and mere men. The 

context will usually help us decide who it is being applied to. I do not know of any Bible version that 

translates it as "lord" for every application of the word "kyrios." The real question should be, "Why do 

most English Bible Versions fail to translate the Divine Name YHWH/JHVH, or do so inconsistently, 

but instead substitute it with the generic 'Lord' each of it's 6828 occurences?" It might also be pointed out 

that many other have also used the Divine Name Jehovah in the New Testament. Click here and here for 

more. 

4. To what was Jesus referring to by the term "this temple' in Jn 2:18-19? See Jn 2:21. 

Reply: He certainly didn't mean that he was part of a mysterious Trinity! 

"As with His usage of parables, Jesus' cryptic statement most likely was designed to reveal the truth to 

His disciples but conceal its meaning from unbelievers who questioned Him (Matt. 13:10, 11). Only after 

his resurrection, however, did the disciples understand the real significance of this statement (v.22; cf. 

Matt. 12:40). Importantly, through the death and resurrection of Christ, temple worship in Jerusalem was 

destroyed (cf. 4:21) and reinstituted in the hearts of those who were built into a spiritual temple called the 

church (Eph. 2:19-22)." 


Says A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament: 

"Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: 'And in three days I will raise it up.' He did not mean that he will 

raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11)."-(New York, 

1932), Vol. V, p. 183. 

We have the prophet Ezekiel doing the same thing in Ezekiel 43:3, "I came to bring the city [Jerusalem] 

to ruin," that is, by predicting its destruction. Ezekiel actually did not destroy Jerusalem; but by 

prophecying it, he could speak of himself as doing it in a predictive sense. (cf. Jeremiah 1:10.) Similarly, 

the Father resurrected his Son, but Jesus could speak of doing so in a prophetic sense. 

5. The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" as "I am" every time it appears (Jn 6:34, 6:41, 8:24, 

13:19, 15:5, etc.) except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as "I have been". What is the reason for the 

inconsistency in this translation? If "ego eimi" was translated in Jn 8:58 the same way it is translated in 

every other verse in which it appears, how would Jn 8:58 read? 

Reply: Again, do all Bible Versions translate "ego eimi" as consistently also. The following versions do 

the same thing that the NWT does. Why? It is called “Extension from the Past” idiom or PPA (Present of 

Past Action), which makes its occurences at John 8:58 different from the others: 

The Living New Testament: "The absolute truth 

is that I was in existence before Abraham was 

ever born." 

The 20th Century New Testament: "before Abraham 

existed I was." 

Noyes, G.R. N.T. (1878) 

_Jesus said to them, _truly, truly do I say to you, from before Abraham 

was, I have been.__ 

Hanson, J.W. New Covenant (1884) 

_Jesus said to them, _truly, truly, I say to you, I am before Abraham was 

born.__ 

Kraeling, E.G. Four Gospels (1962) 



_With another amen-saying, Jesus declares to them that before 

Abraham was, He (Jesus) is (hint of His preexistence) ._ 

Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T._Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed._ 

Cotton Patch Version (1970) 

_To this Jesus replied, _I existed before Abraham was born.__ 

Ledyard, G.H. New Life Testament (1969) 

_Jesus said to them, _for sure I tell you, before Abraham was born, I 

was and sum and always will be._,, 

Dr. E.C. Dymond N.T. (1972) 

__Yes, indeed!; said Jesus: _He saw me in prospect. The fact is, that 

long before Abraham was conceived in his mother_s womb, that 

individual who I now am had been conceived in God_s mind: He had 

completed the plan and specifications, so to speak, and therefore He 

was able to give Abraham a mental preview of me__. 

Good News for the World (1969) 

_Jesus answer, _I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was 

born.__ 

The New Testament, An American Translation 

Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham 

was born." 

The Complete Bible, An American Translation 


was born." 

New Believers Bible, New Living Translation: 

"I existed before Abraham was even born." 

The New Testament, C. B. Williams: "I solemnly 

say to you, I existed before Abraham was born." 

The Book, New Testament: The absolute truth is 

that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." 

The Living Bible: "I was in existence before Abraham 

was ever born." 

Lattimore: "Truly, truly I tell 

you, I am from before Abraham was born." 

The New Testament, From the Peshitta Text, 

Lamsa: "Before Abraham was born, I was." 

An American Translation, In The Language of 

Today, Beck: "I was before Abraham." 

New Testament Contemporary English Version: 

"I tell you.that even before Abraham was, I was, 

and I am." 

The Unvarnished New Testament: "Before 

Abraham was born, I have already been." 

The New Testament, Klist & Lilly: "I am here-and 

I was before Abraham." 

The New Testament in the Language of the People, 

Williams: "I existed before Abraham was born." 



The New Testament, Noyes: "From before Abraham 

was, I have been." 

A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: "Before 

Abraham was, I have been." 

Wakefield, G. N.T. (1795) 

_Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham 

was born, I am He._ 

The Syriac New Testament, Murdock: "Before 

Abraham existed I was." 

The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, 

Burkitt& The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, 

Blake & Briere "Before Abraham came to be, I was." 

The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant, 

Sharpe: "I was before Abraham was born." 

The 20th Century New Testament 1904: "Before 

Abraham existed I was already what I am." 

The New Testament, Stage: "Before Abraham 

came to be, I was." 

International Bible Translators 1981 

_Jesus said to them, _I am telling the truth: I was alive before Abraham 

was born!__ 

The Coptic Version the New Testament in the 

Southern Dialect, Horner: "Before Abraham became, 

I, I am being." 

The Documents of the New Testament, Wade: 

"Before Abraham came into being, I have existed." 

Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961) 

_Jesus answered them: _Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham 

was born.__ 

The Concise Gospel and The acts, Christianson: 

"I existed even before Abraham was born." 

A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida: 

"Before Abraham existed, I existed, or.I have existed." 

The Simple English Bible: "I was alive before 

Abraham was born." 

The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you 

for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born." 

The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, 

Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham." 

Swann, G. N.T. (1947) 

_!Jesus said to them, _verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before 

Abraham was born_ 

Perhaps there would be less confusion here if most Bibles would simply render the Hebrew word 

EHYEH consistently at Exodus 3:14 (compare with v. 12). For more on this go click here. 

6. If Jesus was executed on a torture stake, with both hands together over his head, why does Jn 20:25 say 



'...Unless I see in his hands the prints of the nailS...", indicating that there was more than one nail used for 

his hands. 

Reply: The Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by M'Clintock and 

Strong, comments: 

'Much time and trouble have been wasted in disputing as to whether three or four nails were used in 

fastening the Lord. Nonnus affirms that three only were used, in which he is followed by Gregory 

Nazianzen. The more general belief gives four nails, an opinion which is supported at much length and 

by curious arguments by Curtius. Others have carried the number of nails as high as fourteen.'-Volume 

II, page 580. 

Accounts of Jesus impalement/crucifixion like Matthew 27:35 give little evidence of the methods used. 

After Jesus' resurrection, Thomas said: "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my 

finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe." (John 20:25) 

Because of this some have also concluded from John 20:25 that two nails were used, one through each 

hand. But does Thomas' use of the plural *nails* have to be understood that Jesus' hands were pierced by 

a separate nail? 

In Luke 24:39 the resurrected Jesus said: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself." This suggests 

that Christ's feet also were nailed. Since Thomas made no mention of nailprints in Jesus' feet, his use of 

the plural "nails" could have been a general reference to multiple nails used in piercing Jesus. 

Debate over such an insignificant detail should not be permitted to becloud the all-important truth that 

"we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son."-Romans 5:10. RSV 

You will notice that often the artwork in some of the WT literature shows Jesus being nailed through his 

wrists? Why is this? 

"'The Romans used spikes that were five to seven inches long and tapered to a sharp point. They were 

driven throught the wrists,' Metherell said, pointing to an inch below his left palm. 

'Hold it,' I interrupted. 'I thought the nails pierced his palms. That's what all the paintings show. In fact, 

it's become a standard symbol representing the Crucifixion.' 

'Through the wrists,' Metherell repeated. 'This was a solid position that would lock the hand; it the nails 

had been driven throught the palms, his weight would have caused the skin to tear and he would have 

fallen of the cross. So the nails went through the wrists, although it was considered part of the hand in 

the language of the day." p. 197, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel. 

7. Jesus uses the phrase "Truly I say to you, ..." over 50 times in the Bible. In the NWT, the comma is 

placed after the word "you" every time except in Lk 23:43, where the comma is placed after the word 

"today". Why is the comma placed after "today" instead of after "you" in this verse? If the translation of this 

phrase in Lk 23:43 was consistent with the translation of this phrase in all the other verses in which it 

appears, and the comma was placed after the word "you", how would it read? 

Reply: The above statement is neither accurate or fair. The original languages did not have commas, so it 

is left up to the translator to determine where to put the comma. In the book How To Enjoy The Bible by 

E. W. Bullinger, it states, "The word 'verily'[truly] points us to the solemnity of the occasion, and to the 

importance of what is about to be said. The solemn circumstance under which the words were uttered 

marked the wonderful faith of the dying malefactor; and the Lord referred to this by connecting the word 

'to-day' with 'I say.' 'Verily, I say unto to thee this day.' This day, when all seems lost, and there is no 

hope; this day, when instead of reigning I am about to die. This day, I say to thee, 'Thou shalt be with me 

in paradise.' 






11, 15, 16, 18, 19; xxxii. 46). p. 48 5th ed. 1921 



Greg Stafford, in his book "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended. Elihu Books," makes an excellent point with 

regards to the "precise wording of the text." He says on page 552 that "Luke 23:43 is the only instance 

apart from Luke 23:34 where a verb of speech is used with semeron and where hoti does not separate it 

from that verb." 

Below is the Vatican Manuscript 1209 (one of the oldest surviving mss) and they have placed the comma 

similarly to the NWT. 

Other sources: 

Tines men houtos anaginoskousin* _Amen lego soi semeron*_ kai hypostizousin* eita epipherousin, 

hotiet' emou ese e to paradeiso._("Some indeed read this way: 'Truly I tell you today,' and put a comma; 

then they add: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'"--Hesychius of 

Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E. Greek text found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 

93, columns 432, 1433. 

Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to hin' e to legomenon toiouton* eita to,


today,' and then adding the expression this way: 'You will be with me' etc.")--Scholia 237, 239, 254. Text 

found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 

1869, under Luke 23:43. 

Kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met' emou ese en to parad[eiso]. ("And 

immediately he said to me: 'Most truly today I tell you, You will be with me in Paradise.'")--Descent into 

Hades, an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, 

editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43. 

Ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton parad[eison] met' emou. ("And he said 

to him: 'Today I tell you the truth, that I should have you in Paradise with me.'")--Gospel of Nicodemus 

(=Acts of Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum 

Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke 

23:43. 

Therefore, at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the twelfth century C.E. there were readers 

who understood the text at Luke 23:43 as "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise." On 

that very day, when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in 

Paradise. (Psalms 16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb until the third day and was then 

resurrected as "the firstfruits" of the resurrection. (Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18) 

Thus, the word "today" at Luke 23:43 does not give the time of the evildoer's being with Jesus in 

Paradise. 

8. In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is "coming quickly", says of himself, "I am the Alpha and the 

Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one who "became dead, 

but, look, I am living forever and ever", refers to himself as the first and the last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of 

God, says, "...I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end...". God is also referred to as the 

"first" and the "last" in Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this be since by definition of these words there can 

be only one first and one last? 

Reply: Revelation 22:12-13 does not have Jesus speaking, but his Father, God. In fact, this verse is 

speaking of Jehovah in Isaiah 40:10, but referring to his son, the Arm of Jehovah. 

" Behold, the Lord Jehovah will come as a mighty one, and his arm will rule for him: Behold, his reward 

is with him, and his recompense before him." ASV 

I am not alone in this. The following references agree with me by noting the relevance of Isaiah 40:10 to 

Revelation 22:12 in the marginal references: 

· The Nestle-Aland Greek Text (27th edition). 

· The Jerusalem Bible. 

· The New American Bible. 

· The New American Standard Bible (1973, reference edition) 

Compare that with Isaiah 53:1, 5, " Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of 

Jehovah been revealed?...But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; 

the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." [see also John 12:38] 

Here, along with Is 40:10, we have the "arm of Jehovah" as being the Messiah and differentiated from his 

Father, Jehovah. Remember, Jehovah is the Father (Is 64:8), which, according to Trinitarian theology, the 

Son cannot be. When you take the entire book of Revelation into consideration, the conclusion that Jesus 

is the Lord God is not even possible. Jesus cannot be the very God who is *his* God (Rev. 1:6; 3:2; 

3:12). The Father's superiority to Christ is shown in the very first verse of Revelation, where Christ is 

described as one who was *given* 








"Christ is called the beginning and the end, because he is the 

beginning and the consummation of the Church, which was 

founded by his first, and will be completed by his second 

appearance."--(Erasmus, Opp. Tom. VI. col. 376, E. [quoted in 

"Our Heavenly Father has no Equals", by unitarian Donald R. 

Snedeker]) 



































Concessions]) 










Col 1:18. 

Can you really beleive that God can die? I cannot. Hab 1:12, (before the scribal changes/ Tiqqune 



God created life, and death is a by-product of life, this would be included. The bible never speaks of only 

Jesus' human-self/human nature/second nature dying. This is a 5th century Cappadocian thought read 


9. Jn 1:3 says that Jesus created "all things", but in Isa 44:24, God says that he "by myself" created the 

heavens and the earth and asks the question "Who was with me?" when the heavens and the earth were 

created. How can be since if Jesus was created by God, then he would have been with God when everything 

else was created? 

Reply: John 1:3 does not say that Jesus created all things. " All things were made through him; and 

without him was not anything made that hath been made." ASV 

The New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV, and others have linked/cross-referenced Proverbs 8:22-30 with 

John 1:3, where it describes the created Wisdom/Jesus as a master workman beside God as he is creating. 


The use of the terms, "alone", "who was with me" and "by myself" does not necessarily mean what you 

would like it to mean, especially where a king is concerned: 

Look at Daniel 4:30 and Isaiah 63:3. Daniel 4:30 has been translated in the following ways: 

1) "The king reflected and said, 'Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built.' " NASV. 

2) "The king was saying, 'Great Babylon! Imperial palace! Did I 

not build it alone.' " —Jerusalem Bible ("JB"). 

3) "The king spake and said, Is this not Babylon the great, - which I myself have 

built," — J.B. Rotherham ("RO") 

4) "The king was answering and saying: "Is this not Babylon the Great, that I myself have 

built".— NWT. 

Was Nebuchadnezzar really the only person in Babylon who took part in the construction and building of 

the whole city by himself? Or, was the construction during his time, accomplished by his authority, his 

word and no other's? 

Isaiah 63:3 proclaims: "I [Jehovah] have trodden the wine press alone of the peoples there was no man 

with me." (ASV) Did Jehovah personally punish the peoples and nations that had offended Him? Who 

was it exactly that destroyed 185,000 men in Sennacherib's army? It was Jehovah's angel acting on the 

word of Jehovah. (2 Kings 19:35, 36) Did Jehovah personally punish Babylon or did He use the Medes 

and Perians to accomplish His will? (Daniel 5:26-28, 30-31) All these acts were done by Jehovah's 

permission and authority; and by His alone, but it was others who carried it out.—Ezekiel. 36:33, 36. 



10. Col 1:16, in talking about Jesus, says that "...All [other] things have been created through him and FOR 

HIM". First, why was the word [other] added four times when it is not in the original text (see Gr-Engl 

Interlinear)? Second, If Jesus was Michael the Archangel at the time of creation, would an angel have 

created all things for himself? Isa 43:7 says God created "everyone...for my OWN glory...". 

Reply: Is it wrong to add the word "other" to the text? Do other versions do it also? 

Compare Luke 21:29 




Luke 11:42 




In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put 

it in there. Can they do that even without brackets? 







Have you ever noticed all those words in italics in the King James Version and the New American 

Standard Version? Those are words that are not in the original text, but are added for clarity. There are 

thousands of them. 

God did make all things for His glory. But like the preceeding verse in Colossians says, he is invisible, 

but many have seen Jesus. That same verse says Jesus is the first created being, PRWTOTOKOS PASHS 

KTISEWS. Hence, he cannot be that same God. 

11. Jn 1:3 says in reference to Christ, "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not 

even one thing came into existence". How could Christ have been a created being if ALL things came into 

existence through him? If Jesus was a created being, then according to Jn 1:3, Jesus would have had to 

create himself. 

Reply: No, because the Bible puts limitations on the word "ALL." Consider 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28 in 

the New English Bible, 

"Scripture says, 'He has put all things in subjection under his feet.' But in saying 'all things', it clearly 

means to exclude God who subordinates them; and when all things are thus subject to him, then the Son 

himself will also be made subordinate to God who made all things subject to him..." 

2 Tim 1:15 "You are aware of the fact that 'ALL' who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom 

are Phygelus and Hermogenes."--New American Standard Bible 

Here the word PAS (=All) obviously refers to 'a great number', because the words hOI EN Thi ASIAi do 

not really include 'all' the people in Asia, but the refer explicitly to Christians (non-Christians are already 

'turned away' from God). Moreover, these words don't even include 'all' of the Christians, because 

Onesiphuros (and perhaps others) remained loyal to God. 

Acts 2:17 "And it shall be, in the last days saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; And 

your sons and your daughters shall prophesy..."--Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 

Here, again, PAS (=All) is used in a more restricted sense. The Spirit will hardly be poured out upon 



"ALL flesh", since this verse refers exclusively to Christians. 

You will notice that when Jesus is spoken in reference to creation, it is always in a passive sense, as 

THROUGH/DIA him. 

I see this question has been repeated in #45 below. I have further comments down there. 

12. In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word "other", even though it does not appear in the original Greek (see 

Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for inserting this word? Is the word "Jehovah" a name? See Ex 6:3, 

Ps 83:18, and Ia 42:8. How would the verse read if the word "other" had not been inserted? What does 

scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6. 

Reply: Why did the New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible/TEV, Williams NT, Beck's Bible, New 

Living Translation, Weymouth's NT, 20th Century NT, Knox Bible, Contemporary English Version, The 

Complete Bible by Smith& Goodspeed, Jerusalem Bible and the Living Bible add the word "other" here 

also? Perhaps they are all Jehovah's Witnesses. Every Bible translation and version has to add words (and 

does) in the receptor language to clarify what is meant in the source language. 

And yes, Jehovah is indeed a name, as the above scriptures mention. But yet most English bibles have 

removed this name. What does the Bible say about removing words from the scriptures (Rev 22:19). 

13. If Christians are persecuted for the sake of Jehovah's name, why did Christ tell the first Christians that 

they would be persecuted for the sake of his (Jesus) name instead of Jehovah's (Mt24:9, Mk 13:13, 

Lk21:12, 17, Jn15:21, and Acts 9:16)? 

Reply: "Name" also has the meaning of authority. God *gave* Jesus authority. If Jesus was really 

almighty God, why would he need to be given anything. 

Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of NAME/ONOMA, "for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, 

command, excellences, deeds etc" 

Christians are persecuted for recognizing his authority. Interestingly, the New Living Translation renders 

Matthew 24:9 as "You will be hated all over the world because of your allegiance to me." 

14. If the spirit of a man has no existence apart from the body, why does Stephen just before his death in 

Acts 7:59, pray to Jesus to "receive my spirit"? How could Jesus receive Stephen's spirit if a man's spirit 

ceases to exist when the body dies? 

Reply: Because, the primary meaning of SPIRIT is: 


22; BS 38:23; WS 15:11, 16; 16:14). Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, S.J. 

Spirit: " 

primarily denotes "the wind" (akin to pneo, "to breathe, blow"); also "breath;" then, 

especially "the spirit," which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful. The NT 

uses of the word may be analyzed approximately as follows: 

"(a) the wind, John 3:8 (where marg. is, perhaps, to be preferred); Heb. 1:7; cp. Amos 4:13, 

Sept.; (b) the breath, 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 11:11; 13:15; cp. Job 12:10, Sept.; " Vine's 

Expository Dictionary 

So what did Stephen mean? Let us look at Psalm 146:4 in 2 different versions: 

"His spirit goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, In that day have his thoughts perished." Young's Literal 


"When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish." NRSV 

The Bible even associates the word SPIRIT/RUACH with "nostrils." (Gen 7:22; Job 27:3) For more on 

SPIRIT, click here. 

15. The Bible says that ONLY God is our savior (Hos 13:4, Isa 43:11, 45:21, etc.). How can it be then, that 

the Bible repeatedly says that Jesus Christ is our savior (Lk2:11, Phil 3:20, Tit 2:13, 3:6, 2 Pet 1:1, 2:20, 



3:18, etc)? 

Reply: For the same reason Jehovah raised up saviours in the past: 

"And when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised up a saviour to the children of 

Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother." Judges 3:9, 15 ASV 

"Jehovah raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera" Judges 3:15 










"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who would have all men to be saved, and 

come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, 

himself man, Christ Jesus" 1Tim 2:3-5 ASV 

16. Why does the WT break the Granville-Sharp rule of the Greek grammar for Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, 

"...of God and our Savior, Jesus Christ", which show Jesus Christ and God to be one and the same person? 

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, 

3:2, 3:18, 1 Peter 1:3, and Eph 1:3)? 

Reply: Why don't other Bible versions like the New American Bible, Moffatt, ASV, Concordant, 

Rotherham, Schonfield, Jewish NT, Lamsa, Webster, HNV, Lattimore, Newcome, the margins of many 

other Bibles also apply this "rule" consistently? 

Because the rule does not apply where proper names/nouns are used, as in Matthew 17:1, "Jesus taketh 

with him Peter, and James, and John." If we were to apply the rule strictly, then Peter, James and John 

would be the same person. So there are exceptions to this rule, and this should apply in a way that is most 

often used. In at least 10 other instances though, God and Jesus are described as different 

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 

explain things in a way that people understand, rather than relying on obscure "rules". After all, Paul and 

the other writers of the Greek scriptures did not view Jesus as God: 

"Apparently Paul did not call Jesus God" (Sydney Cave, D.D., Doctrine of the Person 

of Christ, p. 48). 

"Paul habitually differentiates Christ from God" (C.J. Cadoux, A Pilgrim’s Further 

Progress, pp. 40, 42). 

"Paul never equates Jesus with God" (W.R. Matthews, The Problem of Christ in the 

20th Century, Maurice Lectures, 1949, p. 22). 

"Paul never gives to Christ the name or description of ‘God’" (Dictionary of the 

Apostolic Church, Vol. 1, p. 194). 

"When the New Testament writers speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of Him nor 

do they think of Him as God" (J.M. Creed, The Divinity of Jesus Christ, pp. 122-123). 

"Karl Rahner [leading Roman Catholic spokesman] points out with so much emphasis 



that the Son in the New Testament is never described as ‘ho theos’ [the one God]" 

(A.T. Hanson, Grace and Truth, p. 66). 

17. Why did J. Rutherford declare that heaven was closed for J.W.s and everyone else after 1935? How did 

he arrive at this date? Where in the Bible does it state 1935? 

Reply: I do not follow Rutherford, and neither do any other J.W.'s. Why have trinitarian Christians led 

some of the bloodiest and cruelest crimes against human history? How far do you want to play this 

game? 


> This isn't answering the question at all, it's 

> ignoring it in the classic 

> sense, do you not take the teaching of the faithful 

> and discrete slave as 

> the tool that God uses to disseminate bible 

> knowledge? Who wrote or 

> influenced all the articles written during 

> rutherfords time? Rutherford 

> himself, just as Russell before him and Franz after. 

Webmaster Reply: The problem is, heaven was not closed in 1935, and it still isn't. It is a strawman 

argument. On another note, the year 1948 is pivotal in the undertanding of prophecy amongst nominal 

Christians, yet you will not find this year in the Bible. Again, How far do you want to play this game? 

18. What did the Watchtower predict would happen in 1873, 1874, 1878, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 

1931, 1941, and 1975? Why did these prophecies not happen? 

Reply: Why did Protestants, Catholics, Pentescostals etc also speculate about the end throughout their 

history. Why did these prophecies not happen? Click here for more. 

19. Why does the Watchtower ignore the following verses in saying that we don't go to heaven? Col 1:5, 

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. 

Reply: And why do you ignore John 3:13, Acts 2:34, Psalm 37:9, 11, 22, 27, 29, 34; Isaiah 45:18, 

Jeremiah 27:5, Matthew 5:5, Proverbs 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 heaven are to rule over the earth, then there must be persons on 

earth), Genesis 1:28 (cf. Isaiah 55:11). 

"But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a **new earth**, wherein dwelleth 

righteousness." 2Peter 3:13 ASV 

Early Church Father Methodius in The _Symposium/LOGOS 7.3, Methodius applies the Scripture in 1 

Cor 15:40-41 to the rewards that Christians will receive from God. However, he writes that "the Lord 

does not promise to give the same 

rewards to everyone." He continues in LOGOS 7.3 of the *Symposium*: 

"Some He says will number in the kingdom of the heaven, others that they shall possess the 

land, others that they shall see the Father. So too in this case He reveals that the order and 

holy choir of virgins will be the first to follow in His train [in Ps 45] as it were into a bridal 

chamber, into the repose of the new ages." 

Methodius reveals that some Christians will go to heaven, others will possess the land (Ps 37:29) while 

yet others will see the God personally. 

20. If Jesus returned in 1914, why did the Watchtower teach that he returned in 1874, and maintained this 

1874 teaching up until 1940? 



Reply: Again, why have Protestants, Catholics, Pentescostals etc also done the same thing at other dates. 


21. In John 14:14, why did the Watchtower omit the word "me" in "If you ask me anything"... in the New 

World Translation, especially since the Kingdom Interlinear has the word "me". see Gr-Engl. It should 

therefore read "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it". Why the change? 

Reply: John 14:14 is rendered that way probably because of the same reason it is in the Darby version, 

Williams NT, New English Bible, King James Version, Revised Standard Version, Emphatic Diaglott, 

American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, 20th Century NT, Living Bible, Unvarnished 

NT, Modern Language Bible, Young's Literal Version, Contemporary English Version, Lattimore, 

Moffatt, Montgomery NT, New King James, Jerusalem Bible etc. 

The word "ME" is also omitted from ancient manuscripts like A, D, K, L, Codex Petropolitanus, Codex 

Athous Laurae and the Byzantine manuscripts amongst others. Why is this? Because the book of John 

clearly says that this phrase is a referent to the Father (John 15:16; 16:23). Remember, according to 

trinitarian theology, Jesus is NOT the Father. 

Looking at the above list of Bible versions leads to another question...why can't you people agree on 

anything? 

"That evangelicals, all claiming a biblical norm, are reaching contradictory theological formulations on 

many of the major issues they are addressing suggests the problematic nature of their present 

understanding of theological interpretation. To argue that the Bible is authoritative, but to be unable to 

come to anything like agreement on what it says (even with those who share an evangelical commitment) 

is self-defeating. " EXEGETICAL FALLACIES by D. A. Carson p.18 

22. Considering that the Watchtower not too long ago banned vaccinations and organ transplants and as a 

result, many Witnesses died needlessly, would you really let your baby die from lack of a blood 

transfusion? Especially since they allow Witnesses in some countries to now get blood tranfusions, but not 

in most countries. 

Reply: Vaccinations at one time included animal blood, so in keeping with the biblical restrictions on 

blood (Acts 15:28, 29), we avoided them. Now, name me just one JW who died of refusing a 

vaccination, and if you do, then contrast those who actually died taking tainted vaccinations. 

How many people actually die because of refusing blood tranfusions anyways? I will give 2 scenarios: 

Man gets into a serious car accident. The hospital says he need blood. He refuses, instead he opts for a 

safer alternative, like Ringers Solution etc. The hospital either administers the alternative or refuses. The 

man dies. The cause of death is reported as "Refusal of Blood Transfusion." 

Second scenario: Man gets into a serious car accident. The hospital says he need blood. The man accepts, 

but dies anyways. The cause of death is reported as "Car Accident," when in reality, both people died of 

the same thing. Consider what some medical experts have to say: 

Here is a quote from Dr. Laura's program: 


Date: 1999-03-04 


Transfusion 






























Tom Wixon 




Phone: (760) 323-6690 

Fax: (760) 323-6580 

Or Call: 

Bradford Ray 




Phone: (760) 323-6311 

God also had the people circumsized in the Bible, yet babies die every year due to this procedure. 

Also, Witnesses "in some countries" are not getting blood transfusions, despite the erroneous reporting to 

the contrary. 

23. In Romans 10:13, why does the Watchtower translate it as "name of Jehovah", when every Greek 

manuscript translates it as "Lord", and the Watchtower prior to 1978 also translated it as "Lord"? 



Reply: Every Greek manuscript does not translate it as Lord, it is in there as KYRIOS, and it is 

untranslated. In fact, you will find that there is a wide discrepancy between most translations and 

versions as to the number of times KYRIOS is translated as "Lord". It is widely known among textual 

critics that the later Byzantine manuscripts embellished titles like "Lord" and inserted them more into the 

actual text. This was done by Trinitarian scribes. Question: Why do most Catholic and Protestant 

versions omit the divine name in the OT, especially when every Hebrew manuscript has it in there over 

6000 times? Is it because of a profit motive? Click here for more. 

24. Since the anointed believers as an organization are claimed to be God's collective "faithful and discreet 

slave" that alone guides people in their understanding of Scripture, and since this organization did not come 

into existence until the late-nineteenth century, does this mean God had no true representatives on earth for 

many, many centuries? If so, who were they? 

Reply: Despite the incorrect wording that you use, we see it as not different as with most Protestants. 

Many Protestants have a dislike for Catholics, but the Church for over 1000 years was Catholic. Does 

this mean that did not have representatives for this period of time? We do believe that there were 

honest-hearted people in history who were searching for the truth apart from the holy Roman Church, 

like the Waldenses, Albigenses etc. 

25. Where does the Bible teach that after a prophecy fails, if the prophet admits he made a mistake, he is no 

longer a false prophet? 

Reply: Does this apply to Catholics, Protestants and Pentecostals too See 1975.htm 

We do have biblical examples of the same. Perhaps the most well known of failed prophetic views in the 

Bible is found at Acts 1:6, 7. Here Jesus was questioned by his disciples, "..Lord, are you at this time 

going to restore the Kingdom to Israel? He said to them: 'It is not for you to know the time or dates the 

Father has set by his own authority..." (New International Version) This question indicated their 

prophetic view of what they expected Jesus to do at his first advent. This was shown also in Luke 24:21. 

In this passage, two of Jesus' disciples traveling on a road to a village called Emmaus were joined by the 

resurrected Christ who was not recognized by them. Discussing what had been their expectations 

regarding Christ, they said, "But we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel." 

This prophetic view held by the Apostles was in error. Yet would we call them false prophets? No! Like 

Jehovah's Witnesses, and many others, they at the time exegeted incorrectly what the Bible originally 

said about these prophecies. 

26. Since the Organization has received new light regarding the 1914 generation, and completely changed 

their view on this, does this mean that all former Jehovah's Witnesses who were disfellowshipped years ago 

for the same view the organization is now teaching will automatically be accepted into fellowship again? 

Were these ex-JWs in fact disfellowshipped for truth and knew things that the governing body did not? 

Reply: This is a fantasy of JW-Haters. Disfellowshipping occurs not because of differences of opinion, 

but of rebellion and a lack of humility. “REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG 

YOURSELVES.” 1 Cor 5:13 NASB (emphasis theirs) 

We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises, the Scriptural 





in respect to them. -- "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion's Watch Tower and 


27. If the Watchtower organization rejects others calling them inspired yet the Watchtower organization 

does call themselves God's Spirit-directed Prophet what is the difference? Is there such a thing as an 

uninspired prophet? 



Reply: For one thing, where does it say that they are "God's Spirit-directed Prophet?" They do they say 

they are "God's Spirit-directed organization." Is this a stretch? As far the spirit goes, there is nothing 

here that Trinitarians haven't said before. Most people feel their Church organization is Spirit-directed, 

and this is borne out in the Bible: 

Scofield, "the Church, which is Christ's body, formed 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; John 14:26,Matt. 18:20. 

Harper Bible Commentary, "The Spirit is the Church. 

What of the ANF: 

"It is said, 'In the church, God has set apostles, prophets, 

teachers," and all the other means through which the SPIRIT works. 

Those who do not join themselves to the church are not partakers of 

these things. Rather, they defraud themselves of life through their 

perverse opinions and infamous behavior. For where the church is, 

there is the SPIRIT of God. And where the SPIRIT of God is, there is 

the church, and every kind of grace." Irenaeus (c.180, E/W), 1.458. 

"Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a 

par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our 

teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations 

of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still 

urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the 

light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what 

they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to 

enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that 

we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon 

which to build." -- "Worship the Lord in the Beauty of Holiness," No. 2, 

Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 December 1896, 

reprint, 2080. 

28. If the organization did not actually prophecy the end in 1925 and 1975, then how come so many 

Witnesses left the faith immediately afterwards? (The Watchtower lost about three-quarters of the 

organization between 1925 and 1928, then suffered huge losses after 1975, when the end did not come as 

they implied over and over again. 

Reply: Because, like God-fearing Catholics and Protestant men throughout history, throught their zeal, 

they placed an improper stress on the wrong things. 

"Nevertheless, we are far from claiming any direct plenary inspiration. . . . 

A careful examination of the subject leads us to the conclusion that the Lord 

providentially shapes our course so as to give us such personal experiences 

in life as will bring us to his word for comfort and instruction in 

righteousness; and thus he permits us to sympathize with the experiences and 

questionings of his people, and then present to them at appropriate times the 

lessons drawn from our own experiences, backed by the instructions and 

comfort of the Scriptures." -- "Interesting Letters," Zion's Watch Tower and 

Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 July 1899, reprint, 2506. 

Now, why have members and clergy of mainstream churches left in droves? Why are there homosexual 

priests and ministers? Why is there a problem with AIDS amongst the Catholic priests? Why do 



Protestants and Catholics kill each other in Northern Ireland? 

29. How do you know that there were any vacancies, if any, in the 144,000 class if Jesus offered this to first 

century Christians? How can the organization know the exact number of vacancies today without any 

records from the first century? 

Reply: How do I know if nominal Christianity teaches the truth if it is run rampant with gross ignorance 

of the Bible and what it teaches. How can mainstream Christianity be right if they will willingly kill their 

own spiritual brothers in war. Why is pedophilia a major problem for certain mainstream Christian 

faiths? Matthew 7:16, 17, "By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of 

thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." 

30. Why are the members called Jehovah's Witnesses, and not Christians? Since Jehovah's Witnesses appeal 

to Isa. 43:12 and 44:8 for scriptural support that they should be called Jehovah's Witnesses, then what was 

the "new name" prophesied in Isa 62:2? It can't be Jehovah's Witnesses, for God already used it 20 chapters 

earlier. Could the new name be "Christian" after our savior Christ? 

Reply: Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, however, since Christendom has tarnished the name 

"Christian," with its endless wars, and downright pure evil in the name of Christ, then you can see some 

hesitancy. 

The NRSV Harper Collins Study Bible gives this explanation of Is 62:2, "A new name implies a change 

in status (1.26)." What does 1:26 say? "And I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors 

as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city." NRSV (see 

also Oxford Annotated Bible RSV) 

31. Why would the name God gave to His people not be "Christians" since Acts 11:26 says "The disciples 

were first called Christians in Antioch"? Why is the name "Jehovah's Witness" found nowhere in the New 

Testament, if that is God's divine name for his people under the new covenant? Why would God wait 

almost 2000 years to suddenly start using the name "Jehovah's Witness". 

Reply: "The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the 

surrogates KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord 

Christ, and in many passages made it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the Tetragrammaton was 

removed and replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure whether "lord" meant God or Christ. 

As time went on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to 

distinguish between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed 

significantly to the later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early 

Christian centuries." George Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 

15 

The NT writers had use of the LXX (Septuagint). Did the early LXX use the divine name? 






When did they remove the name? In a commentary on the manuscript P Fouad 266, Professor G. D. 

Kilpatrick, on talking about the period between 70-135 C.E. said that 3 important changes were made in 

this period. The change from scroll to Codex, the Tetragrammaton was replaced by KYRIOS and 

abbreviations were introduced for divine names. See Etudes de Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme 1971 pp. 

221,222 

The Trinity, the removal of the Divine Name, the conciliar decisions and the controversies surrounding it 



blurred the lines between Father and Son 



the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son." When Jesus Became God by 

Richard E. Rubenstein, p.74 

A. Marmorstein in the book The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God deals extensively with the Hellenizing of 

the early Jews, and that is the major reason they stopped pronouncing it. 

The Bible never tells us to stop using it though. In fact, just the opposite. 

Ex. 3:15: "And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt 

thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, 

the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent 

me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all 

generations." 

Ps 135:13 "Thy name, O Jehovah, [endureth] for ever; 

Thy memorial [name], O Jehovah, throughout all generations." 

Mal 3:6 "For I, Jehovah, change not" 

In fact, Jehovah jealously guarded his name."And ye shall 

not profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of 

Israel" Lev 22:32 

We know that Jesus made mention of this name at John 5:43, 10:25, 17:6, 11, 12 and Matt 6:9 

"Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name." 

Acts 15:14 ASV 

The Bible was never divided up by God into the New Testament and the Old Testament. That was done 

by others with an anti-semitic slant to their theology. "The whole Bible was given to us by inspiration 

from God" 2Tim 3:16 Living Bible 

32. If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why is it never used in the entire Greek New Testament? If 

men edited out the name of God "YHWH" when they copied the New Testament, as only the Watchtower 

organization claims, then how can we have any confidence in any of the New Testament? Should we 

discard the New Testament or the Watchtower as unreliable? 

Reply: Again, see above. There are many more besides Jehovah's Witnesses that make this claim. For 

more click here and here. Since the God of nominal Christianity is the Trinity, and it is not mentioned at 

all in the entire Bible, then I think it is fair to say that we should should not believe in a fantasy, but 

strive for the truth. 

33. If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say, "There is salvation in no one else; 

for their is no other name [v,10 Jesus Christ] under heaven that has been given among men, by which we 

must be saved"? Would this not have been a logical place for god to have used the name "YHWH"? 

Reply: " Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every 

name" Phil 2:9 

Why would almighty God need to be given anything? How many times in the name Jehovah (YHWH) in 

the Bible? 6828 times. How many times is the name Jesus in the Bible? It is in the NIV 1226 times, the 

KJV 943 times, the NASB 881 times and the NRSV 1088 times? What does the name Jesus mean? 

34. Since the Jehovah's Witness organization currently rejects most of the teachings of its founder Charles 

Taze Russell , and since they also reject many of Joseph Rutherford's teachings, how can one be sure that in 

25 years from now, Jehovah's Witnesses won't also reject the current president, Milton Henschel, as they 

did Russell and Rutherford? 



Reply: We only reject certain teachings of others, but we still embrace the majority. It is important to 

progress with new light on certain topics with time. " But the path of the righteous is as the dawning 

light, That shineth more and more unto the perfect day." Prov 15:14 ASV 

When some of the first Christians came to the New World on the Speedwell (joining the Mayflower), 

they were given this memorable charge: 

"If God reveals anything to you by any other instrument of His, be ready to recieve it as you 

were to recieve any truth by my ministry, for I am verily persuaded that the Lord hath more 

truth yet to break forth out of His holy Word. For my part, I cannot sufficiently bewail the 

condition of those reformed Churches which are come to a period in religion, and will go, at 

present, no further than the instruments of their reformation. The Lutherans cannot be drawn 

to go beyond what Luther saw; whatever part of His will our God has revealed in Calvin, 

they will rather die than embrace it; and the Calvinists, you see, stick fast where they were 

left by that great man of God, who saw yet not all things. This is a mystery much to be 

lamented, for thought they were burning and shining lights in their times, yet they 

penetrated not into the whole counsel of God; but were they now living, would be as willing 

to embrace further light as that which they first recieved, for it is not possible the Christian 

world should come so lately out of such thick anti-Christian and that perfection of 

knowledge should break forth at once." 

John Robinson, 1620 A.D. as quoted in the Pilgrim Church, by E.H. Broadbent, p.257 

Origen adds: 

"For however far one may advance in the search and make progress through an increasingly 

earnest study, even when aided and enlightened by God's grace, he will never be able to 

reach the final goal of his inquiries." 

From Peri Archon 4.3.14, as cited in _The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity_ (Edited and Translated by 

Paul M. Blowers), 

page 144: 

35. Since the Watchtower claims "apostolic succession", who was it that passed "the torch of God's Spirit" 

to Charles Russell when he founded the organization? What was the name of this individual? 

Reply: Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim "apostolic succession." In fact, you will even find them quoting 

Jesuit John McKenzie, who wrote: "Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession 

of church authority."-The Roman Catholic Church (New York, 1969), p. 4. 

36. Col 1:16, in talking about Jesus, says that "...All [other] things have been created through him and FOR 

HIM". If Jesus was Michael the Archangel at the time of creation, would an angel have created all things 

for himself? Isa 43:7 says God created "everyone...for my OWN glory.." 

Reply: I think the context will clear all this up: Isa 43:7 says, "every one that is called by my name, and 

whom I have created for my glory, whom I have formed, yea, whom I have made." ASV What does that 

mean? The MacArthur Study Bible NKJV says, "The faithful remnant of Israel will bear the Lord's name 

and exist for one primary purpose: to glorify him (44:23). 44:23 says, "For the LORD has...glorified 

himself in Israel." NKJV 

Israel shares in God's glory. Jesus recieves his glory from God, "For he received from God the Father 

honor and glory." 2Peter 1:17 

We get to share in that glory, "And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they 

may be one, even as we are one." Jn 17:22 

So Jesus and his followers are part of God's glory. 



The preceeding verse in Col 15 says of Jesus, " is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all 

creation." ASV So God is invisible, and Jesus is the first created being. Hardly a prerequisite for an 

almighty creator. 

37. If the soul is the body, why does Jesus make a distinction between the body and the soul in Mt 10:28. 

Reply: Who says the soul is the body? We teach that the soul is the "animated" body, i.e, LIFE 

D.R.G. Owen, "Body and Soul in the New Testament," In Readings and Christian Theology, ed. M.J. 

Erickson (Baker Book House, 1967), 86: "In Hebrew thought, as we have seen, the word translated 'Soul' 

regularly stands simply for the personal pronoun and means the self, and the phrase 'body and 

soul'...stands for the Hebrew idea that man is an 'animated body' and not for the Greek view that he is an 

'incarnated soul.' " 

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (edited by C. Brown, 1978, Vol. 3, p. 

304) states: "Matt. 10:28 teaches not the potential immortality of the soul but the irreversibility of divine 

judgment on the unrepentant." 


38. The Watchtower teaches that the 144,000 of Rev 7:4 is to be taken literally. If so, where then does the 

Bible say that the 144,000 will come from? 

Reply: "the hundred and forty and four thousand,...that had been purchased out of the earth." Revelation 

14:3 Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger says of the 144,000 in Rev 7: "It is the simple statement of fact: a 

definite number in contrast with the indefinite number in this very chapter." (see v. 9) 

39. The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as "...the Word was WITH God, and the Word was a god". How can the 

Word (Jesus) be "a god" if God says in Deut 32:39, "See now that I, I am he, and there are NO gods 

together WITH me"? 

Reply: For the same reason Moses can be a god (Ex 4:16; 7:1), Angels can be gods (Ps. 8:5; 97:7, 

138:1), Judges can be gods (Ps 82/John 10:34) and King Solomon can be a God (Ps 45:6 KJV, NIV, 

NASB etc). 

"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred 

an honourable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His 

Son] is far more worthy of this honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John 

10:34] is in Psalm lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the 

Most High; where God expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically 

abuse the authority and power for their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for 

every evil action ... Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of 

gods, because they are God's ministers for governing the world. For the same reason 

Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world 

... In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them 


So what kind of *god* is meant at Deut 32:39? The same one that is mentioned at v.12, "Jehovah alone 

did lead him, And there was no foreign god with him." ASV 

This leads to another question: Why do JW-haters "expose" the errors in the New World Translation, but 

at the same time, they use this same Bible in support of their own point. I guess it is not that bad after all, 

is it? 

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 

son given to us...And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God...". Jehovah is referred to 

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)? 



Reply: 1 Cor 8:6 says "there is only one God, the Father," which pretty much excludes the Son, Jesus. 

The context of Isaiah 4x deals with the pagan gods of the nations, and as we have seen above, others can 

be called God. It is interesting how other versions made by trinitarians have handled this verse at Isaiah 

9:6: 














1583-1645). 










rendering]) 




















41. The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" (estin) as "is" in almost every instance in the New Testament 

(Mt26:18,38, Mk14:44, Lk22:38, etc.). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate this 

Greek word as "means" in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the 

translation of the word "esti"? If the NWT was consistent and translated the Greek word "esti" as "is" in 

these verses, what would these verses say? 

Reply: Actually, the Greek word ESTIN occurs almost 1000 times in the NT, and it is rendered as 

"means" about 49% of the time in the NWT, not just in the few isolated cases as mentioned above. 

"Means" falls within the allowable lexical range of meaning for this word, as is evident in Matthew 1:23 

in most versions. 

"The broken bread is a symbol of Christ's body." NASB Zondervan Study Bible, 1Cor 1:24 ftn. 

42. In John 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy". This translates 

literally as "the Lord of me and THE God of me". Why does Jesus, in Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for having 

come to this realization? If Jesus really wasn't the Lord and THE God of Thomas, why didn't Jesus correct 

him for making either a false assumption or a blasphemous statement? 

Reply: Some have taken Thomas's exclamation as directed towards the Father, hence you have, "My 

Master, and my God" as in the 20th Century NT. 





















125-126, 

"Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words was hotly debated by early church 

theologians who wanted to use it in support of their own christological definitions. Those 

who understood "My Lord' to refer to Jesus, and 'my God' to refer to God[the Father], were 

suspected of heresy in the 5th cent CE. Many modern commentators have also rejected that 

interpretation and instead they understand the confession as an assertion that Jesus is both 



Lord and God. In doing so they are forced to interpret 'God' as a reference to LOGOS. But it 

is perfectly for Thomas to respond to Jesus' ressurection with a confession of faith both in 

Jesus as lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the confession in this way 

actually makes much better sense in the context of the 4th gospel. In 14:1 beleif in both God 

and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which Thomas is particularly singled out.... If we 

understand Thomas's confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20:31 

becomes an anti-climax." 



"For any Jew or Greek in the first century A.D. who was acquainted with the OT in Greek, 

the term QEOS would have seemed rich in content since it signified the Deity, the Creator 

of heaven and earth, and also could render the ineffable sacred name, Yahweh, the 

covenantal God, and yet was able of extremely diverse application, ranging from the images 

of pagan deities to the One true God of Israel, from heroic people to angelic beings. 

Whether one examines the Jewish or the Gentile use of the term QEOS up to the end of the 

1st century A.D., there is an occasional application of the term to human beings who 

perform divine functions or display divine characteristics." Harris' Jesus as God, p.270 










This brings us to Smart's Rule as discussed on B-Greek. The rule is stated as: "In native [not translation] 

KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects two substantives of personal description in regimen 

[i.e. both or neither have articles] and the first substantive alone is modified by the personal pronoun in 

the genitive or repeated for perspicuity [Winer 147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in 

view." 

Possessive pronoun repeated for perspicuity (21) - (Mt 12:47,49; 

Mk 3:31 ,32 ,33 ,34 ; 6:4 7:10 ; 8:20, 21 Lu 8:21 ; Jn 2:12; 

4:12; Ac 2:17; Ro 16:21 ; 1Th 3:11 ; 2Th 2:16 ; 1Ti 1:1; 

2Ti 1:5; Heb 8:11; Re 6:11) [Heb 1:7 is a LXX quote and is 

therefore translation Greek.] 

Single possessive - both substantives anarthrous (10) - (Mk 3:35; 

Ro 1:7; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Ga 1:3; Ep 1:2; Php 1:2; 2Th 1:1,2; 

Phil 1:3) 

Single possessive pronoun - both substantives arthrous (12) - 

(Mk 6:21; 10:7,19; 16:7; Lk 2:23; 14:26; 18:20; Jn 11:5; Eph 6:2; 

Ac 7:14; 10:24; Re 11:18) 


o 


43. If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, how could he: Be referred to as "he" and "him" in Jn 

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 

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- 

Heb 10:29; Search- 1 Cor2:10; Comfort- Acts 9:31; Be loved- Rom 15:30; Be lied to and be God- Acts 

5:3-4? 

Reply: Let's start with the last one. Is the spirit God in Acts 5:3-4? Let us see what it says: 




God." ASV 







Peter and his men were not God, but representative standing in place of God, and when something is 

done against them, it is done against God. "Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own eye." Zech 

2:8 New Jewish Publication Society/ Tanakh That is why the Scofield Study Bible cross-references Acts 

5:4 to Scriptures like Numbers 16:11, 1Samuel 8:7 and 1 Thess 4:8 which says, " Therefore he that 

rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you." ASV 

Another interesting statement: 

"First, then, it is usual to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit on the ground, that the name 

of God seems to be attributed to the Spirit: Acts 5:3, 4, "why hath Satan filled thine heart to 

lie to the Holy Ghost?...thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." But if attention be paid 

to what has been stated respecting the Holy Ghost on the authority of the Son, this passage 

will appear too weak for the support of so great a doctrinal mystery. For since the Spirit is 

expressly said to be sent by the Father, and in the name of the Son, he who lies to the Spirit 

must lie to God, in the same sense as he who receives an apostle, receives God who sent 

him, Matt. 10:40, John 13:20. St. Paul himself removes all ground of controversy from this 

passage, and explains it most appositely by implication, 1 Thess. 4:8, where his intention is 

evidently to express the same truth more at large: "he therefore that despiseth, despiseth not 

man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit." Besides, it may be doubted 

whether the Holy Spirit in this passage does not signify God the Father; for Peter afterwards 

says, Acts 5:9, "How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?" that 

is, God the Father himself, and his divine intelligence, which no one can elude or deceive. 

And in Acts 5:32 the Holy Spirit is not called God, but a witness of Christ with the apostles, 

"whom God hath given to them that obey him." So also Acts 2:38, "ye shall receive the gift 

of the Holy Ghost," the gift, that is, of God. But how can the gift of God be himself God, 

much more the supreme God?" 

Of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit, by John Milton 

What of the rest though? The Bible employs terms that are descriptive, and often personifies the 

impersonal. 









Land can be punished for its sins (Lev 18:25) 

Land can vomit (Lev 18:25) 



Wisdom cries...she has a voice (Prov 1:20) 

Wisdom speaks (Prov 1:21) 

Babylon is a whore (Rev 17:5) 



(Ro 7:8-11) 

For more on the spirit click here. 

44. What is the meaning of Rev 14:9-11, which says, "...If anyone worships the wild beast... he shall be 

tormented with fire and sulphur...And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever...". Where could 

"anyone" be tormented forever and ever"? 

Reply: It doesn't really say that though, does it? It is the figurative "smoke" that lasts forever, in other 

words, the lingering after-effects, the memory will last forever. Fire and Sulphur is used to extinguish 

something forever, to remove them completely. So when the Bible says, " And death and hell were cast 

into the lake of fire," we know that God will get rid of them forever. Rev 20:14 KJV 

45. Jn 1:3 says in reference to Christ, "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not 

even one thing came into existence". How could Christ have been a created being if ALL things came into 

existence through him? If Jesus was a created being, then according to Jn 1:3, Jesus would have had to 

create himself. 

Reply: In looking at the Greek word here for "apart from" CWRIS, Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of its 

occurence in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or co-operation) of one." 


Even Origen acknowledged this, "And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of 

the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the 

ages, " showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when the 

ages were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage also, THROUGH 

[DIA] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who 

else could this but the Father?" 


46. If there are 144,000 spirit anointed people who have a heavenly hope,and a great crowd of people who 

have another hope of everlasting life onparadise earth, why does Paul say that there is only ONE hope (Eph 

4:4), instead of two? 









psalmist "David never ascended into heaven." Acts 2:34 NLT 

But we all worship the same God, all have the hope of life eternal. 

47. In Rev 14:13, how can the dead be "happy" and find "rest" if there is no conscious awareness after 

death? 

Reply: Actually, it is the Bible that tells us this "For the living at least know that they will die! But the 

dead know nothing; they don't even have their memories. Whatever they did in their lifetimes - loving, 

hating, envying - is long gone....Whatever you do, do well, for in death, where you are going, there is no 

working or planning or knowledge or understanding." Eccl 9:5, 10 Living Bible [Because Christendom 

has a problem with this, the footnote in this Bible says, "These statements are Solomon's discouraged 

opinion, and do not reflect a knowledge of God's truth on these points." What arrogance!] 

So what is a dynamic equivalent of the above scripture? "At last the time has come for his martyrs to 

enter his full reward." Living Bible 

"Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on" New Living 

"Happy are the dead who die in the faith of Christ!" New English Bible 

"Blessed are the dead who from this time die as Christians." Williams NT 

"From now on, the Lord will bless everyone who has faith in him when they die." CEV 

Why are they blessed/happy? "For you died to this world, and now you have entered with Christ into the 

secret life of God. When Christ, who is your life, comes again for all the world to see, then all the world 

will see that you too share his glory." Col 3:3 Barclay's NT 

Hardly an eerie other-wordly experience. 

48. If Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE, why does every historical and archelogical source (including 

many secular sources the Watchtower itself uses such as Encyclopedia Britannica, etc.) state that Jerusalem 

was destroyed in 586 BCE? 

Reply: Secular historians are in agreement that Babylon fell to Cyrus the Persian in the year 539 BC. 

This date is substantiated by all available historical records of ancient times. The Bible reveals that in 

his first year of rule, Cyrus issued a decree permitting the exiled Israelites to return to Jerusalem and 

rebuild the temple. There existed first the brief rule of Darius the Mede over Babylon, Cyrus' first year of 

rule toward Babylon evidently extended from 538 to 537 B.C.E. (Daniel 5:30, 31) As considerable 

distance in traveling was involved, it must have been by the "seventh month" of 537 B.C.E. 

2Chronicles 36:19-21 shows that a period of seventy years passed from the time of the destruction of 

Jerusalem and the desolation of its domain until the restoration. 

Counting back seventy years from the time the Israelites arrived back in their cities, that is, in 537 

B.C.E., brings us to 607 B.C.E. 

You may or may not agree with this, but all others do agree on the above 539 BC. 

We are simply taking the Bible record over the secular record. 

There is an interesting statement by archaeological writer C. W. Ceram, commenting on the modern 

science of historical dating: 

"Anyone approaching the study of ancient history for the first time must be impressed by the 

positive way modern historians date events which took place thousands of years ago. In the 

course of further study this wonder will, if anything, increase. For as we examine the 

sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records 

were even at the time they were first written. And poor as they originally were, they are 

poorer still as they have come down to us: half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the 

carelessness and rough usage of men." He further describes the framework of chronological 



history as "a purely hypothetical structure, and one which threatens to come apart at every 

joint."—The Secret of the Hittites, 1956, pp. 133, 134. 

Let us not forget there are many that do not even chose to beleive the Biblical accounts of Nabonidus or 

that even Daniel wrote the book of Daniel, which was instead written by "a pious jew in the 2nd century 

B.C.E" New Oxford Annotated Bible/NRSV. Even the year of Christ's birth is disputed. 

49. Since Jesus is claiming to be the "first and the last" in Rev 22:12,13 and since Isa records Jehovah as 

saying, "I am the first and the last; apart from me there is no God", who is "the first and the last"? 

Reply: Let us look at this reasoning: 

We can look at it like this: 

Jehovah is the first and the last 

Jesus is the first and the last 

Jesus is Jehovah 

But then, with the same reasoning, we can say: 

All dogs have four legs 

My cat has four legs 

My cat is a dog 

When we look closely at the use of the term "first and the last," we see that it has limitations when used 

of Jesus. When used of Jesus, it always in reference to his death and resurrection. We must remember 

that God cannot die (Hab 1:12 NJB). Jesus however is the "the firstborn from the dead." Interestingly, the 

Codex Alexandrinus [usually indicated by the letter "A"], uses the word "firstborn" instead of "first" at 

Rev 1:17 and 2:8, but at Rev 22:13, where it refers to the Alpha and Omega, this codex uses the word 

"first" instead of "firstborn." Even this scribe recognized the difference. As we have seen above with the 

word "saviour", simply sharing titles does not make you the same person. 

I often get people who try to find similarities in what Jesus and Jehovah did, and the remarking that this 

should mean that they are the same being. But should this be the case? Let us take alook at Joseph. The 

NKJV MacArthur Study provides the following of similarities between Joseph and Jesus: 

Both Joseph and Jesus were A SHEPHERD OF HIS FATHERS SHEEP (Gen 

37:2/Jn 10:11,27-29) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were LOVED DEARLY BY THEIR FATHER (Gen 37:3/Mt 

3:17 

Both Joseph and Jesus were HATED BY THEIR BROTHERS (Gen 37:4/Jn 7:45) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were SENT BY FATHER TO BROTHERS (Gen 

37:13,14/Heb 2:11) 

Both Joseph and Jesus had OTHERS TO HARM THEM (Gen 37:20/Jn 11:53) 

Both Joseph and Jesus had ROBES TAKEN FROM THEM (Gen 37:23/Jn 

19:23,24) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were TAKEN TO EGYPT (Gen 37:26/Mt 2:14,15) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were SOLD FOR A PRICE OF A SLAVE (Gen 37:28/Mt 

26:15) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were TEMPTED (GEN 39:7/mT 4:1) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were FALSELY ACCUSED (Gen 39:16-18/Mt 26:59,60) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were BOUND IN CHAINS (Gen 39:20/Mt 27:2) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were PLACED WITH 2 OTHER PRISONERS, ONE WHO 

WAS 



SAVED AND THE OTHER LOST (Gen 40:2,3/Lu 23:32) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were EXALTED AFTER SUFFERING (Gen 41:41/Phil 

2:9-11) 

Both Joseph and Jesus were BOTH 30 YEARS OLD AT THE BEGINNING OF 

PUBLIC RECOGNITION 

(Gen 41:46/Lu 3:23) 

Both Joseph and Jesus BOTH WEPT (Gen 42:24; 45:2, 14, 15; 46:29/Jn 

11:35) 

Both Joseph and Jesus FORGAVE THOSE WHO WRONGED THEM (Gen 

45:1-15/Lu 

23:34) 

Both Joseph and Jesus SAVED THEIR NATION (Gen 45:7/Mt 1:21) 

Both Joseph and Jesus had WHAT MEN DID TO HURT THEM, GOD TURNED 

TO 

GOOD (Gen 50:20/ 1Cor 2:7,8 

Does this mean Jesus must be Joseph? 

50. Why did the Watchtower use for over 30 years only one authority to support it's John 1:1 "a god" 

translation, Johannes Greber? And when Johannes Greber turned out to be a spiritist, the Watchtower still 

used him until they were found out? 

Reply: That is simply not true. It has used Newcome's "The New Testament in An Improved Version, 

published in London, England, in 1808," Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott (which it also prints), 

The Four Gospels-A New Translation by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey, and the qualitative renderings 

of Moffatt and Goodspeed amongst others. Greber was never even mentioned in the inaugural edition of 

the NWT. Plus, there are more: 






Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the 

Word" 

Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god” 







Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos] 

Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine 

Being/being]. 

Bohmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly 

linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being] 





Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine 

being] 

Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of 

Kind/kind) was the Word/word]. 


Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word 

was a god" 




For more on John 1:1c click here. Actually, Greber was used for support for John 1:1c about a handful of 

times, hardly the rampant abuse it is made out to be. And Greber is hardly "one authority." For more on 

Greber, click here. 

Pot Calls the Kettle Black 

What have anti-JW authors said about their own kind? Here is a sampling: 

From author Rob Bowman: 

The latest Barna and Gallup research reveals the shocking but true 

statistics of how the church is being molded by or postmodern culture rather 

than vice-versa. For example 1996-1997 research reveals the following: 

84% of Americans claim to be "Christian." (a significant drop from 90% in 

1995-1996) and 40% of Americans claim to be "born again," that is to have 

confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ and Lord and Savior. 

67% of the general population reject belief in absolute truth and also 

believe that all religions will equally get one to heaven if one is faithful 

(universalism). As alarming as this is, even more so is that 53% of "born 

again" Christians agree with this and reject the belief in absolute truth 

while 41% of the "born again population embrace the belief of universalism! 

The belief that a person qualifies for heaven if they are good, breaks down 

denominationally as follows: 

Roman Catholics, 82%; Methodist, Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians 

range from 52-59%; Baptist 38%; Assemblies of God 22%. 

70% of Americans are members of a church, temple, or synagogue, however, 

only 31% attend weekly. It gets worse. Only 17% attend Sunday School weekly 

(1996), down from 23% in 1991. 

58% of Americans believe that the Bible is totally accurate, 32% of the 

"born again" Christian reject the infallibility of the Bible. 

20% of Americans identify themselves as New Age practitioners, 53% believe 

in ESP, 24% have practiced Transcendental Meditation, 34% believe in a New 

Age form of God, 36% read their horoscopes regularly and 26% believe that 

astrology is scientifically accurate (a recent Life Magazine poll indicated 



48% believe that astrology is probably or definitely valid). Belief in 

reincarnation grew from 25% in 1992 to an astonishing 30% in 1996. 

Especially troubling is of the "born again" population: 28% believe that 

Jesus sinned and didn’t rise from the dead, 47% say Satan is not living 

being-only a symbol for evil, and 43% deny the Person of the Holy Spirit 

calling Him a symbol of Gods power! 

As you read the above incredible statistics remember that 84% of those 

polled identified themselves as "Christians." Because of the high level of 

consciousness toward religion or spirituality, with a low level of true 

knowledge or understanding, our population continues to drift toward the 

abyss. The old Biblical paradigm teaches that if you have the right teaching 

you will experience God correctly, redemptively. The new paradigm is that if 

you "experience" God, then you have the "right" teaching. 

http://www.apologeticsresctr.org/siren_song.htm 

"Though lyrics in most contemporary Christian songs fall within the 

boundaries of orthodoxy, a small but growing percentage of Christian songs 

have lyrics that are either shallow, confusing, doctrinally errant, or even 

blatantly unbiblical." Ron Rhodes 

"9 out of 10 christians don't know how to answer a Jehovah's Witness(sic)." Ron Rhodes 

-Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses 

"The average Jehovah's Witness(sic) can make a doctrinal pretzel out of the average christian in about 30 

seconds." Walter Martin 

"It [the Trinity] is so misunderstood that a majority of christians, when asked, give incorrect and at times 

downright heretical definitions of the Trinity." Page 16 The Forgotten Trinity 

"The most obvious reason for Christian acceptance of such material [New Age] is the fact that Biblical 

influence and wordliness are common among Christians. The Church is failing to educate her people 

properly in these areas." 

"Christians are being influenced by the NAM(New Age Movement) principally because of ignorance of 

Biblical teachings and lack of doctrinal knowledge." The Facts on the New Age Movement 

byAnkerberg&Weldon p. 17,25 

Perhaps JW-Haters that post this dreck should look at their own church end educate their own members, 

and save themselves the constant embarrasment of a dazed look as they cannot defend their God and 

their beliefs. 




Jehovah's Name in the New Testament 

Comprehensive List of Occurences of the Divine Name in the New Testament 

Compiled from Matteo Pierro's book 'Geova e il Nuovo Testamento' (Jehovah and New 

Testament) 

Read Matteo's Article in Rivista Biblica 

The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ J. Eliot algonchino 

1661 Jehovah sempre 

Il Nuovo Testamento Aneityum Ihova Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Awabakal Yehoa Lc 3:4 

Il Nuovo Testamento Bolia Yawe Lc 3:4 

Il Nuovo Testamento Bube Yehovah Mtt 5:8 

Il Nuovo Testamento Chacobo Jahue Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Chi Kalanga Yehova Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Chi Luimb Yehova Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Chi Lunda Yehova Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Chi Luvale Yehova Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Choctaw Chihowa Mr 1:1 

Il Nuovo Testamento dialetto Isola del duca di York Ieova Mr 1:29 

Il Nuovo Testamento dialetto Isola Manus Jehova Mr 1:1 

Biblia Sacra Eliae Hutteri ebraico 1599 sempre 

Die vier Evangelien Franz Delitzsch ebraico 1984 (1877\1890\1902) 

sempre 

Evangelium Secundum Matthaeum J. M. Paulus Bauchet ebraico 1950 sempre 

Il Nuovo Testamento Salkinson e Ginsburg ebraico Sempre 

Il Nuovo Testamento United Bible Society, ed. 1976. ebraico 1976 Sempre 

Il Nuovo Testamento W. Robertson ebraico 1661 sempre 

Il Nuovo Testamento United Bible Societies, ed. 1991. ebraico 1991 

Sempre 

Il Nuovo Testamento J.C. Reichardt e J.H.R. Biesenthal ebraico 1866 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/jhvh.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:04:47 AM]


sempre 

Il Nuovo Testamento A. McCaul, M.S. Alexander, J.C. Reichardt e S. Hoga 

ebraico 1838 sempre 

Il Nuovo Testamento T. Fry ebraico 1817 sempre 

Il Nuovo Testamento J. Bauchet e D. Kinnereth ebraico 1975 sempre 

Il Nuovo Testamento J.C. Reichardt ebraico 1846 sempre 

Salmi e vangelo di Matteo A. Margaritha ebraico 1533 sempre 

The four Gospel translated into Hebrew William Greenfield ebraico 1982 

(1831) Sempre 

The four Gospel translated into Hebrew London Society for Promoting 

Christianity ebraico 1985 (1838+1864) Sempre 

Traduction hebraiques des Evangiles G.B.Iona ebraico 1982 (1668) Sempre 

Traduction hebraiques des Evangiles T.Yeates ebraico 1982 (1805) Sempre 

Vangeli liturgici F. Petri ebraico 1573 sempre 

Vangelo di Luca, Atti, Lettere ai Romani e agli Ebrei J.H.R. Biesenthal 

ebraico 1855, 1867, 1853 e 1858. sempre 

Vangelo di Matteo Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut ebraico 1385 sempre 

Vangelo di Matteo J. Quinquarboreus ebraico 1551 sempre 

Vangelo di Matteo J. du Tillet ebraico 1555 sempre 

The New Testament-Peshitta Aramaic Text With a Hebrew Translation United 

Bible Society ebraico\aramaico 1986 spesso 

The New Testament . . . in Hebrew and English R. Caddick ebraico\inglese 

1798-1805 sempre 

Vangelo di Matteo e lettera agli Ebrei Sebastian Münster ebraico\latino 

1537, 1557. sempre 

Vangeli liturgici Johannes Claius ebraico\tedesco\latino\greco 1576 

sempre 

Dwed Abasi - BIBBIA UBS efik (nigeria) 1985 Jehovah Sempre 

Il Nuovo Testamento Epi: (dialetto Tesiko) Yehova Mtt 4:10 

Il Nuovo Testamento Eromangan Iehova Mr 12:11 



Biblia UBS ewe 1995 Yehowa Ebrei 8 

Il Nuovo Testamento Fang: Gabon Jehova Mtt 4:10 

Il Nuovo Testamento UBS fijiano Jiova sempre 

La Bible Andre Chouraqui francese 1989 YHWH sempre 

Il Nuovo Testamento Gilbertese Iehova Mr 1:3 

The New Testament A. Kneeland greco\inglese 1822 Jehovah Mtt 22:44, Mr 

12:36, Lc 20:42, At 2:34 

Il Nuovo Testamento Hawaiiano Iehova Mr 1:3 

21st Century New Testament aa. vv. inglese 1995 Jehovah spesso 

A literal translation of the New Testament E. Hardwood inglese 1768 Jehovah 

Mtt 21:9, 22:44, etc. 

A new family Bible & improved version B. Boothroyd inglese 1817 Jehovah Lc 

20:42, At 2:34 

A new translation ..., Epistle to the Romans T.W. Peile inglese 1854 Jehovah 

Ro 11:34 

A paraphrase & version of the New Testament P. Doddridge inglese 1739-56 

Jehovah Mc 12:29, Lc 1:68, etc. 

A revised Translation of the Sacred Scriptures D. Macrae inglese 1798\99 

Jehovah Mtt 22:44, Ap 1:8 

A Translation of the Bible G. Wakefield inglese 1791 Jehovah Ap 19:1, 3, 4, 6 

An ... english Translation of Greek Scriptures W. Newcome inglese 1795 

Jehovah Mtt 22:44, Mc 12:36, etc. 

An english version of the New Testament H. Heinfetter inglese 1864 Jehovah 

sempre 

Centenary Translation of the New Testament H.B. Montgomery inglese 1924 

Jehovah Lc 1:38 

Epistle to the Romans W.G. Rutherford inglese 1900 Jehovah sempre 

Execeses ready research Bible H. Jahn inglese 1993 Yah Veh sempre 

From the Trenches (Corinthians & Ephesians) G.W. Cornish inglese 1981 

Jehovah 1Cor 10:9 

God's Covenant People T.R. Weiland inglese 1997 YHWH sempre 

Memoir of the life & doctrine of Christ by the four evangelist R. Fellowes 

inglese 1804 Jehovah Mtt 22:44 

New Testament epistles in english prose W.H. Isaacs inglese 1933 Jehovah 

Ebrei 

Studies in Matthew B.W. Bacon inglese 1931 Jehovah Mtt 21:9, 42, 21:44, 

23:39, 27:10 

The American Bible F.S. Ballentine inglese 1902 Jehovah At 2:25, 34, Ro 

14:11, etc. 

The Book of Yahweh - The Holy Scriptures Yisrayl Hawkins inglese 1996 Yahweh 

sempre 

The clarified New Testament P.G. Parker inglese 1955 Jehovah Mtt 22:44 

The Cristian's Bible, New Testament G.N. LeFevre inglese 1939 Jehovah sempre 

The Documents of the New Testament G.W. Wade inglese Jehovah Ap 19:1, 3, 4, 6 

The epistle to the Hebrews J.B McCaul inglese 1836 Jehovah Eb 7:21 

The Epistles of Paul in modern English G.B. Stevens inglese 1980 (1898) 



Jehovah sempre 

The Gospel of the Hellenists B.W. Bacon inglese 1933 Jehovah Gv 10:12, 38 

The Growth of the Early Church W. A. Carleton inglese 1970 Jehovah At 2:35 

The Holy Bible J.T. Conquest inglese 1841 Jehovah Mtt 22:44, Mc 12:36, etc. 

The Holy Name Bible Revised A. B. Traina inglese 1989 Yahweh sempre 

The messages of Jesus according to the Synoptists T.C. Hall inglese 1901 

Jehovah Spesso 

The messages of the Apostles G.B. Stevens inglese 1900 Jehovah At 2:1, 3:7, 7:6 

The New Testament in braid scots W.W. Smith inglese 1901 Jehovah Mtt 22:44, 

Lc 20:37 

The New Testament Letters J.W.C. Wand inglese 1947 Jehovah Ro 9:29, 11:3, 

12:19, etc. 

The New Testament of our Messiah & Saviour Yahshua A.B. Traina inglese 1950 

Yahweh sempre 

The NT, An improved version upon the basis of archbishop Newcome T. Belsham 

inglese 1808 Jehovah Mtt 22:44, Mc 12:36, etc. 

The restoration of original Sacred Name Bible Missionary Dispensary Bible 

Research inglese 1970 Yahvah sempre 

The Sacred Scriptures Assemblies of Yahweh inglese Yahweh sempre 

The Sacred Scriptures J.G. Meyer inglese 1981 Yahweh sempre 

Two nineteenth century versions of the New Testament W. Kelly inglese 1995 

Jehovah spesso 

The Emphatic Diaglott Benjamin Wilson inglese\greco 1942 Jehovah spesso 

Il Nuovo Testamento Isi Xhosa Yehova Mr 1:3 

??Unknown Title?? italiano >1750 Ièhovah Lc 4:18 

Traduzione del Nuovo Mondo delle Sacre Scritture WatchTower Society italiano 

1986 Geova sempre 

Il Nuovo Testamento Ke Senegle Yawe Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Kerewo Iehova Mr 1:1 

Il Nuovo Testamento Ki Luba Yehova Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Ki Songe Yehowa Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Ki Sukuma Jakwe Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Kikongo (San Salvador) Yave Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Kipsigis Jehoba Mr 1:1 

Il Nuovo Testamento Kiwai: Goaribari Iehova Gv 3:16 

Il Nuovo Testamento Lanu Yaw Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Lingala Yawe Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Lo Bodangi Yawe Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Lo Mongo Yawe Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Lo Nguandu Yawe Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Lo Ntsumba Yawe Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Mabuiag: Saibai Iehovan Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Malekula: Kuliviu Iova Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Malekula: Pangkumu Iova Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Malekula: Uripiv Iova Mr 1:3 

Ny Baiboly - BIBBIA malgascio 1992 Jehovah sempre 



Il Nuovo Testamento Mentawi Jehoba Gv 3:6 

Il Nuovo Testamento Mohowk Yehovah Gv 1:12 

Il Nuovo Testamento Mortlock Jioua Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Naga: Angami Jihova Mr 1:1 

Il Nuovo Testamento Naga: Konyak Jihova Mr 1:1 

Il Nuovo Testamento Naga: Lhoto Jihova Mr 1:1 

Il Nuovo Testamento Naga: Mao Jihova Mr 1:1 

Il Nuovo Testamento Naga: Ntenyi Jihova Mtt 4:10 

Il Nuovo Testamento Naga: Sangtam Jihova Mr 1:1 

Il Nuovo Testamento Nandi Jehova Mr 1:1 

Il Nuovo Testamento Nguna: Efate Yehovah Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Nguna: Tongoa Yehovah Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Nukuoro Jehova Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Ojibwa Jehovah Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Panaieti Iehova Mr 1:1 

Il Nuovo Testamento Rotuma Jihova Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Sesuto Yehofa Gv 1:12, 13 

Il Nuovo Testamento UBS tahitiano 1975 Iehova sempre 

Die heilige Schrift des neuen Testaments D. von Brentano tedesco 1796 

Jehovahs spesso 

Die neusten Offenbarungen Gottes Carl Friedrich Bahrdt tedesco 1773 Jehovah 

spesso 

Die neusten Offenbarungen Gottes Carl Friedrich Bahrdt tedesco 1773 Jehovah 

spesso 

Neuen Testaments Johann Babor tedesco 1805 Jhova spesso 

Samtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments J.J. Stolz tedesco 1781-82 Jehovahs 

sempre 

Il Nuovo Testamento Toaripi Iehova Mtt 1:25 

Il Nuovo Testamento Togan Sihova Mr 1:3 

Il Nuovo Testamento Tsimihety (dialetto malgascio) Jehova Lc 3:4 


Email Me 

Jehovah's Name in the New Testament as posted as in Rivista Biblica 

Jehovah's Name as posted by Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation 


Trinity Chart of Lesser Scriptures 

A Chart of Lesser Scriptures Used in Defense of the Trinity Doctrine 

A "YES" denoted a rendering in favor of the Trinity/Deity of Christ, a "NO" is just the opposite. 

Bible Ex 3:14 Ps 45:6 Mic 5:2 Matt 

24:36 

Acts 

7:59 

1Tim 

3:16 

1John 5:7 

1John 

5:20 

Rev 

1:11 

King James YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO YES 

NKJV YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO YES 

NAB YES YES NO NO NO NO NO N/A NO 

Rotherham NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

NWT NO NO NO NO NO NO NO* NO NO 

RSV YES* NO* NO NO* NO NO* NO NO NO 

NEB YES* NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

Fenton YES NO NO YES N/A NO NO NO NO 

NIV YES* YES NO NO* NO NO* NO* NO NO 

Darby YES YES YES YES NO* YES* NO NO NO 

ASV YES* YES* YES* NO* NO NO NO NO NO 

Lamsa NO YES YES YES N/A NO NO NO NO 

Beck YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO 

Byington NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

Moffatt NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO 

Douay NO YES YES YES N/A NO YES NO NO 

Geneva N/A N/A N/A YES YES YES YES YES YES 

NASB YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

God's Wrd YES N/A NO NO YES NO YES NO 

NCV/ICV YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

TEV/GNB YES* NO* NO NO* NO NO NO NO NO 

REB YES* NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

MLB/NBV YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO 

Goodspeed YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

Jerusalem YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

NJB YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

TanakhJPS NO NO NO 

Young YES YES NO YES NO YES YES NO YES 

Barclay NO N/A NO NO NO NO 

Spencer NO NO NO YES NO NO 

Diaglott NO NO NO NO NO NO 

CEV YES* YES* NO NO* NO NO* NO NO NO 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/lesser.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:05:05 AM]


Message NO NO NO NO YES NO 

Wuest NO NO NO NO NO NO 

Lattimore NO NO NO NO NO NO 

Living B. YES* YES YES NO* N/A NO NO YES YES 

NLT YES YES NO NO N/A NO NO NO NO 

* has an opposite variant reading in the margin 

Exodus 3:14 [YES]: "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say 

unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." KJV (this is usually accompanied by a 

cross-reference to John 8:58 in many Bibles). 

[NO] "At this God said to Moses: 'I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.' And he 

added: 'This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU." 

NWT 

For further comment see my page on Ex.3:14/Jn 8:58 

Psalm 45:6 [YES]: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." ASV 

[NO] "You throne is from God, forever and ever." NJB 

For more see Hebrews 1:8 

Micah 5:2 [YES]:"out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings 

forth are from of old, from everlasting." 

[NO] "someone who's family goes back to ancient times" CEV 

Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon says of OLAM (5769) "long duration, 

antiquity" It is even used of the forefathers (Is 24:2) and the prophets (Jer 28:8). 

Some do say that taken together (qedem AND yown owlam) these communicate, as Jamieson, 

Fausset and Brown say, "the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the 

Hebrew language is capable" Renowned Old Testament scholar Merrill F. Unger, commenting on Micah 

5:2 in Unger's Bible Handbook says, "He [Jesus] is the Bethlehem-born pre-existent, eternal One" 

Obviously, many other Bible versions do not agree with this. The fact that the Bible says he is the first 

being created would obviously he is older than anything else, thus necessitating the stress at Mic 5:2. In 

Prov 8:23, the 2 words are used again of Jesus/Wisdom, right after the scripture says he was created. The 

same words used in Micah 5:2 are used for others who are not God. The psalmist could remember qedem 

AND olam (ps 77:5). 

To Jehovah, OLAM and QEDEM are consistent with the time of Rahab and Creation, " Awake, awake, 

put on strength, O arm of Jehovah; awake, as in the days of old, the generations of ancient times. Is it 

not thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces, that didst pierce the monster? Is it not thou that driedst up the sea, 

the waters of the great deep; that madest the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over? Is 

51:9, 10 ASV 


Matthew 24:36 [YES]: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my 

Father only." KJV 

[NO] But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the 

Father only. ASV 



The removal of "neither the Son" is a textual error. The words appear in the oldest manuscripts of the 

Alexandrian and Western text-types, and they do appear at Mark 13:32 in the KJV. 

For more see my pages on the Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus. 

Acts 7:59 [YES]: And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. 

KJV 

[NO] So they stoned Stephen, and as they did so, he called out, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. NEB 

The word "God" does not appear in ANY Greek manuscript, neither does the word epikaleomai mean 

prayer, as it is used elsewhere of others who do not deserve to be prayed to. That is why the KJV uses the 

same word elsewhere to mean (appeal (unto), call (on, upon), surname.) (Acts 10:5; 11:13) 

1Timothy 3:16 [YES]: "God was manifest in the flesh" KJV 

[NO] "He who was manifested in the flesh" ASV 

"The strength of the internal evidence favoring OS ["WHO" as opposed to QEOS "God"] along with 

considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually 

unanimously to regard OS as the original text...Accordingly, 1 Timothy 3:16 is not an instance of the 

christological use of QEOS." Jesus as God-The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, by 

Murray J, Harris 

1 John 5:7 [YES]: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the 

Holy Ghost. And these three are one."Catholic Douay-Rheims Version 

[NO] "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth." NASB 

For more on the above Comma Johanneum click here and here. 

1 John 5:20 [YES]: "This Jesus Christ is the real God and eternal life." God's Word Version 

[NO] We know the Son of God has come and given us understanding to know him who is real; indeed 

we are in him who is real, since we are in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, this is eternal life." 

New English Bible 

"it should be noted that precisely in St. John's First Epistle [O QEOS] ho theos, "the true God" so often 

certainly means the Father that it must be understood of the Father throughout the Epistle, unless we are 

to suppose that some incomprehensible change has taken place in the subject referred to by O QEOS." 

Theological Investigations, Vol. 1 by Karl Rahner, Third printing: 1965, pages 136, 137. Compare John 

17:3 

One person tells me: Christ is the immediate antecedent of the pronoun THIS, therefore is applies to him. 

Reply: Does this mean that Jesus is the true God? Let's look at some examples: 

Acts 7:18, 19: "Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph. The same (houtos, just like 

in 1 John 5:20) dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they 

cast out their young children, to the end they might not live." KJV 

Does this mean that Joseph was this evil person? 

Acts 4:10, 11, " Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of 

Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him 

doth this man stand here before you whole. This (houtos, just like 1 John 5:20) is the stone 

which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." KJV 

Does this mean that the man that was healed was the stone that the builders rejected? Of course not! 

Another parallel written by the same author is 2 John 1:7, 



" For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come 

in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." 

Does this mean that Jesus is this deceiver? No! 

Revelation 1:11 [YES]: "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last" NKJV 

[NO] OMITTED-Most Bibles do not have this phrase referring to Jesus. Contrary to what KJV-Only 

people want to believe, it is not even in the Majority of manuscripts. 

Heinz Schmitz 


Email MeJehovah's Witnesses 


JW Opposers and their Love of Johannes Greber. 

Johannes Greber and Opposers to the New World Translation 

Maybe you have seen them out there, at least a hundred (yes, I mean a hundred) web-sites condemning 

the Watchtower Society for using Johannes Greber's New Testament to support their rendering of "a 

god" at John 1:1c. Most Jehovah's Witnesses do not even know who Johannes Greber is, and the 

opposers that DO mention him know embarrassingly little of him and how they are hurting themselves 

with their own arguments. 

In the 1983 Watchtower 4/1/31 it says, 

"This translation was used occasionally in support of renderings of Matthew 27:52, 53 and 

John 1:1, as given in the New World Translation and other authoritative Bible versions. But 

as indicated in a foreword to the 1980 edition of The New Testament by Johannes Greber, 

this translator relied on "God's Spirit World" to clarify for him how he should translate 

difficult passages. It is stated: "His wife, a medium of God's Spiritworld was often 

instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God's Messengers to Pastor Greber." 

The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close 

rapport with spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)" 

We will be looking at this from several different angles. 

Is it unusual for Catholics like Johannes Greber to involve themselves with spiritism? No. 

One book states, 

"Has the Catholic Church ever been in communication with spirit beings from the next 

world?...In the history of the Catholic Church there are many accounts of messages received 

from the souls of the departed. The truth of these accounts is subject to the ordinary laws of 

historical criticism, and some accounts have certainly been proved doubtful. Others leave no 

room for prudent doubt. As a rule, God permits a soul only occasionally to communicate 

momentarily a warning, or a request for prayers, but nothing fantastical. Likewise, the 

messages are spontaneous, and not due to the curious efforts of people seeking the truth 

from the dead. The Church tests the messages received, or claimed as received, in order to 

discern whether good or evil spirits are responsible for the communication. (1) The message 

must in no way conflict with Catholic teaching or moral principles. Gal. I.,9. . . ."-Pages 73, 

74 of the book Radio Replies, by Rumble and Carty, with the Imprimatur of Archbishop J. 

G. Murray, of St. Paul, Minnesota, February 11, 1938, and with a Preface by Monsignor 

Fulton J. Sheen, D.D. (9th printing of 1939) 

The WTS knows about this, as this quote comes from the 1955 Watchtower that also mentions Johannes 

Greber and his book, "Communication with the Spirit World, Its laws and Its Purpose." (1932, Macoy 

Publishing Company, New York). In Central and South America the mixing of Catholic beliefs with 

voodooism is a common practice. Interest in Santeria is also growing. In fact, all through history, pagan 

elements have been introduced into Christianity AND the Bible by the Catholic Church, like the Cross 

(translated from the word stauros meaning "stake"), the Trinity (as in adding the Comma Johanneum) 

and Christmas (as in the 3 Wise Men instead of Magi/Astrologers). Does that mean we should reject all 

Catholic Bibles and other versions that carry these? No. In fact, one of my favorite Bibles is the 

Catholic New Jerusalem Bible. The Bible is God's Word, it is QEOPNEUSTOS/God-breathed [2Tim 

3:16], and it is not hijacked by demons. 

"The words of Jehovah are pure words, silver tried in the furnace of the earth, purified seven 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/greber.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:19 AM]


times. Thou, Jehovah, wilt preserve them from this generation forever." Psalm 12:6, 7 Darby 

That does not mean there haven't been slight corruptions over time, but most of these involve a varying 

word order and do not affect the message of the Bible. To argue otherwise is to argue against divine 

providence. 

The spirit world has been used in the past in translating scripture, despite the Bible's warning against this 

(see Deut 18:10). When? In 1823 Joseph Smith claimed that the "Angel" Moroni appeared to him and led 

him to some plates. Smith translated the plates into English through supernatural means and called the 

record the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon contains entire excerpts that are identical with the 

King James Version Bible. Are we now to conclude that the King James Version is a demonic Bible? In 

fact, Joseph Smith has made his own "Inspired" version of the Bible, which, except for a few place [like 

the beginning of Genesis, the Johannine prologue, Ex 33:20, 1John 4:12 and Genesis 50:24], this "direct 

revelation" is otherwise identical to the King James Version. Sure, we might argue that this is a claim by 

Mr. Smith only, but that argument can go both ways. What Joseph Smith received by supernatural 

means, Johannes Greber received from the Codex Bezae. 

The Codex Bezae was first presented to the library at Cambridge University in 1581 by Theodore Beza, 

who is no stranger to textual critics and Calvinists. The Codex probably dates from somewhere around 

the 4th century, making it very old. The inner page of Johannes Greber's NT states, "A New Translation 

and Explanation based on the Oldest Manuscripts [1937]." Remember that it was the 1980 edition that 

stated it relied on "God's Spirit World." I suspect that this is a fanciful claim. Others have also made 

translations from this Codex, namely William Whiston (1745) and J.M. Wilson (1923). It is also true that 

others have used Johannes Greber for support (see Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament", Bible 

Museum and Biblical Research Foundation and Duthie's How to Choose Your Bible Wisely). 

I have yet to see examples of outright marring, removing or additions in Greber's Bible that you cannot 

see in modern Bibles. 

Let us consider more accusations. 

"The first two, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort discuss their club, the Ghostly Guild, in their 

biographies. They were actually the fathers of the New Age channeling movement; their 

Ghostly Guild evolved into the infamous Society for Psychical Research. 

The third translator to confess involvement was J.B. Phillips, author of the Phillips 

Translation. His autobiography details his necromancy and communication with the dead. 

The last and most recent revelation of "giving heed to seducing spirits," concerns Dr. 

Virginia Mollenkott of the NIV. Her book, Sensous Spirituality, tells tales of her spirit guide 

and contact with her dead mother...The doctrines of devils which follow her includes 

admitted involvement with divination through use of Tarot cards and the I Ching." 'Which 

Bible is God's Word' by Gail Riplinger, p.81 

Many take writings like these with an understandable grain of salt. But if the above did have some 

involvement with the spirit world, then we are all in danger because the above accused represent most of 

the sales in Bibles in the English language. Even older versions are not safe if you consider the 

accusations hurled at Origen: 

Origen's six column Old Testament, the Hexapla, parallels O.T. versions by Theodotian, 

Symmachus, and Aquilla, all three Gnostic occultists." Ibid, p.79 

But wait, there is more. 

"But is it only the pride of man that prompted this rewriting, or is some malignant 

supernatural power guiding the hands of these people as they take away from and add to the 



Word of God? Below are some of the results of this satanic assault on the Bible." 

This is from a pastor on jesus-is-lord.com, and he includes the NASB in this attack. Not even the New 

King James Version is without suspicion: 

"There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity 

which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by satanist Aleister 

Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the New 

King James Bible, on certain rock albums (like Led Zeppelin's), or you can see it on 

the cover of such New Age books as The Aquarian Conspiracy. (See Riplinger's tract 

on the NKJV.)" 

Fact is, if you really want to discredit someone or something, you can. Atheists do it all the time. 

KJV-Onlyites and NWT/Greber opposers are only helping atheists in their attack on the word of God. 

There is nothing wrong with using the NKJV, the NIV, the NASB, the NWT etc, in fact, using more than 

one translation helps one to get a better feel for the original Greek and Hebrew. 

KJV-Onlyites would probably cringe at the notion that their precious Comma Johanneum was first 

quoted as part of the actual text by a Gnostic and an occultist, see "Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and 

the Charismatic in the Early Church" by H. Chadwick, but that is exactly what happened. 

The Watchtower simply made a mistake by quoting Greber's NT, but then, they had only used that book 

a handful of times in the last 40 years, and never for support in the last 20. The WTS is not an infallible 

organization: 

"Someone may ask, Do you then claim infallibility and that every sentence appearing in 

"The Watch Tower" publications is stated with absolute correctness? Assuredly we make no 

such claim and have never made such a claim. What motive can our opponents have in so 

charging against us? Are they not seeking to set up a falsehood to give themselves excuse 

for making attacks and to endeavor to pervert the judgements of others?" Zion's Watchtower 

and Herald of Christ's Presence, Sept 15. 1909, 4473 

So when you read comments, like those from Raines: 

"If it wasn't for the JWs quoting from his translation, Greber would have rightfully faded 

into obscurity." 

The truth is, JW's have used him so little, it is actually a non-issue. It is JW Hater's that have given 

Greber prominence and deified him. My last check on the Google search engine came up with 779 

results, none from the WT Society. 

In fact, you will find that Greber's New Testament more closely resembles other non-JW Bible 

translations. Take note of the cover: 



The cover of Johannes 

Greber's NT 

Greber's NT uses the Cross, in translation and imagery, something that resembles the Bible of 

mainstream churches more so than the New World Translation (who never use the Cross). By attacking 

Greber's NT, opposers are actually causing damage to their own belief system. Remember, the WT has 

only used Greber for 2 scriptures. Those that assert that Greber's NT resembles the NWT 100% (and yes, 

they do say that) are dishonest and lying. A closer examination (like the Cross) will help you see that 

Greber has much in common with non-JW translations. 

Consider also Matthew 1:23: 

"Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his 

name Im·man'u·el," which means, when translated, "With Us Is God." 

Here the New World Translation uses the word VIRGIN which is comparable to the King James, New 

American Standard etc. But Greber's NT uses the words "young women." This more closely resembles 

how the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible have rendered the Hebrew equivalent 

ALMAH at Isaiah 7:14. 

Let us look at some other examples that the NWT is commonly accused of as misleading: 

Scripture 

New World 

Translation 

Greber NT 

King James 

Version 

NIV 

Matt 27:32 stake cross cross cross 

punctuation after 

Luke 23:43 

*today* 

punctuation before 

*today* 


*today* 


*today 

John 8:58 I have been I am I am I am 

John 1:12 exercise faith believe believe believe 

Rom 9:5 

reading separates God reading separates 

from Christ God from Christ 

reading separates 

God from Christ 

reading joins God as 

Christ 

Rom 10:13 Jehovah Lord Lord Lord 

Titus 2:13 

reading separates God reading separates 

from Christ God from Christ 

reading separates 

God from Christ 

reading joins God as 

Christ 



Col 1:16 *other* interpolated 

*other* NOT 

interpolated 

*other* NOT 

interpolated 

*other* NOT 

interpolated 

While Greber's NT is used against the NWT in relation to John 1:1, the above shows that it actually has a 

lot in common with the King James Version. 

This is of course a very unscientific polling, but the point forwarded is this, "You can make any version line up with the 

one you want to attack." 

In a survey of 64 scriptures taken from the book of John, the Greber NT agrees with the KJV 24 more 

times than does the NWT. click here for more 

Did Greber's use of "a god" influence how the translation of John 1:1c was rendered by the New 

World Bible Translation Committee? 

A quick check of the 1950 first edition reveals that this is not so. In the appendix we have mention and 

use of Smith and Goodspeed's An American Translation, Moffatt's Bible, A Manual Grammar of the 

Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey, The New Testament in an Improved Version upon the basis 

of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: with a Corrected Text, 1808 and Acts 28:6 in the King 

James Version etc. Of the above, only Newcome's Corrected Version reads "a god" at John 1:1c, while 

the other examples were used to promote the qualitative aspect of the anarthrous QEOS. 

[It should be noted too that only the last clause of John 1:1, the "c" part, really resembles Greber's NT. 

The first part of the 1950 NWT start's, "Originally the Word was..."] 

Are there others that have used "a god" at John 1:1c? 

Yes, take note: 

In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word. 

(Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott) 






Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the 

Word" 

"In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and 

the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." John 1:1 21st Century NT Literal 


1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice 

Goguel. 





Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the 

Word" 


Becker, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos" 

Stage, 1907, The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being. 



Holzmann, 1926, "a God/god was the Thought/thought" 


Smit, 1960, the word of the world was a divine being 

Schultz, 1987, a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word]. 


Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word 

was a god" 




Others, like Vine's and Harris have recognized that the rendering "a god" is grammatically possible. So 

we can see that the New World Translation does indeed have support for its rendering and does not need 

to rely on Johannes Greber and his New Testament. We simply do not know where his ancient 

manuscript, the Codex Bezae stopped, and his "spirit world" began. 

For a fuller expanded list of various translations of John 1:1 click here. 

Is it unusual for spirits/demons to recognize the truth of God's Word? 

No, and this is borne out by the scriptures themselves. Consider Acts 16:16: 

"And it happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a certain servant girl with a 

spirit, a demon of divination, met us. She used to furnish her masters with much gain by 

practicing the art of prediction. This [girl] kept following Paul and us and crying out with 

the words: "These men are slaves of the Most High God, who are publishing to YOU the 

way of salvation." This she kept doing for many days. Finally Paul got tired of it and turned 

and said to the spirit: "I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And it 

came out that very hour." NWT 

This demon was telling the truth, as the words in the above italics show, yet an exorcism was deemed 

necessary, as this kind of spiritism is condemned in the Bible (cf. Deut 18:10) .There are other examples. 

Matthew 8:29 says, 

"there met him two possessed with demons... And behold, they cried out, saying, What have 

we to do with thee, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" 

ASV 

Again more truth out of the mouths of demons. Luke 4:34 says, 

"And in the synagogue there was a man, that had a spirit of an unclean demon; and he cried 

out with a loud voice, 

Ah! what have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Nazarene? art thou come to destroy us? I 

know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." ASV 

The astrologers (traditionally 3 Wise Men) knew of the prophecy of the birth of the Messiah, 

"Where is the child who is born to be king of the Jews? We observe the rising of his star, 

and we have come to pay him homage." Matthew 2:2 New English Bible 

All this, even though astrology/divination is condemned in the Bible. 

WHY? Because their (the demons) very existence hinges on what is written in the scriptures. 

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." 

James 2:19 KJV 



So there should be not be any surprise when evil spirits try to imitate the godly. "And no marvel; for 

Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." 2Cor 11:14 KJV 

So what is the greater evil I wonder. The indiscretions of certain men like Greber (and perhaps those 

others mentioned above), or those who would keep others away from the Bible? By condemning certain 

versions, are you not condemning God for his inability to maintain divine providence? The mindset of 

those who condemn the New World Translation too often mirror the anti-intellectualism that runs 

rampant in the KJV-Only crowd. These people are not only anti-intellectual, they are anti-Bible and 

anti-God. It is these kinds of tactics, this kind of fear-mongering that brings out the worst in people of 

faith. It is okay to criticize certain elements of translation...I do it all the time. But I would never 

condemn the use of the King James Version, the New International Version and certainly not any 

Catholic version. They are all the word of God, and we can thank God for protecting his Word the way 

he has. 

The Best Bible is one that is read! 

Email Me 



Recommended Books on Bibles and Theology 

Recommended Books 

If some of these books are out of print, try http://www.abebooks.com or http://www.everybookstore.com 

The New World Translation 

http://www.watchtower.org/publications/publications_available.htm 

"Your 'New World Translation' is a high 

quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness 

to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations 

in use today." Professor Jason Beduhn, Northern Arizona University 


Find out for yourself why it is a great Bible. 

Newcome's New Testament-Revised and Corrected-1808 

http://www.geocities.com/metatron32001/books4sale.htm 

"The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." 

$19.95 for hardcopy and $9.95 for CDRom 

The Name of God by Gerard Gertoux 

http://www.divinename.net/ 

or http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/search?t=ISBN&q=0-7618-2204-6 

Gérard GERTOUX is a Hebrew scholar, specialist of the Tetragram; He has been president of the 

Association Biblique de Recherche d'Anciens Manuscrits since 1991. His training as an engineer and 

teacher has enabled him to compile an amount of information coming from a great diversity of 

specialized departments. 

The Revised English Bible for 14.95 

http://www.geocities.com/metatron32001/books4sale.htm 

The 21st Century New Testament-The Literal Free-Dual Translation 

http://www.stoopsmfg.com 

"The dual translation which enables a study of the literal meanings of the original text to be combined 

with a reading in modern English." 

"Jehovah your God you should worship and him alone you should serve." Matt 4:10 

"At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all 

things in their order." John 1:1 Free 


[Word] was a god." John 1:1 Literal 

Christology and the Trinity: An Exploration 

http://members.aol.com/hector3001/christology.htm 

First effort by young scholar Edgar Foster: 

"This book is written, not only to dispel the erroneous notion that Christ is one persona in a triune 

Godhead: it is also written to present a true portrait of Jesus Christ." 

Jesus: God or the Son of God? by Brian Holt 

http://www.tellway-publishing.com 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/books.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:05:37 AM]


This is a wonderful book with 366 pages of easy to understand analysis of the Trinity going through all 

the books of the NT one by one. 

The New Jerusalem Bible 

www.amazon.com 

In 1956, scholars from L'Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem set their minds to translating the Scriptures from 

the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, hoping they could preserve the most sacred Christian 

traditions and stories. By 1966, the first English-language Jerusalem Bible was published. 

The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translations: with a special look at the New World 

Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses 

by Rolf Furuli 

Buy at Walmart for $11.94 

TimeLine of Bible History-Free 

by Theodore Cobb 

Free .pdf document, simply email the Webmaster at hector3001@aol.com 

The Mormon Murders: A True Story of Greed, Forgery, Deceit, and Death 

by Steven Naifeh 

amazon.com/naifeh 

Link inspired by Jose Luis Gil Alvarez 

When Jesus Became God 

by Richard Rubenstein 


Jack Miles, The Boston Globe; author of God: A Biography 

"A splendidly dramatic story . . . Rubenstein has turned one of the great fights of history into an 

engrossing story." 

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with Dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek Words 


The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : With Main Concordance, Appendix to 

the Main Concordance, Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the OT and Greek Dictionary of the NT 

The Epistles of Paul in Modern English-A Paraphrase by George Barker Stevens, Ph.D., D.D. 1898 

$9.95 at http://www.geocities.com/metatron32001/books4sale.htm 

Sample Scriptures: 

"In the Scripture Jehovah solemnly declares he will punish his foes and vindicate his 

people." Hebrews 10:29 

"We eagerly expect the glorious advent of Christ, our divine Saviour." Titus 2:13 

The Divine Name Controversy Firpo W. Carr, Ph.D. 

http://stirinc.org/dncvol1.htm 

"For his first doctoral dissertation (the basis for his book [The Divine Name Controversy]) 

Carr used a computer to sift through all the relevant vowel/consonant combinations found 

in Hebrew scripture. The computer eventually narrowed the list to 'e' 'o' and 'a' or YeHoWaH (Jehovah in 

English)."--The Daily Breeze 



The Interlinear Greek/English New TestamentWith Strong's Concordance Numbers Above Each 

Word by Jay P., Sr Green (Editor) 


The third edition of this widely-used reference tool features an updated edition of A Literal Translation 

of the Hold Bible in the left column, the Greek Textus Receptus in the center column, and the King 

James Version in the right column. 

Thayer's Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament 


Coded With the Numbering System from Strong's Exhausive Concordance of the Bible 

by Joseph Thayer 

A Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (BAGD) 

http://www.amazon.com/ 

Exhaustive and irreplaceable, Walter Bauer's lexicon is one of the great momuments of biblical and 

related scholarship, perfect for English speaking students working in the Greek text. 

Rotherham Emphasized Bible : A Literal Translation 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos 

A Reader on amazon.com: " I believe that The Emphasized Bible is the most accurate translation that we 

have available in English today." 

The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop 

amazon.com 

With sixty-one woodcut illustrations from Nineveh, Babylon, Egypt, Pompeii, etc. Objects of Worship; 

Festivals; Doctrine and Discipline; Rites and Ceremonies; Religious Orders; The Two Developments 

Historically and Prophetically Considered. 

The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound 

by Anthony F. Buzzard, Charles F. Hunting 

amazon.com/trinity 

Excellent discussion on the Trinity Doctrine from a Unitarian point of view. 

The King James Version Debate 

amazon.com/carson 

A good rundown of the King James Only deception. 

Vine's Dictionary of Bible Words 

Barnes and Nobles 

This reference makes it possible for the students with substantial, limited, or no background in Greek or 

Hebrew to study the meaning of biblical words in the original languages. Through the extensive use of 

Strong's numbering system and other references included in Vine's indexes, the student will be able to 

bridge Vine's entries with those of the standard technical lexicons used by Bible scholars worldwide. 755 

pp. 

How to Choose Your Bible Wisely 

Purchase 



Also Bible Translations and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie gives a fair report on 

certain Bible Versions and Translations. 

Concepts of Father, Son and Holy Spirit 

amazon.com/alfs 

Paul W. Newman, A SPIRIT CHRISTOLOGY, University Press of America, 1987, p. 196n 

"A useful analysis of different versions of Trinitarianism and Non-trinitarianism." 

Randall R. Warren, CHRISTIAN BOOKSELLER, August 1984 "A challenging and interesting study.... 

a first class religious reference work which manages to maintain a great deal of doctrinal objectivity." 

The Original New Testament 

The First Definitive Translation of the New Testament in 2000 Years 

by Hugh Schonfield 

And excellent and highly recommendable version of the Greek Scriptures. 

amazon.com/schonfield 

One God & One Lord-Reconsidering The Cornerstone Of The Christian Faith 

Discussing the fallacy of the Trinity Doctrine from an Ex-Way point of view. At $15.00 for a 680 page 

book it is worth every penny 

http://www.christianeducational.org/bookpromo.html 

The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon : With an Appendix Containing the 

Biblical Aramaic : Coded With the Numbering System from Strong's 

by Francis Brown, S. Driver, C. Briggs 

amazon.com/BDB 

A useful lexical tool. A must for any serious study of the Bible. 

Accuracy of Translation : The Primary Criterion in Evaluating Bible Versions With Special 

Reference to the New International Version 

by Robert P. Martin 

amazon.com/martin 

An interesting critique of the NIV and Dynamic Equivalence. 

The King James Version Debate-A Plea for Realism 

by D.A. Carson 

amazon.com/carson 

With an appendix dealing with Pickering's The Identity of the New Testament Text 

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 

by Bruce M. Metzger 

amazon.com/metzger 

Metzger gives explanation for the ratings of readings in many of the variant readings and texts and why 

they were rated as such. This work will give you a quick look at the arguments pro and con on the major 

variant readings of the New Testament. 

Faith of the Fatherless-The Psychology of Atheism 

by Paul C. Vitz 

amazon.com/vitz 



"Surveys of the leading intellectual defenders of atheism and Christianity, show that the atheists had 

"defective fathers" while the believers did not. Vitz does not intend to suggest that atheism is 

psychologically determined, but rather hopes to counteract the idea that irrational psychological factors 

lead one to believe in God." Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com) 

The Unvarnished New Testament by Andy Gaus 

amazon.com/gaus 

"Other translations were made by committees; they interpreted the text through theological 

doctrines and dogmas that arose centuries after the books were written. This new translation strips away 

these thick layers of convention to portray an ageless beauty that no earlier translation has captured." 

Tanakh-The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text 

amazon.com/tanakh 

Very readable Jewish Translation 

Basics of Biblical Greek-Grammar by William D. Mounce ISBN 0-310-59800-1 

amazon.com/mounce 

Enjoy it, as I do. 

The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament 

by George Wigram 

amazon.com/wigram 

Coded with Strong's Concordance numbers 

The New English Bible 

www.powells.com 

A fresh mainstream translation that moves away from the KJV tradition. 

Dictionary of the Bible 

by John L. McKenzie S.J. 

amazon.com/mckenzie 

"One can only marvel at the depth, breadth, and accuracy of the scholarship"-Library Journal 

The Text of the New Testament-Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration 


amazon.com/metzger 

"By far the best available handbook on textual criticism."-Bibliotheca Sacra 

The Greek New Testament-United Bible Societies 

Easier to use critical apparatus than the Nestle-Aland text. 

amazon.com/ubs 

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 


amazon.com/tc 

A fine companion to the above stated UBS Greek text. 

What Happens When We Die by Anthony Buzzard 



Contact Atlanta Bible College, Box 100,000, Morrow GA, 30205 or 

185 Summerville Dr. Brooks, GA, 30205 

Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History 

By Philip Jenkins 

"...Jenkins argues that cults are more realistically regarded as the cutting edge of religious development. 

Loaded with intriguing sketches of dozens of cults and distinguished by Jenkins' healthily nonjudgmental 

attitude, this is a superb historical primer on what, tomorrow, may be a hot topic again." 

amazon.com/jenkins 

Our Fathers Who Aren't In Heaven-The Forgotten Christianity of Jesus, the Jew 

by Anthony F. Buzzard 

http://www.centuryarchive.com/ 

Who is Jesus 

by Anthony F. Buzzard 

Contact Atlanta Bible College, Box 100,000, Morrow GA, 30205 or 

185 Summerville Dr. Brooks, GA, 30205 

One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism 

by Larry W. Hurtado 

amazon.com/hurtado 

A great study of agency in second temple Judaism. 

The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English 

Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton's translation on one side, and the Greek text on the other. Very useful for study 

purposes 

amazon.com/lxx 

A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey 

amazon.com/mantey 

A great read and study, though it does have a theological slant. 

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture : The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the 

Text of the New Testament 

by Bart D. Ehrman 

amazon.com/ehrman 

The victors not only write the history, they also reproduce the texts. In a study that explores the close 

relationship between the social history of early Christianity and the textual tradition of the emerging New 

Testament, Ehrman examines how early struggles between Christian "heresy" and "orthodoxy" affected 

the transmission of the documents over which, in part, the debates were waged. 

Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis 

by Philip Jenkins 

amazon.com/jenkins 

"Philip Jenkins has written a fascinating, exhaustive, and, above all, even-handed account that not only 

puts this particular crisis in perspective, but offers an eye-opening look at the way in which an issue takes 

hold of the popular imagination. Jenkins reassures us about our local clergy, but also delivers a disturbing 



message about how vulnerable we are to the news media." 

"Arguing that the current epidemic of clergy sex abuse is not as widespread as the media suggests, a 

critical examination of this issue states that popular imagination fans the fire of scandal and theorizes 

about why the controversy has targeted Catholicism." 

Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek 

by Matthew S. Demoss 

amazon.com/demoss 

"What is a parechesis? How about that word you see throughout many commentaries, paraenesis? What 

is the Didache? Did you forget exactly what was the Hexapla? What does it mean when a commentator 

says that the construction of a given passage is anacoluthon?" This little book will help you. 

Nave's Topical Bible 

by Orville J. Nave 

amazon.com/nave 

Nave's Topical Bible, the best known of all topical bibles, has been a valuable Bible-study reference and 

a best-seller for more than 75 years. It is a comprehensive digest of over 20,000 topics and subtopics with 

more than 100,000 associated Scripture references. The most significant references for each topic 

actually include the full text of the verse cited-saving the need to separately look up each verse. 


Email Me 


Constantine the Great: Pagan or Christian? 

Was Constantine the Great a Pagan or a Christian? 

A Reply to http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-history-constantine.htm 

and others who adore this man. 

Why do myths abound? Yes, I mean myths. History is full of myths, tales in where we make mere men 

as gods and heroes. Molehills of moments blown into mountains of false memories. 

How many of us truly know that George Washington did not really cut down the cherry tree, or that 

Helen Keller was a communist, that the first Thanksgiving with the Pilgrims was an American 

fabrication, that Martin Luther was an anti-semite and John Calvin a murderer? We paint our heroes with 

the broad stroke of perfection, and the same goes for Constantine the Great, the first "Christian" 

Emperor. Some books will have you believe that Constantine was used by God, he was a "Saint." And in 

this they need to. The central doctrine of Christendom is the Trinity, which was brought about through no 

small measure of help by Constantine the Great. If Constantine's portrait was less than Christian, then the 

next logical step is to wonder what problems there are with the Trinity doctrine. So, the question put 

forward is: Is Constantine sinner or Saint? 

It is significant, for instance, not that the pagan gods and their legends survived for a few years on 

Constantine's coinage but that they disappeared so quickly: the last of them, the relatively inoffensive 

"Unconquered Sun" had been eliminated within little over a decade after the defeat of Maxentius 

(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71) 

Reply: How can the Sun-God be considered “relatively inoffensive” to a Christian? 

“Constantine’s nephew Julian speaks of Constantine’s connection with a special cult of 

Helios. From a familiar obverse on coins of Constantine, representing the sun-god with the 

inscription SOLI. INVICTI. COMITI, we deduce that the personification of the sun as 

Mithras is here implied. Anyone who has dealt with ancient coins knows that out of five 

Constantinian pieces probably four will bear this obverse, so that there is a high probability 

that this device was retained until the Emporer’s death…But the coins with unequivocal 

Christian emblems which he is said to have struck are yet to be found” The Age of 

Constantine the Great, 1949, Jacob Burckhardt, p.293 

Nor was the visit to Rome a success. Constantine's refusal to take part in a 

pagan procession offended the Romans; and when he left after a short visit, it 

was never to return. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, 

Vol. 5, p.71) 

the accusation that his [Constantine’s] generosity was only made possible by 

his looting of the treasures of the pagan temples (Encyclopedia Britannica, 

1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71) 

Reply: 

"Although Constantine attributed his success to the divine message that he beleived he had 

read in the skies before the battle at the Milvian Bridge in 312, he could not officially--and 

privately, it seems, did not-abandon paganism at once." Encyclopedia Americana 2000 

"However, until his preparations for his final campaign by 323, he did not abandon his 

allegiance to the Sun god, even though he regarded himself as a servant of the Christian 

God... Constantine's public image remained - the Sun god was the emperor's 'companion.' 

The liberation of Rome was attributed to the Sun on a medallion struck at the time." The 

Rise of Christianity, W.H.C. Frend, p.484 

Constantine’s Conversion and Genuineness of Faith Assessment. The reign of Constantine must be 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/constantine.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:05:50 AM]


interpreted against the background of his clear and unambiguous personal commitment to Christianity. 

(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71) 

Reply: 

"Some things have been established with reasonable certainty: Constantine was no 

intellectual giant; he took himself very seriously with regard to what he considered his 

mission to promote Christianity; and lacking more than one of the Christian virtues, he was 

on occasion cruel, ruthless, and even inhumane." Encyclopedia Americana 2000 

"Constantine was almost certainly a Mithraic, and his triumphal arch, built after his 

'conversion', testifies to the Sun-god, or 'unconquered sun'. Many Christians did not make a 

clear distinction between this sun-cult and their own. They referred to Christ 'driving his 

chariot across the sky'; they held their services on Sunday, knelt towards the East and had 

their nativity feast on 25 December, the birthday of the sun at the winter solstice. During the 

later pagan revival under the Emperor Julian many Christian found it easy to apostacize 

because of this confusion; the Bishop of Troy told Julian he had always secretely prayed to 

the sun. Constantine never abandoned sun-worship and kept the sun on his coins. He made 

Sunday into a day of rest, closing the law courts and forbidding all work except agricultural 

labour. In his new city of Constantinople, he set up a statue of the sun-god, bearing his own 

features, in the Forum; and another of the mother-Goddess Cybele, though she was 

presented in a posture of Christian prayer. 

Constantine's motives were probably confused. He was an exceptionally superstitious man, 

and he no doubt shared the view, popular among professinal soldiers, that all religous cults 

should be respected, to appease their respective gods....Vain and superstitious, Constantine 

may have embraced Chrstianity because it suited his personal interests, and his growing 

megalomania.... His own role was not wholly removed from that of the pagan God-emperor 

- as witness the colossal heads and statues of himself with which he littered his 

empire...How could the Christian Church, apparently quite willingly, accomodate this weird 

megalomaniac in its theocratic system?" A History of Christianity "Paul Johnson pp. 67, 68 

"Few of the essential elements of Christian belief interested Constantine very much-neither 

God's mercy nor man's sinfulness, neither damnation nor salvation, neither brotherly love 

nor, needless to say, humility. Ardent in his convictions, he remained nevertheless oblivious 

to their moral implications. Modern historians have been bothered by this;" [Constantine by 

Ramsay MacMullen, p. 239] 

This is the same man that even some of his time was considered analogous to Christ. [cf. pp 

176, 177] 

What about the famous council of Nicaea: 

"Constantine, who treated religious questions solely from a political point of view, assured 

unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new profession of faith. In 

this way unity was achieved/ 'It was altogether unheardof that a universal creed should be 

instituted solely on the authority of the emperor, who as a catechumen was not even 

admitted to the mystery of the Eucharist and was totally unempowered to rule on the highest 

mysteries of the faith. Not a single bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing." 

[Walter Nigg, The Heretics, Heresy Throught the Ages, p127] 

"When he [Constantius] died at York on 25 July 305 the soldiers proclaimed 



his son Constantine as emperor. Constantine, like his father, worshipped 

the Unconquered Sun [page 122]... "The conversion of Constantine marks a 

turning-point in the history of the Church and of Europe." ... "But if his 

conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace, 

neither was it a cynical act of Machiavellian cunning. It was a military 

matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, 

but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the 

Christians....He was not baptized until he lay dying in 337, but this implies no 

doubt about his Christian belief. It was common at this time (and continued so 

until about A.D. 400) to postpone baptism to the end of one's life, especially if 

one's duty as an official included torture and execution of criminals. Part of the 

reason for postponement lay in the seriousness with which the responsibilities 

of baptism were taken. Constantine favoured Christianity among the many 

religions of his subjects, but did not make it the official or 'established' religion 

of the empire." (The Early Church, Chadwick, Henry. p 122,125,127) 

Reply: 

"Constantine was a hot-blooded man. He was wise to avoid being baptized while there were 

still so many sins of passion that he might yet commit." [Rubenstein, p. 49] 

"The last years of C(onstantine)'s life saw an approach to the Arian position: he was 

baptized by a bishop with Arian tendencies shortly before his death near Nicomedia in May 

337." [Encyclopedia of the Early Church, p. 193] 

"...it may be that the Church refused him the sacrament because of his manner of life. 

Certainly it was not his piety which made him a Christian." [A History of Christianity, Paul 

Johnson, 1928, p.68] 

The fact that Constantine murdered his son is no proof that Constantine was not a Christian. 

We are not told why Constantine murdered his son. Anti-Trinitarians are basically trying to trash the 

genuineness of Constantine's Christianity and his involvement in the Nicene creed. Britannica notes 

Constantine putting his son to death, but says it was for reasons unknown. What if his son committed 

murder himself, and Constantine, just like the USA today, executed him, being head of state! The fact that 

Constantine killed his own son, could be taken, should the facts ever be known, as a sign of his impartial 

intolerance of sin even in his own family! In this case the murder of his son could be viewed as an act of 

righteous faith! 

Reply: Let us look at the facts. 

"At around the same time, the emporer tried the apparently related case of a young Roman 

aristocrat, Ceionius Rufius Albinus, who was accused of adultery and black magic, 

convicted him, and sent him onto permanent exile." [When Jesus Became God, Rubenstein, 

p.91] 

It is interesting that this aristocrat was only exiled, while Crispus (Constantine's son) was executed 

immediately after a (possibly trumped-up) charge of "attempted rape." How did others view this action at 

the time? 

"In July he arrived in Rome, only to be confronted by his mother, the devout Helena, who 

had become a symbol of Christian piety throughout the empire. Dressed in mourning, she 

accused him of executing her grandson hastily on false evidence. Evidently, she offered 

evidence that Fausta had masterminded the plot in order to rid her sons of the leading rival 

for the succession. One can only imagine the scene that must have ensued between 

Constantine and his wife, but the outcome is well attested. Fausta visited the steam room of 

the baths at the imperial palace and asphyxiated in the overheated air. She is generally 



believed to have suicided to avoid the executioner, but some have pictured her being hurled 

into the scalding steam by Constantine's agents, the doors held fast against her escape. 

Not long after this, Bishop Hosius requested permission to leave Constantine's court...one 

suspects that it was a response to the horrors the bishop had witnessed." [Rubenstein, pp. 

91,92] 

"To pass for a Christian would, indeed, have been a great presumption on his part. Not 

long after the Council of Nicaea he suddenly had Crispus, his excellent Son by his first 

marraige and a pupil of Lactantius, put to death at Pola in Istria (326), and soon thereafter he 

had his wife Fausta, daughter of Maximian, drowned in her bath. The 11 year old Licinianus 

was also murdered, apparently at the same time as Crispus....that the horror was not merely 

a family affair but possessed political implications can be deduced from the fact that 

Licinianus was included among the victims. [The Age of Constantine the Great, 

pp.283,284, Burckhardt] 

"In modern-day terms, Constantine could hardly be considered much of a Christian. As an 

example, he never relinguished his title Pontifex Maximus. This was the title given to him as 

the head of the state pagan cult, which was either Mithraism or Sol Invictus, two distinct but 

similar religions. In addition, the coinage of his reign continued to depict the Sun God [Sol 

Invictus]. Finally, it is reported that he personally murdured one of his own sons, had his 

second wife drowned, had his nephew and brother-in-law killed after he had guaranteed safe 

passage, etc. However, during all of this he sponsored Christianity because it had been 

useful to him in winnig a decisive battle." 

[The Christian Conspiracy, p. 58, Dr. L.D. Moore] 

It is evident from the above that Constantine was no godly man in a Christian sense. This has been borne 

out by the violence that erupted at the time during the Nicene Controversy. The pro-Trinitarian side of 

the issue was led by Athanasius, "a future saint and uninhibited faction fighter, had his opponents 

excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled to 

distant provinces." He "possessed a power independent of the emperor which he built up and perpetuated 

by violence. That was both the strength and the weakness of his position. Like a modern gangster, he 

evoked widespread mistrust, proclaimed total innocence - and especially succeeded in evading 

conviction on specific charges." [When Jesus Became God, Rubenstein, pp. 6, 107] 

"Constantine was a Christian of a very peculiar type, a type that would hardly be recognized as Christian 

at all today." Constantine the Great by Michael Grant 

A rotten tree does indeed bear rotten fruit. Matthew 7:17 

Bible.ca: Your article is riddled with both errors and mistakes. Nothing you wrote 

refuted the facts of history. 

Your sources are insignificant and invalid. 

Britannica is the most reliable source of historical information in the 

world. Take a look at the bibliography. 

Britannica is not ONE SOURCE it is the consensuses of world opinion. 

Look up Christmas and its pagan origin. It is dead on! Bible.ca 

I encourage all to check out every source on this man. Brittanica's article was written by TWO men, who 

used other sources that did not even agree with him (i.e. Ramsey MacMullen). 



And of course, please read their artice on Christmas which is quite enlightening. 

"The reason why Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25 remains uncertain, but 

most probably the reason is that early Christians wished the date to coincide with the pagan 

Roman festival marking the "birthday of the unconquered sun" (natalis solis invicti); this 

festival celebrated the winter solstice, when the days again begin to lengthen and the sun 

begins to climb higher in the sky." 

Even those who consider themselves good Christians would be at odds with Brittanica's take on 

evolution. 


Email Me 


Theotes vs. Theiotes and Godhead, Deity or the Divine Quality of Christ. 

An Online Reply to Mark McFall's: 

An analysis of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Watchtower 

Society - 

"Theotes" in Col 2:9 and "Theiotes" in Rom 1:20 

Original Article at http://www.bright.net/~bielski/theotes_versus_theiotes.htm 

Mark: "According to Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, theotes (the nominative form, from which 

theotetos is derived) means "divinity, divine nature.1 Being truly "divinity," or "divine nature," does not 

make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans 

share "humanity" or "human nature" makes them coequal or all the same age." 

After checking a few more lexicons and Bible's we learned that "theotes" is defined similarly to the Liddell 

and Scott Lexicon, but we also learn that most scholarly Lexicon's go one step further and include the 

definitions deity, Godhead, and divine being. In fact Biblical scholar Joseph H. Thayer (not a Christian), 

defined theotes in 

his Lexicon the following way: 

"Theotes...(deitas, Tertullian, Augustine) deity i.e. the state of being God, 

Godhead: Col 2:9"7 

Notice in Thayer's Lexicon that Thayer has added in parenthesis two ancient Biblical scholars who agree 

with him, he list's: Tertullian and Augustine. Biblical scholar Grimm who edited Thayer's third edition of 

his lexicon in 1888 added in brackets his own comments, Grimm writes: 

"[Syn...theotes deity differs from theiotes divinity, as essence differs from 

quality or attribute. Trent, Lightfoot, Meyer, Fritzsche]" 

In examining Thayer's Lexicon, we discover that there are eight Biblical scholars listed who hold that 

"theotes" means "deity," and five scholars who say there is a difference in meaning between "theotes" in 

Colossians 2:9 and "theiotes" of Romans 1:20. It seems that there is some confusion here, this has lead to 

some mistranslation of 

Bible's and ultimately in the case of the Jehovah Witness the misapprehension of the person of Christ. 

Reply: The "confusion" seems to be widespread, and as we shall see, it is not really an issue at all based 

on many Bibles, lexicons and dictionaries. We will also explore the context and the Greek word 

PLHRWMA [fullness] and KATOIKEI [dwelleth]. First though, how have Bible translators viewed the 

relationship between theotes [QEOTHTOS] and theiotes [QEIOTHS] and other closely related Greek 

words? 

Version Acts 17:29 2Peter 1:4 Romans 1:20 Colossians 2:9 

Greek QEION QEIAS QEIOTHS QEOTHTOS 

KJV Godhead divine Godhead Godhead 

ASV Godhead divine divinity Godhead 

NKJV divine nature divine Godhead* Godhead 

TEV nature divine divine nature divine nature 

MLB Deity divine divine nature Godhead 

NRSV deity divine divine nature deity 

CEV* God God God God 

Unvarnished divine divine divinity divinity 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/theotes.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:06:06 AM]


Concordant Divine divine divinity Deity 

Schonfield Divine nature divine divinity Divine Wisdom 

NASB Divine Nature divine divine nature Deity 

Jerusalem deity divine deity divinity 

New Jerusalem deity divine God divinity 

Lattimore divinity divine divinity divine 

Simple English God divine divinity divinity 

NIV divine being divine divine nature Deity 

Revised English deity being of God deity Godhead 

20th Century Deity divine divinity Godhead 

Barclay N/A divine deity godhead 

RSV Deity divine deity deity 

Lamsa Deity divine Godhead Godhead 

Goodspeeed AT divine nature divine divine character God's nature 

N.A.B. divinity divine divinity deity 

Newcome Godhead divine providence deity* 

NWT Divine Being divine Godship divine quality 

QEION/QEIAS Strong's 2304, "godlike (neuter as noun, divinity): - divine, godhead." 

Thayers, "divine, divinity, deity 

BAGD, "of the godhead and everything that applies to it" 

"whereby he hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises; that through these ye may 

become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in that world by lust." 

2Peter 2:4 ASV 

QEIOTHS Strong's 2305, " divinity (abstractly)" 

Thayer's, "divinity, divine nature" 

BAGD, "of a divinity...divine nature...HSNash, Ro 1:20, Col 2:9" 

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have 

been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." NIV Ro 

1:20 

QEOTHTOS, Strong's 2320, "divinity (abstractly)" 

See comments below on Thayer. 

BAGD, "deity, divinity, used as abstract noun for theos...the fullness of a deity Col.2:9" 

"For it is in him that all the fulness of God's nature lives embodied, and in union with him, you too are 

filled with it" Col 2:9 Smith/Goodspeeed AT 

*NKJV ftn. divine nature, deity/MacArthur Study Bible ftn "Godhead=His divine nature, particularly His 

faithfulness, kindness and graciousness. 

* CEV [God's...character at Romans 1:20] is a paraphrased Bible and not very useful for serious stydy. 

* Newcome ftn. "Compare Ephesians iii. 19, where Christians are said to be filled with the very fulness 

of God. 'The scholastic word godhead,' says Mr. Lindsey, 'is rejected, because to common readers it 

countenances the strange notion of a God consisting of three persons." 

Now let us examine Thayer: 



qeovth"...deity i.e. he state of being God, Godhead...Col. ii. 9...[SYN[ONYM]., qevth", qeiovth" 

[theiotes, thay.AH.tace] qeovt[h"]. deity differs from qeiovt[h""] divinity, as essence differs from quality 

or attribute; c[on]f[er]. Trench [Synonyms of the New Testament, Ninth edition, improved, London, 

1880.] § ii; Bp. Lightf[oo]t. or [Heinrich August Wilhelm] Mey[er]. on Col 1.c….] —'Thayer' lexicon, p. 

288. 

Despite the ad hominem attack on Thayer, that what is called 'Thayer's Lexicon', is mostly the work of 

Lutherans Wilke and Grimm in Greek and Latin, which were translated into English by Joseph Henry 

Thayer, who was a Congregationalist and NOT an Unitarian see: George Huntston Williams, The 

Harvard Divinity School, Boston, The Beacon Press, 1954, p. 147 and The Encyclopedia Americana, 

1956, Vol. 26, p. 490.) 

Thayer's additions in the lexicon are set off in brackets. In the above quotation from the lexicon, after 

"Col. ii. 9", Thayer has made an addition to show the meaning of 'theotes' according to the understanding 

of Trench, Lightfoot and Meyer, all of whom are trinitarians. 

So the definitions and meanings expressed were of trinitarians. 

Mark: This confusion can be clearly seen in the Watchtower's own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the 

Greek Scriptures. Editions 1969 and 1985 are effective tools that can be used in witnessing encounters. Let 

me explain: In the interlinear (1985 edition) section of Col. 2:9 "Theotes" is translated divinity. As stated 

previously some scholars accept theotes as meaning divinity which could convey the rendering "divine 

quality," but this seems to be a gray area in which the Watchtower Society has focused on. For in their 

Kingdom Interlinear Translation of 

the Greek Scriptures first published in 1969, Col. 2:9 "theotes" is translated "godship," this is an accepted 

translation and presents the idea of "deity" more clearly than "divinity." (1969 edition) The confusion is 

also easily detected in the same Kingdom Interlinear (1985ed) at Romans 1:20. Here "theiotes" in the 

interlinear section is incorrectly translated "godship". When in fact according to Thayer it should be 

"divinity". The Kingdom 

Interlinear (1985ed) has used this gray area of translation to confuse the two Greek words "theotes" and 

"theiotes" in an attempt to support their view that Jesus Christ is not God. 

Reply: Corrections of this type are not uncommon. Consider Scriveners Greek text with interlinear by 

Jay P. Green at Acts 17:29 with Godhood (1996) and Godhead (1983). 

Many Bible versions have made changes in key areas in their revisions, like the NIV (John 1:18), TEV 

(John 1:1), NAB (2 Thess 1:12) etc. 

However, the translation in the NWT has not changed in this regard. It is quite clear from the above chart 

that Bible translator view DEITY,GODHEAD,DIVINITY,DIVINE and DIVINE NATURE in the four 

Greek words in the same fashion. 

Mark: The Watchtower also uses another interlinear that is quite useful in this study. It is know as The 

Emphatic Diaglott. It is published by the Watchtower but it is not produced by them...which correctly 

translates the word "deity" 

Reply: But what Mark does not show you is that the Emphatic Diaglott also uses "deity" at Acts 17:29, 

Romans 1:20 also, thereby, not making the distinction that Mr McFall is hoping for. 

What Have Other Scholars Said? 

A.T Robertson who is recognized as the worlds for most authoritative grammarian said 

in his scholarly book Word Pictures In The New Testament: 

"There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead 

(the very essence of God, from 'Theos,' deity) and not to be confused with 

'Theiotes' in Romans 1:20 (from 'Theios,' the quality of God, divinity), here 

only in N.T. as 'Theiote' only in Romans 1:20. The distinction is observed in 

Lucian and Plutarch. 'Theiotes' occurs in the papyri and inscriptions."10 



The Expositor's Greek Testament, confirms A.T Robertson on this issue: 

"The word ("Theotes") is to be distinguished from "Theiotes" as Deity, the 

being God, from Divinity, the being Divine or Godlike. The passage thus 

asserts the real Deity of Christ." 

Reply: But what of other scholars? Does it mean only 'deity'? Does it bear the sense of 'divinity' and/or 

'divine nature'? Edward Robinson in his Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 334, 

reports: "divinity, divine nature". 

Liddell and Scott's A Greek–English Lexicon, page 792, says: "divinity, divine nature". 

E.A. Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, page 578, discloses: "divinity 

, deity, godhead". 

Clinton Morrison, as found in An Analytical Concordance to the Revised Standard Version of the New 

Testament, page 139, relates: "deity, divinity". 

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Volume 2, page 66, states: "deity, 

divinity". 

The Abington Bible Commentary, offers: "The totality of divine attributes is present as a whole in one 

'Body' or concrete individual personality", page 1257. 

The Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich lexicon [BAGD], on page 359, defines it as: "deity, divinity, used as 

abstract noun for theos...the fullness of a deity Col.2:9". [abstract noun, a quality or attribute]. 

The Eerdman's Analytical Concordance to the RSV states: "deity, 1. QEION (Acts 17:29), 2. QEIOTHS 

(Rom 1:20), 3. QEOTHTOS (Col 2:9). p.251 

See also The Anchor Bible: Colossians, by Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke (Doubleday, 1994), pp. 312 

and 363; also volume 3 of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by 

Kittel, page 119. "Abstract nouns by their very nature focus on a quality." (Wallace, Greek Grammar 

Beyond the Basics, p. 226. 

Or, as a note in Kittel reads, "The hEIS QEOS [One God] of the OT has attracted to Himself all divine 

power in the cosmos, and on the early Christian view He has given this fullness of power to Christ as the 

Bearer of the divine office." 

Counter all this with the translators in the above chart and you will see that many do not see much 

difference in the 2 words at all. 

Mark: What Are The Historical Roots of "Theotes" and "Theiotes" 

James Hastings in his book A Dictionary of the Bible Dealing With Its Language, Literature, And Contents 

deals with these two words and one other that is closely related ("Theios-divine nature"), 

"Theiotes-divinity", and "Theotes-deity" informs us that: 

"In each case the Greek word is appropriately employed, and the one could 

not have been used for the other....Lightfoot on Col 2:9 expresses the 

difference between 'Theiotes' and 'Theotes' thus:'Theiotes' is the quality, 

'Theotes' the essence of God. The distinction is best seen by observing that 

'Theotes' comes from 'Theos' God, While 'Theiotes' comes from 'Theios' 

Divine....It is at once seen how appropriately St. Paul uses 'Theiotes' in 

Romans 1:20 where he speaks of such attributes of God as can be read in 

the book of Nature; and how appropriately 'Theotes' in Col 2:9 where he 

asserts of the Son that in Him dwells the fullness of the entire (revealed and 

unrevealed) Personality of God. The Latin Versions were forced to use 

divinitas for both words. But Its insufficiency to represent 'Theotes' was early 

felt....The same feeling is now finding expression in English, and theologians 



prefer to speak of the Deity rather than of the Divinity of Christ, since the 

former word alone give Him the full Personality of God. The English Versions 

from Wyclif to AV make no distinction, but use "Godhead" at both places, 

except that the Rheims in 1582 New Testament has "Divinity" at Romans 

1:20. Yet Beza (on Col. 2:9) had shown the distinction." 

Reply: But what it the REAL history of QEIOTHS and QEOTHTOS? H. S. Nash (who is mentioned as a 

reference in BAGD) in his "QEIOTHS- QEOTHTOS, Rom. i. 20; Col.ii.9," JBL 18 (1899), 1-34 states 

that Philo and Josephus never use QEOTHTOS, and use QEIOTHS sparingly. Nash also show a lack of 

distinction between these 2 term in Greek philosophy and that "the 2 words are practically identical in 

meaning." 

"The chief fault in the exponents of the distinction between the terms is that they have taken 

little or almost no account of the long history of the terms. Thay have made no attempt to 

correlate them with the history of thought. They have not asked whether the system of the 

author in question called for the distinction, but, taking the terms as the isolated expressions 

of the theorem, have picked up an example whereever it came their way. The only excuse 

for the hasty study of the larger context of the stock illustrations is the fact that the 

traditional view, having ruled interpretations for six centuries, has naturally fallen into the 

habit of taking itself for granted." NASH 

Stephen E. Broyles, in his "What Do We Mean By Godhead" considers the other Greek sources and 

defines it as a "quality of being a god." [EQ 50.4 (1978), 224] 

Mark: J.B. Lightfoot whom James Hastings is referencing in his book St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, 

included more on the subject that was not covered in Hastings Dictionary, Lightfoot went on to say 

concerning Latin versions: 

"In the Latin versions, owing to the poverty of the language, both 'Theotes' 

and 'Theiotes' are translated by the same term divinity; but this was felt to be 

inadequate, and the word deity was coined at a later date to represent 

"Theotes." 

Notice below that the Latin Vulgate shows what Lightfoot is referring to here is in both Romans 1:20 and 

Col. 2:9 with "divinitatis" occurring in both passages: 

"VUL Romans 1:20 invisibilia enim ipsius a creatura mundi per ea quae facta 

sunt intellecta conspiciuntur sempiterna quoque eius virtus et (divinitas) ut 

sint inexcusabiles." 

"VUL Colossians 2:9 quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo (divinitatis) 

corporaliter." 

It is here in the Latin versions where the root of this gray area has been exposed. The Watchtower Society's 

book Insights On The Scriptures states of these Latin versions: 

"The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as 'divinity.' Thus, 

here too, there is a solid basis for rendering theiotes as referring to quality, 

not personality." 

The Watchtower Society can do no more than present a Latin translation of the Greek original for their 

defense and assert that they have "a solid basis" for their own translation. What they neglect to say is that 

the Latin language has it's limitations in the translation process. 

Reply: That is not really a fair argument as Watchtower article also mentions other versions and Liddel 

and Scott's lexicon. In the past they have also used Parkhurst's A Greek and English Lexicon (1845) 

which defines theiótes as "Godhead" (page 261) and theótes as "Deity, godhead, divine nature" (page 

264). Note the definition "divine nature" as well as "Godhead." 

Notice below that the Latin Vulgate shows what Lightfoot is referring to here is in both Romans 1:20 and 

Col. 2:9 with "divinitatis" occurring in both passages 

Reply: But as we see, DIVINITATIS does not occur in both scriptures, only in Col 2:9. All the Bibles I 



own that are translated from the Vulgate do translate divinitatis as Godhead: 

The Douay has Godhead at Col 2:9, but not at the other scriptures, as does the Confraternity Version. 

The Knox Bible uses Deity at Colossians 2:9, but not at the other scriptures mentioned above. It seems 

that those Bibles that are based on the Latin are more careful to distinguish between the words in 

question [making the above criticisms unfair and dishonest] than are the Protestant Bibles like the KJV. 

I have 2 Latin dictionaries, and none of them even mention the word DIVINITATIS, probably due to its 

lack of use Now, and in the Past. 

Professor Metzger explains it this way: "Although the Latin language is in general very suitable for use in 

making a translation from Greek, there still remain certain features which cannot be expressed in Latin." 

Note: Bruce Metzger's article "The Jehovah's Witnesses And Jesus Christ" which appeared in Theology 

Today (page 77, {1953}), seems to suggest that he accepts the New World Translation of "divine quality." 

He writes: "Nothing could be clearer or more emphatic than this declaration. It means that everything 

without exception which goes to make up the godhead, or 'divine quality,' dwells or resides in Jesus Christ 

bodily, that is, is invested with a body in Jesus Christ." It seems Metzger defines "divine quality" the same 

as "deity," which posses a problem for the Watchtower Societies definition of "divine quality," because 

Metzger is a recognized authority in translating the Greek Bible. In concluding this study it seems clear that 

Paul's point is polemical against the idea that the fullness of God dwells anywhere else accept in Christ 

alone. Jesus Christ at the incarnation assumed humanity, and is forever the God-man (theanthropos). 

Reply: Thank you. Metzger's book did say that there were limitations of translating the Bible into Latin, 

but at the same time he also points out that all of the early languages had limitations. 

Metzger may define deity the same as divine quality, but then, so do I. According to the above chart of 

Bible translations, many view "divine nature" as equivalent to deity and Godhead. But since "ye may 

become partakers of the divine nature," then this loses some of the meaning the trinitarians hope to cull 

from this word. 

So what really does "deity" and "divinity" mean? 

The Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines "divinity" as: 

di•vin•i•ty (di vin'i te) n., pl. -ties 1. the qualityof being divine; divine nature. 2. deity; 

godhood. 3. a divine being; God. 

4. the Divinity, (sometimes l.c.) the Deity. 

5. a being having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities. 

6. the study or science of divine things; theology. 

7. godlike character; supreme excellence. 

8. Also called divin'ity fudge. a fluffy white or artificially tinted fudge made usually of 

sugar, corn syrup, egg whites, and flavoring, often with nuts.[1275–1325; ME divinite < AF 

< L divinitas. See DIVINE, -ITY] 

From www.dictionary.com 

di·vine (d-vn) 

adj. di·vin·er, di·vin·est. 

1. a.Having the nature of or being a deity. 

b.Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought 

divine guidance through meditation. 

c.Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred. 

2.Superhuman; godlike. 

And what are the primary definitions of Diety? 

www.dictionary.com 

de·i·ty (d-t) n., pl. de·i·ties. 



1.A god or goddess. 

2. a.The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity. 

So I ask, are we really just splitting hairs? Does it mean that Jesus is theanthropos/God-Man, (a word 

that is NOT in the Bible)? When the Bible says "the whole fulness of deity dwells in Christ [RSV]," are 

we to assume that this means that the full Trinity dwells in Christ Jesus? What does dwell mean? 

The Greek word for "dwelleth" is KATOIKEI which is a form of KATAOIKEO. This word comes from 

two Greek words, KATA (down) and OIKEO (to dwell). Thus KATAOIKEO refers to a "certain fixed" 

or "durable dwelling" (Cf. Matt. 2:23; 4:13; Luke 13:4; Acts 1:19). At Matt. 23:21, Jesus informed us 

that God "dwelt" (Emphatic Diaglott) in the first century temple of Jerusalem. We know that he really 

did not literally dwell as "heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this 

house [temple] that I have builded!" 1 Kings 8:27 ASV 

In Col. 1:19, Paul wrote that Christ was vested with "all fullness [PLHRWMA]" by Almighty God. This 

PLHRWMA *dwelled* in Christ, because of the God's "good pleasure." 

As far as the word "Fulness", we have to remember that "thru union with Him you too are are filled with 

it" [Co, 2:10 Williams NT] "Filled is the same Greek word EUDOKEO used in Col 1:19 

These Christians are "filled with the very fulness of God" (Eph 3:19 Goodspeed) 

This does not make them a Trinity or part of God. 

In Christ we can see the qualities that God would have His followers display in their lives. Then Paul 

goes on to say: "For it is in him that all the fullness of God's nature lives embodied, and in union with 

him you too are filled with it."—AT. 

The interesting connection is that even humans can be partakers of the "divine nature/being of God" [2 

Peter 1:4], which, as we can see above, can be equivalent to "deity/godhead." To think that we can 

become part of some mysterious godhead is a stretch for the Bible and common sense. Instead, like the 

definition of Godhead at Romans 1:20 [MacArthur Study Bible above], the Kleist & Lilly New 

Testament says at 2 Peter 1:4 that "Grace enables us to think, love, desire and act as does God." By trying 

to add mysticism to the above Greek terms we miss the beauty of the Bible message, and many do all 

that in order that you become a "victim of 'philosophy' which is but an empty conceit resting on human 

tradition." Col 2:8 

"For we believe that Christ is the embodiment of divine perfection."—Metropolitan Fan S. 

Noli, The New Testament. 

"All the attributes of GOD".—Arthur E. Overbuy translation. 


Email Me 

Heinz Schmitz 



Online Reply: The Textus Receptus Re-examined and is the King James Version a Catholic Bible? 

A Reply to: Lynnford Beachy's Which Bible? 

by "Bible Translations" Webmaster 

The Waldenses faced the threat of entire extinction by the hand of the papal power. Although they were 

constantly under attack, the Lord allowed them to preserve the Word of God throughout the Dark Ages. 

God 

never allowed the light of His Word to go out completely. As noted earlier, there are approximately 5000 

Greek manuscripts available today. This was made possible, to a large degree, by the work of these faithful 

Waldenses in copying by hand the sacred pages of Scripture. God designed that His Word would be kept 

pure from corruption even during the darkest time of this earth’s history. Satan, however, was not asleep 

through all of this. He endeavored to corrupt the pure Word of God by altering important verses and 

deleting phrases and verses entirely. This purpose was accomplished by the production of two Greek 

manuscripts that stand in variance with all the rest of the Greek manuscripts in several thousand instances. 

These two Greek manuscripts are said to be the oldest and most reliable, however much of their history is 

unknown. These two Greek manuscripts are known as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (otherwise known as 

Codex B and Codex Aleph, respectively). 

The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts 

Regarding the Vaticanus manuscript, Easton’s Bible Dictionary states, 

"VATICANUS, CODEX is said to be the oldest extant vellum manuscript. It and the Codex Sinaiticus are 

the two oldest uncial manuscripts. They were probably written in the fourth century. The Vaticanus was 

placed in 

the Vatican Library at Rome by Pope Nicolas V in 1448, its previous history being unknown." (Easton’s 

Bible Dictionary, article: "Vaticanus, Codex") 

It is claimed that the Vaticanus manuscript was probably written in the fourth century, but that cannot be 

proven since there is no known history of that manuscript until 1448 when it appeared in the Vatican 

Library at Rome. The Sinaiticus manuscript has a similar history being found in the convent of St. 

Catherine in 1859; its previous history remains unknown. 

Reply: I am getting the message here that the appearance of these manuscripts are due to some sinister 

Catholic plot to undermine the Textus Receptus. If this was so, then why were the monks at St. 

Catherine’s “Monastery” trying to burn it when it was found by Tischendorf? 

The dating of the Vaticanus can be proven by the simple fact that Greek uncials (small letters on vellum) 

were simply an ancient way of producing manuscripts. 

Regarding the Sinaiticus manuscript, Easton’s Bible Dictionary states, "SINAITICUS, CODEX usually 

designated by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, is one of the most valuable of ancient MSS. of the 

Greek New Testament. On the occasion of a third visit to the convent of St.Catherine, on Mount Sinai, in 

1859, it was discovered by Dr. Tischendorf." (Easton’s Bible Dictionary, article: "Sinaiticus, Codex") 

It is very interesting to note the time in which these manuscripts first appeared, especially in light of the fact 

that they stand at variance with the rest of the Greek manuscripts in thousands of significant places. Just 68 

years before the Vaticanus was discovered John Wyckliffe translated the first complete Bible into English 

in A.D. 1380. (See Revised Easton’s Bible Dictionary, article: "Version"). The strange appearance of the 

Vaticanus manuscript has caused some to question its origin and validity. 

Reply: There is nothing strange about the appearance of Vaticanus. The Catholic Church did not even 

use it for manuscript evidence until the 20th century, and a reproduction was not allowed to be made of it 

until 1889-90. If there is a Catholic conspiracy, then it was to suppress this manuscript. 

Perhaps it was because of the disappearance of the Comma Johanneum in this manuscript. 

As late as 1897 a papal decree was issued forbidding the faithful to doubt the “comma Johanneum.” In 

part it said: 

“Secretariat of the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Concerning the 

authenticity of the text of 1 John V. 7. (Wednesday, Jan. 12, 1897). 

“In a General Congregation of the Holy Roman Inquisition . . . the following doubtful 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/tr.htm (1 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:06:26 AM]


question was presented: 

“‘Whether we may safely deny, or even treat as a matter of doubt, the authenticity of that 

text (1 John V. 7). . . ’ 

“All things having been most diligently examined and weighed, and the opinion of the Lords 

Consultors having been taken, the aforesaid Most Eminent Cardinals gave out ‘the answer is 

in the negative.’ On Friday the 15th of the aforesaid month and year, in the usual audience 

granted to reverend father the lord Assessor of the Holy Office, after that he had made an 

exact report of the aforesaid proceedings to our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, His 

Holiness approved and confirmed the resolution of these Most Eminent Fathers . . . ”—Acta 

Sanctae Sedis, vol. 29. 1896-7. p. 637. 

Pope Leo, in 1902 re-established a commission to study the Comma more closely. Because the report 

was unfavorable to the earlier decree it had to be put aside, but the pope continued to be worried by the 

situation right up to his death. Some Roman Catholic scholars began to ignore the decree. Dr. Vogels 

omitted the text from his Greek Testament published in 1920. Others were at first more cautious. In the 

Roman Catholic Westminster Version of the New Testament published in 1931 the footnote to 1 John 

5:7, 8 after calling attention to its omission in the original text continues, 

“Until further action be taken by the Holy See it is not open to Catholic editors to eliminate 

the words from a version made for the use of the faithful.” 

But in the same version republished as one volume in 1947 the interpolation is omitted, editor Cuthbert 

Lattey citing the Greek text published by Jesuit scholar A. Merk, which also omits it. 

In brief summary the words of that well-known textual critic and KJV text translator F. H. A. Scrivener 

can be quoted: 

“We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by 

St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, 

where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they 

crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to 

which they had no rightful claim.” A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New 

Testament by F. H. A. Scrivener, 4th edition, 1894, volume 2, page 407. 

And yet, these words “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy 

Ghost: and these three are one” are still included in the NKJV, Green’s Literal Translation, Green’s 

Modern KJV, Webster’s Bible, even though it is NOT in the majority of manuscripts, the Byzantine text, 

or even in the first two editions of Erasmus Greek text. 

There are basically two types of Greek Bibles from which we get all of our English Bibles today—those 

that agree with the two Catholic manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), and those that agree with the 

"Textus Receptus" (Received Text). The "Textus Receptus" is the name given to the majority of Greek 

manuscripts which are almost entirely in harmony with one another. 

Reply: The above paragraph is somewhat devious in truth and intent. 

There are about 15000 early versions of the Greek, and most of these are in Latin (due to the change in 

the lingua franca), and yet, they read closer to the Alexandrian text-type of the Aleph 

(Sinaiticus/Vaticanus) than the much later Byzantine (Textus Receptus) text-type of the eastern 

Catholic/Orthodox Church. 

I personally feel it is dangerous to call any manuscript or version corrupt, and to do so questions divine 

providence and Jehovah God himself. While I may not agree with Catholics theologically, I personally 

feel that they have contributed greatly to the preservation of the word of God, and this is shown by the 



extensive use of the Vulgate by the scribes of the Textus Receptus themselves. Even the King James 

translators themselves made use of the Douay Rheims Bible. Take note: "many of the improved 

translations of the Rheims NT were introduced into the 

AV [Authourised King James Version], e.g., "converted" (convertantur) for "turn" (Mk 4, 12); "founded" 

(fundata) for "grounded" (Eph 3, 17); "centurion" (centurio) for "captain" (Acts 10, 22); "sign" (signum) 

for "badge, token" (Mt 26, 48); "clemency" (clementia) for "courtesy" (Acts 24, 4). Not only did the 

Rheims NT introduce such Latin words into the English language but it also influenced the AV in the 

direction of modernization, e.g., "moisture" for "moistness" (Lk 8, 6); "what man is there" for "what man 

is it" (Acts 19, 35); "distresses" for "anguishes" (2 Cor 12, 10)." New American Bible w/Revised New 

Testamant and Revised Psalms, p.1456 

To also prove that the KJV/Textus Receptus is basically Catholic is proven by the background of 

Erasmus himself. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol 3, pp. 42, 43, states that he was an Augustinian 

friar who was ordained a priest in 1492, he was granted a dispensation by Pope Leo X to live in the 

world. The aforesaid work says that Pope Paul III wanted to make him a 

cardinal, and that may have accounted for his refusal to leave the Church of Rome. It also says that 

Erasmus remained within the Church, and told Luther, 

"I always freely submit my judgement to the decisions of the Church whether 

I grasp or not the reasons which she prescribes." 

Erasmus died a faithful Roman Catholic! (see The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed. [1997], Vol. 

26, p. 887, and Schaff, History, Vol. VII, p. 411, 423) 

And what of his Greek New Testament? It was dedicated to the pope! (see New Catholic Encyclopedia, 

Vol 5 [1967], pp. 509, 510) The Catholic influence was so heavy, that the King James Version, 1611 

edition contained a calendar of Catholic holy days and the Catholic 

Apocryphal/Deutero-Canonical Books. I also feel that the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible is one of the 

greatest Bible Translations ever, and every serious Bible student or lover of the 

Bible should own one. On another note, it seems to me that most Paraphrased/ Dynamic Equivalent Bible 

are made by Protestants (i.e. Living Bible, New Living Translation, Contemporary English Version, 

Good News Bible, God's Word, The Message, New Life, J.B. Phillips, New Century Version, NIrV, etc). 

These Bibles have taken more liberties with God's Word than any Catholic Bible previously. 

Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D., Department of Biblical Studies and Languages, Southeastern Baptist 

Theological Seminary wrote the following introduction for the Online Bible computer software concerning 

the 

Stephens 1550 edition of the "Textus Receptus": 

"The Stephens 1550 edition of the so-called ‘Textus Receptus’ (Received Text) reflects a general agreement 

with other early printed Greek texts also (erroneously) called by that name. These include editions such as 

that of Erasmus 1516, Beza 1598, and (the only one actually termed ‘Textus Receptus’) Elzevir 1633. 

Berry correctly notes that ‘In the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as 

the Textus Receptus.’ (George Ricker Berry, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, page ii, New 

York: Hinds & Noble, 1897.) 

"All these early printed Greek New Testaments closely parallel the text of the English-language Authorized 

(or King James) version of 1611, since that version was based closely upon Beza 1598, which differed 

little from its ‘Textus Receptus’ predecessors. These early ‘TR’ editions generally reflect (but not 

completely) the ‘Byzantine Textform,’ otherwise called the ‘Majority’ or ‘Traditional’ text, which 

predominated throughout the period of manual copying of Greek New Testament manuscripts. 

Reply: The irony is that the Received Text is not actually a single edition, but a sort of text-type of its 

own consisting of hundreds of extremely similar but not identical editions. Nor do any of its various 

flavors agree exactly with any extant text-type or manuscript. Thus the need, when referring to the 



Received Text, to specify which received text we refer to. 

Take note: 

Luke 2:22: "her purification" KJV, Vulgate, but Erasmus, Stephanus and Majority Text has "their 

purification" 

Luke 17:36: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left" KJV, Vulgate, but 

omitted by Erasmus, Stephanus and Majority Text 

Romans 12:11: "serving the Lord" KJV, Vulgate, Aleph etc, while the Erasmus 2-5 and Stephanus has 

"serving the time" 

1 Timothy 1:4: "godly edifying" KJV, Vulgate, while Stephanus and the Majority Text has "dispensation 

of God" 

Hebrews 9:1: "first tabernacle" KJV, Stephanus, while "tabernacle" is omitted by Erasmus, Beza 

James 2:18: "without thy works" KJV, Vulgate, while Erasmus, Beza (1st ed) and Stephanus has "by thy 

works" 

Will the real TR please stand up. Is it Stephanus's or Beza's. F.H.A. Scrivener studied the matter in detail, 

concluded that it was none of these. Rather, it is a mixed/eclectic text, closest to Beza, with Stephanus in 

second place, but not clearly affiliated with any edition. ( the influence of the Vulgate, and of early 

English translations, is also felt here.) Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894, finding some 

250 differences from Stephanus. Jay P. Green, states that Scrivener’s edition does not agree entirely with 

the KJV, listing differences at Matt. 12:24, 27; John 8:21, 10:16 (? -- this may be translational); 1 Cor. 

14:10, 16:1; compare also Mark 8:14, 9:42; John 8:6; Acts 1:4; 1 John 3:16, where Scrivener includes 

words found in the KJV in italics as missing from their primary text. 

"The user should note that the Stephens 1550 TR edition does NOT agree with the Wescott-Hort Greek text 

nor with modern critical editions such as that published by the United Bible Societies or the various Nestle 

editions. All those editions follow a predominately ‘Alexandrian’ Greek text, as opposed to the Byzantine 

Textform which generally underlies all TR editions. Note, however, that 85%+ of the text of ALL Greek 

New Testament editions IS identical." (Specialized Introduction: The Stephens 1550 edition of the Textus 

Receptus, Online Bible Version 6.13, March 20, 1995, file: Gnt.doc, prepared by Maurice A. Robinson, 

Ph.D.—bold emphasis supplied) 

It may be somewhat comforting to realize that all the Greek New Testament editions are identical 85% of 

the time. Yet that indicates that some editions vary 15% of the time. The Greek editions Robinson referred 

to as varying from the Textus Receptus 15% of the time are evidently the two Greek manuscripts known as 

the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. 

Reply: The fact is, Bible manuscripts provide great testimony to the purity of God’s Word. How loving 

our creator is to keep his word basically untainted in spite of the opposition against it. 85% is quite a low 

figure. Dr Daniel Wallace puts it as high as 98%, and Bruce M. Metzger (author of The Text of the New 

Testament-It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration) , in the book “The Case for Christ” by Lee 

Strobel, p. 65 , in answer to the query, “So the variations, when they occur, tend to be minor rather than 

substantive?” , replies ‘Yes, yes, that’s correct, and scholars work very carefully to try to resolve them by 

getting back to the original meaning….Any good Bible will have notes that will alert the reader to variant 

readings of any consequence. But again, these are rare.’ So rare that scholars Norman Geisler and 

William Nix conclude, ‘The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any 

other book from antiquity, but it has in a purer form than any other book- a form that is 99.5 % pure.’” 

When you Textus Receptus-Only people argue that modern Bibles are corrupted and that the older 

manuscripts are corrupt, then you are only helping atheists in their satanic attack on the Bible. I must 

severely oppose such a dangerous movement. 

Robinson continues: "One should also recognize that NO printed Receptus Greek edition agrees 100% with 



the aggregate Byzantine manuscript tradition (Majority/Traditional Text), nor with the Greek text presumed 

to underlie the Authorized Version. However, all printed Receptus texts DO approximate the Byzantine 

Textform closely enough (around 98% agreement) to claim a near-identity of reading between those 

Receptus forms and the majority of all manuscripts." (Ibid.—bold emphasis supplied) It is amazing how the 

Lord preserved His Word to such a highdegree of accuracy. 

Reply: In fact, as we have seen above, all manuscripts agree to a high degree exceeding 98%. This is 

amazing when you consider the shoddy work Erasmus did compiling a Greek text: 

Is it any wonder that the Textus Receptus "was not based on early manuscripts, not reliably edited, and 

consequently not trustworthy." N. Geisler/W. Nix A General Introduction to the Bible 

The 1881 Westcott - Hort Greek text 

In 1881 Brook Westcott and Fenton Hort produced their New Testament in the Original Greek. This Greek 

text had a considerable influence upon the production of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the 

American 

Standard Version (ASV), along with many of the new translations. 

The Westcott-Hort Greek text has approximately 6000 significant alterations. That is very disturbing 

considering the fact that many of the newer translations are based upon the Westcott-Hort Greek 

text.Robinson continues, "Westcott and Hort opted in regard to many orthographical variants to follow the 

specific spellings of Codex 

Vaticanus and/or Codex Sinaiticus even if such manuscripts stood virtually alone in the peculiarity of their 

spelling.… Wescott and Hort... relied primarily on joint testimony of Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex 

Vaticanus (B) in contradistinction to the assimilation of readings from manuscripts of other texttypes." 

(Ibid.—bold emphasis supplied) 

This statement is extremely significant when we consider that these two manuscripts (the Vaticanus and 

Sinaiticus) stand alone with over 6000 significant alterations as compared to over 5000 other Greek 

manuscripts which are almost entirely in harmony with one another. That is a ratio of 2 to 5000, and 

Westcott and Hort chose to side with the two Greek manuscripts rather than using the testimony of 5000 

other Greek manuscripts that differed with these two manuscripts. 

Reply: Fact is, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not stand alone, and to say otherwise is a lie, and provides 



fodder for atheists and other satanic attacks on the Bible. When we look at the many thousands of early 

versions, alone with the quotations of the early church fathers, we see that these agree with the earlier, 

more superior Alexandrian Text-type. The early Church Fathers almost always use the older Alexandrian 

text type. In fact, Gordon Fee, who is one of the leading patristic authorities, wrote: 

"Over the past eight years I have been collecting the Greek patristic evidence for Luke and 

John for the International Greek New Testament Project. In all of this material I have found 

one invariable: a good critical edition of a father's text, or the discovery of early MSS, 

always moves the father's text of the NT away from the TR and closer to 

the text of our modern critical editions. In other words when critical study is made 

of a church father's text or when early copies of a church father's writings are 

discovered, the majority text is found wanting. The early fathers had a text that 

keeps looking more like modern critical editions and less like the majority text." 

as quoted in Daniel Wallaces' The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? 

It is not “TWO” manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), but a wealth of evidence that supports the newer 

versions based on the older texts. 

Many Byzantine readings, or "Textus Receptus" Greek manuscripts, are "(now shown to be ancient by 

many early papyri)… these supposedly ‘late’ readings (so deprecated by Westcott and Hort) are now 

proven to be early 

thanks to their discovery in various early papyrus documents." (Ibid.) 

Reply: As is shown by Gordon Fee, this really is not the case. While there may appear to be some 

distinctly Byzantine readings found early on, the fact is, these same witnesses show many more distinctly 

Alexandrian readings. 

As Daniel Wallace puts it: 

“even with all the allowances made in the direction of the majority text, i.e., combining 

percentages of readings which (a) support the majority text against the Alexandrian text and 

those which (b) support the majority text as well as the Alexandrian text, one finds that: 

Marcion (c. 160?) supported MT 28% of the time (18% against the Alexandrian); Irenaeus 

(d. 202) supported MT 33% (16.5% against Alexandrian); Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) 

supported MT 44% (15% against Alexandrian); Origen (d. 254) supported MT 45% (17% 

against Alexandrian); Hippolytus (d. 235) supported MT 50% (19% against Alexandrian); 

Methodius (280?) supported MT 50% (19% against Alexandrian); Adamantius (d. 300) 

supported MT 52% (31% against Alexandrian); Asterius (d. 341) supported MT 90% (50% 

against Alexandrian); Basil (d. 379) supported MT 79% (40% against Alexandrian); 

Apostolic Constitutions (380?) supported MT 74% (41% against Alexandrian); Epiphanius 

(d. 403) supported MT 74% (41% against Alexandrian); Chrysostom (d. 407) supported MT 

88.5% (40.5% against Alexandrian); etc. Whether these writers used the Egyptian text is not 

the issue here; indeed, perhaps Aland makes too much of this (and Pickering ably points this 

out). But to suppose that they used the Byzantine text as their primary texttype is 

demonstrably not true before A.D. 341. (Compare Asterius, above, with his predecessors.) 

Third, Pickering argues that "any claim that Aland makes for the Egyptian text, on the basis 

of these Fathers, is a claim that can be made even more strongly for the Majority text" (p. 3). 

But this would only be true if the Fathers' support of the majority text readings were support 

of distinctive majority text readings. If such readings are found in the Western text, for 

example, then it is question-begging to see them necessarily in support of the majority text 

at such an early date. In this connection it is significant that Hort argued that no distinctive 



Byzantine reading had been found in the Fathers in the first three centuries, a point that Fee 

echoed.” 

How reliable are the new translations? 

One of the most popular of the new translations is the New International Version (NIV). This version was 

completed in 1978 by a committee of scholars who consulted many Greek manuscripts but relied heavily 

upon 

the Westcott and Hort Greek text which was based upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The translators of the 

NIV inserted a note after Mark 16:8. The note reads as follows: "The two most reliable early manuscripts 

do not have 

Mark 16:9-20." It is obvious where the translators of this new version placed their trust when they made this 

translation. They claimed that the two most reliable early manuscripts are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The 

translators of the New American Standard Version (NASV) inserted a note after Mark 16:8 similar to the 

note inserted in the NIV. The note reads as follows: "Some of the oldest mss. omit from verse 9 through 

20." The translators of the NASV claim that some of the oldest mss. omit this portion of scripture but they 

would have been more accurate to state "two" rather than "some." Two Greek texts in comparison to 5000 

can hardly be interpreted as "some." 

Reply: Thank you for the above, but while checking my NASV, I found that they included the entire 

passage in question. There was a footnote, but only for verse 20, and verse 20 only. Verse 20 was still 

included. My NIV still included the entire verses in question, but with the comment. “The most reliable 

early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” So what are the other ancient 

witnesses? It is omitted by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sinaitic, Syriac Codex and the Ethiopic and Armenian 

versions. Manuscript L 019 (Codex Regius, 8th Cent) gives both the long AND short endings much like 

the newer versions based on the older more reliable manuscripts Interestingly, the Catholic Vulgate does 

contain it. Eusebius wrote that the longer ending was not in the “accurate copies,” for “at this point [Mr 

16 verse 8] the end of the Gospel according to Mark is determined in nearly all the copies of the Gospel 

according to Mark.” And Jerome said that “nearly all Greek MSS. have not got this passage.” 

There is also the matter of vocabulary. There are words used in Mr 16 verses 9 through 20 that do not 

appear elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel, some words that do not occur in any of the other Gospels, some that 

do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. These verses consist of 163 Greek words, and, of these, 19 

words and 2 phrases do not occur elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel. Or, put otherwise, in these verses there 

are 109 different words, and, of these, 11 words and 2 phrases are unique to these verses. 

And then there is the matter of content, these questionable verses state that the eleven apostles refused to 

believe the testimony of two disciples whom Jesus had met on the way and to whom he revealed himself. 

But, according to the account in Luke, when the two disciples found the eleven and those with them, 

these said: “For a fact the Lord was raised up and he appeared to Simon!”—Luke 24:13-35. 

So the verses in question actually contradict the rest of the Gospels. But most newer versions still carry 

it, albeit with an understandable cautionary note. 

{Note: Bruce Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, New 

York: United Bible Societies, 1994, page 105-106) writes, "On the basis of good external evidence and 

strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended 

with 16.8. At the same time, however, out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and 

its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee [the Editorial Committee of the 

United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, of which Dr. Metzger is a member] decided to include 

verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose 

them within double square brackets in order to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the 

evangelist."} 

It is true that there is a space at the end of Mark in Sinaiticus, but the same manuscript also has two 



blank columns at the end of Nehemiah and the book of Tobit. 

It is very sad that people would attempt to make alterations to the Word of God. John solemnly warned 

against this when he wrote, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this 

book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this 

book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his 

part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." 

(Revelation 22:18, 19) 

Reply: I agree. It is sad that the KJV, NKJV, MKJV and other Bibles based on the Textus 

Receptus/Byzantine text contain readings that are in absolutely NO Greek manuscript whatsoever. Even 

in Revelation 22, the KJV the reading “tree of life” has NO Greek manuscript support. Erasmus here 

used the Catholic Latin Vulgate to complete the reading (as he had No Greek manuscript for the last 6 

scriptures of Revelation). Other examples are Hebrews 2:16, Ephesians 1:18 and 3:9 to name but a few. 

The Comma Johannuem at 1 John 5:7, 8 has no Greek manuscript support earlier than the middle ages, 

and even then, only a scant few. So much for “Majority” text. 

Green sums up the evidence, stating, "not only is Mark 16:9-20 vindicated, but codices B and Aleph 

[Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] stand convicted of containing poison. They also contain the poison (mentioned 

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 

Corinthians 5:1. Does this not diminish their credibility as witnesses?" (Ibid.) 

Reply: I will let Alan Duthie respond to Green here: 

"Green evidently thinks it was just words that God breathed, but not clauses, sentences, 

paragraphs, and indeed the whole of Scripture! He should be reminded 'not to dispute-aboutwords 

for nothing useful, to the casting down of those hearing.' [2Tim. 2:14 KJ2] 

The KJV translators had this to say: 'For is the kingdom of God become words and 

syllables? ... Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to 

trifling.'" 

How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, p.58 [Duthie has an MA in Greek and Hebrew, a PhD in Linguistics 

and a BD from the University of London] 

How to test a Bible translation 

As before noted, there are two types of Greek texts. One type agrees with the majority, or "Textus 

Receptus" Greek manuscripts, and one type that agrees with the two questionable Greek manuscripts—the 

Vaticanus 

and Sinaiticus. Every translation of the Scriptures comes from one or the other of these types of Greek 

manuscripts. There are a few verses you can use to determine whether a version is reliable or not. This is a 

very simple test and can be applied to any Bible version. 

Reply: To be fair, there are actually 4 types of Greek texts, 

The Alexandrian text-type which is so named because it is generally associated with the Church at 

Alexandria. Most of the papyri manuscripts, and the uncial (meaning all capital letter) manuscripts are 

representative of this Alexandrian text-type. The oldest manuscripts reflect this text-type. Codex 

Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus(B) are two of the most important mss. of the Alexandrian type, 

and often the brunt of the KJV/TR only debate. 

TheWestern text-type which is so named because it was the text-type prevalent in the Western church. 

It is found in Greek manuscripts and in the Latin translations used by the Western church. 

The Byzantine text-type which is so named because of its association with the Byzantine empire. This 

text type is also refered to as the Majority Text because the majority of the surviving manuscripts are of 

this type. 

The Caesarean text-type which is associated with the Church at Casearea. If is represented by what is 



known as "Family 1" and papryus 45. There is considerable debate about whether this should be treated 

as a separate text-type. 

In this test we will simply compare the NIV with the KJV (King James Version). We will use Romans 8:1 

for our test. The KJV reads: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, 

who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The NIV reads: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation 

for those who are in Christ Jesus." Notice that half the verse is missing. The translators insert a note for this 

verse which reads, "Some later manuscripts Jesus, who do not live according to the sinful nature but 

according to the Spirit." They would be more accurate to have said, "5000 manuscripts" rather than "some 

manuscripts." The NASB note on Mark 16:9 calls the two corrupt Greek manuscripts (Vaticanus and 

Sinaiticus) "some," and the NIV calls the remaining 5000 Greek manuscripts "some." This usage is very 

misleading. 

Reply: It is interesting to note, that even without Westcott/Hort and the findings of a later age, J. J. 

Griesbach, (who had access to the Patristic evidence and hundreds of Greek manuscripts that had become 

available toward the end of the 18th century published in 1796-1806 a Greek text was the basis for 

Sharpe's English translation in 1840 and is the Greek text printed in The Emphatic Diaglott, first 

published complete in 1864) also does not include the longer reading at Romans 8:1. The reading in the 

KJV appears to be an interpolation of Rom 8:4 (which you will find in practically all Bibles so nothing is 

lost). We have already dealt with Mark 16:9 above, but the Emphatic Diaglott has this to say, 

"From this verse to the end of the chapter is wanting in ...many other ancient copies. 

Grisbach (sic) marks the whole passage of very doubtful authenticity, but retains it in the 

text." 

It is simply a fact that the oldest mansucripts, AND NOT JUST 2 of them do not have the embellishment 

and additions of a later age. Those that have added to the scriptures (as we see with the Byzantine/TR 

text type) will be punished for what they did. 

It is easy to determine if a Bible version follows the two corrupt Greek manuscripts (the Vaticanus and 

Sinaiticus) or the remaining 5000 Greek manuscripts collectively referred to as the "Textus Receptus." If 

the Bible version you are examining contains only half of Romans 8:1 you know it is following the 

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and it has thousands of other errors in it. We have a list of over 200 

of these significant alterations which you may obtain by contacting us and requesting the 200 Omissions 

pamphlet. 

Reply: But again, is it just "TWO?" Let us look at all the evidence against the Textus Receptus. 

Not only the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but the codex Ephraemi, codex 33, codex Regius, codex Bezae, 

the Coptic versions, the Old Latin versions, the uncials, codex Bezae, codex Claromontanus, Curetonian 

Syriac, the quotations from the Alexandrian Fathers, Clement, Origen, Dionysius, Didymus, Cyril, 

Marcion, Tatian, Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian Cyprian etc. Interestingly too, the Athanasian 

side of the Nicene controversy never quoted scriptures that the KJV has that seems to support an 

anti-Arian position (i.e. 1 John 5:7, 8; 1Tim 3:16; Rev 1:11; Acts 7:59). 

All in all, we have the testimony of many ancient witnesses that stand against the Textus Receptus in key 

places. Included in these are also P45, P46, P47, 33, 81, 436, 579, 892, 1175, 1881, 2050, 2062, 2138, 

1739, 2427, 2464,1739, P38, P48, P69, and 0171, 0243. 

Sure, you may be able to find some distinctly Byzantine/TR readings in some of the above, but the same 

could be said for codex Alexandrinus (A) which is largely closer to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Sinaiticus 

has some Western type of readings, so intrusions are not uncommon. 

Another easy test is found in Revelation 22:14. Again we will compare the NIV with the KJV. The KJV 

reads, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may 

enter in through the gates into the city." The NIV reads, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they 

may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city." There is a vast difference 



between doing God’s commandments, and washing robes. This alteration conveniently eliminates the 

requirement of doing God’s 

commandments to enter into the holy city and eat of the tree of life. 

Reply: This is getting silly. {Greek a/r: poiountes tas entolas autou TO the other: plunontes tas stolas 

autown} If you read Rev 7:14, "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed 

their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb", then you see that symbolically, surviving 

the great tribulation entails the washing. Again, the NIV reading is attested to by thousands of early 

witnesses. 

Another easy test is found in John 1:18. In this test we will compare the NASV with the KJV. The KJV 

reads, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he 

hath declared him." The NASV reads, "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in 

the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." The translators included a footnote stating, "Some later 

mss. read, Son." Again, the translators refer to the testimony of 5000 manuscripts as "some" in comparison 

to the two corrupted Greek 

manuscripts the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They also state that these 5000 manuscripts are "later." Later than 

what? Later than the supposed date that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written, which date we cannot be 

sure of due to their questionable origin and unknown history. 

Reply: **Here is the manuscript support for each rendering** 

Rendering Number One (Only-begotten One) 

In favor of number 1 are some manuscripts of the Vulgate, possibly the old Syriac, the Diatessaron of 

Tatian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Nonnus, and Nestorius. 

Rendering Number Two (Only-begotten Son) 

In favor of number 2 are the Codex Alexandrinus, one of the correctors of Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, 

Family I, many later uncials, the Latin Versions, the Curetonian, Harcleian, the Palestinian old Syriac, 

the Armenian, the Ethiopian Versians, two out of five quotations of the passage in Clement of 

Alexandria, sex out of seven in Eusebius, seven out of seven in Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom, two out of three quotations in the Latin translation of Irenaeus, 

Tertullian, Hilary, seven out of seven quotations in Victorinus, and finally, two out of three quotations in 

Ambrosiaster. 

Rendering Number Three (Only-begotten God) 

Having the greatest manuscript support is number 3, which has to its favor, the Codex Sinaiticus, the 

Codex Vaticanus, the original scribe of Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Regius, the original scribe of 

the Washington Codex, the Codex Koridethianus, possibly minuscule 33, the Syriac Peshitto, the Syriac 

Harcleian (in its margin), the Egyptian Versions, one codex of the Ethiopic Version and Ambrosiaster on 

one occasion confuse the two readings. ‘The only begotten God’ is read by Valentinus as as cited by 

Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, three out of five quotations in Clement of Alexandria, all of Origen, 

Didymus, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril, one out of three quotations in the Latin version of 

Irenaeus, and finally, Jerome. 

But again, nothing is changed by the addition or omission of any of the above. I personally like the 

reading "only-begotten Son", but it may be a reading that a scribe inserted feeling the familiarity with 

similar readings at Jn 1:14 and John 3:16. 

It is a serious thing to remove Christ as "the only begotten Son of God." This fact is the believer’s assurance 

of overcoming the world. John wrote, "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus 

is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:5) The translators of the NIV have attempted to hide the fact that Jesus is "the 

only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18) The phrase, "only begotten" cannot be found in the NIV, in its place 

we find the term, "one and only." It is sad that this version is so misleading, yet they are not alone in their 



attempt to hide the fact that Jesus Christ is "the only begotten Son of God." The NASV rightly uses the term 

"only begotten" 

referring to Christ, but the translators have inserted a note in John 3:16 referring to the term "only 

begotten." The note reads, "Or, unique, only one of His kind." Notice they do not give the Greek text as the 

authority for this assertion. This is quite appropriate because, even though the NASV translators rely 

heavily on the two corrupt Greek manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) they do not even have them to 

fall back on in this case. All of the "Textus Receptus" manuscripts contain the Greek word monogenh 3439 

(only begotten). The Vaticanus and 

Sinaiti- cus also contain the exact same word and the spelling in this verse. 

Yet some will still claim that the Greek word monogenh actually means "unique." However, this assertion 

is not accurate, which we will see as we examine the Scriptures. The Greek word monogenh is made up of 

the two 

Greek words monoV 3441 and ginomai 1096. The Greek word monoV means, "alone (without a 

companion), only." (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon) The vast majority of times the New Testament writers 

wanted to indicate "only," or "alone," they used either the Greek word monoV or its companion monon. 

The Greek word ginomai means, "to come into existence, begin to be, receive being." (Thayer’s Greek 

Lexicon) 

The Greek word monogenh was never used to merely indicate "only, or unique." Every time monogenh was 

used in the Bible it refers to children. This Greek word was used nine times in the New Testament, five 

times it refers to Christ, and the remaining four refer to other children. Some people maintain that since 

monogenh is used in Hebrews 11:17 referring to Isaac that it cannot possibly mean "only begotten" because 

Isaac was not Abraham’s only son. This argument would hold some validity if the thought ended in verse 

17. However, verse 18 continues 

the thought making the intention clear. The verses read, "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up 

Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in 

Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Hebrews 11:17, 18) It is not true that Isaac was Abraham’s "only begotten 

Son," but it is true that Isaac was Abraham’s "only begotten Son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall 

thy seed be called." As you can see, the use of this verse to disprove the fact that Jesus is "the only begotten 

Son of God" has no 

foundation. 

It is a sad day when Christians will try to prove that Jesus Christ is not "the only begotten Son of God." Yet 

it is even more sad when Bible translators take it upon themselves to twist the Bible and make it say 

something it does not say. 

Reply: I agree with much of the above. I never recomment the NIV to anyone, and I also think that 

people are much better off with Green's Interlinear Bible. I especially love the way he has restored the 

name Jehovah to its righful place. I also think "only-begotten" is a much better translation than "one and 

only" or "unique". But this is a translational issue, not a manuscript one, as both the Textus Receptus and 

the critical texts have MONOGENHS. There are many Bibles based on the critical texts that still render 

MONOGENHS as "only begotten" such as the Revised Version, ASV, NASB, New World Translation, 

Montgomery NT, Rotherham, Recovery Version and any Interlinear Bible etc. 

The best way to study the Scriptures is to know the original languages in which they were written. 

However, to most people this is not practical. Yet the Lord has provided tools whereby we can examine the 

Scriptures in their original languages without the need of knowing those languages. The first and most 

important tool is the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. This handy tool allows you to discover the original 

Greek and Hebrew words behind each English word in your Bible and find a brief definition of each word. 

This book is based on the "Textus Receptus," and is most commonly found for the KJV. This book is 

available in most Christian bookstores. 

Reply: I also agree that everyone should own a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. My Strong's also lets 

me know with astericks and obelisks the very minor changes in the Revised and the American Standard 



Versions. I see that you also use the excellent Thayer's Greek Lexicon. Mine is under copyright to Jay P. 

Green (1974) and it includes, interestingly, readings from the Greek texts of Westcott/Hort, Tregelles, 

Lachmann and Tischendorf. 

Please be aware of the Bible version you choose to read. Using the tests outlined in this paper I have 

determined several translations that follow the "Textus Receptus" Greek manuscripts. Here are some of 

them: KJV (also known as AV-Authorized Version), NKJV, 1898 Young’s Literal Translation, Green’s 

Literal Translation, Green’s Modern KJV, the Spanish 1909 Reina-Valera, 1995 Revised Webster’s Bible, 

1833 Webster’s 


Reply: Your list includes some great Bibles. Here is a partial list of translations that will greatly 

complement your list, ASV, (N)RSV, Bible in Basic English, Darby Translation, RSV, NASV, 

Weymouth NT, the Good News Bible, Greek Westcott-Hort, Greek Nestle etc. 

I will now allow the great scholar Ezra Abbot conclude with his remarks on the authenticity of the Bible 

testimony and variant readings: 

"of these again, it will appear, on examination, that nineteen out of twenty are of no sort of 

consequence as affecting the sense; they relate to questions of orthography, or grammatical 

construction, or the order of words, or such other matters as have been mentioned above, in 

speaking of unimportant variations. They concern only the form of expression, not the 

essential meaning. This reduces the number to perhaps 400 which involve a difference in 

meaning, often very slight, or the omission or addition of a few words, sufficient to render 

them objects of some curiosity and interest, while a few among them be relatively 

important." 

Critical Essays, Ezra Abbot, p.209 (1888) 

I pray that this study has been a blessing to you so that you are more 

informed about Bible versions. 

Click here for another look at the Byzantine Text 

Click here for another look at the King James Version 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Here is a list on recommendations and must haves: 

New World Translation [feel free to contact me for one] 

The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew/Greek/English by Jay P., Sr. Green 

The New Jerusalem Bible : Reader's Edition 

The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation by Professor Rolf Furuli 

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 

The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance 

Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words 

Numerous Bibles to download for free including the KJV, the excellent ASV and Greek Texts by 

Stephanos, Westcott/Hort, Nestle Aland etc 

Understanding Greek Texts 


Email Me 

Heinz Schmitz 





A Reply to Matt Slick of CARM and the use of EGO EIMI at John 8:58 

A Reply to Matt Slick/CARM and the use of EGW EIMI at John 8:58 

A response to the original article at http://www.carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm 

CARM: The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 8:58 

"Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, 

I have been" (New World Translation). 

The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God. So, when it comes to translating and interpreting Bible 

verses that show the deity of Jesus, the JW's will go to great lengths to support their false presupposition. 

Sometimes they will even translate verses in a way that is not consistent with biblical grammar and context. 

In the Jehovah's Witness Bible, known as the New World Translation (NWT), John 8:58 is a verse that they 

have translated in a manner deliberately consistent with their theology. Following is the verse in context 

from the NASB. 

In John 8:56-59 says, "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' 57The 

Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' 58Jesus said to 

them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' 59Therefore they picked up stones to 

throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple." (All Bible quotes are from the NASB) 

Reply: Did you know that the 1960, 1973 NASB also has "I have been" as a variant reading in the 

margin. 

If the NASB translators accepted the NWT rendering, perhaps their work is not consistent with "biblical 

grammar and context" either. 

In fact, there are quite a few more, and some of them are literal translations: 



ever born." 



Noyes, G.R. N.T. (1878) 

_Jesus said to them, _truly, truly do I say to you, from before Abraham 

was, I have been.__ 


_Jesus said to them, _truly, truly, I say to you, I am before Abraham was 

born.__ 


_With another amen-saying, Jesus declares to them that before 

Abraham was, He (Jesus) is (hint of His preexistence) ._ 

Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T._Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed._ 


_To this Jesus replied, _I existed before Abraham was born.__ 


_Jesus said to them, _for sure I tell you, before Abraham was born, I 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/egweimi.htm (1 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:06:37 AM]


was and sum and always will be._,, 


__Yes, indeed!; said Jesus: _He saw me in prospect. The fact is, that 

long before Abraham was conceived in his mother_s womb, that 

individual who I now am had been conceived in God_s mind: He had 


was able to give Abraham a mental preview of me__. 


_Jesus answer, _I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was 

born.__ 



was born." 



was born." 

















and I am." 



The New Testament, Kleist & Lilly: "I am here-and 









_Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham 

was born, I am He._ 















_Jesus said to them, _I am telling the truth: I was alive before Abraham 

was born!__ 






Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961) 

_Jesus answered them: _Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham 

was born.__ 











Swann, G. N.T. (1947) 

Jesus said to them, verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before 

Abraham was born_ 

International English Version (2001) 

"I was alive before Abraham was born" 

CARM: Grammatically, their version is the 'perfect tense.' By contrast, the past tense would be "I was." The 

future tense would be "I will be." The present tense would be, "I am." 

Reply: True, EIMI is in the present tense, but the surrounding context is not. They call this the 

“Extension from the Past” idiom or PPA (Present of Past Action). The reason for this are the words PRIN 

ABRAAM GENESQAI (before Abraham was). Many grammarians realize this, and have thus 

abandoned trying to read more into John 8:58. Here is a list of these grammarians: 

Meyer, The Gospel of John, 293; Tholuck, Commentary on the Gospel of John (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 

1859), 243; J. N. Sanders and B. A. Mastin, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (New 



York: Harper & Row, 1968), 236; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament 

and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 

1961), 168, sec. 322; Mckay, A New Syntax of the Verb in NT Greek, 41-42 etc etc. 

To go along with this, the EGW EIMI at vss 24 and 28 has the hOTI (that) before it, implying a 

predicate: 

Verse 24, "EIPON OUN UMIN OTI APOQANEISQE EN TAIS AMARTIAIS UMWN EAN GAR MH 

PISTEUSHTE OTI EGW EIMI APOQANEISQE EN TAIS AMARTIAIS UMWN" 

Verse 28, "EIPEN OUN [AUTOIS] O IHSOUS OTAN UYWSHTE TON UION TOU ANQRWPOU 

TOTE GNWSESQE OTI EGW EIMI KAI AP EMAUTOU POIW OUDEN ALLA KAQWS 

EDIDAXEN ME O PATHR TAUTA LALW" 

BDAG also says, " The formula egw eimi is oft. used in the gospels (corresp. to hebr. aWh ynla} Dt 

32:39; Is 43:10), in such a way that the predicate must be understood fr. the context: Mt 14:27; Mk 

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; 

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 

24 and 28 is predicated by the preceding hOTI. In verse 58 however, the eimi is strictly a verb because of 

its connection with the adverbial prin. PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI 

CARM: But the NWT does not prefer the present tense because it is too close to the divine title of God 

found in Exodus 3:14 where God says to Moses, "I AM." And since the Watchtower Organization erringly 

teaches that Jesus is not God in flesh, it must alter its Bible to support its theological bias. 

…The NASB, for example, is intended to be as literal as possible as does the KJV which both translate the 

verse as "I AM." Take Young's Literal Translation as another example. In John 8:58 it states, ". . . Before 

Abraham's coming -- I am." 

Reply: So far we have seen that this is not so, or are we to assume the translators of the NASB and all of 

the above list are members of the WT Organization. But let’s look further. 

In spite of some of the translations regarding John 8:58, I do not believe the NWT's version of John 8:58 is 

warranted for three reasons: First, it purports to "transmit his [God] thoughts and declarations as accurately 

as possible."1 I do not believe this is the case. Rather, I see the Watchtower's bias against Jesus' divinity 

overtaking this verse and altering it as it has done in other verses such as Heb. 1:8 and Col. 1:15-17. 

Second, the most literal translations such as the NASB, the NIV, and the KJV do not render this verse as "I 

have been" but as "I AM." 

Reply But we have seen that the NASB does allow for the NWT rendering. Soon we will see that the 

LXX link is not literal either. 

And, third, if you look at the context of John 8:56-59 it says, 

"'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' 57The Jews therefore said to 

Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' 58Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say 

to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid 

Himself, and went out of the temple." 

If Jesus were really saying to the Jews, "I have been," then why would the Pharisees want to kill him (v. 

59)? Since blasphemy, or calling yourself God, was punishable by death, isn't this a confirmation that Jesus 

was saying "I am" and that the Jew's understood what he was saying? Absolutely! That is why the best 

translation is simply, "I am."2 I also need to mention that in Mark 14:62, where Jesus answered the High 

Priest who said, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the 

Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63Then the high priest 

rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? 64Ye have heard the blasphemy. . ." Jesus 

responded with "I am" which provoked the authorities and prompted them to seek death. This is particularly 

revealing when we compare John 10:34 where the Pharisees want to kill Jesus because they said He was 

making Himself equal to God. The phrase, "I AM" in these contexts would surely imply that. 

Reply: NOW, let us really take a look at the context. 

Jesus identifies himself as the one "sent" by a superior, he did not come of his own accord 



(Jn.8:16,29,42,). This superior is identified as "Father" and "God" (8:54). Is not the sender 

The superior of the one sent? (Jn.13:16 cf Jn. 14:28). Jesus does nothing of his "own initiative" and he 

can only speak what he was "taught" by the Father (8:28). Jesus does not seek his own glory, but God's 

and "keeps His word" (8:50, 54). Could this be said of Almighty God? 

So why do the Jews try to kill him? Probably for the same reason that they stoned Stephen. Does this 

mean that Stephen was claiming equality with God? 

Let us look at the context even more closely: 

Jesus says they will die (v.21) 

Jesus says they are killers (v.37,40) 

Jesus says their Father is not God (v.41) 

Jesus says their Father is Satan (v.44) 

Jesus says he is above Abraham (vss. 53-58) 

Says A Rabbinic Anthology, “So great is the [merit] of Abraham that he can atone for all the vanities 

committed and lies uttered by Israel in this world.” (London, 1938, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe, p. 676) 

It was only after all this, and after FIVE "I AM's" [EGW EIMI vss. 12, 18, 24, 28, 58] that they tried to 

stone him. The Jews did not understand the I AM to mean that he was saying he was Jehovah, they were 

upset at him for elevating himself above Abraham, and this is only heightened by the fact that he was 

hurling the above rebukes at them, simply put. 

Was Jesus claiming equality with God at John 10:34? 

“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye 

are gods? {10:35} If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God 

came (and the scripture cannot be broken), {10:36} say ye of him, whom 

the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; 

because I said, I am [the] Son of God?” ASV 

Here Jesus was quoting Psalm 82 where human judges are called gods. Does it not make sense that the 

Son of God can be called a god also? 

Jesus was adamant about the ignorance of the Jews, so we should not put too much stock in his enemies. 

Matt. 12:34 "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance 

of the heart the mouth speaketh." 

Matt. 22:29 "But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the 

power of God." 

Also, note that Jesus said, "Before Abraham was..." Abraham came before Moses and it was to Moses that 

God said, "I AM..." The Jews knew that when Jesus said, "I AM," particularly in the context of saying 

"Before Abraham...", that Jesus was identifying Himself as the One at the burning bush. That is why they 

wanted to kill Him, because He was identifying Himself as the divine "I AM." 

Reply: I fail to see how a Trinitarian can see that Jesus is the “I AM” since the context of Exodus shows 

that this is an angel speaking for Jehovah. 

“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: 

and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath 

sent me unto you. {3:15} And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt 




generations.” Ex 3:14, 15 ASV 

Trinitarian theology teaches that Jesus is NOT the Father, yet Jehovah is identified as the Father. Isa.64.8 

says," Jehovah (YHWH) you are our Father. The Father is YHWH (cf. Ps 103:13; Pr 3:12;Is 63:16) 



The Septuagint 

A final note: Around 250 B.C., the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into the Greek. This translation is 

called the Septuagint which is also known by the letters LXX. The Jews often used the LXX. In John 8:58, 

Jesus was most probably quoting the LXX in Exodus 3:14 where Moses was at the burning bush and asked 

God what His name was. God answered and said, "Ego eimi ho on." Translated this literally from the Greek 

LXX we get, "I am the Being One." Most Bibles translate the Hebrew from Exodus 3:14 as "I am" -- the 

present tense. The LXX also has it in the present tense. Jesus uses the present tense in John 8:58. 

Reply: Since you are very big on literal translations, did you know that the LXX translation of Ex 3:14 is 

not literal. A literal rendering would be one akin to Aquila’s and Theodotion’s, “esomai 

hos esomia.” Translated, this reads “I will be what who I will be.” This is just like the 

TRUE reading at Exodus 3:14. If you check the footnotes in most mainstream Bibles, like 

the NIV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, NEB (but not the NASB)etc, you will see that this is the 

case. But why is this the true reading. Well 2 verses before the same Hebrew word 

(EHYEH) is used, but there it is universally translated “I WILL BE.” Actually, for a 

translation of the Hebrew to be “I AM THAT I AM” would require the original Hebrew to 

read “ANI ASHER ANI”, a reading that we do not have at this verse. 

It should also be noted that, in the LXX, God is identified as the “ho on”, THE BEING, 

not the I AM. Yet, this is not carried forth in John 8:58. 

Take a look at the Hebrew text here: The same Hebrew word (1961) is used 2 scriptures 

apart (right beside the 12 and the 14), but it is translated differently in v.14, in order to 

prop Jesus' claim to Jehovahhood. Which versions accurately translate EHYEH as I 

WILL BE or a similar rendering: The James Moffatt Translation, New World Translation, 

New Jewish Publication Society footnote [hereafter "ftn"], The Schocken Bible, Amplified 

Bible, TEV ftn., RSV ftn., Rotherham, Byington, NIV ftn., CEV ftn., NEB ftn., REB ftn., Living Bible ftn. 

NRSV., etc. 

Kenneth L. McKay, who graduated with honors in Classics from the Universities of Sydney and 

Cambridge, taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria, New Zealand, and England, 

who taught at the Australian National University for 26 years, has written numerous articles on ancient 

Greek syntax, as well as authored a book on Classical Attic, Greek Grammar for Students, and A New 

Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: an aspectual approach, provides the following in relation to 

the alleged "true parallel between Exodus 3:14 (LXX) and John 8:58": 

==================================================================== 

John's Gospel," Expository Times (1996): 302-303) 

'I am' in John's Gospel 

BY K. L. MCKAY, MA, FORMERLY OF THE AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY 

It has become fashionable among some preachers and writers to relate Jesus's 

use of the words 'I am' in the Gospel according to John, in all, or most, of 

their contexts, to God's declaration to MOSES in Exodus 3:14, and to expound 

the passages concerned as if the words themselves have some kind of magic in 

them. Some who have no more than a smattering of Greek attribute the 'magic' 

to the Greek words ego eimi.1 I wish briefly to draw attention to the 

normality of the Greek in all such passages, and the unlikelihood of the 



words ego eimi being intended to suggest any special significance of this 

kind. 

It is, of course, perfectly reasonable to draw attention to Jesus's claims 

about himself by noting the 'I am' element common to them: 'I am the bread 

of life' (6:35), 'I am the light of the world' (8:12), 'I am the gate/door' 

(10:7), 'I am the good shepherd' (10:11), 'I am the resurrection and the 

life' (11:25), 'I am the way, the truth and the life' (14:6), 'I am the true 

vine' (15:1). These statements give important insights into the identity and 

work of Jesus, and we can be challenged to decide whether the words 'I am' 

in them convey truth, delusion, deceit, or something else. In each case the 

Greek words used are ego eimi, the pronoun being emphatic (as is usually 

appropriate in beginning a startling fresh statement, answering a question 

of identity or personal activity, and in some other circumstances), and the 

verb, also slightly emphatic,2 being the normal use of the verb 'to be' as a 

copula, the means of linking the subject with the significant words, 

'bread', 'light', etc., which occur as noun complements.The same principle 

applies when the complement is an adjective or an adverb or adverbial phrase 

used adjectivally. 

With variations of context the degree of emphasis may vary, and either the 

pronoun or the verb may be omitted. In the parallelism of 8:23 pronoun and 

verb are separated: humeis ek ton kato este, ego ek ton ano eimi, but in the 

immediately following parallel statement the introduction of a negative 

brings the verb forward (thus also giving extra emphasis to toutou): ego ouk 

eimi ek tou kosmou toutou. In 14:10 the verb is omitted, because it is 

understood from the rest of the sentence: ego en to (i) patri kai ho pater 

en emoi estin.3 In 14:20 a development from the same statement, also in a 

hoti clause, omits the copula entirely: ego en to(i) patri mou kai humeis en 

emoi kago en humin In 10:36 the personal pronoun is not needed for emphasis, 

and is omitted: huios tou theou eimi. In 7:34 and 7:36 the clause structure 

demands the postposition of the subject: hopou eimi ego humeis ou dunasthe 

elthein. 

Although the natural English translations differ, there are two contexts of 

this kind in which Jesus uses the words ego eimi alone to identify himself: 

in 6:20, where the disciples are afraid of the apparition they see walking 

on the water, and Jesus reassures them by identifying himself, quite 

naturally, with these words, which translate into English as 'It is 1'; and 

in 18:5, whale Jesus acknowledges that he is Jesus of Nazareth by speaking 

the same words, which are naturally translated into English as 'I am he'. 

The syntactic difference between them is that in the former ego is the 

complement, the unexpressed subject being something equivalent to 'what you 

see', and in the latter ego is the subject, the unexpressed complement being 

'Jesus of Nazareth'. In both these passages ego eimi is the natural Greek 

response in the circumstances, as may be seen in 9:9, where the man cured of 

blindness uses exactly the same words to acknowledge his identity. 



The dramatic reaction of the arresting party in 18:6 is readily explained if 

we note that the confident authority of Jesus's presence was such that he 

defeated the merchants in the temple (2:15), and he simply walked away when 

the crowd was intent on throwing him over the brow of the hill near Nazareth 

(Luke 4:28-30). 

The verb 'to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its basic 

meaning of 'be in existence', in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi,5 

which would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since 

before Abraham was born',6 if it were not for the obsession with the simple 

words 'I am'. If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we 

surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself 

a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction. 

For the emphasis on the words 'I am' we need to look back to God's words to 

Moses in Exodus 3:14, 'I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the 

Israelites: "I am has sent me to you".' The passage in its Hebrew form has 

been discussed by many commentators as something of a problem, with 

possibilities that the verb could mean 'I am', 'I will be', 'I become', or 

'I will become', and the pronoun 'that', 'who', 'what', or even 'because'. 

Some see a need to emend the text, and some stress various critical 

principles as basic to its interpretation. A few refer to the Septuagint 

translation of the passage as relevant for understanding it.7 

Now the Septuagint was the translation done for the benefit of the 

increasing number of Greek-speaking Jews a couple of centuries earlier, so 

naturally it is the version of the Old Testament that is normally referred 

to in the New Testament, and certainly the one most likely to be known to 

the early readers of John's Gospel. Its translation of Exodus 3:14 follows 

the sense (as understood by the Jewish translators) rather than the exact 

form of the Hebrew: ego eimi ho an ... Ho an apestalke me, which translates 

into English literally as 'I am the being one',' and 'the being one has sent 

me'. Now the words ego eimi here are the emphatic pronoun and the copula as 

in most of the passages cited above; and ho an represents a relative clause 

which in its first occurrence would be hos eimi and in its second occurrence 

would be hos esti,9 but the most natural translation into English of both 

would be 'the one who is (who really exists)',' the verb having its basic 

meaning (and being so accented), and not being a mere copula In neither is 

there any possibility of inserting an emphatic ego. So the emphatic ords 

used by Jesus in the passages referred to above are perfectly natural in 

their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the 

normally quoted Greek version. Thus they are quite unlikely to have been 

used in the New Testament to convey that significance, however much the 

modern English versions of the relevant passages, following the form of the 

Hebrew words, may suggest it. 

1 I have seen one such speaker try to impress his audience by writing the 



words on a blackboard, only to demonstrate that he was ignorant of even the 

simplest details of Greek. 

2 Its position is unemphatic, but the degree of emphasis could be reduced by 

its omission, which would make no difference to the meaning. The omission of 

the copula is quite common in Greek, especially, but not exclusively, in the 

third person. 

3 The fact that this is a reported statement, in a hoti clause, does not 

affect the grammar, but only the degree of emphasis. 

4 In translation, if as is likely, the original reply was the equivalent in 

Aramaic. 

5 Note that with this meaning the verb is differently accented in Greek 

E)GW\ E)MI/ instead of E)GW E)IMI ). 

6 For the construction see K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New 

Testament Greek: An aspectual approach (Peter Lang, 1994), 4.2.4. 

7 For extensive modern discussion of the problems of interpretation see 

Brevard S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL, SCM, 1974) and John 1. Durham, 

Exodus (WBC 3, Word, 1987). See also Martin Noth, Exodus (OTL, SCM, 2nd ed. 

1966); U. Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Magnes Press), 1. P. 

Hyatt, Exodus (NCB, Oliphants, 1971); Alan Cole, Exodus (TC, IVP, 1973); J. 

W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (Scholars Press, 1990). 

8 As Noth mentions in a footnote. 

9 Cf. the Vulgate translation of 14b: Qui est misit me ad vos. 

10 English has lost the full range of inflections, and the relative pronoun 

is now treated as if it were always third person. 

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 23:48:54 PST [Show full headers] 

From: "mattslick" [Add to Address Book] 

To: "Heinz Schmitz" 

Subject: RE: Triplepoint Theory 

You are full of yourself and the watchtower. You are a watchtowerite, 

predictable and led by the organization. You think like one and talk like 

one... of the many many I've met over the years. 

The same tone, the same words, the same predictable comments. You've been 

trained into thinking this way like the other jw's. 

and you offered nothing substantial as a refutation. You offered 

misrepresentation. 

Go ahead, pick ONE thing on my site and show me where i am wrong. 

The above is my response to Mr. Slick. 






A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus." 

A Reply to: 

Why We Reject Jesus by Tropism1 

When quoting from the JPS: The Holy Scriptures by the Jewish Publication Society 1917 

When quoting from the NJPS: Tanakh-The New JPS Translation 

About 2000 years ago, Christians abandoned the law of Moses and began 

to worship a Galilean named Jesus of Nazareth. 

They encouraged their Jewish brethren to join them in idolatry. 

The answer was no, and unremitting Christian hostility became the norm. 

Jews rejected Jesus because of these claims of divinity. 

In addition, they refused to believe a dead man could be messiah, 

especially when he himself was not clear on this issue. Did Jesus believe 

himself to be the messiah? 

He did not (Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). He tacitly 

admitted he was not the messiah. 

Reply: Did he really? 

“Yeshua…said, 'Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that the Son may glorify you-….and 

eternal life is this: to know you the only true God, and him who you sent, Yeshua the Messiah.'” Jn 17:3 

Jewish N.T. 

“He said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?” In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the 

Christ, the Son of the living God.” In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jo'nah, 

because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did.” Matthew 16: 

15-17 NWT 

“The woman said to him: “I know that Mes·si'ah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one 

arrives, he will declare all things to us openly.” Jesus said to her: “I who am speaking to you am he.” 

John 4:24-26 NWT 

The gospels still call Jesus the son of David. 

Why? 

To prove that he was the messiah, who was prophesied to be of the house 

of David. 

Both gospels give genealogies to try prove their point. Both fail 

miserably: 

1. How many generations were from David to Jesus? 

Matthew lists 28 generations (1:6-16). 

Luke lists 43 generations (3:23-31) 

Additionally, genealogical lists help us to understand matters otherwise obscure. For instance, Samuel 

appears to be an Ephraimite at 1 Samuel 1:1, where Samuel's father Elkanah is called an Ephraimite. But 

the genealogical list of 1 Chronicles 6:19-28 shows us that Samuel and Elkanah were the descendants of 

Levi So Samuel was actually a Levite, qualified for tabernacle service. 

Matthew's genealogy should not be wondered at, however, for genealogical lists were at times 

abbreviated. For example, Ezra lists twenty-three names in his priestly genealogy at 1 Chronicles 6:3-14 

but lists only sixteen for the same period when giving his own genealogy at Ezra 7:1-5. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/jewish.htm (1 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:06:46 AM]


These can all be explained, but it goes to show that Scriptures do not necessarily follow the 21st century 

ways of doing things. 

2. Matthew's genealogy includes Jeconiah(Jehoiachim), a wicked king 

cursed so that his descendents would never again sit on the throne (Jeremiah 

22:24-30) 

Reply: Jesus is not affected here as the scriptures stress the importance of being through him mother's 

bloodline. 

3. G-d vows that Jeconiah will be childless. Matthew mistakenly says 

that he bore Salatheil, an ancestor of Jesus. 

Reply: The Tanakh disagrees, "and the sons of Jeconiah, the captive: Shealtiel his son" 1Chron 3:17 It is 

quite obvious that YHVH does not carry the curse to the extreme that you do. 

Problems with Jesus' genealogies in Luke (ascribed to Mary by Christian 

tradition): 

1.Descent from Nathan: the messiah was only through Solomon. 

2.Tribal lineage in Jewish Law was always through the male, not the 

female. 

Reply: But this denies the scriptural importance of having to be born through an ALMAH/young 

woman/maiden. Solomon is from Joseph's family line/genealogy while Nathan's is from Mary's. 

The Bible lays stress on the importance of having lineage through Mary. “Therefore the Lord Himself 

will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and he shall be called Emmanuel 

[God-with-us]. Septuagint Bible (We will have more on this later). 

Paul knew about these problems and told his disciple Timothy not to pay 

attention to "endless genealogies."(1 Timothy 1:4) In other words, he told 

Timothy not to bother himself with the facts! 

Reply: Paul did not have access to the Gospel writings, as some were probably written AFTER his 

letters. 

The “endless genealogies” you refer to probably occurred as a source of pride. 

The Jewish Encyclopedia, speaking of the early centuries of the Common Era, says: “How prolific these 

Biblical books [Chronicles] were in provoking genealogical conceits is shown by the statement [in the 

Babylonian Talmud, Pes. 62b] that 900 camel-loads of commentary existed on I Chron. viii. 37 to ix. 44. 

. . . Much mischief must have been done by this speculation on family origins and pedigrees.”—Vol. V, 

p. 597 (1910). 

When the gospel's couldn't find verses, they made them up, like Matthew 

2:23: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be 

fulfilled...he shall be called a Nazarene." This verse exists nowhere in the 

Jewish scriptures. 

Reply: As usual, the whole verse is not quoted. The Matthew 2:23 does not appeal to the Jewish 

Scriptures, but instead, “that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets.” This refers 

to oral tradition combined with a play on the word NETSER , “And there must go forth a twig out of the 



stump of Jesse; and out of his roots a sprout [nétser] will be fruitful.” Isaiah 11:1 

When Jewish Scripture is quoted, it is often quoted as “It is written” like it is 2 chapters later (cf. 

Matthew 4:4, 6, 7, 10). 

Jews always have been a problem for Christendom. Jesus' own people 

rejected him and survived to tell of it! Now 2000 years have passed, Jesus is 

not yet returned, and the Jews are triumphantly returned to their land. The 

Messiah will appear, the temple will be rebuilt, and Christianity will once 

and for all be proven false! 

Reply: Well, at least we picked a Messiah. “From Josephus it appears that in the first century before the 

destruction of the Temple [in 70 C.E.] a number of Messiahs arose promising relief from the Roman 

yoke, and finding ready followers.” (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. X, p. 251) The Jewish Encyclopedia 

lists 28 false Messiahs between the years 132 C.E. and 1744 C.E.—Vol. X, pp. 252-255. 

What did God say concerning the Jews? "I will no longer accept the house of Israel, or pardon them. . . . 

you are not my people and I will not be your God." (Hosea 1:6, 9 NJPS) Thus, those apostate Israelites 

would not remain in God's favor. Only a faithful remnant would one day be privileged to be restored and 

again experience divine blessings. 

The late historian Theodore H. White, himself a Jew, candidly admitted: "There are almost as many 

different sects of Jews, who quarrel with each other, . . . as there are among Protestants"? Time 

magazine, calling attention in 1987 to the squabbling religious factions within Israel's 120-member 

political body, the Knesset, write: "Some durable solution must be found if Israel . . . is not to become a 

house fatally divided against itself"? 

The determination of modern Judaism offers little hope for the future. By trusting in human politics to 

realize their Messianic hope, Judaism has ignored the words of its own sacred writings: "It is better to 

take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man. . . . Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in 

whom there is no help."—Psalm 118:8; 146:3, The Holy Scriptures, published by the Jewish Publication 

Society of America. 

In contrast with the difficulty many Jews today have in identifying their Messianic hope (see above), a 

number of their ancestors back in the first century C.E. had no difficulty doing so. (cf. John 1:41.) They 

became followers of the One they accepted as the Messiah, becoming zealous proponents of a religion 

we can aptly call "The Way of Faith, Hope, and Love." 

The Jewish view of Jesus can basically be summed up as follows: 

Yeshu (Yeshua, Jesus) of Nazareth practiced sorcery and led people 

astray. 

He was an idolator and heretic who mocked the Rabbis. 

He was stoned/hung on the eve of Passover for his crimes by a Jewish, 

not a Roman court. 

The authors of the Talmud imply he was the son of an adultress , the 

hairdresser Mary (Miriam) and a soldier named Pandera/Panthere. 

Reply: Max Dimont says in his book Jews, God and History that though the Pharisees carried on the 

torch of Jewish ideology and religion, “the torch itself had been ignited by the Greek philosophers.” 

I personally do not put much faith in Talmudic opinions with Greek pagan philosophical overtones. They 

would not carry much weight with any Christians. 



The earliest of these Talmud sources date from a time well before the 

Gospels reached their final form. 

Reply: “The Jewish life and the thought of the Talmud is not the Jewish life and though of the NT [New 

Testament] period simply, and while this mine of information often does illustrate the NT, it has also 

misled scholars who projected elements of the Talmudic period into the NT period, where they had not 

yet appeared.” Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, S.J., p.867 stop 

The arguments over Jesus intensified during these first three centuries 

of the common era until the church came to full power in 325 CE. At the 

Council of Nicaea in that year, a pagan Roman emperor, Constantine, made 

Christianity the official religion to shore up his tottering empire. 

This council deified Jesus, cutting the new religion off forever from 

its Jewish roots and incorporated elements of pagan cultss to win over their 

adherents. 

Reply: I agree with the above. The Trinity is never mentioned in the Bible. It is not a New Testament 

teaching, nor was it espoused by Jesus. Many recognize this: 

"You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St Paul has the 

highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself 

explicitly claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father." -- For 

Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest). 

"The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan." -- The Paganism in Our Christianity 

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an 

explicit doctrine of the Trinity." 

Yale University Professor E. Washburn Hopkins: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was 

apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it." -- Origin and Evolution of Religion. 

The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian 

[believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight 

one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature 

of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L. 

Bible believers have often gone against scripture and paid for it, but it does not make the message wrong. 

Were not the Jews sent to exile in Babylon because of unfaithfulness to God in worship? 

You can consider most Christians in sort of a spiritual exile. 

This mutated church began several centuries of persecution of its 

Jewish mother, censoring the sections of the Talmud that referred to Jesus 

and Christianity. 

Only within the last century have the censored parts been restored to 

printed versions of the Jewish Talmud. 

Reply: It is the Talmud that mentions the ritual removal the "Tetragrammata" (YHWH) from the "Books 

of the Minim" (Christian Scriptures/New Testament) at Talmud Shabbat 13 (14:5) BY THE JEWS. So 

these accusations can go both ways. 


"The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates 

KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in 



many passages made it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and 

replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time went 

on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish 

between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the 

later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries." 

George Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 15 

In an interesting twist, it may be that Judaism led to the problems in Christianity. 

JESUS IS NOT THE MESSIAH! 

1. Scriptural References 

In order to understand anything in the Torah one must look at the original 

Hebrew. 

You will see that the Christians distorted, changed and misinterpreted 

many of the Hebrew words in order to fit things into their beliefs. 

The two places that are good examples. 

In Psalm 22:17 the Hebrew states "hikifuni ca'ari yaday veraglay" which 

means "they bound me (hikifuni) like a lion (ca-like ari-lion), my hands 

(yaday) and my feet (ve-and raglay-my feet). 

The Christians translate this as "they pierced my hands and feet". 

Nowhere in the entire Torah, Prophets and Writings do the words ca'ari 

or hikifuny mean anything remotely resembling "pierce". 

Reply: The Christian Bibles I mainly use, the New World Translation, New Revised Standard Version, 

Revised English Bible, New English Bible and the official Catholic Bible, the New American Bible, do 

not used the word "pierce" here. So much for the Christian distortion. I personally use Zechariah 12:10 

here to prove my point, which is quoted later at John 19:37. What does that scripture say? "And they 

shall look unto me because they have THRUST him through." JPS The Hebrew word here for THRUST 

is DAQAR which is also translated as "piercing" in the JPS at Proverbs 22:18. 

In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew states "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben" 

"behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is 

pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) 

to a son (ben)". 

The Christians translate this as "behold a virgin shall give birth." 

They have made two mistakes (probably deliberate) in the one verse. They 

mistranslate "ha" as "a" instead of "the". 

They mistranslate "almah" as "virgin", when in fact the Hebrew word for 

virgin is "betulah". 

Reply: The great Hebrew grammarian, William Gesenius, stated: 

"Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article to denote a single person or thing 

(primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore not capable of being defined) as 

being present to the mind under given circumstances. In such cases in English the indefinite 

article is used" [Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, § 126q]. 

In this section Gesenius listed many examples including the *'almah* of Isaiah 7:14. Though Gesenius 

did not support the virgin birth, he nevertheless supported the use of the indefinite article in an English 



translation of this passage. In other words, according to the grammar and the context, the identity of the 

*'almah* was unknown to the participants of the story and to the prophet's audience. 

The word ALMAH is never used in the Bible where it necessarily means anything other than virgin. The 

word occurs seven times in the Hebrew Bible: 

Gen 24:43--where the word refers to the virgin Rebekah. 

Exod 2:8--where the word refers to Moses' sister Miriam. She was obviously a virgin at the time Moses 

was born? 

Psa 68:25--where the word refers to the female musicians in the procession escorting the king. There is 

no reason to question the virginity of these young women? 

Song 1:3; 6:8--where the word refers to the attendants of Solomon's queens and concubines. There is no 

reason to question the virginity of these choice young women either. 

I especially like how the Bible uses the 2 terms BETULAH and ALMAH: 

Genesis 24:16 "The maiden [*na'arah*] was very beautiful, a virgin [*bethulah*]; whom no man had 

known." NJPS 

In this verse Rebekah is referred to as a *bethulah*, but the text adds the qualifying clause "no 

man had known her." Such a qualifying clause would be unnecessary if *bethulah* 

unambiguously meant "virgin." Later in the same story, Rebekah is referred to as an *'almah* (vs. 

43) without any qualifying clause. 

Interestingly, the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation made by Jews before Christ used the word 

PARTHENOS here, the same word used for "Virgin" in the New Testament. 

Christians do not need only chapter 7 verse 14 to point to proof from Isaiah. Consider the following 

literal fulfillments from the same book: 

The birth of Immanuel Is 9:6a [Matt 1:23; Luke 1:31-33; 2:7-11] 

The revival of the Davidic dynasty Is 11:1 [Matt 1:6, 16; Acts 13:23; Rev 5:5; 22:16] 

Incarnation of Jesus Christ Is 28:16 [Matt 21:42] 

Preaching of John the Baptist Is 40:3-5 [Matt 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4-6; John 1:23] 

Jesus at baptism and transfiguration Is 42:1a, 2, 3 [Matt 3:16, 17; 17:5] 

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] 

Jesus setting his face towards Jerusalem Is 50:7 [Lk 9:51] 

Israel failing to recognize her Messiah Is 53:1 [Jn 12:38] 

Philip identifies Jesus as the one written of Is 53:7,8 [Acts 8:32,33] 

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 

2:23] 

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] 

Jesus was innocent of charges Is 53:9 [1Pet 2:22] 

Jesus needed to be slain besides 2 criminals Is 53:11 [Lk 22:37] 

Christ's resurrection was important to his occupying David's throne Is 55:3 [Acts 13:34] 

Jesus fulfilled the call to the daughter of Zion by his triumphal entry Is 62:11 [Mt 21:5] 

Aside from the fact that if you read the context of that prediction you 

will see clearly that it is predicting an event that was supposed to 

happen and be seen by king Achaz who lived 700 years before Jesus! 

Reply: Now you really have to ask yourself, "Why would God bless Achaz with a young boy, "Immanuel 

[With us is God]" (Is. 7:14) after he had "burned his sons in the fire, in the abhorrent fashion of the 

nations which the LORD had dispossessed before the Israelites." (2Chron 28:3 NJPS). 



2. Genealogy 

He was not descended from the House of David. According to Jewish law, 

tribal identification comes from the father's side, being Jewish, from 

the mother's side. 

Reply: Since the importance of the virgin birth, as laid out in both Hebrew and Greek scriptures, it is 

quite evident that God is not interested in following Jewish law here, as Jeremiah 8:8,9 says, "How can 

you say, 'We are wise, And we possess the Instruction of the LORD'? Assuredly, for naught has the pen 

labored, For naught the scribes! The wise shall be put to shame, Shall be dismayed and caught; See, they 

reject the word of the LORD, so their wisdom amounts to nothing." NJPS 

According to Matthew 1, Joseph was descended from David (Although there 

are many contradictions between his genealogy there and that listed in 

Luke, however according to the same text, Joseph did not have sexual 

relations with Mary, therefore Jesus was not related to Joseph, and not 

a descendant of King David. 

Three answers to this problem are given in classic Christian sources: 

The genealogy is that of Mary - This is inadequate, since if he is 

claimed to be the Jewish messiah, and according to Jewish tradition he 

must be descended on his father's side, Mary's genealogy is irrelevant. 

He was adopted by Joseph -According to Jewish law, adoption does not 

change the status of the child. If an Israelite is adopted by a Cohen, 

(A descendant of Aaron the High Priest), the child does not become a 

Cohen, likewise if a descendant of David, adopts someone who is not, he 

does not become of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David. 

It doesn't matter, he was a spiritual inheritor of King David - If it 

doesn't matter, why do Christian scriptures spend time establishing his 

genealogical pedigree? And if he is claimed to be the Jewish messiah, 

then according to Jewish tradition it does matter! 

Again, I have answered alot of this above.Well, consider the facts. The Bible, in the Hebrew Scriptures, 

set forth certain rigid qualifications for the one to be the Messiah. Among these requirements, he was to 

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 

David of the tribe of Judah. And he had to be of the kingly line, inheriting the kingly right, which was in 

the hands of David's posterity through his son and successor King Solomon. 

Does Jesus Christ have proof of this from genealogical records? Yes, he does. He was of the tribe of 

Judah and the lineage of David by natural birth through his mother, who descended through David's son 

Nathan. (Luke 3:23-38) And he had the legal right transferred to him through his foster-father Joseph, 

who was from David through King Solomon. (Matt. 1:1-17) Details of this genealogy are a matter of 

public record in the Bible. Only the Bible record of this lineage remains. 

How do we know that the record of Jesus' line of descent is accurate? Because those records that appear 

in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 agreed with (and were likely taken from) the official public 

registers of that day, which were open to all to examine. This explains why the learned men of the Jews, 

the scribes and Pharisees and the Sadducees, who bitterly opposed Jesus, never uttered one breath of 

challenge of this genealogy. It is of interest, too, that no Gentile enemy of Christianity, among 

which were astute men, made any criticism of Jesus' genealogy until after 70 C.E. (when the public 

records were destroyed during the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans.)Of course, they could make false 



claims then because no one could check the public registers for himself to detect their false claims. 

3. Messianic Predictions 

The main predictions concerning the Messiah are that he will bring peace 

to the world, gather the Jewish people from their exile to the land of 

Israel and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. 

After Jesus' appearance, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were exiled 

all over the world and we have not even had one day of peace in the past 

2,000 years. (Many of the wars in fact were started and fought by 

followers of Jesus) 

Reply: It is true that many of the worlds woes were started by those claiming to be Christian. But even 

Jesus and the rest of the New Testament writers knew of the "great apostasy." Consider: 

"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the 

flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw 

away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never 

stopped warning each of you night and days with tears." (Acts 20:29-31) (New International 

Version) 

"But relative to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, and our gathering 

together to [meet] Him, we beg you, brethren, not to allow your minds to be quickly 

unsettled or disturbed or kept excited or alarmed, whether it be by some [pretended] 

revelation of [the] Spirit or by word or by letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the 

day of the Lord has [already] arrived and is here. Let no one deceive or beguile you in any 

way, for that day will not come except the apostasy comes first- that is, unless the 

[predicted] great falling away of those who have professed to be Christians has come - and 

the man of lawlessness (sin) is revealed, who is the son of doom (of perdition)." (2 

Thessalonians 2:1-3) (Amplified Bible) 

see also 2 Thessalonians 2:4-9 

"Dear Friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I 

had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the 

saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly 

slipped in among you. They are godless men who change the grace of our God into a license 

for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord... These men are 

blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm -shepherds who 

feed only themselves... These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil 

desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage. . .But, dear 

friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, "In 

the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." These are 

the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit." 

(Jude 3, 4, 12, 16-19) (New International Version) 

1 Timothy 4:1-5 says: 

"The Spirit distinctly says that in later times some will turn away from the faith and will 

heed deceitful spirits and things taught by demons though plausible liars - men with seared 

consciences who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods which God created to 

be received with thanksgiving by believers who know the truth. Everything God created is 

good; nothing is to be rejected when it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by 



God*s word and by prayer." (The New American Bible) 

Probably the best prophecy on the Christian apostasy was spoken of by Jesus Himself at Matthew 

13:24-30,36-43. Verses 24-30 read: 

"Jesus told them another parable: "The Kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed 

good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed 

weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, 

then the weeds also appeared. The owner's servants came to him and said, "Sir, didn't 

you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?" "An enemy did 

this", he replied. The servants asked him, "Do you want us to go and pull them up?" "No", 

he answered, "because while you are pulling the weeds, you root up the wheat with them. 

Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect 

the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned, then gather the wheat and bring it into my 

barn." (New International Version) 

Jesus did not leave this open to interpretation, he explains the rest: 

"Then he left the crowd and went into the 

house. His disciples came to him and said, 

"Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the 

field". He answered, "The one who sowed the 

good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the 

world, and the good seed stands for the sons 

of the Kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the 

evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the 

devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and 

the harvesters are angels. As the weeds are 

pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be 

at the end of the age. The Son of Man will 

send out his angels, and they will weed out of 

his Kingdom everything that causes sin, and all 

who do evil. They will throw them into the 

fiery furnace, where there will be weeping 

and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will 

shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their 

Father. He who has ears, let him hear." 

When Jesus was on earth, he spread a specific message, "the seed of wheat", that resulted in his followers 

and believers, "the wheat". But when his co-workers [the apostles and the disciples died, or "went to 

sleep", an enemy, the Devil, now oversowed the body of believers with 

others, "the weeds", who were different than the original community. This resulted in a contamination of 

the true faith by Jesus and his original followers. Only during "the end of the age", would we see a 

harvesting that would bring together once again the wheat, but separate from the weeds. 

These events are enough to show that he was not the messiah. 

The main Christian responses to these objections are: 

The Second Coming - First of all, we find this to be a contrived answer, 

since there is no mention of a second coming in the Jewish Bible. 



Second, why couldn't G-d accomplish His goals the first time round. 

Reply: One author puts it this way: "How can God's reign have begun and yet heathendom remain 

unmoved? The answer is given in Daniel 7: the Reign of God would not be established easily- the one 

like a Son of Man must given over to tribulations for a time, two times and half a time...and only then 

exalted to God's presence and given the kingdom." p.52 The Myth of God Incarnate, Frances Young/John 

hicks editor 

Why must he undergo tribulations? Because of a legal principle in God's law for the nation of Israel. It 

states that 'life should be given for life.' (Exodus 21:23) By disobedience the perfect man Adam lost 

perfect life for himself and all his children. Jesus Christ gave his own perfect life to buy back what Adam 

lost. As the Bible explains, Jesus "gave himself a corresponding ransom for all."-1 Timothy 2:5, 6. 

"The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." 

Matt 20:28/1Tim 2:6 

John 1:29 "Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!" 

1 Cor 15:45 "The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." 

1 Cor 15:22 " For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 

It is only fitting that this happened on Nisan 14, the same night as the Jewish Passover. 

4. Messiah's Qualifications 

Messiah is a prophet, a scholar and a pious king. Jesus made a 

prediction that "The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand." 

(Mark 1:15) That was 2000 years ago, has the kingdom of God come? Do you 

call the holocaust, Pol Pot and Stalin a world in which the kingdom of 

God has come? Jesus was not a great scholar - one of the requirements of 

the Messiah. Was Jesus a king? He was not anointed as king by a prophet 

(as was the rule in Jewish kings), he was not appointed by any judicial 

body as a leader and he did not rule over the Jewish people nor was he 

accepted by them. He was arrested, tortured and killed like a common 

criminal. He had no army or government. The answer to my question is an 

obvious, "No." 

Reply: I have tackled alot of this above relating to Christendom's apostasy. But why did the Jews in 

general not accept Jesus as the Messiah? 

The Encyclopaedia Judaica says: “The Jews of the Roman period believed [the Messiah] would be raised 

up by God to break the yoke of the heathen and to reign over a restored kingdom of Israel.” (Jerusalem, 

1971, Vol. 11, col. 1407) They wanted liberation from the yoke of Rome. Jewish history testifies that on 

the basis of the Messianic prophecy recorded at Daniel 9:24-27 there were Jews who expected the 

Messiah during the first century C.E. (Luke 3:15) But that prophecy also connected his coming with 

'making an end of sin,' and Isaiah chapter 53 indicated that Messiah himself would die in order to make 

this possible. However, the Jews in general felt no need for anyone to die for their sins. They believed 

that they had a righteous standing with God on the basis of their descent from Abraham. Says A Rabbinic 

Anthology, “So great is the [merit] of Abraham that he can atone for all the vanities committed and lies 

uttered by Israel in this world.” (London, 1938, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe, p. 676) By their rejection 

of Jesus as Messiah, the Jews fulfilled the prophecy: “He was despised, and we esteemed him 

not.”—Isaiah 53:3, JPS. 

Before his death, Moses foretold that the nation would turn aside from true worship and that, as a result, 

calamity would befall them. (Deuteronomy 31:27-29.) The book of Judges says that this occurred 



repeatedly. In the days of the prophet Jeremiah, national unfaithfulness led to the Jews being taken into 

exile in Babylon. God also allowed the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and its temple in 70 C.E. Of what 

crime and unfaithfulness had the nation been guilty so that God did not protect them as he had done 

when they had put their trust in him? It was shortly before this that they had rejected Jesus as the 

Messiah. 

Embrace the Name of the Jewish God 

The preface of the American Standard Version (1901) states: 

"the American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous 

conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be 

uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old 

Testament, as it fortunately does not in the numerous versions made by modern 

missionaries. This Memorial Name, explained in Ex. iii. 14, 15, and emphasized as such 

over and over in the original text of the Old Testament, designates God as the personal God, 

as the covenant God, the God of revelation, the Deliverer, the Friend of his people;-not 

merely the abstractly 'Eternal One' of many French translations, but the ever living Helper of 

those who are in trouble. This personal name [Jehovah], with its wealth of sacred 

associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable 

claim." 

By cutting us off from his name, the Jewish forefathers have cut us off from God. The Hebrew Bible 

over and over again stresses the importance of this name: 

Joel 2:32: And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe NWT 

Zeph 3:9: For then will I turn to the peoples of a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of 

Jehovah, to serve him with one consent. 

Ps 118:26/Mt 21:9 Mk 11:9, Lk 19:38: Blessed be he that cometh in the name of Jehovah 

Again and again the Hebrew Bible places great stress and importance on His name (cf. Ps 79:6; 80:18; 

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 

times. Most nominal Christians are guilty of rejecting the Name too. 

GOD’S NAME IN THE TALMUD—WHAT MEN SAID 

“It was ordained that a man should greet his friends by mentioning the Name.”—Berakhot 9:5. 

“Thus did he [the High Priest on the Day of Atonement] say: O JHVH, Thy people, the House of Israel, 

have committed iniquity, have transgressed, have sinned before Thee. I beseech Thee by the Name 

JHVH . . . And when the priests and the people that stood in the Court heard the glorious and revered 

Name pronounced freely out of the mouth of the High Priest, in holiness and purity, they knelt and 

prostrated themselves, falling on their faces, and exclaiming: Blessed be His glorious, sovereign Name 

for ever and ever.”—Yoma 6:2. 

“In the Sanctuary the Name was pronounced as written; but beyond its confines a substituted Name was 

employed.”—Sotah 7:6. 

“At first the High Priest used to proclaim the Name in a loud voice; but when dissolute men multiplied, 

he proclaimed it in a low tone.”—The Jerusalem Talmud, Yoma 40d. 

“[Among those excluded from the world to come is] he who pronounces the Name according to its 

letters.”—Sanhedrin 10:1. 

“Whoever explicitly pronounces the Name is guilty of a capital offence.”—Pesikta 148a. 

The phrase “proclaim His name” may also be translated “call him by his name.” (Compare The New 

English Bible.) The same Hebrew construction is found at Genesis 12:8, where it is translated by the 



Tanakh: “[Abram] invoked the LORD by name.” 

"And God said further: You must tell the Israelites this, that it is Jehovah the God of their forefathers, the 

God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, who has sent you to them. This is my name for 

ever; this is my title in every generation." Exodus 3:14, 14 New English Bible 

"No; I, Yahweh [Jehovah], do not change." New Jerusalem Bible 



Heinz Schmitz Jehovah's Witnesses 


The Majority Text /Byzantine Text vs The Modern Critical Text-with another look at the King James Version 

The Majority Text/Byzantine Text vs the Modern Critical Text 


In a discussion with someone on the possibility of Jesus being the archangel Michael, up popped 

Hebrews 2:16 in the King James Version (hereafter, KJV). It states, "For verily he took not on him the 

nature of angels." I explained that my New American Standard Bible does not have this reading, instead, 

"He does not give help to angels." The answer: "Well, my reading (KJV) is in the majority of 

manuscripts, the Majority Text." What does he mean? 

The Majority Text comes mainly from the Byzantine Text. "It has, in addition to 'Byzantine,' been called 'Antiochian,' after 

the supposed place of its origin, and the 'Lucian Recension,' after its supposed editor. It is Semler's 'Oriental,' Bengel's 

'Asiatic,' Griesbach's 'Constantinopolitan,' Westcott and Hort's 'Syrian,' and Burgon's 'Traditional.' Other designations of 

the same text include: von soden and Merk's 'K,' standing for 'Koine" or 'Common' text, Lagrange's 'A,' and Kenyon's 

'Alpha.' It is laregely the text which lies behind the Textus Receptus and the King James Version." 

The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism by Harry A. Sturz, p.13 

It means that there are readings in the majority of available manuscripts that are not used in modern 

Bibles like the RSV/NRSV/NIV/NAB/NASB/NWT etc(i.e., John 7:53-8:11, the longer ending to the 

Lord's prayer at Matt 6 amongst others). But if they are in the majority of manuscripts, should we 

therefore not accept them? Let us take a look at some facts: 

There was a time back about the 4th century when Greek ceased to be the lingua franca in the West, 

instead the Latin was adopted. However, the eastern Byzantine continued to use and write in the Greek. 

Hence, there are more Byzantine Greek manuscripts by virtue of all the copying done at a later date. So 

should we use this later text, which resembles the text (Textus Receptus) the King James translators used, 

rather then the older texts like the Codex Alexandrinus (A), Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and the Vatican 

Manuscript 1209 (B)? We find that these older manuscripts differ in certain aspects than the later 

Byzantine texts, as mentioned above. 

Scholars who work in the area of textual criticism have recognized that manuscripts fall into groups that 

are known as text-types or families. These families arose because a certain original, or few originals, 

were the basis for copies of the texts. Readings in those orginals where passed on the copies made from 

them. Because of the development of the Church into certain geographical groupings, these families tend 

to fall into certain geographical patterns. 

There are four main text-types that are recognized: 

The Alexandrian text-type is so named because it is generally associated with the Church at 

Alexandria. Most of the papyri manuscripts, and the uncial (meaning all capital letter) manuscripts are 

representative of this Alexandrian text-type. The oldest manuscripts reflect this text-type. Codex 

Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus(B) are two of the most important mss. of the Alexandrian type, 

and often the brunt of the KJV only debate. 

TheWestern text-type is so named because it was the text-type prevalent in the Western church. 

It is found in Greek manuscripts and in the Latin translations used by the Western church. 

The Byzantine text-type is so named because of its association with the Byzantine empire. This text 

type is also refered to as the Majority Text because the majority of the surviving manuscripts are of this 

type. 

The Caesarean text-type is associated with the Church at Casearea. If is represented by what is known 

as "Family 1" and papryus 45. There is considerable debate about whether this should be treated as a 

separate text-type. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/byzantine.htm (1 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:06:57 AM]


You can see some 

of these differences by noting the footnotes in your Bible. You will find many notes that say 

something like "some MSS read. . ." Unfortunately, too few Bibles tell you which MSS these really (the 

New World Translation Reference Edition excepted). 

What are the Rules of Textual Criticism? 

1. The older reading is to be preferred. (This rule assumes that the closer the manuscript is to 

the autograph the more likely it is to be correct.) 

2. The more difficult reading is to be preferred over the easier reading. (This is based on the 

tendency to simplify difficult words or phrases in the process of copying.) 

3. The shorter reading is to be preferred over the longer reading. (Copyists tended to add 

material to make the text easier to understand. Of course this rule does not apply if there is 

evidence of an error, such as described above, that results in the loss of text.) 

4. The reading that explains all the variants is most likely the original one. 

5. The reading with the widest geographical support is to be preferred over one that 

predominates only within a single region or single manuscript. 

6. The reading that most closely conforms to the style, diction, or viewpoint of the author in 

the rest of the book is to be preferred. (Of course, critics often disagree on which variant 

best fits this criteria.) 

7. A reading that displays no doctrinal bias on the part of the copyist is to be preferred over 

one that betrays a partisan bias. 

These are not always perfect rules, but they have proven themselves for the most part thus far. KJVO 

people do not like this, because alot of this comes from Westcott and Hort. In 1881, these two British 

scholars, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort published an edition of the Greek New Testament which was 

based heavily upon the readings of Alexandrian MSS Aleph and B. The full theory of Westcott and Hort 

regarding manuscript transmission and their relation to the text is complex, the basic premise can be 

summed up as the older manuscripts are more likely to reflect the original reading. This has brought a 

torrent of ad hominem attacks on these two. But what is often not known is that S. P. Tregelles (Tregelles 

was premillennial and wrote a famous commentary defending the Book of Daniel), who was a British scholar 

affiliated first with the Plymouth Brethren and reportedly later with the Baptists(See Schaff-Herzog, vol. 

IV, p. 2388, and Life and Letters of John A. Broadus, p. 352.) produced a revised Greek text (1857- 

1879) before the Westcott-Hort text was issued (1881). 

Tregelles' text was the result of decades of laborious and exacting personal inspection of 

manuscripts. There is very little difference in substance between his text and the later text of 

Westcott and Hort. Few would find problems with Tregelles as he was considered "orthodox." 

(The same line of argument could be pursued using another 19th century Greek text editor, Constantine 

Tischendorf). 

There is a movement right now that is promoting the longer readings in the Textus Receptus. Their 

proof? Readings in the Textus Receptus are in the majority of manuscripts, therefore the majority text is 

the original. To conclude that this makes it the "preserved" word of God is no more logical than walking 

into a Bible bookstore today and concluding that the New International Version is the preserved word of 



God because it is in the majority. Or that the predominant life on earth would be anaerobic bacteria, and 

the human race would have originated in China. What are some other facts: 

● Among extant Greek manuscripts, what is today the majority text did not become a 

majority until the ninth century. 

● As far as the extant witnesses reveal, the majority text did not exist in the first four 

centuries. 

● For the letters/epistles of Paul, not even one majority text manuscript exists from before 

the ninth century. 

● The early Church Fathers almost always use the older Alexandrian text type. In fact, 

Gordon Fee, who is one of the leading patristic authorities, wrote, "Over the past eight years 

I have been collecting the Greek patristic evidence for Luke and John for the International 

Greek New Testament Project. In all of this material I have found one invariable: a good 

critical edition of a father's text, or the discovery of early MSS, always moves the father's 

text of the NT away from the TR and closer to the text of our modern critical editions. In 

other words when critical study is made of a church father's text or when early copies of a 

church father's writings are discovered, the majority text is found wanting. The early fathers 

had a text that keeps looking more like modern critical editions and less like the majority 

text." as quoted in Daniel Wallaces' The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They 

Identical? 

● The Textus Receptus differs from the Byzantine/Majority in almost 1900 places--and in 

fact has several readings that have "never been found in any known Greek manuscript," and 

perhaps hundreds of readings that depend on only a handful of very late manuscripts.Many 

of these passages are theologically significant texts. 

So Where does the Majority Text differ from the Textus Receptus (Received Text, TR) that the KJV 

uses? 

Here is a sampling: 

Matthew 27:35 -- The Majority Text deletes the following words: "that might be fulfilled which was 

spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots." 

Mark 15:3 -- The Majority Text does not have: "but he answered nothing." 

Luke 7:31 -- The Majority Text does not have: "And the Lord said" 

Luke 9:1 -- The Majority Text does not have: "his disciples" 

Luke 17:36 -- The Majority Text does not have: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall betaken, 

and the other left." 

Luke 20:19 -- The Majority Text does not have: "the people" 

John 6:70 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "Jesus" 

John 10:8 -- The Majority Text does not have "before me" 

Acts 7:37 -- The Majority Text does not have: "him shall ye hear" 

Acts 8:37 -- The Majority Text does not have the entire verse: "And Philip said, if thou believest with all 



thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 

Acts 9:5,6 -- The Majority Text does not have: "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he 

trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" 

Acts 9:17 -- The Majority Text does not have "Jesus" 

Acts 10:6 -- The Majority Text does not have: "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do" 

Acts 10:21 -- The Majority Text does not have: "which were sent from him from Cornelius" 

Acts 15:11 -- The Majority Text does not have"Christ" 

Acts 15:34 -- The Majority Text does not have the entire verse: "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to 

abide there still." 

Acts 20:21 -- The Majority Text does not have the word: "Christ" 

Acts 24:6-8 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and would have judged according to our law. 

But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, 

Commanding his accusers to come unto thee" 

Romans 13:9 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "Thou shalt not bear false witness" 

2 Corinthians 8:4 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "that we would receive" 

1 Thessalonians 2:19 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "Christ" 

2 Timothy 2:19 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "Christ" 

Hebrews 11:13 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and were persuaded’ 

Hebrews 12:20 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "or thrust through with a dart’ 

1 John 5:7,8 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: 

and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" 

Revelation 1:8 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "the beginning and the ending" 

Revelation 1:11 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "1 am Alpha and Omega, the first and the 

last: and" 

Revelation 2:3 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "hast laboured" 

Revelation 5:4 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and to read" 

Revelation 5:7 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "the book" 

Revelation 5:14 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "four and twenty" 

Revelation 5:14 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "him that liveth forever and ever" 

Revelation 7:5-8 -- -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "were sealed" from 10 of the 12 

references 



Revelation 8:7 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "angel" 

Revelation 11:1 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and the angel stood" 

Revelation 11:17 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "and art to come" 

Revelation 12:12 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "to the inhabiters" 

Revelation 12:17 -- The Majority Text does not have the word "Christ" 

Revelation 14:1 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "forty and four" 

Revelation 14:3 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "forty and four" 

Revelation 14:5 -- The Majority Text does not have the words: "before the throne of God" 

Also, the Hodges & Farstad edition of the Majority Text disagrees significantly with Robinson & 

Pierpont's edition. 

However, it should be noted that Bibles that use the Majority Text (New King James, World English 

Bible) still have some of the readings above, like Rev 1:11 and of course, I John 5:7,8 (the Comma 

Johanneum), even though it is not in the majority of manuscripts (in fact, it is in only about 8 of them). 

The Greek manuscript evidence and the evidence from early translations and church fathers (ANF) 

overwhelmingly declare that the trinitarian text is not an original or genuine part of 1 John, and has no 

legitimate place in the text of the New Testament, as anyone can see by examining the evidence in, for 

instance, the commentaries of Adam Clarke [Vol. VI, pp. 927-933], Henry Alford [Vol. IV, pp. 

503-505], and B. F. Westcott [pp. 202-209], Scrivener's Introduction [pp. 8, 149-150, 457-463], and 

Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [pp. 716- 718].) Luther never 

included the passage in his own German translation. Both Tyndale and Coverdale indicated that they 

thought the suspect words were spurious. Even Erasmus rejected 1 John 5:7 as not being an original part 

of 1 John. In this, all Greek New Testament editions (other than mere reprints of Erasmus' text) agree, 

including The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad. Erasmus 

also surmised that the doxology to the Lord's Prayer in Matt. 6:13, "for thine is the kingdom, and the 

power, and the glory forever, amen," was a later liturgical addition to Matthew, and formed no original 

part of that Gospel (Bainton, p. 137). In this virtually all Greek New Testament editors agree. Further, 

Erasmus doubted that Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 formed an original part of those Gospels (ibid., 

p. 136). On the basis of available evidence, most New Testament editors agree with the judgement of 

Erasmus (the evidence on these disputed passages can be readily found in Alford's commentary or 

Metzger's Textual Commentary). All in all, Erasmus believed "the only way to determine the true text is 

to examine the early codices" (Bainton, p. 135). It is not unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that, were 

Erasmus alive today, he would use a Greek text like that of Nestle or the United Bible Societies' text. 

In fact, the reading, "he took not on him the nature of angels" mentioned above, is not supported in any 

Greek manuscript. Even the KJV has this in italics to let you know that it is an interpolation. What it 

comes down to is this: Majority Text supporters are usually KJV supporters, and are really not 

concerned with the facts, they simply want to be able to buttress their arguments for their support of the 

deity of Christ. 

One argument that usually arises is in support for the reading, "God was manifest in the flesh." 

Supporters of this text will argue that some early Church Fathers used this scripture, and they will put 

forward quotes like: 



"There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; 

GOD EXISTING IN FLESH; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and 

then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord."--Ignatius (100 AD), Ephesians (shorter), 

Chapter 7 

These are not quotes from the Bible, in fact, the closest that resembles anything like the scripture in 1 

Timothy 3:16 comes from Chrysostom (347- 407), but it does not appear any earlier than this. After 

carefully investigating the Gospel quotations of Didymus, a fourth-century Egyptian writer, Ehrman 

concludes: 

"These findings indicate that no 'proto-Byzantine' text existed in Alexandria in Didymus' 

day or, at least if it did, it made no impact on the mainstream of the textual tradition there." 

Bart D. Ehrman, Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 

1986), p. 260 

"It (QEOS in 1 Tim 3:16) does not appear in any manuscript before this time, nor was it 

used in the Arian controversy of the same time...The earliest church father to use the 

Byzantine text was the heretic Asterius, a fourth-century writer." Daniel Wallace 

In a critique of W. N. Pickering's The Identity of the New Testament Text (Pickering is a 

Majority/Byzantine Text advocate), Carson takes note that Pickering does raise some valid historical 

questions relating to the Byzantine text. But he concludes that Pickering is historically naive in failing to 

take into account: 

● the professed conversion of Constantine, 

● the immense influence of Chrysostom in the eastern empire, 

● the rise of monarchical bishops and their pressure for textual uniformity, 

● the division of the Roman Empire 

● and the demise of the Greek language (and the resulting preeminence of Latin) throughout the 

Mediterranean world, Byzantium excepted. (Latin texts resemble the older Alexandrian texttype) 

So what is the textual evidence for the reading of QEOS (theos) in 1 Timothy 3:16? 

OS: Aleph* A* C* F G 33 365 442 1175 2127 

QEOS: Aleph** A** C** D** K L P Psi 075 0150 

6 81 (88 O QEOS) 104 263 330 424 436 451 629 630 1241 1319 

1505 1739 1881 1962 2492 2495 Byz 

geo2 slav OS QEOS: 256 (conflation) 

O: D* (a b d f m vg "quod," i.e. O on its face but possibly 

a grammatical correction for OS) 

O or OS: most other versions except as cited. 

It looks on the surface that QEOS has the advantage. But why do most Bible versions reject that reading? 

Because OS has the best support, being supported by all the Alexandrian manuscripts with the addition 

of some "Western" witnesses. "QEOS," except for the members of Family 1739, is purely Byzantine (we 

can ignore the corrections in Aleph, A, C, etc.; those are Byzantine also). "O" is supported only by a 

subset of the "Western" witnesses. 

"OS" is the reading which best explains the others in several senses. First, the best witnesses all support a 

relative pronoun (either O or OS). This is much the more difficult reading(see above for rules of textual 

criticism). So surely a relative pronoun is correct, and OS is better attested. 

OS is also the middle reading. To get from OS to O requires a change of only one letter; similarly, to get 



from OS to QEOS requires only one letter (remember that QEOS was written QS). To get from O to 

QEOS or vice versa is a larger change. So OS could be preferred as the middle reading. 

Even Sir Isaac Newton commented on this scripture where he showed how, by a small alteration in the 

Greek text, the word "God" was inserted to make the phrase read "God was manifest in the flesh." He 

demonstrated that early Church writers in referring to the verse knew nothing of such an alteration. 

Summing up both passages, Newton said: "If the ancient churches in debating and deciding the greatest 

mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts, I understand not, why we should be so fond of 

them now the debates are over." 

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, by Sir Isaac Newton, Edition of 1830, 

London 

see also The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, edited by H. W. Turnbull, F.R.S., Cambridge 1961, Vol. 

1, p. XVII. 

On the flip-side, Scrivener, whose Greek text carries alot of weight with the MT/Byzantine/TR crowd 

finds for the reading QEOS, though with much hesitation, but Edward Miller who edited the posthumous 

work, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament 4th ed. vol 2. pages 390-395 attempts 

to make a more definite case than Scrivener did. 

All of this is neither here nor there to most of us. I still use the King James and the New King James 

Versions. All texts and Bibles agree at least 98.5%. The reason for this page is due to the sad fact that 

many are ready to condemn modern Bibles simply because they believe that the King James Bible is the 

best and has the support of God. This is unfortunate, and dangerous, and displays a limited grasp of the 

issues at hand. The same goes for those who are to quick to condemn the New World Translation. 

There are over 5,300 surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. These range from 

small fragments to almost the entire New Testament. The earliest of these manuscripts are 

known as papyri because they are written on papyrus. The papyri are from the second and third centuries. 

Some of them are listed below: 

P87(3), containing a few verses of Philemon, (c. 125) 

P77, containing a few verses of Matthew 23, ( c. 150) 

P45, (the Chester Beatty Papyrus 1), containing portions of all Gospels and Acts, (c. 150) 

P32, containing portions of Titus, (c 175) 

P90, containing a portion of John 18, (c. 150) 

P52, containing a few verses of John 18, (c. 150, many scholars date it c. 125) 

P4/64/67, containing portions of Matthew and Luke, (c. 200; grouped together because they are 

now considered parts of the same manuscript) 

P1, containing Matthew 1, (c. 200) 

P13, containing Hebrews 2-5, 10-12, (c. 200) 

P27, containing a portion of Romans 8, (c. 200) 



P66, containing most of John, (c. 175, although some scholars have dated c. 125-150) 

P75, containing most of Luke and John (c. 200) 

P46, containing all of Paul's letters except the Pastorals. (traditionally dated c. 200) In 1988 

Young Kyu Kim published an article proposing a date prior to the reign of Domitian (A.D. 

81-96). In The Origin of the Bible, New Testament scholar Philip W. Comfort argues that even 

if this date is not true then at least it provides a convincing argument to push the date back at maybe 

A.D.150. 

In addition to the above listing, there are 33 papyri from the 3rd century. 

The other major group of early manuscripts are known as uncials, because of the style of writing 

(a Greek handwriting similar to printing with all capitals in English). Some uncial fragments are 

dated as early as 250, but the most significant to the textual critic are from the fourth through 

sixth centuries. Some of the more important ones are: 

Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter Aleph), containing the whole New Testament, (c.350) 

Codex Vaticanus (designated B), containing almost the whole New Testament, (c. 325) 

Codex Alexandrinus (designated A), containing most of the New Testament (5th century) 

Codex Bezae (designated D), containing the Gospels and Acts (6th century) 

Codex Claromotanus (designated DPAUL), containing the Pauline epistles and Hebrews (6th 

century) 

Codex Freerianius, or Washingtonensis (designated W), containing the New Testament (4th or 

5th century) 

The Best Bible.......is one that is read. 

Other Sources: 

Conversations on the Textus Receptus 

The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. 

Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today 

by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. 

Is the King James Bible the Best? by H. Schmitz 

Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. 

The Questionable Character of King James 

Answering the Attack on the New World Translation by H. Schmitz 

Westcott and Hort and the "Ghostlie Guild 

KJV Errors 

Is the KJV the ONLY True Word of God? 

Search the Byz/Maj Text and the Westcott and Hort Text 

Download the Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text 

Download Tischendorf's Greek Text 



Understanding Greek Texts 

Heinz Schmitz 



Conversations on the Trinity with Tim 

Conversations on the Trinity 


Tim: Now why do I believe in the Deity of Jesus: He goes a small sample from the entire Bible: 

There are several lines of evidence that convince me and many others that Jesus did claim to be God. This 

can be seen from his claims to be the Jehovah of the OT, from his acceptance of the titles of Deity, from his 

messianic claims, from his acceptance of worship, from the implications of many of his actions, from the 

authority of his commands, and from the reaction of the first century monotheistic Jews to his claims and 

actions. 

Heinz: Tim, why are you doing this. I also believe in the Deity of Jesus, but what I asked from you was 

an explanation from the Bible of a trinity. I wanted you to show me that there was a Trinity in the bible, 

yet you always fall back on the deity of Jesus, as this alone is supposed to prove that God is triadic or 

triune. 

Tim: JESUS' CLAIMS TO BE JEHOVAH. [note: Jehovah does not mean only Father - you must 

understand this vital concept so that you can get beyond the simple questions like "Who ran the universe the 

three days while Christ was in the grave?" and "Did Jesus pray to himself?" and "Did Jesus forsake 

himself?" etc.] 

Heinz: Do not brush these off as simple questions. These are very good questions as we shall soon see. 

You say: "Jehovah does not mean only Father" Then show me place in the Bible where Jehovah is 

referred to as a Son. Father is the term that the bible uses to describe him. "But now, O Jehovah, thou art 

our Father" Is 64:8 

Tim: The most forthright claims of Christ to be God are revealed in his indentification with the Jehovah of 

the OT. "Jehovah" or (YAWEH) as you know is the spelling given to the tetragrammaton or designation 

for God (ie. JHWH, or YHWH) in the OT. As you know, this word for God is spelled many different ways 

in different Bibles. In every case this name JHWH is only refering to Deity unlike ADONAI - which can 

be used of humans (Gen 18:12) and other times to God. So sacred was the name, JWHW, that devout Jews 

would not pronounce it, as you know. 

Heinz: Are these really devout Jews Tim, or perhaps a Jewry following a religion that has since 

apostasized? The Hebrew Bible uses this name almost 7000 times, so the really devout biblical Jews did 

not refrain from using the name, and they should not do so even after a change in their religious system. 

"Therefore wait ye for me, saith Jehovah, until the day that I rise up to the prey; for my determination is 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/tim.htm (1 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:07:12 AM]


to gather the nations,that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation,even all my 

fierce anger; for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the 

peoples of a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of Jehovah, to serve him with one 

consent." Zeph 3:8,9 

Tim: Many scholars take the name to mean "underived existence" or "HE WHO IS" from the "I AM" of 

Ex. 3:14, but the meaning NOR THE PRONOUNCIATION OF THE TERM IS NOT CERTAIN. 

Heinz: I think part of the confusion is that I AM means absolutely nothing in modern speech. The same 

words in Hebrew EHYEH or HAYAH two verses previous to this are translated as I WILL BE in almost 

every Bible translation, which helps us alot. Then there is the context which, in verse 8 promises to 

deliver the Israelites out of Egypt. The NWT translation of v.14, I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I 

SHALL PROVE TO BE bring the true sense of this out. This is in keeping with the oft-repeated 

prophetic statement of the God who keeps his promises in Ezekiel, "And they shall know that I am 

Jehovah." 

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. 

Everything else in an IDOL or FALSE GOD [Moses is not a God by nature - neither are the rulers of Israel 

Ps. 82 - neither is Satan - all are Idols as IS 43:10-11 confirm]. Nothing else was to be worshiped or served, 

nor were sacrifices to be made to them (Ex. 20:5). Jehovah was a "jealous God" and would NOT SHARE 

EITHER HIS NAME NOR HIS GLORY WITH ANOTHER. Isaiah wrote, "Thus said Jehovah...I am the 

first, and I am the last; and besides me there is NO GOD" (44:6) - no other IDOL - NO OTHER REAL 

god/GOD - not a junior demi-god or absolute GOD - none no other God! Again, "I am Jehovah, that is my 

name; and my GLORY I WILL NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER, neither my praise unto graven images" (Isa. 

42:8 cf. 48:11). 

In view of the fact that the Jehovah of the Jewish OT would not give his name, honor, or glory to another, it 

is little wonder that the words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth drew stones and cries of "blasphemy" from 

first century Jews. The very things that the Jehovah of the OT claimed for himself Jesus of Nazareth also 

claimed, as the following verses reveal: Jesus said, "I am the Good Shepherd" (Jn 10:11), but the OT 

declared "Jehovah is my Shepherd" (Ps. 23:1). Jesus claimed to be the judge of all men and nations (Jn 

5:27 f. and Matt. 25:31 f.) but Joel, quoting Jehovah wrote, "For there I will sit to judge all the nations 

round about" (Joel 3:12). Jesus said, "I am the light of the world" (Jn 8:12) whereas Isaiah says, "Jehovah 

will be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory" (60:19). Jesus claimed in prayer before the 

Father to share his eternal glory, saying, "Father, glorify thou me with the glory I had with you before the 

foundation of the world [or before the cosmos began] (Jn 17:5). I think that the strongest and most direct 

claim that Jesus made was the I AM statements in Jn 8:24, 28, 58. These are key. The reaction of the first 

century Jews - knowing what Jehovah had said concerning his nature in the OT - they did not have a perfect 

understanding of the OT for they failed to recognize their Messiah - but this in no way means that they 

possesed all wrong understandings of the OT. Certainly we can learn much concerning the OT from Jewish 

sources and we should not conclude that based on that the Jews made some mistakes regarding Jesus that 

they got everything wrong. For example, they understood that he claimed to be Messiah - King of the Jews. 

They understood that he claimed to be able to forgive sins. They knew that he claimed 

that all had to get to the Father through belief in him. And they also knew that he claimed equality with 

God in Jn 8:58. And Jesus did not correct them. When they picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy - 

why did he not correct them as he did on numerous other occations when they got things wrong? This 

claim in Jn 8:58 is either blasphemy or a claim to share the nature of Jehovah. Jesus left no doubt as to 

which interpretation he wished them to take. He not only claimed pre-existence to Abraham, but also 

equality with God. This fits well with Jn 5:18, 10:30, 17:5, 20:28, 1:1[in you take a qualitative 

non-indefinte rendering as Wallace and Don Hartley domonstrate is the best.]. This claim to be "I AM" is 

repeated in Mk. 14:62 and in Jn 18:5, 6. In the latter case the effect on those around Christ was dramatic: 

"they drew back and fell to the ground." The OT declares 

that "Jehovah is our light" (Ps. 27:1), but Jesus said "I am the light of the world" (Jn 8:12). 

Heinz: I am glad you brought this up because I want to nip it in the bud. I really fail to see Moses or 

rulers as idols or false Gods. Would you consider me a false human? I know you have your opinion of 

me. But am I less human? Some people are good, bad or ugly (if you will), but they are not less human. 



A false human would be a robot or an android. It's like the "vessels" mentioned by the apostle Paul. He 

spoke of a "vessel for honor, another for dishonor." (Romans 9:21) Both are "true" vessels, irrespective 

of there use. There are "gods" mentioned throughout the Bible. Some have rebelled against Jehovah God, 

the "God of gods." (Duet 10:17; Daniel 2:11, 47; 11:36) Although they are rightly called "demons", they 

are still "truly" gods--"bad" ones though. Jesus is called the "True light" at John 1:9, but he also calls his 

followers "lights" at Matthew 5:14. Jesus is the "Faithful and True Witness" at Rev. 3:14, yet there are a 

"great cloud of witnesses" at Hebrews 12:1. Like most trinitarians, you do not allow for a greater 

semantic that the Bible has. This is evident in your comment about Jehovah not sharing his name and 

glory with another. This is true in one sense. Isaiah 44 and Exodus 20 are commands against the pagan 

idol gods of the nations. These do not share in his glory or his name. You yourself will allow for his Son 

Jesus sharing his glory, in fact you will argue that the they share the same name. But then your argument 

is that Jesus is Jehovah, despite the fact that Jehovah is referred to as the Father(Is 64:8), something 

trinitarian theology doesn't allow. In Exodus 3:2 [Acts 7:30-32], "the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him 

[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 

used the name Jehovah for himself [v. 16], even the "I AM"[v.14] you find so important to your 

theology. So as a representative of God, angels were allowed to use his name, and to act as God. You 

will find other 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, 22, 23; 13:6, 21, and Deut 5:24. An angel even received worship(NKJV,ASV) at Joshua 

5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23. But why choose angels? Because Exodus also says that no one may see God and 

live [Ex. 33:20]. No one can withstand Jehovah [1Chr 20:6], and the Bible tells us repeatedly of his 

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]. 

But what about GLORY? It is true that Jesus shared in God's glory [Jn 1:14], but does that mean that 

they share the same essence, one in "unity and Trinity"? John 17:22 says, "And the glory which thou hast 

given me I have given unto them(his followers); that they may be one, even as we [are] one." They may 

be one Tim, but only in purpose, just like the unity of the first century Church. They also "boast in our 

hope of sharing the glory of God." Rom 5:2 NRSV As for Shepherds and Judges, we have many other 

instances of those in the scriptures [see the book of Judges, there are too many instances of other 

shepherds, even Death is a shepherd at Ps 49:14. I think we have gone over John 1:1c in quite some 

detail, and I have my own view of it posted here. 

As for the First and the Last, Revelation 1:17 (NWT), states: "I am the First and the Last." But a check of 

the context shows this "First and Last" was with definite limitations, was related to just the matter of 

Christ Jesus' death and resurrection, as shown in v.18. Christ was the first one raised in the first 

resurrection, and the last one that will be raised directly by God. Others who follow in that resurrection 

will be raised by God through Christ. (John 6:40; 1 Cor. 6:14) In fact, this limitation is also shown that 

the Alexandrinus Codex used the word FIRSTBORN here. Christ was the firstfruits of those asleep in 

death. (1 Cor. 15:20) When "First and Last" is again applied to Christ Jesus, at Revelation 2:8, note that 

again it is with respect to death and resurrection. But when it speaks thus of Jehovah no limitation is set 

on the meaning. I suspect it is because of this limitation that made some unscrupulous scribe add the 

words Alpha and Omega at Rev 1:11. The Good News Bible inserts the name Jesus at Rev 22:12 to make 

it appear that Jesus is again the Alpha and Omega. So you see, they can only make Jesus the Alpha and 

Omega if they distort scripture to do so. Incidentally, Hebrews 3:1 calls Jesus an APOSTLE, whereas 

elsewhere in the Bible it refers to some of his followers. Does that make them the same person or equal 

because the share the same title? Of course not. 

Tim: Recal my argument concernig the eternality of the Word. He you have no way out - Christ had some 

kind of glory before the COSMOS began. Now science has just about demonstrated what philosophy has 

known for a long time - that when the COSMOS "began" Space, TIME, matter and energy all came into 



existence - remember the impossibility of an actual number of things existing as well the impossibility of 

traversing an infinite amount of time. He were have Christ declaring that he had some kind of Glory before 

the space, time, matter and energy came into existence. This makes a nice parallel to Jn 1:1-3, where Christ 

was said to be in the absolute begining with the Father and that HE created all things (Jn 1:3 NWT). He 

thus demonstrates that he is eternal and that is a quality of God alone. And remember Jehovah said that he 

would not give his glory to another (Isa. 42:8). Jesus spoke of himself as the coming "bridegroom" (Matt. 

25:1), which is exactly how Jehovah is depeicted in the OT (cf. Isa 62:5; Hos. 2:16). In the book of 

Revelation Jesus is quoted by John saying, "I am the First and the Last" (1:17), which are precisely the 

words of Jehovah in Isa. 42:8. 

Heinz: John 1:1-3 never says that Jesus is in the ABSOLUTE beginning. Hebrews 1:10 says "And, 

Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth". (see also Gen 1:1) So here we see the 

"beginning" as implying the physical universe. We know that Jehovah was not alone then, "Where wast 

thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who determined the 

measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who stretched the line upon it? Whereupon were the foundations 

thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner-stone thereof, When the morning stars sang together, And all 

the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-7 When we examine Proverbs 8 and the apocryphal books 

dealing with Wisdom, we see Wisdom personified as a created being who was with God, and helped 

during the creation process. "The LORD himself created me at the beginning of his works, the first of his 

acts of long ago." Prov. 8:22 NRSV. The Interpreters's Bible [p.830] says of Prov 8:22 . 

"The verb QANAH may be translated either way. In view of the statements made in the 

following verses concerning wisdom, it would seem that the RSV translates correctly; cf. 

also the following quotations from Ecclesiasticus: 

Wisdom was created before them all, 

And sound intelligence from eternity (Ecclus 1:4) 

The Lord himself created her (Ecclus 1:9 

Then the Creator of all gave me his command; 

And he who created me made my tent rest (Ecclus 24:8 AT). 

"The doctrine of wisdom, thus outlined in the OT, will be resumed in the NT which will 

give it new and decisive completion by applying it to the person of Christ. Jesus is referred 

to as Wisdom itself, the Wisdom of God, Mt 11:19 par.; Lk 11:49, cf. Mt 23:34-36; 1 Co 

1:24-30; like Wisdom, he participates in the creation and preservation of the world, Col 

1:16-17, and the protection of Israel, 1Co 10:4, cf. Ws 10:17seq. Finally, John in his 

prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the Word, and his gospel 

throughout represents Christ as the Wisdom of God. See Jn 6:35t. Hence, Christian tradition 

from St Justin onwards sees in the Wisdom of the OT the person of Christ himself." footnote 

New Jerusalem Bible at Prov 8 

Murray Harris wrote a good book on the deity of Christ (which you recommend), but he like too many 

others, ignores the Wisdom writings. 

Tim JESUS' CLAIMS TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD 

On numerous occations Jesus claimed to be equal with God in other ways than assuming the titles of 

Deity. Jesus said to the scribes, "That you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive 

sins...I say to you [the paralytic], rise, take up your pallet and go home" (Mk 2:10,11). Jesus had just said 

to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven" (v. 5), to which the outraged scribes retorted, "Why does 

this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (v. 7). Jesus' claim to be able 



to forgive sins, the scribes 

understanding of that calim, and Jesus' healing of the man are all evidence of his authority, and make it 

clear that Jesus was claiming a power that God aloned possessed (Jer. 31:34). 

Jesus solemnly claimed another power that God alone possessed, namely, the power to raise and Judge 

the dead: "Truly, truly, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and has now come, when the dead will hear the 

voice of the son of God, and those who hear will live...and come forth, those who have done good, to the 

resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the reserrection of judgement" (Jn 5:25, 29). Jesus 

removed all doubt of the intentions of his claim when he added, "For as the Father raises the dead and gives 

life to them, so also the Son give life to whom HE will" (v.21). According to the OT, however, Jehovah 

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, 

in the face of orthodox Jewish belief that 

God alone could resurrect the dead, Jesus not only boadly proclaimed his ability to bring the dead back to 

life but also his ability to Judge them. The Scriptures, however, reserved for Jehovah the right to Judge 

men (Joel 3:12; Deut. 32:35). 

Another way in which Jesus claimed Deity for himself was in his statement in Jn 5:23 that "All men 

should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father," adding, "He who does not honor the Son does not 

honor the Father." In this same catagory, Jesus exorted his disciples, "believe in God, believe also in me" 

(Jn 14:1). the pretensions of this claim to a monotheistic people were evident. The Jews knew well that no 

man should claim honor and belief with God. They reacted with stones (Jn 5:18) You must come face to 

face with this. Jesus claimed honor with God and belief in himself as on par with the Father. This is very 

important in light of the aforementioned OT texts. 

Heinz: Let me start right off saying that Jesus absolutely NEVER claims equality with God. Why? Let us 

take a look. 

Contrast this with, as you rightly stated above, that Jehovah jealously guarded his name and deity. But 

Jesus said, in the same context that you are trying to use to declare his triunity with the almighty, "I do 

not seek praise from men." v. 41 NIV But let us take a look at your insistence on using Jn 5:18. John 

5:17-19 says "And for this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath. 

But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work. For this cause therefore the 

Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own 

Father, making himself equal with God. 

About this scripture the Ryrie Study Bible says, "The Jews were perfectly aware that Jesus was claiming 

full deity" Was this what Jesus was doing though? Remember, these were the Jews talking, and they 

were saying that Jesus was equal to God because he was calling God his Father. But in John 8:41, the 

Jews said, "we have one Father, God." Were the Jews then, Equal with God also? Exactly how were the 

Jews "perfectly aware" in this context of anything. They had a few verses prior to this misapplied the 

Law as for as doing good deeds on the Sabbath. Jesus had said: "it is lawful to do good on the sabbath 

day". Matt. 12:10-12 In fact, Jesus had few nice words to say about the Jews/Pharisees in toto: 

Matt. 15:6 "And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did 

Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. 

But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of men." 

Matt. 12:34 "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance 

of the heart the mouth speaketh." 

Matt. 22:29 "But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the 

power of God." 

Now Tim, I hate to belabor the point, but do the Jews, either then or now, believe in a Trinity? You have 

to admit that a Jewish view of God differs greatly from your own, so it is puzzling to me why you, or 

anyone else would use Jewish thought to bolster their claims of a Triune God. Having just read Harris's 

Jesus as God, why does he not use John5, John 10 or even John 8 for that matter as proof of Jesus as 

God. My Thayers Lexicons says, "Whether Christ is called God must be determined from Jn. i.1; xx.28; 



1Jn. v. 20 ; Ro. ix. 5; Tit. ii.13; Heb. i.8 sq., etc,; the matter is still in dispute among theologians." 

Tim: JESUS' CLAIMS TO BE THE MESSIAH-GOD. 

The OT Foreshadowings of the Messiah also point to his Deity. Hence, when Jesus claimed to fulfill the OT messianic 

predictions here thereby also claimed the Deity attritbuted to the Messiah in those passages. For example, the famous 

Christmas texts from Isa. speaks of the Messiah as the "Mighty God" (9:6). The psalmist wrote of the Messiah, "Thy 

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 

the Son: "Jehovah said unto my Lord (Adonai), sit thou at my right hand." Jesus applied this passage to himself in Matt 

22:43-44. Isa. the prophet, in a great majestic prophecy, exhorted Israel, "Behold your God" (40:9). Indeed, the great 

messianic passage from Dan 7:13, quoted by Jesus at his trial before the high priest, as a text implying the Deity of the 

massiah. In Daniel's vision, the Son of Man (Messiah) is also called the "ancient of days" (7:22), a phrase that is used 

twice in the same passage to describe God the Father (vv. 9,13). When Jesus quoted this passage to the high priest who 

demanded that Jesus whether or not Jesus was Deity, the high priest left no doubt as to how he interpreted Jesus' claim. 

"Are you the Christ [Messiah], the son of the Blessed?" the high priest asked. "And Jesus said to him, 'I am; and you will 

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 

his garment and said, "why do we still need a witness? You have heard his blasphemy!" (Mk 14:61-64). 

In short, the OT not only predicted the Messiah but also proclaimed him to be God. And when Jesus claimed to be a 

fulfullment of the OT messianic passages, he laid claim to possessing the Deity in these passages ascribed to the Messiah. 

Jesus removed all doubts of his intentions by his answer before the high priest at his trial. 

Heinz: First, let us look at Isaiah 9:6. For the sake of time I will let my friend Kazz handle this one: "I 

don't believe that it can be stated with any conviction that this 

offers support to trinitarianism, for, Jesus is called 'G-god' in a 

limited sense, bearing reference to his role as Messiah. This is not 

just the opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses, but of some fairly reputable 

trinitarian scholars. Raymond Brown, the renowned Catholic scholar, 

said of the "Mighty God" of Isaiah 9:6, "'God' may have been looked on 

simply as a royal title and hence applicable to Jesus as the Davidic 

Messiah"–(Jesus, God and Man, New York: Macmillan, 1967, p. 24,25). 










1583-1645). 












rendering]) 


















Moffatt 

"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; 

the royal dignity he wears, and this the title that he 

bears––"A wonder of a counselor, a divine hero, a father for 

all time, a peaceful prince!" 

Steven T. Byington 

"For we have a child born to us, a son given to us,––and 

dominion rests on his shoulder, and he is named 

Wonder-Counselor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of 

Peace, for ample dominion and for endless peace" 


"For a child has been born to us, a son is given to us; he 

will bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder, and his 

title will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Eternal 

Father, Prince of Peace." 


"For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; 

authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful 

Counselor, Mighty god, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." 

Other translations might be offered, but these should be adequate to 

show how the words of Isaiah have been understood. It will be noted 

that Christ is considered a 'divine' or 'mighty hero' or 'champion' in 



some cases." 

Now on to Ps. 45:6/Heb 1:8. I am always surprised that you Trinitarians use this to prop up support for 

your triune deity. Heb. 1:8 is earlier applied to King Solomon in Ps 45:6. What that means is that Jesus is 

God insofar as as King Solomon is. I do not remember King Solomon sharing a triune 

nature/essence/homoousian with anyone. Even the Jews, whom you understand as having a special 

knowledge of God have translated Ps. 45:6(7) as "Your divine throne is everlasting;"(JPS) with a c.f. to 

1Chron 29:23. 

Again, I will let my friend Kazz (Sean) handle the rest: 

Hebrews 1:8, as you well know, is a quotation taken from Psalms 45:6. There are two problems with 

asserting that these verses are calling Jesus *God*, at least in the trinitarian sense. One problem is the 

rendering itself, which is either "Thy throne, O God" (a vocative), or "God is thy throne" (God as 

subject), or "Thy throne is God" (God as predicate). In favor of the non-vocative are The Twentieth 

Century New Testament,Goodspeed, Moffatt, Byington, RSV footnote, NRSV footnote, Alternate 

rendering offered in the Translator's NT (p 523), NEB footnote, REB, Harkavy, Gerard Wallis, F. 

Fenton, Andy Gaus (translator of "The Unvarnished NT), Newcome (the Improved Version), Cassirer, 

and B.F. Wescott (no doubt there are others). If we accept "God" as either the subject or the predicate, 

these verses do not call Jesus God. However, even if we take "God" as a vocative, nothing astonishing 

need be inferred; certainly nothing comparable to trinitarianism. Indeed, as B.F. Wescott acknowledged 

(see his "The Epistle to the Hebrews" ad loc cit), the Psalm is a reference to an earthly King (probably 

Solomon), so if this verse requires that Jesus be God Almighty, then we have no choice but to conclude 

that Solomon was also God Almighty. A far more reasonable understanding of these texts was expressed 

by Vincent Taylor, as referred to by Raymond Brown --to wit: 

"Vincent Taylor admits that in v. 8 the expression "O God" is 

vocative spoken of Jesus, but he says that the author of 

Hebrews was merely citing the Psalm and using its 

terminology without any deliberate intention of suggesting 

that Jesus is God. It is true that the main point of citing the 

Psalm was to contrast the Son with angels and to show that the 

Son enjoys eternal domination, while the angels were but 

servants. Therefore in the citation no major point was being 

made of the fact that the Son can be addressed as God. Yet 

we cannot presume that the author did not notice that his 

citation had this effect. We can say at least, that the author saw 

nothing wrong in this address, and we can call upon a similar 

situation in Heb. 1:10, where the application to the Son of 

Psalm 102:25-27 has the effect of addressing Jesus as Lord. Of 

course, we have no way of knowing what the "O God" of 

Psalm meant to the author of Hebrews when he applies it to 

Jesus. Psalm 45 is a royal Psalm; and on the analogy of the 

"Mighty God" of Isaiah 9:6, "God" may have been looked on 

simply as a royal title and hence applicable to Jesus as the 

Davidic Messiah."--Taken from Jesus, God and Man (New 

York: Macmillian, 1967, pg 24 & 25.) 

You may also find George Wesley Buchanan's remarks on these verses 



interesting, which are found in his "To The Hebrews", part of the superb 

Anchor Bible series. 

Tim: JESUS' ACCEPTANCE OF WORSHIP 

The OT forbids worship of anyone but God (Ex. 20:1-4; Deut. 5:6-9). In the Bible men were not to 

accept worship (see Acts 14:15) and even angels refused to be worshiped (Rev. 22:8-9). And yet, Jesus 

received worship on at least nine occations without rebuking his worshipers. The healed leper worshiped 

Jesus (Matt 8:2) and the ruler knelt before him with his petition (Matt. 9:18). After Jesus had stilled the 

storm, "those in the boat worshiped him saying, 'Truely you are the Son of God.'" (Matt. 14:33). The 

Cananite women bowed before Christ in prayer (Matt. 15:25), as did the mother of the sons of Zebedee 

(Matt. 20:20). Just before Jesus commissioned his followers to diciple all nations, "they worshiped him" 

(Matt. 28:17). Earlier in the same chapter the women who had just been at the tomb met Jesus "and they 

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 

rebuke these people who nelt before him, prayed to him, and worshiped him was not only utterly 

pretentious but it wa blasphemous, unless Jesus considered himself to be God. The same word that is 

translated "worshiped" is also used of the Father (Lk 4:8) and by the actions of the people must be seen as 

worship. I would not do any one of these activities just mentioned to anyone else - other than Jehovah. 

This is not just obeisance or honor as you would give to a man of high standing -but really honoring and 

worshiping as one is only supposed to do toward Jehovah. In Rev. 4:10 cf. Rev 5:11-14 proskuneo is used 

to describe the worship of the Father and the Lamb [the Son]. They receive the exact same worship. I have 

the 1961 edition of the NWT and it has no problem saying "worship" in Heb1:6 so there must be some 

chance to this translation. According to the Bible, you cannot worship angels or men or anything but 

Jehovah God. So with the Father telling all the angels to worship Christ it can been seen as the Father 

affirming the Deity of the Son. See also Rev 22:8-9 - same word used. From all the above, it is at least 

reasonable to conclude that Jesus accepted some form of reverence/worship/honor that was unusual to give 

to a mere man in that 

day and that by this worship the people of that day recognized him as somehow being equal with the 

Jehovah of the OT. 

Heinz: What does PROSKUNEO mean? According to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary 

PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence 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 18:26)...to the Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the 

Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to demons(Rev 9:20)...to idols(Acts 7:43)." 

In the LXX PROSKUNEO was administered to Jehovah and to the King at the same time at 1 Chron 

29:20. 

An angel even received worship(NKJV,ASV) at Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23. 

Thayers, when discussing PROSKUNEO, mentions the word "Worship" only once in the context of, "Of 

homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings and to demons: absol. (our to 

worship)" 

I have more to say about Proskuneo at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/proskuneo.htm. 

But you raise an interesting problem. Why does Paul and the one angel refuse worship/proskuneo, and 

yet it is alright for Jesus? Because Jesus is "the reflection of God's glory and the perfect representation of 

his being." Heb 1:3 Williams 

Jesus is the fulfilment of all who spoke for God in times past (Heb. 1:1,2). Jesus was David's Lord, the 

greater than Solomon, the prophet greater than Moses. (Luke 20:41-43; Matt. 12:42; Acts 3:19-24) The 

obeisance/homage rendered those men prefigured that due Christ. Again, none of the above proves a 

TRIUNE relationship, which is what I asked for. 

Tim: THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS' Commands 

Jesus not only accepted the titles and worship due Deity alone but he often placed his words on a par with 

God's. "You have heard that it was said to men of old, ... But I say to you..." (Matt. 5:21, 22) is repeated 

over and over again. "All authority in havean and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make 



diciples of all nations..." (MAtt. 28:18-19). God had given the Ten Commandments through Moses, but 

Jesus added, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another" (Jn 13:34). Jesus once taught 

that "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law" (Matt. 5:18). Later 

Jesus put his own words on par as the OT LAw of Jehovah saying, "Heaven and Earth will pass away, but 

my words will not pass away" (Matt. 24:35). Speaking of those who rejected him, Jesus declared, "The 

word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day" (Jn 12:48). In view of his categorical and 

authoritative pronouncements we are left with but one conclusion: Jesus intended his commands to be on 

the level with those of God. His words are equally authoritative with God's words. 

Heinz: I think we need to look at the above in the light of what Jesus said. "All authority hath been 

GIVEN unto me in heaven and on earth." Mt 28:18 

You also mention Mt 24:35, and yet the next scripture appeals to his limited knowledge. "But of that day 

and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." This 

scripture was so damning to your theology Tim that unscrupulous individuals in the past omitted "neither 

the Son" from their Bibles (KJV, Geneva, Douay). 

You mention John 12:48, yet right after that Jesus says, "For I spake not from myself; but the Father that 

sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." 

You mention Matthew 5, yet right at the end of that chapter he says, " Ye therefore shall be perfect, as 

your heavenly Father is perfect." Does this mean that we on a level with God, or are we equally 

authoritative. Only if we take your argument and apply it elsewhere. All things have been made subject 

to the Son, "Scripture says, He has put all things in subjection under his feet, But in saying 'all things', it 

clearly means to exclude God who subordinates them; and when all things are thus subject to him, then 

the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God who made all things subject to him, and this God 

will be all in all." 1 Cor 15:28, 29 NEB. 

Perhaps some are too insistent on seeing everything in a certain light, that they miss the whole message. 

There is absolutely nothing in the above that alludes to a Triune Godhead. 

Tim: JESUS REQUESTED THAT MEN PRAY IN HIS NAME 

Jesus not only asked men to believe in him (Jn 14:1) and to obey his commandments (Jn 

14:15), but, but he asked men to pray in his name. "Whatever you ask in my name, I will do 

it," he said (Jn 14:14). Later, Jesus added, "If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, 

ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you (Jn 15:7). Indeed, Jesus insisted that "no 

man comes to the Father, but by me" (Jn 14:6). It is interesting to note in this regard that not 

only did the diciples of Christ pray in Christ's name (1 Cor 5:4) but that they also PRAYED 

TO CHRIST (Acts 7:59). There is no doubt that both Jesus intended and his diciples 

understood it was Jesus' name that was to be invoked both before God and as God's in 

prayer. Remember what Jehovah said in the OT - I will never share any of my glory (the 

glory of absolute Deity - which includes being prayed to - with another!?). This for me 

alone is proof positive that Christ must share the absolute Divine nature with his Father. 

Heinz: Actually Tim, Stephen's words in Acts 7:59 are not a prayer to Jesus. It is the same 

Greek word that Paul used Acts 25:11, 12 , 21 in reference to Caeser. Just like Paul's word 

were an appeal, so were Stephens. Stephen had a vision of heaven. Did he see Jesus sitting 

on God's throne? No. He was sitting at the "God's right hand". Acts 7:56 I think you missed 

the point of John 14:6. Most of the translations I have render it, "no man comes to the 

Father, except THROUGH me". This is a very important point as Jesus is the mediator 

between God and Men (1 Tim 2:5). Since when is a mediator the same person as the one he 

is mediating for? Jesus taught us to pray to the Father at Matthew 6:9. What else did Jesus 

say? "that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you", "if ye 

shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name." John 15:16, 16:23 If there 

was any doubt about Jesus words in John 14:14, it all but removed 14 verses later when he 



says, "the Father is greater than I" John 14:28. Does any of the above prove a trifold God? 

Absolutely not! 

Tim: Throughout Jesus' claims several point that are of key importance emerged. First, there is no question 

that Jesus often accepted and sometimes even emcouraged the appellations and attitudes appropriate only 

for God. Second, Jesus himself unquestionably affirmed by words and actions these characteristcs and 

preogatives appropriate only to Deity. Third, the reaction of those around him manifests that they too 

understood him to be claiming Deity. The disciples responded with "you are the Chrsit, the Son of the 

living God" (Matt. 16:16) or "my Lord and my God" (Jn 20:28). 

Heinz: "In the words of Jesus and in much of the NT the God of Israel (Gk ho theos) is the Father of 

Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal 

reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of 

usage and not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few times. Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 

"the Word was with the God [= the Father], and the Word was a divine being." Thomas invokes Jesus 

with the titles which belong to the Father, "My lord and my God" (Jn 20:28).....It should be understood 

that this usage of ho theos touches the personal distinction of the Father and the Son and not the divinity 

i.e., the divine sonship of Jesus Christ." p. 317, 318 Dictionary of the Bible by J. L. McKenzie, S. J. 

Tim: Unbelievers exclaimed, "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy!" (Mk 2:7). When Jesus 

claim to be one with the Father, the Jews, who are not as dumb as you make them out to be, picked up 

stones to stone Christ. They said they did this because Christ blasphemed. He made himself equal to God 

because he initiated calling God his Father - thus also implying Deity because he by default the unique Son 

of God - not a created son as many would so carelessly conclude today but "of the the order of" (see 1 Kgs 

20:35; Neh 12:28). 

Heinz: I fail to see where where the above verses mention "of the the order of", but since you brought it 

up, Jesus is called a "priest for ever, After the order of Melchizedek."Heb 5:6 Does this mean that Jesus 

shared some special type of consubstantiality with Melchizedek? I feel ridiculous even talking like this. 

The Jews also called God their Father (Jn 8:41) and they were not suggesting a consubstantial triune 

existence with him, but that ONLY THEY had a special relationship with him, as opposed to Jesus. 

Tim: Ancient Semitics and Orientals were very aware of this usage of "Son of" and it is this parallel that 

should be understood as Christ claims to be Gods Son. The high priest of the time also reacted towards 

Jesus with accusations of blasphemy when Christ claimed Divinity (Mk 14:62-64). Whatever you may 

want to think, the point is crystal clear - the Jesus of the NT claimed equality with the Jehovah of the OT. 

Thus, so far, the two person, while differing in person, are equal in Nature, and make up two/thirds of the 

One God. 

Heinz: Even in Mark 14:62 we have Jesus explaining that he sits "at the right hand of power". Why does 

he not sit on the throne, if they are in equal in nature? Where, pray tell, does the Bible ever use the term 

"son of" to describe a sharing of essence, or two that are "equal in nature"? Where is the "son of" ever 

used to describe 2/3 of one being? I keep asking this question and I NEVER get an answer. I keep getting 

directed back to Jesus as Jehovah as the Son of God which is supposed to explain everything. Even the 

angels were called "sons of God" at Job 1:6, 38:7, Gen 6:2 and Dan 3:25. The latter scripture has your 

Orientals describing an angel as a "son of the gods." I wonder if these Babylonians understood this angel 

to represent 1/3 of your Triune God? Probably not. 

Continued in Part 2 




Email Me 


Conversations on the Trinity Part 2 


Tim: What about some of your best alleged counterclaims. That Jesus said "My Father is greater that I" (Jn 

14:28); Jesus claimed ignorance of the time of his second coming (Mk 13:32); Jesus said that neither he nor 

anyone else is "good" except God alone (Mk 10:18); Jesus prayed on the cross, "My God, my God, why 

have you forsaken me?" (Mk 15:34). On closer examination none of these passages is contradictory with 

Jesus' evident claims to Deity just discussed. The Father was greater than Jesus - for Jesus in the 

incarnation was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death. The Son also occupies lesser 

office than the Father. His position is subordinate - but his nature is not. You cannot conclude that just 

because the Father is positionally higher than the Son that therefore they are not one in nature. This does 

not follow. I am in a superior positon to my wife and kids by virtue of the divine decree that the man is the 

head of the home and the wife is to be submissive in all things - she is the weaker vessel but Paul 

catagorically states that "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave nor free, there is no 

longer male nor female; for you are all one in Christ" (Gal 3:28). So, while this analogy is not a one to one 

correspondence - none of the relationships are a Trinity - or two natures in one person - I think that the 

POINT I'm trying to make is clear - subordination in no way ever implies or leads to inferiority. This is the 

point people are trying to make when using the president of the united states example - between MEIZON 

AND KRITTON. The example you give in "Lies that Walter Martin Told Me" does not stand. 1 Jn 5:9 

does not invalidate the point I'm trying to make between MEIZON AND KRITTON - the text says nothing 

to the effect that the tetimony of God is not better than man's. It only says that God's testimony is Greater 

than man's - it comes from a higher office - and therefore deserve the respect and acceptence do it. It is 

certainly true that God's testimony is also Better than man's for God posessess perfectness and total 

understanding - but the text here in 1 Jn 5:9 is not saying that. The Greek here says greater - not better - but 

you cannot conclude that distiction between the words evaporates because the sentence does not say one or 

the other or both. Your putting unnecessary stress on the text. You are assuming falsely. 

Heinz: Am I now? The point that you are trying to make above is kind of confusing, so let us take it 

from Ron Rhodes' perspective. In speaking of Heb. 1:4, Rhodes says, "He is higher than the angels in His 

very nature." Italics His 

But what does the entire text say? "as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they". So Jesus had 

inherited a more excellent name (or Title/Williams), not a nature. In the Grimm-Thayer Lexicon, it says 

of John 14:28 that MEIZON "is used of those who surpass others-either in nature and power, as God"p. 

395 Italics mine 

On Heb 1:4, this same lexicon tells us that KREITTON means "more excellent." p. 359 See also BAGD 

page 449. So, lexically speaking, Rhodes is wrong. I find it amazing how normal language seems to 

change once a Trinitarian gets a hold of it. All of a sudden the words "greater", "subordinate", "one" and 

"Son" do not have the same meaning as has come to be understood in dictionaries. 

Since you touched on the headship issue, let me expand on it, Ron Rhodes has done. "But I would have 

you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of 

Christ is God." 1 Corinthians 11:3 

We know that God is not under the authority of anyone. Dan 4:35, 1 Chron 29:11 (which begs the 

question, "How can Jesus be God?") Ron Rhodes makes the following statement, "why does the 

Watchtower teach that the Fathers headship over Christ mean that Christ is inferior in nature?" p. 

140,141 

The Watchtower actually does not teach that this scripture has anything to do with with the nature of 

Christ and Jehovah. The BAGD (p. 430) says that the greek word KEPHALE, as used in 1 Cor 11:3 is 

used "to denote superior rank." So Jesus and God are not equal in authority, just as the man is not equal 

to Christ in authority. The scripture says just exactly what we think it says. Again, thank you for bringing 

the Holy Spirit into this discussion;) 

Nowhere does the Bible speak of the 2 natures of Christ, yet I know it is important to your theology. But 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/tim2.htm (1 of 16) [5/25/2003 4:07:25 AM]


you are relying too much on a man-made definition of God. 

Tim: Besides, Jesus claimed equality with God in essense (Jn 5:18 - 10:30); it was only his function as Son 

that he was less than the Father. Next, Jesus was ignorant of the time of his coming again as man, just as he 

was ignorant of whether the fig tree had fruit (Matt. 21:19). As man, Jesus tired, hungered, and thirsted; but 

as God he never slumbered nor slept (Ps. 121:4). Jesus the person possesed two distinc natures: one divine 

by nature by which he knew all things [which by the way he limited the indendent use of it while on earth - 

but restored it to himself after the resurrection when he resumed the glory he Had with the Father before 

Time Space Matter and Energy began], and one human which was finite in knowledge and grew in 

wisdom. Since you have a copy of Rhodes' book, please read the section on Philps 2:6-9 on pp. 148-151. 

This is a well written section of his book and demands you to refute any parts of the issues that you disagree 

with. This one fundamental passage in perhaps the greatest stumbling block for JWs - there general lack of 

understanding especially of v. 6 where the Greek READS : WHO NEVER CEASING TO EXIST in the 

form of God. The participle is in the present tense - you must deal with this FACT Heinz. The present 

participle denotes continuous never ceasing action. 

Heinz: As regards Phil 2:6, I cannot find a commentary or an interlinear that reads like the example you 

provided above, and I certainly can't find that in Rhodes' favorite, the NASB. There are of course some 

paraphrases that touch on it. But most references are unsure of how to translate it. "This verse has been 

the subject of much controversy" Adams Commentary. But if you subscribe to the renderings in the TEV 

and the NCV, "who always had the nature of God, then I really have to ask this...when Jesus was 

speaking thus in John 14:28 "The Father is Greater than I", how are we to know if he is speaking from 

his divine nature or his human nature. If he still had his divine nature while he had his human nature, 

why doesn't the Bible differentiate between the 2 natures, especially in statements where he expresses his 

inferiority to the Father. And since Jesus is the only member of your divine triumvirate that possesses 2 

natures, doesn't that really make them a Quadrinity? 

Now let us see what Jesus really said at John 5:18; 10:30. The Jews had no problem accepting a divine 

LOGOS, "The LOGOS served Greek Jews as the bridge to the remote, transcendent God in a way 

comparable to that served by angels in the thought of Palestine Jews." So where would the Jews object? 

Speaking of the term "Son of God", We Jews and Jesus by Samuel Sandmel states, "To Jews this term, if 

used figuratively, would have raised no objection, for it is a frequent phrase in the Tanak;... If used 

literally or quasi-literally, Jews would have objected, and especially so limiting the sonship to Jesus." pp. 

38, 41 , 42 So we have here a Jewish mindset of accepting the LOGOS of God on par with an angel, we 

also have "Son of God" as a term used in the Tanak of angels and even the Jewish nation, but the 

objection was the exclusivity of the Son in relation to Jehovah. Could there be some jealousy here? 

Hurtado also points out in Pre-Jewish Opposition to Christ-Devotion "Although it was acceptable to exalt 

a great figure of the past recognized by the Jewish tradition, such as Moses, to give equivalent treatment 

to Jesus, a figure of their own time who was regarded by some as a false teacher and who did not enjoy 

broad respect outside the circle of his followers, would have seemed silly and offensive, all the more so 

since these followers even put Jesus above the great figures of Israel's past." p.36 

Perhaps this is why the Jews also said he was a Samaritan, he was a demon, and he had a demon at Matt 

12:24, John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20. 

Another point that we can allow is that the gospel writers gave a less than favorable view of the Jews, 

especially John. Gerald Borchert also observes that "It has been stated by scholars, as J.A.T. Robinson 

has noted, that 'John is the most anti-Jewish of the four [Gospels].' " 

But Borchert goes on to point out that "The reason that I would agree with Robinson in resisting the 

charge of anti-Semiticism against John is multidimensional, but several facts can be stated here in brief . . 



. The stern polemic in chaps. 5-11, therefore . . . as I have argued at length in the commentary, is not 

basically a battle waged against all Jews by outsiders but a battle by Jews against an institutional Judaism 

that had rigidly defined its borders to exclude Jesus, as the Messiah, and his followers" (_John_ (NAC). 

Gerald Borchert, P. 71-73. Cf. 81 also). 

Tim: Just like when the Bible tells us to "be filled with the HS." This "filled" is also a present participle - 

"Never stop being filled by the HS" the verse could be translated. 

Heinz: Are you saying that we should "Never stop being filled by the HS" i.e. God? Are then also part of 

this Triune God? Since you look for similar expressions between the Jesus and Jehovah to prove a 3-way 

God is true (which is really bitheism isn't it?), tell me where the Son and the Father can both be poured 

out just like your 3rd person of the trinity (Acts 2:17,18). The Scriptures indicate that the H.S. is inferior 

to the Father, subservient and obedient in all things; it can speak nothing of itself (Jn 16:13). Indicating a 

position of subordination, it is promised, sent 

(Jn.14:26; 15:26), and given (Jn.11:13; 14:16). But it does nothing of or on it’s own. 

For instance, some texts say that the spirit "spoke," but other passages make clear that this was done 

through angels or humans. (Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Matt. 10:19, 20; compare Acts 20:23 with Acts 21:10, 

11.) 

"The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the 

parallelism between the spirit and the power of God. When a quasi-personal activity is ascribed to God's 

spirit, e.g., speaking, hindering, desiring, dwelling (Acts 8.29; 16.7; 

Rom 8.9), one is not justified in concluding immediately that in these passages God's spirit is regarded as 

a Person; the same expressions are used also in regard to rhetorically personified things or abstract ideas 

(see Rom 8.6; 7.17).--“New Catholic Encyclopedia” (Vol. 13, p. 575) 

Tim: So, hear we have a certain statement to the eternality of the Son. Next, upon careful examination 

Jesus did not deny that he was good or that he was God to the rich young ruler [do you think Jesus is 

absolutely good, Heinz, the kind of good that he was talking about in this passage - what are the 

consequences of answering yes to this question - what about answering no to this question]. The bracketed 

question is key - you are stuck here my friend. Jesus was saying to the rich young ruler, "Do you realize 

what you are saying? Are you calling me God?" Jesus' reply left only two alternatives: either he was good 

and God or else he was bad and only human - which of these two do you think friend? 

Heinz: "And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit 

eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, [even] 

God.(Luke 18:19) Now why did Jesus say this? The Bible clearly shows that others are called Good(Tit 

2:3, Ro 5:7). Vine's Expository Dictionary also gives a list of scriptures where it applies to "certain 

persons". But it also refers to God as "essentialy, absolutely and consummately good". It is you that is 

putting unnecessary an strain on the word. 

Certainly if imperfect men could be called "good", Jesus would qualify even more so as such. Nor would 

he object to the term "teacher"; he accepted that designation. (John 13:13) Then why did he answer this 

young man as he did? It seems that the rabbis of Jewry affected this title, which would explain Christ's 



rejection of it. When this ruler addressed him thus it amounted to classing him with the rabbis. Jesus 

wanted no rabbinical titles, and by this rebuke Jesus showed the impropriety of using such titles. (Job 

32:21, 22; Matt. 23:7-10) Christ had no objections to being properly identified as the teacher or master or 

leader, as he said it was well that they called him such, but when designations were linked in a 

title-setting commonly used to address rabbis in a flattering way he did protest. He drove the point home 

forcefully by taking the extreme and highest view of the matter, spotlighting Jehovah God as the one 

deserving of such title. Incidentally, this shows Jehovah no part of the trinity with two others equal with 

him, and trinitarian attempts to offset this by referring to Matthew's wording of this meeting do not erase 

the two accounts by Mark and Luke.-Matt. 19:16, 17. 

That the rich ruler was using "Good Teacher" as a formalistic title rather than as expressing his honest 

conviction concerning Jesus is shown by his rejection of Jesus' advice. Apparently he did not consider 

Jesus such a good teacher in reality, for he went off without following Christ's counsel. He deserved the 

rebuke he recieved. 

Tim: Next, Jesus's examples of God talking to God (or, better, one Person of the Godhead speaking to 

another person of the Godhead) are not strang to the Bible. Ps. 110:1, "The LORD said unto my Lord, sith 

thou at my right hand..." Likewise, in the OT the LORD sometimes speaks to the Angel of the Lord (cf. 

Zech 1:12) who also is Deity (cf. Ex. 3:2 f.; Judges 13:15 f.). These so-called counter claims for Deity turn 

out to be not only completely congruous with the uniform claim of Christ to be equal with God, but in at 

least one case a closer examination of them evidences a convert claim to Deity. 

Heinz: You are using a Lawyers device here. You are taking my arguments and trying to use them to 

your end. But can you really do that? Ps 110:1 is a mistranslation, but rather should read, "Jehovah said 

to my Lord."(ASV, Jerusalem Bible etc) Regarding the use of the word LORD here, the Jerusalem Bible 

calls it a tautology. As to it being "congruous", are you saying that the angels also represent a Trinity 

with God. How else can it correspond to your view of Deity? All it shows is that Jesus represented the 

invisible God (John 1:18 1Tim 2:5), just like the angels (Ex 3:2) and the prophets of old (Heb 1:1-3). 

Tim: THE CLAIM OF JESUS' DISCIPLES THAT HE WAS GOD 

It is one thing for a first century Jew to claim to be God, but it is quite another to get monotheistic Jews to 

believe it. Both Jesus and the diciples knew the Jewish Shema very well: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our 

God, the Lord is one" (Mk 12:29). Paul stated the Jewish belief well when he wrote, "For although there 

are many so-called gods in heaven or on earth...yet for us there is one God..." ( 1 Cor. 8:5-6). Both 

polytheism and idolatry were abhorrent to a Jew, and yet these first century Jewish diciples of Jesus found it 

necessary to atribute Deity to Jesus of Nazareth in many ways. 

Heinz: My Thayers attributes the "For though there be that are called gods" in 1 Corinthians to angels. 

This is interesting, but more than likely Paul was referring to the myriads of pagan gods that 

monotheistic Christianity had to be distinguished from. I notice that you cut part of your quotation 

off...let me finish it for you, "yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto 

him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." So it is the Father 

alone that we view as the One God. This is in keeping with Paul's letters. "You simply simply cannot find 

the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and 

person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second 

person of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur 

(Anglican Priest). 



Tim: JESUS WAS GIVEN THE NAMES OF DEITY 

John called Jesus First and Last in Rev. 1:17 - a name reserved for Jehovah alone (Isa. 44:6; 41:4; 

48:12). Now as I recall - ah yes - here is your letter that responded to this claim. You wrote "It is true that 

when the angel speaks for Christ, at Rev. 1:17 (NWT), he states:'I am the First and the Last.' But a check of 

the context shows this 'First and Last' was with definite limitations, was relative to just the matter of Christ 

Jesus' death and resurrection, as verse 18 shows. Christ was the First one raised in the first resurrection, 

and the last one who will be raised directly by Jehovah God. Others who follow in that resurrection will be 

raised by God through Christ." This is terrible eisogesis and a complete misrepresentation of the text. 

Verse 18 DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE KIND OF FIRST AND LAST IN V 17, rather V 18 

IDENTIFIES THE ONE WHO CLAIMS A TITILE RESERVED ONLY FOR DEITY. Look at it this 

way: John's response to the vision was to fall at the feet of Christ as though dead. Similar responses are 

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 

the response "sterotyped behavior in such apocolyptic trances" [Moffat] would incorrectly imply that John 

was playing out a role rather than experiencing a supernatural phenomenon of such magnitude that to stand 

as an equal would be tantamount to blasphemy. It could even lead to death (cf. the OT belief that for a 

sinful person to see God was to die; Exod. 19:21; 33:20; Judg 6:22-23). 

Heinz: There is no need to scream Tim. I had warned you about getting too emotional. As we have seen 

above, a "falling to the ground" happened also to the angel of Jehovah in Judges. There is no reason to 

suspect that the Angel must be Jehovah himself. This is where trinitarians again change the meanings of 

words to fit their theology. Did it ever occur to you that an Angel might just mean angel? Are only 

"sinful" people hindered from seeing God? No! "No man may see me and live", "No man hath seen God 

at any time" (Ex 33:20, Jn 1:18). As we have seen above, the 

bible repeats over and over again the invisibility of God. Judges does say that you will not die, but then 

the context shows that it was an angel. Now let us examine what it is I said: It is true that when the angel 

speaks for Christ, at Revelation 1:17 (NWT), he states: "I am the First and the Last." But a check of the 

context shows this "First and Last" was with definite limitations, was relative to just the matter of Christ 

Jesus' death and resurrection, as verse 18 shows. Christ was the first one raised in the first resurrection, 

and the last one that will be raised directly by Jehovah God. Others who follow in that resurrection will 

be raised by God through Christ. (John 6:40; 1 Cor. 6:14) In fact, this limitation is also shown that the 

Alexandrinus Codex used the word FIRSTBORN here. Christ was the firstfruits of those asleep in death. 

(1 Cor. 15:20) When "First and Last" is again applied to Christ Jesus, at Revelation 2:8, note that again it 

is with respect to death and resurrection. But when it speaks thus of Jehovah no limitation is set on the 

meaning. I suspect it is because of this limitation that made some unscrupulous scribe add the words 

Alpha and Omega at Rev 1:11. The Good News Bible inserts the name Jesus at Rev 22:12 to make it 

appear that Jesus is again the Alpha and Omega. So you see, they can only make Jesus the Alpha and 

Omega if they distort scripture to do so. 

Incidentally, Hebrews 3:1 calls Jesus an APOSTLE, whereas elsewhere in the Bible it refers to some of 

his followers. Does that make them the same person or equal because the share the same title? Of course 

not." This is not poor exegesis. Why? Let us take a look? "I am the first and the last, and the Living one; 

and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18 "These things saith the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]" 

Rev. 2:8 "Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead" Rev 1:5 See also Romans 

14:9 and Col 1:18. Can you really believe that God can die? I cannot. Hab 1:12, (before the scribal 

changes/ Tiqqune Sopherim) reads, "Art not thou from everlasting, O Jehovah my God, my Holy One? 

you do not die." see also New Jerusalem Bible. I believe that almighty God cannot be confined by his 

own creation. Since God created life, and death is a by-product of life, this would be included. The bible 

never speaks of only Jesus' human-self/human nature/second nature dying. This is a 5th century 



Cappadocian thought read back into the scriptures. As one Catholic apologist puts it, "The Bible does not 

anywhere use the word Trinity or define the nature of the Triune God. Rather, the use of the word 

"Trinity" and the definition of the Triune God are part of the Tradition of the Catholic Church not found 

directly in Scripture. This is one major reason why the Tradition of the Church is necessary to fully 

comprehend the message of Christ." Are you a Catholic in drag Tim? 

Tim: Further in this section, both Jesus and Jehovah are viewed as the author of eternal words (cf. Matt. 

24:35 and Isa. 40:8). 

Heinz: Jesus is the spokesman for God, the Word OF God. "And I know that his commandment is life 

eternal: the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak. John 12:50 

Not a TRIUNE relationship. 

Tim: The Psalmist wrote, "Jehovah is my light" (27:1) but John claimed that Jesus was the "true Light" (Jn 

1:9). 

Heinz: Jesus said of his followers, "Ye are the light of the world." Mt 5:14 

Two scriptures later he says, "Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good 

works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. "After all, Jesus is the "the true light, which lighteth 

every man, coming into the world." Jn 1:9 All, like Jesus, will glorify the Father. Not a TRIUNE 

relationship. 

Tim: Likewise, "Jehovah is out rock" is a common appellation of God in the OT (see Ps. 18:2; 95:1), but 

the diciples call Jesus their "rock" (1 Cor 10:4 or "stone" (1 Peter 2:6-8). Jehovah was also a husband or 

"bridegroom" to Israel (Hos. 2:16; Is. 62:5), which is how the NT relates Christ to his church (Eph. 5:28-33; 

Rev. 21:2). "Jehovah is my shepherd," David wrote and Peter called Christ "the chief shepherd" (1 Peter 

5:4), ...... 

Heinz: Perhaps the following might help you: "There is none holy as Jehovah; For there is none besides 

thee, Neither is there any rock like our God." We know that there are other holy ones mentioned in the 

Bible, but they do not compare to the archetype, Jehovah. Many titles are shared by others, but it should 

never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the 

conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called "king of kings" (Dan. 2:37; 

Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus' disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called "the light of 

the world." (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) Isaiah 43:10 says, "I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no 

saviour", but yet there were other saviours (see Judg. 3:9 and 15). Note that Othniel and Ehud were 

raised up by Jehovah God as saviors. They were merely the agents of the great Savior, God. Now look at 

Jude 25, "to the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord. If God is represented THROUGH 

Jesus, does it not make sense to refer to them both as Saviour. After all, isn't this what Jesus' name 

means? 

I will let my friend Kazz explain the rest for me: 

"Now let us consider how God accomplished his will, including our salvation, through his 

son, using him as his agent, by focusing on the following texts: 

Acts 2:22,23 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Naz·a·rene', a man publicly shown by God to 



YOU through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in YOUR midst, just as 

YOU yourselves know, this [man], as one delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of 

God, YOU fastened to a stake by the hand of lawless men and did away with." 

The above verse shows that Jehovah showed great signs and portents by using his agent 

Jesus Christ, for it was "through him" (Christ) that these portents were demonstrated. 

Acts 15:12 

At that the entire multitude became silent, and they began to listen to Bar'na·bas and 

Paul relate the many signs and portents that God did through them among the nations. 

Acts 19:11,12 

And God kept performing extraordinary works of power through the hands of Paul, 12 

so that even cloths and aprons were borne from his body to the ailing people, and the diseases left them, 

and the wicked spirits came out. 

These two verses show that God used Barnabas and Paul as his agents to relate "many 

signs and portents", and "extraordinary works of power," for he did these signs "through them". These 

verses are quoted tofurther show how Jehovah uses agents to accomplish his will. 

Romans 1:4,5 

but who with power was declared God's Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection 

from the dead--yes, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we received undeserved kindnessand an 

apostleship in order that there might be obedience of faith among all the nations respecting his name... 

This verse shows that Christ is the agent "through whom" undeserved kindness has been 

demonstrated. 

Romans 2:16 

This will be in the day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of 

mankind, according to the good news I declare. 

This account shows that God is a judge, and that he judges through Christ Jesus; again, 

Jehovah is the source of judgment while Christ is the agent used to judge. 

Romans 5:1,2 

Therefore, now that we have been declared righteous as a result of faith, let us enjoy 

peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have gained our approach by faith 

into this undeserved kindness in which we now stand; and let us exult, based on hope of the glory of 

God. 

Romans 5:8-11 

But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died 

for us. Much more, therefore, since we have been declared righteous now by his blood, shall we be saved 

through him from wrath. 

For if, when we were enemies, we became reconciled to God through the death of his 

Son, much more, now that we have become reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only 

that, but we are also exulting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received 

the reconciliation. 

Can there be any clearer statement than that which is quoted above? We are saved 

through Christ, through his death and subsequent resurrection to life, and it is through Christ that we 

become reconciled to God. 

Romans 7:25 

Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with [my] mind I myself am a slave to God's 

law, but with [my] flesh to sin's law. 

The above is quoted to demonstrate that, since our life and salvation are attained through 



Christ, so our gratitude should be expressed to God through Christ. In this case we are the source of 

gratitude, while Christ is the agent through whom our gratitude is expressed to God. 

1Corn 8:4-6 

For even though there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth, 

just as there are many "gods" and many "lords," 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom 

all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we 

through him. 

Did you notice the wording of the above verses? Jehovah is the source of "all things", 

while Jesus is the agent through whom all things are (or came about). 

1 Corn 15:54-57 

"Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?" 56 The sting producing 

death is sin, but the power for sin is the Law. 57 But thanks to God, for he gives us the victory through 

our Lord Jesus Christ! 

Here we see that God is the source, while Jesus is the agent through whom we can gain 

victory over death by putting faith in his ransom sacrifice. 

2 Corn 1:3-5 

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies 

and the God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those 

in any sort of tribulation through the comfort with which we ourselves are being comforted by God. For 

just as the sufferings for the Christ abound in us, so the comfort we get also abounds through the Christ. 

You will notice above that, not only is the Father the God of Jesus, but he is the God of comfort, and that 

it is through Jesus that God allows his comfort to abound in us. 

2 Corn 5:18,19 

But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us 

the ministry of the reconciliation, namely, that God was by means of Christ reconciling a world to 

himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and he committed the word of the reconciliation to us. 

This verse shows, once again, that we can be reconciled to God through Christ, for it is 

by means of Christ that God reconciles a world to himself. 

Ep 1:3-7 

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he has blessed us with 

every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in union with Christ, 4 just as he chose us in union with 

him before the founding of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love. 

For he foreordained us to the adoption through Jesus Christ as sons to himself, according to the good 

pleasure of his will, in praise of his glorious undeserved kindness which he kindly conferred upon us by 

means of [his] loved one. By means of him we have the release 

by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of [our] trespasses, according to the riches 

of his undeserved kindness. 

Here again the Father is called the God of Jesus Christ. Also, it shows that the 

undeserved kindness of God is conferred upon us by means of his loved one (Christ), and 

that it is by means of him that we the release by ransom. 

Ep 2:13-18 

And he came and declared the good news of peace to YOU, the ones far off, and peace 

to those near, because through him we, both peoples, have the approach to the Father by one spirit. This 

reiterates that we have gained the approach to the Father through Christ. 

1 Thess 5:6-11 

So, then, let us not sleep on as the rest do, but let us stay awake and keep our senses. 7 



For those who sleep are accustomed to sleep at night, and those who get drunk are usually drunk at night. 

But as for us who belong to the day, let us keep our senses and have on the breastplate of faith and love 

and as a helmet the hope of salvation; because God assigned us, not to wrath, but to the acquiring of 

salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us, that, whether we stay awake or are asleep, we 

should live together with him. Therefore keep comforting one another and building one another up, just 

as YOU are in fact doing. 

This verse clearly shows that we gain salvation from God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Jehovah is shown here to be the source of salvation, making him our savior, and Jesus is the agent of our 

salvation, making him our savior. 

2 Tim 4:16-18 

In my first defense no one came to my side, but they all proceeded to forsake me--may 

it not be put to their account- 17 but the Lord stood near me and infused power into me, that through me 

the preaching might be fully accomplished and all the nations might hear it; and I was delivered from the 

lion's mouth. The Lord will deliver me from every wicked work and will save [me] for his heavenly 

kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen. 

The above is quoted to reiterate that Christ is not the only one through whom God 

accomplishes his will, for it was through Paul that the preaching was fully accomplished. 

Hebrews 1:1-4 

God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the 

prophets, 2has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all 

things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3 He is the reflection of [his] glory and the 

exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he 

had made a purification for our sins he sat 

down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places. 4 So he has become better than the 

angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. 

Just as God used prophets to relate his sayings to mankind, he likewise used his son, for it 

says that he spoke to us by "means of a son." 

You will also notice that God appointed his son as heir of all things, and that he made all things through 

his son. Certainly if Christ were God Almighty he would not need to be appointed as heir. As a side note, 

you will notice that the son "became" better than the angels. Certainly if Jesus were both totally God and 

totally man he would not have had to become better then the angels, for that superior status would have 

been automatically attached to his supposed "divine nature". 

Hebrews 7:18-25 

Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he 

is always alive to plead for them. 

Heb 13:15,16 

Through him let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips 

which make public declaration to his name. Moreover, do not forget the doing of good and the sharing of 

things with others, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. 

1 John 4:9,10 

By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his 

only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him. 10 The love is in this respect, not 

that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. 

Rev 1:1-3 

A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that 

must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave 



John, who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, even to all the things 

he saw. These last four verses were added just for emphasis; however, there is an interesting side point 

that can be gleaned from Rev 1:1. Notice that God gave Christ a revelation, which is "a disclosure of 

truth, instruction, concerning divine things before unknown" (see Grimm-Thayer, 62). Obviously, even 

in heaven, Jesus has limited knowledge, which contradicts the notion that he is a co-equal member of the 

Godhead. This also emphasizes that Jehovah is the source of all knowledge and Jesus is the channel 

through whom knowledge appropriate for our edification is dispensed. 

So the clear teaching of Scripture shows that God is the author and Christ the agent of 

our salvation. Jehovah performed powerful works, signs and portents through his son; he created all 

things through his son; he demonstrates undeserved kindness to us, and comforts us through his son; he 

effected our released from sin and offers us victory over death through his son; and it is through his son 

that he will ultimately judge all of mankind, and reconcile all things to himself. May we, in return,show 

our gratitude and praise to God through his son. 

End of Excerpt" 

Tim: JESUS WAS GIVEN POWERS POSSESSED ONLY BY GOD 

The diciples of Christ not only gave him the titles of Jehovah or Deity but the also attributed to him powers 

that only God 

possesses. The NT writers declare that Jesus raised the dead (Jn 5, 11), and yet the OT declares, "Jehovah 

Killeth, and maketh alive" ( 1 Sam 2:6; cf. Deut. 32:39). Isaiah pronounced Jehovah as "the everlasting 

God...the Creator of the ends of the earth" (4:9) and Jerimiah clalled him the "former of all things" (10:16); 

the NT writers speak of all things being created through Christ (Jn 1:2; Col 1:16). Likewise, for the Jews 

"who can forgive sins but God alone?"; and yet without hesitation the NT writers attribute this power to 

Jesus (acts 5:31; 13:38). Such attribution should removed all reasonable doubt as to whether they believed 

in the Deity of Christ. 

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). 

Once someone had only to touch Elisha's bones to live again. 

This brings to an interesting area. As we have noted above, others have, in the Bible, been favorably 

referred to as gods, but also as Jehovah. We have even seen angels accepting the divine name for 

themselves. The fact is, and representative of God bears his name and authority. Let's take a look a 

Moses and Aaron. Ex 16:2 says, "And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against 

Moses and against Aaron in the wilderness", but then at v. 6 it says, "Your murmurings are not against 

us, but against Jehovah." As representatives, Aaron and Moses could speak thus. Even in Christian times 

it was considered such. Speaking of the apostles, Acts 5 says, "And now I say unto you, Refrain from 

these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: but if it is 

of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God." 

38-40 

This speaks of the close relationship God has with his servants. "For thus saith Jehovah of hosts...he that 

toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye." So his representatives have spoken for him, and as him. "In 

the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets many times and in many different ways. But 

now in these last days God has spoken to us through his Son. God has chosen his Son to own all things, 

and through him he made the world. The Son reflects the glory of God and shows exactly what God is 

like. He holds everything together with his powerful word. When the Son made people clean from their 

sins, he sat down at the right side of God, the Great One in heaven." Heb 1:1-3 (NCV) 



Tim: Some very important things we must now close with concerning the Deity of Christ. The first is Jn 

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, 

and last Jesus was obeyed and worshiped by angels. Why can we not accept "the Word was a god?" On top 

of Hartley's great advise lies a very simple and concrete objection. The theological context, viz., John's 

monotheism, makes this rendering of 1:1c impossible, for if a monotheist were speaking of the Deity he 

himself reverenced, the singular THEOS could be applied only to the Supreme Being, not to an inferior 

divine being or emanation 

as if THEOS were simply generic. That is, in reference to his own beliefs, a monotheist could not speak of 

THEOI nor could he use THEOS in the singular (when giving any type of personal discription) of any being 

other than the one true God whom he worshiped. On the other hand, when the polytheistic inhabitants of 

Malta affirmed that Paul was Theos, they were suggesting that he had or deserved a place among their owm 

patheon of gods. "They said that he was a god" is therefore a proper translation of Acts 28:6. 

Heinz: Murray Harris says that "the Word was a god" is grammatically possible, and W.E. Vine calls it 

the most literal rendering of the phrase, but both, like you, say it shouldn't be translated that way because 

it contradicts monotheism. Let us take a further look at this. The monotheistic Jews had no problem 

interchanging angel with god, and this can be proven by comparing the Masoretic Text with the LXX at 

Ps 8:5; 97:7; 138:1. The Jewish Christians has little problem with this either at Hebrews 2:7. Therefore 

the Jew had no problem with putting lesser being in this divine position. But what does this have to do 

with a Trinity? Nothing, in fact the opposite of what you like. Here is what one Jew has to say about it, " 

The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a Trinity is to be 

found there or even in any way shadowed forth, is an assumption that has long held sway in theology, but 

is utterly without foundation. The Jews, as a people, under its teachings became stern opponents of all 

polytheistic tendencies, and they have remained unflinchingly monotheists to this day. On this point there 

is no break between the Old Testament Scriptures and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. 

Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament Scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to 

the core, a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology." L.L. Paine, A Critical History of the Evolution of 

Trinitarianism (Boston and New York; Houghton Mifflin and Co., 1902), 4. stop 

Tim: If you were to honestly look at Jn 1:1 you would find it clearly triadic: each of the three clauses has 

the same subject (HO LOGOS) and an identical verb (ANE). So far from being tautological, verse 2 

gathers together these three seperate affirmations 

and declares them all to be true EN ARCHN: "This LOGOS who was THEOS was in the beginning with 

God." Even though Jesus Christ is not explicitly mentioned until verse 17, the evangelist clearly assumes 

throughout the prologue that the Logos is none other than the "only Son" (monogenes, 1:14, 18) of the 

Father.. In the first proposition of the verse 1 John affirms that the Logos existed before all time and 

creation and therefore implicitly denies that the Logos was a created being. 

Heinz: Again, it is only with you trinitarians that words change meanings, in this case EN ARCH/In the 

Beginning, no longer means in the Beginning, but "Before" the beginning. Most Bibles cross reference 

John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1 where "the beginning" is when God created the heavens and the earth. There is 

nothing in the scriptures that supports a "timeless" EN ARCH, and this is only building on Greek 

philosophy where time was created with the universe (see Timaeus/Plato). I have come to that conclusion 

by looking honestly at John 1:1. John 1:1 also parallels Prov 8 where Wisdom (i.e. the Word) is a created 

being. I also consider "Only Son" to be a poor translation of MONOGENHS QEOS or even UION TON 

MONOGENH as God also had other sons (Job 1:6; 38:7 etc). 

Tim: In the second, he declares that the Logos always was in active communion with the Father and 



thereby implies that the Logos cannot be personally identifying with the Father, [thus illustrating the error 

in using Colwell's rule to argue for a definite reading of 1:1c]. In the third, he states that the Logos always 

was a partaker of Deity and so implicitly denies that the Logos 

was ever elevated to divine status. The thought of the verse moves from eternal preexistence to personal 

intercommunion to intrinsic Deity. Verse 1c states the basis on which vv.1a and b can be said to be true: 

only because the Logos participated inherently in the Divine nature could he be said to be already in 

existence when time began or creation occured and to be in unbroken eternal fellowship with the Father. 

This would justify regarding THEOS as emphatic, standing as it does at the head of the clause. 

Whereever you place the piviotal point in the prologue, verses 14 and 18 are of paramount importance. 

Verse one stands in antithetical parallelism to verse 14 and in synthetic and climatic parallelism to verse 

18. The Logos who "existed in the beginning" (v.1a), "came on the human scene (egeneto)" in time (v. 14a) 

[notice Heinz the difference in word choice between NV in verse 1a and EGENETO in verse 14a - it is the 

difference between timeless and within time - just like I've been saying all along - why did the evangelist 

use NV in v. 1a and EGENETO in v.14a if it was not to make that very crucial distinction?]. The one who 

was eternally 

"in communion with God" (v. 1b), temporarily sojourned among us" (v. 14b). "The Word had the same 

nature as God" (v. 1c) is paralleled by the contrasting though that "the Word assumed the same nature as 

humans (SARKS EGENETO)" (v. 14a). Verses 1 and 18 share references to timeless existence (NV ter, 

v.1; HO WV, v. 18c), intimate fellowship (pros tov theov, v. 1b; eis tov kolpov tou patros, v. 18c), and 

predicated Deity (THOES, vv. 1c; 18b). Where v. 18 advances beyond verse 1 is in its grounding of the 

validity and accuracy of the Son's revelation (EXNGNSATO) of the Father in his oneness with the Father in 

nature (THEOS) and fellowship (EIS TOV KOLPOV). And, as you will see shortly, this 1c verse is 

strategically placed. It is the first of three stratigically placed verses to unveil the Nature of Christ in the 

fourth gospel (1:1c; 1:18; 20:28). These three verses unequivocally affirm the essential Divinity of Jesus 

Christ. 

Heinz: Well Tim, you have alot of grammatical acrobatics above to prove...what is it exactly? A 

Trinity? Again, does any of the above really prove that Jesus is part of a Triune relationship? If John had 

wanted to place hO LOGOS prior to the beginning,. then he would have used the preposition PRO 

(before) instead of EN (in). If one is IN something, be it a place or time, one is not necessarily before it. 

For example when the LOGOS in Jn 1:10 was in (HN) the world, he was not ALWAYS in the world, 

because as 1:9 shows us he was in the process of coming INTO the world before that point. You are 

assuming something not there. As someone else has put it earlier: "Consider John 1:10 EN TWi 

KOSMWi HN KAI O KOSMOS DI AUTOU EGENETO. Here we have a grammatical parallel to the 

EN ARXHi HN hO LOGOS with the preposition EN (IN) being followed by the dative. This dative is 

locative while John 1:1 is temporal, but the concept is still "in or in the realm of" ( see Porter's Idioms 

156). Take note that even though the world EGENETO through the Word, that the HN does not indicate 

that the Word was "in the world" from all eternity. This verse simply means what is says. While it is true 

that the state is continuous it is equally true that the Word did not remain in the world for all eternity nor 

was he there from eternity. The period of time is made visible by the writer even though the aspect is 

continuous. Now let us look at John 1:3-4 hO GEGONEN EN AUTW ZWH HN KAI H ZWH HN TO 

FWS TWN ANQRWPWN . This example is a bit of an enigma, however when one takes a look at the 

syntax of the phrase which includes both GINOMAI and HN one can see that it does not necessarily 

prove a difference between what "was made" and what "was." Using the punctuation as accepted by most 

modern scholars, we find that what came into existence (hO GEGONEN) is said to enter into the state of 

HN, which happens to be the complete opposite of the Trinitarian theory that beings with these properties 

are mutually exclusive." Others have come to the same conclusion that the LOGOS is not eternal, like 

Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 21; Moses Stuart, Exegetical and Theological Examination of John 

1:1-18, who himself says, "To say, as some have said, the NV[was] of itself denotes timeless 

existence....seems not to be well founded in the laws of grammatical usage." 



We know also that the angels were present at the beginning of creation (Gen 1:26, Job 38:7), but to say 

that "in the beginning were the angels/EN ARCHE ESAN HOI ANGELOI means that the angels are 

eternal is just ridiculous. In the part of the LOGOS, this is a desperate attempt to try to put 4/5th century 

philosophy into the plain reading of scripture. 

I will let AT Robertson finish this off nicely, "The Greek runs: KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS. The 

so-called Authorized Version has: 'And the Word was God.' This would indeed suggest the view that 

'Jesus' and 'God' were identical and interchangeable. But in Greek this would most naturally be 

represented by 'God' with the article, not QEOS but hO QEOS. But, equally, St. John is not saying that 

Jesus is a 'divine' man, in the sense with which the ancient world was familiar or in the sense that 

Liberals spoke of him. That would be QEIOS. The Greek expression steers carefully between the two. It 

is impossible to represent it in a single English word, but the New English Bible, I believe, gets the sense 

pretty exactly with its rendering, 'And what God was, the Word was.' In other words, if one looked at 

Jesus, one saw God--for he who has seen me, has seen the Father . . . Through him, as through no one 

else, God spoke and God acted; when one met him one was met . . . by God" (Robinson 70-71). 

Since the scriptures do not speak of Jesus/LOGOS as having existed from eternity, we must rely on what 

IS revealed. What is revealed is that Jesus/ LOGOS is described with temporal terms such as Son, 

only-begotten Son/god (John 1:18, 3:16 MONOGENHS), firstborn (Col 1:15), and beginning (Col 1:17, 

Rev 3:14). Since the bible describes the LOGOS with these temporal terms, this is strong evidence that 

he has not existed from eternity. To do so one needs to redefine the term "begotten," which indicates a 

beginning, the opposite of eternal begetting! In view of the bible's use of this kind of language regarding 

Jesus, we must consider this strong evidence of the Son's temporal origin. John 1:1c distinguishes the 

godship of the LOGOS from HO QEOS because the LOGOS was *with* hO QEOS. They are not 

presented as two equal gods. In fact, John 1:18 adjectivally modifies the godship of the LOGOS by 

calling him the *only-begotten* god, rather than QEOS in an unqualified sense. This subordinate 

only-begotten god had a beginning ("only-begotten"), which is in perfect harmony with the monotheism 

of the first century. Even if you prefer "unique" for MONOGENHS, it raises the question of how the 

godship of the LOGOS is "unique" in comparison with HO QEOS. 

Tim: Let's move to Jn 1:18, for the way you understand the translation and the way that I understand it is 

quite different. Well, let's start with thing one thing that we do agree with. The most probable out of the 

four textual variants is MONOGENES THEOS. Let 

us now consider its meaning. 

In compound adjectives, YEVNS refers to derivation or decent in general, rather than to birth in particular 

or to species. Etymologically, it is related to GI(G)VESTHAI, not GENASTHAI. The idea of birth, 

although congruous with MONOGENES, is in no whay an essential part of its meaning. 

If the first element in compounds involving -GEVNS is a noun, the SOURCE of the derivation is thereby 

indicated (thus GNGEVNS, "sprung from the earth") (F. Buchsel, TDNT 4:738). Accordingly, 

MONOGENES could mean "he who proceeded from the Unique One (=MOVOS)" or "deriving from a 

single begetter" (where MOVOGEVES = EK MOVOU GEVOMEVOS). 

But there is no evidence that MOVOS was a first-century title fo God that might have been used by 

Christians or borrowed by John, or that by employing the termMOVOGEVES John was combating attacks 

of some description on the virgin birth of Jesus or else asserting the descent of Jesus from the one true God 

of Israel. 

If, on the other hand, the first component in a GEVNS compound is an adverb, the NATURE of the 

derivation is thus shown (so EUGEVNS, "of noble decent") (F. Buchsel, TDNT 4:738). To this category 

the adjective MOVOGEVNS rightly belongs. It means "of sole decent," referring to the only child in a 

family, a meaning attested in the secular Greek literature [Hesiodius, Op. 376; 

Plato, Critias 113D; Aeschylus, Ag. 898], the LXX [Judg. 11:34; Tob. 3:15; 6:11; 8:17; Ps. 21:21; 24:16; 

34:17; Wisd. Sol. 7:22] and other Jewish literature [Josephus, ANT 1:222, 5:264. Israel is called 



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 

Isaac is given this term of Abraham, not as the onaly son he fathered (cf. Ishmael, Gen 16:15) but as the 

only "son of promise" or his "beloved son." [Behind the use of movogevns in later Hellenistic Jewish 

writings and in the NT outside John, de Kruijf finds the theme of paradoxical divine intervention to save an 

only child who is in a critical situation, intervention that calls for the utmost trust and fidelity.] So, for 

example, Tobit 3:15: "I am my father's only daughter (MOVOGEVNS) and he has no other child (ETEPOV 

TEKVOV) to be his heir." 

Some, however, find the -GEVNS element isignificant - and that the word mean solely unique, just a 

more fuller form of Movos.This is true specifically of nonpersonal objects but it is less clear that this is the 

predominant or primary sense of the word. The meaning "without siblings" does not result from the 

application to the spere of the family of the catagory of "singularity of kind." Rather, from the personal 

application of MOVOGEVNS to "the only member of a kin" there developed a nonfarmiliar and 

nonpersonal use in reference to "the only member of a kind." Certainly in Johannine usage the conjunction 

of MOVOGEVNS and UIOS shows that it is not the personal uniqueness of Jesus in itself that John is 

emphasizing but his being "of sole descent" as the Son of God. 

Heinz: There is few in the above that I will disagree with. In none of the examples above do we have 

someone (Isaac etc) sharing the same essence as his begetter. Since when do any of the above examples 

share a consubstantiality with his Father. Jesus was the only-begotten of the Father in that he was the first 

thing created directly by the Father himself. Everything else was made through him..."All things were 

made through him; and without him was not anything made 

that hath been made" John 1:3( see also Col 1:16). Jesus is also referred to as the 

firstborn[PRWTOTOKOS], which is usually referred to as being a separate, subordinate, and most of the 

time the actual FIRST BORN member of a family. See my page on PROTOTOKOS. 

It should be noted too, that Jesus, unlike Ephraim, Jacob and Israel, was never GIVEN the title of 

"firstborn". He was 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 Romans 8:29. 

When this changes, "the firstborn of" is used as part of a group. If it is "the firstborn of" 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 of the house of 

Pharoah, if it is "the firstborn of" beasts(Ex. 13:15) then it is an animal also. This should not change as it 

applies to "the firstborn of" creation. Obviously Jesus is a created being, as he was historically always 

thought to be the created Wisdom of Proverbs. 

We all know that Trinitarians don't like the translation "Only-begotten". John Dahms, in his The 

Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered says, "It seems clear the monogenes, when used of persons, 

was always understood to include the idea of generation. This understanding did not have its beginning at 

the time of the Arian controversy." p.228 Dahms further asserts that the modern use of MONOGENHS 

QEOS has little support, especially from the ANF like Philo, Tertullian and Justin. In fact Justin would 

often refer to the Father as un-begotten, hence not something that "God begat before all creatures." 

Dialogue with Trypho, ANF 1, 227 

Yes, I am quite aware of the efforts made to downplay "Only Begotten" by you Trinitarians. Athanasius 

did the same thing. The way Athanasius reasoned in some instances is as follows: We know that LOGOS 

(Jesus) is not a creature but God. Therefore, if we find passages in the Bible saying that he is created, the 

words do not carry the usual meaning, but the divine OUSIA (LOGOS) changes the meaning of the 

words, so"created" therefore becomes "begotten", and one begotten is eternal (hence eternally begotten). 

see "Four discourses against the Arians", Discourse II, from "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers", IV, 

pp 349,350 



Tim: What is more likely is that Jn 20:28 is a vocatival, addressed to Jesus. This passage is an exclamation 

actually addressed to Jesus. This is the view held by the greatests grammarians, lexogreaphers, 

commentators that have ever walk earth. 

Heinz: Are these men not Trinitarians? Of course they are. 

Tim: A good question to ask at this point is: what does KURIOS AND THEOS MEAN in this passage? 

The first must mean more than "sir" or "master," as the conjuction with THEOS conclusively indicates. 

Thomas was addressing JEsus as one who shared YAHWEH's authority and functions and exercised 

YAHWEH's rights. It was a case of KATHWS ....HO PATNP, K'AGW (cf. Jn 20:21). Jesus deserved 

human worship as the one in whom was vested the ultimate authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:23; cf. Mk 

2:5-10), the one who dispensed the HS to his followers (Jn 20:22) and commissioned them to divine service 

(Jn 20:21), the one 

who by virtue of his resurrection possessed "the keys that unlocked death and HADES" (Rev 1:8 Moffat), 

and the one who was to climax his resurrection by assention to the Father (Jn 20:17). For Thomas, in this 

text, KURIOS was an exalted and confessional title of address far different that that of MAry in the garden. 

The difference was RESURRECTION. It was nothing less than 

worship of Jesus by calling him Lord. 

Heinz: "In John 20:28 Ho kýrios mou kai ho theós mou [that is, My Lord and my God], it is to be noted 

that a substantive [like God] in the Nominative case used in a vocative sense [in address to Jesus] and 

followed by a possessive [of me] could not be anarthrous [that is, without the definite article the] . . . ; the 

article [the] before theós may, therefore, not be significant. . . . the use of the article [the] with a virtual 

Vocative (compare John 20:28 referred to above, and 1 Peter 2:18, Colossians 3:18ff.) may also be due to 

Semitic idiom."—Pages 116, 117, of An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, 

Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, 1953 edition, England. 

For instance, to show that a vocative in Greek usually has the definite article before it, we can see that in 

1 Peter 2:18; 3:1, 7 the literal word-for-word translation reads: "The house servants, be subject . . . In like 

manner, [the] wives, be . . . The husbands, continue dwelling." in Colossians 3:18 to 4:1: "The wives . . . 

The husbands, . . . The children . . . The fathers . . . The slaves . . . The masters." 





This is interesting, though I doubt it. 

Thomas was also familiar with certain expressions found in the OT by his forefathers. Not to belabor the 

point Tim, but on many occasions when individuals were visited or addressed by an angelic messenger of 

Jehovah, the individuals, or at times the Bible writer setting out the account, responded to or spoke of 

that angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah God. (Compare Ge 16:7-11, 13; 18:1-5, 22-33; 

32:24-30; Jg 6:11-15; 13:20-22.) This was because the angelic messenger was acting for Jehovah as his 

representative, speaking in his name, perhaps using the first person singular pronoun, and even saying, "I 

am the true God." (Ge 31:11-13; Jg 2:1-5) Thomas may therefore have spoken to Jesus as "my God" in 

this sense, acknowledging or confessing Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God. 

Whatever the case, it is certain that Thomas' words do not contradict the clear statement he himself had 

heard Jesus make, namely, "The Father is greater than I am."—Joh 14:28. 

All in all, here was an excellent opportunity for John to explain John 1:1 and say that Jesus Christ, who 

was the Word made flesh, was God himself, that he was "God the Son, the Second Person of the Blessed 



Trinity." But is that the conclusion that John reached? Is that the conclusion to which John brings his 

readers? Listen to the conclusion that John wants us to reach: 

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have 

not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, 

which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe." That we might believe 

what? "That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his 

name."—John 20:29-31, KJV. 

All of the above do NOT prove a Trinity. I asked Tim to prove a Trinity from the bible, all he has done is 

blow his horn about the Deity of Christ, something, which I hold myself, though I might have a different 

outlook on the Deity myself. There was very little mention of the spirit, but that is not unusual, since the 

holy spirit doesn't really fit as a 3rd person of the Godhead. 

Parts of the above were snipped for brevity (and some for being too repetitive), and I apologize for that, 

but the main ideas and theme of Tim's thoughts were present. But then again, none of the above had 

nothing whatsoever to do with a Triune Godhead. 

On to Page 3 

Email Me 




Trinity Conversations Part 3 

Tim: As a matter of fact, there are no scholarly publications that mention either of 

these two [Greg Stafford/Rolf Furuli] individuals! When Stafford wrote his first edition, he sent it to nearly 

every scholar he could think of and the response was total silence. The only place where Stafford has been 

addressed (and refuted) is on the internet. There are some cult groups that have addressed him and will 

continue to do so, but I know from first hand experience that he is ignored by scholars of any rank (scholars 

with a capital "S"). Dan Wallace, for example, has left addressing him (on certain issues relating to NT) to 

his students (like Don Hartley). Wallace and others knew all along that if eminent scholars did address him, 

he would bequeath to himself a scholarly status, which he doesn't deserve and he has not earned. The tide, 

therefore, has only turned in the minds of JWs who tend to view reality a bit differently than the rest of us. 

Heinz: Really Tim! Do you stand by that? The first I read anything of Greg's was in the book The 

Forgotten Trinity by James White. I guess James White is not a "scholar of any rank" which is 

heartwarming to me. I know that Rob Bowman Jr is also writing alot concerning Greg Stafford, and I can 

give you his email address as proof if you want it. And since Hartley is only a protege of a scholar, I 

guess we can discount any further comments from him. And then there is Ed Komoszewski, Christianity 

Today magazine, and the folks at http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/nt_gram.htm . And if you are holding 

everyone by your standard above, then Walter Martin and Ron Rhodes (which you like so much) are not 

"scholars of any rank" or ....the WT is. Fact is, Greg Stafford only sent it to about 4 or 5 people, and one 

of them, Countess, praised it in many respects. I have already sent you Greg's email address so I will let 

it go at that. 

Tim: About man and wife. Ephesians states they are one flesh (Eph. 5). You state, "In fact together you are 

plural." Exactly! Now ask yourself Heinz how they (two persons) can be one (of substance) of anything? 

Added to this is that the allusion goes back to Genesis where out of one man came Eve, thus they were 

indeed one flesh (this pertains to nature, thus one in nature), which is reunited in marriage. The married 

couple are one flesh in a like fashion that the Father and the Son are one God. They are one in nature, two 

in persons. This text, therefore, supports the notion that plurality of persons does not militate against unity 

of substance, whatever that substance might be. It also gives insight into the issue of man made in the image 

of God. Here, they 

(Adam/Eve, man/wife) are one flesh, with the Father and Jesus, they are one God. And if two can be one, 

why not three one? I'd like to hear the Abbot and Costello routine, that you so flippantly refer to on such 

occasions, applied to the marriage union! Now this would be funny (Who's on first . . .?)! 

Heinz: But a husband and wife are not part of a triune anything. They are not one in substance, as a 

husband and wife can divorce and therefore split and no longer remain as one. To further prove my point 

that there is no sharing of essence/substance between a husband and wife, nor a consubstantiality. Jesus 

prayed that his followers "may be one just as we are one" Jn 17:11 NEB. Is there a sharing of substance 

between all of Christ's followers. No! They are one in purpose. There is a close unity between husband 

and wife, and a sharing of purpose, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; 

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 

hierarchy instead of an equality. 

Since 1 Corinthians also calls Jesus the "Last Adam" (15:45), then my Abbot and Costello routine stands. 

Tim: On the blasphemy of Jesus. You should check out the book by D. L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation 

in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus: A Philological-Historical Study of Key Jewish Themes 

Impacting Mark 14:61–64, ed. Conrad H. Gempf, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen 



Testament, ed. Martin Hengel and Otfried Hofius, vol. 106 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1998). 

I'm sure you have not read this work and it is an important study on this issue. The book is divided into four 

sections. The first is a summary of research on the issue in Mark (pp. 5-29). The second is an examination 

of Jewish texts (pp. 30-112). He goes through various sources including the Hebrew Scriptures, Qumran 

texts, the LXX, the Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, the Mishnah and Tosefta, the Targums, the 

Midrashim, the Palestinian Talmud, the Babylonian Talmud and Aboth de Rabbi Natham. The 

third section is on exalted figures in Judaism (pp. 113-183). This includes both human (Adam, Abel, Enoch, 

Abraham, Jacob, Levi, Moses, David, Isaiah, Elijah, Exra and Baruch, Son of Man/Chosen One, Messiah, 

Martyrs/Prominent/Righteous) and exalted angelic figures (Gabriel, Michael, Prince of 

Light/Melchizedek/Heavenly Man, has an excursus on the Seating of 

Angels in Heaven, Yahoel [Iaoel], Eremiel, Michael, Surafel [Uriel, Raphael], Gabriel, Asuryal, Metatron, 

Angels). The final section is devoted to focusing on the blasphemy and Jewish examination of Jesus in 

Mark (pp. 184-237). It is a fine book and a good illustration of how research into these areas should be 

performed. I highly recommend you getting a copy of it either at the library or ordering it through 

Amazon.com. 

Heinz: Well thank you Tim, I am always looking for recommendations, but since we are supposed to be 

discussing the Trinity, might I recommend When Jesus Became God by Frend 

Mankinds Search For God, Should You Believe in a Trinity, 

Harpur's_For Christ Sake, The Doctrine of the Trinity-Christianty's Self Inflicted Wound by Anthony 

Buzzard, 

Jaroslav Pelikan's _Christian Tradition_ (Vol. I), Robert Grant's _Gods and the One God_, Karen 

Armstrong's _A History of God_, Robert Wilken's _The Myth of Christian Beginnings_, Frances 

Armstrong's _From Nicea to Chalcedon_, F.H.C. Frend's _The Rise of Christianity, the Two Babylons by 

A. Hislop, When Jesus Became God by Rubenstein, and of course, the Holy Bible. 

Since you brought up the Dead Sea Scrolls. here are some quotes from G. Vermes The Dead Sea Scrolls 

in English that gives us enlightenment as to how the Jews viewed angels/Gods. 

"Praise him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the firmament of 

the highest heavens, all...and its wall, all its structure, its shape. The 

spirits of the holy of holies, the living 'gods', the spirits of eternal 

holiness above all the holy ones...The divine spirits surround the dwelling 

of the King of truth and righteousness; all its walls" (Vermes 226 [4Q403 I 

i, 30-46]). 

"The figures of the 'gods' shall praise him, the most holy spirits...of 

glory; the floor of the marvelous innermost chambers, the spirits of the 

eternal gods, all...figures of the innermost chambers of the King, the 

spiritual works of the marvelous firmament are purified with salt, spirits 

of knowledge, truth and righteousness in holy of holies, forms of the 

living 'gods,' forms of the illuminating spirits. All their works of art 

are marvelously linked, many-coloured spirits, artistic figures of the 

'gods,' engraved all around their glorious bricks of splendour and majesty. 

All their works of art are living 'gods,' and their artistic figures are 

holy angels. From beneath the marvelous inner most chambers comes a sound 

of quiet silence: the 'gods' bless..."(Vermes 228 [4Q405 19ABCD]). 

The author here describes the Most Holy chamber of the Temple. In this 



chamber was were the Ark of the Covenant was kept. This is where Jehovah 

dwelled (symbolically). Everything in the Most Holy was made of the finest 

gold. The Bible tells us that the Temple was ornamented with pictures of 

angels (1 Kings 6:27-32). Therefore, this description of the "gods" 

ministering to the Almighty fits perfectly with the Bible. The curtain 

that separated the Holy from the Most Holy even has pictures of angels 

("gods") woven into it (2 Chron. 3:14). 

"The 'gods' praise him when they take up their station, and all the spirits 

of the clear firmament rejoice in his glory...when the gods of knowledge 

enter by the doors of glory, and when the holy angels depart the realm, the 

entrance doors and the gates of exit proclaim the glory of the King...the 

fear of the King of 'gods' is awe-inspiring to all the 'gods,' and they 

undertake all his commissions by virtue of his true order" (Vermes 229 

[4Q405 23i]). 

The War Rule we read that "the host of warring 'gods' gird themselves for 

the Day of Revenge" (1QMXV, Vermes 121). We also find in the fragment 

titled by Vermes as The Song of Michael and the Just (4Q491 fr. II, Ma) an 

incomplete sentence that says that there is "a throne of strength in the 

congregation of 'gods' so that not a single king of old shall sit on it, 

neither shall their noble men...(Vermes 126). The one called Michael is 

also held as saying "I am reckoned with the 'gods' and my dwelling place is 

in the congregation of holiness" and "for I am reckoned with the 'gods,' 

and my glory is with the sons of the King" (Vermes 126). 

In the Pseudepigrapha, exalted beings like Metatron are given the name of Jehovah, as are many other 

angelic princes. (See 3 Enoch 10:3-6; 48C:1; 48C:7; 48C:10; 48D:6-9.) The point not to be missed, 

though, is that they are given SOMEONE ELSE'S name. It is not their own name they are given (!), but 

that of their God, which could mean it is now part of a new name they have been given (such as when 

Metatron took on the name YAHOEL), or that they are now endowed with the authority and power that 

comes with one who speaks for and represents the Most High God. 

The Jewish idea of monotheism does not seem to conflict with calling others with the title "god". 

Tim: Matthew 9:34. You insinuate in your comments that Jesus did not correct 

this conclusion of the Pharisees, namely, that Jesus cast out demons by the 

prince of demons. First of all, here the comment is not in the presence of 

Jesus nor addressed to Jesus. 

Heinz: Are you sure Tim...perhaps you should read it again. 

Tim: Second, Jesus does indeed deny this assessment 

later in 10:25 and so it does not go uncontested. Later in 12:24 the 

Pharisees infer the same idea and when Jesus "knew their thoughts" he opposes 

it directly (12:25). He ends up condemning them by laying to their charge the 

unpardonable sin (12:31-32). Jesus hardly remains silent about their error. 



Heinz: And does all of this prove the Trinity Tim? The fact is, the Jews were not always accurate in their 

portrayal of him, as it shows in Matt 12:24, John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20. Jesus never actually says "No" in 

these circumstances, he uses common sense arguments to drive home a point. When the Jews accuse him 

of making himself "a god" (NEB), he uses a scriptural arguments. Like Ryrie says of John 10:34, 

"Christ's point is that if the O.T. uses the word "God" (Elohim) of men who were representative of God, 

then the Jews should not oppose Him for calling Himself the Son of God." If Jesus were really "Equal to 

God" as the Jews have wrongly claimed by making God his Father, then here would have been a great 

opportunity to explain the Trinity to an unbeleiving nation. But what does he do? He answers, "The Son 

can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing. No explanation whatsoever of a Triune 

Deity. Amazing! 

Tim: Your caricatures on the Trinity. You constantly refers to the Trinity in 

false terms like "three-forked god," or "three way deity." I challenge you to 

produce any documentation from recognized Trinitarians that use this type of 

terminology. The problem is that you do not understand the doctrine and if 

you do then you should represent it correctly if not fairly. Your tactic in 

this area smacks of straw man argumentation and suggests you do not have 

real objections against the actual doctrine as it is plainly enunciated by 

Trinitarians. 

Heinz: The terms I use above are verbal representations of medieval art. If you think that I don't 

understand the Trinity, then I am pretty much in line with most trinitarian Xtians. "It is so misunderstood 

that a majority of christians, when asked, give incorrect and at times downright heretical definitions of 

the Trinity." Page 16, The Forgotten Trinity by James White 

Tim: The use of O KURIOS in direct address. Your evasion in Revelation 4:11, 

where this is patently so and admitted as such by himself, is very damning to 

his case. That you appeals to issue that Revelation has unusual grammar is 

beside the point here, for this is not unusual grammar at all and is not 

cited as such in manuals that deal with the unique style of that book. Now go 

back to Hebrews 1:8 and address the issue of the Father calling the 

Son O THEOS (not KURIOS)! Compare this same construction in Hebrews 10:7 

where the Son (pre-incarnation) calls the Father O THEOS as well. "To do your 

will O God" (10:7) with "Your throne, O God" (1:8). Both nominatives are used 

for the vocative, both are used as an afterthought to a main idea (throne, 

will), both call the referent O THEOS. The only objection is that the speaker 

of the first is God the Father who speaks to God the Son, while the second is 

God the Son speaking to God the Father. You will deny one of these for 

obvious reasons. Blessed consistency. 

Heinz: You are the master of the overstatement Tim. Let us take a look at "lord" shall we. You 

mentioned earlier that Ps 110:1 is key to your understanding of the Trinity. "Psalm 11:1 provides a major 

key to understanding who Jesus is. The Hebrew Bible carefully distinguishes the divine title adonai, the 

supreme Lord, from adoni, the form of address appropriate to human and angelic superiors. Adoni, "my 

lord", "my master", and adonai, the Supreme God. No less than 195 times in the Hebrew canon adoni 

marks the person addressed as the recipient of honor but never as the Supreme God. This important fact 



tells us that the Hebrew Scriptures expected the Messiah not to be God, but the human descendant of 

David, whom David properly recognized would also be his Lord." The Doctrine of the 

Trinity-Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound by Anthony Buzzard/C.F. Hunting p.47 

Now, the Hebrew and the Greek has been very careful to differentiate between Adonai/Adoni and 

Kyrios/Kyrie. That Revelation 4:11 seems to put the Lord God on the same level as his creatures is not 

complimentary to him or your theology. Revelation utilizes unusual grammar, and I could point to John 

Hurtgen's 1991 PhD dissertation, entitled something like 

"Anti-language in the Book of Revelation" for a discussion of why the grammar is bad. 

David Aune's assessed that when compared to other instances of Biblical and (secular) Hellenistic 

literary Greek that of of Rev is "peculiar". This is not something new. One early Christian writer, 

Dionysius of Alexandria (d. ca. 264) who was a pupil of Origin and became head of the Alexandrian 

Catechetical School and later bishop of Alexandria. He is cited at length 

by Eusebius (HE 7.25.24-27). I will just repeat the pertinent ending of a lengthy citation from the 

translation by J. E. L. Oulton in the Loeb Classical Library: 

"And further, by means of the style one can estimate the difference between the Gospel and Epistle and 

the Apocalypse. For the former are not only written in faultless Greek [APTAISTWS KATA THN TWN 

hELLHNWN FWNHN] , but also show the greatest literary skill in their diction, their reasonings, and 

the constructions in which they are expressed. There is a complete 

absence of any barbarous word, or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For their author had, as it seems, 

both kinds of word, by the free gift of the Lord, the word of knowledge and the word of speech. But I 

will not deny that the other writer had seen revelations and received knowledge and prophecy; 

nevertheless I observe his style and that his use of the Greek language is not accurate [DIALEKTWN 

MENTOI KAI GLWSSAN OUK AKRIBWS hELLHNIZOUSAN AUTOU BLEPW], but that he 

employs barbarous idioms, in some places commiting downright solecisms [ALL IDIWMASIN TE 

BARBARIKOIS CRWMENON KAI POU KAI SOLOIKIZONTA]. These there is no necessity to single 

out now. For I have not said these things in mockery (let no one think it), but merely to establish the 

dissimilarity of these writings." 

Tim: About Thomas. You answer an issue that is, again, beside the point. 

What Thomas doubted (that Jesus was raised) is only indirectly not directly 

related to what he affirmed to Jesus (and about Jesus) in John 20:28 (that he 

was YHWH). In other words, it was because he was raised from the dead (by his 

own power according to John 10:17-18), that Thomas reaches the conclusion 

about his identity. The statement was about the identity of who was raised, 

not about dispelling the doubt about the resurrection in an address to God 

the Father. You wishe this to be connected to the latter in a fashion that 

is hardly verifiable. Heinz, attempt to prove this and see what happens. 

Heinz: Ok. The whole issue of the context is that Thomas doubted whether Jesus was actually 

ressurected, not that he was God the Son, the second person of a consubstantial Trinity. The chapter 

starts off "Now on the first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto 

the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb." So the setting is by the tomb of Jesus. Let's 

look at vss.8,9 where Peter enters the tomb, " Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, who came 

first to the tomb, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise from 

the dead." 

So they believed WHAT? Not that he was God Almighty, but that he had risen. In vs.17 he says, "I am 



not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and 

your Father, and my God and your God." So here he is calling the Father his God...and his followers 

"brothers". Let us continue: vss, 20,21 "When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first [day] of the 

week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood 

in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you. And when he had said this, he showed unto them 

his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. Jesus therefore said to 

them again, Peace [be] unto you: as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you." Adam Clarke's 

Commentary says "So it appears that his body bore the marks of the nails and the spear; and these marks 

were preserved that the disciples might be the more fully convinced of the reality of his resurrection." 

Now lets move to Thomas: But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when 

Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, 

Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. 

(v.25) Of this Barclay says, belligerent in his pessimism, he said that he would never believe that Jesus 

had risen from the dead until he had seen and handled the print of the nails in his hands and thrust his 

hand into the wound the spear had made in Jesus' side. 

None of the context leads us to beleive that Jesus was setting up a Chalcedonian understanding of 

himself. The focus of the entire chapter is on his resurrection, not his being Jehovah. "It has long been 

held and taught that in the Southern Presbyterian Church that Christ is Jehovah; that is, the He who was 

worshipped as Jehovah by the OT saints did, without ceasing to be God, become man "for us men and 

our salvation"...But the Scottish professor of systematic theology in Union Seminary, New York, has 

recently challenged this statement, writing in The Presbyterian of the South as follows: The orthodox 

view is surely not that 'Christ is Jehovah'-such a phrase is new to me." William Childs Robinson, "Jesus 

Christ is Jehovah," Evangelical Quarterly 5:2 (1933): 144. 

Tim: About oneness. You quote John 17:22 but misunderstand the meaning. It 

says, "That they (elect/disciples) may be one, even as we are one." The 

stress is on the outworking of the plan of God among his people in unison 

just as it is worked out by God the Father and God the Son. It is the effect 

of their unity that is stressed not the fact of their unity--the latter is 

assumed. The full equal deity of both God and the Son is assumed behind an 

outward unity just as the full humanity and/or like nature of humans (who are 

elect) is assumed in the latter. To be consistent, you would have to contend 

that some humans are by nature higher or lower in nature (and therefore not 

human at all) if you are going to suppose that for the former (one is YHWH, the 

other is a god). Context is the key. You will no doubt appeal to John 10:30 

but 10:33 gives the interpretation of that sense as pertaining to his full 

identification as YHWH with the Father. You will go to this passage (as 

Stafford does) and assert that the Jews were wrong in their assessment and 

argue instead for Jesus claiming to be part of the divine council of gods 

(Psa. 89 et al)--but this argument doesn't follow. 

Heinz: I think you are putting too much stress on "One", and of course, your view of nature. "I will no 

doubt appeal" to other prominent trinitarians of the past that do not share your view on this matter. 

Speaking of John 10:30, Erasmus says, 

"I do not see how thias text is of any value in confirming the opinion of the orthodox, or in restraining 

the pertinacity of the heretic." 

Even John Calvin noted, "the ancients improperly used this passage to prove that Christ is of the same 

substance as the Father. For [Jesus] does not argue concerning unity of substance, but speaks of HIS 



AGREEMENT WITH THE FATHER; so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the 

Father's power." 

C.F. Ammon, another trinitarian asserts of this passage, "if the doctrine of the Trinity, and the unity of 

essence, be immediately inferred, this is a faulty application of the dogmatic system, because THE 

CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE IS NEGLECTED. " 

The Jews to this day not believe in a Trinity, so they are consistent in their assessment of Biblical 

monotheism, and they, like Trinitarians DO NOT believe that Jesus and his Father are really ONE IN 

NATURE/SUBSTANCE. 

Tim: Herod a god? In Acts 12:22 it does not refer to Herod as a god (even if 

it did it would not prove anything, or perhaps prove too much). It states 

that the people (Jews?) shouted "The voice of a god, and not of man!" 

Whatever this means, it does not support the contention that a man could be 

called YHWH or even a god without consequences. Notice that Herod was struck 

by an angel of the Lord, died and was eaten by worms (12:23)! If they were 

affirming his deity (doubtful), then the question arises as to why this 

judgment is reserved only for Herod and not for Jesus? Further, this comment 

was based on the manner of how Herod spoke not based on an inference to his 

claims (as with Jesus). Thus it was not borne out of discursive thought, but 

emotion. Nevertheless, he was struck down and Jesus was not (by God). But are 

not those who come to conclusions based on thought more responsible than 

those who do so out of emotion? It would follow that Jesus, rather than 

Herod, should have been struck down by an angel in that scenario. But he was 

not. Something to consider. 

Heinz: Something else to consider....since Kings in the past were referred to as God (Ps 45:6), as were 

other representatives of Jehovah (Ex 7:1; Ps 82; compare also Genesis 18, Genesis 16:13,Judges 6:12,13, 

and Judges 13), I think it is fair to conclude that Herod was no friend or representative of Jehovah. Also, 

since the appearance of the messiah Jesus, there is no need or reason to have any other such claim made 

of humans or angels. That is why Paul did what Herod should have done(Acts 14:11), and distance 

himself from any such honor. 

But you are moving away from my argument here. You claim that the Jews has special knowledge of 

the unique Deity of Jesus (which in your case would make 1/3 of a consubstantial Trinity). Since they 

have also called others "god" and they have wrongfully assumed Jesus to be demonic etc at Matt 12:24, 

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 

J.A.T. Robinson in his Twelve More New Testament Studies says, "Jesus refuses the claim to be God 

(John 10:33) or in any way to usurp the position of the Father...Jesus is prepared to ignore the charge that 

by calling God his own Father he is claiming equality with God (John 5:18) and accepts that of being the 

Son of God (10:36), while vigorously denying the blasphemy of being God or his substitute." p. 175,176 

As to John 5:18, the Interpreter's Bible says, "To this charge Jesus makes a formal reply. His words had 

been misinterpreted..."p.545 

As to John 10:33 this same work says, "Jesus met their attack by a two-fold argument. First, he parried 

their thrust with a weapon that they were bound to respect, for it was quite sound reasoning on principles 

of rabbinical exegesis. He quoted Ps. 82:6, where God says to the judges of Israel, 'I said ye are gods, 

sons of the Most High-all of you.' If an inspired scripture allowed that title to mere men to whom God 

entrusted a message, how much more so can he, whom the Father consecrated and sent into the 

world, claim to say I am the Son of God (vs.36), without incurring the reproach of blasphemy? But the 

second line of defense was a repetition of the contention that his works were of a character to reveal the 



presence of God with him (c.f. 5:20, 23, 36). Jesus is the revealer of God. In all that he says and does 

God is speaking through him." p.634 Emphasis theirs 

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 

same yet distinct, a point you miss (they are not the same "1", there are three of them!). They are in the 

same class (left of the = ) but the answer is a distinct class (right of the = ). You have two separate classes 

on each side of the equation. It is the same with YHWH. But I think this issue will continue to elude JWs 

not because they cannot understand this simple point, but because they refuse to admit of its simplicity. It 

disrupts their view that the Trinity is incomprehensible. So they have to make elemental mathematics 

incomprehensible. 

Heinz: Well let us take a look at the following diagram: 

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 

vice versa. I cannot think of anything in mathematics that parallels this unique God of yours. But I will 

let another trinitarian try: 

"We are to consider the order of those persons in the Trinity described in the words before us in Matthew 

28:19. First the Father and then the Son and then the Holy Ghost; everyone one of which is truly God. 

This is a mystery which we are all bound to believe, but yet must exercise great care in how we speak of 

it, it being 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 imagine one numerically divine nature in more than one and the same divine person. Or 

three divine persons 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 Father, Son and Holy Ghost be three, and everyone a distinct God, it is false. I 

may say, God the Father is 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 and the Son is another God and the Holy Ghost is a third God. I may say 

that the Father begat another who is God; yet I cannot say that He begat another God. I may say that from 

the Father and Son proceeds another who is God; yet I cannot say that from the Father and Son proceeds 

another God. For though their nature be the same their persons are distinct; and though their persons be 

distinct, yet still their nature is the same. So that, though the Father be the first person in the Godhead, 

the Son the second and the Holy Ghost the third, 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 great a mystery aright; or to fit so high a truth with 

expressions suitable and proper to it, without going one way or another from it." Bishop Beverage, 

Private Thoughts, Part 2, 48, 49, cited by Charles Morgridge, The True Believers Defence Against 

Charges Preferred by Trinitarians for Not Beleiving in the Deity of Christ (Boston: B. Greene, 1837), 16. 

Nuff said. 

Tim: On Hebrews 1. Your understanding of hermeneutics is flawed, as well as your 

understanding of "mediators" and the context of Hebrews 1. On Hebrews 1:8, from a grammatical 

perspective, there is no doubt that Jesus is called O THEOS by the Father. It is a nominative used as a 

vocative and you know it. I have seen some interesting (but flawed) understandings of this verse and some 

ingenuous (but invalid) means of arriving at a view that denies the attribution of deity (YHWH) by the 

Father to the Son here in the past. Even when JWs admit that "OK it is a nominative used as a vocative, it 

still doesn't mean YHWH . . . " is just a good example of their circularity. When O THEOS refers to the 

Father it is YHWH, when it refers (and some JW admit it does) to the Son, it does not entail the same 

meaning, even when YHWH the Father says it! How convenient. I wonder if you would argue that God the 

Father should be struck down by an angel for calling Jesus O THEOS? Was he wrong (like the Jews)? 

Heinz: Since this was earlier used of a human king, then maybe your understanding of hermeneutics is at 

fault here. 

"Vincent Taylor admits that in v.8 the expression "O God" is vocative spoken of Jesus, but he says that 

the author of Hebrews was merely citing the Psalm and using terminology without any deliberate 

intention of suggesting that Jesus is God. It is true that the main point of citing the Psalm was to contrast 

the Son with angels and to show that the Son enjoys enjoys eternal domination, while the angels were but 

servants. Therefore in the citation no major was being made of the fact the the Son can be addressed as 

God. Yet we cannot presume that the author did not noticethat his citation had this effect. We can say at 

least, that the author saw nothing wrong in this address, and we can call upon a similar situation in Heb. 

1:10, where the application to the Son of Psalm 102:25-27 has the effect of addressing Jesus as Lord. Of 

course, we have no way of knowing what the "O God" of the Psalm meant to the author of Hebrews 

when he applies it to Jesus. Psalm 45 is a royal Psalm; and the analogy of the "Mighty God" of Isaiah 

9:6, "GOD" MAY HAVE BEEN LOOKED ON SIMPLY AS A ROYAL TITLE AND HENCE 

APPLICABLE TO JESUS AS THE DAVIDIC MESSIAH." Jesus, God and Man (New York: 

Macmillan, 1967), 25, 25 

"For the author(of Hebrews), the Son was the first-born, the apostle of God, the reflection of God's glory, 

and the stamp of his nature (1:3, 6), but he was not God himself." The Anchor Bible with Commentary 

by G. W. Buchanan. 

Harris and I both accept that QEOS is used of Christ in the NT. We just disagree on which ones. 



According to the Friberg Concordance the word QEOS occurs 1317 times. In Harris' conclusion on a 

chart on page 272 he give only four scriptures that he is "certain" apply QEOS to Jesus. He considers 

three to be "Very Probable," and one to be "Probable." I might add, that Harris expresses other "possible" 

views. It seems to me that the Father EXHAUSTS the title of QEOS. 

Trinitarian Karl Rahner's view of the NT use of the word "God" bears a mention here, "In no N.T. text is 

theos [God] used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with Him who elsewhere in the N.T. figures as ho 

theos, that is the Supreme God"..."Nowhere in the N.T. is there to be found a text with ho theos [God] 

which has unquestionably to be referred to the Trinitarian God as a whole existing in three Persons" 

Theological Investigations, 1:155, 1:143. 

Tim: I hope this keep you awake at night. 

I plan to give you much more evidence from the Bible in the next two days on why I believe in the Trinity. 

Heinz: I slept like a baby...thanks;) 

Conversations Part IV 

Email Me 




Conversations on the Trinity-Part 4 

Tim: Consider the appearances of YHWH in the OT to his saints. And consider them in context with Ex 

33:20, "Thou canst see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.," and with the parallel declaration 

in the NT, "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he 

has declared him," indicate the he, who thus manifested himself, was the Lord Jesus. 

Now Jacob says, "I have seen YHWH face to face, and my life is preserved" (Gen 32:30), and after his 

wrestling all night long in tangible conflict with the One now called a man, now the angel, now God, now 

the Lord of Hosts (Hosea 7:3,4). The elders saw the God of Israel. To Moses, for example, the Lord spoke 

face to face, as a man speaks with his friend (Ex. 33:11). Joshua conversed with the adorable captain of 

Jehovah's hosts (Josh 5:15). Manoah feared, saying, "We shall surely die, because we have seen God" (Jud. 

13:22). Isaiah cried, "Woe is me! for I am ruined;...for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 

6:5). Of the message then recorded, we are expressly told - "These things said Isaiah, when he saw his 

(Christ's) glory, and spoke of Him (Jn 12:41). These are only a few on many passages in which the who 

appears under the form of an angel or a man, is, in the immediate context, declared to be God (YHWH). 

The big question is Heinz, who was this being? Who is this Angel, or Sent One - the one whom the Lord 

calls "MY PRESENCE"? (Ex. 33:14; Num. 12:8). It is also said of this being - "Beware of Him, and obey 

his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my Name is in him" (Ex. 

23:20-21). This one could not be distinctively the Father, for no man hath seen him at any time, or can see 

him and live. But he who appeared is declared to be YHWH . Are we not compelled to acknowledge that he 

was the Divine Word, the Son, the brightness of His Father's glory, the express image of His person? (Heb 

1:3ff). And let's talk briefly about Heb1: I think that this passage gives Christ the Divine Name - the 

Tetragrammaton, the name which names the unique identity of the One God, the name which is exclusive to 

the One God in a way that the sometimes ambiguous word 'god' is not. Heb. 1:4 states that Jesus, exalted to 

the right hand of God, became "became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more 

excellent then theirs." This can only refer to the divine name, as must "the name that is above every name," 

from Phip. 2. Connected with this naming of the exalted Christ by the divine name is the early Christian use 

of the phrase "to call on the name of the Lord", as a reference to Christian confession in baptism. The OT 

phrase [Ps 82:18; Isa. 12:4; Joel 2:32; Zeph. 3:9; Zech. 13:9] means to invoke God by His Name YHWH 

[CF. Gen. 4:26; 1 Kings 18:24-39], but the early Christian use of it applies to Jesus. It means invoking Jesus 

as the divine Lord who exercises the divine sovereignty and bears the divine name. Another reason that 

Heb. 1:8 should be rendered "Thy Throne , o God [HO THEOS IS AGAIN APPLIED TO JESUS] is 

forever... 

Heinz: The Dictionary of Deities and Demons [Van Der Toorn] says of the ANGEL OF YAHWEH, 

"The word ANGEL in this phrase is literally 'messenger'. The juxtaposition of the common noun 

'messenger' with a following divine name in a genitive construction signifying a relationship of 

subordination is attested elsewhere in the ancient Near East." That is probably not what you want to hear, 

is it? 

Others have also mentioned that the angel of/as Jehovah might be Jesus. Let's take a look at this. In 

Genesis 18 we have more than one, "And Jehovah appeared unto him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat in 

the tent door in the heat of the day; and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over 

against him." Later we have these 3 angels splitting up, 19:1 "And the two angels came to Sodom". It is 

not realistic to imagine Jesus as 2 or 3 people. After referencing Genesis 18 and 19, Justin explains to 

Trypho: "There is . . . another God and Lord SUBJECT TO THE MAKER OF ALL THINGS; who is 

also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things---above whom 

there is no other God---wishes to announce to 

them."?Chap. LVI.?God Who Appeared to Moses Is Distinguished from God the Father. 

The angel that appeared to Moses was still referred to as an angel in the NT, even though HERE would 

have been a great opportunity to explain otherwise, "And when forty years were fulfilled, an angel 

appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. And when Moses saw it, 



he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold, there came a voice of the Lord, I am the God of 

thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. Acts 7:30-32 

There were other appearances of the angel of the Lord in the book of Acts (see Acts 5:19; 8:26; 10:3; 

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 

creature Christ is "the image of the invisible God" and "the exact representation of his very being", yet a 

partial revealment of his glory was so intensely brilliant that it blinded Saul of Tarsus, and sight returned 

only after a miracle of God. (Acts 9:1-18) 

Interestingly, the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible says this of Moses, "In the 

OT as well as the NT Moses is above all the mediator or revelation. Several times his most 

intimate relation with the LORD is emphasized (e.g., Exod 19:9.19; 20:18-21; 24:18; 








So there were similarities in the representational aspects of both Moses and Jesus, without either having 

to share nature or essence or Godhood in a consubstantial manner. And I also submit that the angel of 

Jehovah could have been Jesus at times, but this does not help your view since and angel is a lesser being 

than Jehovah himself. 

But did the name Jehovah become supplanted by Jesus? 

The NT writers had use of the LXX (Septuagint). Did the early LXX use the divine name? 









abbreviations were introduced for divine names. See Etudes de Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme 1971 pp. 

221,222 

Why did they remove the Name? "The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New 

Testament and its replacement with the surrogates KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the 

original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in many passages made 

it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced 

by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time 

went on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible 

to distinguish between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton 

contributed significantly to the later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued 

the church of the early Christian centuries." George Howard, The Name of God in the New 

Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 15 



The Trinity, the removal of the Divine Name, the conciliar decisions and the controversies surrounding it 

blurred the lines between Father and Son 



the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son." When Jesus Became God by 

Richard E. Rubenstein, p.74 

Is this Christian or Biblical though? 

A. Marmorstein in the book The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God deals extensively with the Hellenistic in 

the early Jews, and that is the major reason they stopped pronouncing it. 

The Bible never tells us to stop using it though. In fact, just the opposite. 

Ex. 3:15: "And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt 




generations." 

Ps 135:13 "Thy name, O Jehovah, [endureth] for ever; 

Thy memorial [name], O Jehovah, throughout all generations." 

Mal 3:6 "For I, Jehovah, change not" 

In fact, Jehovah jealously guarded his name."And ye shall 

not profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of 

Israel" Lev 22:32 

We know that Jesus made mention of this name at John 5:43, 10:25, 17:6, 11, 12 and Matt 6:9 

So what Name was it that Jesus had? "Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the 

name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow 

So let us take a look at Hebrews 1....again. Here I will be quoting from the Anchor Bible/Hebrews 1, 

which also has an interesting parallel of Jesus to Moses like I mentioned above: 

"Hebrews also considered Jesus a 'reflection of the glory' which means the same as being a 

'stamp of his nature.' The Greek word for 'stamp' comes from the verb charassein, "to mark, 

engrave, or stamp." The stamp, accordingly, refers to the characteristics and distinctive form 

(see II Macc 4:10). Isaac was claimed to have features like those of Abraham (Gen R. 21:2; 

53: 6). Thyis does not mean either that Isaac was actually identical to Abraham or that Jesus 

was identical to God. Both were reflections and had characteristics of their Fathers. Jesus 

was the son, heir, and apostle of God (3:1). As apostle or agent he was sent with the full 

authority of the one who sent him. A man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but 

legally. He has the power of attorney for the one who sent him. That which the 

apostle/agent does in behalf of and has the approval and support of the one who sent him. 

He has the authority of an ambassador who speaks in behalf of a king in negotiating for his 

country (Ber. 5:5)...Just as Christians thought of Jesus as an apostle of God, so Jews thought 

of Moses as the 'apostle between Israel and their heavenly Father' (Sifra behuqqotai, perek 

8:12; Lev 26:46). As the great apostle (magnus nuntius), Moses prayed "every hour, both 

day and night...to him who rules the world." (Assumption of Moses 11:17). Samaritans also 

thought of Moses as their apostle of God; they called him a good apostle, a righteous 

apostle, an apostle of God, and the apostle of the true One whom God especially chose for 

apostleship. As apostle he was also called "Son of the house of God," God's "man", 



"saviour," "prophet," "Faithful one," "crown of the righteous of the world," and "light of 

prophethood". As an apostle, Moses was entrusted with the mysteries and honored in the 

things revealed. To Moses was revealed that which preceded creation and also that which 

follows the day of vengeance....There are many biblical illustrations of apostolic authority: 

Jehu was ritually made king when Elisha sent one of the sons of the prophets to anoint him. 

It was not necessary for Elisha to anoint him himself for the anointing to be authoritative (II 

Kings 9:1-10). Paul sent a message to the Corinthians, giving them authority to deliver to 

Satan the man who had been living with his father's wife, becasue Paul was "with them in 

spirit", meaning that his legal authorization was there (1 Cor 5:1-5)." 

But does v.8 mean that he is the Almighty God himself? 

"This is not a necessary conclusion. As the pros in v.7 means "in reference to," and it seems 

most likely that pros in vs. 8 should be rendered in the same way, so it is in reference to the 

Son that the author quoted the scripture dealing with the eternity of God's throne, upon 

which the Son would sit. When Solomon, who was God's Son (II Samuel 7:14), ruled over 

the Lord's kingdom (1Chron 29:11), he sat on the Lord's throne (al kisse Yhwh) (1 Chron 

29:23; see also Enoch 51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:2-3, 5; 69:26-27, 29). That did not mean that 

Solomon was God. It means that Solomon ruled over God's kingdom when he ruled over 

Palestine, and he sat on God's throne when he ruled from Jerusalem. Therefore it is just as 

proper to speak of the eternity of God's throne with reference to the Son Jesus who was to sit 

on it as it was to speak of God's throne when Solomon the Son, sat on it. ....For the author(of 

Hebrews), the Son was the first-born, the apostle of God, the reflection of God's glory, and 

the stamp of his nature (1:3, 6), but he was not God himself." The Anchor Bible with 

Commentary by G. W. Buchanan. 

By quoting Ps. 97:7, Hebrews 1:6 relates to Jesus' position under God. (Phil.2:9-11) Paul shows that the 

resurrected Jesus has a God over him (1:9). He is not God but "the reflection of [God's] glory and the 

exact representation of his very being (1:3)." God is his father (1:5) God speaks to us through his son, a 

Son which was appointed to his position (1:2). Jesus sits at the "right hand of Majesty (1:3). He obtained 

a better name/authority (1:4). God had to subject the risen Christ's enemies below his feet (1:14). In 

Hebrews, as is common elsewhere in the Bible, Jesus is never placed on an equal footing with the 

Almighty, his God 

Jesus is not the Almighty. Jesus had a God over him before, during and after he came to earth (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 to God 

even at his highest. (1Cor.15:27,28, Eph. 1:17; 19-22). Mat.28:18,19 says that when Jesus returned to 

heaven he had to be "given" all authority (power-KJV). If Jesus were equal to God in power, why would 

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, 

Dan.7:13-14, Phil.2:9). Why isn't he powerful enough to subject things to himself? (1Cor.15:27, 

Eph.1:17,22) Why doesn't he have the authority to personally grant his followers or special positions? 

(Mat.20:23.) Matt. 24:36 shows that Jesus was not equal to God in knowledge (Cf. Lk.8: 45). Even after 

his ascension to heaven, why did he then not know what God knows--having to receive a revelation from 

God? (Rev.1:1). Why did Jesus have to LEARN anything? (Heb.5:8, Jn.5:19; 8:28) Jesus did not exist 

from eternity but is everywhere described in temporal terms denoting a beginning of life: son, begotten, 

born, produced, birth, child, image and copy etc. Why did he have to be GIVEN life in himself? 

(Jn.5:25,26) If Jesus existed from eternity, how could he be a "BEGOTTEN God"? (Jn. 1:18) The idea of 



"eternal generation" is foreign to scripture and it is a contradiction of terms, an oxymoron. Before 

Athanasius the word "begotten" meant just that: a birth of something not in existence before. The term 

"Eternal generation" was invented by Athanasius who could not accept the normal meaning of biblical 

words when they contradicted his theology. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers I:349) 

Jesus is at the right hand of God, and thereby does not share the same substance. How could he be at the 

"right hand of God," if he were in fact the very substance of God? (Luke.22:69, Acts 7:55, Romans.8:34) 

These are facts that contradict a Trinity. The only way is to resort to a Trinity is to claim that it is 

“mystery” beyond human understanding. And, evidently beyond God’s ability to explain in his word. 

Tim: I'm going to address 1 Cor. 8:6 soon with you - my understanding of it is going to be very challenging 

for you and will hopefully present you with insurmountable problems as you try and reconcile what this text 

says with your heretical view of Christ. 

Heinz: Uhmm..okay:) 

On to Part 5 


Email Me 

Heinz Schmitz 


More Conversations on the Trinity with a focus on 1 Corinthians 8:6 


Tim Wrote: Consider 1 Cor. 8:6. Paul's concern is this context is explicitly monotheistic. The issue of 

eating meat offered to idols and participation in temple banquets is an instance of the highly traditional 

Jewish monotheistic concern for loyalty to the only true God in a context of paga polytheistic worship. 

What Paul does is to maintain this Jewish monotheistic concern in a Christian interpretation for which 

loyalty to the only true God entails loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ. He takes up from the Corinthians' letter 

(at the end of verse 4) the typical Jewish monotheistic formula "there is no God except One" in order to 

agree with it and to give, in verse six, his own fuller monotheistic formulation, which contrasts the "many 

gods and many lords" of the Corinthians' pagan environment (verse 5) with the one God and one Lord to 

whom Christians owe exclusive allegiance. 

Verse 6 is a carefully formulated statement: 

a. but for us [there is] one God, the Father, 

b. from whom [are] all things and we for him, 

c. and one Lord, Jesus Christ, 

d. through whom [are] all things and we through him. 

The statement has been composed from two sources, both clearly recognizable. One is the SHEMA', the 

classic Jewish statement concerning the uniqueness of God, taken from the Torah itself, recited twice daily 

by all observant Jews. It is now commonly recognized that Paul has here adapted the SHEMA' and 

produced, as it were, a Christian version of it [see F.F. Bruce, 1&2 Corinthians - a must read scholar]. Not 

so widely recognized is the full significance of this. In the first and third lines of Paul's formula [labeled a 

and c above], Paul has in fact reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the SHEMA', but 

Paul has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce and affirmation of both one God, the Father, and 

one Lord, Jesus Christ. It 

should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is 

redefining monotheism as christological monotheism. If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the 

one God of whom the SHEMA' speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would 

certainly be producing not christological monotheism but outright ditheism. The addition of a unique Lord 

to the unique God of the SHEMA' would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter. the only possible 

way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique 

identity of the one God affirmed in the SHEMA'. But this is in any case clear from the fact that the term 

'Lord' , applied here to Jesus as the 'one Lord', is taken from the SHEMA' itself. Paul is not adding to the 

one God of the SHEMA' a 'Lord' the SHEMA' does not mention. He is identifying Jesus as the 'Lord' 

whom the SHEMA' affirms to be one. Thus, in Paul's quite unprecedented reformulation of the SHEMA', 

the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah. 

Contrary to what many exegetes who have not sufficiently understood the way in which the unique identity 

of God was understood in Second Temple Judaism seem to suppose, by including Jesus in this unique 

identity Paul is clearly not repudiating Jewish monotheism, whereas were he merely associating Jesus with 

the unique God, he certainly would be repudiating monotheism.....I hope this letter finds you thinking 

clearly. 

Heinz: I have Gerald O'Collins Christology and he also explains your *splitting* of the shema in the 

same way, but even he calls this a "redefining of Jewish monotheism." p.138 

But O'Collins also reminds of the semantic range of the term "Lord". 

"Let us review the range of usage for this term in the entire NT. (1) Kyrios could be simply 

a respectful way of addressing other people (e.g. Matt. 21:30;25:11;27:63; John 4:11;12:21; 

Acts 16:30) (2) It could be a way of addressing a ‘teacher' or ‘rabbi' (Matt. 8:25; see Matt. 

17:15; Mark 4:38;9:17). (3) The designation can suggest authority, in the sense of one with 

power to perform mighty works (e.g. Matt 8:25). (4)Kyrios may denote the owner of 

property (Mark 12:9; Luke 19:33) or the master of slaves (Luke 12:42-7; Eph. 6:5; Col. 4:1) 



In some parables ‘the mater' or Kyrios is a metaphor for Jesus (e.g. Matt 25:18-24, 26). (5) 

Because of their power, political rulers (Matt. 27:63) could lay claim to a certain divinity 

and as ‘lords' even demand worship (see Acts 25:16). (6) ‘Lords' might also refer to 

so-called gods who were supposed to have rights over human beings (1 Cor. 8:5). (7) 

Finally, The NT speaks not only of God (e.g. Matt. 5:32; 11:25; Mark 12:29-30; Acts 

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 

raises him above the merely human level (e.g. Mark 12:36-7;Luke 19:31; John 13:13-14; 

Phil. 2:11; Rev. 22:20-1)." p.139 

But does "Lord" have to have a religious sense when applied to Jesus? The following is an example from 

John 4:11: Here the Samaritan woman has just met Jesus, he has not yet told her that he is the Messiah. 

They have just met, yet she addresses him as kyrios, which in the New American Bible is translated as 

"sir." 

"The woman said to him, Sir (kyrios), you do not have a bucket and the cistern is deep." 

The word in this passage is kyrios. It is applied to Jesus, and it is used as a term of respect, as "sir." 

The Apostles used this title as a term of respect for Jesus just like the term "master." This is why Jesus is 

called Lord in the NT. He is our King, our master, our Lord. Like the Lord of a castle/ kingdom. He is 

the Lord of the kingdom of God. 

Is Paul here borrowing "Lord" from the shema in Deuteronomy and applying it to Jesus in 1 Corinthians? 

"With the Hebrew Bible in mind, Paul carefully distinguishes, in a critical creedal statement, 

between the "one God, the Father," and the "one Lord Jesus Christ." Paul has not split the 

Shema of Israel between two persons. This would be to abandon his precious Jewish creed. 

Paul in fact makes a clear unitarian declaration: "There is no God but One...There is One 

God, the Father" (1 Cor. 8:4,6) He then claims for Jesus a lordly status based on the central 

Christological affirmation, by divine oracle, that he is the promised "my lord, the King 

Messiah, the lord's anointed" )Ps. 110:1; Luke 2:11): "There is one Lord Jesus Messiah" (1 

Cor. 8:6) This is his full official title. Peter had likewise proclaimed in Acts 2:34-36, with 

apostolic authority derived from the Messiah, that Jesus was the appointed Lord Christ, in 

accordance with Psalm 110:1, as distinct from, and as the servant of, the Lord God." The 

Doctrine of the Trinity-A. Buzzard p.53 

What do others have to say about Paul, the early Christians and their view of Christ? 

"Apparently Paul did not call Jesus God" (Sydney Cave, D.D., Doctrine of the Person 

of Christ, p. 48). 

"Paul habitually differentiates Christ from God" (C.J. Cadoux, A Pilgrim’s Further 

Progress, pp. 40, 42). 

"Paul never equates Jesus with God" (W.R. Matthews, The Problem of Christ in the 

20th Century, Maurice Lectures, 1949, p. 22). 

"Paul never gives to Christ the name or description of ‘God’" (Dictionary of the 

Apostolic Church, Vol. 1, p. 194). 

"When the New Testament writers speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of Him nor 

do they think of Him as God" (J.M. Creed, The Divinity of Jesus Christ, pp. 122-123). 



"Karl Rahner [leading Roman Catholic spokesman] points out with so much emphasis 

that the Son in the New Testament is never described as ‘ho theos’ [the one God]" 

(A.T. Hanson, Grace and Truth, p. 66). 

"The clear evidence of John is that Jesus refuses the claim to be God…Jesus 

vigorously denied the blasphemy of being God or His substitute" (J.A.T. Robinson, 

Twelve More New Testament Studies, pp. 175, 176). 

"In his post-resurrection heavenly life, Jesus is portrayed as retaining a personal 

individuality every bit as distinct and separate from the person of God as was his in 

his life on earth as the terrestrial Jesus. Alongside God and compared with God, he 

appears, indeed, as yet another heavenly being in God’s heavenly court, just as the 

angels were — though as God’s Son, he stands in a different category, and ranks far 

above them" (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 1967-68, Vol. 50, p. 258). 

"What, however, is said of his life and functions as the celestial Christ neither means 

nor implies that in divine status he stands on a par with God Himself and is fully God. 

On the contrary, in the New Testament picture of his heavenly person and ministry we 

behold a figure both separate from and subordinate to God" (Ibid., pp. 258, 259). 

"When [first-century Christians] assigned Jesus such honorific titles as Christ, Son of 

Man, Son of God and Lord, these were ways of saying not that he was God but that he 

did God’s work" (Ibid., p. 250). 

"The ancients made a wrong use of [John 10:30, "I and the Father are one"] to prove 

that Christ is...of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the 

unity of substance, but about the agreement that he has with the Father" (John Calvin, 

Commentary on John). 

"The Pauline Christ who accomplishes the work of salvation is a personality who is 

both human and superhuman, not God, but the Son of God. Here the idea, which was to 

develop later, of the union of the two natures is not present" (Maurice Goguel, Jesus 

and the Origins of Christianity, Harper, 1960). 

"Jesus is never identified simplicitly [absolutely] with God, since the early Christians 

were not likely to confuse Jesus with God the Father" (Howard Marshall, "Jesus as 

Lord: The Development of the Concept," in Eschatology in the New Testament, 

Hendrickson, p. 144). 

Now Tim, you can view these separate scriptures in a long letter that even went longer than I what I 

included here. But we have to take the Bible as a whole, and not just dwell on a few scriptures here and 

there. If you take a look at the Bible as a whole, we find powerful 

evidence that Christ was a created being: 

Prov 8:22 "The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old." 

RSV 

Col. 1:15 "which is the image of the invisible God, first begotten of all creatures" 

Rev. 3:14 "This saith (amen) the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creatures of 

God." 



Jn 5:26 "Life comes from the Father himself. So the Father has allowed the Son to give life." 

Jn 6:57 "Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the 

one who feeds on me will have life because of me." 

Jesus is either subordinate to, depends upon, or reveres his Father: 

Isa 11:1,2 "But there shall come forth from a shoot the stock of Jesse, And a sprout from his 

roots shall bear fruit; And the spirit of Yahweh shall rest upon him, The spirit of wisdom 

and understanding, The spirit of counsel and might, The spirit of knowledge and reverence 

of Yahweh" Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 

Heb 2:7,8 "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; and hast crowned him with 

glory and honor, and hast set him ruler over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things 

under his feet." Lamsa's Translation of the Aramaic Peshitta 

1 Cor 11:3 "God is the Head of the Christ" 20th Century NT 

Jn 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus 

Christ, whom thou hast sent." KJV 

Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." NASB 

Jn 5:19 "I most solemnly say to you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, except as He sees 

the Father doing." Williams NT 

Jn 6:38 "I came down from heaven, not to do what I want but what He wants who sent Me." 

Beck 

Jn 7:16 "Jesus answered them and said, 'My doctrine is not Mine but His who sent Me" 

Matt 20:23 "Truly, you will take of my cup: but to be seated at my right hand and at my left 

is not for me to give, but it is for those for whom my Father has made it ready. BBE 

Luke 22:42 "He prayed saying 'Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; 

nevertheless, not My will, but Thine be done'" Worrell NT 

Heb 5:8 "Although a Child, Jesus learned obedience through suffering." Inclusive Version 

Rev 1:1 "This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to show his servants 

the things that must happen soon." ISV 

Acts 5:31 "Him has God exalted by his right hand as leader and saviour, to give repentance 

to Israel and remission of sins." Darby 

1 Cor 15:27,28 "the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God" NEB 

Phil 2:8,9 "and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient 

[even] unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted him 

Jn 14:28 "I go on to the Father, because my Father is greater than I." Young 

Mark 13:32 "As for that exact day or minute: no one knows, not even heaven's messengers, 

nor even the son, no one, except the Father." Funk, Hoover 

And that he has someone who is God to him 

Micah 5:1-4 "In the majesty of the name of the LORD, his God." Smith&Goodspeed 

Matt 27:46 "Jesus cried out...My God, my God, why have you abandoned me." God's Word 

Jn 20:17 "I am going to ascend to My God and your God" New Berkeley Version 

Rom 15:6 "So that you may together give glory to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 

Christ with one heart. NJB 

2 Cor 1:3 "Let us give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." TEV 

2 Cor 11:31 "To God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" Geneva 

Eph 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" BLE 

Eph 1:17 "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ" Moffatt 

Heb 1:7-9 " That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than 



your partners." NWT 

1 Pet 1:3 "Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Lattimore 

Rev 1:6 "unto his God and Father" Montgomery 

Rev 3:2 "in the sight of my God" Phillips 

Rev 3:12 "the temple of my God....the name of my God...out of heaven from my God" 

Jewish NT 

Exactly how many times does scripture have to attest to the subordination of the Son to His God and 

Father before it is actually believed? 

1Cor.8:6 identifies the "one God" as the Father who is the source of creation. Jesus is explicitly excluded 

when he is next identified as the "Lord" who is simply the agent of the one God. 1Tim.2:5 states there is 

"one God" but then specifically EXCLUDES Jesus from being that one God by saying he is the 

"mediator" between GOD and humans. Without equivocation or replacing the word God with father, 

explain how can Jesus be the same God he is mediator for? 

Far from being Almighty, Jesus is said to have a God over him before, during and after he came to earth 

(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 

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 

when Jesus returned to heaven he had to be "given" all authority (power-KJV). If Jesus were equal to 

God in power, then why exactly would 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, Dan.7:13-14, Phil.2:9). 

Again, you still have not made mention of the holy spirit. May I remind you that this is a conversation on 

the Trinity. 

To Page 6 


Email Me 

Heinz Schmitz 


Conversations on the Trinity-Part 6-All those quotes 

More Conversations on the Trinity/Part 6 

Tim: Thank-you for continually amusing me with your responses. If anything I am getting much sharper as 

a defender of the faith. My response to your last four letters is well underway. It has been most enjoyable. 

Here is a sample: On this issue [Greg Stafford and scholars] you should notice first that I made a distinction 

between "scholars" and "Scholars." Second, by "of no repute" I mean to invest the term "repute" with the 

meaning of "exceedingly high repute" whereby I have in mind specifically NT scholars not theologians, or 

apologists. Third, I am not inferring that scholars like White and Rhodes are not scholars of repute in their 

own field (quite capable as they are), but neither fit the definition I give for Scholars in the field of NT--and 

that is what I meant (does you care anything for original intent?). Fourth, like everything written by me, 

however, you guys (Stafford/yourself) have a knack for misconstruing language much like you do 

Scriptures and the work of other 

scholars to meet your own agenda. 

Heinz: I do not remember you making any distinction between "Scholar and "scholar" at all. I think that 

you are backtracking in order to cover yourself. You have in the past talked quite highly of Rhodes, after 

all, he is called the "Bible Answer Man". If it makes you feel any better, I think he falls quite short of any 

"scholar" reference....period. 

Tim: This whole process has a circular appeal to it. The more your work is refuted for the worthless but 

destructive propaganda it is [not an ad hom.], the more you claim how high caliber it is based on the 

reputation of scholars (of all fields) who address it. Its a parasitic claim to fame. 

Now as for Stafford, yes there will be a flurry of scholars addressing his "book" in the future on the 

internet and in a few books perhaps (so my earlier comment surely didn't rule out future acts by scholars or 

Scholars). What is interesting is that most Scholars that have been quoted by him and have been contacted, 

don't know who Stafford is, are perplexed at his misconstruing of their data when informed about them, and 

are reaffirming what all of us who have dealt with him have always known--he either deliberately twists 

what others write to conform to his WT theology, or he is a poor reader. 

Heinz: We notice that you do not actually mention anyone who has been contacted. It could be that 

many of them are now dead. But then you do get your information second-hand. Greg insists on quoting 

those that do not agree with him on order to dissect the argument and find errors from a biblical 

perspective. But since you have not read his book and you have repeatedly demonstrated that you rely on 

3rd party information to furnish you with your information, then I think you that you do not have much 

to defend your self with. You will be surprised to know that Robert Countess (author of The Jehovah's 

Witnesses' New Testament, 1982) praised Greg's book, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended in many respects. 

Professor/Writer Jason Beduhn calls the book a scholarly effort, and here is what author Robert Bowman 

Jr. (author of Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John; and You Should Beleive in the 

Trinity) said in the Greek Theology Newsgroup: 

"While I should note that I respect the knowledge and skills of several members of this list, 

Mr. Stafford is by far the most exegetically sophisticated, academically rigorous, and 

theologically informed Jehovah's Witness that I have encountered. I find him to be very 

intelligent and quite articulate. 

I have said these things several times, but it seems they have tended to get buried in the pile 

of arguments and counterarguments, as well as the more unfortunate dimensions of our 

discussion that we have agreed to leave behind. So, for the record, I wanted to say them 

again. Whatever errors, mistakes, or misrepresentations I claim to find in Mr. Stafford's 

writings should not be construed as contradicting the above overall assessment of his 

abilities and performance. He is a gifted spokesman for the perspective of the Jehovah's 



Witnesses and deserves to be taken quite seriously." 

Perhaps you should actually read his book before you criticize him in this manner. 

Tim: Here's a good example of what I mean concerning bad scholarship: 

1. Selective quotation, Providing quotations that are out of context, or elided to obscure that the author 

intended. 

SYBT: "’At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian…It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic 

ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[testament] and other early Christian writings’ – Encyclopedia of Religion 

and Ethics" (pp. 6-7). The first part of this quotation is cut off in mid-sentence. It reads in full: "At first the 

Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference. It was not so in the apostolic and 

sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings. It should be observed that there 

is no real cleavage or antithesis between the doctrines of the economic and the essential Trinity, and 

naturally so. The Trinity [or essential Trinity] represents the effort to think out the [economical] Trinity, and 

so to afford it a reasonable basis" (Encyclopedia 

of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 12, p. 461.) This same article proclaims: "If the doctrine of the Trinity 

appeared 

somewhat late in theology, it must have lived very early in devotion" (IBID., 458-459). 

Heinz: Robert Bowman mentioned above would agree with you that Witnesses milk the comments of 

scholars and reference works for more than they are worth, but even he, after writing an entire book on 

the Trinity brochure, only tackles a scant few (similar to the ones that you do). Perhaps these are the only 

ones that seem open for attack. It seems that your reading of the above Encyclopedia is more selective 

than mine. This is the same work that says, "In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of 

Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . 

Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the 

Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality," which is "triadically represented." This work 

maintains over and over again in many ways how the 4th century Church merely adopted paganism in its 

fold. You would be surprised at what this book says about Easter, birthdays, Mary, Tithes, etc. 

But let us focus on what else it says about the Trinity: "It is exegesis of a mischievous kind, if pious, sort 

that would discover the doctrine in the plural form 'Elohim,' of the Deity's name, in the recorded 

appearance of three angels to Abraham, or even in the ter sanctus of the prophecies of Isaiah.""In the 

New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like its developed form, not even in 

the Pauline and Johannine theology, although ample witness is borne to the religious experience from 

which the doctrine springs. It then directs you to the footnote which mentions Luke 24:49 which says, 

"And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed 

with power from on high." ASV 

Hardly the start of any Triune doctrine. Scripture is quoted rarely, as are most of these works, but 

perhaps it is because the "doctrine of the Trinity does not usually fit well into the general doctrine of 

God, and often bears the character of a doctrine apart." p.462 

But what is an "Economic Trinity"? According to one of our anti-JW web-sites (and there are thousands 

of them) the Economic Trinity is: First in a simple sense, as we find in the Bible, where there is an 

affirmation of the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit combined with a mono-theistic 

view of God, but without any explanation as to how the whole thing fits together and works. So basically 

speaking, just because the NT speaks of the Father...and the Son...and the Holy Spirit, then that is all that 

is good enough for you people to form a belief system akin to "Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian 



religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus." 

Tim: SYBT: "This confusion [over the Trinity] is widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the 

doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be "beyond the grasp of human reason" (p. 4). Unfortunately, SYBT 

neither quotes this passage in full nor documents it, instead only giving the title of the source and implying 

that it agrees with 

the Watch Tower's position: "It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, 

like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though 

it may not comprehended) by the human mind" (Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 27, p.116). 

Heinz: Now tell me Tim, what is more oxymoronic than to say that the Trinity is contrary to reason...but 

not really. This is the same article that says that it did not reach its full understanding until St. Thomas 

Aquinas. This is also the same encyclopedia that reduces Jesus Christ to a "redeemer myth." What the 

SYBT was driving at was its incomprehensibility, just like your buddy Walter Martin, "The Trinity itself 

is a mystery or a "holy secret". It is incomprehensible. It can never be fully understood." Now we all 

know that "Dr" Martin is a Trinitarian. Now we all know that Martin tries to explain it, but in the end it is 

an incomprehensible mess isn't it? 

Tim-SYBT: “Fortman states: ‘The New Testament writers…give us no formal for formulated doctrine of 

the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons’” (p. 6). Sounds like 

Fortman denies the Trinity in any form exists in the NT, doesn’t it?Here’s what Edmund Fortman really 

said, in context: 

“If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of 

the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word, 

Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him 

God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times 

they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and 

personality are concerned. They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They 

do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission, but they 

present in their own ways the ideas that are behind these terms. They give us no formal or formulated 

doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But 

they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God 

may be formulated” (Fortman, The Triune God, p. 9). 

Heinz: But did you know that the verse in question is quoted also by G.A.T. Robinson "There is no 

formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one 

God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a 

triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there... The Biblical witness to God, as we have 

seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one 

God there are three co-equal divine persons." (Jesuit Scholar Edmund J. Fortman, "Triune God", pp. 

32,35) (Fortman, pp. 22-23, as cited by Robinson, p. 74) The book, The Father, The Son and the Holy 

Spirit-The Triadic Phrase in Matthew 28:19 from Jane Schaberg, SBL Dissertation Series 61 as 

borrowed from Southeastern Baptist Theological Library also quotes from Fortman, "Fortman also 

remarks, however, that nowhere in the N.T. do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects 

of divine life and activity in the same Godhead." p.16 Are the above quoting Fortman out of context, 

even though they are not Jehovah's Witnesses. No, they are stating a fact that Fortman, while believing in 

the Trinity, was wise and honest enough to admit, which is what the SYBT was driving at. Fortman 

himself directs us to this in the index in the back of his book he points to the pages where the Trinity is 

not supportable in the OT etc. But I guess it is only bad when the Witnesses do it:) 

What else does Fortman admit to? 


writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a 



divine force or power." —The Triune God, Edward J. Fortman, pp. 6, 15. 

"These passages give no doctrine of the Trinity... Paul has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut 

realization of a Trinitarian problem......there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts... nowhere 

do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same 

Godhead" (Fortman, "Triune God", pp. 22-23) 

"The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who 

is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected 

the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead.... Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions 

or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs' of the Trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and 

intent of the sacred writers" (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God, Baker Book House, 1972, pp. 

xv, 8, 9). 

"For Thomas [Aquinas] natural reason can neither demonstrate nor know the Trinity: 'that God is triune 

is uniquely and object of belief, and one cannot prove it in any demonstrative way." p.204 

Fortman's conclusion: "The basic trinitarian dogmas are still substantially in procession today, and 

always will be. But some Catholic theologians feel they are in need of reappraisal. They see problems 

everywhere: a tension between the outlook of the Biblical writer and that of the Trinitarian theologian; a 

tension between the rigid Hellenic though and patterns of trinitarian theology...." p.316 

We must remember that Catholics do not rely heavily on the Bible for a complete definition of the 

Trinity. That is why most of Fortman's "The Triune God" deals with how the Trinity was viewed and 

explained by various philosophers/theologians over different periods of time. You will find very few 

scriptures actually used in the book. When Fortman says that is an elemental trinity in the scripture, his 

view is not expanded upon nor does he quote scripture to back this statement. However, the word 

"Mystery" is used quite liberally throughout the book. By the way Tim, I actually read the book. Did 

you? 

Tim: SYBT: “The New Encyclopedia Britannica observes: ‘Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in 

the New Testament’” (p. 6).Note the word “explicit.” The Britannica is saying the same thing as Fortman. On the same 

page, we find: “The New Testament establishes the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 

Micropedia, Vol. X, p. 126). 

Heinz: That is a pretty weak argument since most nominal Xtians beleive that simply because the N.T. 

mention the Father, Son and holy spirit that this makes this a basis for a three-in-one doctrine. What else 

does Brittanica say? 

"In his theological interpretation of the idea of God, Arius was interested in maintaining a formal 

understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of the oneness of God, he was obliged to dispute the 

sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, as stressed by 

the theologians of the Neoplatonically influenced Alexandrian school. From the outset, the controversy 

between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which 

was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis 

of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New 

Testament--such as the question of the sameness of 

essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons." Brittanica.com 

Tim: 2. Not telling the whole story. Similar to #1, by providing only an out-of-context quotation, does not 

reveal information the author provides that is detrimental to one's argument. SYBT: “E. Washburn Hopkins 

affirmed: ‘To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown…they say nothing about it” 

(p. 6). 

Full quote in context: “The beginning of the doctrine of the trinity appears already in John (c. 100). To 

Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown, at any rate they say nothing about it” 



(Hopkins, The Origin and Evolution of Religion, p. 336). So, Hopkins, a liberal scholar who questions the 

historical accuracy of the NT record, finds the trinity present in the Gospel of John. Hardly “affirming” the 

proposition that the Trinity is non-Biblical. 

Heinz: On the basis of his studies, Professor E. Washburn Hopkins said of the trinities of Hinduism, 

Buddhism and Christendom: "The three trinities as religious expressions are identical. . . . One may say: I 

believe in God as godhead, and in the divine incarnation, and in the creative Holy Spirit, as a Christian, a 

Vishnuite, or a Buddhist." 

Noteworthy, too, is the fact that the trinity of Chinese Buddhism is defined in a way that is practically 

identical to what professed Christians say. We read: 

"The Three are all included in one substantial essence. The three are the same as one; not one, and yet 

not different; without parts or composition. When regarded as one, the three persons are spoken of as the 

Perfect One (Tathagata). There is no real difference [between the three persons of the trinity]; they are 

manifestations, different aspects of the same unchanging substance."-Origin and Evolution of Religion, 

p. 348. 

Yale professor E. Washburn Hopkins put it this way: "The final orthodox definition of the trinity was 

largely a matter of church politics." 

Origin and Evolution of Religion, by E. Washburn Hopkins, 1923, page 339. 

Tim: Let me ask, have Trinitarians who quote Harris without referencing his comments on YHWH withheld 

information Harris provides that is detrimental to their argument? Let me ask, have Trinitarians attributed 

quotes by Harris to someone else, or someone else to Harris? 

The examples can be multiplied. Let me ask, have Trinitarians selectively quoted Harris to obscure what he 

said about YHWH (or anything else for that matter)? 

Heinz: I don't know of any Trinitarians that have actually quoted Harris. But since you are ignorant of 

the writings of Rolf Furuli and Greg Stafford, you might be surprised to know that they have used Harris 

quite a bit and even praised his efforts. "Murray J. Harris' work, Jesus as God, ...will be quoted here 

throughout this discussion. This is probably the most exhaustive book ever written about the Biblical 

witness to Jesus as theos. Its strength is the sound grammatical and linguistic analysis presented and it 

also gives the principal viewpoints for each verse discussed." p.199 Theology and Bias in Bible 

Translation. Rolf does though find fault with the author's statements of faith interspersed throughout, but 

all in all a glowing recommendation. Stafford also uses Harris' work favourably throughout his book, but 

since, according to you, neither of the above are scholars of any repute, then this does not bode well for 

your argument. 

Tim: 3. Mis-attributed quotes/Attributing a quote to someone other than the author, with the intent of 

obscuring what the author really did write. 

SYBT: "Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: ‘The Father is 

different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he 

who sends, 

different from him who is sent.’ He also said: ‘There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all 

things, God was alone’" (p. 7). 

The phrase: "There was a time when the Son was not" is not from Tertullian, but an expression used by 

scholar Bishop Kaye in an appendix of one of Tertullian’s works. Bishop Kaye was summarizing a 

statement made by 

Tertullian, who argued that the Word and the Father were always God, but the titles Father and Son only 

become applicable after the Incarnation: "For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a 

judge previous to sin" (Against Hermogones, Ch. 3). See Bishop Kaye, “Account of the Writings of 



Tertullian,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 1181. This section includes the following statements that 

more accurately summarize Bishop Kaye’s understanding of Tertullian: “Tertullian’s opinions were 

generally coincident with the orthodox belief of the Christian Church on the great subject of the Trinity in 

Unity” (p. 1180); “the Reason and Spirit of God, being the substance of the Word and Son, were co-eternal 

with God” (p. 1181); “He [Tertullian] really believed that the very hypostasis which is called the Word and 

Son of God is eternal” (p. 1182). 

This is a particularly egregious example, as it included not only the mis-attribution, but also selective 

quotation and ellipses to conflate two works to make them appear as a single passage. 

Heinz: All the writings of the ANF (Ante-Nicene Fathers) come to us from others, as there are many 

translations and commentaries out there of the ANF. Tertullian held a two stage view of the LOGOS 

QEOU and believed that the Son qua Son was brought forth at the ARXH of creation based on his 

reading of Genesis chapter one. So even if the LOGOS, as Tertullian contended, eternally subsisted as 

the Reason of God within the Father before God the Father created all things--he (the Son) did not subsist 

as a distinct divine hypostasis from all eternity and nor was he always the Son. The view that Christians 

are/will be gods was also echoed by Tertullian. Here is a sample of what else they say that Tertullian 

says: Frend lists Tertullian and Hippolytus as examples of western thinkers who believed in the 

inferiority of the Son. He even writes that Hippolytus felt that Jesus Christ "was simply a created being to 

whom divinity had been arbitrarily and temporarily assigned" (_The Rise of Christianity_. Page 345). 

"Tertullian . . . [also] was a man to whom the inspiration of the Spirit was everything . . . [in his 

theological system] the Word was derivative ("a portion of the whole") and subordinate, and equally 

liable to modalist interpretations . . . despite Tertullian's thrust against Praxeas, 

Trinitarian theology never had a high priority in the thought of the North African church leaders . . . 

Fourth century inscriptions if anything emphasize the subordination of Son to Father. God [the Father] 

was "Omnipotent," Christ was "Saviour." In this period, few African Christians showed 

much concern regarding the accusation that Donatus was an Arian (Frend 345-346). 

And since you claimed that we misquoted Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, here is what it has to say 

about Tertullian, "And even Tertullian, who founded the nomenclature of the orthodix doctrine, knew as 

little of an ontological Trinity as did the apologists; his is still the economic or relative conception of the 

Johannine and Pauline theology." Do you remember what this same work said about John and Paul? "In 

the New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like its developed form, not 

even in the Pauline and Johannine theology" p.458 

Robert Wilken wrote in _The Myth of Christian Beginnings: "From the very beginning, the Christian 

tradition had struggled with the question of JESUS' relation to God . . . Very early Christians tried to 

account for his extraordinary life and accomplishments and his Resurrection, and it was not long before 

he was called Son of God--then God. EVEN SO, HE WAS NOT GOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE 

FATHER WAS GOD--OR WAS HE? Was he creator, was he eternal, should he be addressed in prayer? 

These and other questions troubled thoughtful Christians for almost three centuries. During these years, 

MOST CHRISTIANS VAGUELY THOUGHT OF JESUS AS GOD; yet they did not actually think of 

him IN THE SAME WAY THAT THEY THOUGHT OF GOD THE FATHER. They seldom addressed 

prayers to him, and thought of him somehow as SECOND TO GOD--DIVINE, YES, BUT NOT FULLY 

GOD . . . When the controversy over the relation of Jesus to God the Father broke out in the early fourth 

century, most Christians 

were"SUBORDINATIONISTS," i.e. they believed that Christ was God BUT NOT IN PRECISELY THE 

SAME WAY THAT THE FATHER WAS GOD" (See pp. 177-183). 

"With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of 



subordinationism at least up the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the 

controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." (Hanson, The Search for the Christian 

Doctrine of God, p.xix) 

Tim:This exercise could continue for quite some time, but I think I've made my 

point. Have Fun! 

Thank you Tim, I will. And I will do it by explaining the Triadic phrase at Matthew 28:19b. This is the 

scripture that is used in many Encyclopedias to promote a biblical trinity, even when they say ‘Neither 

the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament’. Many works cross-reference 

Mt 28:19 to scriptures like 2 Cor 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the 

communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all"; "But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up 

stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" In none of 

these scriptures are they ever said to be one in nature/essence. In fact, it is the Father that is clearly 

defined as being "God" when they are all put together. 

Many say to me that by reading Acts 2:38, we can see that Jesus alone is synonymous with the Trinity, 

"And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ 

unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." After all, this scripture 

only mentions "in the name of Jesus", while Mt 28:19 mentions "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy 

Spirt." 

But is this really so? If we look at Acts 8:14-17 we read, "Now when the Apostles at Jerusalem heard 

Samaria had recieved the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John; who came down and prayed 

that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them; but they had only been 

baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. RSV 

So here we can see that baptism into Jesus is not the same as being baptized into the holy spirit. 

Conclusion: Most works, like Bowman You Should Believe in a Trinity only attack a few of the quotes 

in the SYBT, but those only the few THEY CAN use against us. Many others in the booklet are ignored 

or simply brushed away. There are verily hundreds that could have been used, and better ones that the 

WTS probably could have made better use of. 

I will finish off with a quote from E.H. Broadbent to show you where I am coming from. Speaking of the 

much persecuted but humble group of Christians of times past, the Waldenses and the Albigenses, he 

says 

"They considered that in all times and in all forms of churches there were enlightened men 

of god. They therefore made use of the writings of Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, 

Bernard of Clairvaux and others, not accepting, however, all they wrote, but only that which 

corresponded with the older, purer teaching of Scripture." The Pilgrim Church, p.120 

But while I am writing all of this in response to you, you have yet to introduce the holy spirit into your 

argument, which means that all your posturing has been for nothing. 

-Heinz 


Email Me 

Back to Previous Page 




More Discussions on the Doctrine of the Trinity with Tim 

Conversations on the Trinity-Part 7 

Unless otherwise specified, all scriptures are from the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB). 

Abbreviations=NASB (New American Standard Bible) 

TEV (Today's English Version-Good News Bible) 

ASV (American Standard Version 1901) 

Tim: Heinz, Our discussion started with me trying to show you how, despite the Bible saying 

that Jehovah is a jealous God and that He will never share His glory with another, it is 

phenominal that Paul, a jew schooled in the traditions of his fathers and now a believer in 

the man Jesus, attributed to this very 

same Jesus glory and honor (i.e. the worship of all creation) that apparently was only due to 

God. 

Reply: What do Jews really think? 

"the Bible refers to judges [Psalm 82; John 10:34] who teach God’s divine law as gods. 

This title was bestowed on them because they were teachers of the Almighty’s divine law, 

not because they were actually God in any way. This usage is quite common in the Jewish 

scriptures. For example, in Exodus 7:1 Moses is called a god because he was God’s 

representative to Pharaoh. In essence, Jesus’ reply supports the very opposite of what 

missionaries are trying to put forth. Jesus, as depicted by John, is explaining that his 

identification with God is comparable to the Jewish judges’ identification with God. 

The fact remains that no author in the New Testament ever advanced the doctrine of the 

Trinity. It took many years from the time the last Gospel was completed for the defenders 

of the church to promote this alien creed. 

-Rabbi Tovia Singer 

see http://www.outreachjudaism.org/claimgod.html] 

"The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a 

Trinity is to be found there or even in any way shadowed forth, is an assumption that has 

long held sway in theology, but is entirely without foundation. The Jews, as a people, under 

its teachings became stern opponents of all polytheistic tendencies, and they have remained 

unflinching monotheists to this day. On this point there is no break between the Old 

Testament and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by 

his Jewish parents in the Old Testament Scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a 

new Gospel indeed, but not a new theology. He declared that He came 'not to destroy the 

Law and the Prophets, but to fulfil' them, and he accepted as his own belief the great text of 

Jewish monotheism, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.' His proclamation 

concerning himself was in line with Old Testament prophecy. He was the 'Messiah' of the 

promised Kingdom, the 'Son of Man' of Jewish hope...if He sometimes asked 'Who do men 

say that I the Son of Man am?' He gave no answer beyond the implied assertion of 

Messiahship." A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, 1900, pp. 4, 5 by L. L. 

Paine, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Bangor Theological Seminary. 

Now, the Bible does say, "I am Yahweh, that is my name! I shall not yield my glory to another, nor my 

honour to idols." Is 42:8 

But then, the Bible does also say that Jesus was GIVEN glory from God, and he in turn gave it to his 

followers. 



"I [Jesus] have given them the glory you gave to me, that they may be one as we are one." 

Christians share in God's glory, so it is indeed given to others, including Jesus, who was given God's 

glory [Almighty God does not need to be given anything], glory as of the only begotten from the Father 

(John 1:14), and as followers of Christ, we can also say, "I do not seek my own glory." John 8:50 

So what was Isaiah talking about? It is quite obvious that Jehovah's glory was not intended for images, 

"nor my honour to idols." See also Isaiah 44:9-20 

Tim: Your first objection was to say that we should not be surprised at this for, "God's 

representatives are often that given the glory Jehovah is given." 

>>This point is utterly bankrup. If we look to God's holiness we will understand why this is 

so. Jehovah is totally separate from all of creation. This is what Louis Berkof called the 

"majesty holiness" of God (see his systematic theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, p. 

73). The uniqueness of God from all creation is affirmed in Ex. 15:11: "Who is like thee, O 

Lord, among the gods? Who is like thee, majestic in holiness, terrible in glorious deeds, 

doing wonders?" And as such, it would be impossible for any idol, and by inference, 

creature to share the same honor and glory as God. 

Reply: There is something which my readers will tire of, but I have not yet discussed with you. 

It is called the Schaliach Principle which is explained this way, 








remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger was 

commonly a slave" (Murray 18). 

George Buchanan also appears to take this position in his commentary on Hebrews (Anchor Bible 

series). Buchanan notes that "a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the 

power of attorney for the one who sent him" (Buchanan 7). He also adds "The New Testament apostles 

were apostles of Jesus, and Jesus was an apostle of God. It is against this background that Jesus, in the 

same context, could say both, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is 

greater than I" (John 14:28). 

Revelation 19:10 makes the point clear for the created order. The angel says to John as he 

fell down to worship him: "See to it that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of 

your bretheren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!" The angel puts himself on 

par with John and thus we can 

conclude that the only being that can be worshipped is God. 

So, back to 1 Chron 29:20. You responded: 

>>I am not interested in a discusssion of why you think the ASV, RV, KJV is a poor 

translation of the Hebrew Shachah (LXX proskunew) since it is rendered that way in many 

Bibles in the NT. This was not my point. I have no trouble with translating the verb 

proskunew "worship" as that is what it precisely means (see esp. Hebrew 1:6). The issue I 

have is that David, in 1 Chron. 29:20, is not the recipient of worship and thus you cannot 

use this to support your argument against Is. 45:23 cf. with Philp. 2:11! The SENTENCE 



CONSTRUCTION in the ASV and KJV have been corrected in the more recent Bibles: NIV 

reads "Praise [worship] the Lord your God." So they all praised [worshipped] the Lord, the 

God of 

their fathers; they bowed down and fell prostrate before the Lord and the King." David 

made it clear from the start: it was the "Lord your God" who was to be worshipped, not the 

king. The fact that David remained standing is not proof that he intended himself to be 

worshipped and receive the "same 

honor as God." The context refutes this. "Praise [worship] the Lord your God!" On the 

other hand, in Philip 2:11, Jesus receives worship and honor as all creation bows before 

Him. This is all to the glory of God the Father as "all must honor the Son even as the honor 

the Father. He who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father who sent Him" (Jn 

5:23). This verse goes far beyond making Jesus a mere ambassador who is acting in the 

name of a monarch, but gives him full and complete equality with the Father (cf. Phip 2:11). 

Reply: Much has happened since angels were rendered worship/obeisance in the OT. 

"When the two angels reached Sodom in the evening, Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. As soon as 

Lot saw them, he stood up to greet them, and bowed to the ground." Gen 19:1 

The word "bowed" is the Hebrew word Shachah/Sahah, the same word used at Exodus 34:14: 

"for you will worship [shachah] no other god, since Yahweh's name is the Jealous One, he is a jealous 

God." 

An angel, working as God's agent, can receive the honor due to Jehovah, as mentioned above. See also 

Numbers 22:31 

But 3 very important things happened since then. 

A) Jesus was elevated above the angels. 

"He is now as far above the angels as the title which he has inherited is higher than their own name." 

Heb 1:4 

"who for a short while made less than the angels; now crowned with glory and honour." Heb 2:9 

Now even the angels bow to him, "Let all the angels of God pay him homage." Heb 1:6 

The question we need to ask here, is why, if Jesus is almighty God, does he even need to be exalted 

above anything? 

B) Since anointed Christians will also share in the glory that was given to Jesus by God (John 17:22), 

they will now also judge angels. See 1 Corinthians 6:3 

C) Jesus is now the mediator between God and men. 1 Tim 2:5 

Whereas God used others in the past as his spokesman, he now only uses the His Son: 

"At many moments in the past and by many means, God spoke to our ancestors through the 

prophets, but in our time, the final days, he has spoken to us in the person of his Son." 

Hebrews 1:1 

Hence, considering the above 3 points, there was no longer any purpose in bowing to angels, as was the 

practise when bowing to superiors. 

As for the ASV, I don't think the NIV "corrected" anything. 

"Then David said to the whole assembly, 'Praise the LORD your God.' So they all praised 

the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate [MT Shachah; LXX 

proskuneo] before the LORD and the king." NIV 



This reminds me of something Augustine once said about Thomas at John 20:28: 

"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the 

man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of 

what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the 

other." Augustine in "Tractate CXXI" 

Again, there is the scripture at II Kings 18:28 in the LXX, which reads: 

"And Achimaaz cried out and said to the king, Peace. And he did obeisance [proskuneo] to 

the king with his face to the ground, and said, Blessed be the Lord thy God, who has 

delivered up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord the king." (Brenton) 

Here we have Achimaaz bowing before the king, and exclaiming thanks to YHWH. No one here 

supposes that David is almighty God, and there is nothing strange about this type of vocalizing. Where 

God has his king in the past as a god-like right hand man, he now has Jesus as king and appointed god 

and right hand man. 

The NAB says in a footnote of the Davidic king at Psalm 45, "The king in courtly language, is called 

'god,' i.e., more than human, representing God to the people." 

The Distinguished Professor of Theology at Baylor University's Truett Theological 

Seminary Millard J. Erickson wrote, "There will always be a difference between God and 

human beings. The gap between us is not merely moral and spiritual disparity which 

originated with the fall. It is metaphysical, steming from creation. Even when redeemed and 

glorified, we will still be his human creatures. We will never become God." And thus we 

can never receive the same "honor and worship" as God. As such, only God can be 

worshipped and this is exactly what Jesus receives in Philippians 2:11. 

Reply: And this Scripture does not change anything I have said. Php 2 is another example of exaltation 

Christology. 

"God raised him high, and gave him the name which is above all others." 

Why again, does Almighty God need to be raised? Why does he need to be GIVEN anything? 

And again, in verse 11, we have a similar situation as we have with the kings of old. They may have been 

given praise, but it was all for God's glory in the end. 

"Every tongue should acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord, TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER." 

>>I also am not interested in talking about Phillipians 2, since it is an 

ambiguous scripture, and a rule of hermeneutics states that you cannot use 

an ambiguous scripture as a proof text. You trinitarians are as unsure of the 

kenosis of this text as you are of how to translate it: 

"he did not think to snatch at equality with God." New English Bible 

I am not interested in a modalist discussion, but one of the THREE in ONE. 

Reply: Well, I guess that I disagree that it is ambiguous. v.6 declares that Jesus was in the 

morphe of God and verse 7 says that he is in the morphe of a servant. Just as the "form of 

servant" is a servant by nature, so the "form of God" is God by nature. In this passage, what 

Jesus emptied himself 

of was not the divine morphe. There is no point in the passage that can 

support this. Combined with Col.2:9, we can be certain that Jesus was the 

fullness of God in body/flesh. Jesus emptied himself by "taking the from of 



a servant." The participle phrase is an explanation of how Jesus emptied 

himself, or what he did that constituted kenosis. While the text does not 

specify what he emptied himself of, it is noteworthy that "form of a 

servant" constrasts sharpley with "equality with God." It is equallity with 

God , not the form of God, of which Jesus emptied himself. While he did not 

cease to be in nature what the Father was, he became functionally 

subordinate to the Father for the period of the incarnation. Jesus is the 

God-Man. 

Reply: "A vigorous debate still continues around the hymnic passage. However, the suggestion that the 

hymn has been constructed with a strong allusion to Adam, or even modeled after the template of Adam 

christology is still persuasive." p. 282, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, by James D.G. Dunn 

The ambiguity I had mentioned earlier is simply one that is shared by many translators and exegetes. 

The Harper Collins Study Bible NRSV states that some of the key words used here "had puzzled 

interpeters" and are "problematic." 

Sure, we have the way that Trinitarians like to look at this verse, as is stated in Heinz Cassirer's "did not 

look upon his equality with God as something to be held in his grasp," but there are many others that do 

not see this in the same way: 

"who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, 

but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men" ASV 

"who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" 

NASB 

"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" Revised 


"Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized, accounted the being equal with God." 

Rotherham 

"who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped" TCE 

"Christ Jesus, who, when he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as a prize" Bible 

in Living English 

"Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped" New 

Jerusalem Bible 

"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped" 


"who, though being in God's Form, yet did not meditate a Usurpation to BE like God" Emphatic Diaglott 

"Who, [beginning] [existing] in a form of God did not consider a seizing, to be equal to God" 21st 

Century Literal 

"although he was like God in nature, he never even considered the chance to be equal with God." 21st 

Century Free 

"who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." Revised Version 

"Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God." An American 

Translation/Goodspeed 

"who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped" 

NET Bible 

"who though he had god-like form, did not regard it as a prize to be equal to God." The Original 

NT-Schonfield 

[Footnote: "Referring to the sin which Adam was tempted by Satan to commit, and which Lucifer in his 



former state had committed (Gen 3:5; Isa 14:12-14). Moses is said to have had a divine form, and as an 

infant to have received the crown from Pharoah's head (Josephus, Antiq II 232-235). The Christ Above 

of the Jewish mystics had angelic likeness as a Son of God (Dan 4:25-28; Job 1:6-7)."] 

"who - did not think it a matter to earnestly desired." -Clarke 

"Did not regard - as an object of solicitous desire." -Stuart 

"Thought not - a thing to be seized." -Sharpe 

"Did not eagerly grasp." -Kneeland 

"Did not violently strive." -Dickinson 

"did not meditate a usurpation." -Turnbull 

If, as the New Scofield Bible says, that this verse is the strongest assertions of Christ's deity, then those 

who hold such a position have a real problem. 

These verses are about humility, and how, unlike Adam, Jesus did not try to be equal to God. That is why 

the preceeding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean that we 

should try to cling to our equality with God? Of course not. To translate this verse in a way that promotes 

the deity of Christ robs it of its true force and meaning. 

But what of the phrase, "form of God" or EN MORFH QEOU 

Carolyn Osiek writes that the NIV translation, "being in very nature God," misses the mark since it 

"overstates the traditional 

interpretation" by rendering MORFH as "very nature" instead of "form." Osiek goes on to say that 

MORFH [in the Phil account] does not mean nature, "but form, shape, or appearance . . ." She says more 

and favors the understanding "status" for MORFH. She goes on to say that "divinity in the absolute sense 

is probably not being ascribed to Christ." EN MORFH QEOU appears to be a dative of indirect object 

that describes "an exalted heavenly figure very close to God," but not one who possesses absolute 

divinity (Osiek, Carolyn. _Philippians, Philemon_. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000). See page 60. 

Also, "This interpretation is enhanced by the rest of verse 6: he did not consider it a hARPAGMOS, 

something to be seized or exploited, to be ISA QEWi, equal or of equal status to God" (Osiek 60). 

I think she has something here regarding status, since EN MORFH QEOU (in the form of God) seems to 

be contrasted with EN MORFH DOULOU (form of a slave). A slave is not the antithesis of deity. A 

slave, or servant, has the bearing of status or function among humanity, serving humans while heavenly 

beings, angels, have also served and held a functional equality with God. 

[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, 

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.] 

They are representatives, and as such, can even bear the title of "God." See footnote Psalm 45:7 New 

American Bible. 

As Buchanan says, "a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power 

of attorney for the one who sent him" 

But for sure, the notion that MORFH can also mean outer appearance, but too much cannot be read into 

this as assuming divinity in its absolute sense, as even sinful humans can have a "form [MORFWSIN] of 

godliness, although they have denied its power." 2 Tim 3:5 NASB 

"But Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of God. His oneness with the Father does not 

mean absolute identity of being. Although the Son of God in his preexistent being was in - 

the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God."-The New International 

Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. II, p. 80. 



"When he [Paul] says that Christ existed in the form of God, he implies that Christ was of 

the same nature as God, [yes a spirit] that the principle of his being was essentially divine. 

Since he had this affinity with God, he might have aspired to "equality" with him; he might 

have claimed an equal share in all the powers which God exercises and in all the honors 

which are rendered to him by his creatures. Standing so near to God, he might have resented 

his inferior place and thrown off his obedience. (d) Yet he never attempted the robbery 

which might have raised him higher….But in Greek, as in English, the word "robbery" 

involved the idea of violent seizure, and what Christ resisted was not merely the prize but 

the means of obtaining it. He refused to seize for his own the glory which belongs to 

God….Paul…set the obedience of Christ over against that old conception of a heavenly 

being [Satan] who had sought by violence to make himself equal to God." (e.a.)-The 

Interpreter's Bible, in loc cit. 

Additionally, you may want to check out the book 

entitled Where Christology Began : essays on 

Philippians 2 ; Ralph P. Martin, Brian J. Dodd, 

editors. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox 

Press, 1998. 

We will have more on Adam Christology below. 

Tim: OK - Here goes the Trinity: 

This doctrine is not polytheism or tri-theism. It is also not modalism. No 

one in Christianity believe this or teaches it. Christianity insists that 

only one God exists, but it is just as emphatic in maintaining that the 

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all are God. Moreover, the doctrine can 

be stated that God is one as to essence and three as to person. Christians 

maintain that while the doctrine is nowhere stated explicitly in Scripture, 

it is a logically warranted inference from what does say about God. 

This doctrine as dictated in 325 and 381, specifically the way it is 

worded, seems rather technical and remote to our way of thinking. Some 

people get the feeling that the church fathers were reacting to something, 

but exactly what is not clear. And, of course, not everyone agreed with the 

decisions of the councils, and the implications of the creedal formulations 

for what Christians say about the Son's and the Holy Spirit's relation to 

one another and to the Father continued to be a bone of contention for many 

centuries among Christians. As you may know, one difference of opinion about 

the Trinity still divides the Western and Eastern churches to this day. 

Predominantly, when I speak of the Trinity to people, they grant that the 

Bible does warrent belief in some kind of Trinity, but the biggest issue is 

seems to be concerning how we are to understand what we are saying when we 

teach that God is Triune. Perhaps this may account for the many paragraphs 

like the one you quoted to me in your letter. Most scholars of the history 

of Christianity believe in the Trinity. But the expression of it often gets 

"muddled" and "confused." Now whether you like it or not, the finite will 

always struggle to understand the infinite and the former will only be able 



to comprehend what the latter allow him to comprehend (and only to a finite 

degree). 

I will also conceed that most people in the Church do not understand this 

doctrine, as they have never faithfully studied and meditated upon it. In 

fact, most lay-Christians live as practical tri-theists. They don't even 

seem to care about the doctrine or what exactly it states. This is a tragedy 

of catastrophic proportions. As Wolfhart Pannenberg replies to those who 

think this doctrine is unimportant: 

"It is not a doctrine of only secondary importance in addition to some other 

basic concept of the one God: if the issue is considered in terms like that, 

the case for trinitarian theology is lost. It can be defended only on the 

condition that there is no other appropriate conception of the God of 

Christian faith that the trinity. In that case we cannot have first a 

doctrine on the one God and, afterwards, in terms of some additional 

supernatural mystery, the trinitarian doctrine. Rather, if the trinitarian 

doctrine is sound, Christian monotheism can only mean that the three persons 

of the trinity are not three gods, but one God only. Everthing that is said 

in Christian theology on the one God has to be predicated, then, of the 

three persons of the trinity in their communion. 

If a case can be made out for trinitarian theology, the decisive argument 

must be that the trinitarian doctrine simply states explicitly what is 

implicit already in God's revelation in Jesus Christ and basically in Jesus' 

historical relationship to the Father whom he proclaimed to be the one God. 

If Jesus' relationship to the Father could be adequately described and 

accounted for in other terms than trinitarian doctrine, the case for that 

doctrine would be lost. It can only be defended if the trinitarian concept 

of God can be shown to be the only adequate and fully explicit expression of 

the reality of God revealed in Jesus Christ." 

Indeed, this is a most significant doctrine theologically. If Father, Son, 

and HS are not coequally God and not of the same essence, there are serious 

problem, for example, for the doctrine of salvation. It is generally agreed 

in evangelical theology that because of human sin and guilt before God, a 

radical remedy is required. Someone must die to pay the penalty, but who? 

Evangelical theology contends that it msut be a human being, for humans have 

incurred the guilt and penalty. But no mere human could atone even for their 

own sins, let alone for those of the whole world, so the Savior must be God. 

But if Jesus is less than God (above humans and even above angels, but still 

not equal to the Father and the Spirit), how can he serve as an atoning 

sacrifice for all? Redemption is in jeopardy. Moreover, if there is not 

equality of being and purpose, then perhaps Christ's desire to offer a 

sacrifice is contrary to the Father's thinking about how to atone for human 

sin. Perhaps, as some earlier in church history have supposed , the Son's 

propitiation of the Father attemps to win over a Father who is not inclined 

to handle sin in this way. And what if the Father decided to reject the 



Son's sacrifice? 

As to the Holy Spirit, if he is not fully God, the implications for 

salvation are again serious. Scripture teaches that the HS regenerates 

believers and indwells and fills them, but if the HS is a lesser God or no 

God at all, how can we be sure that he can do any of these things? Moreover, 

unless he is coequal in being and purpose with the Father and the Son, what 

guarantees that even if he tried to do such things, the Father and Son would 

recognize his actions as appropriate and relate to us accordingly? 

Reply: Well, we have 961 words, and no Scriptures thus far. Let us examine a few points. You said: 

"It is generally agreed in evangelical theology that because of human sin and guilt before God, a radical 

remedy is required. Someone must die to pay the penalty, but who? Evangelical theology contends that it 

msut be a human being, for humans have incurred the guilt and penalty. But no mere human could atone 

even for their 

own sins, let alone for those of the whole world, so the Savior must be God. But if Jesus is less than God 

(above humans and even above angels, but still not equal to the Father and the Spirit), how can he serve 

as an atoning 

sacrifice for all?" 

Reply: God's death, I believe, is not a proper or corresponding ransom, as God dying would too high a 

price. Besides, God cannot die, "Surely you, Yahweh, are from ancient times, my holy God, who never 

dies!" Hab 1:12 

This is again, where the Adam Christology talked about above comes into play. 

Rom 5:14 Nonetheless death reigned over all from Adam to Moses, even over those whose 

sin was not the breaking of a commandment, as Adam was. He prefigured the One who was 

to come..." 

1 Cor 15:22 Just as all die in Adam, so in Christ all will be brought to life. 

1 Cor 15:45 So the first man, Adam, as scripture says, became a living soul; and the last 

Adam has became a life-giving spirit. 

If we lost eternal life because of Adam, who was once perfect and without sin, then it only follows that it 

would take another Adam, another perfect man, to get it back for us. 

The NWT renders 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 in a superior manner when it deals with the ransom, 

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who 

gave himself a corresponding ransom for all-[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own 

particular times." 

Rob Bowman calls the NWT's rendering at 1 Tim 2:6 of antilutron ["a corresponding ransom,"] an 

"overtranslation." 

(See Why You Should Believe In The Trinity. pp. 76, 77) 

Now, the NASB, NJB and others all render this as simply "ransom." If Paul wanted just "ransom," he 

could have just used LUTRON, but instead he used LUTRON with the preposition ANTI, indicating, as 

grammarians generally agree, of "substitution." Vine's says that ANTILUTRON is "significant," and 

indicates a "substitutionary ransom." Surely Vine's take on this must also be considered 

"overtranslation." 



Actually, it could be said that translating ANTILUTRON as simply "ransom" is undertranslation. 

H.A.W. Meyers says: “The word antilutron, is synonymous with antallagma 

in Mt. 16:26; it is distinguished from the simple lutron only in this, 

that the preposition makes the idea of exchange still more 

emphatic."--Meyers Commentary on the NT. 

"Antilutron: a corresponding price."--Young’s Concordance. 

"It signifies a substitute ransom price, a ransom in place of another or others." Paul's Letter 

to the Colossians-An Exegetical and Devotional Commentary by J. Hampton Keathley 

III-Biblical Studies Press 2001, p. 64 

"the reference in 1 Timothy 2:6...has a substitutionary meaning." Davies, Christ in our 

Place, 89-90 

"A ransom, price of redemption, or rather corresponding ransom. It 

properly signifies a price by which captives are redeemed from the 

enemy; and that kind of exchange in which the life of one is redeemed by 

the life of another. so Aristotle uses the verb antilytroo for redeeming 

life by life."--Parkhurst's Lexicon;47 

A look at the word ANTI help us with this reasoning. The BDAG Lexicon says that it is "indicating that 

one thing is equiv[alent] to another" and some of the examples it gives are Matt 5:38, "Eye for [ANTI] 

eye and tooth for [ANTI] tooth" and Romans 12:17, "Never pay back evil with [ANTI] evil." 

This substitutionary value is stressed further by the use of the prepositional hUPER following LUTRON 

in 1 Timothy. So, when the Bible tells us that, "it was through one man [Adam] that sin came into the 

world, and through sin death, and thus death spread to the whole world" then it requires another Adam to 

free us from this sinful inheritance of death. (Romans 5:12) Both Adam and Jesus are called the "Son of 

God" [Luke 3:38; 4:3] but, while Adam may at the same time be the father of a sinful many, Jesus will 

bear their sins, and we can be in this way counted as offspring of the father and suffering servant who 

gives us eternity. (Isaiah 9:6; 53:10-12) 

For God, the creator of universe, the awesome, powerful, dynamic Almighty Jehovah to have to pay this 

price is not the ANTILUTRON, it is not a corresponding, substitutionary ransom, for a million planets 

housed with billions of people could never measure up to the immeasurable Yahweh. 

Tim: The doctrine of theTrinity is also significant in terms of the truth of revelation. In 1 

Cor. 2, Paul tells us that the hidden things of God have been revealed to us by God's Spirit, 

the Holy Spirit. In verse 11 Paul writes, "For who among men know the thoughts of a man 

except the spirit of the man, which is in him. Even so the thoughts of God no one knows 

except the Spirit of God." Paul's logic is hard to fault. Who would better know what you are 

thinking than you? Similarly, who would better know the truths 

of God than God's own Spirit? But what if the HS does not share the divine essence but is a 

lesser one (even a none divine one)? Then, according to Paul's logic, the HS would not 

necesarrily be in the best position to know the truths of God, and if that is so, we are in deep 

trouble in relation to Scripture. Scripture clearly teaches that revelation of God's truth 

comes through the Spirit and that the Spirit inspired Scripture (1 Cor 2:9-13). Believing this 

to be so and believing the Spirit to be coequally God so thathe really knows the truth of 

God, evangelicals take the Bible to be God's Word and understand it as a true revelation 



from God about himself, ourselves, etc. As Paul says, who would better know what someone 

is thinking than that person himself? If the HS doesn't share the divine essence withthe 

Father and the Son, he is not in a position to know. The implicationsfor our knowledge of 

God are staggering! 

Reply: It is nice to finally start talking about the spirit. You quoted verse 11, ""For who among men 

know the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him. Even so the thoughts of God no 

one knows except the Spirit of God." 

I would say that the phrase "spirit of the man" helps us to understand "the Spirit of God," much like the 

"spirit of error" tells us how to view the "spirit of truth" at 1 John 4:6. 

"The spirit of man bears the same relation to man as the spirit of God bears to God (1 Cor. 2:11). As the 

spirit of man is not another person distinct from himself, but his human consciousness or mind by which 

he is able to be self-aware and contemplate things peculiar to himself, so the spirit of God is not another 

person distinct from God. It is that consciousness and intelligence that is essential and peculiar to Him 

whereby He manifests amd reveals Himself to man. As the spirit of man means the man himself (the 

essence of a man is his mind), so the spirit of God means God Himself. The parallel usage of mind and 

spirit is seen in the Apostle Paul's citation of Isaiah 40:13 ('Who has directed the spirit of the Lord, or as 

His counselor has instructed him?') and in Romans 11:34 and 1 Corinthians 2:16 where 'spirit' is rendered 

'mind.' 

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 

person, since the two are directly contrasted. The fact is, that each 'spirit' represents an influence or a 

power under which a person acts, but neither is a person in itself." p. 597, One God & One Lord by 

Graeser, Lynn and Schoenheit. 

Let us look at some other examples of "the spirit of" in the Bible: 

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both birds, and cattle, and beasts, and every creeping thing 

that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life" Gen 

7:22 ASV 

"the spirit of their father Jacob revived" NJB "he recovered from the shock" TEV Gen 45:27 

"whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom" ASV "whom I have endowed with skill" NJB Ex 28:3 

"and have filled him with the spirit of God" NJB "I have filled him with my power" TEV Ex 31:3 

"have filled him with the spirit of God" NJB "God has filled him with his power" TEV Ex 35:31 

"this spirit of suspicion comes over him" NJB "a husband becomes suspicious of his wife" TEV Numbers 

5:14 

"Joshua, son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom" NJB "Joshua, son of Nun was filled with 

wisdom" TEV Deut 34:9 

"and the spirit of Yahweh began to stir him" NJB "the LORD's power began to strengthen him" TEV 

Judges 13:25 

"the spirit of Elijah has come to rest on Elisha" NJB "the power of Elijah is on Elisha" TEV 2 Kings 2:15 

"the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul" ASV "the God of Israel roused the hostility of Pul" NJB 1 

Chron 5:26 

"the spirit of the Philistines" ASV "the hostility of the Philistines" NJB 2 Chron 21:16 

More examples can be allowed, but I think you get the gist of it here. The Spirit of God is God's power, 

his breath, it is God Himself. There is no difficulty here, it is simply not another person within a triune 

Godhead. 

"After being exalted to the right hand of God and receiving the sacred breath as promised from the 

Father, he poured out all this you see and hear." Acts 2:33 Unvarnished NT 



For more on the spirit go to http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/spirit.htm and 

http://members.aol.com/hector3001/spiritresearch.htm 

Tim: Think as well of the implications for revelation if Jesus is not coequally God. The Bible 

says that Jesus is the exact image of God (Heb 1:3) and that in Him dwells all the fulness of 

the Godhead in bodily form (Col. 2:9). Jesus adds that whomever have seen him have seen 

the Father (Jn. 14:9). John says that while no one else has ever seen God, the Son knows 

him and reveals him to us (Jn 1:18). But if Jesus is a lesser god or not a god at all, thereare 

no such guarantees. In his very person he cannot reveal God, for he isnot coequal with him. 

Moreover, we cannot even be sure that his teachingabout God reveals the truth, for if he is 

not coequal with God how can we really know what he is talking about when he speaks of 

God? If so, then in knowing about Christ and knowing him personally by faith, we cannot be 

sure 

our knowledge of God increases at all. 

Reply: Let us take an even closer look at the above Scriptures. 

Heb 1:3 "the Son who is the effulgence of God's splendour, and the stamp of God's very being." New 

English Bible 

"He is the reflection of God's glory and bears the impress of God's own being." NJB 

"He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact likeness of his being" International Standard Version 

"He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature" RSV 

We can sum all this up with Beck's An American Translation's "who shines with God's glory and is the 

copy of His being." 

The KJV 1611 edition cross-references this scripture with the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon 7:26, 

"She is a breath of the power of God, pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; ...For she is a 

reflection of the eternal light, untarnished mirror of God's active power, and image of his goodness." 

Jesus, as the created Wisdom (see Sirach 24:9; Prov 8:22), reflected perfectly the Father, whom even 

trinitarian theology teaches, he could never be. 

There are 2 keys words at play here. APAUGASMA ("reflected brightness" Thayer's) and CARAKTHR 

(stamp, impress). 

APAUGASMA is "in the sence of brightness from a source; pass(ive)." 

Vincent concludes in his Word Studies, "WE come nearer to the sense of the word (Glory/DOXA) in this 

passage in the story of Moses's vision of the divine glory." 

It is interesting that the previous Scriptures in Hebrews 1 point to the prophets as mediators, but now we 

have the Son as such. 

Moses was the mediator of the old covenant, Jesus is the mediator of the new. 

"According to Exod 34:29-35 the skin of Moses' face radiated after his meeting with the 

Lord on Mount Sinai (Exod 34:29.30.35), i.e. his face was enveloped in a divine aura. By 

this nimbus Moses was legitimated as the true representative of the LORD (cf. Matt 17:2, 

Acts 6:15)." 

Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible 

A stamp or an impression, like that on a coin, or a logo (see BDAG) is not the original, but a 

representation of the original. The picture of George Washington on the dollar bill is a CARAKTHR, it 

represents him, but it is not really him. 

A "copy" bears a resemblance to the original, it represents it, but it is NOT the same or equal in value to 

the original. 



Adam was made in God's image, in His likeness, but he failed as a true representative of God (Gen 1:26). 

This required another Adam. 

"Hebrews also considered Jesus a "reflection of the glory" which meant the same as being a 

"stamp of his nature" The Greek word for "stamp" comes from the verb charassein. "to 

mark, engrave, or stamp." The stamp, accordingly, refers to the characteristic and distinctive 

form, Isaac was claimed to have features (zlw 'iqoniw) like those of Abraham (Gen R. 21:2; 

53 /6). This does not mean either that Isaac was actually identical to Abraham or that Jesus 

was identical to God. Both were reflections and had characteristics of their fathers. Jesus 

was the son, heir, and apostle of God (3:1). As apostle or agent he was sent with the full 

authority of the one who sent him. A man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but 

legally. He has the power of attorney for the one who sent him. That which the apostle/agent 

does is in behalf of and has the approval and support of the one who sent him. He has the 

authority of an embassador who speaks in behalf of a king in negotiating for his country 

(Ber. 5:5). Jesus said that the one who recieved his apostles whom he had sent recieved 

Jesus himself and not only Jesus, but the one who had sent him (Matt 10:40-42;John 13:20). 

This is true because legally a man's apostle is like the man himself. The New Testament 



the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Legally Jesus was 

identical with the Father, but physically the Father was greater. Just as Christians thought of 

Jesus as an apostle of God, so Jews thought of Moses as the "apostle between Israel and 

their heavenly Father" (Sifra behuqqotai, perek 8:12; Lev 26:46). As the great apostle 

(magnus nuntius), Moses prayed "every hour, both day and night...to him who rules all the 

world" (Assumption of Moses 11:17). Samaritans also thought of Moses as their apostle of 

God: They called him a good apostle, a righteous apostle, an apostle of God, and the apostle 

of the true one whom God specially chose for apostleship. As apostle, he was also called 

"Son of the House of God", God's "man," "savior," "prophet," "faithful one," "crown of the 

righteous of the world," and "light of prophethood." As an apostle, Moses was entrusted 

with the mysteries and honored in the things revealed. To Moses was revealed that which 

preceded creation and also that which follows the day of vengeance. To him was opened the 

gateway to the unseen. He had drawn near to the holy deep darkness where the Divine One 

was and had seen the wonders of the unseen (Memar Marquah 2/12; 3/6; 4/4; 5/3; 6//3,11). 

There are many biblical illustrations of apostolic authority: Jehu was ritually made king 

when Elisha sent one of the sons of the prophets to annoint him. It was not necessary for 

Elisha to annoint him himself for the annointing to be authoritative (2Kings 9:1-10). Paul 

sent a message to the Corinthians, giving them authority to deliver to Satan the man who 

had been living with his father's wife, because Paul was "with them in spirit," meaning that 

his legal authorization was there (1Cor 5:1-5). 

"Bearing everything by the word of his power" does not picture the Son playing the part of 

Atlas carrying the world on his shoulder, nor in the sense that God is the "sustainer of the 

World" or "age" (sobel 'olam) (Exod R. 64c, /36:4). Rather, as ambassador or apostle, the 

Son has authority over everything since he is given legal authority and is supported in 

everything he does "by the word of [God's] power." He speaks for the One who sent him." 

The Anchor Bible-To the Hebrews, by George Wesley Buchanan 

The mistranslation of "Godhead" at Colossians 2:9 has already been dealt with elsewhere on my site. 



Tim: The doctrine of the Trinity safeguards against all of these devastatingposibilities. The one who dies on 

the cross is fully God as well as fullyhuman. Salvation is not merely his idea, an idea of whose merit he 

mustconvince the Father; it is the plan and work of the whole Godhead. The Holy Spirit does have the 

power to regenerate, and in indwelling believers he brings the very presence of God (Father, Son, and HS) 

into our lives. Moreover, the Spirit as God knows accurately the things of God, so we can be sure that the 

Scriptures He inspired are both the truth of God and the truth about God. And Jesus is, as Scripture says, 

the highest revelation of God 

that we have. Yes, he is a man; but he is also fully God (Titus 2:13). 

Now, lets dig in. What does the Bible say that leads many to formulate this great truth. First of all, the 

doctrine of the trinity is never explicitly stated in the Bible. There is no realiable verse that says, "God is 

one as to essence, three as to persons." Now, while no passage states this doctrine per se, there are other 

ways Scripturecan teach something. If Scripture makes various claims which, we taken together, necessitate 

or even warrant adoctrine, then the Bible teaches the doctrine by implication. It is easy to show that the 

Bible only teaches that there is only one God. Moreover, Scripture applies terms such as "God" and 

"YAHWEH" and predicates various divine attributes and actions to more than one individual. There is 

good Biblical evidence that these three individual are distinct and exist simultaneously with one another.If 

Scripture does teach all of this, it doesn't "say" that God is one in essence and three as to persons, but it 

requires the theologian and exegete to do a lot of explaining. For how can there only be one God and yet 

several distinct, simultaneously existing individuals who are attributed divine 

qualities, called by divine names, and portrait as doing things that, according to the bible and reason, only 

a divine being could do? If the theologian and exegete are to avoid contradiction, the traditional 

formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity seems required. 

All of this means that the doctrine of the Trinity is inferred from things that Scripture teaches without 

actually being stated anywhere in Scripture. Inferential reasoning is notoriously slippery, for from one set 

of data it may be possible to generate several distinct inferences, each of which mutually excludes the 

others. But this is no reason to dispare. Careful attention to the text is possible and a reasonable conclusion 

is still within our God-guided reach. Formulating doctrines by inferential reasoning from Scripture can and 

will be difficult, but it is not an illegitimate wayto come up with doctrine. If the data warrant the inference, 

there is noreason to be apologetic about the doctrine. 

Here are a couple more ground rules. We do know what the early church fathers and church councils 

concluded about this doctrine. We also know from the writings of church fathers who attempted to expond 

and defend the decision of the church councils that rather sophisticated metaphysical distinctions were used 

to explain and defend this doctine. They introduced 

Greek and Latin terms (such as ousia, hypotasis, substantia, subsistantia, persona) to elucidate this 

doctrine, terms that were never used in this way in Scripture to speak of the Trinity. This should caution all 

to be careful not to impose these terms and concepts on the Bible so as to force biblical writers to make 

sophisticated metaphysical points that they never intended 

to make and possibly new little about. I know that it is frustrating for you and me to read various 

theological treatments of this doctrine in which theologians essentially "read back" into Scripture 

conclusions of the church councils that biblical authors never intended. That doesn't mean, however, that 

biblical authors would disagree with these claims and sophistications, but only that while we want to say 

whatever Scripture says about this topic, we should not make the biblical writer say more than they did. The 

secondcaution is to avoid reading current notions of "person" back into Scripture 

and into the formulations and writings of the church fathers who bravely grappled with these ideas. As you 

may know, some dramatic changes occured with Immanuel Kant in our understanding of how the mind 

functions in the knowing process, and all of that has implications for our notions of conciousness and 

self-conciousness, and those concepts have significant implications for what we mean by a person. Don't 

assume that 4th and 5th century thinkers undrstood conciousness, knowledge, or personhood as Kant and 

Descartes did, let alone as we do. 

A third rule deals with the relation of the NT to the OT. Progress of revelation means that God has not said 

everything that He wants to say about a topic in just one passage. It also means that as salvation-history 

progresses, earlier revelation is made more complete by later revelation. It becomes more clear. This is 

especially true for the doctrine of the Trinity. The truths that form the foundation of the doctrine are most 

clearly presented in the NT. Parts of the doctrine are at best only vaguely hinted 



at in the OT. It is tempting to read the NT truth back into the OT, but we must, insofar as it is possible, 

resist that temptation. The reason is not that the NT contradicts the OT or doesn't flow from it, but rather 

that the OT does not say entirely what we claim on the basis of NT teaching. It is one thing to say, for 

example, that we can see how an OT passage that says the coming Messiah would also be God (Is 9:6-7) 

fits NT teaching that Jesus of Nazareth is the long awaited Messiah, and is the Son of God. It isanother 

thing to say that Isaiah is teaching that Jesus is God. Or again, itis one thing to say that a passage such as 

Is. 63:7-14 teaches that God, the angel of his presence, and God's Holy Spirit were all involved in Israel's 

exodus from Egypt and through the wilderness pilgrimage, and if the second member of that trio is the 

preincarnate Christ, then though this passage dosen't teach three distinct members of the Godhead, it can 

made to cohere with such a doctrine. On the other hand, it is another to say that this passage teaches not 

only plurality in the Godhead but also that each of the three individuals mentioned are distinct persons of 

the Godhead and coequal with one another. By being careful with OT texts, I don't think we lose anything 

of significance to the doctrine of the Trinity. On the other hand, we can clearly see the intimations of a 

triune God, outlines which, if not completely understood by the OT person, are still understandable in the 

NT era as seeds from which the fuller and clearer teaching would grow. Moreover, for the observant OT 

saint, those OT passages could have been a clue that ther is more to say about God that just that there is 

one God and YAHWEH is his name. 

THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. 

This is a foundational claim of the Bible. This rules out all forms of polytheism. Moreover, Scripture makes 

it clear that this one God is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is not Baal, Molech, or any 

of the other pagan deities. Both OT and NT are very clear about this. 

Frist in the OT, there are many indications that there is only one God. The best known is the SHEMA. 

Though the syntax is a bit difficult in the original, the meaning of the verse is quite clear. 'ehod occurs some 

960 times in many contexts throughout the OT, and its predominant use is to designate something that is 

numerically one, and that seems to be its sense here. There is only one Yahweh; no one else qualifies as 

God. Other peoples have their own gods, but Israel's God is Yahweh alone. For Jews and Christians, the 

God of the Bible is the true and living God, so no other god is real. In light of Yahweh alone being God, v. 5 

instructs Israel to "lovethe LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with allyour 

might." Ex. 20:3 and Deut. 5:7 command Israel to "have no other gods before Me." When Moses asked God 

what to tell Israel if they ask the name of this God (Ex 3:13-14, NIV), God replys that Moses should answer, 

"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 

forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation 

to generation" (v. 15). At various places in the OT God emphatically reiterates that he is the only God and 

that there is no other. Deuteronomy repeatedly makes this point. In chapter 4:35, 39 we read, "You were 

shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God, besides him there is no 

other...Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in 

heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other." See also Deut. 32:39. 

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 

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 

the point. Sure most are in response to idols, but the point is that regardless of who or what it is, there is 

only one God. Isaiah 46:9 proclaims, "I am God, and 

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 

only one God. It also says that there is no one, even including THE HIGHEST OF ALL BEINGS BESIDE 

GOD, to compare with him (do you still think that representative of God - excluding Jesus for now - can 

receive the same honor?). In Exodus 15:11, Moses makes a further point that when Yahweh is compared 

with other nations' gods, there is no comparassion. Moses asks, "Who among the gods is like you, O 

LORD? Who is like you - majestic in holiness, awsome in glory, working wonders?" 

The NT repeats this message in various ways. On one occasion (Mk 12:29-30) Jesus was asked which one 

of the 10 commandments he thought most important. Jesus's reply, taken form Deut. 6:4 was followed by 

the first commandment. 

In verse 31 Jesus adds the command to love our neighbor as ouselves, and then his interlocutor agrees (v. 

32) that "God is one and there is no other but him." Jesus also states that God is one in Jn 17:3. 



Paul is in agreement. See Roman 3:29-30. The logic is clear: there is only one God, so whatever rules 

apply to one group of people, apply to all. This is what we would expect from Paul for he was raised as an 

Orthodox Jew. 

In 1 Cor. 8 Paul discusses issues of Christian liberty (matters morally indifferent in themselves). The 

particular practice in question is eating food sacrificed to idols. In 8:4ff. Paul explains that idols are not 

really gods, and eating or not eating food sacrificed to them is morally indifferent. However, because some 

have scruples about such things, believers should be careful not to offend. As he makes this point, Paul 

affirms the tradition Jewish and Christian belief in only one God. See also 

Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2:5. There is only one God to whom we are accountable, and he has given us 

one means by which we must be saved, namely, through Jesus, the only mediator between God and man. 

See also what 

James says in 2:19. It is good to believe in only one God. 

Reply: I think Durant sums up Kant nicely with "Our philosopher [Kant] is like and unlike Jehovah; he 

speaks through clouds, but without the illumination of the lightning-flash." Durant also adds, "He 

disdains examples and the concrete; they would have made his book too long, he argued." 

God does help us to know Him...with examples. If we are puzzled about His beginning, we can look at an 

endless/beginningless universe to fathom this. To understand His relationship with His Son, he uses 

anthropomorphisms, in other words, Father and Son, so that we can look at our own relationship with our 

Father and Son to fathom this. What do we come up with? We are close to our fathers/sons. We often 

share a resemblance to our fathers/sons. The father receives more honor than the son. The father comes 

before the son in time. The son is subordinate to the father. They may be united in purpose, but they are 

separate in being. 

You are right, there is only one God, and in every passage where the Father and the Son are mentioned 

together, God is distinguished from the Son. God is One, not Three. True, Isaiah 46:9 says, "I am God, 

and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me," but Isaiah 46 ends with these words, "I shall 

place my salvation in Zion and my glory in Israel." If God can place His glory elsewhere, this does not 

mean that the recipient shares an equality with Jehovah, he just represent God to the people. 

God says there are no other Saviors (Isaiah 43:11), yet he did have other saviors: 

"And when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised up a saviour to the children of 

Israel, who saved them, 

even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother." Judges 3:9, 15 ASV 

"Jehovah raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera" Judges 3:15 ASV 


of their trouble, when 

they cried unto thee, thou heardest from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them 

saviours who saved 

them out of the hand of their adversaries." Neh 9:27 


and thus honors the 

Father as the Saviour to whom even the Son looked. 

God says there are no other gods besides him (Isaiah 44:8). yet he did appoint other humans and 

angels who were called gods. 

Exodus 21:6 cf 22:8 

"then his master must take him before the judges" NIV 

"then his master shall bring him unto God" ASV 

[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, 

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.] 



God says you must worship [Shachah] only Him (Exodus 34:14) yet others were allowed Shachah as a 

form of respect: 

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 

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 

11:8; Gen 23:12; etc., etc. 

No one is good but God alone (Mark 10:18) yet others were also called "good" at 1 Tim 3:12; 1 Tim 

4:4; 1 Tim 4:6; 6:18; 2 Tim 2:3; and 1 Peter 4:10. 

God alone is holy (Rev 15:4) yet others were holy (Acts 3:21; 10:22; 1 Corinthians 7:14 etc). 

Only Jesus is Leader (Matthew 23:10 Amplified), yet we are to "obey our spiritual leaders." Heb 13:17 

Amplified 

Jesus is called the "only Son" (John 1:18 RSV), yet God has other Sons (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). 

The referent at 1 Tim 6:16 is called the MONOS DUNASTHS "only Potentate." Yet, the same word 

"DUNASTHS" is used for the Eunuch "of great authority" at Acts 8:27. The monarchs who were 

dethroned are also referred to as DUNASTHS at Luke 1:52. It can refer to a "prince" (Thayer's) or "gen. 

one who is in a position to command others" BDAG. 

In this, it is similar to DESPOTHS ("one who has legal control and authority over person, such as 

subjects or slaves" BDAG. Jesus is also called TON MONON DESPOTHS "our only Sovereign" NIV, 

yet the word DESPOTHS is also used of humans at 1 Tim 6:1; Titus 2:1; 1 Peter 2:18 etc. 

The upshot of all this is that Jehovah is uniquely God, he is uniquely good, he is our unique Savior, he is 

worshipped uniquely, he is uniquely holy, and Jesus is uniquely God's Son and our Lord and Master, in a 

way that no others are. 

Gleason Archer, who is certainly a trinitarian [and one of the translators of the NASB], has to concede 

the following: 

"One additional observation is in orderconcerning this occasional employment of Elohim in 

the Old Testament to refer to believers under the covenant. This seems to operate by the 

analogy of national designations like bene Yisrael (the sons of Israel), bene Ammon (the 

sons of Ammon), bene Yehudah (the sons of Judah), bene Babel (the sons of Babylon), etc. 

Any or all of these tribes or nations could also be referred to without the bene (sons of), as 

Yisrael, Ammon, or Yehudah. By analogy then, the combination bene elohim could be 

shortened to elohim alone - i.e., a member of the sons (or people) of God. (Other passages of 

this class, referring to Israelite rulers or judges as God's representatives on earth, include 

Exod. 21:6; 22:7-8, 27; Pss. 8:5; 82:1; 138:1 [or else 'angels']. Encyclopedia of Biblical 

Difficulties, p. 374 

Tim: EVIDENCES OF PLURALITY IN THE GODHEAD 

We can begin with the fact that the typical OT word for Israel's God is 

'elohim, and it is plural. 

Reply: I have already dealt with Elohim and Gen 1:26 at 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/mamre.htm, so I do not see the need to repeat this all here. But I 

would like to add the following regarding pluralisms in the Biblical text. 

Speaking of Jesus, Isaiah 53:9 says, "His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich 

man in His death." 

However, the word "death" here is plural, so it could be rendered "deaths." Yet Jesus did not die more 

than one time (Heb 10:10). These kinds of pluralisms are simply a unique factor of the Hebrew language, 

even with singular pronouns. 



Consider also that the plural form of "lord" is used to address King Saul, thus denoting respect for his 

position and rank in I Samuel 22:12. Literally it is "my Lords" in Hebrew. Moses is also addressed as 

"lords" out of respect in Exodus 32:22, being translated, of course, as "lord" into English. 

True righteousness (Isa.33:15), and full knowledge (I Sam. 2:3) are conveyed by the use of plural nouns 

in the Hebrew in these Scriptures. 

The "darkness" mentioned in Psalm 88:6 is plural, as is the contemptuous tone mentioned in Daniel 12:2. 

You will find that the Septuagint translators, no longer using the pluralistic Hebrew, translated these in 

the singular. 

Rabbi Singer also adds some interesting notes at http://www.outreachjudaism.org/genesis1-26.html 

A further intimation of plurality in the Godhead comes from the various references to the 

angel of the Lord (mal'ak yhwh). 

Reply: I have also already dealt with the Angel of Jehovah at 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/sam.htm. 

Tim: Further OT of plurality in the Godhead comes in teaching about the Messiah, God's 

anointed. Some passages identify the coming Messiah as God. Isaiah 9:6-7, which 

prophesies the birth of a son to Israel. This is no mere human child, however, for the 

passage clarifies that he will sit upon Davids throne and his kingdom will last forever. This 

can be no other than thelong awaited Messiah, but note the description of this child. Among 

otherthings, verse 6 reveals that he is the Mighty God, so this passage connects 

Messiahship with deity. 

Reply: Let us look closer at Isaiah 9:6: 

"Mighty God, Eternal Father." New World Translation 

"Wonder-Counsellor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace." Byington's The Bible in Living 

English 

"A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince." Moffatt's The Bible 



"Great Leader, Time's Father, the Prince of Peace." The Complete Bible in Modern English by Ferrar 

Fenton 

"his name is called the Messenger of great counsel." Brenton's LXX 

"divine hero, father of spoil, prince of peace" Isaiah 1:12 Old Testament Library-A Commentary by Otto 

Kaiser 

There can be no complaint of the above rendering in the NWT, but why do other Bibles not render it so? 

Isaiah 9:4 makes a 

reference to the Midian's defeat at the hands of the Judge Gideon. Mentioning him here is no 

coincidence, as Jesus is the 

greater Gideon, and all judgement will be committed to him (John 5:22). Now, Judges were also called 

"God," not only at 

Psalm 82:1, but also at Exodus 21:6 ("then his master must take him before the judges ["God" footnote]" 

NIV; "then his master 

shall bring him to God" NASB) and Exodus 22:8 ("the owner of the house must appear before the judges 

["God" footnote]" 

NIV; "then the master of the house shall come near unto God" ASV). 

As we have also discussed before, Isaiah 9:6 was originally thought of as applying to a mere human. See 



http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim.htm. 

Tim: We find something similar to this in Jerimiah23:5-6, where God says that he will raise 

up for David a righteous branchwho will reign as king over Israel and Judah. 

Commentators uniformlyunderstand this as a prophecy about the Messiah, but beyond that, 

verse 6 says that his name will be called "the LORD of righteousness," or "Yahwehour 

righteous." This is more than mere prophecy that people in Messiah's day will think 

possitively of him. Rather, he will be called this because they will recognize him as God and 

will be thrilled with the justice and righteousness that he does in the land (v. 5). So this 

passage identifies Messiah as divine. 

Reply: His becoming entitled to that name does not mean that Jesus is Jehovah God himself. The 

Israelite called Jehozadak, 

whose name means "Jehovah Declared Righteous" or "Jehovah Is Righteous," was not Jehovah himself. 

(1 Chron. 6:14, 15) 

Jeremiah 33:16 tells us that even Jerusalem was to be called "Jehovah Is Our Righteousness," but does 

that mean that 

Jerusalem was Jehovah himself? No! The name of the last reigning king of Jerusalem was Zedekiah, and 

that name means "The 

Righteousness of Jah." The king who was to be called "Jehovah Is Our Righteousness," namely, Jesus 

Christ, contrasts sharply 

with King Zedekiah. 

Another well known passage makes a similar indentification. Mic. 5:2 predicts the 

birthplace of the Messiah as Bethlehem Ephrathath. It also says that his goings forth are 

"from long ago, from the days of eternity." 

Reply: I have also already dealt with the Micah 5:2 at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/email.htm 

The Ot also frequently refer to the Spirit of God. Though in some passages such as Gen. 

6:3 ("My Spirit shall not strive") and Psalm 139:7 (the psalmist asks God, "Where can I go 

from thy Spirit?") it is not entirely clear whether the Spirit is a distinct personage or rather 

a reference to God the Father's Spirit, there are many passages in which the Spirit is 

distinct. 

Reply: I have already dealt with the Spirit at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/spirit.htm 

Three final OT items are relevant for our study. There are several passages where the 

name of God or the notion of his deity is applied to more than one person. Three of these 

passages appear in Isaiah. In 48:16 the speakers says "the LORD God has sent Me, and 

His Spirit." Many interpreters judge the speaker in the verse to be the second member of the 

Godhead. If one agrees, then all three persons are linked together in this verse. On the 

other hand, if one rejects that identification, the verse still speaks 

of the LORD God and his Spirit. Is. 61:1 is a second passage, and again the Lord God and 

the Spirit of the Lord are said to be upon the one who speaks. From the context of chapter 

61, this one who is anointed by the Lord and his Spirit does things (vv. 1-9) that could only 

happen in Messianic times, so one might on the basis of this chapter alone conclude that the 

Messiah is speaking. What seals the issue for many, however, is the fact that in Luke 

4:18ff., Jesus turns to this passage, reads it, and says that he fulfils it. 

Christ's statement linking himself to Isaiah 61 is for many conclusiveevidence that 61 



mentions all three members of the Godhead. 

Reply: Simply having the three sometimes mentioned together does not imply a sharing of substance, 

essence or equality. You will find many more instances of God, the Son and the Angels mentioned 

together in the Bible, like the following from the ASV: 

Luke 12:8. And I say unto you, Every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man 

also confess before the angels of God. 

John 1:51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heaven opened, and the 

angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. 

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 

are made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels and men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are 

wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye have glory, but we have dishonor. 

1 Tim 5:21. I charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou observe 

these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality. 

Heb 1:6. And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of 

God worship him. 

Heb 2:9 But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the 

suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for 

every man. 

1 Peter 3:22. who is one the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and 

powers being made subject unto him. 

21. which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of 

the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; 

Rev 14:22. who is one the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and 

powers being made subject unto him. 

Matt 16:27. For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he 

render unto every man according to his deeds. 

Matt 18: 10,11. See that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their 

angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven. [For the Son of man came to save that 

which was lost.] 

Matt 24:36. But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but 

the Father only. cf. Mk 13:32 

Mark 8:38. For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful 

generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with 

the holy angels. 

Luke 9:26. For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be 

ashamed, when he cometh in his own glory, and the glory of the Father, and of the holy angels. 

This is not to say that God is not portrayed as a Father (esp. to Israel) in the OT, for this is 

not the case (see 2 Sam 

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. 

63:16; 64:8; Mal 1:6; 2:10). From these passages, it is abundantly clear that God plays a 

fatherly role in the OT. My point, however, is that the phrase "God the Father," which in 

the NT often functions as a proper name, is absent from the OT. The only exception might 

be 1 Chron. 29:10 - I'll let you look at that debate on your own. 

Reply: Yes, YHWH is indeed portrayed as a Father in the OT, in fact the Father pretty much exhausts 

the word "God" in the entire Bible. Many Hebrew personal names apply Fatherhood to God. Joab means 



"Jehovah is Father," Eliab or Abiel means "El is Father" and Absalom means "the father-god is peace." 

Jehovah's love for his people is described as a love between Father and Son (Hosea 11:1). 

God demands honor as Father "If I am father, where is the honour due to me." Mal 1:6 

The phrase God the Father does not appear as such in the Hebrew as the Christian Greek Scriptures often 

relate this in relation to the Jesus Christ, as in "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" Romans 

15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Eph 1:3, 17; 4:6; Col 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3. 

YHWH is never protrayed as a Son. 

NT TEACHING ON PLURALITY IN THE GODHEAD. 

Indeed, the NT data on plurality in the Godhead are so plentiful that one 

hardly knows where to begin. 

Reply: It is rather easy, simply fine me one Scripture that articulates a Trinity. 

JESUS CHRIST IS GOD. 

In many different ways the NT teaches that Jesus is God. First, many passages, though not 

calling Jesus God, amount to saying that he is divine. In two passages in John, for example, 

Jesus in effect claims to be deity. In John 5 we find Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath, 

which infuriated the Jews. When they challenged Jesus, he replied (v. 17), "My Father is 

working till now, and I Myself am working." This made the situation worse, for his accusers 

understood Jesus to be calling himself God's son and making himselfequal with God (v. 18). 

If Jesus meant that he was God's son in the sensethat angels or human were called sons of 

God, that would not have merittedthe charge of blasphemy. But as his accusers complained, 

Jesus was making himself equal to God, and HE NEVER DENIED THEIR CHARGE, for 

that was exactly what he meant. 

Reply: Actually, he did deny the charge. He followed the statement, "By himself the Son can do 

nothing." This is old ground that we have gone over previously (see 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim.htm) 

"This is not a statement about equality in the sense that it could be reversed to read: The 

Father can do nothing except what he sees the Son doing. The notion of equality is heavily 

qualified by the notion of dependence. The equality consists primarily of equal works, 

which had been the point of Jesus claim in 5:17...The Son's equality with the Father is 

grounded in and defined by his doing the Father's will and fulfilling his commision. It is also 

grounded in the claim that he is uniquely qualified to do so, since he is the Son of the Father, 

different from other people. His being is distinctive and enables his doing. In his being he is 

dependent and subordinate; in his doing he is equal. The inequality of dependence of the 

unique Son is also emphasized as the basis of his equality of deed and word in 5:36f." The 

Christology of the Fourth Gospel by William Loader, pp. 160,161 

John V Dahms says, 

"Ison does not necessarily mean sameness or equality in every respect, as Matt 20:12 

demonstrates. And the use of the term 'Father' in the statement that led to the charge ('My 

Father is working still, and I am working') suggests that ison does not mean 'exactly like' in 

this context. Moreover, what immediately follows makes it clear that that the Son is not 

'exactly like' the Father: ' The Son can do nothing on his own account, but only what he sees 

the Father doing....I can do nothing on my own authority.'" The Subordination of the Son, 

Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 37/3, Sept. 1994, p. 360 



Another example of this can be found at Genesis 44:18 where it says of Joseph, "you are equal to 

Pharaoh." NASB 

Loader also points out that other interpretations often read "later Christological formulations into the 

text." Ibid, p. 161 

"From the Old Testament and Rabbinism there is no road to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ" also 

"the title Son of God is strictly Jewish and that the further step from Son of God to God the Son was 

taken upon Gentile ground through lax ideas brought in by converts from paganism" Hastings Dictionary 

of the Bible, Vol. IV. p. 577. 

John 10 records a similar incident. Jesus calls himself the good shepherd who give eternal 

life to his sheep. In verse 29 Jesus says that the Father has given him the sheep, and no one 

can take them from his hand. Jesus adds (v. 30), "I and the Father are one." Now Jesus 

might have meant that heagreed with God's will as set forth in Scripture, but, if that was 

hispoint, no one would have accused him of blasphemy [and you cannot justright-off the 

Jews interpretation of everything and say that they weremistaken. I would bet that the 

scribes and scholars that Jesus was engaged in had a much more sensitive understanding of 

most of the OT than you or Ido today. Modern Jews have so much understanding of TANAK 

on most areas that it blows the mind]. When the Jews heard this, however, they took up 

stones to stone him. When asked why they were doing this, they answered that they did this 

because, he, a mere man, was making himself out to be God. Jesus answered the charge of 

blasphemy, but not by denying that he isGod. His listeners understood him only too well. 

Rather, Jesus' defense was that in the OT Scriptures mere men (even evil men) who served 

as judgesin Israel were called gods without blasphemy, so why should they object when he 

did good works and called himself God? His accusers could not answer him, but don't be 

mistaken: Jesus wasn't suggesting that they misunderstood him; He meant that he is God. 

Reply: Once again, we are going over old ground (see http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tim3.htm) 

I will let a Jew answer this for me: 

"Some missionaries will argue, as you point out, that Jesus’ statement in John 10:30, “I and 

my Father are one,” demonstrates that Jesus considered himself God. The Greek word hen 

(one), however, does not imply being a part of the same substance. We see this clearly in 

John 17:11 and 17:21-22 where Jesus prays to God that the disciples may be one (hen) as 

are Jesus and God. Clearly, Jesus is requesting that the disciples be of one unified purpose, 

not of the same substance or part of the Trinity. 

Moreover, John 10:30-34 is particularly revealing. The fourth Gospel describes how when 

the Jews heard Jesus proclaim, “I and my Father are one,” they immediately wanted to stone 

him. When Jesus asks them why they wanted to kill him, the Jews responded because “you 

claim to be God.” Upon hearing this, Jesus asked, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I have said 

you are gods’?” This response is one of the most important statements in the Book of John, 

and should at least give Trinitarians pause. 

The verse is found in Psalm 82:6 where the Bible refers to judges who teach God’s divine 

law as gods. This title was bestowed on them because they were teachers of the Almighty’s 

divine law, not because they were actually God in any way. This usage is quite common in 

the Jewish scriptures. For example, in Exodus 7:1 Moses is called a god because he was 

God’s representative to Pharaoh. In essence, Jesus’ reply supports the very opposite of what 



missionaries are trying to put forth. Jesus, as depicted by John, is explaining that his 

identification with God is comparable to the Jewish judges’ identification with God. 

The fact remains that no author in the New Testament ever advanced the doctrine of the 

Trinity. It took many years from the time the last Gospel was completed for the defenders 

of the church to promote this alien creed. 

Sincerely yours, 

Rabbi Tovia Singer" 

William Barclay adds that this is 

"a purely Jewish argument that is hard for us to understand. He quoted Psalm 82:6. That 

psalm, is a warning to unjust judges to cease from unjust ways and defend the poor and 

innocent. The appeal concludes: 'I say, You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.' The 

judge is commissioned by God to be god to men. This idea comes out very clearly in certain 

of the regulations in Exodus. Exodus 21:1-6 tells how the Hebrew servant may go free in the 

seventh year. As the Authorized Version has it, verse 6 says "Then his master shall bring 

him unto the judges." But in the Hebrew, the word which is translated judges is actually 

elohim, which means gods. The same form of expression is used in Exodus 22:9, 28. Even 

scripture said of men who were specially commissioned for some task by God that they 

were gods. So Jesus said: 'If scripture can speak like that about men, why should I not speak 

so about myself.'" The Gospel of John-Volume 2, The Daily Bible Study Series, p. 77 

Barclay goes on to make the same argument that Loader makes above, in that Jesus "was consecrated by 

God to a special task." Ibid. p. 77 

In Colossians, Paul makes two very powerful statements about Christ as deity. In 

Colossians 1, Paul says that in Christ we have redemption and forgiveness of sins. He then 

says (v. 15) that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God." The word for image is "eikon" 

which means "representation" or "likeness." of this term Kittel writes: 

"Image is not to be understood as a magnitude which is alien to the reality and present 

only in the consciousness. It has its share in the reality. Indeed, it is the reality. Thus eikon 

does not imply a 

weakening or a feeble copy of something. It implies the illumination of its core and 

essence" (Hermann Kleinknecht, "The Greek Use of eikon," in TDNT 2:389). 

With this sense, we might even say that Jesus is a "corbon copy" of God. 

Reply: You forget that the entire scripture reads, "He is the image of the unseen God, the first-born of all 

creation." 

We are told several things here. 

A) God is invisible, unseen, Jesus was not. 

B) The "firstborn of all creation" is a partitive genitive, implying of course that Jesus is a created being, 

he is a part of creation. Click here, here, and here for more. 

C) Jesus is the image of God, but then so is man: 

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created 

them." Gen 1:27 NASB 

"In the image of God man was created." Gen 9:6 

The same language was used when Adam had his son: 



"When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, 

according to his image, and named him Seth." Gen 5:3 NASB 

The Greek LXX also uses the word eikon here, but no one suggests a sharing of being, essence and 

consubstantiality. 

It is as Wisdom 7:26 says of Wisdom, "she is the image of his goodness." 

How could this be true and he not be divine is hard to see for me. In the 

other passage (Col 2:9), Paul says that in Christ "all the fullness of Deity 

dwells in bodily form." 

Reply: Dealt with at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/theotes.htm 

"A recent and widely read acclaimed study of the Biblical view of Jesus-Christology in the 

Making, by James Dunn-alerts us to the danger of reading too much into Paul's words the 

conclusion of a later generation of theologians, the 'fathers' of the Greek church in the 

centuries following the completion of the New Testament writings. The tendency to find in 

Scripture what we already believe is natural, since none of us can easily face the threatening 

possibility that our 'received' understanding does not coincide with the Bible." 

Who Is Jesus-A Plea for a Return to Belief in Jesus, the Messiah, by Anthony Buzzzard, p.19 

In a number of passages, he is directly called God (theos). In John 1:1 John says theos en 

ho logos ("the Word was God"). In verse 14, we read that the Word became flesh and dwelt 

among us. This speaks of Christ's incarnation; hence, Johnis calling Jesus the Word. But in 

John 1:1 John says the Word was God.JW's like to claim that the absence of the definite 

article with theos means that John is saying that Jesus is "a god" (a lesser deity), but not at 

all equal to the Father Jehovah God. I have read this claim in WT magazines and heard it 

from the lips of dozens of JW's. There is no doubt that it is an official teaching of the 

WTBATS. However, and what I continue to point outto all JW's, is that grammatical studies 

have shown that in this passage the anarthrous noun before the verb (en) focuses on the 

quality of the thing designated by the noun. So in this case John is saying that the Word was 

ofthe quality of God, or qualitatively God. John is saying then, that the Word is God. I 

cannot see how Stafford's arguments have done any damage to Hartly and Wallace's 

defense of the orthodox interpretation of John 1:1. 

Reply: "Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom is by 

prefacing the noun with 'a.'" -- Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate 

Nominative in John" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 47. This has all been discussed 

at length at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/kkla.htm. 

The official teaching in this regard, from the 1950 and 1984 NWT is that the anarthrous QEOS in this 

instance points to quality, in fact they feel it says the same thing as Moffatt's and Goodspeed's "the Word 

was divine." 

If someone has a quality of someone, it does not automatically make them that person or one and the 

same, it gives them their attributes or characteristics. Wallace says of 1 John 4:8 in a subset proposition, 

"God has the quality of love, but is not identical with it." We believe that the Word has the quality of 

God, but is not identical with Him. 

The traditional reading of "the Word was God" does not focus on quality, but it erroneously implies 

definiteness. Definiteness is what was implied in Colwell's study of this verse to promote the traditional 

reading. After Harner's study, the mainstream churches had to scramble to redefine qualitativeness. They 



realized that they were wrong. 

William Loader, who calls "a God" "the most natural reading of the text" has this to say of both 

renderings: 

"The Word was God? 

Against the first of these interpretations ('the word was God') is the fact that the author has 

just said that the Word was 'with' God. If 'Word' means little more than 'words', then it 

would be conceivable that the author could say: God's words were with him; they are, as his 

words, part of God himself, in that sense, they are God. Dupont comes near to this in 

claiming that the Logos concept refers not to a person but to God's communication of 

himself. But the author goes on to speak of the Word as a person as distinct from God, so 

that this must be assumed also in the opening verses. 

Nor is it likely that the author intends to his opening statement to make a gradual approach 

to what he wishes to say, so that 'the Word was with God' is merely a step along the way to 

the statement, 'the Word was God' which is repeated in 1:2. 

The Word was a God? 

The other two translations fit the context more smoothly at one level. Yet their evaluation 

cannot take place without our making assumptions about the author's wider frame of 

reference. In particular it is unlikely, given his context within the Christian community and 

its roots in Judaism, that he would mean that there is more than one God. Langbrandtner 

reckons with this as the positions of the redactor, whereas the Grundschrift had thought of 

Jesus more as an extension of God into the world, but such a view on the part of the redactor 

is unlikely and unsupported elsewhere. It is true, *on the most natural reading of the text*, 

that there are two beings here: God and a second who was theos but this second is related to 

God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over against which the second is 

defined. They are not presented as two equal gods." 

The Christology of the Fourth Gospel by William Loader, p. 155 

Again, go to the above link where I have already discussed Wallace, Harris, et al. 

Tim: Frequently in the NT Jesus is also called Lord. The Greek word is kyrios, the word the 

Septuagint uses the render the OT divine name YHWH. 

Reply: Lest the reader should be deceived, all extant copies of the LXX up the middle of the second 

century C.E. contained the Divine Name. It was Christians that had removed the Name. 









abbreviations were introduced for divine names. See Etudes de 

Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme 1971 pp. 221,222 

For more click here, and go to my article here at http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/ntstudies/tetragram.htm 



Of the early beliefs, as express in II Clement, Adolph Harnack writes, 

"It is necessary to think of Jesus as one thinks of God, (1) because he is the God-exalted 

Lord and Judge, (2) because he brought true knowledge and life and has delivered mankind 

from the dominion of demons, 

from error and sin, or will deliver them. Therefore he is Savior, Lord our God, Son of God 

and God, Lord and God, but not THE God." (The THE is italicised in the text.) 

The Bible identifies Jehovah as the "Sovereign Lord." (Genesis 15:2, 8; Acts 4:24; Revelation 6:10) He 

is also called "the true Lord" and "the Lord of the whole earth." (Exodus 23:17; Joshua 3:13; Revelation 

11:4) Who, then, is the other "Lord" of Psalm 110:1, [Yahweh declared to my Lord] and how did he 

come to be recognized as "Lord" by Jehovah? 

Jesus Christ as "Lord" 

Jesus is addressed as "Lord" in the four Gospels, most often in Luke and John. In the first century C.E., 

the title was one of respect and courtesy, equivalent to "Sir." (John 12:21; 20:15) In Mark's Gospel the 

term "Teacher," or Rab·bo'ni, is used more frequently in addressing Jesus. (Compare Mark 10:51 with 

Luke 18:41.) Even Saul's question on the road to Damascus, "Who are you, Lord?" had this same general 

sense of polite inquiry. (Acts 9:5) But as Jesus' followers came to know their Master, it is apparent that 

their use of the title "Lord" expressed much more than simple respect. 

Following his death and resurrection but prior to his heavenly ascension, Jesus appeared to his disciples 

and made this startling announcement: "All authority in heaven and on the earth has been *given to 

me.*" (Matthew 28:18) In Acts 2:36 we are told that Jesus was "MADE Lord." 

Because of his faithfulness to the end, Jesus was resurrected and given the highest reward. He then 

entered into his lordship in the heavens. 

Ephesians 1:20, 21 states that God had "seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all 

rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also 

in the one to come." NASB 

Jesus Christ's lordship is above all other lordships, and it will continue on into the new world. (1 Timothy 

6:15) He was exalted to "a superior position" and given "the name which is above all other names" so 

that everyone should acknowledge "that Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 

2:9-11) The first part of Psalm 110:1 was thus fulfilled, and "angels, ruling forces and powers" were 

subject to Jesus' lordship.-1 Peter 3:22; Hebrews 8:1. 

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the expression "Lord of lords" applies only to Jehovah. (Deuteronomy 10:17; 

Psalm 136:2, 3) But Peter under inspiration said of Christ Jesus: "He is the Lord of all." (Acts 10:36) He 

is indeed "Lord of both the dead and the living." (Romans 14:8, 9) All Christians acknowledge Jesus 

Christ as their Lord and Owner and show him obedience as his subjects, as they are bought with his most 

precious blood. And Jesus Christ has ruled as King of kings and Lord of lords over the church since 

Pentecost. But now he has been given authority to rule in that capacity with his enemies placed as a 'stool 

for his feet.' The time has come for him to 'go subduing in the midst of them,' all so that Psalm 110:1, 

2.-Hebrews 2:5-8; Revelation 17:14; 19:16 are fulfilled. 

But if you compare scriptures like Luke 4:19 with Isaiah 61:2 in either the King James Version or The 

New Jerusalem Bible people will maintain that Jesus took over the title "Lord" from Jehovah and that 

Jesus is Jehovah in the flesh. But God and his Son, Jesus Christ, are always carefully distinguished from 



each other in Scripture. Jesus made known his Father's name and represented him.-John 5:36, 37. 

In the following examples, note the quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures as they appear in the New 

Testament. Jehovah God and his Messiah, are both mentioned at Acts 4:24-27, which quotes from Psalm 

2:1, 2. The context of Romans 11:33, 34 is clearly referring to God as the Source of all wisdom and 

knowledge, with a quotation from Isaiah 40:13, 14. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul repeats the 

quotation, "Who has ever known the mind of the Lord (Jehovah)?" and then adds: "But we are those who 

have the mind of Christ." The Lord Jesus revealed to his followers the Lord Jehovah's mind on so many 

important matters.-1 Corinthians 2:16. 

Sometimes a text in the Hebrew Scriptures refers to Jehovah, but by virtue of His delegation of power 

and authority, it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Psalm 34:8, for example, invites us to "taste and see that 

Yahweh is good." But Peter applies this to the Lord Jesus Christ when he says: "Provided you have tasted 

that the Lord is good." (1 Peter 2:3) Peter takes a principle and shows how it is true also of Jesus Christ. 

By taking in knowledge of both Jehovah God and Jesus Christ and acting upon it, Christians can enjoy 

rich blessings from both the Father and his Son. (John 17:3) None of this makes them consubstantial. 

The relative positions of Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus Christ, are made very clear by the apostle Paul 

when he says: "Yet, to us, there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and, we, for him; and one 

Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and, we, through him." (1 Corinthians 8:6; 12:5, 6 

Rotherham) Writing to the Christian congregation in Ephesus, Paul identified the "one Lord," Jesus 

Christ, as being quite distinct from the "one God and Father of all."-Ephesians 4:5, 6. 

Apocalyptically, "The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord [Jehovah God] and of 

his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever." The New International Dictionary of New 

Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 514) says: "When Christ has overcome every power (1 Cor. 

15:25), he will submit himself to God the Father. Thus Jesus' lordship will have achieved its goal and 

God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28)." At the end of his 1000 year Reign, Christ Jesus hands back to his 

Father, Almighty God, the power and authority previously delegated to him. Hence, all glory and 

worship are rightly given to Jehovah, "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ."-Ephesians 1:17. 

Although Jesus is now Lord of lords, he is never called God of gods. 

"When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of 

our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor do 

they think of him as God. He is God's Christ, God's Son, God's Wisdom, God's Word. Even 

the Prologue to St. John, which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the 

light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is *less 

explicit in Greek with the anarthrous [the·os'] than it appears to be in English.*"-"The 

Divinity of Jesus Christ," by John Martin Creed. 

Further evidence of Christ's deity stems from the fact that NT writers predicated attributes 

of Christ that belong only to God. By saying that Christ possessed those qualities, they were 

attributing deity to him. We find, for example, that he is eternal and fully living (John 1:4; 1 

John 5:11-12). He is immutable (Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8); omnipotent (Philp. 3:20:21; John 

5:19; Rev. 1:8); omnicient (John 2:24-25 [cf. Jer. 17:9-10]; 6:64; 21:17; omnipresent, 

despite all his limitations in space and time during his 

earthly pilgramage (Matt 18:20; 28:20; John 14:23); loving (Jn 13:1, 34; 1 Jn 3:16); truth 

(Jn 14:6); holy (Lk 1:35); and possessing life in and of himself, i.e., having the attribute of 



aseity (Jn 5:26). 

Reply: The rest of this has been repeated elsewhere on my site. 

See http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/jcostouros.htm 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/availablelight.htm 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/christology.htm#aseity 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/john13.htm 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/firsborn.htm 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/prototokos.htm 

and feel free to check my sitemap at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/sitemap.htm 

THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD 

Reply: Dealt with at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/spirit.htm 

and http://members.aol.com/hector3001/spiritresearch.htm 

and http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/50questions.htm 

THE FATHER, SON, AND HS are distinct persons see Matt.3:16-17; John 14-15; Jn 

12:27-30; Matt. 17:5; Mk 9:7; Lk 9:35; 2Peter 1:17 

YET THE FATHER, SON, AND HS ARE ONE 

There is evidence that the Father, Son, and HS are considered as one. Various passages 

show that the writers and speakers mean more than just that the three happan to think 

alike. Rather, ontological (though that word is never used in Scripture) unity is the point. 

Christ's listeners understood 

this to be his point, and they accused him of blasphemy. That charge could have easily been 

refuted by saying that his point was that he agrees with God's way of thinking. While Jesus 

and the Father agree, Jesus never used that defense. Instead, his response to the accusation 

shows that he was saying exactly what they thought. This is what is going on in John 10:30. 

This is the point in John 14:9. This is revealed in the high priestlyprayer (Jn 17:21, 22, 

23). Moreover, passages such as Col. 1:15 and Hebrews1:8 not only clarifiy that Christ is 

God, but the language (eikon,charakter) speaks of unity between the two. 

There are passages that speak of the Son and the HS as one. See Rom 8:9-10. Having 

Christ is having the Spirit and vice versa. See also 2 Cor. 3:17. There is also unity between 

the Father and the Spirit. 1 Cor. 3:16. Cf. this with Col 1:27 and you can put Christ into 

the mix. Father and Spiritare seen well together in 1 Cor. 2:10-11. Their unity enables the 

HS (as no mere human could) to reveal the thing of God. 

Reply: The death knell to this type of oneness thinking is provided at John 17:22 "I have given them the 

glory that you gave me, that THEY may be one as WE are one." 

Christians are ONE similar to the way that Jesus and His Father are ONE. We are not part of some 

mysterious Godhead, or peoplehead. Christians are NOT co-essential, consubstantial, we are plural, 

something God should never be. God is not the community and society that desperate attempts to 

pluralize him by the Trinitarian community make him out to be. 

We have seen this above. 

"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity 

in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics) 

"The Jews themselves sincerely resent the implication that their Scriptures contain any proof, or any 



intimation of the donctrine of the orthodox Trinity, and Jesus and the Jews never differed on this subject, 

both maintaining that God is One only, and that this is the greatest truth revealed to man." 

The True God, the True Christ, the True Holy Spirit, by Ezra D. Gifford 

THE THREE ARE EQUAL 

From biblical teaching surveyed so far, the most natural conclusion is that if there is only 

one God and yet Father, Son, and HS are God, the three most likely are equals. Indeed, if 

there is any metaphysical difference among them in terms of their essence, were are on the 

road to polytheism. Hence, the most natural conclusion is that they are ontologically 

equal. Scripture uses neither the term "ontological" nor "metaphysical," and outside of the 

data presented to the effect that the three are one, there is no direct biblical claim that the 

three are equal. Still, certain elements of NT teaching FIT this notion of equality, even if 

they do not directly teach it. 

An initial point is how the NT authors list the members of the Godhead when speaking of all 

three together. If the three were inherently unequal, we might expect a consistent order in 

listing them whenever they are mentioned together. This might even seem like a formulaic 

prioritizing of the three. However, the NT refers to the three in a variaty of orders. See 

Matt 28:19; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; Eph. 4:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2. 

Reply: Let us take a look at these from the RSV: 

Matt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and 

of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" 

1 Cor 12:4-6 "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but 

the same Lord; 6and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every 

one." 

Eph 4:4-6 "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your 

call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all 

and in all." 

2 Cor 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy 

Spirit be with you all." 

1 Peter 1:2 "chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus 

Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you." 

While Tim reads alot into the order that they are mentioned, the Bible is quite clear that only ONE of 

them was God, and the Scriptures are quite consistent in differentiating God from the Son and the holy 

spirit. Where all three are mentioned together, only one, the Father, is God. In fact, all visions of heaven 

exclude the person of the holy spirit, and show the Son at the Father's side, often along with the angels 

(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 

of the same God? [There may be some interesting exceptions here, as in Revelation 1:4, where we have 

seven spirits before the throne, and Zechariah 6:5 where we have four spirits of heaven. Which one of 

these is the Holy Ghost, or is the Trinity simply quite crowded?] 

When we look above at the Scriptures that make mention of the God, and the Son, and the angels, we see 

that they are in differing order also. 

NT CLARIFICATION OF MEMBER OF GODHEAD INVOLVED IN A DIVINE ACT. 

Here my point is about the relation of OT and NT texts. In the OT various actions are 

attributed simply to God, in particular to Jehovah/YHWH. On the other hand, the NT more 



specifically attributes those divine acts either to the Son or to the Holy Spirit. Hence, while 

all members of the Godhead are invlolved in every divine action, a certain member is more 

particularly designated in the NT as the one doing it. 

The point is easy enough to illustrate. In the OT, YHWH is depicted as the redeemer and 

savior, whereas in the NT it is the Son of God who clearly stands out in that capacity. See 

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 

Hos 13:4. In constrast, the NT depicts Christ as savior in Matt. 1:21; Lk. 1:76-79; 2:11; Jn 

4:42; Gal 3:13; 4:5; Phil. 3:20; and Tit. 2:13-14. 

Reply: I don't think the NT sets Christ out as Savior in contrast, as God is also depicted as "savior" (see 

Luke 1:47; 1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3). 

Jesus Christ, as the Ambassador of God (see John 5:23 Kleist & Lilly NT), represented God's saving 

power to the world that could not behold God without dying (Ex 33:20). 

Kittel's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" under "APOSTOLOS (XYL$) in Judaism" 

states: "A saying of the 

Rabbis was: 'The emissary of a King is as the King himself.'"–Vol. I, pg.416 "Moses, Elijah, Elisha and 

Ezekiel are called 

MYXWL$ of God because there took place through them things normally reserved for God. Moses 

causes water to flow out 

of the rock; Elijah brings rain and raises a dead man; Elisha 'opens the mother's womb' and also raises a 

dead man; and Ezekiel 

receives the 'key to the tombs at the reawakening of the dead' according to Ex. 37:1 ff...These four were 

distinguished by the 

miracles which God empowered them to perform and which He normally reserved for Himself."—Vol. I, 

pg. 419 

"By his own right hand God has now raised him to be leader and Saviour, to give repentance and 

forgiveness of sins through him to Israel." Acts 5:31 

"To keep his promise, God has raised for Israel one of David's descendants, Jesus, as Saviour." Acts 

13:23 

If Jesus was raised as Savior, (just like God has raised up saviors in the past at Judges 3:9, 15) then that 

indicates a time when he was not a Savior. Why is the holy spirit never referred to as Savior, if they are 

indeed co-equal? The above statement by Tim is Modalist, not trinitarian. 

Tim: The same narrowing focus also occurs with respect to the HS's ministry. In the OT, 

YHWH is said to dwell among Israel and in the hearts of those who fear Him (see Ps. 74:2; 

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 

indwells the members of the church (see Acts 2:4; Rom 8:9,11; 1 Cor. 3:16; Gal 4:6; Eph. 

2:22; and Jas. 4:5). 

Reply: What does it mean for God to dwell in Jerusalem or Mt Zion? Is he physically dwelling there? 

We see from 1 Kings 8:27 that God is unable to be contained by His own creation: 

"Yet will God really live with humans on earth?Why, the heavens, the highest of heavens, cannot contain 

you. How much less this temply built by me!" 

God's covenantal box, the ark, "was a symbol of the presence of Yahweh" [McKenzie's Dictionary of the 

Bible, p. 54], yet, mishandling it could bring on death, earthquakes and plagues [see 1 Sam 5:3, 6ff; 6:19; 

Lev 16:2 etc]. Is this what is dwelling in Christians? No. 

There are theological implications in God's dwelling with His people. Jerusalem is covered with a canopy 



of His glory: 

"For over all will be the Glory as canopy" [Isaiah 4:5 cf. Rev 21:2, 3]. 

It is His NAME that dwells with His people. 

"Jerusalem is where I shall put my name." 2 Kings 21:4 

"My Name shall be there." 2 Kings 23:27 

"then it shall come to pass that to the place which Jehovah your God shall choose, to cause his name to 

dwell there" Deut 12:11 ASV 

"And thou shalt eat before Jehovah thy God, in the place which he shall choose, to cause his name to 

dwell there" Deut 14:23 ASV 

"And thou shalt sacrifice the passover unto Jehovah thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place 

which Jehovah shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there." Deut 16:2 ASV cf Deut 16:6, 11; 26:2; 

Ezra 6:12; Neh 1:9; Jer 7:12 etc. 

In fact, if you make a detailed search of the word "Name" in the Bible you will see that it is often 

personified, just like the Spirit is. God's Name and His spirit/power is at work in Christians. He can 

"portion" out His spirit [2 Kings 2:9] to those that are His, but it does not mean that 1/3 of God/Fully 

God is portioned out to physically dwell inside someone. This is ridiculous, and undermines Jehovah's 

awesome Majesty. 

"Spirit" is a word of wide and elastic meaning, derived from "breath." And the same idea holds good in 

the Hebrew and Greek of the Scriptures. "Spirit," as referred to the Father by the Lord Jesus, means the 

divine force, breath and even nature as opposed to flesh and blood. And Jesus himself, when raised from 

the dead and glorified, is called "a quickening spirit" (1 Cor. 15 : 45); that is, a "spiritual body," as the 

apostle here explains. And the angels likewise are all "ministering spirits" (Heb. I : 14), like Christ. But 

God speaks also of His "spirit" in the sense of His power breathed forth from His personal presence in 

heaven. From the KJV, "My spirit shall not always strive with man" (Gen. 6: 3). "Thou testifiedst against 

them by thy spirit in the prophets" (Neh. 9: 30). "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created" (Psa. 104 

: 30). "The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. 1 : 2). "By his spirit he hath garnished 

the heavens" (Job 26: 13). "The Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon" Samson (Judges 14: 6), and made 

him stronger than a lion. "The Spirit of the LORD God is upon me, because the LORD hath 

ANOINTED ME" (Isa. 61 : 1). So said "the spirit of Christ IN" Isaiah (I Pet. 1 : 11). In all these places 

there is no indication of a Person, but of the Power of God sent forth and bestowed for His divine will 

and purpose. 

Because God speaks by His spirit in the prophets, we have by metonymy the expression, "The Spirit 

speaketh,. "The Spirit speaketh expressly" (I Tim. 4: 1); that is, God by His spirit in the prophets and 

apostles, speaketh. "The spirit of Christ in them (the prophets) . . . when IT testified beforehand" (1 Pet. 1 

: 11). "Well spake the Holy Spirit by Isaiah the prophet" (Acts 28: 25). "It is not ye that speak, but the 

Holy Spirit"' (Mark 13: 11). "David himself said by the Holy Spirit" . . . (Mark 12:.36). "He that hath an 

ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the. churches" (Rev. 2: 7, 11, 17, 29; 3: 1, 6, 13, 22); that is, 

hear what Christ commanded John to write. The personification is natural and effective when you clearly 

understand its original use. 

You can blaspheme God's name...and the Spirit (Lev 24:11; Matt 12:31) 

We can pray for God's spirit...and sing praises to His name (Ps 68:4; Mk 14:8) 

The Name can have dwelling...and so can the Spirit (Deut 12:11; John 14:17) 

The Spirit is Holy, but so is the Name (Matt 6:9) 

God's Name is powerful, and so is His spirit (Prov 18:10; Micah 3:8) 



The Name is associated with glory, as is the Spirit (Ps 115: 1; 2 Cor 3:8) 

This is the bottom-line. If our eternal life is dependant on our knowing God, and it is (John 17:3), and the 

Bible does not articulate a Trinity, then this doctrine should be rejected as man-made. 

"Is it not as gross an Absurdity to say, the One God of Heaven and Earth, is Three or Four 

Persons, as to say, the One King of Great Britain and Ireland, is Three or Four Persons? Is 

not the former altogether as false as the latter?" 

Edward Elwall, 1726, prominent eighteenth-century Baptist merchant and writer of religious literature 

wrote in his tract Dagon fallen upon his stumps. 


Email Me 


A Reply to- Exegetes: Only-Begotten Son or Only 

A Reply to: Exegetes: Only-Begotten Son or Only Son? 

"monogennetos" means "only-begotten" 

"monogenes" means "one of a kind" (only or unique) 

"The translation of the Greek word "monogenes" describes the Sonshipthat Christ has with His Father. This unique 

relationship Jesus has with His Father can reveal some powerful things to us. Can He be either "only-begotten Son" (KJV) 

or the "only Son" (NIV) of the Father? 

Due to an unfortunate, although well intended, set of circumstances this crucial term has come to us in many of our 

translations in a form that suggests that the Son of God was actually begotten, that is, that he had a beginning. The Old 

Latin versions correctly translated monogenes as unicus (only), and so did Jerome (A.D. 347-419) where it was not 

applied to Jesus. But when referring to Jesus, Jerome appears to have been influenced by the Orations of Gregory of 

Nazianzus1 (A.D. 329-390) who, in discussing the eternal relation between the Father and the Son, spoke of the Father as 

gennetor "begetter" and the Son as gennema "begotten." To answer the Arian claims that Jesus was not begotten, but 

made, Jerome translated it as unigenitus (only begotten), in these passages that were referring to Jesus Christ. The 

influence of Jeromes Vulgate on the King 

James Version made "only begotten" the standard English rendition." Italics mine 

Reply: This is a common explanation, but not a great one. It does not explain that even the apologetic 

Hilary of Poitiers (ca. 315-367 CE) in his De Trinitate, also uses the term unigenitus 

when quoting John 1:14, 18 from the Old Latin. Now look at the words in italics. Did Jerome apply 

unicus to Jesus or not. When we read the following sentence we find that he didn't, but that is not what 

the preceeding sentence says. In fact, by an large, the early Christian writers would refer to Christ as 

"only-begotten" and the Father always as "unbegotten" (see Dialogue with Trypho, ANF 1, 263). Justin 

Martyr was quite adamant about this when he wrote, "God begat before all creatures a Beginning, who 

was a certain rational power proceeding from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of 

the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again Angel, then God, and then Lord, and Logos;...For He can be 

called by those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by 

an act of will." 

"Although the English words of "only-Begotten" are found only six times in the New Testament, the Greek word 

(monogenes) appears nine times, and more often in the Septuagint. It is used literally of an only child: "the only son of his 

mother" (Lk 7:12); "an only daughter" (Lk 8:42); "mine only child" (Lk 9:38); "Isaac .... his only begotten" (Heb 11:17). In 

all other places in the 

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 

passages, it might be translated as "the only son of God"; for the emphasis seems to be on His uniqueness, rather than on 

His sonship, although both ideas are certainly present. But how do modern Biblical scholars translate this word? 

According to Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: "monogenos is literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ 

‘unique’ (unicus), not ‘only-begotten,’ which would be monogennetos (unigenitus). Moulton and Milligan’s are telling us 

that the Greek word "monogennetos" meaning "only-Begotten" is not found anywhere in the Greek New Testament. So 

what are the New Testament writers trying to convey by the use of the correct word monogenos?" 

Reply: The reason that monogennetos is not used by the Christian Bible writers or the ANF 

(Ante-Nicene Fathers-with the common exception to Ignateous) is that it was usually a derogatory term used to 

denote frailty and weakness (see Thayers and Vines 1084). Such a term would show a lack of respect for 

the Son of God. 

The first part of this Greek word monogenes is mono which means "only," the second half of the word is from an 

adjectival form derived from genos, which means "origin, race, stock," so the two words put together mean "one of a 

kind." One of the 

main arguments is that the -genes suffix is related to the verb ginomai rather than gennao, thus acquiring the meaning 

"category" or "genus" (category of biological classification) instead of "to beget." The word emphasizes the unique 

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 

assistance of a mother, suggesting the doctrine of eternal generation. Instead it suggest the unique position to the Father 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/monogenesreply.htm (1 of 2) [5/25/2003 4:13:20 AM]

A Reply to- Exegetes: Only-Begotten Son or Only 

and thus His unique ability to reveal the Father. 

Reply: I agree with the above to an extent. "Unique" is a better translation than most, but it never quite 

explains how he the subject is unique. In the N.T., monogenes is used in a filial way, one that is used for 

offspring...see Thayers Greek Lexicon & BAGD. In fact the BAGD states that it could be analagous to 

prototokos (firstborn). In view of the above evidence, John V. Dahms in his The Johannine Use Of 

Monogenes Reconsidered NTS 29, 1983, p.231 states: We have examined all of the evidence which has 

come to our attention concerning the meaning of monogenes in the Johannine writings and have found 

the majority view of modern scholarship has very little to support it. On the other hand, the external 

evidence, especially that from Philo, Justin and Tertullian, and the internal evidence from the context of 

its occurences, makes clear that 'only begotten' is the most accurate translation after all." 

Email Me 


Heinz Schmitz 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/monogenesreply.htm (2 of 2) [5/25/2003 4:13:20 AM]

A Reply to: Jehovah Witnesses And The Symbol Of The Cross 

A Reply to: 

Jehovah Witnesses And The Symbol Of The Cross 

The first step in understanding why this statement is made is to know that every where your Bible uses 

the word "cross," their Bible uses the word "stake." To confirm their position they will use partial 

quotes and references from scholars that seem to back up their claim that the Greek word stauros in 

the New Testament means "stake" or "pole" instead of its true meaning "cross." They also will say, 

"stauros" in both the classical Greek and Koine carries no thought of a "cross" made of two timbers, 

but instead it carries the notion of only an upright stake, a pale, pile, or pole.When the Greek lexicons 

are checked, however, one finds this is not the case. 

Heinz: Are JW's using partial quotes? And do Greek Lexicons and dictionaries agree more with Mark's point of 

view? Let us take a look. "The Tau was the basis for what is now called the "cross" taken from the Latin "crux". 

"The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god 

Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, 

including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, 

certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system 

pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain 

their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, 

was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ."—An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 

1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256. 

What is this? The Cross used among ancient pagan? Is there more? 

"It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands 

untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol. . . . The Greek 

Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolized to their votaries by a 

cruciform device."—The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art (London, 1900), G. S. Tyack, p. 1. 

The people of the ancient lands used the cross in worship, some, like the Egyptians used it in Phallus worship, 

or, worship of the male sex organ. It was used as a symbol of fertility. "Various figures of crosses are found 

everywhere on Egyptian monuments and tombs, and are considered by many authorities as symbolical either 

of the phallus [a representation of the male sex organ] or of coition. . . . In Egyptian tombs the crux ansata 

[cross with a circle or handle on top] is found side by side with the phallus."—A Short History of Sex-Worship 

(London, 1940), H. Cutner, pp. 16, 17; see also The Non-Christian Cross, p. 183. 

The Ancient Church by clergyman W. D. Killen says, on page 316: "From the most remote antiquity the cross 

was venerated in Egypt and Syria; it was held in equal honour by the Buddhists of the East; and, what is still 

more extraordinary, when the Spaniards first visited America, the well-known sign was found among the objects 

of worship in the idol temples of Anahuac. It is also remarkable that, about the commencement of our era, the 

pagans were wont to make the sign of a cross upon the forehead in the celebration of some of their sacred 

mysteries." The origin of the cross is indeed very pagan. 

So you see, the reason that JW's do not use the word bears heavily on its pagan origin. After all, "What accord 

has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple 

of God with idols?" 2Cor 6:15 RSV 

"They also will say, "stauros" in both the classical Greek and Koine carries no thought of a "cross" 

made of two timbers, but instead it carries the notion of only an upright stake, a pale, pile, or pole. 

When the Greek lexicons are checked, however, one finds this is not the case. " 

We have already checked Vine's, but are there others? 

A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Original Greek Words with their Precise Meanings for English 

Readers states: "STAUROS . . . denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such 

malefactors were nailed for execution." Similarly, the book The Non-Christian Cross observes: 

"There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, 

which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in 

the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros [pole or stake]; much less to the effect that 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/symbol_cross.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:13:29 AM]


it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross." 

Paul Wilhelm Schmidt, who was a professor at the University of Basel, in his work Die 

Geschichte Jesu (The History of Jesus), Vol. 2, Tübingen and Leipzig, 1904, pp. 386-394, made 

a detailed study of the Greek word stau·ros'. On p. 386 of his work he said: "staur¬V [stau·ros'] 

means every upright standing pale or tree trunk." 

New Bible Dictionary of 1985 under "Cross," page 253: "The Gk. word for 'cross' (stauros; verb 

stauroo . . . ) means primarily an upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an 

instrument for punishment and execution." 

W. E. Vine says on this subject: "STAUROS (staur¬V) denotes, primarily, an upright pale or 

stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to 

fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two 

beamed cross." Greek scholar Vine then mentions the Chaldean origin of the two-piece cross 

and how it was adopted from the pagans by Christendom in the third century C.E. as a symbol of 

Christ's impalement.—Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol. 

1, p. 256. 

The Latin dictionary by Lewis and Short gives as the basic meaning of crux "a tree, frame, or 

other wooden instruments of execution, on which criminals were impaled or hanged." 

The book Dual Heritage—The Bible and the British Museum states: "It may come as a shock to 

know that there is no word such as 'cross' in the Greek of the New Testament. The word 

translated 'cross' is always the Greek word [stau·ros'] meaning a 'stake' or 'upright pale.' The 

cross was not originally a Christian symbol; it is derived from Egypt and Constantine." 

See also Strongs and Young's Analytical Concordance. 

The Watchtower Society not only claims that Christ did not die on a cross, they further state that there 

is no evidence that a cross with a crossbeam was ever even used by Romans during the first century. 

They claim the stake was "the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient." They 

maintain, "The evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on two pieces 

of timber placed at right angles...The passing of time and further archaeological discoveries will be 

certain to prove its [torture stake] correctness. 

To further elucidate those that see this rejection of a 2-beamed stauros are not WT-born are the follwing 

references: 

"THE sign of the cross has been a symbol of great antiquity, present in nearly every known 

culture. Its meaning has eluded anthropologists, though its use in funerary art could well point to 

a defense against evil. On the other hand, the famous crux ansata of Egypt, depicted coming 

from the mouth, must refer to life or breath. The universal use of the sign of the cross makes 

more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains, especially any specific 

reference to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree that the cross, as an artistic 

reference to the passion event, cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine."—Ante 

Pacem—Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (1985), by Professor 

Graydon F. Snyder, page 27. 

"There was no use of the crucifix," says one historian of the early Christians, "and no material 

representation of the cross." History of the Christian Church, J. F. Hurst, Vol. I, p. 366. 

We have strong Biblical basis for assuming a cross beam: 

NAS John 20:25 The other disciples therefore were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said 

to them, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails [plural], and put my finger into the 

place of the nails [plural], and put my hand into His side, I will not believe. 

You will notice in this passage the word "nails," this is in the plural suggesting each hand was nailed 

seperately to a cross beam. You might also notice in JW literature images of Jesus hanging on a cross 

with one (singular) nail through his wrist/hands. 

The Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by M'Clintock and Strong, comments: 

'Much time and trouble have been wasted in disputing as to whether three or four nails were used in fastening 

the Lord. Nonnus affirms that three only were used, in which he is followed by Gregory Nazianzen. The more 

general belief gives four nails, an opinion which is supported at much length and by curious arguments by 

Curtius. Others have carried the number of nails as high as fourteen.'-Volume II, page 580. 



Accounts of Jesus impalement/crucifixion like Matthew 27:35 give little evidence of the methods used. After 

Jesus' resurrection, Thomas said: "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the 

print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe." (John 20:25) Because of this some 

have also concluded from John 20:25 that two nails were used, one through each hand. But does Thomas' use 

of the plural *nails* have to be understood that Jesus' hands were pierced by a separate nail? 

In Luke 24:39 the resurrected Jesus said: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself." This suggests that 

Christ's feet also were nailed. Since Thomas made no mention of nailprints in Jesus' feet, his use of the plural 

"nails" could have been a general reference to multiple nails used in piercing Jesus. 

Debate over such an insignificant detail should not be permitted to becloud the all-important truth that "we were 

reconciled to God by the death of his Son."-Romans 5:10. RSV 

We must also remember too that the Cross was adopted as a "Christian" symbol (312 C.E.) after it was adopted by 

Emperor Constantine, who continued to be a Sun-worshipper, and the cross was the symbol of the sun-god, Sol. 

January 13, 313 C.E. Constantine as pagan Pontifex Maximus publishes his famous edict of toleration in favor of the 

professed Christians and they are made eligible to public office. 

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 

judicial and its observance made a legal duty. 

325 C.E. Constantine becomes head of the eastern and western sections of the Roman Empire. He calls a religious council 

for settling the controversy over the Greek characters or "trinity," which threatens the unity of his empire. As pagan 

Pontifex Maximus, not yet baptized as a Christian, Constantine presides over the council...and the rest is the history of 

Christendom. 

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 

cross a object of worship, and where that happens we are no better than the pagans who did the very same 

thing. The cross is a symbol of Christ's humiliation, but we are saved through his BLOOD that was shed that 

day. Let us envision it this way. If our Saviour was killed by a gun, would we be hanging that around our necks. 

It is too macabre to sprinkle blood on our shirts to commemorate this important event, and using the cross as a 

symbol of our affection in the Lord Jesus Christ is not necessary. After all, we are walking by faith, not by sight. 

Addendum: Here is an interesting note from a recently released Bible: 

"The Greek term signifies an upright stake on which criminal were executed, with no 

suggestion of a cross-beam. In the Latin versions the term 'crux' was used, but according to 

Livy of the 1st century B.C., the word meant no more than an upright stake; it was only later 

that crux came to mean a cross. Josephus relates how 2,000 were crucified at one time 

('Antiquities' book 17; 10:10) hardly practicable if crosses had to be made for each one. 

There are Greek words which denote a cross, but none of these appear in the in any of the 

four gospel accounts of Jesus' execution. At Galatians 3:13 Paul refers to the instrument as 'a 

timber' (A.V. a tree) a reference to the upright stake on which bodies of criminals were 

hanged under the Mosaic Law (Deut 21:22), and which Jesus fulfilled by his death. 

Some have contended that the Romans did use crosses for execution at that time although 

Livy refutes this. Even if this were so, the Romans were also careful to observe local 

customs as fas as possible to avoid unnecessarily upsetting the populace, and so likely 

would have modified their method to conform to the Jewish practice. A rough upright stake 

would be in any case less trouble to produce than a hewn cross with a joint strong enough to 

bear the weight of a man. 

Christians are sometimes disturbed to learn that the cross, considered for centuries as a 

Christian symbol, had its origin long before Christ and was actually used in pagan 

mythology.It was the symbol of the god Tammuz, and Bacchus, and the Egyptian Osiris. It 

was worshipped by the Celtic druids and worn on necklaces by the Vestal Virgins of 

Rome...As the Greek text shows, Christ was not executed on a Cross, that symbol can be 



regarded for what it is, a pagan corruption of Christian worship introduced in the early 

centuries of our common era. Thus in harmony with 2 Cor 6:15 although long cherished, it 

is something that Christians should shun." 

21st Century NT appendix 

Although (A.E. Knoch) uses "cross" in the text of the Concordant Literal Version, in the 

Keyword Concordance under "cross" he says, "an upright stake or pale, without any crosspiece, now, 

popularly, cross". Under "crucify" he adds, "Drive a stake into the ground, fasten on a stake, impale, 

now popular usage, crucify, though there was no crosspiece". 

Click here and here for more 


Email Me 


Is Much Of The Book Of Mormon Plagiarized From The Bible? 

The Book of Mormon and the Plagiarization of the Bible 

I have no idea who first started this, but this is a good chart showing the blatant plagiarizing of the 

Bible by Joseph Smith. If you have any other plagiarisms to add to this list, please tell me by 

e-mailing me at: hector3001@aol.com 

Is the Book of Mormom from God? Click Here 

Book of Mormon The Holy Bible 

charity sufferth long, and is kind, and 

envieth not,...is not puffed up,...seeketh not 

her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no 

evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but 

rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all 

things,...hopeth all things, endurth all things 

(Moroni 7:45) 

if ye have not charity, ye are nothing 

(Moroni 7:46) 

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity 

envieth not;...is not puffed up,...seeketh not 

her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no 

evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth 

in the truth; Beareth all things,...hopeth all 

things, endureth all things (1 Corinthians 

13:4-7) 

and have not charity, I am nothing (1 

Corinthians 13:2) 

charity never faileth (Moroni 7:46) Charity never faileth (1 Corinthians 13:8) 

that when he shall appear we shall be like 

him, for we shall see him as he is (Moroni 

7:48) 

that we may have this hope; that we may be 

purified even as he is pure (Moroni 7:48) 

the name of his Holy Child, Jesus (Moroni 

8:3) 

the gifts of God,...are many; and they come 

from the same God (Moroni 10:8) 

there are different ways that these gifts are 

administered (Moroni 10:8) 

but it is the same God who worketh all in all 

(Moroni 10:8) 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/mormon.htm (1 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM] 

that when he shall appear, we shall be like 

him; for we shall see him as he is (1 John 

3:2) 

that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, 

even as he is pure (1 John 3:3) 

the name of thy holy child Jesus (Acts 4:30) 

there are diversities of gifts, buit the same 

Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4) 

there are differences of administrations (1 


but it is the same God which worketh all in 

all (1 Corinthians 12:6)


the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto 

men, to profit them (Moroni 10:8) 

For behold, to one is given by the Sprit of 

God, that he may teach the word of wisdom 

(Moroni 10:9) 

to another, that he may teach the word of 

knowledge by the same Spirit (Moroni 

10:10) 

to another faith, exceeding great faith 

(Moroni 10:11) 

to another, the gifts of healing by the same 

Spirit (Moroni 10:11) 

to another, that he may work mightly 

miracles (Moroni 10:12) 

to another, that he may prophesy (Moroni 

10:13) 

to another, the beholding of angels and 

ministering spirits (Moroni 10:14) 

to another, all kinds of tongues (Moroni 

10:15) 

to another, the interpretation of languages 

and of divers kinds of tongues (Moroni 

10:16) 

all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ; 

and they come unto every man secerally, 

according as he will (Moroni 10:17) 

every good gift cometh of Christ (Moroni 

10:18) 

the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead 

(Moroni 10:34) 


the manifestations of the Spirit is given to 

every man to profit withal (1 Corinthians 

12:7) 

For to one is given by the Spirit the word of 

wisdom (1 Corinthians 12:8) 

to another the word of knowledge by the 

same Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:8) 

To another faith (1 Corinthians 12:9) 

to another the gifts of healing by the same 

Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:9) 

to another the working of miracles (1 


to another prophecy (1 Corinthians 12:10) 

to another discerning of spirits (1 


to another divers kinds of tongues (1 


to another the interpretation of tongues (1 


all these worketh that one and the selfsame 

Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he 

will (1 Corinthians 12:11) 

Every good gift...cometh down from the 

Father (James 1:17) 

the Judge of quick and dead (Acts 10:42)


stand fast in the faith (Alma 1:25) 

sit down in the kingdom of God, with 

Abraham, with Isacc, and with Jacob (Alma 

5:24) 

the Only Begotten of the Father, full of 

grace, and mercy, and truth (Alma 5:48) 

stand fast in the faith (1 Corinthanians 

16:13) 

sit down with Abraham, and Isacc, and 

Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 

8:11) 

the only begotten of the Father, full of grace 

and truth (John 1:14) 

take away the sins of the world (Alma 5:48) taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29) 

the ax is laid at the root of the tree, therefore 

every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit 

shall be hewn down and cast into the fire 

(Alma 5:52) 

bring forth works which are meet for 

repentance (Alma 5:54) 

come ye out from the wicked, and be ye 

separate, and touch not their unclean things 

(Alma 5:57) 

and to cleanse from all unrighteousness 

(Alma 7:14) 

lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset 

you (Alma 7:15) 

he who is filthy shall remain in his filthiness 

(Alma 7:21) 

the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: 

therefore every tree which bringeth not forth 

good fruit is hewn down and cast into the 

fire (Matthew 3:10) 

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for 

repentance (Matthew 3:8) 

come out from among them, and be ye 

separate,...and touch not the unclean thing (2 


and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness 

(1 John 1:9) 

lay aside every weight, and the sin which 

doth so easily beset us (Hebrews 12:1) 

he which is filthy, let him be filthy still 

(Revelation 22:11) 

faith, hope, and charity (Alma 7:24) faith, hope, charity (1 Corinthians 13:13) 

thou hast not lied unto men only but thou 

hast lied unto God (Alma 12:3) 

resurrection of the dead,...both the just and 

the unjust (Alma 12:8) 

the rocks and the mountains, to fall upon us 

to hide us from (Alma 12:27) 


thou hast not lied unto men , but unto God 

(Acts 5:4) 

resurrection of the dead, both of the just and 

unjust (Acts 24:15) 

the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and 

hide us from (Revelation 6:16)


must die; and after death, they must come to 

judgment (Alma 12:27) 

this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham 

paid...of one-tenth part of all (Alma 133:15) 

not to be tempted above that which ye can 

bear (Alma 13:28) 

Rabbanah, which is...powerful or great king 

(Alma 18:13) 

being wise yet harmless (Alma 18:22) 

I say unto thee, woman, there has not been 

such great faith among all the people of the 

Nephites (Alma 19:10) 

my heart is exceeding sorrowful (Alma 

31:31) 

if ye have faith ye hope for things which are 

not seen (Alma 32:21) 

springing up unto everlasting life (Alma 

32:41) 

it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, 

and none shall have passed away (Alma 

34:13) 

against the devil, who is an enemy to all 

righteousness (Alma 34:23) 

cast out,...and is trodden under foot of men 

(Alma 34:29) 

behold now is the time and the day of your 

salvation (Alma 34:31) 


to die, but after this the judgment (Hebrews 

9:27) 

this Melchisedec,...To whom also Amraham 

gave a tenth part of all (Hebrews 7:1-2) 

not suffer you to be tempted above that ye 

are able (1 Corinthians 10:13) 

Rabboni; which is to say, Master (John 

20:16) 

be ye therefore wise as serpents, and 

harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16) 

I say unto you, I have not found so great 

faith, no, not in Israel (Luke 7:9) 

My soul is exceeding sorrowful (Matthew 

26:38) 

Now faith is the substance of things hoped 

for, the evidence of things not seen 

(Hebrews 11:1) 

springing up into everlasting life (John 

4:14) 

one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass 

from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 

5:18) 

child of the devil, thou enemy of all 

righteousness (Acts 13:10) 

cast out,...and to be trodden under foot of 

men (Matthew 5:13) 

behold, now is the accepted time; behold, 

now is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 

6:2)


work out your salvation with fear (Alma 

34:37) 

worship God,...in spirit and in truth (Alma 

34:38) 

work out your own salvation with fear 

(Philippians 2:12) 

worship him,...in spirit and in truth (John 

4:24) 

and learn of me; for I (Alma 36:3) and learn of me; for I (Matthew 11:29) 

Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me 

(Alma 36:18) 

meek and lowly in heart; for such shall find 

rest to their souls (Alma 37:34) 

Jesus thou son of David, have mercy on me 

(Mark 10:47) 

meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find 

rest unto your souls (Matthew 11:29) 

he is...the light of the world (Alma 38:9) I am the light of the world (John 8:12) 

the lusts of your eyes (Alma 39:9) the lusts of the eyes (1 John 2:16) 

shall be cast out into outer darkness; there 

shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing 

of teeth (Alma 40:13) 

fearful looking for the fiery indignation of 

the wrath of God (Alma 40:14) 

restoration of those things of which has been 

spoken by the mouths of the prophets (Alma 

40:22) 

then shall the righteous shine forth in the 

kingdom of God (Alma 40:25) 

shall be cast out into outer darkness; there 

shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth 

(Matthew 8:12) 

fearful looking for of judgment and fiery 

indignation, which shall devour the 

adversaries (Hebrews 10:27) 

restitution of all things, which God hath 

spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets 

(Acts 3:21) 

Then shall the righteous shine forth as the 

sun in the kingdom of their Father (Matthew 

13:43) 

without God in the world (Alma 41:11) without God in the world (Ephesians 2:12) 

it was appointed unto man to die (Alma 

42:6) 

the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and 

then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also 

(Alma 60:23) 


it is appointed unto men once to die 


cleanse first that which is within the cup and 

platter, that the outside of them may be 

clean also (Matthew 23:26)


lay up for yourselves a treasure in heaven 

(Helaman 5:8) 

except ye repent ye shall perish (Helaman 

5:8) 

And as he lifted up the brazen serpent in the 

wilderness, even so shall he be lifted up who 

should come (Heleman 8:14) 

heaping up for yourselves wrath against the 

day of judgment (Helaman 8:25) 

lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven 


except ye repent, ye shall...perish (Matthew 

6:20) 

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the 

wilderness, even so must the Son of man be 

lifted up (John 3:14) 

treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the 

day of wrath and revelation of the righteous 

judgment (Romans 2:5) 

darkness rather than light (Helaman 13:29) darkness rather than light (John 3:19) 

graves shall be opened; and shall yield up 

many of their dead; and many saints shall 

appear unto many (Helaman 14:25) 

the dog to his vomit, or like the sow to her 

wallowing in the mire (3 Nephi 7:8) 

Old things are done away, and all things 

have become new (3 Nephi 26:3) 

the elements should melt with fervent heat, 

and the earth (3 Nephi 26:3) 

and heard unspeakable things, which are not 

lawful to be written (3 Nephi 26:18) 

whether they were in the body or out of the 

body, they could not tell (3 Nephi 28:15) 

no variableness neither shadow of turning 

(Mormon 9:9) 

that ye may consume it on your lusts 

(Mormon 9:28) 


graves were opened; and many bodies of the 

saints which slept arose,...and appeared unto 

many (Matthew 27:52-53) 

the dog is turned to his own vomit again; 

and the sow that was washed to her 

wallowing in the mire (2 Peter 2:22) 

old things are passed away; behold, all 

things are become new (2 Corinthians 5:17) 

the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the 

earth (2 Peter 3:10) 

and heard unspeakable words, which it is 

not lawful for a man to utter (2 Corinthians 

12:4) 

whether in the body, or out of the body, I 

cannot tell (2 Corinthians 12:3) 

no variableness, neither shadow of turning 

(James 1:17) 

that ye may consume it upon your lusts 

(James 4:3)


an anchor to the souls of men, which would 

make them sure and steadfast (Ether 12:4) 

partakers of the heavenly gift (Ether 12:8) 

it was the faith of Alma and Amulek that 

caused the prison to tumble (Ether 12:13) 

by faith that the three disciples obtained a 

promise that they should not taste death 

(Ether 12:17) 

by faith...obtained the promise (Ether 

12:22) 

the Lord spake unto me, saying:...my grace 

is sufficient for the meek, that they shall 

take no advantage of your weakness (Ether 

12:26) 

an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast 


partakers of the heavenly calling (Hebrews 

3:1) 

By faith the walls of Jericho fell down 


By faith Enoch was translated that he should 

not see death (Hebrews 11:5) 

through faith...obtained promises (Hebrews 

11:33) 

he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for 

thee: for my strength is made perfect in 

weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9) 

better things of you (Moroni 7:39) better things of you (Hebrews 6:9) 

have not charity he is nothing (Moroni 

7:44) 

to declare unto them concerning the things 

which he had both seen and heard (1 Nephi 

1:18) 

have not charity, it profiteth me nothing (1 


That which we have seen and heard declare 

we unto you (1 John 1:3) 

steadfast, and immovable (1 Nephi 2:10) stedfast, unmoveable (1 Corinthians 15:58) 

being grieved because of the hardness of 

their hearts (1 Nephi 2:18) 

that one man should perish than that a nation 

should ...perish in unbelief (1 Nephi 4:13) 

kindreds, tongues, and people (1 Nephi 

5:18) 

being grieved for the hardness of their hearts 

(Mark 3:5) 

that one man should not die for the people, 

and that the whole nation perish not (John 

11:50) 

people and kindreds and tongues 

(Revelations 11:9) 

who are not of the world (1 Nephi 6:5) they are not of the world (John 17:14) 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/mormon.htm (7 of 15) [5/25/2003 4:13:46 AM]


the Lamb of God, who should take away the 

sins of the world (1 Nephi 10:10) 

by the power of the Holy Ghost (1 Nephi 

10:17) 

all those who diligently seek him (1 Nephi 

10:17) 

the same yesterday, to-day, and forever (1 

Nephi 10:18) 

the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin 

of the world (John 1:29) 

through the power of the Holy Ghost 

(Romans 15:13) 

of them that diligently seek him (Hebrews 

11:6) 

the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever 


he that ...seeketh shall find (1 Nephi 10:19) he that seeketh findeth (Luke 11:10) 

bear record that it is the Son of God (1 

Nephi 11:7) 

the love of God, which sheddeth itself 

abroad in the hearts of the children of men 

(1 Nephi 11:22) 

the Holy Ghost come down out of heaven 

and abide upon him in the form of a dove (1 

Nephi 11:27) 

heavens open again, and I saw angels 

descending upon the children of men (1 

Nephi 11:30) 

who were sick, and who were afflicted with 

all manners of diseases, and with devils (1 

Nephi 11:31) 

bare record that this is the Son of God (John 

1:34) 

the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts 

(Romans 5:5) 

the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape 

like a dove upon him (Luke 3:22) 

heaven open, and the angels of God 

ascended and descended upon the Son of 

man (John 1:51) 

all sick people that were taken with divers 

diseases...and those which were possessed 

with devils (Matthew 4:24) 

wars, and rumours of wars (1 Nephi 12:2) wars, and rumors of wars (Matthew 24:6) 

the earth and the rocks, that they rent (1 

Nephi 12:4) 

their garments were made white in his blood 

(1 Nephi 12:10) 

made white in the blood of the Lamb (1 

Nephi 12:11) 


the earth did quake, and the rocks rent 


their robes, and made them white in the 

blood of the Lamb (Revelations 7:14) 

made them white in the blood of the Lamb 

(Revelation 7:14)


gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and 

fine-twined linen, and all manners of 

precious clothing (1 Nephi 13:7) 

pervert the right ways of the Lord (1 Nephi 

13:27) 

blind the eyes and harden the hearts (1 

Nephi 13:27) 

the power of the Holy Ghost (1 Nephi 

13:37) 

endure unto the end...shall be saved (1 

Nephi 13:37) 

gold, and silver,... and fine linen,...and silk, 

and scarlet,...and all manner vessels of most 

precious wood (Revelation 18:12) 

pervert the right ways of the Lord (Acts 

13:10) 

blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart 

(John 12:40) 

the power of the Holy Ghost (Romans 

15:13) 

endureth to the end shall be saved (Matthew 

10:22) 

tiding of great joy (1 Nephi 13:37) tiding of great joy (Luke 2:10) 

last shall be first, and the first shall be last (1 

Nephi 13:42) 

the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon 

many waters; and she had dominion over all 

the earth, among all nations, kindreds, 

tongues, and people (1 Nephi 14:11) 

the fiery darts of the adversary (1 Nephi 

15:24) 

there cannot any unclean thing enter into the 

kingdom of God (1 Nephi 15:34) 

shall be saved, even if it so be as by fire (1 

Nephi 22:17) 

blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke (1 

Nephi 22:18) 

first shall be last; and the last shall be first 


the great whore that sitteth upon many 

waters:...The waters which thou sawest, 

where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and 

multitudes, and nations and tongues 

(Revelation 17:1 and 15) 

the fiery darts of the wicked (Ephesians 

6:16) 

nor unclean person,...hath any inheritance in 

the kingdom of Christ (Ephesians 5:5) 

shall be saved; yet so as by fire (1 


blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke (Acts 

2:19) 

the lusts of the flesh (1 Nephi 22:23) the lust of the flesh (1 John 2:16) 

the things of the world (1 Nephi 22:23) 


the things that are in the world (1 John 

2:16)


his sheep, and they know him (1 Nephi 

22:25) 

and there shall be one fold and one shepherd 

(1 Nephi 22:25) 

by the law no flesh is justified (2 Nephi 2:5) 

his own sheep,...they know his voice (John 

10:4) 

and there shall be one fold, and one 

shepherd (John 10:16) 

by the works of the law shall no flesh be 

justified (Galatians 2:16) 

full of grace and truth (2 Nephi 2:6) full of grace and truth (John 1:14) 

who layette down his life according to the 

flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the 

Spirit (2 Nephi 2:8) 

I lay down my life, that I might take it up 

again (John 10:17) 

the firstfruits onto God (2 Nephi 2:9) the firstfruits unto God (Revelations 14:4) 

that old serpent, who is the devil (2 Nephi 

2:18) 

that old serpent, which is the Devil 


who is the father of all lies (2 Nephi 2:18) he is a liar, and the father of it (John 8:44) 

have chosen the good part (2 Nephi 2:30) hath chosen the good part (Luke 10:42) 

O wretched man that I am (2 Nephi 4:17) O wretched man that I am (Romans 7:24) 

the sins which do so easily beset me (2 

Nephi 4:18) 

I know in whom I have trusted (2 Nephi 

4:19) 

God will give liberally to him that asketh (2 

Nephi 4:35) 

the sin which doth so easily beset us 


I know whom I have believed (2 Timothy 

1:12) 

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of 

God, that giveth to all men liberally (James 

1:5) 

I ask not amiss (2 Nephi 4:35) ye ask amiss (James 4:3) 

this corruption could not put on incorruption 

(2 Nephi 9:7) 

transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of 

light (2 Nephi 9:9) 


this corruptible must put on incorruption (1 


Satan himself is transformed into an angel of 

light (2 Corinthians 11:14)


death and hell must deliver up their dead (2 

Nephi 9:12) 

they must appear before the judgement-seat 

of the Holy One (2 Nephi 9:15) 

his eternal word, which cannot pass away (2 

Nephi 9:16) 

they who are righteous shall be righteous 

still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy 

still (2 Nephi 9:16) 

the devil and his angels; and they shall go 

away into everlasting fire; prepared for them 

(2 Nephi 9:16) 

endured the crosses of the world, and 

despised thee shame (2 Nephi 9:18) 

the kingdom of God, which was prepared 

for them from the foundation of the world (2 

Nephi 9:18) 

death and hell delivered up the dead 


we shall all stand before the judgement seat 

of Christ (Romans 14:10) 

my words shall not pass away (Matthew 

24:25) 

he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and 

he that is righteous, let him be righteous still 


Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting 

fire prepared for the devil and his devils 


endured the cross, despising the shame 


the kingdom prepared for you from the 

foundation of the world (Matthew 25:34) 

their joy shall be full (2 Nephi 9:18) that your joy might be full (John 15:11) 

commandeth all men that they must repent 

(2 Nephi 9:23) 

where there is no law given there is no 

punishment (2 Nephi 9:25) 

their wisdom is foolishness (2 Nephi 9:28) 

commandeth all men every where to repent 

(Acts 17:30) 

where no law is, there is no transgression 

(Romans 4:15) 

the wisdom of the world is foolishness (1 


But wo unto the rich (2 Nephi 9:30) But woe unto you that are rich (Luke 6:24) 

hearts are upon their treasures (2 Nephi 

9:30) 

where your treasure is, there will your heart 

be also (Matthew 6:21) 

shall be thrust down to hell (2 Nephi 9:34) shall be thrust down to hell (Luke 10:15) 

die in their sins (2 Nephi 9:38) die in your sins (John 8:21) 



to be carnally-minded is death, and to be 

spiritually-minded is life (2 Nephi 9:39) 

And whosoever knocketh, to him will he 

open (2 Nephi 9:42) 

Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both 

male and female (2 Nephi 10:16) 

they who are not for me are against me, 

saith our God (2 Nephi 10:16) 

to be carnally-minded is death, but to be 

spiritually-minded is life (Romans 8:6) 

and to him that knocketh it shall be opened 

(Matthew 7:8) 

Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor 

free, there is neither male nor female 

(Galatians 3:28) 

He that is not with me is against me (Luke 

11:23) 

lay aside our sins (2 Nephi 10:20) lay aside....the sin (Hebrews 12:1) 

reconciled unto God (2 Nephi 10:24) reconciled to God (Romans 5:10) 

through the grace of God that ye are saved 

(2 Nephi 10:24) 

the power of the resurrection (2 Nephi 

10:25) 

the Only Begotten of the Father (2 Nephi 

25:12) 

there is none other name given under heaven 

save it be this Jesus Christ,...whereby man 

can be saved (2 Nephi 25:20) 

made alive in Christ (2 Nephi 25:25) 

by grace are ye saved (Ephesians 2:8) 

the power of his resurrection (Philippians 

3:10) 

the only begotten of the Father (John 1:14) 

there is none other name under heaven given 

among men, whereby we must be saved 

(Acts 4:12) 

in Christ shall all be made alive (1 


in nowise be cast out (2 Nephi 25:29) in no wise cast out (John 6:37) 

grind them to powder (2 Nephi 26:5) grind him to powder (Matthew 21:44) 

darkness rather then light (2 Nephi 26:10) darkness rather then light (John 3:19) 

he may draw all men unto him (2 Nephi 

26:24) 

will beat us with a few stripes (2 Nephi 

28:8) 


I...will draw all men unto me (John 12:32) 

be beaten with few stripes (Luke 12:48)


his everlasting chains (2 Nephi 28:19) in everlasting chains (Jude verse 6) 

judged according to their works (2 Nephi 

28:23) 

judged every man according to their works 


a lake of fire (2 Nephi 28:23) the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14) 

built upon the rock (2 Nephi 28:28) built his house upon a rock (Matthew 7:24) 

built upon a sandy foundation (2 Nephi 

28:28) 

for unto him that receiveth I will give more; 

and from them that shall say, We have 

enough, from them shall be taken away even 

that which they have (2 Nephi 28:30) 

out of the books which shall be written I will 

judge the world, every man according to 

their works (2 Nephi 29:11) 

scales of darkness shall begin to fall from 

their eyes (2 Nephi 30:6) 

There is nothing which is secret save it shall 

be revealed (2 Nephi 30:17) 

built his house upon the sand(Matthew 

7:26) 

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, 

and he shall have more abundance: but 

whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken 

away even that he hath (Matthew 13:12) 

out of those things which were written in the 

books, according to their works (Revelation 

20:12) 

fell from his eyes as it had been scales (Acts 

9:18) 

for there is nothing covered that shall not be 

revealed (Matthew 10:26) 

made manifest in the light (2 Nephi 30:17) made manifest by the light (Ephesians 5:13) 

the Lamb of God, which should take away 

the sins of the world (2 Nephi 31:4) 

the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin 

of the world (John 1:29) 

to fulfil all righteousness (2 Nephi 31:5) to fulfil all righteousness (Matthew 3:15) 

straight and narrow path which leads to 

eternal life (2 Nephi 31:18) 

strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, 

which leadeth to life (Matthew 7:14) 

with the tongue of angels (2 Nephi 32:2) with the tongues...of angels (James 4:2) 

because ye ask not (2 Nephi 32:4) because ye ask not (James 4:2) 

ye must pray always, and not faint (2 Nephi 

32:9) 


men ought always to pray, and not to faint 

(Luke 18:1)


How unsearchable are the depths of the 

mysteries of him; and it is impossible that 

man should find out all his ways (Jacob 4:8) 

wither away, and we will cast them into the 

fire that they may be burned (Jacob 5:7) 

how unsearchable are his judgments, and his 

ways past finding out (Romans 11:33) 

withered; and men gather them, and cast 

them into the fire, and they are burned (John 

15:6) 

quench the Holy Spirit (Jacob 6:8) quench not the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19) 

nevertheless, not my will be done (Jacob 

7:14) 

thy faith hath made thee whole (Enos 8) 

Whatsoever thing ye shall ask in faith, 

believing...ye shall receive it (Enos 15) 

nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done 

(Luke 22:42) 

thy faith hath made thee whole (Matthew 

9:22) 

whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, 

ye shall receive (Matthew 21:22) 

Come unto me, ye blessed (Enos 27) Come, ye blessed (Matthew 25:34) 

grievous to be borne (Mosiah 2:14) grievous to be borne (Matthew 23:4) 

if ye should serve him with all your whole 

souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants 

(Mosiah 2:21) 

drinketh damnation to his own soul (Mosiah 

2:33) 

when ye shall have done all those 

things...say, We are unprofitable servants 

(Luke 17:10) 

drinketh damnation to himself (1 


he cometh unto his own (Mosiah 3:9) He came unto his own (John 1:11) 

he judgeth, and his judgment is just (Mosiah 

3:18) 

I judge; and my judgment is just (John 

5:30) 

become as little children (Mosiah 3:18) become as little children (Matthew 18:3) 

putteth off the natural man (Mosiah 3:19) put off the old man (Colossians 3:9) 

believe that he is, and that he (Mosiah 4:9) 

believe that he is, and that he (Hebrews 

11:6) 

enemy to all righteousness (Mosiah 4:14) enemy of all righteousness (Acts 13:10) 



the thoughts and intents of his heart (Mosiah 

5:13) 

steadfast and immovable, always abounding 

in good works (Mosiah 5:15) 

the grave should have no victory, and that 

death should have no sting (Mosiah 16:7) 

the thoughts and intents of the heart 


stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in 

the word (1 Corinthians 15:55) 

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where 

is thy victory (1 Corinthians 15:55) 

He in the light...of the world (Mosiah 16:9) I am the light of the world (John 8:12) 

If they be good, to the resurrection of 

endless life and happiness; and if they be 

evil, to the resurrection of endless 

damnation (Mosiah 16:11) 

they that have done good, unto the 

resurrection of life; and they that have done 

evil, unto the resurrection of damnation 

(John 5:29) 

one faith and one baptism (Mosiah 18:21) one faith, one baptism (Ephesians 4:5) 

stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have 

been made free (Mosiah 23:13) 

pray without ceasing (Mosiah 26:39) 

Marvel not that all mankind...must be born 

again (Mosiah 27:25) 

the gall of bitterness and bonds of iniquity 

(Mosiah 27:29) 

every knee shall bow, and every tongue 

confess before him (Mosiah 27:31) 

Heinz Schmitz 

Email Me 



Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith 

Christ hath made us free (Galatians 5:1) 

Pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 

5:17) 

Marvel not that...Ye must be born again 

(John 3:7) 

the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of 

iniquity (Acts 8:23) 

every knee shall bow to me, and every 

tongue shall confess to God (Romans 

14:11)

Jesus Christ: The Firstborn of Creation. 

The First-Born of Creation is an answer to Cornerstone Church 

in Garden City, Kansas 

see also An Examination of Colossians 1:15-20 by Mark Larson 

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] 

things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no 

matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been 

created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] 

things were made to exists." (Col. 1:15-17, The New World Translation). 

cornerst writes: Please note that this passage does not say Jesus was the "first created," but that He was 

the "first-born." The Bible doesn't use the Greek word for "first created (protoktizo), but firstborn 

(prototokos) of all creation. 

Response: It should be noted that protoktizo was not in common use back in the first century, and would 

not be for a 100 to 200 years after Christ. Interestingly though, when this word was eventually used, it 

was used of Christ. John Patrick, in his Clement of Alexandria notes: 

"Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet refers to Wisdom 

as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and 

in another "First-begotten," to the Word." p.103,104, note 6. 

The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Volume 1 Faith, Trinity, Incarnation, by Harry Austryn Wolfson, 

2nd Edition, Revised: 

"Zahn casually remarks that Clement 'always makes a sharp distinction between the only 

uncreated God the Father and the Son or Logos who was begotten or created before the rest 

of creation.'...1. cf. Th. Zahn, "Supplementum Clementinium", (1884), 144, p. 204, 92 

"It is undoubtably with reference to this "coming forth" of the Logos prior to the creation of 

the world that Clement speaks of the Logos as "firstborn" [protogonos] and of wisdom, 

which he idtentified with the Logos, as the "first-created" [protoktistos]...30 Strom. VI, Ibid. 

V. 14., ibid. p 209 

cornerst writes: The word "firstborn" refers to a position of pre-eminence rather than a time of birth. 

Rights and privileges were usually bestowed upon the child who was born first, but those rights did not 

always go to him. Manasseh was the first one born, but Jacob (Israel) blessed Ephraim instead of 

Manasseh and gave him the position of first-born (Gen. 48:13-22). In Jeremiah 31:9, God declares 

Ephraim to be His first-born, even though Manasseh was born first. 

The same is true with Jacob and Esau. Although Esau was the first one born, Jacob (whose name was 

change to Israel) received his brother's birthright and his father's blessing and became the first-born. The 

nation of Israel was named after him, and the Lord calls Israel His first-born (Ex. 4:22). Here again, 

first-born refers to rank and privilege. It means first in importance, not first in time. The nation of Israel 

was not the first-born of a woman and not even the first nation to exist. But God called it the first-born 

among all the nations. In the same way, Jesus is the first-born of all creation. 

The "first-born of the poor" (Isa. 14:30) means "the poorest of the poor." The "first-born of death" (Job 

18:13) means Job's disease was the most terrible of diseases. The "first-born" of the kings means the 

highest of the kings of the earth (Ps. 89:27). David (v.20) was the last one born in his family, but was 

called the firstborn. The "first-born of the dead" (Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5) means that Jesus is pre-eminent 

over death. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/firstborn.htm (1 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:14:07 AM]


Response: But how many of us know that the word PRWTOTOKOS is not used in Greek LXX in Job 

18:13 and Isaiah 14:30? Let us look for examples where it is used mostly followed by the genitive like 

"of": 

Verses used are from the English Translation of The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament by Sir 

Lancelot C. L. Brenton, 1844, 1851. 

LXX Genesis 4:4 And Abel also brought of the first born of his sheep 

and of his fatlings, and God looked upon Abel and his gifts, 

LXX Genesis 25:13 And these are the names of the sons of Ismael, according 

to the names of their generations. The firstborn of Ismael, Nabaioth, 

and Kedar, and Nabdeel, and Massam, 

LXX Genesis 27:19 And Jacob said to his father, I, Esau thy 

first-born, have done as thou toldest me; rise, sit, and eat of my 

venison, that they soul may bless me. 

LXX Genesis 35:23 The sons of Lea, the first-born of Jacob; Ruben, 

Symeon, Levi, Judas, Issachar, Zabulon. 

LXX Genesis 36:15 These are the chiefs of the son of Esau, even the sons of 

Eliphas, the first-born of Esau; chief Thaeman, chief Omar, chief 

Sophar, chief Kenez, 

LXX Genesis 38:6 And Judas took a wife for Er his first-born, whose 

name was Thamar. 

LXX Genesis 38:7 And Er, the first-born of Judas, was wicked before 

the Lord; and God killed him. 

LXX Genesis 46:8 And these are the names of the sons of Israel that went 

into Egypt with their father Jacob-- Jacob and his sons. The first-born 

of Jacob, Ruben. 

LXX Genesis 49:3 Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength, and 

the first of my children, hard to be endured, hard and self-willed. 

LXX Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say to Pharao, These things saith the Lord, 

Israel is my first-born. 

LXX Exodus 6:14 And these are the heads of the houses of their families: the 

sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel; Enoch and Phallus, Asron, and 

Charmi, this is the kindred of Ruben. 

LXX Exodus 11:5 And every first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from 

the first-born of Pharao that sits on the throne, even to the 

first-born of the woman-servant that is by the mill, and to the 

first-born of all cattle. 



LXX Exodus 12:29 And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord smote all the 

first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharao that 

sat on the throne, to the first-born of the captive-maid in the 

dungeon, and the first-born of all cattle. 

LXX Exodus 13:13 Every offspring opening the womb of the ass thou shalt 

change for a sheep; and if thou wilt not change it, thou shalt redeem it: 

every first-born of man of thy sons shalt thou redeem. 

LXX Exodus 13:15 And when Pharao hardened his heart so as not to send us 

away, he slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, both the first-born 

of man and the first-born of beast; therefore do I sacrifice 

every offspring that opens the womb, the males to the Lord, and every 

first-born of my sons I will redeem. 

LXX Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not keep back the first-fruits of thy threshing 

floor and press. The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give to me. 

LXX Exodus 34:19 The males are mine, everything that opens the womb; every 

first-born of oxen, and every first-born of sheep. 

LXX Exodus 34:20 And the first-born of an ass thou shalt redeem with 

a sheep, and if thou wilt not redeem it thou shalt pay a price: every 

first-born of thy sons shalt thou redeem: thou shalt not appear 

before me empty. 

LXX Numbers 1:20 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel 

according to their kindreds, according to their divisions, according to the 

houses of their families, according to the number of their names, according 

to their heads, were-- all males from twenty years old and upward, every one 

that went out with the host-- 

LXX Numbers 3:40 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Count every 

first-born male of the children of Israel from a month old and upwards, 

and take the number by name. 

LXX Numbers 3:41 And thou shalt take the Levites for me-- I am the Lord-instead 

of all the first-born of the sons of Israel, and the cattle 

of the Levites instead of all the first-born among the cattle of the 

children of Israel. 

LXX Numbers 3:45 Take the Levites instead of all the first-born of the 

sons of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle, 

and the Levites shall be mine; I am the Lord. 

LXX Numbers 3:46 And for the ransoms of the two hundred and seventy-three 

which exceed the Levites in number of the first-born of the sons of 

Israel; 

LXX Numbers 3:50 He took the silver from the first-born of the sons of 



Israel, a thousand three hundred and sixty-five shekels, according to 

the holy shekel. 

LXX Numbers 8:16 For these are given to me for a present out of the midst of 

the children of Israel: I have taken them to myself instead of all the 

first-born of the sons of Israel that open every womb. 

LXX Numbers 8:17 For every first-born among the children of Israel is 

mine, whether of man or beast: in the day in which I smote every 

first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified them to myself. 

LXX Numbers 18:15 And every thing that opens the womb of all flesh, 

whatsoever they bring to the Lord, whether man or beast, shall be thine: 

only the first-born of men shall be surely redeemed, and thou shalt 

redeem the first-born of unclean cattle. 

LXX Numbers 18:17 But thou shalt not redeem the first-born of calves 

and the first-born of sheep and the first-born of goats; 

they are holy: and thou shalt pour their blood upon the altar, and thou 

shalt offer the fat as a burnt-offering for a smell of sweet savour to the 

Lord. 

LXX Numbers 26:5 Ruben was the first-born of Israel: and the sons of 

ruben, Enoch, and the family of Enoch; to Phallu belongs the family of the 

Phalluites. 

LXX Deuteronomy 12:6 And ye shall carry thither your whole-burnt-offerings, 

and your sacrifices, and your first-fruits, and your vowed-offerings, and 

your freewill-offerings, and your offerings of thanksgiving, the 

first-born of your herds, and of your flocks. 

LXX Deuteronomy 12:17 Thou shalt not be able to eat in thy cities the tithe 

of thy corn, and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thine 

herd and of thy flock, and all your vows as many as ye shall have 

vowed, and your thank-offerings, and the first-fruits of thine hands. 

LXX Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat it in the place which the Lord thy 

God shall choose to have his name called there; ye shall bring the tithe of 

thy corn and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thy herd 

and of thy flock, that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God 

always. 

LXX Deuteronomy 15:19 Every first-born that shall be born among thy kine and 

thy sheep, thou shalt sanctify the males to the Lord thy God; thou shalt not 

work with thy first-born calf, and thou shalt not shear the first-born of 

thy sheep. 

LXX Deuteronomy 33:17 His beauty is as the firstling of his bull, his 

horns are the horns of a unicorn; with them he shall thrust the nations at 



once, even from the end of the earth: these are the ten thousands of 

Ephraim, and these are the thousands of Manasse. 

LXX Joshua 6:26 And Joshua adjured them on that day before the Lord, saying, 

Cursed be the man who shall build that city: he shall lay the foundation of 

it in his first-born, and he shall set up the gates of it in his 

youngest son. And so did Hozan of Baethel; he laid the foundation in Abiron 

his first-born, and set up the gates of it in his youngest surviving son. 

LXX Joshua 17:1 And the borders of the tribe of the children of Manasse, 

(for he was the first-born of Joseph) assigned to Machir the 

firstborn of Manasse the father of Galaad, for he was a warrior, were 

in the land of Galaad and of Basan. 

LXX 2 Samuel 3:2 And sons were born to David in Chebron: and his 

first-born was Ammon the son of Achinoom the Jezraelitess. 

LXX 2 Samuel 13:21 And king David heard of all these things, and was very 

angry; but he did not grieve the spirit of his son Amnon, because be loved 

him, for he was his first-born. 

LXX 1 Kings 16:34 And in his days Achiel the Baethelite built Jericho; he 

laid the foundation of it in Abiron his first-born, and he set up the 

doors of it in Segub his younger son, according to the word of the Lord 

which he spoke by Joshua the son of Naue. 

LXX 1 Chronicles 1:29 And these are their generations: the first-born of 

Ismael, Nabaeoth, and Kedar, Nabdeel, Massam, 

LXX 1 Chronicles 2:3 The sons of Juda; Er, Aunan, Selom. These three were 

born to him of the daughter of Sava the Chananitish woman: and Er, the 

first-born of Juda, was wicked before the Lord, and he slew him. 

LXX 1 Chronicles 2:13 And Jessae begot his first-born Eliab, Aminadab 

was the second, Samaa the third, 

LXX 1 Chronicles 2:25 And the sons of Jerameel the first-born of Esron 

were, the first-born Ram, and Banaa, and Aram, and Asan his brother. 

LXX 1 Chronicles 2:27 And the sons of Ram the first-born of Jerameel 

were Maas, and Jamin, and Acor. 

LXX 1 Chronicles 2:42 And the sons of Chaleb the brother of Jerameel were, 

Marisa his first-born, he is the father of Ziph:-- and the sons of 

Marisa the father of Chebron. 

LXX 1 Chronicles 2:50 These were the sons of Chaleb: the sons of Or the 

first-born of Ephratha; Sobal the father of Cariathiarim, 

LXX 1 Chronicles 3:15 And the sons of Josia; the first-born Joanan, 



the second Joakim, the third Sedekias, the fourth Salum. 

LXX 1 Chronicles 4:4 And Phanuel the father of Gedor, and Jazer the father 

of Osan: these are the sons of Or, the first-born of Ephratha, the 

father of Baethalaen. 

LXX 1 Chronicles 5:1 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel 

(for he was the first-born; but because of his going up to his father's 

couch, his father gave his blessing to his son Joseph, even the son Israel; 

and he was not reckoned as first-born; 

LXX 1 Chronicles 5:3 The sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel; 

Enoch, and Phallus, Asrom, and Charmi. 

LXX 1 Chronicles 6:28 The sons of Samuel; the first-born Sani, and 

Abia. 

LXX 1 Chronicles 8:1 Now Benjamin begot Bale his first-born, and 

Asbel his second son, Aara the third, Noa the fourth, 

LXX 1 Chronicles 8:30 And her first-born son was Abdon, and Sur, and 

Kis, and Baal, and Nadab, and Ner, 

LXX 1 Chronicles 8:38 And Esel had six sons, and these were their name; 

Ezricam his first-born, and Ismael, and Saraia, and Abdia, and Anan, 

and Asa: all these were the sons of Esel. 

LXX 1 Chronicles 8:39 And the sons of Asel his brother; AElam his 

first-born, and Jas the second, and Eliphalet the third. 

LXX 1 Chronicles 9:5 And of the Selonites; Asaia his first-born, and 

his sons. 

LXX 1 Chronicles 9:36 And his first-born son was Abdon, and he had 

Sur, and Kis, and Baal, and Ner, and Nadab, 

LXX 1 Chronicles 9:44 And Esel had six sons, and these were their names; 

Esricam his first-born, and Ismael, and Saraia, and Abdia, and Anan, 

and Asa: these were the sons of Esel. 

LXX 1 Chronicles 26:6 And to Samaias his son were born the sons of his 

first-born, chiefs over the house of their father, for they were mighty. 

LXX Nehemiah 10:36 the first-born of our sons, and of our 

cattle, as it is written in the law, and the first-born of our herds 

and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, for the 

priests that minister in the house of our God. 

LXX Psalm 135:8 Who smote the first-born of Egypt, both man and 

beast. 



LXX Psalm 136:10 To him who smote Egypt with their first-born; for 

his mercy endures for ever. 

LXX Jeremiah 31:9 (38:9) They went forth with weeping, and I will bring them 

back with consolation, causing them to lodge by the channels of waters in a 

straight way, and they shall not err in it: for I am become a father to 

Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born. 

LXX Micah 6:7 Will the Lord accept thousands of rams, or ten thousands of 

fat goats? should I give my first-born for ungodliness, the fruit of 

my body for the sin of my soul? 

As you can see there are many examples of the firstborn[PRWTOTOKOS] as a separate, subordinate, 

and most of the time the actual FIRST BORN member of a family. 

It should be noted too, that Jesus, unlike Ephraim, Jacob and Israel, was never GIVEN the title of "firstborn". He was 

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 

Romans 8:29. 

When this changes, "the firstborn of" is used as part of a group. If it is "the firstborn of" 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 of the house of 

Pharoah, if it is "the firstborn of" beasts(Ex. 13:15) then it is an animal also. Why then should this rule be 

changed as it applies to "the firstborn of" creation? Obviously Jesus is a created being, as he was 

historically always thought to be the Wisdom of Proverbs. Is this a stretch? 

"She [Wisdom] is God's associate in his works, and his agent in making all things (Prov 

8:22-30; see also Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2)." footnote at Wisdom 8:2-21 in the New Oxford 

Annotated Bible-NRSV 


give it new and decisive completion by applying it to the person of Christ 

Jesus is referred to as Wisdom itself, the Wisdom of God, Mt 11:19 par.; Lk 11:49, cf. Mt 

23:34-36; 1 Co 1:24-30; like Wisdom, he participates in the creation and preservation of the 

world, Col 1:16-17, and the protection of Israel, 1Co 10:4, cf. Ws 10:17seq. 

Finally, John in his prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the 

Word, and his gospel throughout represents Christ as the Wisdom of God. See Jn 6:35t. 

Hence, Christian tradition from St Justin onwards sees in the Wisdom of the OT the 

person of Christ himself." footnote New Jerusalem Bible at Prov 8. 

Why is this damaging to Trinitarians? Because Wisdom was created! 

"He created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never cease."Sirach24:9 

The Interpreter's Bible [p.830] says of Prov 8:22: "The verb QANAH may be translated 

either way. In view of the statements made in the following verses concerning wisdom, it 

would seem that the RSV translates correctly; cf. also the following quotations from 

Ecclesiasticus: 





And he who created me made my tent rest (Ecclus 24:8 AT)." 



Also see Proverbs 8:22 NRSV, "The LORD created me at the beginning of his work." 

"The LORD formed me as the first of his works, the beginning of 

his deeds of old." Smith&Goodspeed 

cornerst writes:The New World Translation adds the word "other" four times, which is not in the Greek. 

They add to Scripture to make it look like Jesus was the first-created thing among God's creation. 

According to Jehovah's Witnesses, God created Jesus and then Jesus created all other things. This 

mistranslation of Col. 1:16-17 presents a problem for the Jehovah's Witnesses. Isaiah 44:24 says, "Thus 

says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the LORD, am the 

maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone'". How is 

it possible for the LORD (Jehovah) to stretch out the heavens alone and yet Jesus, "the first created 

thing," be the one who did it? They can't both be true. Jesus is not the created, but the Creator (John 

1:3,10, Heb. 1:10, Col. 1:16). 

Response: Well let us see if John 1:3,10, Heb. 1:10, Col. 1:16 picture Jesus as the creator. 

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the 

works of thy hands". Heb. 1:10 ASV 

In Hebrews 1:10-12 the apostle Paul uses a scripture earlier applied to Jehovah in Ps. 102. Does that 

make them the same person? No! For instance verse 8 says, "But of the Son [he saith,] 

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." 

These words were earlier applied to King Solomon in Ps. 45:6 (see also 2Sam. 7:14). Is King Solomon 

the same person as Jesus? No! Jesus is simply doing a work earlier prefigured by Solomon, also sharing 

some of the qualities of Solomon, such as wisdom. So when it comes to Jehovah in Ps. 102 the writer 

here attributes these qualities to Jesus Christ, because Jesus is the one whom God used in the work of 

creation and to whom he has now committed all authority "in heaven and on the earth." (Matt. 28:18; 

Col. 1:15-17) Jesus represents the God that no one has ever seen to us fully in all his qualities and 

actions.(John 1:18) 

Psalm 22, attributed to David, relates, partly in figurative language, some of the sufferings of Christ. 

(Compare Psalm 22:1 with Mark 15:34; also compare the entire psalm with the four gospel accounts of 

Jesus' trial and impalement.) Are Jesus and David the same person? No! A scripture in Matthew 2:15 

applies to Jesus, but the earlier reference in Hosea 11:1 applies to Israel. Does than make them the same? 

No! There is a prophecy about Elijah in Malachi 4:5 that is applied to John the Baptist in Matthew 

17:12,13; 11:14. Is John the Baptist really Elijah? No! They just did a similar work. I think you get the 

point. For more on this verse, click here. 

"John 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made 

that hath been made. {1:10} He was in the world, and the world was made 

through him, and the world knew him not." ASV 

In looking at the Greek word here for "apart from" CWRIS, Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of its 

occurence in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or co-operation) of one." 


Even Origen acknowledged this, "And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of 

the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the 

ages, " showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when the 



ages were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage also, THROUGH 

[DIA] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who 

else could this but the Father?" 


This scripture ties into the next one at Colossians 1:16. As we can see, the world was made "through 

him". We have already seen that Wisdom was created, but he was also with him at creation. "When he 

marked out the foundations of the earth; Then I was beside him, like a master workman; And I was daily 

his delight, rejoicing before him always." Prov. 8:29, 30 RSV 

The bible tells us that the angels were there too:"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the 

earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding....When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of 

God shouted for joy? Job 38:4,7 ASV But as we can see from Proverbs, Wisdom/Jesus shared a special 

relationship with his God Jehovah. 

Col 1:16 "for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, 

things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all 

things have been created through him, and unto him" ASV 

Again we see that all things were "created thru him". This is only right, after all the Bible says: "For there 

is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5 ASV Now 

a mediator cannot be the person he is mediating for. For instance Moses is also called a mediator at Gal. 

3:19. Moses, like Jesus, shared a special relationship with God. Both were even called by the respectful 

title "god", (Ex. 7:1; John 1:1) though Jesus is mightier than Moses. (Is. 9:6) 

But let us expand further. Let us look at Hebrews 1: 

"In the past God spoke to our ancestors many times and in many ways through the prophets, {1:2} but in 

these last days he has spoken to us through his Son. He is the one through whom God created the 

universe." TEV 

In verse 1, God spoke. The prophets were intermediate agents (Greek: EN). 

God uses agents to carry out his will. 

In verse 2, God spoke, but just like the prophets, the Son was an intermediate agent (Greek: EN). 

For example, Col 1:16 does not teach that Jesus is the almighty creator. Rather, it uses same Greek 

preposition EN which is used of the Son with an active source in the context (like the Father in vss. 12 

and 13). The Father redeems "BY/IN/THROUGH" (Greek: EN) the Son. The Father creates 

"BY/IN/THROUGH" (Greek: EN) the Son. Since the Father creates "BY/IN/THROUGH" Son as agent, 

it is necessary that the creation of the Son was a special case. That is why Paul explicitly says that the 

Son is the "firstborn of" all creation ( PRWTOTOKOS), the "first-begotten of all creatures" Tyndale. 

Tyndale also refers to Jesus in Rev. 3:14 as the "beginning of the creatures of God." 

In John 1:3 it is clear that agency is intended since DIA is used with a passive verb, or created 

"THROUGH" (not "by") the Word. That "through" is the clear meaning and not "by" is made explicitly 

clear by Paul when he said of the relationship between God and Christ in 1 Cor 8:5,6: "One God, the 

Father, out of (Greek: EK) whom all things are, and we unto him; and one lord, Jesus Christ "through" 

(Greek: DIA) whom all things are, and we through him. " 

When you consider all the times that God and Christ Jesus are mentioned in Colossians, the Spirit is 

mentioned a scant 2 times. Hardly a Trinity! "You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity 

set out anywhere in the Bible. St Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he 

call him God. Nor does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly 

equal to his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest). 



It should be noted that Trinitarians do not beleive that Jesus is the Father. They believe that the Father is God, and that the 

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 

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 

consubstantial Trinity. A phrase that is never used in the Bible! 

cornerst writes: The New World Translation adds the word "other" four times, which is not in the 

Greek. 

Response: Now let's look at the insertion of the word "other" in the New World Translation at 

Colossians chapter 1. We are going to start of by looking at some other scriptures where this is 

done. 

Luke 21:29 




Luke 11:42 


"and of every [other] vegetables." NWT 



In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but translators felt a need 

to put it in there. Can they do that even without brackets? 

"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Chrisitian Literature" by F. Blass and 

A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other". 

The book Theology and Bias in Bible Translations by Professor Rolf Furuli when talking about 

the word "other" in the Col. 1:16 in the NWT says, "This means that the brackets that NWT uses 

around OTHER may be removed, because the word OTHER is no addition or interpolation, but 

in a given context it is a legitimate part of PAS." 

Have you ever noticed all those words in italics in the King James Version and the New American 

Standard Version? Those are words that are not in the original text, yet there are thousands of them. 

For more on PRWTOTOKOS go to http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/firstborn.htm 

and http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/logs/response1.htm 

Email Me 



Proskuneo in Catholic Bibles 

PROSKUNEO as used in the New World Translation and other Catholic 

Bibles 

This is in reply to John Pacheco 'the Founder of the Apologists of St. Francis De Sales' Ottawa,Ontario,Canada who has 

slammed the New World Translation for it's use of "Obeisance" where he thinks "Worship" should be placed in the Bible. 

Scripture Jerusalem Bible New J. Bible New English Bible New American Bible N.W.T. 

Matt 2:2* Homage Homage Homage Homage Obeisance 

Matt 2:8* Homage Homage Homage Homage Obeisance 

Matt 4:9 Worship Homage Homage Worship Worship 

Matt 18:26 Threw Himself Down Threw Himself Down Prostrate Homage Obeisance 

John 4:24 Worship Worship Worship Worship Worship 

Acts 7:43 Adore Adore Adore Worship Worship 

Heb 1:6* Worship Homage Homage Worship Obeisance 


Rev 13:4 Prostrate Prostrate Worship Worship Worship 



As we can see, despite the accusations, the NWT is not the only Bible Translation that is "inconsistent" 

with its use of PROSKUNEO. Other Catholic Bibles tend to soften its use in reference to Jesus (see 

asterisk) also. 

What does PROSKUNEO mean? According to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary PROSKUNEO means 

"to make obeisance, do reverence 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 18:26)...to the Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of 

the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to demons(Rev 9:20)...to idols(Acts 7:43)." See Above. 

Is PROSKUNEO the highest form of worship? According to Roman Catholic Theology it is not. The 

highest form is LATREUO(Latin Latria). In the RC Church this distinction is necessary as only God 

recieves LATREUO and the Blessed Virgin Mary can receive a lesser form of worship(such as dalia). 

For more on Latria and Dalia see the Catholic Encyclopedia at: 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm 

The NWT consistently renders LATREUO as "sacred service" while Catholic Bibles only make a 

distinction between LATREUO or PROSKUNEO when they are mentioned together(see Matt 4:10 

below). 

LATREUO as used in the New World Translation and other Catholic Bibles 

Scripture Jerusalem Bible New J. Bible New English Bible New American Bible N.W.T. 

Matt 4:10 Serve Serve Worship Serve S.S. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/proskuneo.htm (1 of 2) [5/25/2003 4:14:25 AM]

Proskuneo in Catholic Bibles 

Php 3:3 Worship Worship Worship Worship S.S. 

Ac 7:42 Worship Worship Worship Worship S.S. 

Ac 24:14 Worship Worship Worship Worship S.S. 

Heb 10:2 Worship Worship Worship Worship S.S. 

Rev 22:3 Worship Worship Worship Worship S.S. 

S.S. = Sacred Service 

LATREUO is never used solely of Jesus Christ in the Bible. 

Revelation 22:3 cannot refer to Jesus(the Lamb) solely as a distinction is made between "God and of the Lamb"(see also 

Revelation 6:16, 17). The scripture ends with worship for "him"(singular). It would be unreasonable to exclude "God" in 

such a circumstance. If this is truly a Trinitarian proof text, then where is the Holy Spirit? Why is he never mentioned in 

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 



file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/proskuneo.htm (2 of 2) [5/25/2003 4:14:25 AM]

The Misunderstood Jehovah 

A Misunderstood Jehovah 

Go Straight to the Article in Rivista Biblica 

John Pacheco 'the Founder of the Apologists of St. Francis De Sales' Ottawa,Ontario,Canada says: In the 

Hebrew language, there is no ?J? sound. Many Jewish names in the Bible have become traditionally 

Hellenized, and therefore they have assumed Greek pronunciations. For instance, "Jacob" is really 

pronounced "Yah-kobe" in Hebrew - likewise for ?Jehovah? and YHWH. Furthermore, according to 

Strong?s Concordance (word number 1943) ?Hovah? (the second part of ?Je-hovah?) actually means 

?ruin? and ?mischief? or ?disaster?. It occurs three times in the Hebrew Old Testament (Isaiah 

47:11[1], Ezekiel 7:26 [2]). Now the question is: is ?mischief? what God?s name is supposed to be 

rooted on? Give me a break. Far from elevating God?s name, the Witnesses have ironically blasphemed 

the Holy Name, and go on insisting that everyone do the same! 

Truth: This unfortunate missive comes from someone with little or no knowledge of the original 

languages. The last 3 letters, HWH(howah) do not change in the original languages whether you translate 

YHWH as Jehovah or Yahweh. So if Jehovah comes from a word meaning "?ruin? and ?mischief? or 

?disaster?", then so does Yahweh. So, did the Catholic Jerusalem Bible "ironically blaspheme" the Holy 

Name by translating it 6800 times? Of course not! The HWH comes from the verb HAYAH(1961, as 

even Strong's will tell you). Now check the footnotes of any Catholic Bible, and they will tell you exactly 

the same thing. So what is the difference between 1943(hovah) and 1961(hayah) if they both contain the 

same hebrew characters? YHWH(Jehovah and/or Yahweh) uses the verb form HAYAH(1961) to define 

his name at Exodus 3:14. No respected theologian/scholar would say otherwise. 

Is Jacob really "Yah-kobe"? Yes. Do we say Yahkobe when we refer to Jacob? No. Do we render John 

1:19 as "This is Yochanan's testimony, when the Yehudim sent Kohanim and 

Levites from Yerushalayim to ask him, "Who are you" ?? HNV No, this is too awkward. 

"In the history of the English language however, the letter J has a written counterpart in the 

German J, although the latter J in German is pronounced like an English Y. The bulk of 

theological studies having come from the German sources, there has been an intermixed 

usage in English of the J and the Y. Our English translations of the bible reflect this, so we 

have chosen to use J, thus Jehovah, rather than Yahweh, because this is established English 

usage for Biblical names beginning with this Hebrew letters. No one suggests that we ought 

to change Jacob, Joseph, Jehoshaphat, Joshua etc. to begin with a Y, and neither should we 

at this late date change Jehovah to Yahweh." -Bible Translator Jay P. Green, Sr. 

The following names would lose the "Jeho" if we would be so discriminating in all respects to Bible 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/jehovah.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:14:39 AM]


translation: Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jehoiachin, Jehoiada, Jehoiakim, Jehonadab, Jehoram, Jehoshaphat, 

Jehosheba, Jehozabad. 

Thankfully, the Catholic Encyclopedia is much more respectful of the name Jehovah at: 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm: 

"Jehovah (Yahweh)" The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called 

it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the 

hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most 

frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name, though the precise 

meaning of this last expression is a matter of discussion (cf. Buxtorf, "Lexicon", Basle, 

1639, col. 2432 sqq.). 

Jehovah occurs more frequently than any other Divine name. The Concordances of Furst 

("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", Leipzig, 1840) and Mandelkern ("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", 

Leipzig, 1896) do not exactly agree as to the number of its occurrences; but in round 

numbers it is found in the Old Testament 6000 times, either alone or in conjunction with 

another Divine name. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render the name generally by "Lord" 

(Kyrios, Dominus), a translation of Adonai—usually substituted for Jehovah in reading." 

Catholic Bob Stanley writes: "show me a Greek dictionary which lists jehovah 

as meaning kurios? No JW document please, any secular Greek dictionary only. 

Betcha cant find even one." 

Response: Well the above Catholic document should more than make up...besides, you have Vine's 

Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words which says under the many meanings and uses of kurios, 

"(g)kurios is the Sept. and N.T. representative of Heb. Jehovah." p.379 

Catholic Bob Stanley answers:The Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official Catholic 

publication.. 

What other Bible Translations use the Divine Name? 

The King James Version uses Jehovah at Ex.6:3, Ps.83:18, Is.12:2;26:4 

The American Standard Version uses Jehovah thousands of times. 

Young's Literal Translation uses Jehovah thousands of times. 

The Holy Bible by J.N.Darby uses Jehovah thousands of times. 

The Literal Translation/King James 2 Version by Jay P. Green uses Jehovah thousands of times. 

The Emphasized Bible by Rotherham uses Yahweh thousands of times. 

The Recovery Version by Livings Dreams Ministry uses Jehovah thousands of times. 

The New English Bible uses Jehovah at Exodus chapters 3 and 6. 

The World English Bible uses Yahweh thousands of times. 

The Jerusalem Bible uses Yahweh thousands of times. 

The New Jerusalem Bible uses Yahweh thousands of times. 

The Living Bible/Protestant and Catholic editions uses Jehovah over 300 times. 

The English Revised Version uses Jehovah at Ex. 6:2,3,6,7,8, Ps. 83:18, Is. 12:2;26:4. 

The Bible in Living English by Byington uses Jehovah thousands of times. 

The Webster Bible uses Jehovah in the same places as the KJV above. 

The Modern Language Bible/New Berkeley Version uses Jehovah at Exodus 3:15; 6:3, Numbers 3:13, 

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 

etc. 

The Complete Bible-Smith&Goodspeed uses Yahweh at Exodus 3:15, 6:3 and the shorter form Yah is 



used at Ps. 68:4, Is. 12:2; 26:4 

The New King James Version uses YAH at Is. 12:2; 26:4. 

The New World Translation uses Jehovah thousands of times. 

The Emphatic Diaglott uses Jehovah at Matt 21:42; 22:37, 44, 23:39, Mark 11:9 and Acts 2:34 

The Amplified Bible uses Yaweh at Ex. 6:3 

Boothroyd's Versions uses Jehovah thousands of times. 

S. Sharp's translation uses Jehovah thousands of times. 

The Reina Valera Bible uses Jehova thousands of times. 

The Moderna version uses Jehova thousands of times. 

The Bover-Cantera Bible uses Yahveh thousands of times. 

The Nacar-Colunga Bible uses Yave thousands of times. 

The Evaristo Martin Nieto Bible uses Yave thousands of times. 

The Biblia de Jerusalen uses Yahveh thousands of times. 

The Cantera-Iglesias Bibles uses Yahveh thousands of times. 

The Straubinger Bible uses Yahve thousands of times. 

The Almeida Bible uses Jehovah thousands of times. 

The Pontificio Instituto Biblico uses Jave thousands of times. 

The Osty Bible uses Yahve thousands of times. 

The Brasileira Bible uses Jehovah thousands of times. 

The Elberfelder Bible uses Jehova thousands of times. 

The Crampon Bible uses Jehovah thousands of times. 

The Lienart Bible uses Yahweh thousands of times. 

La Bible de Jerusalem uses Yahve thousands of times. 

The Leidsche Vertaliing Bible uses Jahwe thousands of times. 

The Willibrordvertaling Bible uses Jahwe thousands of times. 

The Himmelriech Bible uses Jahve thousands of times. 

The Canisiusvertaling Bible uses Jahweh thousands of times. 

Catholic Bob Stanley says: All of these bibles you list are nothing more than one protestant lie being 

followed by other protestant liars, all lemmings following one another as the first one jumps off the cliff.. 

Response: As you can see, there is much hatred for the Divine Name, and it seems to stem from 

ignorance, as many of the Bibles mentioned above, including the Encyclopedia, are Catholic. 

Addendum 1 

This article was published on the Catholic magazine "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, april-june 1997, 

p. 183-186. 

JHWH. The tetragrammaton in the New Testament 

For a long time it was thought that the divine Tetragrammaton YHWH, in Hebrew written with the 

letters YHWH/JHVH (which recurs over 6800 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament) did not 

appear in the original writings of the New Testament. In its place it was thought that the writers of the 

New Testament had used the Greek word for LORD, KYRIOS. However, it seems that such an opinion 

is wrong. Here below are some factors to consider: 

1) The Tetragrammaton in the Greek Version of Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX). 



One of the reasons produced to support the above mentioned opinion was that the LXX substituted 

YHWH (YHWH) with the term KYRIOS, (kurios) which was the equivalent Greek of the Hebrew word 

ADONAY used by some Hebrews when they met the Tetragrammaton during the Bible reading. 

However, recent discoveries have shown that the practice of substituted in the LXX YHWH with 

KYRIOS started in a much later period in comparison with the beginning of that version. As a matter of 

fact, the older copies of the LXX keep the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters in the Greek 

text. (See App. 1) 

Girolamo, the translater of the Latin Vulgate confirms this fact. In the prologue of the books of Samuel 

and Kings he wrote: "In certain Greek volumes we still find the Tetragrammaton of God's name 

expressed in ancient characters". And in a letter written in Rome in the year 384 it says: "God's name is 

made up of four letters; it was thought ineffable, and it is written with these letters: iod, he, vau, he 

(YHWH). But some have not been able to decipher it because of the resemblace of the Greek letters and 

when they found it in Greek books they usually read it PIPI (pipi)". S. Girolamo, Le Lettere, Rome, 

1961, vol.1, pp.237, 238; compare J.P.Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol.22, coll.429, 430. 

Further confimation comes from The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, that 

says: "Recently discovered texts doubt the idea that the translaters of the LXX have rendered the 

Tetragrammaton JHWH with KYRIOS. The most ancient mss (manuscripts) of the LXX today available 

have the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew letters in the Greek text. This was custom preserved by the 

later Hebrew translater of the Old Testament in the first centuries (after Christ)". Vol.2, pag.512. 

Consequently, we can easily deduce that if the writers of NT in their quotations of the OT used the LXX 

they would surely have left the Tetragrammaton in their writings the way it recurred in the Greek 

version of the OT. To confirm the correctness of this conclusion it is interesting to note the following 

declaration made before the finding of the manuscripts proving that the LXX originaly continued the 

Tetragrammaton: 

"If that version (LXX) would have kept the term (YHWH), or had used the Greek term for JEHOVAH 

and another for ADONAY, such a use would have surely been followed in the discourses and in the 

reasonings of the NT. Therefore our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalms, insteand of saying: 'The LORD 

has said to my LORD' could have said: "JEHOVA has said to ADONI". Supposing that a Christian 

student was translating in Hebrew the Greek Testament: every time that he met the word KYRIOS, he 

should have had to consider if in the context there was something that indicated the true Hebrew 

correspondent; and this is the difficulty that would have arisen in translating the NT in whatever 

language if the name JEHOVAH would have been left in the Old Testament (LXX). The Hebrew 

scriptures would have constitued a standard for many passages: every time that the expression "the 

LORD's angel" recurs, we know that the term LORD represents JEHOVA; we could come to a similar 

conclusion for the expression "the LORD's word", according to the precedent established in the OT; and 

so it is in the case of the name "the LORD of armies". On the contrary, when the expression "my LORD" 

or "our LORD" recurs, we should know that the term JEHOVA would be inadmissible, when instead the 

words ADONAY or ADONI should be used". R.B.Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, 

p.43. 

For a stronger support of this argument there are the words of the professor George Howard, of the 

University of Georgia (U.S.A.) who observes: "When the Septuagint Version that the New Testamental 

Church used and quoted, contained the Divine Name in Hebrew characters, the writers of the New 



Testament included without doubt the Tetragrammaton in their quotations". Biblical Archeology 

Review, March 1978, p.14. 

Consequently several translators of the NT have left the Divine Name in the quotations from the OT 

made by the New Testament writers. It can be noted, for example the versions of Benjamin Wilson, of 

Andrè Chouraqui, in Efik, and Malgascio languages. 

2)The Tetragrammaton in Hebrew version of the NT. 

As many know, the first book of the NT, the gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. The proof of this 

is found in the work of Girolamo De viris inlustribus, chap. 3, where he writes: 

"Mattew, that is also Levi, that became an apostle after having been a tax collector, was the first to write 

a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and Hebrew characters, for the benefit of those who 

where circumcised that had believed. It's not know with enough certainly who had then translated it in 

Greek. However the Hebrew one it self is preserved till this day in the Library at Cesarea, that the martyr 

Pamphilus collected so accurately. The Nazarenes of the Sirian city of Berea that use this copy have also 

allowed me to copy it". From the Latin text edited by E.C.Richardson, published in the series Texte und 

Untersuchungen zur Geschicte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol.14, Lipsia, 1986, pp.8,9. 

It is therefore natural to conclude that when Matthew quoted passages from the OT in which the 

Tetragrammaton appeared (thing that occurred both in the Hebrew OT and in the Greek one then 

available) he would have surely left YHWH in his gospel as no jew ever dared to take away the 

Tetragrammaton from the Hebrew text of the Holy Scriptures. 

To confirm this there are at least 27 hebrew versions of the NT that present the Tetragrammaton in the 

quotations of the OT or where the text requires it. (see note 11) 

3) The Tetragrammaton in the christian Scriptures according to the Babylonian Talmud. 

The first part of this Yewish work is called Shabbath (Sabbath) and it contains an immense code of rules 

that establishes what could have been done of a Sabbath. Part of it deals with if on the Sabbath day 

Biblical manuscripts could be saved from the fire, and after it reads: 

"The text declares: 'The white spaces ("gilyohnim") and the books of the Minim, can't be saved from the 

fire'. Rabbi Jose said: 'On working days one must cut out the Divine Names that are contained in the text, 

hide them and burn the rest'. Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my son if I don't burn them toghether with 

the Divine Names that they contain if I come across them". From the English translation of Dr. 

H.Freedman. 

The word "Minim" means "sectarians" and according to Dr. Freedman it's very probable that in this 

passage it indicates the Jewish-Christians. The expression "the white spaces" translates the original 

"gilyohnim" and could have meant, using the word ironically, that the writings of the "Minim" where as 

worthy as a blank scroll, namely nothing. In some dictionaries this word is given as "Gospels". In 

harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above mentioned passage says: 

"The books of the Minim are like white spaces (gilyohnim)." 

So in the book Who was a Jew?, of L.H.Schiffman, the above mentioned passage of the Talmud is 

translated: "We don't save the Gospels or the books of Minim from the fire. They are burnt where they 

are, together with their Tetragrammatons. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: "During the week one should take 



the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the rest". Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my 

children! If I would have them in my hands, I would burn them with all their Tetragrammatons'". Dr. 

Schiffman continues reasoning that here "Minim" is refered to Hebrew Christians. 

And it's very probable that here the Talmud refers to the Hebrew Christians. It is a supposition that finds 

agreement among the studious people, and in the Talmud seems to be well supported by the context. In 

Shabbath the passage that follows the above mentioned quotations relates a story, regarding Gamaliel 

and Christian judge in which there is an allusion to parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, this 

passage of the Talmud is a clear indication that the Christians included the Tetragrammaton in their 

Gospel and their writings. 

Because of all we have said there are valid reasons to assert that the writers of the New Testament 

reported the Tetragrammaton in their divinely inspired work. 

Matteo Pierro. 

Appendix 1 

List of LXX versions that have Tetragrammaton: 

1) LXX P. Fouad Inv. 266, have the Tetragrammaton as: +, 

2) LXX VTS 10a, have the Tetragrammaton as: .- 

3) LXX IEJ 12, have the Tetragrammaton as: .- 

4) LXX VTS 10b, have the Tetragrammaton as: 0/ 

5) 4Q LXX Levb, have the Tetragrammaton as: 1 

6) LXX P. Oxy. VII.1007, have the Tetragrammaton as: 23 

7) Aq Burkitt, have the Tetragrammaton as: 45 

8) Aq Taylor, have the Tetragrammaton as: 67 

9) Sym. P. Vindob. G. 39777, have the Tetragrammaton as: 89 o ;: 

10) Ambrosiano O 39 sup., have the Tetragrammaton as: == 

Appendix 2 

List of Hebrew versions of the NT that have the Tetragrammaton: 

1) Gospel of Matthew, a cura di J. du Tillet, Parigi, 1555 

2) Gospel of Matthew, di Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut, 1385 

3) Matthew and Hebrews, di S. Munster, Basilea, 1537 e 1557 



4) Gospel of Matthew, di J. Quinquarboreus, Parigi, 1551 

5) Gospels, di F. Petri, Wittemberg, 1537 

6) Gospels, di J. Claius, Lipsia, 1576 

7) NT, di E. Hutter, Norimberga, 1599 

8) NT, di W. Robertson, Londra, 1661 

9) Gospels, di G. B. Jona, Roma, 1668 

10) NT, di R. Caddick, Londra, 1798-1805 

11) NT, di T. Fry, Londra, 1817 

12) NT, di W. Greenfield, Londra, 1831 

13) NT, di A. McCaul e altri, Londra, 1838 

14) NT, di J. C. Reichardt, Londra, 1846 

15) Luke, Acts, Romans and Hebrews, di J. H. R. Biesenthal, Berlino, 1855 

16) NT, di J. C. Reichardt e J. H. R. Biesenthal, Londra, 1866 

17) NT, di F. Delitzsch, Londra, ed.1981 

18) NT, di I. Salkinson e C. D. Ginsburg, Londra, 1891 

19) Gospel of John, di M. I. Ben Maeir, Denver, 1957 

20) A Concordance to the Greek New Testament, di Moulton e Geden, 1963 

21) NT, United Bibles Societies, Gerusalemme, 1979 

22) NT, di J. Bauchet e D. Kinnereth, Roma, 1975 

23) NT, di H. Heinfetter, Londra, 1863 

24) Romans, di W. G. Rutherford, Londra, 1900 

25) Psalms and Matthew, di A. Margaritha, Lipsia, 1533 

26) NT, di Dominik von Brentano, Vienna e Praga, 1796 

27) NT, Bible Society, Gerusalemme, 1986 

This article was published on the catholic magazine "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, april-june 1997, p. 

183-186. 

See more from the Author Matteo at http://libriusati.hypermart.net/geova.htm 

Email Me 





Jesus Christ-The Wisdom and Word/Logos of God 


Click here for KKLA Radio's Misrepresentation of this page 

The following is a list of variant translations of John 1:1: 

Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott, "In a beginning was the 

Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word." 

Recovery Version, Living Streams Ministry, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 

was with God, and the Word was God." 

Edward Harwood, H KAINH DIAQHKH. The New Testament, collated with the most 

approved manuscripts; with select notes in English, critical and explanatory, and references 

to those authors who have best illustrated the sacred writings. To which are added, a 

Catalogue of the principal Editions of the Greek Testament; and a List of the most esteemed 

Commentators and critics. London, 1776, 2 vols; 2nd ed. 1784, 2 vols. 1768, 

"and was himself a divine person" 

Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god" 

Crellius,as quoted in The New Testament in an Improved Version "the Word was God's" 

La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel,1928: “and the Word 

was a divine being.” 

John Samuel Thompson, The Montessoran; or The Gospel History According to the Four 

Evangelists, Baltimore; published by the translator, 1829, "the Logos was a god 

Goodspeed's An American Translation, 1939, "the Word was divine 

Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, "the word was a god." 

Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University, "and god[-ly/-like] was the Word." 

Concordant Version (Knoch) "God was the Word" 

C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, Second Edition, 1947, "the Word was god 

New English Bible, 1961, "what God was,the Word was" 

Moffatt's The Bible, 1972, "the Logos was divine" 

International English Bible-Extreme New Testament, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or 

Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present 

before this Greek word] 

Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D. -The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from the 

Greek, 1694, "and the Word was a god" 

The NET Bible, "and the Word was fully God." 


Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the 

Command was" 

Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God" 

Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 

54). 1885, 

"[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" 


Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer 

and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god" 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/wisdom.htm (1 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:14:45 AM]


Charles A.L. Totten, The Gospel of History, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was 

Godly] 

J.N. Jannaris, Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German periodical) 1901, 

[A]nd was a god" 

International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 

“In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. 

The Message was deity.” 

CEV, "the Word was truly God." 

Samuel Clarke, M.A., D.D., rector of St. James, Westminster, A Paraphrase on the Gospel 

of John, London 

"[A] Divine Person." 

Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. (in A Familiar Illustration of Certain Passages of Scripture 

Relating to The Power of Man to do the Will of God, Original Sin, Election and 

Reprobation, The Divinity of Christ; And, Atonement for Sin by the Death of Christ 

[Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson, 1794], 37). "a God" 

Lant Carpenter, LL.D (in Unitarianism in the Gospels [London: C. Stower, 1809], 156). "a 

God" 

Andrews Norton, D.D. (in A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing the Doctrines of 

Trinitarians [Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company, 1833], 74). "a god" 

Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the University of Basil 

(in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 1, The Rise of Religion [1903], 16). "a God" 

"At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who 

produced all things in their order." 21st Century NT Free 

"and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." 21st Century Literal 

George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament, 1911, [A]nd (a) God 

was the word" 

Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament, New York, Columbia University 

Press, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature" 

James L. Tomanec, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958, [T]he 

Word was a God" 

Philip Harner, JBL, Vol. 92, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God" 


Siegfried Schulz, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) 

was the Word" 


...with footnote, "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God.' In 

the forst instance, the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second 

instance there is not article, and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. 

In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrae 

means 'The Word was divine'." 

William Barclay's The New Testament, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the 

nature of God" 

Johannes Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos 

Schonfield's The Original New Testament, 1985, "the Word was divine 



Revised English Bible, 1989, "what God was, the Word was 

Cotton Patch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One 

Scholar's Version-The Five Gospels, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with 

God, and it was what God was 

J. Madsen, New Testament A Rendering , 1994, "the Word was a divine Being" 

Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1979, "a God/god was the Logos/logos" 

Curt Stage, The New Testament, 1907, "The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being." 

Bohmer, 1910, "It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being" 

Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919, "God of Kind/kind was the Word/word" 

Baumgarten et al, 1920, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" 


Friedriche Rittelmeyer, 1938, "itself a God/god was the Word/word" 

Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "the Word was of divine kind" 

Fredrich Pfaefflin, The New Testament, 1949, "was of divine Kind/kind" 

Albrecht, 1957, "godlike Being/being had the Word/word" 

Smit, 1960, "the word of the world was a divine being" 

Menge, 1961, "God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word" 

Haenchen, 1980, "God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos" [as mentioned in William 

Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260] 

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "He was with God and in all like God" 


Johannes Schulz, 1987, "a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word." [As 

mentioned in William Loader's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, p. 155 cf. p.260] 

William Temple, Archbishop of York, Readings in St. John's Gospel, London, Macmillan & 

Co.,1933, 

"And the Word was divine." 

John Crellius, Latin form of German, The 2 Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One 

God the Father, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God" 

Greek Orthodox /Arabic Calendar, incorporating portions of the 4 Gospels, Greek Orthodox 

Patriarchy or Beirut, May, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god" 

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, 

"And the Word was Divine" 

Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster 

College, Cambridge, in The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London, Student 

Movement Christian Press1931 

"and the Logos was divine (a divine being)" 



Dymond, E.C. New Testament, 1962 (original manuscript) 

"In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully 

expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]." 

Buzzard/Hunting 

“In the beginning of God’s creative effort, even before he created the 

heavenly bodies and the earth, the mental power to reason logically already 



existed, and the Wisdom produced by it was known only to God, for the 

Wisdom was God’s Wisdom” (Pro. 8:22-30) 

Barclay, W. The Daily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol.1 

“III. [Revised Edition ISBN 0-664-21304-9: Finally John says that “The Word was God”. 

There is no doubt that 

this is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because 

greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from 

the way in which english speaks. When the greek uses a noun it almost 

always uses the definite article with it. The greek for God is ‘theos’, 

and the definite article is ‘ho’. When greek speaks about God it does 

not simply say ‘theos’; it says ‘ho theos’. Now, when greek does not 

use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like 

an adjective; it describes the character, the quality of the person. John 

did not say that the Word was ‘ho theos’; that would have been to say 

that the Word was identical with God; he says that the Word was 

‘theos’- without the definite article- which means that the Word was, 

as we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and 

being as God. When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was n o t 

saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so 

perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we 

perfectly see what God is like” 

So Why the Difference? 

Let us look at the construction as it is in the Nestle-Aland Greek NT. 

EN ARCH HN O LOGOS KAI O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS 

Let's look at the two different appearances of the word "God" in John1:1. The first usage of 'theos' 

(which is spelled with the accusative case ending) is preceded by a definite article(TON QEON/The 

God). This gives this God "identity". The second usage is the predicate noun "QEOS" or "a god." It lacks 

the article. So here we see that the subject, the LOGOS/WORD is with The God, but he belongs to a 

"class" of god or has the "quality" of a God. It is qualitative. As you can see I added the indefinite article 

"a" before the second word "god". This is perfectly acceptable as the greek doesn't have an indefinite 

article and so it is up to the translator to decide where the indefinite article should be. However, W.E. 

Vine's Expository Dictionary claims that "to translate it literally, 'a god was the Word,' is entirely 

misleading." Vine does not deny that "a god" is a literal translation, only that we shouldn't translate it like 

that. But is he right? Trinitarians like Vine do not like the rendering "a god". Murray Harris in his book, 

Jesus as God-The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus gives us a list where others were 

referred to as gods in early times as titles of respect: 

Heroes were gods, like Chiron and Colonus(see Sophocles Trach. 714 & Oed. Col. 65). 

Skilled politicians were gods, like Demetrius Poliorketes and Antigonos (see Athanaeus 6:63). 

Founding fathers of philosophical schools like Diogenes, Peregrinus and Heraclitus were gods 

(Peregrinus was thought so by his Christian students). 

Rulers such as Ptolemy V (Epiphanes), Julius Caeser, Augustus, Herod Agrippa I, Nero and Domitian 

were referred to as gods. 

Patriarchs like Moses are referred to as god by Philo (Sacr. AC. 9). 

Certain servants such as Marricus (see Tacitus, Hist. 2:51). 

And humans as possessors of great intelligence(i.e. Marcus Aurelius/Epictetus Diss.2:8:12 and Plotinus). 



p.27,28 

But Harris only accepts "the Word was a god" on grammatical grounds as Christians are monotheistic. 

Christians are, but this does not disallow "god" as a title of respect. Even the Bible makes reference to 

others who are termed "god" but are not YHWH or false gods. 

Moses is a god(Ex. 4:16; 7:1) 

Kings are gods(Ps. 45:6) 

Angels/Judges are gods(Ps. 8:5; 82:1-6; 97:7; 138:1) 

Here is how others have viewed the title "God": 

"The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question whether Christ 

was an angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an angel, rank as God. The 

explanation which was offered by the supporters of the Angel-Christoloy was that Christ, according to 

his nature, was a high angel, but that he was named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The 

word 'God' did mean, in the first place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the 

beings who served this deus verus [Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods' 

implies reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus represented. Consequently 

in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28), not only 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 according them the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius 

[260-330 C.E.] had thought in this way2 ... 2 Latantius, inst. Epitome [The Epitome Of The Divine 

Institutes], 37."-Martin Werner, The Formation Of Christian Dogma, p. 140. 

"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred an 

honourable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His Son] is far 

more worthy of this honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John 10:34] is in Psalm 

lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; where God 

expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically abuse the authority and power for 

their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for every evil action ... Christ applies this to the 

case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, because they are God's ministers for governing the 

world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams 

forth on the world ... In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them 


"We have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue."-Justin 

Martyr, The First Apology Of Justin, chapter XXI (21); ANF, Vol. I, p. 170. 

"For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first 

merely men, then at length gods;"-Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV (4), chapter XXXVIII 

(38), § 4; ANF, Vol. I, p. 52 

"[the Son] having bestowed on us the truly great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the Father, 

deifying man by heavenly teaching,"-Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The Heathen (or, The 

Greeks, or, The Gentiles), chapter XI (11); ANF, Vol. II, p. 203. 

"But let us, O children of the Father-nurslings of the good Instructor [Christ]-fulfil the Father's will ... 

and meditating on the heavenly mode of life according to which we have been deified, let us anoint 

ourselves with the perennial, immortal bloom of gladness."-Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 

(Peadagogus), Book I, chapter XII (12); ANF, Vol. II, p. 234. 

"The Creator did not wish to make him [mankind] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel-be not 



deceived-but a man. For if He had wished to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the 

example of the Logos [the Word, the Son]"-Hippolytus, The Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10), 

chapter XXIX (29); ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 151. 

"And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or 

passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God ... For the Deity, (by 

condescension,) does not diminish aught of the dignity of His divine perfection; having made thee even 

God unto His glory!"-ibid., chapter XXX (30); ibid., p. 153. 

"If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and by the 

Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the 

resurrection of the dead."-Hippolytus, Discourse On The Holy Theophany, § 8; ANF, Vol. V, p. 237. 

"For He [the Son of God] was made man that we might be made God."-Athanasisus, Incarnation Of The 

Word, (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Edinburgh, T&T Clark; Grand 

Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Second Series, Vol. IV (4), p. 65, reprinting of October, 

1987. "For He has become Man, that He might deify us in Himself, and He has been born of a 

woman, and begotten of a Virgin in order to transfer to Himself our erring generation, and that we may 

become henceforth a holy race, and 'partakers of the Divine Nature,' as blessed Peter wrote. (2 Peter 

1:4)-Athanasius, Letters of Athanasius, (Lx. Ad Adelphiun), 60.4; ibid., p. 576. 

Origen (185 CE - 251 CE) is called "one of the most learned teachers and prolific authors of the early 

church." (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity) Though coming well after the apostolic period, it is 

interesting to peruse his Commentary on John, as found in volume 9 of 

Menzies' "Ante-Nicene Fathers." 

[Quote] 

We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences [John 

1:1]. He does not write without care in this respect nor is he 

unfamiliar with the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, 

and in some cases he omits it...He uses the article when the name of 

God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when 

the Logos is named God...The God who is over all is God with the 

article, not without it. 

God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so 

the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know 

Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God 

by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God 

(with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the 

first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to 

attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the 

other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The 

God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." 

The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him 

are gods, images, as it were of Him the prototype. But the 

archetypal 



image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the 

beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not 

possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father. 

[Unquote] 

For Origen, John 1:1c is the logical outcome of John 1:1b, i.e., the Word is "God" or a divine being 

*because* he was "with" The God in the beginning, "not possessing that of Himself, but by His being 

with the Father." 

What I found interesting was so early a recognition of the relevance of the difference between QEOS and 

hO QEOS in John 1:1. As Origen explains it, the meaning would be similar to modern translators who 

render John 1:1 as "the Word was Divine" or "the Word was a divine 

being" or even -- yes -- "the Word was a god." 

I just came across an interesting bit in Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture where a scribe altered 

John 1:1c in order to elevate the divine status of Jesus. 

"I should observe that a similar addition of the article occurs in the 8th century Alexandrian 

manuscript L of John 1:1, so that the text now reads *O QEOS HN O LOGOS*-making it 

clear that the Word actually was God himself (not simply divine). I am somewhat reluctant 

to exclude this singular reading from consideration here, but am nonetheless under the 

distinct impresssion that it derives from the later Arian controversies. At the same time, it is 

worth pointing out that Origen already used the *absence* of the article in John 1:1 to 

demonstrate Christ's subordination to God (Jn. Com 2.2.17-18)." p. 179 

I think Ehrman's comment is interesting, and the fact that John 1:1c, as it should read, is simply not 

enough to elevate Christ to almightihood even from a historical perspective. 

To understand the translation "the Word was a god," let us look at John 6:70. When speaking of his 

betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, "One of you is a devil."ASV Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually 

Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he has the qualities 

of a devil. The word "devil" here has no article in the greek, but most translators deem it necessary to add 

the "a" to complete the thought. 

So what kind of god is Jesus? John 1:18 says he is the "only-begotten God" or "only-born God" who 

represents the God that "no man hath seen"(NASB, NWT, Lattimore, Byington. 

But why is the term WORD/LOGOS used here to refer to Jesus Christ? 

First, most of the early Church Fathers considered Wisdom to be Christ. 

Eldon J. Epp, in his book "WISDOM, TORAH, WORD: THE JOHANNINE PROLOGUE and the 

PURPOSE of the FOURTH GOSPEL singles out Wisdom hymns in Proverbs, Sirach 24:3-9, 23-32, 

Baruch 3:9-4:2 and Wisdom of Solomon 7:21-9:18 that he believes influenced the Prologue of John. 

There are considerable parallels. 

In fact, Wisdom 9:1 refers to the God who "made all things by means of his word(logos). But then 9:2 

uses SOPHIA(wisdom) as a parallel to LOGOS. 

"I issued from the mouth of the Most High" Sirach 24:3 Hence: a Word 

"He created me from the beginning, before the world, and I shall never cease." Sirach 24:9 

"All that was secret or manifest I learned." Wisdom 7:21 

"But if the possession of wealth is to be desired in life, What is richer than wisdom, which 

operates everything?" And if understanding works, Who in all the world is a greater 

craftsman than she?" Wisdom 8:5-6 

"God of my forefathers and merciful Lord, Who created all things by your word, and by 



your wisdom formed man 

To rule over the creatures you had made." Wisdom 9:1,2 

"And with you is wisdom, which knows your works, And was present when you made the 

world, And understands what is pleasing in your sight, And what is in accord with your 

commands." Wisdom 9:9 

"She glorifies her high birth in living with God." Wisdom 8:3 

"Give me the wisdom that sits by your throne." Wisdom 9:4 

"The motif of Wisdom the woman subsequently played a notable part in Jewish and 

Christian thought. She appears, for example, in the Wisdom of Solomon, in Sirach, in 

Baruch 3:9-4:4, and in the non-biblical texts from Qumram, and her words are echoed in the 

New Testament (e.g. Matt. 11:28). Perhaps most resonant of all was Wisdom's speech in 

Proverbs 8:22-31, stressing her presence at the beginning of creation. Sirach equates 

Wisdom with the creative word of God (24:3) and with Torah (24:23). Readers of the jewish 

philosopher Philo of Alexandria (first century C.E.) have found it difficult to disentangle the 

properties of God's word (LOGOS) from Wisdom (SOPHIA) of God (1 Cor 1:24). The 

mini-creation story at John 1:1-3 consciously evokes Proverbs 8." 

The Oxford Companion to the Bible edited by Bruce M. Metzger 


give it new and decisive completion by applying it to the person of Christ. Jesus is referred 

to as Wisdom itself, the Wisdom of God, Mt 11:19 par.; Lk 11:49, cf. Mt 23:34-36; 1 Co 

1:24-30; like Wisdom, he participates in the creation and preservation of the world, Col 

1:16-17, and the protection of Israel, 1Co 10:4, cf. Ws 10:17seq. Finally, John in his 

prologue attributes the characteristics of creative Wisdom to the Word, and his gospel 

throughout represents Christ as the Wisdom of God. See Jn 6:35t. Hence, Christian tradition 

from St Justin onwards sees in the Wisdom of the OT the person of Christ himself." footnote 

New Jerusalem Bible at Prov 8 

"She is God's associate in his works, and his agent in making all things (Prov 8:22-30; see 

also Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2)." footnote at Wisdom 8:2-21 in the New Oxford Annotated 

Bible-NRSV 

"While we do not say with certainty that this applies to a personal being, it does foreshadow 

the beautiful doctrine of the Word of God later developed in St. John`s gospel (Jn 1, 1-14)." 

footnote at Sirach 24, New American Bible 

"Here that plurality of divine persons is foreshadowed which was afterward to be fully 

revealed when Wisdom in the Person of Jesus Christ became incarnate." footnote at 

Proverbs 8:22 New American Bible. 

W. Gunther Plaut, in his work Book of Proverbs—A Commentary, says that these verses apply to 

Wisdom "personified only in a figurative way." This passage, however, cannot be speaking merely about 

divine wisdom or wisdom in the abstract. Why not? Because the "Wisdom" that is here depicted was 

"created" or "produced" (Hebrew, qa·nah') as the beginning of Jehovah's way. 

What is the best rendering here though. Some Bibles read "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of 

his way. The Interpreters's Bible [p.830] says of Prov 8:22 . 

"The verb QANAH may be translated either way. In view of the statements made in the 



following verses concerning wisdom, it would seem that the RSV translates correctly; cf. 

also the following quotations from Ecclesiasticus: 





And he who created me made my tent rest (Ecclus 24:8 AT). 

Interestingly, the New Jerusalem Bible at Proverbs 8:22 states, "The translation 'acquired me' or 

'possessed me' (Aquila, Symm., Theod. ) was adopted by Jerome (Vulg), probably with an eye to the 

heretic Arius who maintained that the Word (=Wisdom) was a created being." So again we see a 

manipulation of the text to fit an errant theology. For an extensive list of Bible Translations that do not 

render the verb QANAH as possessed click here. 

So how is it that Jesus stopped being referred to as Wisdom in many minds? 

"Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: 

the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from 

himself that the Father is over all', as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene 

theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the 

Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. 

Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the 

pre-existent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the 

Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as 

false.... A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, 

could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been 

originally ‘alone', and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not'. When he did so, within 

the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed 

there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same 

words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as 

heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea." [e.a.]-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, 

by Martin Werner, D.D. 

The Scriptures show that Jehovah (Yahweh) God himself has always existed. (Ps. 90:2; 1 Tim. 1:17) 

Because Jehovah filled his only-begotten Son with wisdom, the Son became the very symbol of wisdom 

and he speaks of himself as Wisdom in Proverbs chapter 8. In Pr 8 verse 30 where Moffatt uses the 

expression "foster-child" to refer to the Son, Moffatt is giving a literal translation of the word ah·móhn, 

which is from the Hebrew verb ahmán, meaning "to nourish, nurse, be guardian to". In Isaiah 49:23 the 

participle of this verb, ah·méhn, is translated in the King James Version "nursing fathers", and 

"nourishers" in the margin. At Isaiah 60:4 the word is rendered "nursed". 

John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ, wrote: 

When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our 

Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of 

him as God. He is God's Christ, God's Son, God's Wisdom, God's Word. Even the prologue 

to St. John{John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the 

light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less 

explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word "god" at John 1:1c without the article] 



than it appears in English... The adoring exclation of St. Thomas "my Lord and my god" 

(Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification 

[limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary 

Magdalene (v[erse. 17) "Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and 

your Father, and my God and your God." Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation 

Epistles as "our God", "my God", but probably never as "God" without qualification. 

Is it polytheism though to refer to another god in light of what is written at Isaiah 43:10, "Before me 

there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." ASV 

Isaiah 42:8 says, "I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my 

praise to graven images."ASV If we honestly look at the surrounding context of Isaiah, we see that it is 

talking about the idol gods of the nations (compare Is 41:6, 29, . In the Bible book of Psalms we have 

several examples of angels referred to as gods. Click here for more 

To clear this up, Gerald Cooke in his writing, "The Sons of (The) God(s)," ZAW76 (1964). 39 states, 

"We have found the conception of lesser beings around Yahweh was known and utilized 

throughout Israel's biblical period, beginning possibly as early as the Yahwist in the early 

Genesis references and in Ps 29 and Dt 33...and extending to the book of Daniel....The 

functional distinction of the gods of the peoples among this heavenly company is made 

clearer, however by II Isaiah and Ps. 82. II Isaiah denies the existence of gods other than 

Yahweh; yet it is quite likely that II Isaiah himself continued to make use of the conception 

of heavenly company [compare Isa 6:1-4, 6,7]....It seems to the writer equally likely that it is 

to be explained in terms of a distinction within the heavenly company as a living reality of 

Israelite faith, for the poet-prophet condemns and denies the existence to the gods of 

Babylon which have led the community into idolatry and apostasy. The gods of a foreign 

people, and perhaps the gods worshipped by all the nations, are denied existence by one who 

is seeking to meet an immediate and critical religious need. None deserves the worship 

which is due Yahweh alone; none can perform the role which belongs to Yahweh alone, for 

there is none like Yahweh. The denial applies not to the entire heavenly company, but to the 

gods of a foreign people, gods that claim the worship due Yahweh alone." 

For more discussions on John 1:1, especially in light of Count/Non-Count Nouns, click here. 

Visit http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/John%2011.htm for more on John 1:1. 

For Professor Jason Beduhn's comment on John 1:1 click here. 

For info on Hebrews 1:8 click here. 

For info on Colossians 1:15 click here. 

For some of the above information I am indebted to the Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation 

Email Bag: 

avengerofchrist@hotmail.com: Man, you have got it all wrong, and either don't know it, or are too 

brainwashed by the Cult. If you think the translation of John 1:1 should be rendered "a god", man, you are 

so lost. 

Please read on: JOHN 1:1 

The book "REASONING FROM THE SCRIPTURES" (Hereafter referred to as RFTS.) published by the 

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY. (copyright 1985. 1989) states the following about John 

1:1 on page 212: 'The definite article.'("The') appears before the first occurrence of # 'Theos' (God) but not 

before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a 



personality, where as a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb, (as the 

sentence is constructed in the Greek) points to a quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the 

Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was god-like, divine, a 

god.' (Note: The ^ and # are added to help you locate them in the text below.) 

This is a misuse, misapplication and erroneous statement about the Greek language. Let me explain. 

Reply: What does this have to do with anything? I did not quote the RFTS or the New World Translation 

or any other WTS publication. All to the above references are mostly from Trinitarians themselves. The 

fact that they cannot agree on much just makes it easier for me to proceed. 

avengerofchrist@hotmail.com: OUR FIRST RESPONSE HAS TO DO WITH GREEK GRAMMAR IN 

REGARD TO COMMON NOUNS. 'A GRAMMAR OF THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK' by Moulton, 

states on pages 173-174 the following about COMMON NOUNS: 

'The article will not normally be used when a person or object is first introduced. or when only an undefined 

part of a group or class is referred to, or when a person or object is thought of only predictively and 

therefore not individually and definitely....Since Theos (God) and Kurios (Lord) come so near to being 

proper nouns, it is not surprising that the article is so often omitted.' 

Moulton page 174. 

Thus our first response to RFTS is that the absence of the article on the second instance of "God" ("Theos") 

which refers to "The Word" is not an indication that Jesus is only "god-like" but rather it is a mere 

characteristic 

of the Greek language, similar to the characteristic of English when we say that "i" usually comes before 

"e" except after "c". 

OUR SECOND RESPONSE HAS TO DO WITH THE RULES IN REGARD 

TO PREDICATE NOUNS. 

That the article is absent has nothing to do with the fact that Jesus is God or just 'a god" is further proven by 

the 

following rule of Greek Grammar. Before we state the rule, note that the second 'Theos' in John. 1:1 is a 

predicate noun. That is, it is the object of the verb "to be." Now note the following quote from the same 

grammar we have been quoting by Moulton. 

"E.C. Colwell (JBL. 52. 1933. 12-21) formulates rules for the article with predicate nouns in New 

Testament 

sentences in which the verb occurs. He finds that [a] definite predicate nouns take the article, if (as usual) 

they 

follow the verb; but [b] otherwise they usually lack it; (emphasis mine) and [c] proper nouns (emphasis 

mine) 

lack it; [d] in relative clauses it does not apply since nouns always follow the verb anarthrous or not. 

MOULTON 

PAGE 183 

In applying this to John 1:1 note that the second occurrence of 'Theos' which is a predicate noun does not 

follow 

the verb "was' but precedes it. Therefore it conforms to the rule [b] above. Again, the fact that there is no 

article before 'Theos' does not detract from the fact that Jesus is fully God. The absence of the article merely 

conforms to the usual way Greek sentences are written when you have a predicate noun that precedes the 

verb. 

OTHER EXAMPLES 

For example in Matthew 5:13 the pronoun 'You' precedes 

the verb and thus there is no article preceding it. 

But in Matthew 13:37.'The Son of Man" follows the verb and thus has the article. 

Reply: The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a 

predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead 

of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does 

not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it 



does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows 

the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses 

the quality or character of the Word. 

Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress 

his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? 

There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite...In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative 

force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.—Philip 

Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7. 

We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better 

word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God 

[the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the 

image of God'' of Paul, Col. 1:15.—G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, 

Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428. 

There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God'. In the first instance the article is 

used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there in no article and it is difficult to 

believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of 

Theos so the phrase means 'The Word was divine'.—The Translator's New Testament, p. 451. 

We reach a more difficult issue in the Gospel of John. Here, in the Prologue, the Word is said to be God, 

but, as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not 

used (in the final clause.) For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine' (Moffatt) or 

is not regarded as God in the Absolute sense of the name...In a second passage in the Prologue (I 18) the 

textual evidence attests 'only-begotten God' more strongly than 'only begotten Son', but the latter is 

preferred by many commentators as being more in harmony with Johannine usage and with the 

succeeding clause, 'who is in the bosom of the Father'. In neither passage is Jesus unequivocally called 

God, while again and again in the Gospel He is named 'the Son of God.—Vincent Taylor, The 

Expository Times, January 1962. p. 117. 

As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue's “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is 

no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does 

when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene 

understanding of the vocabulary involved.—Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25. 

The late Dr. William Temple in His Readings in St. John's Gospel (1939), 4, obviously accepts Moffatt's 

translation, for he says, 'The term “God” is fully substantival [shows identity, who, or what, 'the God', the 

Father, is] in the first clause pros ton then [“with the God”, both “the” (ton) and “God” (Theon) being 

spelled accusative case endings] it is predicative and not far from being adjectival in the second - kai 

theos en ho logos [“and (a) god was the Word”]—R.H. Strachan, The Fourth Gospel (3rd ed., 1941). 

The closing words of v[erse]. 1 should be translated, “the Word was divine.” Here the word Theos has no 

article, thus giving it the significance of an adjective”...Taken by itself, the sentence kai theos en ho logos 

[and (a) god was the Word] could admittedly bear either of two meanings: 1) 'and the Word was (the) 

God' or 2) 'and the Word was (a) God'...E.F. Scott's statement about the Philonic doctrine (The Fourth 

Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology, Edinburg, 1908, p.151): “The Logos appears sometimes as only an 

aspect of the activity of God, at other times as a “second God” an independent and it might seem a 



personal being.” We have seen that 'and the Word was (a) God' is a possible, if unlikely, translation of 

kai theos en ho logos. This is apparently accepted by E.F. Scott—J. Gwyn Griffiths, The Expository 

Times, July 1951, pp. 314-316. 

It would be impossible to speak about Jesus without considering the words of John's 'Gospel: “The Word 

was God”. The Greek of that phrase is Theos en ho logos. This does not mean Word was God. In Greek 

ho is the definite article. [there are eighteen other ways to spell the 'definite' article in the Koine Greek of 

the first century of the common era] In Greek, if two things are identified [shown to be the same entity] 

the definite article is used with both. If this phrase meant the Word was God it would be Ho theos çn ho 

logos. There is noting strange about this. We do the very same in English. When in English, or in Greek, 

a noun does to have the definite article, it becomes the equivalent of an adjective. [a description rather 

than an identification, how the subject is rather than what of who the subject is] If in English I say: “John 

is the man,” then I identify John with a definite and particular specimen of the human race; but if I omit 

the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is 

human; he belongs to the sphere of man.” So then, what the Greek really says [means] in not “The Word 

was God,” but “The word is in the same sphere as God; it belongs to the same kind of life [spiritual life] 

and is one with God [cp. John 17:20-23 on “one”]. (Notations is brackets added by this 

reviewer.)—William Barclay, Who Is Jesus, Tidings, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A., 1975, pp. 35-6. 

Here “God” is used predicatively, without the article: the Word, whom he has just distinguished from the 

Person of God, is nevertheless a divine being in his own right.—Bruce Vawter, C.M., The Four Gospels 

an Introduction, p. 38. 

The rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. The subject is then definite 

and distributed, the predicate indefinite and undistributed.—A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek 

New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, fourth edition, 1934, p. 767. 

God - divine in nature...God (in kind)”, [footnote to John 1:1c]—The Cross Reference Bible, American 

Standard Version, Harold E. Monser, Editor-In-Chief; Associate Editors, C.R. Scotville, I.M. Price, A.T. 

Robertson, M.S. Terry, Jr., R. Sampey, J.W. Monser, G.C. Eiselen, R.A. Torrey, A.C. Zenor, 1959 

edition. 

Not that he [John] identified him [the Word] with the Godhead (ho Theos); on the contrary, he clearly 

distinguishes the Son and the Father and makes him inferior in dignity (“the Father is greater than I”), but 

he declares that the Son is “God” (Theos), that is, of divine essence or nature.—Philip Schaff, History of 

the Christian Church, edition of 1910, Vol. I, p. 690. 

The predicate [noun] commonly refers not to an individual or individuals as such, but to the class to 

which the subject belongs, to the nature or quality predicated of the subject; e.g. Jo I, 1 [kai theos en ho 

logos], which attributes to the Word the divine nature,—Maximilian Zerwich, S.J., Biblical Greek, 

Rome, Scriptua Pontificii Instituti Biblici (Pontifical Biblical Scripture Institute), p. 55. 

In John 1:1...Theos en (“was deity”);...The qualitative force is obvious and most important,—Alfred M. 

Perry, “Translating The Greek Article” in Journal of Biblical Literature, 1949, Vol. l68, p. 331. 

After closely examining Colwell's rule, Harris says, "This leads me to affirm that one may not infer (as is 

often done) in rule 2b that anarthrous predicate nouns which precede the verb are usually definite. 

Indeed, such nouns will usually be qualitative in emphasis.—Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, Grand 

Rapids, Baker Book House, 1992, pp. 60, 312. 



So let us take a look at COLWELL'S “RULE” 

Grammarian Nigel Turner, has gone on record as saying: 

So that while the canon [rule] may reflect a general tendency it is not absolute by any means; after all, it 

takes no account of relative clauses of proper nouns like that in [ho Theos agape estin, [“the God love 

is”] 1 John 4:8. Moreover, he is the first to admit the lack of objectivity in his method of counting: he 

professes to include only definite nouns among his anarthrous predicates, and the degree of definiteness 

is extremely difficult to assess.—A Grammar of New Testament Greek, James Hope Moulton, Nigel 

Turner, Vol. III, Syntax, 1963, p.1 

Dixon says: "The only other conceivable value of Colwell's rule [that is, other than textual criticism] is to 

say it is possible to have an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb that is definite (but, did 

we not already know that?), and that because Colwell apparently found some. Yet it is most important to 

see that the rule says nothing about the probability of definiteness (contrary to what Colwell and Blum 

have us believe), nor can it, as Colwell has not considered both definite and non-definite nouns. Because 

Colwell considered only definite predicate nominatives then his rule applies when definiteness has 

already been determined, then, the probability of articularity may be ascertained...Assuming the rule is 

valid, its value is almost exclusively for textual criticism. The rule may not be valid, however, as its 

underlying assumptions are highly questionable." 

Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John" (Th.M. thesis, 

Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 18, 23. 

Colwell's "rule" *assumes* definiteness of the QEOS at John 1:1c.Take for example, Acts 26:4 "This 

man (Paul) is *a* murderer" is a precise Colwell construction with "murderer" as anarthrous but is not 

within the scope of Colwell's "rule." "Murderer" is not a definite noun. QEOS is not a definite noun, as is 

clearly shown by John 10:34 "You are gods" QEOI ESTIN, which, markedly, is a Colwell "construction" 

itself! At 1Kings 18:37 we have Elijah crying out 

regarding Baal "QEOS ESTIN" . We here have a use of a Colwell construction that parallels John 1:1c 

with the same anarthrous preverbal predicate QEOS. Brenton's LXX translation renders it as "He is a 

god!" 

Download a .pdf document from Rodney Decker on Colwell's Rule. 

The Greek text of the Christian Scriptures has many examples of this type of predicate noun where other 

translators into English have added the indefinite article "a." Consider, for example, Marshall's interlinear 

translation of the following verses: "Says to him the woman: Sir, I perceive that a prophet [predicate] art 

[verb] thou [subject]." (John 4:19) "Said therefore to him-Pilate: Not really a king [predicate] art [verb] 

thou [subject]? Answered-Jesus: Thou sayest that a king [predicate] I am [verb, with subject 

included]."-John 18:37. 

Did you notice the expressions "a prophet," "a king" (twice)? These are anarthrous predicate nouns that 

precede the verb in Greek. But the translator rendered them with the indefinite article "a." There are 

numerous examples of this in English versions of the Bible. For further illustration consider the 

following from the Gospel of John in The New English Bible: "A devil" (Jn 6:70); "a slave" (Jn 8:34); "a 

murderer . . . a liar" (Jn 8:44); "a thief" (Jn 10:1); "a hireling" (Jn 10:13); "a relation" (Jn 18:26). 

Alfred Marshall explains why he used the indefinite article in his interlinear translation of all the verses 

mentioned in the two previous paragraphs, and in many more: "The use of it in translation is a matter of 



individual judgement. . . . We have inserted 'a' or 'an' as a matter of course where it seems called for." Of 

course, neither Colwell (as noted above) nor Marshall felt that an "a" before "god" at John 1:1 was called 

for. But this was not because of any inflexible rule of grammar. It was "individual judgement," which 

scholars and translators have a right to express. The New World Bible Translation Committee expressed 

a different judgment in this place by the translation "a god." 

Let us look at other anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb, to find their qualitative status. 

(taken from Harner's article, page 82, footnote “19”). The information above and below have to do with 

anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb, (in the Greek text) “I am” EIMI or any of its 

forms, such as HN “was”. 

III Kings 18:27, LXX (Septuagint); (=1 Kings 18:27): 

“And it was noon, and Eliu [Elijah] the Teshbite mocked them, and said, Call with a loud voice, for he is 

a god;”. Here we have the same syntax as at John 1:1c; the word “god” is an anarthrous predicate 

nominative and it occurs before the verb “estin” (“is”) a form of “I am”. 

Mark 11:32: 

“They feared the people, for everyone held that John was a prophet.” (NIV). Here John has the qualities 

of the prophets of old. 

John 6:70: 

“Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (NIV). Was Judas 

really “a devil” i.e. Satan himself? No. He was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of Satan. 

B.F. Westcott comments on this: “Judas...partook of that which is essential to the devil's nature.” (The 

Gospel According to St John, p. 253) Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the 

Devil (definite); he was not a devil (indefinite), he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the 

mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, Satan. If a definite meaning were desired the word order 

would be, 'is the devil'; if an indefinite meaning were desired the word order would be, 'is devil'. Since 

the word order is, 'devil is', and a form of “I am” comes after the noun, the meaning is qualitative, as it is 

in these examples including John 1:1c. 

JOHN 12:6 

“He [Judas] said this, not out of any care for the poor, but because he was a thief he used to pilfer the 

money put into the common purse, which was in his charge.” (NEB) The information is given that Judas 

sought ways in which to gain money in a dishonest manner, (verse) 5). He was not merely a thief, one 

who stole; he was a thief. He wanted to steal, he planned to steal, his nature was to steal; stealing was in 

his heart. He was a thief! 

In these examples, which have the same noun function (adjectival) as John 1:1c, we have seen that the 

main meaning is, a description of the nature, the disposition of, the subject, not the subject's rank nor 

position nor title. In other words not who or what the subject was, but how the subject was. 

If John really wanted to provide support for the trinity, why didn't he write it something like this, "in the 

beginning was the Word, and he was with the Father, and they were both one God"? I think he would 

have, for he was not trying to hide God's nature, but to reveal it, and the endless sea of dissertations, 

discussions, and exegetical extrapolations that have focused on this one tiny hymn testify to the problems 

trinitarians are faced with in trying to use this verse as a basis for their doctrine. If Harris can admit that 

"[theos en ho logos] could be rendered 'the Word was a god'" (Jesus as God, p 60), and if C.H. Dodd can 



admit that "As a word-for-word translation it [the 'a god' rendering] cannot be faulted" (Technical Papers 

for The Bible Translator,Vol 28, 

No.1, January, 1977), and if Robert Young can confirm that John 1:1c could literally be rendered "and a 

God (i.e. a Divine being) was the Word" (Young's Concise Commentary), and if Catholic Scholar John 

L. McKenzie is willing to go so far as to say that "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated...'the Word was 

a divine being'", and if all the above translators see something similar in John 1:1c, then why not simply 

accept the 'a god' rendering, which is the most natural. As William Loader puts it: 

"It is true, on the most natural reading of the text, that there are 

two beings here: God and a second who was theos but this 

second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is 

the absolute over against which the second is defined. They 

are not presented as two equal gods." 

Obviously, in John 1:1 we have one individual with the characteristic of QEOS who is "with" TON 

QEON, thus he cannot be the God he is with! This one is further identified as "a son from a father," as a 

"begotten god," and as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word QEOS 

we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as "god." 

So either there was two equal Gods talking to each other or there was one godlike (a quality) individual 

talking to the Almighty God. There is no other possible explanation. 

avengerofchrist@hotmail.com: I saw your picture, and your very nice looking family. I sincerely hope you 

never rub off all that rubbish upon them...... 

It is truly unfortunate that there are those who have to resort to un-christian attacks to further their point. 

avengerofchrist@hotmail.com says: "You have no response. You will now need to conjure up some cult 

material to define your reasoning, which is guaranteed to make no sense what so ever. I look forward to the 

amusement of your ridiculous "Witch" tower response. 

Your prejudice is interesting from possibly a psychological standpoint perhaps, but it only weakens your 

point. You will be hard-pressed to find the majority of the information on this page from any 

Watchtower. The New World Translation was not even used. 

For more on Colwell's Rule, go to: 

A Response To Don Hartley on the Matter of the Colwell Construction, 

Luke 7:39, and the Use of Theology in Grammatical Studies 

And 

Surrejoinder to Don Hartley: Q-Class Count Nouns, John 1:1c, and 

Other Related Matters, By Greg Stafford 

"Earlier in this century E. C. Colwell attempted to use a certain grammatical construct to prove, among 

other things, that Jesus was God, and that John 1:1 supported this teaching. For years Trinitarian scholars 

used and abused Colwell's rule, citing ...but all the while they were oblivious to the fact that what they were 

advocating 

was in direct contradiction to the very doctrine they were seeking to uphold, the Trinity." 

Is it Grammar or interpretation? 

An Open Letter to James White Regarding his "Germans, JWs, and John 1:1" 

Updated Aug 2 2001 



Email Me 



Answering Walter Martin and the Pagan Trinity 

My Response to: 

Author: Walter R. Martin 

Taken from: http://www.webzonecom.com/ccn/cults/jw-005.txt 

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES 

AND THE TRINITY 

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity has been consistently 

misunderstood, probably more than any other teaching of the 

Bible. Frequently investigation into the doctrine of the Trinity 

has been dismissed from serious discussion or study by invoking 

the time-worn assertions - "It's a great mystery" or "This is 

incomprehensible" - thus discouraging many from investigating the 

scriptural basis of the doctrine. 

Truth: Mr. Martin is one of those that has promoted this assertion in another 

book about the Witnesses where he says, "The Trinity itself is a 

mystery or a "holy secret". It is incomprehensible. It can never be fully 

understood." 

Since the Watchtower denies that the Trinity doctrine is 

Biblical; and since they complicate the issue by defining it 

incorrectly - the task of true Christians is two fold: First, a 

definition in accord with historic Christianity must be given. 

Secondly, it must be shown that the doctrine of the Trinity is 

both Biblical and essential to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

THE HOLY TRINITY 

Definition: Within the unity of the One God there are three 

Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; and these three 

share the same Nature and attributes. In effect, the three 

Persons ARE the one God. 

My Response: Well here is the Nicene Creed: 

"I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all 

things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son 

of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very 

God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by 

whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from 

heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, 

and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered and was buried; 

and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into 

heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with 

glory to judge both the quick and the dead whose kingdom shall have no end. And I 

believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the 

Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and 

glorified, who spake by the prophets. And I believe one catholic and apostolic 

Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the 

resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen." 

But that wasn't good enough, so they brought about the Athanasian Creed many years 

later: 

" . . . we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding 

the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, 

another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, 

of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/wmartin.htm (1 of 13) [5/25/2003 4:14:55 AM]


coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The 

Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father 

incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. 

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are 

not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three 

incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one 

incomprehensible. 

"So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost 

almighty. And yet there are not three almightys, but one almighty. So the Father 

is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three 

Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy 

Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by 

the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord, so 

are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say there be three Gods and three 

Lords. 

"The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the 

Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father 

and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there 

is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not 

three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is 

greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together, 

and coequal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the 

Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus 

think of the Trinity. . . . " 

I hope that clears everything up. I certainly wouldn't want to give an incorrect 

definition. 

From this concise statement, similarly set forth in many 

theological texts,2 it is clear that the Christian Church does 

not believe that "there are three gods in One." Quite to the 

contrary, we affirm that there is but one God, as Scripture 

repeatedly asserts (Deut. 6:4, Isa. 43:10, 1 Tim 2:5). 

Notice that he quotes first from the Hebrew Scriptures at Deuteronomy and Isaiah. 

I wonder how many trinitarian Jews there are? 

Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures will be quoted from the RSV. 

Having defined the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, it becomes 

necessary, secondly, to demonstrate inductively from the Bible 

that it is true. 

Yes, let's define it first, THEN we will go to the Bible to back it up. 

To accomplish this, we begin with one basic premise: If it can be 

shown from Scripture that there are three persons, all of whom 

are called Jehovah (God), then, since there is only one Jehovah 

(Isa. 44:6, 48:12), those three Persons are the one God. Things 

equal to the same thing are equal to each other. 

I don't know about you, but I am pretty excited:) 

Just how it is possible for three to be One and for that One to 

be three, will also be explained. But first, the evidence: 

1. THE FATHER IS JEHOVAH 

Jehovah's Witnesses are quick to agree with the Apostle Peter 



that the Father is called Jehovah. Moreover, Peter and many 

other Biblical writers identify Him as a "person" (2 Peter 

1:17). It is therefore unnecessary to press this point, the 

Witnesses having already conceded it. 

You see that Mr. Martin has to do this piecemeal. There is no ONE scripture that 

puts them together in ONE triune godhead. 

However, we would point out that the word "person" is, by 

definition, descriptive of "ego" or "I." Without "ego," which 

distinguishes man from the beast, personality as such would cease 

to exist. Any reputable lexicon of Greek dictionary will 

substantiate the fact that the Greek word "ego," is the basis for 

our English term, "I." Jehovah designates His Being as The Great 

I AM (Ex. 3:14): So the Deity is Personal and possesses Ego, the 

hallmark of Personality. 

Or as the Greek Septuagint Version (the translation that was often quoted by the 

apostles in the first century C.E.) reads, e·go' ei·mi' ho Ohn', "I am the Being." 

The Revised Standard Version(RSV) has in it's margin, "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE" 

2. THE SON IS JEHOVAH 

A careful study of the first chapter of Revelation (vs. 11-18) 

will show that Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, identifies Himself 

as "the first and the last" and "the one who became dead" and who 

now lives for all eternity. 

It is of no small significance that in verse 13 of the last 

chapter of Revelation, He confirms this title with great 

emphasis, identifying Himself in verse 16 as "I Jesus," and 

declaring that He is "the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and 

the end, the first and the last." The context reveals that it is 

Jesus speaking (vs. 12), for He - not the Father - is coming 

"quickly" (Rev. 1:7; 1 Thess. 4:15,16). 

It must never be forgotten that these titles ("the first and the 

last," "the Alpha and the Omega'" "the beginning and the end") 

belong only to Jehovah God (Isa. 44:6,8; Rev. 1:8, 21:6). But 

Jesus Christ claims them as His own, because He, the Son is also 

Jehovah! 

Truth: Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that those who are spiritual conquerors are 

to be 'sons' of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of 

the relationship of Christians at that time to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them 

as his 'brothers.' (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those 'brothers' of Jesus 

are referred to as "sons of God." (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) At Revelation 22:12, (Good News 

Bible)TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in Re 22:13 

is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in 

Greek, and other translations do not include it. At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha 

and Omega is also said to be "the first and the last," and this phrase is applied 

to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Just like the phrase "apostle" is applied both to 

Jesus Christ and to some of his followers. But that does not prove that they are 

the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points 

to the fact that the title "Alpha and Omega" applies to Almighty God, the Father, 

not to the Son. If Jesus really was the Alpha and Omega, there would have been no 

need to spuriously insert his name at Revelation 1:11 like some have done(KJV), 



and that goes for the TEV in the Revelation 22:13. Maybe the TEV should have read 

ahead at verse 18 where it says, "I, John, solemnly warn everyone one who hears 

the prophetic words of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to his 

punishment the plagues described in this book." TEV 

Just a little side note...if you read Revelation 1:1 that it was an angel that 

was relaying all this to John. Yes! It was an Angel who actually said spoke and 

said,"I am the Alpha and Omega". Hmmmm! 

We see, then, that there are either two firsts and two lasts (a 

hopeless contradiction of terms), or the Son is Jehovah, the one 

who was pierced for our sins (Zech. 12:10; Rev. 1:7,11,13) and 

who is truly "the fullness of Jehovah in flesh" (Col. 2:9). 

Truth: This scripture says nothing of the kind. He has several times already 

misquoted scripture to suit this erroneous belief. Since I already have my TEV 

open, it says at Col.2:9, "For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, 

in his humanity" Remember, he is the Son of Jehovah according to Martin. How can a 

son be his own Father? 

The angel who showed John the wonder Revelation forbade the 

Apostle to worship him, for he was but a created being, a "fellow 

servant." Quite properly, he declared, "worship Jehovah," (Rev. 

22:9). Yet Jesus Christ, whom Jehovah's Witnesses say is also a 

created being (i.e., Michael the Archangel), 

Truth: Even John Calvin said he was the Archangel Michael. See: 

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment2/dan9-13.htm 

John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, 

Vol. 3, page 2048 states: > 

"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael 

with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, 

not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel 

in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl" 

commended the 

worship of Himself as Jehovah (John 20:28,29). This would have 

been a blasphemous act of presumption on His part and a direct 

violation of His Father's commandments (Ex. 20:3; Deut. 6:17), 

unless He were in some mysterious sense on in Nature and Being 

with His Father. In such a case He would in truth be "equal with 

God" and entitled to receive worship as Jehovah(John 5:18,23). 

Truth: If you read the context of John 20:28,29, you will see that Jesus commended 

nothing of the sort. In fact, several verses later in v.31 we will see what Jesus 

commended. "but these are written that you may beleive that Jesus is the Christ, 

the son of God." We have to remember when Thomas surprisingly exclaimed "My lord 

and my God" that "God" in biblical times was a very relative term. In Judges 

13:20-22 and Psalms 8:5 angels are referred to as "God". In Exodus(which Martin 

quotes above) 7:1, Moses is referred to as God. In fact, when Jehovah appeared to 

Moses in the burning bush at Exodus 3, that was really an angel(see v.2).WHY? 

Because like Jesus, angels are messenger of Jehovah. Judges are also referred to 

as gods at Psalms 82. Let us not forget that Jesus is referred to also as an 

"only-begotten God" at John 1:18 (NASB) Jehovah and the Holy Spirit are never 

referred to as such. 

But let's look at John 5:18: "This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill 



him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making 

himself equal with God." 

It was the unbelieving Jews who said that Jesus was trying to make himself equal 

with God by claiming God as his Father. While properly referring to God as his 

Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God. He stated afterward "Truly, truly, 

I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the 

Father doing." (John 5:19; see also John 14:28; John 10:36.) It was those 

unbelieving Jews, too, who claimed that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but they were 

wrong about that also. Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and he declared: "It is 

lawful to do good on the sabbath."-Matt. 12:10-12. 

Jehovah's Witnesses have always taught that Jesus Christ was no 

more than a perfect man, "certainly not the supreme God Almighty 

in the flesh."3 They state categorically that He was in no sense 

both God and man. "Some insist that Jesus while on earth was 

both God and man. This theory is wrong." 

Truth: But yet Mr. Martin will use the above scriptures, while Jesus was on earth, 

to make that very assumption. Do you see how complicated it gets."For God is not a 

God of confusion" 1Cor.14:33 

4 Jehovah's Witnesses 

also maintain that our Lord was "the first and direct creation of 

Jehovah God," and that prior to His earthly life He was an 

angle.5(sic) 

In contrast to this teaching, Scripture and the Christian Church 

declare the full Deity of Jesus Christ, and His equality with God 

the Father. 

Truth: Jesus himself called the father,"the only true God."[John 17:3] He called 

the Father "my God"[John 20:17] He also said,"the Son can do nothing of his own 

accord, but only what he sees the Father doing."[John 5:19] He also said, "Why do 

you call me good? No one is good but God alone."[Mark 10:19] He also said"Father, 

if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine 

be done."[Luke 22:42](I thought Jesus was God???) He also said, "Father, into thy 

hands I commit my spirit!"[Luke 23:46](Is Jesus talking to himself here???) Jesus 

also said, "But of that day or that hour no one knows...nor the Son, but only the 

Father."[Mark 13:32](If Jesus is God, why doesn't he know???) He also said, "My 

God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"[Mark 15:34](Did he forsake himself???) 

What else does the Bible say? 

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ 

Jesus." 1Timothy 2:5 

"the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head 

of Christ is God." [1Corinthians 11:3] 

"Are you not from ancient times Yahweh, my God, my Holy One, who never dies." 

[Habakkuk 1:12] Jerusalem Bible (Jesus died remember) 

"He is the image of the unseen God and the first-born of all creation." Colossians 

1:15 Jerusalem Bible 

"the beginning of God's creation" Revelation 3:14 

"God cannot be tempted with evil" James 1:13 yet Satan did try to tempt Jesus at 

Matthew 4:4 

"God raised him up" Acts 2:24 (Did Jesus raise himself up?) 

"Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered." Hebrews 

5:8 (God can learn obedience?) 



"God exalted him at his right hand" Acts 5:31 

"But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and 

Jesus standing at the right hand of God." Acts 7:55 (Why wasn't the Holy Spirit in 

heaven with the other 2?) 

"No one has ever seen God" John 1:18 

"He is the image of the invisible God" Col. 1:15 

"the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God" 1Timothy 1:17 

"you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live." Exodus 33:20 

"No man has ever seen God" IJohn 4:12 (But people have seen Jesus,hence, he cannot 

be God) 

In the first verse of John's Gospel, Christ is revealed as the 

eternal Word of God who became flesh (verse 14) - the "image of 

God" (2 Corinthians 4:4). Consider the emphasis "in the 

beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word 

was God" John 1:1). 

Note that John 1:1 states that the Word already was in the 

beginning - it does not say the Word "became" or "was created" by 

God, as Jehovah's Witnesses teach. The Witness incorrectly 

translate this text to read "the Word was a god,"6 but their 

translation is by both context and grammar an impossibility 

according to all recognized authorities on Greek. No recognized 

translation bears out their error. 

Truth: Lets take a quote from a biblical scholar: 

"The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god 

was the word." 

Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefeinite 

article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has 

the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the 

phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was 

written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate 

it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" 

an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article 

into English, we are simply obeying rules of 

English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say 

"Snoopy is a dog." 

Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when 

you mean to refer to the one supreme 

God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would 

have to say "The God": ho theos. Even a 

monotheistic Christian, who beleives there is only one God and no others, would be 

forced to say in Greek "The God," as John 

and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off 

the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you 

are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are 

called noun cases, which means the nouns 

change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say 

"of God," which is theou, you don't need 

the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to 

have the article.) 

So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in 

a specific category of beings. There are 



plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," 

John wants to tell his readers that the 

Word(which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine class of 

things. Notice the word order: "a god was the 

word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek. The subject can 

be after the verb and the object before the 

verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has 

shown that when ancient Greek writers put a 

object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), 

without the definite article, they are telling us that the 

subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a 

Volkswagen." In English we would accomplish the 

same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" = 

"John is smart." So we would tend to say 

"The word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would 

translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is 

more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more 

problems, since to a modern reader it implies 

polytheism. 

No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - 

the language does not convey that 

sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since 

that author has just said that the word was with 

God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly 

differentiates between God from the Word. The latter 

becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is the Word? John says 

it was the agent through whom God made 

the world. He starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. 

How does God create in Genesis? He speaks 

words that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power 

and plan and activity. It is not God himself, 

but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of 

ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist like John 

can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a polytheist. 

This divine thing does not act on its own, 

however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh brings 

God's will and plan right down face to face with 

humans. 

Jason Beduhn 

Northern Arizona University 


Moreover, the Scriptures proclaim that Christ made "himself equal 

with God" (John 5:18), 

Truth: No, that was the unbelieving Jews(read the context). It was those 

unbelieving Jews, too, who claimed that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but they were 

wrong about that also. Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and he declared: "It is 

lawful to do good on the sabbath."-Matt. 12:10-12. 

and that "in him dwelleth all the fullness 

of the Deity bodily" (Colossians 2:9). 

Truth: Let's take a look at this carefully. The Good News Bible(TEV) translates it 

"divine nature", Goodspeed translates it "divine quality" as does Weymouth. 



Schonfield translates it "divine wisdom". Fact is, the greek "the·o'tes" can mean 

all these things. What does the context say? Colossians 3:1 says that "Christ is 

seated at the right hand of God." How can you sit at the right hand of God if 

you're supposed to be fully God? 

The Bible further states 

that Christ claimed to be the great I AM (Jehovah) of the Old 

Testament (cf. Exodus 3:13-16 with John 8:58), 

Truth: So did a beggar in John 9:9. He must be Jehovah too, by this faulty 

reasoning. 

and the Jews 

understood Him so clearly during His ministry that they sought to 

stone Him to death for blasphemy (John 8:59; cf. 10:28-33). 

Truth: Can you follow this reasoning? They also understood him so well that they 

rejected him as their savior. I'm alot more stupid for just saying that:) 

Jehovah's Witnesses pervert these texts and many others in their 

determined effort to demote our Lord from His position of God and 

Creator (Colossians 1; 

Truth: Colossians 1:15,"He is the image of the invisible God; the firstborn of all 

creation." 

"You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the 

Bible. St Paul has the highest view of Jesus' 

role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself 

explicitly claim to be the second person of the 

Trinity, wholly egual to his heavenly Father."-For Christ's Sake by Tom 

Harpur(Anglican Priest). 

Hebrews 1); and they compound their error 

by translating the Greek of the New Testament, in many places, 

contrary to all grammatical authorities. 

Truth: As we have already seen...this is a lie. 

It is certainly true 

that during His earthly life our Lord voluntarily limited Himself 

as a man (Philippians 2:6-8), 

and thus He never strove to usurp 

the prerogatives of Deity; But one does not have to "rob" what is 

His by inheritance (Hebrews 1). He was true Deity - "the great 

God" (Titus 2:13). 

Truth: "As we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God 

and of our savior Jesus Christ." New American Bible (As you can see, they are 

different) 

We must not forget that Christ humbled Himself, even to the death 

of the cross, and therefore, as a man, could say, "My Father is 

greater than I" (John 14:28). However, let us remember that 

Christ never said, "My Father is better than I." "Better" is a 

term of comparison between natures (Heb 1:4), while "greater," as 

in the context of John 14, is a term of comparison relative to 

positions. 



The President of the United States, for instance, is greater in 

position than any of his fellow-Americans by virtue of his 

office, but he would be the first to insist that he is not better 

than other human beings. So Christ was admittedly inferior to 

His Father positionally while on earth as a man, but the 

Scriptures clearly and unmistakably state that he was at all 

times His Father's equal on the spiritual plane of Divine Being 

or Nature (Heb. 1:3; John 5:18). Note also that in 1 Corinthians 

15:28 it is function that is dealt with - not Deity. 

Truth: The President is not part of a Trinity either. The President is not of the 

same substance as his Father is he? 

1John 5:9 it states:"If we recieve the testimony of men, the testimony of God is 

greater." Does that mean that the testimony of God is NOT better than man's. What 

faulty reasoning. 

Hebrews 1:3 states that Jesus sits at God's right hand. Is my right hand man my 

equal? And where is the Holy spirit in all the visions of heaven. None of them 

make mention of the person of the holy spirit.(Acts 7:55,56; Revelation 7:10; 

22:1,3) 

John 5:18 is one of Walter's favourites...it is too bad that he has to rely on 

unbeleivers to make his point. 

"Function" is not even mentioned at 1 Corinthians 15:28;"27-He has put all things 

in subjection under his feet. But in saying 'all things', it clearly means to 

EXCLUDE GOD WHO SUBORDINATES THEM; and when ALL THINGS are thus subject to him, 

then the SON HIMSELF will also be made SUBORDINATE TO GOD who made all things 

subject to him, and thus God will be all in all. New English Bible 

Jehovah's Witnesses always point to Christ's humanity in the 

Bible; they carefully omit mention of His claim to full Deity, 

and they thus "wrest...the...scriptures, unto their own 

destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). the second Person, the Son, is also 

called God, then, despite the efforts of the Watchtower to prove 

the contrary. 

Truth: What is destructive is that Walter Martin wants you to believe that the Son 

is Jehovah. The Son is Jesus Christ, God's only-begotten Son. John 3:16 In every 

instance in the Bible, a "son" is separate from his "Father"...and sub-ordinate. 

We use the BIBLE to interpret scripture, not some Platonic Pagan Trinity. 

3. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS JEHOVAH 

It is peculiar, to say the least, that Jehovah's Witnesses can 

agree with the Apostle Peter when he declared that the Father is 

Jehovah - and then contradict his affirmation that the Holy 

Spirit is likewise Jehovah, as recorded in Acts 5:3 and 4. 

Truth: Again, it says nothing of the kind. See below. 

No Christian theologian has ever denied either the Person or 

Deity of the Holy Spirit, for the evidence to substantiate both 

is abundant in Scripture. 

Truth: Well, lets take a look at the Bible then. Jesus is referred to as "theos" 3 

times in the NT, and once in the OT. The Holy Spirit is never called "theos." What 

is the spirit? 

Gen. 1:2 "The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters." 

or..."a might wind swept over the waters." New American Bible 



Basically speaking, the holy spirit is the breath or power of God. Or as the NWT 

says, "active force." That is why in Acts 5, if you lie the the Holy Spirit, you 

are in effect lying to God. 

For instance, a thorough study of the 

book of Acts, chapter thirteen, reveals that the Holy Spirit is a 

Person, because He possesses "ego." Luke records therin that the 

Holy Spirit as a Person has "ego" (13:2,4) and, furthermore, that 

He (not "it") prophesies to His servants and commissions them, as 

well (21:11). See also such verses as John 14:26, 15:26, Acts 

8:29, 13:2, and Romans 5:5. 

Truth: And absolutely none of these scripture say that the Holy Spirit is God, or 

the 3rd person of the Trinity. Acts DOES say at verse 2:13 that holy spirit will 

be poured out on men. Now that sounds more like a power/breath than a person. 

The Scriptures are clear that the Holy Spirit has a "will" (1 

Cor. 12:11; Heb. 2:4), and since "will" denotes "ego" or 

personality, as opposed to the neuter (animals), obviously the 

Spirit is a person. We have also seen from Peter's words that 

when Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, he lied to Jehovah (Acts 

5:4). Both the thirteenth chapter of Acts and Isaiah 48 add to 

the proof that the Holy Spirit is God, since He answers the 

prayers of the Apostles (Acts 13:1-4) and is designated Deity by 

the prophet Isaiah (48:16). Even the Watchtower admits that God 

alone answers prayer. 

The Bible, then, does indeed teach that the Spirit is a Person 

and that He is called God. It is therefore apparent that there 

are three Persons mentioned in Scripture and that they are all 

identified as God: Yet there is only one true God (Isa. 45:22). 

Truth: Yes, some personality is given the spirit, but then so is "Sin" and "Death" 

at Romans 5:21. But what about "neuter"? Spirit at john 14:16 is neuter. "SIN" at 

1 John 5:16 is feminine...so much for that argument. 

Are there 3 persons mentioned in the Scripture as God, but yet there is only One 

God? I could take that argument another way. Satan is referred to as God at 1 

Corinthians 4:4, Moses is referred to as God at Exodus 7:1, Jehovah is God at 

Psalms 83:18...but there is only One God. Something is rotten in the state of 

Denmark here. You have to realize that in Bible times, the term "God" was used 

quite loosely. Judges were gods at Psalms 82, so were angels at Psalms 8:5,6; 

97:7; 138:1. 

"LORDS MANY AND GODS MANY" 

There are two other important points that must be mentioned. 

Jehovah's Witnesses claim that, because the Bible designates some 

beings and idols as "gods," it is proper for them to call Jesus 

"a god" and worship him as the angels did (Heb. 1:6). This is an 

important point and must be clarified. 

Of course, it is true that God made Moses appear as a god in 

Pharoah's eyes (Exodus 7:1). Moreover, Satan, certain of the 

judges of Israel and pagan idols are described as "gods" in the 

Bible (John 14:30, Psalms 82:6, 1 Cor. 8:4, 10:19, 2 Cor. 4:4). 

Nevertheless, they are not deity by nature, as the Apostle Paul 



flatly states (Gal. 4:8). They are "gods" by angelic or human 

acclamation, and God addresses them in that context. Worshiping 

a thing can make it your god; but it is not God by nature - for 

by nature there is only one God (1 Cor. 8:4-6, 1 Tim. 2:5). 

When this cardinal distinction is made in Scripture, the 

Watchtower's doctrine is refuted, and the problem of the usage of 

the term "gods" or "a god" disappears. 

Truth: Most of the above is true. But it still addresses that the Bible uses the 

term "God" in a relative sense. 

Why does no one worship the Spirit? 

Did you know that when Jehovah talked to Moses in the Burning Bush, that was 

really an Angel. See Exodus 3:2. Why? Because we cannot see God(John 1:18; Exodus 

33:20). Why then can people see Jesus? The problem of the usage of the Trinity's 

"fully God and fully man" disappears. 

COMPOSITE UNITY AND THE TRIPLE POINT 

The second important fact to be remembered is that of the meaning 

of the term "one." 

"How is it possible," say the Jehovah's witnesses, "for Jehovah 

to be three and one both at the same time? It is illogical, 

unreasonable and confusing; and God is not the author of 

confusion!" 

To answer this all-too-common objection, it should be kept in 

mind that the word "one" can denote composite as well as solitary 

unity. For instance, in Genesis (chapter 2), Adam and Eve are 

called one flesh; and Numbers (chapter 13) speaks of "one" when 

the context indicates that is was in reality a cluster of grapes 

hanging from one stem. Here are bona fide instances of composite 

unity. 

Truth: And none of the above is TRIUNE. Adam and Eve and a cluster of grapes are 

NOT God. 

The same Hebrew word, "echod" (one) is used in both cases, 

however, even as it is in Deuteronomy 6:4 where we are told that 

God is "One." The evident composite unity indicated here is 

confirmed in the New Testament. Our Lord spoke of composite 

unity where marriage is concerned (Mk. 10:8); so He, too, was 

aware of this important distinction. See also Joshua 9:2; Judges 

20:1; 2 Chron. 30:12; Isaiah 65:25; Nehemiah 7:66 and Ezra 6:20 

for further instances of composite unity. 

Truth: None of the above scriptures mention a trinity or triad of any sort. The 

word ECHOD(One) can be composite, but that is just how the hebrew language is. 

Even Abraham is referred to as ONE(Echod) at Isaiah 51:2. 

Finally, let us illustrate how it is both logically and 

rationally possible for three to be one and one to be three 

simultaneously, since Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT believe this is 

possible. 

Truth: I have to hear this...I want to try it at the bank. 



It is a well-known fact of chemistry that plain water, when 

placed in a vacuum under 230 millimeters of gas pressure and at a 

temperature of 0 degrees Centigrade, solidifies into ice at the 

bottom of the container, remains liquid in the center and 

vaporizes at the top! At a given instant the same water is both 

solid, liquid and gas, yet all three are manifestations of the 

same basic substance or nature: H2O - hydrogen: two parts; 

oxygen: one. 

If one of the simplest of all created substances can be three in 

manifested form and yet remain one in nature, then the Creator of 

that substance can surely be Father, Son and Holy Spirit - three 

Persons and one Nature - without any violation of logic or reason 

whatever if He so wills. 

Truth: There you have it folks. The God of "orthodox" Chrisitianity is........ a 

drip. Actually, water is mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen."2" In other words, "orthodox" 

Christianity chooses texts that mention mainly the Father and the Son, and they 

pass these off as triune. So, in some respects, H2O works in that way. But then, 

maybe Moses is triune, after all he is referred to as a God, a Prince and a 

Prophet-all 3 manifestations of the same basic substance. 

Also, because the h2o molecules can only be in one form at one time (either 

liquid, ice, steam), and under the same conditions, the argument is actually 

Sabellian, not trinitarian. Anyone who supports this theory is actually arguing in 

favor of a heresy that was long ago condemned. 

Did you know that the Pagan world before Christ had its Trinities also? 

See http://www.mv.com/ipusers/butterfly/babylon/00index.htm 

By mixing Paganism with Chrisitianity, the pure message of God has become 

....INSOLUBLE. 

Incidentally, Athanasius did the same thing with HOMOOUSIOUS(of the same 

substance/essence). He used 2 coins to show that they were made of the same 

stuff(copper), but the problem was still the fact that it was 2 coins 

God is not triples (1+1+1) - He is triune (1x1x1), and He has 

revealed Himself fully in the Person of our Lord, Jesus Christ 

(Col. 2:9; John 14:9). 

Truth: This is mathematical idiocy. 1x1x1 would mean the Father x the Father x the 

Father.(Any trinitarian will tell you that the Father is not the Son is not the 

holy spirit). Whereas, the Father + the Son + the Holy Spirit= 3. 

Colossians 2:9 is very ambiguous. Consider this: "for it is in him that the 

immensity of the Divine Wisdom corporately dwells" Schonfield...see also TEV. 

John 14:9? Jesus makes this straight at verse 28 where he say the "Father is 

greater than I" 

Trinitarian christianity is confused by 1500 years of false doctrine. It started 

with its beginning under the Sun-Worshipping Emperor Constantine in 325 AD. 

Regarding the Nicene Council and those that followed, Hans Kung/Christianity says, 

"The conciliar 

decisions plunged Chrisitianity into undreamed-of theological confusions with 

constant entanglements 

in church politics. They produced splits and sparked off a persecution of heretics 

unique in the history 

of religion. This is what Christianity became as it changed its nature from a 

persecuted minority to a 

majority persecuting others." 



What a Satanic legacy this doctrine has had. 

The book, "Knowing the Truth about The Trinity" by Ankerberg and Weldon quote 

Walter Martin right at the beginning of their preface. But on page 9 it says that 

the "Trinity is incomprehensible...it is impossible that a finite creature could 

ever fully comprehend an infinite being." 

Yet at John 17:3 it says, "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only 

true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." If eternal life depends on our 

understanding of God, but our God is an incomprehensible Trinity, then we are all 

in trouble. But I can sit down with my son and say, "Son, I love you. You are my 

son, and I am your Father. Now you understand God the Father, and his relationship 

with Jesus Christ his Son." See John 17:3 

Heinz Schmitz 

September 1 1999 

Updated November 13 1999 



My Response to Alleged Misleading Revisions in the New World Translation 

My Response to Andy Bjorklund's 

Misleading Revisions in the New World 

Translation (??) 

at http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~rlm/misleading.html 

Mr Bjorklund says at his site: "References to actual Hebrew and Greek words are derived from Strong's 

Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Thomas Nelson, c. 1990), the Greek-English New Testament 

(Christianity Today, c. 1975) and Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (McDonald, 

unabridged ed., n.d.)" As we will see, he has made little use of the above. 

Genesis 1:2 

"Spirit of God" changed to "God's active force." 

The revision modifies the original noun with a more impersonal form as the JWs reject the orthodox 

Christian belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit. 

Response: Since Mr. Bjorklund uses Vine's Expository Dictionary and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance 

I will too. If you look up SPIRIT(ruah 7307) you will see that it means "breath; air; strength; courage; 

temper; Spirit." As we can see, spirit often denotes a force of impersonal action or power. In keeping 

with this other Bibles render Genesis 1:2 as: "a mighty wind swept over the waters." New American 

Bible; "a divine wind sweeping over the waters." New Jerusalem Bible 

"and the power of God was moving over the water." Good News Bible-TEV see also RSV mg and NEB 


Exodus 3:14 

"I am" changed to "I shall prove to be." 

The revision clouds the connection between God's self proclaimed title and Jesus' proclamation of being 

the same in John 8:58, as the JW rejects the deity of Jesus. 

Response: Strong's says of HAYAH(1961) to exist.i.e., be or become, come to pass. Vine's says of 

Exodus 3:14," this revelation seems to emphasize that the God who made the covenant is the God who 

kept the covenant. So Ex. 3:14 is more than a statement of identity...it is a declaration of divine control of 

things. 

You will notice also that at Ex. 3:12 the same word is used(hayah) but there it is rendered I WILL BE, 

but 2 verses later the NIV and NASB use I AM for the same word, and most bibles give I WILL BE 

WHAT I WILL BE as a variant reading in the margins. Who is miseading who I wonder? 


Numbers 1:52 

"Under his own standard" changed to "by his [three-tribe] division." 

The Hebrew word degal translated as "standard" literally means flag or banner. Since the JWs regard 

saluting a flag as an act of idolatry, the text has been altered according to their doctrinal bias. (Same 

revision found in Num. 2:2, 3, 10, 18, 25; 10: 14, 18, 22, 25.) 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/abjorklund.htm (1 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:15:13 AM]


Response: Yes, Strong's does give flag, standard or banner as a meaning for DEGEL, but like 

McClintock and Strong's Cyclopædia says after discussing the Hebrew words used: "Neither of them, 

however, expresses the idea which 'standard' conveys to our minds, viz. a flag." At Song of Solomon 6:4; 

10 a form of DEGEL is used to describe a division of the heavenly armies (constellations), Here, 

GEORGE ATHAS, Dept of Semitic Studies, University of Sydney says, "This would also fit the context 

in which DEGEL implies a division of an army. A constellation would certainly make sense if it seen as 

both something you look up at, and something which is an ordered division of the starry host." 

So the Hebrew word used here can also mean "division of an army". And we know that they are divided 

into 3 tribes by reading Numbers 2:3-8 

See also New American Bible 

Isaiah 43:10 

"Nor will there be one after me" changed to "after me there continued to be none." 

The original future tense of the verb indicates that there will never be another being sharing in God's 

divinity. The altered tense suggests credibility to the JW doctrine of Jesus' becoming a "mighty god" 

while still being less than Jehovah in nature. (See the John 1: I discussion below for another expression 

of this JW distortion.) 

Response: I think this is reaching a bit on Mr. Bjorklund's part, as both carry the same meaning to me. 

Smith & Goodspeed has the same word order, in fact many different versions do not read as is stated by 

Mr. Bjorklund above. 


"The spirit returns" changed to "the spirit itself returns." 

The passage indicates the return of a human spirit to God after death. Since the JWs believe in an 

unconscious state after death, "itself' has been inserted to suggest a more impersonal reference to spirit. 

Response: As we have seen above, SPIRIT can also mean "breath or wind". There is no personification 

here as the NAB, NRSV, Good News Bible-TEV, NEB mg, Tanakh, and CEV all use "breath" here 

instead of "spirit". See also Ps. 146:4 It should also be noted that SPIRIT in Greek is neuter, while in 

Hebrew it is feminine. 

Feel free to check the KJV at Rom 8:16, 26 for more of the "Spirit itself". 

Matthew 2:11 

"Bowed down and worshipped him" changed to "did obeisance to it" 

The JWs evade recognizing Jesus as worthy of worship as a divine being by altering the form of honor 

that he receives from men and angels. The Greek word proskuneo literally means "worship." The use of 

"obeisance" is a NWT adaptation. (Same revision found in Matt. 8:2; 9:18, 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mark 

5:6; 15:19; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6.) 

Response: The greek word used here, proskuneo, is not the highest form of worship, that is reserved for 

latreuo(Phil 3:3, Acts 7:42, 24:14). Vine's Expository Reference explains proskuneo as "to make 

obeisance, do reverence to." It is used of a man(Matt 18:26) and to God and a King at the same time(1 

Chronicles 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 the Beast(Rev 13:15, 14:11), to Demons(Rev. 9:20), and idols(Acts 7:43). See also NEB, 

Young, Byington, NJB, Goodspeed, Newcome, REB, 20th Cent, Schonfield, Confraternity, Douay and 

Kleist&Lilly. 


Matthew 5:19 

"Least in the kingdom of heaven" changed to "least in relation to the kingdom of the heaven." 

The passage indicates that a disobedient believer who sins can still find forgiveness and eternal life. The 

JWs believe heaven is reserved for only 144,000 specially designated servants of God. The revision 

suggests more separation between these groups through a status hierarchy. 

Response: Mr. Bjorklund no doubt feels that "least" here is the same as the one used in Matthew 11:11, 

but they aren't. The NIV and the NASB uses "least" in both cases, even though 2 different greek words 

are used here. The NWT differentiates between the 2 scriptures, making it superior in this regard. 

Matthew 25:46 

"Eternal punishment" changed to "everlasting cutting-off." 

The Greek word kolasis translated "punishment" indicates continuous torment, but the NWT revision 

suggests "termination," as the JWs promote the doctrine of annihilationism regarding condemned souls. 

Response: KOLASIS does not indicate continous torment, and any quick look at Strong's and Vine's will 

tell you that. In fact it comes from the greek word KOLAZO which means to cut off or prune. The 

Emphatic Diaglott also uses the phrase "cutting off" and it gives the explanation that most versions 

confuse KOLASIN with BASINOS conveying the meaning of "torment". It goes on further to say that 

KOLAZOO "which signifies ,1. to cut off, as lopping off branches of trees, to prune, 2. To restrain, to 

repress.....3, to punish, to chastise. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is 

esteemed as punishment." p.106 

Interestingly, The New Testament in Modern English, By Ferrar Fenton has "into a long correction." for 

more click here 

Mark 1:4 

"Baptism of repentance" changed to "baptism [in symbol] of repentance. " 

Nothing in the original Greek text justifies the insertion of "in symbol." The revision undermines the 

significance of John the Baptist's ministry, the Jewish meaning of baptism and the Christian sacrament of 

baptism in contrast to the more regimented JW baptism requirements. 

Response: John baptized "those repenting for forgiveness of sins. . . . they were baptized by him in the 

Jordan river, openly confessing their sins." (Mark 1:4, 5) This does not mean that baptism itself washed 

away sins. As Acts 19:4 shows, according to various modern translations: "John baptized with the 

baptism of those repenting." "John's baptism was a baptism in token of repentance." (Smith&Goodspeed) 

"John baptized with a baptism that was an expression of repentance." (Williams NT) John's baptism, 

then, was a token or symbol of a natural Jew's having repented for sins against the law covenant. Hence 

John's baptism prepared these repentant persons for the Messiah. So the NWT uses internal evidence to 

render as it does, and indicates interpolation by means of brackets(interpolation is a common practise in 



all translations as it is used to complete a thought.) 

See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/baptism.htm 

Luke 12:8 

"Acknowledges me" changed to "confesses union with me." 

The addition of "union" suggest something more than what the original Greek actually states and adds 

further credibility to the NWT distortion presented in John 6:56 below. 

Response: W.E. Vine's says of HOMOLOGEO in reference to Luke 12:8 that the nature of the 

"confession" is determined by the context. The succeeding verses talk of denial as an antithesis to the 

preceeding verse. At Luke 22:58 it talks of Peter's denial as being part of something...hence, in union 

with something. That is why the Good News Bible_TEV says of Luke 12:8, "those who declare publicly 

that they belong to me." 

According to Eugene Nida in Bible Translating (p.57), “The Gospels alone contain more than 700 

ambiguous readings in which the Greek may be translated one of two ways.” 

Luke 23:43 

'Today you will be with me" changed to "I tell you today, You will be with me." 

Jesus assured the thief on the cross that their spirits would soon enter the spiritual/heavenly realm 

together. As the JWs reject the belief in the conscious survival of the human spirit after death, their 

revision suggests that "today" deals with the time of the statement rather than the relocation of their 

spirits. 

Response: The original languages did not have commas, so it is left up to the translator to determine 

where to put the comma. In the book How To Enjoy The Bible by E. W. Bullinger, it states, "The word 

'verily'[truly] points us to the solemnity of the occasion, and to the importance of what is about to be said. 

The solemn circumstance under which the words were uttered marked the wonderful faith of the dying 

malefactor; and the Lord referred to this by connecting the word 'to-day' with 'I say.' 'Verily, I say unto to 

thee this day.' This day, when all seems lost, and there is no hope; this day, when instead of reigning I am 

about to die. This day, I say to thee, 'Thou shalt be with me in paradise.' 




11, 15, 16, 18, 19; xxxii. 46). p. 48 5th ed. 1921 


New Testament. Below is the Vatican Manuscript 1209 (one of the oldest surviving mss) and they have 

placed the comma similarly to the NWT. 



John 1:1 

"Word was God" changed to "Word was a god." 

The JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the deity of Jesus. The revision asserts that Jesus was 

someone other than God Himself. 

Response: If you look at the greek, the first use of the word THEOS(God) is not the same as the second 

in this sentence. That is why many different Bibles also do not render the above verse as 

the "Word was God".See also: 

In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word. (Interlinear 

Word for Word English 

Translation-Emphatic Diaglott) 













Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was 





Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being]. 

Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to 

God, yes itself divine 

Being/being] 

Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word] 

Baumgarten et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] 



Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine 

kind] 

Pffflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind] 

Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word] 


Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the 

Word/word) 

Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] 

Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in 

all like God] 



the Word/word] 


John 1:12 

"Believe" changed to "exercise faith." 

The orthodox Christian doctrine of spiritual justification and rebirth before God by belief in Jesus is in 

conflict with the JW doctrine of salvation by works (i.e., obedience to their organization). The revision 

attempts to describe salvation as a continuous process rather than a radical encounter and transition 

(Same revision found in John 3:16, 18; 6:29; Rom. 4:3, 10:4, 9, 10.) 

Response:Strong's definition of this greek word(PISTEUO 4100) is "to have faith". What is beleiving if 

it is not "exercising faith?" This is why the NWT is such an excellent complement to any Bible library. 

The Amplified Bible renders this verse as "believe in-adhere to, trust in and rely on-his name." 

John 6:56 

"Remains in me" changed to "remains in union with me." 

The mystical union between the individual human spirit and the Spirit of Jesus is obscured by 

restructuring "in" with a compound form. The substitution implies more separation between a Christian 

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*; 

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; 

5:20. Verses with an asterisk (*) indicate where the revision uses "by means of" or "in relationship to" 

rather than "in union with.") 



Response:Look up 1722 in Strong's and you will see that this word (EN) has upwards of about 40 

different meanings. While UNION isn't specifically mentioned it does fit the parameters mentioned(in, 

above, on, by means of, against, about, altogether etc). The NWT has compounded all these words and 

come up with UNION which is an improvement since Jesus is not physically IN us. Smith&Goodspeed, 

REB, Simple English Bible, Moffatt and the NEB use some of the other words included. But isn't the 

NWT a literal Bible. Yes it is. The King James Version and the New American Standard Bible are also 

very literal Bibles, but if you look at Philippians 1:30, the KJV(and NASB) interpolates to be before the 

word me(EN), even though to be is not in the original Greek. The translators have done this to complete 

the thought and this is acceptable. 

Incidentally, the Good News Bible-Today's English Version also uses the word "union" in conjunction 

with EN at Ephesians 1:3, 4, 11; 2:6, 10, 13, 15, 22 etc 

John 8:58 

"I am" changed to "I have been." 

Same intent as described in Exodus 3:14 above. 

Response: As we have seen above, Exodus 3:14 has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus and it has been 

misinterpreted to fit an errant theology. But let us look this up in Strong's. Eimi(1510) carries the 

meaning(according to Strong's) as "I exist", "am", "have been" or "was." 

Examples: John 14:9: "Have I been (EIMI) so long with you." NASB 

Ac.13:7: "He was (EIMI) with Sergius Paulus." 


John 14:17 

"Beholds him or knows him" changed to "beholds it or knows it." 

The revision ignores the context of the pronoun with the Comforter role in the preceding verse to deny 

the personality of the Holy Spirit. 

Response: The greek word used here is AUTOS(Strong's 846) which can also mean IT(John 15:2), 

ITSELF(John 21:25), THAT , THERE, THEM and SHE. Now let us consider the context. John 14:17 

seaks of the Spirit of Truth. Are we to believe that a concept such as Truth has a shadowy personality 

that will live on after it dies. Of course not. Us we have seen above, the word SPIRIT, according to 

Strong's and Vine's also means BREATH, WIND, BLOW etc. There is nothing wrong with either 

rendering. It should also be noted that SPIRIT in Greek is neuter, while in Hebrew it is feminine. English 

nouns do not have gender, but many translators will add masculine references to the Spirit to add 

personality. 

John 17:5 

"Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you" changed to "glorify me alongside yourself 

with the glory that I had alongside you." 

The original text reflects the shared deity of God the Father and Jesus before the creation of the world, 

but the revision suggests different natures as implied by different states of glory. 



Response: The greek word used (twice in the greek text) here is PARA(3844) which means "beside, at, 

or in the vicinity of(see Strong's). See also Byington, 20th Cent NT, Jewish NT, Knox, Wuest, and Beck. 

John 17:21 

"Are in me" changed to "are in union with me." 

The original statement by Jesus indicates his shared deity with the Father. The revision undermines this 

by suggesting a greater separation between them. 

Response: See above. The only reason this is mentioned again is to make this page seem longer. 

Acts 2:17 

"Pour out my Spirit" changed to "pour out some of my spirit." 

The revision evades recognition of the Holy Spirit and His activity at Pentecost by suggesting an 

impersonal force activated to a more limited degree by God. 

Response: How a person can be "poured out" is beyond me, but again, as we have seen above, the 

original words for SPIRIT, as used in the Bible(RUAH, PSUCHE) can also mean BREATH, WIND etc. 

Certainly the context here cries out for an impersonal force. Incidentally, the original Greek renders this 

passage "I will pour out of my spirit on all flesh." In keeping with the original Greek, Byington, New 

English Bible, Weymouth margin, and the NAB read similarly to the NWT. See also 

http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/acts2.17.htm 

Acts 2:42 

"Breaking of bread" changed to "taking of meals." 

The passage demonstrates the frequency of the communion sacrament among the earliest Christians. The 

revision is an attempt to disguise this practice as the JWs teach that communion is reserved for only the 

144,000 special saints. (Same revision found in Acts 20:7.) 

Response: It is not an attempt to disguise anything as the literal rendering "breaking of bread" is 

mentioned in the footnotes and in the KIT Greek Interlinear. The term is merely an ancient way of saying 

"eating". If the passage truly demonstrates the frequency of the communion sacrament, then why is wine 

not mentioned? Beck and the Good News Bible-TEV read similarly to the NWT. 

Acts 4:12 

"Be saved" changed to "get saved." The revision avoids recognizing that an individual commitment to 

Jesus provides immediate and complete salvation, as the JWs believe in an alternative salvation as 

prescribed by their organization. (Same revision found in Acts 16:30-31.) 

Response: Does anyone know that "their organization" also prints the King James Version, American 

Standard Version, Emphatic Diaglott and the Bible in Living English along with interlinears. They also 

distribute other Bible versions. The "organization" even uses the Revised Standard Version rendering "be 

saved" in their literature, so they are not opposed to this rendering.But let us look at this scripture. If you 

read the context(which is something I highly recommend for any of these missives), you will notice that 

the meaning has not changed. In fact, the meaning has not changed for any of the scriptures mentioned 



on this page. Did you know that the Moffatt Bible, along with Weymouth, Living Bible, NEB, TEV, 

Schonfield, Byington, NLT, CEV, BBE, Kleist&Lilly, 20th Cent NT also do not read "be saved?" That is 

because the Greek word used here is SOZO(4982) and it means "to save". So context has alot of bearing 

how the word is translated. Please read the list of how this word is used in Vine's Expository Dictionary. 

Acts 10:36 

"Lord of all" changed to "Lord of all [others]." 

The revision suggests that even though Jesus is highly honored, he is still one among many of God's 

created beings. (Similar revisions found in Rom. 8:32; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1: 16-17.) 

Response:We are going to start of by looking at some other scriptures where this is 

done. 

Luke 21:29 




Luke 11:42 





In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need 

to put it in there. Can they do that even without brackets? 

"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Chrisitian Literature" by F. Blass and 

A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other". 

Interestingly, the KJV has added the word "other" 67 times in places where it is not in the original 

languages. The Revised Standard Version has done this 100 times, and the NRSV over 30 times in their 

NT. 

See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/acts10.htm 

Romans 2:29 

"By the Spirit" changed to "by spirit." 

Although the definite article 'the" does not literally appear in the Greek, it is implied by the form that 

(pneuma) appears in. The revision, however, translates pneuma in a more abstract form to evade the 

reality of the Holy Spirit. (Same revision found in Rom. 15:19; Eph. 2:22; 3:5; Titus 3:5; James 2:26; 2 

Peter 1:21.) 

Response: Byington, Schonfield, RSV, 20th Cent NT, New Berkeley Version, Emphatic Diaglott, God's 

Word, Moffatt, Smith&Goodspeed, Lamsa, REB, Phillips, NRSV and many others do not use the article 

"the" here. Perhaps they are trying to evade the reality of the holy spirit also. 

Romans 8:23a 

"Have the firstfruits of the Spirit" changed to "have the firstfruits, namely the spirit." 

This represents another form of disguising the separate personality of the Holy Spirit as in Rom. 2:29 



above. The original text refers to the derivatives of the Spirit, but the revision identifies the spirit as a 

derivative. 

Response: It should be noted right here that few Bibles would add up to Mr Bjorklund's expectations. 

The translation process is not as cut and dried as he would like to think. Let us look at other Bibles that 

refer to "the spirit as a derivative." 

God's Word, "we have the Spirit as the first of God's gifts." 

New English Bible, "to whom the Spirit is given as firstfruits." 

New Life NT "We have the Holy Spirit as the first of God's gift to us." 

See also Knox, Moffatt, Smith&Goodspeed and REB. 

Other Bibles refer to the spirit as a "foretaste to the future" here. 

Romans 8:23b 

"The redemption of our bodies" changed to "the release from our bodies by ransom." 

This revision avoids the suggestion that there is continuity of either body or soul after death. Their 

teaching that the soul ceases to exist at the death of the body precludes the ownership of, or relationship 

to, a body that must be redeemed. 

Response: I am still waiting for Mr. Bjorklund to use his Vine's Expository Dictionary or Strong's 

Words. Redemption, in this instance, according to Vine's(Strong's 629) defines APOLUTROSIS as "a 

releasing, for(i.e., on payment of) a ransom." 

Romans 8:28 

"All things" changed to "all his works." The revision undermines the sovereignty of God by suggesting 

that He controls only the things He is directly involved in doing. 

Response: Perhaps a lesson in biblical Greek might help Mr. Bjorklund. The word "things" may be 

implied...but it is not in the actual Greek. See also NJB, Smith&Goodspeed, REB, Byington, NEB, 

Barclay etc. In fact there are variant readings of this verse, as in the RSV, NRSV and the footnotes that 

accompany them. Why? A word for word reading of the Greek text has "all (things) works together the 

God into good." The translator makes what he believes is the best choice, and this verse in Romans is 

especially difficult since you can pick up 5 different versions and get 5 different renderings. The meaning 

of the chapter has not changed though, and neither is "all things" that different from "all his works." 

Romans 8:29 

"Those God foreknew" changed to "those whom he gave his first recognition." 

The revision obscures the nature of God's knowledge and power as a first recognition may or may not be 

foreknowledge. 

Response: Again, another weak attempt. The above sentence admits that it "may or may not be 

foreknowledge" Any example on this page "may or may not be" one thing or another. Many other Bible 

translations do not use "foreknew" here, and the 20th Century NT and Smith&Goodspeed also use the 

word FIRST. 

Romans 9:5 



"Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!" changed to "Christ, [sprang] according to the flesh: God 

who is over all, [be] blessed forever." 

The direction proclamation that Christ is God is obscured by the altered text. 

Response: The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: "It would be easy, and 

linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, 'Christ who 

is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but 

only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable 

explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God."-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), translated 

from German, Vol. 2, p. 80. 

It is amazing to me that people use this as proof of Jesus' Almightyhood since many Bible versions read 

similarly to the NWT. The following have also watered down any reference to Jesus was God in this 

verse. RSV, Moffatt, NEB, Goodspeed , TEV, KJV, NASB, NIV ftn, ASV, Young's, NAB etc etc etc. 

Again, I have the following from the Vatican Ms 1209, and again, it agrees with the NWT: 

Romans 10:13 

"Lord" changed to "Jehovah." 

This revision obscures the fact that the Lord referred to in verse 13 is the same Lord called Jesus in verse 

9. Since the JWs reject the deity of Jesus, the revision is made accordingly. 

The Greek word, kurios, translated "Lord" has been revised to "Jehovah" over 200 times in the NWT. 

The JWs insist that this is the only valid title for God, even though Greek-speaking Jews used "Lord" and 

"God" in place of "Yahweh" (the source of "Jehovah") throughout their Septuagint translation of the Old 

Testament. Furthermore, the Bible contains dozens of names for God other than Lord, Yahweh, or 



Jehovah. 

Response: The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 512) says: 

"Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated 

the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS now available to us have the 

tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters in the G[ree]k text. This custom was retained by later Jewish 

translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D." 

Professor George Howard, of the University of Georgia, U.S.A., stated: "When the Septuagint which the 

New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New 

Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations." (Biblical Archaeology 

Review, March 1978, page 14) 

Does the Bible really contain dozens of names for God? Absolutely not. Many people refer to a list of 

titles that are shared by others. The one name that is most often mentioned in the originals is 

Jehovah/Yahweh(about 6823 times). Most Bible versions and Translations have removed this name 

completely and replaced it with a Title(usually LORD or GOD). Mr. Bjorklund would no doubt like it if 

the NWT did the same. 

For more click here, here and here. 

Romans 13:1 

"Authorities that exist have been established by God" changed to "authorities stand placed in their 

relative positions by God." 

Since the JW regard saluting a flag, military service and similar forms of submission to government as 

idolatry, they have added words to the text to weaken the proclaimed authority of government. 

Response: Fact is, if you look at 20 different translations, you might 20 different readings of this 

scripture. This phrase comes from the Greek TASSO(5021) which, according to Strong's, means "to 

arrange in an orderly manner", but it depends on the tense of the verb. It seems, that according to this, the 

NWT is closer to the meaning than most. 

See also Emphatic Diaglott, God's Word, Byington, Jewish N.T., TEV, Rotherham, Beck, The Message, 

CEV, Amplified etc. 

See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/romans13.htm 

1 Corinthians 6:19 

"Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit" changed to "the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the 

holy spirit." 

To avoid recognition of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, the revision modifies 

"body" to a more collective form in harmony with the opposing JW doctrine. 

Response: In 1Co 6:18 the apostle Paul warns: "Flee from fornication. Every other sin which a man may 

commit is outside his body, but he that practices fornication is sinning against his own body." Here he 

refers to misuse of one's fleshly organism. Then in 1Co 6 v. 19, 20 he is reminding them that as a group 

they occupy a special place in God's purpose. It is not the body of just one member of the 

congregation/church that is the temple, but he says: "Do you not know that the body of you people is the 

temple of the holy spirit within you which you have from God?" This use of the expression "body of you 

people" is in agreement with the statement in 1 Corinthians 10:17: "Because there is one loaf, we, 



although many, are one body, for we are all partaking of that one loaf." The use of the word YOU in 

capital letters denotes that the original Greek uses this word in a plural tense. 


"The Rock was Christ" changed to "that rock-mass meant the Christ." 

The passage depicts the preincarnate Jesus exhibiting his divine nature by being present many centuries 

earlier. This revision tries to conceal his eternal nature with a more figurative interpretation of "the 

Rock." 

Response: A quick look at Vine's and Strongs will tell you that the Greek word PETRA means "a mass 

of rock". Nuff said. 

See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/1corinth10.4.htm 


"As he determines" changed to "as it wills." 

The NWT finds many ways to disguise the personality of the Holy Spirit. In this case the third person 

pronoun exercising individual conscience and will is replaced with an impersonal pronoun. 

Response: There actually is no gender here. It could also literally be rendered "having willed." 

1 Corinthians 14:14-16 

"Spirit" changed to "[gift of the] spirit." 

Like several other Biblical passages, this one indicates the distinctive presence of the human spirit as 

distinguished from the mind and body. The JWs evade these distinctions and try to disguise them with 

related revisions. 

Response: If you open an NASB or a KJV to 1 Corinthians 14 you will notice at verses 1 and 12 that the 

word "gifts" is in italics. Why? Because this word is not in the original Greek. But the translators felt the 

need to interpolate the word "gift" to complete the thought. This is required. The NWT translators did the 

same as the 14th chapter of 1 Cor. deals with the "spiritual gifts" [hence: GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT] such 

as speaking in tongues and prophesying. 


"By this gospel you are saved" changed to "through which YOU are also being saved." 

Similar to the Acts 16:30 revision above, this one again obscures the completeness of salvation by grace. 

The JW's salvation exists as an extended process ("being saved") with the outcome being uncertain until 

final judgment before Jehovah. 

Response: One needs only to compare this scripture with the one at Acts 2:47(NIV, NASB) to get a 

similar reading. That is why the NRSV, Barclay, NAB, Jewish NT, Emphatic Diaglott, 20th Cent NT etc 

read the same as the NWT. 

See also http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/1cor.15_2.htm 

Galatians 6:18 



"Your spirit" changed to "the spirit YOU [show]." 

Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision above, this one attempts to obscure the reality of the individual human 

spirit by presenting it more as an attitude of action than an entity. 

Response: It might be a stronger argument to complain about those Bibles that don't even mention 

"spirit" at all in this instance, like the REB,20th Cent. NT, CEV, NLT and the Living Bible. It obviously 

is not referring to an entity if this is an allowable practice of translation among trinitarian scholars. 

Philippians 1:23 

"To depart and be with Christ" changed to "the releasing and the being with Christ." 

Paul's eagerness indicates that the believer's spirit goes immediately into Christ's presence at death. The 

revision suggests that death and being with Christ are two separate steps in an extended process, as the 

JWs believe in soul sleep (i.e., the unconscious state of the human spirit awaiting the resurrection). 

Response: Vine's explains ANALUO as "to unloose, undo", and he explains it metaphorically as "...the 

unyoking of baggage animals". I think the NWT has handled this marvelously. 

for more click here 

Colossians 1:19 

"His fullness" changed to "fullness." 

The definite Greek article (to), translated "his," indicates that Jesus shares the Father's divine nature as 

also shown in Col. 2:9. The revisions evade the truth by concealing the similarity of the two passages. 

Response: No! "His fullness" is used in the NIV and a few other paraphrases, but most standard and 

literal Bibles do not use "His Fullness". 


"The fullness of deity" changed to "the fullness of the divine quality." 

The Greek theotes, translated "deity," literally means divine essence or divinity. As the JWs reject the 

divine nature of Jesus, a revision is inserted to suggest that Jesus is limited to only divine-like 

characteristics. 

Response: The NWT nor the JW's reject the divine nature of the son. Even the NWT calls him the 

"only-begotten god"(John 1:18, see also NASB). Since Mr. Bjorklund himself admits THEOTES can 

employ varying examples of the word "divine", other Bibles such as the Good News Bible, Schonfield, 

Lattimore read similarly to the NWT. For more on Col 2:9 click here. 

I Timothy 4:1 

"The Spirit" changed to "the inspired utterance." 

This revision attempts to obscure the reality and activity of the Holy Spirit by representing it as a 

message instead of an entity. (Similar revisions found in 1 John 4:1, 3, 6 with "expression" being utilized 

in place of "utterance.") 



Response: This is from Edgar Foster(Lenoir/Rhynes College : "I do not mean to be condescending or 

harsh, but a comment like this could only come from someone who has not studied a foreign 

language--orwho has not studied it indepth. There are a number of errors made in an assumption like 

this...you can't simply do word studies and translate a text word 

for word. What is more, the expression 'inspired utterance' is within the PNEUMA's range of meaning, as 

Thayer's clearly show." 

See Knox at 1Timothy and 1 John 4 in Williams NT, Smith&Goodspeed, 20 Cent NT, Barclay, for 

readings similar to the NWT. For more on SPIRIT, click here. 

Titus 2:13 

"Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" changed to "the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ 

Jesus." 

Similar to the Rom. 9:5 revision shown above, a distinct proclamation of Jesus as God is obscured by the 

altered text. (Similar rewording also found in 2 Peter 1:1.) 

Response: Many translations differ as to how this should be rendered. The NAB, Geneva, KJV, Moffatt, 

ASV and more read similar to the NWT. Other Bibles have the alternative reading in the margin. Henry 

Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: "I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God 

and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both 

structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle's way of 

writing."-(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421. 

See also 2Peter 1:2; 1Timothy 1:1,2; 2:5; 6:13; 2Timothy 1:1,2; 4:1; Titus 1:1; 3:6 


Hebrews 1:8 

"Your throne, 0 God" changed to "God is your throne." 

The revision avoids addressing the Son, Jesus, as God to validate the JWs' rejection of his divine nature. 

Response: Again, many Bibles offer the alternative reading in the margin. Why? This is a quote from 

Psalms 45:6(7) where it is addressed to King Solomon originally. Was King Solomon almighty God? 

No! But he could be addressed as such, and this is in keeping with Biblical idiom. Moses was referred to 

as "god". So were the angels(Ps 8:5; 97:7; 103:1), judges(Ps 82) etc. "For the author(of Hebrews), the 

Son was the first-born, the apostle of God, the reflection of God's glory, and the stamp of his nature (1:3, 

6), but he was not God himself." The Anchor Bible with Commentary by G. W. Buchanan. for more click 

here and here 

Hebrews 9:14 

"The eternal Spirit" changed to "an everlasting spirit." 

Similar to the Rom. 2:29 revision above, the switching of the article before the adjective represents the 

work of the Holy Spirit in a more indirect/ impersonal manner. 

Response: And again, see the other Bible versions that do similarly at Rom. 2:29 above. 

Hebrews 12:28 



"We are receiving a kingdom" changed to "we are to receive a kingdom." 

An orthodox Christian understanding of the Kingdom recognizes it as primarily established through 

Jesus' victorious death, then further through post-resurrection displays of his power, and perpetually 

through the addition of new believers into God's family. The JWs teach that Jesus' Kingdom did not 

begin until his invisible return in 1914. The form of the Greek word for "receiving" (paralambano) 

implies a current condition, but the revision suggests a future event according to the JW doctrine. 

Response: I am to receive a raise...or...I am receiving a raise. There really is no difference. Thankfully 

this nonsense is just about over. 

Revelation 3:14 

"Ruler of God's creation" changed to "beginning of the creation by God." 

The altered prepositions distract from the sovereignty of Jesus indicated in the passage and suggests that 

the real power of creation was accomplished through the Father, as the JWs believe that Jesus is a created 

being. 

Response: Who changed WHAT here since many older translations have always used "beginning." The 

Greek word ARCHE can have other meaningS besides "beginning", but when it is followed by the same 

kind of expression (genitive) as it does in Rev 3:14, it has the meaning of a beginning or the first part of 

something. Below are some examples from the KJV: 

Matt 24:8 All these [are] the beginning of sorrows. 

Mark 13:19 from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time 

John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galile 

Phil 4:15 in the beginning of the gospel 

Heb 3:14 if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end 

Heb 7:3 having neither beginning of days 

2 Peter 3:4 having neither beginning of days 

for more on ARCHE click here 

The rest of Andy Bjorklund's page deals with more examples of the "spirit". I have provided a few 

examples of my own: 

"Spirit" NASB Romans 8:6 

"spiritual" NKJB Romans 8:6 

"mystically" NASB Rev. 11:8 

"Spiritually" KJV Rev. 11:8 

"symbolic" NAB Rev. 11:8 

"prophetically" NRSV Rev. 11:8 

In John 3:8 PNUEMA is mentioned twice in the same scripture. The first time it is translated "wind", the 

second time "spirit". 

"the spirit of his mouth" KJV, NWT 2 Thess 2:8 

"the breath of his mouth" NASB 

There are tons more, but I think you get the drift. It is up to the translator to decide what word best fits, 



and not all translations agree on the point of how to translate SPIRIT, but all the above fall under the 

guidelines and allowances for the greek word PNEUMA. 

Should we always Translate as Literal as the Original language(Hebrew orGreek)? Obviously Mr. 

Bjorklund and others would say yes. "He[the translator] thinks that as long as he keeps the "same" words 

he cannot be too far wrong with the meaning. Instead, what he has done is not translation at all- he has 

put a new, and therefore wrong message in the bible. Whenever this happens, the problem has become 

very serious indeed." Norman Mundhenk, What Translation are you Using, The Bible Translator, Oct 

1974, pp 419,420 








A Response to Kevin Quick Ministries and their Attack on the New World Translation Bible 

A Response to Kevin Quick's Attack on the 

at http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/nwt.html 

with another Response Here via Thumim1 

Q1. Does the New World Translation give 

accurate translations of Bible verses which 

normally indicate the deity of Christ? 

Zech 12:10-"And I [Jehovah] will pour out upon 

the house of David and upon the inhabitants of 

Jerusalem the spirit of favor and entreaties, and 

they will certainly look to the One [Heb. Me] 

whom they pierced through, and they will certainly 

wail over Him as in the wailing over an only 

[son]; and there will be a bitter lamentation over 

him as when there is bitter lamentation over the 

firstborn [son]." 

Answer: The Good News Bible(TEV), Moffatt, Jerusalem Bible, Modern Language Bible, New 

American Bible, Revised Standard Version, Byington and Smith&Goodspeed read similarly to the NWT. 

In fact if you look at the greek equivalent at John 19:37, it also reads "the one" NIV. 

Matt 2:2,8,11,14:33, John 9:38, Heb 1:6, etc.-But 

when he again brings his First-born into the 

inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God's angels 

do obeisance [Gr. worship-see NWT, Heb 1:6 

footnote] to him." 

Answer: The greek word used here, "proskuneo," is not the highest form 

of worship, that is reserved for latreuo (Phil 3:3, Acts 7:42, 24:14). Vine's Expository Reference explains 

PROSKUNEO as "to make obeisance, do reverence to." It is used of a man(Matt 18:26) and to God and a 

King at the same time(1 Chronicles 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 the Beast(Rev 13:15,14:11), to Demons(Rev. 9:20), and 

idols(Acts 7:43). Accordingly the New English Bible, Schonfield, Byington, Young, New Jerusalem, 

Goodspeed, Newcome, Revised English Bible, 20th Century NT, Confraternity, Kleist&Lilly and the 

Douay read similarly. 

John 1:1-In [the] beginning the Word was, and the 

Word was with God, and the Word was a god 

[Gr. God was the Word]. 

Answer: For a full explanation see http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/nwt.htm#beduhn 

In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word. (Interlinear 

Word for Word English 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/kquick.htm (1 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:15:49 AM]


Translation-Emphatic Diaglott) 


















God, yes itself divine 

Being/being] 






kind] 





Word/word) 



all like God] 




John 8:58-Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to 

you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have 

been [Gr. I am-cp. Ex 3:14, LXX]." 

Answer: Jesus was here referring to his pre-existence, as in Micah 5:2. He was making no claim to 

Exodus 3:14 as many say. The LXX renders Ex. 3:14 as eigo eimi ho ohn or "I am the Being" which is 

quite different, as is the hebrew which is Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh which can better be rendered "I will be 

what I will be"(Moffatt, NWT). Almost all Bible translate the word Ehyeh as "I will be" at Exodus 3:12. 



To change it 2 scriptures later is unfortunate. 



ever born." 





was born." 



was born." 

















and I am." 







































John 10:33-The Jews answered him: "We are 

stoning you, not for a fine work, but for 

blasphemy, even because you, although being a 

man, make yourself a god [Gr. God]." 

Answer: Torrey's translation lowercases the word as "god," while the interlinear reading of The 

Emphatic Diaglott says "a god." The New English Bible also uses "a god". Support for the rendering "a 

god" is found principally in Jesus' own answer, in which he quoted from Psalm 82:1-7. As can be seen, 

this text did not refer to persons as being called "God," but "gods" and "sons of the Most High." 

Phil 2:6-who, although he was existing in God's 

form, gave no consideration to a seizure, 

namely, that he should be equal to God [Gr. 

who in [the] form of God subsisting not robbery 

deemed [it] the to be equal with God] 

Answer: Ralph Martin, says in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: "It is questionable, however, 

whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 

'to hold fast.'" The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We cannot find any passage where harpazo 

or any of its derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 

'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is 

totally different, 'hold fast.'" If we read the preceeding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was 

in Christ." Does that mean that we should try to be equal with God? Of course not. That is why many 

other versions read similarly to the NWT like the RSV, ASV, New English, New American etc. 

Col 2:8-9-Christ; because it is in him that all the 

fullness of the divine quality [Gr. Deity or 



Godhead] dwells bodily. 

Answer:The Latin Vulgate at Col. 2:9 uses the Latin word DIVINITATIS to render THEOTHTOS. 

DIVINITATIS is the Latin word for 'divinity' and was commonly referenced by the speeches and 

writings of Constantine. Divinity may differ from "deity", even anointed Christians will one day possess 

the 'divine nature.' They will see God and be "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4; 1 John 3:2). 

Other Bibles render Col. 2:9 as: "For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity." 

TEV(Good News Bible) 

"For it is in him that the immensity of the Divine Wisdom corporately dwells." Schonfield 

"Because in him resides all the fulfillment of the divine." Lattimore 


accurate translations of Bible verses which 

explain the requirements for salvation? 

John 17:3-"This means everlasting life, their 

taking in knowledge of you [Gr. that they may 

know you], the only true God, and of the one 

whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." 

Answer: Is "that they may know you" really that different from "their taking in knowledge of you"? No! 

A quick look at Strong's numbers will clear this up(1097 GINOSKO) = "to know, in a great variety of 

applications and with many implications(as follow, with others not thus clearly expressed): -allow, be 

aware(of) feel, (have) know(ledge), perceive, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand". In fact, Vine's 

Expository Dictionary gives "to be taking in knowledge" as the first definition of GINOSKO. 

Rom 10:9-10-For if you publicly declare [Gr. 

confess] that word in your own mouth, that Jesus 

is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God 

raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. 

For with the heart one exercises faith for 

righteousness, but with the mouth one makes 

public declaration [Gr. one confesses] for 

salvation. 

Answer: The Same Greek word for confess(HOMOLOGEO) is also used at Matt 7:23 as declare. NKJV 

Vine's Expository Dictionary gives "to declare openly by way of speaking out freely, such confession 

being the effect of deep conviction of facts" as one definition. Smith&Goodspeed, Schonfield, 20th 

Century NT, J.B. Phillips, Jewish NT, Living Bible, New Life NT, CEV, Williams NT, etc also do not 

use "confesses" and read similarly to the NWT. 

Read above. 

Heb 13:15-Through him let us always offer to God 

a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips which 

make public declaration to his name [Gr. 

confessing to the name of him]. 




accurate translations of Bible verses pertaining to 

the Christian's personal relationship with Jesus 

Christ? 

1 Cor 1:9-God is faithful, by whom you were 

called into a sharing [Gr. fellowship] with his 

Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 

Answer: Again, a quick check at Vine's Expository Dictionary will let you know that the Greek word 

used here, KOINONIA can mean "sharing in common" as well as "fellowship". BBE, REB, Simple 

English Bible, Moffatt, NEB read similarly to the NWT. 

2 Cor 11:3-But I am afraid that somehow, as the 

serpent seduced Eve by its cunning, your minds 

might be corrupted away from the sincerity and 

the chastity that are due the Christ [Gr. the 

simplicity and the purity in Christ]. 

Answer: Few Bible versions read exactly like this (the ASV being one of the few that I could find). Many 

others use the word "sincerity" or "sincere" just like the NWT(see NIV, RSV, Amplified, NAB) and as 

for chastity/purity, see CHASTE in Vine's and also Weymouth, Smith&Goodspeed(fidelity) and 

Rotherham (chasteness). 

2 Cor 13:5-Or do you not recognize that Jesus 

Christ is in union with you [Gr. Jesus Christ is in 

you]? 

Answer: Look up 1722 in Strong's and you will see that this word (EN) has upwards of about 40 different 

meanings. While UNION isn't specifically mentioned it does fit the parameters mentioned(in, above, on, 

by means of, against, about, altogether etc). The NWT has compounded all these words and come up 

with UNION which is an improvement since Jesus is not physically IN us. Smith&Goodspeed, REB, 

Simple English Bible, Moffatt and the NEB use some of the other words included. 

See above. . 

1 John 1:3-Furthermore, this sharing [Gr. 

fellowship] of ours is with the Father and with his 

Son Jesus Christ. 

Q4. Are there other verses in which the New 

World Translation disagrees with the original 

Greek and with the standard independent 

translations of the Bible? 

Matt 5:18-for truly I say to you that sooner would 

[Gr. until] heaven and earth pass away than for 

one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to 

pass away from the Law by any means and not all 

things take place. 



Answer: "For solemnly I say to you, heaven and earth would SOONER pass away..."Williams NT, 

"heaven and earth will pass away SOONER..." Alba House NT see also: 

Smith&Goodspeed, J.B. Philipps, REB, Simple English Bible, New Berkeley Version, TEV, NEB, 

Message 

Why do these Versions not use the same preposition that Kevin Quick says it should? We know that the 

literal heavens and earth will never pass away. (Psalm 78:69; 104:5; Ecclesiastes 1:4) Jesus also said: "It 

is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." 

(Mark 10:25) It is simply a matter of exaggeration and the NWT along with these others mentioned bring 

out a better sense of meaning.Also the preposition is followed by the greek word HOS(like) rendering it 

literally as UNTIL LIKELY. Quick's translation above does not use this word and does not carry this 

meaning. 

Matt 27:52-53-And the memorial tombs were 

opened and many bodies of the holy ones that 

had fallen asleep were raised up, (and persons, 

coming out from among the memorial tombs 

after his being raised up, entered into the holy 

city,) and they became visible to many people. 

[Gr. and the tombs were opened and many bodies 

of the having fallen asleep saints were raised; and 

coming forth out of the tombs after the rising of 

him entered into the holy city and appeared to 

many.] 

Answer: I think the above example shows a good example of how faithfully the NWT renders this 

passage, especially after reading the NIV, Good News Bible and others that insert words like "raised TO 

LIFE". I wonder if Mr Quick objects to these interpolations? Protestant Bible Commentator, Adam 

Clarke, states: "It is difficult to account for the transaction mentioned in Mt 27 verses 52 and 53. Some 

have thought that these two verses have been introduced into the text of Matthew from the gospel of the 

Nazarenes, others think the simple meaning is this:—by the earthquake several bodies that had been 

buried were thrown up and exposed to view, and continued above ground till after Christ's resurrection, 

and were seen by many persons in the city. Why the graves should be opened on Friday, and the bodies 

not raised to life till the following Sunday, is difficult to be conceived. The place is extremely obscure." 

Jesus mentioned a resurrection of life or judgement at John 5:28, 29, but this account states that neither 

happened. 

Acts 5:3-But Peter said: "Ananias, why has Satan 

emboldened you to play false [Gr. lie] to the holy 

spirit and to hold back secretly some of the price 

of the field?" 

Answer: The greek word here PSEUDOMAI (5574)is explained as "attempt to decieve by falsehood" 

Strong's, so again, I am in ignorance to what the problem is here. Byington also has "play false", 

Rotherham has "deal falsely". See also Weymouth, God's Word, Amplified, Phillips and Knox. 

2 Cor 11:8-Other congregations I robbed by 

accepting provisions [Gr. taking wages] in order 



to minister to you... 

Answer: W.E.Vine's explains as to the use of "wages"OPSONION in 2 Cor. 11:8,"of material support 

which Paul recieved" See also REB, New Berkeley Ver(MLB), Amplified, NEB, Jewish NT, NAB, 

Living Bible, NLT, NiRV and Wuest. 

Eph 4:24, Col 3:10-clothe yourselves with the 

new personality [Gr. having put on the new man] 

Answer: Pertaining to Ephesians and Colossians W.E. Vine's says, "'the new man', standing for the new 

nature personified as the believer's regenerate self [as opposed to the former unregenerate nature(on the 

same page)], a nature 'created in righteousness and holiness of truth' Eph. 4:24 and having been 'put on' at 

regeneration....."p. 388 See also New Berkeley Ver(MLB), Simple English Bible, REB, 20th Cent.NT, 

Moffatt, Smith&Goodspeed, Schonfield, TEV, Lattimore, NRSV, Weymouth, NEB, RSV, Jewish NT, 

Montgomery, NAB, Living Bible etc etc etc..... 

Heb 12:23-spiritual lives of righteous ones [Gr. 

spirits of just men] who have been made perfect 

Answer: First, the word MAN is not even in the greek text here. You have to wonder what Greek text is 

used here. 

Few understand all the meanings of spirit(PNUEMA), which, according to Strong's(4151) and Vine's 

can also mean: air, breath, wind, mental disposition(-ual, ually) mind, the sentient element of man by 

which he perceives, reflects, desires, moral qualities and activities etc. It is also closely associated with 

LIFE(see Romans 8:4-6). 

A quick look will also reveal that "just" can mean "righteous". Rotherham has "righteous ones", see also 

NRSV,Beck 

Q5. The name Jehovah occurs 237 times in the 

New World Translation of the Greek Scriptures. 

Does the tetragrammaton appear in any of the 

extant Greek manuscripts? 

"Why, then, do all extant copies of the 'New 

Testament' lack the Tetragrammaton?" (WT 

5/1/78, p. 10) 

Answer: The article used here from the 1978 WT also quoted the Journal of Biblical Literature. (Vol. 96, 

No. 1, 1977, pp. 63-83) In fact, right after the above quote used by the Kevin Quick Ministries, the WT 

quoted Professor Howard saying of the Septuagint: 

"The Tetragram in these quotations would, of course, have remained as long as it continued to be used in 

the Christian copies of the LXX. But when it was removed from the Greek OT, it was also removed from 

the quotations of the OT in the NT." 

That's right, research has shown that the LXX used the Divine Name originally, but it was later removed 

by unscrupulous individuals. The NWT never tries to hide the fact that this name is not found in any 

extant manuscript, and it has substituted lord with the Divine Name where it deems necessary. I find it 

incredible that those who complain about this never complain that most mainstream Bibles substitute the 

Divine Name with LORD about 7000 times, even though this goes against the manuscripts they use. The 



NWT is not the only translation that uses the Divine Name(Jehovah/Yahweh) in the NT. See also 

Emphatic Diaglott,1796 Dominikus von Brentano, Inclusive Language NT, Richard Caddick NT and 

about 25 others mentioned in the NWT Ref. Introduction. The NKJV has also capitalized LORD in the 

NT where the Divine Name should appear. 

Should we always Translate as Literal as the Original Language(Hebrew or Greek)? Obviously Mr. 

Bjorquist and others would say yes. "He[the translator] thinks that as long as he keeps the "same" words 

he cannot be too far wrong with the meaning. Instead, what he has done is not translation at all- he has 

put a new, and therefore wrong message in the bible. Whenever this happens, the problem has become 

very serious indeed." Norman Mundhenk, What Translation are you Using, The Bible Translator, Oct 

1974, pp 419,420 





Conclusion: I have brought some of the above examples to Mr. Quick's attention some time ago, but he 

was not interested in the truth. As we can see from the previous examples, many translators of both 

Catholic and Protestant persuasion reflect the New World Translation, which makes for shoddy 

scholarship on the part of KQ Ministries and reflects a clear bias based on emotion not facts. " But let 

God be found true, though every man be found a liar, even as it is written: "That you might be proved 

righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged." Romans 3:4 


Email Me 

Go to SiteMap 

Go to an Online Defence of KQuick 


The Forgotten Trinity-James R. White tries to Explain the Unexplainable! 

The Forgotten Trinity? 

Trying to explain the unexplainable. 

Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures used are from the New American 

Standard Bible 

"It is so misunderstood that a majority of christians, when 

asked, give incorrect and at times downright heretical 

definitions of the Trinity." Page 16 

Wow...what a lousy job Christendom has done educating its 

masses. A further examination of this book will explain why. 

John 1:1 

"Few passages of Scripture are more important to our study 

of the Trinity, and in particular, of the person of the Son, than 

the prologue of John." p.48 

Really? The last time I looked, it takes "3" to make a 

Trinity...hence the name. The Holy Spirit isn't even 

mentioned in the prologue of John. But to explain these few 

passages further, let us go to John 1:18. 

John 1:18 

"No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, 

who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." 

I will say that this is proof that Jesus can't be God almighty 

because people have seen Jesus. But Mr. White asks who 

walked with Abraham in Genesis 18:1? I have one word for 

you: "ANGELS". This is even stated in Genesis 19:1. 

Who was the voice in the Burning Bush? The voice said, I am 

the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac 

and the God of Jacob. Then Moses hid his face , for he was 

afraid to look at God." Ex.3:6. But if you look at Ex.3:2 you 

will see that it was "the angel of the LORD" that appeared to 

him. This fact is re-iterated at Acts 7:30. Yes, angels were 

allowed to represent Jehovah/Yahweh....and even to use his 

name.(Exodus 3:13-15) 

Angels were messengers of God. Moses was also a 

messenger. He is also called God. "Then the LORD said to 

Moses, 'See, I make you as God to Pharoah" Exodus 7:1 

Jesus Christ is also a messenger of God, that is why he is 

referred to as the "Word". And that is why he can also be 

referred to as God. But none of the above are Almighty God, 

because as the Bible says, God is "invisible" (Colossians 

1:15) and that "no man may see Me and live!"(Exodus 33:20) 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/white.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:16:01 AM] 

Trinity Truth 

Trinitarian Bias in the 


Who Put That in the 

Bible!? 

Comma Johanneum 

(1John 5:7,8) 

Ron Rhodes 

King James the Fop 

Bible Differences 

Tactics Opposers Use 

Trinity Not the Truth 

The Truth About the 

Trinity


"If Moses could be ['elohim](God), then, for the gospel 

writers, so could Jesus, who was regarded by the New 

Testament as at the very least a new Moses." p.252 4Q374: A 

Discourse on the Sinai Tradition: The Deification of Moses 

and Early Christology, Dead Sea Discoveries 3.3 

Robert Wilken wrote in _The Myth of Christian Beginnings: 

"From the very beginning, the Christian tradition had 

struggled with the question of JESUS' relation to God . . . 

Very early Christians tried to account for his extraordinary 

life and accomplishments and his Resurrection, and it was not 

long before he was called Son of God--then God. EVEN SO, 

HE WAS NOT GOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE 

FATHER WAS GOD--OR WAS HE? Was he creator, was he 

eternal, should he be addressed in prayer? These and other 

questions troubled thoughtful Christians for almost three 

centuries. During 

these years, MOST CHRISTIANS VAGUELY THOUGHT 

OF JESUS AS GOD; yet they did not actually think of him 

IN THE SAME WAY THAT THEY THOUGHT OF GOD 

THE FATHER. They seldom addressed prayers to him, and 

thought of him somehow as SECOND TO GOD--DIVINE, 

YES, BUT NOT FULLY GOD . . . When the controversy 

over the relation of Jesus to God the Father broke out in the 

early fourth century, most Christians 

were"SUBORDINATIONISTS," i.e. they believed that Christ 

was God BUT NOT IN PRECISELY THE SAME WAY 

THAT THE FATHER WAS GOD" (See pp. 177-183). 

Granville Sharp's Rule 

"our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." 

"that mightie God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ" (Geneva 

Bible) Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1 

Mr. White states Granville Sharps rule of greek grammar 

which means that when 2 nouns in the same case are 

connected with kai(and), when only the first noun has an 

article, both nouns refer to the same person, but as Matthew 

17:1 points out, there are exceptions to every rule. [While 

some may argue that names do not apply to the rule, I think 

that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 are semantic equivalents to 

names, and therefore do not apply either]. In at least 10 other 

instances though, God and Jesus are described as different 

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 explain things in a 

way that people understand, rather than relying on obscure 

"rules". 


Bible Research 

WOC Trinity 

Research 

Islamic View 

The Trinity-An 

Extensive Look 

Original Bible Project 

Hebrews 1:8 

Should You Believe 

In A Trinity 

More on the Trinity 

Early Mormon View 

Another Look at the 

Trinity 

Jesus as Theos 

(Boobyer) 

Bruce's Defence of the 


Translation 

NWT Errors?! 

Another Trinity Chart


"You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set 

out anywhere in the Bible. St Paul has the highest view of 

Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. 

Nor does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second 

person of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly 

Father."-For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur(Anglican Priest). 

For more on Granville Sharp's Rule see Greg Stafford. 

I Am He 

When Jesus says "I Am" in John 8:24, 58, is he claiming to 

be Jehovah. Not when we read verse 50 where he says he 

does not seek his own glory. By ascribing the Exodus 3:14 to 

him at verse 58 makes Jesus a liar. Many trinitarians don't 

agree with this assumption that Jesus is saying that he is 

Jehovah/Yahweh here either. As for the NASB that James 

White uses, "Printing 'I AM' in capitals reflects the theory 

that Jesus is intending to make a claim connecting with the 

wording given in Ex.3:14. Full deity is attributed to Jesus 

Christ in the NASB."(The English Bible from KJV to NIV by 

Jack P. Lewis) That is why The New Living Translation has 

"Jesus answered, 'The truth is, I existed before Abraham was 

even born.' " 

The truth is, almost all of the scriptures that James R. White 

uses exclude the Holy Spirit, which is needed to make a 

TRIUNE God. This just proves my assertion that all 

trinitarians are closet Sabellianists. The scriptures are also 

very ambiguous. It is for this reason that many reference 

works state: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit 

doctrine appears in the New Testament.” The New 

Encyclopædia Britannica 

"The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, 

where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father" 

MS Encarta 99 

"In the sense of a definition the doctrine of the Trinity is 

stated nowhere in Scripture." The Encyclopedia of the 

Lutheran Church 

Early Church Fathers 

Did the early church fathers believe in the same God as James 

R. White. Mr. White circles around this knowing full well 

that many of them held "heretical" views of the Trinity. 

"With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, 

East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at 

least up the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until 


Site Map 

Is Jesus "Abaddon?" 

Is Jesus "Michael?"


the denouement of the controversy, have been described as 

accepted orthodoxy." (Hanson, The Search for the Christian 

Doctrine of God, p.xix) 

"It is interesting that in the period before Nicaea a universal 

subordinationist view existed among the Fathers." (Rolf 

Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation) 

James White speaks passionately of the Nicene Creed which 

is evident on p.194 of his "King James Only Controversy". 

Even Grant Jeffrey states in his "The Handwriting of God" 

that 325 A.D.(the same year as the Creed, and Emperor 

Constantine was the overseer of it) is when Constantine was 

baptized as a Christian. But history shows that he was still a 

sun worshipper, he thought of himself as God-incarnate, he 

even held Arian views of God. In fact, he only made a 

death-bed conversion to Christianity in 337 A.D. The 

"Christianity" of James White and other trinitarians has 

become bastardized. It is an awkward reflection of the "faith 

which was once for all delivered unto the saints." Jude 3 

"One of the most effective ways of sharing the 

deity of Christ with one of Jehovah's Witnesses 

is... 

...to demonstrate that the New Testament identifies Jesus as 

Yahweh." J.R.White(The King James Only Controversy, 

p.205) 

He says that there are passages in the O.T. like Ps. 102:25-7 

that refer to Jehovah, but are used in reference to Jesus in the 

N.T. like Hebrews 1:10-12. This is true. Does that make Jesus 

Jehovah? NO! A scripture in Matthew 2:15 applies to Jesus, 

but the earlier reference in Hosea 11:1 applies to Israel. Does 

than make them the same? No! There is a prophecy about 

Elijah in Malachi 4:5 that is applied to John the Baptist in 

Matthew 17:12,13; 11:14. Is John the Baptist really Elijah? 

No! They just did a similar work. There are more examples, 

but these should suffice. 

Notice that argument starts with showing the DEITY of 

Christ. This is a smoke and mirrors ploy. By trying to show 

you the supposed DEITY of Christ, they are not showing you 

the TRIUNITY of their God. 

Greg Stafford 

In his NOTES in the back of his book, James White makes 

very unfavorable references(about 16) to Greg Stafford and 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/white.htm (4 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:16:01 AM]


his book "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended". Click here for the 

other side of the story. 

Email Me 

Yes, James White has a web-page at: Alpha-Omega Ministries 

Heinz Schmitz 

Email Me 


July 31 1999 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-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 

The Book of Mormon-Is It of God 

Inspired by Jose Luis Gil Alvarez 

The Bible says, "However, if we or an angel from heaven should come preaching a different 'good news' 

from the one we already taught you, let him be accursed!" Galatians 1:8 21st Century NT. The Book of 

Mormon was given to Joseph Smith via the Angel Moroni. Mr. Alvarez says that the BOM is not a 

different gospel (good news), but it in fact complements the Bible. But what are the real facts on the 

BOM?: 

The French word "Adieu" closes the book of Jacob (Jacob 7:27). The Book of Mormon 

dates Jacob between 544 and 421 BC. The French language didn't even exist until around 

700 AD! 

Jesus Christ was to be born "at Jerusalem" according to Alma 7:10. However, the Bible says 

He was born at Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Luke 2:4). 

Helaman 14:20, 27 says that darkness covered the whole earth for 3 DAYS at Jesus' death. 

Matt. 27:45, Mark 15:33, and Luke 23:44 says it was 3 HOURS. 

In Alma 46:15, believers are called Christians in 73 BC. However, Acts 11:26 says that they 

were FIRST called Christians at Antioch (about 42 AD). 

2 Nephi 22:2 quotes Isaiah 12:2 almost verbatim from the King James Bible: 

"Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Lord Jehovah is my 

strength and my song; he also is become my salvation." 

However, this scripture in the BOM is dated at 559 and 545 BCE, the King James Bible was 

not released until 1611 AD. 

The Book of Mormon sounds Biblical because some 27,000 words are from the King James Bible. 

Hundreds of verses are copied verbatim. For example, II Nephi, chapters 12-24 are copied from Isaiah 

2-14, III Nephi 24 & 25 are copied from Malachi 3 & 4, and I Nephi 20-21 are copied from Isaiah 48-49 

except for a few additions in the Book of Mormon. Even the italicized words from the King James 

Version are copied! The words in the King James Version were NOT in the original text but were added 

by the translators to give clarity of thought. The King James Version was completed in 1611 AD and the 

Book of Mormon published in 1830. This proves that Nephi was written after 1611! for more click here 

Ether speaks of steel (7:8,9) and breakable windows (2:23) back in Abraham's time. Neither had been 

invented at that time. 

According to I Nephi 2:5-8, the River Laman emptied into the Red Sea. However, there are no rivers in 

Arabia and no river empties into the Red Sea. 

Ether 9:19 states that in the Americas before Christ was even born there were "horses, and asses, and 

there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially 

the elephants and cureloms and cumoms." 

Archeology denies this. The Smithsonian Institute has on record that "none of the principal Old 

World domesticated food, plants, or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in 

pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, 

horses, donkeys, camels before 1492." Elephants came over from Africa many years after that. And 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/alvarez.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:16:19 AM]


cureloms and cumoms only existed in the mind of Joseph Smith. 

We are told in the Book of Mormon that Indians wrote many official records (Hel 3:13), scrolls (Mor 

5:23) and other writings (Mor. 9:2; 2 Nephi 9:18). But, every anthropologist will tell you that the 

American Indians never wrote books but used simple pictures to communicate. 

The Book of Mormon also implies that the North American Indians are descended from the Jews. But, it 

is generally accepted that Indians are "mongoloid", and are descended from east Asia. 

Since the KJV uses Elijah and Elias for the same person , Mormon prophet Joseph Smith mistakenly and 

interestingly had a vision of both (Doctrine and Covenants 110:12-16)! 

The Book of Mormon claims that God cursed the Indians with dark skin and that anyone who marries an 

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 

were true, there would be no part Indians, only full-blooded Indians. 

The statement is obviously false on a genetic level. 

The Book of Mormon states that when Indians accept Mormon teachings they will become, "white and 

delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:5-7; 3 Nephi 2:15). Because of this 

teaching, Latter-day Saints early in their history did a great deal of mission work among American 

Indians, and converted many. Even though today there are third, fourth and even fifth-generation Indian 

Mormons, there is not an instance of even one ever experiencing a lightening of the skin upon submitting 

to Mormon doctrine. 

The Book of Mormon Contradicts History and Archaeology 

1) No Mormon cities have ever been located using Book of Mormon. But, most cities in the Bible have 

been located with Bible. 

2) No Mormon names have been found in inscriptions as a result of archeological finds. But, many 

Bible names have been found in secular inscriptions. 

3) Archaeologists have never successfully used the Book of Mormon as a guide in locating ancient ruins. 

But, archaeologists have in the past and still do successfully use the Bible as a guide in locating ancient 

ruins. 

4) The Book of Mormon was supposedly translated from "reformed Egyptian". Nothing on the western 

hemisphere has been found that even remotely resembles Egyptian. Officially "reformed Egyptian" does 

not even exist. But on the other hand, the Bible was translated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. We 

know these languages well. These languages are taught in today's 

universities. 

5) Furthermore, there are no manuscripts or "reformed Egyptian" writings available. None of the "gold 

Nephite plates" exist from which the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated to examine and 

compare the English translation of the Book of Mormon. However, the Bible is supported by thousands 

of Greek & Hebrew manuscripts along with at least 2 compete copies of the Bible from 300AD. All 

manuscripts are available to public at any time. Even archeological scholars of the Latter Day Saints 

admit that the Book of Mormon cannot be supported by archeology. Dee F. Green, who at one time 

served as editor of the University Archaeological Society Newsletter, published at the church's Brigham 

Young University, made it plain 

that archaeological evidence did not prove the Book of Mormon: "The first myth we need to eliminate is 

that Book of Mormon archaeology exists." 

Thomas Smart Ferguson was one of the most noted defenders of Book of Mormon archaeology. Mr. 



Ferguson planned the New World Archaeological Foundation which he hoped would prove the Book of 

Mormon through archaeological research. The Mormon Church granted hundreds of thousands of dollars 

to this organization, but in the end, Thomas Stuart Ferguson admitted that although the Foundation made 

some important contributions to New World archaeology, all his work with regard to the Book of 

Mormon was in vain. He admitted, in fact, that he had wasted twenty-five years of his life trying to prove 

the Book of Mormon. 

Concerning books written by Mormons to support the Book of Mormon through archeology, 

Dr. Ray T. Matheny, professor of Anthropology at the church's Brigham Young University 

stated, "While some people choose to make claims for the Book of Mormon through 

archaeological evidences, to me they are made prematurely, and without sufficient 

knowledge... I do not support the books written on this subject including The Messiah in 

Ancient American, or any other. I believe that the authors are 

making cases out of too little evidence and do not adequately address the problems that 

archaeology and the Book of Mormon present. I would feel terribly embarrassed if anyone 

sent a copy of any book written on the subject to the National Museum of Natural History - 

Smithsonian Institution, or other authority, making claims that cannot as yet be substantiated 

.... Speculation, such as practiced so far by Mormon authors has not given church members 

credibility." (Letter by Ray T. Matheny, dated Dec. 17, 1987). 

Conclusion: "'What you have is just plain charlatanry by Joseph Smith, who created Mormonism,' [Bill] 

Craig replied. 'It's interesting that Smith and his father, when they lived in New York, were obsessed 

with finding Captain Kidd's buried gold. Then what does Smith later claim he finds? Golden plates from 

the Angel Moroni, and then they disappear and are supposedly taken to heaven and never seen again. 

What he have here is an elaborate hoax, compared to the gospels, with the evident sincerity of the people 

in what they were reporting. The problem with Mormonism is basically one of credibility because of the 

unreliability of Joseph Smith and a blatant lack of corroboration. Unlike the gospels, whose credibility 

has been greatly enhanced by archaeology, archaeological discoveries have repeatedly failed to 

substantiate the Book of Mormon.'" 

p.71, The Case for Faith, by Lee Strobel 

Again: 

No Book of Mormon cities have ever been found! 

No Book of Mormon person has ever been found! 

No Book of Mormon nation has ever been found! 

No Book of Mormon name has ever been found! 

No Book of Mormon inscriptions have ever been found! 

No Book of Mormon artifacts have ever been found! 

No Book of Mormon scriptures have ever been found! 

Statement from Jose when I commended him for his incredible faith, as one would need such to believe 

in the Book of Mormon: 

More faith than you? I do not think so because LDS have never had a drunker as President 

like Rutherford." 

More faith than you? The society predicted the end of the world for 1914, 1915,1918, 1925, 

during the II World War, 1975 and before the XX century ends. 

More faith than you? When you have change doctrine dozens of times even preaching 



contradictory statements. 

More faith than you? Who allow to their fellow to be killed because you do not accept bloo 

transfusion when there is nothing in the Bible against it. 

More faith than you? When you believe that the witnesses were the real victims in the Nazi 

Holocaust instead of the Jews. 

More faith than you? When the Society used double standard in Mexico and Malawi. 

If the LDS church had had this characteristics I would have left it long time ago but Thanks 

God It is His church." 

Reply: Well, Jose, start packing. As for Rutherford, I don't know anything about his drinking habits, but 

then, he is not my prophet. 

On Wednesday May 3, 1843, Joseph "... drank a glass of wine with Sister Jenetta Richards, 

made by her mother in England ..." 

On the night that Joseph was murdered he drank again. The LDS Church records describe in 

detail that, "The guard immediately sent for a bottle of wine, pipes, and two small papers of 

tobacco; and one of the guards brought them into the jail .... Dr. Richards uncorked the bottle, and 

presented a glass to Joseph [Smith], who tasted, as also Brother Tylor ...." (History of the 

Church, vol. 6, pg. 616) 

Was this for sacrament only? Let us look at John Taylor statement: 

"Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported that this was taken as a sacrament. It 

was no such thing our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent to revive us" (History of the 

Church, vol. 7, pg. 101) 

Did you know Joseph Smith had a liquor license to distribute alcohol from his home. Take a look at 

*History of the Church*, vol. 6, pg. 111, "Section 1 - Be it ordained by the City Council of 

Nauvoo, that the Mayor [Joseph Smith] of the city is hereby authorized to sell or give spirits of 

any quantity as he in his wisdom shall judge to be for the health and comfort, or convenience of 

such travelers or other persons as shall visit his house from time to time." 

Changing doctrines dozens of times? 

Have JW's changed their mind about the Trinity, Hellfire, the Immortality of the Soul, God's Name etc, 

or is that we have at time fine-tuned our understanding of certain scriptures, much like everyone else has 

(this is true of all Christian groups), but this point is harped on by anti-JW's as they really are only 

looking for points to misrepresent us by. 

What of the prophecies mention above? 

Most of these dates are embellished by Jose himself, and the rest, like those of all churches have been 

dealt at my page at 1975.htm and by Hal Fleming at http://jehovah.to/exegesis/general/prophetic.htm and 

http://jehovah.to/exegesis/translation/vandermeer.htm 

But I do find it interesting that you, a Mormon, accuse us of such, when compared to your own church 

founder and members, all others pale in comparison. 

PROPHECIES OF JOSEPH SMITH: 

Sept 21, 1823. Joseph Smith says in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:40, that Moroni told him 

that Isaiah 11 was "about to be fulfilled." Isaiah 11:6-11 prophesies that the wolf and the lamb, the calf 

and the lion, etc. shall dwell in peace together, and that nothing will "hurt or destroy," and that the earth 

shall be "full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." 



None of this has yet come to pass. 

Joseph had a revelation that Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery were to go to Toronto to sell the copyright 

of the Book of Mormon to raise money. Winter 1829-1830. Comp Hist 1:165 

They were completely unsuccessful. 

After this, Joseph Smith "inquired of God" and was told that some "revelations" are not from God. See 

David Whitmer's An Address To All Believers In Christ, Richmond, 1887, photo reprinting by Utah 

Lighthouse Ministry, pp 30-31. 

In his "Prayer and Prophecies," Joseph Smith while he was a prisoner in the jail at Liberty, Missouri, 

wrote that: 

● he will be avenged of his enemies by the sword (v. 5) (this is phrased as a prayer, but God had 

promised Joseph Smith that his prayers would be answered; he need only ask. D&C 29:6), 

● his friends will not charge him with transgressions (v. 10) 

● the hopes of those who do charge him with transgression shall have their hope blasted (v. 11) 

● God will "change the times and seasons" (v. 12) 

● Joseph Smith's enemies will be taken "in their own craftiness" (v. 12)"not many years hence, ... 

[his enemies] and their posterity shall be swept from under heaven, saith God, that not one of them 

is left to stand by the wall." (v. 15) 

● knowledge will be poured down from heaven upon the heads of the Mormons. 

None of these prophecies came to pass. Joseph Smith's enemies were not destroyed "by the sword;" but 

rather, the Mormons were successfully driven out of Missouri. His friends did charge him with 

transgressions within a few years, and those charges (in The Nauvoo Expositor) resulted directly in his 

arrest and destruction, as his enemies wished. God did not "change the times and seasons," whatever that 

may mean. The enemies of the Mormons achieved their goal of driving the Mormons out and destroying 

Joseph Smith. Their posterity was not destroyed, but survived. At least, there is no record of the 

anti-Mormon Missourians being swept away. 

And exactly what knowledge has been "poured down from heaven" upon the Mormons since 1839? 

NEW YORK WILL BE DESTROYED: Sept 22-23, 1832. D&C 84:114-115. New York, Albany and 

Boston will be destroyed if they reject the gospel. The "hour of their judgment is nigh..." 

FULFILLMENT: Newell K. Whitney and Joseph Smith went to New York, Albany, and Boston and 

preached there. These cities did not accept the gospel. They have not been destroyed. 

In *History of the Church* (5:336), Joseph Smith taught that the Second Coming of Christ would occur 

between 1890 and 1891. In 1835 he stated that it would happen 56 years later, and then in 1843, he 

declared that it would happen 48 years later. 

"I prophecy in the name of the Lord God-&let it be written: that the Son of Man will not come in the 

heavens until I am 85 years old, 48 years hence, or about 1890." Smith's Diary Smith died one year later, 

the Christ did not return in 1890. 

Apostle Parley Pratt wrote in 1838, "I will state as a prophesy, that there will not be an unbelieving 

Gentile upon this continent 50 years hence; and if they are not greatly scourged, and in a great measure 

overthrown, within five or ten years from this date, then the Book of Mormon will have proved itself 

false." Naturally, this prophecy has been deleted from modern versions of the Writings of Parley P. Pratt. 

There are many other prophecies also, listed by some at Doctrine and Covenants 42:39; 62:6; 69:8; 

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 

in the Journal of Discourses 3:228, 253, 262; 4:40; 5:10, 93, 94, 164, 173-174, 274, 275 etc. 



We allow to their fellow to be killed because you do not accept blood transfusion when there is nothing 

in the Bible against it. 

Do you have documented evidence that we have not saved lives from refusing blood transfusions? In the 

age of AIDS, Hepatitis and other blood-borne diseases, JW's are pioneers in this field and opening the 

way for a safer alternative to Blood, this same blood that the Bible is against ingesting. 

The prohibition on blood was there before the Jewish system (Gen 9:4), during it (Le 17:3, 4 etc), and 

after it, in Christian times (Acts 15:28, 29). 

This is acknowledged by probably the smartest man in his history in The Chronology of Ancient 

Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184) he says: "This law [of abstaining from 

blood] was ancienter than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of 

Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the 

Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of 

abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of 

Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of 

the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from 

fornication."-Italics his. 

"It ought to be observed, that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and 

repeated to the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been 

revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made 

of perpetual obligation."-Benson's Notes, 1839, Vol. I, p. 43. 

What of early Christians? 

In 177 C.E., in Lyons (France), when Christians were falsely accused of eating children, a woman named 

Biblis said: "How would such men eat children, when they are not allowed to eat the blood even of 

irrational animals?"-The Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, V, I, 26. 

Tertullian backed the prohibition of ingesting ANY kind of blood in his work Apology (IX, 13, 14): "Let 

your error blush before the Christians, for we do not include even animals' blood in our natural diet. We 

abstain on that account from things strangled or that die of themselves, that we may not in any way be 

polluted by blood, even if it is buried in the meat. Finally, when you are testing Christians, you offer 

them sausages full of blood; you are thoroughly well aware, of course, that among them it is forbidden; 

but you want to make them transgress." 

Minucius Felix made the same point: "For us it is not permissible either to see or to hear of human 

slaughter; we have such a shrinking from human blood that at our meals we avoid the blood of animals 

used for food."-Octavius, XXX, 6. 

Somebody called Dr Laura and spewed the same kind of rhetoric that you did about blood transfusions. 

Here is the response they received from some doctors: 


Date: 1999-03-04 


Transfusion 






























Tom Wixon 




Phone: (760) 323-6690 

Fax: (760) 323-6580 

Or Call: 

Bradford Ray 




Phone: (760) 323-6311 

As for the Jews, NO JW would belittle the horrors the Jews had to go through in Nazi Germany. We JW's 

would not follow Hitler of our own accord. Not so for the Mormons. "In the Nazi era, the church 

authorities in Utah counseled German members to support the Third Reich" says Douglas Tobler, a 

professor at [Brigham Young University]." 



Double Standards?:If you are alluding to any crimes/indescrepancies, then do you have any criminal 

charges that you can refer to, to back yourself up? Or are these allegations based on ONE individual 

gloryhound? Are there any public charges brought forth in newspaper print of any of these (you know, 

like the Olympic bribery scandal the Mormon leaders are tied to in Salt Lake City, which is being 

investigated by the IOC)? 

What about the latest Mormon church cover up: 

Sex Case May Pry Open Finances of LDS Church - 7/17/01 - by Elizabeth Neff 

The Salt Lake Tribune "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is fighting to keep its finances 

confidential in an Oregon lawsuit seeking more than $1.5 billion in damages from the church. Plaintiff 

Jeremiah Scott, 22, of California, sued the church in Oregon state court after an LDS ward Sunday school 

teacher was convicted of repeatedly sexually abusing him in Portland 

when he was 11 years old. The suit alleges negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, 

claiming church officials knew Franklin Richard Curtis was a pedophile, but did not warn Scott's parents 

before they took Curtis into their home. Church attorneys have told Scott the church is able to pay 

punitive damages of $162 million, or twice the amount of the largest punitive damages award in Oregon 

history. excerpt from http://www.sltrib.com/07172001/utah/114274.htm 

Or: 

Church fights plaintiff's attempt for force financial disclosure - AP - 7/17/01 Salt Lake City - "The 

Mormon church is fighting a sex-abuse victim's attempt to force it to disclose financial 

information." excerpt from 

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0717az-mormonsuirt-ON.html 

Further reading: 

God and the Holy Books by Hal Fleming 

Did the Book of Mormon Plagiarize the Bible? 

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE BOOK OF MORMON 

Salamander : The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders by Linda Sillitoe, Allen Roberst, Allen Dale 

Roberts 

The Kinderhook Plates-The Embarrasment of the Mormon Church 

Studies of the Book of Mormon by Brigham D. Madsen 

Early Mormon View of Jehovah and Jesus 

The Mormon Murders: A True Story of Greed, Forgery, Deceit, and Death by Steven Naifeh 

CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE BOOK OF MORMON AND THE BIBLE 



The Triplepoint Theory of the Trinity 

Triple Point Theory of the Doctrine of the Trinity 

Some argue that the past is distinct from the present, which is also distinct from the future. Yet, they are 

not three 'times,' but only one. 

The same is said of space, where height is distinct from width and from depth, yet there is only one 

space. 

Walter Martin argued that water can be solid, liquid and gas, but there are not three 'waters,' but one. 

Note: I used to have a quote here from CARM (Xtian Apologetics and Research Ministry) where I had 

linked right back to their page. But Matt Slick of CARM had threatened me with legal action if I did not 

remove it. This is manipulation and information-control of the highest order. CARM also quotes 

extensively from the WTS without permission, yet they are completely 2 faced about all this. They are 

trying to control the flow of information. CARM has become the very thing they are trying to fight...a 

CULT organization. If CARM was more confident in their message, then I would not be conceived as a 

threat. 

-Editor, Oct 29 2000 I will have more in the future exposing the small-mindedness of CARM. For now you 

can read our exchange below. 

If we look at time though, we see that it is measured in regards to the earth's position against the sun's. So 

we have 2 representing 3. 

This problem is shared by matter. Let's take water for example. It can be liquid, gas and solid. But it is 

still hydrogen and oxygen. Again, we have 2 representing 3. Incidentally, Athanasius did the same thing 

with HOMOOUSIOUS(of the same 

substance/essence). He used 2 coins to show that they were made of the same 

stuff(copper), but the problem was the fact that it was still 2 coins. 

If we look at space, we have only ONE example where space is measurable according to the rules of 

Euclidean geometry 

It does not always follow this rule. We also have an added problem because it is believed that space with 

time are continuations of the same theory.(Space-Time Continuum). Or is space merely 6 

dimensions/sides with left and right, up and down, and forward and back. 

Does This All Sound New Age To You? 

It should. New Age is also a Trinity of ancient beliefs. It is: 

● Monism(a view that reality is basically one unitary organic whole) 

● Panentheism(the universe is God's body) 

● Pantheism(a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe) 

Like the Triple Point Theory, New Age also uses scientific mysticism.(see Dean C. Halverson, "Science: 

Quantum Physics and Quantum Leaps" also Stanislav Grof "Ancient Wisdom and Modern Science". 

It is the New Age Movement that teaches that all humans have a divine nature and that Jesus was the first 

New Age teacher to realize that he was God...while Trinitarians believe that Jesus, though he was a 

human, had a divine nature and that he is God. 

The New Age Movement continues to be a big influence on modern churches. "The most obvious reason 

for Christian acceptance of such material is the fact that Biblical influence and wordliness are common 

among Christians. The Church is failing to educate her people properly in these areas." 

"Christians are being influenced by the NAM(New Age Movement) principally because of ignorance of 

Biblical teachings and lack of doctrinal knowledge." The Facts on the New Age Movement 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/triplepoint.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:16:38 AM]


byAnkerberg&Weldon p. 17,25 

Even Robert Schuller promotes it in his "Peace of Mind through Possibility Thinking" pp. 130- 138 

We know from ancient history that the worship of triads(trinities) meant some form of pagan worship 

(see The Two Babylons) but interestingly, the Egyptian god Khepri, Re and Atum were three 

manifestations of the Sun (morning, midday, evening), yet it was still one Sun. Sound familiar? [See 

Egyptian Religion, by Siegfried Morenz, p. 142-146] 

The New Age Movement today is also associated with witchcraft and Satanism, as was stated by Satanist 

Dr. Michael Aquino on the Oprah Winfrey Show, February 17, 1988. 

Most Witches/Wiccans today believe in a nature-oriented mother-goddess who is viewed triunely as 

maiden, mother and crone. Three natures, one person. This "three natures one person" belief is the same 

that Trinitarians use to try and explain their 3-pronged deity. 

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. 

"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 

of it by Christian theologians meet us again in the inscriptions and papyri of Egypt." Professor Sayce Gifford Lectures and Hibbert Lectures 

Trying to define God with nature is obviously nothing new, but we have to ponder...."Stay away from 

people who are not followers of the Lord! Can someone who is good get along with someone who is 

evil? Are light and darkness the same?...Can people who know the Lord have anything in common with 

those who don't? DO IDOLS BELONG IN THE TEMPLE OF GOD?" 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 CEV 

"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 

and Christ, page 595)(Lawson, Newton & Durant) 

The Exchange between CARM and this web-site (Oct 29, 2000): 

CARM:You took my writing, copied it without permission, and misrepresented 

what I said... shame on you. 

Editor: You took the WTS writing's without permission, and misrepresented what they 

said. Shame on you. At least I had the decency to link back to you, so 



remove the log in your own eye buddy before you start pointing fingers. 

-Heinz 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com 

CARM: I want you to remove my material. 

You have misrepresented me and violated my copyright. 

You have 48 hours or I will report you. 

matt slick 

Editor: It may be true that your work is copyrighted. 

Unfortunately, from your perspective, this does not 

prevent one from incorporating parts of it in 

another academic, non-profit criticism of such work. 

I will refer you to the Fair Use section of United 

States' Copyright Law: 

___________________________________________________ 

Fair Use Clause 

107: Limitatons on exclusive rights: Fair Use 

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, 

the fair use of a copyrighted work, including 

such use by reproduction in copies or phone 

records or by any other means specified by that 

section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, 

news reporting, teaching (including multiple 

copies for classroom use), scholarship, or 

research, is not an infringement of copyright. 

In determining whether the use made of a work 

in any particular case is a fair use, the 

factors to be considered shall include: 

1.The purpose and character of the use, including 

whether such use is of a commercial nature or is 

for nonprofit educational purposes; 

2.the nature of the copyrighted work; 

3.the amount and substantiality of the portion used 

in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 

4.the effect of the use upon the potential market 

for or value of the copyrighted work. 

(added pub. l 94-553, Title I, 101, Oct 19, 1976, 

90 Stat 2546) 

Remember Mr. Slick, the copyright thing goes both ways, and at least i had 

the decency to link back to you. 

"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 

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 

the courts to rob you blind." James 2:6 The Message 

-Heinz 

CARM: true, and misrepresentation of it is sin and illegal. 

Now, remove it. 

Whether or not I did what was right or wrong, in YOUR opinion, does not 

change the fact that what YOU did was wrong. 

Now, remove it! 

Editor: Consider yourself removed. Your opinions are neither original nor ingenious. 

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. 






More Trinitarian Bias in the Certain Bible Versions 

Other Scriptures that are seldom used to promote a 

Trinitarian Rendering.... 

And their counterparts. 

A "YES" means there is a trinitarian bias (or at least one that can be misconstrued that 

way)...a "NO" means there isn't. 

Bible Zech 12:10 Jn 8:58 Eph 5:5 Phil 2:6 Col 1:15 Heb 1:6 Jude 4 Rev 3:14 

King James YES YES YES YES NO YES NO NO 

A.S.V. YES YES YES NO NO YES NO NO 

Darby YES YES YES N/A NO YES NO NO 

Young YES YES YES YES NO NO YES YES 

Translator's N.T. N/A YES YES YES YES YES NO YES 

21st Century NT N/A NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

Good News NO YES NO YES YES YES NO YES 

N.I.V. YES YES NO NO* NO YES NO YES 

New English N/A YES NO NO YES NO NO YES 

Fenton NO YES NO N/A YES NO NO YES 

New American NO YES NO NO NO YES NO YES 

N.A.S.B. YES YES YES NO NO YES NO NO 

New Living YES NO NO YES YES YES NO YES 

Diaglott N/A NO NO NO NO YES NO NO 

New World NO NO NO NO NO some editions NO NO 

Weymouth N/A YES NO YES NO YES NO NO 

N.R.S.V. NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES 

Unvarnished N/A NO NO YES NO NO NO YES 

R.S.V. NO YES NO NO NO YES NO NO 

N.K.J.V. YES YES YES YES NO YES NO NO 

Moffatt NO NO YES N/A NO YES NO YES 

Rev. Version YES YES YES NO NO YES NO NO 

Byington NO YES YES NO NO NO NO NO 

Lamsa YES NO NO YES NO YES NO NO 

Living Bible NO NO NO YES YES YES NO YES 

Jerusalem NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES 

New Jerusalem NO YES NO NO NO NO NO YES 

Goodspeed NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/trinitychart.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:16:45 AM]


Tanakh NO N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Beck YES NO YES YES NO YES NO YES 

Revised Eng. N/A YES NO NO YES NO NO YES 

Phillips N/A YES NO YES NO YES NO NO 

Berkeley NO YES NO YES NO YES NO NO 

Simple English N/A NO YES YES YES YES NO YES 

20th Century N/A NO YES YES YES NO NO NO 

Schonfield N/A NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

Jewish NT N/A YES NO NO YES YES NO YES 

Lattimore N/A N/A YES NO NO YES NO NO 

Montgomery N/A YES NO YES NO YES NO NO 

Amplified YES YES NO YES NO YES NO YES 

Newcome N/A NO NO NO NO NO NO YES 

Webster YES YES NO YES NO YES NO NO 

Message N/A YES YES YES YES YES NO NO 

C.E.V. NO N/A NO YES YES YES NO YES 

Williams N/A NO YES YES YES YES NO YES 

N.E.T. YES YES YES NO NO YES NO YES 

Hebrew N.V. YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES 

New Life N/A NO NO YES YES YES NO YES 

Green YES YES NO YES NO YES YES YES 

Worrell N/A YES YES NO YES YES NO NO 

God's Word N/A YES NO YES NO YES NO YES 

New Evangel. N/A YES YES YES NO YES NO YES 

Knox N/A YES N/A NO NO YES NO YES 

Wuest N/A YES NO YES YES YES NO YES 

Deaf N/A YES NO YES YES YES NO YES 

Confraternity N/A YES YES YES NO NO NO NO 

Basic English NO YES YES NO NO YES NO YES 

Douay YES YES NO YES NO NO NO NO 

K.&Lilly N/A NO NO YES NO NO NO NO 

Recovery N/A YES NO NO NO YES NO NO 

Tyndale N/A YES NO YES NO YES NO NO 

Aitken 1782 YES YES NO YES NO YES NO NO 

Examples: 

Zechariah 12:10,"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the 

spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto me whom they have pierced; and they shall 

mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in 



bitterness for his first-born. ASV (YES) 

"when they look on the one whom they have pierced." NRSV (NO) 

(Compare John 19:37) 

John 8:58,"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." 

KJV (YES) 

"I existed before Abraham was even born." New Living Translation (NO) 

Jesus was here referring to his pre-existence, as in Micah 5:2. He was making no claim to Exodus 3:14 as 

many say. The LXX renders Ex. 3:14 as eigo eimi ho ohn or "I am the Being" which is quite different, as 

is the hebrew which is Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh which can better be rendered "I will be what I will 

be"(Moffatt, NWT). Almost all Bible translate the word Ehyeh as "I will be" at Exodus 3:12. To change 

it 2 scriptures later is unfortunate. 

For more on John 8:58 click here. 

Ephesians 5:5," For this ye are [well] informed of, knowing that no fornicator, or unclean person, or 

person of unbridled lust, who is an idolater, has inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and God. Darby 

(YES) 

"in the Kingdom of Christ and of God." New American Bible (NO) 

This is not a strong one to use as the sentence structure supports two as individuals, just like saying "the 

Kingdom of the King and Queen." 

Philippians 2:6,"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" KJV 

(YES) 

"though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." RSV (NO) 

Ralph Martin, says in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: "It is questionable, however, whether the 

sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'" 

The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of its 

derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch 

violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally 

different, 'hold fast.'" 

The Greek says literally, "deemed not being-on-a-par-with-God a-thing-to-be-plucked (hARPAGMON)." 

An added problem is that the word hARPAGMON is not found anywhere 

else in extant Greek; clearly it derives from hARPAZW, "pluck," "grasp in the hand," "seize." But if 

equality-with-God is something Jesus doesn't deign to grasp, is it reasonable to suppose that it is 

something he actually already has? 

"A vigorous debate still continues around the hymnic passage. However, the suggestion that the hymn 

has been constructed with a strong allusion to Adam, or even modeled after the template of Adam 

christology is still persuasive." p. 282, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, by James D.G. Dunn 

If we read the preceeding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean 

that we should try to be equal with God? Of course not. 

Colossians 1:15,"who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation" Darby (NO) 

"he is the primacy over all created things" New English Bible (YES) 

It seems to me that everytime the phrase, "the firstborn of" is used, it is used as part of a group. If it is 

"the firstborn of" 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 of the house of Pharoah, if it is "the firstborn of" beasts(Ex. 13:15) then it is an 

animal also. Why then should this rule be changed as it applies to "the firstborn of" creation. Obviously 

Jesus is a created being, as he was historically always thought to be Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22, "The 



LORD formed me as the first of his works, the beginning of his deeds of old." Smith&Goodspeed 

For more on PRWTOTOKOS/Firstborn click here. 

Hebrews 1:6,"And let all the angels of God worship him." KJV (YES) 

"Let all the angels of God pay him homage." New English Bible (NO) 

The greek word used here, proskuneo, is not the highest form of worship, that is reserved for latreuo(Phil 

3:3, Acts 7:42, 24:14). Vine's Expository Reference explains proskuneo as "to make obeisance, do 

reverence to." It is used of a man(Matt 18:26) and to God and a King at the same time(1 Chronicles 

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 

the Beast(Rev 13:15, 14:11), to Demons(Rev. 9:20), and idols(Acts 7:43). 

Jude 4," our only Master, God, and Lord--Jesus Christ" Young's (YES) 

" our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." ASV (NO) 

The word "God" is omitted in the texts most Bibles use today(Nestle/Aland, UBS, Westcott and Hort), 

and even where they are included, it can be translated such as it is in the KJV: "denying the only Lord 

God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." 

Revelation 3:14,"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the 

creation of God" KJV (NO) 

"These things saith the Amen, the witness--the faithful and true--the chief of the creation of God" 

Young's (YES) 

Arche can have other meaning besides "beginning", but when it is followed by the same kind of 

expression (genitive) as it does in Rev 3:14, it has the meaning of a beginning or the first part of 

something. Below are some examples from the KJV: 

Matt 24:8 All these [are] the beginning of sorrows. 

Mark 13:19 from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time 

John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galile 

Phil 4:15 in the beginning of the gospel 

Heb 3:14 if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end 

Heb 7:3 having neither beginning of days 

2 Peter 3:4 having neither beginning of days 

Email me 



The Trinity Exposed-The Truth about the Trinity 

"God can in no way be described." -- Plato (Father of the pagan Trinity) "The Trinity itself is a mystery or 

a "holy secret". It is incomprehensible. It can never be fully understood." -- Dr. Walter Martin 

1 Corinthians 14:33 -- "God is not the author of confusion. " 

Of course, that doesn't stop the above writer, along with B. Larson, R. Rhodes, James R. White and others 

from trying to explain the unexplainable. The above writers will use scriptures like John 1:1,18; 8:58; Acts 

20:28; Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:8 etc. 

Have you ever noticed that Bible Dictionaries and most scholarly religious encyclopedias and reference 

works don't use those scriptures. Why is that? Because they don't prove a trinity. For a trinity you need 

"THREE". 

In the above scriptures, and in almost all so-called "Trinity Proof" texts, the holy spirit is woefully 

under-represented. Using the above scriptures is less trinitarian and more Sabbelianism/Modalism. Just like 

this quotation from the myopic James R. White, "The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the eternal Word, the 

Creator of all things, the mighty God, as the Nicene Creed states it so succinctly, ...there is no Christianity 

where this truth is denied. Of this there can be no question." (The King James Only Controversy) 

So what is this "truth" of the Nicene Creed? 

It was 325 A.D. at Nice that the doctrine of the Trinity was rammed 

through by Athanasius (who in the future would use strong-arm tactics that 

would make a modern day mobster proud) in a Council that was overseen 

by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough, thought of himself as 

God-incarnate. (Constantine was a Sun Worshipper and only made an 

official conversion to "christianity" on his deathbed). Roman coins of the 

period still portrayed the image of the sun God despite the sudden 

adoption/conversion of Christianity. Many of those present at the Council 

Of Nicaea were in fact opposed the doctrine of the Trinity and had sided 

with Arius, who was quite adept and effective in proving from the 

scriptures that the Son was separate and subordinate to God. Much less 

effective was Athanasius's theory of homoousion which meant "made of 

the same stuff". By this reasoning though, you could have 2 copper coins that were homoousion because they 

were of the same substance...so couldn't the Word (Logos) also be a second and separate god. Even after the 

Nicene Creed, the doctrine of the Trinity was hotly debated for decades and centuries after. 

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AFTER NICAEA 

325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify 

the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" 

(homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered 

Sun presided over this council. 

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: 

"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula 

expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, òf one substance with the 

Father'." 

The American Academic Encyclopedia states: 

"Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he 

had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement." 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/trinity2.htm (1 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:16:53 AM]


At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria. 

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria. 

328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria. 

335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier. 

337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria. 

339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled. 

341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian 

Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the 

Nicene Creed. 

343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius. 

346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria. 

351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium. 

353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius. 

355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned. 

356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile. 

357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as 

unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. 

359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, 

specify how the Son is like the Father. 

361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius' positions. 

380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire. 

381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor 

Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is 

re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters. 

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not 

have been any conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you 

would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It would be like me being a member of the 

Communist Party. I would join it knowing that they do not believe in the ownership of private property, no 

conflict. But now, say after I have been a member of the party for a few years, someone decides to introduce 

a proposal that we allow the ownership of private property, not everyone in the party is going to agree, the 

result is conflict. This is similar to what happened in the church. It was not the established teaching, and 

when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict. 

It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication 

throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the 

outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled 

and recalled depending on who is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and 

homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. 

This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula. 

In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that 



whichever way Theodosius favors, that is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened 

next. 

In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the 

Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the 

theology of the church. 

The big difference now was that there was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the state 

religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years. It would 

undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was 

willing to back it up. Debates however, would continue for years to come. Juan Baixeras 

"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far way from me. Their worship of me is useless, 

because they teach man-made rules as if they were doctrines." Matt. 15:8 Jewish N. T. 

From the Webmaster: For the most part, the trinitarian church has silenced critical thought and dealt 

treacherously with anyone of open mind and free thought. In the 1670's, Isaac Newton quietly studied the 

Trinity and came to the conclusion that the doctrine was foisted on the Church by Athanasius in order to 

swell the numbers and fill the coffers. He concluded Arius was right and he claimed that the Bible had 

prophesied the Rise of Trinitarianism("this strange religion of the west", the cult of 3 equal gods) as the 

abomination of desolation. -- The Rise of Science and Decline of Orthodox Christianity. A study of Kepler, 

Descartes and Newton. After Newton, others such as Matthew Tindal, John Toland, Gottfried Arnold, Goerg 

Walch, Giovanni 

But, Henry Noris and Hermann Samuel Reimarus argued Arianism (unitarianism) and opened up a new era 

of criticism. It is only logical for people to argue after this, "What else has the Church lied to us about?" 

This unfortunately led to Higher Criticism of the bible in the 19th century which in turn, paved the way for 

evolutionism and Neitzsche's death of God. Is it not logical that to replace a polytheistic trinity, man would 

have to become gods themselves. 

The Superman would replace God and declare war on old christian values. (Thus Spake Zarathustra 1883) 

Can this happen to the message of Christ? It can if the message is diluted. Albrecht Ritschl(1822-89) saw the 

Trinity doctrine as flagrantly Hellenistic. It had corrupted the Christian message by introducing an alien 

"layer of metaphysical concepts, derived from the natural philosophy of the Greeks," and it had nothing to 

do with early christianity. 

Quotes: 

"The doctrine of the Trinity is a post-scriptural attempt to bring to coherent expression diverse affirmations 

about God..." -- Grolier Encyclopedia 

"Most assuredly, I am saying to you, A slave is not greater than his master, nor even one who is sent on a 

mission greater than the one who sent him." -- John 13:16 (Kenneth S. Wuest) 

"The Chalcedonian formula [the council's decision declaring Jesus both God and man] makes genuine 

humanity impossible. The conciliar definition says that Jesus is true man. But if there are two natures in him, 

it is clear which will dominate. And Jesus becomes immediately very different from us. He is omniscient, 

omnipotent, omnipresent. He knows the past, present and future...He knows exactly what everyone is 

thinking and going to do. This is far from ordinary human experience. Jesus is tempted but cannot sin 

because he is God. What kind of temptation is this? It has little in common with the kinds of struggles we are 

familiar with." To Know and Follow Jesus, Roman Catholic writer Thomas Hart (Paulist Press, 1984), 46. 

"And the LORD said...'you cannot see my face, for no man may see me and live.'" Ex. 33:19, 20 NIV 

"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity 

in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics) 

"Surely Christ has not been divided." 1 Corinthians 1:13 Revised English Bible 



Historian Will Durant: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas 

of a divine trinity." And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: "The trinity was a major 

preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed 

in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian 

theology." 

"He is exactly like God himself who is invisible. Of all creation, he was the first to be produced." Col 1:15 

21st Century NT 

"The New Testament does not actually speak of tri-unity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the 

N.T."—Kittels Theological Dictionary of the N.T. 

"Jehovah describes him [Christ] as occupying the seat of authority and wielding the sceptre of dominion over 

all foes." Hebrews 1:13 The Epistles of Paul in Modern English by George Baker Stevens 

"The doctrine of the Trinity has in the West come into increasing question...there has for long been a 

tendency to treat the doctrine as a problem rather than as encapsulating the heart of the Christian Gospel." 

The Promise of the Trinity, Gunton, p.31 

"Thus says the LORD...beside me there is no god." Is 44:6 English Standard Version 

"Despite their orthodox confession of the Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere 

monotheists. We must be willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, 

the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged." Karl Rahner, The Trinity, J. 

Donceel, trans, p.10 

"There was no theoretical framework in Scripture that explained the 

relationship of the Father, Son and Spirit.No Old Testament author addressed 

the issue of a separate being, the Holy Spirit, and its ('her,' in Hebrew) 

relationship to the Father; the Spirit of God was God's 'spirit' or breath 

that carried his power. 

Likewise, no New Testament author addressed the interrelationship of Father, 

Son, and Spirit. There are triadic formulations in the New Testament, such 

as the command to baptize "in the name of the Father and the Son and the 

Holy Spirit" (Matt 28:19), and the prayer of the blessing that "the grace of 

the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy 

Spirit be with you all" (2 Cor. 13:14). But all of these have to do with 

how God relates to the church. None explains how the Father, Son, and Holy 

Spirit relate to each other in essence. That task fell to a particularly 

influential group of 'heretics' - Gnostic Christians of the second century." 

The River of God, by Gregory J. Riley, p. 62 

"Why have Christians generally failed to grasp the grammar of the Trinity as the "fundamental grammar of 

Christian theology"? Why the "strange paucity of Trinitarian hymns in our modern repertoire of praise"? Or 

for that matter, in evangelical praise songs, hymns and choruses" Christianity Today, April 28 , 1997, p.28 

"Whatever else might be said about the doctrine of the Trinity, it is safe to say that in the history of Christian 

doctrine there has been no single, universally accepted articulation of the specific way in which it is to be 

understood. Every attempt to 

articulate the doctrine has had its detractors and has been viewed as erring in one direction or the other. 

Articulations stressing the unity of God to the relative de-emphasis of divine threeness have most often been 

labelled modalist or Sabellian: whereas, those stressing the threefold existence of deity to the relative neglect 

of divine unity have been castigated as as tri-theistic or polytheistic. It has seemed next to impossible to 

achieve a balanced presentation of the triune nature of God that is both 

relatively detailed and also acceptable to most sincere Christians with theological sensitivity." Logic, Morris, 

pp. 207, 208 



". . . it is a remarkable fact, that no single passage or verse of the Old or New Testament is received as an 

assured proof-text of the trinity by the unanimous consent of all Trinitarian writers: some ground their faith 

on one passage, some on another." 

A Religious Encyclopædia: or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, Based on 

the Real-Encyklopädie of Herzog, Plitt, and Hauck." 

"Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 1:3 Revised 

Webster Bible 

"But how can such weak creatures ever take in so strange, so difficult and so abtruse a doctrine as this [the 

Trinity], in the explication and defence wherof multitudes of men, even men of learning and piety, have lost 

themselves in infinite subtleties of dispute and endless mazes of darkness? And can this strange and 

perplexing notion of three real persons going up to make one true God be so necessary and important a part 

of that Christian doctrine, which, in the Old Testament and the New, is represented as so 

plain and so easy, even to the meanest understandings." 

William G. Eliot, Discourses on the Doctrines of Christianity (American Unitarian Association, 

Boston,1877), pp. 97, 100 

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth." Ps 83:18 


The Eastern Theologian John of Damascus (c. 675-749) once used a very curios argument in favour of 

icons...John replied to the criticism are unscriptural by admitting the fact, and adding that you will not find in 

scripture the Trinity, of homousian or the two natures of Christ either. But we know those doctrines are true. 

And so, having acknowledged that icons, the Trinity and the incarnation are innovations, John goes on to 

urge his reader to hold fast to them as venerable traditions delivered to us by the Fathers...He was not the 

only one to use this argument: Theodore the Studite (759-826) adopted it too. It brings out an odd feature to 

Christianity, its mutability and speed with which innovations come to be vested with religious solemnity to 

such an extent that anyone who questions them find himself regarded as the dangerous innovator and 

heretic." The Christ of Christendom by Don Cupitt, as used in The Myth of God Incarnate, p. 133 

"Jesus retorted, "Get away from me Satan!, it is written: 'Jehovah your God you should worship and him 

alone you should serve.'" Matthew 4:10 21st Century NT 

Paul, of course, did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity, and he often appears 

to operate with a subordinationist christology (cf. 15:28)." (Richard Hays, 1 

Corinthians, page 192). 

"The doctrine of God as existing in three persons and one substance is not demonstrable by logic or by 

scriptural proofs.”--Hastings Dict. of The Bible -Revised edition by F.C. Grant & H.H. Rowley 

"Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, 

and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Is 43:10 

ASV 

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by 

Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first 

Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of 

the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief." 

"Is there not one Father of us all? Did not one God create us? Why then, do we break faith with one another, 

profaning the covenant of our ancestors." Malachi 2:10 NJB 

"We must not contend that the Nicene Creed looks like the New Testament. The creed is an exercise in 

systematic theology. Although there are portions of the New Testament which are highly theological, the one 

thing we cannot say is that any of it is systematic theology as it was practiced three hundred years later." 

Beisner, E. Calvin's "God in Three Persons." (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, c1984), footnote 7, 



p. 145. BT109 .B45 1984 / 84-051210. 

"Throughout the Jewish scriptures, God never "screened or veiled his divine nature." In fact, Isaiah 

unequivocally proclaimed that the Almighty did not reveal Himself in darkness or in a hidden or veiled 

fashion. In Isaiah 45:19 the prophet, speaking in the Almighty's name, declares that, 

'I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob's descendants, 

"Seek Me in vain." I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right.' 

Although the belief in the unity of God is taught and declared on virtually every page of the Jewish 

scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is never mentioned anywhere throughout the entire corpus of the 

Hebrew Bible. This is understandable when we consider that primitive Christianity, in its earliest stages, was 

still monotheistic. The authors of the New Testament were completely unaware that the church they had 

fashioned would eventually embrace a pagan deification of a triune deity. Although the worship of a 

three-part godhead was well known and fervently venerated throughout the Roman Empire and beyond in 

religious systems such as Hinduism and 

Mithraism, it was quite distant from the heretical Judaism out of which Christianity emerged. However, when 

the Greek and Roman rather than the Hebrew began to dominate the church, it created a theological disaster 

from which Christendom has never recovered. By the end of the fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity 

was firmly 

in place as a central tenet of the church, and strict monotheism was formally rejected by Vatican councils in 

Nicea and Constantinople." Rabbi Singer 

"though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered" Heb 5:8 ASV 

"Only one, the Father, can absolutely be termed the ‘only true God,’ not at the same 

time Christ (who is not even in I John 5:20 the true God…). Jesus, in unity with the 

Father, works as his commissioner (John 10:30), and is His representative (John 14:9, 10) (Professor H.A.W. 

Meyer, Commentary on the New Testament. The quotation is from his comment on John 17:3). 

The son honours his father, the slave stands in awe of his master. But if I am indeed father, where is the 

honour due to me? And if I am indeed master, where is the awe due to me? says Yahweh Sabaoth to you 

priests who despise my name." Malachi 1:6 NJB 

"It was impossible for the Apostles to identify Christ with Jehovah. Psalm 110:1 and 

Malachi 3:1 prevented this" (R.A Bigg, D.D. Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical 

History, Oxford, in International Critical Commentary on I Peter). 

"A classic contrast is between [John] 10:30, 'The Father and I are one,' and 14:28, 'The Father is greater than 

I.' It is the perdurance of such lower christological statements which shows that the Johannine community 

had not made a rival God out of Jesus, but it also shows that the christology of John still stands at quite a 

distance from the christology of Nicaea wherein the Father is not greater than the Son." (R.E. Brown "The 

Johannine Community" 53) 

"glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 15:6 ASV 

"During these years [the first three centuries of Christianity's existence], most Christians vaguely thought of 

Jesus as God; yet they did not actually think of him in the same way as they thought of God the Father. They 

seldom addressed prayers to him, and thought of him somehow as second to God--divine, yes, but not fully 

God" (Robert Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings, 179). 

"Does this mean that early Christian theology was "nothing but" paganism with a biblical accent? Or, to 

paraphrase Numenius, was Christianity no more than Plato with a faint Palestinian accent?...We should not 

say it was "no more than" the sum of its parts, but the reality of the pagan environment cannot be neglected." 

Gods and the One God, Robert M. Grant, p. 170 

"We have one Father, God." John 8:41 Lamsa 

"Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it" (Soren 



Kierkegaard, cited in Time magazine, Dec. 16, 1946, p. 64). 

Emil Brunner, in Dogmatics I:205, writes: "On the triadic passages in the N. T., see below. The only 

trinitarian passage which is found in some ancient versions of the Bible (1 John 5:7) is regarded as not 

genuine." 

"You have no need to worry over mysteries. Do not meddle with matters that are beyond you; what you have 

been taught already exceeds the scope of the human mind. For many have been misled by their own notions, 

wicked presumption having warped their judgement." Ecclus. 3:22-24 New Jerusalem Bible 

"The attempt to superimpose these three abstract categories [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] on the Godhead 

and then to claim a Trinity has been discovered, is misleading in the extreme. It is no genuine Trinity, but 

merely a useful and at times quite penetrating analysis of three aspects of what is involved in making 

something. But there 

is no real reason to stop at three, nor is there any validity in isolating idea, energy, and power from a complex 

process with an indefinite number of terms" (CC Richardson, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 139-140). 

"There is...one God and Father of all" Eph 4:4,6 ASV 

"In his theological interpretation of the idea of God, Arius was 

interested in maintaining a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In 

defense of the oneness of God, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of 

essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, as stressed by 

the theologians of the Neoplatonically influenced Alexandrian school. From 

the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common 

basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New 

Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on 

the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have 

no foundation in the New Testament--such as the question of the sameness of 

essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine 

persons." Brittanica.com 

"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." 1Cor 3:19 Tyndale 

"The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official. The 

subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . . Finally, cart-loads of saints raised 

to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, 

it was the most polytheistic religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This 

untenable contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt with by 

accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned 

aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted 

them as heathen or pagan. " 

"The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of 

more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered 

and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus 

appendages." -- The Doubter's Companion (John Ralston Saul) 

"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 

20:23 - Contemporary English Version 

"In brief, the ante-Nicene Fathers taught the real distinction and divinity of the three persons . . . but in their 

attempts at a philosophical interpretation of the Dogma, the ante-Nicene Fathers used certain expressions 

which would favor sudordinationism. In the late 17th century, the Socinians cited these expressions that the 

ante-Nicene tradition agreed rather with Arius than with Athanasius . . . Catholic theologians commonly 

defend the orthodoxy of these early Fathers, while admitting that certain of their expressions were inaccurate 

and eventually dangerous." -- Colliers Encyclopedia 



"Yeshua(Jesus) said to him, 'Why are you calling me good? No one is good except God!" -- Mark 10:18 - 

Jewish New Testament - D.H. Stern 

"You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St Paul has the 

highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself explicitly 

claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by 

Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest). 

"Hear, O Israel, the lord our God is one lord." -- Deuteronomy 6:4 (Douay) 

"No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and 

uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity . . . Nor was the unity of the Supreme 

Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil 

government, wielded at the will of the Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like 

another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of 

thousands of martyrs . . . The Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so 

incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how 

can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, 

also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the 

most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such person, 

gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a 

wreck." -- Thomas Jefferson: Letter to James Smith, Dec. 8, 1822 For more Letters from T. 

Jefferson see: 

http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/tjletters.html 

". . . there is only one God." Romans 3:30 - New Jerusalem Bible 

"Thus by your own tradition, handed down among you, you make God's word null and void." -- Mark 7:13 - 


"The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to 

the Father" -- MS Encarta 99 

"For God is one; and one is mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus." -- 1 Timothy 2:5 - 

Montgomery NT 

"The word itself does not occur in the Bible...The explicit formula was thus formulated in the post-biblical 

period, although the early stages of its development can be seen in the NT. Attempts to trace the origin still 

earlier (to the OT literature) cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship, and these attempts must be 

understood as retrospective interpretations of this earlier corpus of Scripture in the light of later theological 

developments." The Harper Collins Study Bible Dictionary 

"We are judged to be heretics because we can no longer believe in essence, person, nature, incarnation, as 

they want us to believe. If these things are necessary for salvation, it is certain that no poor peasant Christian 

be saved, because he could never understand them in all his life." -- Francis David (1510-79) 

"No one has seen God at any time." -- John 1:18 - New King James Bible 

Christ's deity was "repugnant not only to sound Reason, but also to the holy Scriptures." -- Fostus Socinus 

(1539-1604) 

". . . the Father is greater than I." -- John 14:28 - New Revised Standard Version 

Catholic theologian Hans Küng in Christianity and the World Religions, "Even well-informed Muslims 

simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity . . . The 

distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy 

Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and 

Latin. Muslims find it all a word game . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God's 



oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?" 

"I have come to you from God. I am not here on my own, but he sent me." -- John 8:42 - Living Bible 

"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church 

till the 4th century." -- The Illustrated Bible Dictionary 

"There is no God but one." -- I Corinthians 8:4 

And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God." -- New 

Catholic Encyclopedia 

"one lord, one faith, one baptism." -- Ephesians 4:5 - Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition 

The Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "In Scripture there is as 

yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are 

denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas 

is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about 

A. D. 180 . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of 

trinitas in Tertullian." However, this is no proof in itself that 

Tertullian taught the Trinity. The Catholic work Trinitas - A 

Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example, 

notes that some of Tertullian's words were later used by others 

to describe the Trinity. But then it states: "But hasty 

conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not 

apply the words to Trinitarian theology." 

". . . let your will be done, not mine." -- Luke 22:42,43 - 

Jerusalem Bible 

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that 

the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity." 

"For there is but one God and one mediator between God and men - Christ Jesus." -- 1 Timothy 2:5 

Weymouth 

Jesuit Fortman: "The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no 

explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any 

trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead." 

"And this is the eternal life, that they know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom thou didst send." 

-- John 17:3 - Worrell N.T. 

The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New 

Testament." 

"The Lord our God is one Lord." -- Mark 12:29 - Webster's Bible 

Bernhard Lohse in A Short History of Christian Doctrine: "As far as the New Testament is concerned, one 

does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity." 

"Yet to us there is one God the Father, Of whom are all things, and we for him; And one Lord Jesus Christ, 

through whom all things are, and we through him." -- 1 Corinthians 8:6 

Rotherham - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: 

"The N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity." 

"The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence.", 



said Protestant theologian Karl Barth 

"God is supreme over Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 11:3 - Good News Bible 

Yale University Professor E. Washburn Hopkins: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was 

apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it." -- Origin and Evolution of Religion. 

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- 1 Peter 1:3 - New Berkeley Version 

Tom Harpur states, "As early as the 8th century, the Theologian St. John of Damascus frankly admitted what 

every modern critical scholar of the NT now realizes: that neither the Doctrine of the Trinity nor that of the 2 

natures of Jesus Christ is explicitly set out in scripture. In fact, if you take the record as it is and avoid 

reading back into it the dogmatic definitions of a later age, you cannot find what is traditionally regarded as 

orthodox Christianity in the Bible at all." -- For Christ's Sake. 

"I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." -- John 20:17 - New International 

Version 

Historian Arthur Weigall: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New 

Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after 

the death of our Lord." -- The Paganism in Our Christianity 

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." 1Cor 1:3 ASV 

The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in 

the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 

'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' -- Deut. 6:4 

. . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . By the end 

of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." -- 

Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976) 

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception." -- Colossians 2:8 - New 

American Standard Bible 

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly 

established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 

4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among 

the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - 

(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299. 

"In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." -- Matthew 15:9 - Common 

Bible-RSV 

The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian 

[believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. 

Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; 

it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L. 

"God is not a man to lie, Or a son of man to change his purpose" Numbers 23:19 The Complete Bible by 

Ferrar Fenton 

"It is fair to say that no one in the first century was a Trinitarian as the doctrine was later defined in the 

creeds of the fourth century." p. 55 The River of God by G.J. Riley 

"No one has ever seen deity, but Jesus." -- John 1:18 - Simple English Bible 

The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities 

dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the 

three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, 



fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." 

-- (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467. 

"Yet about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the Son; no one but the 

Father." -- Mark 13:32 - Revised English Bible 

"The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th 

centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical 

belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined 

in terms of "person" and "nature: which are Gk philosophical 

terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The 

trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in 

which these terms and others such as "essense" and "substance" 

were erroneously applied to God by some theologians." 

Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, S.J. p. 899 

"Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the 

blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever 

says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever 

speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." -- Matt 12;31,32 

- Revised Standard Version 

Regarding the Nicene Council and those that followed, Hans Kung in Christianity says, "The conciliar 

decisions plunged Chrisitianity into undreamed-of theological confusions with constant entanglements in 

church politics. They produced splits and sparked off a persecution of heretics unique in the history of 

religion. This is what Christianity became as it changed its nature from a persecuted minority to a majority 

persecuting others." 

"By this all will know that you are disciples of mine, if you have love for each other." -- John 13:35 Byington 

-- For much, much more on the Trinity, click here. 

"Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything." -- 

Robert A. Heinlein 

Well I like to be fair, so I will now give the other side a chance to explain their belief: 

"We are to consider the order of those persons in the Trinity described in the words before us in Matthew 

28:19. First the Father and then the Son and then the Holy Ghost; everyone one of which is truly God. This is 

a mystery which we are all bound to believe, but yet must exercise great care in how we speak of it, it being 

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 

imagine one numerically divine nature in more than one and the same divine person. Or three divine persons 

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 

Father, Son and Holy Ghost be three, and everyone a distinct God, it is false. I may say, God the Father is 

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 

and the Son is another God and the Holy Ghost is a third God. I may say that the Father begat another who is 

God; yet I cannot say that He begat another God. I may say that from the Father and Son proceeds another 

who is God; yet I cannot say that from the Father and Son proceeds another God. For though their nature be 

the same their persons are distinct; and though their persons be distinct, yet still their nature is the same. So 

that, though the Father be the first person in the Godhead, the Son the second and the Holy Ghost the third, 

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 

great a mystery aright; or to fit so high a truth with expressions suitable and proper to it, without going one 

way or another from it." Bishop Beverage, Private Thoughts, Part 2, 48, 49, cited by Charles Morgridge, The 

True Believers Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians for Not Beleiving in the Deity of Christ 

(Boston: B. Greene, 1837), 16. 



Nuff said! 

Yes, I do not always agree 100% with some of the other works of the above mentioned authors, but then, I 

don't agree 100% with anyone..period. I have produced an eclectic array of trinitarians, non-trinitarians, 

pagans, skeptics, atheists, liberal theologians to provide a rounded view that people from all walks of life, 

people of great intelligence find humor and incredulity in the triune doctrine. 

So why use them? I will finish off with a quote from E.H. Broadbent to show you where I am coming from. 

Speaking of the much persecuted but humble group of Christians of times past, the Waldenses and the 

Albigenses, he says "They considered that in all times and in all forms of churches there were enlightened 

men of god. They therefore made use of the writings of Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Bernard of 

Clairvaux and others, not accepting, however, all they wrote, but only that which corresponded with the 

older, purer teaching of Scripture." The Pilgrim Church, p.120 

Updated Feb 21, 2001 

Send me Feedback 



Trinitarian Bias in the Holy Bible 

Glorifying the Father-Or Glorifying the Son? 

Is there a theological/Christological bias in Bible versions? 

"Whether Christ is called God must be determined from Jn. i.1; xx.28; 1Jn. v. 20 ; Ro. ix. 5; Tit. ii.13; 

Heb. i.8 sq., etc,; the matter is still in dispute among theologians." Thayer's Lexicon 

There are certain scriptures used to try to deify Jesus Christ. But as you can see, many 

do not agree. A "YES" means that the version in question could be viewed as assigning 

Deity to the Son. A "NO" means that a certain rendering was translated in a way to 

promote the Deity of the Father. 

Bible Jn1:1 Jn1:18 Ac20:28 Rom9:5 2Thess1:12 Tit2:13 Heb1:8 2Pet1:1 

King James YES NO YES NO NO NO YES NO 

Revised Version YES NO YES NO NO YES YES YES 

RV mg. YES NO NO NO NO 

Revised Standard Ver YES NO NO NO NO YES YES YES 

RSV mg. YES NO YES NO NO NO 

New English Bible NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES 

NEB mg. YES NO YES NO NO 

Moffatt NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES 

The Message* YES NO YES YES? NO YES YES YES 

Goodspeed NO NO YES NO NO YES NO YES 

Translator's N.T. NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES 

Good News Bible* YES NO NO NO YES YES YES 

GNB mg.* NO NO YES 

21st Century NT Literal NO NO N/A N/A NO NO NO NO 

21st Century NT Free NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

New International Ver YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES 

NIV mg. NO NO NO YES 

New World Trans NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

Modern Lang.Bib YES NO YES YES NO YES YES YES 

Jerusalem Bib YES NO YES NO NO YES YES YES 

New Amer.Stan.Bib. YES NO YES NO NO YES YES YES 

Amer.Stan.Ver YES NO NO NO NO NO YES NO 

ASV mg. NO 

Young`s YES NO YES NO YES YES YES YES 

An Inclusive Ver.* YES YES NO NO NO YES YES YES 

An Inclusive mg. NO YES YES NO NO NO 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/trinity.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:06 AM]


New RSV YES YES NO NO NO YES YES YES 

NRSV mg. NO YES YES NO NO NO 

New Amer.Bib YES YES YES NO NO NO YES YES 

NAB mg. NO NO 

Revised NAB YES YES YES NO YES NO YES YES 

RNAB mg NO NO NO YES NO 

New Jerusalem YES NO NO NO YES YES YES 

Catholic Con.Doc. YES NO YES NO NO YES YES YES 

Amplified Bib YES NO YES NO YES YES YES 

Darby YES NO NO NO YES YES YES 

S.T.Byington YES NO YES NO NO YES NO YES 

Beck YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 

Cotton Patch* NO NO N/A NO YES NO NO YES 

Williams N.T. Yes YES NO NO YES YES YES 

Contemp.Eng.Ver.* YES YES NO NO NO YES YES YES 

CEV mg.* YES YES NO 

Diaglott NO NO YES NO YES YES YES YES 

Concordant Lit.N.T. YES NO YES NO NO NO YES NO 

Rotherham YES NO YES NO YES NO YES YES 

Bib.Basic Eng. YES NO YES NO YES YES YES 

Knox YES NO YES YES NO YES YES YES 

Revised 

Version-Parkinson 

NO NO NO NO NO NO YES NO 

Living Bib.* YES NO YES NO NO YES YES YES 

Weymouth YES NO YES NO NO YES YES NO 

Simple Eng.Bib NO NO NO NO NO YES YES NO 

Worrell YES NO YES NO YES NO YES YES 

New Century Ver* YES YES YES YES No YES YES YES 

NCV mg.* NO NO 

Revised Eng.Bib NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES 

Phillips* YES NO YES YES NO NO YES NO 

Montgomery N.T. YES YES NO YES YES YES 

Jewish N.T. YES NO NO NO NO NO YES NO 

Schonfield NO NO NO NO NO NO YES NO 

Douay YES NO YES NO NO NO YES YES 

Kingdom Interlinear NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

King JamesII YES NO YES YES NO YES YES NO 

Deaf* YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES 



Unvarnished NT NO NO YES NO YES YES NO YES 

God`s Word* YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES 

Geneva YES NO YES YES NO NO YES NO 

Lamsa YES NO NO YES NO NO YES NO 

Cath.RSV Yes NO NO YES NO YES YES YES 

ISV YES NO YES YES N/A YES YES N/A 

Wuest* YES YES NO YES YES YES 

Webster YES NO YES NO NO NO YES NO 

Net Bible YES YES NO YES NO YES YES YES 

Hebrew Names Version YES NO YES YES NO NO YES YES 

New Living* YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 

NIrV YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES 

Wesley Trans. YES NO YES NO NO NO YES YES 

Inclusive Lang. NT* YES NO NO NO NO YES YES YES 

New Life Ver.* YES NO YES NO NO NO YES YES 

Kleist&Lilly YES NO YES YES NO YES YES NO 

Lattimore YES NO YES NO NO NO YES YES 

Newcome NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 

Tyndale YES NO YES N/A NO NO NO YES 

Aitken 1782 YES NO YES N/A N/A NO YES NO 

Fenton YES NO NO NO NO NO NO YES 

*=Paraphrased Bibles 

Examples of the above: 

John 1:1 

● "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".(King 

James Version) 

● "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god".(NWT, 

Parkinson's Revised Version-Improved and Corrected) 

● "In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was 

divine".(Goodspeed,Moffatt) 

For Professor Jason Beduhn's letter on this scripture click here. 

For further discussion of this interesting scripture click here. 

There is actually some fresh material in BDAG on the subject of QEOS. There is an interesting quotation 

from Diognetus that was not in BAGD. 

BDAG - QEOS 2 - provides an interesting parallel to John 1:1b,c when it 

quotes Dg 10:6. It says: 



hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN ECEI, TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS CORHGWN, QEOS 

GINETAI [QEOS as predicate nominative preceeding copulative verb] TWN 

LAMBANANTWN (one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God 

proves to be a god to the recipients). (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother). Such understanding led to the 

extension of the mng. of Q. to pers. who elicit special reverence. 

John 1:18 

● "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".(New Revised Standard Version) 

● "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he 

hath declared him."(Revised Version, KJV) 

● "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He 

has explained Him".(New American Standard Version,NWT) 


Acts 20:28 

● "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you 

overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood"(New 

American Standard Version) 

● "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to 

care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son".(Revised Standard 

Version,NWT) 

For more info on this scripture click here. 

Romans 9:5 

● "Their ancestors were great people of God, and Christ himself was a Jew as far as his human 

nature is concerned. And he is God, who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal 

praise!Amen".(New Living Translation) 

● "to them, belonging the patriarchs, and of their race, according the flesh, is the Christ. God who is 

over all be blessed for ever.Amen".(Revised Standard Version,NWT) 

For more info on this scripture click here. 

Also http://www.jehovah.to/exegesis/translation/romans95.htm 

2Thessalonians 1:12* 

● "That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the 

grace of our God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ".(Douay-Rheims Bible) 

● "that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the 

grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ".(Young`s Literal Translation) 

For a discussion on this topic click here. 



Titus 2:13* 

● "as we wait for the blessed Day we hope for, when the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus 

Christ will appear".(Good News Bible) 

● "as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus 

Christ".(New American Bible) 


Hebrews 1:8 

● "But of the Son he says,"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, thy righteous sceptre is the 

sceptre of thy kingdom".(Revised Standard Version...incidentally, this is a quotation from Psalms 

45:6 which this same bible translates"your Divine throne". 

● "but as to the Son "God is your throne forever and ever...."(Bible in Living English-S.T.Byington) 

For more on Hebrews 1:8 click here. 

Theos" in Kittels Dictionary of New Testament.On Hebrews 1.8 it says: "In Hebrews 1:8-9 

the designation of the OT king as theos is transferred to Jesus." 

2 Peter 1:1* 

● "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal 

standing with our in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ".(Revised Standard 

Version) 

● "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious 

faith with us throught the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ".(King James 

Version) 


*compare Ephesians 5:5 and Proverbs 24:21 in the LXX (Septuagint) 

E-mail me 

Back to Main Bible Page 

Last Updated April 30 2002 


Why We Need Different Bible Translations 

Why We Need Different Translations of the 

It is amazing to me how many people think that the Bible is English in origin. It is not, it comes to us 

from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The English language has changed over the centuries, and many 

words have become obsolete or changed meaning. For a list of these changes click here. Here is an 

example: 

"Then said Iefus vnto them, My foule is veary heauie, euen vnto death: tarie yee here, and watch with 

me." Matthew 26:38 Geneva Bible 1602 edition 

" then saith he to them, Èxceedingly sorrowful is my soul--unto death; abide ye here, and watch with 

me." Youngs Literal Translation 1884 

"Then he said to them, 'My soul is sorrowful to the point of death. Wait here and stay awake with me." 

New Jerusalem Bible 1985 

When we translate from these ancient forms of these languages, one English word may not always 

suffice. For instance, the greek word "theotes" has a few different meanings, such as "divinity, godhead, 

deity, divine, godship". The translator will then take the meaning that best fits the context. This is where 

his beliefs/theology come into play. Looking at a certain scripture in different versions of the Bible 

usually gives us a more rounded view of the word in question. 


"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." KJV 

"For in Him all the fullness of the deity dwells in bodily form." NASB 

"For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity." TEV 


"Because in him resides al the fulfillment of the divine." Lattimore 

These slight theological differences account for an extremely small portion of the Holy Bible. The 

main message of the Bible has not changed. I can show people the truth about God in the King James 

Version, the New World Translation, the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible or the ecumenical Good News 

Bible-TEV. In fact, these Bibles together would greatly complement each other in serious Bible study.In 

fact these are some of my favourite versions. You can throw in the New English Bible, Revised 

Standard Version, and my Interlinear Bibles. I also recommend the Revised English Bible, The Original 

New Testament by Hugh Schonfield, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, the American Standard Version 

and An American Translation by Smith&Goodspeed and you have a great set of Bibles. 






"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages. we suggest either a very literal 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/translation.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:20 AM]




Are these differences Trinitarian in nature? Yes, alot of them are. The Trinity is a post- scriptural 

theory/doctrine that many use to explain God. These were formulated thru a series of creeds starting 300 

years after Christ. This doctrine has done more to damage scriptural integrity than any other. This is 

evidenced early on by adding scriptures and substituting words like the Comma Johanneum(Johannine 

Comma) at 1 John 5:7. You will notice that most modern Bibles have removed this spurious insertion. 

That is where a well placed footnote will clear up the error, like the one in the King James Version-Ryrie 

Study Bible, where it says these words, "are not in any Greek manuscript, only in later Latin 

manuscripts." 

Bruce Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament- Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration" gives 

us this interesting statement: "Jesus' statement, 'But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the 

angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only' (Matt. xxiv. 36 and Mark xiii. 32), was unacceptable 

to scribes who could not reconcile Jesus ignorance with his divinity, and who saved the situation by 

simply omitting the phrase OUDE O UIOS[nor the Son]." p.202 

In Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words under the heading "Cross" it goes on to say, "By the 

middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had oether departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of 

the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were 

received into the churches aprt from regeneration by faith, and were permitted to regain their pagan signs 

and symbols." I sincerely believe that the doctrine of the trinity is one many beliefs carried over. It is 

widely known that the ante-Nicene Fathers were heavily influenced by greek(platonic) philosophy. 

Plato's trinity consisted of 1. The ONE 2. The IDEA 3. The SPIRIT. This closely resembles the trinity of 

the mainstream churches where it is the The FATHER, The WORD and the HOLY SPIRIT. There is 

another similarity. The ONE in Plato's trinity was nameless...so is the FATHER in christendom's trinity. 

Which leads to my next point..... 

Is God really called LORD or GOD? In the Bible there is one name used that is used more often than 

any other name...and it has been removed in most Bibles. This name is represented by four hebrew 

letters, YHWH or JHVH and is either translated Jehovah or Yahweh. The removal of this name has 

helped the doctrine of the Trinity as it has blurred the lines between Father and Son. As one of my critics 

puts it, "After all, with the 'Lord' in both testaments, it would be impossible to separate them as two 

persons, one who is God, and one who is 'a' god, as the Watchtower Society has attempted to do." 

So if we read aloud passages like Psalms 110:1, "The LORD said unto my Lord"(KJV), it sounds like 

God is talking to a part of himself. But if it is translated correctly, like the Darby translation, it makes 

better sense, "Jehovah said unto my Lord" 

"One of the proper names for God, perhaps the better known one, should be used to translate 'YHWH' 

throughout the OT; but most especially in Ex. 3:14-5 [NEB]; 6:3 'By my name Jehovah' [KJV, NEB]; 1 

Ki. 18:39 'Jehovah, he is God.'-which hardly even makes sense without the actual name; similarly, Ex. 

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, 

Name] Gen.15:2; 1Sam.15:21, 30; 2 Sam.7:18,19,20,28; Ps. 68:20 could then have 'Lord Jehovah'. 

But, in place of the actual name, 'the LORD' [all in capital letters] is substituted in most Bible versions 

in English [KJV, RV, FEN, GOS, RSV, NBV, NAB, GNB, NAS, NIV, RAV, REB, NRS, CEV], even 

though capital letters are obviously inaudible when read aloud [and giving a misleading impression of 

emphasis]. " p. 90, How to Choose a Bible Wisely by Alan S. Duthie 



And then there is the integrity of the Translator. Because of not agreeing with the inspired words at 

Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, the translator of the Living Bible(Taylor) added the footnote: "These statements are 

Solomon's discouraged opinion, and do not reflect a knowledge of God's 

truth on these points!" This same Bible goes on to say correctly at 2 Timothy 3:16, "The whole Bible was 

given to us by inspiration from God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is 

wrong in our lives." Taylor's disgusting comment has contradicted his own rendition of the latter 

scripture. 

New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV has this to say about the book of Daniel in the foreword: "The 

author was a pious Jew living under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, 167-164 B.C. To encourage 

his suffering believers he tell six stories...." The paragraph before this lumps the book of Daniel in with 

pseudepigraphal books. Contrast this with Daniel 7:1, "In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon 

Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream and told the sum of the 

matters." ASV 

What they are basically saying is that Daniel was written by an imposter, and by doing this they are 

echoing the anti-Christian philosopher Porphyry who theorized that someone took past events and made 

them appear to be prophecies. The genuineness of the book of Daniel was not seriously questioned, 

however, from that day until the "Higher Criticism" in the early part of the 18th century. Jesus Christ's 

own acceptance of Daniel's prophecy is an even more significant evidence of its authenticity.-Mt 24:15; 

Da 11:31. 

The Five Gospels/Funk&Hoover has this to say about Mark 13:32, "most Fellows were dubious that 

Jesus was responsible for the present wording." The Fellows mentioned here are The Jesus Seminar who 

voted on which parts of the Bible were actually true. 

Another Example: J.B. Phillips goes even further by changing the text meaning and then adding, 

"I felt bound to conclude that we have here either a slip of the pen on Paul's part or a textual corruption, 

and I have therefore been bold enough to alter the verse in order to make good sense." Footnote 

1Corinthians 14:22 What Arrogance!! Speaking of arrogance...... 

From the "What were they thinking Files" 



I really enjoy the New Testament by the late Richmond Lattimore, but I really have to question the use of 

a photograph on the cover of a cadaver entitled, "Man Beaten to Death Photographed in the Morgue". 

The photo was taken by Andres Serrano of "Piss Christ" fame. This is the same person that adorns 

religious imagery with animal dung. The publishers of this edition showed poor taste and a lack of 

respect for a great work by a greek classicist, and it is an even bigger insult to the author of the inspired 

word. 

The Book of Daniel is another that is constantly under attack by translators, publishers, editors of certain 

Bible translations also. "The author was a pious Jew living under the persecution of Antiochus 

Epiphanes, 167-164 B.C." NRSV-New Oxford Annotated Bible see also New American Bible. Who 

started this rumor? It was the philosopher Porphyry who hated Christians and wrote 15 books against 

them[in fact early writers such as Eusebius and Jerome wrote works against Porphyry]. He 

misunderstood Daniel's last vision as pertaining to the Syrian King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and so 

could not accept it as history written in advance by inspiration, but looked on it as a history written after 

it happened. Hence Porphyry viewed the author of the book of Daniel as a fraud. If early translators like 

Jerome condemned this man [as did the Council of Ephesus in 451 C.E.], then why is it that many 

modern translators embrace this theory from a man who hated God. Easton's Bible Dictionary says: 

"The genuineness of this book has been much disputed, but the arguments in its favour fully establish its 

claims. (1.) We have the testimony of Christ (Matthew 24:15; 25:31; 26:64) and his apostles (1 

Corinthians 6:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:3) for its authority; and (2) the important testimony of Ezekiel (14:14, 

20; 28:3). (3.) The character and records of the book are also entirely in harmony with the times and 

circumstances in which the author lived. (4.) The linguistic character of the book is, moreover, just such 

as might be expected. Certain portions (Daniel 2:4; 7) are written in the Chaldee language; and the 

portions written in Hebrew are in a style and form having a close affinity with the later books of the Old 

Testament, especially with that of Ezra. The writer is familiar both with the Hebrew and the Chaldee, 

passing from the one to the other just as his subject required. This is in strict accordance with the position 

of the author and of the people for whom his book was written. That Daniel is the writer of this book is 

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 

on this in the Wycliffe Bible Commentary and the book Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy by the WTS. 

Why The Bible? 

● The Bible is the oldest religious book 

● It is the number 1 bestseller 

● It carries the same theme thru each of its 66 books 

● It has uncharacteristic candor unheard of for its time 

● It is archaeologically sound 

● It's prophecies are true 

● It said the world was round long before Galileo(Isaiah 40:22) 

● It is the most opposed book in all history 

And let's face it, no one argues about the genuineness of the following works. We have more witnesses 

and manuscripts attest to the Bible than most other ancient works. 

AUTHOR /When Written /Earliest Copy /Time Span /No. of Copies 



Ceaser 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs. 10 

Livy 59 B.C.-A.D. 17 20 

Plato (Tetralogies) 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 7 

Tacitus(Annals) 100 A.D. 1,100 1,000 20 (-) 

Also minor works 100 A.D. 1,000 900 yrs. 1 

Pliny the Younger 

(History) 

61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs. 7 

Thucydides 

(History) 

460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 8 

Suetonius (De Vita 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs. 8 

Ceasarun) 

Herodotus (History) 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 8 

Horace 900 yrs. 

Sophocies 496-406 B.C. 1,000 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 100 

Lucretius Died 55 or 53 B.C. 1,100 yrs. 2 

Catullus 54 B.C. 1,550 A.D. 1,600 yrs. 3 

Euripedes 480-406 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,500 yrs. 9 

Demosthenes 383-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,300 yrs. 200* 

Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1,100 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 5 

Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 10 

What about the Koran, Talmud, Book of Mormon, Pseudepigapha and the Apocrypha? These are 

extra-biblical books of varying value(mind you these are important to their respective groups). These are 

not part of the Bible canon, and often times conflict with it. I will not be dealing with these on my site 

unless context demands it. 

So enjoy my site, read your Bible...and always have more than one for reference and study. 




Bible Translations and the word "SOUL". 

Translating the word: 

In the Bible, the word "Soul" comes from the Hebrew word "nephesh" and its Greek equivalent "psykhe". 

As we can see in the following chart, it certainly doesn't have the immortal aspect to it that people think 

it does. 

Abbreviations: 

● N = New 

● S = Standard 

● A = American 

● L = Living 

● E = English 

● B = Bible 

● V = Version 

● T = Translation 

● W = World 

● C = Contemporary 

● To = Today 

● I = International 

Bible Gen. 2:7 Gen. 9:5 Ezekiel 

18:4 

Matt 

10:28 

Acts 3:23 

1Cor. 

15:45 

1Peter 

3:20 

Rev. 16:3 

N.W.T. SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL 

King James SOUL Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL 

L. B. Person Omit SOUL SOUL Anyone BODY Persons Everything 

A.S.V. SOUL Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL 

R.S.V. Being Life SOUL SOUL SOUL Being Person Thing 

N.E.B. Creature Life SOUL SOUL Anyone Being Persons Thing 

N.L.T. Person Person Person SOUL Omit Person People Everything 

N.A.B. Being Life Life SOUL Everyone Being Persons Creature 

N.R.S.V Being Life Person SOUL Everyone Being Persons Thing 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/soul.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:17:35 AM]


To.E.V Live Life Person SOUL Anyone Being People Creature 

N.I.V. Being Life SOUL SOUL Anyone Being People Thing 

N.King James 

V. 

Being Life SOUL SOUL SOUL Being SOUL Creature 

C.E.V. Life Life Those SOUL No one Person People Thing 

N.A.S.B. Being Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL Persons Thing 

Modern 

Language B. 

SOUL Life Person SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL Creature 

Young Creature Life Person SOUL SOUL Creature SOUL SOUL 

Deaf Thing Life Person SOUL Person Thing People Thing 

Darby SOUL Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL 

Jerusalem B Being Life Man SOUL Man SOUL People Creature 

Rotherham SOUL Life Person SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL 

A.T. Being Lives Person SOUL Anyone Creature People Thing 

Lamsa Being Life SOUL SOUL Person SOUL SOUL SOUL 

Webster B SOUL Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL 

Amplified B Being Life SOUL SOUL SOUL Being People Thing 

Phillips N/A N/A N/A SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL Thing 

Douay SOUL Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL 

Beck Being Anyone The One SOUL Anyone Being Persons Thing 

Concordant N/A N/A N/A SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL 

Emph Diag N/A N/A N/A Life SOUL SOUL Persons SOUL 

B. Basic E. SOUL Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL Persons Thing 

Moffatt Being Life SOUL SOUL SOUL Being SOUL Thing 

Weymouth N/A N/A N/A SOUL Everyone Animal Persons Creature 

Williams N/A N/A N/A SOUL Person Creature People Thing 

Byington Person Life SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL Life 

R.E.B. Creature N/A Person SOUL Anyone Creature People Thing 

Schonfield N/A N/A N/A SOUL N/A SOUL Persons Everything 

Wuest N/A N/A N/A SOUL SOUL SOUL SOUL Creature 

As we can see from the above, a SOUL is simply......YOU!! It is not a separate being outside of you. 

Even animals are souls-Revelation 16:3 

While doing a hand-count in the 80's, of the 858* instances of the Hebrew word for SOUL [NEPHESH] 

and the Greek equivalent [PSYKHE] that I looked at, only the New world Translation translated it SOUL 

every time. The New American Standard Bible (considered to be the most literal Bible) only did so 297 

times. Other version are as follows: 

Darby Bible: 575 times 

Douay Bible: 551 times 

King James Bible: 534 times 



Young's Literal Version: 533 times 

English Revised Version: 504 times 

American Standard Version: 503 times 

Rotherham Bible: 493 times 

Revised Standard Version: 242 times 

New International Version: 138 times 

*I realize that handcounting might not be the most accurate way to do this, especially now with software 

making this much easier, but this does give an overall view of the (in)accuracies of the translating of this 

word. 

SOUL; SELF; LIFE 

nepesh-"The noun refers to the essence of life, the act of breathing, taking a breath." W.E. Vine 

psyche-"denotes the breath, the breath of life." W.E. Vine 

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (edited by C. Brown, 1978, Vol. 3, p. 

304) states: "Matt. 10:28 teaches not the potential immortality of the soul but the irreversibility of divine 

judgment on the unrepentant." 

"However much God may give his spirit to frail man, and however exalted the resurrected Jesus has 

become, man, from the biblical point of view, is dust animated by spirit, and not body and separable 

soul,which is a Greek idea. 'Human Being' by definition denoted mortality, subject to frailty and death. 'It 

is appointed unto man once to die...' (Heb 9:27)." The Doctrine of the Trinity-Christianity's Self-Inflicted 

Wound by Anthony Buzzard/Charles F. Hunting 

D.R.G. Owen, "Body and Soul in the New Testament," In Readings and Christian Theology, ed. M.J. 

Erickson (Baker Book House, 1967), 86: "In Hebrew thought, as we have seen, the word translated 'Soul' 

regularly stands simply for the personal pronoun and means the self, and the phrase 'body and 

soul'...stands for the Hebrew idea that man is an 'animated body' and not for the Greek view that he is an 

'incarnated soul.' " 

"Many people today, even believing people. are far from understanding the basis of their faith...Quite 

unwittingly they depend upon the philosophy of the Greeks rather than upon the word of God for an 

understanding of the world they live in. An instance of this is the prevailing belief amongst Christians in 

the immortality of the soul. Many beleivers despair of this world; they despair of any meaning in a world 

where suffering and frustration seem to rule. And so they look for a release for their souls from the 

weight of the flesh, and they hope for an entry into the 'world of the spirit,' as they call it, a place where 

their souls will find a blessedness they cannot discover in the flesh. The Old Testament, which was of 

course the Scriptures of the early Church, has no word at all for the modern (or ancient Greek) idea of 

"soul". We have no right to read this modern word into St. Paul's word "psyche", for by it he was not 

expounding what Plato had meant by the word; he was expressing what Isaiah and what Jesus meant by 

it...There is one thing sure we can say at this point and that is that the popular doctrine of the soul's 

immortality cannot be traced back to the biblical teaching." -G.A.T. Knight, Law and Grace 

(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 78, 79. 

"Both man and animals are souls, they are not bipartite creatures consisting of a soul and a body which 

can be separate and go on subsisting. Their soul is the whole of them and comprises their their body as 

well as their mental powers. They are spoken of as having soul, that is, conscious being" (Life and 

Immortality, B. F. C. Atkinson, M.A., PhD., p.2). 



"Although Heb. nepes has a wide range of usage, it most frequently designates the life force of living 

creatures. 

Thus, all the earth is full of "living creatures" that have the "breath of life" (Gen. 1:20-21,24,30). When 

God creates Adam, God breathes the breath of life into Adam's nostrils, and Adam becomes a "living 

being" (Gen. 2:7). Far from referring simply to one aspect of a person, "soul" refers to the whole person. 

Thus, a corpse is referred to as a "dead soul," even though the word is usually translated "dead body" 

(Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6). "Soul" can also refer to a person's very life itself (1 kings 19:4; Ezek. 32:10). 

"Soul" often refers by extension to the whole person. Thus, Leah bears Jacob 16 souls (Gen. 46:18), and 

when Jacob moves into Egypt, there were "70 persons ('souls') in his house". In the Shema (Deut. 6:4-9) 

Israelites are commanded to love their God with all their heart, soul, and strength. Although "soul" 

appears in the translation to be a separate faculty of the body, the verse is an exhortation to love God 

with ones entire self. 

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 

the seat of the desire of evil in the wicked (Prov. 21:10) 

In the NT “soul” (Gk.psyche) refers to the living being of the whole person (Acts 2:41; 3:23) and to a 

person’s life. After Herod’s death, the angel commands Joseph to take his wife and child (Jesus) back to 

Israel, for “ those who were seeking the child’s life (soul) are dead” (Matt. 2:20). Before he heals the 

man with the withered hand, Jesus asks the synagogue authorities whether it is lawful on the Sabbath to 

“save life (soul) or to kill” (Mark 3:4). In the parable of the rich young fool (Luke 12: 13-20), the young 

man says to his soul that he has ample goods laid up for many years; Jesus then tells him, “ This very 

night your soul (‘life force’) is being demanded of you.” 

Although the NT contains little evidence of the body-soul dualism that is apparent in Hellenistic 

philosophy, some passages indicate that the soul lives on after death (Luke 9:25; 12:4; 21:19)." 

Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible 

[Let us see if this is really so. Luke 9:25, “ What benefit is it to anyone to win the whole world and 

forfeit or lose his very self.” 

Luke 12:4, “ To my friends I say: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no 

more.” 

Luke 21:19, “ Your perseverance will win you your lives.” New Jerusalem Bible 

As you can see, the scriptures mentioned do not point to an immortal soul or life after death. As 

Ecclesiastes says, “for the living are at least aware that they are going to die, but the dead know nothing 

whatever. No more wages for them, since their memory is forgotten…Whatever work you find to do, do 

it with all your might, for theirs in neither achievement, nor planning, nor science, nor wisdom in Sheol 

where you are going.” New Jerusalem Bible] 

Can souls die? Yes, according to the following scriptures: 

(Job 36:14 [KJV margin]; Psalm 56:13; 78:50; 

116:8; Ezekiel 

18:4, 20; James 5:20; Psalm 22:29; 30:3; 33:18, 19; Isaiah 

55:3; Ezekiel 

13:19; 18:27; Psalm 49:8; Psalm 35:17; 40:14; Proverbs 6:32; 

Ezekiel 22:27; 

Acts 3:23; James 4:12; Ezekiel 22:25; Matthew 16:25, 26 [the 

Greek word for 

soul is here translated life in many translations]; Leviticus 

22:3; Numbers 



15:30) The body is not the soul, but it is a component of the 

soul. The soul 

is made up the body and the spirit (or breath) of life from 

God. (Genesis 

2:7) When one dies the soul dies [ceases to be a living 

sentiency] and the 

original life process is reversed. (Ecclesiastes 12:7) With 

the life-giving 

source departed from the body, the soul [sentiency] ceases to 

exist. 

Email Me 

Created September 5 1999 

Updated Dec 19 2000 



The Seven Deadly Sins and Other Lists that aren't in the Bible 

The Se7en Deadly Sins ....and other lists people think are in the Bible 

The Seven Deadly Sinsby Pope St. Gregory the Great(590-604) 

● Pride 

● Envy 

● Wrath 

● Sloth 

● Avarice 

● Gluttony 

● Lust 

The Seven Virtues an answer to the 7 deadly sins 

● Faith 

● Hope 

● Charity(Love) 

● Justice 

● Prudence 

● Fortitude 

● Temperance 

The Seven Sacraments Roman Catholic Tradition 

● Baptism 

● Penance 

● Holy Eucharist 

● Confirmation 

● Holy Orders 

● Matrimony 

● Extreme Unction 

The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World 

● The Great Pyramid of Cheops at Giza 

● The Hanging Gardens of Babylon 

● The Statue of Zeus at Olympia 

● The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus 

● The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus 

● The Colossus of Rhodes 

● The Pharos (Lighthouse) of Egypt 

The Seven Hills of Rome 

● Palatine 

● Capitoline 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/seven.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:17:47 AM]


● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Quirinal 

Viminal 

Esquiline 

Caelian 

Aventine 

The 9 Circles of Hell from Dante's Inferno 

● Limbo-The Virtuous Heathens 

● The Lustful 

● The Gluttons 

● The Avaricious and the Prodigal 

● The Wrathful and the Sullen 

● The Heretics 

● The Violent 

● The Fraudulent 

● The Treacherous 

The Nine Gods of Egypt 

● Atum 

● Shu 

● Tefnut 

● Geb 

● Nut 

● Osiris 

● Isis 

● Seth 

● Nephthys 

Other Interesting Lists 

The 7 Heavens of the Muslims...what they are made of, and who presides over them. 

● Pure Silver-Adam & Eve 

● Pure Gold-John the Baptist and Jesus 

● Pearl-Joseph 

● White Gold-Enoch 

● Silver-Aaron 

● Ruby and Garnet-Moses 

● Divine Light-Abraham 

The Five Pillars of Islam 

● Witnessing that God is one-and Mohammed is his prophet. 



● 

● 

● 

● 

Praying 5 times daily 

Giving a portion of ones wealth to charity yearly 

Fasting during daylight hours in the holy month of Ramadan 

Making the pilgrimage to Mecca at least once 

The 9 Worthies the greatest warriors 

● Hector of Troy 

● Alexander the Great 

● Julius Caesar 

● Joshua 

● King David 

● Judas Maccabaeus 

● King Arthur 

● Charlemagne 

● Godfrey of Bouillon 

The Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism 

● Right Views 

● Right Intentions 

● Right Speech 

● Right Conduct 

● Right Livelihood 

● Right Effort 

● Right Mindfulness 

● Right Concentration 

Martin Luther's 95 Theses 

● 

1.Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in saying, "Repent ye, etc.," intended that the whole life 

of his believers on earth should be a constant penance. 

2.And the word "penance" neither can, nor may, be understood as referring to the Sacrament 

of Penance, that is, to confession and atonement as exercised under the priest's ministry. 

3.Nevertheless He does not think of inward penance only: rather is inward penance worthless 

unless it produces various outward mortifications of the flesh. 

4.Therefore mortification continues as long as hatred of oneself continues, that is to say, true 

inward penance lasts until entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. 

5.The Pope will not, and cannot, remit other punishments than those which he has imposed by 

his own decree or according to the canons. 

6.The Pope can forgive sins only in the sense, that he declares and confirms what may be 

forgiven of God; or that he doth it in those cases which he hath reserved to himself: be this 

contempt, the sin remains unremitted. 

7.God forgives none his sin without at the same time casting him penitent and humbled before the 

priest His vicar. 

8.The canons concerning penance are imposed only on the living; they ought not by any means, 



following the same canons, to be imposed on the dying. 

9.Therefore, the Holy Spririt, acting in the Pope, does well for us, when the latter in his 

decrees entirely removes the article of death and extreme necessity. 

10.Those priests act unreasonalby and ill who reserve for Purgatory the penance imposed on the 

dying. 

11.This abuse of changing canonical penalty into the penalty of Purgatory seems to have arisen 

when the bishops were asleep. 

12.In times of yore, canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of 

true repentance and affliction. 

13.The dying pay all penalties by their death, and are already dead to the canons, and rightly 

have exemption from them. 

14.Imperfect spiritual health or love in the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and 

the less this love is, the greater the fear it brings. 

15.This fear and horror - to say nothing of other things - are sufficient in themselves to produce the 

punishment of Purgatory, because they approximate to the horror of despair. 

16.Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven seem to differ as perfect despair, imperfect despair, and 

security of salvation differ. 

17.It seems that while in Purgatory love in the souls increases, as fear diminishes in them. 

18.It does not seem to be proved either by arguments or by the Holy Writ that they are outside the 

state of merit and demerit, or increase of love. 

19.This, too, seems not to be proved, that they are all sure and confident of their salvation, 

though we may be quite sure of it. 

20.Therefore the Pope, in speaking of the perfect remission of all punishments, does not mean that 

all penalties in general be forgiven, but only those imposed by himself. 

21.Therefore, those preachers of indulgences err who say that, by the Pope's indulgence, a man 

may be exempt from all punishments, and be saved. 

22.Yea, the Pope remits the souls in Purgatory no penalty which they, according to the canons, 

would have had to pay in this life. 

23.If to anybody complete remission of all penalties may be granted, it is certain that it is 

granted only to those most approaching perfection, that is to very few. 

24.Therefore the multitude is misled by the boastful promise of the paid penalty, whereby no 

manner of distinction is made. 

25.The same power that the Pope has over Pugatory, such has also every bishop in his diocese, and 

every curate in his parish. 

26.The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls, not by the power of the keys - 

which in Purgatory he does not possess - but by way of intercession. 

27.They preach vanity who say that the soul flies out of Pugatory as soon as the money thrown 

into the chest rattles. 

28.What is sure, is, that as soon as the penny rattles in the chest, gain and avarice are on the 

way of increase; but the intercession of the church depends only on the will of God Himself. 

29.And who knows whether all those souls in Purgatory wish to be redeemed, as it is said to have 

happened with St. Severinus and St. Paschallis. 

30.Nobody is sure of having repented sincerely enough; much less can he be sure of having 

recieved perfect remission of sins. 

31.Seldom even as he who has sincere repentance, is he who really gains indulgence; that is to say, 

most seldom to be found. 



32.On the way to eternal damnation are they and their teachers, who believe that they are sure of 

their salvation through indulgences. 

33.Beware well of those who say, the Pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which 

man is reconciled to God. 

34.For the forgiveness contained in these pardons has reference only to the penalties of 

sacramental atonement which were appointed by men. 

35.He preaches like a heathen who teaches that those who will deliver souls out of Purgatory or 

buy indulgences do not need repentance and contrition. 

36.Every Christian who feels sincere repentance and woe on account of his sins, has perfect 

remission of pain and guilt even without letters of indulgence. 

37.Every true Christian, be he still alive or already dead, partaketh in all benefits of Christ and of 

the Church given him by God, even without letters of indulgence. 

38.Yet is the Pope's absolution and dispensation by no means to be contemned, since it is, as I 

have said, a declaration of the Divine Absolution. 

39.It is exceedingly difficult, even for the most subtile theologians to praise at the same time 

before the people the great wealth of indulgence and the truth of utter contrition. 

40.True repentance and contrition seek and love punishment; while rich indulgence absolves from 

it, and causes men to hate it, or at least gives them occasion to do so. 

41.The Pope's indulgence ought to be proclaimed with all precaution, lest the people should 

mistakenly believe it of more value than all other works of charity. 

42.Christians should be taught that it is not the Pope's opinion that the buying of indulgence is in 

any way comparable to works of charity. 

43.Christians should be taught that he who gives to the poor, or lends to a needy man, does 

better than buying indulgence. 

44.For, by the exercise of charity, chaity increases and man grows better, while by means of 

indulgence, he does not become better, but only freer from punishment. 

45.Christians should be taught that he who sees his neighbour in distress, and nevertheless buys 

indulgence, is not partaking in the Pope's pardons, but in the anger of God. 

46.Christians should be taught that unless they are rich enough, it is their duty to keep what is 

necessary for the use of their households, and by no means to throw it away on indulgences. 

47.Christians should be taught that the buying of indulgences is optional and not commanded. 

48.Christians should be taught that the Pope in selling pardons, has more want and more desire of 

a devout prayer for himself than of the money. 

49.Christians should be taught that the Pope's pardons are useful as far as one does not put 

confidence in them, but on the contrary most dangerous if through them one loses the fear of 

God. 

50.Christians should be taught that if the Pope knew the ways and doings of the preachers of 

indulgences, he would prefer that St. Peter's Minster should be burnt to ashes, rather than 

that it should be built up of the skin, flesh, and bones of his lambs. 

51.Christians should be taught that the Pope, as it is his bounden duty to do, is indeed also 

willing to give of his own money - and should St. Peter's be sold thereto - to those from 

whom the preachers of indulgences do most extort money. 

52.It is a vain and false thing to hope to be saved through indulgences, though the commissary 

-nay, the Pope himself - was to pledge his own soul therefore. 

53.Those who, on account of a sermon concerning indulgences in one church, condemn the 

word of God to silence in the others, are enemies of CHrist and the Pope. 



54.Wrong is done to the word of God if one in the same sermon spends as much or more time on 

indulgences as on the word of the Gospel. 

55.The opinion of the Pope cannot be otherwise than this: If an indulgence - which is the 

lowest thing - be celebrated with one bell, one procession and ceremonies, then the Gospelwhich 

is the highest thing - must be celebrated with a hundred bells, a hundred 

processions, and a hundred ceremonies. 

56.The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants his dispensation, are neither 

sufficiently named nor known among the community of Christ. 

57.It is manifest that they are not temporal treasures, for the latter are not lightly spent, but 

rather gathered by many of the preachers. 

58.Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for these, without the Pope's aid, work 

always grace to the inner man, cross, death, and hell to the outer man. 

59.St. Lawrence called the poor of the community the treasures of the community and of the 

Church, but he understood the word according to the use in his time. 

60.We affirm without pertness that the keys of the Church, bestowed through the merit of 

Christ, are this treasure. 

61.For it is clear that the Pope's power is sufficient for the remission of penalties and 

forgiveness in the reserved cases. 

62.The right and true treasure of the Church is the most Holy Gospel of the glory and grace of 

God. 

63.This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful, for it makes the first to be the last. 

64.While the treasure of indulgence is deservedly most agreeable, for it makes the last to be the 

first. 

65.Therefore, the treasures of the Gospel are nets, which, in times of yore, one fished for the men 

of Mammon. 

66.But the treasures of indulgence are nets, with which now-a-days one fishes for the Mammon of 

men. 

67.Those indulgences, which the preachers proclaim to be great mercies, are indeed great 

mercies, forasmuch as they promote gain. 

68.And yet they are of the smallest compared to the grace of God and to the devotion of the 

Cross. 

69.Bishops and curates ought to mark with eyes and ears, that the commissaries of apostolical 

(that is, Popish) pardons are recieved with all reverence. 

70.But they ought still more to mark with eyes and ears, that these commissaries do not preach 

their own fancies instead of what the Pope has commanded. 

71.He who speaks against the truth of apostolical pardons, be anathema and accursed. 

72.But blessed be he who is on his guard against the preacher's of pardons naughty and 

impudent words. 

73.As the Pope justly disgraces and excommunicates those who use any kind of contrivance to do 

damage ot the traffic in indulgences, 

74.Much more it is his intention to disgrace and excommunicate those who, under the pretext of 

indulgence, use contrivance to do damage to holy love and truth. 

75.To think that the Popish pardons have power to absolve a man even if - to utter an 

impossibility - he had violated the Mother of God, is madness. 

76.We assert on the contrary that the Popish pardons cannot take away the least of daily sins, as 

regards the guilt of it. 



77.To say that the St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could show no greater mercies, is blasphemy 

against St. Peter and the Pope. 

78.We assert on the contrary that both this and every other Pope has greater mercies to show: 

namely, the Gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc. (I Cor. XII). 

79.He who says that the cross with the Pope's arm, solemnly set on high, has as much power as 

the Cross of Christ, blasphemes God. 

80.Those bishops, curates, and theologians, who allow such speeches to be uttered among the 

people, will have one day to answer for it. 

81.Such impudent sermons concerning indulgences make it difficult even for learned men to 

protect the Pope's honour and dignity against the calumnies, or at all events against the 

searching questions of the laymen. 

82.As for instance: Why does not the Pope deliver all souls at the same time out of Purgatory for 

the sake of most holy love and on account of the bitterest distress of those souls - this 

being the most imperative of all motives - while he saves an infinite number of souls for the 

sake of that most miserable thing money, to be spent on St. Peter's Minster - this being the very 

slightest of motives? 

83.Or again: Why do masses for the dead continue, and why does not the Pope return or permit 

the funds which were established for the sake of the dead to be withdrawn, since it is now wrong 

to pray for those who are already saved? 

84.Again: What is this new holiness of God and the Pope that, for money's sake, they permit the 

wicked and the enemy of God to save a pious soul, faithful to God, and yet will not save 

that pious and beloved soul without payment, out of love and on account of its great 

distress? 

85.Again: Why is it that the canons of penance, long abrogated and dead in themselves, 

because they are not used, are yet still paid for with money through the granting of pardons, as if 

they are still in force and alive? 

86.Again: Why does not the Pope build St. Peter's Minster with his own money - since his 

riches are now more ample than those of Crassus - rather than with the money of poor 

Christians? 

87.Again: Why does the Pope remit or give to those who, through perfect penitence, have 

already a right to plenary remission and pardon? 

88.Again: What greater good could the Church recieve, than if the Pope presented this 

remission and pardon a hundred times a day to every believer, instead of but once, as he 

does now? 

89.If the Pope seeks by his pardons the salvation of souls, rather than money, why does he 

annul letters of indulgence granted long ago, and declare them out of force, though they are still 

in force? 

90.To repress these very telling questions of the laymen only by force, and not to solve them by 

telling the truth, is to expose the Church and the Pope to the enemy's ridicule and to make 

Christian people unhappy. 

91.Therefore, if pardons were preached according to the Pope's intention and opinion, all these 

objections would be easily answered, nay, they never would have occured. 

92.Away then with all those prophets who say to the community of Christ, "Peace, Peace" and 

there is no peace. 

93.But blessed be all those prophets who say to the community of Christ, "The cross, the 

cross," and there is no cross. 



94.Christians should be exhorted to endeavour to follow Christ their Head through Cross, 

Death, and Hell, 

95.And thus hope with confidence to enter Heaven through many miseries, rather than in false 

security. 

Email me 



9 out of 10 "Christians" don't know how to answer Jehovah's Witnesses. 

Reasoning From the Scriptures....with Ron Rhodes 

This is in response to the book, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses written by 

Ron Rhodes. 

Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard 

Version(1901) 

Do you remember the movie, "Perfect World" with Kevin Costner and 

Clint Eastwood? In the movie Kevin's character kidnaps a boy who is 

one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The boy finally comes alive with this 

criminal. As we learn, the boy isn't allowed to have fun because of his 

faith. He isn't allowed to go on rides. When the boy finally does indulge 

himself, he says he is going to Hell. What is wrong with this picture? 

Well, it is all lies. Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to have fun, they are 

allowed to go on rides...and a JW would never say anyone is going to 

Hell as they don't believe in the fiery inferno. But what this movie proves 

is the amount of disinformation that is out there concerning Jehovah's 

Witnesses. When people use our name in movies, or in books like this 

one by Ron Rhodes, they rely on ex-JW's for information on how we 

supposedly think. The problem with this is that the one who has left has 

always done so for selfish reasons. 

Many ex-Jw's write books, they go on tours...THEY MAKE A NAME 

FOR THEMSELVES. When they were witnesses, they are part of a 

team, but now they are famous. Even Jesus didn't "seek his own glory(John 8:50)." 

But why are their descriptions of JW's so false? Like the Pharisees of Jesus day, they have perverted the 

truth of God. Jesus told them that their father was the Devil, as he is the father of the lie.(John 8:44) 

Attacking Jehovah's Witnesses has become a growth industry. The above mentioned book is priced 

locally at $19.25 with tax for a paperback book(Remember...I don't live in the U.S., so prices may vary). 

That's more than Stephen King charges. 

This man is making loads of money attacking a group of people that would never release a book 

attacking a certain religious group for profit. Jehovah's Witnesses respect the right of other peoples to 

worship as they see fit. 

Too Incredible to Believe!!! 

"Is it true, as the Watchtower society claims, that superstitious Jewish Scribes removed the sacred name 

Jehovah from the Bible? This is preposterous! There is not a shred of evidence to support this claim. 

(You might even ask the Jehovah's Witnesses to produce hard evidence for this assertion.)......Let us be 

clear on this: The Watchtower's position that the divine name was stripped from the Bible by 

superstitious scribes is a fabrication-an out and out lie!" Page 58,59. 

Actually...we claim the Christians removed the Name, the Jews just stopped pronouncing it. Want 

proof?...here it is: 

"the American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous conviction that a 

Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to 

dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, .....This personal name, with its 

wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an 

unquestionable claim." -Preface to the American Standard Version (ASV)bible 1901 A.D. (American 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/rhodes.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:15 AM]


Revision Committee) 

Want More? 

"the one who pronounces the Name with its proper letters, has not part in the world to come" Abba 

Saul(Mishna, Sanhedrin 10:1) 

"The use of any proper name proper name for the one and only God...began to be discontinued in 

Judaism before the christian era." New Oxford Annotated Bible, (New)Revised Standard Version 

As for the oldest Septuagint(LXX) fragments...and those darn name-hating "christians": 

"The papyrus containing fragments of Leviticus ii-v is written in a hand closely akin to that of Papyrus 

Fouad 266, characterized as already mentioned by the fact that the name of God is rendered by the 

Tetragrammaton in Hebrew square letters not by Ky'ri·os as later in Christian MSS of the Bible."-The 

Cairo Geniza, 1959 ed., pp. 222, 224. 

Professor George Howard: "When the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of 

Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the 

Septuagint. . . . Before long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church except insofar as it was 

reflected in the contracted surrogates or remembered by scholars." 

But, to be precise, you will be hard pressed to find a modern Jewish Torah/Holy Scriptures/ Bible that 

translates the Divine Name, preferring rather to substitute with the generic LORD. 

But then, this is the same man that wrote in his The Complete Book of Bible Answers, "the word Jehovah 

does not appear as such in the Bible. In fact, the word Jehovah does not appear in any legitimate Hebrew 

or Greek manuscripts of the Bible." p.59 Since Ron is here arguing pronunciation (but does not clarify 

this), then neither does the word Jesus appear in any legitimate Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the 

Bible. What Ron has done is lie 6828 times. And THIS is the Bible Answer Man!!?? 

c.f. http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/jehovah.htm 

Reasoning From the Scriptures??? 

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 

literature from the WTS is used over 430 times(some going back over 120 years), and then there are a 

bunch of other material used from Ex-JW's and apologetics like Rob Bowman. Scripture is actually 

quoted less than 300 times, and most of that only partially. Others are just stated.The rest of the book is 

filled with Ron's own verbal ejaculations. Reasoning from the scriptures indeed! 

Ok...Let's get it out of the Way....Does 1975 make JW's false prophets? 

"Despite its many predictions, the Watchtower Society refuses to concede it is a false prophet." 

(Rhodes p.341) Maybe Ron and his fellow "christians" should remove the log that is in their own 

eye.(Luke 6:41)For more info Click Here. 

The New World Tranlsation 

"The New World Translation is an incredibly biased translation" Ron Rhodes 

"It is no more 'full of heresies' than any other translation" Bible Translations and how to choose between 

them by Alan S. Duthie 

Well, let's take a look at the NWT and compare it to Mr.Rhodes faves, the New International Version and 

the New American Standard Bible. Click here for more. 

Before you condemn the "Watchtower Bible", please note that the WTB&TS also prints the KJV, ASV, 

Emphatic Diaglott, The Bible in Living English and the Kingdom Interlinear. Others like the Jerusalem 

Bible, New American Bible, Rotherham, and the New English Bible have also been available. 

Misquoted!? 

Rhodes makes much of the WTS use of McKenzie's quote of John 1:1, in which he states, "Jn 1:1 should 

rigorously be translated 'the word was a divine being." But Rhodes says that McKenzie uses "divine 



being" of Yahweh also. This is true, but are they not both divine beings anyways? The point that 

McKenzie made is that ho theos [the God] "is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself," therefore we must 

differentiate between the 2 Gods mentioned at John 1:1. 

What does *divine* mean anyways? Mirriam-Webster states it as: 

"1divine \de-vn\ adj diviner; -est 1 : of, relating to, or being God or a god 2 : supremely good : superb; 

also : heavenly divinely adv" 

Certainly, Yahweh, Jesus, and even the angels, fall into the category of divine beings. 

Just take a look at the ways angels are represented in the Bible at Genesis 6:2: 




"beings from the spirit world" Living Bible 



The whole argument stems from Rhodes refusal to accept Jesus as "a god" at John 1:1, yet no one 

complains as the highly respected American Standard Version calls Jehovah "a god" at Deut 4:7, "For 

what great nation is there, that hath a god so nigh unto them, as Jehovah our God is whensoever we call 

upon him?" 

Many, like Julius Mantey prefer "the Word was Deity." But again, what does DEITY mean? 

Again, let us turn to Mirriam-Webster: "deity \de-e-te, da-\ n, pl -ties 1 : divinity 2 2 cap : god 1 3 : a 

god or goddess" 

For more on John 1:1c click here, for more on Deity/Divinity, click here. 

Scriptures Misrepresented!! 

Consider: Rhodes says the following regarding the NWT's rendering of the verse at Acts 20:28, "The 

New World Translation rendering of this verse GOES AGAINST ALL LEGITIMATE 

TRANSLATIONS OF SCRIPTURE" (p. 86) 

Does that mean that J.B. Rotherham, William Barclay, John Nelson Darby, The Revised Standard 

Version, The Concordant Literal New Testament, The Translator's New Testament, The Holy Bible in 

Modern English, by Ferrar Fenton, The New Revised Standard Version, the New Jerusalem Bible, 

Today's English Version, The Contemporary English Version, Alfred Marshall (see the footnote in his 

Interlinear), etc., are NOT LEGITIMATE!!! 

About Zechariah 12:10, Rhodes says "In order to avoid Jesus appearing to be Jehovah or Almighty God, 

the Watchtower Society deliberately ALTERED the text". But this is a lie, or does Rhodes also consider 

the Moffatt Bible, Smith & Goodspeed, The Bible in Living English, The Revised Standard Version, The 

New Revised Standard Version, The New American Bible, The Jerusalem Bible, The Contemporary 

English Version, and many others. With the above statement he also condemned Gesenius' Hebrew 

Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press), F.F. Bruce (see his History of 

the Bible in English, p. 199, 200), the editor of the New Interpreters Bible (see vol. 7, p. 828) and none 

other than the Apostle John! Yes, the Apostle John, quoting Zech. 12:10 says "They will look on the 

*one* they have pierced" (see ch. 19, verse 37 in the NIV). 

As for John 8:58 (I have been), Rhodes says, "That is one of the clearest examples of the JW's 

mistranslating the Bible in order to support a doctrinal bias." p.113 

What Rhodes does not tell you is that even his own precious NASB had at one time offered "I have been" 

as variant reading. In fact, many trinitarians have abandoned the traditional rendering and offered one 



more in line with the NWT (see New Living Translation, Living Bible, Lamsa, International English 

Bible, Simple English Bible, Beck, Williams, International Bible Translators, Schonfield, etc etc.) for 

more click here 

Rhodes never gives these alternatives. In fact, the above is just the tip of the iceberg. Rhodes time and 

again misleads and lies to his readers ad nuaseum. 

Does Job 1:4 advocate Birthdays? 

Rhodes seems to favor the view (p. 393) held forth in such paraphrased Bibles like the Living Bible and 

the NLT. But is this accurate? 

"The feast at each brother's house seems to have lasted only a single day, and there was a regular cycle of 

feasts, lasting seven successive days. When one cycle of feasts was ended Job offered sacrifices, and a 

new series began. Some think this cannot be the meaning, but that feasts were held more rarely, each 

feast lasting several days, and ending with sacrifice. *His day* would in that case probably mean 

birthdays (cf. Hos. vii. 5). But the language of verses 4, 5 does not favour the view that the feasts occured 

at regular intervals. We are not reading prosaic history. The life depicted is like that of princes in fairy 

tales, a never-ending round of mirth, disclosing at once the great prosperity of Job and the happiness of 

his family. 'His day' means the day that falls to each in the order of seniority, the eldest son entertaining 

on the first day and the youngest on the seventh." 

The Century Bible/Job by Rev. Prof. A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D., p. 56 

"This reference to the main meal of each day of the week, which moved from house to house, implies the 

love and harmony of the family members." NKJV MacArthur Study Bible 

What are the chances of having everyone's birthday in the same week? This is why the Message 

translates it as "took turns throwing parties." 

Mr. Rhodes on p. 162 says: "Ask the JW's: Did you know that the same word used for "Lord" (adonai) in 

Ps. 110:1 of Jesus Christ is also used of the Father numerous times in Scripture…?" The argument is a 

lie, because the word in Psalm 110 is not adonai, but adoni, which is never a reference to Deity and 

always (195 times) a reference to someone who is not God. To prove my point, I have created a chart 

(click here) using the occurences of adoni...and it never refers to the Father. 

At this point, the only logical conclusion is that Rhodes is a constant embarrasment to himself, and his 

community. Does he even know what he is talking about? What a disgrace! 

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Use Disfellowshipping(excommunication) as a Method of Control? 

Something similar came up at work. My co-workers asked me me how it is I can remove someone from 

my church. Who am I to judge? Doesn’t the Bible say, “Judge Not?” 

So I showed them the above scripture in my NASB Study Bible (Zondervan), which provided this 

footnote, “Jesus did not relieve His followers of the need for discerning right or wrong (cf. vv.43-45), but 

He condemned unjust and hypocritical judging of others.” 

From there I turned to 1 Cor 5:11-13, which says, "You are not to associate with anyone who is supposed 

to be a Christian brother, and yet is immoral or greedy or idolatrous or abusive or grasping- with such a 

person you must not even eat. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not your part to judge 

those inside the church, and God’s, to judge those who are outside? Drive the wrongdoer out from among 

you.” American Translation 

The above study Bible provides this footnote, “Calling oneself a Christian who continues to live an 

immoral life is reprehensible and degrading, and gives a false testimony to Christ. If the true Christian 

has intimate association with someone who does this, the non-Christian world may assume that the 

church approves such immoral, ungodly living and thus the name of Christ would be dishonored. 



Questions would arise concerning of the Christian’s own testimony, …judge those who are within, The 

church is to exercise spiritual discipline over the professing believers in the church.” 

“REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.” 1 Cor 5:13 NASB (emphasis 

theirs) 

What the Ron's doesn't mention is that this practice was used by the first century christians(1Tim.1:20; 

1Cor.5:5,6,13;) And it was used before that also. Jehovah(Yahweh God) took expelling, or 

disfellowshipping, action in numerous instances. He sentenced Adam to death and drove him and his 

wife Eve out of the garden of Eden. (Ge 3:19, 23, 24) Cain was banished and became a wanderer and a 

fugitive in the earth. (Ge 4:11, 14, 16) The angels that sinned were thrown into Tartarus, a condition of 

dense darkness in which they are reserved for judgment. (2Pe 2:4) Twenty-three thousand fornicators 

were cut off from Israel in one day. (1Co 10:8) Achan was put to death at God's command for stealing 

that which was devoted to Jehovah God. (Jos 7:15, 20, 21, 25) Korah the Levite along with Dathan and 

Abiram of the tribe of Reuben were cut off for rebellion, and Miriam was stricken with leprosy and 

eventually might have died in that condition if Moses had not pleaded for her. As it was, she was 

expelled from the camp of Israel under quarantine seven days.—Nu 16:27, 32, 33, 35; 12:10, 13-15. Yes, 

there is more, but let's be brief. The book accuses the Witnesses of using this as a scare tactic. But really, 

nothing is quite as effective as the HELLFIRE doctrine when it comes to scare tactics. "Come to church 

or you will burn in hell. Bad people burn in hell." The Bible says nothing of the kind. But it is the 

ultimate scare tactic. 

"Even the most relaxed and liberal of today's established and organized religions...have trafficked-and 

often continue to traffic-psychological manipulation, in the machinery of sin and guilt, emotional 

blackmail, punishment and reward."(M.Baigent/R.Leigh) 

Are Only Jews named Jehovah's Witnesses! 

Isaiah 43:10 says, "Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may 

know and believe me, and understand that I am he. (ASV) But Ron Rhodes says that this scripture 

applies only to the nation of Israel. The last time I checked, Jewish Bibles have taken out the Divine 

Name almost completely. They will not use the name Jehovah. Let us read the beginning of Isaiah 2. It 

says,"The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem." So it was directed 

towards the Jews again, but further down in verses 4 and 5 it says,"And he will judge between the 

nations, and will decide concerning many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and 

their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war 

any more. O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of Jehovah." This scripture is oft 

quoted by churches and it is permanently posted in front of the United Nations Building. According to 

the reasoning of this book, we shouldn't be allowed to use this scripture because it applies only to the 

Jews(Israel). Nonsense!The WHOLE Bible is for everyone:"Every scripture inspired of God [is] also 

profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man 

of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work."(1 Timothy 3:16 ASV) 

We Don't Need Bible Study Aids for People to learn the Truth!! 

The book complains that we do not need books other than the bible to teach people. Then why did the 

author of this book, Ron Rhodes even write it. This is like an environmentalist complaining about people 

abusing the environment while driving an 8 mile an hour tank. If we don't need study aids like the 

Watchtower, then we certainly don't need an over-priced book by Ron Rhodes. 

Do We Need an Organization? 

The book also doesn't believe we need an organization. Well, God had an organization. (Daniel 7:9,10; 

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 



organized? 

Matt. 24:14; 28:19, 20: “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a 

testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come.” “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all 

the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching 

them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.” (How would this be accomplished without 

organization? When Jesus trained his early disciples for this work, He did not simply tell each one to go 

wherever he desired and to share his faith in whatever way he chose. He trained them, gave them 

instructions and sent them out in an organized manner. See Luke 8:1; 9:1-6; 10:1-16.) 

Heb. 10:24, 25: “let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; 25 not forsaking our 

own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting [one another]; and so much the more, 

as ye see the day drawing nigh.” (But to where would a person direct interested ones so they could obey 

this command if there were no organization with regular meetings where they could gather?) 

1 Cor. 14:33, 40: “for God is not [a God] of confusion, but of peace. . . . . But let all things be done 

decently and in order.” (The apostle Paul is here discussing orderly procedure at congregation meetings. 

Applying this inspired counsel requires respect for organization.) 

1 Pet. 2:9, 17: “But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for [God's] own 

possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his 

marvellous light. . . . Love the brotherhood..” (An association of people whose efforts are directed to 

accomplish a particular work is an organization.) 

Are those who are faithful servants of God simply individuals who are scattered in the various churches 

of Christendom? 

2 Cor. 6:15-18: “And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an 

unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God; 

even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my 

people. Wherefore Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no 

unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and 

daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” (Is a person really a faithful servant of God if he continues to share 

in worship with those who show by their way of life that they really are unbelievers?”) 

1 Cor. 1:10: “Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak 

the same thing and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfected together in the same 

mind and in the same judgment.” (Such unity does not exist among the varied churches of Christendom.) 

John 10:16: “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall 

hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.” (Since Jesus would bring such ones into 

“one flock,” is it not obvious that they could not be scattered in Christendom’s religions?) 

Didn't Jesus condemn the Pharisee's? Yes! He did so because of a difference of opinion, even though 

they shared the same faith and scriptures. 

This author promotes diversity of opinion, and, my opinion differs greatly from his. So really, he is upset 

that the witnesses have an opinion different than his. It's a catch-22. 

Page 43 and 44 includes Romans 14:2-5 and states that this verse promotes diversity. If you would read 

the surrounding chapters, the push was to include non-isrealite into the fold. That was where the Romans 

had to make changes. 

Is John 17:3 Translated Incorrectly in the New World Translation 

Ron also says that John 17:3 in the NWT is incorrectly translated. To get the full meaning of the word 

"know" I turned to the Amplified Bible and it has, "And this is eternal life: [it means] to know (to 

perceive, recognize, become acquainted with and understand) You, the only true and real God, and 

[likewise] to know Him, Jesus [as the] Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah, Whom You have sent." 



The Greek word translated "to know" carries a deeper meaning than our English word "know" generally 

implies, though often when we say we know a person we mean that we understand him and his qualities. 

In these Bible contexts the verb form of "to know" means "to come to know, to get acquainted with, to 

understand." In John 17:3 it indicates a continuing relationship between God and the person that brings 

ever-increasing knowledge of God and Christ; what is known about God is not merely partial 

information but is of value or importance to the one who grows in knowledge. It also implies a closeness 

of trust and confidence. (John 17:3, Kingdom Interlinear) In fact, the apostle John says: "He that does not 

love has not come to know God."-1 John 4:8. But the Bible also says, "With his mouth the godless man 

destroyeth his neighbor; But through knowledge shall the righteous be delivered."(ASV) Again, I 

re-iterate, the author thinks studying anything other than the Bible is wrong...and we could save $19.25 

from buying his book which is full of untruths so far. 

A Review from Amazon.com 

"Probably the worst book on JWs ever written. Instead of giving you my opinion, I would prefer to cite 

specific examples from different chapters of Rhodes' book, and then give you my opinion based on those 

examples. LIST OF 5 UNPROVEN AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS 1) On page 177 of Rhodes' 

book, he says, "The fact that Michael [the archangel] is ONE AMONG EQUALS [emphasis added] 

proves that he is not unique." Of course, the Bible nowhere says Michael is "one among equals." But he 

certainly is unique to Daniel, as he is "the prince of you people [=Israel]."--Daniel 10:21. 2) Rhodes, on 

page 123 of his book, cites the Greek-English lexicon by Bauer (commonly referred to as BAG), and 

says that this lexicon defines the Greek word ARCHE in Revelation 3:14 as "first cause." This is one of 

the definitions BAG gives, but the lexicon also states, "The the mng. [meaning] beginning=first created 

is linguistically poss. [possible]." Thus, Rhodes witholds this crucial qualification from his readers. 3) On 

page 63 of his book, Rhodes claims that Jesus used the expression EGO EIMI ("I am") "as a way of 

identifying Himself as God." But nowhere does he comment on the use of this expression by the man 

Jesus healed in John 9:9. Of course, EGO EIMI is often associated with Jesus' identity as the Messiah 

(compare John 4:25-26), not God. Rhodes' failure to deal with texts such as John 9:9 reveal that he is not 

interested in presenting a complete discussion of the facts, but only his dogmatic opinion. 4) This one is 

truly amazing. On page 113 of his book, Rhodes contrasts the New World Translation's rendering of John 

8:58 ("I have been") with the New American Standard Bible's reading ("I am"). He then concludes on 

page 116 of his book, "Scholars agree that the Watchtower Society has no justification for translating ego 

eimi in John 8:58 as Ì have been.'" However, Rhodes fails to recognize that the very same Bible he uses 

in comparision with the NWT, namely, the NASB, contains this alternate reading in the margin of its 

editions of 1960-73, "Or, I have been"! Also, it is NOT true that "Scholars agree that the Watchtower 

Society has no justification." In fact, one of the world's leading Greek grammarians, K. L. McKay, 

translates John 8:58, "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born."--A New Syntax of the 

Verb in New 

Testament Greek (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 42. 5) Finally, as if the above were not enough to warn 

you of the misleading content of this book, consider Rhodes' unfounded statement on page 173 of his 

book, the opening words of Chapter 7: "According to the Watchtower Society, Jesus Christ is a MERE 

ANGEL." (emphasis added to "mere angel") The truth is, Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus Christ is the 

Archangel, and thus the ruler of the angels. Also, the Witnesses believe Jesus is second only to Jehovah 

God Himself. Such a being could hardly be considered a "mere angel"! Still, Rhodes misleads his readers 

into thinking that the Witnesses' view of Jesus is one that gives him no glory at all, and relegates him to 

the position of a "mere angel." There are many other statements from Rhodes' book that would also 

support my negative review, but the above should be enough to encourage any reader of his book to 



exercise great care, and to never take what he says as the final court of arbitration when it comes to 

Jehovah's Witnesses. The reader should question Rhodes the same way you would question the 

Witnesses or anyone else. Never let the fact that someone put something in print convince you that it is 

true based on that fact 

alone." 

For more Conversations on the Trinity click here. 

See the SiteMap 

Thanks for stopping by. 

Back to Bible Page 

Email me 


The Prince of Egypt 

I just saw the movie "The Prince of Egypt." I must admit the 

crowd was a little sparse for opening night. The movie was 

not your typical cartoon. There is little humor, no funny 

animals...and no Mcdonalds tie-ins. I am saving the movie 

postcard that I received since I won`t be able to get a Moses 

figurine:) When God spoke from the burning bush, he 

didn`t sound as masculine as I would`ve liked. In this movie 

he sounds more like a kinder, gentler Almighty. The scene 

was still powerful, as was the parting of the Red Sea. They 

modeled this movie after Cecil B.Demille`s vision of what 

happened in his two earlier versions of "The 10 

Commandments"(1923,1956). 

As in the older version, there was no mention of the 

Divine Name Jehovah or Yahweh which played an integral 

part of the original story, which is unfortunate. 

Example:Exodus 3:13-15,"Then Moses said to God,'If I go 

to the Isrealites and tell them that the God of their 

forefathers has sent me to them, and they ask me for his 

name, what shall I say? .....You must tell the Isrealites this, 

that it is JEHOVAH the God of their forefathers, the God of 

Abraham, The God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, who has sent 

you to them. This is my name forever; this is my title in 

every generation." The New English Bible(Protestant and Catholic). 

The King James Version has,"And God spake unto Moses and said unto him, I am the LORD: And I 

appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty, but by my name 

JEHOVAH was I not known to them.(Exodus 6:2,3) 

According to the preface in the American Standard Version of the Holy Bible that the name Jehovah was 

removed from most translations because of a Jewish superstition. 

But in the age of Southpark and Beavis and Butthead, "The Prince of Egypt" is still a welcome surprise. 

And another thing, I have heard some complain that this movie teaches a value system. So! No one 

complained when Pleasantville told us to have unprotected sex to finally feel alive. Nobody ever 

complains about something amoral. 

Created January 6, 1998 

Back to Bible Site 

Heinz Schmitz 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/prince.htm [5/25/2003 4:18:25 AM]

Smoke and Mirrors-Tactics Used by Opposers to Sway Jehovah's Witnesses 

Smoke and Mirrors 

Click here to go directly to 50 Answers to 50 Questions Directed at Jehovah's Witnesses 

Click here to go directly to 65 Answers to 65 Questions Directed at Jehovah's Witnesses-Catholic Perspective 

Click here to go to 1975-and the prophecies of Christendom 

Why was the Watchtower Society Listed amongst the United Nations Non-Governmental Organizations 

(NGO)? 

JW's, Pedophiles...and Selective Discrimination and Hysteria 

See Sitemap for more 

Tactics used by Opposers 

These are actual tactics opposers try to use on the Witnesses in print and at seminars in order to sway them. 

Afterward, there will be answers to these probes. Many of theses will make their way into your email box. Just 

don't reply. That is why the delete button is so handy:) If you can think of any other, email me please. 

"Protocols of the Elders of J.W.'s?! 

In about 1895 a document was fabricated to incite hatred against the Jews. This document eventually fell into 

the hands of one Adolf Hitler, and the rest, as they say, is history. Since I tend to get alot of email from 

so-called "Christians," I have been finding a disturbing trend lately. Old Watchtower (and other WTS 

publications) quotations are floating around wherein the words quoted simply do not exist. These of course, 

are written in a way to make Jehovah's Witnesses look bad. It is sad, and ultimately frightening, that people 

are resorting to these kinds of tactics. 

I always ask these people for a hard-copy, to date, I have never received one. I usually get the same answer, "I 

lost mine," or, most often, "I got it from a web-site, but I lost the URL." 

Warning! Any document posted on a web-site AGAINST JW's that makes Witnesses look real bad, has an 

extremely high probability of being fabricated. People, this is not "Christian," this is evil. 

E-mail Mimics 

If you get e-mail from me telling you something horrible, it isn't me. It is an apostate or an opposer, the latest 

coming from the Watchtower Observer goon Kent Steinhaug at kent@observer.org or kent@mail.n1l.net. 

Please delete these e-mails and don't answer them. 

To read more about this unsavory character click here. 

Kent's reply to this: 

To: 

 

Subject: 

Opposer Tactics 

From: 

"Kent Steinhaug" Add to Contacts 

Date: 

Thu, Sep 14 2000 11:44:27 PM +0200 

Hi there, moron! 

Did anyone tell you how pathetic you are? 

Laughing my ass off! 

Yakki Da 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/opposers.htm (1 of 8) [5/25/2003 4:18:38 AM]


kent 

As of the middle of May 2001, Kent Steinhaug has written back, but this time his language has gotten 

considerably worse. Such seething anger, as we know, is indicative of fear and ignorance. The subject is 

devoid of any intelligent response, and must resort to primal/ Darwinian grunts/groans. For more, click here. 

Read the latest email from Kent here (Profanity Warning!). 

Also avoid email from sunshineconcern@netscape.net, Labufy@aol.com, mshilmer, and jpipenburg@tcsn.net 

The Blood Issue 

"Ask....would you really allow your baby to die because of instructions by the Watchtower Society."-Ron 

Rhodes 

Anyone who thinks that is grossly misinformed. Read Dr. Laura's letter about JW's and Blood here....or here. 

Here is the comment: 


Date: 1999-03-04 


Transfusion 






The assumption his father was as good as dead without blood transfusion is a common 

one, but there's almost no truth to that anymore. At our hospitals, we have a Transfusion-Free 

Medicine & Surgery Program and the results are phenomenal. Outcomes are better and the 

hospital stays are shorter. We've eliminated the risks associated with blood transfusions (and there 

are many, ranging from the best known, AIDS, to Hepatitis C and other infections and 

complications). 

Our Palm Springs-area hospitals, part of the Tenet Healthcare Corp., are part of a network 

of Southern California facilities with this program. Included among them are our prestigious USC 

University Hospital and the USC/Norris Cancer Hospital. Hospitals and doctors all over the 

country are climbing aboard this bandwagon; I could introduce you to surgeons who haven't 

transfused blood in years. 

We're doing open heart, cancer, neuro, ortho (including total hip and knee replacement) 

neonatal and pediatric, gynecological and urological, transplant, and vascular surgeries 

successfully without blood transfusions. Much of this is due to advances in equipment and 

technology, and credit also goes to the JW population for their stand on blood which brought 

about these changes. Today, about 25% of tranfusion-free procedures are on people who are not 

Jehovah's Witnesses, but who choose the option for health or personal reasons. 







Tom Wixon 




Phone: (760) 323-6690 

Fax: (760) 323-6580 

Or Call: 

Bradford Ray 




Phone: (760) 323-6311 

Another point about Blood 

It is a little known fact that there are deaths every year in relation to circumcisions. These are infant 

deaths.Please see: http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/deathsdo.htm These are also a requirement by 

certain religious groups. Yet no one seems to criticize this practice. The reason for this is because it is easier to 

pick on a little group that is considered a "cult" rather than on larger groups that have powerful political 

backing. 

"When compared to the treatment of other religions there seems to be a disparity in the treatment of Jehovah's 

Witnesses. For example we have never heard of forced abortion on a Catholic, even if that woman's life is in 

danger. Doctor's have accepted in these instances that the 

Catholic's beliefs are more important than their interest in keeping the woman alive." Robert Conlon, "No 

Blood! The History of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Issue of Blood Transfusions 

It never ceases to amaze me, the level of myopia that circulates in the minds of those who would think to 

condemn JW's as child-killers, when this accusation is actually true of those pointing the fingers. 

"Barna noted that substantial numbers of Christians believe that activities such as abortion, gay 

sex, sexual fantasies, cohabitation, drunkenness and viewing pornography are morally 

acceptable." 

http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=106&Reference=E&Key=abortion 

Here we have "Christians" who find nothing wrong in the active participation in the deaths of their own 

unborn babies, but yet JW's are evil for wanting the safest and best treatment for their children. Could the 

accusations lie in the fact that it is easier to condemn an already unpopular group? 

Consider the following: 

"About 1,350,000 newborn American males are circumcised annually, and about 230 of them die 

as a result of this operation." (Sex by Prescription, by Thomas S. Szasz, MD, Syracuse University 

Press, 1990) 

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/deathsdo.htm 

This far outnumbers any complications JW's endure on an annual basis, yet we NEVER hear about this. Why? 

The following statement which can be applied to the blood issue might clear it up: 

"...Mainstream organized religions often have the same problems (e.g. child abuse, misused 

funds) as some new religious sects, yet the former get off the hook. Although there may be some 

outcry about the specific incidents, no one in the mainstream uses these occcurences to smear 

organized religions as a whole....generally, if (say) a rabbi sins, he is seen as a bad rabbi, not as 

proofs of the evils of Judaism; if a 'cult leader' sins, that is proof of the evils of cults. Jews (and 



other mainstream believers) buy newspapers and will complain if their religion is abused; 

whereas cults are not seen as a serious constituency." 

You Are Being Lied To/Russ Kick editor, p. 288 

No one fears a boycott from JW's. Attacking JW's is not politically incorrect. We are not going to hear bad 

reports of Baptists and Jews, for that would mean trouble. What surprises me though is that intelligent persons 

fall prey to this myopic mindset. 

For more, click here 

Dream Conversation 

You will often find several versions of this conversation floating around different web-sites and publications 

(like the often erroneous one by Ron Rhodes)... 

Householder: In the New World Translation it says at John 17:3,"This means everlasting life, their taking in 

knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." 

Witness:That's right. 

Householder:So your God is the one true God? 

Witness:That's right. 

Householder:So other gods are false gods?The opposite of true is false right? 

Witness:Yes 

Householder:What does it say at John 1:1? 

Witness:In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 

Householder:The Word was A GOD? 

Witness:Yes 

Householder:So he must be a false god? 

Witness:Well,...no. 

Householder:Well, he isn't a false god is he? 

Witness:No. 

Householder:Then he must be the True God Jehovah. 

Witness:Trinity isn't in the Bible. 

Householder:Of course it isn't, it is Latin.Theocratic Kingdom isn't in the bible either. When you stop using 

that I will stop using Trinity. 

What is wrong with this situation? 

First, "god" is a very relative term. Angels were referred to as God, even Jehovah.You will find that when God 

first communicated with Moses he appeared in a burning bush. And an angel spoke from the bush. (Exodus 

3:2) and the "angel" said to Moses: "And he went on to say: 'I am the God of your father, the God of 

Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.' Then Moses concealed his face, because he was afraid to 

look at the [true] God." (Exodus 3:5,6) Jehovah was still invisible in the heavens, but, he sent an angel to 

represent him. The angel was God to Moses. 

Again, at Psalm 82:1 it reads: "God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One; (or "God"- 

Hebrew Masoretic text; or "gods"- LXX; or "angels" - Syriac Peshitta Version) In the middle of the gods 

(godlike ones- Hebrew; "elohim" or "theoi- LXX or "angels"- Syriac (see Psalm 8:5, footnote b) Or 

according to the Targums- "judges.") he judges:" (Psalm 82:1) 

Even Satan is a god.(2 Corinthians 4:4) 

Jehovah made Moses a god to pharoah(Exodus 7:1) Moses was not a false god. He was a messenger of God, 

or the word of God, much the same way Jesus was. 

1 Corinthians 8:5 says: For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are 

gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; 

and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him. 

How others have viewed angels and men as gods: 



"The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question whether Christ was an 

angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an angel, rank as God. The explanation which 

was offered by the supporters of the Angel-Christology was that Christ, according to his nature, was a high 

angel, but that he was named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The word 'God' did mean, in the 

first place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the beings who served this deus verus 

[Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods' implies reverence and recognition of Him 

who sent them and whom they thus represented. Consequently in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28), not only 

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 

according them the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius [260-330 C.E.] had thought in this way2 ... 2 

Latantius, inst. Epitome [The Epitome Of The Divine Institutes], 37."-Martin Werner, The Formation Of 

Christian Dogma, p. 140. 

"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred an honourable 

office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His Son] is far more worthy of this 

honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John 10:34] is in Psalm lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You 

are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; where God expostulates with the kings and judges of 

the earth, who tyrannically abuse the authority and power for their own sinful passions, for oppressing the 

poor, and for every evil action ... Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, because 

they are God's ministers for governing the world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, 

because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world ... In short, let us know that magistrates are called 

gods, because God has given them authority."-John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 

419, 20. 

"We have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue."-Justin 

Martyr, The First Apology Of Justin, chapter XXI (21); ANF, Vol. I, p. 170. 

"For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely 

men, then at length gods;"-Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV (4), chapter XXXVIII (38), § 4; 

ANF, Vol. I, p. 52 

"[the Son] having bestowed on us the truly great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the Father, deifying 

man by heavenly teaching,"-Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The Heathen (or, The Greeks, or, The 

Gentiles), chapter XI (11); ANF, Vol. II, p. 203. 

"But let us, O children of the Father-nurslings of the good Instructor [Christ]-fulfil the Father's will ... and 

meditating on the heavenly mode of life according to which we have been deified, let us anoint ourselves with 

the perennial, immortal bloom of gladness."-Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Peadagogus), Book I, 

chapter XII (12); ANF, Vol. II, p. 234. 

"The Creator did not wish to make him [mankind] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel-be not 

deceived-but a man. For if He had wished to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example 

of the Logos [the Word, the Son]"-Hippolytus, The Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10), chapter XXIX 

(29); ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 151. 

"And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or 

passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God ... For the Deity, (by condescension,) 

does not diminish aught of the dignity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His 

glory!"-ibid., chapter XXX (30); ibid., p. 153. 

"If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and by the 

Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection 



of the dead."-Hippolytus, Discourse On The Holy Theophany, § 8; ANF, Vol. V, p. 237. 

"For He [the Son of God] was made man that we might be made God."-Athanasisus, Incarnation Of The 

Word, (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Edinburgh, T&T Clark; Grand 

Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Second Series, Vol. IV (4), p. 65, reprinting of October, 1987. 

"For He has become Man, that He might deify us in Himself, and He has been born of a woman, and 

begotten of a Virgin in order to transfer to Himself our erring generation, and that we may become 

henceforth a holy race, and 'partakers of the Divine Nature,' as blessed Peter wrote. (2 Peter 1:4)-Athanasius, 

Letters of Athanasius, (Lx. Ad Adelphiun), 60.4; ibid., p. 576. 

True as Opposed to False 

In John 1:9 Jesus is called the "True Light". But yet his disciples are also called "Light"(Matt 5:14). Does that 

mean that they are false lights? 

Jesus is called the "Faithful and TRUE witness" at Rev 3:14. But at Acts 1:8 Christians are said to be 

"witnesses". Are they false witnesses. Of course not. All these uses of the TRUE are used archetypically, as 

opposed to a copy of something. That is the way we should be looking at this. 

Trinity is Latin?! 

Actually, trinity is an english translation of the latin word trinitas, WHICH COMES FROM THE GREEK 

WORK TRIAS. Maybe we could ask why trias isn't in the bible. 

Theocratic Kingdom!? 

This actually is in the Bible. Theocratic means "god-rule". Theos and God are certainly in the bible....as is 

rule...as is God's Kingdom and the Kingdom of God(Daniel 2:44;Matthew 6:33; 12:28 etc. The trinity, or even 

the idea of a Triune God IS NOT in the bible. 

Are Quotations Used Erroneous? 

Julius R. Mantey and Philip B. Harner both complained that their works were used to support the NWT 

rendition of John 1:1. Of course they were, they are trinitarians. They were embarrased and ambushed by 

people like Dr. Walter Martin, in public yet. They had to backtrack to save face. P.B. Harner says he never 

claimed that John 1:1 could say, "the Word was a god(well, only if we jumble the words around). What he 

actually said in our literature and what they don't tell is, "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had 

the same nature as God." Elaborating on this point, Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical 

construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article 

"the," preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that "the logos 

has the nature of theos." He further stated: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so 

prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite." (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 

87) 

I have a copy of the Journal of Biblical Literature/Vol.92 1973. If you want a copy let me know. 

For further conversations with Julius R. Mantey click here. 

Much is made also of our quotation of Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 

should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.' The complaint is that we use the quote out of 

context and that he believes in a trinity. That makes it even better. If avid trinitarians feel we should translate 

John 1:1 differently, that makes the argument more powerful. What they don't tell you is what he said further: 

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: "The trinity of persons within the unity of nature 

is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not 

appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms 

and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."-(New 

York, 1965), p. 899 

Then there is the matter of Johannes Greber, and there are books and web-sites devoted to this man and his 



rendition of John 1:1 which we have used in the past as support for it. We have stopped using his 1932 

translation when it was learnt of his involvement in spiritualism. But we don't need him anymore for that 

because we have enough proof of the literal renderings we use. I guess someone out there thinks we are 

infallible. Of the thousands of quotes that we have used over the years, they found one that they could use 

against us. But what they don't tell you is the thousands of other scriptures that closely resemble other 

scriptures found in more mainstream Bibles. And no one ever mentions that Greber's Bible was distinctive 

because of the gold-leaf cross on its stiff front cover. It would be unfair for me to say that because of Greber's 

involvement in spiritualism, that the cross must be occultish. The NWT does not need Greber's version to 

buttress its position anyways. Take note of the following: 

In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word. (Interlineary Word 

for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott) 












Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" 


Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly] 



Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature" 


Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God" 








Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One 





Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes 

itself divine Being/being] 








kind] 

Pfaefflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind] 



Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word) 


Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all 

like God] 


Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the 

Word/word]. 

William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And the Word was divine." 


Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god" 

Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word was 

Divine" 



For more on Johannes Greber click here. 


E-mail Me 


Defending the New World Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB 

The New World Translation 

vs. the NIV and the NASB 

Answering the Attack 

"The New World Translation is an incredibly biased translation" Reasoning from the Scriptures with the 

Jehovah's Witnesses by Ron Rhodes 

"It is no more 'full of heresies' than any other translation" Bible Translations and how to choose between 

them by Alan S. Duthie 

In the verse preceding his statement, Ron Rhodes says that the NWT rendering of Hebrews 1:8 is 

unacceptable. Mr. Rhodes likes the New International Version(NIV) and the New American Standard 

Version(NASB). 

Hebrews 1:8 says in the NWT: "But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and 

[the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." 

The NASB says: "But of the Son he says, THY THRONE O GOD IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE 

RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM." 

The NIV reads similarly. 

So which one is right? The NASB's translation reads like the Son is God, the NWT's does not. This 

scripture is quoting Psalms 45:6,7. What Mr Rhodes fails to mention in this regard is that Psalms here is 

referring to a human king, probably King Solomon. Was King Solomon "God"? NO! That is why the 

Revised Standard Version translates Psalms 45:6,7 as "Your divine throne endures forever and ever" 

which is different from the way it translated it for Hebrews 1:8. Who is biased now? Hebrews 1:8 equates 

Jesus(the Son) with King Solomon in Psalms. Both are subordinate to God, both are Kings. The Tanakh 

Holy Scriptures(the New Jewish Publication Society Translation translates Ps 45:7 as "Your -divine 

throne- is everlasting. and then it encourages the reader to read 1 Chronicles 29:23 which says: "Solomon 

successfully took over the throne of the LORD as king instead of his father." Solomon, like Jesus sits/sat 

on Jehovah's throne. 

So a little investigation will go a long way to uncover the truth behind attacks on the NWT. Ron Rhodes 

states that the NWT gets a "thumbs down" from legitimate bible scholars...which is an insult to the list 

below. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/nwt.htm (1 of 12) [5/25/2003 4:19:49 AM]


So What About the NIV and the NASB? 

First, let me say that the New International Version and the New American Standard Version are very 

good Bible Translations and I use them on a regular basis as I do the NWT. But as much as people like to 

criticize the NWT, there are problems with the NIV and the NASB. 

The New International Version 

God's name Jehovah/Yahweh appears in the original hebrew text about 7000 times, but the NIV fails to 

mention it even once. When asked about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's 

committee wrote: 

"Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should 

have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down 

the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have 

translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a 

Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It 

is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King 

James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard 

decision, and many of our translators agree with you." 

Profit is a low motive for changing this most important text. Even the King James had "Jehovah" 4 times 

at Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4. 

The NIV is not a literal translation, but something between literal and paraphrased. Is it biased? Yes it is. 

Check this out: At Luke 16:23, hades is translated "hell". At Matthew 5:22, gehenna is translated "hell". 

At 2Peter 2:4, tartarus is translated "hell". Earlier versions of the NIV also had son of destruction 

translated as "child of hell". 

Where the NASB has "accursed" at Galatians 1:8,9, the NIV has "eternally condemned". It sounds like the 

NIV wants to make sure that the Bible teaches hell-fire, which would contradict scriptures like Romans 

6:23 which states, "The wages of sin is death." See also Eccl 9:5,10; Psalms 146:4; Romans 6:7; 1John 

4:8. What do references say? Historical evidence of the fiery hell of Christendom is found in the religion 

of ancient Egypt. (The Book of the Dead, New Hyde Park, N.Y., 1960, with introduction by E. A. Wallis 

Budge, pp. 144, 149, 151, 153, 161) 

The NWT strives to keep pagan influences out of the Bible. 

Is the NIV biased when it comes to the Trinity? Yes it is. Dr. Kenneth Barker, General Editor of the NIV 

when accused of being too strong on the Deity of Christ answered: "If they want to accuse me of being 

biased toward the Deity of Christ, I'm honored." 

Feel free to check out how biased the NIV people are when they approved the 

New International readers Version. 

Jack Lewis, commenting on his own experience as part of the NIV translation committee interestingly 

admits, "Once the committee got at its task, one discovered that his preparation was far too scanty. If one 

had written a PhD dissertation on each verse that was to be considered, he might have been qualified to 

deal with all the questions that could be raised. The individual traits of each committee member quickly 

surfaced. One had a special talent for recalling where a particular form had occured before. Another could 

offer his training in Akkadian and Ugartic; another in Latin and Greek. The Old Testament specialists 

were sometimes not aware that a passage was also used in the New Testament." [Emphasis mine, "The 

New International Version" Restoration Quarterly 24 1st Quarter p.3] 



The New American Standard Version 

The NASB is a reworking of the excellent American Standard Version of 1901. It also claims to be a 

literal translation of the Bible. But is it? The ASV had Jehovah in it about 6,823 times, just like the 

original hebrew, but the NASB removed it every time. This makes for some awkward situations like 

Psalms 110:1, "The LORD said to my lord." 

Gehenna and Tartarus are both translated "Hell"(Matt.5:22; 2Peter 2:4) 

The Hebrew word ALMAH is "virgin" at Is.7:14, "maiden" at Gen.24:43, girl at Ex.2:8, "maidens" at Ps. 

68:25 and "maid" at Prov. 30:19. 

The NWT is one of the few Bible that translates this word faithfully. 

MONOGENES is translated "only-begotten" when applied to Jesus(John 1:18;3:16) and Isaac 

(Heb.11:17), but elsewhere it is translated "only" at Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38. 

The above examples show that the NASB is hardly as literal as it claims to be. 

Does the NASB have a Trinity bias? Yes! "Full deity is 

attributed to Jesus Christ in the NASB."(The English Bible from KJV to NIV by Jack 

P. Lewis) 

Lets take a look: 

John 1:1 "and the Word was God." NIV and NASB 

John 1:1 "the Word was Divine" Schonfield,Goodspeed,Moffatt etc 

John 8:58 "before Abraham was born, I Am" NIV and NASB 

John 8:58 "I existed before Abraham was born." Schonfield, New Living etc 

Acts 20:28 "to shepherd the Church of God which he purchased with his own blood" NASB and NIV 

Acts 20:28 "to feed the church of the Lord, which he obtained wuth his own blood" RSV, see also 

Schonfield 

Colossians 2:9 "For in him all the fulness of the Deity dwells" NASB and NIV 

Colossians 2:9 "for it is in him that the immensity of the Divine Wisdom corporately dwells" Schonfield, 

see also Good News Bible-TEV 

Titus 2:13 "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" NASB and NIV 

Titus 2:13 of the Great God, and of our Deliverer Jesus Christ" Schonfield, see also Geneva, KJV, NAB, 

Moffatt etc 

Hebrews 1:8 "But of the Son he says:Thy Throne O God is Forever and Ever." NASB and NIV 

Hebrews 1:8 "God is thy throne" RSV margin, see also Moffatt, Kingdom etc 

2Peter 1:1 "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" NASB and NIV 

2Peter 1:1 "of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" KJV, see also Schonfield, ASV, Concordant etc. 

Are the NASB and the NIV inconsistent? 

Take note: "And yet you have made him a little lower than God." (Psalms 8:5)NASB 

"...a little lower than the angels." (Hebrews 2:9) NASB 

Are the angels really "God"? The NIV has improved on this by rendering Psalms 8:5 "heavenly beings". The NWT renders 

it "god-like ones" which is consistent with other scriptures in the OT that refer to angels as "gods".(Ps.82; 97:7; 

138:1)Compare New American Bible and the New English Bible. 

"They will look on me, the one they have pierced." Zechariah 12:10 NIV 

"they will look on me who they have pierced." NASB 

"they will certainly look on the One whom they have pierced" NWT, see also Good News Bible -TEV 

The NIV and the NASB have both translated the above scripture using "me" because it was Jehovah talking, hence making 

Jesus the God of the OT, as Jesus was pierced. Now let's look at how this is translated in the Christian Greek. 



"They will look on the one they have pierced." John 19:37 NIV 

"They shall look on HIM whom they pierced." NASB 

"They will look to the One who they pierced." NWT, NRSV 

Again, the NWT is more consistent in its rendering, as it does not fall prey to false theology. Few others, like the New 

Revised Standard Version(NRSV) and the TEV are not burdened by King James tradition in this instance. 

Was not Abraham our father declared righteous by works after he had offered up Isaac his son upon the 

altar? You behold that [his] faith worked along with his works and by [his] works [his] faith was 

perfected, and the scripture was fulfilled which says: "Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to 

him as righteousness," and he came to be called "Jehovah's friend." 

YOU see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone. In the same manner was 

not also Ra'hab the harlot declared righteous by works, after she had received the messengers hospitably 

and sent them out by another way? Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works 

is dead. James 2:21-26 NWT 

The NASB faithfully renders the greek word ERGON as works, but not the NIV. It translates it by these 

words in this order: "what he did", "actions", "what he did", "what he does", "what she did", "deeds". 

It is quite obvious that the New International Version do not want to forward a Works/Salvation theology. 

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 

problems using the word "works". 

What about John 1:1 in the NWT? 

Well, I will let Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn from the Northern Arizona University answer this one: 

"The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word." 

Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefeinite article, like our a or an. If a 

noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from 

John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would 

have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate 

Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that 

tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog." 

Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to 

the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to 

say "The God": ho theos. Even a monotheistic Christian, who beleives there is only one God and no 

others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New 

Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying "a god." 

(There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns 

change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of God," which is 

theou, you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to 

have the article.) 

So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of 

beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John 

wants to tell his readers that the Word(which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine 

class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you 

can in Greek. The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we do it 

in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun 

first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the definite article, they are telling us 



that the subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a Volkswagen." In 

English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart 

person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a 

god." That is how I would translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement 

over "The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism. 

No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does 

not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has 

just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly 

differentiates between God from the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be 

seen. What is the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He starts his 

gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How does God create in Genesis? He speaks words 

that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan and activity. It is not 

God himself, but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status. 

That is why a monotheist like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a 

polytheist. This divine thing does not act on its own, however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and 

in becoming flesh brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans. 

I hope this helps. 

Best wishes 

Jason Beduhn 

Northern Arizona University 


Still Prefer the New International Version's Rendering of John 1:1? 

In 1976 "A Linguistic Key To The Greek New Testament" was released by Fritz Rienecker, "Translated 

with additions and revisions, from the German SPRACHLICHER SCHLUESSEL ZUM 

GRIECHISCHEN NEUEN TESTAMENT edited by Cleon L. Rogers Jr." 

ISBN 0-310-32050-X 

What do they say of John 1:1? "The word is without the article and is the predicate emphasizing quality, 

'the word had the same nature as God'." 

Who published this? It was Zondervan Publishing House. The same people who bring you the New 

International Version. So let's put this canard to rest. 

What about the NWT Old Testament? 

Isreali Professor Benjamin Kedar: "Several years ago I quoted the so-called New World Translation 

among several Bible versions in articles that deal with purely philological questions (such as the rendition 

of the causitive hiphil, of the participle qotel). In the course of my comparative studies I found the NWT 

rather illuminating: it gives evidence of an acute awareness of the structural characteristics of Hebrew as 

well as of an honest effort to faithfully render these in the target language. A translation is bound to be a 

compromise, and as such its details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion 

corresponding the the Hebrew Bible, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous rendition 

which would find its explanation in a dogmatic bias. Repeatedly I have asked the antagonists of the 



Watchtower-Bible who turned to me for a clarification of my views, to name specific verses for a renewed 

scrutiny. This either was not done or else the verses submitted (e.g. Genesis 4:13; 6:3; 10:9; 15:5; 18:20; 

etc.) did not prove the point, namely, a tendentious translation." 

It should be pointed out that that Professor Kedar does not "feel sympathy for any sect and this includes 

Jehovah's Witnesses." 

Other Favourable Comments on the NWT. 

J.D. PHILLIPS: (J.D. Phillips was a Church of Christ Minister, schooled in the 

original tongues). "Last week I purchased a copy of your New World 

Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in being an 

owner. You have done a marvelous work...I was happy, indeed, to see the name 

Jehovah in it. But you have made a marvelous step in the right direction, and I 

pray God that your Version will be used to His glory. What you have done for 

the Name alone is worth all the effort and cost!" 

ALLEN WIKGREN: (Allen Wikgren was on the New Revised Standard Version 

committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek text). 

"Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such 

as...the Jehovah's Witnesses edition of the New Testament(1950)." (The 

Interpreter's Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99) 

BENJAMIN KEDAR: (Benjamin Kedar is a 

professor at Hebrew University in Israel). "In my linguistic research in connection with 

the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what 

is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling 

repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an 

understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a 

broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a 

second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific 

structure of the Hebrew...Every statement of language allows for a certain 

latitude in interpreting or translation. So the linguistic solution in any given 

case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World 

Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not 

contain." 

S. MACLEAN GILMORE: "In 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their New World 

Translation of the New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old 

Testament is now far advanced. The New Testament edition was made by a 

committee...that possessed an unusual competence in Greek." (The Andover Newton 

Quarterly, September 1966, Vol 7, #1 page 25, 26) C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman 

notes that on the point of translator bias "the New World Translation of the 

Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism." (Nederlands 

Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280) 

WILLIAM CAREY TAYLOR: (William C. Taylor was a Southern Baptist Minister 

schooled in the original tongues). "Just when the infidel universities of this 

land thought they had laughed out of court the very name Jehovah, up...surges.. 



"Jehovah's Witnesses". ...And with considerable scholarship they get out their 

own New Testament and lo and behold, they put Jehovah into the New Testament two 

or three hundred times...It ought to be there [in the entire Bible] many times" 

(The New Bible Pro and Con, 1955 Page 75) 

C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias "the New World Translation of the 

Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism." Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch 

Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280 

CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER: "the New World Translation of the Christian Greek 

Scriptures...the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best 

manuscript texts...with scholarly ability and acumen." (The Faith Men Live By, 

1954, Page 239) 

EDGAR J. GOODSPEED: (Edgar J. Goodspeed was a Professor of Greek at the 

University of Chicago, and also translated the New Testament portion of "The 

Bible an American Translation"). "I am...much pleased with the free, frank and 

vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I 

can testify." (Personal Letter to Arthur Goux of Brooklyn Bethel, December 8, 

1950; See also Watchtower September 1, 1952 page 541, where Goodspeed is quoted 

as stating that the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was 

"an interesting and scholarly work" ) 

ROBERT M. MCCOY: "The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the 

presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the 

many problems of Biblical translation." (The Andover Newton Quarterly, January 

1963, Vol. 3, #3, Page 31) 

STEVEN T. BYINGTON: (Steven T. Byington translated the version known as "The 

Bible in Living English"). "If you are digging for excellent or suggestive 

renderings this is among the richer mines." (Christian Century, "Review of the 

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, November 1, 1950 page 

1296) 

JASON BEDUHN: (Jason Beduhn teaches at the University of Indiana). "I have just 

recently completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of 

Indiana University, Bloomington, ...This is primarily a course in the Gospels. 

Your help came in the form of copies of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of 

the Greek Scriptures which my students used as one of the textbooks for the 

class. These small volumes were invaluable to the course and very popular with 

my students...Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I 

am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in 

use in modern biblical studies, and by the way, not a member of the Jehovah's 

Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your 'New World 

Bible Translation Committee' has done its job well. Your interlinear English 

rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to 

come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the 

Greek-speaking world and our own. Your 'New World Translation' is a high 



quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness 

to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations 

in use today." 

The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary calls it one of the "major translations of the Bible into English," 

along with the Knox translation, the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible and the New English Bible. p. 

292 

ALEXANDER THOMPSON: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and 

clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the 

Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing." (The 

Differentiator, April 1952, Page 52) 

EDGAR FOSTER: (Classics Major, Lenoir-Rhyne College) 

"Before I formally began to study Greek, I simply compared the NWT with lexicons, 

commentaries, and other translations to try and determine it's 

accuracy. It passed the litmus test then and it also passes the test 

now for me...The NWT is a fine translation. In my mind, it is the translation 

_par excellence_. But I feel just as confortable with an RSV or an 

NASB. Mostly I prefer my UBS Greek text." 

THOMAS N. WINTER: (Thomas N. Winter taught Greek at the University of 

Nebraska). "I think it is a legitimate and highly useful aid toward the mastery 

of koine (and classical) Greek. After examining a copy, I equipped several 

interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary test. After 

learning the proper pronunciations, a motivated student could probably learn 

koine from this source alone. ...the translation by the anonymous committee is 

thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate. ...In sum, when a witness comes 

to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well 

to place an order." (The Classical Journal, "The Kingdom Interlinear", 

April-May 1974, pages 375, 376) See Also: "Bible Translation how to choose 

between them" by Alan S. Duthie,(Alan S. Dunthie is a professor at the 

University of Legon), Page103. Comments by Dr. Rijkel ten Kate 

F.F. BRUCE: "The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1950), 

followed by the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (1953 and following years), is a 

publication of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., and some of its distinctive renderings reflect 

the biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah's 

Witnesses (e.g., "the Word was a god" in John 1:1). Sometimes it renders the text with an un-English 

literalness (e.g., "Let continue yours what is yours" in Gen. 33:9); at other times we find such colloquial 

phraseology as "Excuse me, Jehovah" (Ex. 4:10) and "the Nile 

river will fairly stink" (Ex. 7:18). Some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike 

one as quite good; thus "a jealous God" is "a God exacting exclusive devotion", and the Hebrew phrase 

which the AV variously renders as "on this side Jordan" 

according to the context appears as "in the region of Jordan" (The English Bible 184). 

Edgar's Reply: Bruce's review is not a diatribe against the NWT and his remarks seem 

to center mostly around the renditions of the NWT as opposed to criticisms of the theological positions of 

Jehovah's Witnesses. Conversely, it is evident from some of his remarks that Bruce has a problem with 



certain renderings of the NWT for theological reasons (e.g., John 1:1. But see Greg Stafford "Jehovah's 

Witnesses Defended"). That being said, Bruce calls attention to the literalness of the NWT, which has 

been effectively treated by Rolf Furuli in his book "The Role 

of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation." Furuli shows the appropriateness of literalness in some 

contexts and translations. Nevertheless, Bruce also recognizes the skillful work expressed in the NWT. 

Overall, I think Bruce is as neutral as he can be in his comments on the NWT. Overall they present a 

somewhat favorable view of this influential work published by the WTBTS. 

Edgar Foster 

Classics Major 

Lenoir-Rhyne College 

For Metzger,Colwell, the NWT and John 1:1c click here 

E-Mail Bag 

I have a question: How does the New World Translation justify the addition of the word "other" 

into the Colossian hymn 1: 15-20? In the 1963 edition the word is in the 

text without the brackets. The word "other" is not in the Greek. 

Answer: Now let's look at the insertion of the word "other" in the New World Translation at Colossians 

chapter 1. We are going to start of by looking at some other scriptures where this is done. 

Luke 21:29 




Luke 11:42 





In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put it 

in there. Can they do that even without brackets? 







Have you ever noticed all those words in italics in the King James Version? Those are words that are not 

in the original text, yet there are thousands of them. 

I have a question. At Rev. 5:10, most version say "on earth" instead of "over the earth". I read the 

reference bible, but did not fully understand its comment. 

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 

other times where EPI(over) is used with BASILEUO(to rule) and most versions render it as "over"(see 



Luke 1:33; 19:14,27; Romans 5:14). 

That is why other versions use "over the earth" at Rev 5:10 like the Simple English Bible, Williams NT, 

Beck's translation, Amplified Bible, Smith&Goodspeed and footnotes in Schonfield's and Weymouth's 

NT. 

Hello Heinz: I have a question: Why did the NWT translate hi'na gi·no'sko·si se in John 17: 3 as 

"taking in knowledge"? 

W.E. Vines Expository Dictionary(which I highly recommend) states that GINOSKO(1097) means, "to be 

taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand." Strong's also uses the word "in a great 

variety of applications with many implications", which, if you look this scripture up in the Amplified Bible 

will see that it renders it, "to know(to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with and understand.) It 

may be that the NWT translates this verse better than most other Bibles. 

The New World Translation carefully notes the difference between gno'sis ("knowledge") and e·pi'gno·sis 

(translated "accurate knowledge")-a difference ignored by many others. (Philippians 1:9; 3:8) 

MasterAcc0 writes: 

I am just quite curious as to why the NWT Left Out a few distinct parts in the scriptures. I am 

aware that I John 5:7 is controvertial in many respects, and many do not believe that it was part of 

the true texts, but what about John 5:4 of which the NKJV says "For an angel went down at a 

certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring 

of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had." 

>>You don't have these scriptures because you don't have the New World Translation Reference Bible 

where you will find these (albeit in the foototes). This verse is not included in P66[Bodmer2 200 C.E.], 

P75[Bodmer14,15 200 C.E.], Codex Sinaiticus [4th Cent. C.E.], Vatican Ms 1209, [4th Cent. C.E.], Bazae 

Codices[5th, 6th Cent. C.E.], Jerome's Latin Vulgate[405 C.E.] and the Curetonian Syriac[5th Cent. C.E.] 

Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." 

>>This scripture is not included in the Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Curetonian Syriac and the 

Sinaitic Syriac Codex. 

Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." 

>>Again this is ommited in Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex. 

Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and 

for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." 

>>This verse is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Bazae Codices, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, 

Sinaitic Syriac Codex and the Armenian Version 4th to 15th Cent. 

Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." 

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus and Vatican Ms 1209. 

Mark 9:44 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark 9:46 "Where 

their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." 

>>Both these verses are omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Ephreami rescriptus 5th 



cent. C.E. and the Freer Gospels 5th Cent. C.E. 

Mark 11:26 

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Freer Gospels and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex. 

Mark 15:28 

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus and the Bezae Codices. 

Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) 

>>These are omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Sinaitic Syriac Codex and the Armenian 

Version. 

Luke 17:36 

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus, Freer Gospels and P75. 

Luke 23:17 

>>This is omitted by Codex Alexandrinus, Vatican Ms 1209 and P75. 

Acts 8:37 

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraimi, P74, 

P45, Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta 5th Cent. C.E. 

Acts 15:34 

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus and P74. 

Acts 24:7 

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus, Vulgate and P74. 

Acts 28:29 

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209 and Codex Alexandrinus. 

Romans 16:24 

>>This is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi and P46. 

I am quite concerned in finding that many verses are missing from the NWT. I am in awe. 

Why??? I am sure that there is just cause, but it troubles me in wondering. If you have any inside 

knowledge of what reason the translators had to remove so much, please tell. thanks to you 

neighbor, Glenn 

>>Again, these verses are not missing in Reference Edition, the first edition and the CD-ROM edition of 

the NWT. But they are missing in alot of manuscripts and other versions and translations such as the RSV, 

Smith& Goodspeed, RV etc. Most others have them in brackets or in the footnotes. 

My KJV and NKJV study Bibles also have footnotes against these verses. 

The 1611 edition of the KJV also has variant readings[i.e. Acts 7:20 etc] and admissions of manuscript 



uncertainty in the margins[i.e. Luke 17:36, Luke 10:22], so it should not trouble you or anyone else. 

Consider yourself "put at ease". 

-Heinz 

"Ray Franz has since identified the New World Bible Translation Committee and now we know that 

the translators of the NWT have no more than a High School education." 

>>You are putting word in Franz's mouth. What he actually says is that one member has studied Greek for 

two years, and is self taught in Hebrew. People are too quick to accept what an apostate like Ray says. Ray 

now has a profit motive and a name recognition to uphold, hardly the basis for honest criticism. Ray uses 

the NWT as his default translation (see Copyright page) in his 'coming out' book, so obviously it is okay 

by him, as his book also uses the NIV, RSV, NEB and the JB as secondary versions. Another 

apostate/critic, M. James Penton, writes about the NWT that "this has very little to do with the quality of 

the translation itself which deserves to be examined on the basis of its own merits...Criticism of the New 

World Translation itself seems largely directed at a few passages and certain consistently used word 

translations." 

As we can see from the above praise of this Bible by scholarly poeple like Beduhn et al, any rejection of 

this good translation must amount to religious bigotry and hate. 

Heinz Schmitz 

For more info on the NWT, go to http://homepages.picknowl.com.au/hepburn/nwt.htm 

and http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/nwtmain.htm 

For more information contact me. 

For discussions, feel free to join: 



This page was created with Netscape Navigator Gold 

This page last updated on January 1 2001. 

Trinity Bias | Trinity Truth | Bible Translation Anomalies | Main Page | WTB&TS | John 8:58 and EGW EIMI | Ron Rhodes | Hell | Soul | Bible 

Contradictions? | King James the Fop | KJV 

Sitemap | NWT and the GS Rule | Computing & Internet | Triplepoint Theory | Hebrews 1:8 | Games | Health | Links | Apologetics | Angels as 

Gods | NWT Defense | News | Answering Kevin Quick Ministries and their Attack on the New World Translation | Coming Soon: An Answer to Andy 

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 

Majority Text Debate 

© 1999 Netscape, All Rights Reserved. Legal & Privacy Notices 

This site powered by Netscape SuiteSpot servers. 


The New International Readers Version-Rewriting the Bible to fit your Philosophy 

Main Page 

International 

Standard 

Version 

The Message 

Comma 

Johanneum 

King James the 

Fop 

Bible News 

Big Bang Bunk 

Old Catholic 


Search English 

Versions 



More Bibles 

Original Bible 

Project 

New American 


NIV Bible 

Search 

E-mail Me 

Christology and 

the Trinity 

Elohim and the 

Angels of 

Mamre 

"If every man's humour were followed, there would be ne no end of 

translating."Richard Bancroft -Bishop of London(1604) 

New International readers Version 

The NIrV is a version of a version-or if you like, a revision of the New International 

Version which is one of the best selling Bibles on the market. Since it is based on 

another version, and not on the original greek and hebrew manuscripts(though they say 

that they used some), there is opportunity for play...and abuse. 

An NIV translator was once asked about allegations that the New International Version 

was too strong on the Deity of Christ. His answer, "If they want to accuse me of being 

biased towards the deity of Christ, I'm honored." 

The NIrV has allowed these translators to go Hog-trinity wild. Here are some examples" 

Phillipians 2:6 "In his very nature he was God." 

Should read: "though he was in the form of God" RSV 

Collosians 1:15 "Christ is the exact likeness of God, who can't be seen." 

Should read: "He is the image of the invisible God" RSV 

Revelation 3:14 "He rules over what God has created." 

Should Read: "the beginning of God's creation" RSV 

Galatians 4:6 "God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts. He is the Holy Spirit." 

Should read: No other literal translation has the last sentence. 

1 Timothy 3:16 "The Holy Spirit proved that he was the Son of God." 

Should Read: "He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit." RSV 

John 1:18 "God, the One and only Son." 

Should Read: "the Only Son" RSV, or better yet, "the 

only-begotten God" NASB 

Colossians 2:9 "God's whole nature is living in Christ in human form." 

Should read: "The full content of divine nature lives in Christ" Good News Bible-TEV 

Titus 2:13 "We are waiting for Jesus Christ...he is our great God and Savior." 

Should Read: "the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" ASV 

Hebrews 1:8 "But here is what he says about the Son. 'You are God.' " 

Should Read: "God is thy throne" RSV mg 

2 Peter 1:1 "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/nirv.htm (1 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:20:06 AM]


My Family 

Rolf Furuli 

American 

Standard 

Version 

Virtual Bibles 

21 Translations 

Bible Resources 

John Wycliffe 

An Inclusive 

Version 

Janey's Bible 

Research 

NWT vs NASB 

James R.White 

Ron Rhodes 

Should read: "our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ" ASV 

Rev 3:14 and What the Hell?! 

the Creation of 

Christ 

2 Peter 2:4 tartarus is translated "hell" 

Matthew 7:13,14 destruction is translated "hell" 

Matthew 5:22 gehenna is translated "hell" 

Interlinear Bible 

Matthew 16:18 hades is translated "hell".....except where it applies to Christ, then it is 

Trinity Bias translated "grave" 

Acts 2:27 

Geneva Bible 

What's In a Name? 

WOC 

The translators once made a statement ot the effect that they would be throwing away 

Research/Trinity 

millions of dollars if they were to include the Divine Name Jehovah or Yahweh in their 

Is That in the 

Bible?! 

translation. So wee see a profit motive in translating God's word. This was carried over 

to the NIrV which makes absolutely no mention of this great name( which incidentally 

occurs about 7000 times in the original hebrew). There is absolutely no mention of it in 

Latin Vulgate 

etc 

the foreword either. 

I did however see several names, including the editor, interior designer, typesetter, 

proofreaders, printers and of course, the publishing company. 

Trinity Truth References to the NAME are often removed, such as in Joel 2:32, "Everyone who calls 

out to me will be saved." 

In closing, I have this scripture. Psalms 74:10 "God, how long will your enemies make 

fun of you? Will they attack you with their words forever?"(NIrV) 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/nirv.htm (2 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:20:06 AM] 

Last Updated: July 11, 1999


Trinity 

Explained 

Study Articles 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/nirv.htm (3 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:20:06 AM]

Bible News And Amusements 


NET SEARCH 

Blood Substitute Saves Lives, Reduces Blood Waste 

Fri Apr 5, 5:23 PM ET 

By Charnicia E. Huggins 

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - An experimental blood substitute that was successfully used as an 

alternative to blood transfusion in a 44-year-old Jehovah's Witness may help eliminate excessive waste of 

unused blood in our nation's supply, a Colorado researcher suggests. 

The product, PolyHeme, uses hemoglobin--the molecule in red blood cells that carries oxygen from the 

lungs to tissues throughout the body--from outdated human red blood cells. The cells are stripped of their 

protective membrane, which would normally elicit an immune response to foreign proteins, or foreign 

blood types. After undergoing various other modifications, the naked hemoglobin can then be transfused 

into any individual--regardless of his or her blood type--and even into animals, Dr. Ernest E. Moore of 

Denver Health Medical Center told Reuters Health. 

Furthermore, although PolyHeme reportedly lasts in the body for only 72 hours, it may provide a 

temporary fix for critically injured patients who do not have immediate access to stored blood. 

"(PolyHeme) may be one of the most significant advances since the discovery (news - web sites) of 

blood types," Moore said. Moore's research with PolyHeme is funded by the product's manufacturer, the 

Illinois-based Northfield Laboratories Inc. 

The US Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) (FDA) needs to investigate the product to 

determine whether or not it may be used by doctors. In November 2001, the FDA told Northfield 

Laboratories that it needed additional information on PolyHeme before accepting its application for 

filing. 

Because it looks promising, however, the FDA allows its "compassionate use," such as in the present 

case involving the Jehovah's Witness, Moore said. 

Jehovah's Witnesses' religious beliefs require them to refuse blood transfusions, along with any other 

medical treatments that involve the administration of blood or blood products. However, these beliefs are 

specific to transfusions of whole blood or one of its four main components--red cells, white cells, 

platelets, or plasma--and do not take into account transfusions of smaller components of blood, such as 

that used in PolyHeme. 

"Although not accepting blood transfusions, each Witness makes a personal decision about what 

bloodless alternative he or she will accept," J. R. Brown, director of the Jehovah's Witnesses' national 

office of public information, told Reuters Health. 

For full story, click here 

Here's a question posed by a student to God: 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/news.htm (1 of 17) [5/25/2003 4:20:18 AM]


Dear God, 

Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado? 

Sincerely, 

Concerned Student 

Dear Concerned Student, 

I am not allowed in schools. 

Sincerely, 

God 

....Now read below for how this has unfolded in an incredibly short period of time: 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Let's see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare complained she didn't want any prayer in our 

schools. 

And we said, OK... 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Then, someone said you better not read the Bible in school, the Bible that says "thou shalt not kill, thou 

shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself." 

And we said, OK... 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little 

personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem. 

And we said, an expert should know what he's talking about so we won't spank them anymore... 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. 

And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they 

misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued. 

And we accepted their reasoning... 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell 

their parents. 

And we said, that's a grand idea... 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, 

let's give our sons all the condoms they want, so they can have all the 

fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them 

at school. 

And we said, that's another great idea.. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our 

jobs. Public office is not about character debates. 

And we said, it doesn't matter what anybody, including the President, does in private, or the way he has 

conducted himself in his past, as long as we have jobs and the economy is good... 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

And then someone said let's print magazines with pictures of nude women and call it wholesome 

down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the female body. 

And we said, we have no problem with that... 



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

And someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of nude children and then 

stepped further still by making them available on the Internet. 

And we said, everyone's entitled to free speech... 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

And the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence 

and illicit sex... And let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes... 

And we said, it's just entertainment and it has no adverse effect and nobody takes it seriously anyway, so 

go right ahead... 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from 

wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, classmates or even themselves. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Undoubtedly, if we thought about it long and hard enough, we could figure it out. I'm sure it has a great 

deal to do with... 

"WE REAP WHAT WE SOW." 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Lutherans sorry for silence on Nazis 

HELSINKI, Finland (AP) - Finland's dominant Lutheran Church on 

Thursday apologized for decades of silence about the Holocaust, 

pledging to do more to raise awareness of the Nazi extermination 

campaign against the Jews. "The church admits it was silent over the 

Holocaust and apologizes to the Jewish community," bishops and other 

church leaders said during a synod. The synod, held at the seat of 

the Lutheran archbishop in Turku, 100 miles west of Helsinki, came 

days after a memorial was unveiled for the only eight Jews extradited 

by Finland to Germany - its wartime ally - in 1942 and later sent to 

the Auschwitz concentration camp. Finland's Evanglical Lutheran 

Church, which has about 85% of the population as members, has not 

suppressed information about the Nazi massacres of some 6 million 

Jews but acknowledged it has not done enough to promote awareness. 

Did you know.... 

1) Psalm 118 is the middle chapter of the entire bible? 

2) Psalm 117, before Psalm 118 is the shortest chapter in the bible? 

3) Psalm 119, after Psalm 118 is the longest chapter in the bible? 

4) The Bible has 594 chapters before Psalm 118 and 594 chapters after Psalm 118? 

5) If you add up all the chapters except Psalm 118, you get a total of 1188 chapters. 

6) 1188 or Psalm 118 verse 8 is the middle verse of the entire bible? 

Should the central verse then not have an important message? 

"Better to take refuge in Jehovah than to put confidence in man." - Psalm 118:8 Byington 



Episcopalian minister leaves with 150 members to avoid ties with 

homosexuals 

Denver 

"We want to return to the roots of the faith that the Episcopal Church 

once held," said the Rev. Gerry Schnackenberg. The 23-year priest has 

left St.Philip and St. James Episcopal Church and taken with him 150 

members, or two-thirds, of the congregation. 

Schnackenberg, 52, and his flock have joined the Anglican Mission in 

America, a growing traditionalist movement of 20 churches, including 

four in Colorado. They object to the Episcopal Church's increasing 

acceptance of sexual unions outside marriage, including homosexuality, 

and tolerance of bishops such as Jack Spong of Newark, who has publicly 

announced he no longer believes in a personal God. 

Entire article found here: 

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/1006chur4.shtml 

International meetings debate religions' validity 

High Point Enterprise, Saturday, September 16, 2000 http://www.hpe.com 

CNN founder Ted Turner was an odd choice as honorary chairman of the "peace summit" on interfaith 

tolerance, which drew 1000 leaders from many religions to the United Nations in late August. 

Turner told the throng that folks in the Southern church where he grew up "thought that nobody was 

going to heaven except them" and maybe 99 percent of humanity was going to hell. 

The U.N. meeting included few conservative Christians, and many participants contended that the 

religious freedom enshrined in the U.N.'s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights should not extend 

to convert-seeking. 

As if responding to such talk, a Sept. 5 Vatican decree against religious relativism declared that 

followers of others religions "are in a gravely deficient situation" compared with those in the church with 

"the fulness of the means of salvation." 

The summer's other religious summit meeting was totally different, however: Billy Graham's 

conference in Amsterdam, Netherlands, for 10,700 evangelical Protestants from 207 lands. Among 

leaders of this international movement there's no apology for soul-winning based on Christianity's 

exclusive claims. 

An "Amsterdam Declaration," which summarized the meeting, said "there may well be traces of truth, 

beauty and goodness in many non-Christian belief systems" but they are not "roads to salvation." 

Ex-Swaggart employee pleads guilty 

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) - A former fund-raiser for Jimmy Swaggart 

Ministries admitted spending $769,000 of the ministry's money on 

women around the country last year. John J. Clouser, 34, who earned 

$30,000 as the ministry's director of development and planned giving, 



pleaded guilty Friday in state court to money laundering and bank 

fraud. Prosecutors agreed to recommend a 20-year cap on Clouser's 

prison time when state District Judge Bonnie Jackson sentences him in 

September. His expenditures included World Series tickets, moving 

expenses and rent for one woman, and a sport utility vehicle for 

another, said prosecutor Mark Pethke. Clouser already has been 

sentenced in federal court to 57 months in prison and ordered to 

repay Swaggart Ministries $841,563 including interest, after pleading 

guilty to one count of money laundering, assistant U.S. Attorney Ian 

Hipwell said. See 

http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2567969498-286A 

NEW YORK (AP) 

- Some 850 clergy and other religious workers have endorsed a declaration on morality that 

calls upon all faiths to bless same-sex couple and allow gay and lesbian ministers 

see http://www.usatoday.com/news/ndstue02.htm 

Religion is delivered to doorstep by video 

By Victoria Combe, Religion Correspondent 

ONE thousand churches of all denominations have agreed 

to start door-to-door evangelism this year in a style similar 

to that used by Jehovah's Witnesses. 

To mark the Millennium, the churches are offering people a 

free 80-minute video of the life of Jesus, as told in St 

Luke's Gospel. Already 230,000 videos have been 

distributed to homes as part of the project run by the 

evangelical organisation, Agape. Denominations taking 

part, which include Roman Catholic, Church of England, 

Baptist and Methodist churches, pay Agape £1 for a copy 

of the video which they then give to parishioners. 

George Hyder, of the London City Mission, who has 

distributed the video to tenants of blocks of council flats by 

Tower Bridge Road in Bermondsey, south-east London, 

will return in a week's time to ask them seven questions 

about their thoughts on the film and whether it stirred their 

interest to know more about Jesus. 

Seventy per cent of the residents who were at home 

accepted the video or a magazine. Unlike other 

evangelistic projects, the video campaign has been seized 

on by more reticent and conservative churches where 

worshippers are happier to offer a free gift than hold forth 



about the Bible. 

There was a young man who said: 'God 

Must think it exceedingly odd 

If he finds that this tree 

Continues to be 

When there's no one about in the Quad.' 

Reply: 

'Dear Sir, Your astonishment's odd 

I am always about in the Quad; 

And that's why the tree 

Will continue to be, 

Since observed by Yours faithfully, GOD.' 

-Ronald Knox 1888-1957 

Limerick 

DEFINITION OF RELIGIOUS TERMS: 

FATALISM-------------------Things happen. 

OPTIMIST--------------------Everything happens for the best. 

PESSIMISM -------------Things happen in spite of all your best efforts. 

ATHEISM--------------------Things happen for no apparent reason. 

AGNOSTICISM-------------No one can prove anything happens. 

CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST-Nothing is happening; it's just God dreaming. 

HINDUISM------------------It has all happened before; it will happen again 

ISLAM-------------------------Things happen because it's written. 

JUDAISM--------------------Why do things always happen to us? 

CATHOLICISM-------------If things happen, you deserve it. 

TAOISM-----------------------Good things happen if you go with the flow. 

CONFUCIANISM----------Things like that always happen to someone like you. 

BUDDHISM-----------------Mood makes things happen. 

ZEN---------------------------- What is the sound of a thing happening if no one is there? 

HARI KRISHNA-----------Things happen, things happen, things happen 

SHINTOISM----------------If the emperor says lets have a happening, things happen. 

PROTESTANISM----------All roads lead to the same happening. 

T.V. EVANGELISTS------Send the ten thousand dollars and watch what happens. 

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES-Let us in and we'll tell you why things happen. 

New Revised God-Less Version 

Right from the pages of the Readers Digest Version and the neutered feminist Bible we now have a 

doctor from Denmark who has made a rewritten version of the Old Testament without any reference to 

God. Dr. Svend Lings says God and faith "are things of the past that can only chain us". He sees that 

many people are unhappy. "We are living in a Jewish-Christian culture," says Lings, "thus the 

Jewish-Christian culture must be responsible for our lack of happiness". So, to fix this problem, Lings 

has taken out any reference to God in the Hebrew Scriptures. InBible Without God, Genesis 3:12 



says,"Adam thought to himself:'The Woman by my side gave me fruit, and then I ate.'" 

That`s kind of like filming "Titanic" without a ship.(Excerpts from "AWAKE" magazine.) 

Esperanto Bible 

The ENI Bulletin of Geneva, Switzerland says that part of the bible were translated into 30 additional 

languages last year, including Esperanto. The entire Bible is now available in 363 languages, and parts of 

the Bible available in 2197 languages. 

Stephen Hawking's Essay-Origin of the Universe 

"We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any 

reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that 

science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but 

that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would 

have to appeal to God." 

Hawking goes on to describe an alternative theory for the origin of the 

universe in which he says the universe creates itself out of "nothing", but then 

says that the universe was actually created out of "gravitational energy". Here is 

Hawking's description: 

"Jonathan Halliwell and I, have made such an approximate calculation. We treated the universe as a 

perfectly smooth and uniform background, on which there were small perturbations of density. In real 

time, the universe would appear to begin its expansion at a 

minimum radius. At first, the expansion would be what is called 

inflationary. That is, the universe would double in size every tiny fraction of a 

second, just as prices double every year in certain countries. 

This inflation was a good thing, in that it produced a 

universe that was smooth and uniform on a large scale, and was expanding at 

just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. The inflation was also a good 

thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe, quite literally 

out of nothing. 

When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, 

it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles 

in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles 

come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow 

matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle 

pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer 

is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe." 

For more on this article click here. 

Jesus photos protested in Sweden. STOCKHOLM (AP) 

A crowd protesting the 

opening of a photo exhibition depicting Jesus Christ in the company of homosexuals 

threw rocks at the photographer when she stepped outside the museum 

Sunday. The exhibition, titled "Ecce Homo," has provoked occasional protests 



since first being shown in Stockholm last summer. It opened Sunday at the 

city museum in Norrkoeping. Several hundred demonstrators gathered outside 

the museum and some hurled stones at photographer Elisabeth Ohlson when she 

stepped outside to photograph the crowd. 

By Stephen Huba/Scripps Howard News Service 

Americans Believe in Biblical Creation 

Americans have much stronger belief in the Bible's creation story than do Europeans, Canadians and 

citizens of other industrialized nations, according to a University of Cincinnati public opinion researcher. 

In one of the first studies of its kind, UC political science professor George Bishop compared the beliefs 

of Americans on human origins with those in other advanced countries. 

Bishop found that the belief in creationism is much higher in America than elsewhere. 

"Nearly a third of college graduates in recent Gallup polls still believe in the biblical account of 

creation," Bishop said. "This is somewhat of a theoretical riddle." 

Bishop's cross-national study was published last fall in The Public Perspective, a journal of the Roper 

Center. Bishop first presented his findings at the annual conference of the American Association for 

Public Opinion Research. 

Citing Gallup and other public opinion polls since the early 1980s, Bishop said about 45 percent of 

Americans believe that God created man "pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 

10,000 years." 

Another 40 percent believe that man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life 

but that God guided this process -what Bishop calls "theistic evolution." 

And 10 percent of Americans hold the Darwinist evolution position that man developed over millions of 

years from less advanced forms of life but that God had no part in the process. 

Bishop said the results are explained, in part, by a longstanding, shared "religious worldview" in 

America and a national willingness to take the Bible literally. 

Bishop said he was "astounded" by the findings. 

By comparison, only 7 percent of those surveyed in Great Britain said they take the biblical creation 

account of Genesis 1 literally, he said. Respondents in Germany, Norway, Russia and the Netherlands all 

ranked significantly lower than the United States in biblical literalism. 

"The scientific worldview has thus far failed to complete Darwin's revolution in the land of 'One Nation 

Under God,' " Bishop wrote in a summary of his findings. 

In the surveys Bishop examined, groups most likely to accept the biblical account of human origins were 

women, older Americans, the less well-educated, Southerners, African Americans and fundamentalist 

Protestants. 

The American tendency to believe in biblical creationism also means America has ranked low on 

international surveys that measure scientific literacy, he said. 

"We don't stack up very well as a nation," Bishop said. "Religious belief tends to be inversely correlated 

with what most scientists would say is simple fact." 

Bishop said he is not implying that religious people are uneducated; simply that they don't accept the 

"fact" of evolution. 

The study bothers Jim Eichenberger, author of a new video course on human origins and curriculum 

development editor for Cincinnati-based Standard Publishing. 

Eichenberger called Bishop's assumptions "arrogant." 



"It's not ignorant to question a purely naturalistic system of origins," Eichenberger said. "This is a good 

question that thinking people need to ask: How did we get here and why does it matter?" 

Just as important as a belief in God as creator is how that belief influences behavior, Eichenberger said. 

"Is it just lip service," he said, "or does it mean something?" 

Ken Ham, executive director and founder of Answers in Genesis, said Bishop's findings show that 

creation science organizations such as his are getting the word out. 

"I believe that when people are taught science correctly, they see that evolution is just a belief and not 

scientific fact," Ham said. 

Another explanation for the majority belief in creationism, Bishop said, may be that it creates a "spiral 

of silence," a climate where people with agnostic or atheistic beliefs are reluctant to state their views. 

In one survey of 17 developed nations, Americans were the most likely to accept the Bible as "the actual 

word of God ... to be taken literally, word for word," and the least likely to call the Bible "an ancient 

book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man." 

The countries most like the United States in religious beliefs are Ireland and Northern Ireland, Bishop 

said. 

Survey data indicate that there is a substantial split between scientists and the general public on beliefs 

about human evolution, Bishop said. 

Only 5 percent of American natural and physical scientists believe in the biblical creationist view, 

according to one survey. Fifty-five percent endorse the Darwinist position, and 40 percent accept theistic 

evolution. 

The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology identifies yet another position, that of "progressive 

creationism." Adherents accept the six-day account of creation in Genesis 1 but do not insist on literal 

24-hour days. 

JW's in Islamic Countries 

The Jehovah's Witnesses are becoming a global religious force. Only 19% of Witnesses 

now live in the United States. They have become prominent in the former Soviet Union and in the 

Islamic world, where they 

meet in secret "cells," according to the Journal of 

Contemporary Religion. The Witnesses have become less inclined to make prophesies, since 

failed predictions have hurt their growth in the past, according to the Journal. Maintaining strict 

standards and filtering out 

less-committed members is likely to facilitate expansion, as is the practice of assigning important roles to 

young people as 

part-time missionaries, giving the sect a better chance of retaining their children. The publication 

predicted the Witnesses will 

grow at about 4% a year. 

Evolution vs. Creation, Round 2 

3:00 a.m. 11.Jun.99.PDT 

In a resurgence of the controversy surrounding the infamous 1925 Scopes 

"Monkey Trial," the Kansas school system has become a battleground for 

religious conservatives intent on turning back the clock on evolutionary 

science. 

The battle pits educators who support the teaching of evolution in the 



classroom against those who say evolution confuses children and undermines 

biblical teachings. "It's a real mud fight," said Kansas State Board of 

Education chairwoman Linda Holloway. "After 150 years of the evolution 

debate, it still hasn't been settled." 

The trouble in Kansas began in May as a 27-member science committee neared 

the end of a year-long process of writing new curriculum standards that 

included evolution as a unifying concept linking all scientific disciplines. 

A group called the Creation Science Association for Mid-America < 

http://www.arky.org/csa/index.htm> challenged the committee and came up with 

an alternate set of standards that sidestep evolution. The 10-member Kansas 

Board of Education 

deadlocked in a vote on the matter in May, then chose not to vote on it at 

its 8 to 9 June meeting after being besieged with opposing views. Another 

vote was scheduled for the July meeting, though Holloway believed a decision 

will not be made until August. 

To be sure, arguments over evolution are not new. The most famous occurred 

in 1925 when Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes went to trial over the 

teacher's knowing infringement of a law banning the teaching of evolution. 

Thirty years later, the trial inspired the play Inherit the Wind. 

In this modern version of the old debate, Kansas is not alone. In February, 

the Nebraska attorney general complained that new science standards being 

written for children promoted evolution as fact rather than theory and could 

contradict religious beliefs. 

Education officials in Nebraska are expected to vote on the new standards on 

Friday. Similar debates have arisen recently in other states, including 

Michigan, Arizona, and New Mexico. 

While evolution opponents are not demanding students be taught a biblical, 

or creationist theory, they do call for evolution to be eliminated from 

curriculums, or at least be treated as highly speculative. 

"There has been in the last decade or two a very significant increase in the 

number of skeptics who question evolution on purely scientific grounds," 

said Bill Hoesch, spokesman for the Institute for Creation Research in 

Santee, California. "It's becoming inescapable." 

Hoesch cited the work of Michael Behe, a professor at Lehigh University in 

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical 

Challenge to Evolution. 

The scientific community, however, views evolution theory as key to many 

applied sciences, including medical research. 

Calling the Kansas anti-evolution proposal "just awful," Eugenie Scott, 

director of the National Center for Science Education in Berkeley, 

California, said evolution is a key concept that students must understand to 

advance educations in biology, medicine, and many other fields. 

"Evolution is an overarching concept that explains why things are like they 

are," Scott said. 

The Kansas science committee refused to work with opponents to draft a 

mutually acceptable set of standards. The controversy raised the ire of 



Kansas Governor Bill Graves, who said the debate was distracting the board 

of education from other matters. 

Copyright © 1999 Reuters Limited. 

CATHOLICS GOING FROM DOOR TO DOOR 

New York Daily News Tuesday, June 01, 1999 

Catholic Missionaries Bring Faith Door-to-Door 

By VIRGINIA BREEN 

Daily News Staff Writer 

Those clean-cut young missionaries out knocking on Manhattan doors this week 

aren't Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. They're Roman Catholics. More than 

100 proselytizers from the U.S. and Latin America are taking to the streets this 

week to invite lapsed Catholics back to the fold - and maybe gain a few converts. 

"The Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses are a great model of this kind of 

thing, but we're not copying them, really, so much as the first Apostles," said 

Paul Bernetsky, 38, executive director of Youth for the Third Millennium, the 

Baltimore-based Catholic group spearheading the drive. 

"They're not going to be arguing with anyone or using fear tactics," Bernetsky 

said, "just preaching their simple love of Christ." 

Bernetsky's group sprang into action during 1993's World Youth Day in Denver, 

after Pope John Paul urged young Catholics, "Go out into the streets and into 

public places, like the first Apostles who preached Christ." 

The group has done missionary work in Manhattan for the last two years, but 

this week's drive is the first on a large scale. 

The missionaries, men and women in their early 20s, are visiting apartments, 

handing out pamphlets and looking to engage harried New Yorkers in spiritual 

discussions. 

They wear simple wooden crucifixes around their necks and T-shirts 

emblazoned with the Gospel message "Be Not Afraid." 

At a Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral on Sunday, Cardinal O'Connor blessed the 

missionaries and urged the packed congregation to pray for them. 

"We attend workshops on how to approach people," said Joseph Pascale, 19, of 

Neptune, N.J., who has devoted a year to full-time missionary work. "We do it in 

the true missionary spirit, which is to be joyful even if you don't see immediate 

results. But I've been fortunate to see things happen, like getting people back to 

church." 

The Problem With Science 

"Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist 

professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his 

new students to stand. "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?" 

"Yes, sir." 

"So you believe in God?" 



"Absolutely." 

"Is God good?" 

"Sure! God's good." 

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?" 

"Yes." 

"Are you good or evil?" 

"The Bible says I'm evil." 

The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a 

moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here 

and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? "Would you 

try?" 

"Yes sir, I would." 

"So you're good...!" 

"I wouldn't say that." 

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you 

could...in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't." 

[No answer.] 

"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even 

though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can 

you answer that one?" 

[No answer] 

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a 

sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 

In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start 

again, young fella." 

"Is God good?" 

"Er... Yes." 

"Is Satan good?" 

"No." 

"Where does Satan come from?" The student falters. 

"From... God..." 

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his 



bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student 

audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies 

and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there 

evil in this world?" 

"Yes, sir." 

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?" 

"Yes." 

"Who created evil? 

[No answer] 

"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All the 

terrible things - do they exist in this world?" 

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes." 

"Who created them? " 

[No answer] 

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL 

ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the 

Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't 

He, son?" 

[No answer] 

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. 

Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like 

an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How 

is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" 

The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the 

world. "All the hatred, the brutality,all the pain, all the torture, all 

the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is 

all over the world, isn't it,young man?" 

[No answer] 

"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" 

Pause. 

"Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and 

whispers, "Is God good?" 

[No answer] 

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?" 



The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do." The 

old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you 

use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you?" 

"No, sir. I've never seen Him." 

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?" 

"No, sir. I have not." 

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus . . 

. in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?" 

[No answer] 

"Answer me, please." 

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't." 

"You're AFRAID... you haven't?" 

"No, sir." 

"Yet you still believe in him?" 

"...yes..." 

"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. 

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, 

science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where 

is your God now?" 

[The student doesn't answer] 

"Sit down, please." 

The Christian sits...Defeated. Another Christian raises his hand. 

"Professor, may I address the class?" 

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! 

Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering." 

The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are 

making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as 

heat?" 

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat." 

"Is there such a thing as cold?" 

"Yes, son, there's cold too." 

"No, sir, there isn't." 



The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold. The 

second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, 

super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't 

have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which 

is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such 

thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 - You 

see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We 

cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat 

is 

energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it." 

Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom. 

"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?" 

"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What 

are you getting at...?" (the professor starting to be impatient) 

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?" 

"Yes..." 

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence 

of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, 

flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and 

it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the 

word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make 

darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of 

darker darkness, professor?" 

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. 

This will indeed be a good semester. 

"Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?" 

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to 

start with and so your conclusion must be in error...." 

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"" 

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?" 

The class is all ears. 

"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to 

regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to 

silence the class, for the student to continue. "You are working on the 

premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That for example there is 

life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing 

the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, 

science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism 

but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as 



the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot 

exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely 

the absence of it." The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the 

desk of a neighbour who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most 

disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing 

as immorality?" 

"Of course there is, now look..." 

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of 

morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the 

absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian 

pauses. Isn't evil the absence of good?" The professor's face has turned 

an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless. The 

Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we 

all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work 

through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The 

Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free 

will, choose good over evil." 

The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't vie this 

matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I 

absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological 

factor as being part of the world equation because God is not 

observable." 

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world 

is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian 

replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! 

Tell me, 

professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?" 

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, 

yes, of course I do." 

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" 

The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student 

a silent, stony stare. 

"Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at 

work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are 

you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a 

priest?" 

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical 

discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses. 

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?" 



"I believe in what is - that's science!" 

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin. "Sir, you 

rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science 

too is a premise which is flawed..." 

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters. 

The class is in uproar. The Christian remains standing until the 

commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to 

the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?" The 

professor wisely keeps silent. The Christian looks around the room. "Is 

there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The 

class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, 

crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the 

professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the 

professor's brain?" 

No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It 

appears no-one here has had any 

sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according 

to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I 

DECLARE that the professor has no brain." The class is in chaos. The 

Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for. 

Heinz Schmitz 

Last Updated May 20 2000 



My Bibles 

My Bible Versions 

1.King James(Authorized)Version 

2.Douay-Rheims Version 1582-1609 

3.American Standard Version 1901 

4.The Bible-An American Translation(Smith&Goodspeed) 1935 

5.The Bible in Living English by Steven T. Byington 

6.The N.T.-A Translation in the Language of the People by Charles B Williams 1937 

7.The Holy Scriptures by J.N.Darby 1882 

8.The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson 1864 

9.The Jerusalem Bible 1966 

10.The Dead Sea Scrolls 

11.A New Translation of the Bible by James Moffatt 

12.The New American-St.Joseph Edition 1970 

13.The New English Bible 1970 

14.The Emphasised Bible by J.B.Rotherham 

15.The Common Bible-Revised Standard Version(Expanded Edition)1946-52 

16.The Simple English Bible-New Testament 1981 

17.Good News Bible-Today`s English Version 1976 

18.New King James Version 1982 

19.New International Version 1978 

20.New American Standard Version 1971 

21.Living Bible 1972 

22.Contemporary English Version 1995 

23.The New Testament in Modern English by J.B.Phillips 1960 

24.English Revised Version 1885 

25.Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures 1969 

26.Modern Language Bible-The New Berkeley Version 1945 

27.New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures 1950-62 

28.New Jerusalem Bible 1985 

29.The King James Bible(1611 Edition) 

30.The New Testament by Monsignor Ronald A.Knox 1945 

31.God`s Word-Todays Bible translation 1995 

32.The Holy Bible-English Version for the Deaf 1987 

33.The Worrell New Testament 1904 

34.The King James II Version by Jay P.Green 1979 

35.A Literal Translation of the Bible by Jay P.Green 1987 

36.The Webster Bible by Noah Webster 1833 

37.The Antigua Version Reina y Valera 1569-1602 

38.Die Heilige Schrift by Dr.Martin Luther 1522-1534 

39.Elberfelder Bible 1855-71 

40.The Holy Scriptures/Masoretic Text by the Jewish Publication Society 1917 

41.The Revised English Bible 1989 

42.Bonnes Nouvelles Aujourd`hui-Le NouveauTestament en francais courant 1971 

43.The Nestle Greek Text 

44.Concordant Literal New Testament 1926 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/myversions.htm (1 of 6) [5/25/2003 4:20:30 AM]


45.The Interlineary Hebrew and English Psalter 1970 

46.The Greek Text of the New Testament by the Trinitarian Bible Society-F.H.A. Scrivener 1976 

47.The Pocket Interlinear Old Testament by Jay P.Green 1987 

48.The Amplified Bible 1965 

49.The New Revised Standard Version 1989 

50.The Mercier New Testament 1970 

51.Neue-Welt-Ubersetzung der Heiligen Schrift 1971 

52.Traduzione del Nuovo Mondo delle Sacre Scritture 1967 

53.The Word-New Century Version 1984 

54.Young`s Literal Translation 1898 

55.The Bible in Basic English 

56.The New Testament-An Expanded Translation by Kenneth S. Wuest 1961 

57.Jewish New Testament by David H. Stern 1989 

58.New World Translation-Revised Reference Edition 1984 

59.The King James Clarified New Testament 

60.The Holy Bible in the Language of Today-An American Translation by Beck 1976 

61.New Testament in Modern Speech by Richard F.Weymouth 1909 

62.Louis Segond Version(French) 1873-80 

63. New Living Translation 1996 

64.Montgomery New Testament 1924 

65. Cotton Patch Version 1973 

66. New International Readers Version 

67. Latin Vulgate 

68. Hugh Schonfield New Testament 

69. George M. Lamsa Translation 

70. The Message 

71. Geneva Bible 1601 

72. Revised Standard Version-Catholic Version 

73. New Evangelical Translation 1990 

74. An Inclusive Version 1995 

75. NET Bible(software) 

76. World English Bible(software) 

77. Hebrew Names Bible(software) 

78. Recovery Version 1985-91 

79. The Living Bible-Catholic Edition 

80. The Confraternity Version 

81. The Bible's Greatest Stories by Paul Roche 1990 

82. Good News Bible-Catholic 2nd Edition 

83. NASB-Updated Edition 

84. John Wesley Translation(software) 

85. New American Bible-Revised Edition 1986 

86. The New Testament by Kleist & Lilly 1956 

87. William Barclay New Testament 1969 

88. The Alba House New Testament from Das Neue Testament fur Menschen 

Unserer Zeit, Quell Verlag, Stuttgart 1964 

89. New Life Version by Gleason H. Ledyard 1969-86 



90. NRSV-Catholic Edition 1993 

91. Textus Receptus(Received Text) software 

92. New Testament by Richmond Lattimore 

93. Willebrordvertaling N.T. 1961-75 

94. Twentieth Century New Testament 1902 

95. The Five Gospels(Annotated) by Funk, Hoover and the Jesus Seminar 1993 

96. Tanakh/The Holy Scriptures-The New JPS Translation 1985 

97. The New Testament in an Improved Version upon the basis of 

Archbishop Newcome's New Translation 1808 

98. Nestle Greek New Testament 

99. King James Easy Readers Version 

100. International Standard Version NT 1999 

101. Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament 26 Ed. 

102. Septuagint 

103. International Childrens Version 1988 

104. The Unvarnished New Testament 

105. Tyndale New Testament 

106. Westcott & Hort Greek NT 

107. The Septuagint by Charles Thomson 

108. The New Testament into Simple Everyday English by Julian G. Anderson 

109. The Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text 

110. Tischendorf's Greek Text (8th Edition) 

111. Revised Berkeley Version 1977 Edition 

112. Griesbach Greek N.T. 

113. Morris Literal Version 

114. Micro Bible (ValuSoft) Ellis Enterprises 

115. Pronounceable Transliterated Bible (Morris, Ellis Enterprises) 

116. Transliterated Unaccented Bible (Morris, Ellis Enterprises) 

117. United Bible Societies Greek N.T. Parsed (software) 

118. The (Thomas) Jefferson Bible 

119. The Modern King James Bible (Green,) 

120. Stephanos Greek N.T. 1550 

121. The Holy Scriptures-An Inspired Revision of the Authorized Version 

by Joseph Smith, Jr 1944 

122. The New Testament by the Very Reverend Francis Aloysius Spencer 1940 

123. The Good News According to John, God's 

Living Word Translation 

124. Brenton's Septuagint with Apocrypha 

125. Huntingdon Translation/Luke 

126. New Translations From the Greek by David Robert Palmer 

127. Bay Psalm Book 1630 

128. Nazarene Standard English Bible 

129. The Grail Psalter 

130. Holman Christian Standard Bible 2000 

131. TA IERA GRAMMATA METAFRAQENTA HK TWN QEION ARXETGPWN 

-The Holy Bible in Modern Greek 



132. The Modern Readers Bible-R.V. w/Apocrypha by R.G. Muolton 1950 

133. Revised Webster Bible 1995 

134. 21st Century New Testament-A Literal/Free Dual Translation 

135. The Complete Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton 1906 

136. Shem-Tob's Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew according 

to a Primitive Hebrew Text 

137. The Epistles of Paul in Modern English/A Paraphrase by George Barker 

Stevens, Ph.D., D.D. 1898 

138. Hodges & Farstad Majority Text 1985 

139. The Essential Jesus by J.D. Crossan 1994 

140. A New English Translation of the Septuagint-Psalms by Albert Pietersma 2000 

141. Three Gospels-Reynolds Price 1996 

142. International English Bible-Extreme New Testament 2001 

143. Psalm Paraphrases (1673 ed.) John Milton 

144. Revised King James Version-NT 

145. Von Soden's Greek NT/Apparatus 

146. Novum Testamentum Graece/Nestle-Aland 27th Edition 

147. The New Testament Letters by J.W.C. Wand 1946 

148. United Bible Societies 3 w/Apparatus 

149. Nestle Aland Greek Text-25 Edition 

150. World Bible Translation (software) 

151. The Four Gospels-A New Translation by E. V. Rieu 1953 

152. Revised Standard Version-Catholic Ignatius Edition 

153. English Standard Version 2001 

154. God's New Covenant-Heinz Cassirer 1989 

155. Urim-Thummim Version (Dallas James) 

156. A Literal English Translation by Rev.A.Marshall 1964 

157. Rahlf's Septuagint (LXX) 

158. NIV in Russian 

159. The Power New Testament by William J. Morford 1996 

160. An Understandable Version 

161. The New Testament of the Inclusive Language Bible 1994 

162. A New Translation based on the Majority Text by Wilbur Pickering 

163. Yes Word-Tyndale Bible 

164. Today's New International Version 2002 

165. Living Water-The Gospel of John/Logos21 Version by A. Farstad 1996 

166. Restored Name King James Version 

167. Scottish Metrical Psalter 1650 

168. James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1852 

169. American King James Version 

170. The Common Edition New Testament-Timothy E.Clontz 

171. Jerome's Septuagint - An English Translation 

172. A Conservative Version 

173. Orthodox Jewish Brit Cadasha 

174. Revised Version-Improved and Corrected by James Parkinson 

175. Analytical Literal Translation by Gary Zeolla 



176. The New Covenant by Willis Barnstone 

177. The Evidence Bible - Comfort-able KJV 2001 

178. The New Testament in Plain English by Charles Kingsley Williams 1963 

179. Living Destiny by Marley Cole 1984 

180. Isaac Leeser's Holy Scriptures 

181. A Glascow Bible by Jamie Stuart 1997 

182. Johannes Greber New Testament (German) 

183. The Scriptures by the Institute for Scripture Research (PTY) Ltd. 1998 

184. Salkinson-Ginsburg Hebrew New Testament corresponding to the Greek Textus Receptus 

by the Revd. Dr. Eric S. Gabe 2000 

185. United Bible Societies Greek New Testament 4th Edition 

186. The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by Comfort & Brown 1990 

187. Wycliffe Bible 

188. The Centenary Translation New Testament, 1924 

189. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts-Comfort and Barrett, 2001 

190. The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible 2002 (7th Edition) 

191. Messianic Jewish Version of the New Covenant Scriptures 1981 

192. The Book of God by Walter Wangerin, Jr. 

193. The Riverside New Testament 1923 

194. The Pioneers' New Testament-Ruth P. Martin Revised 2002 

195. The Christian Bible 1995 

196. Common Bible - NRSV 1990, 96 

Study Bibles 

1. Scofield Reference Bible (KJV) 1909, 1917 

2. Ryrie Study Bible (KJV) 1976 

3. Ryrie Study Bible (NIV) 1996 

4. Oxford Annotated Study Bible (RSV) 1965 

5. New Oxford Annotated Study Bible (NRSV) 1994 

6. Harper Collins Study Bible (NRSV) 1993 

7. Oxford Study Bible (REB) 1992 

8. New World Translation Reference Edition 1984 

9. Zondervan NASB Study Bible (NASB) 1999 

10. New American Standard Reference Bible 1960-1973 

11. Macarthur Study Bible (NKJV) 1997 

12. Vine's Reference Edition (NKJV) 1997 

13. The Millenium Bible (ASV) 1924 

14. Revised Standard Version-Reference Edition 1959 

17. The Century Bible (RV) A.S. Peake Job 

18. NIV Study Bible (Zondervan) 

19. New Scofield Reference Edition Bible 1967 KJV 

20. The Nelson Study Bible/NKJV 

21. The Dake Annotated Reference Bible/KJV 

22. The Companion Bible/KJV by E.W. Bullinger 

23. Oxford Study Edition of the New English Bible w/Apocrypha 



24. Baptist Study Edition-NKJV (Criswell/Patterson) 

25. Open Bible-KJV 

26. Quest Study Bible-NIV 

27. 

28. Holy Bible Catholic Reference Edition-New Living Translation, 2001 

29. Zondervan KJV Study Bible, 2002 

30. New Strong's Reference Bible-KJV 1989 

31. The Catholic Answer Bible-NAB 2002 

32. The Youth Bible-NCV 

Email Me 



1975...and the Predictions of Christendom 

1975...and the Predictions of Christendom! 

"As the dates have passed and Christ has not come, the evangelical church in America has 

had to battle ridicule of others and confusion within its own ranks. Disillusioned, some have 

even turned away from the faith." opening page, Soothsayers of the Second Advent, by 

Alnor 

And yet, Ron Rhodes has the guts to say: 

"Despite its many predictions, the Watchtower Society refuses to concede it is a false prophet." 

(Rhodes p.341) Mr. Rhodes calls these predictions, I call them speculations, the same kind that his 

church-members have been doing all along. 

Have you ever walked into a Christian Bookstore lately? You will notice on the shelf (you know, the 

one where they have all the books that bash Jehovah's Witnesses for being false prophets) that there are a 

few curious titles. Check these out: 

Y2K TidalWave-D.S. McAlvany 

2000 A.D. -Are you Ready? -P&P Lalonde 

2001 -Dr. Jack Van Impe 

The Millennium Bug -Michael S. Hyatt 

As Time Runs Out 

Armageddon 

Final Warning -all by Grant R. Jeffries 

The End-Why Jesus could Return by 2000-Ed Dobson 

1 & 2 Thessalonians: Living in the End Times-John R. W. Stott. 

The 90'S ; Decade of the Apocalypse : The European Common Market--The End Has Begun 

by Steve Terrell. 

Y2K- Feldham 

How Close are We? -D.Hunt 

Foreshocks of the Anti-Christ- eclectic 

Prophecy Watch -Ice & Demy 

2000 A.D. & Predicting Christ's Return -Ice & Demy 

Anything by Hal Lindsey...and believe me, there is plenty more. 

...and the Left Behind-the Series 

According to this issue of Time magazine, evangelical authors, like Tim Lahaye 

and Jerry B. Jenkins are making money hand over fist, feeding on people's fears 

that the end is near. "A TIME/CNN poll finds that more than 1/3 of Americans say 

they are paying more attention now to how the news might relate to the end of the 

world, and have talked about what the Bible has to say on the subject. Fully 59% 

say they believe the events in Revelation are going to come true, and nearly 

one-quarter think the Bible predicted the Sept. 11 attack." This is the same 

magazine (Time, July 1, 2002) that calls Evangelical author Tim LaHaye, a 

prophet. 

The fact is, many of Ron Rhodes fellow "christians" were awaiting the End/Rapture 

in the year 2000 or thereabouts. Other "christian" writers feed off that by even providing fictional novels 

of the coming tribulation with titles like THE WARNING(T.D.Bunn), BY DAWN'S EARLY 

LIGHT(G.R.Jeffrey &A.Hunt) and others like THE VISITATION(F.Peretti). 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/1975.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:20:53 AM]


Ice & Demy warn:"As speculation intensifies, we must return to the teachings of Jesus to build a 

Christ-centered foundation for the future." 

So, it is "False Prophecy" when JW's do it, but it is "speculation" when they do it. Does Ron Rhodes 

know this? Yes he does. In 1990 Ron Rhodes wrote "Millenial Madness" for the Christian Research 

Journal. In it he describes how the Christians in the year 999 A.D. feared the end also. Did he slam them. 

No, of course not, they were god-fearing trinitarian Christians after all. 

Were there others in the past? Yes, most certainly. Early Church fathers Hilarianus and Hippolytus 

predicted the end in 500 A.D.(Paula Fredriksen-Tyconius and Augustine on the Apocalypse) 

Irish Bishop James Ussher's prediction was for 1996. 

Puritans Issac Watts, Joseph Mede and the Mathers in America were date-setters. 


Does that mean that all Protestants or Lutherans are false prophets? No, of course not, but they are by the 

reasoning of a certain few. 

German Reformer Philip Melanchton was a date-setter too, as was German theologian Johann Alsted. 

Remember the booklet, "88 Reasons Why the Rapture will be in 1988" by Edgar Whisenant? Also 

"Christ Returns by 1988: 101 Reasons Why" by Colin Deal. 

Or the Korean Christians(Pentecostals) for October 1992? 

The most famous one was actually a Baptist....William Miller who predicted 1843. 

Wait...there's more 




● An ecumenical council for the Roman Catholic Church announces Christ's return by 

1000. 


● Abbo of Fleury, the French Abbott predicts it for predicts it for 994/996. 

● Richard of St. Vaast leads a pilgrimage for the predicted end in 1033. 

● 1184 is the target date for the return of the Antichrist according to many... 

● and again in 1345-1385 

● Joachim of Fiore(1135-1202) used the New Testament and the Trinity to proclaim the 

coming of the anti-christ in 1260 A.D. 

● 1260 is also touted by Brother Arnold (Dominican Monk) 

● Speaking of the Trinity, the Church Father who first coined the term, Tertullian was a 

Montanist(a deeply apocalyptical sect). 

● Jean de Roquetaillade announced it for 1366 

● Roman Catholic, Arnald of Villanova, predicted the appearance of the Antichrist in 1378 

● The Taborites predict it for 1420. 

● Priest Martinek Hauska announces doom for 1420. 

● Hans Hut announced the end for1528 

● Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa announced it for 1533 



● Melchior Hoffman announced it for 1593 

● The Fifth Monarchists predicted between 1655-57 

● A Lutheran named Adam Nachenmoser announced it for 1635 

● Lutheran leader, Andreas Osiander announced it for 1672 

● Jan Matthys announced for 1534 

● Archbishop of York and Primate of England, Edwin Sandys (1519-1588) proclaimed the 

imminent end 

● John Wycliffe announced it for 1379 

● One of the first Baptist groups, The Anabaptists believed that the Millenium would occur 

in 1533 

● Reformer John Foxe believed the last days would start in 1600. He was shared in this 

view by Robert Pont 

● New England Minister Jonathan Edwards predicts 1866 

● The Puritans predict it for 1700 

● Emanuel Swedenborg predicts the end for 1757 

● Anglican rector Thomas Beverly predict 1697 

● Anglican rector John Mason for 1694 

● Pierre Jurie predicts the end for 1689 

● Sir Walter Raleigh, Hugh Broughton and Thomas Brightman thought it would not be 

until 1700 

● Christopher Columbus said the world was going to end in 1656 

● Deacon William Aspinwall (General Court) predicts the end for 1673 

● Feb 28, 1763 Devout Methodist George Bell foresaw the end of the world on this date. 

● Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly announced it for 1789 

● The Shakers announced it for 1792 

● 1790 The Second Coming, according to Irish orator Francis Dobbs. 

● 1792 The end of the world according to the Shakers. 

● 1794 The end of the world according to the Shakers. 

● Charles Wesley, brother of Methodist Church founder John Wesley, predicted Doomsday 

would be in 1794. 

● Lavater announced it for 1795 

● Some Christian believers in Russia thought that Peter the Great was the Anti-Christ in the 

1660's. 

● Historic Jews in the 17th century believed that the Messiah would come in the year 1648. 

● John Napier announced it for 1688 or 1700 

● John Cummings of the Scottish National Church, predicted Jesus would return in 1865. 

● Isaac Newton announced it for about another 90 years in his day 

● Richard Brothers announced it for 1795 



● Methodist Church founder John Wesley foresaw the Millennium beginning in 1836, the 

same year that the Beast of Revelation was to rise from the sea. 

● Reverend M. Baxter (Church of England) predicts it for 1868 

● Scottish National Church official, the "Reverend" John Cumming (1807-1881) 

proclaimed "Redemption draweth Nigh" in 1867 

● In 1832 Pope Gregory XVI indicated that the time of the "plague of locusts 


● Pat Robertson announced it for 2007(in a novel) 

● Born-Again, R. Henry Hall for 1998 (AD 1991-The Genesis of Holocaust) 

● Hart Armstrong posts the Tribulation for 1989 

● Chuck Smith, Pastor of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa proclaimed it for 1981 

● Tommy Hicks, a noted evangelist, received visions of the end in 1961 

● Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, predicted the world's end in the 19th. Century. 

● Elizabeth Claire Prophet announced it for 1989 

● Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California predicted the Rapture in 

1981. 

● Hon-Ming Chen predicted Christ's return on March 31, 1998. 

● Methodist Joanna Southcott(1750-1814 announced she was the Bride of the Lamb and 

began to seal the 144,000 

● Early in the 20th century, Dr. Isaac M. Haldeman, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in 

New York City, predicted that the Antichrist would appear before the Jews return to 

Palestine 

● Assemblies of God official, Thomas M. Chalmers, announced it for the early 1920's 


● Evangelical prophecy teacher has announced it for 1975, 1976, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 

1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989 (see Sooth-Sayers of the Second Advent, Alnor) 

● September, 1981, Baptist itinerant preacher (a.k.a. an evangelist) in Springfield, Missouri 

makes the sure- fire claim that he had determined from Bible study that Christ absolutely 

HAD to come back between October, 1981 and September, 1982. (see THE SCOURGE OF 

THE "PROPHECY MONGERS" from "AS I SEE IT" Volume 1, Number 3, March, 1998 

● Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth, predicted the Rapture would occur in 

1988. 

● Nationally syndicated TV show host (Prophecy in the News), J.R. Church predicted the 

rapture for 1988. 

● David Webber and Noah Hutchings of the Southwest Radio Church (SRC) announced it 

for "1981 or '88". 

● Henry Kreysler announces Armageddon for 1995 

● Author Reginald Dunlop announces the Rapture for 1991. 

● Mary Stewart Relfe announced the Great Tribulation for 1990. 





● Dr. Jack van Impe has speculated that the end will come between September 1999 and 

2000. 

● Lester Sumrall for 2000. 




● James McKeever ends his 6000 year theory by at least 2030 (End Times News Digest). 

● Dr. Harold Camping, president of Family Radio, expected the end of the world in 1994. 

"Not a few ministries that began well have been turned aside by an obsessive bent 

toward prophecy. I will mention as one example Jack Van Impe. In the 1970s, Van Impe's 

ministry was singularly used by God in numerous crusades in various cities. At least two 

members of my immediate family were converted in his Wichita crusade. As a youth pastor 

in Indiana, I took our young people to his South Bend crusade, and several were saved as a 

result. As a seminary student of very restricted financial means, I was a weekly contributor 

to his ministry. But in those days, his focus was the Gospel, sin, and salvation by faith, with 

only a night or two in the week directed at prophetic themes. In a word--it was balanced. 

But what has he become 20 years later? His television broadcasts (which I can scarcely 

endure for more than a few minutes) are virtually nothing but the newest sign of the times, 

and latest "fulfillment" of a contorted misinterpretation and mangling of some Biblical text, 

presented by a man who seems to be all hyped-up and scarcely more sincere than a used car 

salesman. It is to me a very sad sight. A progressively more restricted pre-occupation with 

prophecy is unmistakably the cause. It is spiritually low octane stuff." 

THE SCOURGE OF THE "PROPHECY MONGERS" from "AS I SEE IT" Volume 1, 

Number 3, March, 1998 

Date suggesting- which is done by attaching predictions to open ended qualifiers such as "near," "close 

to," "just beyond," "not long after," "possibly by," or "very soon"-protects Christian prophecy from being 

condemned under Deuteronomy 18:21 because the verse only targets individuals who attribute their 

predictions directly to God. It says nothing about persons making predictions based on feelings, time 

calculations, or faulty biblical interpretation. The evangelical community is filled with even more 

date-suggesters than date-setters." 

End-Time Visions by Richard Abanes, p.100 

For confirmation on the above go to Robin Bruce Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis-Apocalypticism in the 

Wake of the Lutheran Reformation 

Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End—Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages, Published 1979 

Festinger, Riecken and Schaeter, When Prophecy Fails, page 7. 

Isaac Massey Haldeman, The Signs of the Times 

The Weekly Evangel, April 10, 1917 

Soothsayers of the Second Advent by Alnor 



The Last Days are Here Again-A History of the End Times by Richard Kyle 

Apocalypses by Weber 

"One faith united the scattered congregations: that Christ was the son of God, that he 

would return to establish his kingdom on earth, and that all who believed in him would at 

the Last Judgement be rewarded with eternal bliss. But Christians differed as to the date of 

the second advent. When Nero died and Titus demolished the Temple, and again when 

Hadrian destroyed Jerusalem, many Christians hailed these calamities as signs of the second 

coming. When chaos threatened the Empire at the close of the second century, Tertullian 

and others thought that the end of the world was at hand; a Syrian Bishop led his flock into 

the desert to meet Christ halfway, and a bishop in Pontus disorganized the life of his 

community by announcing that Christ would return within a year. As all signs failed, and 

Christ did not come, wiser Christians sought to soften the disappointment by reinterpreting 

the date of his return. 

He would come in a thousand years, said an epistle ascribed to Barnabas; he would come, 

said the most cautious, when the "generation" or race of the Jews was quite extinct, or when 

the Gospel had been preached to all gentiles; or said the Gospel of John, he would send in 

his stead the Holy Spirit or Paraclete." 

(Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Volume III, 'Ceasar and Christ, Pg. 603, 604) 

Even the earliest Christians prepared for the imminent end of the age in their own time: 

"That the earliest Church regarded itself as the Congregation of the end of days, is attested 

both by Paul, and the synoptic tradition....Further testimony for eschatological 

consciousness is the fact that Jesus' disciples after the Easter experiences in Galilee soon 

betook themselves to Jerusalem as the focus of the coming Reign of God." 

Theology of the New Testament-Complete in One Volume, by Rudolf Bultmann, p. 37 

Here are some WT quotes you will never see with the likes of Ron Rhodes etc: 

We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding 







Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a 

par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our 

teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations 

of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still 

urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the 

light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what 

they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to 

enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that 

we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon 

which to build. -- "Worship the Lord in the Beauty of Holiness," No. 2, 

Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 December 1896, 

reprint, 2080. 

Nevertheless, we are far from claiming any direct plenary inspiration. . . . 

A careful examination of the subject leads us to the conclusion that the Lord 



providentially shapes our course so as to give us such personal experiences 

in life as will bring us to his word for comfort and instruction in 

righteousness; and thus he permits us to sympathize with the experiences and 

questionings of his people, and then present to them at appropriate times the 

lessons drawn from our own experiences, backed by the instructions and 

comfort of the Scriptures. -- "Interesting Letters," Zion's Watch Tower and 

Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 July 1899, reprint, 2506. 

We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises, the Scriptural 





in respect to them. -- "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion's Watch Tower and 


"6000 Years of Human Existence" 

In 1969 the Watchtower Magazine in Czech began publishing a series of articles based on the book Life Everlasting- In 

Freedom of the Sons of God. Chapter 1, under the sub-heading "Six Thousand Years of Human Existence Closing," 

contained an explanation of the Jubilee and of the Bible chronology. This material influenced some in a positive way; it 

also led to many questions and much speculation. 

The office in Czechoslovakia sent a letter dated February 22, 1972, to all congregations. It set out a lengthy explanation of 

reasons why we should not make any definite assertions about the date when Armageddon will strike. It pointed out that no 

publication of the Society had said that Armageddon will come in a certain year. The letter concluded: "Jehovah's 

Witnesses around the world are familiar with these facts, and no one should any personal claims as to what will happen 

before or during the year 1975. There are no Scriptural grounds for any claims, and they could have a detrimental effect on 

the preaching work. Strive, therefore, that you 'all speak in agreement and that there be no divisions among you but that 

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 

nobody knows." Matt.24:36 

--2000 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses pp.196,197 

For more info, go to http://homepages.picknowl.com.au/hepburn/prophecy.htm 

Back to Ron Rhodes 



The Message-A Bible in Contemporary Language by Eugene Peterson 

The Message-The Bible in Contemporary Language by Eugene H. Peterson 

I have come to appreciate Paraphrased Bibles a little more in the past little while. They do clarify alot of 

texts, and they are fun to read. However, they are also very dogmatic. You have to really ask 

yourself...."Is that what the original writer really meant. The foreword of this Bible will tell you that it is 

written in the language of the people, street language, just like it was written back in Bible times. But I 

think the real reason for these types of translations is to push the theology and bias of the translator. For 

instance, with this translation we are to believe that the first century christians believed that Jesus Christ 

was God and part of a trinity, which was not a belief of the early christians. 

John 1:1, "The Word was first, 

the Word present to God, 

God present to the Word. 

The Word was God, 

in readiness for God from day one." 

That has to be the most confusing rendering of that scripture that I have ever read. For a paraphrase, it 

clarifies absolutely nothing. 

To be sure that we do not think of the Son as subordinate, John 14:28 has been changed from "The Father 

is greater than I am" to "the Father is the goal and purpose of my life." 

To tell us that John 1:1 is not confusing, John 1:18 says in The Message, "No one has ever seen God, not 

so much of a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has 

made him plain as day". 

Oh good, no more Mystery of the Trinity. This should give us more time for the "Mystery of Sex" which 

is the heading for 1 Corinthians 5. 

And to clarify another vague "trinity proof" text, John 8:58 has been changed to "I am who I am long 

before Abraham was anything."(Italics theirs) 

Also, we are to believe from the foreword that people in Bible times never used God's personal name, 

Jehovah or Yahweh, which this translation never mentions once. It doesn't even capitalize titles like 

LORD or GOD where the Divine Name should appear like other Bible translations. 

Other interesting scriptures from The Message: 

John 10:22, "They were celebrating Hanukkah just then in Jerusalem." 

Acts 8:20, "Peter said,'To hell with your money!" 

Matthew 9:34, "The Pharisees were left sputtering, 'Hocus Pocus.It's nothing but Hocus Pocus." 

Matthew 4:9, "They're yours-lock stock and barrel." 

Matthew 4:10, "Beat it, Satan!" 

1 Corinthians 6:9,10, "Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth 

and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens of God's kingdom." 

Acts 15:28,29, "avoid serving food offensive to Jewish Christians (blood for instance); and guard the 

morality of sex and marriage." 

There are however some good points about The Message. I do like the references to quoted scriptures, 

like, "The Devil goaded him by quoting Psalm 91: 'He has placed you in the care of angels." Matthew 4 

I cannot recommend The Message, even though it is quite readable. It has taken to many liberties with 

the text, and, if I may quote the translator out of context in his Introduction to Hebrews, he says, "we 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/message.htm (1 of 2) [5/25/2003 4:21:12 AM]

The Message-A Bible in Contemporary Language by Eugene Peterson 

become impatiently self-important along the way and decide to improve matters with our own 2 cents 

worth. We add on, we supplement, we embellish. But instead of improving on the purity and simplicity 

of Jesus, we dilute the purity, clutter the simplicity. We become fussily religious, or anxiously religious. 

We get in the way."-Eugene H.Peterson 

"This is great literature and great religious literature, this collection of ancient writings we call the Bible, 

and any translator has a deep sense of responsibility as he undertakes to transmit it to modern readers. 

He desires his transcript to be faithful to the meaning of the original, so far as he can reach that meaning, 

and also to do some justice to its literary qualities. But he is well aware that his aim often exceeds his 

grasp. Translation may be a fascinating task, yet no discipline is more humbling. You may be 

translating oracles, but soon you learn the risk and folly of posing as an oracle yourself. If your readers 

are dissatisfied at any point, they may be sure that the translator is still more dissatisfied, if not there, 

then elsewhere -- all the more so, because, in the nature of the case, he has always to appear dogmatic in 

print." 

... James Moffatt (1870-1944) 

Author Robert Martin who wrote a book on dynamic equivalence states, "The dynamic equivalence 

translator tends to be relatively unrestrained in his theologizing. What a formal equivalence [Literal] 

translator generally does only as a matter of necessity, the dynamic equivalence translator often does as a 

matter of choice." 

Heinz Schmitz 

June 23 1999 

Last updated Feb 21 2001 


Email Me 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/message.htm (2 of 2) [5/25/2003 4:21:12 AM]

Bible Links 



Links to other Bibles and Places of Interest on the Web 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Purchase a reprint of Newcome's 1808 New Testament-Revised and Corrected 

Noah's Ark Discovery by Angelo Palego 

Edgar Foster's Homepage-Trippin in Glascow 

Make your choice of favorite Bible from 15 different versions. 

What's Wrong with PBS's Evolution? Download the .pdf document 

The Biblical Prohibition from Eating Blood[1] by Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher 

Does the Bible have a Hidden Code? 

Mathematicians on the Bible Codes 

Time-line of Bible History (by Theodore Cobb) -Free .pdf document, simply email the Webmaster 

at hector3001@aol.com 

The Bible's Power in your Life Video 

Personal Notes on the book, "A Creator Who Cares" 

Read my article in the High Point Enterprise 

NT quotes from the LXX as opposed to the Masoretic Text 

The Usage and Meaning of Elohim 

The Divine Name in the New Testament 

Early Christian Writings (Shepherd of Hermas, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas etc) 

Search the New American Standard Bible 

Search the Concordant Version 

Search Die Elberfelder Bibel 

Search the Jewish Publication Society Bible 1917 

Search the "Navigating the Bible II" Jewish Translation (Kaplan) 

Search the Revised Standard Version 

Search the New Revised Standard Version 

Search the English Standard Version 2001 

Search the J.B. Phillips Translation 

Search the Literal Version by Jay P. Green 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/links.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:21:27 AM]


● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Search the Revised King James Version-NT 

Search Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words 

Search the Modern King James Version 

Search the Clarified King James Version 

Search the King James Version w/Apocrypha 

Preface to the King James Version of 1611 

Search the J.N. Darby Version 

Search the Catholic New American Bible 

Search the Bible with Strong's Numbers/Linked Word Project 

The Translator to the Reader-The Preface to the King James Version 1611 

DuTillet Hebrew version of Matthew 

Search Young's Literal Translation 

Search the NESV 

Douay/Rheims Bible On-Line 

Search the ADAM CLARKE'S COMMENTARIES 

N.T. Textual Reference Chart(.pdf) 

What is the Tetragrammaton (.pdf) 

Westcott-Hort text from 1881, combined with the NA26/27 variants 

The Divine Name in the New Testament 

Bruce Barnard's Defence of the New World Translation 

Ryan Taylor's JW Web-site 

The Catholic Encyclopedia 

Christian Association of Jehovah's Witnesses 

Survey of Bible Versions used in local Reformed Churches 

Catalogue of New Testament Papyri & Codices 2nd—10th Centuries 

Greg Staffords Debate Log Answers to Rob Bowman, James R. White and other critics of the 

Trinity 

The 3 Wise Men 

Books on the Witnesses and the NWT 

Steven T.Byington Site 

Witnesses CornerNicely laid out site with news, pictures and other sites with JW's on the Web. 

Bible Foundation 

Anthony's JW Links 



● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Top 10 Problems with the Big Bang 

Bible Greek Theology 

Download "Faith on the March" by A.H. MacMillan 

The Works of Flavius Josephus 

My Sweetie's Site 

The NIV-The Making of a Contemporary Translation By Kenneth L. Barker 

WOC Research/Trinity 

KJV Errors 

Is the KJV the ONLY True Word of God? 

THE DISCOVERY OF THE SINAITIC MANUSCRIPT by Constantin von Tischendorf 

Old Testament Monotheism by Wes Williams 

Blue Letter Bible/KJV 

American Standard Version 

World English Bible 

Bible Gateway 

Is Young-Earth Creationism Christian? 

Peshitta Translation Project 

The Latin Vulgate 

Latin Dictionary 

Nuremburg Trial Proceedings 

Really old Bible fragments to download 


MultiLingual Bible 

Isaac Newton vs The Trinity 

Second Thoughts on the Majority Text 

Hebrew Names Version 


Original Bible Project 

The Prince of Egypt 

There is One God-A Unitarian View 

The Non-Offensive Language in the NLT and CEV 

Westcott and Hort and the "Ghostlie Guild 

JW Media 



● 

The Bible in Pig Latin 

Updated July 11 2002 




The King James(Authorized) Version Bible-Is it the Best? 

The KJV is arguably the greatest piece of English literature ever. Let's take a look at one example: "A vertuous 

woman reioyceth her husband, and he shall fulfill the yeeres of his life in peace." Ecclesiasticus 26:2 What is 

that you say? That scripture isn't in your copy of the KJV? Why is that? It is because the original KJV of 1611 

had the apocrypha(books not canonized). And as you can see, the language is a little different from your copy. 

Here is another example from the book of Psalms: "That men may knowe, that thou, whose name alone is 

IEHOVAH, art the most high ouer all the earth."Psalmes LXXXIII:18 What does this mean? It means that the 

King James Version Bible has been revised thru the ages to meet the demands of a changing language. 

How Many Revisions? 

First, there were printer errors. 

● There was the Wicked Bible which omitted "not" from 7 of the 10 Commandments. 

● The Vinegar Bible with its parable of the vinegar 

● The Unrighteous Bible where the unrighteous inherit the kingdom 

● The Ears to Ear Bible and an assortment of others 

Intentional Changes: 

● 1612 

● Early editions used either "he" or "she" at Ruth 3:15 

● 1613 

● 1616 

● In fact, between 1611 and 1644 there were 182 editions 

● 1629 edition omitted the Apocrypha 

● 1638 edition by Goad, Ward, Boyse and Mead 

● 1659 William Kilburne found 20,000 errors in 6 different editions made in the 1650's 

● 1660 marginal references introduced 

● 1683 Dr.Anthony Scargood added 7,250 references 

● 1727 thousands of errors were amended by the King's Printer 

● 1762 italics extended by Therold and Paris and modernized the language 

● 1769 extensive revision by B.Blayney 

● The 1795 edition(Murderers Bible) rendered Mark 7:27 as "Let the chidren first be killed" (instead of 

filled). 

● Blayney's edition became standard until.... 

● 1873 the Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by Scrivener 

While the 1611 edition had, "Then cometh Judas" at Matthew 26:36, today's KJV has "Then cometh Jesus". 

Quite a remarkable difference! 

King James Version Differences and Revisions 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/kjv.htm (1 of 7) [5/25/2003 4:21:56 AM]


Passage A.V. KJV (1611) Current KJV (1850) 

Genesis 19:21 concerning this thing concerning this thing also 

Genesis 23:18 gates gate 

Genesis 39:1 hand hands 

Genesis 39:16 her lord his lord 

Genesis 47:6 any man any men 

Exodus 15:25 he made a statute he made for them a statute 

Exodus 21:32 thirty shekels thirty shekels of silver 

Exodus 23:13 names name 

Exodus 35:29 hands hand 

Leviticus 2:4 it shall be an unleavened cake it shall be unleavened cakes 

Leviticus 10:14 sacrifice sacrifices 

Leviticus 19:34 shall be as one born shall be unto you as one born 

Leviticus 20:11 shall be put to death shall surely be put to death 

Leviticus 25:23 were strangers are strangers 

Leviticus 26:23 be reformed by these things be reformed by me by these things 

Leviticus 26:40 the iniquity of their fathers 

Numbers 4:40 houses house 

Numbers 7:55 

charger of an hundred 

and thirty shekels 

their iniquity, 

and the iniquity of their fathers 

charger of the weight of an hundred 

and thirty shekels 

Deutnomy 5:29 keep my commandments keep all my commandments 

Joshua 3:11 covenant, even the Lord covenant of the Lord 

Joshua 7:14 households household 

Ruth 3:15 and he went into the citie. and she went into the city. 

1 Samuel 18:27 David arose, he and his men 

1 Samuel 28:7 servant servants 

David arose and went, 

he and his men 

2 Samuel 16:8 to thy mischief in thy mischief 

2 Kings 11:10 in the temple. in the temple of the LORD. 

2 Kings 23:21 this book of the Covenant the book of this covenant 

1 Chron 7:5 were men of might were valiant men of might 

1 Chron 11:15 of David to David 



2 Chron 28:22 this his 

Job 33:22 His soul draweth near Yea, his soul draweth near 

Psalm 141:9 snare snares 

Proverbs 7:21 With much fair speech With her much fair speech 

Eccles 2:16 shall be forgotten shall all be forgotten 

Sg of Solm 4:6 mountains mountain 

Sg of Solm 5:12 water waters 

Isaiah 34:11 The cormorant and the bittern But the cormorant and the bittern 

Isaiah 49:13 heaven heavens 

Isaiah 49:13 God the LORD 

Isaiah 57:8 and made a covenant and made thee a covenant 

Jeremiah 4:6 standards standard 

Jeremiah 31:14 be satisfied with goodness be satisfied with my goodness 

Jeremiah 31:18 thou art the Lord my God for thou art the Lord my God 

Jeremiah 51:12 watchman watchmen 

Jeremiah 51:30 their her 

Ezekiel 6:8 that he may that ye may 

Ezekiel 12:19 violence of them violence of all them 

Ezekiel 24:5 him them 

Ezekiel 24:7 poured it upon the ground poured it not upon the ground 

Ezekiel 48:8 they ye 

Daniel 3:15 the midst of a fiery furnace the midst of a burning fiery furnace 

Daniel 12:13 the lot thy lot 

Joel 3:13 the wickedness their wickedness 

Amos 8:3 Temples temple 

Zechariah 7:7 of the plain and the plain 

Malachi 3:4 offerings offering 

Matthew 12:23 Is this the son of David? Is not this the son of David? 

Matthew 14:9 othes oath's 

Matthew 16:16 Thou art Christ Thou art the Christ 

Mark 6:26 othes oath's 

John 11:3 sister sisters 



John 12:22 told tell 

John 15:20 the Lord his Lord 

Acts 5:34 a doctor of law a doctor of the law 

Romans 14:10 we shall all stand for we shall all stand 

1 Corinth 10:28 The earth is the Lords for the earth is the Lord's 

1 Corinth 12:28 helps in governments helps, governments 

1 Corinth 15:6 And After 

Philippians 4:6 request requests 

2 Thessa 2:14 the Lord Jesus Christ our Lord Jesus Christ 

1 Timothy 1:4 rather than edifying rather than godly edifying 

2 Timothy 4:8 unto them also unto all them also 

Hebrews 3:10 hearts heart 

Hebrews 12:1 run with patience unto the race run with patience the race 

1 John 5:12 

he that hath not the Son, 

hath not life. 

Revelation 13:6 dwelt dwell 

2 Chron 33:19 

[Cambridge KJV Editions] 

sin 

he that hath not the Son of God 

hath not life. 

[Oxford KJV Editions] 

sins 

Jeremiah 34:16 whom ye whom he 

Will the real King James Bible please stand up! 

Do you understand these Scriptures from the KJV? 

For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I? Eccl.2:25 

Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing. Ps.5:6 

Nevertheless even him [Solomon] did outlandish women cause to sin. Neh. 13:26 

Solomon loved many strange women. 1Kings 11:1 

Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof. Job 26:5 

The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour. Job 36:33 

Woe to them that...stay on horses. Is. 31:1; 10:20; 30:12; 50:12 

The ships of Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market. Ez. 27:25 

I trow not. Luke 17:9 

He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. John 15:2 

We do you to wit of the grace of God. 2Cor. 8:1 

I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified. 1Cor.4:4 

Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. 2Cor.6:12 

Not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand. 2Cor.10:16 



The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from 

one shepherd. Eccl.12:11 

For some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol. 2Cor.8:7 

Do You Know These Words in the KJV? 

almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, ligure, leasing, maranatha, nard, 

neesed, pate, rabboni, raca, ring-staked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood, trode, wimples, ouches, tatches, 

brigandine, ambassage, occurent, purtenance, bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban, talitha 

cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, quarternion, sanctum sanctorum, let, wot, trow, sod and swaddling clothes. 

Different Names for the same Person in the KJV 

Sheth and Seth; Pua and Puah; Cis and Kish; Agar and Hagar; Jeremiah, Jeremias and Jeremie; Enos and 

Enosh; Henoch and Enoch; Jered and Jared; Noe and Noah; Jonah, Jona and Jonas; Jepthae and Jepthah; Balak 

and Balac; Sara and Sarah; Gidion and Gideon; Elijah and Elias; Kora and Core; Elisha and Eliseus; Hosea and 

Osee; Isaiah, Esaias and Esay; Hezekiah and Ezekiah; Zechariah and Zecharias; Judas, Judah, Juda and Jude; 

Zera, Zara and Zarah; Marcus and Mark; Lucas and Luke; Timothy and Timotheus. 

● dabhar('word' or 'thing') is rendered by 84 different English words. 

● panim('face') by 34 different English words. 

● sim('to set' or 'place') by 59 different English words 

● nasah('to lift up') by 46 

● abhar('to pass over') by 48 

● rabh('much' or 'many') by 44 

● tobh('good') by 41 

● shubh('to turn back') by 60 

● katargein('to make void) by 17 

● passover is translated Easter in Acts 12:4 

Cockatrice 

Isaiah 14:29 serpent-RSV Snake-NWT 

Isaiah 11:8 serpents-RSV & NWT 

Isaiah 59:5 adders-RSV snake NWT 

Unicorn 

Deut. 33:17 wild ox-RSV wild bull-NWT 

Psalms 22:21 wild oxen-RSV wild bulls-NWT 

Isaiah 34:7 wild oxen-RSV wild bulls-NWT 

Mythical Creatures in the KJV 

Satyr 

Isaiah 13:21 goat-shaped demon-NWT wild goats[like demons]-Amplified Bible 

Isaiah 34:14 goat-shaped demon-NWT shaggy wild goat-Amplified Bible 

Doctrinal Problems in the KJV 

1John 5:7"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these 



three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these 

three agree in one." Omitted by most other versions 

1Timothy 3:16"God was manifest in the flesh" 

"He who was revealed in the flesh" NASB, NWT, RSV etc 

Revelation 1:11"I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" Omitted by most others 

Matthew 5:22 "hellfire" Should be "gehenna" NWT, Youngs Literal Translation 

Psalms 16:10 "hell" Should be "sheol" NWT, Youngs Literal Translation 

Acts 2:27 "hell" Should be "hades" NWT, Youngs Literal Translation 

2Peter 2:4 "hell" Should be "tartarus" NWT, Youngs Literal Translation 

Headings at Psalm 93 and Isaiah 51 mention Christ. 

The Divine Name "Jehovah" is used only at Exodus 6:3, Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4, but it is omitted 

everywhere else and replaced by LORD in capital letters. 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Fast Facts on the KJV 

The Greek text used for the King James Version, which is the Textus Receptus, took less than a year to 

produce by Erasmus. 

The Received Text(Textus Receptus, TR) ...."was not based on early manuscripts, not reliably edited, 

and consequently not trustworthy." N. Geisler/W. Nix A General Introduction to the Bible 

Since the KJV uses Elijah and Elias for the same person(see above), Mormon prophet Joseph Smith 

interestingly had a vision of both(Doctrine and Covenants 110:12-16)! 

King James was a flaming homosexual with a preference for boys. 

There are over 30 different editions of the Textus Receptus(TR) and none are 100% identical. 

"The King James translators knew Greek less well than they knew Latin so they constantly relied on the 

Latin to get themselves through the Greek."...Dr. Wallace 

The original KJV had a calendar of annual Holy days which all believers were to follow such as: 

Purification of the virgin Mary, annunciation of our Lady, Innocents day, etc.. 

In 1851 the American Bible Society compared six different editions of the King James Bible and 

discovered over 24,000 variations between the editions of the same Bible translation! How could there 

be an inerrant King James Bible when even the different editions of the King James Bible had ten's of 

thousands of variant readings!? 

Erasmus, the originator of the so-called "inerrant" Greek text later to be called the "Textus Receptus" 

dedicated his work to Pope Leo X 

The teaching that the King James translators had a perfect Greek text is denied by the translators 

themselves. In the original edition of 1611 are marginal notes as follows: Note on Luke 17:36, "This 

36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." Note on Acts 25:6 where their text reads: "When he 

had tarried among them more than ten days," they inserted the following marginal note: "or, as some 

copies read, 'no more than eight or ten days.'" 

There are no paragraph marks after Acts 20:36 

Some believe the translators were influenced by the Socinians (Unitarians) because of their referring to 

the holy spirit as an "it" (John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; I Peter 1:11). See Emery H. Bancroft, 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961; revised edition], pp. 147-8) 

Fun with the KJV 

Does anyone know that the K.J version was written in 1610. 

Did you know Shakespere was 46 at the time? Connection? 

Well, in Psalms 46, the 46th word is shake, from the end of the scripture, ignore Selah, count 

backwards 46 words and the word is "spear". 

Also, the 14th word is "will". Go to the rear and count back to words 32 and 31(14+32=46) and 

get I am. Put them all together and get his signature, 

"Will-I am Shake-spear. 

Then check any decent encyclopedia and see where King James summoned the greatest writers 

of the day to "translate" the Word. 

(In all fairness to the above submission, Will probably used the Geneva Bible) 

Other Links 

Errors and Mistranslations in the KJV 

KING JAMES VERSION ERRORS 

Ages or Eternity and the King James Version 

The Majority Text/Byzantine Text vs the Modern Critical Text 


Should we accept newer Bible revisions and translations? Yes, by doing so we are following King James 

tradition. Did you know that the translators preface to the KJV quotes scripture 14 times, each time from the 

Geneva Bible. If it can quote other bibles, so can you. 

"We must sometimes get away from the Authorized Version, if for no other reason, simply 

because it is so beautiful and so solemn. Beauty exalts, but beauty also lulls. Early associations 

endear, but they also confuse. Through that beautiful solemnity, the transporting or horrifying 

realities of which the Book tells may come to us blunted and disarmed, and we may only sigh with 

tranquil veneration when we ought to be burning with shame, or struck dumb with terror, or 

carried out of ourselves by ravishing hopes and adorations." 

... C. S. Lewis (1898-1963), God in the Dock 

Updated Jan 21 2001 




Who Was King James? 


For the last three centuries Protestants have fancied themselves the heirs of the Reformation, the 

Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. This assumption is one of 

history's greatest ironies. Today, Protestants laboring under that assumption use the King James Bible. 

Most of the new Bibles such as the Revised Standard Version are simply updates of the King James. 

The irony is that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph used a King James Bible nor 

would they have used it if it had been given to them free. The Bible in use by those groups, until it went 

out of print in 1644, was the Geneva Bible. The first Geneva Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was 

first published in English in 1560 in what is now Geneva, Switzerland. William Shakespeare, John 

Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that 

era used the Geneva Bible exclusively. 

Until he had his own version named after him, so did King James I of 

England. James I later tried to disclaim any knowledge of the Geneva Bible, though he quoted the 

Geneva Bible in his own writings. As a Professor Eadie reported it: 

"...his virtual disclaimer of all knowledge up to a late period of the Genevan notes and 

version was simply a bold, unblushing falsehood, a clumsy attempt to sever himself 

and his earlier Scottish beliefs and usages that he might win favor with his English 

churchmen." 

The irony goes further. King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to 

enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. 

The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common 

people. 

The King James Bible was, and is for all practical purposes, a government publication. There were 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/kjames.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:22:07 AM]


several reasons for the King James Bible being a government publication. First, King James I of England 

was a devout believer in the "divine right of kings," a philosophy 

ingrained in him by his mother, Mary Stuart. Mary Stuart may have been having an affair with her Italian 

secretary, David Rizzio, at the time she conceived James. There is a better than even 

chance that James was the product of adultery. Apparently, enough evidence of such conduct on 

the part of Mary Stuart and David Rizzio existed to cause various Scot nobles, including Mary's own 

husband, King Henry, to drag David Rizzio from Mary's supper table and execute him. The Scot nobles 

hacked and slashed at the screaming Rizzio with knives and swords, and then threw him off a balcony to 

the courtyard below where he landed with a sickening smack. In the phrase of that day, he had been 

scotched. 

Mary did have affairs with other men, such as the Earl of Bothwell. She later tried to execute her 

husband in a gunpowder explosion that shook all of Edinburgh. King Henry survived the explosion only 

to be suffocated later that same night. The murderers were never discovered. Mary was eventually 

beheaded at the order of her cousin, Elizabeth I of England. 

To such individuals as James and his mother, Mary, the "divine right of kings" meant that since a 

king's power came from God, the king then had to answer to no one but God. This lack of responsibility 

extended to evil kings. The reasoning was that if a king was evil, that was a punishment sent from God. 

The citizens should then suffer in silence. If a king was good, that was a blessing sent from God. 

This is why the Geneva Bible annoyed King James I. The Geneva Bible had marginal notes that 

simply didn't conform to that point of view. Those marginal notes had been, to a great extent, placed in 

the Geneva Bible by the leaders of the Reformation, including John Knox and John Calvin. Knox and 

Calvin could not and cannot be dismissed lightly or their opinions passed off to the public as the mere 

ditherings of dissidents. 

First, notes such as, "When tyrants cannot prevail by craft they burst forth into open rage" (Note i, 

Exodus 1:22) really bothered King James. 

Second, religion in James' time was not what it is today. In that era religion was controlled by the 

government. If someone lived in Spain at the time, he had three religious "choices:" 

1.Roman Catholicism 

2.Silence 

3.The Inquisition 

The third "option" was reserved for "heretics," or people who didn't think the way the government 

wanted them to. To governments of that era heresy and treason were synonymous. 

England wasn't much different. From the time of Henry VIII on, an Englishman had three choices: 

1.The Anglican Church 

2.Silence 

3.The rack, burning at the stake, being drawn and quartered, or some other form of 

persuasion. 

The hapless individuals who fell into the hands of the government for holding religious opinions of 

their own were simply punished according to the royal whim. 

Henry VIII, once he had appointed himself head of all the English churches, kept the Roman 

Catholic system of bishops, deacons and the like for a very good reason. That system allowed him a 

"chain of command" necessary for any bureaucracy to function. This system passed intact to his heirs. 

This system became a little confusing for English citizens when Bloody Mary ascended to the 



throne. Mary wanted everyone to switch back to Roman Catholicism. Those who proved intransigent and 

wanted to remain Protestant she burned at the stake — about 300 people in all. She intended to burn a lot 

more, but the rest of her intended victims escaped by leaving the country. A tremendous number of those 

intended victims settled in Geneva. Religious refugees from other countries in Western Europe, including 

the French theologian Jean Chauvin, better known as John Calvin, also settled there. 

Mary died and was succeeded in the throne by her Protestant cousin, Elizabeth. The Anglican 

bureaucracy returned, less a few notables such as Archbishop Cranmer and Hugh Latimer (both having 

been burned at the stake by Bloody Mary). In Scotland, John Knox led the Reformation. The 

Reformation prospered in Geneva. Many of those who had fled Bloody Mary started a congregation 

there. Their greatest effort and contribution to the Reformation was the first Geneva Bible. 

More marginal notes were added to later editions. By the end of the 16th century, the Geneva Bible 

had about all the marginal notes there was space available to put them in. 

Geneva was an anomaly in 16th century Europe. In the days of absolute despotism and constant warfare, 

Geneva achieved her independence primarily by constant negotiation, playing off one stronger power 

against another. While other governments allowed lawyers to drag out cases and took months and years 

to get rid of corrupt officials, the City of Geneva dispatched most civil and criminal cases within a month 

and threw corrupt officials into jail the day after they were found out. The academy that John Calvin 

founded there in 1559 later became the University of Geneva. Religious wars wracked Europe. The 

Spanish fought to restore Roman Catholicism to Western Europe. The Dutch fought for the Reformation 

and religious freedom. England, a small country with only 4-1/2 million people, managed to stay aloof 

because of the natural advantage of the English Channel. 

The Dutch declared religious freedom for everybody. Amsterdam became an open city. English 

Puritans arrived by the boatload. The 1599 Edition of the Geneva Bible was printed in Amsterdam and 

London in large quantities until well into the 17th century. 

King James, before he became James I of England, made it plain that he had no use for the "Dutch 

rebels" who had rebelled against their Spanish King. Another irony left to us from the 16th century is that 

the freedom of religion and freedom of the press did not originate in England, as many people commonly 

assume today. Those freedoms were first given to Protestants by the Dutch, as the records of that era 

plainly show. England today does not have freedom of the press the way we understand it. (There are 

things in England such as the Official Secrets Act that often land journalists in jail.) 

England was relatively peaceful in the time of Elizabeth I. There was the problem of the Spanish 

Armada, but that was brief. Elizabeth later became known as "Good Queen Bess," not because she was 

so good, but because her successor was so bad. Elizabeth died in 1603 and her cousin, James Stuart, son 

of Mary Stuart, who up until that time had been King James VI of Scotland ascended the throne and 

became known as King James I of England. James ascended the throne of England with the "divine right 

of kings" firmly embedded in his mind. Unfortunately, that wasn't his only mental problem. 

King James I, among his many other faults, preferred young boys to adult women. He was a 

flaming homosexual. His activities in that regard have been recorded in numerous books and public 

records; so much so, that there is no room for debate on the subject. The King was queer. 

The very people who use the King James Bible today would be the first ones to throw such a deviant out 

of the congregations. 

The depravity of King James I didn't end with sodomy. James enjoyed killing animals. He called it 

"hunting." Once he killed an animal, he would literally roll about in its blood. Some believe that he 

practiced bestiality while the animal lay dying. 

James was a sadist as well as a sodomite: he enjoyed torturing people. While King of Scotland in 

1591, he personally supervised the torture of poor wretches caught up in the witchcraft trials of Scotland. 



James would even suggest new tortures to the examiners. One "witch," Barbara Napier, was acquitted. 

That event so angered James that he wrote personally to the court on May 10, 1551, ordering a sentence 

of death, and had the jury called into custody. To make sure they understood their particular offense, the 

King himself presided at a new hearing — and was gracious enough to release them without punishment 

when they reversed their verdict. 

History has it that James was also a great coward. On January 7, 1591, the king was in Edinburgh 

and emerged from the toll booth. A retinue followed that included the Duke of Lennox and Lord Hume. 

They fell into an argument with the laird of Logie and pulled their swords. James looked behind, saw the 

steel flashing, and fled into the nearest refuge which turned out to be a skinner's booth. There to his 

shame, he "fouled his breeches in fear." 

In short, King James I was the kind of despicable creature honorable men loathed, Christians would 

not associate with, and the Bible itself orders to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). Knowing what King 

James was we can easily discern his motives. 

James ascended the English throne in 1603. He wasted no time in ordering a new edition of the 

Bible in order to deny the common people the marginal notes they so valued in the Geneva Bible. That 

James I wasn't going to have any marginal notes to annoy him and lead English citizens away from what 

he wanted them to think is a matter of public record. In an account corrected with his own hand dated 

February 10, 1604, he ordained: 

That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and 

Greek, and this to be set out and printed without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches 

of England in time of divine service. James then set up rules that made it impossible for anyone involved 

in the project to make an honest translation, some of which follow: 

1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible to be followed and as 

little altered as the truth of the original will permit. 

Or, since the common people preferred the Geneva Bible to the existing government publication, 

let's see if we can slip a superseding government publication onto their bookshelves, altered as 

little as possible. 

3. The old Ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word "church" not to be translated 

"congregation," etc. 

That is, if a word should be translated a certain way, let's deliberately mistranslate it to make the 

people think God still belongs to the Anglican Church — exclusively. 

6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek 

words, 

which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text. 

All excerpts from Global Insights. 

***For verification of King James homosexuality, I got my info from Global Insights. You can also find 

more info at Otto Scott's "James I: The Fool As King" (Ross House: 1976), pp. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 

224, 311, 353, 382; King James-VI of Scotland/I of England by Antonia Fraser (Alfred A. Knopf, New 

York 1975)pp. 36, 37, 38; King James VI and I by David Harris Willson, pp.36, 99; James I by his 

Contemporaries by Robert Ashton, p114; and A History of England by Samuel Rawson Gardiner, Vol. 4, 

p.112. Check also A LITERARY HISTORY OF THE BIBLE by Geddes MacGregor who has devoted a 

whole chapter entitled "QUEEN" JAMES. 



In the Beginning, by Alister McGrath, pp. 170-71 

The Mammoth Book of Private Lives by Jon E. Lewis, pp. 62,65,66 

James White also makes mention of it in his book, THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY. 

See also King James and the History of Homosexuality by Michael B. Young 

and King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire by David Moore Bergeron, both available on 

amazon.com 

For those people who feel that the above is a result of the attack on King James by the 17th century tobacco industry are 

ignorant of the fact that his behavior and personal life were quite well known to his contemporaries. " He disdained women 

and fawned unconscionably on his favorite men." ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA-pp. 674,675 

"And shall I then like bird or beast forget 

For any storms that threatening heaven can send 

The object sweet, where on my heart is set 

Whom for to serve my senses all I bend?..." 

A poem written by King James to his homosexual love interest (pictured above, Esme 

Stuart). King James-VI of Scotland/I of England, by Antonia Fraser, New York 1975 

Back to Bible Translations 

For more on the KJV click here 


For more on the character of King James click here 


My Vicious Letter from the International Standard Version Bible 

My Vicious Letter From the International Standard Version Bible 

I was just going through the Inclusive Bible New Testament(Cross Cultural Productions) and I had 

noticed some disturbing changes. In this Bible "Son of Man" became "Son of Humanity", "Heavenly 

Father" became "Heavenly Parent" and so on. So I went to check on the net for more Inclusive Language 

Bibles and I came across the International Standard Version which claims to be an idiomatic and literal 

translation of the Bible. This Bible does not change the gender of titles like the above mentioned when it 

comes to Jesus or God, but it will do so anywhere else it deems necessary. For instance, in Matthew 4:4 

says,"A person must not live on bread alone" instead of the usual, "Man must not live on bread alone". 

I should mention that since the writing of this letter, I have educated myself concerning the original 

languages in relation to gender. Books like The Inclusive Language Debate by D.A. Carson can help 

someone get a better understanding of gender-inclusiveness. I am no longer as hostile to this tendency in 

modern versions, but there is still no need for alot of it, and this has also been endorsed by many others who 

are scholarly (cf. http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/genderneutral.html ) However, rather than 

lovingly answering my query on this issue, like the World English Bible people concerning my questioning 

their use of the Majority Text), they immediately condemned me for daring to question them. This lack of 

humility should be a red flag to anyone who picks up this New Testament version. 

I also noticed that they did not mention or use the Divine Name(Jehovah, Yahweh) at all. It isn't even 

mentioned in the footnotes at Exodus 3:15;6:3. So I wrote them and I told they are bowing to special 

interest groups and that they could hardly be called literal if they are refusing to use the Divine Name 

which was mentioned in the original Bible about 7000 times. Here is the reply I received: 

"Your caustic comments are way, way out of line. 

In regards to the "inclusive" language policy of the ISV, you have jumped to 

a conclusion without having read the ISV. The policy on inclusive language 

is reproducted below from the Introduction tot he ISV, page xliv. 

The plain fact of the matter is that the words "antropoi" does not always 

mean "men" -- in fact, the Greek word "aner" is used when the gender of the 

persons referred to are male as opposed to female. The term "anthropoi" 

often means "people" -- i.e., without reference to any specific gender. 

When Jesus says that He will call "all men" to Himself to be saved, if 

"anthropoi" does not mean people, then women cannot be saved because the 

wrod translated "men" is "anthropoi." 

You can read their policy statement on their web-site. 

In regards to your puerile insistence on the "Divine Name" -- I have news 

for you. The ISV is in English, not Hebrew. If you want to use the "Divine 

Name" -- whatever you may think that it is (how DO you pronouce JHWH, or is 

the Divine Name KYRIOS, or is it Lord, lord, LORD, L-rd, L-RD, God, G-d, 

G-D?) -- go right ahead and spend two million dollars to prepare your own 

English language base translation of the Bible like we did. You can call God 

anything you want to, mistranslate "anthropoi" to fit your own uninformed 

prejudices, and do whatever you want to do with the text, all with your own 

petty baseless religious superstitions and prejudices, but with no real 

substantive scholarship behind it, just some silly superstitious religious 

nonsense which you presume to be more spiritual than our work. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/isv.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:22:13 AM]


Your ridiculous letter has earned a place of hallowed presence in the Learn 

Foundation's "tartarus" page at http://isv.org/tartarus.htm (where all the 

baseless comments are posted). I shall request that your letter be posted 

there, together with our response. 

I'm tired of people like you (and people like the woefully ignorant "King 

James Only" and "Textus Receptus" crowd) taking pot shots at our work. 

Please do not buy the ISV or any of our publications. Just shut up and leave 

us alone and don't bother to waste my time with any more email messages. 

Charles Welty, Publisher 

ISV New Testament 

Wow...is that scary or what? Ladies and Gentlemen(or people and people) this is the Bible Translator in 

the 90's. 

First, while antropoi can be used as "human being" as well as "man" in Matthew 4:4, it has a literal 

meaning of "man-faced". This scripture is taken from Deuteronomy 8:3, where it uses the hebrew word 

adama, which can also be used to translate "human being,person" as well as "man", but I want you to 

think about it....was Adam, who this word is translated from, a man or a woman. He was first and 

foremost a man. So it does not make sense to change the word mankind or man to appease Gloria 

Steinem. 

In a proper translation, John 11: 25, where Jesus is speaking to 

Martha, he uses the generic "he." "He that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live." 

The Inclusive Bible renders this as " ... those who believe in me will live 

even though they die..." Was Martha here confused. Was she aghast that she was not included in this 

promise because Martha was a "she". How do I know that Jesus actually said "He?" Look at Jeremiah 

44:24,25 "Moreover Jeremiah said unto all the people, and to all the women, Hear the word of Jehovah, 

all Judah that are in the land of Egypt: Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, Ye and 

your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and with your hands have fulfilled it." Jeremiah called 

all the people and all the women, but when Jehovah addressed Israel it was YOU(Ye) and your wives. 

The Men are directly addressed. So if it was they way talked back in Biblical times, why is there a need 

to change it now? Let's not forget, political correctness was not an issue in the first century. Antropoi, 

like Adama, meant all of mankind here...and mankind means all human beings. Jesus is the Son of Man, 

not the Son of People or the Son of Human Beings...or even the Son of Humanity. "Man" is 

all-encompassing. 

For more on this debate see Wayne Grudem's article at: 

http://www.cbmw.org/html/whatswrongwith.html 

But the Biggest Problem is the Slippery Slope. 

What about future revisions to the International Standard Version? How far will they go to bow to social 

and political pressures. What am I talking about? Most of you have heard of the New Revised Standard 

Version. It also has some inclusive language when not referring to "deity". Here is a quote(and this is 

scary), "The NRSV, based on the latest biblical scholarship, has gone a long way toward greater 

specificity in regard to human gender." Where is this quote from? It is from THE NEW TESTAMENT 

AND PSALMS...AN INCLUSIVE VERSION by the Oxford University Press. They have made an 

entirely inclusive Bible based on the NRSV. And it is "Used by Permission". This version has 

"Father-Mother" when referring to God. Christ is the "Child" or the "Human One". That should concern 



us all. 

"The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." 1 Corinthians 3:19 

Now About My "Peurile Insistence on the Divine Name!" 

"I have news for you. The ISV is in English." Yes, all english Bible translations are in....english. But they 

are translated from the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. By the tone of that sentence, I would expect 

"Jehoshophat" or "Jehoram" to be translated "Man". The fact is, it is the divine name Jehovah or Yahweh 

that has been excluded, and only that name. It is that name that is mentioned more often than any other 

name in the Bible, including Jesus,which incidentally, has a different Hebrew and Greek 

equivalent-Yeshua and Iesous. Perhaps we should remove his name from English ISV. 

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 

be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords(kyrios) many." 

The American Standard Version says at Exodus 3:15,16"And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt 

thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of 

Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial 

unto all generations." 

So let me introduce you to other peurile(childish,juvenile) Bible translators who have petty baseless 

religious superstitions and prejudices, but with no real substantive scholarship behind it. 

The Jerusalem Bible(Yahweh 6823 times) 

The Darby Translation(Jehovah 6823 times) 

Youngs Literal Translation(Jehovah 6823 times) 

American Standard Version(Jehovah 6823 times) 

New World Translation(Jehovah 6961 times) 

New Jerusalem Bible(Yahweh 6823 times) 

Rotherham Bible(Yahweh 6823 times) 

Sharpe's Translation(Jehovah 6823 times) 

Boothroyd's Translation(Jehovah 6823 times) 

The Bible in Living English-Byington(Jehovah 6823 times) 

A Literal Translation of the Bible-Jay P. Green(Jehovah 5500 times) 

Even the Inclusive Language New Testament includes Yahweh at Matthew 3:3, Mark 12:29, 30, 36 and 

11 other places. 

To see more Bible Translations with the Divine Name click here. 

As it says in Psalms 74:10, "How long, O God, shall the adversary reproach? Shall the enemy blaspheme 

thy name for ever?"(ASV) 

Did anyone else notice the bad spelling in the letter? 

The Vicious Letter II- Welty's Revenge 

Since I have posted my original letter, a kind Mr. Bradley O. Browne has come to my defense and has 

also had correspondence with the publishers of the International Standard Version Bible. But for his 

efforts, he was also placed on the ISV Tartarus page. The ISV is threatening Hell on us...but interestingly 

enough, while it may translate Tartarus(2 Peter 2:4) as "Hell", this same Bible also translates the greek 

word Gehenna(Matthew 5:22) as "Hell" and the greek word hades(Matthew 16:18) as "Hell". Obviously, 

the translators of the ISV will translate any word as "Hell" that they see fit. NOT a very useful version is 

it? You can download the ISV for free at 

http://isv.org/isvi.htm 

That should save you some money right there. 

Bradley O. Browne 



Senior Network Coordinator 

C.B.I. 

Milwaukee, WI 53202 wrote: "I've seen your picture, so you are a mature man physically, I would 

recommend you grow up socially." 

The ISV wrote: 

You've seen my picture on our web site, have you? Too 

bad I'm not the person who wrote the flame. You have 

slandered me by this statement, and by your entire email. 

You are the one who needs to grow up, Mr. Browne. I 

suggest you respond in a mature fashion to the writer of 

the response to the email. Here's his email address: 

mailto:crwelty@ffia.net. 

Now, speaking of being grown up, are you grown up 

enough to apologize to me for your ad hominum remark? 

If so, I'll publish your apology as an addendum to your 

original email and my comments thereto, since both are 

going to take center stage at the Tartarus page of the ISV. 

If anyone's email has deserved publication, it's yours. 

William P. Welty, M.Div. 

Executive Director 

The Learn Foundation 

To read more...just go to http://isv.org/Flames%20of%20Tartarus/bradley_o_browne.htm 

This link and the one where the fires of hell have been placed besides my name have since disappeared, 

thanks to Mr. Bradley's efforts. 

Another Addendum 

Recently I received this letter from a Mr. Martin who wrote the ISV concerning the above: 

Mr. Martin wrote: 

> I find this letter highly offensive and out of line for those who are 

to 

> translate the Holy Word. Did you write this letter? 

No. It was written by Davidson Press, one of the publishers of the ISV. 

The people who posted the original comments, along with the reply comments by 

that publisher, seem to have confused the differences between us as producers 

of the translation and the publisher. 

> If so, why? Why the rudeness? Why the lack of love? 

> Why the unchristlike character displayed therein? 

I have no idea why the people who wrote those misguided attacks on the 

ISV would display such rudeness, lack of love, unchristlike character, etc. 

as to falsely suggest we're liberal and all of the other things they said. 



Perhaps you could ask them. I was puzzled with the Davidson Press response, but 

given the rudeness, lack of love, etc. (your words) displayed by those who 

attacked the ISV, I do think I can understand his frustration. 

Regards, 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

/ William P. Welty, M.Div., Director 

\ // The ISV Foundation 

\\ /// 2200 North Grand Avenue, Suite 100 

\\\' //// Santa Ana, CA 92705-7016 USA 

\\\// _//// Telephone: 714.479.0975 

\_-//' / ///< Fax: 630.214.5965 

\ /// > \\\`__/_ Internet: http://isv.org 

/.)-^>> _\` \\ ICQ#: 7521518 

(/ \\ //\\ The letters in "INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY" 

// _//\\\\ rearrange as "A ROUGH WHIMPER OF INSANITY" 

Updated Jan 10, 2001 


Email Me 


An Inclusive Version-The Feminist Bible 

Main Page 

International 

Standard 

Version 

The Message 

Comma 

Johanneum 

King James the 

Fop 


Big Bang Bunk 

Old Catholic 



Versions 






Project 

New American 


NIV Bible 

Search 

Dynamic 

Equivalency 

E-mail Me 


Translation 



An Inclusive Translation-New Testament&Psalms 

The foreword of this Bible makes reference to Star Trek, which is very important. This 

Inclusive Version is a pop(culture) Bible that is bowing to the fad of political 

correctness. It has changed the person of God and it is as fake as Leonard Nimoy's ears, 

as heartfelt as an android(Data). It's molecules got scrambled in the transporter beam. 

Why? Well let's take a look. 

"Ruler" or "Sovereign" is substituted for King (because that sounds too male). 

"Kingdom" is now "Dominion" 

Lord is removed(ie...1 Corinthians 6:14) 

Sarah is added to John 8:58 

"Father" is now "Father-Mother" John 1:18 

"homosexuals" changed to "male prostitutes" 

1 Corinthians 6:9,10 

"Son of Man" is the "Human One" Luke 17:26 

I already knew the Trinity was plural, but John 10:30 proves it, "The Father-Mother 

and I are one." 

The Comma Johanneum at 1John 5:7,8(footnote) introduces to a Quadrinity, "There are 

three that testify in heaven, the Father-Mother, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these 

three are one." 

Will the target groups embrace this version. Probably not. With Scriptures like 

Ephesians 5:22,23: "Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the 

husband is head of the wife..."(NRSV) 

I suspect that hardline feminists will stay clear. So why corrupt the bible we have now. 

Another Point 

This Inclusive Version is a revision of the New Revised Standard Version, which is a 

revision of the Revised Standard Version, which is a revision of the American Standard 

Version(an excellent Bible), which is a revision of the King James Version.What a 

shameful legacy of a once grand Bible. Are we looking at the future of Bible 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/inclusive.htm (1 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:22:23 AM]


Old Testament 

Monotheism 

My Family 

Bible Exegesis 


Trinity Bias 

American 

Standard 

Version 


Multi-Lingual 




John Wycliffe 

Hebrew Names 

Version 

Translating? Most Bible Translations and Versions after 1960 have added at least some 

inclusive language. Will they be revised to suit Gloria Steinem as the New Revised 

Standard Version was? 

The Divine Name 

The Divine Name(Jehovah/Yahweh) is completely ignored(and removed) in the 

Psalms-and replaced by the title GOD. 

This Bible is under copyright protection and does not permit quoting from it in any 

manner(unlike most Bibles that allow up to 500 words). So...exactly what good is this 

useless version of the Bible? 

Geneva Bible Men(I'm sorry, "People!!") may adopt new fads like political correctness and bow to 

social pressures, but, "I, the LORD, do not change" Malachi 3:6(NRSV) 

WOC 

Research/Trinity"I 

warn everybody who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to 

them, God will add that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away 

William from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person's share in 

Tyndale the tree of life..." (Revelation 22:18,19) NRSV 

Textus Receptus I saw the Light?! 

This version also removes the term "darkness" such as in Psalm 107:10 and substitutes 

Latin Vulgate it with "captivity". Why? Because "darkness" might discriminate against Black people. 

etc 

The term "Jews" are altered when it is used in a less than favourable sense. 

References to the handicapped are slightly altered too at Matthew 11:5 and "slaves" 

Trinity Truth changed to "those enslaved to him." 

Rolf Furuli 

"For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having 

itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and 

Blue Letter 


will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths." 2 Timothy 4:3,4 

NRSV 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/inclusive.htm (2 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:22:23 AM] 

Last Updated: January 15, 2000


KJV Online 

Matthew Bible 


Research 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/inclusive.htm (3 of 3) [5/25/2003 4:22:23 AM]

Bible Theology and the Word "HELL" 

Bible Theology and the Word 

"Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the 

Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the 

word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions 

of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception."-The 

Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81. 

As one Danish pastor Kai Jensen acknowledges: 

"The talk of everlasting perdition is crazy. It is not Christianity. It was only in times past 

that there were hell preachers who from the pulpit thundered about the devil and the 

inextinguishable fire. But that time is over."-Hvor gaar vi hen (Where Do We Go?), p. 119. 

The following chart has a few instances where Bible words are manipulated to support the Hell-Fire 

doctrine. There are of course alot more instances where Sheol and Hades are rendered. I will start off 

with the New World Translation(NWT) as it is one of the few that renders the words from the original 

languages faithfully. 

Abbreviations: 

● A.O.D. = Abode of the Dead 

● R.O.D. = Realm of the Dead 

● W.O.D. = World of the Dead 

● R.O.D. = Realm of the Dead 

● P.O.D. = Place of the Dead 

● P.O.T. = Pit of Torture 

● S.O.D. = State of the Dead 

● N.W. = Nether World 

● D.U.C. = Dark Underground Caves 

● N = New 

● S = Standard 

● A = American 

● I = International 

● L = Living 

● E = English 

● M = Modern 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/hell.htm (1 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:22:30 AM]


● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

B = Bible 

V = Version 

T = Translation 

W = World 

C = Contemporary 

Click Here to go to Complete Chart of the Occurences of Sheol 


Luke 

16:23 

Acts 

2:31 

2Peter 2:4 Matthew 

5:22 

Mark 9:43 Psalms 

6:5 

Psalms 

16:10 

Matthew 

7:13 

N.W.T. HADES HADES TARTARUS GEHENNA GEHENNA SHEOL SHEOL Destruction 

King 

James 

HELL HELL HELL HELL HELL Grave HELL Destruction 

NKJV Hades Hades HELL HELL HELL Grave Sheol Destruction 

L.B. HELL HELL HELL HELL HELL Omit Grave HELL 

A.S.V. HADES HADES HELL HELL HELL SHEOL SHEOL Destruction 

ASV mg TARTARUS GEHENNA GEHENNA 

T.E.V. HADES Grave HELL HELL HELL Omit Grave HELL 

NASB HADES HADES HELL HELL HELL SHEOL SHEOL Destruction 

CEV HELL Grave HELL HELL HELL Omit Grave Destruction 

R.S.V HADES HADES HELL HELL HELL SHEOL SHEOL Destruction 

RSVmg TARTARUS GEHENNA GEHENNA 

N.I.V. HELL Grave HELL HELL HELL Grave Grave Destruction 

NEB Hades Death HELL HELL HELL SHEOL SHEOL Perdition 

NRSV Hades Hades HELL HELL HELL SHEOL SHEOL Destruction 

N.A.B. AOD NW Tartarus Gehenna Gehenna Sheol Sheol Damnation 

MLB Hades ROD Hell Hell Hell Grave ROD Destruction 

Young Hades Hades Tartarus Gehenna Gehenna Sheol Sheol Destruction 

Deaf POD POD HELL HELL HELL POD POD HELL 

Darby Hades Hades Pit Judgement HELL SHEOL SHEOL Destruction 

Emph 

Diag 

Hades Hades Tartarus Gehenna Gehenna N/A N/A Destruction 

Phillips POD Hades HELL Destruction Rubbish 

Heap 

N/A N/A Disaster 

ConcordantEntombed 

Unseen Tartarus Gehenna Gehenna N/A N/A Destruction 

A.T. Hades Death Tartarus Pit Pit SHEOL SHEOL Destruction 

Rother 

ham 

Hades Hades 

Lowest 

Hades 

Gehenna Gehenna Hades Hades Destruction 

Douay HELL HELL HELL HELL HELL HELL HELL Destruction 



Beck HELL Grave HELL Hellfire HELL Grave Grave Destruction 

Amp 

lified B 

Hades 

ROD 

Hades HELL 

Gehenna 

HELL 

Gehenna 

HELL 

SHEOL SHEOL 

Destruction 

SOD POD 

Webster HELL HELL HELL Hellfire HELL Grave HELL Destruction 

Lamsa SHEOL Grave HELL Hellfire Gehenna SHEOL SHEOL Destruction 

Jerusalem 

B 

Hades Hades D.U.C. Hellfire HELL Sheol Sheol Perdition 

Schon 

field 

Hades HELL Tartarus Gehenna Gehenna N/A N/A Destruction 

R.E.B. Hades Death HELL Hellfire HELL SHEOL SHEOL Destruction 

Bying 

ton 

W.O.D ROD Inferno HELL HELL 

World 

Below 

R.O.D Perdition 

Wuest 

Unseen 


Unseen 


Tartarus HELL HELL N/A N/A Misery 

Williams Hades Hades Tartarus P.I.T. Pit N/A N/A Destruction 

Wey 

mouth 

Hades Unseen 


Tartarus Gehenna Gehenna N/A N/A Ruin 

Moffatt Hades Grave Tartarus Gehenna Gehenna 

Death's 

Realm 

Grave Destruction 

B. Basic 

E. 

HELL HELL HELL HELL HELL 

Under 

world 

Under 

world Destruction 

What is Gehenna? 

Catholic periodical Commonweal: 

"The final place of punishment, evidently, is Gehenna, the Valley of Hinno[m], which at one time had 

been a place where human sacrifice was offered to pagan gods, but in biblical times had already become 

the city dump, a refuse heap on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Here the stench and smoke and fire were a 

constant reminder to the inhabitants of what happened to things that had served their purpose-they were 

destroyed." 

Simply put, Gehenna is a garbage dump-See Phillips 

"Jewish Views of the Afterlife," by Dr. Simcah Paull Raphael (1994). 

Any doctrine of eternal torment or suffering in the afterlife depends on the doctrine of soul immortality. 

According to Dr. Raphael, this doctrine did not develop until "the apocryphal period," and was "a 

radically new idea that did not exist in biblical times." (p. 83) 

Further, it is only "with the First Book of Enoch [that] another new conception enters Jewish 

postmortem philosophy -- the notion of Gehenna as a place of eternal damnation," thus 

sometime between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. (p. 88) It is with the apocryphal book of 

Enoch that "tours of hell," describing with vivid detail the torments and punishments of the 

underworld, begin. Interestingly, for some time into the Christian century and beyond, 

Jewish scholars argued over whether the torments of Gehenna were temporary and 

purgative, or eternal. (pp. 140-149) 

It is unfortunate that it is a rare Bible version that will translate Gehenna properly, even though it is a 



PROPER NAME. Most Bibles will do so elsewhere, as in *Valley of Ben Hinnom* in 2 Chronicles 28:3 

and *Hinnom Valley* in Joshua 18:6, (which is actually Gehenna). The reason this is not done so is 

because the O.T. Gehenna does not have the ability to carry the same theological connotations as those in 

Matthew 5:22. 

What does the Bible actually say about Gehenna? Jeremiah 7:31: "They have built shrines of Topeth in 

the valley of Benhinnom [Gehenna], at which to burn their sons and daughters. That was no command 

of mine; indeed it never entered my mine." 

What is Tartarus? 

Their being cast into "Tartarus" refers to their being debased, cut off from God's favor and all 

enlightenment. This is evident from the fact that the expression 'throwing into Tartarus' in the original 

Greek is a verb. So it refers to an act of debasement and not to a literal place. The idea conveyed is 

similar to the English word "debase," which uses the noun "base" but does not in itself suggest the 

existence of a literal base. The Bible here uses symbolic language that the Greeks would understand with 

Homer's Iliad. See Jude 6. 

What is Hades and Sheol? 

As we see from the above, Hades and Sheol are simply the grave. That is why the Rotherham Bible says, 

"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do> < with thy might> do, for there is no work nor calculation nor 

knowledge nor wisdom, in hades, whither thou art going." Eccl 9:10 

Checking the marginal references in the 1611 Edition of the King James Version at Psalms 55:15; 86:13; 

Isaiah 14:9; and Jonah 2:2, you will see that "Hell" is indeed the "Grave." 

It actually seems that the Bible more often uses the term "FIRE" as coming from God and 

Heaven: 

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; 

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; 

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 

8:6 

Isaiah 66:15, For, behold, Jehovah will come with fire, and his chariots shall be like the whirlwind; to 

render his anger with fierceness, and his rebuke with flames of fire. ASV 

JER 15:14. And I will make them to pass with thine enemies into a land which thou knowest not; for a 

fire is kindled in mine anger, which shall burn upon you. ASV 

LAM 4:11. Jehovah hath accomplished his wrath, he hath poured out his fierce anger; And he hath 

kindled a fire in Zion, which hath devoured the foundations thereof. ASV 

ZEPH 3:8. Therefore wait ye for me, saith Jehovah, until the day that I rise up to the prey; for my 

determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine 

indignation, even all my fierce anger; for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. 

ASV 

DEUT 4:24. For Jehovah thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God. ASV 

Heb 12:29. for our God is a consuming fire. 

God's fiery judgment is reserved for ONE day, "the day of Jehovah:" 



"For, behold, the day cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, 

shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, that it shall leave 

them neither root nor branch." Mal 4:1 ASV 

"Behold, the day of Jehovah cometh, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger; to make the land a desolation, 

and to destroy the sinners thereof out of it." Isa. 13:9 ASV 

"That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of 

darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness." Zeph 1:13 ASV 

E-mail comments: 

"Your approach and understanding of Hell is a parallel of my own. In Luke 

16:23, It is my 

understanding from a scriptural point of view that this is a parable, 

because the word(s) 

"There was" is translated from the simple Greek connective DE. Of lately, 

on the B-Greek List, there is a good thread along this subject line. The 

common understanding is that DE is a weak connective of continuance; thus, 

if we translate correctly, it should be "but" or substitute the connective 

with a semicolon, which signals a continuing thought or closely related 

subject. Another thing to reflect upon is Jesus' words in Matt. 13:10 and 

Mark 4:33. They plainly state that Jesus did not speak unto the people 

except in parable, especially to the Scribe, Pharisee and Sadducee. 

Semper in Christi, 

W." 

Thermodynamics of Hell 

============================================================ 

A thermodynamics professor had written a take home exam for 

his graduate students. It had one question: "Is Hell 

exothermic (gives off heat), or endothermic (absorbs heat)? 

Support your answer with a proof." Most of the students wrote 

proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools off when 

it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant. 

One student, however, wrote the following: 

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. 

So, we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell 

and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume 

that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no 

souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, 

let's look at the different religions that exist in the world 

today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member 

of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more 

than one of these religions and since most people do not 

belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people 

and all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they 



are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increases 

exponentially. Second, we look at the rate of change of the 

volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the 

temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume in 

Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities: 

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which 

souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell 

will increase until all Hell breaks loose. 

2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the 

increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure 

will drop until Hell freezes over. 

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Miss 

Therese Banyan during my freshman year that, "It will be a cold 

night in Hell before I go bowling with you," and take into account 

the fact that I still have not succeeded with her, then #2 cannot 

be true, and so Hell is exothermic. 

The student got the only "A". 

THE DESTINY OF MAN 

A POEM 

SATAN THE DEVIL INVENTED THE LIE 

Listen, dear friends, and I'll tell you a lie, 

"The soul is immortal, and cannot die." 

Now this is the way that the lie was begun, 

That's believed by most men that lives under the sun. 

In Eden God planted a garden fair, 

And there He placed the first human pair. 

To dress it and keep it and make it their home, 

Throughout the whole land they had privilege to roam. 

In the midst of the Garden of Eden stood, 

The Tree of the Knowledge of Evil and Good. 

God said, "If you eatest of this certain tree, 

Surely your lives I'll require of thee." 

But Satan, that Serpent, was lurking there, 

Intent on deceiving the first human pair. 

"Thou shalt not surely die", Said the Father of Lies, 

"Eat of the tree; It shall make thee wise." 

So they ate of the tree and Jehovah said, 



'By the sweat of thy face, shalt thou eat thy bread.' 

"Thistles and thorns shall the earth yield for thee, 

Because thou didst eat of that certain tree.” 

But to Satan The Serpent, Jehovah Said, 

The Seed of the Woman shall crush thy head. 

Thus also the doom of the Father of lies, 

Was first made known in Paradise. 

Nine hundred and thirty were the years of his life, 

Who disobeyed God just to please his dear Wife. 

But a thousand years is to God but a day, 

So God in that day Adams life took away. 

A precious God gave to man through old faithful Abraham. 

Saying, 'tho the whole world is by Satan oppressed, 

Thru thee and thy seed shall all Nations be blessed.' 

The whole human race is under the curse; 

It's the sentence of death but nothing worse. 

In the fulness of time God sent His dear Son, 

To redeem the whole world from the wicked one. 

He who was rich for Our sakes became poor, 

That we thru His blood, might have life evermore. 

Men scorned and reviled Him, and put Him to shame, 

But now He has honor O'er every name. 

He is calling a people to be His dear Wife, 

And they with the Lord to the world will give life. 

These are already wearing their White Wedding Dress, 

Called the robe of Christ's righteousness. 

We must keep the robe free from all wrinkle or stain, 

Thru the merit of the blood, Of the Lamb that was slain. 

Men's hearts are fast failing for dread and for fear, 

Of the great time of trouble that soon will be here. 

Thruout the whole World are the Nation's distressed, 

They know not that soon shall all nations be Blessed. 

For soon the desire of all nations shall come, 

They shall learn war no more, for God's will shall be done. 

When the very last one of the Bride has been sealed, 



Then God's Holy arm shall to all be revealed. 

The glory of God shall fill the whole earth, 

Sorrow and sighing shall give place to mirth. 

No evil, no sickness, no sin shall be found, 

For a thousand years shall Satan be bound. 

But when Christ's reign o'er the world has ceased. 

Then old Satan, shall be released. 

He shall try everyone to determine if they shall be loyal to God,or 

Satan obey. 

Those who are loyal to their Father in Heaven, 

Shall eternal life on this planet be given. 

But if for their leader they Satan shall choose, 

Surely forever they their life rights shall lose. 

Yes, Satan and all those against God rebel, 

Shall be turned into the 'Bible Hell". 

Thanks be to God that we have learned, 

That hell's not a place where people are burned. 

For God is to be loving and kind and just, 

To torture his creatures that He made of the dust. 

But all of the wicked will God destroy, 

And the righteous Eternal life shall enjoy. 

Written by: Milton Moyer 1915 

(Father of Gladys Taylor) 

(Grandfather of Yvonne Galbraith) 

Even apart from the image of a truly merciless God that contradicts everything we can assume from what 

Jesus says of the Father of the lost, can we be suprised at a time when retibutive punishments without an 

opportunity of probation are being increasingly abandoned in education 

and penal justice, that the idea not only of a lifelong, but even eternal punishment of body and 

soul, seems to many people absolutely monstrous. 

-Hans Kung 

The Clergy Take Another Look at Hell: 

U.S. Catholic magazine: "There are in fact so many strong biblical, doctrinal, and logical arguments 

against the existence of a literal hell that this question naturally arises: Why do the churches teach it and 

why do people often believe it?" The minister, Robert Short, suggests that the answer lies in the churches' 

"faithless fear of giving up 'the gospel at gunpoint.'" He said: "The churches tend to believe, consciously 

or unconsciously, that fear-rather than love-conquers all." 

The clergyman asserted that the "most powerful argument against the existence of a literal hell is . . . that 

we can know a thing by its fruits. (Matt. 7:16, 20)" Using this test, he observed: "It has become painfully 



apparent that the 'Christian' doctrine which has yielded the most poisonous fruits is the teaching of a 

literal hell. For not only can it be proven that this doctrine has produced cruel, self-righteous 'Christians' 

throughout Western history, Christians who have felt justified in hating and even killing since it can be 

argued that any action is justified if it saves more people from hell, but a literal hell's more modern and 

even deadlier fruit has been atheism." 

In conclusion, Short declared: "Only if the teaching of hell were true would the churches be justified in 

retaining it. And a growing number of theologians-both Catholic and Protestant-are now saying it is not 

true. If it is not true, then the churches have no time to lose in loudly and clearly saying this to the 

world." 

Jehovah's Witnesses had a hundred-year head start in "clearly saying this to the world."-U.S. Catholic, 

April 1980, pp. 37-40. 


Email Me 

Heinz Schmitz 



file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/newcome.txt 

The New Testament in an Improved Version Upon the Basis of Archbishop 

Newcome's New Translation with A Corrected Text, 1808 

[A Revision of Archbishop Newcome's New Testament, taken over by the 

Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge] 

John 1 

1. The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 

2. This Word was in the beginning with God. 

3. All things were done by him; and without him was not any thing done that hath been 

done. 

4. By him was life; and the life was the light of men. 

5. And the light shone in darkness; and the darkness overspread it not. 

6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 

7. This man came for a testimony, to testify of the Light, so that through him all 

might believe. 

8. He was not that Light, but was sent to testify of that Light. 

9. That was the true Light, which having come into the world is enlightening every man. 

10. He was in the world, and the world was enlightened by him, and yet the world knew 

him not. 

11. He came to his own; and yet those who were his own received him not. 

12. But as many as received him, to them he gave authority to be the children of God, 

even to them who believe in his name: 

13. who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, [nor of the will of 

man], but of God. 

14. And the Word was flesh, and full of kindness and truth he dwelt among us: and we 

beheld his glory, the glory as of the only son who came from the Father. 

16. For of his fulness we all received, and favour for favour. 

17. For the law was given by Moses; but favour and truth were by Jesus Christ. 

18. No man hath seen God at any time; the only [Son] that is in the bosom of the 

Father, he hath declared him. 

15. John bare witness of him and cried, saying, "This is he of whom I said, 'He who 

cometh after me, is before me, for he is my principal.'" 

19. And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from 

Jerusalem, to ask him, "Who art thou?" 

20. and he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, "I am not the Christ." 

21. And they asked him, "What then? Art thou Elijah?" And he saith, "I am not." "Art 

thou the prophet?" And he answered, "No." 

22. They said unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to those who sent us. 

What sayest thou of thyself?" 

23. He said, I am the voice of one crying in the desert, 'Make straight the way of the 

Lord:' as said the prophet Isaiah." 

24. Now those who had been sent were of the Pharisees. 

25. They asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not the 

Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet? 

26. John answered them, saying, "I baptize with water: but there standeth one amidst of 

you whom ye know not; 

27. even he who cometh after me, the latchet of whose sandal I am not worthy to 

unloose." 

28. These things passed in Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. 

29. The next day John beholdeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, "See, the Lamb of 

God, who taketh away the sin of the world! 

30. This is he of whom I said, 'After me cometh a man who is before me; for he is my 

principal.' 

31. And I knew him not: but I therefore came baptizing with water, that he might be 

made manifest to Israel." 

32. And John also bare witness, saying, "I saw the spirit coming down from heaven as a 

dove; and it abode upon him. 

33. And I knew him not then: but he who sent me to baptize with water said unto me, 

'Upon whom thou shalt see the spirit coming down and abiding, this is he who baptizeth 

with the holy spirit. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/newcome.txt (1 of 28) [5/25/2003 4:22:47 AM]


34. And I saw, and bare witness that this is the Son of God. 

35. On the next day, John was again standing, and two of his disciples: 

36. and he looked upon Jesus who was walking, and saith, "Behold, the Lamb of God." 

37. And the two disciples heard him speak, and followed Jesus. 

38. Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, "What seek ye?" And 

they said unto him, "Rabbi (which signifieth, being interpreted, Teacher), where dwelleth 

thou?" 

39. He saith unto them, "Come and see." They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode 

with him that day: (now it was about the tenth hour.) 

40. One of the two that heard John speak, and followed Jesus, was Andrew, Simon Peter's 

brother. 

41. He meeteth with his own brother Simon first of any, and saith to him, "We have 

found the Messiah:" (which is, being interpreted, the Christ). 

42. And Andrew brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked on him, and said, "Thou art Simon, 

the son of Jonah: thou shalt be called Cephas:" (which being interpreted, is a rock). 

43. The day following, Jesus purposed to go into Galilee; and meeteth with Philip, and 

saith unto him, "Follow me." 

44. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 

45. Philip meeteth with Nathanael, and saith unto him, "We have found him of whom Moses 

in the law, and the prophets also, wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." 

46. Then Nathanael said unto him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip 

saith unto him, "Come and see." 

47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, 

in whom is no guile." 

48. Nathanael saith unto him, "Whence knowest thou me?" Jesus answered and said unto 

him, "Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee." 

49. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art 

the King of Israel." 

50. Jesus answered and said unto him, "Because I said unto thee, 'I saw thee underneath 

the fig tree,' believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these." 

51. Then Jesus saith unto him, "Verily verily, I say unto you, [Hereafter] ye shall see 

the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man. 

Chapter 2 

1. And the third day there was a marriage-feast in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of 

Jesus was there: 

2. and Jesus and his disciples also were invited to the marriage-feast. 

3. And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, "They have no wine." 

4. And Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet 

come." 

5. His mother saith to his servants, "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it." 

6. Now six water-pots of stone were placed there, according to the manner of cleansing 

among the Jews, containing two or three baths apiece. 

7. Jesus saith unto them, "Fill the water-pots with water." And they filled them up to 

the brim. 

8. Then he saith unto them, "Draw out now, and bear to the governor of the feast." And 

they bare it. 

9. And when the governor of the feast had tasted the water which was made wine, and 

knew not whence it was; (but the servants who drew the water knew;), the governor of the 

feast calleth the bridegroom, 

10. and saith unto him, "Every man at first setteth on good wine; and when men have 

drunk largely, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." 

11. This beginning of miracles Jesus made in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory: 

and his disciples believed in him. 

12. After this, he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and 

his disciples: and they remaines there not many days. 

13. Now the passover of the Jews was near; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem; 

14. and found in the temple those that sold cattle, and sheep, and doves, and the 

money-changers sitting: 

15. and when made a scourge of small cords, and drove them all out of the temple, both 

the sheep and the cattle; and he poured out the money of the exchangers, and overturned 



their tables; 

16. and said to those that sold doves, "Take these things hence; make not my Father's 

house an house of merchandise.'" 

17. And his disciples remembered that it was written, "A zeal for thine house consumeth 

me." 

18. Then the Jews spake and said unto him, "What sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou 

doest these things?" 

19. Jesus answered and said unto them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will 

raise it up." 

20. Then the Jews said, "Forty and six years hath this temple been in building, and 

wilt thou raise it up in three days?" 

21. But he spake concerning the temple of his body. 

22. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had 

said this [unto them]; and they believed the scripture, and the words which Jesus had 

spoken. 

23. Now, when he was in Jerusalem at the feast of the passover, many believed on his 

name, when they beheld the miracles which he did. 

24. But Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all of them: 

25. and because he needed not that any should testify of man; for he himself knew what 

was in man. 

Chapter 3 

1. Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 

2. this man came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, "Rabbi, we know that thou art a 

teacher come from God; for no one can do these miracles which thou doest, unless God be 

with him." 

3. Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Unless a man be 

born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 

4. Nicodemus saith unto him, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a 

second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" 

5. Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Unless a man be born of water and 

of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God! 

6. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit, is 

spirit. 

7. Wonder not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 

8. The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest its sound, but knowest not whence 

it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the spirit." 

9. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, "How can these things be?" 

10. Jesus answered and said unto him, "Art thou the teacher in Israel, and knowest not 

these things? 

11. Verily verily I say unto thee, We speak that which we know, and testify that which 

we have seen; and yet ye receive not our testimony. 

12. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how will ye believe, if I 

tell you heavenly things? 

13. Now no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he who came down from heaven, even the 

Son of man, [who is in heaven.] 

14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted 

up: 

15. that every one who believeth in him may [not perish but] but have everlasting life. 

16. For God hath so loved the world, that he hath given his only Son, that every one 

who believeth in him may not perish, but have everlasting life. 

17. For God hath not sent his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the 

world through him might be saved. 

18. He who believeth in him, shall not be condemned: but he that believeth not, is 

condemned already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only Son of God. 

19. And this is the condemnation; that light is come into the world, and yet men have 

loved the darkness rather than light: for their deeds were evil. 

20. for every one who doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest 

his deeds should be discovered. 

21. But he who doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made 

manifest, that they are wrought through faith in God. 



22. After these things, Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea; and there 

he tarried with them, and baptized. 

23. And John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because much water was there; 

and the people came, and were baptized. 

24. For John was not yet cast into prison. 

25. Then a question arose therefore between some of John's disciples and a Jew about 

baptizing. 

26. And some came to John, and said unto him, "Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond 

Jordan, to whom thou hast barest witness, behold, he baptizeth, and all men come to him." 

27. John answered and said, "A man can receive nothing, unless it be given him from 

heaven. 

28. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, 'I am not the Christ, but I am sent 

before his face.' 

29. He that hath the bride, is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, who 

standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly, because of the bridegroom's voice. This my 

joy therefore is complete. 

30. He must increase; but I must decrease. 

31. He that cometh from above, is above all: he that is from the earth, is from the 

earth, and speaketh from the earth: he that cometh from heaven [is above all; and] 

32. testifieth what he hath seen and heard; and yet none receiveth his testimony. 

33. He that hath received his testimony, hath set his seal to confirm that God is true. 

34. For he whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God: for [God] giveth him not the 

spirit by measure. 

35. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. 

36. He who believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life: and he who disbelieveth the 

Son, will not see life; but the anger of God abideth on him." 

Chapter 4 

1. When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that he made and baptized 

more disciples than John; 

2. (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples;) 

3. he left Judea, and went again into Galilee. 

4. And he must needs go through Samaria. 

5. He cometh therefore to a city of Samaria, called Sychar, near to the portion of the 

land which Jacob gave to his son Joseph. 

6. Now Jacob's well was there. So Jesus, being wearied with his journey, sat afterward 

on the well. (It was about the sixth hour.) 

7. A woman of Samaria cometh to draw water. Jesus saith unto her, "Give me to drink." 

8. (For his disciples were gone to the city, that they might buy food.) 

9. Then the Samaritan woman saith unto him, "Why dost thou, being a Jew, ask drink of 

me, that am a Samaritan?" (for the Jews have no friendly dealings with the Samaritans.) 

10. Jesus answered and said unto her, "If thou knewest the bounty of God, and who he is 

that saith unto thee, 'Give me to drink;' thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would 

have given thee living water." 

11. The woman saith unto him, "Sir, thou hast no vessel to draw with, and the well is 

deep: whence then canst thou have that living water? 

12. Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and himself drank of 

it, and his sons, and his cattle?" 

13. Jesus answered and said unto her, "Whosoever drinketh of this water, will thirst 

again: 

14. but whosoever shall drink of the water which I shall give him, will never thirst; 

but the water which I shall give him will be in him a well of water springing up unto 

everlasting life." 

15. The woman saith unto him, "Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, nor come 

hither to draw." 

16. Jesus saith unto her, "Go, call thine husband, and come hither." 

17. The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus saith unto her,"Thou hast 

rightly said, 'I have no husband:' 

18. for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast, is not thine husband: 

thou hast spoken this truly." 

19. The woman saith unto him, "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 



20. Our fathers worshipped on this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place 

where men ought to worship." 

21. Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall worship the 

Father neither on this mountain nor at Jerusalem. 

22. Ye worship what ye know not: we worship what we know: for salvation is from the 

Jews. 

23. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father 

in spirit and in truth: for indeed the Father seeketh such worshippers of him. 

24. God is a spirit: and the worshippers of him ought to worship him in spirit and 

truth." 

25. The woman saith unto him, "I know that the Messiah cometh: (which signifieth the 

Christ:) when he is come, he will tell us all things." 

26. Jesus saith unto her, "I, who talk with thee, am he." 

27. And upon this his disciples came, and wondered that he was talking with a woman: 

yet none said, "What seekest thou?" or, "Why speakest thou with her?" 

28. The woman then left her bucket, and went into the city, and saith to the men, 

29. Come, see a man, who told me all things whatever I did: is this the Christ?" 

30. Then they went out of the city, and came unto him. 

31. In the mean time his disciples besought him, saying, "Master, eat." 

32. But he said unto them, "I have food to eat, which ye know not of." 

33. The disciples said one to another, "Hath any one brought him anything to eat?" 

34. Jesus saith unto them, "My food is, to do the will of him who sent me, and to 

finish his work. 

35. Say ye not, 'There are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest? Behold, I say 

unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; that they are already white for 

harvest. 

36. And he who reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth a crop, to everlasting life: that 

both he who soweth, and he who reapeth, may rejoice together. 

37. For herein is that saying true, 'One soweth, and another reapeth.' 

38. I have sent you to reap that on which ye have not laboured, others have laboured, 

and ye are entered into their labours. 

39. And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in him, for of the words of the 

woman who testified, "He told me all things whatever I did." 

40. When therefore Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would abide 

with them: and he abode there two days. 

41. And many more believed because of his own words; 

42. and said to the woman,"We no longer believe because of thy report: for we ourselves 

have heard him, and know that this is indeed [the Christ,] the Saviour of the world. 

43. Now after the two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee. 

44. For Jesus himself declared that a prophet hath no honour in his own country. 

45. So when he was come into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having seen all the 

things which he did in Jerusalem at the feast. 

46. So Jesus came again to Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was 

one of the king's household, whose son was sick at Capernaum. 

47. This man, when he heard that Jesus was come out of Judea into Galilee, went to him, 

and besought [him] that he would come down and cure his son: for he was at the point of 

death. 

48. Then Jesus said to him, "Unless ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." 

49. He of the king's household saith unto him, "Sir, come down, before my child die." 

50. Jesus saith unto him, "Depart thy son liveth." And the man believed the words which 

Jesus had spoken unto him, and departed. 

51. And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and told him, saying, "Thy son 

liveth." 

52. Then he inquired of them the hour when his son began to amend. And they said unto 

him, "Yesterday, at the seventh hour, the fever left him." 

53. So the father knew that it was at the very hour, in which Jesus had said unto him, 

"Thy son liveth." And himself believed, and his whole house. 

54. This second miracle Jesus did, when he had come out of Judea into Galilee. 

Chapter 5 

1. After these things there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 



2. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep-gate, a pool, which is called in Hebrew 

tongue Bethesda, having five porches. 

3. In these lay a [great] multitude of infirm persons, of blind, lame, withered, 

[looking for the moving of the water. 

4. For at a certain season an angel went down into the pool, and troubled the water: 

whosoever therefore went in first, after the troubling of the water, was made well, 

whatever disease he was had.] 

5. And a certain man was there, that had an infirmity thirty and eight years. 

6. When Jesus saw him lying, and knew that he had been now a long time afflicted, he 

saith unto him, "Dost thou desire to be made well?" 

7. The infirm man answered him, "Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put 

me into the pool: but while I am coming, another goeth down before me." 

8. Jesus saith unto him, "Rise, take up thy couch, and walk." 

9. And immediately the man was made well, and took up his couch and walked. Now on that 

day was the sabbath. 

10. The Jews therefore said to him that was cured, "It is the sabbath: it is not lawful 

for thee to take up thy couch, and walk." 

11. He answered them, "He who made me well, himself said unto me, "Take up thy couch, 

and walk." 

12. Then they asked him, "What man is that who said unto thee, 'Take up thy couch, and 

walk?'" 

13. But he that was cured knew not who it was; for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a 

multitude being in that place. 

14. Afterward Jesus meeteth with him in the temple, and said unto him, "Behold, thou 

art made well: sin no more, lest some worse thing befall thee. 

15. The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 

16. And for this the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he had done these things on the 

sabbath. 

17. But Jesus said unto them, "My Father worketh until now; and I also work. 

18. Wherefore for this the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had 

broken the sabbath, but also said that God was his Father, making himself like God. 

19. Jesus therefore spake and said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son 

can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things the Father 

doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner. 

20. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things which he himself doeth: 

and he will show him greater works than these, so that ye will wonder. 

21. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth them life, so the Son likewise 

giveth life to whom he will. 

22. For neither doth the Father judge any man: but he hath committed all judgement to 

the Son; 

23. that all may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the 

Son, honoureth not the Father who sent him. 

24. Verily verily I say unto you, He that hearkeneth to my words, and believeth in him 

who sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but passeth 

from death to life. 

25. Verily verily I say unto you, The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear 

the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live. 

26. For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son also to have 

life in himself: 

27. and he hath given him authority to exercise judgement also, because he is the Son 

of man. 

28. Wonder not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the graves shall 

hear his voice, 

29. and shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and 

they that have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 

30. Of myself I can do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I 

seek not mine own will, but the will of him who sent me. 

31. "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. 

32. There is another who beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he 

witnesseth of me is true. 

33. Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness to the truth. 



34. Yet I receive not witness from man: but I say these things, that ye may be saved. 

35. He was that burning and shining lamp: but ye chose to rejoice for a short time only 

in his light. 

36. But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath 

given me to perform, these works which I do, bear witness of me that the Father hath sent 

me. 

37. And the Father himself, who sent me, hath borne witness of me. Have ye never heard 

his voice, nor seen his form? 

38. And ye have not his word abiding among you, that on him whom he hath sent, ye 

believe not. 

39. "Search the scriptures: for in them ye think that ye have everlasting life: and 

they bear witness of me: 

40. and yet ye are not willing to come unto me, that ye may have life. 

41. "I receive not honour from men: 

42. but I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 

43. I am come in my Father's name, and yet ye receive me not: if another shall come in 

his own name, him ye will receive. 

44. How can ye believe, who receive honour from one another, and seek not the honour 

which cometh from the only God? 

45. Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, 

even Moses, in whom ye trust. 

46. For if ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 

47. But if ye believe not his writings, how will ye believe my words? 

Chapter 6 

1. After these things Jesus went over the lake of Galilee, which is the lake of 

Tiberias. 

2. And a great multitude followed him, because they saw the miracles which he did on 

those who were diseased. 

3. And Jesus went up a mountain, and sat there with his disciples. 

4. Now the passover, (a feast of the Jews), was nigh. 

5. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw that a great multitude was coming to 

him, he saith to Philip, "Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?" 

6. (Now he said to try him: for he himself knew what he was about to do.) 

7. Philip answered him, "Bread, worth two hundred denarii, is not sufficient for them, 

that every one of them may take a little." 

8. One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him, 

9. "There is a child here, that hath five barley loaves, and two fishes: but what are 

they among so many?" 

10. And Jesus said, "Make the men place themselves on the ground. (Now there was much 

grass in the place.) So the men placed themselves on the ground, in number about five 

thousand. 

11. Jesus took the loaves; and, when he had given thanks, he distributed [to the 

disciples, and the disciples]; to those that were on the ground: and in like manner of 

the fishes, as much as they would. 

12. And when they were filled, he saith to his disciples, "Gather the fragments which 

remain, that nothing be lost." 

13. They gathered them up, and filled twelve panniers with fragments of the five barley 

loaves, which remained to those that had eaten. 

14. Then those men, when they had seen the miracle which Jesus did, said, "This is in 

truth that prophet who was to come into the world." 

15. When Jesus therefore perceived that they were about to come and take him by force, 

to make him a king, he withdrew [again] to a mountain himself alone. 

16. And when evening came, his disciples went down to the lake; 

17. and entered into a ship, and were over the lake toward Capernaum. And it was now 

dark; and Jesus was not come to them. 

18. And the lake rose, because of a great wind which blew. 

19. So when they had rowed about twenty-five or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking 

on the lake, and drawing near to the ship: and they were afraid. 

20. But he saith unto them, "It is I; be not afraid." 

21. Then they were glad to receive him into the ship: and immiediately the ship was at 



the land whither they were going. 

22. The day following, when the multitude who stood on the other side of the lake saw 

that there was none other boat there but one, and that Jesus had gone with his disciples 

into the ship, but that his disciples departed alone; 

23. (however there came other boats from Tiberias, near the place where they ate bread, 

after the Lord had given thanks; 

24. when the people therefore saw that neither Jesus was there, nor his disciples, they 

took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 

25. And when they had found him on the other side of the lake, they said unto him, 

"Rabbi, when camest thou hither?" 

26. Jesus answered them and said, "Verily verily I say unto you, Ye seek me, not 

because ye have seen miracles, but because ye ate of the loaves, and were filled. 

27. Work not for so much for the food which perisheth, as for the food which endureth 

unto everlasting life, which the Son of man will give you: for him the Father sealed, 

even God." 

28. They said therefore unto him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of 

God?" 

29. Jesus answered and said unto them, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him 

whom he hath sent." 

30. Then they said unto him, "What miracle [therefore] doest thou, that we may see it, 

and believe in thee? what dost thou work? 

31. Our fathers ate manna in the desert: as it is written, 'He gave them bread from 

heaven to eat.'" 

32. Jesus [therefore] said unto them, "Verily verily I say unto you, Moses gave you not 

the bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 

33. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the 

world. 

34. Then they said unto him, "Master, always give us this bread." 

35. And Jesus said unto them, "I am the bread of life: he who cometh to me, shall never 

hunger; and he who believeth in me, shall never thirst. 

36. But I have said unto you, that ye have both seen me and believe not. 

37. All whom the Father giveth me, will come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will 

in no wise cast out. 

38. For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him who 

sent me. 

39. And this is the will of him who sent me, that of all whom he hath given me I should 

lose none, but should raise them up at the last day. 

40. For this is the will of my him who sent me, that every one who seeth the Son, and 

believeth in him, may have everlasting life: and him I will raise up at the last day. 

41. The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, 'I am the bread which came down 

from heaven:' 

42. and said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? 

how therefore doth this man say, 'I came down from heaven?'" 

43. Jesus answered and said unto them, "Murmur not among yourselves. 

44. No man can come to me, unless the Father, who sent me, draw him: and him I will 

raise up at the last day. 

45. It is written in the prophets, 'And all shall be taught of God.' Every one that 

hath heard and learned from the Father, cometh unto me. 

46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, but he that is from God, he hath seen the 

Father. 

47. Verily verily I say unto you, He who believeth in me hath everlasting life. 

48. I am the bread of life. 

49. Your fathers ate manna in the desert, and died. 

50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat of it, and not 

die. 

51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he 

shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh which I shall give for 

the life of the world. 

52. The Jews therefore contended among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us 

his flesh to eat?" 

53. Jesus therefore said unto them, "Verily verily I say unto you, Unless ye eat the 



flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in you. 

54. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life; and him I 

will raise up at the last day. 

55. For my flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink. 

56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 

57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he likewise that 

eateth me, shall live by me. 

58. This is the bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers ate [manna,] and 

died. He that eateth of this bread, shall live for ever." 

59. He said these things in a synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 

60. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard him, said, "This is a hard 

doctrine: who can understand it?" 

61. But when Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at this, he said unto 

them, "Do ye revolt at this?" 

62. What then if ye shall see the Son of man going up where he was before? 

63. It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words which I 

speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 

64. But there are some of you that believe not." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who 

they were that believed not, and who was to deliver him up. 

65. Then he said, "For this cause I said unto you, that none can come unto me, unless 

it be given unto him by my Father. 

66. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 

67. Jesus therefore said to the twelve, "Will ye also depart?" 

68. Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of 

everlasting life: 

69. and we believe, and know, that thou art the Holy One of God." 

70. Jesus answered them, "Have I not chosen you twelve? and yet one of you is a false 

accuser? 

71. Now he spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for he was about to deliver him 

up, [being] one of the twelve. 

Chapter 7 

1. And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Judea, 

because the Jews sought to kill him. 

2. Now the feast of the Jews, called the feast of tabernacles, was near. 

3. His brethren therefore said unto him, "Depart hence, and go into Judea; that thy 

disciples also may see thy works which thou doest. 

4. For no man doeth any thing in secret, and yet he himself seeketh to be known 

publicly. If thou do these things, show thyself to the world. 

5. (For neither did his brethren believe him.) 

6. [Then] Jesus therefore saith unto them, "My time is not yet come: but your time is 

always ready. 

7. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it that its works 

are evil. 

8. Go ye up unto the feast: I go not up now to this feast; for my time is not yet fully 

come." 

9. When he had said these words unto them, he still remained in Galilee. 

10. But when his brethren had gone up, then he also went up to the feast; not openly, 

but as it were in secret. 

11. Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, "Where is he?" 

12. And there was much murmuring among the multitudes concerning him: and some said, 

"He is a good man:" others said, :No: but he deceiveth the people." 

13. However, no man spake openly of him, for fear of the Jews. 

14. But when it was now about the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple, 

and taught. 

15. The Jews therefore wondered, saying, "How hath this man learning, having never been 

taught?" 

16. Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me. 

17. If any man desire to do his will, he shall concerning the doctrine, whether it be 

from God, or whether I speak of myself. 

18. Whoever speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory: but whoever seeketh his glory 



who sent him, he is true, and unrighteousness is not in him. 

19. Did not Moses give you the law; and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why seek ye to 

kill me?" 

20. The multitude answered and said, "Thou hast a demon: Who seeketh to kill thee?" 

21. Jesus answered and said unto them, "I have done one work, and ye all wonder at it. 

22. Moses gave you circumcision; (not that it is of Moses, but from the fathers;) and 

ye on the sabbath circumcise a man. 

23. If a man on the sabbath receive circumcision, that the law of Moses may not be 

broken; are ye angry with me, because I made a man altogether well on the sabbath? 

24. Judge not according to appearance; but judge righteous judgment. 

25. Then some inhabitants of Jerusalem said, "Is not this he whom they seek to kill? 

26. but, lo, he speaketh boldly; and nothing is said unto him. Do the rulers know 

indeed that this is the Christ? 

27. However we know whence this man is: but, when Christ cometh, none knoweth whence he 

is. 

28. Then Jesus cried out in the temple, as he taught, saying, "Do ye both know me, and 

know whence I am? and yet I am not come of myself, but he who sent me is true, whom ye 

know not. 

29. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me." 

30. Then the Jews sought to apprehend him: yet no man laid hands on him, because his 

hour was not yet come. 

31. But many of the multitude believed in him, and said, "When Christ cometh, will he 

do more miracles than [these] which this man hath done?" 

32. The Pharisees heard the multitude murmuring such things about him; and the 

chief-priests and the Pharisees sent officers to apprehend him. 

33. Jesus therefore said, "Yet a little time longer I shall be with you; and then I 

shall go to him who sent me. 

34. Ye will seek me, and will not find me; and where I shall be, thither ye cannot 

come." 

35. The Jews therefore said among themselves, "Whither will this man go, that we shall 

not find him? will he go to the dispersed Greeks, and teach the Greeks? 

36. What words are these which he said, 'Ye will seek me, and will not find me; and 

where I shall be, thither ye cannot come?'" 

37. Now on the last day, which is the great day, of the feast, Jesus stood and cried 

out, saying, "If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink. 

38. He who believeth in me, as the scripture hath said, from his belly shall flow 

rivers of living water." 

39. (Now he spake this of the spirit, which those who believe in him were to receive: 

for the [holy] spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.) 

40. Many of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said, "In truth this 

is a prophet." 

41. Others said, "This is the Christ." But others said, "Doth the Christ come out of 

Galilee? 

42. Hath not the scripture said, that the Christ cometh of the offspring of David, and 

from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" 

43. So there was a division among the multitude because of him. 

44. And some of them desired to apprehend him: but none laid hands on him. 

45. The officers came to the chief priests and Pharisees; who said unto them, "Why have 

ye not brought him?" 

46. The officers answered, "Never man spake like this [man.]" 

47. The Pharisees answered them, "Are ye also deceived? 

48. Hath any one of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 

49. but this multitude, who know not the law, are accursed." 

50. Nicodemus saith unto them (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) 

51. "Doth our law judge any man, unless it first hear him, and know what he doeth?" 

52. They answered and said unto him, "Art thou also of Galilee? Search and see that a 

prophet is not to arise from Galilee." 

53. [And they went every man unto his own house: 

Chapter 8 

1. but Jesus went to the mount of Olives. 



2. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to 

him; and he sat down, and taught them. 

3. And the scribes and the Pharisees bring to him a woman taken in adultery: and when 

they had set her in the midst, 

4. they say unto him, "Teacher, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 

5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: what then sayest 

thou?" 

6. Now they said this, trying him; that they might have whereof to accuse him. But 

Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. 

7. But when they continued asking him, he raised himself up, and said unto them, "Let 

him that is without sin among you, first cast a stone at her." 

8. And he again stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 

9. But they, having heard this, being convinced by their conscience, went out one by 

one, having begun at the elder, to the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman 

standing in the midst. 

10. Now when Jesus raised himself up, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, 

"Woman, those thine accusers? hath no man condemn thee?" 

11. And she said, "No man, Sir." And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: 

go, and sin no more.]" 

12. Then Jesus spake unto them, saying, "I am the light of the world: he who followeth 

me, shall by no means walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." 

13. The Pharisees therefore said unto him, "Thou bearest witness of thyself; thy 

witness is not true." 

14. Jesus answered and said unto them, "Though I bear witness of myself, yet my witness 

is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye know not whence I come, and 

whither I go. 

15. Ye judge according to the flesh: I judge no one. 

16. And yet if I judge, my judgement is true: because I am not alone, but I and the 

Father who sent me. 

17. It is written in your law also, that the witness of two men is true. 

18. I bear witness of myself; and the Father who sent me beareth witness of me." 

19. They said therefore unto him, "Where is thy Father?" Jesus answered, "Ye neither 

know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also." 

20. Jesus spake these words in the treasury, as he was teaching in the temple: and yet 

none laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come. 

21. Then Jesus said unto them again, "I shall depart, and ye will seek me, and will die 

in your sin: whither I depart, ye cannot come." 

22. Then the Jews said, "Will he kill himself? because he saith, 'Whither I depart, ye 

cannot come.'" 

23. And he said unto them, "Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; 

I am not of this world. 

24. I therefore said unto you, that ye will die in your sins: for if ye believe not 

that I am he, ye will die in your sins." 

25. Then they said unto him, "Who art thou?" [And] Jesus said unto them, "Even what I 

told you at first. 

26. I have many things to say concerning you, and to condemn: but he who sent me, is 

true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard from him." 

27. They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. 

28. Then Jesus said unto them, "When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then will know 

that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but speak these things as the Father 

taught me. 

29. And he who sent me is with me: the Father not left me alone; because I always do 

those things which please him." 

30. As he spake these words, many believed in him. 

31. Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed in him, "If ye continue in my word, then 

ye are truly my disciples: 

32. and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." 

33. Some answered him, "We are Abraham's offspring, and were never slaves to any man: 

how sayest thou, 'Ye shall become free?'" 

34. Jesus answered them, "Verily verily I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the 

slave of sin. 



35. And the slave abideth not in the house for ever: but the son abideth for ever. 

36. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye will be free indeed. 

37. I know that ye are Abraham's offspring: yet ye seek to kill me, because my word 

hath no place in you. 

38. I speak that which I have seen with [my] Father: and ye do that which ye have seen 

from [your] father." 

39. They answered and said unto him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus saith unto them, 

"If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." 

40. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that have spoken to you the truth, which I have 

heard from God: Abraham did not act us. 

41. Ye do the works of your father." Then they said to him, "We are not born of 

fornication: we have one Father, even God." 

42. Jesus said unto them, "If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth 

from God, and come unto you, for I came not of myself, but He sent me. 

43. Why do ye not understand my discourse? because ye cannot hearken to my word. 

44. Ye are of your father the devil; and the desires of your father ye are disposed to 

do. He was a slayer of men from the beginning, and continued not in the truth; because 

there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a 

liar, and the father of liars. 

45. And because I speak the truth, ye believe me not. 

46. Which of you convicteth me of falsehood? If I speak the truth, why do ye not 

believe me? 

47. He that is of God, hearkeneth to God's words: ye therefore hearkeneth not, because 

ye are not of God." 

48. The Jews answered and said unto him, "Say we not well, that thou art a Samaritan, 

and hast a demon?" 

49. Jesus answered, "I have not a demon: but I honour my Father, and ye dishonour me. 

50. But I seek not mine own glory: there is one who seeketh it, and judgeth. 

51. Verily verily I say unto you, If a man keep my words, he shall never see death." 

52. The Jews therefore said unto him, "Now we know that thou hast a demon. Abraham is 

dead, and the prophets also: yet thou sayest, 'If a man keep my words, he shall never 

taste of death.' 

53. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, that is dead? and the prophets are dead 

also: whom makest thou thyself?" 

54. Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father who 

glorifieth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 

55. and yet ye know him not; but I know him: and if I should say, 'I know him not,' I 

should speak falsely, like you: but I know him, and keep his words. 

56. Your father Abraham earnestly desired that he might see my day; and he saw it, and 

was glad." 

57. The Jews therefore said unto him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old; and hast thou 

seen Abraham?" 

58. Jesus said unto them, "Verily verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am 

he." 

59. Then they took up stones to cast at him: but Jesus concealed himself, and went out 

of the temple. 

Chapter 9 

1. And as he passed by, he saw a man that had been blind from his birth. 

2. And his disciples asked him, saying, "Master, who sinned, this man, or his parents, 

that he was born blind?" 

3. Jesus answered, "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of 

God might be manifested in him. 

4. We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when 

no man can work. 

5. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world." 

6. When he had said this, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and 

anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, 

7. and said unto him, "Go, wash thyself in the pool of Siloam:" (which is, by 

interpretation, Sent). He departed therefore, and washed himself, and came seeing. 

8. The neighbors therefore, and those who had seen him before, (for he had been a 



beggar), said, "Is not this he who sat and begged?" 

9. Some said, "This is he." And others said, "He is like him." But he said, "I am he." 

10. They said therefore unto him, "How were thine eyes opened?" 

11. He answered and said, "The man, called Jesus, made clay and anointed mine eyes, and 

said unto me, 'Go to Siloam, and wash thyself: and I went and washed myself, and received 

my sight." 

12. Then they said unto him, "Where is he?" He saith, "I know not." 

13. Then they bring him to the Pharisees [him, I say, who had been blind.] 

14. Now it was the sabbath, when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. 

15. Then the Pharisees also asked him again, how he had received his sight. And he said 

unto them, "He put clay on mine eyes, and I washed myself, and see." 

16. Wherefore some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, because he keepeth 

not the sabbath." Others said, "How can a sinner do such miracles?" And there was a 

division among them. 

17. They say again to the blind man again, "What sayest thou of him, since he hath 

opened thine eyes?" And the blind man said, "He is a prophet." 

18. Upon this the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had 

received his sight, until they called his parents: [the parents, I say, of him that 

received his sight.] 

19. And they asked them, saying, "Is this your son, of whom ye say that he was born 

blind? how then doth he now see?" 

20. His parents answered them, and said, "We know that this is our son, and that he was 

born blind: 

21. but by what means he now seeth, we know not: he is of age; ask him, he will speak 

for himself. 

22. His parents spake these words, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had 

already agreed that, if any man should confess Jesus to be Christ, he should be put out 

of the synagogue. 

23. For this cause his parents said, "He is of age; ask him." 

24. A second time therefore they called the man that had been blind, and said unto him, 

"Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner." 

25. [Then] he answered and said, "Whether he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, 

that, whereas I was blind, I now see." 

26. Then they said to him again, "What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?" 

27. He answered them, "I told you already, and ye did not hearken: why desire ye hear 

to hear it again? would ye also be his disciples?" 

28. Then they reviled him, and said, "Thou art his disciple; but we are disciples of 

Moses. 

29. We know that God spake to Moses: but we know not whence this man is." 

30. The man answered and said unto them, "In this now is a wonderful thing, that ye 

know not whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 

31. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, 

and do his will, him he heareth. 

32. From the beginning of the world, it hath not been heard that any man opened the 

eyes of one born blind. 

33. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing." 

34. They answered and said unto him, "Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou 

teach us?" And they cast him out of their synagogues. 

35. Jesus heard that they had cast him out: and, when he met him, he said unto him, 

"Dost thou believe in the Son of God?" 

36. He answered and said, "Who is he, Sir, that I may believe in him?" 

37. And Jesus said unto him, "Thou hast both seen him, and he it is who talketh with 

thee." 

38. And the man said, "Sir, I believe". And he did Jesus obeisance. 

39. Then Jesus said, "For judgement I am come into this world: that those who see not, 

may see; and that those who see, may become blind." 

40. And some of the Pharisees that were with him, heard these things, and said unto 

him, "Are we also blind?" 

41. Jesus said unto them, "If ye were blind, ye would not have sin: but now ye say, 'We 

see;' your sin therefore remaineth." 



Chapter 10 

1. "Verily verily I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheep-fold, 

but climbeth up some other way, that man is a thief and a robber. 

2. But he that entereth in by the door, is the shepherd of the sheep. 

3. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hearken to his voice: and he calleth his 

own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 

4. When when he bringeth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep 

follow him; for they know his voice. 

5. Whereas a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not 

the voice of strangers." 

6. This parable Jesus spake unto them: but they understood not what things they were, 

which he spake unto them. 

7. Jesus therefore said unto them again, "Verily verily I say unto you, I am the door 

of the sheep. 

8. All that have came [before me] are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear 

them. 

9. I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be safe, and shall go in and out, 

and find pasture. 

10. The thief cometh not, but to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that the 

sheep may have life, and that they may have it abundantly. 

11. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep. 

12. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, 

seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth; and the wolf seizeth them, and 

scattereth the sheep, 

13. and the hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 

14. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known by mine; 

15. even as the Father knoweth me, and as I know the Father: and I lay down my life for 

the sheep. 

16. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and 

they will hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, and one shepherd. 

17. For this my Father loveth me; because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. 

18. None taketh it from me; but I lay it down of myself. I have authority to lay it 

down, and I have authority to receive it again. This commission I have received from my 

Father." 

19. There was a division therefore again among the Jews because of these words. 

20. And many of them said, "He hath a demon, and is mad; why hear ye him?" 

21. Others said, "These are not the words of him that hath a demon. Can a demon open 

the eyes of the blind?" 

22. And it was the feast of Dedication was kept at Jerusalem; 

23. and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch. 

24. Then the Jews surrounded him, and said unto him, "How long dost thou keep us in 

suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." 

25. Jesus answered them, "I have told you, and ye believe not: the works which I do in 

my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 

26. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. 

27. As I said unto you, my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 

28. and I give unto them everlasting life; and they shall never perish, nor shall 

anyone force them out of my hand. 

29. My Father, that hath given them to me, is greater than all; and none is able to 

force them out of my Father's hand. 

30. I and the Father are one." 

31. Then the Jews took up stones again, to stone him. 

32. Jesus said to them, "Many good works I have shown you from my Father: for which of 

those works do ye stone me?" 

33. The Jews answered him [saying], "For a good work we stone thee not, but for 

blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." 

34. Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, ye are gods?' 

35. If those be called gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be 

made void;) 

36. say ye of him, whom the Father hath set apart and sent into the world, 'Thou 

blasphemest:' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?'" 



37. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not: 

38. but if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and 

believe that the Father is in me, and I in him." 

39. Upon this they sought again to apprehend him: but he escaped out of their hand. 

40. and departed again beyond Jordan, to the place where John at first baptized: and 

there he abode. 

41. And many resorted to him; and said, "John did no miracle: but all things which 

John spake of this man were true." 

42. And many believed in him there. 

Chapter 11 

1. Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her 

sister Martha. 

2. (Now it was that Mary who anointed the Lord with balsam, and wiped his feet with her 

hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 

3. His sisters therefore sent to Jesus, saying, "Master, behold, he whom thou lovest is 

sick." 

4. And when Jesus heard it, he said, "This sickness is not unto death; but for the 

glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it. 

5. (Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.) 

6. When he heard therefore that Lazarus was sick, he still abode two days in the place 

where he was. 

7. Then after this he saith to the disciples, "Let us go again into Judaea." 

8. His disciples say unto him, "Master, but now the Jews sought to stone thee; and 

goest thou thither again?" 

9. Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of the day? If a man walk in the day, he 

stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world: 

10. but if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth; because the light is not in him." 

11. He spake these things; and afterward he saith unto them, "Our friend Lazarus 

sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him." 

12. Then his disciples said, "Master, if he is sleep, he will recover." 

13. But Jesus spake of his death: yet they thought that he was speaking of rest in 

sleep. 

14. Then Jesus said unto them plainly, "Lazarus is dead. 

15. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, that ye may believe: but let us 

go to him." 

16. Then Thomas, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow-disciples, "Let us also go, 

that we may die with him." 

17. When Jesus therefore came, he found that Lazarus had already lain four days in the 

sepulchre. 

18. (Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off: 

19. and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, that they might comfort them 

concerning their brother.) 

20. Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary 

sat in the house. 

21. Then said Martha to Jesus, "Master, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not 

died. 

22. But I know that, even now, whatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give thee." 

23. Jesus saith unto her, "Thy brother shall rise again." 

24. Martha saith unto him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the 

last day." 

25. Jesus said unto her, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he who believeth in me, 

though he die, yet he shall live: 

26. and whosoever liveth, and believeth in me, shall never die. Believest thou this?" 

27. She saith unto him, "Yes, Master: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of 

God, who was to come into the world. 

28. And when she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary secretly, saying, 

"The Teacher is come, and calleth for thee." 

29. As soon as Mary heard this, she riseth quickly, and cometh to him. 

30. (Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in the place where Martha met 

him.) 



31. The Jews then, who were with Mary in the house, and were comforting her, when they 

saw that she rose up hastily, and went out, followed her, saying, "She goeth to the 

sepulchre, that she mat weep there." 

32. As soon then as Mary came where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, 

saying unto him, "Master, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died." 

33. When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping who came with her, 

he groaned in spirit, and was troubled, 

34. and said, "Where have ye laid him?" They say unto him, "Master, come and see." 

35. Jesus wept. 

36. The Jews therefore said, "See how he loved him." 

37. But some of them said, "Could not He, that opened the eyes of the blind man, have 

caused even that this Lazarus should not died?" 

38. Jesus therefore, again groaning in himself cometh to the sepulchre. Now it was a 

cave, and a stone lay against it. 

39. Jesus saith, "Take away the stone." Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith 

unto him, "Master, by this time the smell is offensive: for he hath been buried four 

days." 

40. Jesus saith unto her, "Said I not unto thee that, if thou wouldest believe, thou 

shouldest see the glory of God?" 

41. Then they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, "Father, I 

thank thee that thou hast heard me. 

42. And I knew indeed that thou hearest me always: but because of the multitude who 

stand by I have said this, that they may believe that thou hast sent me." 

43. And when he had said these words, he cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come 

forth." 

44. [And] he that had been dead came out, having his hands and feet bound with 

grave-clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, "Loose 

him, and let him go." 

45. Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things which [Jesus] 

did, believed in him. 

46. But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told them what things which Jesus 

had done. 

47. The chief-priests therefore and the Pharisees assembled a council, and said, "What 

shall we do? for this man doeth many miracles. 

48. If we suffer him to go on thus, all men will believe in him: and the Romans will 

come and take away both our place and our nation." 

49. Then one of them, named Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them, "Ye 

know nothing; 

50. nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, 

and that the whole nation should not perish." 

51. Now he spake not this of himself: but, being high priest that year, he prophesied 

that Jesus was to die for that nation: 

52. and indeed not for the nation only; but that he should gather also in one the 

children of God, who were scattered abroad. 

53. From that day forth they took counsel together to kill him. 

54. Jesus therefore no more walked openly among the Jews; but went thence to a country 

near the desert, to a city called Ephraim; and continued there he with his disciples. 

55. And the passover of the Jews was near: and many went up to Jerusalem out of the 

country before the passover, to purify themselves. 

56. Then they sought for Jesus, and said among themselves, as they stood in the temple, 

"What think ye? that he will not come to the feast?" 

57. Now both the chief-priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any 

man knew where he was, he should discover it; that they might apprehend him. 

Chapter 12 

1. Six days then before the passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, that 

had been dead, whom he had raised from the dead. 

2. Upon which a supper was made for him there; and Martha served: and Lazarus was one 

of those that were at the table with him. 

3. Then Mary took a pound of very precious balsam of spikenard, and anointed the feet 

of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of 



the balsam. 

4. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, [the son of Simon,] who was about 

to deliver him up, 

5. "Why was not this balsam sold for three hundred denarii, and given to the poor?" 

6. Now this he said, not that he cared for the poor: but because he was a thief, and 

had the purse, and carried what was put in it. 

7. Then said Jesus, "Suffer her: against the day of my embalming she hath kept this. 

8. For ye have the poor with you always; but me ye have not always." 

9. Now a great multitude of the Jews knew that he was there: and they came, not because 

of Jesus only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. 

10. So the chief-priests consulted that they might kill Lazarus also; 

11. because by reason of him many of the Jews withdrew from them, and believed in 

Jesus. 

12. On the next day, a great multitude who were come to the feast, when they heard that 

Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, 

13. took branches of palm-trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried out, "Hosanna: 

Blessed be the King of Israel who cometh in the name of the Lord." 

14. Now when Jesus had procured a young ass, he sat on it; as it is written, 

15. "Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on a foal of an ass." 

16. Now these things his disciples understood not at first: but when Jesus had been 

glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of him, and that they had 

done these things unto him. 

17. The multitude then who were with him, bare witness that he had called Lazarus out 

of his sepulchre, and raised him from the dead. 

18. For this reason also the multitude met him; because they heard that he had done 

this miracle. 

19. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, "Behold ye that ye prevail nothing? 

behold, the world is gone after him. 

20. Now certain Greeks were among those who came up to worship at the feast. 

21. So these came to Philip, that was of Bethsaida in Galilee, and besought him, 

saying, "Sir, we desire to see Jesus." 

22. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again, Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. 

23. And Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour is come that the Son of man should be 

glorified. 

24. Verily verily I say unto you, Unless a grain of wheat fall into the ground, and 

die, it remaineth a single grain: but if it die, it beareth forth much fruit. 

25. He that loveth his life, shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world, 

shall keep it unto everlasting life. 

26. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant also 

be: if any man serve me, him my Father will honour. 

27. Now is my soul troubled: and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? But 

for this cause came I to this hour. 

28. Father, glorify thy name." Then a voice came from heaven, saying, "I have both 

glorified it, and will glorify it again." 

29. The multitude therefore who stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered. Others 

said, "An angel spake to him." 

30. Jesus answered and said, "This voice came not for my sake, but for your sakes. 

31. Now is the judgment of this world: now the prince of this world will be cast out. 

32. And although I shall be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto me." 

33. (This he said, signifying what death he was about to die.) 

34. The multitude answered him, "We have heard out of the law that Christ continueth 

for ever: and how sayest thou, 'The Son of man be lifted up?' Who is this Son of man?" 

35. Then Jesus said unto them, "But a little time longer, the light will be among you. 

Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in the 

darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. 

36. While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be sons of light." These 

things Jesus spake, and departed, and concealed himself from them. 

37. But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not in him: 

38. so that the words of the prophet Isaiah were fulfilled, which he spake, "Lord, who 

hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been made manifest?" 

39. Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah had said again, 



40. "He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; so that they see not with 

their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and turn, that I should heal them." 

41. These things Isaiah said, when he saw his glory; and spake of him. 

42. Nevertheless many even among the rulers believed in him; but because of the 

Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: 

43. for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. 

44. But Jesus cried out, and said, "He who believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in 

him who sent me. 

45. And he who seeth me, seeth him who sent me. 

46. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth in me may not remain in 

darkness. 

47. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I condemn him not: (for I came not 

to condemn the world, but to save the world:) 

48. he who rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath that which condemneth him: 

the doctrine which I have spoken, that will condemn him in the last day. 

49. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he hath given me 

commandment, what I should enjoin, and what I should speak. 

50. And I know that his commandment is everlasting life: what therefore I speak, I so 

speak as the Father hath given me in charge." 

Chapter 13 

1. Now Jesus having known before the feast of the passover, that his hour was come that 

he should depart out of this world to the Father; and, having loved his own that were in 

the world, he loved them to the end: 

2. and supper being come, (the devil having already put into the heart of Judas 

Iscariot, the son of Simon, to deliver him up;) 

3. though he knew, I say, that the Father gave all things into his hands, and that he 

came from God, and was going to God; 

4. yet he riseth from supper, and layeth aside his upper garments; and took a napkin, 

and girt himself. 

5. Then he poureth water into a vessel, and began to wash the feet of the disciples, 

and to wipe them with the napkin with which he was girded. 

6. So he cometh to Simon Peter: [and] Peter saith unto him, "Master, dost thou wash my 

feet?" 

7. Jesus answered and said unto him, "What I do, thou knowest not now; but thou wilt 

know presently." 

8. Peter saith unto him, "Thou shalt never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I 

wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." 

9. Simon Peter saith unto him, "Master, not my feet only, but mine hands and head 

also." 

10. Jesus saith to him, "He that hath bathed, needeth to wash his feet only; and he is 

altogether clean: and ye are clean, but not all." 

11. For he knew who was to deliver him up: wherefore he said, "Ye are not all clean." 

12. So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his upper garments, and had again 

placed himself at the table, he said unto them, "Know ye what I have done to you? 

13. Ye call me, Teacher, and, Master: and ye say well: for so I am. 

14. If I then, your Master and Teacher, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash 

one another's feet. 

15. For I have given you an example, that ye also may do as I have done to you. 

16. Verily verily I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his master; nor is 

the messenger greater than he who sent him. 

17. If ye know these things, happy are ye when ye do them. 

18. "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but so the scripture is 

fulfilled, 'He that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me.' 

19. Now I tell you before it come to pass, that, when it shall come to pass, ye may 

believe that I am he. 

20. Verily verily I say unto you, He that receiveth whom I shall send, receiveth me; 

and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." 

21. When Jesus had said thus, he was troubled in his spirit, and testified, and said, 

"Verily verily I say unto you, that one of you will deliver me up." 

22. Then the disciples looked on one another, doubting of whom he spake. 



23. There was placed on the bosom of Jesus one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. 

24. Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, that he should ask who it might be of whom 

Jesus spake. 

25. He then who leaned on the breast of Jesus, saith unto him, "Master, who is it?" 

26. Jesus answereth, "it is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread, when I have 

dipped it." And when he had dipped the piece of bread, he giveth it to Judas Iscariot, 

the son of Simon. 

27. And, after the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Then saith Jesus unto him, 

"What thou doest, do quickly." 

28. Now no man at the table knew why spake this unto him. 

29. For some thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus said had unto him, "Buy 

those things which we have need of for the feast;" or, that he should give something to 

the poor. 

30. He then who had received the piece of bread, went out immediately: now it was 

night. 

31. When he was gone out, Jesus saith, "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is 

glorified by him; 

32. Since God is glorified by him, God also will glorify him in himself, and 

immediately glorify him. 

33. My children, but a little time longer I shall be with you. Ye will seek me: and, as 

I said to the Jews, 'Whither I go, ye cannot come;' so now I say to you. 

34. A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; that, as I have loved 

you, ye also love one another. 

35. By this all men will know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love to one 

another." 

36. Simon Peter saith unto him, "Master, whither goest thou?" Jesus answered, "Whither 

I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou wilt follow [me] hereafter." 

37. Peter saith unto him, "Master, why cannot I follow thee [now?] I will lay down my 

life for thy sake." 

38. Jesus answereth him, "Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily verily I say 

unto thee, The cock will not crow, till thou have denied me thrice. 

Chapter 14 

1. Let not your heart be troubled: believe in God; believe in me also. 

2. In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I 

go to prepare a place for you. 

3. And after I shall have gone and prepared a place for you, I will come again, and 

receive you to myself; that, where I am, ye also may be. 

4. And whither I go, ye know; and the way you know." 

5. Thomas saith unto him, "Master, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know 

the way?" 

6. Jesus saith unto him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh to 

the Father but by me. 

7. If ye knew me, ye would know my Father also: and henceforth ye know him, and have 

seen him." 

8. Philip saith unto him, "Master, show us the Father; and it sufficeth us." 

9. Jesus saith unto him, "Have I been so long with you, and dost thou not know me, 

Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father: how then sayest thou, 'Show us the 

Father?' 

10. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words which I 

speak unto you, I speak not from myself; and the Father, who abideth in me, he doeth the 

works. 

11. Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: but if not, believe [me] 

for works themselves. 

12. Verily verily I say unto you, He who believeth on me, the works which I do he also 

shall do; and greater works than these he shall do; because I go to my Father; 

13. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, I will do; that the Father may be glorified 

in the Son. 

14. If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it. 

15. "If ye love me, keep my commandments. 

16. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate, that he may abide 



with you forever; 

17. even the spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive, because it discerneth him 

not, nor knoweth him; but ye shall know him; for he shall abide with you, and shall be in 

you. 

18. I will not leave you destitute: I will come unto you. 

19. But a little time longer, and the world shall see me no more; but ye shall see me: 

because I live, ye also shall live. 

20. In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 

21. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is who loveth me: and he who 

loveth me, shall be loved of my Father; and I will love him, and will manifest myself to 

him." 

22. Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, "Master, how is it that thou wilt soon 

manifest thyself to us, and not to the world?" 

23. Jesus answered and said unto him, "If any man love me, he will keep my words: and 

my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode with him. 

24. He who loveth me not, keepeth not my words: and yet the word which ye hear, is not 

mine, but the Father's who sent me. 

25. "These things I speak unto you, while I abide with you. 

26. But the Advocate, even the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, he 

shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance that I have said 

unto you. 

27. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, do I 

give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be dismayed. 

28. Ye heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and will come again unto you.' If ye loved 

me, ye would rejoice, because I go to the Father: for [my] Father is greater than I. 

29. And now I tell it you before it come to pass, that, when it cometh to pass, ye may 

believe. 

30. Hereafter I shall no longer talk much with you; for the prince of this world 

cometh: and he hath nothing in me. 

31. But this must be, that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father 

hath commanded me, so I do. Arise, let us go hence." 

Chapter 15 

1. "I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman. 

2. Every branch in me which beareth not fruit, he taketh away: and every branch which 

beareth fruit, he pruneth, that it may bear more fruit. 

3. Ye are now clean, through the words which I have spoken unto you. 

4. Abide in me; and I will abide in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, 

unless it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, unless ye abide in me. 

5. I am the vine; ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, he beareth 

much fruit: for, severed from me, ye can do nothing. 

6. If a man abide not in me, he shall be cast out as a severed branch, and shall 

wither; and men shall gather together such branches, and cast them into the fire, and 

they shall be burned. 

7. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it 

shall be done for you. 

8. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit: so ye will be my disciples. 

9. As the Father hath loved me, so I have loved you: abide ye in my love. 

10. If ye keep my commandments, ye will abide in my love; as I have kept my Father's 

commandments, and abide in his love. 

11. These things I speak unto you, that my joy in you may abide, and that your joy may 

be full. 

12. This is my commandment; that ye love one another, as I have loved you. 

13. Greater love than this hath no man , that a man lay down his life for his friends. 

14. Ye are my friends, if ye whatsoever things I command you. 

15. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his master 

doeth: but I call you friends; for all things which I have heard from my Father, I have 

made known unto you. 

16. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and appointed you, that ye may go and 

bear fruit, and that your fruit may remain: that whatever ye shall ask the Father in my 

name, he may give it you. 



17. "These things I command you, that ye may love one another. 

18. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 

19. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of 

the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 

20. Remember the words which I said unto you, 'The servant is not greater than his 

master.' If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also: if they have kept my 

words, they will keep yours also. 

21. But all these things they will do unto you on account of my name; because they know 

not him who sent me. 

22. If I had not come, and spoken unto them, they would not have had sin: but now they 

have no excuse for their sin. 

23. He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. 

24. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they would not 

have had sin: but now they have both seen, and have hated, both me and my Father. 

25. But this cometh to pass, that the words are fulfilled which are written in their 

law, 'They hated me without a cause.' 

26. "But when the Advocate is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the 

spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he will testify of me. 

27. And ye shall also testify, because ye have been with me from the beginning. 

Chapter 16 

1. "These things have I spoken unto you, that ye may not offend. 

2. They will put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever 

killeth you will think that he offereth God service. 

3. And these things will they do, because they have not known the Father, or me. 

4. But these things I have spoken unto you, that, when the time shall come, ye may 

remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you from the 

beginning, because I was with you. 

5. But now I depart to him who sent me; and none of you asketh me, 'Whither goest 

thou?' 

6. But because I have spoken these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. 

7. "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away: for if 

I go not away, the Advocate will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto 

you. 

8. And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of 

judgment: 

9. of sin, because they believe not in me; 

10. of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no longer; 

11. of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. 

12. I have still many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 

13. However, when he cometh, even the spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the 

truth: for he will not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that he will 

speak: and he will show you things to come. 

14. He will glorify me: for he will receive of mine, and will declare it unto you. 

15. All things which the Father hath are mine: therefore I have said, that he will 

receive of mine, and will declare it unto you. 

16. A little time, and ye will not see me: and again a little time, and ye will see me, 

because I go to the Father." 

17. Then said some of his disciples among themselves, "What is this which he saith unto 

us, 'A little time, and ye will not see me: and again, a little time, and ye will see 

me:' and, 'Because I go to the Father?'" 

18. They said therefore, "What is this which he saith, 'A little time?' We know not 

what he speaketh." 

19. Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, "Do ye 

inquire among yourselves concerning this, that I said, 'A little time, and ye will not 

see me: and again, a little time, and ye will see me?' 

20. Verily verily I say unto you, that ye will weep and lament, but the world will 

rejoice: and ye will be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. 

21. A woman, when she is in travail, hath sorrow, because her hour is come; but when 

she has brought forth the child, she remembereth no more the affliction, for the joy that 

a man is born into the world. 



22. And thus ye have sorrow now: but I will see you again, and your heart shall 

rejoice, and your joy no man shall take from you. 

23. And in that day ye shall request nothing of me: Verily verily I say unto you, 

Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. 

24. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy 

may be full. 

25. These things have I spoken to you in dark speeches: the time cometh when I shall no 

more speak unto you in dark speeches, but shall show you plainly concerning the Father. 

26. In that day, ye shall ask in my name; and I say not unto you that I will request 

the Father for you: 

27. for the Father himself loveth you, because ye love me, and believe that I came 

forth from the Father. 

28. I came forth from the Father, and come into the world: again, I leave the world, 

and go to the Father. 

29. His disciples say unto him, "Lo, now thou speakest plainly, and speakest no dark 

speech. 

30. Now know we that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any one should ask 

thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God." 

31. Jesus answered them, "Do ye now believe? 

32. Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye will be scattered, every man to 

his own home, and will leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with 

me. 

33. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye 

will have affliction: but be of good courage; I have overcome the world." 

Chapter 17 

1. Jesus spake these words; and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the 

hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 

2. as thou hast given him power over all men, that he may give everlasting life to all 

whom thou hast given him. 

3. And this is everlasting life, that they may know thee to be the only true God, and 

Jesus thy messenger to be the Christ. 

4. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou hast given 

me to do. 

5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thyself, with the glory which I had with 

thee before the world was. 

6. "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world: 

they were thine, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word. 

7. Now they know that all things, whatsoever thou hast given me, are from thee. 

8. For I have given then the words which thou gavest me; and they received them, and 

have surely known that I came forth from thee, and have believed that thou hast sent me. 

9. I request for them; I request not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given 

me; for they are thine. 

10. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified through them. 

11. And now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I shall go to 

thee. Holy Father, keep them in than name of thine which thou hast given me; that they 

may be one, as we are. 

12. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those whom thou gavest 

me: I have preserved; and none of them is destroyed, but the son of destruction; so that 

the scripture is fulfilled. 

13. But now I go to thee; and I speak these things in the world, that they may have my 

joy on their account completed in them. 

14. I have given them thy words; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of 

the world, as I am not of the world. 

15. I request not that thou wouldest take them out of the world, but that thou wouldest 

keep them from evil. 

16. They are not of the world, as I am not of the world. 

17. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 

18. As thou hast send me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 

19. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the 

truth. 



20. "Nor do I pray for these only, but for those also who shall believe in me through 

their words; 

21. that all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may 

be [one] in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 

22. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given them; that they may be one, as 

we are one: 

23. I in them, and thou in me; that they may be perfected in one; and that the world 

may know that thou hast send me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 

24. Father, I desire that those also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I 

am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before 

the foundation of the world. 

25. O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these 

have known that thou hast sent me. 

26. And I have made known unto them thy name, and will make it known: that the love 

with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them." 

Chapter 18 

1. When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook 

Kidron, where was a garden, into which he and hid disciples entered. 

2. And Judas also, who delivered him up, knew the place: for Jesus often resorted 

thither with his disciples. 

3. Judas then, having received a band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests 

and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns, and lamps, and weapons. 

4. Upon this Jesus, knowing all things which were to befal him, went forth and said 

unto them, "Whom seek ye?" 

5. They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus saith unto them, "I am he." And Judas 

also, who delivered him up, stood with them. 

6. As soon then as he had said unto them, 'I am he,' they went backward, and fell on 

the ground. 

7. Then he asked them again, "Whom seek ye?" They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." 

8. Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these 

depart." 

9. (That the words might be fulfilled, which he spake, "Of those whom thou gavest me, I 

have lost none.") 

10. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and struck a servant of the high priest, 

and cut off his right ear. Now the servant's name was Malchus. 

11. Then said Jesus to Peter, "Put up the sword into the sheath: the cup which my 

Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? 

12. Then the band and the commander, and the officers of the Jews, took Jesus, and 

bound him, 

13. and led him away to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was 

high-priest that year. 

14. Now Caiaphas was he who had given counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that 

one man should die for the people. 

15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: and that disciple was 

known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the palace of the high priest, 

16. But Peter stood at the door without. Then that other disciple, who was known to the 

high priest, went out, and spake to her who kept the door, and brought in Peter. 

17. Then the maid-servant who kept the door saith to Peter, "Art not thou also one of 

this man's disciples?" He saith, "I am not." 

18. And the servants and officers stood and warmed themselves, having made a fire of 

coals; for it was cold. And Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. 

19. Now the high-priest asked Jesus concerning his disciples, and concerning his 

doctrine. 

20. Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in 

synagogue, and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort; and in secret spoke nothing. 

21. Why askest thou me? Ask those that heard me, what I have spoken to them: behold, 

they know what I said." 

22. And when he had said these words, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus 

with the palm of his hand, and said, "Answerest thou the high-priest thus?" 

23. Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, 



why dost thou smite me?" 

24. (Now Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.) 

25. And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. Then they said to him, "Art not thou also 

one of his disciples?" He denied it, and said, "I am not." 

26. One of the servants of the high-priest, being the kinsman of him whose ear Peter 

cut off, saith, "Did not I see thee in the garden with him?" 

27. Peter then denied it again; and immediately the cock crew. 

28. [Then] the Jews bring Jesus from Caiaphas, to the judgement-hall; and it was early: 

and they themselves went not into the judgement-hall, lest they should be defiled, but 

that they might eat the passover. 

29. Pilate therefore went out unto them, and said, "What accusation bring ye against 

this man?" 

30. They answered and said unto him, "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have 

delivered him up unto thee." 

31. Then Pilate said unto them, "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law." The 

Jews therefore said unto him, "We are not allowed to put any man to death." 

32. (So that the words of Jesus were fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death 

he was to die. 

33. Then Pilate entered again into the judgement-hall, and called Jesus, and said unto 

him, "Art thou the King of the Jews?" 

34. Jesus answered [him], "Sayest thou this of thyself; or have others told it thee of 

me?" 

35. Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Thine own nation, and the chief-priests, have 

delivered thee up unto me. What hast thou done? 

36. Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom had been of this 

world, then my servants would have contended, that I might not be delivered up to the 

Jews: but indeed my kingdom not hence." 

37. Pilate therefore said unto him, "Art thou a king then?" Jesus answered, "Thou 

sayest truly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I came into 

the world, that I might bear witness to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, 

hearkeneth to my voice." 

38. Pilate saith unto him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out 

again to the Jews, and saith unto them, "I find no fault in him. 

39. But ye have a custom that I should release to you one at the passover: will ye 

therefore that I release to you the King of the Jews?" 

40. They all cried out, saying, "Not this man, but Barabbas." Now Barabbas was a 

robber. 

Chapter 19 

1. Then Pilate upon this took Jesus, and scourged him. 

2. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head; and clothed him 

with a purple garment, 

3. and said, "Hail, King of the Jews." And they struck him with the palms of their 

hands. 

4. And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, "See, I bring him out to you, that 

ye may know that I find no fault in him." 

5. Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple garment. And Pilate 

saith unto them, "See, the man." 

6. When therefore the chief-priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying, 

"Crucify him, crucify him." Pilate saith unto them, "Take ye him, and crucify him: for I 

find no fault in him." 

7. The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he 

made himself a son of God." 

8. When Pilate therefore heard this words, he was the more afraid; 

9. and went again into the judgement-hall, and saith to Jesus, "Whence art thou?" But 

Jesus gave him no answer. 

10. Pilate saith to him, "Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have 

authority to crucify thee, and have authority to release thee?" 

11. Jesus answered, "Thou couldest have no authority against me, unless it had been 

given thee from above: for this reason, he that delivered me up unto thee hath greater 

sin." 



12. Thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, "If thou 

release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend. Whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh 

against Caesar." 

13. When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the 

judgment-seat, in a place called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha: 

14. (Now it was the preparation-day of the passover, and about the third hour:). and he 

saith unto the Jews, "See, your king." 

15. But they cried out, "Away, away with him, crucify him." Pilate saith unto them, 

"Shall I crucify your King?" The chief-priests answered, "We have no king but Cesar." 

16. Then upon this Pilate delivered him up unto them to be crucified. 

17. And they took Jesus, and led him away. And he, carrying his cross, went out to a 

place called The place skulls; which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha; 

18. where they crucified him, and two others with him, on each side one, and Jesus in 

the midst. 

19. And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross: and the writing was, JESUS 

OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 

20. And many of the Jews read this title: for the place where Jesus was crucified was 

near the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. 

21. Upon this the chief-priests of the Jews said to Pilate, "Write not, 'The King of 

the Jews;' but that he said, 'I am King of the Jews.'" 

22. Pilate answered, "What I have written, I have written." 

23. Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his outer garments, and made 

four parts, to every soldier a part; and his vest also: now the vest was without seam, 

woven from the top throughout. 

24. They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, 

whose it shall be." So that the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, "They divided my 

garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots." 

25. These things therefore the soldiers did. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his 

mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 

26. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he 

saith to his mother, "Woman, behold thy son." 

27. Then he saith to the disciple, "Behold, thy mother." And from that hour the 

disciple took her to his own home. 

28. After this, Jesus, knowing that all things are now finished, that the scripture 

might be fulfilled, saith, "I thirst." 

29. Now a vessel was set, full of vinegar. And some filled a sponge with vinegar, and 

put it upon hyssop, and raised it to his mouth. 

30. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he 

bowed his head, and expired. 

31. The Jews therefore, because it was the day of preparation, that the bodies might 

not remain on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a great day), besought 

Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 

32. Then the soldiers came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was 

crucified with Jesus: 

33. but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his 

legs: 

34. but one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there came 

out blood and water. 

35. And he who saw these things beareth witness; (and his witness is true, and he 

knoweth that he saith truly;) that ye also may believe. 

36. For these things were done, that the scriptures was fulfilled, "A bone of it shall 

not be broken." 

37. And again another part of scripture saith, "They shall look on him whom they 

pierced." 

38. [Now] after this, Joseph of Arimathea (being a disciple of Jesus, but a concealed 

one for fear of the Jews,) besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and 

Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. 

39. And Nicodemus also came, (he that at first had come to Jesus by night,) bringing a 

mixture of myrrh and aloes, about the weight of an hundred pounds. 

40. Then they took the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen bands with the spices, as 

the manner of the Jews is to embalm. 



41. Now in the place where he was crucified was a garden; and in the garden a new 

sepulchre, in which no man had ever been laid. 

42. There they laid Jesus therefore, because of the preparation-day of the Jews; for 

the sepulchre was near. 

Chapter 20 

1. But on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene cometh to the sepulchre in the 

morning, when it was yet dark, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. 

2. She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom 

Jesus loved, and saith unto them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre; 

and we know not where they have laid him." 

3. Peter therefore went out, and that other disciple; and they came to the sepulchre. 

4. Now they both ran together: and the other disciple outran Peter, and came first to 

the sepulchre. 

5. And when he had stooped down to look in, he seeth the linen bands lying; but he went 

not in. 

6. Then cometh Simon Peter, following him; and he went into the sepulchre; and seeth 

the linen bands lying; 

7. and the napkin, which had been about Jesus's head, not lying with the linen bands, 

but wrapped apart in another place. 

8. Then went in that other disciple also, who came first to the sepulchre, and he saw 

and believed not. 

9. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that Jesus must rise again from the dead. 

10. Then the disciples went again to their own home. 

11. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre, weeping; and, as she wept, she stooped 

down to look into the sepulchre; 

12. and seeth two angels in white, sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, 

where the body of Jesus had lain. 

13. And they say unto her, "Woman, why weepest thou?" She saith unto them, "Because 

they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him." 

14. When she had said thus, she turned herself back, and seeth Jesus standing: but knew 

not that it was Jesus. 

15. Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou?" She, supposing 

him to be the keeper of the garden, saith unto him, "Sir, if thou hast carried him hence, 

tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away." 

16. Jesus saith unto her, "Mary." She turned, and saith unto him in the Hebrew tongue, 

"Rabboni." Which signifieth, My Teacher. 

17. Jesus saith to her, "Embrace me not: for I do not yet ascended to my Father: but go 

to my brethren, and say unto them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God 

and your God.'" 

18. Mary Magdalene cometh and telleth the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and 

that he had said these things unto her. 

19. Then in the evening of that day, being the first day of the week, the doors were 

the disciples were assembled having been shut for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood 

in the midst, and saith unto them, "Peace be unto you." 

20. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. Then the 

disciples were glad, when they saw the Lord. 

21. Then Jesus said to them again, "Peace be unto you." as the Father sent me, so send 

I you." 

22. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, "Receive ye 

the holy spirit. 

23. If ye remit the sins of any, they are remitted unto them; if ye retain, they are 

retained." 

24. But Thomas, called Didymus, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 

25. Then the other disciples said unto him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said unto 

them, "Unless I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the 

print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I shall not believe." 

26. And, within eight days, his disciples were again within, and Thomas with them: then 

Jesus cometh, the doors having been shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace be 

unto you." 

27. Then he saith to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach 



hither thine hand, and put it into my side; and be not unbelieving, but believing." 

28. Thomas answered, and said unto him, "My Lord, and my God!" 

29. Jesus saith unto him, "Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; happy are 

they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 

30. Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not 

written in this book: 

31. but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 

God; and that, believing, ye may have life through his name. 

Chapter 21 

1. After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the lake of 

Tiberias; and in this manner he shewed himself. 

2. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in 

Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. 

3. Simon Peter saith unto them, "I am going to fish." They say unto him, "We also will 

go with thee." They departed, and went into a ship immediately; and on that night they 

caught nothing. 

4. But when morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: the disciples however knew 

not that it was Jesus. 

5. Then Jesus saith unto them, "Young men, have ye any food?" They answered him, "No." 

6. And he said unto them, "Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye will get 

some. They cast it therefore: and now they were not able to draw it, for the multitude of 

fishes. 

7. Wherefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith to Peter, "It is the Lord." Now, when 

Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his upper garment (for he was naked), and 

cast himself into the lake. 

8. And the other disciples came in the vessel (for they were not far from land, but as 

it were two hundred cubits), dragging the net full of fishes. 

9. As soon as they landed, they see a fire of coals lying, and fish laid thereon; and 

bread. 

10. Jesus saith unto them, "Bring of the fishes which ye have now caught." 

11. Simon Peter went into the vessel, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, 

an hundred and fifty three: and although there were so many, yet the net was not broken. 

12. Jesus saith unto them, "Come and dine." Now none of the disciples durst inquire of 

him, "Who art thou?" knowing that it was the Lord. 

13. Jesus [then] cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth to them, and fish in like manner. 

14. Jesus shewed himself to his disciples now this third time, after he had risen from 

the dead. 

15. So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, lovest 

thou me more than these love me?" He saith unto Jesus, "Yes, Lord: thou knowest that I 

love thee." Jesus saith unto him, "Feed my lambs." 

16. Jesus saith to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me?" He 

saith unto Jesus, "Yes, Lord: thou knowest that I love thee." Jesus saith unto him, "Tend 

my sheep." 

17. Jesus saith unto him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me?" Peter 

was grieved that Jesus said unto him the third time, "Lovest thou me?" and he said unto 

Jesus, "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." Jesus saith unto 

him, "Feed my sheep. 

18. Verily verily I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou didst gird thyself and 

walk whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou wilt stretch forth thine 

hands, and another will gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not." 

19. Now he spake this, signifying by what death Peter would glorify God. And when he 

had spoken this, he saith to Peter, "Follow me." 

20. Then Peter turned about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; who had 

leaned on his breast also at supper, and had said, "Lord, which is he who delivereth thee 

up?" 

21. When Peter saw him, he saith to Jesus, "Lord, and what shall this man do?" 

22. Jesus saith unto him, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to thee? 

Follow thou me." 

23. This report therefore went abroad among the brethren, that this disciple was not to 

die: yet Jesus said not to him, "He shall not die;" but, "If I will that he remain till I 



come, what is that to thee?" 

24. This is the disciple who testified these things, and wrote these things: and we 

know that his testimony is true. 

25. And there were many other things also that Jesus did, which, if they were written 

every one, I think that even the world itself could not contain the books which would be 

written. 


Science and Religion-Albert Einstein 

Science and Religion 

Albert Einstein 

This article appears in Einstein's Ideas and 

Opinions, pp.41 - 49. The first section is taken 

from an address at Princeton Theological 

Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out 

of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical 

Library, 1950. The second section is from 

Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 

published by the Conference on Science, 

Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the 

Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. 

1. 

During the last century, and part of the one 

before, it was widely held that there was an 

unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and 

belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced 

minds that it was time that belief should be 

replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that 

did not itself rest on knowledge was 

superstition, and as such had to be opposed. 

According to this conception, the sole function 

of education was to open the way to thinking and 

knowing, and the school, as the outstanding 

organ for the people's education, must serve 

that end exclusively. One will probably find but 

rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint 

expressed in such crass form; for any sensible 

man would see at once how one-sided is such a 

statement of the position. But it is just as 

well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if 

one wants to clear up one's mind as to its 

nature. 

It is true that convictions can best be supported 

with experience and clear thinking. On this point 

one must agree unreservedly with the extreme 

rationalist. The weak point of his conception 

is, however, this, that those convictions which 

are necessary and determinant for our conduct 

and judgments cannot be found solely along this 

solid scientific way. For the scientific method 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/einstein.htm (1 of 10) [5/25/2003 4:23:27 AM]


can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are 

related to, and conditioned by, each other. The 

aspiration toward such objective knowledge 

belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, 

and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing 

to belittle the achievements and the heroic 

efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally 

clear that knowledge of what is does not open 

the door directly to what should be. One can 

have the clearest and most complete knowledge of 

what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that 

what should be the goal of our human 

aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us 

with powerful instruments for the achievements 

of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself 

and the longing to reach it must come from 

another source. And it is hardly necessary to 

argue for the view that our existence and our 

activity acquire meaning only by the setting up 

of such a goal and of corresponding values. The 

knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it 

is so little capable of acting as a guide that 

it cannot prove even the justification and the 

value of the aspiration toward that very 

knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the 

limits of the purely rational conception of our 

existence. But it must not be assumed that 

intelligent thinking can play no part in the 

formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. 

When someone realizes that for the achievement 

of an end certain means would be useful, the 

means itself becomes thereby an end. 

Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation 

of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give 

us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. 

To make clear these fundamental ends and 

valuations, and to set them fast in the 

emotional life of the individual, seems to me 

precisely the most important function which 

religion has to perform in the social life of 

man. And if one asks whence derives the 

authority of such fundamental ends, since they 

cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, 

one can only answer: they exist in a healthy 

society as powerful traditions, which act upon 

the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the 



individuals; they are there, that is, as 

something living, without its being necessary to 

find justification for their existence. They 

come into being not through demonstration but 

through revelation, through the medium of 

powerful personalities. One must not attempt to 

justify them, but rather to sense their nature 

simply and clearly. The highest principles for 

our aspirations and judgments are given to us in 

the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is 

a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we 

can reach only very inadequately, but which 

gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and 

valuations. If one were to take that goal out of 

its religious form and look merely at its purely 

human side, one might state it perhaps thus: 

free and responsible development of the 

individual, so that he may place his powers 

freely and gladly in the service of all mankind. 

There is no room in this for the divinization of 

a nation, of a class, let alone of an 

individual. Are we not all children of one 

father, as it is said in religious language? 

Indeed, even the divinization of humanity, as an 

abstract totality, would not be in the spirit of 

that ideal. It is only to the individual that a 

soul is given. And the high destiny of the 

individual is to serve rather than to rule, or 

to impose himself in any other way. If one looks 

at the substance rather than at the form, then 

one can take these words as expressing also the 

fundamental democratic position. The true 

democrat can worship his nation as little as can 

the man who is religious, in our sense of the 

term. What, then, in all this, is the function 

of education and of the school? They should help 

the young person to grow up in such a spirit 

that these fundamental principles should be to 

him as the air which he breathes. Teaching alone 

cannot do that. If one holds these high 

principles clearly before one's eyes, and 

compares them with the life and spirit of our 

times, then it appears glaringly that civilized 

mankind finds itself at present in grave danger, 

In the totalitarian states it is the rulers 

themselves who strive actually to destroy that 



spirit of humanity. In less threatened parts it 

is nationalism and intolerance, as well as the 

oppression of the individuals by economic means, 

which threaten to choke these most precious 

traditions. A realization of how great is the 

danger is spreading, however, among thinking 

people, and there is much search for means with 

which to meet the danger--means in the field of 

national and international politics, of 

legislation, or organization in general. Such 

efforts are, no doubt, greatly needed. Yet the 

ancients knew something- which we seem to have 

forgotten. All means prove but a blunt 

instrument, if they have not behind them a 

living spirit. But if the longing for the 

achievement of the goal is powerfully alive 

within us, then shall we not lack the strength 

to find the means for reaching the goal and for 

translating it into deeds. Next Article Segment 

II. 

It would not be difficult to come to an 

agreement as to what we understand by science. 

Science is the century-old endeavor to bring 

together by means of systematic thought the 

perceptible phenomena of this world into as 

thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put 

it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior 

reconstruction of existence by the process of 

conceptualization. But when asking myself what 

religion is I cannot think of the answer so 

easily. And even after finding an answer which 

may satisfy me at this particular moment, I 

still remain convinced that I can never under 

any circumstances bring together, even to a 

slight extent, the thoughts of all those who 

have given this question serious consideration. 

At first, then, instead of asking what religion 

is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the 

aspirations of a person who gives me the 

impression of being religious: a person who is 

religiously enlightened appears to me to be one 

who has, to the best of his ability, liberated 

himself from the fetters of his selfish desires 

and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and 



aspirations to which he clings because of their 

superpersonal value. It seems to me that what is 

important is the force of this superpersonal 

content and the depth of the conviction 

concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, 

regardless of whether any attempt is made to 

unite this content with a divine Being, for 

otherwise it would not be possible to count 

Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. 

Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the 

sense that he has no doubt of the significance 

and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and 

goals which neither require nor are capable of 

rational foundation. They exist with the same 

necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. 

In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor 

of mankind to become clearly and completely 

conscious of these values and goals and 

constantly to strengthen and extend their 

effect. If one conceives of religion and science 

according to these definitions then a conflict 

between them appears impossible. For science can 

only ascertain what is, but not what should be, 

and outside of its domain value judgments of all 

kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other 

hand, deals only with evaluations of human 

thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak 

of facts and relationships between facts. 

According to this interpretation the well-known 

conflicts between religion and science in the 

past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension 

of the situation which has been described. For 

example, a conflict arises when a religious 

community insists on the absolute truthfulness 

of all statements recorded in the Bible. This 

means an intervention on the part of religion 

into the sphere of science; this is where the 

struggle of the Church against the doctrines of 

Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, 

representatives of science have often made an 

attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with 

respect to values and ends on the basis of 

scientific method, and in this way have set 

themselves in opposition to religion. These 

conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors. 

Now, even though the realms of religion and 



science in themselves are clearly marked off 

from each other, nevertheless there exist 

between the two strong reciprocal relationships 

and dependencies. Though religion may be that 

which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, 

learned from science, in the broadest sense, 

what means will contribute to the attainment of 

the goals it has set up. But science can only be 

created by those who are thoroughly imbued with 

the aspiration toward truth and understanding. 

This source of feeling, however, springs from 

the sphere of religion. To this there also 

belongs the faith in the possibility that the 

regulations valid for the world of existence are 

rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I 

cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without 

that profound faith. The situation may be 

expressed by an image: science without religion 

is lame, religion without science is blind. 

Though I have asserted above that in truth a 

legitimate conflict between religion and science 

cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this 

assertion once again on an essential point, with 

reference to the actual content of historical 

religions. This qualification has to do with the 

concept of God. During the youthful period of 

mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy 

created gods in man's own image, who, by the 

operations of their will were supposed to 

determine, or at any rate to influence, the 

phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the 

disposition of these gods in his own favor by 

means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in 

the religions taught at present is a sublimation 

of that old concept of the gods. Its 

anthropomorphic character is shown, for 

instance, by the fact that men appeal to the 

Divine Being in prayers and plead for the 

fulfillment of their wishes. Nobody, certainly, 

will deny that the idea of the existence of an 

omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal 

God is able to accord man solace, help, and 

guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it 

is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, 

on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses 

attached to this idea in itself, which have been 



painfully felt since the beginning of history. 

That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every 

occurrence, including every human action, every 

human thought, and every human feeling and 

aspiration is also His work; how is it possible 

to think of holding men responsible for their 

deeds and thoughts before such an almighty 

Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He 

would to a certain extent be passing judgment on 

Himself. How can this be combined with the 

goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? The 

main source of the present-day conflicts between 

the spheres of religion and of science lies in 

this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of 

science to establish general rules which 

determine the reciprocal connection of objects 

and events in time and space. For these rules, 

or laws of nature, absolutely general validity 

is required--not proven. It is mainly a program, 

and faith in the possibility of its 

accomplishment in principle is only founded on 

partial successes. But hardly anyone could be 

found who would deny these partial successes and 

ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact 

that on the basis of such laws we are able to 

predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in 

certain domains with great precision and 

certainty is deeply embedded in the 

consciousness of the modern man, even though he 

may have grasped very little of the contents of 

those laws. He need only consider that planetary 

courses within the solar system may be 

calculated in advance with great exactitude on 

the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In 

a similar way, though not with the same 

precision, it is possible to calculate in 

advance the mode of operation of an electric 

motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless 

apparatus, even when dealing with a novel 

development. To be sure, when the number of 

factors coming into play in a phenomenological 

complex is too large, scientific method in most 

cases fails us. One need only think of the 

weather, in which case prediction even for a few 

days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one 

doubts that we are confronted with a causal 



connection whose causal components are in the 

main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are 

beyond the reach of exact prediction because of 

the variety of factors in operation, not because 

of any lack of order in nature. We have 

penetrated far less deeply into the regularities 

obtaining within the realm of living things, but 

deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the 

rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of 

the systematic order in heredity, and in the 

effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on 

the behavior of organic beings. What is still 

lacking here is a grasp of connections of 

profound generality, but not a knowledge of 

order in itself. The more a man is imbued with 

the ordered regularity of all events the firmer 

becomes his conviction that there is no room 

left by the side of this ordered regularity for 

causes of a different nature. For him neither 

the rule of human nor the rule of divine will 

exists as an independent cause of natural 

events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal 

God interfering with natural events could never 

be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for 

this doctrine can always take refuge in those 

domains in which scientific knowledge has not 

yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded 

that such behavior on the part of the 

representatives of religion would not only be 

unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is 

able to maintain itself not in clear light but 

only in the dark, will of necessity lose its 

effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to 

human progress. In their struggle for the 

ethical good, teachers of religion must have the 

stature to give up the doctrine of a personal 

God, that is, give up that source of fear and 

hope which in the past placed such vast power in 

the hands of priests. In their labors they will 

have to avail themselves of those forces which 

are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, 

and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, 

to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably 

more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly 

presented in Herbert Samuel's book, Belief and 

Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the 



refining process indicated they will surely 

recognize with joy that true religion has been 

ennobled and made more profound by scientific 

knowledge. If it is one of the goals of religion 

to liberate mankind as far as possible from the 

bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and 

fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in 

yet another sense. Although it is true that it 

is the goal of science to discover rules which 

permit the association and foretelling of facts, 

this is not its only aim. It also seeks to 

reduce the connections discovered to the 

smallest possible number of mutually independent 

conceptual elements. It is in this striving 

after the rational unification of the manifold 

that it encounters its greatest successes, even 

though it is precisely this attempt which causes 

it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to 

illusions. But whoever has undergone the intense 

experience of successful advances made in this 

domain is moved by profound reverence for the 

rationality made manifest in existence. By way 

of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching 

emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes 

and desires, and thereby attains that humble 

attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason 

incarnate in existence, and which, in its 

profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This 

attitude, however, appears to me to be 

religious, in the highest sense of the word. And 

so it seems to me that science not only purifies 

the religious impulse of the dross of its 

anthropomorphism but also contributes to a 

religious spiritualization of our understanding 

of life. The further the spiritual evolution of 

mankind advances, the more certain it seems to 

me that the path to genuine religiosity does not 

lie through the fear of life, and the fear of 

death, and blind faith, but through striving 

after rational knowledge. In this sense I 

believe that the priest must become a teacher if 

he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational 

mission. 

Read the Top 10 Reasons the Big Bang Theory is False. 





What a Difference a Word Makes in Bible Translation 

What a Difference a Word Makes in Translating the 

C. S. Lewis, "Odd the way the less the Bible is read, the more it is translated." 

Genesis 1:2 

"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." KJV 



"and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." NWT 


for more click here. 

Genesis 6:2 

"sons of the gods" New English Bible, S/Goodspeed 




"beings from the spirit world" Living Bible 



Matthew 5:22 

" and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire." Young's NWT 

" but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." KJV 

" anyone who says to his brother 'You cursed fool!' will have to answer for it in the fiery pit." 

Smith&Goodspeed 

for more click here. 

Zechariah 12:10 

"and they shall look unto me whom they have pierced" ASV, KJV 

"they will look at the one who they stabbed to death." TEV, NWT, JB 

compare John 19:37 

First Samuel 13:1 

"Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty two years" (NAS) 

"Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel" (KJV, NKJV) 

"Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years" (NIV) 


"I see a god coming up out of the earth" ASV, NWT, RSV 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/difference.htm (1 of 9) [5/25/2003 4:23:36 AM]


"I see a ghost rising from the earth" New Jerusalem 

" I saw gods ascending out of the earth" KJV, Douay 

"preternatural being" NAB 

"a spirit" CEV 

"a god-like form" MLB 

"divine being" Smith&Goodspeed, NRSV, NJPS 

"a ghostly form" REB, NEB 

1 Samuel 2:25 

"If one man sin against another, God shall judge him" ASV 


Exodus 21:6 

"then his master must take him before the judges" NIV 

"then his master shall bring him unto God" ASV 

"the judges who acted in God's name" NASB ftn 

"his master shall bring him to the gods" Douay 


"But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of 

the OLD TESTAMENT; which [vail] is done away in Christ." KJV, NKJV 

"but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the OLD COVENANT the same 

veil remaineth, it not being revealed [to them] that it is done away in Christ." ASV, NWT 


"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." KJV 

"For in Him all the fullness of the deity dwells in bodily form." NASB 

"For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity." TEV 


"Because in him resides al the fulfillment of the divine." Lattimore 

John 6:7 

"About a year's wages" (God's Word to the Nations) 

"eight months' wages" (NIV) 

"six months' wages" (New RSV) 

"we would have to work a month" (New Century Version) 

"ten dollars" Phillips 

"forty dollars" Williams 

"fifty dollars" Berkely Version 

"two hundred denarii" REB 

"two hundred silver coins" TEV 

"a small fortune" NLT 

This is incredible! You would think translators would be more careful. Perhaps "dynamic equivalence" 

isn't such a great idea after all. The REB was careful in keeping it literal, despite being a free 

translation. 

Matthew 10:29 

"pet canary" The Message 



"small bird" The New Life Testament 

"sparrow" NKJV 

1 Timothy 3:16 

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in 

the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 

King James Version,Darby, Young's 

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, 

Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up 

in glory." American Standard Version, RSV, NIV 


"Listen!" says Jesus. "I am coming soon!" Today's English Version 

"Yes, I am coming soon." New English Bible 


"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" KJV 

"who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation"Darby 

"his is the primacy over all creation" Revised English Bible 

"superior to all created things" TEV 


" These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" KJV 

"These things saith the Amen, the witness--the faithful and true--the chief of the creation of God" 

Young's 

"the origin of God's creation" Smith&Goodspeed 

"the primeval source of God's creation" Living Bible 

Hebrews 1:6 

"And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God 

worship him."American Standard Version, RSV, KJV, NAB, NWT(1970) 

"And let them bow before him--all messengers of God;"Young's 

"Let all the angels of God pay him homage."New English Bible, Schonfield 

"Let all God's angels do obeisance to him." New World Translation(1984) 

Matthew 24:36 

" But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." 

KJV, Young, Darby 

"But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father 

only." ASV, NIV, NASB etc compare Mark 13:32 

Psalms 45:6 

"Thy throne, O God, [is] age-during, and for ever, A sceptre of uprightness [Is] the sceptre of Thy 

kingdom." Young's 

"Your divine throne endures forever" Revised Standard Version 

"God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever" NWT 

Matthew 5:3 

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs in the kingdom of heaven." KJV 



"Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need..." NWT 

"God blesses those who realize their need of him..." New Living 

"You're blessed when you're at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God and his rule." 

Message 

Jude 4 

"For there are certain men crept in privily, [even] they who were of old written of beforehand unto this 

condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only 

Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." American Standard Version, KJV,NIV 

"the grace of our God perverting to lasciviousness, and our only Master, God, and Lord--Jesus 

Christ--denying" Young's Literal Translation, WEB, Green's 

Isaiah 11:11 

"Cush" KJV 

"Ethipia" RSV 

"Sudan" TEV 

"Nubia" NRSV 

Leviticus 26:3 

"images" KJV 

"sun-images" RV 

"incense altars" GOS 


"Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed" ASV 

"We shall not all die but we shall be changed." New Berkeley Version 

Matthew 24:3 

"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the 

world?" American Standard Version, KJV 

`Tell us, when shall these be? and what [is] the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?' 

Young's Literal Translation,Rotherham,NWT 


Ì am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last;' and, `What thou dost see, write in a scroll, and 

send to the seven assemblies that [are] in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to 

Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.' Young's, KJV 

"What thou seest, write in a book and send [it] to the seven churches: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, 

and unto Pergamum, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." 

American Standard Version, see also RSV, NAB etc. 

Acts 8:20 

"But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God 

with money." American Standard Version 

"But Peter answered him, 'May you and your money go to hell.' 

Acts 12:4 

"And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of 



soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." King James Version 

"And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quarternions of soldiers to 

guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people." American Standard Version 

John 1:1: 

In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word. (Interlineary 

Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott) 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

(Recovery Version) 


















God, yes itself divine Being/being] 






kind] 





Word/word) 



all like God] 




"At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mighty spirit, the Marshal, who produced all 

things in their order." John 1:1 Free 21st Century NT 




[Word] was a god." John 1:1 Literal 21st Century NT 

John 1:18 

King James Version: "the only-begotten Son 

New American Standard Bible: "the only-begotten God" 

An Inclusive Version: "God the only-Child" 

New American Bible: "God the only Son" 

Revised Standard Version: "the only Son" 

Lattimore: "the only-born God" 

New English Bible: "God's only Son" 

The Original New Testament/Schonfield: "God's only-begotten" 

New International Version: "God the one and only" 


"world" KJV 

"eternity" NASB 

"past and future" REB 

"passage of time" NJB 

"the timeless" NAB 

"mystery" Moffatt 

"ignorance" GOS 

John 8:58 

The New American Bible: "I solemnly declare it: before Abraham came to be, I AM." 



ever born." 



Noyes, G.R. N.T. (1878) 

“Jesus said to them, ‘truly, truly do I say to you, from before Abraham 

was, I have been.”’ 


“Jesus said to them, ‘truly, truly, I say to you, I am before Abraham was 

born.’” 


“With another amen-saying, Jesus declares to them that before 

Abraham was, He (Jesus) is (hint of His preexistence) .” 

Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T.“Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed.” 


“To this Jesus replied, ‘I existed before Abraham was born.”’ 


“Jesus said to them, ‘for sure I tell you, before Abraham was born, I 

was and sum and always will be.’,, 


“’Yes, indeed!; said Jesus: ‘He saw me in prospect. The fact is, that 



long before Abraham was conceived in his mother’s womb, that 

individual who I now am had been conceived in God’s mind: He had 


was able to give Abraham a mental preview of me’”. 


“Jesus answer, ‘I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was 

born.’” 



was born." 



was born." 

















and I am." 












“Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham 

was born, I am He.” 















“Jesus said to them, ‘I am telling the truth: I was alive before Abraham 

was born!’” 






Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961) 

“Jesus answered them: ‘Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham 

was born.”’ 











Swann, G. N.T. (1947) 

‘!Jesus said to them, ‘verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before 

Abraham was born” 

Psalms 8:5 

"Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and splendour." 

Darby, KJV 

"a little lower than the gods." Bible in Basic English 

"a little less than a god" New English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible 

"a little lower than the heavenly beings" New International Version 

"a little lower than God" New American Standard Bible 

"you have made him inferior to yourself" Good News Bible(TEV) 

"a little less than godlike ones" New World Translation 

compare Hebrews 2:7,9 

Isaiah 9:6 

"For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to 



be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, 

Prince of Peace." New World Translation, KJV, NIV 


"Wonderful Counsellor, The Mighty One, The Everlasting God, The Prince of Peace." Lamsa 


"Wonderful counsellor is God almighty, Father Forever, Prince of Peace." Smith&Goodspeed 



Titus 2:13 

"awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" Darby 

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus 

Christ" King James Version 

"of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ." New American Bible 

"while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, 

Christ Jesus." New World Translation 

2Peter 1:1 

"in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" Young's 

"through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" King James 

"in the righteousness of our God and [the] Saviour Jesus Christ" American Standard Version, NWT 

"beneficence of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ" Schonfield 

more to come.................. 

For some of the above information I am indebted to the Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation 


December 25 2000 

Back to Main Bible Page 

Heinz Schmitz 



Perceived Contradictions in the Bible 

Unless otherwise stated, all quotations are from the New Revised Standard 

Version-Catholic Edition 

Many apparent contradictions can be explained simply by reading the context. Some 

are copyists errors and many others can be explained if only we knew how to read 

the original languages. It helps often to use more than one translation because 

Hebrew and Greek have their peculiarities that make them difficult to render in 

English or other languages. 

"The peculiarities of the Oriental idiom are another prolife source of 

discrepancies. The people of the East are fervid and impassioned in their modes of 

thought and expression. They think and speak in poetry. Bold metaphors and 

startling hyperboles abound in their writings and conversation. The shepherd," 

says Eichhorn, "only speaks in the soul of the shepherd, and the primitive 

Oriental only speaks in the soul of another Oriental. Without an intimate 

acquaintance with the customs of pastoral life, without an accurate knowledge of 

the East and it's manners, without a close intimacy with the manner of thinking 

and speaking in the uncivilized world,.....you easily become a traitor to the 

book, when you would be it's deliverer and interpreter." 

Professor Stuart: "I do not, and would not, summon them [the books of scripture] 

before the tribunal of Occidental criticism. Asia is one world; Europe and 

America, another. Let an Asiatic be tried before his own tribunal. To pass just 

sentence upon him, we must enter into his feelings, views, methods of reasoning 

and thinking, and place ourselves in the midst of the circumstances which 

surrounded him." 

Lowth, on Metaphors: "The Orientals are attached to this style of composition; 

and many flights which our ears-too fastidious, perhaps, in these respects-will 

scarcely bear, must be allowed to the general freedom and boldness of these 

writers." 

Again, he speaks of the difficulties which arise in reading authors "where 

everything is depicted and illustrated with the greatest variety and abundance of 

imagery; they must be still more numerous in such of the poets as are foreign and 

ancient-in the Orientals above all foreigners; they being the farthest removed 

from our customs and manners, and, of all the Orientals, more especially in the 

Hebrews." pp. 14, 15, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley 

Lets take a look at some examples that have floated around the internet via email. 

David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand 

(1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer; 

Answer: It is a fact there are about 20 numerical discrepancies between the 

Samuels, 

the Kings and the Chronicles. Why? It seems to be a problem with numbers. 

The sopherim, instead of writing out the numbers completely, would just 

write a letter, like ALEPH and include dots over it. An ALEPH with 2 dots 

indicated 1000. But over time, the manuscript became worn, brittle or moth-eaten, 

so the dots were hard to distinguish. Other ways were tried, like the Egyptian 

heriatic style, but that produced smudging.This was a problem also with the way 

decades were marked. The original text had the right numbers, it was the copyists 

and their limited resources that are to blame.(Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties- 

Archer) 

If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true 

(John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31); 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/contradictions.htm (1 of 14) [5/25/2003 4:23:44 AM]


Answer: In John 5, his witness would not be true if he was without the Father. 

In John 8 his witness is true because he acknowledges whence he came 

from(which is the Father in heaven of course). 

Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons 

(2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime; 

Answer: Merab, the sister of Michal, was the wife of Adriel and bore him the 

five sons mentioned. But Merab dying early, her royal sister Michal, having 

been rejected by David, brought up the five boys. Because 

of this they were spoken of as the children of Michal rather than of Merab. 

In agreement with this the Isaac Leeser translation (7th Ed., 1922, Bloch 

Publishing Co.) reads a 2 Samuel 21:8: “And the five sons of Michal the 

daughter of Saul, whom she had brought up for Adriel.” A footnote reads: 

“As Michal was David’s wife; but the children were those of Merab, the 

oldest daughter of Saul, who were probably educated by her sister.” 

Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14); 

Answer: Both are true. Lot was Abrams' "spiritual brother". "for we are brethren" 

Genesis 13:8 Abram says of Lot(NKJV) 

Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by 

Ishmaelites (Gen.39:1); 

Answer: Midianites are Ishmaelites, both are mention frequently in context to 

each other in Genesis 37. 

Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young 

Amalekite (2 Sam.1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12); 

Answer: Saul killed himself while in battle with the philistines, so it is a 

direct result of the Philistines that he died. The Amalekite bragged that he 

killed Saul to garner favors for himself. 

The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth 

forever; 

Answer: 2 different uses of earth in 2 different languages with 2 different 

contexts. Peter also says the heavens will pass away, so this scripture 

is figurative, the former scripture deals with a literal earth. 

Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem 

(2 Chron. 35:24); 

Answer: After Josiah was fatally wounded in Megiddo, “his servants took him 

down from the chariot and had him ride in the second war chariot that was his 

and brought him to Jerusalem. Thus he died and was buried in the graveyard 

of his forefathers; and all Judah and Jerusalem were mourning over Josiah.” 

(2 Chron. 35:22-24)There is a timeline and distance here of about 60 

miles. It is all a matter of perspective. 

Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after 

six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days; 

Answer: Apparently Matthew and Mark did not count the first and last days; 

rather, they counted six whole days as intervening between the promise of the 

Lord Jesus to his apostles and the transfiguration itself. (Matt. 17:1; Mark 



9:2) Luke, we should note, does not profess to give the exact interval. He 

reports that the transfiguration occurred “about eight days after these 

words.” (Luke 9:28) Since Luke counts portions of the first and last 

days as whole days, he prefers to give the period in round numbers—“about eight 

days.” Thus Luke reported the number of days from a different viewpoint, 

and there is really no contradiction. 

Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:8), 

tenth (Jer.52:12) day of the fifth month. 

Answer: The Soncino Books of the Bible (Volume of Jeremiah, p. 353) states: 

“The interval of three days may be accounted for as representing the date of 

Nebuzaradan’s arrival on the scene and the commencement of operations.” 

It would appear that Nebuzaradan arrived at Jerusalem on the seventh day 

and made his survey from his camp outside the city walls. Finally on the 

tenth day he actually entered the city. 

The above list was taken from a list that was sent around by email from an 

atheist. Next I will tackle a list by Freedom From Religion Foundation at: 

http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/lfif/contra.html 

The authors state:Please do not distribute copies of this chapter in this form. So 

I will make a very different form where I will tackle the questions one at a time. 

I have never known the reason why atheists feel the need to proselytize their 

"FAITH"!! Here it goes: 

Should we kill? 

Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill." 

Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death." 

vs. 

Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by 

his side, . . . 

and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor." 

I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten 

many of the 

people with a great slaughter." 

I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and 

utterly destroy 

all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant 

and suckling, ox 

and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and 

utterly destroyed all 

the people with the edge of the sword." 

Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and 

stoned him 

with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." 

Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in 

pieces, and their 

women with children shall be ripped up." 

Answer: The word "kill" is mistranslated here. It should be (ratsahh) Murder. The 

fact is that the Bible never uses the term ratsahh (murder) regarding any of those 



wars. When the Israelites warred at God's command, they weren't acting illegally. 

They were authorized by and were being directed by the Supreme giver of Laws. 

(Isa. 33:22; Ps. 19:7) 

Should we tell lies? 

Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness." 

Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord." 

vs. 

I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy 

prophets, and the 

Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." 

II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, 

that they 

should believe a lie." 

Also, compare Joshua 2:4-6 with James 2:25. 

Answer: "God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is 

false." Are we to understand, then, that God originates the strong delusion to 

make them believe falsehood? No; he is not the source of any lie. Referring to his 

prophecy and his covenant, his Word says: "God is not a man that he should lie, 

neither a son of man that he should feel sorry. Hath he said it and will he not do 

it, and has he spoken and will he not carry it out?" "The Eminence of Israel will 

not deceive." (Num. 23:19 and 1 Sam. 15:29, NWT, ASV) So Jehovah is not the source 

of the "strong delusion" or "operation of error." 

How, then, does he "send" it upon them? In that he does not prevent it but 

permits it to go to them, just as he did in the case of King Ahab. In the 

Scriptures the Hebrew verb meaning "send" is many times translated "let go," as 

when Jehovah said to Pharaoh: "Send my people away" (NWT; Young); or, "Let my 

people go." (KJV; ASV; RSV; at Ex. 5:1; 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:3) Therefore 

the NWT vindicates Jehovah in rendering 2 Thessalonians 2:11: "So that is why God 

lets an operation of error go to them that they may get to believing the lie." God 

does not make them believe the lie any more than he originates the lie, but he 

lets it go to them because they prefer the mistake for the real thing. So he lets 

them use their own free will and become responsible for their own destruction. 

Should we steal? 

Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal." 

Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him." 

vs. 

Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians." 

Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians." 

Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the 

village . . . ye shall 

find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. 

And if any man 

ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord 

hath need of 

him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto 

them, Why loose ye 

the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him." 



Answer:Do you notice that they will only use other versions of the Bible when it 

suits their purposes, other than that they will stick to the awkwardly worded King 

James. If you actually read the entire context in the NRSV you will notice that 

the items were "asked" for. That is alot different than stealing. 

As for Luke 19:29-34-Again...read the context. There was no argument from the 

owners, especially since the colt "had never been ridden." It sounds like a 

previous arrangement to me, and it is very likely the colt was returned to its 

owner as there was no need to keep it for any great length of time. 

Shall we keep the sabbath? 

Exodus 20:8 "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy." 

Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be 

put to 

death." 

Numbers 15:32,36 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, 

they found a 

man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. . . . And all the congregation 

brought him 

without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord 

commanded Moses." 

vs. 

Isaiah 1:13 "The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot 

away with; it 

is iniquity." 

John 5:16 "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, 

because he 

had done these things on the sabbath day." 

Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in 

respect of an 

holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." 

Answer: Again, if you read the context at Isaiah chapter 1 you will see that the 

observances of the "sinful nation" was akin to hypocracy. "They have become a 

burden to me" NRSV. The entire chapter was dedicated to the "Wickedness of Judah." 

As for John 5:16, Jesus was well aware of how the Pharisees abused the law, 

especially the sabbath. He said,"The sabbath was made for humankind, and not 

humankind for the sabbath, so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath." Mark 

2:27,28 NRSV There is no prohibition for doing good. 

As for Colossians 2:16, this is after the death of Jesus. "Christ redeemed us from 

the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us." NRSV 

Christians are no longer under the law of Moses, so the old holy days, observances 

and sabbaths were no more as they were part of the law. "But we are now discharged 

from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under 

the old written code, but in the new life of the Spirit." 1Cor 7:6 NRSV 

Shall we make graven images? 

Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness 

of anything 

that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water." 

Leviticus 26:1 "Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you 

up a standing 



image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone." 

Deuteronomy 27:15 "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image." 

vs. 

Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt 

thou make 

them." 

I Kings 7:15,16,23,25 "For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass . . . and 

two chapiters of 

molten brass . . . And he made a molten sea . . . it stood upon twelve oxen . 

. . [and so on]" 

Answer: Again, the contexts of the above verses show that these idols and images 

were not to be worshipped.(Exodus 20:5; Leviticus 26:1)The entire scriptures are 

never mentioned because that would expose how they have twisted the scriptures. 

Remember that Moses made a copper (bronze) serpent so that the Isrealites that 

looked at it were healed of their snake bites.( Numbers 21:8,9) But as soon as 

this copper serpent became and object of worship, it was destroyed-2 Kings 18:4 

Are we saved through works? 

Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works." 

Romans 3:20,28 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be 

justified in his 

sight." 

Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, 

but by the faith 

of Jesus Christ." 

vs. 

James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith 

only." 

Matthew 19:16-21 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what 

good 

thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he [Jesus] said unto him . 

. . keep the 

commandments. . . . The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept 

from my 

youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go 

and sell that thou 

hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." 

Answer: The top three scriptures pertain to the Jewish Law of Moses(See "Shall we 

keep the Sabbath" above). In Paul's time, the Christian consisted of mainly Jewish 

members, so the transition from the old Jewish law to the new Christian way was 

not always easy. The context of the Ephesians 2 mentioned above dealt with 

circumcision, which was a work of the Law of Moses(Jewish), but no longer a 

requirement for Christians. 

Should good works be seen? 

Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good 

works." 

I Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that . . . 

they may by your 

good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." 



vs. 

Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of 

them . . . that 

thine alms may be in secret." 

Matthew 23:3,5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works. . . . all their 

works they do for to 

be seen of men." 

Answer: The bottom two verses deal with hypocrital Pharisees and the 

superficiality of their works. And what works are those? The context at Matthew 23 

will tell you."They make their phylacteries long and their fringes long. They love 

to have the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and to 

be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have people call them rabbi. 

How does this compare to the light in Matthew 5? Ephesians 5:9 says, "The fruit of 

the light is found in all that is good and right and true. 

The pharisees were self-serving as opposed to Christians who help others to come 

to the good news(gospel) of Christ. Matt 24:14;28:19,20 

Also, the exemplary conduct of Christians should make them stand out noticeably 

from among those who are not acquainted with the Bible's message. Their kindness, 

generosity, self control, love and other fine qualities should make them appear as 

lights in a cruel, loveless world. Galatians 5:22 

Should we own slaves? 

Leviticus 25:45-46 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn 

among you, of 

them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be 

your bondmen 

forever." 

Genesis 9:25 "And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants 

shall he be unto 

his brethren." 

Exodus 21:2,7 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in 

the seventh 

he shall go out free for nothing. . . . And if a man sell his daughter to be a 

maidservant, she 

shall not go out as the manservants do." 

Joel 3:8 "And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the 

children of Judah, 

and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord 

hath spoken it." 

Luke 12:47,48 [Jesus speaking] "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, 

and prepared 

not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many 

stripes. But he that 

knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few 

stripes." 

Colossians 3:22 "Servants, obey in all things your masters." 

vs. 

Isaiah 58:6 "Undo the heavy burdens . . . let the oppressed go free, . . . 

break every yoke." 

Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even 

Christ." 



Answer:First off, Isaiah 58 had to do with FASTING because it was at this time 

that the nation of Isreal had let FASTING slip by. 

Matthew 23:10 has to do with religious titles....and of course all this can be 

found out by simply reading the WHOLE scripture or the surrounding context. 

Servitude continued even in early christian times. But we are thinking of slavery 

in the modern sense. The Hebrew word for "slave" comes from "evedh" which can mean 

people owned by others(Gen 12:16; Ex.20:17), subjects of a king(2Sam. 11:21; 2Chr. 

10:7) subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal 

service, which includes cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers 

etc whether owned by others or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 

32:9). In respectful address, a Jew, instead of using the first person pronoun, 

would at times speak of himself as a servant ('e'vedh) of the one to whom he was 

talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8) 'E'vedh was used in referring 

to servants, or worshipers, of Jehovah(Yahweh) generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) 

and, more specifically, to spokesmen for God, such as Moses. (Jos 1:1, 2; 24:29; 

2Ki 21:10) Even if you did not worship Jehovah, one who performed a service that 

was in harmony with the divine will could be spoken of as God's servant, an 

example being King Nebuchadnezzar.-Jer 27:6. 

The Greek term dou'los is the equivalent to the Hebrew word 'e'vedh. It is used 

with reference to persons owned by others (Mt 8:9; 10:24, 25; 13:27); devoted 

servants of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, whether human (Ac 2:18; 4:29; Ro 1:1; 

Ga 1:10) or angelic (Re 19:10, where the word syn'dou·los [fellow slave] appears); 

and, in a figurative sense, to persons in slavery to sin (Joh 8:34; Ro 6:16-20) or 

corruption (2Pe 2:19). 

Does God change his mind? 

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not." 

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, 

that he should 

repent." 

Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do 

it; I will not go 

back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent." 

James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither 

shadow of 

turning." 

vs. 

Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto 

his people." 

Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . 

. And the Lord 

said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . 

for it repenteth 

me that I have made him." 

Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would 

do unto them; 

and he did it not." 

See also II Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50. 

See Genesis 18:23-33, where Abraham gets God to change his mind about the 

minimum 

number of righteous people in Sodom required to avoid destruction, bargaining 

down from 



fifty to ten. (An omniscient God must have known that he was playing with 

Abraham's hopes 

for mercy--he destroyed the city anyway.) 

Answer: As for omniscience, his fore-knowing is an ability he has...but does not 

exercise in many cases. That is why he the Bible says at 2Peter 3:9, "The Lord is 

not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, 

not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. 

God has not changed...he is still the same God as he was thousands and millions of 

years ago. His standards are the same as are his justice and mercy. The word 

"repent" is of course from the King James. The word has a broader meaning of "was 

sorry" NKJV, "regrets" NWT, "relented" NASB. It is this passion and mercy for his 

subjects that lead him to say, "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, 

says the Lord GOD, and not rather that they turn from their ways and live? Ezekiel 

18:23 

"He...showed compassion("repented" KJV) according to the abundance of his 

steadfast love." Psalms 106:45 

Are we punished for our parents' sins? 

Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of 

the fathers 

upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in 

Deuteronomy 5:9) 

Exodus 34:6-7 " . . . The Lord God, merciful and gracious, . . . that will by 

no means clear 

the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon 

the children's 

children, unto the third and to the fourth generation." 

I Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, . . ." 

vs. 

Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." 

Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, 

neither shall the 

children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for 

his own sin." 

Answer: Both Ezekiel and Deuteronomy concern the death penalty, while the other 

scriptures apply to idolatry, for "God is a jealous God." Another example of this 

might be taken from the NT. "Then came Peter and said to him, Lord, how oft shall 

my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times? Jesus saith unto 

him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven." 

Matthew 18:21-22 ASV 

But we find that sinning against God's spirit bears NO forgiveness. Matt 12:31 

Is God good or evil? 

Psalm 145:9 "The Lord is good to all." 

Deuteronomy 32:4 "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." 

vs. 

Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." 

Again, the King James is used here...try, "I form light and create darkness."NRSV 

Lamentations 3:38 "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and 



good?" 

This is in keeping with, "Doth the fountain send forth from the same opening sweet 

water and bitter?" James 3:11 ASV 

Jeremiah 18:11 "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and 

devise a device 

against you." 

By reading the rest of the scripture you will see that Jehovah(YHWH) wanted them 

to turn from their evil ways. 

Ezekiel 20:25,26 "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments 

whereby they 

should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused 

to pass through the 

fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end 

that they might 

know that I am the Lord." 

Answer: We are all free moral agents. Ezekiel 20:25 can best be explained by 

Psalms 81:12:"So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN 

COUNSELS." 

Does God tempt people? 

James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be 

tempted with evil, 

neither tempteth he any man." 

vs. 

Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt 

Abraham." 

Answer: Here you have 2 different words in 2 different languages again. Modern 

accurate translations like the NRSV have "tested" instead of "tempted." 

Is God peaceable? 

Romans 15:33 "The God of peace." 

Isaiah 2:4 ". . . and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their 

spears into 

pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall 

they learn war any 

more." 

vs. 

Exodus 15:3 "The Lord is a man of war." 

Joel 3:9-10 "Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw 

near; let 

them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into 

spears: let the 

weak say, I am strong." 

Answer: It is a fact that the nation of Israel fought in wars(see Exodus above), 

but Isaiah points to a time when "he makes wars cease" Psalms 46:9. It is after 

this point that "he will wipe out every tear from their eyes. Death will be no 

more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have 

passed away." You have to look at the Bible as a cohesive whole, instead of 

picking scriptures at random. 



Was Jesus peaceable? 

John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you." 

Acts 10:36 "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching 

peace by Jesus 

Christ." 

Luke 2:14 " . . . on earth peace, good will toward men." 

vs. 

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to 

send peace, 

but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and 

the daughter 

against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a 

man's foes 

shall be they of his own household." 

Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, . . . he that hath no sword, let him sell 

his garment, and 

buy one." 

Answer: In Luke 22, obtaining a sword was for reasons of self defence as he was to 

be delivered up to die. But when he came up against a large group, he instructed 

his follower to "Put your sword back into its place, for all who take the sword 

perish by the sword." Matthew 26:52 

For Matthew 10:34, Jesus' ministry work brought divisions within families (Lu 

12:51-53), but it was because of his adherence to, and proclamation of, God's 

righteous standards and truth. These division resulted because many individuals 

were sour and critical against these truths while others accepted them. (Joh 8:40, 

44-47; 15:22-25; 17:14) 

But it is after all this that we have peace. Revelation 21:3,4 

Shall we call people names? 

Matthew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire." 

[Jesus 

speaking] 

vs. 

Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind." [Jesus speaking] 

Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." 

Matthew 5:22 refers to those wrongly judging a brother(see Romans 14:10-12; 

Matthew 7:1,2), while Jesus was able to back up his statements.(See Matthew 17-22; 

Matthew 15:3) 

Has anyone seen God? 

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time." 

Exodus 33:20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and 

live." 

John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God 

[Jesus], he hath 

seen the Father." 

I John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time." 



vs. 

Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face." 

Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh 

unto his 

friend." 

Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon 

a throne, high 

and lifted up, and his train filled the temple." 

Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye 

seeth thee." 

Answer: When an angel of God appeared to Manoah and his wife they viewed this 

representative as God himself: “Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD. 

And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen 

God.”—Judg. 13:3-22. The Bible does not hide this fact. Exodus 3:2 says,"And the 

Angel of Jehovah appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a 

thorn-bush: and he looked, and behold, the thorn-bush burned with fire, and the 

thorn-bush was not being consumed." But later it says,"And he said, I am the God 

of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And 

Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look at God.(Darby) God uses angels to 

represent him, and he has also used Jesus to reveal the "God no man hath seen." 

John 1:18 

Also, Matthew 18:10 states that "angels continually see the face of my Father in 

heaven." So face to face simply means to speak to angels. 

How many Gods are there? 

Deuteronomy 6:4 "The Lord our God is one Lord." 

vs. 

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image." 

Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, 

to know 

good and evil." 

I John 5:7 "And there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the 

Word, and the 

Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 

Answer: The scripture at 1John 5:7 isn't in any reliable Bible version. It was 

added later by an unscrupulous scribe. Of course, infidels.org knows this since 

the have the New Revised Standard Version(NRSV). As for the other scriptures in 

Genesis, the rabbi's have always understood this to be God talking to the angels. 

The sons of God were with him at creation, as is stated at Job 38:4-7 "Where wast 

thou when I founded the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who set the 

measures thereof--if thou knowest? or who stretched a line upon it? Whereupon were 

the foundations thereof sunken? or who laid its corner-stone, When the morning 

stars sang together, and all the SONS OF GOD shouted for joy?(Darby) 

Are we all sinners? 

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Romans 

3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." 

Psalm 14:3 "There is none that doeth good, no, not one." 

vs. 



Job 1:1 "There was a man . . . who name was Job; and that man was perfect and 

upright." 

Genesis 7:1 "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the 

ark; for 

thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." 

Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the 

commandments and 

ordinances of the Lord blameless." 

Answer: The word "perfect" in Job 1:1 comes from the hebrew word TAM which also 

means "plain, undefiled and upright." Most versions choose UPRIGHT for even Job 

says that he is not perfect at Job 7:1. 

In Luke 1 Zechariah is said to be blameless, but Zechariah, the father of John the 

Baptizer, manifested lack of faith to the angel Gabriel. (Lu 1:18-20)So the word 

blameless is a relative term in the original languages. 

Should we swear an oath? 

Numbers 30:2 "If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath . . . he 

shall do 

according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." 

Genesis 21:22-24,31 " . . . swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal 

falsely with 

me . . . And Abraham said, I will swear. . . . Wherefore he called that place 

Beersheba 

["well of the oath"]; because there they sware both of them." 

Hebrews 6:13-17 "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear 

by no 

greater, he sware by himself . . . for men verily swear by the greater: and an 

oath for 

confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more 

abundantly to shew 

unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an 

oath." 

See also Genesis 22:15-19, Genesis 31:53, and Judges 11:30-39. 

vs. 

Matthew 5:34-37 "But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven . . . 

nor by the earth 

. . . . Neither shalt thou swear by thy head . . . . But let your 

communication be, Yea, yea; 

Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." 

James 5:12 ". . . swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither 

by any other oath: 

but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." 

Answer: Jesus Christ, in his Sermon on the Mount at Matthew 5, was correcting the 

Jews in the practice of making light, loose, and indiscriminate taking of oaths. 

It had become common among them to swear by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, 

and even by their own heads. But since heaven was "God's throne," earth is his 

"footstool," Jerusalem is his kingly city, and one's head was dependent on 

God-giving life, making such oaths was the same as taking oaths in the name of 

God. It was not to be treated lightly. Jesus did not hereby prohibit the making of 

all oaths, for he himself was under the Law of Moses(Mosaic Law), which required 

oaths under certain circumstances. In fact, when Jesus himself was on trial he was 



put under oath by the high priest, and he did not object to this, but gave an 

answer. (Mt 26:63, 64) Jesus was simply showing that a person should not have two 

standards. It is that better standard that was carried thru to James 5:12 

More On Page 2 

September 30 1999 




More Alleged Contradictions in the Bible 

Percieved Contradictions in the Bible 

Part 2 


Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 

1901 

When was Jesus crucified? 

Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him." 

vs. 

John 19:14-15 "And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold 

your King! But 

they cried out . . . crucify him." 

Answer: Remember that they did not have watches strapped to their wrists in those 

days. Time was doubtless mostly calculated by observing the sun, which could have 

been obscured by haze or clouds, and at best would be only an a guesstimate. We 

should remember that John wrote his account some 65 years after these events 

happened. So put all these factors together and you have a time discrepancy. The 

impalement/crucifixion procedure happened in stages(Luke 23:26; John 19:17) 

Different persons might give different times for the impalement/crucifixion, 

depending on the particular stage of the procedure when they might note the time. 

Shall we obey the law? 

I Peter 2:13 "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man . . . to the king, as 

supreme; Or unto 

governors." 

Matthew 22:21 "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." 

See also 

Romans 13:1,7 and Titus 3:1. 

vs. 

Acts 5:29 "We ought to obey God rather then men." 

Answer: I don't see the problem here. Christians are to be good citizens, they 

obey the laws of the land and they pay their taxes. But in Acts 5:29, the apostles 

were brought before the Sanhedrin because they were preaching, and that was 

something that was forbidden by law, but commanded by God(Matthew 28:19,20). God's 

law supercedes human laws.(1 Corinthians 11:3) If not, God's people would still be 

Egyptian slaves.See Acts 4:19 

How many animals on the ark? 

Genesis 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt 

thou bring into 

the ark." 

Genesis 7:8-9 "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of 

fowls, and of every 

thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into 

the ark, the 

male and the female, as God had commanded Noah." 

Genesis 7:15 "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all 

flesh, wherein is 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/contradictions2.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:23:54 AM]


the breath of life." 

vs. 

Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male 

and his female: 

and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." 

Answer: The Hebrew frequently indicates distribution merely by repeating the 

number used. Harper's Introductory Hebrew Method and Manual, in discussion of 

Genesis 7:2, 9, says on page 176: "Words are often repeated in order to express 

the distributive relation." Under the heading "Syntax of the Numerals" Gesenius' 

Hebrew Grammar (Second American Edition), on page 409, also states that one way of 

showing distribution is to repeat the number. The repeated numbers are not to be 

added together, but only indicate a distribution. 

In 2 Samuel 21:20 there is a giant that has six fingers on each hand and six toes 

on each foot. The Hebrew repeats the number "six," not meaning each hand has six 

pairs of fingers, or twelve fingers, or that each foot has six pairs of toes, or 

twelve toes. The number is repeated because a distribution is involved, and the 

repetition shows this. In Numbers 13:2 and Joshua 3:12 it speaks of taking one man 

from each tribe, and the Hebrew literally reads "one man one man," repeating to 

show distributive relation, and not meaning a pair of men or two men from each 

tribe. Numbers 34:18 instructs to take one prince from each tribe, but the Hebrew 

literally is "one prince one prince," showing the distributive relation, and not 

meaning two princes. 

Were women and men created equal? 

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created 

he him; 

male and female created he them." 

vs. 

Genesis 2:18,23 "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be 

alone; I will 

make him an help meet for him. . . . And Adam said, This is now bone of my 

bones, and 

flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of 

Man." 

Subject:The first chapter of Genesis gives us a general description of the 

creation process, while the second chapter deals with man specifically. These 2 

seemingly differing accounts of the creation process also leads some to believe 

that there were 2 different authors. The author if the first chapter being the 

Elohist(because God is referred to as elohim) and the author of the second chapter 

being the Yahwist or Jehovist(because God is referred to as Yahweh/Jehovah there). 

This is all an interesting theory and not one that I subscribe to as the second 

chapter uses elohim anyways, but it does point out the different overall view that 

is taken in the creative process. 

Did Paul's men hear a voice? 

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a 

voice, but 

seeing no man." 

vs. 



Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; 

but they heard 

not the voice of him that spake to me." 

Answer: Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says "In Acts 9:7, 

'hearing the voice,' the noun 'voice' is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., 

hearing (something) of], whereas in Ac 22:9, 'they heard not the voice,' the 

construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. 

The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or 

message of the voice (this they did not hear)." 

It is for this reason that modern translations clarify this fact more: "The men 

who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one." 

"Those who were with me beheld the light, to be sure, but did not understand the 

voice of the One who was speaking to me."NASB 

Is God omnipotent? 

Jeremiah 32:27 "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything 

too hard for 

me? 

Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is 

impossible; but 

with God all things are possible." 

vs. 

Judges 1:19 "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of 

the mountain; 

but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had 

chariots of iron." 

Answer: It was not the Jehovah personally, but his army. They were still men and 

fearful as we can see at Deutoronomy 20:1, "When thou goest forth to battle 

against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, [and] a people more than 

thou, thou shalt not be afraid of them; for Jehovah thy God is with thee, who 

brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." Also Joshua 17:16, "And the children of 

Joseph said, The hill-country is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that 

dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are in 

Beth-shean and its towns, and they who are in the valley of Jezreel. And Joshua 

spake unto the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, Thou art 

a great people, and hast great power; thou shalt not have one lot only: but the 

hill-country shall be thine; for though it is a forest, thou shalt cut it down, 

and the goings out thereof shall be thine; for thou shalt drive out the 

Canaanites, though they have chariots of iron, and though they are strong. 

Does God live in light? 

I Timothy 6:15-16 " . . . the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath 

immortality, 

dwelling in the light which no man can approach . . ." 

James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither 

shadow of 

turning." 

John 12:35 "Then Jesus saith unto them, . . . he that walketh in darkness 

knoweth not wither 

he goeth." 

Job 18:18 "He [the wicked] shall be driven from light into darkness, and 



chased out of the 

world." 

Daniel 2:22 "He [God] knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth 

with him." 

See also Psalm 143:3, II Corinthians 6:14, and Hebrews 12:18-22. 

vs. 

I Kings 8:12 "Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the 

thick 

darkness." (Repeated in II Chronicles 6:1) 

II Samuel 22:12 "And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, 

and thick 

clouds of the skies." 

Psalm 18:11 "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him 

were dark 

waters and thick clouds of the skies." 

Psalm 97:1-2 "The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice . . . clouds and 

darkness are round 

about him." 

Answer: The mention of darkness comes from 2 hebrew words namely, "araphel" which 

can mean "gloom, thick cloud" and "choshek" which can mean "obscurity". For God to 

obscure himself is a loving provision as "there shall no man see me and yet live." 

Ex. 33:20 

LIGHT is often used metaphorically like, "In the light of the king's countenance 

is life; And his favor is as a cloud of the latter rain." Prov 16:15 

"That I may walk before God In the light of the living?" Ps 56:13 

There is no need to mix up the 2 to make an alleged contradiction. 

Does God accept human sacrifice? 

Deuteronomy 12:31 "Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every 

abomination to 

the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons 

and their 

daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods." 

vs. 

Genesis 22:2 "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou 

lovest, and 

get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering 

upon one of the 

mountains which I will tell thee of." 

Exodus 22:29 "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, 

and of thy liquors; 

the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me." 

Judges 11:30-39 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou 

shalt without 

fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hand, Then it shall be, that 

whatsoever cometh 

forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the 

children of 

Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt 

offering. So Jephthah 

passed over unto the children of Ammon . . . and the Lord delivered them into 



his hands. . . . 

And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out 

to meet 

him with timbrels and with dances: . . . And it came to pass at the end of two 

months, that 

she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he 

had vowed." 

II Samuel 21:8-14 "But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and 

the five sons 

of Michal . . . and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and 

they hanged them 

in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to 

death in the days 

of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land." 

Hebrews 10:10-12 " . . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body of 

Jesus Christ . . 

. But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down 

on the right hand 

of God." 

I Corinthians 5:7 " . . . For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. 

Answer: I fail to see how the bottom examples(some of which have not even led to 

death(Jepthah's daughter,Isaac) compares to the BURNT SACRIFICES of HUMANS to 

pagan gods in the above example. Such a sacrifice was something God never even 

though of:"For the children of Judah have done that which is evil in my sight, 

saith Jehovah: they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my 

name, to defile it. And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in 

the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the 

fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my mind. 

Who was Joseph's father? 

Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born 

Jesus." 

was 

vs. 

Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as 

supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." 

Answer: Heli was really the father of Mary, so it might be better to paraphrase 

that scripture by son(in-law) of Heli. Luke's account traces the geneaology of 

Christ through Mary, thus proving Jesus' natural right to be the Messiah, and 

still Son of David. 



Heinz Schmitz 


The Comma Johanneum and the Trinity Conspiracies to add a Triune God to the Holy Bible. 

Comma Johanneum/1 John 5:7,8 

"And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy 

Ghost. And these three are one."(1 John 5:7,8 King James Version,Catholic Douay-Rheims 

Version). 

Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: 

“We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by 

St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, 

where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 1Jo 5:8: that from the 

Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, 

a place to which they had no rightful claim.”—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the 

New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654. 

But what of what John Gill says in his Exposition of the New Testament? In it he writes: 

"As to its being wanting in some Greek Manuscripts, as the Alexandrian and others, it need 

only be said that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the 

Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of 

sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens' , nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited 

by some of the ancient Fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since 

it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the 

carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited 

by them, they having scripture enough without it to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and 

the divinity of Christ: and yet after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by 

Fulgentius in the beginning of the sixth century, against the Arians, without any scruple or 

hesitation; and Jerome, as had been observed before it in his translation made in the latter 

part of the fourth century. In his epistle to Eustochium prefixed to his translation of the 

canonical epistles, he complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. It is cited by 

Athanasius about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian, in the middle of the 3rd century, 

about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian about the year 200; and which was within 

100 years, or a little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy 

anyone of the genuineness of the passage; and besides there was never any dispute over it 

till Erasmus left it out of the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he 

himself upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition 

of his translation." 

So what is wrong with the above quote? 

● Gill lived in the 18th century, most of the ancient texts where unknown in his day. 

● The Comma Johanneum is not in "many other Greek Manuscripts. 

● It is not in 9 of the 16 used by Stephanus. 

● It was found in 4 Greek manuscripts that popped up after Erasmus's 2nd edition. 

● The "ancient" copies of Stephanus did not predate the 10th century. 

● 

● 

● 

The "old British Copy" was miniscule 61, which was written after Erasmus's 2nd edition, 

apparently so that he was forced to include it in his later editions. 

Erasmus protested that he was forced to include it under duress.* 

Erasmus claimed the comma johanneum was not original. 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/comma.htm (1 of 4) [5/25/2003 4:24:13 AM]


● The Fathers cited by Gill were not citing scripture. 

● The comma johanneum did not become established until the 5th Century. 

● It does not appear in Jerome`s Vulgate(Gill didn`t know that there were revisions made after 

Jerome.["This passage is absent from the original Vulgate, but later found its way into the Latin 

text and is present in the Clementine edition." The English Bible, F.F. Bruce p.204] 

● The comma johanneum doesn`t appear in the Vulgate until the 9th century. 

● In the Eastern Church(orthodox) where Greek was still being used, not ONE manuscript had the 

comma johanneum. 

● The Complutensian edition included the comma johanneum because it found it in the Vulgate, not 

any greek manuscript that we know of. 

● In the fourth century C.E., in a Latin treatise, an overzealous advocate of 

the newly framed Trinity teaching evidently included the words "in heaven, 

the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one" as if 

these were a quotation from 1 John 5:7. Later that passage crept right into 

a Latin bible Manuscript. It appears in cursive mss No. 61 (16th century) 

and No. 629 (in Latin and Greek, 14th to 15th century) and Vgc (Latin 

Vulgate, Clementine recension). 

*Erasmus was attacked for not adding the Comma Johanneum(1John 5:7,8). He answered that he had 

not found the words in any greek manuscript, including several he examined after publishing his 

editions. But he unwisely said that he would insert the Comma Johanneum in future editions if a greek 

manuscript could be found that contained the spurious passage. Interestingly, one was found, or made, 

that contained the words. The manuscript was made by a Franciscan friar named Froy(or Roy) in 1520 

A.D. Erasmus kept his word and added the passage in his 3rd edition, but he added a long footnote 

expressing his suspicion that the manuscript had been prepared just so to confute him. 

Also, 

"Luther used the text prepared by Erasmus. But even though the inserted words taught the 

Trinity, Luther ruled them out and never had them in his translation. In 1550 Bugenhagen 

objected to these words 'on account of the truth.' In 1574 Feyerabend, a printer, added them 

to Luther's text, and in 1596 they appeared in the Wittenburg copies." footnote at 1 John 

5:7-9 by William F. Beck(The Holy Bible in the Language of Today) 

When Erasmus translated his Greek "New Testament," he appealed to the authority of the Vatican 

Codex to omit the spurious words from 1 John chapter 5, verses 7 and 8. Erasmus was right, yet as late as 

1897 Pope Leo XIII upheld the corrupted Latin text of the Vulgate. This insertion was protected by the 

Vatican until 1927. Only with the publication of modern Roman Catholic translations has this textual 

error been acknowledged. Thus, a footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these 

words are "not in any of the early Greek MSS 

[manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the 

Vulg[ate] itself." 

In the _Interpreter's Bible_ which can be found in about any county 

library, the following is stated concerning 1 John 5:7ff: 

"This verse in the KJV is to be rejected (with RSV). It appears in no 

ancient Greek MS nor is it cited by any Greek fathers; of all the 



versions only the Latin contained it, and even this in none of its most 

ancient sources. The earliest MSS of the Vulg. do not have it. As [CH] 

Dodd (Johannine Epistles, p. 127n) reminds us, "It is first quoted as a 

part of 1 John by Priscillian, the Spanish heretic, who died in 385, 

and it gradually made its way into MSS of the Latin Vulgate until it 

was accepted as part of the authorized Latin text." The mention in the 

true text (vs. 8) of the three witnesses which agree naturally led to 

an interpretation along trinitarian lines, and this occasioned the 

present gloss which appears in various forms in MSS and quotations from 

the fifth century onward" (Interpreter's Bible, 293-294). 

One of the translators of the NIV also writes the following about 1 

John 5:7: 

"Anyone who uses a recent scholarly version of the NT will see that 

these words on the Trinity are not in verse 7. This is because they 

have no basis in the Greek text. Under Roman Catholic pressure, Erasmus inserted them 

from the Latin Vulgate. They are not a part of the 

inspired Bible" (Word Meanings in the NT, Ralph Earle. P. 452). 

I.H. Marshall's commentary on the Epistles of John states: 

"The words in fact occur in none of the Greek manuscripts of 1 John, except for a few late 

and worthless ones, and are not quoted by any early church writers, not even by those who 

would have joyfully seized upon this clear biblical testimony to the Trinity in their attacks 

on heretics: they probably owe their origin to some scribe who wrote them in the margin of 

his copy of 1 John: later they were erroneously regareded as part of the text. Beyond any 

shadow of a doubt the wording of the NIV text represents what John actually wrote. We 

must, therefore, confine our attention to the three witnesses of whom John did write, the 

Spirit, the water, and the blood" (236). 

"Robert M. Grant makes this comment about 1 John 5:6-8: 

"To this mysterious but not theologically useful passage a Spanish 

Pricillianist in the late fourth century added explicitly trinitarian 

language so that it would mention three witnesses "on earth" and end 

thus: "And there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, 

and the Spirit, and these three are one." The addition is suitable in a 

Johannine context, for it refers to the Logos as John does and is 

ultimately based on "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). 

Unfortunately it is not genuine, since it appears in no old manuscript 

or versions or in any early [church] fathers" (_Gods and the One God_, 

Robert M. Grant. P. 151). 

Also read William Barclay's commentary on 1 John 

and Raymond Brown's extensive treatment of the subject in his Anchor 

Bible Commentary. 

Which texts DO contain these words? "Among the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the 

NT examined since the time of Erasmus, only three others are known to contain this 

spurious passage. They are Greg. 88, a 12th century manuscript which has the Comma 



writen in the margin in a 17th century hand; Tisch. w 110, which is a 16th century 

manuscript copy of the Complutensian Polyglot Greek text; and Greg. 629. dating from the 

14th century or, as Riggenbach has argued, from the latter half of the 16th century." The 

Text of the New Testament-It Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration [Third Enlraged 

Edition] by Bruce M. Metzger p.102,103 

Or as ERASMUS AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS by William W. Combs states:"That the 

Comma is a later addition to the text can be demonstrated from the fact that it is found in the 

text of only four manuscripts (61, 629, 918, 2318), the earliest of which is from the 

fourteenth century, and in the margin of four others (88, 221, 429, 636), the earliest of which 

is the tenth century. It was not cited in the 4th century Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian 

and Arian) by any Greek Father, an absolutely inexplicable omission had they been aware of 

the passage. The old Scofield Reference Bible says that it 'has no real authority, and has 

been inserted' (p. 1325)." 

Both 61 and 629 have the Comma but with the omission of the hOI TREIS EIS 

TO hEN EISIN. (KATA NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE, editione vicesima septima 

revisa) 

"To trace the history of this gross corruption of the text in modern translations, Catechisms, 

and Confessions of Faith, especially the Greek Church since the sixteenth century, and in 

modern editions of some ancient versions, as the Peshito Syriac, Armenian, and Slavonic, 

might be interesting and instructive, psychologically as well as critically; but there is no 

room for it here." 

-Critical Essays by Ezra Abbot, 1888, p.463 

What I would like to know is, why, if the Bible teaches the Trinity like the trinitarians claim, is there 

such a need to go thru great lengths to add a triune formula to the text that was never there to begin with, 

especially after the Bible says,"I testify to everyone who gears the words of the prophecy of this book: If 

anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book."(rev.22:18) 

WHY? Because the Bible does not teach a Trinity:The New Encyclopædia Britannica observes: 

“Neither the word Trinity nor the 

explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.” 

Does 1 John 5:7, 8 Prove that there is a Trinity? 

A Review of *A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 by Michael Maynard* 

by Doug Kutilek 

Visit Professor's Daniel Wallace page on this subject at http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/cyprian.htm 

Feel free to visit my page on the Byzantine/Majority Text 

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/byzantine.htm 

and http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tr.htm 

For Ezra Abbot on the Comma click here 



Top Ten Bible and Religion Lists 

Top Ten Bible And Religion Lists 

BIBLE FACTS: 

The system of chapters was introduced in A.D. 1238 by Cardinal Hugo de S. Caro, while the verse 

notations were added in 1551 by Robertus Stephanus, after the advent of printing. 

A Bible in the University of Gottingen is written on 2,470 palm leaves. 

According to statistics from Wycliffe International, the Society of Gideons, and the International Bible 

Society, the number of new Bibles that are sold, given away, or otherwise distributed in the United States 

is about 168,000 per day. 

The longest intercontinental telegram ever sent was the text of the New International Version of the 

Bible, sent from Geneva, where it was translated, to New York for printing. 

The Bible can be read aloud in 70 hours. 

There are 8,674 different Hebrew words in the Bible, 5,624 different Greek words, and 12,143 different 

English words in the King James Version. 

A number of verses in the Bible (KJV) contain all but 1 letter of the alphabet: Ezra 7:21 contains all but 

the letter j; Joshua 7:24, 1 Kings 1:9, 1 Chronicles 12:40, 2 Chronicles 36:10, Ezekiel 28:13, Daniel 4:37, 

and Haggai 1:1 contain all but q; 2 Kings 16:15 and 1 Chronicles 4:10 contain all but z; and Galatians 

1:14 contains all but k. 

BIBLE STATISTICS: 

Number of books in the Bible: 66 

Chapters: 1,189 

Verses: 31,101 

Words: 783,137 

Letters: 3,566,480 

Number of promises given in the Bible: 1,260 

Commands: 6,468 

Predictions: over 8,000 

Number of questions: 3,294 

Longest name: Mahershalalhashbaz (Isaiah 8:1) 

Longest verse: Esther 8:9 (78 words) 

Shortest verse: John 11:35 (2 words: "Jesus wept"). 

Middle books: Micah and Nahum 

Middle verse: Psalm 118:8 

Middle chapter: Psalm 117 

Shortest chapter (by number of words): Psalm 117 (by number of words) 

Longest book: Psalms (150 chapters) 

Shortest book (by number of words): 3 John 

Longest chapter: Psalm 119 (176 verses) 

Number of times the word "God" appears: 3,358 

Number of times the word "Lord" appears: 7,736 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/biblist.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:20 AM]


Number of different authors: 40 

Number of languages the Bible has been translated into: over 1,200 

OLD TESTAMENT STATISTICS: 

Number of books: 39 

Chapters: 929 

Verses: 23,114 

Words: 602,585 

Letters: 2,278,100 

Middle book: Proverbs 

Middle chapter: Job 20 

Middle verses: 2 Chronicles 20:17,18 

Smallest book: Obadiah 

Shortest verse: 1 Chronicles 1:25 

Longest verse: Esther 8:9 

Longest chapter: Psalms 119 

Largest book: Psalms 

NEW TESTAMENT STATISTICS: 

Number of books: 27 

Chapters: 260 

Verses: 7,957 

Words: 180,552 

Letters: 838,380 

Middle book: 2 Thessalonians 

Middle chapters: Romans 8, 9 

Middle verse: Acts 27:17 

Smallest book: 3 John 

Shortest verse: John 11:35 

Longest verse: Revelation 20:4 

Longest chapter: Luke 1 

Largest book: Luke 

10 Most Mentioned Names in the Bible 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Jehovah(Yahweh)-6,823 times* 

David-1,064 times 

Jesus-984 times 

Moses-847 times 

Jacob-377 times 

Aaron-352 times 

Solomon-293 times 

Joseph-250 times 



● Abraham-250 times 

● Ephraim 183 times 

*Based on the original Hebrew or those faithful translations that did not omit the name. 

10 Longest Names in the Bible* 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Mahershalalhashbaz 

Bashanhavothjair 

Chepharhaammonai 

Chusharishathaim 

Kibrothhattaavah 

Selahammahlekoth 

Abelbethmaachah 

Almondiblathaim 

Apharsathchites 

Berodachbaladan 

Helkathhazzurim 

Ramathaimzophin 

Tilgathpilneser 

Zaphnathpaaneah 

10 Most Mentioned Animals in the Bible* 

● Sheep 

● Lamb 

● Lion 

● Ox 

● Ram 

● Horse 

● Bullock 

● Ass 

● Goat 

● Camel 

*Based on King James Version 

Top 10 Denominations in Christendom 

● 

● 

● 

Roman Catholic(912,636,000) 

Orthodox(139,544,000) 

Pentecostal(105,756,000) 



● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Lutheran(84,521,000) 

Baptist(67,146,000) 

Anglican(53,217,000) 

Presbytarian(47,972,000) 

Methodist(25,599,000) 

Seventh Day Adventist(10,650,000) 

Churches of Christ(6,400,000) 

Tallest Churches in the World 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Chicago Methodist Temple-Chicago(568 ft.) 

Ulm Cathedral-Germany(528 ft.) 

Notre-Dame-de-la-Paix-Cote d'Ivoire(519 ft.) 

Cologne Cathedral-Germany(513 ft.) 

Rouen Cathedral-France(485 ft.) 

St. Nicholas-Germany(474 ft.) 

Notre-Dame-France(465 ft.) 

St. Peter`s-Italy(458 ft.) 

St. Stephen's Cathedral-Austria(446 ft.) 

Amiens Cathedral-France(440 ft.) 

St. Micheal-Germany(440 ft.) 

The 10 Latest Popes 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

John Paul II(1978- ) 

John Paul I(1978) 

Paul VI(1963-1978) 

John XXIII(1958-1963) 

Pius XII(1939-1958) 

Pius XI(1922-1939) 

Benedict XV(1914-1922) 

St. Pius X(1903-1914) 

Leo XIII(1878-1903) 

Pius IX(1846-1878) 

Top 10 Organized World Religions* 

● 

● 

● 

Roman Catholic(1,062,000,000) 

Sunni Muslim(1,061,400,000) 

Hindu(767,430,000) 



● Buddhist(364,875,000) 

● Orthodox Christian(225,000,000) 

● Shi'ite Muslim(118,000,000) 

● Anglican(55,100,000) 

● Baptist(54,250,000) 

● Sikh(22,900,000) 

● Jewish(15,050,000) 

*approximately 


Heinz Schmitz 


Is That In The Bible-Bible Anomalies 

Main Page 

International 


The Message 

Comma 

Johanneum 

On Birthday and 

Wedding Pagan 

Origins 


Translation 

CARM and the 

Misrepresentation 

Of "I AM" @ John 

8:58 

SOUL in the Bible 


Big Bang Bunk 

Christology and 

the Trinity 



The Living Bible 

What a difference 

"You son of a bitch" 1 Samuel 20:30 

(changed in later editions) 

a Word makes. 

"I am just some drunken bum" 1 Samuel 1:16 

King James the "You illegitimate bastard" John 9:34 

Fop 

"Come to bed with me my, darling." 2 Samuel 13:11 

"The Reluctant Dragon" Isaiah 30:7 

Godhead or "Israeli" at Exodus 9:4;12:34;14:20;19:1 etc. 

Divinity @ Col 2:9 "Hell is licking its chops in anticipation" Isaiah 5:14 

"citizens of hell" Proverbs 9:18 

HELL in the Bible "denizens of hell" Isaiah 14:9 

Acts 2:27 mentions "Hell", but the scripture it comes from, Psalms 16:10...mentions 

The Jewish "grave". 

Rejection of Jesus "Every year when each of Job's sons had a birthday" 

Job 1:4 

"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden of Jewish 

laws on you." Acts 15:29 

1 Timothy 6:9 "send them to Hell itself." 

Good News Bible-Today's English Version 

"You bastard" 1 Samuel 20:30 

"May you and your money go to hell" Acts 8:20 

"For God's sake" Mark 5:7 

"Go in through the narrow gate because the gate to hell is wide" Matthew 7:13,14 

"penis" Leviticus 15:1; Deuteronomy 23:1 

"blood-stained wedding sheet" Deut. 22:15 

"I am having my monthly period." Gen 31:35 

Sheol is translated "world of the dead" 

"You smart aleck you" 1Samuel 17:28 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/anomalies.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:28 AM]



Versions 


Bible Translations 



Project 

New American 


NIV Bible Search 

Dynamic 

Equivalency 

Is Jesus Michael 

the Archangel? 

What is the Best 

New Testament? 

Matthew Written 

in Hebrew? 


Trinity Bias 

Geneva Bible 

WOC 

Research/Trinity 

William Tyndale 

Textus Receptus 

Latin Vulgate etc 

Trinity Truth 

Rolf Furuli 

Steven T. 

"The Harmless Dragon" Isaiah 30:7 

"I had all the women a man could want" Eccl 2:8 

1 John 3:2, replaces "he" with "Christ" 

1 Timothy 6:15 "God" is added 

John 1:1 is "and he was the same as God" in the first edition and "the Word was God 

in the second edition 


"The terrors of death suddenly beset him and make him piss over his feet." Job 18:11 

"all men's knees run with urine" Ezekiel 21:7 

"Have nothing to do with loose livers" 1 Corinthians 5:9 

"Whitsuntide" 1 Corinthians 16:8 

"buffaloes/bison" Isaiah 34:7 

"guardian angels" Matthew 18:10 

"mother earth" Ecclesiastes 5:15 

"porpoise hides" Exodus 35:23 

"dragon" Psalms 68:22 

"goddesses of the field" Song of Solomon 2:7 

"Once upon a time" Genesis 11:1 

In Proverbs 18:10 there is a quote from Shakespeare's "Richard III, 5, iii, 12. 

Hebrews 12:8 "you must be bastards" 


Song of Solomon 5:4 "my bowels were moved for him" 

I Kings 21:21 "him that pisseth against the wall" 

Hebrews 12:8 "bastards" 

2 Peter 2:16. "dumb ass" 

Contemporary English Version 

"You and your money will both end up in hell" Acts 8:20 

Gehenna is also translated "hell" Matthew 5:22 

Tartarus is also translated "hell" 2 Peter 2:4 

Hades is also translated "hell" Luke 10:15 

Sheol is "world of the dead" at Eccl. 9:10 

Sheol is "in the ground" at Job 14:13 

Footnote at John 8:24, 58 reads, "I am: For the Jewish people the most holy name of 

God is 'Yahweh' which may be translated 'I am.' In the gospel of John ' I am' is 

sometimes used by Jesus to show that he is that one."(It does nothing of the kind) 

God's Word-New Testament and Psalms 

Colossians 2:9 "All of God lives in Christ's body." 

1 John 5:20 "This Jesus Christ is the real God and eternal life." 

Revelation 3:14 "the source of God's creation." 

2 Peter 2:4, tartarus is "hell" 

Matthew 5:22, gehenna is "hellfire" 



Byington 

Blue Letter Bible 

American Standard 

Version 


Multi-Lingual 




John Wycliffe 

Hebrew Names 

Version 

Canadian 

Translators 

KJV Online 

Phillips 

Translation 

Matthew Bible 

New Living Bible 

QANAH and 

"Created" @ Prov 

8:22 

LXX Archives 


Research 

Bay Psalm 

Book(1630) 

Extended Trinity 

Study 

Trinity Exposee 

Luke 10:15, hades is "hell" 

Psalms 139:8, sheol is "hell" 

Psalms 6:5, sheol is "grave" 

New Living Translation 

Matthew 7:13 "highway to hell" 

John 1:18 "but his only Son, who is himself God" 

Revelation 3:14 "ruler of God's creation" 

Philippians 2:6 "though he was God" 

2 Peter 2:4, tartarus is "hell" 

Matthew 5:22, gehenna is "hell" 

Matthew 16:18, hades is "hell" 

Psalms 139:8, sheol is"place of the dead" 

Psalms 6:5, sheol is "grave" 

the New Testament-An Expanded Translation by 

Kenneth S. Wuest 

John 1:1, "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship 

with God the Father. And the word was to His essence absolute deity. 

John 1:18, "Absolute deity in its essence no one has ever yet seen. God 

uniquely-begotten, He who is in the bosom of the Father, that One fully explained 

deity." 

Philippians 2:6,7, "[This is the mind] which is also in Christ Jesus, who has always 

been and at present continues to subsist in that mode of being in which He gives 

outward expression of His essential nature, that of absolute deity, which expression 

comes from and is truly representative of His inner being [that of absolute deity], and 

who did not after weighing the facts, consider it a treasure to be clutched and retain at 

all hazards, this being on an equality with deity [in the expression of the divine 

essence], but himself He emptied , himself He made void, having taken the outward 

expression of a bondslave, which expression comes from and is truly representative 

of His nature [as deity]..." 

Colossians 1:15, "who is a derived reproduction and manifestation of absolute deity, 

the invisible deity, who [the Son] has priority and sovereignty over all creation" 

Matthew 5:22, gehenna is "hellfire" 

Matthew 16:18, "councils of the unseen world" 

The Cotton Patch Version by Clarence Jordan 

Matt. 2:1 "When Jesus was born in Gainesville, Georgia" 

Matt. 2:13 "Get moving, and take your wife and baby and highball it to Mexico." 

Matt. 2:22 "Herod's Boy Archelaus was governor of Alabama" 

Matt. 3:12 "his combine was already running" 

Matt. 9:9 "Matthew sitting behind his desk at the Internal Revenue office" 

Matt. 9:23 "Y'all get out of here. The little girl isn't dead." 

Matt.10:28 "be afraid of the one who can make a hellish hash of both body and 

soul." 



Study Articles 

James R.White 

Mormon 

Plagiarism 

Conversations on 

the Trinity 

Trinity Chart 1 

Trinity Chart 2 

Paraphrased 

and 

Dynamic 

Equivalent 

Bibles are 

fun to read, 

but always 

have a more 

literal 

translation 

handy, like 

the ASV, 

NWT, 

(N)RSV, 

Young, 

Darby or 

better yet, 

an 

Interlinear 


If you find 

any 

interesting 

scripture 

Matt. 11:19 "He is a no-good bum who runs around with Communists and 

peaceniks." 

Matt. 16:6 "Now let me warn you to stay away from the yeast of the Protestants and 

Catholics." 

Crucified/Impaled is "Lynched". 

Matt. 22:16 "So they sent him a committee with some FBI men." 

Matt. 26:10 "Jesus got wind of it and said, "Why are you bitching at the lady?" 

And that is just the book of Matthew:) I could go on, but you get the drift. It is a funny 

Version to read actually. 

The Black Bible Chronicles 

Excerpts from the 10 Commandments 

"You shouldn't diss the Almighty's name, using it in cuss words or rapping with one 

another. It ain't cool and payback's a monster." 

"You shouldn't be taking nothin' from your homeboys." 

"Don't waste nobody."Don't mess around with someone else's ol' man or ol' lady." 

Genesis 3 

"And that bad old serpent told the sister, 'Nah, sister, he's feeding you a line of bull, 

You won't die. The Almighty just knows that if you eat from the tree you'll be hipped 

to what's going down." 

Contributed via Email: 

Your collection of swearing in translations is priceless: you may wish to add the 

following: 


“As she sat on the ass, she broke wind, and Caleb asked her, “What did you mean by 

that?” Joshua 15.18 


Use of the Lord’s name in vain many times by mistranslating the Greek “May it 

never be” as “God forbid”. 

Example: “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That 

thou mightest be justified 

in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” Romans 3:4 : 4 

CEV: St. Paul’s Language 

“I wish that everyone who is upsetting you would not only get circumcised, but 

would cut off much more!” 

Galatians 5:12 

New American Bible: Passage about eating human excrement 

“For your food you must bake barley loaves over human excrement in their sight, 

said the LORD. Thus the 

Israelites shall eat their food unclean among the nations where I scatter them. “Oh no, 

Lord GOD!” I protested. 

“Never have I been made unclean, and from my youth till now, never have I eaten 

carrion flesh or that torn by 



anomalies, 

please let 

me know. 

wild beasts; never has any unclean meat entered my mouth.” Very well, he replied, I 

allow you cow’s dung in 

place of human excrement; bake your bread on that.” Ezekiel 4:12 

NRSV: Passage in which Sarah laughs at God because she is going to enjoy sex in 

her old age: 

So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I have grown old, and my husband is old, 

shall I have pleasure?” 

Genesis 18:12. The word for pleasure in Hebrew clearly means (sexual) pleasure. 

-South Africa 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/anomalies.htm (5 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:28 AM] 

Last Updated: July 4 2000

Angels as Gods 

Import from Usenet Newsgroups: 

From: "CHARLESVOSE" 

THE ANGELS WERE CREATED BY JEHOVAH GOD! Notice what 

Job 38:4 and 7 relates: 

"Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? 

...... When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all the 

sons of God ["the godlike ones." (according to the LXX- that is the 

Greek Septuagint.) or "my angels" or the "bands of angels" (according 

to the Targums- the Jewish "interpretations, translations," of the exile 

into Babylon.) began shouting in applause?" (Job 38:4,7- see the 

footnote of verse 7 in the 1950 Edition of the "New World Translation.) 

The angels were created by Jehovah God. (see Psalm 148:1-5) 

God is a spirit; (John 4:24) and "He makes his angels spirits." 

(Heb 1:7) "A spirit does not have flesh and bones." (Luke 24:39) 

The angels did not come from humans that died and transcended 

to heaven, because they existed before the earth was created and 

were created individually by God. (Job 38:4,7- above ) 

THE ANGELS WERE CREATED IN HEAVEN AS SPIRITS 

AND ARE INVISIBLE TO US AS GOD IS INVISIBLE. 

The "angels in heaven always behold the face of my Father who 

is in the heavens.." (Matt 18:10) "No man has seen God at any 

time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with 

the Father is the one that has explained him." (John 1:18) 

Man was made, "a little lower than angels." The angels are 

powerful "spirits, His ministers..." (Psalm 104:4) "Bless Jehovah, 

O you angels of his, mighty in power, carrying out his word, By 

listening to the voice of his word... You ministers of his, doing his 

will." (Psalm 103:20,21) 

ARE THE ANGELS GODS? 

In the same way that Moses carried the Word of God to Pharaoh 

of Egypt and represented God to him; So, in the same manner, the 

angels, in the past, represented God to mankind. "See, I have made 

you God to Pharaoh." (Exodus 7:1) Since Christ Jesus, It is Christ, 

himself that represents God; He is God's exclusive spokesman. 

(John 1:18-- see 1Tim 2:5,6; 1Pet 3:22; Phil 2:9; Hebrews ch 1) 

The Law covenant came from God but was transmitted by angels. 

The angels served as God to bring to man what God sent them to 

speak. (Acts 7:53; Gal 3:19) You will find that when God first 

communicated with Moses he appeared in a burning bush. And an 

file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/angels.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:34 AM]


angel spoke from the bush. (Exodus 3:2) and the "angel" said to 

Moses: "And he went on to say: 'I am the God of your father, the 

God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.' Then 

Moses concealed his face, because he was afraid to look at the 

[true] God." (Exodus 3:5,6) Jehovah was still invisible in the 

heavens, but, he sent an angel to represent him. The angel was 

God to Moses. 

Again, at Psalm 82:1 it reads: "God is stationing himself in the 

assembly of the Divine One; (or "God"- Hebrew Masoretic text; or 

"gods"- LXX; or "angels" - Syriac Peshitta Version) In the middle 

of the gods (godlike ones- Hebrew; "elohim" or "theoi- LXX or 

"angels"- Syriac (see Psalm 8:5, footnote b) Or according to 

the Targums- "judges.") he judges:" (Psalm 82:1 

"I myself have said, 'You are gods, (or "godlike ones." As in the 

Hebrew Masoretic text- "elohim"; or "alahin"- Syriac; or "theoi- 

LXX; or "like angels" according to the "Targums.") And all of you 

are sons of the Most High." (Psalm 82:6) 

WHAT DOES THIS PROVE? 

All of the above, and other references, prove that the angels are the 

"Sons of God." (Job 38:4,7) They are direct creations of Jehovah God 

and they are his messengers to carry out His will. They are spirits for 

public service. They were sent by God to represent Him. 

They are higher than humans. (2Pet 2:11; Heb 2:6,7) 

At this time the angels are made subject to Christ. (1Pet 3:22) 

In the past, the angels have been spokesmen for Jehovah and 

the "Law" was transmitted through them. They were given the 

authority to represent Jehovah God. They spoke to men as though 

they were God. 

It is true that there is only one True God and His name is Jehovah, 

yet God sent spokesmen and representatives to speak for him. 

Today, Jesus, the "firstborn" and ""beginning of God's creation" 

(Col 1:15; Rev 3:14) has been given all authority to speak for God. 

(John 1:18) 

God will never come down to earth and stand before you and say" 

"I am God, listen to me..." But, he has sent angels to speak for 

him. Today, God has entrusted all of his communication through 

the Scriptures and through his son. The angels are still God's 

messengers and still carry out his will, But, they do not speak to 

us in place of Christ Jesus. If you pray to Jehovah God, through 



Christ Jesus, God will receive your prayers and he will answer all 

prayers in harmony with his will. The angels are present to see 

that God's will is carried out. But, the angels no longer take on 

human form and mediate between us and God. 

The angels are "god-like" because they are representatives of 

Jehovah God and they are more powerful than men. They are sent 

forth to carry out God's will when God decides to have his power and 

will carried out. However, the angels will not interfere in your decisions 

to do good or evil, only when it effects God's will or purpose toward 

the earth or mankind will the angels step in to intervene. It is true 

that if you pray earnestly to Jehovah God the angels may play a 

part in helping you with your request, But, they will not meddle in 

your personal decisions, unless you ask. 

In some Scriptures, the angels have been said to be "gods" toward 

mankind. This was because they came as God's representatives. But, 

they are not equal with God nor are they part of a group that make up 

the True God of the Bible. Jehovah God is only one Jehovah and there 

is no other God besides Him. The angels were created by God and 

only when they are sent to carry His messages and actions are they 

as God toward us. When they came down to represent God they were 

respected. They came in God's name and the people who intertained 

them often bowed to them and honored them and treated them as if 

they were receiving Jehovah. Yet, those angels were humble and they 

refused to be worshipped. (see Rev 22:8,9) Few were ever given names 

and one angel when asked refused to give his name. (Gen 32:29) 

Another angel said he was the "prince of the army of Jehovah" and 

when Samson's parents asked an angel his name, he said: "Just why 

should you ask about my name, when it is a wonderful one?" 

(Judges 13:17,18) We must be careful not to worship them. 

So, are the angels Gods- No! But if they come in the name of 

Jehovah and bring Jehovah's message they are to be treated with the 

respect that would be given to Jehovah. If we would disrespect those 

angels we would be disrespecting Jehovah who sent them. 

It is true that angels are not Gods but the angels represent God 

and we must respect them as though God were speaking through 

them. 

Jesus made the point quite clear when the Devil ask him to 

worship him and he would give him all the Kingdoms of the World. 

Jesus said: "Then Jesus said to him: 'Go away, Satan! For it is 

written, 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him 

alone you must render sacred service." (Matt 4:8-10; Luke 4:5-8) 

Only Jehovah is God; Only him must we worship, and we must 



know the difference between God and the representatives of God. 

The angels are not a part of Jehovah God but they were "gods" 

to men only when they represented God. 

Addendum 

Here is what the Dead Sea Scrolls give as to an insight of the early Jewish belief about Angels. 

"Praise him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the firmament of 

the highest heavens, all...and its wall, all its structure, its shape. The 

spirits of the holy of holies, the living 'gods', the spirits of eternal 

holiness above all the holy ones...The divine spirits surround the dwelling 

of the King of truth and righteousness; all its walls" (Vermes 226 [4Q403 I 

i, 30-46]). 

"The figures of the 'gods' shall praise him, the most holy spirits...of 

glory; the floor of the marvelous innermost chambers, the spirits of the 

eternal gods, all...figures of the innermost chambers of the King, the 

spiritual works of the marvelous firmament are purified with salt, spirits 

of knowledge, truth and righteousness in holy of holies, forms of the 

living 'gods,' forms of the illuminating spirits. All their works of art 

are marvelously linked, many-coloured spirits, artistic figures of the 

'gods,' engraved all around their glorious bricks of splendour and majesty. 

All their works of art are living 'gods,' and their artistic figures are 

holy angels. From beneath the marvelous inner most chambers comes a sound 

of quiet silence: the 'gods' bless..."(Vermes 228 [4Q405 19ABCD]). 

The author here describes the Most Holy chamber of the Temple. In this 

chamber was were the Ark of the Covenant was kept. This is where Jehovah 

dwelled symbolically. Everything in the Most Holy was made of the finest 

gold. The Bible tells us that the Temple was ornamented with pictures of 

angels (1 Kings 6:27-32). Therefore, this description of the "gods" 

ministering to the Almighty fits perfectly with the Bible. The curtain 

that separated the Holy from the Most Holy even has pictures of angels 

("gods") woven into it (2 Chron. 3:14). 

"The 'gods' praise him when they take up their station, and all the spirits 

of the clear firmament rejoice in his glory...when the gods of knowledge 

enter by the doors of glory, and when the holy angels depart the realm, the 

entrance doors and the gates of exit proclaim the glory of the King...the 

fear of the King of 'gods' is awe-inspiring to all the 'gods,' and they 

undertake all his commissions by virtue of his true order" (Vermes 229 

[4Q405 23i]). 

The War Rule says that "the host of warring 'gods' gird themselves for 

the Day of Revenge" (1QMXV, Vermes 121). We also find in the fragment 

titled by Vermes as The Song of Michael and the Just (4Q491 fr. II, Ma) an 

incomplete sentence that says that there is "a throne of strength in the 



congregation of 'gods' so that not a single king of old shall sit on it, 

neither shall their noble men...(Vermes 126). The one called Michael is 

also held as saying "I am reckoned with the 'gods' and my dwelling place is 

in the congregation of holiness" and "for I am reckoned with the 'gods,' 

and my glory is with the sons of the King" (Vermes 126). 

As D.S. Russell writes: "There is ample evidence to show that [the OT] 

conception of monotheism was held in conjunction with a belief in a spiritual 

world peopled with supernatural and superhuman beings who, in some ways, 

shared the nature, though not the being, of God" ( _The Method and Message of 

Jewish Apocalyptic_ P. 235). 

Back To Study Page 


Heinz Schmitz 


New Testament Breakdown 


The New Testament by Richmond Lattimore 

Manuscript Used: Westcott and Hort 

Archaic Language: No 

Inclusive Language: No 

Ecclesiastical Language: Acts 16:5-Church, Philippians 1:1-Bishop, Deacons 

Comma Johanneum: No 

Translation Type: Free 

Background: Translator of various Greek works. 

Sample Scriptures: Henceforth, let no one give me trouble; for I carry the stigmata of Jesus on my body. Galatians 6:17 

Because in him resides, physically, all the fulfillment of the divine. Colossians 2:9 

Web-site: Amazon.com 

Concordant Literal New Testament 

Manuscript Used: Concordant Greek Text 

Archaic Language: Some 


Ecclesiastical Language: ecclesias, superiors, servants 


Translation Type: Literal 

Background: Protestant 

Sample Scriptures: And Jesus said to him, "Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise." Luke 

23:43 

God no one has ever seen. The only-begotten God, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He unfolds him. John 1:18 

Web-site: http://www.concordant.org/version/index.html 

Emphatic Diaglott 

Manuscript Used: Vatican Manuscript 

Archaic Language: Yes 


Ecclesiastical Language: Congregations, overseers, assistants 




Sample Scriptures: In the Beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God. John1:1 

For David ascended not to HEAVEN, but he says himself, JEHOVAH said to my LORD, sit thou at my Right 

hand.Acts2:34 

Williams New Testament 

Manuscript Used: Westcott and Hort 



Ecclesiastical Language: Church, overseers, assistant 




Sample Scriptures: Then Jesus said to them, "I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born." John 8:58 

Blesses are those who feel poor in spiritual things, for the kingdom of heaven belong to them. Matthew 5:3 

Jewish New Testament by David H. Stern 

Manuscript Used: United Bible Societies Greek Text 3rd Edition 



Ecclesiastical Language: Congregations, congregational leaders, shammashim 


file:///C|/Scans/Bible-Files/bible1.htm (1 of 5) [5/25/2003 4:24:43 AM]


Translation Type: Free/Paraphrase 

Background: Messianic Jew 

Sample Scriptures: In this way, the name of our Lord Yeshua will be glorified in you, and you in him, in accordance with 

the grace of our God and the Lord Yeshua the Messiah. 2 Thessalonians 1:12 

Do not put Adonai your God to the test. Luke 4:12 

The New Testament in Modern English by J.B. Phillips 

Manuscript Used: United Bible Societies Greek Text 



Ecclesiastical Language: Church, Bishop, Deacons 



Background: Anglican 

Sample Scriptures: Happy are those who know their need for God, for the kingdom of Heaven is theirs. Matthew 5:3 

That means that tongues are a sign of God's power, not for those who are unbelievers but for those who already believe.. 

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 

believers. 1Corinthians 14:22 

The Message New Testament by Eugene H. Peterson 


Inclusive Language: Some 

Ecclesiastical Language: Congregations, Pastor, Minister 


Translation Type: Paraphrase 

Background: Presbyterian 

Sample Scriptures: "The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word.The Word was God, in 

readiness for God from day one." John 1:1 

"Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as 

citizens of God's kingdom." 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 

Web-site: http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/message.htm 

God's Word New Testament 1995 

Manuscript Used: Novum Testamentum Graece 26th Edition 


Inclusive Language: Yes 

Ecclesiastical Language: Church, Bishop, Deacons 



Background: Evangelical 

Sample Scriptures: This Jesus Christ is the real God and eternal life. 1John 5:20 

"All of God lives in Christ's body." Colossians 2:9 

Web-site: http://www.godsword.org/ 

The Worrell New Testament by 1904 



Ecclesiastical Language: Assemblies, Bishop, Deacons 




Sample Scriptures: And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh, was justified in 

the Spirit, was seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. 1Timothy 3:16 

For there crept in stealthily certain men , who of old were set forth for this condemnation, ungodly men, changing the 

grace of our God into lasciviousness; and denying the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 4 

Montgomery New Testament 1924 by Helen Barrett Montgomery 





Ecclesiastical Language: Church, minister, Deacons 




Sample Scriptures: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God. John 

1:1 

No man has ever seen God; God, only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father-he has interpreted him 

the New Testament-An Expanded Translation by Kenneth S. Wuest. 1961 



Ecclesiastical Language: Assemblies, overseers, deacons 


Translation Type: Paraphrased 


Sample Scriptures: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And 

the word was to His essence absolute deity. John 1:1 

Absolute deity in its essence no one has ever yet seen. God uniquely-begotten, He who is in the bosom of the Father, that 

One fully explained deity. John 1:18 

John Wesley New Testament 



Ecclesiastical Language: Church, bishops, deacons 

Comma Johanneum: Yes 



Sample Scriptures: Whose are the fathers, and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God 

blessed for ever. Romans 9:5 

New Testament by Msr Ronald A. Knox 1945 

Manuscript Used: Latin Vulgate 



Ecclesiastical Language: Church, pastors, deacons 



Background: Catholic 

Sample Scriptures: Hail , thou who art full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women. Luke 1:28 

Is not this the carpenter's son? Whose mother is called Mary, and his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 

Matthew 13:55 

The New Testament of the Inclusive Language Bible 1994 


Inclusive Language: See Title 

Ecclesiastical Language: Congregation, bishops, servants 



Background: Feminist 

Sample Scriptures: Prepare the way for Yahweh! Make straight paths for our God. Matthew 3:3 

I will be a Parent to you, and you will be my child. Hebrews 1:5 

The Recovery Version 1985-91 

Manuscript Used: Novum Testamentum Graece 26th Edition(Nestle Aland) 





Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, overseers, deacons 


Translation Type: Literal with TONS of footnotes of the dogmatic variety 

Background: Living Streams Ministry 

Sample Scriptures: No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared 

him. 

John 1:18 

New Century Version New Testament 1984 

Manuscript Used: UBS Greek New Testament 3rd edition 



Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, elders, deacons 




Sample Scriptures: Enter through the narrow gate. The road that leads to hell is very wide. Matthew 7:13,14 

An Inclusive Version 1995 

Manuscript Used: New Revised Standard Version 


Inclusive Language: OH YES 

Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, bishops, deacons 



Background: Feminist 

Sample Scriptures: Our Father-Mother in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your dominion come, Your will be done on 

earth as it is in heaven. Matthew 6:9, 10 

The Five Gospels(also known as The Annotated Gospels or the Complete Gospels). 

Manuscript Used: Eclectic 


Inclusive Language:Yes 


Background: Jesus Seminar 

Sample Scriptures: In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom was there with 

God, and it was what God was. John 1:1 

Jesus said to them, "As God is my witness, I existed before there was an Abraham. John 8:58 

The Unvarnished New Testament by Andy Gaus 1991 

Manuscript Used: Novum Testamentum Graece of Nestle-Aland 



Ecclesiastical Language: Communities, elders, overseers, 


Background: Catholic-raised, but not belonging to any organized religion. 

Sample Scriptures: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and God was what the Word was. Jn 

1:1 

"Before Abraham was born, I have already been." Jn 8:58 

Restoration of Original Name New Testament 1968 

Based on Rotherham's Version 

Divine Name Rendered:Yahvah 

International English Bible 2001 





Ecclesiastical Language: Congregations, servants, overseers 



Background: God Chasers?! 

Sample Scriptures: ..and the Word was God [ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is actually a better translation, because the Greek 

definite article is not present]. John 1:1 

I was alive before Abraham was born. John 8:58 

The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Francis Aloysius Spencer 1940 



Ecclesiastical Language: Church, bishops, deacons 




Sample Scripture: No one has ever seen God. The Only Begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared 

Him. 

More to come........ 

Email Me 



Bible Translations and Versions with Text of Origin and Divine Name(YHWH) Rendered. 

Bible Translations and Versions 

Click here for a Comprehensive List of Bible and New Testaments that contain the Divine Name 

King James(Authorized)Version1611,with revisions made 1616,1629,1638,1762,1769. 

Manuscripts Used:Masoretic Text,Received Text. 

Divine Name Rendered: LORD,Jehovah at Ex.6:3,Ps.83:18,Is.12:2,Is.26:4. 

Comma Johanneum(Trinitarian Insertion 1John 5:7,8): Yes 

Apocrypha(Deutero-Canonical Books): Some editions 



Ecclesiastical Language: Acts 16:5-Church, Philippians 1:1-Bishop, deacon 



Sample Scriptures: Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. 2Cor.6:12 

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 

1:18 

Web-Site: http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/kjv.htm 

Rheims-Douay Bible(Catholic)1582-1610 

Manuscripts Used: Latin Vulgate 

Divine Name Rendered:Lord(Adonai twice) Jod He Vau He and Jehovah at footnote Ex.6:3 


Apocrypha: Yes 





Sample Scriptures: Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and 

Simon, and Jude. Matthew 13:55 

Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Luke 1:28 

Web-site: http://www.cybercomm.net/~dcon/drbible.html 

Young`s Literal Translation 1862-98 

Manuscripts Used: Masoretic and Received Text 

Divine Name Rendered: Jehovah 


Apocrypha: No 




Background: Protestant(FreeChurch) 

Sample Scriptures: Sing ye to Jehovah a new song, For wonders He hath done, Given salvation to Him hath His right hand 

and His holy arm. Psalms XCVIII v.1 

Ror there did come in unobserved certain men, long ago having been written beforehand to this judgment, impious, the 

grace of our God perverting to lasciviousness, and our only Master, God, and Lord--Jesus Christ--denying Jude 4 

Web-site: http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=YLT 

English Revised Version 1881-95 

Manuscripts Used: Masoretic Text,Westcott and Hort 

Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Jehovah at Ex.6:2,3,6,7,8;Ps.83:18;Is.12;Is.26:4 


Apocrypha: Added in 1895 







Sample Scriptures: Whose are the fathers, and of whom is the Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed 

forever. Amen. Romans 9:5 

For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old set forth unto this condemnation, ungodly men, 

turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Jude 4 

Emphasized Bible(Rotherham)1878-1902 

Manuscripts Used: Masoretic(Ginsburg),Westcott and Hort, Tregelles 

Divine Name Rendered:Yahweh 


Apocrypha: No 





Sample Scriptures: [Verily] I say unto thee this day: [With me] shalt thou be in Paradise. Luke 23:43 

Thy throne, O God, is unto times age-abiding. Hebrews 1:8 

Web-site: http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/versions/EBR.htm 

American Standard Version 1901 

Manuscripts Used:Masoretic and Westcott and Hort 



Apocrypha: No 





Sample Scriptures: Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that 

taketh his name in vain. Exodus 20:7 

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 

equality with God a thing to be grasped Philippians 2:6 

Web-site: http://www.churchesofchrist.net/bibles/ASV/asvindex.htm 


Manuscripts Used:Masoretic , Novum Testamentum Graece/Nestle 26th edition 

Divine Name Rendered: LORD, YHWH mentioned in the footnotes at Exodus 3:15; 6:3 


Apocrypha: No 


Archaic Language: Removed in updated edition 

Ecclesiastical Language: Church, overseers, deacon 



Sample Scriptures: No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has 

explained him. John 1:18 

Web-site: http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/ 

King James II Version by Jay P. Green(1972-82) 

Manuscripts Used:Recieved Text(Textus Receptus)Majority Text 



Apocrypha: No 







Sample Scriptures: Denying the only Master, God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 4 

And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, 1Timothy 3:16 

An American Translation-Smith&Goodspeed 1923-39 

Manuscripts Used:Masoretic and Westcott and Hort 

Divine Name Rendered:LORD, Yahweh at Ex.3:15,Ex.6:3 





Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, superintendents, assistants 


Background: Liberal 

Sample Scriptures: In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine. John 1:1 

But of the Son he says, God is your throne forever and ever! Hebrews 1:8 

Samuel Sharpe's Translation 


Revised Standard Version 1946-52 

Manuscripts Used: Masoretic, Westcott and Hort, Nestle 

Divine Name Rendered:LORD, YHWH at footnote Ex.6:3 


Apocrypha: Some Editions 





Background: Protestant with Catholic and Ecumenical Editions 

Sample Scriptures: Your divine throne endures forever and ever. Psalms 45:6 

But of the Son he says,"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. Hebrews 1:8 

Web-Site: http://www.hti.umich.edu/relig/rsv/ 


Manuscripts Used: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, UBS Greek Text 

Divine Name Rendered:LORD, YHWH at footnote Ex.3:15;6:3 







Background: Protestant with Catholic and Ecumenical Editions 

Sample Scriptures: Your throne O God endures forever and ever. Psalms 45:6 

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 

Added from Dead Sea Scrolls: I will offer him as a nazirite for all time. 4QSam [Compare Mt 2:23] 

Web-Site: http://www.dallas.net/~ronnew/bible/00bible.htm 

Boothroyd's Translation 


New English Bible 1970 

Manuscripts Used:Masoretic,Kittel`s Biblia Hebraica, Eclectic Text 

Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Jehovah at Ex.3:15,16; Ex.6:3; Ex.33:19; Ex.34:5,6 







Ecclesiastical Language: Congregations, bishops, deacons 


Background: Protestant and Catholic(Liberal) 

Sample Scriptures: And he shall be called in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like, Father for all time, Prince of peace. Is. 

9:6 

When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was. John 1:1 


Manuscripts Used: , Eclectic Text, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgertensia 

Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Jehovah,Yahweh and YHWH at footnote at Ex.3:15 







Background: Protestant and Catholic(Liberal) 

Sample Scriptures: Yet you have made him a little less than a god, crowning his head with glory and honour. Psalms 8:5 

Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6 

Web-site: http://energion.com/books/bibles/reb.html 

Good News Bible(Today`s English Version)1976 

Manuscripts Used:Masoretic, Kittel`s Biblia Hebraica and The Greek New Testament by United Bible Societies 

Divine Name Rendered:LORD, Yahweh in footnotes at Ex.6:3,Ex.3:15 and Gen.2:4 





Ecclesiastical Language: Church, church leaders, helpers 


Background: Protestant with Catholic Editions 

Sample Scriptures: Man cannot live on bread alone, but need every word that God speaks. Matthew 4:4 

Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God. John 1:1 

Good News Bible(Today`s English Version)2nd Edition 

Manuscripts Used:Masoretic, Kittel`s Biblia Hebraica and The Greek New Testament by United Bible Societies 

Divine Name Rendered:LORD, Yahweh in footnotes at Ex.6:3,Ex.3:15 and Gen.2:4 





Ecclesiastical Language: Church, church leaders, helpers 


Background: Protestant with Catholic Editions 

Sample Scriptures: Human beings cannot live on bread alone, but need every word that God speaks. Matthew 4:4 

In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 

Web-site: Click Here 

New King James Bible 1982 

Manuscripts Used:Masoretic,Kittel`s Biblia Hebraica,Majority Text 

Divine Name Rendered:LORD, Yah at Is.12:2,Is.26:4 


Apocrypha: No 





Ecclesiastical Language: Church, bishop, deacon 

Sample Scripture: 


Background: Protestant(Evangelical) 

Sample Scriptures: Away with you Satan! For it is written, You shall worship the LORD your God, and him only shall you 

serve. Matthew 4:10 

Because You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will you allow your Holy One to see corruption. Acts 2:27 


Jerusalem Bible 1966 

Manuscripts Used:Eclectic 

Divine Name Rendered:Yahweh 







Sample Scriptures: Are you not from ancient times Yahweh, my God, my Holy One, who never dies. Habakkuk 1:12 

Are you people in Galatia mad? Has someone put a spell on you? Galatians 3:1 

Web-site: http://www.op.org/op/ebaf/jerubibl.htm 

New Jerusalem Bible 1985 

Manuscripts Used: Masoretic and Greek Text 

Divine Name Rendered: Yahweh 







Sample Scriptures: In him, in bodily form, lives divinity in all its fullness. Colossians 2:9 

Let all the angels of God pay him homage. Hebrews 1:6 


New International Readers Version(NIrV) 

Manuscripts Used: New International Version 

Divine Name Rendered: Lord 


Apocrypha: No 





Sample Scriptures: The Holy Spirit proved that he was the Son of God. 1 Timothy 3:16 

Everyone who calls out to me will be saved. Joel 2:32 

Web-site: http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/nirv.htm 

The Living Bible 1971 

Manuscripts Used: American Standard Version 

Divine Name Rendered: Lord, Jehovah 300 times 








Background: Protestant and Catholic Editions 

Sample Scriptures: Every year when each of Job's sons had a birthday. Job 1:4 

The whole Bible was given to us by inspiration from God, and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realized 

what is wrong with our lives. 2 Timothy 3:16 

Web-site: http://www.dsinclair.com/~dcloud/articles/living.htm 

Contemporary English Version 1995 

Manuscripts Used: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgertensia, Greek Text by United Bible Society 

Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Yahweh at the footnote at Ex.3:15 


Apocrypha: No 



Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, church officials, officers 


Background: Protestant and Catholic Editions 

Sample Scriptures: You and your money will both end up in hell. Acts 8:20 

Don't make friends with anyone who has a bad temper. You might turn out like them and get caught in a trap. Proverbs 

22:24,25 

Web-site: http://www.biblesociety.org.uk/transcev.htm 

New World Translation 1950-61-84 

Manuscripts Used:Kittel's Masoretic, Westcott&Hort 



Apocrypha: No 



Ecclesiastical Language: Congregation, overseers, ministerial servant 


Background: Jehovah's Witnesses 

Sample Scriptures: Keep on asking and it will be given YOU; keep on seeking and you will find; keep on knocking and it 

will be opened. Matthew 7:7 

Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the kingdom of the heavens belongs to them. Matthew 5:3 

Web-Site: http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/nwt.htm 

Darby Translation 1871 

Manuscripts Used: Eclectic 



Apocrypha: No 





Sample Scriptures: And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the 

heavens, and brought [them] to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was 

its name. Genesis 2:19 

The overseer then must be irreproachable, husband of one wife, sober, discreet, decorous, hospitable, apt to teach; not 

given to excesses from wine, not a striker, but mild, not addicted to contention, not fond of money, conducting his own 

house well, having [his] children in subjection with all gravity; 1 Timothy 3:2-4 

Web-site: http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=Darby 

Moffatt Bible 1925 

Manuscripts Used: Masoretic, Von Soden 



Divine Name Rendered: Eternal 


Apocrypha: No 





Background: Protestant/Liberal 

Sample Scriptures: He sits over the round earth, so high that it's inhabitants look like grasshoppers. Isaiah 40:22 

The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine. John 1:1 

Web-Site: Click here 

New Living Translation 1996 

Manuscripts Used: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgertensia, Greek Text by United Bible Society, LXX 

Divine Name Rendered: LORD 


Apocrypha: No 






Sample Scriptures: The highway to Hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose the easy way. Matthew 

7:13 

Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born." John 8:58 

Web-Site: http://www.tyndale.com/nlt/about.html 

New International Version 1978 

Manuscripts Used: Kittel`s,Nestle`s and UBS 

Divine Name Rendered: LORD, YHWH mentioned in preface 


Apocrypha: No 



Ecclesiastical Language: Church, overseers, deacon 



Sample Scriptures: No one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. 

John 1:18 

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 

Web-site: http://www.zondervan.com/ 

Amplified Bible 1965 

Divine Name Rendered: Lord,Yaweh at Ex.6:3 


Apocrypha: No 



Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, bishops[overseers], deacons[assistants] 



Sample Scriptures: God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in our image. Genesis 1:26 

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 

intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him-He has revealed Him, brought Him out where He can be seen; He 

has made him known. John 1:18 

Web-site: http://www.zondervan.com/othframe.htm 



The Bible in Living English by Steven T. Byington 1972 



Apocrypha: No 



Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, visitors, deacons 


Background: Protestant/Congregational 

Sample Scriptures: God is your throne forever and ever. Hebrews 1:8 

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 

Web-site: http://www.zoomnet.net/~wbagnall/byington.html 

The New American Bible 1970, 1987 


Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Yahweh and Jehovah at footnote Exodus 3:14 







Sample Scriptures: The Earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over 

the waters. Genesis 1:2 

As we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ. Titus 2:13 

Web-site: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/ 

English Version for the Deaf 1987-92 

Divine Name Rendered: Lord, Yahweh at Ex.3:15,16;Ex.6:3;Ps.83:18;Is.42:8 


Apocrypha: No 



Ecclesiastical Language: Church(groups of believers), elders, special helpers 


Background: Easy to Read Version for the Hearing Impaired 

Sample Scriptures: No man has ever seen God. But the only Son (Jesus) is God. He is very close to the Father (God). And 

the Son has shown us what God is like. John 1:18 

Christ himself was like God in everything. Christ was equal with God. Philippians 2:6 

The Holy Bible in the Language of Today-An American Translation by William F.Beck 1976 




Apocrypha: No 



Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, pastors, helpers 



Sample Scriptures: Nobody has ever seen God. The only-begotten God who is close to the Father's heart has told us about 

him. John 1:18 

Simpletons are gifted with foolishness, but the shrewd wear knowledge as a crown. Proverbs 14:18 

The Confraternity Version 1941-63 

Manuscripts Used: Latin Vulgate 



Divine Name Rendered: Lord, Yahweh and Jehovah at footnote Exodus 3:15 







Sample Scriptures: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. Luke 1:42 

And Jesus said to her, "What wouldst thou have me do woman? My hour has not yet come." John 2:4 

The Bible in Basic English 

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 


Apocrypha: No 





Sample Scriptures: For in him all the wealth of God's being has a living form. Colossians 2:9 

And to the angel of the church in Laodicea say: These things says the true and certain witness, the head of God's new 

order. Revelation 3:14 

Webster Bible 1833 

Manuscripts Used: Mild correction of the KJV 

Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Jehovah at Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4; 51:22; Jeremiah 23:6; 32:18; 

33:16 


Apocrypha: No 



Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, bishop, deacon 



Sample Scriptures: For certain men have crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, 

ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Jude 4 

Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts by George M. Lamsa 

Manuscripts Used: Syriac Peshitta 



Apocrypha: No 






Sample Scriptures: And God said to Moses, I am the AHIAH ASHAR HIGH(that is THE LIVING GOD). Exodus 3:14 

Jesus said to them, Truly, truly I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was. John 8:58 

Modern Language Bible-New Berkeley Version 1945-69 

Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Jehovah at Exodus 3:15;6:3; Numbers 3:13,45;15:41;21:14;35:34; Psalms 

8:1,9;16:2;140:7; 141:8; 147:1; Isaiah 12:2; Yahweh at Hosea 12:5; Adonai at Judges 6:24 


Apocrypha: No 






Background: Protestant(Baptist) 

Sample Scriptures: [Phillip assured him, "If you heartily believe, it is permitted." And he replied "I believe that Jesus 

Christ is the Son of God."] 

World English Bible 

Manuscript Used: Masoretic, Majority Text, ASV 

Divine Name Rendered: Yahweh 


Apocrypha: No 



Ecclesiastical Language: Assemblies, overseers , deacons 



Sample Scriptures: For there are certain men who crept in secretly, even those who were long ago written about for this 

condemnation: ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master, God, and 

Lord, Jesus Christ. Jude 4 

"God was revealed in the flesh" 1Timothy 3:16 

Web-Site: http://ebible.org/bible/web 

Hebrew Names Version 

Manuscript Used: Masoretic, Majority Text, ASV 



Apocrypha: No 



Ecclesiastical Language: Assemblies, overseers , shammashim 



Sample Scriptures: For there are certain men who crept in secretly, even they who were of old written of beforehand to this 

condemnation: ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master, God, and 

Lord, Yeshua the Messiah. 

Web-site: http://ebible.org/bible/hnv 

New English Translation(NET) 

Manuscript Used: Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the United Bible Societies' 4th edition 

Divine Name Rendered: LORD, Yahweh in Exodus 


Apocrypha: No 



Ecclesiastical Language: Churches, overseers , deacons 

Translation Type: Literal/Free 


Sample Scriptures: No one has ever seen God. The only One, himself God, who is in the presence of the Father, has made 

God known. John 1:18 

Web-site: http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm 

The Complete Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton 

Manuscript Used: Westcott/Hort 

Divine Name Rendered: EVER-LIVING, Jehovah a few times in Psalms (7:7; 8:2; 9:14, 17, 20 etc) 


Apocrypha: No 

Inclusive Language: nO 




Ecclesiastical Language: assemblies, overlookers , ministers 

Translation Type: Literal/Free 


Sample Scriptures: The Wonderful Counsellor, call His name, Great Leader, Time's Father, the Prince of Peace. Is 9:6 

Email Me 

May 6 2001

Bible Translations Site Map - Robinson World Websites

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?