1. Since Fred Franz admitted under oath that he and nobody else on the (New World Translation) committee could read either Greek or Hebrew, how could they "translate" the manuscripts and be accurate?

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

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

"ltA-1,Noun,2962,kurios>
properly an adjective, signifying "having power" (kuros) or "authority," is used as a noun, variously translated in the NT, "'Lord,' 'master,' 'Master,' 'owner,' 'Sir,' a title of wide significance, occurring in each book of the NT save Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used (a) of an owner, as in Luke 19:33, cp. Matt. 20:8; Acts 16:16; Gal. 4:1; or of one who has the disposal of anything, as the Sabbath, Matt. 12:8; (b) of a master, i.e., one to whom service is due on any ground, Matt. 6:24; 24:50; Eph. 6:5; (c) of an Emperor or King, Acts 25:26; Rev. 17:14; (d) of idols, ironically, 1 Cor. 8:5, cp. Isa. 26:13; (e) as a title of respect addressed to a father, Matt. 21:30, a husband, 1 Pet. 3:6, a master, Matt. 13:27; Luke 13:8, a ruler, Matt. 27:63, an
angel, Acts 10:4; Rev. 7:14; (f) as a title of courtesy addressed to a stranger, John 12:21; 20:15; Acts 16:30; from the outset of His ministry this was a common form of address to the Lord Jesus, alike by the people, Matt. 8:2; John 4:11, and by His disciples, Matt. 8:25; Luke 5:8; John 6:68; (g) kurios is the Sept. and NT representative of Heb. Jehovah ('Lord' in Eng. versions), see Matt. 4:7; Jas. 5:11, e.g., of adon, Lord, Matt. 22:44, and of Adonay, Lord, Matt. 1:22; it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Pet. 1:25. " Vine's Expository Dictionary

4. To what was Jesus referring to by the term "this temple' in Jn 2:18-19? See Jn 2:21.

5. The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" as "I am" every time it appears (Jn 6:34, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.) except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated as "I have been". What is the reason for the inconsistency in this translation? If "ego eimi" was translated in Jn 8:58 the same way it is translated in every other verse in which it appears, how would Jn 8:58 read?

Perhaps there would be less confusion here if most Bibles would simply render the Hebrew word EHYEH consistently at Exodus 3:14 (compare with v. 12). For more on this go click here.

6. If Jesus was executed on a torture stake, with both hands together over his head, why does Jn 20:25 say '...Unless I see in his hands the prints of the nailS...", indicating that there was more than one nail used for his hands.

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

Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <<Semeron,>> hin' e to legomenon toiouton* <<Amen ego soi semeron*>> eita to, <<met' emou ese en to paradeiso,>> epipherontes. ("But others press upon the saying, putting a punctuation mark after 'today,' so that it would be said
this way: 'Truly I tell you today'; and then they add the expression: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'")--Theophylact, an ecclessistical writer who died about 1112 C.E. Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123, column 1104.

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

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

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

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

8. In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is "coming quickly", says of himself, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one who "became dead, but, look, I am living forever and ever", refers to himself as the first and the last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of God, says, "...I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end...". God is also referred to as the "first" and the "last" in Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this be since by definition of these words there can be only one first and one last?

                    "Christ is called the beginning and the end, because he is the
                    beginning and the consummation of the Church, which was
                    founded by his first, and will be completed by his second
                    appearance."--(Erasmus, Opp. Tom. VI. col. 376, E. [quoted in
                    "Our Heavenly Father has no Equals", by unitarian Donald R.
                    Snedeker])

                    "Principium Christus, quia ipse inchoavit perficienda; finis
                    Christus, quia ipse perficit inchoata"; [that is] "Christ is
                    the beginning, because he himself commenced the work to be
                    accomplished; Christ is the end, because he accomplished the
                    work begun."--(Fulgentius (the Latin Father), Ad Transimundum,
                    Lib. II. c. 5; in Migne's Patrol. Tom. LXV. vol. 250, C. [as
                    quoted by Snedeker, ibid])
                    The First and the Last
                    "Attend well to the comfortable words of your heavenly Master,
                    whom God has appointed to be the original Lord, the continual
                    Preserver, and at last the righteous Judge of
                    mankind"--(Thomas Pyle, M.A., Paraphrases on the Acts, the
                    Epistles, and the Revelation, New edit. Oxford, 1817 [quoted
                    in Concessions, by John Wilson])

                    "...the first, that is, chief in dignity, having much greater
                    power than any one before possessed...the last, that is, the
                    most despised of men, Isa. liii. 3; having been betrayed,
                    mocked, beaten, scourged, and even condemned to be punished as
                    a slave"--(Hugo Grotius, Annotationes ad Vetus et Novum
                    Testamentum. [quoted in Concessions])

                    "Christ is called, in the Apocalypse, chap. i. 17, the first
                    and the last; and this expression, if taken in the same sense
                    as that in which it is used, Isa. xli.4; xliv.6; xlviii. 12,
                    may denote Christ's eternal Godhead.  Yet it is not absolutely
                    decisive; for the meaning of chap. i.17 may be, "Fear not; I
                    am the first (whom thou knewest as mortal), and the last (whom
                    thou now seest immortal), still the same, whom thou knewest
                    from the beginning."  The same explanation may be given of
                    chap. ii. 8, where the expression, the first and the last,
                    again occurs, and is used in connection with Christ's
                    resurrection from the dead.--(J.D. Michaelis: Introduction to
                    the New Test., vol. iv. pp. 539-40. [as quoted in
                    Concessions])

All of these examples show that there have even been trinitarians who have not viewed these titles as denoting any ontological oneness of identity between Christ and the Father.  The last example, by Michaelis, is especially interesting, because he realizes that the title "first and last" was being applied to Christ in reference to his death and resurrection. This is how I view it, though in a slightly different manner, namely, that Christ is the first to be resurrected by the Father directly, and last to be so resurrected. All references to Jesus as being the "first and the last" have this limitation. Let us take a look?  "I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18 "These things saith the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]" Rev. 2:8
"Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead" Rev 1:5 See also Romans 14:9 and Col 1:18.
Can you really beleive that God can die? I cannot. Hab 1:12, (before the scribal changes/ Tiqqune Sopherim) reads, "Art not thou from everlasting, O Jehovah my God, my Holy One? you do not die." see also New Jerusalem Bible. I believe that almighty God cannot be confined by his own creation. Since God created life, and death is a by-product of life, this would be included. The bible never speaks of only Jesus' human-self/human nature/second nature dying. This is a 5th century Cappadocian thought read back into the scriptures.

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

10. Col 1:16, in talking about Jesus, says that "...All [other] things have been created through him and FOR HIM". First, why was the word [other] added four times when it is not in the original text (see Gr-Engl Interlinear)? Second, If Jesus was Michael the Archangel at the time of creation, would an angel have created all things for himself? Isa 43:7 says God created "everyone...for my OWN glory...".

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

In both these instances the word "other" was not in the original text, but the translators felt a need to put it in there. Can they do that even without brackets?
"A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other early Christian Literature" by F. Blass and A. Debrunner states that it is not uncommon for the greek to omit the word "other".
The book Theology and Bias in Bible Translations by Professor Rolf Furuli when talking about the word "other" in the Col. 1:16 in the NWT says, "This means that the brackets that NWT uses around OTHER may be removed, because the word OTHER is no addition or interpolation, but in a given context it is a legitimate part of PAS."
Have you ever noticed all those words in italics in the King James Version and the New American Standard Version? Those are words that are not in the original text, but are added for clarity. There are thousands of them.
God did make all things for His glory. But like the preceeding verse in Colossians says, he is invisible, but many have seen Jesus. That same verse says Jesus is the first created being, PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS. Hence, he cannot be that same God.

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

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

13. If Christians are persecuted for the sake of Jehovah's name, why did Christ tell the first Christians that they would be persecuted for the sake of his (Jesus) name instead of Jehovah's (Mt24:9, Mk 13:13, Lk21:12, 17, Jn15:21, and Acts 9:16)?

14. If the spirit of a man has no existence apart from the body, why does Stephen just before his death in Acts 7:59, pray to Jesus to "receive my spirit"? How could Jesus receive Stephen's spirit if a man's spirit ceases to exist when the body dies?

"Spirit is the principle of life and vital activity. The spirit is the breath of life (Gn 6:17; 7:15, 22; BS 38:23; WS 15:11, 16; 16:14). Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, S.J.
Spirit: "<1,,4151,pneuma>
primarily denotes "the wind" (akin to pneo, "to breathe, blow"); also "breath;" then, especially "the spirit," which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful. The NT uses of the word may be analyzed approximately as follows:
"(a) the wind, John 3:8 (where marg. is, perhaps, to be preferred); Heb. 1:7; cp. Amos 4:13, Sept.; (b) the breath, 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 11:11; 13:15; cp. Job 12:10, Sept.; " Vine's Expository Dictionary

15. The Bible says that ONLY God is our savior (Hos 13:4, Isa 43:11, 45:21, etc.). How can it be then, that the Bible repeatedly says that Jesus Christ is our savior (Lk2:11, Phil 3:20, Tit 2:13, 3:6, 2 Pet 1:1, 2:20, 3:18, etc)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. Why did J. Rutherford declare that heaven was closed for J.W.s and everyone else after 1935? How did he arrive at this date? Where in the Bible does it state 1935?

Webmaster Reply: The problem is, heaven was not closed in 1935, and it still isn't. It is a strawman argument. On another note, the year 1948 is pivotal in the undertanding of prophecy amongst nominal Christians, yet you will not find this year in the Bible. Again, How far do you want to play this game?

18. What did the Watchtower predict would happen in 1873, 1874, 1878, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1931, 1941, and 1975? Why did these prophecies not happen?

19. Why does the Watchtower ignore the following verses in saying that we don't go to heaven? Col 1:5, Heb 10:34, 1 Pet 1:4, Rev 19:1, Mt 6:20, Jn 12:26, 14:3, Heb 3:1, 2 Cor 5:1, etc.

"Some He says will number in the kingdom of the heaven, others that they shall possess the land, others that they shall see the Father. So too in this case He reveals that the order and holy choir of virgins will be the first to follow in His train [in Ps 45] as it were into a bridal chamber, into the repose of the new ages."

20. If Jesus returned in 1914, why did the Watchtower teach that he returned in 1874, and maintained this 1874 teaching up until 1940?

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

22. Considering that the Watchtower not too long ago banned vaccinations and organ transplants and as a result, many Witnesses died needlessly, would you really let your baby die from lack of a blood transfusion? Especially since they allow Witnesses in some countries to now get blood tranfusions, but not in most countries.

RE: Your Caller Concerned About Father's Refusal of Blood
Transfusion

            "I'm a long-time listener, fan, supporter and defender of all
that you teach, preach (& nag). Today a man called you and voiced
concern over his father, a JW who is facing surgery and will refuse a blood
transfusion. After some personal chat with the man, you said you
understood his feelings: he'd lost his wife and now stood to lose his father.

            The assumption his father was as good as dead without blood transfusion is a common one, but there's almost no truth to that anymore. At  our hospitals, we have a Transfusion-Free Medicine & Surgery Program and the results are phenomenal. Outcomes are better and the hospital stays are shorter. We've eliminated the risks associated with blood transfusions (and there are many, ranging from the best known, AIDS, to Hepatitis C and other infections and complications).

            Our Palm Springs-area hospitals, part of the Tenet Healthcare Corp., are part of a network of Southern California facilities with this program. Included among them are our prestigious USC University Hospital and  the USC/Norris Cancer Hospital. Hospitals and doctors all over the country are climbing aboard this bandwagon; I could introduce you to surgeons who haven't transfused blood in years.

            We're doing open heart, cancer, neuro, ortho (including total hip and knee replacement) neonatal and pediatric, gynecological and urological, transplant, and vascular surgeries successfully without blood transfusions. Much of this is due to advances in equipment and technology, and credit also goes to the JW population for their stand on blood which brought about these changes. Today, about 25% of tranfusion-free procedures are on people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, but who choose the option for health or personal reasons.

              This is emerging medicine. Your caller would have benefited  from this
knowledge (his father probably already knows about it). The day may
come when blood transfusions are a thing of the past.

            So, let's put this canard to rest."

            Tom Wixon
            Manager, Marketing & Public Relations
            Desert Regional Medical Center
            John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital
            Phone: (760) 323-6690
            Fax: (760) 323-6580

            Or Call:
            Bradford Ray
            Transfusion Free Medical & Surgery Coordinator
            Desert Regional Medical Center
            John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital
            Phone: (760) 323-6311

23. In Romans 10:13, why does the Watchtower translate it as "name of Jehovah", when every Greek manuscript translates it as "Lord", and the Watchtower prior to 1978 also translated it as "Lord"?

24. Since the anointed believers as an organization are claimed to be God's collective "faithful and discreet slave" that alone guides people in their understanding of Scripture, and since this organization did not come into existence until the late-nineteenth century, does this mean God had no true representatives on earth for many, many centuries? If so, who were they?

25. Where does the Bible teach that after a prophecy fails, if the prophet admits he made a mistake, he is no longer a false prophet?

26. Since the Organization has received new light regarding the 1914 generation, and completely changed their view on this, does this mean that all former Jehovah's Witnesses who were disfellowshipped years ago for the same view the organization is now teaching will automatically be accepted into fellowship again? Were these ex-JWs in fact disfellowshipped for truth and knew things that the governing body did not?

27. If the Watchtower organization rejects others calling them inspired yet the Watchtower organization does call themselves God's Spirit-directed Prophet what is the difference? Is there such a thing as an uninspired prophet?

"Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a
par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our
teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations
of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still
urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the
light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what
they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to
enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that
we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon
which to build." -- "Worship the Lord in the Beauty of Holiness," No. 2,
Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 December 1896,
reprint, 2080.

28. If the organization did not actually prophecy the end in 1925 and 1975, then how come so many Witnesses left the faith immediately afterwards? (The Watchtower lost about three-quarters of the organization between 1925 and 1928, then suffered huge losses after 1975, when the end did not come as they implied over and over again.

"Nevertheless, we are far from claiming any direct plenary inspiration. . . .
A careful examination of the subject leads us to the conclusion that the Lord
providentially shapes our course so as to give us such personal experiences
in life as will bring us to his word for comfort and instruction in
righteousness; and thus he permits us to sympathize with the experiences and
questionings of his people, and then present to them at appropriate times the
lessons drawn from our own experiences, backed by the instructions and
comfort of the Scriptures." -- "Interesting Letters," Zion's Watch Tower and
Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 July 1899, reprint, 2506.

29. How do you know that there were any vacancies, if any, in the 144,000 class if Jesus offered this to first century Christians? How can the organization know the exact number of vacancies today without any records from the first century?

30. Why are the members called Jehovah's Witnesses, and not Christians? Since Jehovah's Witnesses appeal to Isa. 43:12 and 44:8 for scriptural support that they should be called Jehovah's Witnesses, then what was the "new name" prophesied in Isa 62:2? It can't be Jehovah's Witnesses, for God already used it 20 chapters earlier. Could the new name be "Christian" after our savior Christ?

31. Why would the name God gave to His people not be "Christians" since Acts 11:26 says "The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch"? Why is the name "Jehovah's Witness" found nowhere in the New Testament, if that is God's divine name for his people under the new covenant? Why would God wait almost 2000 years to suddenly start using the name "Jehovah's Witness".

"We know that the the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine Name by Kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood anymore". (Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p.222)

"The strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be "updated" by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son." When Jesus Became God by Richard E. Rubenstein, p.74

32. If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why is it never used in the entire Greek New Testament? If men edited out the name of God "YHWH" when they copied the New Testament, as only the Watchtower organization claims, then how can we have any confidence in any of the New Testament? Should we discard the New Testament or the Watchtower as unreliable?

33. If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say, "There is salvation in no one else; for their is no other name [v,10 Jesus Christ] under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved"? Would this not have been a logical place for god to have used the name "YHWH"?

34. Since the Jehovah's Witness organization currently rejects most of the teachings of its founder Charles Taze Russell , and since they also reject many of Joseph Rutherford's teachings, how can one be sure that in 25 years from now, Jehovah's Witnesses won't also reject the current president, Milton Henschel, as they did Russell and Rutherford?

"If God reveals anything to you by any other instrument of His, be ready to recieve it as you were to recieve any truth by my ministry, for I am verily persuaded that the Lord hath more truth yet to break forth out of His holy Word. For my part, I cannot sufficiently bewail the condition of those reformed Churches which are come to a period in religion, and will go, at present, no further than the instruments of their reformation. The Lutherans cannot be drawn to go beyond what Luther saw; whatever part of His will our God has revealed in Calvin, they will rather die than embrace it; and the Calvinists, you see, stick fast where they were left by that great man of God, who saw yet not all things. This is a mystery much to be lamented, for thought they were burning and shining lights in their times, yet they penetrated not into the whole counsel of God; but were they now living, would be as willing to embrace further light as that which they first recieved, for it is not possible the Christian world should come so lately out of such thick anti-Christian and that perfection of knowledge should break forth at once."

"For however far one may advance in the search and make progress through an increasingly earnest study, even when aided and enlightened by God's grace, he will never be able to reach the final goal of his inquiries."

35. Since the Watchtower claims "apostolic succession", who was it that passed "the torch of God's Spirit" to Charles Russell when he founded the organization? What was the name of this individual?

36. Col 1:16, in talking about Jesus, says that "...All [other] things have been created through him and FOR HIM". If Jesus was Michael the Archangel at the time of creation, would an angel have created all things for himself? Isa 43:7 says God created "everyone...for my OWN glory.."

37. If the soul is the body, why does Jesus make a distinction between the body and the soul in Mt 10:28.

38. The Watchtower teaches that the 144,000 of Rev 7:4 is to be taken literally. If so, where then does the Bible say that the 144,000 will come from?

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

"I said you are gods. Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred an honourable office. He whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others [His Son] is far more worthy of this honourable title ... The passage which Christ quotes [at John 10:34] is in Psalm lxxxii [82], 6, I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; where God expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically abuse the authority and power for their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for every evil action ... Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, be- cause they are God's ministers for governing the world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world ... In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them authority."-John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 419, 20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 John Martin Creed, as Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, observed: "The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas 'my Lord and my God' (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (v. Joh 20:17): 'Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'"
The translator Hugh J. Schonfield doubts that Thomas said: "My Lord and my God!" And so in a footnote 6 on John 20:28 Schonfield says: "The author may have put this expression into the mouth of Thomas in response to the fact that the Emperor Domitian had insisted on having himself addressed as 'Our Lord and God', Suetonius' Domitian xiii."—See The Authentic New Testament, page 503.
AS Margret Davies says in her book RHETORIC AND REFERENCE IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL, 125-126,

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

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

"The NT designation of Jesus as QEOS bears no relation to later Greek speculation about substance and natures." O. Cullman's Christology of the New Testament as quoted in Harris' Jesus as God, p.289.
If Thomas was actually calling Jesus hO QEOS and hO KURIOS--it is strange that Thomas used the nominative forms of KURIOS and QEOS instead of the vocative. So it still seems that Theodore of Mopsuestia could have been correct. The Father may well be the referent in John 20:28.
This brings us to Smart's Rule as discussed on B-Greek. The rule is stated as: "In native [not translation] KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects two substantives of personal description in regimen [i.e. both or neither have articles] and the first substantive alone is modified by the personal pronoun in the genitive or repeated for perspicuity [Winer 147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in view."

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

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

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

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

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

44. What is the meaning of Rev 14:9-11, which says, "...If anyone worships the wild beast... he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur...And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever...". Where could "anyone" be tormented forever and ever"?

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

46. If there are 144,000 spirit anointed people who have a heavenly hope,and a great crowd of people who have another hope of everlasting life onparadise earth, why does Paul say that there is only ONE hope (Eph 4:4), instead of two?

47. In Rev 14:13, how can the dead be "happy" and find "rest" if there is no conscious awareness after death?

48. If Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE, why does every historical and archelogical source (including many secular sources the Watchtower itself uses such as Encyclopedia Britannica, etc.) state that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BCE?

"Anyone approaching the study of ancient history for the first time must be impressed by the positive way modern historians date events which took place thousands of years ago. In the course of further study this wonder will, if anything, increase. For as we examine the sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records were even at the time they were first written. And poor as they originally were, they are poorer still as they have come down to us: half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the carelessness and rough usage of men." He further describes the framework of chronological history as "a purely hypothetical structure, and one which threatens to come apart at every joint."—The Secret of the Hittites, 1956, pp. 133, 134.

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

Jehovah is the first and the last
Jesus is the first and the last
Jesus is Jehovah

All dogs have four legs
My cat has four legs
My cat is a dog

             Does this mean Jesus must be Joseph?

50. Why did the Watchtower use for over 30 years only one authority to support it's John 1:1 "a god" translation, Johannes Greber? And when Johannes Greber turned out to be a spiritist, the Watchtower still used him until they were found out?

Pot Calls the Kettle Black

What have anti-JW authors said about their own kind? Here is a sampling:
From author Rob Bowman:
The latest Barna and Gallup research reveals the shocking but true
statistics of how the church is being molded by or postmodern culture rather
than vice-versa. For example 1996-1997 research reveals the following:
84% of Americans claim to be "Christian." (a significant drop from 90% in
1995-1996) and 40% of Americans claim to be "born again," that is to have
confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ and Lord and Savior.

67% of the general population reject belief in absolute truth and also
believe that all religions will equally get one to heaven if one is faithful
(universalism). As alarming as this is, even more so is that 53% of "born
again" Christians agree with this and reject the belief in absolute truth
while 41% of the "born again population embrace the belief of universalism!

The belief that a person qualifies for heaven if they are good, breaks down
denominationally as follows:

Roman Catholics, 82%; Methodist, Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians
range from 52-59%; Baptist 38%; Assemblies of God 22%.

70% of Americans are members of a church, temple, or synagogue, however,
only 31% attend weekly. It gets worse. Only 17% attend Sunday School weekly
(1996), down from 23% in 1991.

58% of Americans believe that the Bible is totally accurate, 32% of the
"born again" Christian reject the infallibility of the Bible.

20% of Americans identify themselves as New Age practitioners, 53% believe
in ESP, 24% have practiced Transcendental Meditation, 34% believe in a New
Age form of God, 36% read their horoscopes regularly and 26% believe that
astrology is scientifically accurate (a recent Life Magazine poll indicated
48% believe that astrology is probably or definitely valid). Belief in
reincarnation grew from 25% in 1992 to an astonishing 30% in 1996.

Especially troubling is of the "born again" population: 28% believe that
Jesus sinned and didn’t rise from the dead, 47% say Satan is not living
being-only a symbol for evil, and 43% deny the Person of the Holy Spirit
calling Him a symbol of Gods power!

As you read the above incredible statistics remember that 84% of those
polled identified themselves as "Christians." Because of the high level of
consciousness toward religion or spirituality, with a low level of true
knowledge or understanding, our population continues to drift toward the
abyss. The old Biblical paradigm teaches that if you have the right teaching
you will experience God correctly, redemptively. The new paradigm is that if
you "experience" God, then you have the "right" teaching.

http://www.apologeticsresctr.org/siren_song.htm

"Though lyrics in most contemporary Christian songs fall within the
boundaries of orthodoxy, a small but growing percentage of Christian songs
have lyrics that are either shallow, confusing, doctrinally errant, or even
blatantly unbiblical." Ron Rhodes

"9 out of 10 christians don't know how to answer a Jehovah's Witness(sic)." Ron Rhodes
-Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses

"The average Jehovah's Witness(sic) can make a doctrinal pretzel out of the average christian in about 30 seconds." Walter Martin

"It [the Trinity] is so misunderstood that a majority of christians, when asked, give incorrect and at times downright heretical definitions of the Trinity." Page 16 The Forgotten Trinity

"The most obvious reason for Christian acceptance of such material [New Age] is the fact that Biblical influence and wordliness are common among Christians. The Church is failing to educate her people properly in these areas."
"Christians are being influenced by the NAM(New Age Movement) principally because of ignorance of Biblical teachings and lack of doctrinal knowledge." The Facts on the New Age Movement byAnkerberg&Weldon p. 17,25

Perhaps JW-Haters that post this dreck should look at their own church end educate their own members, and save themselves the constant embarrasment of a dazed look as they cannot defend their God and their beliefs.
Jehovah's Witnesses

Back to Main Page