Email from my visitors and the questions they raise concerning their own Theology and Christology.

The E-Mail Bag

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

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

res172vi@verizon...: The WBTS will not allow their members to read any literature not published by their sect. They will not allow any other bible to be studied at home or in church other than the NWT. These are undeniable facts. It seems like you are searching for the truth and that is why you continually show disregard for the WBTS rules.

Reply: The misinformation wagon keeps rolling. The only "undeniable fact" is that people want to believe the worst about Jehovah's Witnesses. The WTS also prints the King James Version, The American Standard Version, The Emphatic Diaglott, The Bible in Living English, and I have also recieved from them, the New English Bible, the New American Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, and others have been available. I often use other Bibles in my ministry, sermons (talks) and service.
I also own hundreds of books on theology and New Testament history and grammar, a passion shared by many of my brothers. We have though criticized owning books considered junk, like romance novels, and those written by apostates (former members).

SS777: I wanted to talk about the WT's murder of the English language when translating the Hebrew Scriptures in the New World Translation. I remember my first few encounters with JW's and I remember reading a Watchtower magazine and being surprised at how bad their OT scriptures seemed to be in comparison to the KJV or NASB...
It doesn't take long for someone reading the WT Bible to realize that it is very wooden, wordy, graceless, stiff, awkward, unwieldy, dull, unfortunate and odd. Things like the word "grace" being translated as "undeserved kindness" are a bit weighty at first, but it is still being true to the text. The question is, is it a translation that maintains the beauty of the Bible, or is it devoid of the beauty that has been captured and inspired by God?
Starting off in Genesis, we find that the NWT uses the term "bad" as opposed to "evil."
Gen 2:17 "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it."
Bad can mean many things. Someone can have a bad back. In can be meant as ïincorrectÍ. The room you live in could have bad lighting. An untrained puppy is a "bad puppy." Satan rebelling against God and causing death and pain and the fall of 20 or 30 billion souls is none other than "EVIL." Hitler was not bad for killing 10 million people, he was evil. You get the point? You may say this is nit picking, but stick with me for a moment.

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

SS777: Judges 14:3 is a passage where Samson spots a lovely Philistine woman and says to his parents enthusiastically Her get for me(NWT). ...
The Bible is filled with beautiful literature, even atheists can admire its poise and gracefulness. The Psalms overflow with the exhortations to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. It seems the NWT has taken the beauty out of the Bible, and even the word itself.

Reply: If you want beauty, then read the Revised English Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible, if you want word study, then choose the NWT.

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

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

Question: The Bible says that Jesus forgave people their sins and everyone knows that only God Himself can forgive sins.

Reply: It was the hateful Jews who said that only God can forgive sins (Mark 2:7), but the Bible clearly show that Jesus got his power from God (Luke 5:17; John 10:32). What did Jesus say? "All authority hath been GIVEN unto me in heaven and on earth." Matt 28:18
God does not need to be GIVEN anything. Jesus' disciples were also given power to forgive sins (John 22:22, 23). Does this mean they are God also?

Question: How are people baptised. I was told they were baptised in the name of the father, son, and watchtower organization.

Reply: The last baptism I was at specifically had a sermon on what it meant to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and before baptism, this is made clear to the baptismal candidates. Baptismal candidates are given instruction as to what it means to be baptized "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and this is re-iterated by the Watchtower April 1, 2002, pp. 11, 12. Though it is common to use the language of "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 Ante-Nicene Fathers: "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.
Barclay writes that there is truth in the statement that we cannot have God for our Father if we do not have the Church for our Mother. (see The Gospel of Mark-Daily Bible Series, p. 331)
On an interesting note, the baptismal formula is never repeated for subsequent baptism in the Greek Scriptures (NT).

From: J. Cejka+

I was a student of E.C. Colwell. You have misused his material. I often recall his critiques of the NWT's deliberate mistranslation and its violation of Colwell's rule.
Oh, well.
Canis meus id comedit.
J. Cejka +
Adjunct Faculty, University of Phoenix
Adjunct Faculty, Bakersfield College

Reply: Rather, it is those who have used the converse of Colwell's rule to advertize their theology, even so far as misquoting him, that are in error. Walter Martin misquotes Colwell, yet no one complains about that. Colwell's rule is obsolete as far as any practical use is concerned in determining definiteness in John 1:1c, which is what many try to do.

Mr. Cejka wrote: Thanks for your reply. You have not proved your case. You've still misused Pomp's material and methodology. And, as Momma says, just cause someone else does it, don't make it right.
J. Cejka+
Adjunct, University of Phoenix
Adjunct, Bakersfield College

Reply: But sir, you have not proved your case where I have not proved my case. I simply applied Colwell's
apparatus to as many versions as I could, and these are the results (see http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/colwell.htm ).
This is called verifiable FACT. You may not like the outcome, but that is something YOU have to deal with.
Experiments like these often produce results that make us question our own prejudices.

From Sharon:

IF THE STAR OR 'LIGHT' SHINES BRIGHTER AS
> TIME GOES ON, WHEN DO YOU THINK JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
> CAN STOP HAVING TO TURN IN A TICKET EVERY MONTH TO
> PROOVE THEY ARE WHO THEY ARE? IN REALITY, DO YOU
> REALIZE, SOME WILL AT THE END OF THE MONTH MAKE A
> QUICK PHONE CALL TO RELATIVE OR SOMEONE AND TRY TO
> GET IN 15 MORE MINUTES TO MAKE THE QUOTA? WHOSE
> BEHIND THIS. NO TICKET THAT WE SIGN WILL GET US INTO
> THE NEW ORDER.

Reply: Any slip of paper is not as important as our attitude towards serving God, and doing the work of an evangelizer (2 Tim 4:5). It is not about filling quotas if it is not done joyously:
"Each one should give as much as he has decided on his own initiative, not reluctantly, or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." 1 Cor 9:7 New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)
"Preaching the gospel gives me nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion and I should be in trouble if I failed to do it." 1 Cor 9:16 NJB
Personally, counting may not be the best route for some people, but all in all, it is harmless. Is is scripturally required? No.
But you have to remember that all denominations keep records of some sort, and I think JW's do a better job at this than most. For instance, because I was baptized a Catholic, I am still considered Catholic by the church and they will not remove me from membership in that organization. I just finished talking to a Methodist minister who quit due to the practices of fudging the membership count in order to embellish/swell their member-rolls. JW's aren't that dishonest, but the way we count our members....is if you keep a monthly service record. You see how one complements the other. While the Methodists will count anyone who steps inside a church a member, JW's only count those who are active.
Thanx for writing

From a reader:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a lot more Scriptures that mention God, Jesus and the angels together.

From a King James Only Person:

Carmine: Wescott and Hort were luceferian heretics. Just an article I recently read below. If your bible is the closest one to their ideas, then it would be obvious why the JW have confused and messed up prophecy and why they are NOT allowed to talk to any christians who try to talk sense into them. I pray for your souls... No wonder there is so much heretical teachings from the Watchtower...

Reply: Hello Carmine
Jehovah's Witnesses actually came by our teachings by using the King James Version. We still print and distribute the KJV.
Thank you for writing.

BFM was looking for an NWT online, and I offered to help him get one. Here is his reply:

Dear Friend, that was very nice of you to offer a free copy, but I already
have one. Thanks, Bob from Michigan, Conservative Presbyterian Minister.
Please do not PROSELYTIZE me and I will not attack your beliefs.
I wish you well, B.

Where did that come from? Not a very Christian way of handling things, is it?

From a woman desperately trying to get me to see that the trinity is true:

Hector, read this thoroughly... Chapter 4 Don't dismiss it...read it, please.

The interesting thing is, the linked page did not mention a Trinity once, as it was done by Oneness Pentectostals who reject the Trinity, but believe that Jesus is God (the Father also). This is Sabellianism/Modalism.This view is rejected by everyone, but it is of more than passing interest that they use EXACTLY THE SAME SCRIPTURES to prove their doctrine that the Trinitarians do.
The woman, upon being asked, did not even know what a Oneness Pentecostal was.

A Reader Regarding Jesus as Michael:

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

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

BP: Hi,
I am hoping that you can explain something for me from 'Reasoning from the Scriptures'. On page 202 under the sub-heading 'How old is the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses' the book states "According to the Bible, the witnesses of Jehovah reaches back to faithful Abel."
Abel was clearly killed by Cain. There is no mention in the Bible that Abel had any progeny and it would be incorrect to suggest he has. How can the line of Witnesses reach back directly to Abel?
Thanks in anticipation. BP.

Reply: Thank you for writing. The book was not implying a blood-line. The name "Abel" here is qualified by the term "faithful."
Hebrews 11 verses 3 to 9 connects " a great cloud of witnesses" (Heb 13:1) by FAITH, and one of these witnesses was Abel (see verse 4).
Hence, this makes him one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
"You are my witnesses, says Jehovah, and My servant whom I have chosen; that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am He. Before me there was no god formed, nor shall any be after me." Isaiah 43:10 Jay P Green's Interlinear Old Testament

AMoore:
You are hereby given notice that I will block any and all emails from you. Be forewarned Hector.....if you attempt to contact me any other way, I will immediately contact the web site of the WTBTS, provide your email address and web site with a brief, but detailed synopsis of your demeanor, attitude and general conduct in reference to our discussions. I will let your leadership deal with you in their own "special" way.

Reply: All humor aside, if you don't want me to answer your queries people, then the solution is a simple one..."Don't write to me asking questions!"
Alan could not answer the problem of the partitive genetive of the firstborn as it relates to Christ's creation in Colossians 1:15 (for more on this click here and here). This is of course devastating for trinitarians and indefensible.
His only retort was to quote old Watchtowers (see below) and attack the scholarship of the NWT (though I do not use these in my responses).
These arguments, along with the theology of nominal churches simply do not hold up to biblical or logical scrutiny, and people end having their belief system threatened by the pure logic of the Bible and history, which in turn, upsets them, resulting in ad hominems.
Fear God, not the truth.

As sent to me by one writer hoping to put a bad light on the WTS:

*** w65 3/1 151 Basis for Reliance on Prophecy ***
"The best method of proof is to put a prophecy to the test of time and circumstances. The Bible invites such a test. "The Watchtower is not the instrument of an man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in the Watchtower [Note: Emphasis added]

Reply: The only problem with this, is that the sentence highlighted is not actually in the article. This smacks of desperation. I too often find that people who just want to quote old Watchtowers against me (even fabricated ones as above), do so because they cannot quote scripture. Too sad.
In about 1895 a document was fabricated to incite hatred against the Jews. This document eventually fell into the hands of one Adolf Hitler, and the rest, as they say, is history. Since I tend to get alot of email from so-called "Christians," I have been finding a disturbing trend lately. Old Watchtower (and other WTS publications) quotations are floating around wherein the words quoted simply do not exist. These of course, are written in a way to make Jehovah's Witnesses look bad. It is sad, and ultimately frightening, that people are resorting to these kinds of tactics.
I always ask these people for a hard-copy, to date, I have never received one. I usually get the same answers, "I lost mine," or, most often, "I got it from a web-site, but I lost the URL."
Warning! Any document posted on a web-site AGAINST JW's that makes Witnesses look real bad, has an extremely high probability of being fabricated. People, this is not "Christian," this is evil.

Matt Paulsen (CARM) asks: How can a Christadelphian (the translator of the Diaglott) have a Trinitarian bias at Hebrew 1:6 when he is an Arian?

Reply: I guess for the same reason Wilson (the translator of the Diaglott) did so at 2 Thess 1:12, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. I guess "Trinitarian bias" is not the best phrase to use (and I have since amended it somewhat) , but we adopt traditional renderings based on previous translations by trinitarians.

MattP: Have you thought that the Greek grammar allows for that rendering?

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

MattP: How many years of Koine Greek do you have to be able to determine Tritarian bias?

Reply: How many years of Koine Greek do you have to have to NOT mention this to your
followers at http://www.carm.org/jw/heb1_6.htm ?
How many years of Koine Greek do you have to have to NOT mention that even the ASV mentions at Matt. 2:2, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to man (see chap. Matt. 18:26) or to God (see chap. Matt. 4:10)'" ?
How many years of Koine Greek do you have to have to NOT mention that many other Bibles are doing the same thing in this regard as the NWT?

Nvs: As quoted by Charles Russell, "Beware of 'organization.' It is wholly unnecessary."

Reply: And if this is what Russell said, then I disagree. (Though I am sure he was concerned about the negative side of organization that brought about the horrors of the dark ages, ...as indicated by the word organization being set aside by quotation marks). I am not a follower of Russell, or any human. The Bible clearly teaches an organizational structure. The 1st century Church was actually a very judicious and authoritative organizational structure, as the following from Smith's Bible Dictionary will show you:
"Excommunication, as exercised by the Christian Church, is not merely founded on the natural right, possessed by all societies, nor merely on the example of the Jewish Church and nation. It was instituted by our Lord (Matt. xviii. 15, 18), amd it was practised and commanded by St. Paul (1 Tim. i. 20; 1 Cor. v. 11; Tit. iii.10). In the Epistles, we find St. Paul frequently claiming the right to exercise discipline over his converts (comp. 2 Cor. i. 23, xiii.10).
...The Nature of Excommunication is made more evident by the acts of St. Paul than by any investigation of Jewish practice or of the etymology of words. We thus find,
(1) that it is a spiritual penalty, involving no temporal punishment, except accidentally;
(2) that it consists in seperation from the communion of the Church;
(3) that its object is the good of the sufferer ( 1 Cor. v.5), and the protection of the sound members of the Church ( 2 Tim. iii. 17);
(4) that its subjects are those who are guilty of heresy (1 Tim. i. 20), or gross immorality (1 Cor. v. 1);
(5) that it is inflicted by the authority of the Church at large (Matt. xviii. 18), wielded by the
highest ecclesiastical officer (1 Corinthians 5:3; Titus 3:10)
(6) that this officer's sentence is promulgated by the congregation to which the offender belongs, (1 Corinthians 5:4) in defence to his superior judgment and command, (2 Corinthians 2:9) and in spite of any opposition on the part of a minority, (2 Corinthians 2:6)
(7) that the exclusion may be of indefinite duration, or for a period;
(8) that its duration may be abridged at the discretion and by the indulgence of the person who has imposed the penalty, (2 Corinthians 2:8)
(9) that penitence is the condition on which restoration to communion is granted, (2 Corinthians
2:8)
(10) that the sentence is to be publicly reversed as it was publicly promulgated. (2 Corinthians 2:10) "
The result is, that you "faith alone" people are so fractured it is funny. I work with people like you. They recieve the Spirit at church on Sunday, but they also dabble in the occult and promiscuity, both which are clearly condemned in the Bible. There is no move on their part to clean up their act, as no one is allowed to tell them they are doing anything wrong. That is not Christianity, but Permissive Theology that has resulted by denying the Church any authority.
For more click here.

Aaron: You said, "The quote: "It [excommunication] was instituted by our Lord (Matt. xviii. 15, 18), " is in error. "

Reply: That quote wasn't by me, but by Smith's Bible Dictionary.
But I checked the footnote in my Nelson Study Bible/NKJV, and it says, "If the erring one will not respond, that person is to be disciplined by being cut of from the fellowship."
It appears Smith's was right after all.

A message to me from someone trying to put forth that JW's have claimed to be prophets (hence the reason he simply posts quotes where we seem to say such), so they must then be false prophets:

"The Nations shall know…", 1971:
There is an authentic prophetic class of Christians among us. Jehovah has raised up a genuine "prophet" within our generation. Regardless of how Christendom views or regards this group of anointed witnesses of Jehovah, the time must come, and that shortly, when those making up Christendom will know that really a "prophet" of Jehovah was among them."

Reply: Often when the WTS uses the word "prophet" concerning themselves, you will notice that the word is surrounded by quotation marks, indicating not a seer, but a prophet in a quasi-sense. It is just like the Billy Graham is called a prophet (see amazon.com's "A Prophet With Honor : The Billy Graham Story" by William Martin) Billy the Prophet

and another Church leader, Klemp (see amazon.com's "Autobiography of a Modern Prophet"
by Harold Klemp). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language uses the word *prophet* also as "A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression" and "The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause." This is how the word prophet is used of these men in a quasi-sense, just like JW's use it.

From a reader:

I have to disagree with your chart on Colwelland Bible Versions. Colwell would never have promoted a New Testament that uses the Divine Name.

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

Dby:

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

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

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

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

From Hrh:

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

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

Hrh: Also the title of your web-site ,DEFENDING THE NWT, Friend, the TRUTH does not need defending .

Reply: "Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" 1 Peter 3:15 RSV
"My child, how happy I will be if you turn out to be wise! Then I will be able to answer my critics." Prov 27:11 NLT

RonA wrote:
Why does the WTS put sich a rigid standard of dress code for men? I mean EVERYONE at a Kingdom hall gathering wears a suit,shirt and tie.Does Jehovah
only accept people who wear business suits and are clean shaven? When did all this conformity start?

Reply: I dress the same way at the Hall as I would for someone's wedding or funeral...*I dress to respect the person I am attending for.* Certainly, Jehovah affords more respect than mere humans. When I dress up for meetings, I am showing that I am taking God seriously. There used to be an expression in this country: "Sunday-go-to-meetin clothes." But now I see people going to churches dressed like they would for anything else. To me it says that worship is not much
more important to them than anything else.

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

Reply: I know that it was changed. We are not alone in this. The Jerusalem Bible had "worship" at Hebrews 1:6, but the New Jerusalem Bible changed it to "homage." No one is going to call these translators biased against the Trinity. So why the change? 50 years ago, the word *worship* does not have the same connotations as it does today. For instance, the bible could speak of Daniel and King David as being worshipped:
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV
"And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV
All Bible versions make a distinction with this word, as it is lexically possible to do so (see Matt 18:26). According to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence to...It is used of an act of homage or reverence to God(John 4:24)...to Christ(Matt 2:2)...to a man(Matt 18:26)...to the Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to demons(Rev 9:20)...to idols(Acts 7:43)."

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

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


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

As you can see, the NWT is not alone in this 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 YHWH?

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

Reply: Think about the Creed:
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father"

Are you ONE BEING with the president? Are you president from president? Are you son of the president?
You do not share a substance/essence with the president according to Trinitarian theology. You are not homoousian with him, and therefore you are comparing apples to oranges.
The president is greater than you because you are TWO different people, seperate and subordinate. TWO, not ONE in TWO.

Conversation taken from Darkness to Light's Email page:

> I seek this information because I have family and friends who disagree on what JW's believe regarding Bible translations. Some say that JW's have no problems with the NIV or other modern versions but reject the King James version. Others say that JW's prefer the King James over the other modern versions. Please help me dispel rumors. Could you also tell me where I might find more information on which translations JW's prefer.
This information is very important to me. Thank-you
Sincerely
Damien
9/29/1999<
DTL's answer: JWs would definitely have "problems" with almost any version other than their own, if only for
the translation of John 1:1. That said, the NIV might appeal to them since it is based on the CT,
but since it is not a literal version they probably wouldn't agree with it. The KJV they definitely
reject, since as I said, it is based on the TR and includes 1John 5:7.

Reply: This is incredible. Folks, don't believe the lies and misinformation that you read on these anti-JW sites. Why is this a lie? Because the Watchtower Society also PRINTS the King James Version. I know, I received one from them 2 months ago. They also print the American Standard Version, The Bible in Living English (and check out their KJV-based translation of John 1:1), and in the past they have distributed Bibles such as the Good News Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Rotherham Bible, New American Bible, New English Bible etc. I have a Ukrainian brother that goes to my meetings and all he uses is a Bible made from the TR/Byzantine tradtion. I use an NKJV at my meetings (it has a Vine's Dictionary attached to it). and I usually always have a small RSV in my shirt pocket. DTL has their own version of the Bible (Analytical Literal Version), which uses not the TR, but mainly the Majority Text of a later tradition (it also does not contain the spurious words at 1John 5:7). By utilizing the later tradition of the Byzantine text, "Darkness to Light" has gone from *light* right back to the *dark ages.*

Inquiry One: Is Jesus God in the flesh?
Jeremiah 23:5-6
"Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD (Yahweh), "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. 6 In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD (Yahweh) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Here, YHWH is prophecizing the coming of Jesus, who he also refers to as YHWH. I consider this a strong point towards the fact that this is a prophecy of God coming as Jesus in the flesh. What do you think?

Reply: His becoming entitled to that name does not mean that Jesus is Jehovah God himself. The Israelite called Jehozadak, whose name means "Jehovah Declared Righteous" or "Jehovah Is Righteous," was not Jehovah himself. (1 Chron. 6:14, 15) Jeremiah 33:16 tells us that even Jerusalem was to be called "Jehovah Is Our Righteousness," but does that mean that Jerusalem was Jehovah himself? No! The name of the last reigning king of Jerusalem was Zedekiah, and that name means "The Righteousness of Jah." The king who was to be called "Jehovah Is Our Righteousness," namely, Jesus Christ, contrasts sharply with King Zedekiah.

Same writer, Question 2
Matthew 4:4,6,7,10
When Satan tempted Jesus, He answered not just as a man but as God rebuking Satan. (Specifically 4:6-7, Satan said to Jesus "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down.". Jesus answered "You shall not tempt the LORD your God". Here, Jesus is responding to Satan, stating that you shall not tempt God. Here, it shows that Jesus refers to himself as God.

Reply: No, Satan said he was the Son of God. The correct wording here should be "You shall not put the Lord you God to the TEST" New American Standard Bible.
This is common to say, especialy if you consider Exodus 17:2 where Moses says, "Why do you quarrel with me" Why do you TEST the LORD." NASB
Where in the past God spoke thru prophets, he now speaks thru his Son. (Hebrews 1:1-3) It does not make them the same or equal.

AOC: Now let me ask you something. Why is it that in the JW assemblies, one does not need to go to an accredited school (like a bible college, and get a bachelors, and learn extensively Hebrew and Greek), in order to become a preacher? I think the cult is smart, in keeping it's leaders education to a minimum.

Reply: And yet, your own scholars cannot seem to agree on anything with all those degrees. But we JW's have the same credentials as those in the Bible:
Acts 4:13, Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
Matt 11:25, At that season Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes:
1Cor 1:27, "But God has chosen what the world calls foolish to shame wise. He has chosen what the world calls weak to shame what is strong." 1Cor 1:27 New Life NT
Is 29:14, therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
Lu 10:21, In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and did reveal them unto babes: yea, Father; for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight.

From GS, after viewing information like the one I have at wilson.htm where the Reformers admit that Jesus is Michael:

"Your quotes are misquotes because nowhere does Calvin even hint that Jesus Christ was Michael the angel, and neither does Wesley. More importantly the Holy Scriptures are absolutely clear in honoring Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God, and nowhere can you quote a single verse in the Bible that shows Michael and Jesus Christ are the same. I have rebuked you in the Name of Jesus Christ before, but you continue in your satanic teachings. May the Lord Jesus Christ deal with you accordingly and destroy your work of deceit and obstinate pride. I command you, Satan, in the Name of Jesus Christ to stop trying to deceive us any further and remove yourself from our company. Amen. In Christ Jesus,
G-n
PS. For everybody else reading this e-mail I can assure you that there is no teaching from any Christian that teaches Jesus Christ was Michael. Such an idea is stupid, false, deceitful, and contrary to any and every teaching of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God and Jesus Christ created all the angels and everything else that was made. It is foolish and evil to suggest otherwise. Such people that continue teaching that Jesus Christ is Michael will soon spend eternity in HELL wishing they had never been born.........

Reply: Read what made G-n so upset by clicking here!

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

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

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

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

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

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

RobertN: Hi again,
Thank you for another opportunity to ask the question and taking the time to answer it. Enclosed is email address. This is also an opportunity for you to give us your feedback publicly, so others can read. Thanks again, (re:Using Fortman's quote)

Reply: This issue has already been dealt with on my site, but I will humor you anyways.
If I remember correctly, your question was concerning the use of Fortman's quote.Did you know that the verse in question is quoted also by G.A.T. Robinson "There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there... The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons." (Jesuit Scholar Edmund J. Fortman, "Triune God", pp. 32,35) (Fortman, pp. 22-23, as cited by Robinson, p. 74) The book, The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit-The Triadic Phrase in Matthew 28:19 from Jane Schaberg, SBL Dissertation Series 61 as borrowed from Southeastern Baptist Theological Library also quotes from Fortman, "Fortman also remarks, however, that nowhere in the N.T. do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead." p.16 Are the above quoting Fortman out of context, even though they are Trinitarians? No, they are stating a fact that Fortman, while believing in the Trinity, and stating traces might be evident in the NT, he was wise and honest enough to admit the obvious. Fortman himself directs us to this in the index in the back of his book he points to the pages where the Trinity is not supportable in the OT etc. (Author Anthony Buzzard also quotes Fortman the same way).
What else does Fortman admit to?
"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power." —The Triune God, Edward J. Fortman, pp. 6, 15.
"These passages give no doctrine of the Trinity... Paul has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a Trinitarian problem......there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts... nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead" (Fortman, "Triune God", pp. 22-23)
"The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who
is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected
the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead.... Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions
or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the Trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and
intent of the sacred writers" (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God, Baker Book House, 1972, pp.
xv, 8, 9).
"For Thomas [Aquinas] natural reason can neither demonstrate nor know the Trinity: 'that God is triune is uniquely and object of belief, and one cannot prove it in any demonstrative way." p.204
Fortman's conclusion: "The basic trinitarian dogmas are still substantially in procession today, and always will be. But some Catholic theologians feel they are in need of reappraisal. They see problems everywhere: **a tension between the outlook of the Biblical writer and that of the Trinitarian theologian;** a tension between the rigid Hellenic though and patterns of trinitarian theology...." p.316
We must remember that Catholics do not rely heavily on the Bible for a complete definition of the Trinity. That is why most of Fortman's "The Triune God" deals with how the Trinity was viewed and explained by various philosophers/theologians over different periods of time. You will find very few scriptures actually used in the book. When Fortman says that is an elemental trinity in the scripture, his view is not expanded upon nor does he quote scripture to back this statement. However, the word "Mystery" is used quite liberally throughout the book.
You see, Fortman, like all Catholics, know that the Trinity is not in the Bible, and is only revealed through papal revelation, "My belief in the Trinity is based on the authority of the Church: no other authority is sufficient...I have now proved the Trinity opposed to human reason." Catholic Priest James Hughes, Bible Christian for January, 1839
By the way, I actually read Fortman's book. Did you?

GCM (on his objection to my article on "Only-Begotten or Unique and Monogenes Theos):
This gets very confusing to me when we are told that "begetting" someone denotes a physical act. This makes it sound as if God came around a got a young teenaged girl pregnant. Certainly, this would be a corrupt interpretation of the scripture.

Reply: Biblically, begetting does not denote a physical act, and I don't know anyone besides you who thinks that.
Matt 1:2: "Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram etc etc etc" ASV
Begetting denotes a filial relationship, like the one between Father and Son.

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

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

JKRZ: Well I "m sure you know what has happened in New York and Washington, DC It has got me very convicted about what I am doing here. I want to talk to you about the trinity, yet at the same time I feel as though I should be telling you that you are a lost soul. You are trusting in yourself your so-called intellect and what ever else you think will get you saved, STOP THAT. You are playing with fire (hell fire). Jesus came to this earth to save us from our sins and the payment there of.
The watchtower is like those men that hijacked the plains and crashed them into the buildings. those men didn't just want to die but they wanted to take as many people with them as they could. The watchtower is no different.

Reply: What an evil and outrageous statement. Mr. JKRZ has had a hard time convincing me of his beliefs, as many of the beliefs of nominal Christianity are simply not sustainable from the Bible. In his anger, instead of dealing with the issues, he compares me to this terroristic evil. The term JW Terrorism is actually an oxymoron. Jehovah's Witnesses do not kill people, not even in war. There are in fact, Protestant and Catholic terrorists in Northern Ireland (and the Christian Militia in the Middle East), but according to the above, it is JW's that are bad. Consider:

"Then the Holy Inquisition was born...thousands of torn and mutilated heretics shrieking under the torture, and other thousands and thousands of heretics and witches
burning at the stake, "always in the pleasant shade flung by the peaceful banner of the
cross," as Satan remarked.
And in the midst of these fearful spectacles, as an incidental matter, we had a
marvelous nightshow, by the light of fitting and flying torches the butchery of Christian
by Christian in France on Bartholomew's Day.--- Mark Twain

On an interesting side note, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are spreading the blame around also:

"Falwell, a Baptist minister and chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., said Thursday on Robertson's religious TV program ``The 700 Club'' that he blames the attacks on pagans, abortionists, feminists, homosexuals, the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) and the People for the American Way."

http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010914/us/attacks_robertson_falwell_1.html
I demand an apology from you Mr Jkrz. If you cannot bring yourself to do that, then leave me alone. Your statement above is evil and malicious.
Thus far, there has been one confirmed death of Jehovah's Witnesseses in the WTC bombing, 13 others are still missing. (Sept, 2001)

Back to Main Page