The New World Translation and the Words Sharing/Fellowship

From http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/nwt.html

Does the New World Translation give accurate translations of Bible verses pertaining to the Christian's personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

1 Cor 1:9-God is faithful, by whom you were called into a sharing [Gr. fellowship] with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

2 Cor 11:3-But I am afraid that somehow, as the serpent seduced Eve by its cunning, your minds might be corrupted away from the sincerity and the chastity that are due the Christ [Gr. the simplicity and the purity in Christ].

2 Cor 13:5-Or do you not recognize that Jesus Christ is in union with you [Gr. Jesus Christ is in you]?

1 John 1:3-Furthermore, this sharing [Gr. fellowship] of ours is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Reply: 1 Corinthians 1:9 the latest edition of the NWT does use the word "fellowship" with the word "sharing" in the footnote. A quick check at Vine's Expository Dictionary will let you know that the Greek word used here, KOINONIA can mean "sharing in common" as well as "fellowship". The Bible in Basic English, Revised English Bible, Simple English Bible, Moffatt's Bible, and the New English Bible read similarly to the older NWT.

As far as 2 Cor 11:3, few Bibles read exactly like you state, the American Standard Version being one I could find. The newer NWT uses the word "purity" in the footnotes. Many others use the word "sincerity" or "sincere" just like the NWT (see NIV, RSV, Amplified, NAB) and as for chastity/purity, see CHASTE in Vine's Dictionary and also Weymouth, Smith&Goodspeed (fidelity) and Rotherham (chasteness).

As far as using the words "in union with" see my post on this at: The New World Translation Bible and the Words "In Union With" and you will see that this has great support.

The Revised English has a nice comment on this: The phrase “in union with” is the translation of the Greek word en...We agree with Lenski (The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians), that the en in this verse is used in its “static” sense, indicating a relationship: a union with, or a connection with, and that it is not an “instrumental use of en,” meaning “through” or “by way of” (see also W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary and Hawthorne and Martin, Word Biblical Commentary). We are “in Christ,” that is, “in union with Christ,” or “connected to” Christ, by virtue of being a member of his Body and identified with him. We feel that the verse is saying that we are strong by virtue of being in union with Christ rather than we are strong “through” Christ.
The static sense of en (“in”) is important in the New Testament but not well understood by most English readers. We understand the normal sense of “in,” and know what it is to be “in” a boat, “in” a house, or even “in the night” (Matt. 4:21; 5:15; John 11:10). But what does it mean to be “in Christ,” “in the Lord,” or “in him?” It means to be in connection with, in relationship with, or in union with. We feel “in union with” is the best English translation in this context because of its other uses in the New Testament.
https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Philippians/chapter4/13

The PDF at https://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/word_studies/greek/en.pdf states that "in union with (association), (is) a marker of close personal association."

As far as 1 John 1:3, the latest edition of the NWT does use the word "fellowship" here.

The New World Translation and John 17:3

From http://www.kevinquick.com/kkministries/books/reasoning/nwt.html

Q2. Does the New World Translation give accurate translations of Bible verses which explain the requirements for salvation?
John 17:3-"This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you [Gr. that they may know you], the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."

Answer: Is "that they may know you" really that different from "their taking in knowledge of you"? No!
A quick look at Strong's numbers will clear this up(1097 GINOSKO) = "to know, in a great variety of applications and with many implications(as follow, with others not thus clearly expressed): -allow, be aware(of) feel, (have) know(ledge), perceive, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand". In fact, Vine's Expository Dictionary gives "to be taking in knowledge" as the first definition of GINOSKO.
Expository Dictionary of Bible Words by Stephen D. Renn uses the word "knowledge" five times under GINOSKO (see also Abingdon New Testament Commentaries; 1, 2, and 3 John By Karen H. Jobes)

"The prophet envisioned the day when 'the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea' (Isaiah 11:9); and Jesus said that knowledge of God is eternal life John 17:3)."
The Faith of the Church: A Reformed Perspective on Its Historical Development By Maurice Eugene Osterhaven, p. 3

Albert Barnes links John 17:3 to 2 Peter 1:3 in his Notes: "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue."

"Is not the knowledge of God a great privilege? Yes: for this is life eternal, to know thee the only truc God, John xvii. 3. Is it not the best knowledge? Yes: for the knowledge of the Holy is understanding, Prov. ix. 10." Matthew Henry [The Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. Matthew Henry, Volume 2, p.868]

However, the newer edition of the New World Translation now translates GINOSKO as "their coming to know you" with the older reading as a footnote.

Rom 10:9-10-For if you publicly declare [Gr. confess] that word in your own mouth, that Jesus
is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved.
For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration [Gr. one confesses] for salvation.

Answer: The Same Greek word for confess(HOMOLOGEO) is also used at Matt 7:23 as declare. NKJV
Vine's Expository Dictionary gives "to declare openly by way of speaking out freely, such confession
being the effect of deep conviction of facts" as one definition. Smith&Goodspeed, Schonfield, 20th
Century NT, J.B. Phillips, Jewish NT, Living Bible, New Life NT, CEV, Williams NT, etc also do not
use "confesses" and read similarly to the NWT.

John Brown's An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (1766) on page 408 uses "openly declare."

"'that, if thou shalt confess, with thy mouth, the Lord Jesus,'—if thou openly and publicly declare" [Lectures doctrinal and practical on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans 1838 https://tinyurl.com/yymkmvuj [See also Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans By Frédéric Louis Godet, page 383]

The Doctrine of the Trinity Irrational and Unscriptural by William Ellery Channing

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

The Doctrine of the Trinity Irrational and Unscriptural by William Ellery Channing

 We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that, whilst acknowledging in words, it subverts in effect, the unity of God. According to this doctrine, there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other’s society. They perform different parts in man’s redemption, each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh. Here, then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be formed. It is difference of properties, and acts, and consciousness, which leads us to the belief of different intelligent beings, and, if this mark sails us, our whole knowledge falls; we have no proof, that all the agents and persons in the universe are not one and the same mind. When we attempt to conceive of three Gods, we can do nothing more than represent to ourselves three agents, distinguished from each other by similar marks and peculiarities to those which separate the persons of the Trinity; and when common Christians hear these persons spoken of as conversing with each other, loving each other, and performing different acts, how can they help regarding them as different beings, different minds?

We do, then, with all earnestness, though without reproaching our brethren, protest against the irrational and unscriptural doctrine of the Trinity. “To us,” as to the Apostle and the primitive Christians, “there is one God, even the Father.” With Jesus, we worship the Father, as the only living and true God. We are astonished, that any man can read the New Testament, and avoid the conviction, that the Father alone is God. We hear our Saviour continually appropriating this character to the Father. We find the Father continually distinguished from Jesus by this title. “God sent his Son.” “God anointed Jesus.” Now, how singular and inexplicable is this phraseology, which fills the New Testament, if this title belong equally to Jesus, and if a principal object of this book is to reveal him as God, as partaking equally with the Father in supreme divinity! We challenge our opponents to adduce one passage in the New Testament, where the word God means three persons, where it is not limited to one person, and where, unless turned from its usual sense by the connexion, it does not mean the Father. Can stronger proof be given, that the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead is not a fundamental doctrine of Christianity?

This doctrine, were it true, must, from its difficulty, singularity, and importance, have been laid down with great clearness, guarded with great care, and stated with all possible precision. But where does this statement appear? From the many passages which treat of God, we ask for one, one only, in which we are told, that he is a threefold being, or that he is three persons, or that he is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. On the contrary, in the New Testament, where, at least, we might expect many express assertions of this nature, God is declared to be one, without the least attempt to prevent the acceptation of the words in their common sense; and he is always spoken of and addressed in the singular number, that is, in language which was universally understood to intend a single person, and to which no other idea could have been attached, without an express admonition. So entirely do the Scriptures abstain from stating the Trinity, that when our opponents would insert it into their creeds and doxologies, they are compelled to leave the Bible, and to invent forms of words altogether unsanctioned by Scriptural phraseology. That a doctrine so strange, so liable to misapprehension, so fundamental as this is said to be, and requiring such careful exposition, should be left so undefined and unprotected, to be made out by inference, and to be hunted through distant and detached parts of Scripture, this is a difficulty, which, we think, no ingenuity can explain.

We have another difficulty. Christianity, it must be remembered, was planted and grew up amidst sharp-sighted enemies, who overlooked no objectionable part of the system, and who must have fastened with great earnestness on a doctrine involving such apparent contradictions as the Trinity. We cannot conceive an opinion, against which the Jews, who prided themselves on an adherence to God's unity, would have raised an equal clamor. Now, how happens it, that in the apostolic writings, which relate so much to objections against Christianity, and to the controversies which grew out of this religion, not one word is said, implying that objections were brought against the Gospel from the doctrine of the Trinity, not one word is uttered in its defence and explanation, not a word to rescue it from reproach and mistake? This argument has almost the force of demonstration. We are persuaded, that had three divine persons been announced by the first preachers of Christianity, all equal, and all infinite, one of whom was the very Jesus who had lately died on a cross, this peculiarity of Christianity would have almost absorbed every other, and the great labor of the Apostles would have been to repel the continual assaults, which it would have awakened. But the fact is, that not a whisper of objection to Christianity, on that account, reaches our ears from the apostolic age. In the Epistles we see not a trace of controversy called forth by the Trinity.

We have further objections to this doctrine, drawn from its practical influence. We regard it as unfavorable to devotion, by dividing and distracting the mind in its communion with God. It is a great excellence of the doctrine of God’s unity, that it offers to us one object of supreme homage, adoration, and love, One Infinite Father, one Being of beings, one original and fountain, to whom we may refer all good, in whom all our powers and affections may be concentrated, and whose lovely and venerable nature may pervade all our thoughts. True piety, when directed to an undivided Deity, has a chasteness, a singleness, most favorable to religious awe and love. Now, the Trinity sets before us three distinct objects of supreme adoration; three infinite persons, having equal claims on our hearts; three divine agents, performing different offices, and to be acknowledged and worshipped in different relations. And is it possible, we ask, that the weak and limited mind of man can attach itself to these with the same power and joy, as to One Infinite Father, the only First Cause, in whom all the blessings of nature and redemption meet as their centre and source? Must not devotion be distracted by the equal and rival claims of three equal persons, and must not the worship of the conscientious, consistent Christian, be disturbed by an apprehension, lest he withhold from one or another of these, his due proportion of homage?

We also think, that the doctrine of the Trinity injures devotion, not only by joining to the Father other objects of worship, but by taking from the Father the supreme affection, which is his due, and transferring it to the Son. This is a most important view. That Jesus Christ, if exalted into the infinite Divinity, should be more interesting than the Father, is precisely what might be expected from history, and from the principles of human nature. Men want an object of worship like themselves, and the great secret of idolatry lies in this propensity. A God, clothed in our form, and feeling our wants and sorrows, speaks to our weak nature more strongly, than a Father in heaven, a pure spirit, invisible and unapproachable, save by the reflecting and purified mind. We think, too, that the peculiar offices ascribed to Jesus by the popular theology, make him the most attractive person in the Godhead. The Father is the depositary of the justice, the vindicator of the rights, the avenger of the laws of the Divinity. On the other hand, the Son, the brightness of the divine mercy, stands between the incensed Deity and guilty humanity, exposes his meek head to the storms, and his compassionate breast to the sword of the divine justice, bears our whole load of punishment, and purchases with his blood every blessing which descends from heaven. Need we state the effect of these representations, especially on common minds, for whom Christianity was chiefly designed, and whom it seeks to bring to the Father as the loveliest being? We do believe, that the worship of a bleeding, suffering God, tends strongly to absorb the mind, and to draw it from other objects, just as the human tenderness of the Virgin Mary has given her so conspicuous a place in the devotions of the Church of Rome. We believe, too, that this worship, though attractive, is not most fitted to spiritualize the mind, that it awakens human transport, rather than that deep veneration of the moral persections of God, which is the essence of piety.

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

Visit a local listing for this book here

The Absurdity of the Trinity Online

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

The Absurdity of the Trinity Online

I combined the words "absurdity" and "trinity doctrine" on google and came up with the following results:

If a person wants Greek philosophical principles to prevail in what they call the truth, then the Trinity may be used in an absurd way. But if one wants the teachings of the Holy Scriptures (written mainly by Jews) to prevail, then we should jettison the so-called “Trinity doctrine” and send it into oblivion where it belongs.
http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess041.htm

This concept of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is most absurd! This segments God and splits Him into three persons, each with a status and Spirit; how then can He still be one Spirit and one God?
https://www.holyspiritspeaks.org/gospel/one-true-god-2/

In the case of the trinity doctrine, it ought to be searched and tested to see if it can be true. I've already dealt with it on a scriptural basis (in my Trinity article), showing it to only be a distortion of scripture and basic polytheism, a belief in three gods, despite trinitarian's claims of "monotheism", a belief in a singular deity (from the greek monos meaning single, only, alone (without a companion), and theos, meaning deity). I also dealt with the logical side of it for some time, but in the article I want to share something I read which really sums up the logical absurdity that such a belief as the trinity has to be.
http://www.leavingjesus.net/TC/TorahCreation/Tanakh/trinityabsurd.html

The Absurd (and Unbiblical) Trinity
The idea that God is "triune," or "three in one," is one of the strangest doctrines of the Christian faith.
http://othersidereflections.blogspot.com/2011/05/absurd-and-unbiblical-trinity.html

The Trinity is Absurd
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the Christian doctrine of the trinity is utterly ridiculous. Not only do I find the idea to be unfeasible and nonsensical, but as far as I can tell, it isn’t even necessary for the Christian religion to exist.
http://undeniably-atheist.blogspot.com/2011/05/trinity-is-absurd.html

Another interpretation is that this passage should be studied from a rhetorical perspective; so as not to be an error, but an intentional misrepresentation of the doctrine of the Trinity in order to demonstrate its absurdity from an Islamic perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

“The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs... In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.
[Letter to James Smith discussing Jefferson's hate of the doctrine of the Christian trinity, December 8 1822]”
Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/the-trinity

The Absurdity of the Trinity
Trinitarian doctrine is not designed to actually be sensible but to sound plausible. The above diagram illustrates what the doctrine really expresses. Like a man who tries to detect a how magician's illusion works, but is unable do so, most people are kept in just enough confusion that they are unable to detect how they are being tricked.
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/topics/trinityshield.html

Holy Spirit Absurdities
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/articles/hsabsurdities.html

Brown admits that "the statement that there are three persons, each of whom is God, while God is confessed as one, simply has to be explained to some extent, as otherwise it seems to be self-contradictory and absurd" (p. 128). I am convinced that modern theologians are aware of the fact that this doctrine contradicts itself and is absurd, but are afraid to admit it openly.
http://www.yahowah.net/the-trinity-controversy

The “two natures” formula had to wait for the fifth century and a new epistemology from an alien Roman/Greek culture to even allow for such a concept that would otherwise have been rejected as an absurdity.
https://trinities.org/blog/how-trinity-theories-conflict-with-the-new-testament/

First, Satan was trying to entice Jesus to worship someone other than Jehovah, an attempt that would have been absurd if Jesus were part of the same God.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2012173#h=4

We explain the absurd claim that Jesus claimed to be the “I am” of the burning bush in John 8.58 as well as the alpha and omega texts in Revelation.
https://restitutio.org/2019/01/24/159-refuting-michael-browns-case-for-the-trinity-1/

For Joseph Bates the Trinity was an unscriptural doctrine, for James White it was that ‘old Trinitarian absurdity,’ and for M.E. Cornell it was a fruit of the great apostasy, along with such false doctrines as Sunday-keeping and the immortality of the soul. {Ministry magazine Oct. 1993 p. 10, Article: “Adventists and Change”, Written by George Knight}
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/SDA/SDA.pdf

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

See a local listing for this book here

Was King James Anti-Baptist?

I thought this was interesting, especially as Baptists are the biggest defenders of King James:

From the book, King James Only, by Dr. Robert A. Joyner, D.B.S., Th.D, Ph.D, comes this interesting comment:

"ANTI-BAPTIST KJV

It is well known that King James hated Baptists. He said he wanted to "harrow out of England" all Baptists. The King James Version Was rejected by Baptists when it first came out. When the Baptists first came to America, they brought the Geneva Bible, not the KJV. In fact, some of the first Baptists to arrive here had been run out of England by King James.

King James, in 1612, imprisoned a Baptist preacher named Thomas Helwys for a tract he had written opposing the state church (Church of England).

John Bunyan, a Baptist and author of PILGRIMS PROGRESS, spent many years in the Bedford prison because of persecution from the Church of England (which King James and the KJV translators were part of).

In the early days of this country, when the Anglican Church (Church of England) was the state church in Virginia, they persecuted, imprisoned and beat many Baptists. Thomas Jefferson, the second
governor of the state, made religious persecution illegal. But when they had the power, the Church of England and King James hated and persecuted Baptists. Yet today, many Baptists; want to idolize this
Baptist-hating king.

The KJV translators, when they presented their new translation to the King, said he was as "the sun shining in its strength. "(Dedicatory To The Most High and Mighty Prince, James. Page I of the 1611 KJV) Of course, this expression in the Bible refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. Many people today, like the KJV translators, would exalt King James to a place he could never deserve."

Dake's Annotated Bible on Isaiah 43:10

The following interesting statement comes from Dake's Annotated Reference Bible - King James Version, and it represents his pre-millenial views, and the popular notion that God will again use the natural Jews as part of his grand plan:

"The Jews were Jehovah's witnesses and His servants whom He had chosen (v 10; 42:19). They were cut off from being the peculiar people of God when they rejected their Messiah; and now the Gentiles have this place as a people (Mt. 21:33-45; Rom. 11). The Jews will be received again at the 2nd advent of Christ; they will become witnesses of Jehovah again, and will literally evangelize the nations in the Millenium." Footnote Isaiah 43:10

Norman L. Geisler on the NWT and John 1:1c

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

Visit a local listing for this book here

From the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman L. Geisler (p. 39)

"Jehovah’s Witnesses use John 1:1 to show that Jesus was 'a god,' not 'the God,' because no definite article the appears in the Greek. This misunderstands both the language and the verse. In Greek, the definite article is normally used to stress 'the individual,' and when it is not present the reference is to 'the nature' of the one denoted. Thus, the verse can be rendered, 'And the Word was of the nature of God.'"

Reply: I think a better way to put this is that the definite article is normally used to stress 'the subject,' and while it is true that the lack of a definite article can denote "nature" it can also denote indefiniteness.

For instance John 6:70 which has a similar construction to John 1:1c (preverbal predicate nominative) and the RSV translates this as: "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?"
Conceivably this could be translated "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you has the nature of a devil?" though most translators choose not to. But elsewhere this becomes ackward. At John 4:19 we have: "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet." It would be strange to say: "Sir, I perceive that you have the nature of a prophet."

We have other instances in John's gospel where the indefinite article "a" was added to the noun before the verb:

8:44 A murderer

8:44 A liar

8:48 A Samaritan

9:17 A prophet

10:1 A thief

10:13 A hired hand

10:33 A man

12:6 A thief

18:37 A king

I conclude then that it is grammatical to add the indefinite "a" to John 1:1c as well.

More from the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman L. Geisler (p. 39): "In the context of the following verses and the rest of John (for example, 1:3; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28) it is impossible that John 1:1 suggests that Jesus is anything less than divine."

Reply: How does referring to the Word/Jesus as "a god" makes him "less than divine?" What does "divine" mean? According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1962) it means - "of or relating to God: proceeding from God...b: of or relating to a god; having the nature of a god; like a god or like that of a god."

More from the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman L. Geisler (p. 39): The rest of the New Testament joins John in forthrightly proclaiming that Jesus is God (for example, in Colossians 1:15–16 and Titus 2:13).

Reply: Colossians 1 calls Jesus the "firstborn of creation" making him part of creation and Titus 2:13 can be translated several different ways. As John Locke once wrote: "There is scarcely one text alleged by the Trinitarians which is not otherwise expounded by their own writers."

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

Visit a local listing for this book here

Is the doctrine of the Trinity taught in the New Testament? by John E. Remsberg 1909

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

Is the doctrine of the Trinity taught in the New Testament? by John E. Remsberg 1909

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (I John v, 7).

This is the only passage in the New Testament which clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, and this passage is admitted by all Christian scholars to be an interpolation.

When the modern version of the New Testament was first published by Erasmus* it was criticized because it contained no text teaching the doctrine of the Trinity. Erasmus promised his critics that if a manuscript could be found containing such a text he would insert it. The manuscript was "found," and the text quoted appeared in a later edition. Concerning this interpolation Sir Isaac Newton, in a letter to a friend, which was afterward published by Bishop Horsley, says: "When the adversaries of Erasmus had got the Trinity into his edition, they threw by their manuscript as an old almanac out of date."

Alluding to the doctrine of the Trinity, Thomas Jefferson says: "It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticism that three are one and one is three, and yet, that the one is not three, and the three not one.... But this constitutes the craft, the power, and profits of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of fictitious religion, and they would catch no more flies" (Jefferson s Works, Vol. IV, p. 205, Randolph's ed.).

Again Jefferson says: "The hocus-pocus phantasy of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs" (ibid., p. 360).

[The Johannine Comma even has its own Wikipedia entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma )

[*"In the case of the New Testament Erasmus shocked contemporaries by omitting the famous proof text for the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 where the genuine text reads: 'There are three that witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.' The spurious addition amplifies thus, 'There are three that witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus, and there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit'. Erasmus could not find this form in any Greek manuscript, and therefore omitted it. Such was the outcry that he rashly promised to insert the reference to the heavenly witnesses could it be found in any Greek manuscript. One was discovered at Dublin, late and worthless. Erasmus, having sworn to deliver the head of John the Baptist, made the insertion in his second edition in 1519. Happily Luther in his translation did not follow him at this point. But others did, including the King James Version. As late as 1897 the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, with the endorsement of Pope Leo XIII, declared the passage to be authentic. Forty years later this decision was reversed." (Cambridge History of the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Volume 3:10-11.)

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

The Bible: A Poem by Thomas John Ouseley 1839

The Bible: A Poem by Thomas John Ouseley 1839

PAGE of life, of light, and truth;
Prop to Age, and guide of Youth;
Let me now thy leaves unfold,
Precious more than gems or gold;
Read, and feel, thy prophet strain,
Immortality to gain:—
Awful is thy mystery,
Ope mine eyes thy light to see;
Ope mine heart thy truth to feel,
To my soul thy bliss reveal:
Man may err, and man may read,
Wrongfully thy blessed creed;
Understanding may not pry,
Through thy depths of prophecy
Yet the eager thirsty soul
Draws life from thy blessed scroll:
Life immortal: lamp of joy;
Living light without alloy,
Passing with the Cherubim,
Far from sorrow, pain and sin:—
Creeds may differ, hearts may change,
Sect, ’gainst sect, in anger range;
Swords be drawn in vengeful fight,
Persecution strive for might;
Though the Maker of thy law,
First forbade the hand to draw
Steel of enmity, to prove,
Peacefulness of holy love;
Thy command is “read and learn,”
Not thy fellow mortal spurn;
Shall man his own judgement trust,
Dare to judge his brother dust,
And in anger on him turn,
Who himself is but a worm?
Martyrs on the stake have burnt
Yet what lesson have we learnt?
Life is nought to those who fear
HIM who dries the mortal tear!
Pain can never change the heart,
Where His presence doth impart,
Power above the sweat of death,
Life beyond the-fleeting breath!
From example let us learn,
Man can never conscience turn 5—
“Founder of the christian’s creed!
“Thou who for man’s sin did bleed;
“Crucified on calvary,
“Bowed thine head for Sin to die,
“Thou didst pray to him who gave,
“Death to thee!—their souls to save!"
What is Man, that he should raise
Arm ’gainst arm in enmities;—
Dare to claim a christian state,
When his heart is fraught with hate?
Bend the knee—and lisp the prayer;
When his nature is at war,
With the precept sent from heaven
“Forgive, as thou ’dst be forgiven!"
Outward seeming doth blaspheme,
Him who died man to redeem;
If we do not inward feel
All the truths thy words reveal!—-
States and nations perish, must!
And like man unite with dust;
Sway Imperial—crouching want—
Luxury—and pittance scant—
Gold bound brow—uncover’d head,
Pillow each on Earthy bed!
Sombre Reason—Idiot smile--
Depth‘of thought—and folly’s wile—
Beauty—and Deformity,
Love,——and Hate, together lie;
Time the mighty chronicler,
Leaves no trace of what they were.—
HOLY WORK! thou ne'er canst die,—
Thou art of Eternity!
Ere thy light can cease to shine,
Heaven and Earth shall mould with Time,
Sun, and Moon, the Stars—this World
Into endless chaos hurl’d!
Heaven expand—the Trumpet blast
Proclaim—TIME has breath’d his last!
All but Thou and Thine will fall,
Wreck’d with this terrestrial ball!
HOLY Worm! thy blest abode
Is the presence of thy God:
“Father! thou of all, I pray,
Lighten thou my darksome way;
Give me heart to hear thy word,
Faith to keep when I have heard;
Strength of soul—that I may be
Everlasting child of thee.”

Buy my published Kindle book on Amazon on Forgotten Bible Versions for only 99 cents 

Click here for a more detailed description

Revised Fundamentalist Version (Parody Bible)

I found this 20 year old article on my computer and I cannot find it anywhere else online anymore:
metatron3@gmail.com

The following is from http://catholicoutlook.com/rpv.html

It seems to be a Catholic group poking fun at Protestants, but some of the verses in the Parody Bible (below) are quite funny, if somewhat irreverent:

Samples from the RFV:

Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, but on the Bible, not you, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will overcome it almost immediately, and the truth will be lost until the
Reformation. 19 "I will give to every Christian the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Bible. The Bible is to be their only authority, and the only rule of faith and practice." (RFV).

Matthew 19:17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, all you need is faith alone." (RFV).

Matthew 24:13 "For whoever is a true Christian is already saved, and his perseverance is guaranteed." (RFV)

John 3:5 5 "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of the Spirit. He should also be baptized at some point, but it's only a formality." (RFV).

John 15: 1, 2 "I am the true snow, and my Father is the shovel. He does not shovel up any dunghill covered by me, even though it constantly sins damnably in all that it does."

John 16:13 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. Not corporately, of course, but individually. Each Christian will be personally guided into all truth. Let each one be sure in his own mind that he is personally guided by the Holy Spirit, even if every other Christian interprets the Bible differently than he does." (RFV)

John 17:20-23 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be scattered, Father, each to his own church. May they also be
divided doctrinally so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the Bible that you gave me, that they may interpret it for themselves and separate one from another. May their
denominations be as numerous as the sand on the seashore to let the world know that the Bible is clear and easily understood." (RFV).

1 Corinthians 1:10 "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you decide for yourselves what the truth is, even if that leads to thousands of divisions among you, and that each denomination may be more or less united in mind and thought. Otherwise, let it divide yet further until it is more or less united in mind and thought." (RFV).

1 Corinthians 3:3, 4
"You are very wise. For since there is division and disagreement among you, are you not discerning? Are you not showing wisdom? For when one says, "I follow Luther," and another, "I follow Calvin,"
are you not wise indeed?" (RFV)."

The Early Codices and the King James Version/Textus Receptus

Buy my published Kindle book on Amazon on Forgotten Bible Versions for only 99 cents 

Click here for a more detailed description

Lynnford Beachy: There are basically two types of Greek Bibles from which we get all of our English Bibles today—those that agree with the two Catholic manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), and those that agree with the "Textus Receptus" (Received Text). The "Textus Receptus" is the name given to the majority of Greek manuscripts which are almost entirely in harmony with one another.

The above paragraph is not altogether factful.
There are about 15000 early versions of the Greek, and  most of these are in Latin (due to the change in the lingua franca), and yet, they read closer to the Alexandrian text-type of the Aleph (Sinaiticus/Vaticanus) than the much later Byzantine (Textus Receptus) text-type of the eastern Catholic/Orthodox  Church.
Catholics have, for the most part, contributed greatly to the preservation of the word of God, and this is shown by the extensive use of the Vulgate by the scribes of the Textus Receptus themselves. Even the King James translators themselves made use of the Douay Rheims Bible. Take note: "many of the improved translations of the Rheims NT were introduced into the
AV [Authourised King James Version], e.g., "converted" (convertantur) for "turn" (Mk 4, 12); "founded" (fundata) for "grounded" (Eph 3, 17); "centurion" (centurio) for "captain" (Acts 10, 22); "sign" (signum) for "badge, token" (Mt 26, 48); "clemency" (clementia) for "courtesy" (Acts 24, 4). Not only did the Rheims NT introduce such Latin words into the English language but it also influenced the AV in the direction of modernization, e.g., "moisture" for "moistness" (Lk 8, 6); "what man is there" for "what man is it" (Acts 19, 35); "distresses" for "anguishes" (2 Cor 12, 10)." New American Bible w/Revised New Testamant and Revised Psalms, p.1456

To also prove that the KJV/Textus Receptus is basically Catholic is proven by the background of Erasmus himself. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol 3, pp. 42, 43, states that he was an Augustinian friar who was ordained a priest in 1492, but he was granted a dispensation by Pope Leo X to live in the world. The aforesaid work says that Pope Paul III wanted to make him a cardinal, and that may have accounted for his refusal to leave the Church of Rome. It also says that Erasmus remained within the Church, and told Luther,

    "I always freely submit my judgement to the decisions of the Church whether
    I grasp or not the reasons which she prescribes."

Erasmus died a faithful Roman Catholic! (see The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed. [1997], Vol. 26, p. 887, and Schaff, History, Vol. VII, p. 411, 423)
And what of his Greek New Testament? It was dedicated to the pope! (see New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol 5 [1967], pp. 509, 510) The Catholic influence was so heavy, that the King James Version, 1611 edition contained a calendar of Catholic holy days and the Catholic Apocryphal/Deutero-Canonical Books.

Additionally, the Received Text is not actually a single edition, but a sort of text-type of its own consisting of hundreds of extremely similar but not identical editions. Nor do any of its various flavors agree exactly with any extant text-type or manuscript. Thus the need, when referring to the Received Text, to specify which received text we refer to.
Take note:

Luke 2:22: "her purification" KJV, Vulgate, but Erasmus, Stephanus and Majority Text has "their purification"
Luke 17:36: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left" KJV, Vulgate, but omitted by Erasmus, Stephanus and Majority Text
Romans 12:11: "serving the Lord" KJV, Vulgate, Aleph etc, while the Erasmus 2-5 and Stephanus has "serving the time"
1 Timothy 1:4: "godly edifying" KJV, Vulgate, while Stephanus and the Majority Text has "dispensation of God"
Hebrews 9:1: "first tabernacle" KJV, Stephanus, while "tabernacle" is omitted by Erasmus, Beza
James 2:18: "without thy works" KJV, Vulgate, while Erasmus, Beza (1st ed) and Stephanus has "by thy works"

Will the real TR please stand up. Is it Stephanus's or Beza's. F.H.A. Scrivener studied the matter in detail, concluded that it was none of these. Rather, it is a mixed/eclectic text, closest to Beza, with Stephanus in second place, but not clearly affiliated with any edition. ( the influence of the Vulgate, and of early English translations, is also felt here.) Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894, finding some 250 differences from Stephanus. Jay P. Green, states that Scrivener’s edition does not agree entirely with the KJV, listing differences at Matt. 12:24, 27; John 8:21, 10:16 (? -- this may be translational); 1 Cor. 14:10, 16:1; compare also Mark 8:14, 9:42; John 8:6; Acts 1:4; 1 John 3:16, where Scrivener includes words found in the KJV in italics as missing from their primary text.

When we look at the many early versions, alone with the quotations of the early church fathers, we see that these agree with the earlier, more superior Alexandrian Text-type. The early Church Fathers almost always use the older Alexandrian text type. In fact, Gordon Fee, who is one of the leading patristic authorities, wrote:

    "Over the past eight years I have been collecting the Greek patristic evidence for Luke and John for the International Greek New Testament Project. In all of this material I have found one invariable: a good critical edition of a father's text, or the discovery of early MSS, always moves the father's text of the NT away from the TR and closer to the text of our modern critical editions. In other words when critical study is made of a church father's text or when early copies of a church father's writings are discovered, the majority text is found wanting. The early fathers had a text that keeps looking more like modern critical editions and less like the majority text." as quoted in Daniel Wallaces' The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?

It is not “TWO” manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), but a wealth of evidence that supports the newer versions based on the older texts.

Mistranslated Scriptures Giving Confused Notions About God

Buy: And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 on Amazon for only 99 cents

Mistranslated Scriptures Giving Confused Notions About God by James Stark M.D., F.R.S.E. 1863 (from The Westminster Confession of Faith Critically Compared with the Holy Scriptures and Found Wanting)

Much of the confused notions which prevail relative to the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, and which prevents people from inquiring into its truth, arises from the fact of the Translators of the English Bible having introduced into the fifth Chapter of the first Epistle of John, a passage which purports to teach clearly that doctrine; and yet, strange to say, that passage is a purely spurious one, and is no part of Holy Scripture at all. The spurious passage reads: “For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” The authentic Greek manuscripts only read, “For there are three that bear record, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one;” i.e., agree in bearing one and the same testimony, viz., that Jesus is the Son of God: and any one who reads with attention the whole chapter will see that John’s argument requires only these latter words, and that the excluded words would have no meaning in his Epistle at all.

But the Translators of our English Bible also translated with a prejudice in favour of the Doctrine of the Trinity, and have dared to translate passages so as to imply the teaching of that Doctrine. Such passages, however, are mistranslations. Thus in the Gospel by John, 1:1, the English Translation says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” The original Greek, however, is very concise and definite in its expressions, and gives no countenance whatever to any such doctrine; for it says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was a God; he was in the beginning with the God.” The passage asserts that the Word had the nature of a God, and not that of a created being, but it carefully distinguishes the Word from the God; and, as if to guard against all possible mistakes as to the Word ever being confounded with the God, twice repeats that that Word was only with the God. No such statement would ever have been made had it been intended to be taught that the Word was the “very God;” for it is clear as daylight it would never have twice repeated that he was with himself, which in that case would have made the sentence utter nonsense.

Another passage of Scripture is equally altered from the original by the translators of our English Bible, to make it agree with their Trinity in Unity views—viz., Rom. 9:5. The English Translation says, “Whose are the Fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” The true translation of the original Greek is very diflierent. It is this: “Whose are the Fathers; and of whom is Christ according to the flesh: the living supreme God be blessed for ever, Amen.” This passage, therefore, instead of giving any countenance to the Trinity doctrine, refutes it, and, when properly translated, harmonizes with the rest of Scripture.

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

It is not my intention to enter at large into the subject in this place. I may only mention that the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity is quite irreconcilable with the declaration of Jesus while on Earth, and with his Revelation to John while in Heaven, after his Resurrection, that God the Father is also his God. We must remember that Jesus, during his whole life on earth, prayed to God as his God; and even when in Heaven, seated at the right hand of God, he speaks of “the God” as his God. “I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” John 20:17. “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Matt. 27:46. “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the Temple of my God, and he shall no more go out; and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the City of My God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from My God.” Rev. 3:12. Now no pretended human reasoning, or human philosophy, can get over such distinct teaching. How, indeed, dare we set any philosophical reasonings against the distinct teaching of God in his revealed word?

But these passages stand not alone. We have the same truth, viz., that God is “the God of Jesus Christ,” no fewer than seven times distinctly repeated in the Apostolic writings. “That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Rom. 15:6. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Cor. 1:3. “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knoweth that I lie not.” 2 Cor. 11:31. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Eph. 1:3. “That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the Spirit of wisdom.” Eph. 1:17. “We give thanks unto the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Col. 1:3. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Pet. 1:3.

Now no jesuitical reasonings, founded on any data which may be adopted as true, but must be false, can get over such distinct direct teaching. These passages all declare that God the Father is “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ;” and as that is the undoubted Scripture doctrine, it must be false teaching which avers that Jesus Christ is part (or a person) of that God, or is the very God himself.

But there are a few additional passages which authoritatively settle such false teachings. God is from all Eternity. He is without beginning, without ending. But Jesus Christ his son is distinctly revealed to us in the Scriptures as having a beginning, though the Trinitarians have wilfully shut their eyes, and ears, and hearts to that fact. John the Evangelist distinctly says, “In the beginning was the Word.” That means, of course, that point in Time when the Word was begotten of God. That this was a point of Time very different from the existence of God from all Eternity, is confirmed by Paul’s writings, for he calls Jesus “the first-born of every creature,” Col. 1:15. And in another Epistle, alluding to the same subject, he makes a statement which settles that point authoritatively; for he says, “When he (God) bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the Angels of God worship him.” Heb. 1:6. This passage almost infers that the Angelic Host was brought into being before Christ. And again, “Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.” Heb. 1:5. The Apostle John gives testimony to the same fact, for in the Revelations he styles Jesus “the beginning of the Creation of God,” 3:14.

All these passages, then, thoroughly bear out the conclusion I have ventured to draw from the whole teachings of Scripture, that the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity is a human delusion, having no foundation in the word of God. We see that the Scriptures plainly declare that Jesus had a beginning, while we know God had none. We see that the Scriptures plainly declare that God the Father is “the God of Jesus Christ.” We see that the Scriptures clearly teach that when the world is ended, Jesus Christ will lay down his mediatorial office, and resume the place of a subject, and not of an equal, in heaven, in order that “the God may be all in all.”

If, then, we be followers of Christ, if we believe the will of God as it is revealed to us in the Scriptures, if we believe that Doctrine which Christ himself and his Apostles have taught, then we will reject the humanly devised theological dogma of the Trinity in Unity.

It must be remembered that the whole philosophicotheological, but antiscriptural Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, is founded on the false assumption that Jesus Christ possesses all the attributes of God. We have just seen, however, that such an assumption is utterly unfounded; for while the Scriptures clearly teach that the Great God and Father existed from all Eternity, they at the same time distinctly ascribe a beginning to Jesus Christ the Son. On only one other divine attribute do the Scriptures give us any information as to its comparative perfection in God the Father, and in his son Jesus Christ, viz., the attribute of Omniscience; and they distinctly state that that attribute did not exist in the same perfection in Christ, as it did in the Supreme God the Father. See what is written: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” Mark 13:32. “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which the God gave to him.” Rev. 1:1.

Neither on Scriptural, nor on philosophical grounds, therefore, is there any truth in the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity; so that it must be rejected as a purely theological delusion.

Before leaving this subject, however, allow me to inquire whether any one who holds the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity ever seriously asked himself the question: What becomes of the human body which Christ took with him to Heaven, if it be true, as the trinitarians assert, that Jesus is “the very God”? That human body cannot become part, or a person, of the supposed “Godhead.” So that if Jesus in Heaven retains that resurrection-body, as we are assured by the Scriptures that he does, then it is clear as reason can make it, that Christ in Heaven must be a different and distinct being from God the Father. That he must be, as the Scriptures represent him, the Son of that God, a being having so far the same divine nature, inasmuch as being his Son necessarily implies his similarity of nature; but he must be a subject, and not an equal, even as is the son of an earthly monarch; and he must always retain his individuality, else he neither could act as our Intercessor and Mediator, nor could he retain his resurrection human body. In no other way could that which the Scriptures distinctly assert of him be true, that when he shall lay down his Mediatorial office, he shall resign to the Supreme God that power with which he has been temporarily invested, and again become a subject, in order that “The God and Father” may be all in all.

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

Easter and Germanic Mythology by Karl Blind

This Kindle Book is now available on Amazon

Visit a listing for this book on this blog by clicking here.

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks click here

In dealing with a subject which is sometimes thought, though very erroneously so, to be far removed from our everyday life, an allusion to a personal experience may be permitted. I remember, many years ago, having once met a young German peasant, rather intelligent, who could read and write as all German peasants do, but who startled me by a most extraordinary superstition. "Look here," he said, and his face became very grave, — "look here! a man may learn all about the future, what is going to happen, and how things in this world are to succeed each other, only, he must use a means which I should not like to try, and I'm sure you wouldn't!"

I suspected at once the use of some sign of witchcraft, which some peasants believe renders a person liable to be fetched away by the Evil One, and I replied, "Well, let us see! Perhaps I would!" He then said in an undertone: "If, on coming out of church on Easter Sunday, a man steps backwards, making a sign of disrespect, and if, whilst walking backwards, he looks through an egg, at the same time laughing aloud, he will see the future and the shape of all coming things in that egg. But, dear me, it will endanger a man's soul; and I wouldn't do it, and surely you wouldn't!"

I could not help laughing, though there was no egg to be looked through; and I thought that, if ever I had heard a meaningless absurdity, it was this. Yet by and by, when I came to investigate the subject, I found that this boorish nonsense could be traced back to the decayed creed of our pagan forefathers, and that it had a meaning, even as Greek fables have. "Easter Sunday," I found, was selected for that piece of witchcraft, because Easter was originally also a Germanic festival, in honor of the goddess Ostara, who represented the rising sun and the creative powers of nature in spring. To "go out backwards from church," indicated that the man who did this turned his back towards the east, where the Easter goddess Ostara was supposed to dwell; for churches were mostly built with their altar on the eastern, their main entrance on the western side. The "sign of disrespect" showed that the person making it returned for the moment to the heathen creed. The egg which was to be used, is the very symbol of Ostara, that is, of fruitful nature. Hence the people in Germany and other continental countries, as well as the agricultural population of some of the northern and eastern counties of England, present each other about Easter time with eggs. Little German children are playfully told on that occasion that a hare lays those eggs. The hare, too, is a symbol of the goddess Ostara, on account of fecundity. To look through an egg on the day of that goddess, was considered to invest a person with the power of seeing the germ of all things, and hence to forecast their development.

But now about "the laughter"! Why was a man to laugh when looking through an egg? Here I found that the laughter represented the smile of Nature in spring; that at the pagan festivals on Easter time a laughing chorus typified that smile; and what is more, I learnt that in the Christian Church, for many centuries after the overthrow of Paganism, the priest, on Easter Sunday, had first to tell his congregation a merry tale, and then to break out into what was called "an Easter laughter" (Oster-Geldchter). So, putting this and that together, I discovered that in the superstitious young peasant's mind a remarkable piece of Teutonic mythology stuck fast, of which he could not get rid, in spite of the proficiency he had obtained in the mechanical repetition of his catechism. And the more I observed and studied these matters, the more I became convinced that it was no use fighting against this kind of superstitions by simply calling them "rubbish" and "nonsense," for somehow the people clung to them as if they felt that there was a poetical treasure hidden in them, which only required a magic wand to come forth and charm their hearts. I then saw that these superstitions will never be entirely rooted out until a full scientific treatment of them has taken place, until they shall be universally known to be the last remnants of a decayed religious system, and until the results of such investigation shall have been popularized.

"The New World Translation of John 1:1 appears to be unique in using the phrase 'a god'"

Buy: And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 on Amazon for only 99 cents

From a recent facebook post: The New World Translation...translates John 1:1 into English as follows:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. NWT, 2013
The Greek text states,
EN ARCH HN O LOGOS KAI O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS NA28
The New World Translation of John 1:1 appears to be unique in using the phrase “a god” to translate the Greek word QEOS. Unless I am mistaken, all other versions translate it as “God.”

Reply: No they don't. Many versions do likewise (or similar). 

Facebook post: For example, the translation in the KJV, NASB, and NIV is identical:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Is there any justification in the original Greek text for translating QEOS into English as “a god”?

Reply: Of course there is. The construction at John 1:1c is a preverbal predicate nominative (QEOS HN/verb hO LOGOS) We have many occurrences of preverbal predicate nominatives in John's Gospel that add the indefinite article in English:

4:19 A prophet

6:70 A devil

8:44 A murderer

8:44 A liar

8:48 A Samaritan

9:17 A prophet

10:1 A thief

10:13 A hired hand

10:33 A man

12:6 A thief

18:37 A king

C.H.Dodd writes:
“If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [theos en ho logos]; would be “The Word was a god”. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No.1, January 1977.

Trinitarian Murray J. Harris has written: “Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone,[QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered “the Word was a god,….” -Jesus As God, 1992, p.60.

J. W. Wenham, in The Elements of New Testament Greek, writes: “As far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed theos estin ho logos, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’. The interpretation of John 1.1 will depend upon whether the writer is held to believe in only one God or in more than one god.” Thus, theology rather than grammar is the stated reason for preferring ‘The Word was God.'”

It is often remarked that a Jew would never have translated "the word was a god" as that would have been contrary to his monotheistic beliefs, but Jews have historically attached the title of God to angels and men.

Perhaps someone should translate the Bible on only grammatical grounds. Wouldn't that be refreshing.

Scholar Henry Prentiss Forbes on John 1:1

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

Visit a local listing for this book here

As posted in The Johannine Literature and the Acts of the Apostles by Henry Prentiss Forbes A.M., D.D. Professor of Biblical Literature in the Canton Theological School 1907

And the Word was God. — Since the word God is predicate and has no definite article as in the preceding clause, its sense is best given by prefixing the indefinite article: the Word was a God, a deity; hereby both personal identity is excluded and subordination expressed.

In all ancient Greek and early Christian literature the word QEOS [theos] (God, a God) is very elastic; among the Stoics men were called QEOI; Gnostic teachers were so addressed; Philo says (De Hom. Mut., 22) that "he who is inspired may reasonably be called God"; and in a comment on Gen. xxi. 12 (De Somn., I. 39) remarks that the article with QEOS indicates that "the true God" is meant, while without the article the word denotes "his most ancient Logos"; this distinction was observed by the Christian theologian Origen; and Hippolytus says {Theophany, 8) that "the believer, having become immortal, will be God." In 2 Cor. iv. 4 Paul calls Satan QEOS.

Thus the first verse sets forth, in opposition to Jews and Gnostics, the anteriority, closeness to God, divine nature, of the Logos; and in Johannine manner verse 2 repeats the essential elements for emphasis.

All things were made by him (v. 3).—The preposition DIA, by or through, designates the means, not the ultimate cause. The repetition of the thought in negative form is for emphasis; the Gnostic doctrines of the self-existence of matter, and of the creation of the world by some inferior aeon or aeons, and of the separation of the creator from the redeemer, are here negatived. To Philo (Cherubim, 35) the Logos is the instrument (ORGANON) of creation.

Comment on verse 18: No man hath seen God at any time (v. 18).—This concluding verse gives us as a summary: (a) the need of a revelation of God, since he is invisible; (b) the adequacy of the person of the mediating revealer, since he is an only-begotten divine being, with God in the beginning and now after the incarnation in his bosom; (c) the adequacy of his function as revealer; he hath declared the Father, since even in his enfleshment he was so resplendent of the divine glory that whosoever by faith beheld him beheld the Father (xiv. 9). The marginal reading: God instead of Son, is best attested, and has in its favour the fact that the word Son is rather to be expected here because of the proximity of the words only-begotten and Father; copyists would be tempted to substitute the word Son. The meaning is the same, whatever the decision; for the Logos is in v. 1 called QEOS (a divine being) and in v. 14 designated MONOGENHS (only-begotten); the verse clearly distinguishes, as does v. 1, the derived divinity from the Underived One. The phrase which is in the bosom of the Father refers to the post-incarnate life of the Logos; the figure is of the son returned home and in the embrace of the father; the cycle is completed; the Logos is and wili be, as he was in the beginning, with God (v. 1).

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

Christianity a Rational Religion By William Ellery Channing

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

From Beauties of Channing: With an Essay Prefixed by William Mountford 1849

It has been strenuously maintained, that Christianity contains particular doctrines which are irrational, and which involve the whole religion to which they are essential, in their own condemnation. To this class of objections I have a short reply. I insist that these offensive doctrines do not belong to Christianity, but are human additions, and therefore do not derogate from its reasonableness and truth. What is the doctrine most frequently adduced to fix the charge of irrationality on the gospel? It is the Trinity. This is pronounced by the unbeliever a gross offence to reason. It teaches that there is one God, and yet that there are three divine persons. According to the doctrine, these three persons perform different offices, and sustain different relations to each other. One is Father, another his Son. One sends, another is sent. They love each other, converse with each other, and make a covenant with each other; and yet, with all these distinctions, they are, according to the doctrine, not different beings, but one being, one and the same God. Is this a rational doctrine? has often been the question of the objector to Christianity. I answer, No. I can as easily believe that the whole human race are one man, as that three infinite persons, performing such different offices, are one God. But I maintain, that, because the Trinity is irrational, it does not follow that the same reproach belongs to Christianity; for this doctrine is no part of the Christian religion... I know, there are passages which are continually quoted in its defence; but allow me to prove doctrines in the same way, that is, by detaching texts from their connexion and interpreting them without reference to the general current of Scripture, and I can prove anything and everything from the Bible. I can prove, that God has human passions. I can prove transubstantiation, which is taught much more explicitly than the Trinity. Detached texts prove nothing. Christ is called God; the same title is given to Moses and to rulers. Christ has said, “I and my Father are one;” so he prayed that all his disciples might be one, meaning not one and the same being, but one in affection and purpose. I ask you, before you judge on this point, to read the Scriptures as a whole, and to inquire into their general strain and teaching in regard to Christ. I find him uniformly distinguishing between himself and God, calling himself not God the Son, but the Son of God, continually speaking of himself as sent by God, continually referring his power and miracles to God. I hear him saying, that of himself he can do nothing, and praying to his Father under the character of the only true God. Such I affirm to be the tenor, the current, the general strain of the New Testament; and the scattered passages, on which a different doctrine is built, should have no weight against this host of witnesses. Do not rest your faith on a few texts. Sometimes these favourite texts are no part of Scripture. For example, the famous passage on which the Trinity mainly rests, “There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one,”— this text, I say, though found at present in John's Epistle, and read in our churches, has been pronounced by the ablest critics a forgery? and a vast majority of the educated ministers of this country are satisfied, that it is not a part of Scripture. Suffer no man, then, to select texts for you as decisive of religious controversies. Read the whole record for yourselves, and possess yourselves of its general import. I am very desirous to separate the doctrine in question from Christianity, because it fastens the charge of irrationality on the whole religion. It is one of the great obstacles to the propagation of the Gospel. The Jews will not hear of a Trinity. I have seen in the countenance, and heard in the tones of the voice, the horror with which that people shrink from the doctrine, that God died on the cross. Muslims, too, when they hear this opinion from Christian missionaries, repeat the first article of their faith, “There is one God;" and look with pity or scorn on the disciples of Jesus, as deserters of the plainest and greatest truth of religion. Even the Indian of our wilderness, who worships the Great Spirit, has charged absurdity on the teacher who has gone to indoctrinate him in a Trinity. How many, too, in Christian countries, have suspected the whole religion for this one error. Believing, then, as I do, that it forms no part of Christianity, my allegiance to Jesus Christ calls me openly to withstand it. In so doing, I would wound no man's feelings. I doubt not, that they who adopt this doctrine intend, equally with those who oppose it, to render homage to truth, and service to Christianity. They think that their peculiar faith gives new interest to the character and new authority to the teaching of Jesus. But they grievously err. The views, by which they hope to build up love towards Christ, detract from the perfection of his Father; and I fear, that the kind of piety, which prevails now in the Christian world, bears witness to the sad influence of this obscuration of the true glory of God. We need not desert reason or corrupt Christianlity, to ensure the purest, deepest love towards the only true God, or towards Jesus Christ, whom he has sent for our redemption.

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