EPI/Over, Revelation 5:10 and the New World Translation

From Witnesses of Jehovah - A Shocking Exposé of what Jehovah's Witnesses Really Believe by Leonard & Marjorie Chretien

"In its own version of the Bible, called the New World Translation, we read, 'You made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.' This is an example of how the Watch Tower organization changes the Scriptures to fit their theology. All recognized translations of Holy Scripture are rendered to the effect that the kings rule upon the earth, not over it. For example, the New American Standard Bible reads at Revelation 5:10, 'Thou hast made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.' The King James Version renders the final part of the verse 'We shall reign on the earth.' The Living Bible renders it 'They shall reign upon the earth.' Today's English Version, the New International Version, Phillips Modern English, the Revised Standard Version, and The New English Bible all translate the final phrase 'on' or 'upon' the earth. In 1969 the Watch Tower organization produced The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. They took the original Greek text and rendered a word-for-word translation in English underneath each line. Then in a parallel column they provided the English text, using their New World Translation. The translation printed directly underneath the original Greek words for Revelation 5:10 reads, 'and they are reigning upon the earth.' Nevertheless, the New World Translation printed alongside reads, 'and they are to rule as kings over the earth.' The reason we have gone to such length with this example is to show that the Watch Tower organization will torture even the most obvious biblical rendering to fit their theo1ogy."

Reply: Such damning language, and such ignorance.

The word here in the Greek for ON/OVER is EPI which can mean over as well as ON or UPON.
What have scholars and resources said about this word?

"Our best Greek scholars prefer rendering the preposition 'epi,' over, and then it will read, 'we shall reign over the earth.'" The Earthen Vessel and Christian Record & Review, Volumes 12-14 (Baptist) 1856

Thayer's Lexicon gives the following definitions for EPI: "1) upon, on, at, by, before 2) of position, on, at, by, over, against 3) to, over, on, at, across, against"

Strong's gives the following definitions: "A primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], that is, over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.: - about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-]) fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of) over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively)."

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary remarks: "Kelly translates, "reign over the earth" (Greek, "epi tees gees"), which is justified by the Greek (Septuagint, Jud 9:8; Mt 2:22)."

Edward D. Andrews (BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, MDiv in Theology) writes: "I do believe that the English is a problem in trying to say, 'They shall reign on the earth.' First, because it is not a location issue i.e. where. The genitive EPI is dealing not with where, but with authority over, which is expressed by having it over - not on."

Robert Bratcher in A Handbook on the Revelation to John adds: "The verb "to reign" is properly used of Kings and Queens, and here implies complete power over the world and its inhabitants. So another way of expressing this is 'and they shall rule over the world and its inhabitants' or 'they shall have power over...'"

Let us look at how the New American Standard Bible translated EPI as OVER in the Book of Revelation:

Rev. 1:7 and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him.

Rev 2:26 TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS

Rev 6:8 Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth

Rev 7:15 and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them.

Rev 9:11 They have as king over them, the angel of the abyss.

Rev 11:6 and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood.

Rev 11:10 And those who dwell on the earth [will] rejoice over them.

Rev 13:7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.

Rev 14:16 Then He who sat on the cloud swung His sickle over the earth.

Rev 14:18 Then another angel, the one who has power over fire, came out from the altar

Rev 16:9 Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues.

Rev 17:18 "The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth."

Rev 18:9 "And the kings of the earth, who committed [acts of] immorality and lived sensuously with her, will weep and lament over her when they see the smoke of her burning"

Rev 18:11 And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn over her

Rev 18:20 Rejoice over her, O heaven

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power


And there are 4 other times where EPI(over) is used with BASILEUO (to rule) and most versions render it as "over." Here they are according to the New American Standard Bible:

Luke 1:33 - "He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”

Luke 19:14 - "We do not want this man to reign over us."

Luke 19:27 - "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them"

Romans 5:14 - "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam"

That is why other versions use "over the earth" at Rev 5:10 like the Darby Bible, Williams NT, Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, Beck's translation, Amplified Bible, Smith & Goodspeed's Bible, the Modern King James Version. the Holy Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton, The Holy Bible Knox Translation, Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ By Walter Scott, Simple English Bible, The New Testament in the Language of Today by William F. Beck, The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek by Kleist & Lilly, The Revelation: Verse by Verse Study By Oliver B. Greene, John Wesley's New Testament, A Conservative Version, Schonfield's Original New Testament ftn., Eonian Life Bible, Norlie's Simplified NT and Weymouth's NT

All the ex-Witnesses like Leonard & Marjorie Chretien have shown here is that the New World Translation, yet again, proves to be a superior translation of the Bible.

metatron3@gmail.com

Addendum: Robert Bowman in his book _Jehovah's Witnesses_: "The NWT rendering "over the earth has  almost no scholarly support and is certainly wrong. (See Above) The phrase EPI THS GHS "on the earth" appear 63 times in the New Testament yet Revelation 5:10 is the only place anyone has ever suggested that it be translated over the earth.

Reply: How many of those times does EPI THS GHS appear with BASILEUO? That's the part that you don't understand. Also, there are many Bibles that translate OVER at Rev 5:10 (see above) and will translate similarly to the NWT everywhere else EPI THS GHS is used. Why? Because of that one word BASILEUO!

Samuel Fripp on John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14

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

From Samuel Charles Fripp B.A. 1822

I take this opportunity of noticing the circumstance (which to some of my readers may possibly be new) that Luther's translation is, in some other important cases, closer to the original than our public version. For instance, in that very interesting passage, (Exod. iii. 14.) where Moses asks by what name he is to describe the GREAT ETERNAL to his countrymen, “God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM.” Thus it is translated in our common version. Luther's is, more correctly, as follows: “I will be what I will “be.” (Ich werde seyn der ich seyn werde.) i. e. The Eternal, Immutable. It so happens, however, that our translators have rendered John viii. 58, thus: “Before Abraham was, I AM.” (ego eimi) From this verbal parallelism, occasioned by the inaccurate translation of these two texts, many a plausible argument has been constructed in favour of the eternity and immutability of Christ Jesus our Lord. That the mere English reader should draw such a conclusion, is not to be wondered at: but that grave and learned divines should have fought, vi et unguibus, in defence of an argument, which rests entirely on a mistranslation, is indeed astonishing. To a reader of the Septuagint, as well as of Luther's version, the supposed allusion of our Lord to the words in Exodus, must appear groundless. (The LXX. translate Exodus iii. 14, thus: ego eimi ho on: “I am He that exists—THE BEING.) That John viii. 58, ought to be rendered, “Before Abraham was [born] I am He,” or “I was “He,” is, I think, evident. For the expression ego eimi, is the same that is thus rendered in this very chapter twice: (v. 24.) “If ye believe not that I am “HE, ye shall die in your sins:” (v. 28.) “then shall “ye know that I am HE;” i.e. the Messiah: “He “who was to come.” (Compare also John iv. 26.— ix. 9.—xviii. 5. Luke xxi. 8. Matt. xxiv. 5. Mark xiii. 6. Matt. xiv. 27. Mark vi. 50. John vi. 20.) To prove the utter impropriety of ego eimi being rendered (in the fiftieth verse) “I am,” let us translate those very words, as they stand in the twenty-fourth verse, in the same manner: “When ye have “lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know “(hoti ego eimi) that I AM, AND THAT I DO NOTHING OF “MYSELF,” What! He who is the self-existent Jehovah? Doth HE, verily, do nothing of HIMSELF? But Christ Jesus does incontestibly assert this of HIMSELF, (and not of his human nature, as is erroneously affirmed;) and in the very same breath too, with which he utters those words (ego eimi) “I AM,” which are supposed to assert his eternity and immutability. This expression must, therefore, refer to his Messiahship, not to his supposed eternity and Godhead. As God’s Christ, “he did nothing of himself,” nothing without the Father: as God Almighty, he could not but do all things of himself, else he were less than God. But he himself (v. 40.) assured the Jews that he was “a man who told them the truth “which he had heard of God.” And is he not the “true and faithful witness,” who was born “that he “might bear witness unto the truth?”

As the great appointed, promised, and expected Messiah, he doubtless pre-existed before Abraham was born: and Abraham saw him with the eye of faith, which realizes “things to come,” and sees “Him that is invisible.” He pre-existed, as “the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world:” “fore-ordained then, though manifest in these last “times for us.” The implacable enemies of our Lord flew into a paroxysm of rage at his declaration, and, armed with malice and religious hatred, strove to overwhelm their meek and lowly Messiah in a whirlwind of stones. This was just what might be expected from cold-hearted proud bigots of their stamp. Had they not already stigmatized him as a Sabbath-breaker, a Samaritan (or heretic), a Daemoniac, because Christ had performed a miracle of mercy on the Sabbath-day? And could these stanch defenders of the dignity of Abraham, brook any expression of the lowly Prophet of Nazareth, which implied that “a “greater than Abraham is here?” No, surely. The Messiah did not answer their proud, exclusive, earthly expectations: hence their blind animosity, and their vehement accusations of blasphemy. But, is it at all probable that they understood Christ's declaration aright? Was there no wilful misunderstanding on their part? Did the turbulent passions with which their malignant hearts were boiling, send up no intoxicating fumes “to mantle their cooler reason?” Shall we say that Christ, who was so cautious in declaring his Messiahship even to his most intimate friends and disciples, and who, nevertheless assured them that he spoke to them plainly, though to others in parables, that he revealed to these miscreants, (it is an orthodox expression, and the Bishop of St. David's tracts will supply the proper meaning) the great, astonishing, amazing secret, that He, Jesus of Nazareth, was, under the guise of a man, no less than the ineffable Jehovah—the great Eternal, who filleth heaven and earth with his immensity—to whom an “atom is a world, and a world an atom!” Unbelieving Jews may so profess to understand Christ's words, and look about for stones wherewithal to crush their Messiah;—for my part, I am content to be able to say with honest Nathaniel: “Rabbi! Thou “art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel!”

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

The ISV Bible and the Divine Name

The ISV Introduction states: "In the ISV New Testament, the Greek word christos is translated as “Messiah”—for example, the name and title Jesus Christ is rendered as Jesus the Messiah..."

No problem there.

However a page later they write: In the Old Testament, the traditional “LORD” is used for Yahweh. Where the Hebrew Adonai Yahweh occurs, the rendering “Lord GOD” is used. Yahweh Elohim is rendered as LORD God.

Notice that they write "name and title Jesus Christ" but they don't say "name" when it comes to Yahweh even though Yahweh is most definitely a name ["Let them know that you alone bear the name of Yahweh, Most High over all the earth." Ps 83:16 New Jerusalem Bible.] They seem to be treating this name as if it was only a title.

They say they use LORD for Yahweh. The Hebrew Old Testament already has a word for Lord...it is Adonai. Where Adonai and Yahweh are together, Yahweh is no longer LORD, it is now GOD, even though the Hebrew Old Testament already has a word for God, it is Elohim.

They say this is "traditional." However, the ISV Bible has no problem breaking with tradition when it comes to the use of inclusive language. Where we traditionally had "Man shall not live by bread alone" in the ISV now becomes "One must not live on bread alone." Where we traditionally had "For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?" in the ISV now becomes "what profit will a person have if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?" Where Bibles for hundreds of years traditionally had the Johannine Comma "And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" the ISV does not. So the Tradition argument falls flat.

I think more accurately it comes down to money. Edwin H. Palmer, Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee once wrote: "we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.'"

In a letter to the ISV in the late 1990's I wrote to ask them about this and I got this response:

"In regards to your puerile insistence on the "Divine Name" -- I have news for you. The ISV is in English, not Hebrew. If you want to use the "Divine Name" -- whatever you may think that it is (how DO you pronouce JHWH, or is the Divine Name KYRIOS, or is it Lord, lord,  LORD, L-rd, L-RD, God, G-d, G-D?) -- go right ahead and spend two million dollars to prepare your own English language base translation of the Bible like we did. You can call God anything you want to, mistranslate "anthropoi" to fit your own uninformed prejudices, and do whatever you want to do with the text, all with your own petty baseless religious superstitions and prejudices, but with no real substantive scholarship behind it, just some silly superstitious religious nonsense which you presume to be more spiritual than our work. Your ridiculous letter has earned a place of hallowed presence in the Learn Foundation's "tartarus" page at http://isv.org/tartarus.htm (where all the
baseless comments are posted). I shall request that your letter be posted there, together with our response. I'm tired of people like you (and people like the woefully ignorant "King James Only" and "Textus Receptus" crowd) taking pot shots at our work. Please do not buy the ISV or any of our publications. Just shut up and leave us alone and don't bother to waste my time with any more email messages."
Charles Welty, Publisher
ISV New Testament

So they as well feel as if they would be throwing away 2 million dollars if they used the Divine Name. They, like the NIV Committee would rather appeal to the ignorance of their readership rather than educate them.

When they above write: "how DO you pronouce JHWH, or is the Divine Name KYRIOS, or is it Lord, lord,  LORD, L-rd, L-RD, God, G-d, G-D?" they are really being silly. Their Introduction has no problem using Yahweh but in their reply to me they claim ignorance on the subject. Also, KYRIOS is not a Divine Name, it is a title normally translated Lord or Sir.

As an aside, the New Jerusalem Bible, which actually does use Yahweh faithfully, sells more Bibles than the ISV.

In the above response the ISV writes: "I have news for you. The ISV is in English."

Reply: Yes, all English Bible translations are in....English. But they are however translated from the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. By the tone of that sentence, I would expect "Jehoshophat" or "Jehoram" to be translated "Man". The fact is, it is the divine name Jehovah or Yahweh that has been excluded, and only that name. It is that name that is mentioned more often than any other name in the Bible, including Jesus, which incidentally, has a different Hebrew and Greek equivalent-Yeshua and Iesous. Perhaps we should remove his name from English ISV as well.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Addendum: Since I have posted my original letter, a kind Mr. Bradley O. Browne has come to my defense and has also had correspondence with the publishers of the International Standard Version Bible. But for his efforts, he was also placed on the ISV Tartarus page. The ISV is threatening Hell on us...but interestingly enough, while it may translate Tartarus(2 Peter 2:4) as "Hell", this same Bible also translates the greek word Gehenna(Matthew 5:22) as "Hell" and the greek word hades(Matthew 16:18) as "Hell". Obviously, the translators of the ISV will translate any word as "Hell" that they see fit. NOT a very useful version is it? You can download the ISV for free at
http://isv.org/isvi.htm
That should save you some money right there.
Bradley O. Browne
Senior Network Coordinator
C.B.I.
Milwaukee, WI  53202 wrote: "I've seen your picture, so you are a mature man physically, I would recommend you grow up socially."
The ISV wrote:
             You've seen my picture on our web site, have you? Too
                  bad I'm not the person who wrote the flame. You have
                  slandered me by this statement, and by your entire email.
                  You are the one who needs to grow up, Mr. Browne. I
                  suggest you respond in a mature fashion to the writer of
                  the response to the email. Here's his email address:
                  mailto:crwelty@ffia.net.

                  Now, speaking of being grown up, are you grown up
                  enough to apologize to me for your ad hominum remark?
                  If so, I'll publish your apology as an addendum to your
                  original email and my comments thereto, since both are
                  going to take center stage at the Tartarus page of the ISV.
                  If anyone's email has deserved publication, it's yours.

                  William P. Welty, M.Div.
                  Executive Director
                  The Learn Foundation
To read more...just go to http://isv.org/Flames%20of%20Tartarus/bradley_o_browne.htm

This link and the one where the fires of hell have been placed besides my name have since disappeared (and the Tartarus page), thanks to Mr. Bradley's efforts.

Another Addendum:
Recently I received this letter from a Mr. Martin who wrote the ISV concerning the above:

                 Mr. Martin wrote:

                 > I find this letter highly offensive and out of line for those who are
                 to
                 > translate the Holy Word. Did you write this letter?

                 No. It was written by Davidson Press, one of the publishers of the ISV.
                 The people who posted the original comments, along with the reply comments by
                 that publisher, seem to have confused the differences between us as producers
                 of the translation and the publisher.

                 > If so, why?  Why the rudeness? Why the lack of love?
                 > Why the unchristlike character displayed therein?

                 I have no idea why the people who wrote those misguided attacks on the
                 ISV would display such rudeness, lack of love, unchristlike character, etc.
                 as to falsely suggest we're liberal and all of the other things they said.
                 Perhaps you could ask them. I was puzzled with the Davidson Press response, but
                 given the rudeness, lack of love, etc. (your words) displayed by those who
                 attacked the ISV, I do think I can understand his frustration.

                 Regards,
                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                 /            William P. Welty, M.Div., Director
                 \               //                            The ISV Foundation
                 \\            ///            2200 North Grand Avenue, Suite 100
                  \\\'        ////                Santa Ana, CA  92705-7016  USA
                   \\\//    _////                        Telephone: 714.479.0975
                    \_-//' / ///<                              Fax: 630.214.5965
                      \ ///  <//`                  Email: mailto:william@isv.org
                       /  >>  \\\`__/_                  Internet: http://isv.org
                      /.)-^>> _\` \\                               ICQ#: 7521518
                      (/   \\ //\\     The letters in "INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY"
                          // _//\\\\  rearrange as "A ROUGH WHIMPER OF INSANITY"
              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

metatron3@gmail.com

Questions on John 1:1 and John 20:28

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

Question: You use examples of other translations as valid reason for the NWT's rendering of John 1:1, where in other instances you point to some of those same translations as erroneous when they translate other passages differently from the NWT. Instead, why not stick to the issue at hand: "Is the NWT an accurate translation of the original text?"

Reply: Yes! "If you belong to a small group of serious students of the Bible who are trying to appreciate to learn the Hebrew or Greek languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 'gloss' translation, especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the NASB, KJ2, *NWT*, YOUNG, DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." p. 67, Bible Translations and How to Choose Between Them by Alan S. Duthie

"For detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages. we suggest either a very literal version like NAS, *NWT*, LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version [*Kingdom {Interlinear Translation*}, Marshall]. p. 225, How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, Duthie

Question: The appendix of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (KIT) points to the rule that the definite article is used with the greek word for God when it refers to The Father (Jehovah) and the definite article is not present when referring to The Son (Jesus)as is the case in the original greek text of John 1:1. That assumed rule does not stand up when examining other scriptures where the definite article is or is not present. The opposite of the rule applies. Consider these scriptures where the article is not present and the text refers to The Father (Jehovah). Matt. 5:9, 6:24, 12:28, 15:4, 19:26, 27:43, Acts 27:46, 3:18, 5:27 & 39, 14:15, Rom 1:7,21 & 30, 2:17, 3:18, 1Cor 1:24 & 30, 2:5&7, 3:7,9 & 23, 4:1, 6:19, 7:7 & 19, 10:20, 14:2, 15:34...

Reply: You are ignoring the unique construction of John 1:1. The word for "god" in Greek is QEOS/theos. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called "a predicate noun" or, "a predicate nominative". Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN "was" follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word.  What have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction?

There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite...In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.—Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.

We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite ["qualitative" would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to "the image of God'' of Paul, Col. 1:15.—G. Lucke, "Dissertation on the Logos", quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.

There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there in no article and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos so the phrase means 'The Word was divine'.—The Translator's New Testament, p. 451.

We reach a more difficult issue in the Gospel of John. Here, in the Prologue, the Word is said to be God, but, as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not used (in the final clause.) For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine' (Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the Absolute sense of the name...In a second passage in the Prologue (I 18) the textual evidence attests 'only-begotten God' more strongly than 'only begotten Son', but the latter is preferred by many commentators as being more in harmony with Johannine usage and with the succeeding clause, 'who is in the bosom of the Father'. In neither passage is Jesus unequivocally called God, while again and again in the Gospel He is  named 'the Son of God.—Vincent Taylor, The Expository Times, January 1962. p. 117.

As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue's "The Word was God" offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that "god" means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.—Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.

The late Dr. William Temple in His Readings in St. John's Gospel (1939), 4, obviously accepts Moffatt's translation, for he says, 'The term "God" is fully substantival [shows identity, who, or
what, 'the God', the Father, is] in the first clause  pros ton then ["with the God", both "the" (ton) and "God" (Theon) being spelled accusative case endings] it is predicative and not far from
being adjectival in the second - kai theos en ho logos ["and (a) god was the Word"]—R.H. Strachan, The Fourth Gospel (3rd ed., 1941).

Question: Consider also John 20:28 where Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and My God". The definite article IS present in this scripture in which there is no questioning the fact that Thomas is speaking directly to and about Jesus. Note that this very same sentence structure is present at Matt 4:10 when speaking of The Father, Jehovah.

Reply: Actually it is not the same structure at all. Matt 4:10 has KURION TON QEON  whereas John 20:28 has O KURIOS MOU KAI O QEOS MOU. The former is never used of Jesus.

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)

 "Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other." Augustine in"Tractate CXXI"

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

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

Don Cupitt describes the relationship between God and Jesus as "something like that between King and ambassador, employer and omnicompetent secretary, or Sultan and Grand Vizier. Christ's is God's right hand man; all God does he does through Christ, and all approach to God is through Christ. All traffic, both ways, between God and the world is routed through Christ." The Debate about Christ, p. 30 The LOGOS is God's agent, not God himself.

metatron3@gmail.com

The Maxim that Proves the Trinity Doctrine as False, by Theophilus Lindsey 1790

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

See a local listing for this book here

The Maxim that Proves the Trinity Doctrine as False, by Theophilus Lindsey 1790

It may be assumed as a maxim, which cannot be controverted; that a doctrine of such importance as that which relates to the Being that made us, and whom we are to worship, whether it be one person, one intelligent agent, or consisting of two or three such persons; cannot depend upon one or two particular passages of scripture, especially such as are doubtful and obscure; but must be what is apparent throughout the whole, wherever the name of God occurs, and be every where plain and intelligible to the ordinary plowman, who makes use of his understanding, as to the greatest scholar.

Now if you apply this rule to the doctrine of the Divine Unity, to there being one God only, one in the strictest sense, one person: you find this to be the most plain and evident, in every page of the sacred writings, where the Divine Being is mentioned. For always, some one of the singular pronouns, I, thou, he, me, thee, him, are used concerning that ineffable and peerless majesty; which demonstrate the point, to every sound understanding, that God is one single person, beyond the possibility of confutation; and necessarily exclude Jesus Christ, and every other person whatsoever, from being God.

But with respect to the Trinity, as it is called to there being Three Divine Persons, who are each of them God, and to be adored, by distinct personal invocations, God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost; there is not one book of the Old Testament, wherein a man of a plain unprejudiced understanding, could find, that there were any more persons than one, or any other than the single person of Jehovah, who was God, and to be worshiped.

The far greater part of the books of the New Testament can not be said to hold forth an idea of any such three divine persons and their worship; speaking expressly of one person only, who was God, and to be worshiped; so that we must necessarily infer, that the sacred writers of these books knew nothing of such three divine persons, but of one only.

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 James L. Melton's Criticisms on the New World Translation

Answering James L. Melton on the New World Translation

James Melton's web page is at https://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/jw.html

James L. Melton: It (the New World Translation) changes Zechariah 12:10 to read, ". . . they will certainly look to the one whom they pierced. . . ."

Reply: The King James Version and the ASV have here: "and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced"

The objection is that the word "me" is not used, but many other Bibles and Bible Resources do not use the word "me" here either, such as Moffatt, Smith & Goodspeed, The Bible in Living English, The Revised Standard Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The New American Bible, The Jerusalem Bible & NJB, The Good News Bible, The Bible in Basic English, The Contemporary English Version, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press), F.F. Bruce (see his History of the Bible in English, p. 199, 200), and the editor of the New Interpreters Bible (see vol. 7, p. 828).

Additionally, the Apostle John when quoting Zech. 12:10 at John 19:37 also does NOT use the word "me."

James L. Melton: John 1:1 in the N.W.T. says that "the Word was a god," instead of "the Word was God." The definite article "the" is replaced with "a," and the capital "G" is replaced with a lower case "g."

Reply: I'm scratching my head here. John 1:1c reads in Greek: kai theos en ho logos. "Ho" is the definite article and it is used before logos, hence "THE word). The definite article is NOT used for god (theos). God here is anarthrous (it lacks the article) which can make it indefinite (a god) or qualitative (divine). We have something similar John 4:19, "The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet." This makes the New World Translation a superior translation at John 1:1.

Also, the original Greek does not use capitalization, so capital "G's" and lower case "g's" are left to the translators' whim.

James L. Melton: The last half of 1 John 5:7 is omitted in the N.W.T., because it says that the Father, the Word (which is Christ in John 1:14), and the Holy Ghost "are one."

Reply: As Mr. Melton knows, most Bibles do not have these words. This is the most famous corruption/interpolation of the Biblical text there is. Even before the days of the original King James Bible, Mr. Melton's preferred Bible, people knew these words were inserted. For instance, below we have an image of Miles Coverdale's text of 1 John 5:7,8 published in 1535. You will notice that the words in question are bracketed off from the rest of the text. This is done to show that these words are not part of the original text.

"The words are not found in any Greek. MS. before the sixteenth century. They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies. Thence they have crept into the text." EW Bullinger

"If there is one thing that is certain in textual criticism, it is that this famous passage is not genuine." Cambridge Bible

"It is generally agreed that 1Jn_5:7 has no real authority, and has been inserted." C.I. Scofield

"But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve. It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin." Adam Clarke

James L. Melton: The Virgin Birth is attacked in Isaiah 7:14 of the N.W.T. by translating "maiden," instead of "virgin," even though Matthew 1:23 TOLD THEM that it should read "virgin!"

Reply: The Bible dictionaries that I have consulted list not only VIRGIN as a definition of the Hebrew word ALMAH, but also "young woman," "damsel," and "maid/maiden" as well. This is why other Bibles have translated Isaiah 7:14 similarly:

"For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel." Bible in Basic English

"Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel.'" Good News Bible

"The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel." New Jerusalem Bible

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el." Revised Standard Version

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel." New Revised Standard Version

"Because you do, the Lord of his own accord will give you a sign; it is this: A young woman is with child, and she will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel." Revised English Bible

Even your own KJV Bible translates ALMAH as "maid" at Exodus 2:8, Proverbs 30:19 and "damsel" at Psalm 68:25.

James L. Melton: They change "from everlasting" in Micah 5:2 to read, "time indefinite," which is not the same at all.

Reply: My Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon says it of OLAM at Micah 5:2 (5769) "long duration, antiquity" It is even used of the forefathers (Joshua 24:2) and the prophets (Jer 28:8).

"And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods." Joshua 24:2

"The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence." Jeremiah 28:8

For this reason many translations render this verse differently than "from everlasting":

"whose origins go back to the distant past, to the days of old." New Jerusalem Bible
"someone whose family goes back to ancient times." Contemporary English Version
"whose family line goes back to ancient times." Good News Bible
"His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago." God's Word
"whose comings forth, have been from of old, from the days of age-past time." Rotherham
"his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity." YLT
"whose origin is from of old, from ancient days." Revised Standard Version
"whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" New International Version and English Standard
Version
"one whose origins are from the distant past." New Living Translation
"whose origin is from of old, from ancient times." New American Bible
"whose roots are back in the past, in days gone by." New English Bible

James L. Melton: John 8:58 is where Christ said, "Before Abraham was, I am." This matches God's statement to Moses in Exodus 3:14, meaning that Christ is God. However, the N.W.T. says, "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." This destroys the valuable cross reference to Exodus 3:14.

Reply: What's more important? Conserving a "valuable cross-reference" or translating a passage properly? Did you know that the early church fathers did not make any connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58? The Greek versions they used were akin to Aquila’s and Theodotion’s where it reads “esomai hos esomia.” When translated, this reads “I will be what who I will be.” This is just like the TRUE reading at Exodus 3:14. If you check the footnotes in most mainstream Bibles, like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, NEB etc, you will see that this is the case. But why is this the true reading. Well 2 verses before the same Hebrew word (EHYEH) is used, it is there universally translated “I WILL BE.” Actually, for a translation of the Hebrew to be “I AM THAT I AM” would require the original Hebrew to read “ANI ASHER ANI”, a reading that we do not have at this verse. It should also be noted that, in the Septuagint at Exodus 3:14, God is identified as the “ho on”, THE BEING, not the I AM. Yet, this is not carried forth in John 8:58. Also, to translate John 8:58 at "Before Abraham was born, I am" is simply bad English. Smith & Goodspeed's An American Translation translates it best as "I existed before Abraham was born" and many other Bible versions have followed suit.

James L. Melton: In John 9:38, Matthew 14:33, and Luke 24:52, the [translators] have replaced the word "worshipped" with the words "did obeisance," which is not the same (See Gen. 37:7, 43:28; Exodus 18:7; 2 Sam. 1:2; 2 Chr. 24:17).

Reply: Simply go to http://biblehub.com/greek/4352.htm and you will see that "obeisance" is a definition of PROSKUNEO. In fact, Vine's Expository Edition of Old and New Testament words gives “to make obeisance" as the primary definition.

"and he said, 'I believe, sir,' and bowed before him." John 9:38 Young's Literal Version

"But those in the ship came and did homage to him, saying, Truly thou art God's Son." Matthew 14:33 John Darby Bible

Interestingly, many Bibles (and Greek mss) omit the part about "having done him homage" (Darby) at Luke 24:52

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

The Trinity Doctrine Contradicts Human Reason, By William S Andrews 1829

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

See a local listing for this book here

The Trinity Doctrine Contradicts Human Reason By William S Andrews 1829

The strongest argument against the doctrine of the trinity is, that it contradicts the plainest dictates of human reason, and involves in itself propositions which are directly and utterly opposed to each other. One of these propositions is, that God is a single, independent, and almighty being,—the other is, that he is composed of three distinct persons or agents, united together in some mysterious manner, having but one will and consciousness, and together constituting the divine essence. Now these two are evidently contradictory propositions, and from their very nature destructive of each other. The mathematical proposition, that one and three are the same numbers, is not in itself any more absurd and revolting to reason, than the assertion of both of the foregoing propositions at the same time, but precisely of the same nature and extent; and yet if we were called upon to give our assent to such a proposition, we should say at once, that it was impossible; that the one in its very essence excluded the other and could not co-exist with it. And nothing which could be brought in support of such a proposition, could or ought to induce us to receive it, for we should distrust any kind of evidence sooner than the light of reason upon a subject, the parts of which we perfectly understand, and which indeed we must understand before it can be made an object of belief under any aspect. If then we should think we find it revealed in Scripture, that one and three were the same mathematical numbers, we ought not to believe it, but should put any other possible construction upon the language, or suppose that this was a human interpolation sooner, or indeed resort to any hypothesis in order to avoid its admission. For human reason is the only guide we have for judging of the evidence of the Bible, and it is not possible that what is a rule and guide in the latter case should fail in the former. And if we can be required to embrace, as an article of faith, any doctrine supposed to be contained in it, which clearly and undeniably contradicts reason, we can be required to suspend the use of this faculty in examining the evidence of the Scriptures themselves, and to believe in their sacred origin and authenticity upon trust altogether.

To this kind of reasoning, I know it is objected, and with some speciousness, that there are some truths, which are acknowledged by all mankind, that are entirely beyond our comprehension; but that we do not allow this circumstance to form any barrier to our belief of them. Such, it is said, is the eternity of God, past and future,—-—his omnipresence and omniscience,—the birth of a child, and growth of a plant,—the action of mind upon matter, &c. These, to be sure, are facts within our knowledge and belief, and such as no one would think of disputing. But the plain distinction which exists between these and the doctrine of the trinity is, that the former, though beyond our reason, are not opposed to it; while the latter clearly is; and this is the reason why we may believe one and should not the other. It is true the human mind is so imperfect, that its powers are not capable of tracing the train of causes and effects which produce these natural results; or of understanding their operation; and indeed, as it regards the eternity of God and his other attributes, of comprehending their full extent. But in these cases there is nothing which contradicts any lore-established and admitted truth in the mind,—nothing which requires us to disbelieve and believe too, at the same time, the same fact, —nothing which obliges us to confide in our reason and disregard it too, at one and the same moment. We believe in the eternity of God; but the truth opposed to this, that he is finite in his existence, we never have believed and are not called upon to believe. We believe in the manner in which we are said to be born into the world; but we are not called upon by our reason to believe that we were born in some other way; and so of all the other truths which are said to be parallel to the doctrine of the trinity, and to receive our ready assent. As it regards the attributes of Deity so far are they from contradicting any of the deductions of reason, that we are obliged to believe them by the very exercise of this reason, though we cannot be said to comprehend them. Take for instance his omnipresence, as we cannot conceive of any limits to the universe, so we cannot conceive of any part of it, which is not under the superintendence of an intelligent Being. And this superintendence being co-extensive with the universe, must necessarily imply a power and knowledge co-extensive with it, or in other words omnipotence and omniscience. The same train of reasoning will apply to his eternity, past and future, that we cannot even conceive of its beginning or end.

There is a great difference in a doctrine’s being beyond human reason and being opposed to it. The one we may and ought often to believe,—the other, from our very nature, we cannot believe; for I assert that it is impossible for any one to believe at the same time two propositions which he perfectly understands, and which to his mind appear to contradict each other. And he must understand them, or he cannot be called upon to believe them, since he must first understand what is meant by one being, and then what is meant by three, or he cannot have any idea of the proposition, that this one and these three beings are the same; and it would be the same thing as requiring him to believe in mere language without any ideas attached to it.

The doctrine of the trinity has been called a mystery, and it may be said that it ought to be received as such, and embraced, although we cannot comprehend it, and although it does appear to contradict the deductions of human reason. But I conceive the term mystery is misunderstood and misapplied, when it is used in application to this doctrine. Mystery, when it relates to doctrines in Scripture language, means, I conceive, nothing more than that they are not thoroughly understood and comprehended by us, as in the case of all the attributes of Deity and the doctrines growing out of them in relation to man,—and when it relates to operations of the Deity or events, it merely means that the mode of operations, or the chain of events, is but partially, or not at all known by us, —as in the case of the growth of a plant and the other examples in respect to operations, —and as in the case of the “Mystical Babylon” in relation perhaps to events. When used in this last sense, it probably means that the design to be accomplished by it, requires that it should be kept a mystery or should not be entirely unravelled, until the time arrives for the accomplishment of this design. But in no case I conceive does it imply a doctrine containing in itself propositions contradictory in their nature, which mankind are required to believe.

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