Was Jesus a False God?

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

Was Jesus a False God?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." ASV

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 some are hoping to further is that, since Jesus cannot be a false God, he must be the True God.

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 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 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."

Someone once wrote to me that though Moses is called a god at Exodus 4:16; 7:1, he noted:

    "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."

Further on he stated:

    "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

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."

Some would arghue that the above are neither true nor false, nor derivative copies but messengers created to do the will of God; no more, no less.

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." 

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

metatron3@gmail.com

Who's Actually Misquoting John McKenzie and John 1:1?

https://www.amazon.com/Reasoning-Scriptures-Jehovahs-Witnesses-Rhodes/dp/0736924515

 "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated "the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being." Dictionary of the Bible, 317, John McKenzie

As quoted in _Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses_ by Ron Rhodes, p. 105:
"The Watchtower reasoning seems to be that since Jesus was just a 'divine being,' He is less than Jehovah....However, on the same page McKenzie calls Yahweh (Jehovah) 'a divine personal being';
McKenzie also states that Jesus is called 'God' in both John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 and that John 1:18 expresses 'an identity between God and Jesus Christ.' So McKenzie's words actually argue against the
Watchtower position."

Reply: Is this really true though?

A) Are not both Jesus and Jehovah "divine beings?" So what exactly is the point, especially since they are differentiated with the adjective "personal." Obviously, the fact that Jesus is only a "divine being" and Jehovah a "divine personal being" has led to some websites stating incorrectly that Jesus was termed a "divine personal being." See http://www.letusreason.org/JW38.htm] Next to "the God [=the Father]" Jesus was just a "divine being", not even a "divine personal being." Additionally, Catholics like McKenzie have no problems calling angels "divine beings": 

"All gods: divine beings thoroughly subordinate to Israel's God. The Greek translates 'angels,' an interpretation adopted by Hebrews 1:6." Ps. 97:7 NAB footnote

I have no problem in "an identity between God and Jesus Christ" since it was Jesus who said that he that seen him has seen the Father. To see Jesus was to see what God was like. McKenzie goes on to state that this is an "identity of Jesus and the Father", and McKenzie's use of Scriptures like Jn 20:28 and Tt 2:13 in regards to Jesus, and titles "which belong to the Father." Trinitarianism do not see Jesus as the Father, and neither should anyone else. When the Judges are called "God" at Ex. 21:6; 22:8; Ps. 82 and John 10, they are called a title "which belongs to the Father." This does not imply an ontological identity Further, McKenzie never uses the terms "God the Father and God the Son." In fact, I cannot find any reference to words *persons* or *nature* either. If you move ahead (to the subheading "Trinity") you will see that even he says these terms are from Greek philosophy and are NOT IN THE BIBLE. He DOES state that ho theos [the God] is not used of Jesus in the NT. The preceding paragraph in question states that "Yahweh is not man" and "Yahweh was not flesh" and the entire article ends with this beautifully put paragraph:

"In Jesus Christ therefore not only the word of God is made flesh, but all of the saving attributes of Yahweh in the OT. In Him God is known in a new and more intimately personal manner, and through Him God is attained more nearly; for He speaks of "my Father and your Father, my God and your God"

BUT WHAT ELSE DOES MCKENZIE BELIEVE?

"The relation of the Father and Son as set forth in [John 5:17ff] is the foundation of later developments in Trinitarian and Christological belief and theology; it is not identical with these
later developments. Much of the discourse seems to be a refutation of the charge that Jesus claimed to be equal to God. This is met by affirming that the Son can do nothing independently of the Father.
Later theology found it necessary to refine this statement by a distinction between person and nature which John did not know" (Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More, 1976. Mckenzie
p.187).

"The New Testament writers could not have said that Jesus Christ is God: God meant the Father. They could and did say that Jesus is God's Son" (Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More, 1976. Mckenzie p.188).

"it is altogether impossible to deduce the Nicene Creed, and still less the dogmatic statements of the Council of Chalcedon from the Synoptic Gospels . . The word "consubstantial" had not even been
invented yet: far from defining it, the evangelists could not even have spelled it. No, they did not know and they did not care" (Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More,
1976. Mckenzie p.188).

It seems McKenzie's words actually argue against "Dr." Rhodes position.

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

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

Walter Martin's Deception on Capitalization

https://www.amazon.com/Jehovah-Watchtower-Walter-Ralston-Martin/dp/0871232677

"...in their translation [KIT] 'god was the Word,' God is spelled with a small g, another subtle attempt to demote Christ to the rank of demigod, apparently oblivious to the fact that the existing manuscripts of the NT were all written in capital letters..." Jehovah of the Watchtower, pp. 51, 52

The above is an incredible statement, that I had also heard repeated elsewhere.

True, most of our ancient manuscripts wrote only in capitals. They are called Uncials. 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/god here, even though it is articular, and in all capitals. In uncial script, John 1:1 is written as follows: EN ARCH HN O LOGOS KAI O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS

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. Why would someone stoop to this deception?

metatron3@gmail.com

The Johannine Comma at 1 John 5:7, 8

 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.
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

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

The LORD said to my lord... Adoni and the Divine Title

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:

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 44:7	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	sir	sir	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
Gen 47:18	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	sir	sir	lord
Gen 47:25	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	sir	sir	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 12:11	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	sir	sir	lord
Num 32:25	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 1:26	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 25:24	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	sir	sir	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 25:28	lord	master	lord	lord	lord	lord	N/T	sir	lord
1 Sa 25:29	lord	master	lord	lord	lord	lord	N/T	N/T	lord
1 Sa 25:31	lord	master	lord	lord	lord	lord	N/T	sir	lord
1 Sa 25:41	lord	master	lord	lord	lord	lord	N/T	N/T	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 29:8	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	N/T	sir	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 1:10	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	sir	lord
2 Sa 3:21	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	N/T	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 9:11	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 11:11	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	N/T	N/T	lord
2 Sa 13:32	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 13:33	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	N/T	N/T	lord
2 Sa 14:9	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	N/T	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 14:12	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 14:15	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 14:17	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	N/T	sir	lord
2 Sa 14:18	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 14:19	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 14:22	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 15:15	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 15:21	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 16:4	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	N/T	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 16:9	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 18:31	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 18:32	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	sir	lord
2 Sa 19:20	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	N/T	sir	lord
2 Sa 19:27	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	N/T	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 19:28	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 19:30	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	N/T	N/T	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 19:35	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	N/T	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 19:37	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	N/T	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 24:3	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	N/T	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 24:21	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
2 Sa 24:22	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	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 1:20	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
1 Ki 1:21	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	N/T	N/T	lord
1 Ki 1:24	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
1 Ki 1:27	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	N/T	Majesty	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 1:37	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	N/T	Majesty	lord
1 Ki 2:38	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
1 Ki 3:17	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
1 Ki 3:26	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	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 6:12	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	Majesty	Majesty	lord
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 10:9	master	master	lord	lord	master	master	N/T	N/T	master
2 Ki 18:23	lord	master	lord	lord	master	master	N/T	N/T	master
2 Ki 18:24	master	master	lord	lord	master	master	N/T	N/T	master
2 Ki 18:27	master	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
Is 36:9	master	master	lord	lord	master	master	N/T	N/T	master
Is 36:12	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
Zech 4:4	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	sir	sir	lord
Zech 4:5	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	sir	sir	lord
Zech 4:13	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	lord	sir	sir	lord
Zech 6:4	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

metatron3@gmail.com

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Angels as Gods

See also 125 Books on ANGELS & Angelology on DVDrom

Join my Facebook Group - For a list of all of my disks and ebooks click here

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).

Walter Martin's Hypocrisy on Bible Translations

https://www.amazon.com/Jehovah-Watchtower-Walter-Ralston-Martin/dp/0871232677

"...it is only too evident that the Watchtower considers its scholars the superiors of such great scholars as Wycliffe and Tyndale, not to mention the hundreds of brilliant, consecrated Christian men who
produced the King James, American Standard, and New American Standard versions of the Bible. Such a pretext is obviously too absurd to merit refutation, but let it be remembered that the Watchtower Translation Committee, comparatively speaking had but a handful of scholars who hold degrees in NT exegesis, or Hebrew, for that matter; yet these men dare to challenge the record of translations which have had hundreds of the greatest Greek and Hebrew scholars in the world as contributors." Jehovah of the Watchtower, pp. 130, 131, 1981, Bethany House Publishers

Reply: Interestingly, this book also does not use the mainstream Bibles as a default. Right above the ISBN, in the opening pages, it says, "Scripture quotations are the author's translation of the Greek and Hebrew, unless otherwise noted."

WHAT! Did Dr. Walter Martin, then director of the CRI consider himself superior to "such great scholars as Wycliffe and Tyndale, not to mention the hundreds of brilliant, consecrated Christian men who produced the King James, American Standard, and New American Standard versions of the Bible. Such a pretext is obviously too absurd to merit refutation, but let it be remembered that"...Walter Martin has consistently LIED about his credentials. 

See also http://www.fair-lds.org/apol/antis/martin02.html

...and the Word was fully/truly God

Critics of the New World Translation can be seen clutching their pearls in disgust when the indefinite article "a" is properly added to John 1:1, but I have never read any disparaging remarks in regards to the following translations:

(Contemporary English Version)  In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.
(NET Bible)  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.
(Living Bible) is Himself God

I wonder if we can we do the same with other examples of pre-verbal singular count nouns?
Let's take a look:

John 4:19 Sir...I can see that you are truly/fully prophet. [Doesn't really work, but it would work by dropping the "truly/fully" and completing the thought better as is done in most Bibles by inserting the indefinite "a."]

John 6:70 one of you is truly/fully devil. [Doesn't really work, but it would work by dropping the "truly/fully" and completing the thought better as is done in most Bibles by inserting the indefinite "a."]

John 8:34 everyone who sins is truly/fully slave to sin [Doesn't really work, but it would work by dropping the "truly/fully" and completing the thought better as is done in most Bibles by inserting the indefinite "a."]

John 8:44 He was truly/fully murderer [Doesn't really work, but it would work by dropping the "truly/fully" and completing the thought better as is done in most Bibles by inserting the indefinite "a", or, by keeping the truly/fully, but this still demands keeping the indefinite article.]

John 8:44 for he is truly/fully liar [Doesn't really work, but it would work by dropping the "truly/fully" and completing the thought better as is done in most Bibles by inserting the indefinite "a", or, by keeping the truly/fully, but this still demands keeping the indefinite article.]

John 8:48 you are truly/fully Samaritan [Doesn't really work, but it would work by dropping the "truly/fully" and completing the thought better as is done in most Bibles by inserting the indefinite "a."]

John 9:17 He is truly/fully prophet [Doesn't really work, but it would work by dropping the "truly/fully" and completing the thought better as is done in most Bibles by inserting the indefinite "a", or, by keeping the truly/fully, but this still demands keeping the indefinite article.]

John 9:24 this man is truly/fully sinner [Doesn't really work, but it would work by dropping the "truly/fully" and completing the thought better as is done in most Bibles by inserting the indefinite "a."]

John 9:25 he is truly/fully sinner [Doesn't really work, but it would work by dropping the "truly/fully" and completing the thought better as is done in most Bibles by inserting the indefinite "a."]

I think you get the picture. There are, I believe 3 places in John where this would work:
John 10:36 I am truly/fully Son of God
John 18:37 You are truly/fully king then?
John 18:37 I am truly/fully king.
However, I can find NO Bible that translates these in such a way. I do however find Bibles that translate John 18:37 with the indefinite article. John 10:36 is in the genitive, thereby limiting the referent already.

It appears that you can seemingly "add words" if it fits a certain theology, if it seems to go contrary to this, it is labelled a "mistranslation."

See also 250 Rare Bibles & Testaments on Two DVDroms

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

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

Is the New American Standard Bible the Most Accurate?

From http://www.ankerberg.com/ or http://bit.ly/2hFRzta

"We are the first to admit that not all modern versions have equal credibility. Some are quite good, while others are clearly defective and unacceptable. Inferior translations containing obvious liberal or theological bias include the New English Bible, The Jerusalem Bible and the New Revised Standard Version—not to mention the hopeless New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. On the other hand, "A good translation is based on a great deal of scholarship and examination of virtually all the textual sources. Every attempt is made to ascertain the original rendering. The product of godly scholarship is a highly readable and useful translation which can be trusted on the basis of all the evidence that we have available."
This explains why a good, literal, "word-for-word" translation, such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) is necessary for study and exegesis of the Bible."

Reply: Is the NASB Bible really that accurate though?

Let us examine Ankerberg's claims using a word that has become a theological hot potato, the word "virgin."

Below we have examples of the Hebrew word Almah, using the above listed translations.

First, the New Revised Standard Version"
Gen 24:43 "I am standing here by the spring of water; let the YOUNG WOMAN who comes out to draw, to whom I shall say, 'Please give me a little water from your jar to drink.'
Ex. 2:8 "Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Yes." So the GIRL went and called the child's mother."
Ps. 68:25 "the singers in front, the musicians last, between them GIRLS playing tambourines"
Pro 30:19 "the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a GIRL."
Songs 1:3 "your anointing oils are fragrant, your name is perfume poured out; therefore the MAIDENS love you."
Songs 6:8 "There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and MAIDENS without number."
Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the YOUNG WOMAN is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

Now, the New Jerusalem Bible
Gen 24:43 girl
Ex 2:8 girl
Ps. 68:25 girls
Pro 30:19 girl
Songs  1:3 girls
Songs 6:8 girls
Isa 7:14 young woman

Now, the New English Bible
Gen 24:43 young woman
Ex 2:8 girl
Ps. 68:25 girls
Pro 30:19 girl
Songs  1:3 maidens
Songs 6:8 young women
Isa 7:14 young woman

Now, the New World Translation
Gen 24:43 maiden
Ex 2:8 maiden
Ps. 68:25 maidens
Pro 30:19 maiden
Songs  1:3 maidens
Songs 6:8 maidens
Isa 7:14 maiden

NOW...let us examine the "good, literal, "word-for-word" translation, such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB)"

Gen 24:43 "behold, I am standing by the spring, and may it be that the MAIDEN who comes out to draw"
Exo 2:8 "Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go ahead." So the GIRL went and called the child's mother."
Psa 68:25 "The singers went on, the musicians after them, In the midst of the MAIDENS beating tambourines."
Pro. 30:19 "And the way of a man with a MAID."
Songs 1:3 "Therefore the MAIDENS love you."
Songs 6:8 "There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, And MAIDENS without number"
Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN will be with child and bear a son"

Of the above, only the NWT was consistent, and only the NASB , the good, literal, "word-for-word translation" was the most inconsistent and theologically biased.

You see, the translators of the NASB aim to "give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place" [one of the fourfold aims of the NASB translation committee] and therefore this Bible cannot be trusted to be impartial when it comes to a passage that might enhance or embellish Christ's position. Don't believe me? Compare passages like Acts 20:28, Romans 9:5, or Matthew 2:2 in the above mentioned Bibles.

metatron3@gmail.com

Review of James Moffatt's New Testament by Theodore Schmauk 1914

My copy of Moffatt's Bible, kept together by black duct tape

See also 100 Rare New Testament Translations and Versions on DVDrom

Review of James Moffatt's New Testament by Theodore E Schmauk (The Lutheran Church Review 1914)

[The NEW TESTAMENT. A New Translation. By James Moffatt, D.D., D.Litt., Yates Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis, Mansfield College, Oxford. Second Edition. Hodder and Stoughton. New York and London: George H. Doran Company, New York. 1913. Price, $1.50, net, Pp 327.]

Here is an English New Testament with the starch and stiffness of antiquity taken out of it, and the dust of former centuries wiped from it. The old records receive a new habiliment, in lines sheer to the figure, and stylistic cut to date. The archaic and formal give way to the common living, flowing talk of life. In addition to emphasizing modernity over the Authorized Version of 1611, and making the thought intelligible to any reader, Dr. Moffatt has attempted to be more accurate than the Revised Version of 1881. Recent grammatical research in the translation of the aorist, the article, and the particles, have been utilized by him, and he has translated directly from the new text of Von Soden, although he has not always followed Von Soden's sometimes questionable hypotheses and arrangement.

When we look at the result in detail, the effect is striking. Not only does a new light shine out from many hitherto obscure expressions, but we are enveloped in a new electric atmosphere. We cannot help feeling at times that Dr. Moffatt has searched for words which would enable him to be as different from tradition as possible, and occasionally we are struck by the flatness or inferiority of the new term. As an instance of all these things, we read, “Blessed are those who feel poor in spirit!” (which is expressive improvement); “the Realm of heaven is theirs.” “Whoever relaxes a single one of these commands, he will be ranked least in the Realm of heaven.” “I tell you, unless your goodness excels that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never get into the Realm of heaven.” “The Realm of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.” “The Realm of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed.” “The Realm of heaven is like dough which a woman took and buried in three pecks of flour.” “The Realm of heaven is like a trader in search of fine pearls." “The Realm of heaven is like a net which is thrown into the sea and collected fish of every sort.” “The Realm of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a marriage banquet in honor of his son.”

The Pharisees and Herodians say to Jesus, “Teacher, we know you are sincere, and that you teach the Way of God honestly and fearlessly; you do not court human favor.” Jesus says to them, “Whose likeness, whose inscription is this?” He tells them, “Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar; give God what belongs to God.” Jesus speaks to the crowds and to His disciples and says, “You are not to be called "rabbi" for One is your teacher, and you are all brothers. One is your heavenly Father; nor must you be called “leaders," for One is your Leader, even the Christ.” Jesus exclaims, “How often I would fain have gathered your children as a fowl gathers her brood under her wings." When His disciples point out to Him the temple buildings, He says, “You see all this? I tell you truly, not a stone here will be left upon another, without being torn down.” He says, “This gospel of the Reign will be preached all over the wide world as a testimony to all the Gentiles, and then the end will come.” The “abomination of desolation” is termed by Moffatt “the appalling Horror.” The “ten virgins” become “ten maidens.” The foolish ones come and say, “Oh, sir, oh, sir, open the door for us!” but Jesus replied, “I tell you frankly, I do not know you.” “Keep on the watch then.” Instead of “Well done! good and faithful servant,” the Master says, “Capital! you excellent and trusty servant.” Judas the betrayer says, “Surely it is not me, Lord.” Jesus says to him, “Is it not?” At every point we find business-like clearness with occasional bathos.

Dr. Moffatt modernizes the words of institution of the Lord's Supper as follows: “Take and eat this, it means my body.” “Drink of it, all of you; this means my blood, the new covenant-blood, shed for many, to win the remission of their sins.” On the cross the soldiers give Jesus a drink of wine mixed with “bitters.” One of them “soaked a sponge in vinegar and put it on the end of a stick.” Jesus uttered a loud scream and gave up his spirit.” After His resurrection Jesus says to the women, “Have no fear! Go and tell my brothers to leave for Galilee.” His last commission reads as follows, “Full authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth; go and make disciples of all nations, baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey all the commands I have laid on you.”

Jesus sees Simon and his brother “netting fish in the sea." And He says, “Come, follow me, and I will make you fish for men.” After the unclean spirit had been cast out, the people discussed the miracle as follows: “Whatever is this?” “It’s new teaching with authority behind it!” When Jesus was praying in a lonely spot, “Simon and his companions hunted Him out and told Him, “Everybody is looking for you.’”

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

To the paralytic Jesus says, “Rise, I tell you, lift your pallet and go home.”

As often happens, with scholars who take exceeding pains to make things clear to the people, Dr. Moffatt occasionally used a term which is more obscure than the phraseology of the old Authorized Version to American ears. Thus, in place of “Is not this the carpenter,” he says, “Is not this the joiner.” The disciples, instead of taking “a staff only” are to take “a stick” (which reminds Americans of arbitrary despotism). Instead of “no money in their purse,” they are to take “no coppers in their girdle.” Then, of course, instead of not putting on two “coats,” they are ordered “not to put on two shirts.” The translator is very forcible in describing John the Baptist's interview with Herod. John tells Herod, “You have no right to your brother's wife.” Herod says to Herodias, “Ask anything you like, and I will give you it.” He swore to her, “I will give you whatever you want.” The girl says, “I want you to give me this very moment John the Baptist's head on a dish.” Dr. Moffatt translates “Talitha cumi,” “Little girl, I am telling you to arise.” The people bring “their invalids and beg him to let them touch even the tassel of his robe.” Jesus “puts his fingers into the deaf man's ears, touches his tongue with saliva, and looks up to heaven with a sigh.” The people are “astounded in the extreme” and say, “How splendidly he has done everything!” “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” is translated, “Where their worm never dies, and the fire is never put out.”

The Hosanna at the entry of Jerusalem is made to read, “Blessed be the Reign to come, our father David's reign. Hosanna in high heaven" The scribes “walk about in long robes, get saluted in the market place, secure the front seats in the synagogue, and the best places at banquets: they prey upon the poverty of widows and offer unreal prayers.” The widow's mite gets a scholarly jolt. Dr. Moffatt translates, “They have as put in a contribution out of their surplus, but she has given out of her neediness all she possessed, her whole living.” The “alabaster box of ointment” becomes a “flask of pure nard perfume.” When Pilate asked Jesus whether he is the King of the Jews, Jesus replies, “Certainly.” When the women come to the tomb, they say, “Who will roll away the boulder?” It is still a question whether “lithos” was surely a boulder, even though Joseph, who “swathed Jesus in the linen” rolled it up against the opening of the tomb.

Of the section beginning Mark 16:9, Dr. Moffatt notes quite unconventionally that “the following appendix represents a couple of second century attempts to complete the Gospel.” The beginning of the Gospel of Luke he translates, “A number of writers have essayed to draw up a narrative of the established facts in our religion.” The Gloria in Excelsis becomes “Glory to God in high heaven, and peace on earth for men whom he favours.” The translator certainly makes the parable of the new cloth and the old garment very much clearer, saying, “No one tears a piece from a new cloak and sews it on the old cloak; otherwise he will tear the new cloak and the new piece will not match with the old.” The parable of the Unjust Steward is translated as follows: “There was a rich man who had a factor, and this factor he found was accused of misapplying his property. So he summoned him and said, ‘What is this I hear about you! Hand in your accounts; you cannot be factor any longer.’” The dying thief says, “We are getting what we deserve.” We rather expected to find Dr. Moffatt going so far as to say, “We are getting what is coming to us.” Jesus replies to the thief, “I tell you, surely you will be in paradise with me this very day!”

The Gospel of John opens as follows, “The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.” When Jesus after His resurrection stood on the shore of the sea of Tiberias and spoke to the disciples out on the boat, He said, “Lads, have you got anything!” In the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus is said to have been forty days “discussing the affairs of God's realm.” When Peter rises and raises his voice at Pentecost, he says, “These men are not drunk as you imagine; why, it is only nine in the morning!” Paul at Athens says, “As I scanned your objects of worship, I actually came upon an altar with the inscription ‘To an unknown God.” Well, I proclaim to you what you worship in your ignorance.” Paul announces to the Romans, “I am proud of the Gospel; it is God's saving power for every one who has faith, for the Jew first and for the Greek as well. God's righteousness is revealed in it by faith and for faith—as it is written, “By faith shall the righteous live.” On the whole, many passages in the book of Romans become very clear and vivid, under the transforming hand of Dr. Moffatt, and particularly apropos is the following, “But who are you, my man, to speak back to God!”

Dr. Moffatt has succeeded well in breaking up Romans 5: 12-19 into a series of short sentences. He translates the beginning of Romans 6 as follows: “How can we live in sin any longer when we have died to sin? Surely you know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death! Our baptism into his death made us share his burial, so that, as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live and move in the new sphere of life. For if we have grown into him by a death like his, we shall grow into him by a resurrection like his, knowing as we do that our old self has been crucified with him in order to crush the sinful body and free us from any further slavery to sin.”

We must say that the dfficult argument in Romans 9:11 becomes far more direct and impressive under Dr. Moffatt's hand. He puts movement into the various statements, and enables us to feel the flow of the whole argument toward one great goal.

Much of I Corinthians loses its traditional air of sanctity and becomes plain, common, severe admonition, e. g. I Cor. 6: “When anyone of you has a grievance against his neighbor. do you dare to go to law in a sinful pagan court, instead of laying the case before the saints? Do you not know the saints are to manage the world? If the world is to come under your jurisdiction, are you incompetent to adjudicate upon trifles? Do you not know we are to manage angels, let alone mundane issues? And yet, when you have mundane issues to settle, you refer them to the judgment of men who from the point of view of the church are of no account! I say this to put you to shame.” Or take I Corinthians 7: “A woman is bound to her husband during his life time; but if he dies, she is free to marry anyone she pleases—only, it must be a Christian. However, she is happier if she remains as she is; that is my opinion—and I suppose I have the Spirit of God as well as other people.”

I Corinthians 10:16 is translated thus: “The cup of blessing, which we bless, is that not participating in the blood of Christ. The bread we break, is that not participating in the body of Christ? For many as we are, we are one Bread, one Body, since we all partake of the one Bread.” I Corinthians II: 18-20 runs thus: “First of all, in your church-meetings I am told that cliques prevail. And I partly believe it. There must be parties among you, if genuine Christians are to be recognized. But this makes it impossible for you to eat the ‘Lord's' supper when you hold your gatherings. As you eat, everyone takes his own supper; one goes hungry while another gets drunk.”

In I Corinthians 13, we are told, “If I have no love, I am a noisy gong”; “At present we only see the baffling reflections in a mirror, but then it will be face to face.” The translation of the beginning of the 16th chapter of I Corinthians is a Godsend for the advocates of systematic beneficence, “With regard to the collection for the saints, you must carry out the same arrangement that I made for the churches of Galatia. On the first day of the week let each of you put aside a sum of your weekly gains, so that money will not have to be collected when I come.”

The difficult II Corinthians 3:7 is well rendered as follows: “If the administration of death which was engraved in letters of stone, was invested with glory—so much so that the children of Israel could not gaze at the face of Moses on account of the dazzling glory that was fading from his face; surely the administration of the Spirit must be invested with still greater glory. If there was glory in the administration that condemned, then the administration that acquits abounds far more in glory.” But the mystical passage that follows in verse 18 is not cleared as happily.

Paul's irony in II Corinthians 11 becomes very natural, and loses that stiff, hard ring which we find in it in the Authorized Version. But it also loses dignity: “I wish you would put up with a little ‘folly’ from me. Do put up with me, for I feel a divine jealousy on your behalf. . . . You put up with it all right, when some interloper preaches a second Jesus, or when you are treated to a different gospel from what I gave you! Why not put up with me? I hold I am not one whit inferior to these precious ‘apostles'! But perhaps I did wrong in taking a humble place that you might have a high one—I mean, in preaching the gospel of God to you for nothing! I made a levy on other churches, I took pay from them so as to minister to you. . . . What I am now going to say is not inspired by the Lord: I am in the role of a 'fool,' now, on this business of boasting. You put up with fools so readily, you who know so much! You put up with a man who assumes control of your souls, with a man who spends your money, with a man who dupes you, with a man who gives himself airs. . . . But let them vaunt as they please, I am equal to them (mind, this is the role of a fool!). Are they Hebrews? so am I,” etc. “Now this is playing the fool! But you forced me to it, instead of coming forward yourselves and vouching for me. . . . Here am I all ready to pay you my third visit. . . . But let that pass, you say; I was clever enough to dupe you with my tricks? Was I? Did I make something out of you by any of my messengers? . . . Titus did not make anything out of you, did he? And did not I act in the same spirit as he did . . . Now brothers, good-bye; mend your ways, listen to what I have told you, live in harmony, keep the peace.”

Galatians becomes a very lively book under the hand of Dr. Moffatt, and the allegory of the two bond women is easily comprehensible.

The difficult first chapter of Ephesians is well connected. The third chapter of Philippians gains greatly in its contrast between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of faith in Christ. There is a striking translation of 3:20, “We are a colony of heaven, and we wait for the Saviour who comes from heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform the body that belongs to our low estate, till it resembles the body of his Glory.” But when Dr. Moffatt makes Paul tell his brothers to keep in mind “whatever is attractive, whatever is hightoned,” he surely raises a query in the average American mind.

Colossians 1:25 is given in very direct English as follows: “I am a minister of the church by the divine commission which has been granted me in your interests, to make a full presentation of God's message—of that open secret which, though concealed from ages and generations of old, has now been disclosed to the saints of God. It is His will that they should understand the glorious wealth which this secret holds for the Gentiles, in the fact of Christ's presence among you as your hope of glory.” In the second chapter Dr. Moffatt says: “Beware of any one getting hold of you by means of a theosophy which is specious make-believe. It is in Christ that the entire Fullness of deity has settled bodily, it is in him that you reach your full life.” Paul's struggle to hold straight those who were influenced by the rites and ideas of the mystery religions becomes very striking: “Let no one lay down rules for you with regard to fasting and the cult of angels, presuming on his visions and inflated by his sensuous notions, instead of keeping in touch with that Head under whom the entire body, supplied with joints and sinews, and thus compact grows with growth divine. As you died with Christ to the Elemental spirits of the world, why live as if you still belonged to the world? Why submit . . . to rules determined by human tenets; they get the name of 'wisdom' with their self-imposed devotions, with their fasting, with their rigorous discipline of the body, but they are of no value, they simply pamper the flesh!”

In II Thessalonians Paul is made to say, “With regard to the arrival of the Lord Jesus Christ and our muster before him, I beg you, brothers, not to let your minds get easily unsettled or excited by any spirit of prophecy to the effect that the Day of the Lord is already here. It will not come till the Rebellion takes place first of all, with the revealing of the Lawless One, the doomed One, actually seating himself in the temple of God with the proclamation that he himself is God. . . . Brothers, we charge you . . . to shun any brother who is loafing. - We are informed that some of your number are loafing, busybodies instead of busy. . . . If anyone will not obey our orders in this letter, mark that man, do not associate with him—that will make him feel ashamed! You are not to treat him as an enemy, but to put him under discipline as a brother.”

In his counsels to Timothy, Paul is made to say, “Deacons in turn are to be serious men, . . . their wives must be serious too. They are only to be married once, and they must manage their children and household properly. . . . Let no one slight you because you are a youth. . . . You have a gift that came to you transmitted by the prophets, when the presbytery laid their hands upon you; do not neglect that gift. . . . Watch yourself and watch your teaching; stick to your work. . . . Widows who really need it must be supported from the funds. . . . The really forlorn widow has her hope fixed on God, night and day she is at her prayers and supplications; whereas the widow who plunges into dissipation is dead before ever she dies. . . . No one under sixty is to be put on the church's list of widows. . . . Refuse to put young widows on the list, for when their wanton desires alienate them from Christ, they want to marry and thus are guilty of breaking their first troth to Him. Besides, they become idle unconsciously by gadding about from one house to another—and not merely idle but gossips and busybodies, repeating things they have no right to mention. . . . Presbyters who are efficient presidents are to be considered worthy of ample remuneration, particularly those who have the task of preaching and teaching. . . . Those who are guilty of sin you must expose in public, to overawe the others. . . . Never be in a hurry to ordain a presbyter. . . . This is what you are to teach and preach. Any one who teaches novelties and refuses to fall in with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine that tallies with piety, is a conceited, ignorant creature. . . . They imagine religion is a paying concern. And so it is—provided it goes with a contented spirit. . . . O Timotheus, keep the securities of the faith intact; avoid the profane jargon and contradictions of what is falsely called ‘Knowledge.’” In the second epistle Timothy is told: “Pick up Mark and bring him along with you. . . . Alexander the blacksmith has done me a lot of harm.”

Hebrews II: I is rendered thus, “Convinced of what we do not see.” Hebrews 12: I becomes, “We must strip off every handicap, strip off sin with its clinging folds, to run our appointed course steadily, our eyes fixed upon Jesus as the pioneer and the perfection of faith.”

As a whole we do not feel that the book of Revelation is improved, for the spiritual purpose for which it was written, in this translation. The descriptions of the heavenly are not so inspiring, though the presentations of evil and iniquity become more natural. In the multitude of mongrel details we lose a sense of unity, and so far as the visions of evil are concerned, we are reminded of the reptiles and unclean things crawling around in the sheet which Peter saw in his trance on the roof of the house at Joppa, and which, lowered before him, contained all live quadrupeds and creeping things of the earth, and wild birds.

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

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