A Reply to Gene854 and 65 Questions Every JW Should be Asked

Answers to 65 questions every Jehovah's Witness should be asked using the NWT
A reply to http://www.webshowplace.com/question/65quest.html
Click here to go to 50 Questions Answered It appears that gene854 is Catholic, or at least sympathetic to them, so my answers will approach the issues from that angle.
All MY answers, unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the following Catholic Bibles: NJB (New Jerusalem Bible), NAB (New American Bible), Spencer (New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Francis Aloysius Spencer, 1940), K&Lilly (The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek by Kleist and Lilly, 1956) and references to McKenzie are to the Dictionary of the Bible, Touchstone, 1995, and references to NWDC are from the New World Dictionary to the New American Bible, 1970) all of which bear the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur giving them the approval of the Catholic Church.

Gene: These questions have been put together using information from many different sources. All verses are from the NWT so that the translation of these verses cannot be questioned by Jehovah's Witnesses. If the Watchtower Society decides to change any of these verses (like they did with Heb 1:6), then the obvious question for the individual Jehovah's Witness is why did the WTS change their own Bible.

Reply: Most Bibles I know make changes with each revision, like the Good News Bible, New International Version, New American Standard Bible, King James etc. The above complaint is obviously a reference to proskuneo in Heb 1:6. It is rendered "Let all the angels of God worship him" in the Jerusalem Bible, but changed to "Let all the angels of God pay him homage" in the New Jerusalem Bible. This is not the only Catholic Bible that has done this. The Confraternity Version had "And let all the angels of God adore him", but when it was updated in the New American Bible, it read, "Let all the angels of God worship him."
So, to paraphrase, "the obvious question for the individual Catholic is why the Church change their own Bible?"

1.The WTS claims it uses the Bible as it's "supreme authority". Where in the Bible does anyone count their time in preaching on a slip of paper and are assigned record cards of activity, determining this as a "gauge to their spirituality"? Where in the Bible are Pioneers, Auxiliary Pioneers, District Overseers, Circuit Overseers, Bethelites, and Kingdom Halls?

Reply: The reader will notice that some of these questions are a little puerile. This is almost like asking why I carpool, as the ancients did not. God's people in Bible times were generally meticuluos about keeping records, hence the recorders, genealogies, etc (Mt 1; Lk 3; 2 Sam 8:16; 2Ki 18:37; 1Chr 4:22; 2Chr 34:8; Ezra 4:15; 6:2; Heh 12:22; Esther 6:1; Is 8:2;
Ex 38; Numbers 1:19; Jg 20:15 etc). JW's are a relatively small number of who are trying to fulfill the great commission (Mt 28:19, 20; 24:14) and the most effective of way of doing that is in an organized manner. (2Tim 4:5, Col 3:23)

2.To what was Jesus referring to by the term "this temple" in Jn 2:18-19? In Jn 2:21 John clearly states that when Jesus used the term "this temple", he was referring to his body. If what the WTS teaches about Jesus' body after his death is correct, then how do you explain these verses?

Reply: "As with His usage of parables, Jesus' cryptic statement most likely was designed to reveal the truth to His disciples but conceal its meaning from unbelievers who questioned Him (Matt. 13:10, 11). Only after his resurrection, however, did the disciples understand the real
significance of this statement (v.22; cf. Matt. 12:40). Importantly, through the death and
resurrection of Christ, temple worship in Jerusalem was destroyed (cf. 4:21) and reinstituted in
the hearts of those who were built into a spiritual temple called the church (Eph. 2:19-22).
-footnote at John 2:19, NKJV MacArthur Study Bible
Or as the New American Bible states in the footnote, "This saying about the destruction of the temple occurs in various forms (Mt 24, 2; 27, 40; Mk 13:2; 15, 29; Lk 21, 6; cf. Acts 6, 14). Mt 26, 61 has" I can destroy the temple of God..."; see the note there. In Mk 14, 58, there is a metaphorical contrast with a new temple....here it is symbolic of Jesus resurrection and the resulting community...*In three days*: an Old Testament expression for a short, indefinite period of time; cf. Hos 6, 2" Italics mine. Sorry, no mysterious Trinity here.

3.If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal "active force", why does he speak directly and refer to himself as "I" and "me" in Acts 13:2?

Reply: "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). The breath is the breath of God, the wind, communicated to man by divine inspiration....The spirit of Yahweh or the spirit of God (Elohim) is a **force** that has unique effects upon man...and the spirit of Yahweh is a **force** which operates the works of Yahweh the savior and the judge. The spirit of Yahweh is often the **force** which inspires prophecy (Nm 11:17 ff; 24:2; 2 S 23:2; 1 Ch 12:18; Is 61:1; Mi 3:8; Ezk 2:2; 3:12, 14, 24; 8:3; 11:1, 5, 24; 37:1; 43:5; Ne 9:30; Zc 7:12). The prophet is a man of the spirit (Ho 9:7)." Dictionary of the Bible by Catholic Scholar, John L. McKenzie, S.J.
As we can see, the spirit is breath. In the Bible it is associated with "breath"
and even "nostrils." (Gen 7:22; Job 27:3; 32:8; 33:4; 34:14; Is 42:5; Jn 20:22) When I speak,
breath comes out of my mouth. This is my spirit, not a separate person. click here for more

4.Col 1:16, in talking about Jesus, says that"... All [other] things have been created through
    him and FOR HIM". If Jesus were 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 ..."

Reply: But the Bible does not says he created all things FOR HIMSELF (AUTON) but FOR HIM (AUTOU). The NAB links this scripture and the surrounding ones with Prov 8, 22-31; Wis 7, 22-8, 1; and Sir 1, 4, so lets take a look at those.
"Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works." Pr 8:22 NJB
"Then I was beside him as his craftsman, and I was his delight day after day." Pr 8:30 NAB
"For she [Wisdom] is an aura of the might of God and a pure effusion of the glory of the Almighty." Wis 7:25 NAB
"Before all things wisdom was created" Sir 1:4 NAB
The NJB has an interesting comment here at Prov 8, "Wisdom's creation by God was on a different plane to all his other works, Wisdom almost seems to be a distinct personality, sharing in God's activity, and his agent in the world. The concept given here will be used in the NT to express Christ's relationship to his Father."
So here we see that Christ/Wisdom was a created being who was God's agent in creation. The NAB even says in a footnote at Col 1:16, 17 that "Christ (though not mentioned by name) is preeminent and supreme as God's agent in the creation of all things"
God was happy with Jesus/Wisdom (his delight). Jesus is part of God's glory (John 1:14), and we get to share in that glory, "I have given them the glory you gave me, that they may be one as we are one." John 17:22 NJB

5.The WTS claims that Ezekial's prophecy of the Jews returning to their land is fulfilled in
    their organization. Ezek 36:24, 28 says "and I will take you out of the nations and collect
    you together out of all the lands and bring you in upon your own soil" and "You will
    certainly dwell in the land that I gave to your forefathers, and you must become my people
    and I myself shall become your God." If this is fulfilled in the Watchtower organization,
    then how are they returning to the land of CANAAN as promised to the forefathers? Ps
    105:8-11
6.Consider also what is said concerning those who fulfill this prophecy. Ezek 36:22 says,
    "Therefore, say to the house of Israel, this is what the sovereign Lord Jehovah has said:
    'not for your sakes I am doing [it] 0 house of Israel but for my holy name, which you have
    PROFANED among the nations where you have come in." Since the WTS claims that it is
    spiritual Israel and fulfils these prophecies in Ezekial, how do Jehovah's Witnesses
    believe they have profaned God's name among the nations?

Reply: To understand typography you need to understand that, Biblically, it need not encompass the minutest details of one type to another. For instance, Jesus is called the "last Adam," but that does not mean that Jesus will eventually sin and fall. Scriptures pertaining to King Solomon (Ps 45:6) have been later applied to Jesus (Heb 1:8), but that does not mean that Jesus will marry many wives and worship their gods.
"The Church also is the new Israel and the new Jerusalem, the people of God and the city of God." McKenzie p. 904

7.Since the WTS prohibits the use of blood transfusions, why does it permit the infusion of albumin, clotting factors, and gamma globulins, all of which are derived from human blood? Since Acts 15:29 clearly refers to the old Jewish law of not EATING blood (Gen 9:4, Lev 3:17, Deut 12:16), and since the WTS has changed its teachings so many times on major issues like organ transplantation, the definition of "generation", the year of Armageddon, etc, etc, and simply calls these changes "New Light", how can you be sure they won't some day change their teachings on blood transfusions and refer to the change as "New Light" also?

Reply: The prohibition on blood was there before the Jewish system (Gen 9:4), during it (Le 17:3, 4 etc), and after it, in Christian times (Acts 15:28, 29). In this regard, the following is found in The Chronology of Antient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir
Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): "This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter than
the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and
therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles
were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of
abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on
the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the
dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or
false Gods, and from fornication."-Italics his.
We should try to view “abstain” as Jehovah God does. God allows plasma proteins to be passed from a pregnant woman’s blood to the separate blood system of her unborn child. There are of course, no Biblical laws against childbirth. White blood cells (leukocytes) appear in milk and animal meat, yet there are no Biblical sanctions against drinking milk or eating meat. Acts 15:28, 29 explicitly states that we should *abstain* from blood just as we would from fornication (PORNEIA). I think we can tell the difference between an illicit sexual act of penetration compared to a stolen kiss. You will find that the changes that we have had in regards to medicine reflects the changes that have been made in medicine. Our basic doctrines have not changed, at least not to the effect as it has in Vatican II (are there still people in Hell because they ate meat on Fridays)? The Protestant and Catholic Churches have all made changes.

8.Does Prov 4:18 really justify an organization replacing doctrines and failed prophecies with new doctrines and prophecies, or does it simply contrast the benefit to the "righteous" of obeying a wise father (Prov 4:10-19)? False teachings can be called "false words" and Prov 13:5 says, "A false word is what the righteous hates..." When the WTS changes a teaching to something that is totally different, is it like a light that is getting brighter and
brighter or more like having one false light (word) completely turned off and a totally different light turned on? Do you think the WTS would be critical of any other organization that changed its teachings as many times on as many different issues over the last 100 years as the WTS has?

Reply: Does Prov simply have filial connotations, or a wider application? The New American bible has this to say about it, "The way of Wisdom leads directly to life (10-13); it is a light that grows brighter (18). The wise man is bound to shun (14-17) the dark and violent path of the wicked (19)." It appears to me that the further we can work our way away from the *dark and violent path* of the Catholic past, the better we are off.

9.Regarding Jesus' return to earth, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it occurred in l914 as an invisible return. That event is described in Zechariah 14:4, which states, "... and his feet will actually stand in that day upon the mountain of the olive trees which is in front of Jerusalem on the east." If Jesus has no body and if his return was invisible, how do you explain this verse?

Reply: If he is really standing "upon the mountain of the olive trees which is in front of Jerusalem on the east," then how will every eye see him, as you feel they literally must (see 20)? The book of contains "symbolic visions" (NAB forward/Zech.) and therefore should not be taken literally.

10.Paul said, "... for as often as you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the
    death of the Lord, until he arrives." (1Cor 11:26). If Christ arrived in 1914, why do
    Jehovah's Witnesses continue to partake of the bread and wine? Shouldn't they have
    stopped in 1914?

Reply: Because the ELQH/erchomai of 1Cor 11:26 is not the PAROUSIA (presence) of Matt. 24:3. The word that is used in 1Cor is also used in the Lord's Prayer at Matt. 6:10, "Your kingdom *come*, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." NAB
Jesus started ruling in heaven at the beginning of his PAROUSIA, but God's will has not yet completely been done on earth.
Revelations tells us that the Kingdom Rule will come at the same time as trouble for the earth, so it is imperative that we seperate the two, like the Bible does (Rev 12:10, 12).
Now, if Popes are infallible, and Gregory I, who was Pope from 590-604 C.E., predicted that the end of the world was imminent in a letter he wrote to Ethelbert, a European monarch, then why are we still here? (Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End—Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages, Page 64, Published 1979.)

11.Since the WTS claims "apostolic succession", can it trace its roots all the way back to
Christ (Mt 16:18)? If so, who was it that "passed the torch of God's spirit" to C. T. Russell
when he founded the organization? What was the name of this individual or individuals?

Reply: Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim "apostolic succession." In fact, you will even find them quoting Jesuit John McKenzie, who wrote: "Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority."-The Roman Catholic Church (New York, 1969), p. 4.

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

Reply: But yet the Bible talks of others as gods, such as Moses (Ex 4:16; 7:1), angels (Ps 8:5; 97:7; 138:1) and King Solomon (Ps 45:6). Deut 32 must be read in its historical context, which includes strange gods (v. 16), new gods (v. 17) and obviously, idols (v. 37).
The NAB-St. Joseph's Edition in a footnote at John 1:1 says that, "The Roman writer Pliny mentions the Christians of Asia Minor as singing hymns of Christ as *a god.*
The NAB also says at Ps. 45:7/Heb. 1:8, "The king in courtly language, is called 'god,' i.e., more than human, representing God to the people."
Though they of course believe in a Trinity, the NWDC candidly admits, "In the New Testament, the Greek Theos with the article (The God) means the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (see Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; etc.). Thus God is almost the name of the first person of the blessed Trinity. Without the article, God designates the divinity, and so is applicable to the pre-existing Word (Jn. 1:3). The term God is applied to Jesus in only a few texts, and even their interpretation is under dispute (Jn. 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1)."

13.The WTS teaches that the 144,000 of Rev 7:4 is to be taken literally. If chapter 7 of
Revelation is to be taken literally, where then does the Bible say that the 144,000 will
come from? See Rev 7: 5-8.

Reply: Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger says of it: "It is the simple statement of fact: a definite number in contrast with the indefinite number in this very chapter."
The number, while antithetical to the countless Great Crowd, uses the 12 tribes to denote that it is indeed the New Israel (as the tribes do not completely match the old Israel).

14.Since the WTS currently rejects most of the teachings of its founder, Charles Taze Russell (who was president of the organization from 1879-1916), and since they also reject "judge" Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who succeeded Russell as president from 1916-1942, how can you be sure that in 25 more years, the WTS won't reject the current president, Milton Henschel (1992-present), as they did Russell and Rutherford? What kind of confidence can you have in an organization that rejected its founder and first two presidents for the first 63 years of its existence - over 50% of the time they have existed?!

Reply: Who said we rejected MOST of their teachings? Did not Russell/Rutherford reject the Trinity, Hellfire, Immortality of the Soul etc, so it is special pleading to say that we reject *most* of what they taught, in fact, you will find the opposite is probably the case. As with most of the info that I am gathering from you Gene, I am noticing that they start with a false premise, and then lead off from there. We do reject some minor details (as seen in 18 below), but then the Catholic Church has seen fit to reject some of its teachings via the Vatican Councils. Tell me Gene, why have some Popes rejected other Popes?

15.If there is no conscious awareness after death, how could the "spirits in prison", who lived during the time of Noah, be preached to by Christ after His death (I Pet 3:18-20) and howcould the good news be "declared even unto the dead" (I Pet 4:5-6)?

Reply: What does 1 Peter 3:19, 20 mean? "and in the spirit, he went to preach to the spirits in prison. They refused to believe long ago, while God patiently waited to receive them, in Noah's time, when the ark was being built. In it only a few, that is eight souls, were saved through water." NJB
A comparison of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 with Genesis 6:2-4 shows that these spirits were angelic sons of God that had materialized and married in Noah's day. At 1 Peter 3:19, 20 the Greek word for "spirits" is PNEUMASIN, while the word rendered "souls" is YUCAI.
We have seen above from McKenzie what the Catholic view of the SPIRIT is, but what of the SOUL?
"The word *soul* is used in English Bibles to translate the Hb nepes. The translation is unfortunate; soul in common speech reflects a complex of ideas which go back to Gk philosophy as refined by madieval scholasticism...[and in the NT] the Greek concept of psyche as a distinct spiritual principle is usually read into the term, and thus the concept of salvation and eternal life may become Platonic rather than biblical." Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie pp 836-839
What is the meaning of 1 Peter 4:6? "For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in to the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God." RSV Catholic Edition
The NAB footnote here is unsure as to the meaning, so it would not be wise to place too much emphasis that even the top Catholic exegetes cannot figure out. But if we look at the spirits as disobedient angels, the preaching would not have benefited physically dead humans because, as Ecclesiastes 9:5 says, they "know nothing," and Psalm 146:4 adds that at death a person's "plans perish." But Ephesians 2:1-7, 17 does refer to persons who were dead spiritually and who came to life spiritually because they accepted the gospel.

16.Since the WTS has received "new light" regarding the 1914 generation, and completely changed their views on this, does this mean that all the former Witnesses who were disfellowshipped years ago for the same view the organization is now teaching will automatically be accepted back into fellowship again? Were these ex-Witnesses in fact disfellowshipped for what is now taught as "the Truth"?

Reply: This is a fantasy of JW-Haters. Disfellowshipping occurs not because of differences of opinion, but of rebellion, sexual miscinduct and a lack of humility. "Expel the wicked man from your midst." 1 Cor 5:13 NAB
"We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises, the Scriptural
basis for which is already in the hands of our readers in the six volumes of
SCRIPTURE STUDIES. We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our
interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely
laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt
in respect to them." -- "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion's Watch Tower and
Herald of Christ's Presence, 1 January 1908, reprint, 4110.
Now, I am more interested in the Priests that have NOT been excommunicated despite the sexual scandals that have ravaged the Church of late.

17.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 on paradise earth, why does Paul say that
there is only ONE hope (Eph 4:4), instead of two?

Reply: Eph 4:4 says "even as also ye were called in one hope **of your calling**"
The entire scripture gives a different spin on this, because the "one hope" pertains to the one we are called for. Try this from another direction. The scripture right after this says that there is, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," but 2Cor 4:13 says, "we have the same kind of faith as the psalmist had when he said, 'I believed in God, and so I speak.'" New Living Translation (cf. Ps 116:10)
The psalmist was not baptized, the psalmist did not accept Jesus Christ as his saviour, in fact, the psalmist "David did not ascended into heaven." Acts 2:34 K/Lilly
But yet we all worship the same God, all have the hope of life eternal.

18.On pgs. 66, 69, 211, 423, 560, 648, and 719 of Jehovah's Witnesses--Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, reference is made to The Finished Mystery, which was the 7th of the Studies in the Scriptures series published by the WTS in 1917 (pg 66, 719), and was the major publication of the WTS at that time. On pgs. 88, 648, and 651, a picture of this book appears, complete with the winged disk symbol of the Egyptian sun god Ra on its front cover. Is it true that The Finished Mystery taught that Christ was the Almighty of Rev 1:8 (pg 15), that Christ established a "Church" (pg 17), that Christ returned invisibly in 1874 (pg 54, 60, 68). that the Holy Spirit has a personality (pg 57), that the great pyramid of Giza was God's stone witness and was used to predict the year of Armageddon (pg 60), that Armageddon would definitely occur in the spring of 1918 (pg 62), that Christ was crucified (pg 68), that Leviathan of the Bible refers to the steam locomotive (pg 85), and that Michael is the Pope of Rome and the angels are his bishops (pg 188)? According to "current" WTS teachings, Christ returned invisibly in 1914 and in 1918 chose the WTS as his earthly organization because they were the only ones teaching "the Truth". If this was so, then Jesus would have known the teachings of the WTS as put forth in The Finished Mystery, published in 1917. Do you really think that Jesus would have chosen an
organization which taught so many things that were not correct according to "current" WTS teachings and are no longer taught as "the truth"?

Reply: The difference between JW's and Catholics is that we can and have discarded the nuisances of the past, while the Roman church has simply revelled in them. Cardinal John Henry Newman says:
"The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions
with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water, asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage.., are all of pagan or sanctified by their adoption into the Church." Cardinal John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 373
We do not apply infallibility to our actions, in fact, quite the opposite:
"We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding
former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good
reason for the change,-in fact, it is important that we should be willing to
unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth. . . . It is our duty
to "prove all things."-by the unerring Word,-"and hold fast to that which is
good." -- "The Ten Virgins," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's
Presence, October 1879, reprint, 38.
Perhaps we should do what Pope Stephen did to Pope Formosus, who dug up his corpse and put him back on trial, and then after finding him guilty, have his remains tortured and dismembered. Vicars of Christ indeed!
I am not even going to venture into the Catholic involvement in Hitler's plan, there have been many books of late that have covered that, but I will quote Catholic historian Paul Johnson on his comment of JW's during Nazi era Germany,

"Except for a few individuals, the clergy were hardly ever imprisoned for long. Of 17,000 Evangelical pastors, there were never more than fifty serving long terms at any one time. Of the Catholics, *one* bishop was expelled from his diocese, and another got a short term for currency offences....Only the free sects stuck to their principles enough to merit outright persecution. The bravest were the Jehovah's Witnesses, who proclaimed their outright doctrinal opposition from the beginning and suffered accordingly. They refused any cooperation with the Nazi state which they denounced as totally evil. The Nazis believed they were part of the Jewish-Marxist conspiracy. Many were sentenced to death for refusing military service and inciting others to do likewise; or they ended in Dachau or lunatic asylums. A third were actually killed; ninety-seven per cent suffered in one for or another. They were the only Christian group which aroused Himmler's admiration: in September 1944 he suggested to Kaltenbrunner that, after victory, they should be resettled in the conquered plains of Russia." p. 489, A History of Christianity

It is sad that we are still being persecuted online by the likes of people like Gene854.

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

Reply: Who says that Jesus cannot be a Lord, when Acts 2:36 says that God *MADE* him Lord, and how can he not be a god when John 1:18 calls him an "only-begotten God" (Spencer). But we know from the context of Jn 20:28 that Jesus calls his Father "my God." (v. 17) How can almighty God Jesus have a God...and one that is greater than him yet? (14:28) So let us look at Jn 20:28:
O KURIOS MOU KAI O QEOS MOU and compare it with Mt 12:49 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU.
What does this mean? "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 -
Mt 12:47, H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you
49 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU/the mother of me and the brothers of me
Mark 3:31, H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI AUTOU/the mother of him and the brothers of him
32 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you
34 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU/the mother of me and the brothers of me
Mk 6:4 TH PATRIDI AUTOU KAI EN TOIS SUGGENEUSIN AUTOU/the father of him and the relatives of him
7:10 TON PATERA SOU KAI THN MHTERA SOU/the father of you and the mother of you
Lk 8:20 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of thee and the brothers of thee
Lk 8:21 MHTHR MOU KAI ADELFOI MOU/mother of me and brothers of me
Jn 2:12 H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI [AUTOU] KAI OI MAQHTAI AUTOU/the mother of him and the brothers of him and the disciples of him
Jn 4:12 OI UIOI AUTOU KAI TA QREMMATA AUTOU/the sons of him and the cattle of him
Acts 2:17 OI UIOI UMWN KAI AI QUGATERES UMWN/the sons of you and the daughters of you
Rom 16:21 TIMOQEOS O SUNERGOS MOU KAI LOUKIOS KAI IASWN KAI SWSIPATROS OI SUGGENEIS MOU/Timothy the fellow-worker of me of me and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater the kinsmen of me.
1 Thess. 3:11 QEOS KAI PATHR HMWN KAI O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS/God and Father of us and the Lord of us Jesus.
2 Thess. 2:16 O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS CRISTOS KAI [O] QEOS O PATHR HMWN/the Lord of us Jesus Christ and the God the Father of us
1 Tim. 1:1 QEOU SWTHROS HMWN KAI CRISTOU IHSOU THS ELPIDOS HMWN/God savior of us and Christ Jesus the hope of us
2 Tim 1:5 TH MAMMH SOU LWIDI KAI TH MHTRI SOU/the grandmother of thee Lois and the mother of thee Eunice
Heb 8:11 EKASTOS TON POLITHN AUTOU KAI EKASTOS TON ADELFON AUTOU/each one the citizen of him and each one the brother of him
Rev 6:11 OI SUNDOULOI AUTWN KAI OI ADELFOI AUTWN/the fellow-slaves of them and the brothers of them
[Heb 1:7 is a LXX quote and is therefore translation Greek.]
As we can see, everytime this same construction is used, it is refering to TWO different people. NO EXCEPTIONS!!
"Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other." Augustine in "Tractate CXXI"
"It is extremely significant that on the one occasion where there is no argument, in the case of Thomas, the statement is not a theological proposition but a lovers cry; it is not the product of intellectual reasoning but of intense personal emotion." p. 33, Jesus As They Saw Him, by William Barclay
Some have taken Thomas's exclamation as directed towards the Father, hence you have, "My Master, and my God" as in the 20th Century NT.
Winer , as does Beza, thinks it is simply an exclamation, not an address. (see G.B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 1872, p. 183
Brown reads it as "my divine one" The Gospel According to John, 1966
Fortna finds a problem with the high Christology of v.28 and the more primitive messianism of v.31. (see The Gospel of Signs, 1970, pp. 197, 198
Burkitt paraphrases it as "It is Jesus himself, and now I recognize him as divine."
While I may not agree with Harris on everything, he does say, "Although in customary Johannine and NT usage (O) QEOS refers to the father, it is impossible that Thomas and John would be personally equating Jesus with the Father, for in the immediate historical and literary context Jesus himself has explicitly distinguished himself from God his Father." p. 124

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

"Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words was hotly debated by early church theologians who wanted to use it in support of their own christological definitions. Those who understood "My Lord' to refer to Jesus, and 'my God' to refer to God[the Father], were suspected of heresy in the 5th cent CE. Many modern commentators have also rejected that interpretation and instead they understand the confession as an assertion that Jesus is both Lord and God. In doing so they are forced to interpret 'God' as a reference to LOGOS. But it is perfectly for Thomas to respond to Jesus' 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."

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

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

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

This reminds me of a scripture at II Kings 18:28 in the LXX, which reads:

"And Achimaaz cried out and said to the king, Peace. And he did obeisance to the king with his face to the ground, and said, Blessed be the Lord thy God, who has delivered up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord the king." (Brenton)

Here we have Achimaaz bowing before the king, and exclaiming thanks to YHWH. No one here supposes that David is almighty God, and there is nothing strange about this type of vocalizing. Yet when Thomas does it, it carries all kinds of heavy theological baggage that was never intended in the framework of 1st Century Christianity.

"...those who actually companied with Jesus found him fully and naturally a man. He did not seem to them to be some indeterminate person from some halfway land in which human and divine were intermingled; he did not seem to them a kind of Greek demigod, neither fully human or fully divine; he did not seem to them to be so divine as to be inhuman." p.15, Jesus As They Saw Him, by William Barclay

"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.

Do you remember and earlier conversation Jesus had with Thomas (and Phillip)? It was at John 14:5-9, and at verse 8 Philip said to Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father." and Jesus replied, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." NJB
Nobody, including Trinitarians or Catholics believe that Jesus is his own Father. After all, verse 28 of the same chapter has Jesus saying, "The Father is greater than I." Thomas, after realizing like Paul, that it was "God the Father who raised Him from the dead," finally saw in Jesus the one way to approach the Father, just like Jesus was earlier trying to show to him. "No one comes to the Father, but by me." Jn 14:6 Spencer

20.If Christ will not have a visible return to earth, then how will he be seen by "ALL the tribes of the earth" (Mt 24:30), and by "EVERY eye" (Rev 1:7) when he returns? How can Christ "APPEAR" a second time (Heb 9:28) if he will not have a visible return to earth?

Reply: But you said above (9) that he was returning on the mountain of the olive trees in front of Jerusalem. How will every eye and all tribes of the earth see him then?
McKenzie,s Dictionary of the Bible, "Parousia (Gk parousia, "presence" or "arrival") ...In the Synoptic Gospels the Parousia is described as the coming of the Son of Man in glory (the glory of the Father) with the angels (Mt 16:27; 25:31; Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26), as a coming on the clouds with power and glory (Mt 24:30; 26:64; Mk 13:26; 14:62; Lk 21:27, omitted in Lk 22:69). The Parousia will be preceded by signs in the heavens...The coming will be like a flash of lightning (Mt 24:27; Lk 17:24); this image no doubt refers primarily to the sudden and unannounced appearance of the Son of Man, but it also suggests the brilliance of his appearance. He will come in the manner in which he ascended into heaven (AA 1:11). He takes his throne in the heavens (Mk 25:31)."
Did you notice that he is coming on the clouds...in glory...brilliance etc. It seems to me that Jesus' return will be something invisible to the naked eye. "He will come in the manner in which he ascended" and then McKenzie takes us to Acts 1:11, but if we read just before that it says, "he was lifted up before their eyes, and a cloud took him out of their sight." K/Lilly

21.In Rev 19:1, where does it say that the great crowd will be?

Reply: A great crowd (multitude) is a term used to describe *many*, even if they are evil in intent (Matt 26:47). It is not exclusive to those as described in Rev 7. See also Matt 4:25; 8:1, 18; 14:4; 15:30; 19:2; 20:29; 1Kings 20:13; 28; 2 Chron 13:8; 20:2; Is 16:14 etc.

22.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, and Heb 10:15-17): Desire (Gal 5:17); Be outraged (Heb 10:29); Search (I Cor 2:10); Comfort (Acts 9:31); Be loved (Rom 15:30); Be lied to and be God (Acts 5:3-4)?

Reply: In the Bible, even the blind can see with "eyes of your understanding" by means of " the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him." Eph 1:17, 18
As we can see, the Bible employs terms that are descriptive, and often personifies the impersonal.
Sheol/Hell has a mouth and can swallow people (Numbers 16:30), it has ropes (2 Samuel 22:6), and it has soul (Isaiah 5:14).
"Sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire" (Gen 4:7 KJV). Here SIN is given desire, it lies and it is referred to as "HIS."
Blood cries out (Gen 4:10).
Names can rot (Pr 10:7)
A man of wisdom will see God's name (Mic 6:9)
God's name is near (Ps 75:1)
The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as "kings." (Ro 5:14, 17, 21; 6:12) He writes of sin as "receiving an inducement," 'working out covetousness,' 'seducing,' and 'killing.' (Ro 7:8-11)
Wisdom speaks (Prov 8)....see spirit.htm
...but is the spirit God according to Acts 5:3, 4?
Let us see what it says:
"Peter said, Ananias, how can Satan have so possessed you that you should lie to the Holy Spirit, and keep back part of the price of the land? While you still owned the land, wasn't it yours to keep, and after you had sold it wasn't the money yours to do with as you liked? What put this scheme into your mind? You have been lying, not to men, but to God." NJB
Do you notice that the last part is directed towards Peter when it says, "You have been lying not to men?" See, they lied to Peter, who was "filled with holy spirit" Acts 4:8
And when they lied to Peter, they lied to God. Later on, in the same chapter, we have a similar situation in vss 38 and 39 where these words were directed towards Peter and the disciples, "What I suggest therefore, is that you leave these men alone and let them go. If this enterprise, this movement of theirs, is of human origin, it will break up of its own accord; but if it does in fact come from God, you will be unable to destroy them. Take care not to find yourself fighting against God." Peter and his men were not God, but representative standing in place of God, and when something is done against them, it is done against God." NJB "Whoever touches you touches the apple of my eye." Zech 2:12 NJB
Acts 5 works quite well with 1 Thess 4:8 which says, "anyone who rejects this is rejecting not, but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit." NJB

23.What is the correct spelling of God's proper name, "Yahweh" or "Jehovah"? If Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that "Yahweh" is more proper, why do they misspell it "Jehovah"? If the name of God is so important, then should you not only pronounce it correctly, but spell it correctly too?

Reply: JW's also maintain, like many others, that Jesus was called Yeshua, yet but a few purists really call him that. The Catholic Jerusalem Bible at Ps 83:18 says that God is Yahweh, the Living Bible-Catholic Edition says it is Jehovah, and the Catholic New American Bible says it is LORD! It seems WE are not the ones with the problem. To see what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about *Jehovah* and more info on the pronunciation of his Name, click here.

24.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 this be since if Jesus had been created by God, then he would have been with God when everything else was created?

Reply: All questions and no answers, aren't you? :) John 1:3 does not say that Jesus created all things. " All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made." ASV
The New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV, and others have linked/cross-referenced Proverbs 8:22-30 with John 1:3, where it describes the created Wisdom/Jesus as a master workman beside God as he is creating. Click here for more.
The use of the terms, "alone", "who was with me" and "by myself" does not necessarily mean what you would like it to mean, especially where a king is concerned:
Look at Daniel 4:30 and Isaiah 63:3. Daniel 4:30 has been translated in the following ways:
1) "The king reflected and said, 'Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built.' " NASV.
2) "The king was saying, 'Great Babylon! Imperial palace! Did I
not build it alone.' " —Jerusalem Bible ("JB").
3) "The king spake and said, Is this not Babylon the great, - which I myself have
built," — J.B. Rotherham ("RO")
4) "The king was answering and saying: "Is this not Babylon the Great, that I myself have
built".— NWT.
Was Nebuchadnezzar really the only person in Babylon who took part in the construction and building of the whole city by himself? Or, was the construction during his time, accomplished by his authority, his word and no other's?
Isaiah 63:3 proclaims: "I [Jehovah] have trodden the wine press alone of the peoples there was no man with me." (ASV) Did Jehovah personally punish the peoples and nations that had offended Him? Who was it exactly that destroyed 185,000 men in Sennacherib's army? It was Jehovah's angel acting on the word of Jehovah. (2 Kings 19:35, 36) Did Jehovah personally punish Babylon or did He use the Medes and Perians to accomplish His will? (Daniel 5:26-28, 30-31) All these acts were done by Jehovah's permission and authority; and by His alone, but it was others who carried it out.—Ezekiel. 36:33, 36.

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

Reply: Who says the soul is the body?
"The LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being." Gen 2:7 NAB
"The Lord God formed man out of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Gen 2:7 Douay
Souls are living people, not just the vessels (bodies) they are carried in.
The book Catholicism, by Richard P. McBrien tells Catholics under the caption *Biblical Views,* "Unlike the Greeks, who look upon a human being as an incarnated spirit, the Hebrews regarded the human person as an animated body. We do not have a soul and a body, we are soul and body....The idea of immortality of the soul, on the other hand, is not developed in the writings of the later Old Testament period nor in the New Testament. The notion of immortality reflects a world view different from the Bible's anthropology. Indeed, it is more akin to Greek philosophy (i.e., the human person as embodied spirit) than to the Hebrew mentality (i.e., the human person as animated body)." p. 159 Italics theirs

26.In Col 1:15-17, the NWT inserts the word "other" 4 times even though it is not in the original Greek (See Gr- Engl Interlinear). Why is the word "other" inserted? How would these verses read if the word "other" had not been inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6.

Reply: All Bibles add the word *other.* THE RSV-Catholic Edition has added this word 100 times.
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees." (NAB) The word *other* here is not in the Greek. Now, Prov 30: 5-6 is best applied to the 3 Heavenly Witnesses in early Catholic Bibles at 1 John 5:7,8.
As late as 1897 a papal decree was issued forbidding the faithful to doubt the “comma Johanneum.” In part it said:

“Secretariat of the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Concerning the authenticity of the text of 1 John V. 7. (Wednesday, Jan. 12, 1897).
“In a General Congregation of the Holy Roman Inquisition . . . the following doubtful question was presented:
“‘Whether we may safely deny, or even treat as a matter of doubt, the authenticity of that text (1 John V. 7). . . ’
“All things having been most diligently examined and weighed, and the opinion of the Lords Consultors having been taken, the aforesaid Most Eminent Cardinals gave out ‘the answer is in the negative.’ On Friday the 15th of the aforesaid month and year, in the usual audience granted to reverend father the lord Assessor of the Holy Office, after that he had made an exact report of the aforesaid proceedings to our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, His Holiness approved and confirmed the resolution of these Most Eminent Fathers . . . ”—Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 29. 1896-7. p. 637.

Pope Leo, in 1902 re-established a commission to study the Comma more closely. Because the report was unfavorable to the earlier decree it had to be put aside, but the pope continued to be worried by the situation right up to his death. Some Roman Catholic scholars began to ignore the decree. Dr. Vogels omitted the text from his Greek Testament published in 1920. Others were at first more cautious. In the Roman Catholic Westminster Version of the New Testament published in 1931 the footnote to 1 John 5:7, 8 after calling attention to its omission in the original text continues,

“Until further action be taken by the Holy See it is not open to Catholic editors to eliminate the words from a version made for the use of the faithful.”

But in the same version republished as one volume in 1947 the interpolation is omitted, editor Cuthbert Lattey citing the Greek text published by Jesuit scholar A. Merk, which also omits it.
Since the Confraternity Version of a half a century ago, Catholic Bibles do not contain this spurious verse, but ALL Catholic Bibles before that time had it. Jerome did not include it in his Vulgate, it was added in the Clementine Edition of the Vulgate centuries later. "What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6."

27.In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word "other" even though it doesn't appear in the original Greek (See Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for inserting this word?

Reply: Do you even know what you are talking about? The same word is used in the Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible Catholic Edition, Living Bible Catholic Edition, and Monsignor Ronald A. Knox's version.

Is the word "Jehovah" a name? See Exo 6:3, Ps 83:18, and Isa 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.

Reply: Again, see the Catholic Bibles above. I might suggest a bit more research to avoid this type of embarrasment in the future.

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 (Mt 24:9, Mk 13:13, Lk 21:12,17, Jn 15:21, and Acts 9:16)? If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say, "There is salvation in no one else; for there is not another name [vs 10 Jesus Christ] under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must get saved"? If the teachings of the WTS are correct, would this not have been the logical place for God to have used the name "YHWH" or "Jehovah"?

Reply: Any lexicon will tell you that the Greek word for NAME (Onomo) also means *Authority*. Notice how the 2 words interchange:
Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." RSV
Mt 9:8 When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings. NAB
Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. RSV-Catholic Edition
Jn 17:2 just as you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all you gave him. NAB
Jn 17:11 And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are. NAB
Php 2:11 And for this God raised him high and gave him the name which is above all other names. NJB
The Almighty God does not need to be given a NAME, he has one, and he uses it 6828 times in the OT alone. Jesus is GIVEN a NAME, but we are never told what that NAME is. The only obvious conclusion is that the NAME is the equivalent to AUTHORITY.
Now all of Gene's efforts is supposed to plant in the readers mind the idea that God is a Trinity. But have all Catholics embraced this belief as Biblical and reasonable?
"After a long resistance to a seperate liturgical development on Gallic soil, the Feast of the Trinity was inaugarated by the Avignon Pope John XXII only in 1334 for the Church as a whole. It is a feast on which even in Catholic Churches it is frequently possible to hear either a scarcely intelligible explanation of traditional teaching or a deafening silence. There is a story about a Bavarian parish priest who announced to his congregation on the Feast of the Trinity that this was so great a mystery, of which he understood nothing, that there would unfortunately be no sermon. Actually in both the Catholic and the Protestant churches sermons explicitly on the Trinity are very rare....
Is it not more understandable, more illuminating, than the many speculations of later times - often very remote from the New Testament and little more than pure philosophizing - on the one divine nature (physis, ousia, essence, substance) in the three divine persons (hypostases, subsistences, prosopa, relations)? ...Might not preaching too, perhaps be better if it were based on what is said in Scripture about this God who forms with Jesus a unity in the Spirit? Catholic scholar Hans Kung, Does God Exist, pp. 699, 701
I agree, let's step away from the Catholic traditions that gave us these teachings, and let's go back to the Bible.

Since the word "Jehovah" didn't appear until at least the 12th century, and since the term "Jehovah's Witnesses" wasn't used by the WTS until the early 1930's, doesn't this mean that the first century Christians were not known as "Jehovah's Witnesses"?

Reply: *Jehovah*, as well as *Jesus* are anglicized forms of earlier names for these. The letter J was the last letter introduced into the English alphabet. Catholics seem to prefer *Yahweh* which is a supra-literal form of the Divine Name. Other options are *Yahowah, Yahoweh* etc. All of God's people people are Jehovah's/Yahweh's Witnesses. "You yourselves are my witnesses-it is Yahweh who speaks-my servants whom I have chosen." Is 43:10 Catholic Jerusalem Bible For more click here
Since the Catholic church claims St. Peter as their first pope, then why is never called *pope*? Why is there no mention of *Catholic" anything in the Bible?

28.The WTS makes the claim, "Like the Primitive Christian Community - the religious publication 'Interpretation' stated in July 1956: 'In their organization and witnessing work, they [Jehovah's Witnesses] come as close as any group to approximating the primitive Christian community..."- Jehovah's Witnesses- Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, pg 234, and on pg 677 of the same book, a caption appears titled "Like the early Christians". Do
Jehovah's Witnesses pray the "Our Father" (Mt 6:9-13), ...

Reply: Why is it, that outside of the mention of the model prayer in the gospels, the primitive Christian community did not repeat the "Our Father?" (see Acts 1:24; 8:15; Rom 1:9 etc etc etc)
McKenzie has this to say on Prayers, "The allusions to prayer in the epistles show a variety of objects of prayer: a safe journey (Rm 1:10), the salvation of the Jews (Rm 10:1), deliverance from enemies (Rm 15:31), spiritual strength (Eph 3:14-17), for various spiritual goods (Eph 6:18-20)...."etc. The Lord's Prayer was an example of the things we should ask for. It was not intended for meaningless repetition. What does it say right before the "Our Father?" "Don't recite the same prayer over and over again as the heathen do, who think prayers are answered only by repeating then again and again." Matt 6: 7, 8 Living Bible-Catholic Edition

break bread together (celebrate the Eucharist) frequently (1Cor 10:16-17, 1Cor 11:26-27),

Reply: Where does it say in these scriptures that we should do this every Sunday or even every day? The original Eucharist was held on the Passover...which is once a year.

come together on Sunday to break bread (Acts 20:7),

Reply: Jesus 'broke bread' when food was being shared at a meal even before the Last Supper. (Mark 6:41; 8:6) The bread used by the Jews at that time was not what many people are accustomed to today. When eating it, they would often break or tear off a piece.

confirm the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:15-17, 19:5-6, Heb 6:2, 2Tim 1:6), ordain (appoint) priests (elders) through the laying on of hands (Acts 6:5-6, 13:2-3), pray to Jesus (Mt 11:28, Acts 7:59-60, 1Cor 16:22-23, Rev 22:20), anoint the sick with oil (Mk 6:12-13, Jas 5:14),

Reply: The footnote in the NAB at Jas 5:14 states that "oil was used for medicinal purposes in the ancient world." Are part of your requirements for 1st Century Christians that we wear sandles also? Acts 7:59 and Mt 11:28 mention coming and calling to Jesus, not praying. The laying on of hands often implies the passing on of gifts of the spirit. This was something that was to end in this way (1Cor 13:8).

often kneel down to pray (Acts 9:40, 20:36, 21:5, Lk 22:41),

Reply: Sure, why not. But they also stood to pray (Mk 11:25).

consider themselves to be witnesses of Christ (Acts 1:8, 10:39, 13:31),

Reply: Yes.

have deacons (1Tim 3:8, 10, 12),

Reply: Yes, the greek word used here means "one who serves." "In a metaphorical sense the word may be translated minister or servant." McKenzie p. 182
The Good News Bible-Catholic Edition translates this as "church helper."

fast from than Jesus Christ (Acts 4:10-12),

Reply: I don't understand this question. Fasting is not mentioned here.

celebrate Pentecost (Acts 2:1, 20:16, 1Cor 16:8), have special people that look after widows and orphans (Acts 6:1-4, Jas 1:27), occaisionally drink wine (1Tim 5:23)? If not, then how can Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be like the primitive Christian community?

Reply: Pentecost was the festival of the harvest that took on spiritual significance AFTER it was Jewish celebration. I celebrate the Christian harvest work all the time. (Mt 9:37, 38; 13:30)

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

Reply: Actually, it is the Bible that tells us this "For the living at least know that they will die! But the dead know nothing; they don't even have their memories. Whatever they did in their lifetimes - loving, hating, envying - is long gone....Whatever you do, do well, for in death, where you are going, there is no working or planning or knowledge or understanding." Eccl 9:5, 10 Living Bible Catholic Edition [Because Christendom has a problem with this, the footnote in this Bible says, "These statements are Solomon's discouraged opinion, and do not reflect a knowledge of God's truth on these points." What arrogance!]
So what is a dynamic equivalent of the above scripture? "At last the time has come for his martyrs to enter his full reward." Living Bible Catholic Edition
"Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on" New Living Translation
"Happy are the dead who die in the faith of Christ!" New English Bible-Ecumenical
"Blessed are the dead who from this time die as Christians." Williams NT
"From now on, the Lord will bless everyone who has faith in him when they die." Contemporary English Version
Why are they blessed/happy? "For you died to this world, and now you have entered with Christ into the secret life of God. When Christ, who is your life, comes again for all the world to see, then all the world will see that you too share his glory." Col 3:3 Barclay's NT
Hardly an eerie other-wordly experience.

30.Is it true that the WTS's prophecy that Armageddon will come before "the end of the
    generation of 1914" (You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth, pg 154), is no longer
    taught as "the Truth"? If so, then does this mean that this teaching of the WTS, which they
    have taught as "the Truth" for decades, was really a false teaching? Since the WTS claims
    that they are the "one channel that the Lord is using during the last days of this system of
    things" (Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, pg 626) and that the
    governing body is "the mouthpiece of Jehovah God", does this mean that God changed His
    mind about this teaching and the definition of "generation"? Is it possible that God could
    change His mind? Has the WTS ever changed their mind before about a teaching that they
    once taught as "the Truth"? The WTS has taught that Armageddon was going to occur in:
    1914 - The Time Is At Hand, 1888 (1911 ed.), pg 101; Zion 's Watchtower, 1/15/1892, pg22
    1918 - The Finished Mystery, 1917, pg 62, 485
    1925 - Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920, pg 89-90, Watchtower, 7/15/24, pg 211
    WWII - Watchtower, 9/15/41, pg 288
    1975 - Kingdom Ministry, 6/69, pg 3; AWAKE!, 10/8/68, etc.
    Before the end of the generation of 1914 - You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth, pg 154; A
    WAKE} 10/8/95, pg 4
    Since the WTS claimed that their teaching that Armageddon would come before "the end of
    the generation of 1914" was "Jehovah's prophetic word" (WT, 5/15/84, pg 6) and "the
    Creator's promise" (AWAKE! 10/8/95. 9/22/95, 9/8/95, etc. pg 4), therefore speaking "in
    the name of God" (Deut 18:22), then according to Deut 18:20- 22, doesn't this mean that the
    WTS is truly a modern day false prophet? See Mt 7:15, 24:11, Mk 13:22, 2Pet 2:1, 1Jn
    4:1, Rev 19:20,20:10.

Reply: Well, you missed out on a few things that I will clear up for you. The preceding words in your snipped quote from the Proclaimers Book stated that they do NOT claim infallibility (unlike the Catholic Church, who is also a *false Prophet* according to your criteria..see below). The Awake 10/8/95 mentioned no such thing, in fact, the page referenced was on Single Parenthood. I also can't find anything for 9/22/95, 9/8/95
But what of the Catholic Church? Early Church fathers Hilarianus and Hippolytus predicted the end in 500 A.D.(Paula Fredriksen-Tyconius and Augustine on the Apocalypse). But there is more:

In the 5th century, the Council of Ephesus decided the millenium had already begun.
Pope Gregory I, 590-604 C.E., predicted the imminent end of the world.
Spanish Monk Beatus predicts it for 800 A.D.
Aelfric, the Abbott of Eynsham predicts it for the year 1000.
Abbo of Fleury, the French Abbott predicts it for predicts it for 994/996.
Richard of St. Vaast leads a pilgrimage for the predicted end in 1033.
1184 is the target date for the return of the Antichrist according to many...
and again in 1345-1385
Joachim of Fiore(1135-1202) used the New Testament and the Trinity to proclaim the coming of the anti-christ in 1260 A.D. This was greatly endorsed by the Catholic Church, and his writings had influenced Catholics for many years.
Speaking of the Trinity, the Church Father who first coined the term, Tertullian was a Montanist(a deeply apocalyptical sect).
Jean de Roquetaillade announced it for 1366
Roman Catholic, Arnald of Villanova, predicted the appearance of the Antichrist in 1378

It seems that Catholic are just as much "false prophets" as you claim JW's are!
"Apocalyptic speculations were more widespread than once believed. They were embraced not only by the people on the margins of society, but also by its more secure members. Indeed, apocalytpic thinking formed an important component of the madieval mentality." p. 24, The Last Days Are Here Again by R. Kyle. But there were many others as well:

The Taborites predict it for 1420.
Hans Hut announced the end for1528
Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa announced it for 1533
Melchior Hoffman announced it for 1593
The Fifth Monarchists predicted between 1655-57
A Lutheran named Adam Nachenmoser announced it for 1635
Lutheran leader, Andreas Osiander announced it for 1672
Jan Matthys announced for 1534
Archbishop of York and Primate of England, Edwin Sandys (1519-1588) proclaimed the imminent end
John Wycliffe announced it for 1379
One of the first Baptist groups, The Anabaptists believed that the Millenium would occur in 1533
Reformer John Foxe believed the last days would start in 1600. He was shared in this view by Robert Pont
The Father of Protestantism himself, Martin Luther taught Christ would return by 1564.
New England Minister Jonathan Edwards predicts 1866
The Puritans predict it for 1700
Emanuel Swedenborg predicts the end for 1757
Anglican rector Thomas Beverly predict 1697
Anglican rector John Mason for 1694
Pierre Jurie predicts the end for 1689
Sir Walter Raleigh, Hugh Broughton and Thomas Brightman thought it would not be until 1700
Christopher Columbus said the world was going to end in 1656
Deacon William Aspinwall (General Court) predicts the end for 1673
Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly announced it for 1789
The Shakers announced it for 1792
Lavater announced it for 1795
Some Christian believers in Russia thought that Peter the Great was the Anti-Christ in the 1660's.
Historic Jews in the 17th century believed that the Messiah would come in the year 1648.
John Napier announced it for 1688 or 1700
John Cummings of the Scottish National Church, predicted Jesus would return in 1865.
Isaac Newton announced it for about another 90 years in his day
Richard Brothers announced it for 1795
Reverend M. Baxter (Church of England) predicts it for 1868
Scottish National Church official, the "Reverend" John Cumming (1807-1881) proclaimed "Redemption draweth Nigh" in 1867
In 1832 Pope Gregory XVI indicated that the time of the "plague of locusts

(Revelation 9:3)" had arrived in his Encyclical "Mirari vos arbitramur."

Pat Robertson announced it for 2007(in a novel)
Chuck Smith, Pastor of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa proclaimed it for 1981
Tommy Hicks, a noted evangelist, received visions of the end in 1961
Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, predicted the world's end in the 19th. Century.
Elizabeth Claire Prophet announced it for 1989
Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California predicted the Rapture in 1981.
Hon-Ming Chen predicted Christ's return on March 31, 1998.
Methodist Joanna Southcott(1750-1814 announced she was the Bride of the Lamb and began to seal the 144,000
Early in the 20th century, Dr. Isaac M. Haldeman, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in New York City, predicted that the Antichrist would appear before the Jews return to Palestine
Assemblies of God official, Thomas M. Chalmers, announced it for the early 1920's
Pentecostal leader, Lester Sumrall predicts 1985
Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth, predicted the Rapture would occur in 1988.
Nationally syndicated TV show host (Prophecy in the News), J.R. Church predicted the rapture for 1988.
David Webber and Noah Hutchings of the Southwest Radio Church (SRC) announced it for "1981 or '88"
Salem Kirban - Bible prognosticator, predicted "the Rapture" would take place in 1989.
Benny Hinn predicted the Rapture would occur in 1993.
Irish Bishop James Ussher's prediction was for 1996.
Dr. Jack van Impe has speculated that the end will come between September 1999 and 2000.
Grant Jeffrey predicts it for October 9, 2000
Texe Marrs predicts it for 2000 (Storming toward Armageddon, 1992)
Philip B. Brown has stated that the millennial reign of Christ will begin April 6, 2008.

Dr. Harold Camping, president of Family Radio, expected the end of the world in 1994.

Is Christianity a religion completely awash with false prophets, or are they, like the anxious followers of Jesus in the 1st century, simply and anxiously awaiting for the incoming Kingdom promised to them (Acts 1:6)?

31.If the name Jehovah is so important, then why is it never used in the entire Greek New Testament? If men edited out the proper name of God, "YHWH", when they copied the New Testament, as only the WTS claims, thereby altering God's word, then how can we have confidence in ANY of the New Testament? Should we discard the New Testament or the WTS as unreliable?

Reply: It is Scholars that have determined that the name was removed. Professor George Howard has done extensive study on the Divine Name in the New Testament and has this to say:

"The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in many passages made it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries." George Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 15
"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)
When did they remove the name? In a commentary on the manuscript P Fouad 266, Professor G.
D. Kilpatrick, on talking about the period between 70-135 C.E. said that 3 important changes
were made in this period. The change from scroll to Codex, the Tetragrammaton was replaced by KYRIOS and abbreviations were introduced for divine names. See Etudes de Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme 1971 pp. 221,222

32.If Jesus was executed on a torture stake, with both hands together over his head, as only the WTS teaches, why does Jn 20:25 say "... unless I see in his hands the print of the nailS...", indicating that there was more than one nail used for his hands? Two nails would have been used if he was crucified on a cross.

Reply: And the parallel account at Luke 24:39 mentioned hands AND his feet.
The Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by M'Clintock and Strong, comments:
'Much time and trouble have been wasted in disputing as to whether three or four nails were used in fastening the Lord. Nonnus affirms that three only were used, in which he is followed by Gregory Nazianzen. The more general belief gives four nails, an opinion which is supported at much length and by curious arguments by Curtius. Others have carried the number of nails as high as fourteen.'-Volume II, page 580. For more, click here.

33.Can Jehovah's Witnesses hold and discuss openly with other Witnesses opinions that differ from orthodox WTS teachings? If no, why not?

Reply: Why would you be a JW if you did not agree with their teachings?

34.The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" as "is" in almost every instance in the New Testament (Mt 26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate the same 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 were consistent and translated the Greek word "esti" as "is" in these verses, what would these verses say? Why did so many of Jesus' disciples leave him when he told them they must eat his body in order to have eternal life? See Jn 6:25-69, Mt 26:26-28.

Reply: Actually, the Greek word ESTIN occurs almost 1000 times in the NT, and it is rendered as "means" about 49% of the time in the NWT, not just in the few isolated cases as mentioned above. "Means" falls within the allowable lexical range of meaning for this word, as is evident in Matthew 1:23 in most versions.
"The broken bread is a symbol of Christ's body." NASB Zondervan Study Bible, 1Cor 1:24 ftn.

35.Rev 20:10 says, "And the Devil... the wild beast and the false prophet [already were]; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever". Where will the Devil, the wild beast, and the false prophet be "tormented day and night forever and ever"? Likewise, Rev 14:9-11 says, "... If anyone worship 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"?

Reply: Rev 14 doesn't really say that though, does it? It is the figurative "smoke" that lasts forever, in other words, the lingering after-effects, the memory will last forever. Fire and Sulphur is used to extinguish something forever, to remove them completely. So when the Bible says, " And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire," we know that God will get rid of them forever. Rev 20:14 Douay
As for *torment,* we see that the people on earth will be tormented by the 2 prophets (Rev 11:10), so the word does not have the meaning that you are hoping to get from this. The same basic Greek word is used to apply to a jailer, certainly NOT the endless torture of a later apostate teaching.

36.Jesus Christ is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 9:6 ("For there has been 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?

Reply: The Revised English Bible and the New English bible were directed by representatives of the Catholic and Protestant churches in the UK. The NEB uses "God-like" at Is 9:6, but uses "God their champion" at Is 10:20, 21. The REB has "Mighty Hero" at Is 9:6, but the Is 10:20, 21 has "God their strength." Incidentally, the NAB renders them differently also.
A close parallel with this scripture can be found at Ezekiel 31:11, where the "mighty ONE" (Hebrew El/God the same word used at Is 9:6), RSV Catholic Edition, is used of a human king (probably Nebuchadnezzar).

37.If the WTS claims they are not "inspired" but does refer to themselves as "God's spirit-directed Prophet", what is the difference? Is there such a thing as an "uninspired prophet"? Why would anyone be part of a religious organization which claimed that their teachings were NOT inspired?

Reply: For one thing, where does it say that they are "God's Spirit-directed Prophet?" They do they say they are "God's spirit-directed organization." Is this a stretch? As far the spirit goes, there is nothing here that Trinitarians haven't said before. Most people feel their Church organization is Spirit-directed, and this is borne out in the Bible:
Scofield, "the Church, which is Christ's body, formed by the baptism with the Holy Spirit." [ftn at Eph 3] cf. Eph 1:13; 2:22; 3:5, 19; 1Pet 2:5; 1 Cor. 2:10; John 14:26,Matt. 18:20.
Harper Bible Commentary, "The Spirit is the Church.
What of the ANF:
"It is said, 'In the church, God has set apostles, prophets, teachers," and all the other means through which the SPIRIT works. Those who do not join themselves to the church are not partakers of these things. Rather, they defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behavior. For where the church is, there is the SPIRIT of God. And where the SPIRIT of God is, there is the church, and every kind of grace." Irenaeus (c.180, E/W), 1.458.

38.In the NWT, 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). Especially compare the Greek word "prosekunhsan" used with reference to God in Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, and 19:4 and used with reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9, and 28:17. 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 reads.

Reply: Well, let us see how other Bibles have been translating this word?

Scripture	Revised English Bible	New J. Bible	New English Bible	Kleist/Lilly	N.W.T.
Matt 14:33	fell	bowed	fell	prostrated	Obeisance
Matt 28:9	kneeling	Homage	prostrate	prostrated	Obeisance
Matt 28:17	Worship	fell down	prostrate	adored	Obeisance
Heb 1:6	Homage	Homage	homage	adore	Obeisance
John 4:20	Worship	Worship	Worship	Worship	Worship
Rev 5:14	Worship	Worship	Worship	Worship	Worship
Rev 7:11	Worship	Worship	Worship	Worship	Worship
Rev 11:16	adoration	Worship	Worship	Worship	Worship
Rev 19:4	Worship	Worship	Worship	Worship	Worship

The accusations against the NWT are quite unfair, as other Catholic Bibles follow suit in a similar fashion. What does PROSKUNEO mean? According to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence to...It is used of an act of homage or reverence to God(John 4:24)...to Christ(Matt 2:2)...to a man(Matt 18:26)...to the Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to demons(Rev 9:20)...to idols(Acts 7:43)." See Above.
Is PROSKUNEO the highest form of worship? According to Roman Catholic Theology it is not. The highest form is LATREUO(Latin Latria). In the RC Church this distinction is necessary as only God recieves LATREUO and the Blessed Virgin Mary can receive a lesser form of worship(such as dalia).
For more on Latria and Dalia see the Catholic Encyclopedia at:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm
The NWT consistently renders LATREUO as "sacred service" while Catholic Bibles only make a distinction between LATREUO or PROSKUNEO when they are mentioned together. click here for more

39.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, lThess5:2, 1Pet 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, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1. and Rev 22:21 (see Gr- Engl Interlinear)?

Reply: Catholic Bibles like the New American Bible translate the Hebrew word YHWH 6828 times as LORD. Why is the word "LORD" translated when it does not appear in the Hebrew text. Why are Catholics not consistent in translating YHWH in other Bibles, like the New Jerusalem Bible as compared to the NAB? (see Hb-Engl Interlinear...or simply the other objections I have already listed several times above). The NWT is not the first nor the last Bible to follow this practise, which is quite common amongst missionary translations. Click here and here for more. The Catholic Magazine Rivista Biblica had an interesting article on this. Click here for more.

40.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? See Exo 3:14.

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

Version John 8:12 John 8:18 John 8:24 John 8:28 John 8:58 John 9:9

NWT I am I am I am [he] I am [he] I have been I am [he]

AT I am I am I am I am I existed I am

New Living Trans I am I am I am I am [he] I existed I am

Williams I am N/A I am I am I existed I am

Beck I am N/A I'm I am I was I'm

Lamsa I am N/A I am I am he I was I am he

Simple English I am I am I am I am I was alive I'm

Moffatt I am N/A I am I am I have existed I am

NASB Reference
Edition 1960-73 I am I am I am He I am He I am...
ftn: I have been I am

Five Gospels I am N/A I am I am I existed It's me

Living Bible I am I am I am I am I was in existence I am

Kleist&Lilly NT I am I am I am he I am he I am here and I was I am

20th Century NT I am N/A I am I am I was I am he

21st Century NT I am I am I am I am came into being I am

As you can see, the NWT is not alone in this way, and the reason for this can be explained better by going to egweimi.htm. If we simply look up the words in Strong's, we get "I" for ego [1473], and "I exist...am, have been." Notice too that the chart points to John 9:9 where a blind beggar says the same words, egw eimi, as Jesus did in John 8:58. Does this also make him the YHWH of Ex 3:14?
On to Page 2

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

Back to Main Page