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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus Christ is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 9:6 "For there has a child born to us, there has been a son given to us...And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God...". Jehovah is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 10:20-21. How can this be if there is only one God (1 Cor 8:4, Isa 43:10, 44:6)?

Reply: 1 Cor 8:6 says "there is only one God, the Father," which pretty much excludes the Son, Jesus. The context of Isaiah 4x deals with the pagan gods of the nations, and as we know from the Bible, men and angels can be called God as well. It is interesting how other versions have handled this verse at Isaiah 9:6:

"Wonder-Counsellor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace." Byington
"A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince." Moffatt
"in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like...." New English Bible
"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father...."Revised English Bible

Interestingly, this verse has not been understood by all as a reference to Christ at all, but, rather, to King Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz; or to Hezekiah initially and Christ finally. Note what some from former years have said regarding this account:

"Hezekiah, who was very unlike his father Ahaz. This passage is acknowledged, not only by Christians, but by the Chaldee interpreter, to relate in the same manner, but in a more excellent sense, to the Messiah––(Annotationes ad vetus et Novum Testamentum, by Hugo Grotius, a Dutch Arminian, 1583-1645).

"In several places of his Expositions and Sermons, he [LUTHER] maintains that the epithets belong, not to the person of Christ, but to his work and office. He understands [ale; Strongs 410] in the sense of power or ability, citing for his authority Deut. Xxviii. 32, where, as in about four other places, the expression occurs of an action's being or not being "in the power of the hand,"––(Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, Third ed. Lond. 1837, 3 vol., by Dr. J.P. Smith [it should fairly be noted that Dr. Smith disapproves of Luther's rendering])

"The word la [ale] here used is applicable, not only to God, but to angels and men worthy of admiration. Whence it does not appear, that the Deity of Christ can be effectually gathered from this passage."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, SASBOUT [as quoted in Concession, by Wilson])

"The words of Isaiah, Deus fortis, "strong God," have been differently interpreted. It is evident, that the term God is in Hebrew applied figuratively to those who excel – to angels, heroes, and magistrates; and some render it here, not God, but brave or hero."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, Esromus Rudingerus [as quoted in Concessions, by Wilson])

"It is evident that la [ale] properly denotes strong, powerful, and is used in Ezek. Xxxi. 11, of king Nebuchadnezzar, who is called... "the mighty one of the heathen."––(Scholia in Vetus Testamentum. Lips. 1828-36, 6 vol, E.F.C. Rosenmuller [Prof. of the Arabic Language at Leipzig; d. 1836])

The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" (estin) as "is" in almost every instance in the New Testament (Mt26:18,38, Mk14:44, Lk22:38, etc.). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate this Greek word as "means" in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the translation of the word "esti"? If the NWT was consistent and translated the Greek word "esti" as "is" in these verses, what would these verses say?

Reply: Actually, the Greek word ESTIN occurs almost 1000 times in the NT, and it is rendered as "means" about 49% of the time in the NWT, not just in the few isolated cases as mentioned above. "Means" falls within the allowable lexical range of meaning for this word, as is evident in Matthew 1:23 in most versions. [Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means God is with us.] NAB
"The broken bread is a symbol of Christ's body." NASB Zondervan Study Bible, 1Cor 1:24 ftn.

In John 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy". This translates literally as "the Lord of me and THE God of me". Why does Jesus, in Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for having come to this realization? If Jesus really wasn't the Lord and THE God of Thomas, why didn't Jesus correct him for making either a false assumption or a blasphemous statement?

Reply: Some have taken Thomas's exclamation as directed towards the Father, hence you have, "My Master, and my God" as in the 20th Century NT.
Winer , as does Beza, thinks it is simply an exclamation, not an address. (see G.B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 1872, p. 183
Brown reads it as "my divine one" The Gospel According to John, 1966
Fortna finds a problem with the high Christology of v.28 and the more primitive messianism of v.31. (see The Gospel of Signs, 1970, pp. 197, 198
Burkitt paraphrases it as "It is Jesus himself, and now I recognize him as divine."

While I may not agree with Harris on everything, he does say, "Although in customary Johannine and NT usage (O) QEOS refers to the father, it is impossible that Thomas and John would be personally equating Jesus with the Father, for in the immediate historical and literary context Jesus himself has explicitly distinguished himself from God his Father." p. 124

 John Martin Creed, as Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, observed: "The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas 'my Lord and my God' (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (v. Joh 20:17): 'Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'"

The translator Hugh J. Schonfield doubts that Thomas said: "My Lord and my God!" And so in a footnote 6 on John 20:28 Schonfield says: "The author may have put this expression into the mouth of Thomas in response to the fact that the Emperor Domitian had insisted on having himself addressed as 'Our Lord and God', Suetonius' Domitian xiii."—See The Authentic New Testament, page 503.

AS Margret Davies says in her book RHETORIC AND REFERENCE IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL, 125-126,

"Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words was hotly debated by early church theologians who wanted to use it in support of their own christological definitions. Those who understood "My Lord' to refer to Jesus, and 'my God' to refer to God[the Father], were suspected of heresy in the 5th cent CE. Many modern commentators have also rejected that interpretation and instead they understand the confession as an assertion that Jesus is both Lord and God. In doing so they are forced to interpret 'God' as a reference to LOGOS. But it is perfectly for Thomas to respond to Jesus' resurrection with a confession of faith both in Jesus as lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the confession in this way actually makes much better sense in the context of the 4th gospel. In 14:1 belief in both God and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which Thomas is particularly singled out.... If we understand Thomas's confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20:31 becomes an anti-climax."

Does Jn 20:28 say what trinitarians think it says? No. There is nothing there that talks of Jesus as being God the Son, the second person of a consubstantial Trinity.

"For any Jew or Greek in the first century A.D. who was acquainted with the OT in Greek, the term QEOS would have seemed rich in content since it signified the Deity, the Creator of heaven and earth, and also could render the ineffable sacred name, Yahweh, the covenantal God, and yet was able of extremely diverse application, ranging from the images of pagan deities to the One true God of Israel, from heroic people to angelic beings. Whether one examines the Jewish or the Gentile use of the term QEOS up to the end of the 1st century A.D., there is an occasional application of the term to human beings who perform divine functions or display divine characteristics." Harris' Jesus as God, p.270

Don Cupitt describes the relationship between God and Jesus as "something like that between King and ambassador, employer and omnicompetent secretary, or Sultan and Grand Vizier. Christ's is God's right hand man; all God does he does through Christ, and all approach to God is through Christ. All traffic, both ways, between God and the world is routed through Christ." The Debate about Christ, p. 30

"The NT designation of Jesus as QEOS bears no relation to later Greek speculation about substance and natures." O. Cullman's Christology of the New Testament as quoted in Harris' Jesus as God, p.289.

If Thomas was actually calling Jesus hO QEOS and hO KURIOS--it is strange that Thomas used the nominative forms of KURIOS and QEOS instead of the vocative. So it still seems that Theodore of Mopsuestia could have been correct. The Father may well be the referent in John 20:28.

This brings us to Smart's Rule as discussed on B-Greek. The rule is stated as: "In native [not translation] KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects two substantives of personal description in regimen [i.e. both or neither have articles] and the first substantive alone is modified by the personal pronoun in the genitive or repeated for perspicuity [Winer 147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in view."

Possessive pronoun repeated for perspicuity (21) - (Mt 12:47,49;
Mk 3:31 ,32 ,33 ,34 ; 6:4  7:10 ; 8:20, 21  Lu 8:21 ; Jn 2:12;
4:12; Ac 2:17; Ro 16:21 ; 1Th 3:11 ; 2Th 2:16 ; 1Ti 1:1;
2Ti 1:5;  Heb 8:11; Re 6:11) [Heb 1:7 is a LXX quote and is
therefore  translation Greek.]

 Single possessive - both substantives anarthrous (10) - (Mk 3:35;
 Ro 1:7; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Ga 1:3; Ep 1:2; Php 1:2; 2Th 1:1,2;
 Phil 1:3)

 Single possessive pronoun - both substantives arthrous (12)  -
 (Mk 6:21; 10:7,19; 16:7; Lk 2:23; 14:26; 18:20; Jn 11:5; Eph 6:2;
 Ac 7:14; 10:24; Re 11:18)

If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, how could he: Be referred to as "he" and "him" in Jn 16:7-8 and Jn 16:13-14; Bear witness-Jn 15:26; feel hurt- Isa 63:10; Be blasphemed against- Mk 3:29; Say things- Ezek 3:24, Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, 21:11, Heb 10:15-17, Rev 2:7, Desire- Gal 5:17; Be outraged- Heb 10:29; Search- 1 Cor2:10; Comfort- Acts 9:31; Be loved- Rom 15:30; Be lied to and be God- Acts 5:3-4?

Reply: Let's start with the last one. Is the spirit God in Acts 5:3-4? Let us see what it says:
"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto God." ASV

Do you notice that the last part is directed towards Peter when it says, "thou has not lied unto men?" See, they lied to Peter, who was "filled with holy spirit" Acts 4:8

And when they lied to Peter, they lied to God. Later on, in the same chapter, we have a similar situation in vss 38 and 39 where these words were directed towards Peter and the disciples, "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God." Peter and his men were not God, but representative standing in place of God, and when something is done against them, it is done against God. "Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own eye." Zech 2:8 New Jewish Publication Society/ Tanakh That is why the Scofield Study Bible cross-references Acts 5:4 to Scriptures like Numbers 16:11, 1Samuel 8:7 and 1 Thess 4:8 which says, " Therefore he that rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you." ASV

Another interesting statement:
"First, then, it is usual to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit on the ground, that the name of God seems to be attributed to the Spirit: Acts 5:3, 4, "why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?...thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." But if attention be paid to what has been stated respecting the Holy Ghost on the authority of the Son, this passage will appear too weak for the support of so great a doctrinal mystery. For since the Spirit is expressly said to be sent by the Father, and in the name of the Son, he who lies to the Spirit must lie to God, in the same sense as he who receives an apostle, receives God who sent him, Matt. 10:40, John 13:20. St. Paul himself removes all ground of controversy from this passage, and explains it most appositely by implication, 1 Thess. 4:8, where his intention is evidently to express the same truth more at large: "he therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit." Besides, it may be doubted whether the Holy Spirit in this passage does not signify God the Father; for Peter afterwards says, Acts 5:9, "How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?" that is, God the Father himself, and his divine intelligence, which no one can elude or deceive. And in Acts 5:32 the Holy Spirit is not called God, but a witness of Christ with the apostles, "whom God hath given to them that obey him." So also Acts 2:38, "ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," the gift, that is, of God. But how can the gift of God be himself God, much more the supreme God?"
Of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit, by John Milton

What of the rest though? The Bible employs terms that are descriptive, and often personifies the impersonal.
Sheol/Hell has a mouth and can swallow people (Numbers 16:30), it has ropes (2 Samuel 22:6), and it has soul (Isaiah 5:14).
"Sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire" (Gen 4:7 KJV). Here SIN is given desire, it lies and it is referred to as "HIS."
Blood cries out (Gen 4:10).
Names can rot (Pr 10:7)
Land can be punished for its sins (Lev 18:25)
Land can vomit (Lev 18:25)
A man of wisdom will see God's name (Mic 6:9)
God's name is near (Ps 75:1)
Wisdom cries...she has a voice (Prov 1:20)
Wisdom speaks (Prov 1:21)
Babylon is a whore (Rev 17:5)
The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as "kings." (Ro 5:14, 17, 21; 6:12) He writes of sin as "receiving an inducement," 'working out covetousness,' 'seducing,' and 'killing.' (Ro 7:8-11)

Since Jesus is claiming to be the "first and the last" in Rev 22:12,13 and since Isa records Jehovah as saying, "I am the first and the last; apart from me there is no God", who is "the first and the last"?

Reply: Let us look at this reasoning:
We can look at it like this:
Jehovah is the first and the last
Jesus is the first and the last
Jesus is Jehovah
But then, with the same reasoning, we can say:
All dogs have four legs
My cat has four legs
My cat is a dog

When we look closely at the use of the term "first and the last," we see that it has limitations when used of Jesus. When used of Jesus, it always in reference to his death and resurrection. We must remember that God cannot die (Hab 1:12 NJB). Jesus however is the "the firstborn from the dead." Interestingly, the Codex Alexandrinus [usually indicated by the letter "A"], uses the word "firstborn" instead of "first" at Rev 1:17 and 2:8, but at Rev 22:13, where it refers to the Alpha and Omega, this codex uses the word "first" instead of "firstborn." Even this scribe recognized the difference. As we have seen above with the word "saviour", simply sharing titles does not make you the same person.
I often get people who try to find similarities in what Jesus and Jehovah did, and the remarking that this should mean that they are the same being. But should this be the case? Let us take alook at Joseph. The NKJV MacArthur Study provides the following of similarities between Joseph and Jesus:
Both Joseph and Jesus were A SHEPHERD OF HIS FATHERS SHEEP (Gen
             37:2/Jn 10:11,27-29)
             Both Joseph and Jesus were LOVED DEARLY BY THEIR FATHER (Gen 37:3/Mt
             3:17
             Both Joseph and Jesus were HATED BY THEIR BROTHERS (Gen 37:4/Jn 7:45)
             Both Joseph and Jesus were SENT BY FATHER TO BROTHERS (Gen
             37:13,14/Heb 2:11)
             Both Joseph and Jesus had OTHERS TO HARM THEM (Gen 37:20/Jn 11:53)
             Both Joseph and Jesus had ROBES TAKEN FROM THEM (Gen 37:23/Jn
             19:23,24)
             Both Joseph and Jesus were TAKEN TO EGYPT (Gen 37:26/Mt 2:14,15)
             Both Joseph and Jesus were SOLD FOR A PRICE OF A SLAVE (Gen 37:28/Mt
             26:15)
             Both Joseph and Jesus were TEMPTED (GEN 39:7/mT 4:1)
             Both Joseph and Jesus were FALSELY ACCUSED (Gen 39:16-18/Mt 26:59,60)
             Both Joseph and Jesus were BOUND IN CHAINS (Gen 39:20/Mt 27:2)
             Both Joseph and Jesus were PLACED WITH 2 OTHER PRISONERS, ONE WHO
             WAS
             SAVED AND THE OTHER LOST (Gen 40:2,3/Lu 23:32)
             Both Joseph and Jesus were EXALTED AFTER SUFFERING (Gen 41:41/Phil
             2:9-11)
             Both Joseph and Jesus were BOTH 30 YEARS OLD AT THE BEGINNING OF
             PUBLIC RECOGNITION
             (Gen 41:46/Lu 3:23)
             Both Joseph and Jesus BOTH WEPT (Gen 42:24; 45:2, 14, 15; 46:29/Jn
             11:35)
             Both Joseph and Jesus FORGAVE THOSE WHO WRONGED THEM (Gen
             45:1-15/Lu
             23:34)
             Both Joseph and Jesus SAVED THEIR NATION (Gen 45:7/Mt 1:21)
             Both Joseph and Jesus had WHAT MEN DID TO HURT THEM, GOD TURNED
             TO
             GOOD (Gen 50:20/ 1Cor 2:7,8

             Does this mean Jesus must be Joseph?

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

See a local listing for this book here

metatron3@gmail.com

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

In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word "other", even though it does not appear in the original Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for inserting this word? Is the word "Jehovah" a name? See Ex 6:3, Ps 83:18, and Ia 42:8. How would the verse read if the word "other" had not been inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6.

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

Reply: Why did the New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible/TEV, Williams NT, Beck's Bible, New Living Translation, Weymouth's NT, 20th Century NT, Knox Bible, Contemporary English Version, The Complete Bible by Smith& Goodspeed, Jerusalem Bible and the Living Bible add the word "other" here also? Every Bible translation and version has to add words (and does) in the receptor language to clarify what is meant in the source language.
And yes, Jehovah is indeed a name, as the above scriptures mention. But yet most English Bibles have removed this name. What does the Bible say about removing words from the scriptures (Rev 22:19). See, I can play that game also.

Why does the WT break the Granville-Sharp rule of the Greek grammar for Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, "...of God and our Savior, Jesus Christ", which show Jesus Christ and God to be one and the same person? Yet they always get the rule right where the Diety [sic] of Christ is not an issue (such as in 2 Peter 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18, 1 Peter 1:3, and Eph 1:3)?

Reply: Why don't other Bible versions like the New American Bible, Moffatt, ASV, Concordant, Rotherham, Schonfield, Jewish NT, Lamsa, Webster, HNV, Lattimore, Newcome, the margins of many other Bibles also apply this "rule" consistently?
Because the rule does not apply where proper names/nouns are used, as in Matthew 17:1, "Jesus taketh with him Peter and James and John." If we were to apply the rule strictly, then Peter, James and John would be the same person. So there are exceptions to this rule, and this should apply in a way that is most often used. In at least 10 other instances though, God and Jesus are described as different individuals.(2Peter 1:2; 1Timothy 1:1,2; 2:5; 6:13; 2Timothy 1:1,2; 4:1; Titus 1:1; 3:6) Is is not better to explain things in a way that people understand, rather than relying on obscure "rules". After all, Paul and the other writers of the Greek scriptures did not view Jesus as God:

"Apparently Paul did not call Jesus God" (Sydney Cave, D.D., Doctrine of the Person of Christ, p. 48).

"Paul habitually differentiates Christ from God" (C.J. Cadoux, A Pilgrim’s Further Progress, pp. 40, 42).

"Paul never equates Jesus with God" (W.R. Matthews, The Problem of Christ in the 20th Century, Maurice Lectures, 1949, p. 22).

"Paul never gives to Christ the name or description of ‘God’" (Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 1, p. 194).

"When the New Testament writers speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of Him nor do they think of Him as God" (J.M. Creed, The Divinity of Jesus Christ, pp. 122-123).

"Karl Rahner [leading Roman Catholic spokesman] points out with so much emphasis that the Son in the New Testament is never described as ‘ho theos’ [the one God]" (A.T. Hanson, Grace and Truth, p. 66).

In John 14:14, why did the New World Translation (NWT) omit the word "me" in "If you ask me anything"... in the New World Translation, especially since the Kingdom Interlinear has the word "me". see Gr-Engl. It should therefore read "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it". Why the change?

Reply: John 14:14 is rendered that way probably because of the same reason it is in the Darby version, Williams NT, New English Bible, King James Version, Revised Standard Version, Emphatic Diaglott, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, 20th Century NT, Living Bible, Unvarnished NT, Modern Language Bible, Young's Literal Version, Contemporary English Version, Lattimore, Moffatt, Montgomery NT, New King James, Jerusalem Bible etc.
The word "ME" is also omitted from ancient manuscripts like A, D, K, L, Codex Petropolitanus, Codex Athous Laurae and the Byzantine manuscripts amongst others. Why is this? Because the book of John clearly says that this phrase is a referent to the Father (John 15:16; 16:23). Remember, according to trinitarian theology, Jesus is NOT the Father.
Looking at the above list of Bible versions leads to another question...why can't you people agree on anything?
"That evangelicals, all claiming a biblical norm, are reaching contradictory theological formulations on many of the major issues they are addressing suggests the problematic nature of their present understanding of theological interpretation. To argue that the Bible is authoritative, but to be unable to come to anything like agreement on what it says (even with those who share an evangelical commitment) is self-defeating. " EXEGETICAL FALLACIES by D. A. Carson p.18

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

Reply: Every Greek manuscript does not translate it as Lord, it is in there as KYRIOS, and it is untranslated. In fact, you will find that there is a wide discrepancy between most translations and versions as to the number of times KYRIOS is translated as "Lord". It is widely known among textual critics that the later Byzantine manuscripts embellished titles like "Lord" and inserted them more into the actual text. Question: Why do most Catholic and Protestant versions omit the divine name in the OT, especially when every Hebrew manuscript has it in there over 6000 times?

The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as "...the Word was WITH God, and the Word was a god". How can the Word (Jesus) be "a god" if God says in Deut 32:39, "See now that I, I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me"?

Reply: For the same reason Moses can be a god (Ex 4:16; 7:1), Angels can be gods (Ps. 8:5; 97:7, 138:1), Judges can be gods (Ps 82/John 10:34) and King Solomon can be a God (Ps 45:6 KJV, NIV, NASB etc).

"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred an honourable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His Son] is far more worthy of this honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John 10:34] is in Psalm lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; where God expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically abuse the authority and power for their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for every evil action ... Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, be- cause they are God's ministers for governing the world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world ... In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them authority."-John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 419, 20.
So what kind of *god* is meant at Deut 32:39? The same one that is mentioned at v.12, "Jehovah alone did lead him, And there was no foreign god with him." ASV

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

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

metatron3@gmail.com

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

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

In the New World Translation, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" is used in reference to God, it is translated as "worship" (Rev.5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is used in reference to Jesus, it is translated as "obeisance" ( Mt. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even though it is the same word in the Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for this inconsistency? If the NWT was consistent in translating "proskuneo" as "worship", how would the verses above referring to Christ read?

Reply: Did you know that the New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, Smith & Goodspeed's An American Translation, the 20th Century NT does the exact same thing as the NWT? Is it because they are also made by Jehovah's Witnesses and therefore trying to mislead the public? No, it is because PROSKUNEW as well as the Hebrew equivalent SHACHAH has a wider application, and it is often the same word used to bow to mere humans. Take note of the following:
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV
"And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV
Here, king David is given the same worship as Jehovah.
So it is necessary for Bible versions to make a distinction, as they all do (see Matt 18:26).

The NWT translates the Greek word "kyrios" (Gr-lord) as "Jehovah" more than 25 times in the New Testament (Mt 3:3, Lk 2:9, Jn 1:23, Acts 21:14, Rom 12:19, Col 1:10, 1 Thess 5:2, 1 Pet 1:25, Rev 4:8, etc.). Why is the word "Jehovah" translated when it does not appear in the Greek text? Why is the NWT not consistent in translating kyrios (kurion) as "Jehovah" in Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2 Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21 (see Gr-Engl Interlinear)?

Reply: Why are there absolutely NO Bible translations that are consistent in translating "kyrios"? What does "kyrios" mean?
"ltA-1,Noun,2962,kurios>
properly an adjective, signifying "having power" (kuros) or "authority," is used as a noun, variously translated in the NT, "'Lord,' 'master,' 'Master,' 'owner,' 'Sir,' a title of wide significance, occurring in each book of the NT save Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used (a) of an owner, as in Luke 19:33, cp. Matt. 20:8; Acts 16:16; Gal. 4:1; or of one who has the disposal of anything, as the Sabbath, Matt. 12:8; (b) of a master, i.e., one to whom service is due on any ground, Matt. 6:24; 24:50; Eph. 6:5; (c) of an Emperor or King, Acts 25:26; Rev. 17:14; (d) of idols, ironically, 1 Cor. 8:5, cp. Isa. 26:13; (e) as a title of respect addressed to a father, Matt. 21:30, a husband, 1 Pet. 3:6, a master, Matt. 13:27; Luke 13:8, a ruler, Matt. 27:63, an angel, Acts 10:4; Rev. 7:14; (f) as a title of courtesy addressed to a stranger, John 12:21; 20:15; Acts 16:30; from the outset of His ministry this was a common form of address to the Lord Jesus, alike by the people, Matt. 8:2; John 4:11, and by His disciples, Matt. 8:25; Luke 5:8; John 6:68; (g) kurios is the Sept. and NT representative of Heb. Jehovah ('Lord' in Eng. versions), see Matt. 4:7; Jas. 5:11, e.g., of adon, Lord, Matt. 22:44, and of Adonay, Lord, Matt. 1:22; it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Pet. 1:25. " Vine's Expository Dictionary

So sometimes, the title applies to God, sometimes to Jesus, other times to angels and mere men. The context will usually help us decide who it is being applied to. I do not know of any Bible version that translates it as "lord" for every application of the word "kyrios." The real question should be, "Why do most English Bible Versions fail to translate the Divine Name YHWH/JHVH, or do so inconsistently, but instead substitute it with the generic 'Lord' each of it's 6828 occurences?" It might also be pointed out that many other have also used the Divine Name Jehovah in the New Testament.

Jesus uses the phrase "Truly I say to you, ..." over 50 times in the Bible. In the NWT, the comma is placed after the word "you" every time except in Lk 23:43, where the comma is placed after the word "today". Why is the comma placed after "today" instead of after "you" in this verse? If the translation of this phrase in Lk 23:43 was consistent with the translation of this phrase in all the other verses in which it appears, and the comma was placed after the word "you", how would it read?

Reply: The above statement is neither accurate or fair. The original languages did not have commas, so it is left up to the translator to determine where to put the comma. In the book How To Enjoy The Bible by E. W. Bullinger, it states, "The word 'verily'[truly] points us to the solemnity of the occasion, and to the importance of what is about to be said. The solemn circumstance under which the words were uttered marked the wonderful faith of the dying malefactor; and the Lord referred to this by connecting the word 'to-day' with 'I say.' 'Verily, I say unto to thee this day.' This day, when all seems lost, and there is no hope; this day, when instead of reigning I am about to die. This day, I say to thee, 'Thou shalt be with me in paradise.'
'I say unto thee this day' was the common Hebrew idiom for emphasizing the occasion of making a solemn statement(see Deut. iv. 26, 39, 40; v. 1; vi. 6; vii.11; viii. 1; 11, 19; ix. 3; x. 13; xi. 2, 8, 13, 26, 27, 28, 32; xiii. 18; xv. 5; xix. 9; xxvi. 3, 16, 18; xxvii. 1, 4, 10; xxviii. 1, 13, 14, 15;  xxix. 12; xxx. 2, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19; xxxii. 46). p. 48  5th ed. 1921
 See also Syriac versions of the Bible, along with Rotherham, Concordant Literal NT and The Riverside New Testament.
Greg Stafford, in his book "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended. Elihu Books," makes an excellent point with regards to the "precise wording of the text." He says on page 552 that "Luke 23:43 is the only instance apart from Luke 23:34 where a verb of speech is used with semeron and where hoti does not separate it from that verb."
Below is the Vatican Manuscript 1209 (one of the oldest surviving mss) and they have placed the comma similarly to the NWT.

         Other sources:
Tines men houtos anaginoskousin* _Amen lego soi semeron*_ kai hypostizousin* eita epipherousin, hotiet' emou ese e to paradeiso._("Some indeed read this way: 'Truly I tell you today,' and put a comma; then they add: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'"--Hesychius of
Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E. Greek text found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 93, columns 432, 1433.
Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <<Semeron,>> hin' e to legomenon toiouton* <<Amen ego soi semeron*>> eita to, <<met' emou ese en to paradeiso,>> epipherontes. ("But others press upon the saying, putting a punctuation mark after 'today,' so that it would be said
this way: 'Truly I tell you today'; and then they add the expression: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'")--Theophylact, an ecclessistical writer who died about 1112 C.E. Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123, column 1104.

Alloi -- to rheton ekbiazontai* legousin gar dein hypostizontas (254: hypostizantas) anaginoskein* amen lego soi semeron*>> eith' houtos epipherein to* met' emou ese etc. ("Others press upon what is spoken; for they say it must read by putting a comma thus: 'Truly I tell you
today,' and then adding the expression this way: 'You will be with me' etc.")--Scholia 237, 239, 254. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke 23:43.

Kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met' emou ese en to parad[eiso]. ("And immediately he said to me: 'Most truly today I tell you, You will be with me in Paradise.'")--Descent into Hades, an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43.

Ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton parad[eison] met' emou. ("And he said to him: 'Today I tell you the truth, that I should have you in Paradise with me.'")--Gospel of Nicodemus (=Acts of Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke 23:43.

Therefore, at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the twelfth century C.E. there were readers who understood the text at Luke 23:43 as "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise." On that very day, when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in Paradise. (Psalms 16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb until the third day and was then resurrected as "the firstfruits" of the resurrection. (Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18) Thus, the word "today" at Luke 23:43 does not give the time of the evildoer's being with Jesus in Paradise.

Jn 1:3 says that Jesus created "all things", but in Isa 44:24, God says that he "by myself" created the heavens and the earth and asks the question "Who was with me?" when the heavens and the earth were created. How can be since if Jesus was created by God, then he would have been with God when everything else was created?

Reply: John 1:3 does not say that Jesus created all things. " All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made." ASV
The New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV, and others have linked/cross-referenced Proverbs 8:22-30 with John 1:3, where it describes the created Wisdom/Jesus as a master workman beside God as he is creating. Click here for more.
The use of the terms, "alone", "who was with me" and "by myself" does not necessarily mean what you would like it to mean, especially where a king is concerned:
Look at Daniel 4:30 and Isaiah 63:3. Daniel 4:30 has been translated in the following ways:
1) "The king reflected and said, 'Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built.'" NASV.
2) "The king was saying, 'Great Babylon! Imperial palace! Did I not build it alone.' " —Jerusalem Bible ("JB").
3) "The king spake and said, Is this not Babylon the great, - which I myself have built," — J.B. Rotherham ("RO")
4) "The king was answering and saying: "Is this not Babylon the Great, that I myself have built".— NWT.

Was Nebuchadnezzar really the only person in Babylon who took part in the construction and building of the whole city by himself? Or, was the construction during his time, accomplished by his authority, his word and no other's?
Isaiah 63:3 proclaims: "I [Jehovah] have trodden the wine press alone of the peoples there was no man with me." (ASV) Did Jehovah personally punish the peoples and nations that had offended Him? Who was it exactly that destroyed 185,000 men in Sennacherib's army? It was Jehovah's angel acting on the word of Jehovah. (2 Kings 19:35, 36) Did Jehovah personally punish Babylon or did He use the Medes and Perians to accomplish His will? (Daniel 5:26-28, 30-31) All these acts were done by Jehovah's permission and authority; and by His alone, but it was others who carried it out.—Ezekiel. 36:33, 36.

Jn 1:3 says in reference to Christ, "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence". How could Christ have been a created being if ALL things came into existence through him? If Jesus was a created being, then according to Jn 1:3, Jesus would have had to create himself.

Reply: No, because the Bible puts limitations on the word "ALL." Consider 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28 in the New English Bible,

"Scripture says, 'He has put all things in subjection under his feet.' But in saying 'all things', it clearly means to exclude God who subordinates them; and when all things are thus subject to him, then the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God who made all things subject to him..."

2 Tim 1:15 "You are aware of the fact that 'ALL' who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes."--New American Standard Bible

Here the word PAS (=All) obviously refers to 'a great number', because the words hOI EN Thi ASIAi do not really include 'all' the people in Asia, but the refer explicitly to Christians (non-Christians are already 'turned away' from God). Moreover, these words don't even include 'all' of the Christians, because Onesiphuros (and perhaps others) remained loyal to God.

Acts 2:17 "And it shall be, in the last days saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy..."--Rotherham's Emphasized Bible

Here, again, PAS (=All) is used in a more restricted sense. The Spirit will hardly be poured out upon "ALL flesh", since this verse refers exclusively to Christians.

You will notice that when Jesus is spoken in reference to creation, it is always in a passive sense, as THROUGH/DIA him.

In looking at the Greek word here for "apart from" CWRIS, Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of its occurence in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or co-operation) of one."
In this way, the Bible in Living English handles it superbly, "Everything was made by his agency." Jn 1:3
Even Origen acknowledged this, "And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages, showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when the ages were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage also, THROUGH [DIA] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this but the Father?" Origen's Commentary on John, ANF 10, Book 2, chap. 6, p. 328

Answering Questions about the New World Translation Bible

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

These are emails that I've received about the New World Translation from people who for some strange reason just don't like that Bible. Enjoy.

Emerson: It doesn't import me what will say. It matters it is the truth. NWT is a confused translation and full of interpolations.

Reply: No, it is no more full of interpolations than any other Bible, and even less so for Bibles that use the Dynamic Equivalent approach to Bible translating.

S777: It doesn't take long for someone reading the WT Bible to realize that it is very wooden, wordy, graceless, stiff, awkward, unwieldy, dull, unfortunate and odd. Things like the word "grace" being translated as "undeserved kindness" are a bit weighty at first, but it is still being true to the text. The question is, is it a translation that maintains the beauty of the Bible, or is it devoid of the beauty that has been captured and inspired by God?
Starting off in Genesis, we find that the NWT uses the term "bad" as opposed to "evil."
Gen 2:17 "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it."
Bad can mean many things. Someone can have a bad back. In can be meant as ïincorrectÍ. The room you live in could have bad lighting. An untrained puppy is a "bad puppy." Satan rebelling against God and causing death and pain and the fall of 20 or 30 billion souls is none other than "EVIL." Hitler was not bad for killing 10 million people, he was evil. You get the point? You may say this is nit picking, but stick with me for a moment.

Reply: The problem with this is, the fruit was not meant for Satan, and the prohibition put on the tree was not directed towards spirit creatures such as Satan, but mere humans. Yes, the word "bad" can also mean a "bad puppy" or "bad lighting," but it is used in the context of Genesis 2 as the antithesis to "good." Good knowledge as opposed to bad knowledge. Ask anyone what the opposite of good is, and you will get "bad" as an answer, before you get "evil."
Evil might have a better ring to it, but the Hebrew and Greek (LXX) words used indicate that it has "bad" as a meaning before "evil." (See BAGD, BDB, Strong's, Vine's etc)
The word "bad" is also used in the Living Bible, The Holy Bible in the Language of Today by William F. Beck, Tanakh-The New Jewish Publication Society, The New American Bible, Good News Bible, and Byington's Bible in Living English.

SS777: Judges 14:3 is a passage where Samson spots a lovely Philistine woman and says to his parents enthusiastically Her get for me(NWT). ...
The Bible is filled with beautiful literature, even atheists can admire its poise and gracefulness. The Psalms overflow with the exhortations to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. It seems the NWT has taken the beauty out of the Bible, and even the word itself. [Ed. Judges 14:3 in the NWT actually says "Still Samson said to his father:  'Get just her for me,  because she is the one just right in my eyes.'"]

Reply: If you want beauty, then read the Revised English Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible, if you want word study, then choose the NWT.
"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the Bible who are trying to appreciate to learn *the Hebrew or Greek* languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 'gloss' translation, especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the NASB, KJ2, NWT, YOUNG, DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, Bible Translations
and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie [emphasis his]
"for detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages. we suggest either a very literal version like NAS, NWT, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version [Kingdom {Interlinear Translation}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, Duthie

For instance, in Judges 14:3, most Bibles will remove the references to "eyes." The Hebrew Interlinear (Jay P. Green) reads, "for she is pleasing in my eyes."
But what do most Bibles say?
"for she pleaseth me well" ASV, KJV
"pleases me very much" LITV
"she is the one that suits me" Smith & Goodspeed
"she looks good to me" NASB
If you are fortunate to have the NASB Study Bible, it gives the literal rendering in the margin...and it reads exactly like it is in the NWT, and THAT is the value of having the NWT.

From a reader in ALL CAPS: IN JOHN 3:15-16 VS 15 TRANSLATES THE BELIEVING TO BELEIVING, BUT IN VS. 16 THE SAME WORD IS TRANSLATED TO "EXCERISING FAITH"  PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS.

Reply: The NWT was making a distinction between PISTEUWN EN in verse 15, and PISTEUWN EIS in verse 16. The expression in verse 16 is continual.

Again: IN ROMANS 5:9 THE GREEK "WE WILL BE SAVED" IS TRANSLATED TO "SHALL WE BE SAVED"  IN VS 10 THE SAME WORD IS TRANSLATED THE SAME ON BOTH SIDE.  PLEASE EXPLAIN.

Reply: The translators were probably making a distinction between SWQHSOMEQA DI in verse 9 ("we shall be saved" CB Williams NT) and SWGHSOMEQA EN in ver 10 ("we shall finally be saved" CB Williams NT) as Williams NT has.

Again: 1 JOHN 3:24 WHY WAS THE "WE ARE KNOWING" CHANGED TO "GAIN THE KNOWLEDGE".

Reply: Vine's dictionary gives as the primary definition of GINWSKW as "to be taking in knowledge, to come to know." The NWT translators felt the above was the best option as the Greek word is in the first person present.

Again: LUKE 17:19 THE FAITH OF YOU HAS SAVED YOU, CHANGED TO "HAS MADE YOU WELL.  PLEASE EXPLAIN

Reply: This is actually the common rendering of the text (see NASB, NKJV etc).
This falls within the semantic range (see Louw&Nida 23.136) and we have to remember that it is not always the best idea to translate word for word, as we must find the best way to express it so that people can properly understand the meaning behind it.

Again: IN JOHN 14:10 WHY IS THE WORD"IN" (EV) TRANSLATED TO "IN UNION" IN ENGLISH?

Reply: They felt that "in union with" best describes what is trying to be said. The Revised English Bible and CB Williams New Testament does this also at John 14:10.
"Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and that the Father is in union with me? I am not saying these things of my own authority, but the Father who always remains in union with me is doing these things himself." Williams NT
See also Romans 6:23; 8:1; 8:2; 12:5 and many others in the Good News Bible.

From an email: Here are some verses with my translations and understanding that support the Trinity 1Cor. 12:4-6, 2Cor. 13:14, 2Th. 2:13.

Reply: Sir, simply mentioning the three together does not have them share a substance, essence or ousia, or in any way imply an equality shared in one body.
Did you notice that all your scriptures actually apply the word GOD to only one of them. When the three are together, only one is actually God, and that excludes the Son and the Spirit. Interesting. There are a lot more Scriptures that mention God, Jesus and the angels together.

From a Reader Regarding Jesus as Michael:

In Hebrews 1; 5 it reads For example; to which one of the angels did he ever say: "you are my son;I today, I have become your Father".  Objection 1) the word (one) is not in many translations only on the NWT.  Objection 2)  the words  (did I ever say) is a question that is being answered at the sametime.  It is in the negative as in(no I did not).

Reply: My versions seem to be split as whether "angels" should be rendered in the plural or the singular. Consider:
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time" KJV, Barclay
"For to what angel did God ever say" Williams NT, Montgomery, Smith&Goodspeed
"to any of the messengers" Ferrar Fenton
"an angel" New English Bible, Simple English Bible
As for 2)
An Archangel is no mere angel.
Jesus has always been set apart from one of the angels. For instance, the angels are called "sons of God" (Gen 6; Job 38:7), but yet, Jesus is called the:
"only Son" RSV
"only-begotten Son" KJV, NWT and
"one and only Son" NIV at John 3:16
The same, yet different/unique.

MP asks: Have you thought that the Greek grammar allows for the word WORSHIP at Hebrews 1:6?

Reply: Greek grammar does allow for the word "Worship", but in the sense that it is used in the following:
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV
"And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV

From a reader: I have to disagree with your chart on Colwell and Bible Versions. Colwell would never have promoted a New Testament that uses the Divine Name.
See http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-new-world-translation-is-best-new.html

Reply: The use of the Divine Name was not part of Colwell's criteria. He chose the Centenary New Testament as one of his picks, and yet it had the Divine Name.

Dby: I have a question that maybe you can answer for me. When Jesus Christ was teaching his followers how to pray, why did he not use the name Jehovah in "The Model Prayer"? In Matt.6:19(The Living Bible)he says,"Our Father in heaven,we honor your holy name".
If it is SO IMPORTANT that we use the name Jehovah in our worship, then why didn't Jesus Christ our Lord specifically use the the name Jehovah when instructing his disciples how to pray to God The Almighty???

Reply: Who says he didn't? I mean, let's face it, when is this prayer ever repeated in the New Testament. It simply teaches us what things to pray for, but it was never repeated in exactly the same way. My MacArthur Study links the Model Prayer to Malachi 1:11 which says in the American Standard Version:
"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the Gentiles, saith Jehovah of hosts."
I think his disciples caught the tie-in.

Dby: I personally feel more comfortable addressing God as "Heavenly Father" when praying. I feel this way because I want to have a "parent to child" kind of close relationship with God.

Reply: But what is more important? How you FEEL, or what the Bible says?
Father is quite an interchangeable title. Consider John 8. The Jews said Abraham was
their Father (v. 39), then they said God is their Father (v. 41) and then Jesus says their Father is Satan (v.44).
Personally, and Biblically, I could never dishonor my Father by NOT using His name.
"A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if then I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I am a master, where is my fear? saith Jehovah of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised the name?" Malachi 1:6 ASV

From Hrh: Just  a few questions. First,why are there 2 greek translation books? [I am assuming he is talking about the Kingdom Interlinear] The 1969 and the 1985 version,and why are they different? why are words added in brackets when there are greek words that could have been used? Why have some footnotes have been removed or changed from 1969 to 1985? Why is it not a word for word translation? [like it says in front of both books]

Reply: I own many interlinears in Greek made by different Bible societies and people. You will find that none of them agree together 100% (even the ones made by the same people in multiple editions...like Jay P. Green's Greek Interlinear). We all grow in understanding. Case in point: You will also find that the older New World Translations differ slightly from the newer ones. But you will also find that this is the case with the NIV, NRSV, NASB, NAB, the Jerusalem Bible, TEV etc. It is common, and does not indicate a devious agenda. The intent of both the KIT and NWT is to be "as literal as possible."

From an Email: The New World Translation used to have the word "worship" at Hebrews 1:6, but in later editions, it changed it to "obeisance." I can show you if you don't believe me. What do you think of that?

Reply: I know that it was changed. We are not alone in this. The Jerusalem Bible had "worship" at Hebrews 1:6, but the New Jerusalem Bible changed it to "homage." No one is going to call these translators biased against the Trinity. So why the change? Many years ago, the word *worship* did not have the same connotation as it does today. For instance, the bible could speak of Daniel and King David as being worshipped:
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV
"And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV
All Bible versions make a distinction with this word, as it is lexically possible to do so (see Matt 18:26). According to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence to...It is used of an act of homage or reverence to God(John 4:24)...to Christ(Matt 2:2)...to a man (Matt 18:26)...to the Dragon (Re. 13:4)...to the Beast (Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast (Rev 14:11)...to demons (Rev 9:20)...to idols (Acts 7:43)."

AOC writes: The NWT (New World Translation) translates EGW EIMI as I AM each time, except at John 8:58. How do you explain that?

Reply: Is this really exceptional? Let us look at the use of EGW EIMI in context:

Version	John 8:12	John 8:18	John 8:24	John 8:28	John 8:58	John 9:9
NWT	I am	I am	I am [he]	I am [he]	I have been	I am [he]
AT	I  am	I am	I am	I am	I existed	I am
New Living Trans	I am	I am	I am	I am [he]	I existed	I am
Williams	I am	N/A	I am	I am	I existed	I am
Beck	I am	N/A	I'm	I am	I was	I'm
Lamsa	I am	N/A	I am	I am he	I was	I am he
Simple English	I am	I am	I am	I am	I was alive	I'm
Moffatt	I am	N/A	I am	I am	I have existed	I am
NASB Reference  Edition 1960-73	I am	I am	I am He	I am He	I am...  ftn: I have been	I am
Five Gospels	I am	N/A	I am	I am	I existed	It's me
Living Bible	I am	I am	I am	I am	I was in existence	I am
Kleist&Lilly NT	I am	I am	I am he	I am he	I am here and I was	I am
20th Century NT	I am	N/A	I am	I am	I was	I am he
21st Century NT	I am	I am	I am	I am	came into being	I am

As you can see, the NWT is not alone in this. If we simply look up the words in Strong's, we get "I" for ego [1473], and "I exist...am, have been." Notice too that the chart points to John 9:9 where a blind beggar says the same words, egw eimi, as Jesus did in John 8:58. Does this also make him YHWH?

AOC on John 14:28: [He is] Greater in terms of position only...Is the president greater then I am? Yes, but only in position (such as his rank), but on a substance and essence level, he is not. We are equal, in terms of form, and substance, and essence, just as Christ and God are.

Reply: Think about the Creed:
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father"
Are you ONE BEING with the president? Are you president from president? Are you son of the president?
You do not share a substance/essence with the president according to Trinitarian theology. You are not homoousian with him, and therefore you are comparing apples to oranges.
The president is greater than you because you are TWO different people, seperate and subordinate. TWO, not ONE in TWO.

Cs: Micah 5:2 says that Jesus always existed.

Reply: The New Jerusalem Bible has "whose origins are back to the distant past, to the days of old." My Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon says it of OLAM (5769) "long duration, antiquity" The word is even used of the forefathers (Joshua 24:2) and the prophets (Jer 28:8).

Cs: Taken together (qedem AND yown owlam) these communicate, as Jamieson, Fausset and Brown say, "the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable" Renowned Old Testament scholar Merrill F. Unger, commenting on Micah 5:2 in Unger's Bible Handbook says, "He [Jesus] is the Bethlehem-born pre-existent, eternal One"

Reply: Obviously, many other Bible versions do not agree with this. The fact that the Bible says he is the first being created would obviously indicate that he is older than anything else, thus necessitating the stress at Mic 5:2. In Prov 8:23, the 2 words are used again of Jesus/Wisdom, right after the scripture says he was created. The same words used in Micah 5:2 are used for others who are not God. The psalmist could remember qedem AND olam (ps 77:5).
To Jehovah, OLAM and QEDEM are consistent with the time of Rahab and Creation, "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of Jehovah; awake, as in the days of old [QEDEM], the generations of ancient times [OLAM]. Is it not thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces, that didst pierce the monster? Is it not thou that driedst up the sea, the waters of the great deep; that madest the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over? Is 51:9, 10 ASV
It does not have to mean eternity.

MTP writes: It seems to me that you twist the words in some of the quotes that you use in your website.  You are correct in saying that the word Trinity does not appear anywhere in the Bible.  However, neither does the word Bible and, yet, no one ever seems to attack its name.

Reply: Actually, that's not true. The equivalent word "scriptures" is in the Bible, and has been translated as *Bible* by various translators such as Beck (Matt 21:42) and the Living Bible (2Tim 3:16). We have no equivalent for the word or concept of the Trinity. It is simply not in the Bible, period.

GCM on Monogenes Theos: This gets very confusing to me when we are told that "begetting" someone denotes a physical act. This makes it sound as if God came around a got a young teenaged girl pregnant.  Certainly, this would be a corrupt interpretation of the scripture.

Reply: Biblically, begetting does not denote a physical act, and I don't know anyone besides you who thinks that.
Matt 1:2: "Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram etc etc etc" ASV. None of these men gave birth to their sons.
Begetting denotes a filial relationship, like the one between Father and Son.

GCM with his spelling errors: I appreciate your response.  Using this reference in your reply, a man cannot beget a child without the agency of a woman. Yes, Abraham did beget Isaac. He needed Sarah to do that. Your response substaniate the fact that begetting is physical.  These were physical people, made by sperm and ovum. My purpose was to only point out why I thought the word Unique is a better translation. The superimposing of our beliefs, fears, and predjudices on the word of God is the evil that seperates.

Reply: If we look at the parallel genealogy in Luke 3, we see something interesting in verse 38:
"the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."
Again, the Bible does not look upon "begetting" or the parallel "the son of" as having to include a woman, as God did not need a woman to produce his son, Adam. Adam's birth then, is also *unique.* By robbing the text of "begotten" in place of unique, though, removes the filial father/son relationship that is important to the theology of the Greek scriptures.

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

See a local listing for this book here

metatron3@gmail.com

My Response to Got Questions Ministries on the New World Translation

My Response to Got Questions Ministries on the New World Translation

The other day I saw someone post a page from Got Questions Ministries entitled Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible? See https://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html

What made me post about this page was the glaring mistakes made within it.

For instance, they state "Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as 'a god.'"

Reply: That's not true. John 10:33 in the Greek is APEKRIQHSAN AUTW OI IOUDAIOI PERI KALOU ERGOU OU LIQAZOMEN SE ALLA PERI BLASFHMIAS KAI OTI SU ANQRWPOS WN POIEIS SEAUTON QEON/theon which the New World Translation renders as "The Jews answered him:  "We are stoning you,  not for a fine work,  but for blasphemy,  even because you,  although being a man,  make yourself a god."

After this, Got Questions Ministries writes: "Just three verses after John 1:1, the New World Translation translates another case of theos without the indefinite article as 'God.'"

Reply: Three verses after John 1:1 is verse 4, and theos is not mentioned at this verse. However, the aim of the NWT was NOT to insert an indefinite article at all places where there was no article present, but the purpose was to include one as has been in done at other predicate nominative constructions.

See also Jason BeDuhn on John 1:1 in the New World Translation

Besides this the page makes an underwhelming case against the NWT at John 1:1. It glosses over the fact that the New World Translation renders the Greek term word staurós as "torture stake," even though lexically "stake or pole" is the primary definition of stauros. See Strong's 4716 and Thayer's Lexicon. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words adds:

"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."

Got Questions Ministries objects that "The New World Translation does not translate the words sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus as 'hell.'"

Reply: Why in the hell would you translate four different words with the same one word (pun intended)? Sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus are place names, they are not all the same place. That's like me saying that Edmonton, New York and Manchester are all Disneyland.

Got Questions Ministries adds that The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of “coming” for the Greek word parousia.

Reply: Again, my Thayer's Lexicon, Vine's and Strong's dictonaries give "presence" as a definition for Parousia.

Got Questions Ministries tells us that "In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word 'other' despite its being completely absent from the original Greek text."

Reply: This is true. "A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Chrisitian Literature" by F. Blass and A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".

For instance:

Luke 21:29
"Look at the fig tree, and all the trees." Revised Standard Version (RSV)
"Think of the fig tree and all the other trees." Good News Bible (TEV)
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." New American Bible(NAB)
“Notice the fig tree, or any other tree." New Living Translation (NLT)

Luke 11:42
"and every herb." Revised Version(RV)
"and of every [other] vegetables." NWT
"and all the other herbs." TEV
"and all other kinds of garden herbs." New International Version

In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but translators felt a need to put it in there. In certain contexts, "other" is a legitimate part of PAS.

metatron3@gmail.com

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

See a local listing for this book here