Rodolphus Dickinson's Foppish 1833 Bible

Buy my published Kindle book on Amazon on Forgotten Bible Versions for only 99 cents
See a local listing for it here

Rodolphus Dickinson's Strange Bible

Quirky and queer Bible Versions are not new. In a world where we have Gay Bibles, Twitter Bibles and Klingon Bibles, Rodolphus Dickinson's New Testament (1833) may not seem so strange after all. Rodolphus Dickinson (1787-1863) only sought to make a version of the New Testament agreeable to the well-born, or as he put it: 

"Accomplished and refined persons...And when it is considered what an antiquated, and in other particulars forbidding aspect, the inspired writings, in their usual style and conformation, present to the view of many intelligent, refined and amiable persons, who might be induced to peruse them in a less interrupted and more inviting form, in connexion with the typographical execution here displayed, which, it is presumed, will be regarded by such, as no small improvement; can any valid objection be urged to the prevalent spirit and character of this undertaking? Why should the inestimable gift of God to man, be proffered in a mode that is unnecessarily repulsive? Why should the received translation be permitted to perpetuate, to legalize, and almost to sanctify, many and unquestionable defects? While various other works, and especially those of the most trivial attainment, are diligently adorned with a splendid and sweetly flowing diction, why should the mere, uninteresting identity and paucity of language be so exclusively employed, in rendering the word of God? Why should the Christian scriptures be divested even of decent ornament? Why should not an edition of the heavenly institutes be furnished for the reading-room, saloon, and toilet, as well as for the church, school, and nursery? for the literary and accomplished gentleman, as well as for the plain and unlettered citizen? Why should the Bible be stationary, amid the progress of refinement and letters? Why, in antique fashion, should it remain solitary, in the enchanting and illimitable field of modern improvements?"

And speaking of himself:

"It is a source of self-gratulation, that a happy concurrence of events has, for a considerable period, placed me in a situation, which by withdrawing me from the contentions on theological topics, that have long distracted so great a portion of our country, has conduced to cherish a dispassionate spirit, and enabled me, in coincidence with my course of reading and reflection, to approach this undertaking, with views propitious to the cause of ingenuousness, truth, integrity, and impartial observation; and with a mind unperverted by disgusting, sectarian singularities I have also disdained the obsequious and servile predicament, of floating, at random, in the wake of others. The original has been my compass, the commentaries, my explanatory chart; and the principles of the highest authorities, my general guide; and ever reserving to myself, in its most unshackled exercise, the invaluable privilege of private judgment."

It is no wonder that Michael Marlowe wonderfully calls this New Testament, "A foppish translation by an Episcopal rector."

Let us then take a look at some examples of this translation:

From Matthew 5: You have heard that it was announced to the ancients. Thou shalt do no murder, and he who commits it, will be amenable to the judges. But I affirm to you, that every one, malignantly incensed with his brother, will be liable to the judges; and he who shall denounce his brother as a miscreant, will be subject to the sanhedrin; but he who shall denounce him as an abandoned apostate, will be exposed to the gehenna of fire.

From Matthew 13: The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a field, in which the proprietor had sown good grain; but while people were asleep, his enemy came and sowed darnel among the wheat, and departed. And when the blade germinated and put forth the ear, then the darnel also appeared.

From Matthew 25: [My arrival] may, therefore, be illustrated by a man, who intending to take a distant journey, called his own servants, and delivered to them his effects....And his master said to him. Well-done, good and provident servant! you was faithful in a limited sphere, I will give you a more extensive superintendence; participate in the happiness of your master.

From Luke 1: And it happened, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the embryo was joyfully agitated; and Elizabeth was pervaded by the Holy Spirit; and she exclaimed with a loud voice, and said, Blessed are you among women! and blessed is your incipient offspring! And whence this occurrence to me, that the mother of my Lord should visit me? For behold, when the voice of your salutation sounded in my ears, the embryo was enlivened with joy.

From Luke 2: And all who heard him, were in a transport of admiration at his intelligence and replies.

From Luke 2: And the approbation of all was awarded him; and they admired the elegance of language, that flowed from his lips.
From Luke 4:  And the approbation of all was awarded him; and they admired the elegance of language, that flowed from his lips.

From Luke 8: And it afterwards occurred, that Jesus travelled through every city and village [of Galilee], proclaiming and elucidating the joyful intelligence of the kingdom of God

From John 3: Teacher, we know that thou art an instructer emanated from God; for no one can achieve these miracles which thou performest, unless God be with him. Jesus answered and said to him. Indeed, I assure you, that except a man be reproduced, he cannot realize the reign of God. Nicodemus says to him, How can a man be produced when he is mature? Can he again pass into a state of embryo, and be produced? Jesus replied, I most assuredly declare to you, that unless a man be produced of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

From Acts 1: Moreover, this man, indeed, caused a field to be purchased with the recompense of his iniquity; and falling prostrate, a violent, internal spasm ensued, and all his viscera were emitted.

From Acts 17: Paul then stood in the centre of the court of Areopagus, and remarked; Men of Athens, I perceive that you are greatly devoted to the worship of invisible powers.

From Acts 26: Festus declared with a loud voice, Paul, you are insane! Multiplied research drives you to distraction.

From Acts 28: And the Barbarians displayed towards us no ordinary philanthropy.

Matthew 22: And while the pharisees were assembled, Jesus thus questioned them. What are your views relative to the Messiah? whose son should he be? They answer him. The son of David. He says to them. How then does David, by inspiration, call him His Lord; saying, Jehovah said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thy foes thy footstool? If the Messiah were David's son, would David call him his Lord? And to this no one could answer him; nor did any one from that time, presume further to question him.
 
And from Ephesians we have this very long sentence:

"On this account, I also, having heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love to all the saints, cease not to offer thanks for you, particularly referring to you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,  the Father of glory, would give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the acknowledgment of him; cause the eyes of your heart to be enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of his invitation, and what is the glorious abundance of his proffered inheritance among the saints; and what is the transcendent greatness of his power towards us who believe, according to the operation of his powerful energy, which he exerted in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and seated him at his own right hand in the celestial regions; far above all empire, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is given, not only in this, but also in the future world; and has subjected all things under his feet, and constituted him head over all things to the church, which is his body, the plenitude of him who accomplishes all things: and has reanimated you, who were dead in transgressions and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the practice of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now operates powerfully in the sons of disobedience: among whom we all likewise once lived, in the propensities of our flesh, fulfilling the dictates of the flesh and of the passions; and were by nature children of displeasure, even as others."

See also 100 Rare American Bible Versions & Translations on DVDrom

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

A Different View of the Alpha and Omega and Jesus Christ

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here 

Originally posted at http://www.webshowplace.com/question/65quest.html

Question: 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
                    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

"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 later thought that is read back into the scriptures.

metatron3@gmail.com

Answers to Questions asked using the New World Translation

Answers to Questions asked using the NWT

Originally posted at http://www.webshowplace.com/question/65quest.html

It appears this site 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.

Question: These questions have been put together using information from many different sources. All verses are from the NWT and if the NWT decides to change any of the verses (like they did with Heb 1:6), then the obvious question is why did the NWT change their Bible at Hebrews 1:6. [The NWT 1950 edition had: "And let all God's angels worship him" but in later editions "worship" was changed to “And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”)

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."

Question: 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.

Question: 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

Question: 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)."

Question: 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
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
34 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU/the mother of me and the brothers of me
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

Question: 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.
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)
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)
Wisdom speaks (Prov 8)

...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
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, "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

Question:  What is the correct spelling of God's proper name, "Yahweh" or "Jehovah"? If [the translators of the NWT] 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: The translators of the NWT 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! If the name of God is so important to you, then should you not only pronounce it correctly, but spell/translate it correctly too?

metatron3@gmail.com

Was Jesus Worshipped as God? by Samuel J. May 1854

Was Jesus Worshipped as God? by Samuel J. May 1854

If my friend will consult the Greek Testament, he will find five words used, in different places, to. express the ideas we attach to the English word worship. These are, 1, proskuneo; 2, liturgeo; 3, latreuo; 4, sebomai; 5, proseuchomai.

The first of these, "proskuneo," is used to express that respect which one man may show another man as his superior, his king, his ruler, or one on whom he is dependent for some great favor, which he hopes to receive. In the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, and in the Greek original of the New Testament, this word, "proskuneo," is used in the following passages:

Gen. 23:7, 12, where Abraham is said to have bowed down himself to the people of the land, the children of Heth, from whom he wished to obtain a place to bury Sarah.

The same word is used 1st Chron. 29:20, where we read that "all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads and worshipped the Lord and the king."

The same word again is found in Daniel 2:46, thus: "Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odors unto him."

In turning to the New Testament my friend will find that it is this word "proskuneo," that is used wherever there is anything said of the worship paid to Jesus. Matt. 8:2, "And behold there came a leper and worshipped him.

And in Heb. 1:6, where we read, "let all the angels of God worship him," i. e. the first-begotten.

Now that the word "proskuneo" is not used in the New Testament in any higher sense than in the Old, we learn from the following passages in Luke 14:10, Jesus had been instructing his disciples how they should conduct themselves when bidden to a feast, and he adds, "then shalt thou have worship in the presence of those who sit at meat with thee."

Matt. 18:26, where the servant in the parable, who owed his Lord ten thousand talents, "fell down and worshipped him."

So in Acts 10:25, "as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet and worshipped him."

In Rev. iii. 9, an assurance is given to the angel, or minister of the Church of Philadelphia, that the disobedient members of the Church shall "worship before thy feet and know that I have loved thee."

Now, let my opponent, or any ether advocate of the worship of Jesus, show, if he can, in what single instance either of those other words used to express the honor due to God alone, is applied to Christ, and then he will have at least some shadow of evidence for his doctrine. but at present he has none.

In all the cases I have adduced, the word proskuneo" is used. Even after Christ's resurrection from the dead, (Matt. 28:9th v.) when "his disciples came and held him by the feet and worshipped him," and also in the 17th verse, the word that is used is "proskuneo."

Upon this passage Dr. Adam Clarke, (whom I love to quote, because I suppose what he says will have much weight with my brother,) remarks as follows:

"This kind of reverence is in daily use among the Hindus; when a disciple meets a public guide in the streets, he prostrates himself before him, and, taking the dust from his teacher's feet, rubs it on his forehead, breast," &c.

And So, too, Dr. John Pye Smith, a very orthodox gentleman, says:

"The prostrate position, which denoted the highest reverence and respect, is manifestly described, but the expression does not necessarily import more than the most exalted civil homage."

He has adduced those ascriptions of honor and power to Jesus, which occur in the book of Revelations; but they do not prove the Deity of our Saviour, nor authorise the worship of him as God. For, to say nothing of the doubt that is thrown over the authorship and authority of this book of Revelations, by Dr. Adam Clarke, Dr. Lardner, Michaelis, and others, and the difficulties that beset the interpretation of this exceedingly enigmatical book, there is enough in the book itself to sustain me in my position against the worship of Christ. In this very book of Revelations, whether authentic or not, we find Jesus represented as rejecting and disavowing all such worship as many would have us pay him. I need only refer you to chapters 19 and 20. Michaelis, a Trinitarian commentator of great distinction, says, "The tone and eternal Godhead of Christ is certainly not taught in the Apocalypse so clearly as in St. John's gospel, though the author speaks in enthusiastic language of the greatness of Christ's ministry, and the glory communicated to his human nature. At the very beginning of the book, Christ is placed after the seven spirits, who stand near the throne of God; nor is he ever called God, or the Creator of the world, throughout the whole work."—Introduction to New Testament, Vol. IV., page 538.

My brother has referred us to the conduct of the leper, one of the nine who were suddenly healed of that horrible disease, and alone returned with a heart overflowing with gratitude to God, the author, and Jesus as the instrument, by whom his restoration to health had been effected. Read the whole passage for yourself and you will see that the construction by no means requires, that we should understand that Jesus is there identified with God. Surely, if the congregation of Israel (1 Chron. 29:20,) might without idolatry "bow down their heads and worship the Lord and king David" at the same time—much more might this poor Samaritan, whose joy at his deliverance from the leprosy was unspeakable, fall down at the feet of Jesus, and bless him as the agent, while he was giving thanks to God as the author of his marvellous cure.

As it respects worship, in its highest religions sense, and the being to whom alone that is due, we have the command of Jesus himself; Matt. iv. 10. "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Here the word translated " serve," is "latreuo," which, whenever it occurs, means religions worship, AND IS IN NO CASE APPLIED TO JESUS.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here
metatron3@gmail.com

Answering Questions About Isaiah 9:6 & John 20:28 and the New World Translation

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 know from the Bible, men and angels can be called God as well. It is interesting how other versions have handled this verse at Isaiah 9:6:

"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
"in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like...." New English Bible
"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father...."Revised English Bible

Interestingly, this verse has not been understood by all as a reference to Christ at all, but, rather, to 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])

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. [Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means God is with us.] NAB
"The broken bread is a symbol of Christ's body." NASB Zondervan Study Bible, 1Cor 1:24 ftn.

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.
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' 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."

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 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

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

"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.

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)

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:
"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

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.
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)
Land can be punished for its sins (Lev 18:25)
Land can vomit (Lev 18:25)
A man of wisdom will see God's name (Mic 6:9)
God's name is near (Ps 75:1)
Wisdom cries...she has a voice (Prov 1:20)
Wisdom speaks (Prov 1:21)
Babylon is a whore (Rev 17:5)
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)

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?

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

metatron3@gmail.com

Answering Questions About Adding Words & Sharp's Rule in the New World Translation

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.

Phil 2:9: "Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name" American Standard Version
Phil 2:9: "And for this God raised him high, and gave him the name which is above all other names" New Jerusalem Bible

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? 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). See, I can play that game also.

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 [sic] 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).

In John 14:14, why did the New World Translation (NWT) 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

In Romans 10:13, why does the NWT translate it as "name of Jehovah", when every Greek manuscript translates 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. 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?

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, be- cause 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.
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

Where to Place the Comma at Luke 23:43 by Chas Ives 1873

Luke xxiii. 43. "Verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." Spoken by Christ on the cross to the penitent thief. Here apparently the inference is a fair one, but look more closely. What did the thief request? "Lord, remember me when. thou comest IN (not "into," as in our translation, the Greek is not EIS but EN, in) thy Kingdom." Now what should be the reply? That will depend entirely upon the position of the comma. Observe, that the Greek text was originally written without punctuation, which was introduced by Manutius, a printer of Venice, in the fifteenth century, and in one instance (Matt. xix: 29) has been changed by our Bible Society within a recent period. Where, in this passage, then, is the true place of the comma? In the Septuagint and Greek New Testament the adverb to-day, (semeron) qualifies the following verb 51 times, qualifies the preceding verb 170 times. Then, as in Deut. viii: 19, "I testify against you this day, that ye shall perish," so here, according to the prevalent usage, we read, and the context demands it as a direct reply to the thief's petition; "verily, I say unto you this day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise." Besides, if it be assumed that Christ and the thief were that day together in Paradise, then we learn that henceforth in Paradise Christ is present in no other sense than he is now on earth. For when, on that assumption, he came back from Paradise to earth at his resurrection, he told Mary Magdalene, (John xx: 17) that he had not yet ascended to the Father; but the Father is in heaven, therefore Paradise, where we suppose him to have been, is not heaven; afterward he did ascend to the Father, and is now in heaven, (Heb.ix: 24,) consequently not in that hypothetical paradise. No, the promise was for that yet future time to which the thief referred, when Christ shall come "in his kingdom," and Paradise, with its tree of Life, (Rev. xxii: 2,) shall be restored to us.

metatron3@gmail.com

The Word "Worship", the Divine Name and John 1:3 in the New World Translation

These are answers to some of the questions from http://www.goodcathinfo.com/ccarch55ques.htm which used to be called 50 Questions Every Jehovah's Witness Should Be Asked

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:
"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.
So it is necessary for Bible versions to make a distinction, as they all do (see Matt 18:26).

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.

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.'
'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 New Testament.
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 <<Semeron,>> hin' e to legomenon toiouton* <<Amen ego soi semeron*>> eita to, <<met' emou ese en to paradeiso,>> epipherontes. ("But others press upon the saying, putting a punctuation mark after 'today,' so that it would be said
this way: 'Truly I tell you today'; and then they add the expression: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'")--Theophylact, an ecclessistical writer who died about 1112 C.E. Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123, column 1104.

Alloi -- to rheton ekbiazontai* legousin gar dein hypostizontas (254: hypostizantas) anaginoskein* amen lego soi semeron*>> eith' houtos epipherein to* met' emou ese etc. ("Others press upon what is spoken; for they say it must read by putting a comma thus: 'Truly I tell you
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.

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. 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.

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.

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."
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