Problems with the Doctrine of Two Natures in Christ by Charles Morgridge 1837

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

See also: Unitarianism and Universalism - 100 PDF Books on DVDrom

DOCTRINE OF THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST.

“The Hypothesis of two natures in Christ supposes an infinite nature with all its essential attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, incapable of change or suffering, was indissolubly united in the person of Jesus Christ, with a finite nature, possessing all its properties, as weakness, imperfect knowledge, liability to sorrow, pain, and death, so that the two natures remain forever distinct, each retaining unaltered all its appropriate attributes.”

The Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, which claims the merit of having ascertained and settled the doctrine of the incarnation, describes the doctrine of the Two Natures thus: “Jesus Christ is truly God and man, perfect in both natures, consubstantial with the Father with respect to his divinity, and consubstantial with us with respect to his humanity; the two natures, the divine and human, are indissolubly united in him without confusion or change, each retaining all its former attributes, yet so united as to form one person.”

Dr. Barrow on the subject says, “the two natures, the divine and human, were united without any confusion or commixture.—The same person never ceased to be both God and man; not even then, when our Lord as man did undergo death—the union between God and man persisting, when the union between human body and soul was dissolved.”

The Church of England, like the Catholic church, says:

“The Son—took man's nature—so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man.”

Professor Stewart, speaking of Jesus Christ, says, “He must, as it seems to me, be God omniscient and omnipotent, and still a feeble man and of imperfect knowledge.”

Now this doctrine is to be rejected, because, like that of the Trinity, it is essentially incredible. It is not a mystery, but as palpable a contradiction as can be stated. By the nature of any person or being, is always meant his essential qualities. If Christ possess a Divine and Human nature, he must possess the essential qualities of God and the distinctive qualities of man. But these qualities are totally incompatible with one another. The qualities of God are etermity, independence, immutability, exemption from pain, sorrow and death, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. But the qualities of MAN are derived existence, dependence, mutability, susceptibility of pain, sorrow and death, comparative weakness and ignorance, and locomotivity. To assert, therefore, that the same mind possesses both a Human and a Divine nature, is to assert that the same mind is both created and uncreated, both finite and infinite, both dependent and independent, both mutable and immutable, both mortal and immortal, both susceptible of pain and unsusceptible of it, both able to do all things and unable, both acquainted with all things and not acquainted with them, both ignorant of some things and possessed of the most intimate knowledge of them, both in all places and only in one place at the same time. Now if this doctrine is not an absurdity, I know not how to conceive of or describe an absurdity. It is a doctrine “which councils and parliaments may decree, but which miracles cannot prove.” It is not pretended that any passage of Scripture expressly asserts the doctrine of the Two Natures. Like that of the Trinity, it is a mere inference from the premises laid down by Trinitarians. I know of no allusion in the Bible to the doctrine of the Two Natures, either with or without modification.

But an objection of a graver character lies against the doctrine of the Two Natures. It implicates the moral character of the Holy Jesus; it impeaches his veracity; and exposes him to the charge of equivocation, duplicity, and falsehood. These are weighty charges; and we cannot endure, for a moment, a hypothesis which throws suspicion of dishonesty upon our blessed Saviour.

Jesus said, “I can of mine own self do nothing.” The Trinitarian says, Jesus can of himself do every thing that God can do. Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I.” The Trinitarian says, Jesus is as great as the Father. To one unacquainted with the use that is made of the doctrine of the Two Natures, these assertions appear to be palpable contradictions. He cannot perceive how the assertions of Jesus, and those of Trinitarians, can both be true. But here comes in the doctrine of the Two Natures to reconcile the apparent contradictions. “Jesus is both God and man,” says the Trinitarian. “And though as man, he can do nothing of himself, yet as God, he can do every thing. Though as man, he is not his Father's equal, yet as God, he is equal with the Father in substance, and power, and glory.” But if he is God, can he say in truth, that he can do nothing of himself ' What, can God do nothing of himself! If he is God, can he say in truth, My Father is greater than I? What, is the Father greater than God! For a man to assert that he eannot do what he is conscious that he can do, is to say what is not true. For what a man can do, in any way, or by any means, he can certainly do. Suppose a man should be required to subscribe his name to a written instrument; and that he should refuse to do it, saying, “I cannot write. I cannot wield the pen. I never learned to write.” Suppose it should be known that this man could write; that an explanation should be demanded; and that he should say, he only meant that he could not write with his left hand, though he could use the pen with his right hand as well as any man. Would not such a man subject himself to the charge of equivocation, duplicity, and falsehood?

The disciples came to Jesus with these questions: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?” After some explanation and caution, Jesus answered thus: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the FATHER only.” The Trinitarian says, the Son knew perfectly both the day and the hour. Here the doctrine of the Two Natures is again employed to solve the difficulty. “Jesus being God as well as man,” says the Trinitarian, “he must have known the day and hour as God, though he did not know it as man. When he said he did not know the day and hour, he spoke of his human nature only.” But is this satisfactory? The disciples came to Jesus not to inquire into any distinctions in his nature, but to obtain information of a different kind. Now if Jesus had two natures, the one omniscient, and the other “of imperfect knowledge,” would he not consider the questions addressed to the nature that knew, rather than the nature that did not know, the subject about which the disciples came to inquire? Most certainly. Yet Jesus not only said that the Son did not know, but that the Father only knew. All other persons, besides the Father, whether they be persons in the Trinity or out of it, are excluded from the knowledge of the day and hour.

Let us suppose that a murder is committed in the city of Boston, at noon, by some person or persons unknown— that suspicion fastens upon an innocent man, who, at the time of the murder, was in New York — and that he is charged with the crime, apprehended, and brought to trial. The prisoner summons in his defence a witness, who saw him in New York, about noon, the same day the murder was committed in Boston. This witness, being under oath, is asked, “Did you see the prisoner in New York on that day?” The witness answers, “I did not.” This being the only witness for the defendant, he is convicted, and hanged. After the execution, this witness confesses that he did see the man that was hanged, in New York, on the day and hour specified at the trial. Being required to answer for himself, he says, under oath, that his left eye was defective; only his right eye was sound. And when he testified in court that he did not see the prisoner, he meant that he did not see him with his defective eye; but he saw him distinctly with his sound eye. Now, I ask, would not all honest men consider such a witness perjured? The only difference I can see, between the conduct of such a witness, and that which the doctrine of the Two Natures imputes to Jesus, is, that what Jesus said was not said under the solemnity of an oath. Knowledge is the eye of the mind. Jesus is said to have two capacities of knowledge—his divine and his human nature. The one is strong and piercing, knowing all things. The other is weak and defective, being ignorant of many things. As such an one, he says, in regard to the time of a certain event, he does not know the day nor the hour. He makes no exception of one of his capacities of knowledge; but says, absolutely, he does not know the time. No one knows but the Father. Yet the doctrine of the Two Natures supposes that Jesus did know the day and hour; and that when he said he did not know, he spoke only of his capacity of knowledge which is weak and defective.

Another objection to the doctrine of the Two Natures is, that it renders it impossible to understand or believe any thing that Jesus says of himself. The terms I, me, myself, mine own self, always denote one person, an individual; they include the whole person, all that constitutes him a person. In this sense they were unquestionably used by Christ. When he said, I, me, myself, he could not have meant a part of himself. He could not have meant that part of himself which is infinitely less than another part of himself. If it be admitted that Jesus did not mean himself, his whole self, all that constituted his proper personality, there is no assertion he ever made but what may be contradicted. One has only to say, “This he did as man, it is not true of him as God, therefore it is not true; and this he did as God, it is not true of him as man, therefore it is not true.” In this way, every assertion he ever made of himself, may be contradicted. In this way, we may deny his birth, his crucifixion, his death, and his resurrection, because these were true of him only as man, not as God. If, instead of saying, “My Father is greater than I,” he had said, “I am not so great as my Father, I am not equal with the Father, I am not God, I am not equal with God,” we have only to say, “This he spoke as man, hence it is not true,” in order to set his testimony, concerning himself aside. Now can a doctrine be admitted, which renders his plainest sayings unintelligible, and makes it absolutely impossible for him to deny that he is God, if he had a mind to do so?

That Trinitarians see and condemn this kind of sophistry, when employed about other matters, may be seen by the following quotation. “See Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon on Matt. 10:16, speaking of the equivocations of Popish Priests, whose common answer, when examined about what they know by confession, is, that they know it not; which they think to vindicate from the charge of lying by saying, that in confession, the Priest knows matters as God, not as man, and therefore he denies to know them, meaning as a man. But, says the Doctor, this is absurd; because to say he does not know, is as much as to say he doth not any way know. Now if this be good against the Papists, as no doubt it is, then sure it is so in the present case. Therefore when Christ says he knows not the day of judgment, it is as much as to say he does not any way know it, and consequently, it is a vain shift to say, it was as man only. We must beware lest we bring the Holy Jesus under such a reproach for equivocation, as the Romish Priests lie under; and make the Jesuits themselves think they have a good title to that name, by imitating herein his example, according to this interpretation.”

The doctrine of the Two Natures throws obscurity over the sacred pages, and renders passages which are sufficiently plain, quite unintelligible. Take, for example, Heb. 1:1,2: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” Admitting that this passage relates to the creation of the natural world, what does the word Son denote according to the doctrine of the Two Natures? Does it denote the divine, or the human nature? Or does it comprehend both natures? Son cannot mean the divine nature, because God cannot be appointed heir of all things, inasmuch as he is the original proprietor and independent owner of all things. Son cannot mean the human nature, because the worlds were created thousands of years before the human nature existed. Son cannot denote both natures, because that would involve both the difficulties just stated; and render the passage more unintelligible and contradictory than either of the other expositions. Thus, by applying the hypothesis of the Two Natures, this perfectly clear and easy text becomes totally unintelligible.

Take another example: St. Paul says, “we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.”—Rom. 14:10. Then Christ must be God omniscient, says the Trinitarian; and, to support his position, reasons thus: “Is it possible for any being, not omniscient, to judge the universe of intelligent creatures? Can he for thousands of years, be present everywhere, and know what is transacted, and penetrate the recesses of the human heart, and remember the whole character and actions of countless myriads, so diverse in talents, temper, circumstances, and situation, and not be omnipresent and omniscient?—Can omniscience be imparted?”. This argument may be abridged, thus: “He, by whom the world is to be judged, must be omniscient. But omniscience cannot be imparted; therefore Christ must be omniscient. And he who is omniscient is God; therefore Christ is God.” Before a man can reason in this manmer, it seems to me, that he must have closed his eyes upon the account which the Scriptures give of the judgment. Whatever men may imagine, St. Paul assures us that “God will judge the world by a MAN (not a God) whom HE hath APPOINTED.” Jesus assures us that the “FATHER hath committed all judgment unto the SON.” St. Peter assures us that “Jesus Christ was ORDAINED of God to be the judge of quick and dead.” God cannot be judge by appointment, or ordination; neither can all judgment be committed to him. “He (Jesus) does indeed act as judge by delegated authority,” says the Trinitarian, “but to act as judge is one thing, to be qualified for the office is another. Exaltation as mediator constitutes him judge, omnipresence and omniscience only can qualify him for that station.” Jesus explains the subject quite differently. He assures us that God qualified him “for that station,” as well as constituted him judge. After speaking of the office of raising the dead and judging the world, by virtue of his commission received from the Father, Jesus says, “the Father hath given him AUTHORITY to execute judgment also, because he is the SON of MAN"—(not because he is God.) And to make his meaning still plainer, immediately after speaking of the resurrection, he adds, “I can of mine own self do nothing: As I HEAR, I judge.” Now if this account of the judgment be admitted as correct—and it must be, I think, unless the testimony of him who is the faithful and true witness can be impeached—what difficulty does the subject involve to require the hypothesis of the Two Natures? If the judge is guided in all his decisions by the Father, who has given him a commandment what he should say and what he should speak; and if he JUDGES only as he HEARS, where is the necessity of omnipresence and ommiscience, to qualify him for that station? Again, if the judge is God omnipresent and omniscicnt, how can he say, “of mine own self I can do nothing: As I hear, I judge.” Can God do nothing without the Father's assistance? Must God hear, before he can judge Once more: The Father hath COMMITTED all judgment unto the SON. To which nature, I would ask the Trinitarian, is the judgment committed? If the Father hath committed all judgment unto the divine nature, then Jesus, As GOD, is dependent on the Father for his commission. This probably, will not be admitted. If the Father hath committed all judgment unto the human nature, then Jesus exercises the highest functions of judge, As MAN only; and the Cmnipresent, omniscient judge, entirely disappears. This, probably, will hardly be admitted. I see no possibility of freeing the subject from these difficulties, but by abandoming the supposition of the Two Natures. Thus the doctrine of the Two Natures creates difficulties where there were none, and then fails to remove them.

We object to the doctrine of the Two Natures, because it would, if admitted, deprive us of the comforts and advantages arising from the example of Christ's prayers and sufferings. In commenting on the secret morning prayer of Jesus, (Mark 1:35) Dr. Adam Clark, in his great zeal for the doctrine of the Two Natures, says—“Not that he needed any thing, for in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; but that he might be a pattern to us.” If the learned Doctor be correct, Jesus must have asked his heavenly Father for innumerable blessings which he did not need, that he might be a pattern to us. But how can we imitate such a pattern without praying for such things as we do not need? If Jesus is God, he must have prayed to himself. But of what benefit to us can such an example be? What comfort or instruction can be derived from contemplating the prayers of Jesus, if every prayer he offered was addressed to himself, and he was so independent that he needed nothing? “Being in agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” Was all this only to set us an example? What sympathy can we feel with the sufferer, if he needed nothing he prayed for? Prayer is an expression of dependence and want. If a person who needs nothing prays, is it not mere pretence?—is it not hypocrisy?

Finally, the doctrine of the Two Natures defeats its own end. To illustrate this, let us consider it in connection with the doctrine of the atonement as held by Trinitarians. It is argued that sin is an infinite evil; that it deserves an infinite punishment; and, consequently, the atonement must be infinite, But no finite being can make an infinite atonement. But Jesus, being both God and man, is qualified to make an infinite atonement by the sacrifice of himself upon the cross. But all Trinitarians, so far as my knowledge extends, hold that Jesus died as man, not as God. Nothing bled and died but the human nature. The victim, the offering, the sacrifice, was not the divine, but the human nature of Christ, the mere man. This was presented or offered, not to the human, but to the divine nature of Christ, the Supreme God. Thus the infinite atonement entirely disappears. A mere man endures the cross, sheds his blood, and dies an atoning sacrifice to the infinite God. In relation to the doctrine of the atonement, a belief in the proper Deity of Christ has not the least advantage over a belief in his simple humanity.

See also: The Supposed Two Natures of Christ
https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-supposed-two-natures-of-christ.html

The Hypostatic Union - an Enormous Tax on Human Credulity By William Ellery Channing
https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-hypostatic-union-enormous-tax-on.html

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

See also: Unitarianism and Universalism - 100 PDF Books on DVDrom

Free Speech Decreases Bigotry and Creates Economic Progress (Michael Servetus)

In 1553, Michael Servetus, a Spanish physician, was ruthlessly sentenced to death and burned at the stake. Servetus was persecuted by John Calvin—the father of Calvinism—who labeled Servetus a heretic and wanted to silence his dissenting viewpoints. In the end, Servetus paid the ultimate price for his right to speak freely.

The grim history of Michael Servetus shows us that we should not forget how valuable freedom of expression is. Today, freedom of expression is, to a large extent, imperiled by neglect. An emerging demand for restrictions on the right to freely express our thoughts is gaining ground, and a large fraction of American millennials are willing to wrap up minorities with protective layers of limitations on freedom of speech while governments around the world are calling for desperate measures to deal with the predicament of “fake news.” So why is free expression so important, and why should we insist on it?

Why Is It Important?

One of the most cited texts on this subject is John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty in which he expounds on the meaning of free expression. The utilitarian approach put forth by Mill provides a strong defense for the freedom of expression, and Mill argues that human progress is inextricably linked to the right to freely express one’s self. For, he argues, by oppressing the pluralism of opinions, we risk suppressing the truth:

”(..)If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

If we curtail the free expression of undesired viewpoints because we regard them as inferior, fallible, or immoral, we deprive ourselves of prospective inventions, ideas, and breakthroughs.
Looking at the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, numerous of formerly undesired scholars and writers are today acknowledged for their influence on modern societies. Who would have predicted that? Similarly, most Christians would disagree with Servetus’ unitarian rejection of the Trinity, but what did the religious community achieve by silencing him? As Mill argues, human beings are fallible, and assumptions should accordingly be subject to scrutiny and contradiction—otherwise, the foundation of our knowledge will be reduced to mere pretensions and superficial premises.

Empirical Evidence

Freedom of expression is vital to human flourishing because new ideas are necessary to sustain economic growth.


We can also prove Mill’s thesis by looking at empirical evidence. In fact, evidence (and here) shows that freedom of expression is positively correlated with growth. Why? The reason is actually quite simple: it allows for people to exchange ideas freely. If disruptive ideas are silenced, they will remain beneath the surface of arbitrary censorship forever. Conversely, if people can interact freely, ideas will breed, as Matt Ridley notes.

Put in other words: freedom of expression is vital to human flourishing because new ideas are necessary to sustain economic growth. But if we insist on interfering with the right to exchange knowledge and experiences, how shall new ideas permeate the surface of civilization?

Tolerance and Freedom of Speech

Some proponents of restrictions on freedom of expression, however, argue that minorities should not be exposed to offensive speech. The absence of limitations on free expression incite hostility and hatred towards minorities, it is argued. Hence, students, policymakers, and well-meaning pundits advocate various forms of censorship. Unrestricted speech, they emphasize, causes great harm to the vulnerable and creates a fertile environment for intolerance. Is it not plausible, though, that unrestricted speech leads to greater tolerance, rather than promoting intolerance?

We can examine this by comparing the United States and Europe. The First Amendment offers strong protections for freedom of expression. In contrast, numerous European countries provide weak protection. Many countries have adopted hate speech laws criminalizing offensive speech while countries such as Germany are strengthening existing laws. Such laws are aimed at deadening hateful speech and intolerance.

Americans seem to be more tolerant despite—or because?—of their strong legal protection of freedom of speech.


You should think that countries with strict hate speech laws are, on average, more tolerant because they disallow the dissemination of bigotry. The data available, however, shows the contrary—as noted here, the supposition that far-reaching protection of freedom of expression increases intolerance does not seem to resonate with reality. In fact, Americans seem to be more tolerant despite—or because?—of their strong legal protection of freedom of speech. As shown by Pew, US citizens are more in favor of free expression compared to Europe and other continents. Moreover, American attitudes towards diversity are more tolerant than Europeans’.

Those findings are rather interesting, and it suggests that countries like the US with well-protected freedom of expression are actually more tolerant. A plausible explanation could be that a solid legal protection of freedom of expression enables spiteful people to exhibit their bigotry. When exposed to dissenting viewpoints, people are given the opportunity to weigh and assess arguments. This will inevitably encourage some people to distance themselves from blatant intolerance. An additional effect is that the exposure to extremist speech elicits increased self-control when it comes to anti-social behavior, thus promoting tolerance in society. This thesis comes from The Tolerant Society, in which Lee Bollinger introduced the supposition that our tolerance towards others is increased when confronted with extremist speech and pluralism.

Michael Servetus Today

The destiny of Michael Servetus shows that restrictions on freedom of expression require serious deliberations. By persecuting and silencing dissent, we not only encourage conformity, we also deprive future generations of innovations and ideas to the detriment of human progress. As John Milton noted in Areopagitica:

Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye.

Filip Steffensen

Filip Steffensen studies political science at Aarhus University, Denmark. He is affiliated with various domestic organizations promoting classical liberalism and is a representation of Liberal Alliance Youth. He is 21 years old. 

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Getting it Wrong Again on John 1:1

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

I found the following on the Murray Ledger & Times and I wanted to make a few clarifications:

MLT: The Jehovah’s Witness organization teaches that Jesus is an angel, namely Michael the Archangel.

Reply: The speculation that Jesus may have been an angel and Michael the Archangel is a notion that has been around for centuries and held by respected Church authorities. See Jesus as the Archangel Michael - The Evidence and Jesus as the Archangel and Jesus as the Angel of the LORD

MLT: Thus, they deny that Jesus is God the Son

Reply: "God the Son" is as unbiblical a phrase as "God the Holy Spirit."

MLT: but rather in their New World Translation they translate John 1:1 as “the word was a god”...Standard translations of the Bible properly translate this phrase as “the Word was God” not “a god.” The article “a” is not found in the Greek text and to add it changes the original meaning of the text.

Reply: The MLT is not being completely honest here, or perhaps they are depending on the ignorance of their readers. The Greek has definite articles ("the") but no indefinite articles ("a"). However, to bring out the proper sense in English, indefinite articles have to be added. For instance, the Revised Standard Version has the indefinite article "a" in 1641 verses in the New Testament. The King James Bible has the indefinite article "a" 1911 times in the New Testament, even though the Greek does not have it. NOT adding the "a" can actually change the original meaning of the text. Now let's take a look at the Greek in John 1 in the older Uncial Greek tests: ENARCHHNOLOGOSKAIOLOGOSHNPROSTONQEONKAIQEOSHNOLOGOS which word for word is: in beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word.

Notice that the first mention of God here has the definite article (THE God), and the second mention does not, so as to differentiate the two. After all, the Word cannot be the same God he is with.
"There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that it's omission is not significant."~The Translator's New Testament

As a result many Bibles translate John 1:1c as "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine" or "the Word was a divine being." etc. So when the Murray Ledger & Times writes that "Standard translations of the Bible properly translate this phrase as 'the Word was God' they are again relying on your ignorance in this matter. The "standard translations" are very poor translations in this area and are simply bowing to a poor but traditional translation of this text that their buyers demand.

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Charles Morgridge on Prayers Addressed to Christ 1837

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Charles Morgridge and Prayers Addressed to Christ

The subject of prayer to Christ deserves particular attention. During the whole period of his ministry on earth, prayers were constantly addressed to him both by friends and foes. The thought that they were praying to the invisible God, does not appear, however, to have entered their minds. As they that worshiped him did not worship him as God; so they that prayed to him did not pray to him as God. Blind Bartimeus prayed to him as the Son of David. “O Lord, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.” The mother of Zebedee's children prayed to him, not as God, but as the king of Israel, whom God had set upon his holy hill of Zion. If she had prayed to him as God, the answer, she obtained would have corrected her mistake. She prayed that her two sons might sit the one on his right hand, and the other on his left, in his kingdom. Jesus answered them thus: “To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my FATHER.” A man with an unclean spirit prayed that Jesus would let him alone. But he did not pray to him as God; for he said to him, “I know thee who thou art, the Holy one of God.” The inhabitants of a whole city, at a certain time, prayed to him (not as the omnipresent God) to depart out of their coasts.

If prayer to Christ while on earth, did not prove him to be God, prayer addressed him in heaven can furnish no such evidence. For it is certain that if he was not God before his ascension, he is not since. His disciples knew that he ascended to sit at the right hand of God—not as the Hearer of prayer, but as their intercessor, to pray with them and for them. “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” Hence he left with them this promise—“Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”— Matt. xviii. 20. Here is no intimation that Christ will be present with them to hear their prayers, for in the preceding verse he refers them to the Father, as him who would grant their petitions. But he will be present with them by his spirit and grace; that is, by the power of his gospel; to animate and encourage them, as though he were personally present; that they might feel the same confidence in God which his actual presence would inspire.

There are but two instances, I believe, recorded in the New Testament, in which a petition of any kind was addressed to Christ after his ascension. And both of these are attended with circumstances so very extraordinary and peculiar, that they afford no authority or example for praying to Christ on ordinary occasions.

Acts, vii. 59—“And they stoned Stephen, calling upon, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

At this closing period of his life, the dying martyr had a vision of his Saviour. (See verse 56.) He invoked Jesus, not as God, but as “the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Believing on him as the resurrection and the life, and seeing him miraculously present, as if to encourage him at this awful moment, by revealing to him the glory of God, it was very natural, and no doubt proper, for the expiring saint to request Jesus to receive his spirit. His peculiar situation and circumstances seem to have authorized and prompted his supplication. A case so singular can furnish no example to those who are not in a similar situation, and to whom no such appearance is presented. We are not commanded to imitate Stephen, but Jesus; who, when he was dying, commended his spirit into the hands of the Father.

Verse 60—"And he kneeled down and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.”

There is no evidence that this prayer was addressed to Jesus. We may suppose he kneeled down to pray to the invisible God, whose glory he had just seen. No reason appears why he should kneel to pray to Jesus in the one instance more than in the other. The petition addressed to Jesus was not prayer in the highest and proper sense of the term, the object being visible; and it affords no more authority or example to believers now, than any petitions addressed to Jesus before his crucifixion.

2 Cor. xii. 8, St. Paul, speaking of the thorn in his flesh, says, “For this cause I besought the Lord (Jesus, I think) thrice, that it might depart from me.” This case also was peculiar. St. Paul had frequent miraculous interviews with Christ. He appeared to him in person at the time of his conversion. Again, as we learn from Acts, xxii. 17, he saw him, conversed with him, and received instruction from him. It was while speaking of revelations and visions of the Lord, that he says, he besought him for the removal of the thorn in his flesh. It is not improbable that it was at a time when Christ was miraculously visible, and personally present with him. A petition addressed to Christ on such an occasion, furnishes no example or authority for praying to him as an invisible being, and under ordinary circumstances.

There are two or three other passages that have been thought to favor the doctrine of prayer to Christ.

"John, xiii. 14—"If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” That is, If ye shall ask any thing of the FATHER, in my name, I will do it.

1 Thess. iii. 11, 12—"Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you. And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you.”

2 Thess. ii. 16, 17—"And now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God even our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and establish you, in every good word and work.”

There is no invocation in these passages. They are addressed neither to God, nor to Christ, but to the Thessalonians. In the first, St. Paul merely expresses a devout wish that he might be directed to the Thessalonians, by the co-operation of God, and Christ, his anointed servant. In the second, he expresses a wish that, through the same co-operation, the Thessalonians might be comforted, and established in every good word and work. The manner in which the Apostle expresses himself is sufficiently guarded to prevent any one from inferring any thing like equality between God and Christ, in opposition to the hundreds of passages which teach the subordination of Christ to his Father in all his operations: for he gives to God, and not to Christ, the title which belongs only to the Supreme Being—viz. GOD THE FATHER.

There is a class of passages in which Christians are represented as calling on the name of Christ; and it has been maintained that to call on his name means to pray to him. In passages of this class there appears to be some ambiguity. Expositors are not agreed as to their true import. Dr. Hammond says, “The original words rendered ‘call upon the name of Christ,' imply, to be called by the name of Jesus Christ; which denotes the special relation we bear to him; as the spouse to that husband, whose name is called upon her.”—Isa. iv. 1. He adds, “In this sense will it be most proper to interpret the like phrases, Acts ii. 21 and ix. 14, 21; Rom. x. 10, 12, 13, 14, and generally in the New Testament.”* Dr. Hammond was so learned and so orthodox, that Trinitarians are not apt to dissent from him.** In the following passage the phrase occurs in a manner quite free from all ambiguity. “Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by which ye are called ”—James ii. 6, 7. All who professed the religion of Christ, were called by the name of Christ; and this became a well known designation of the early Christians.

* See his Annotations on 1 Cor. i.

**See Robbins on the Trinity, p. 19.

Another able critic, after a careful examination of the subject, says, “The meaning of the terms rendered ‘calling on the name of Christ,’ would, I believe, be properly and fully expressed in English by the words, ‘looking to Christ for deliverance,' that is, through the power of the gospel.”*** On examination, therefore, no evidence appears in the New Testament that the first Christians addressed prayer to Christ after his ascension. [Norton's Statement of Reasons, p. 164.]

Indeed, how could they?

[There is historical evidence of the same fact. The following are two quotations, one from Pliny, the other from Origen; as cited by Mr. Norton, and accompanied with his remarks. “It has been urged that Pliny, in his celebrated letter to Trajan, states (on the authority of some who said that they had been Christians, but who had deserted the religion) that Christians in their assemblies, were ‘accustomed to sing together a hymn in alternate parts to Christ as to a god’— ‘carmen Christo, quasi deo, dicere secum invicem.”

“These words have been alleged to prove, both that Christians prayed to Christ, and that they believed him to be God. But the only fact which appears, is, that Christians sung hymns in celebration of Christ. The rest is the interpretation of a heathen, who compared in his own mind these hymns to those which the heathens sung in honor of their gods; who like Christ had dwelt on the earth; and, like him, having died, were supposed to be still living in a higher state of being. With his heathen notions, he conceived of the Christians as making a sort of apotheosis of their master. But there is evidence on the subject before us much more direct and more important than that of Pliny.

“It is the evidence of Origen, who wrote a treatise ‘On Prayer' in the former half of the third century. Of prayer, properly speaking, Origen says:

“If we understand what prayer is, it will appear that it is never to be offered to any originated being, not to Christ himself, but only to the God and Father of all; to whom our Saviour himself prayed and taught us to pray. For when his disciples asked him, Teach us to pray, he did not teach them to pray to himself, but to the Father.’.....'Conformably to what he said, Why callest thou me good? there is none good except one, God, the Father, how could he say otherwise, than ‘Why dost thou pray to me? Prayer, as ye learn from the Holy Scriptures, is to be offered to the Father only, to whom I myself pray.’.....'Ye have read the words which I spoke by David to the Father concerning you; I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing hymns to thee. It is not consistent with reason for those to pray to a brother, who are esteemed worthy of one Father with him. You, with me and through me, are to address your prayers to the Father alone.’.....Let us then, attending to what was said by Jesus, and all having the same mind, pray to God through him, without any division respecting the mode of prayer. But are we not divided, if some pray to the Father and some to the Son? Those who pray to the Son, whether they do or do not pray to the Father also, fall into a gross error in their great simplicity, through want of judgment and examination.”

“In learning and talents, Origen, during his life time, had no-rival among Christians. There was none who possessed the same weight of character. The opinions which he expressed in the passages just quoted, were undoubtedly the common opinions of the Christians of his time.

“De Oratione. Opp. 1. pp. 222-224. I quote the last passage principally because it is erroneously rendered by Dr. Priestly (Hist. of Opinions, Il. 161) in a manner directly adverse to his own argument.”]

In the very same verse in which they were directed to pray to the Father, they were forbidden to pray to Christ. “And in that day ye shall ask Me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the FATHER in my name, he will give it you.”—John xvi. 23. Before they could have addressed their prayers to Christ, three things must have been done. 1. All the precepts, restricting prayer to the Father, must have been revoked. 2. This particular precept, forbidding prayer to Christ, must have been revoked also. 3. A precept, enjoining prayer to Christ, must have been given. But neither of these things was done. I know of no pretence that the New Testament contains a single precept enjoining prayer to Christ. It is quite clear, then, that the first Christians did not pray to Christ after his ascension.

The doctrine of two objects of prayer, had it been taught, would have presented a greater difficulty, especially to those who were converted to Christianity from Judaism, than any of the peculiarities of the new religion; and, consequently, would have required peculiar instructions, cautions, and explanations. Many questions and controversies arose which were examined, explained, and settled, in the Epistles. But there is not the least allusion in the New Testament to any difficulty, or controversy, or question, in relation to the object of prayer. The Epistles are essentially different from what they must have been, had the doctrine of two objects of prayer existed in the Christian church in the Apostolic age.

The time has been when it was thought to be as orthodox and as necessary to pray to the Virgin Mary, who was styled the “Mother of God,” as it now is to pray to the Son of God. “Those who questioned the propriety of praying to Mary were, at that time, as much suspected of heretical pravity, by the generality of Christians, as those who question the propriety of praying to Christ are, by the reputed orthodox of the present day.”

See Ware's Discourses on the Offices and Character of Jesus Christ; Discourse X. Vindication, &c. by Yates; Part III. Chap. viii. Norton's Statement of Reasons: “Of Prayer to Christ.”


[On this subject Mr. Norton makes the following remarks:—“It has been maintained that Christ is God, for the supposed reason, that prayers were addressed to him by the first Christians. But the fact, if admitted, would afford no support for this conclusion. To pray is to ask a favor. In a religious sense, it is to ask a favor of an invisible and superior being. There is nothing in the nature of prayer, which renders it improper to be addressed to a being inferior to God. Whether such address be proper or not, must depend upon other considerations. In itself considered, there would be nothing more inconsistent with the great principles of natural religion in our asking a favor of an invisible being, an angel, or a glorified spirit, than in our asking a favor of a fellow mortal. For any thing we can perceive, God might have committed the immediate government of our world, of this little particle of the universe, or the immediate superintendence of the Christian church, to some inferior minister of his power. Such a being might thus have become an object of prayer. Nay, in consistency with all that we know of the character of God, there might have been an intercourse, very different from what now exists, between the visible and invisible world. The spirits of our departed friends might have become our guardian angels, with power to confer benefits and to answer our petitions. Prayers then might have been addressed to them. If, therefore, it were to appear that God has revealed to us that Christ is an object of prayer, as was believed by Socinus and his followers, this would afford no reason for concluding that Christ is God. What follows respecting prayer to Christ, is, consequently, a mere digression; but a digression on a topic so important that it needs no excuse.”—Statement of Reasons, p. 157–8]

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

Over 200 PDF Books to Download of Early Watchtower (JW-ish) Books

Only $6.99 - You can pay using the Cash App by sending money to $HeinzSchmitz and send me an email at theoldcdbookshop@gmail.com with your information. You can also pay using Facebook Pay in Messenger

Books Scanned from the Originals into PDF format - For a list of all of my digital books click here

Join my Facebook Group - Contact theoldcdbookshop@gmail.com for questions

Books are in the public domain. I will take checks or money orders as well.

Contents (created on a Windows computer) :

Zion's Glad Songs (1908). Hymn book published by M.L. McPhail, a travelling representative of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

At-one-ment Between God and Man by Charles Russell 1910

Poems and Hymns of Millenial Dawn by Charles Russell 1890

The Time Is At Hand by Charles Russell 1907

Food for Thinking Christians by Charles Russell 1881

The Life of Pastor Russell, article in The Overland Monthly 1917

The Late Pastor Russell, article in The Overland Monthly 1917

The World War and Bible prophecy by Harry F Howard 1918

Jewish Hopes by Charles Russell 1910

The Kingdom Come by Charles Russell 1891

The Day of Vengeance by Charles Russell 1898

Studies in the Scriptures Volumes 1-7 (searchable PDF)

The Golden Age Magazine 1919

The Golden Age Magazine 1920

The Golden Age Magazine 1921

The Golden Age Magazine 1922

Great Pyramid Passages Vol 2 1913 edition
Great Pyramid Passages and Chambers, Volume 2 (1913 edition). By John and Morton Edgar. The Edgars were associates of Charles Taze Russell and wrote this treatise in defense of Russell's views on the prophetic symbolism of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh in Egypt.

1878 Herald of the Morning (last 6 months) Nelson H. Barbour and Charles Taze Russell (original scans)

1879 Herald of the Morning (first 6 months) Nelson H. Barbour and Charles Taze Russell (original scans)

The Way to Paradise by W.E. Van Amburgh, Secretary-Treasurer of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Contains introduction by J.F. Rutherford and was published in 1924. Issued as a book of instruction for children.

The Three Worlds by Nelson H. Barbour

The Photodrama of Creation by Charles Taze Russell. This is the book that accompanied the slide presentation. Published in 1914.

The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return by Charles Taze Russell. Published in 1877.

The Day Dawn - Written by J.H. Paton in 1880. This was the first book circulated by the WatchTower, edited by Charles T. Russell, and is mentioned several times in the years 1880 and 1881 in that magazine. Paton and Russell parted company in 1881 and the book was later republished by Paton in 1890, but with several revisions. This is the original 1880 edition.

Millions Now Living Will Never Die by Judge Rutherford 1920

Olin R. Moyle Trial vs the Watchtower Trial Transcript

To Readers of Zion's Watch Tower - a publication in 1902 detailing the problems between Charles Taze Russell and his wife Maria.

The Calendar of Jehovah God - Early Golden Age Articles proposing a new calendar with the names of the days and months substituted to give honor to the Creator Jehovah God.

1917 Watchtower Articles Dealing with the Schism after the death of Charles Russell.

Studies in the Scriptures Series 2
by Charles Taze Russell - 1915

The Harp of God: Proof Conclusive that Millions Now Living Will Never Die
by Joseph Franklin Rutherford - 1921 - 365 pages

Millennial Dawn - Plan of the Ages
by Charles Taze Russell - 1886

Russell-White Debate: A Public Discussion
by Charles Taze Russell, Lloyd Smith White - 1908 - 19o pages

Millions Now Living Will Never Die!
by Joseph Franklin Rutherford - 1920 - 120 pages

What Say the Scriptures about Spiritualism?: Proofs that it is Demonism ...
by Charles Taze Russell, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society - 1897 - 110 pages
Letters to Elder Charles T. Russell in reply to his book entitled "What say the Scriptures about spiritualism ... ?" / Daniel W. Hull [1910].

The Finished Mystery
by Charles Taze Russell, Clayton J. Woodworth, George H. Fisher- 1918 - 590 pages

The Bible Versus the Evolution Theory
by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society - 1898 - 40 pages

Studies in the Scriptures - SERIES 1
by Charles Taze Russell - 1886

Tabernacle Shadows of the "better Sacrifices"
by Charles Taze Russell - 1899 - 131 pages

PLUS FREE - the 1954 Douglas Walsh Trial
In November 1954, a trial was held in Scotland, in which the Watchtower Society tried to establish before the British court that certain of its members were ordained ministers. High ranking leaders of the Society testified, including vice-president Fred Franz and legal counsel for the Society, Haydon C. Covington. Covington's testimony before the attorney for the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

The Great Pyramid had fascinated men in the 19th century, especially where it concerned bible prophecy, especially with statements like:

"So, then, if we measure backward down the 'First Ascending Passage' to its junction with the 'Entrance Passage,' we shall have a fixed date to mark upon the downward passage. This measure is 1542 inches, and indicates the year B.C. 1542, as the date at that point. Then measuring down the 'Entrance Passage' from that point, to find the distance to the entrance of the 'Pit,' representing the great trouble and destruction with which this age is to close, when evil will be overthrown from power, we find it to be 3416 inches, symbolizing 3416 years from the above date, B.C. 1542. This calculation shows AD. 1874 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years B.C. plus 1874 years AD. equals 3416 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1874 was the chronological beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation -- no, nor ever shall be afterward. And thus it will be noted that this 'Witness' fully corroborates the Bible testimony on this subject..."Thy Kingdom Come
Millennial Dawn, vol. III
(1891-1904 editions), page 342

The Pyramid and the Bible; the rectitude of the one in accordance with the other
by William Mackenzie - 1868

The Divine Plan of the Ages and the Great Pyramid by Charles Taze Russell 1913

The Millennial Dawn by Charles Taze Russell - 1898
WHY OF SPECIAL INTEREST TO CHRISTIANS. — THE GREAT PYRAMID A STOREHOUSE op TRUTH —
SCIENTIFIC, HISTORIC AND PROPHETIC. — BIBLE ALLUSIONS TO IT. ..

Studies in the Scriptures by Charles Taze Russell
"The Great Pyramid in Egypt is a Witness to all these events"

The Solution of the Pyramid Problem: Or, Pyramid Discoveries.
by Robert Ballard - 1882 - 100 pages

Great Pyramid Passages Vol 2 1913 edition
Great Pyramid Passages and Chambers, Volume 2 (1913 edition). By John and Morton Edgar. The Edgars were associates of Charles Taze Russell and wrote this treatise in defense of Russell's views on the prophetic symbolism of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh in Egypt.

Life and work at the Great pyramid
Charles Piazzi Smyth - 1867

The Great Pyramid: Observatory, Tomb, and Temple
by Richard Anthony Proctor - 1883 - 320 pages
 
Pyramid facts and fancies by James Bonwick - 1877

The origin and significance of the Great pyramid by Charles Staniland Wake - 1882

Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid, Ed
by Charles Piazzi Smyth - 1874 - 520 pages

Horus in the Pyramid Texts
by Thomas George Allen - 1916 - 76 pages

A Miracle in Stone: Or, the Great Pyramid of Egypt
by Joseph Augustus Seiss - 1877 - 340 pages

Freemasonry from the great pyramid of ancient times, lectures by Thomas Holland - 1885

The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy
by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky 1897
To know the full septenary significance of the " Primordial Circle," the pyramid
and the Kabalistic Bible must be read in the light of the figure on which ...

New Light from the Great Pyramid: The Astronomico-geographical System by Albert Ross Parsons - 1893 - 410 pages

The Great Pyramid Jeezeh
by Louis Phillipe McCarty - 1907 - 580 pages

Freemasonry in the Holy Land: Or, Handmarks of Hiram's Builders
by Robert Morris - 1872 - 600 pages

Plus you get the following Divine Name Bibles:

Exodus - Revised with notes by WH Bennett 1908

The Book of Genesis by GW Wade 1896

The Songs Hymns And Prayers Of The Old Testament by Charles Foster Kent 1914

Isaiah in Modern Speech by John McFadyen 1918

Jeremiah in Modern speech by John McFadyen 1919

The Psalms in Modern Speech by John McFadyen 1870

The Wisdom Books in Modern Speech by John McFadyen

The book of Job translated from the Hebrew by Ernst Renan 1889

The books of Chronicles by WH Bennett 1894

Joshua by WH Bennett 1899 (some pages hard to read)

The Book of Judges by JF Moore 1899

The Holy Scriptures of the Old Covenant by Wellbeloved Volume 1 1862

The Holy Scriptures of the Old Covenant by Wellbeloved Volume 2 1862

The Holy Scriptures of the Old Covenant by Wellbeloved Volume 3 1862

The Epic of the Inner Life being the Book of Job by J Genung 1891

The Book of Job - the Poetic Portion Versified by Homer Sprague 1913

Mozes bi naltsos alsedihigi odesziz holychigi inda yistainilli ba Hani Mark naltsos ye yiki-iscinigi. Tohatcidi enisoti dine bizadkyehgo ayila (Navajo Book of Moses - retains the name JEHOVAH for God 1912)

Choctaw New Testament 1857 (text sometimes difficult to read)

Joshua, Judges and Ruth in Choctaw by Alfred Wright 1913 (the divine name used is "Chihowah" even sometimes in the New Testament above)

Gospel according to John - Creek by HF Buckner 1860
"In my translation of John I have transfered the Hebraic name Jehovah for the name of the Supreme Being, instead of adopting the Creek word Hesakitvmise."

La Sainte Bible - Crampon (French) Volume 1 1894

La Sainte Bible - Crampon (French) Volume 2 1894

La Sainte Bible - Crampon (French) Volume 3 1894

La Sainte Bible - Crampon (French) Volume 4 1894

La Sainte Bible - Crampon (French) Volume 5 1894

La Sainte Bible - Crampon (French) Volume 6 1894

A Liberal Translation of the New Testament Volume 1 by Edward Harwood 1768

A Liberal Translation of the New Testament Volume 2 by Edward Harwood 1768
"The Supreme Jehovah said to my Lord..."

The Psalms Translated and Explained by JA Alexander 1853 Volume 1

The Psalms Translated and Explained by JA Alexander 1853 Volume 2

The Psalms Translated and Explained by JA Alexander 1853 Volume 3
"For I have kept the ways of Jehovah and have not apostasised from my God." Ps 18:22

The New Metrical Version of the Psalms 1909 - United Presbyterian (Uses Jehovah)

A New Rendering of the Hebrew Psalms into English verse By Abraham Coles 1888 (Uses Jehovah)

A New Literal Version of the Book of Psalms by Stephen Street 1790 Volume 1 (Uses Jehovah)

A New Literal Version of the Book of Psalms by Stephen Street 1790 Volume 2 (Uses Jehovah)

Isaiah - a New Translation by TK Cheyne 1898 (Uses JHVH)

Psalms, a New Translation by TK Cheyne 1895 (Uses Jehovah)

The Book of Joshua by Paul Kaupf and William Furness 1899 (Uses JHVH)

Plus - The Trinity Doctrine EXPOSED!! Contents:

Critical Essays by Ezra Abbot.
such as:
THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL,
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN AITEW AND EPWTAW,
ANCIENT PAPYRUS AND THE MODE OF MAKING PAPER FROM IT,
THE COMPARATIVE ANTIQUITY OF THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS or THE GREEK BIBLE, THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF, THE LATE DR. TREGELLES, GERHARD VON MASTRICHT, BUTTMANN's GREEK TESTAMENT, WESTCOTT AND HORT's EDITION OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT, THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK, THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION (three articles),
THE READING "ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD," IN JOHN i.18, THE READING "AN ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD," OR "GOD ONLY-BEGOTTEN," JOHN i. 18,
THE TEXT OF JOHN viii. 44,
THE READING " CHURCH OF GOD, ACTS XX. 28, THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS ix. 5, RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS ix. 5
TITUS ii. 13
I JOHN v. 7, AND LUTHER'S GERMAN BIBLE,
THE VERSE-DIVISIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
(scanned in .tif and .pdf format)

Concessions of Trinitarians being a Selection of Extracts from the Writings of the Most Eminent Biblical Critics and Commentators, by John Wilson, (1842)
THIS IS A CLASSIC-An exposition of key texts used as proof-texts for the Trinity throughout the Bible, such as
Genesis 1:2
Romans 9:5
Acts 20:28
1 John 5:7,8
John 1:1 etc, etc, etc.
Example
"ESTI means not only _is_, but _denotes, represents, signifies_ as in Matt. xiii.38 1 Cor. x.4, Luke xxii. 20. In these passages the _cup_ was _not_ the new testament, but represented it; and therefore _represents, signified, &c_ are the literal meaning of ESTI and HN, rather than the common substantive sense. And thus in Matt. xxvi. 26, "This is my body." p.308
(scanned in .tif and .pdf format)

Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ (1886) by Andrews Norton (1786-1853).
500 pages
Excerpt:
"I John v. 7. The famous text of the three heavenly witnesses. The value that has been formerly attached to this passage, though unquestionably interpolated, may be estimated from the obstinacy with which it has been contended for, from its still retaining its place as genuine in the editions of the Common Version, and even in editions of the original professedly formed on the text of Griesbach, from the lingering glances cast toward it by such writers as Bishop Middleton, and from the pertinacity with which the more ignorant or bigoted class of controversialists continue to quote and even defend it." p.184
(scanned in .tif and .pdf format)


Granville Sharp's "Remarks on the Uses of the Definite Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament Contanaining many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ from Passages which are Wrongly Translated in the Common Version"along with Rev. Calvin Winstanley's rebuttal, "A Vindication of Certain Passages in the Common English Version of the New Testament addressed to Granville Sharp Esq." 1819
(scanned in .pdf and .tif format)

God the Invisible King by H.G. Wells (Anti-Trinity) in .txt format

AN APPEAL TO PIOUS TRINITARIANS BY HENRY GREW (1857) in .txt format (works well in wordpad and most text editors)

Seven Conversations on the Trinity (between a Jehovah's Witness minister and a Trinitarian Christian (searchable pdf format)
Sample: "A vigorous debate still continues around the hymnic [Phillipians 2:6] passage. However, the suggestion that the hymn has been constructed with a strong allusion to Adam, or even modeled after the template of Adam christology is still persuasive." p. 282, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, by James D.G. Dunn
The ambiguity I had mentioned earlier is simply one that is shared by many translators and exegetes.
The Harper Collins Study Bible NRSV states that some of the key words used here "had puzzled interpeters" and are "problematic."
Sure, we have the way that Trinitarians like to look at this verse, as is stated in Heinz Cassirer's "did not look upon his equality with God as something to be held in his grasp," but there are many others that do not see this in the same way:
"who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men" ASV
"who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" NASB
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" Revised Standard Version
"Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized, accounted the being equal with God." Rotherham
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped" TCE
"Christ Jesus, who, when he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as a prize" Bible in Living English
"Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped" New Jerusalem Bible
"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped" New American Bible
"who, though being in God's Form, yet did not meditate a Usurpation to BE like God" Emphatic Diaglott
"Who, [beginning] [existing] in a form of God did not consider a seizing, to be equal to God" 21st Century Literal
"although he was like God in nature, he never even considered the chance to be equal with God." 21st Century Free
"who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." Revised Version
"Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God." An American Translation/Goodspeed
"who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped" NET Bible
"who though he had god-like form, did not regard it as a prize to be equal to God." The Original NT-Schonfield
[Footnote: "Referring to the sin which Adam was tempted by Satan to commit, and which Lucifer in his former state had committed (Gen 3:5; Isa 14:12-14). Moses is said to have had a divine form, and as an infant to have received the crown from Pharoah's head (Josephus, Antiq II 232-235). The Christ Above of the Jewish mystics had angelic likeness as a Son of God (Dan 4:25-28; Job 1:6-7)."]
"who - did not think it a matter to earnestly desired." -Clarke
"Did not regard - as an object of  solicitous desire." -Stuart
"Thought not - a thing to be seized." -Sharpe
"Did not eagerly grasp." -Kneeland
"Did not violently strive." -Dickinson
"did not meditate a usurpation." -Turnbull

If, as the New Scofield Bible says, that this verse is the strongest assertions of Christ's deity, then those who hold such a position have a real problem.
These verses are about humility, and how, unlike Adam, Jesus did not try to be equal to God. That is why the preceeding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean that we should try to cling to our equality with God? Of course not. To translate this verse in a way that promotes the deity of Christ robs it of its true force and meaning.

The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity by Benjamin B. Warfield (in .txt format, works well in Wordpad)

Plus: The Pagan Origins of Christmas - Many Books either scanned from the originals to PDF or imported into PDF format for your reading or printing pleasure.

Myths and Legends of Christmastide BY Bertha F. Herrick 1901

Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions by Thomas Doane 1882 (Searchable PDF)
"This shows that the heathen in those days, did as the Christians do now. What have evergreens, and garlands, and Christmas trees, to do with Christianity? Simply nothing. It is the old Yule-feast which was held by all the northern nations, from time immemorial, handed down to, and observed at the present day. In the greenery with which Christians deck their houses and temples of worship, and in the Christmas-trees laden with gifts, we unquestionably see a relic of the symbols by which our heathen forefathers signified their faith in the powers of the returning sun to clothe the earth again with green, and hang new fruit on the trees."

Cross-Examining Santa Clause in the Century Magazine 1922

Christmas & the Nativity of Mithras (Open Court) 1904

Bibliotheca Sacra - Religions and the New Testament 1908

The Christmas book: Christmas in the Olden Time, its Customs and their Origins 1859

The Religion of Mithra - Eclectic Magazine 1888

Primitive Culture: Researches Into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language by Edward Tylor 1889 Volume 2 "Two other Christian festivals have not merely had solar rites transferred to them, but seem distinctly themselves of solar origin."

Origin of the Sabbath by Parish Ladd in the Free Thought Magazine 1899

The Book of Christmas by Hamilton Wright Mabie 1910

The Christmas Tree in Taylor Trott Magazine 1907

On the Origin of the Celebration of Christmas from the New Monthly Magazine 1821

Early Christmas Carols and Customs in the Bostonian 1896
"Coming at practically the same time as the Roman Saturnalia and the Northern feast of Yule, the respective heathen customs of these two old festivals at once became inculcated into that of Christmas, almost as they stood."

Traditions of Eden; or, Proofs of the Historical Truth of the Pentateuch by Henry Shepherd 1871
"And in pursuance of this idea, the Christmas festival of the Sun-god — identical with Nimrod, Tammuz or Adonis, and also with Bacchus — was celebrated in ancient Babylon for ages before the Christian era. It was identical with the Saturnalia
of Rome, and kept with similar scenes of drunkenness and revelry. The wassailing bowl of Christmas, of the dark ages in Popish countries, had its precise counterpart in the Drunken festival of Babylon."

Religion, Theology and Morals By Harvey W Scott 1917
"But every custom and every doctrine of long standing has departed far from its original. The Christinas festival, in its
main featiires, relates more to paganism, so-called, than to Christianity. The genesis of the Holy Trinity is traceable,
through ecclesiastical and personal disputes, through politics and speculative philosophy, back to Philo and Plato; and the
paganism of old Rome, transformed more or less, is still reflected through the Vatican."

The Galaxy Magazine 1878
Christmas brings us, with its religious ceremonies, festivities, and pleasant customs which, it is to be hoped that advancing rationalism will never cause to be forgotten. Yet it is worth while, at least for descendants of the Puritans, to remember that the 25th of December is probably not the date of Christ's birth; there being reason for believing that he was born in the Spring of the year, a fitting season it would seem for such an event; and that our festivities at Christmas are of pagan origin— the dressing of houses with greens being a Druidical custom, and the giving of gifts being a remnant
of the Roman Saturnalia. The feast of Yule, now confounded with that of Christmas, was observed at the Winter solstice by all the Northern nations long before the introduction of Christianity.

Article on the pagan origins of Christmas in the Christian Review 1840

Yule and Christmas, their Place in the Germanic Year by Alexander Tille 1899 (searchable PDF)

Folk Lore/Superstitious Beliefs in Scotland with an Appendix Showing the Probable Relation of the Modern Festivals of Christmas, May Day, St. John's Day, and Halloween to Ancient Sun and Fire Worship 1879 by James Napier

Sun Lore of All Ages, a Collection of Myths and Legends Concerning the Sun by William Tyler Olcott (searchable PDF) 1914

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge Vol. 12, 1912
"It has also been conjectured that the day was selected because of its significance in the Roman calendar, where it bore the name of dies invicti solia, "the day of the unconquered sun", since on this day the sun began to regain its power and overcame the night."

Sun Worship in Bihar - Calcutta Review 1904

Pagan & Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning by Edward Carpenter 1920

The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, excerpt: "It is in the last degree incredible, then, that the birth of Christ could have taken place at the end of December. There is great unanimity among commentators on this point. Besides Barnes, Doddridge, Lightfoot, Joseph Scaliger, and Jennings, in his "Jewish Antiquities," who are all of opinion that December 25th could not be the right time of our Lord's nativity, the celebrated Joseph Mede pronounces a very decisive opinion to the same effect. After a long and careful disquisition on the subject, among other arguments he adduces the following;--"At the birth of Christ every woman and child was to go to be taxed at the city whereto they belonged, whither some had long journeys; but the middle of winter was not fitting for such a business, especially for women with child, and children to travel in. Therefore, Christ could not be born in the depth of winter. Again, at the time of Christ's birth, the shepherds lay abroad watching with their flocks in the night time; but this was not likely to be in the middle of winter. And if any shall think the winter wind was not so extreme in these parts, let him remember the words of Christ in the gospel, 'Pray that your flight be not in the winter.' If the winter was so bad a time to flee in, it seems no fit time for shepherds to lie in the fields in, and women and children to travel in." Indeed, it is admitted by the most learned and candid writers of all parties * that the day of our Lord's birth cannot be determined, ** and that within the Christian Churchno such festival as Christmas was ever heard of till the third century, and that not till the fourth century was far advanced did it gain much observance."

Christmas In Ritual and Tradition, Christian and Pagan by Clement A. Miles 1912

The Sacred Tree: Or, The Tree in Religion and Myth by J. H. Philpot, Isaline Philpot 1897

THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS IS HE A MYTH? by M. M. Mangasarian
We can only offer a few additional remarks to what we have already
said elsewhere in these pages on the Pagan origin of Christmas. It
will make us grateful to remember that just as we have to go to the
Pagans for the origins of our civilized institutions--our courts of
justice, our art and literature, and our political and religious
liberties--we must thank them also for our merry festivals, such as
Christmas and Easter.

Christmas and the Saturnalia - Article from Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review 1855
"While, therefore, we would not say with Prynne, that all pious
Christians should abominate this festival, we do say that it has
neither the historic dignity, the moral significance, nor the sacred
associations, that every such institution should possess to command
the approval of the Christian world."

Observations on Popular Antiquities, Chiefly Illustrating the Origin of our Vulgar Customs, Ceremonies and Superstitions by John Brand Volume 1, 1813

Observations on Popular Antiquities, Chiefly Illustrating the Origin of our Vulgar Customs, Ceremonies and Superstitions by John Brand Volume 2, 1813

The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion by James George Frazer

The Star of the Wise Men - being a Commentary on the Second Chapter of St. Matthew by Richard Trench  1850

The Wise Men: Who They Were and how They Came to Jerusalem by Francis William Upham 1901

The Origins of Christianity by Charles Bigg, Thomas Banks Strong 1909 (Easter Controversy)

CHRISTMAS - ITS ORIGIN, CELEBRATION AND SIGNIFICANCE AS RELATED IN PROSE AND VERSE by ROBERT HAVEN SCHAUFFLER 1907
Excerpt: The pagan nations of antiquity always had a tendency to worship the sun, under different names, as the giver of light and life. And their festivals in its honor took place near the winter solstice, the shortest day in the year, when the sun in December begins its upward course, thrilling men with the first distant promise of spring. This holiday was called Saturnalia among the Romans and was marked by great merriment and licence which extended even to the slaves. There were feasting and gifts and the houses were hung with evergreens. A more barbarous form of these rejoicings took place among the rude peoples of the north where great blocks of wood blazed in honor of Odin and Thor, and sacrifices of men and cattle were made to them. Mistletoe was cut then from the sacred oaks with a golden sickle by the Prince of the Druids, between whom and the Fire-Worshippers of Persia there was an affinity both in character and customs."

Sex and Sex Worship by Otto Augustus Wall 1920 EDIT
The egg has in all ages been considered a sacred emblem of
spring; of the rejuvenation of nature after the winter sleep. In
Pagan times ornamented eggs were presented to friends, to celebrate
the re-awakening of life in the spring; and this Pagan
festival, but thinly disguised as being emblematic of the resurrection
of Christ, persists in our Easter festival and its attendant
gifts of Easter eggs.

CHRISTMAS: ITS ORIGIN AND ASSOCIATIONS, TOGETHER WITH ITS HISTORICAL EVENTS AND FESTIVE CELEBRATIONS DURING NINETEEN CENTURIES BY W. F. DAWSON 1902 (searchable PDF)

Esoteric Christianity, Or, The Lesser Mysteries: Or, The Lesser Mysteries by Annie Wood Besant 1913
"The relation of the winter solstice to Jesus is also significant. The birth of  Mithras was celebrated in the winter solstice with great rejoicings, and Horus was also
then born: "His birth is one of the greatest mysteries of the [Egyptian] religion. Pictures representing it appeared on the walls of temples. . . . He was the child of
Deity. At Christmas time, or that answering to our festival, his image was brought out of the sanctuary with peculiar ceremonies, as the image of the infant Bambino is still brought out and exhibited at Rome." On the fixing of the 25th December as the birthday of Jesus, Williamson has the following: "All Christians know that the
25th December is now the recognised festival of the birth of Jesus, but few are aware that this has not always been so. There have been, it is said, one hundred and thirty-six different dates fixed on by different Christian sects. Lightfoot gives it as 15th September, others as in February or August.

The Secret Teachings of All Ages By Manly P. Hall 1928

STUDIES IN THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SEX VOLUME I BY HAVELOCK ELLIS 1927 (searchable PDF)
"Frazer (Golden Bough, 2d ed., 1900, vol. iii, pp. 236-350) fully describes and discusses the dances, bonfires and festivals of spring and summer, of Halloween (October 31), and Christmas. He also explains the sexual character of these festivals."

Pagan Christs: Studies in Comparative Hierology by John Mackinnon Robertson 1903
"The Mithraic Christians actually continued to celebrate Christmas Day as the birthday of the sun, despite the censures of the Pope, and their Sunday had been adopted by the
supplanting faith. When they listened to the Roman litany of the holy name of Jesus, they knew they were listening' to the very epithets of the Sun-God...Others than
Mithraists, of course, would offend, Christmas being an Osirian and Adonisian festival also.

Plus- Is the Christian Cross a Pagan Symbol? Many Books mostly scanned into pdf format

The Non-Christian Cross-An Enquiry into the Origin and History of the Symbol Eventually Adopted as that of our Religion, by John Denham Parsons, 1896 (scanned in .pdf format...also an additional searchable pdf)

The cross, heathen and Christian : a fragmentary notice of its early pagan existence and subsequent Christian adoption (1879) Mourant Brock

The Masculine Cross and Ancient Sex Worship by Sha Rocco (pseudonym of Abisha S. Hudson) 1874 (searchable pdf)

History of the Cross-The Pagan Origin and Idolatrous Adoption of the Worship of the Image by Henry Dana Ward (1871)

The Two Babylons or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife By the Late Rev. Alexander Hislop 1903

The 2 Babylons Dictionary in searchable .pdf format

A reply to: Jehovah's Witnesses and the Symbol of the Cross.

Sample: Are JW's using partial quotes? And do Greek Lexicons and dictionaries agree more with Mark's point of  view? Let us take a look. "The Tau was the basis for what is now called the "cross" taken from the Latin "crux".
"The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god  Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands,  including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system  pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain  their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered,  was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ."—An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London,
1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256.
What is this? The Cross used among ancient pagan? Is there more?..... (in searchable .pdf format)

The Swastika - The Earliest Known Symbol and its Migrations by Thomas Wilson 1894 - 167 pages

Kersey Graves and The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors (.txt and .pdf format)

The Mysteries, Pagan and Christian 1897 by Samuel Cheetham

The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism By Franz Cumont 1911

Paganism and Christianity (1891) James Anson Farrer

Paganism Surviving in Christianity by Abram Lewis 1892

Plus you get the following books and Bibles about John 1:1c similar to the New World Translation:

Contents:

Newcome's corrected New Testament 1808

Abner Kneeland New Testament 1823 (poor quality scan)

Hermann Heinfetter's New Testament
"In commencing this dispensation, the commans was existing, yet the command was with the God, as the command had relation to a God.

St. Matthew's gospel, with the parallel passages in the other evangelists ... - Page 331
edited by James Stark - 1878
The correct translation is: 'In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH
THE GOD, and the Word WAS A GOD ; he was in a beginning WITH THE GOD. ...
 
The Four Gospels Translated from the Greek, with Preliminary Dissertations
by George Campbell - 1837
Others maintain that QEOS here should be translated "a God was the word.'

The Freewill Baptist Quarterly - 1866
We open to John 1: 1—5, and copy the word for word translation:—"In a beginning
was the word, and the word was with the God, and a God was the word. ...

The Testament of Jesus
by Edward Vaughan Hyde Kenealy - 1901 - 140 pages
16 John answered them, saying, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
a God, and the Word was the sacred Spirit of God. ...

The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy: With an English Translation of ... - Page 831
by Rammohun Roy- 1906 - 978 pages
1, " the word was a God" ? We may, however, easily account for this inconsistency.
The term " God " in, Exodus is applied to Moses, the notion of whose ...

The Gospel According to St John translated from the 11 Oldest Versions by Solomon Malan 1862 (a god was the Word)

Emphatic Diaglott

Plus - Over 100 articles in .html and .pdf format by an Apologist on the New World Translation

Sample articles:
Acts 20:28: DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU "blood of his own Son" or "his own blood?"
Robert Bowman and the "Faithful and Discreet Slave"
CRI and the Money Scandal
Walter Martin on Bible Translations and Capitalization
Spurious Passages of the New Testament
AUTO as an Neuter Pronoun in the Greek. Is the Holy Spirit an "IT?"
Romans 8:1 and the Case of the Missing "Now" in the New World Translation
What's Wrong with the New King James Version
Appreciating the Bible via the Watchtower - An answer to the critics.
Why is the NWT a Superior Version at John 8:58? Why do so many other Bibles read similarly?
Is John 20:28 actually addressed to Jesus. What does the New Testament Greek Tell us?
Outrage, Hank Hanegraaff, and John 5:18
Can John 1:1c be translated as "the Word was LIKE God"
GOOD GOD ALMIGHTY! Ron Rhodes and Mark 10:18
Answering Jay Hess on the word "Worship" and the "Angel of the Lord" and Michael.
Why is the NWT a Superior Version at John 1:1?
Hermann Heinfetter, A Literal Translation of the New Testament,1863, [A]s a god the Command was"
Abner Kneeland-The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, "The Word was a God"
Robert Young, LL.D. (Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.], 54). 1885, "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
Belsham N.T. 1809 ?the Word was a god?
Leicester Ambrose, The Final Theology, Volume 1, New York, New York; M.B. Sawyer and Company, 1879, "And the logos was a god"...PLUS MUCH MORE!!
Proof that Jesus IS the Archangel Michael.
John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3, page 2048 states:
"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl.
Protestant Reformer JOHN CALVIN said regarding "Michael" in its occurence at Daniel 12:1:
"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people."
J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
List of Whole Translations with the Divine Name and other info.
Angels as Gods.
The Comma Johanneum and the Trinity.
Are there Contradictions in the Bible?
What a Difference a Word Makes in Bible Translation.
The New Testament In An Improved Version-Newcome-Gospel of John in .txt format (Gospel of John only).
Bible Theology and the Word "HELL".
An Inclusive Version-The Feminist Bible.
My Vicious Letter from the International Standard Version Bible.
Who Was King James?/King James the Fop.
The King James(Authorized) Version Bible-Is it the Best?
Why Jehovah's Witnesses are not False Prophets.
Don Cupitt on John 1:1 and Divine Agency
Protestant Witchhunt and the Case of Murray J. Harris
Defending the New World Translation-The NWT vs. the NIV and the NASB.
Smoke and Mirrors-Tactics Used by Opposers to Sway Jehovah's Witnesses.
Lies Ron Rhodes Tells in his Book against JW's.
Consider: Rhodes says the following regarding the NWT's rendering of the verse at Acts 20:28, "The New World Translation rendering of this verse GOES AGAINST ALL LEGITIMATE TRANSLATIONS OF SCRIPTURE" (p. 86. _Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses_)WHY IS THIS AN OUT AND OUT LIE...plus more?
My Response to Andy Bjorklund and his attack on the New World Translation.
John 1:1 and the Word/Wisdom of God, and many many Bibles that also DO NOT READ "The Word was God."
The Misunderstood Jehovah and the Ridiculous Notion that his name means "Mischief."
Proskuneo and Worship/Obeisance/Homage of Jesus and others.
Jesus Christ the Firstborn/PRWTOTOKOS of all creatures.
Did the Book of Mormon Plagiarize the Bible?
Conversations on the Trinity.
A Reply to Jehovah's Witnesses and the Symbol of the Cross.
A Reply to "Only Begotten Son" or "Only Son."
The Majority Text/Byzantine Text vs the Modern Critical Text. With Another Look at the King James Version.
A Reply to the Jewish "Why We Reject Jesus."
Conversations on the Textus Receptus (Received Text).
Colossians 2:9 and the "divine quality."
Johannes Greber and John 1:1c.
Is the Holy Spirit a Force or the 3rd Person of the Trinity?
50 Answers to 50 Questions to ask Jehovah's Witnesseses.
Rhodes vs Jehovah-Is it Jehovah, Yahweh, or just plain LORD?
Elohim, Echad and the 3 Angels of Mamre.
Ezra Abbot on Luther's Bible and the Comma Johanneum.
Is Jesus Jehovah-Heb 1:10/Ps 102 etc.
Is Jesus Jehovah Pt. 2/Bible Innerancy and the Mindset of Opposers.
Colwell's Rule of Bible Translations-What is the best New Testament?
According to Colwell's apparatus, the NASB would only get a 59 out of 64 rating of accuracy, while the NIV garners a scant 51 points. But Goodspeeds New Testament and the New World Translation get top marks.
The Biblical view of Only True God/TON MONON ALHQINON QEON.
On the NIV, the Insertion of the word "other", soul, hell, analusai etc.
The ARCHE at Rev 3:14-Beginning or Ruler/Source?
Proof that kolasin be translated *cutting-off* NOT *punishment* at Matthew 25:46?
Ezra Abbot on the Construction of Titus 2:13.
Answers to 65 questions every Jehovah's Witness should be asked using the NWT-A Catholic Perspective.
Is Jesus the Angel of the Abyss (Abaddon/Apollyon)?
John 1:3, 4, Punctuation, Staircase Parallelism and Caris.
Is Organization Necessary for True Believers?
On the Construction of Romans 9:5 by Ezra Abbott.
My Response to Lynn Lundquist's "The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures.
The Bible and the Deity of Jesus Christ: On Matthew 1:23 and Immanuel; John 20:28; Men as gods; Psalms 45:6; Colossians 2:9; the Divine Name in the LXX, the worship of Jesus, John 1:1, etc.
A Reply to James Stewart's Review of Rolf Furuli's book on Bible Translation and the NWT
Which Bible Best Retains Most of the Original Wording Prior to the Emendations (Corrections) made to the Hebrew Text
More on the Spirit and Quoting.
Bible Versions and the "Once Saved Always Saved" Theology
Jay Hess and the word "Worship" and the "Angel of the Lord"