This is in response to the book, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses written by Ron Rhodes.

Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version(1901)

Do you remember the movie, "Perfect World" with Kevin Costner and Clint Eastwood? In the movie Kevin's character kidnaps a boy who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The boy finally comes alive with this criminal. As we learn, the boy isn't allowed to have fun because of his faith. He isn't allowed to go on rides. When the boy finally does indulge himself, he says he is going to Hell. What is wrong with this picture? Well, it is all lies. Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to have fun, they are allowed to go on rides...and a JW would never say anyone is going to Hell as they don't believe in the fiery inferno. But what this movie proves is the amount of disinformation that is out there concerning  Jehovah's Witnesses. When people use our name in movies, or in books like this one by Ron Rhodes, they rely on ex-JW's for information on how we supposedly think. The problem with this is that the one who has left has always done so for selfish reasons.
Many ex-Jw's write books, they go on tours...THEY MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES. When they were witnesses, they are  part of a team, but now they are famous. Even Jesus didn't "seek his own glory(John 8:50)."
But why are their descriptions of JW's so false? Like the Pharisees of Jesus day, they have perverted the truth of God. Jesus told them that their father was the Devil, as he is the father of the lie.(John 8:44)
Attacking Jehovah's Witnesses has become a growth industry. The above mentioned book is priced locally at $19.25 with tax for a paperback book(Remember...I don't live in the U.S., so prices may vary). That's more than Stephen King charges.
This man is making loads of money attacking a group of people that would never release a book attacking a certain religious group for profit. Jehovah's Witnesses respect the right of other peoples to worship as they see fit.

Too Incredible to Believe!!!
"Is it true, as the Watchtower society claims, that superstitious Jewish Scribes removed the sacred name Jehovah from the Bible? This is preposterous! There is not a shred of evidence to support this claim. (You might even ask the Jehovah's Witnesses to produce hard evidence for this assertion.)......Let us be clear on this: The Watchtower's position that the divine name was stripped from the Bible by superstitious scribes is a fabrication-an out and out lie!" Page 58,59.
Actually...we claim the Christians removed the Name, the Jews just stopped pronouncing it. Want proof?...here it is:
"the American Revisers, after a careful consideration, were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament, .....This personal name, with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim." -Preface to the American Standard Version (ASV)bible 1901 A.D. (American Revision Committee)
Want More?
"the one who pronounces the Name with its proper letters, has not part in the world to come" Abba Saul(Mishna, Sanhedrin 10:1)
"The use of any proper name proper name for the one and only God...began to be discontinued in Judaism before the christian era." New Oxford Annotated Bible, (New)Revised Standard Version
As for the oldest Septuagint(LXX) fragments...and those darn name-hating "christians":
 "The papyrus containing fragments of Leviticus ii-v is written in a hand closely akin to that of Papyrus Fouad 266, characterized as already mentioned by the fact that the name of God is rendered by the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew square letters  not by Ky'ri·os as later in Christian MSS of the Bible."-The Cairo Geniza, 1959 ed., pp. 222, 224.
 Professor George Howard: "When the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint. . . . Before long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates or remembered by scholars."
But, to be precise, you will be hard pressed to find a modern Jewish Torah/Holy Scriptures/ Bible that translates the Divine Name, preferring rather to substitute with the generic LORD.
But then, this is the same man that wrote in his The Complete Book of Bible Answers, "the word Jehovah does not appear as such in the Bible. In fact, the word Jehovah does not appear in any legitimate Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the Bible." p.59 Since Ron is here arguing pronunciation (but does not clarify this), then neither does the word Jesus appear in any legitimate Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the Bible. What Ron has done is lie 6828 times. And THIS is the Bible Answer Man!!??
c.f. http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/jehovah.htm
Reasoning From the Scriptures???
That may be the title of Ron's book, but it is kind of a misnomer....actually, it's an out and out lie :) The literature from the WTS is used over 430 times(some going back over 120 years), and then there are a bunch of other material used from Ex-JW's and apologetics like Rob Bowman. Scripture is actually quoted less than 300 times, and most of that only partially. Others are just stated.The rest of the book is filled with Ron's own verbal ejaculations. Reasoning from the scriptures indeed!
Ok...Let's get it out of the Way....Does 1975 make JW's false prophets?
"Despite its many predictions, the Watchtower Society refuses to concede it is a false prophet."
(Rhodes p.341) Maybe Ron and his fellow "christians" should remove the log that is in their own eye.(Luke 6:41)For more info Click Here.
The New World Tranlsation
"The New World Translation is an incredibly biased translation" Ron Rhodes
"It is no more 'full of heresies' than any other translation" Bible Translations and how to choose between them by Alan S. Duthie
Well, let's take a look at the NWT and compare it to Mr.Rhodes faves, the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible. Click here for more.
Before you condemn the "Watchtower Bible", please note that the WTB&TS also prints the KJV, ASV, Emphatic Diaglott, The Bible in Living English and the Kingdom Interlinear. Others like the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Rotherham, and the New English Bible have also been available.
Misquoted!?
Rhodes makes much of the WTS use of McKenzie's quote of John 1:1, in which he states, "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was a divine being." But Rhodes says that McKenzie uses "divine being" of Yahweh also. This is true, but are they not both divine beings anyways? The point that McKenzie made is that ho theos [the God] "is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself," therefore we must differentiate between the 2 Gods mentioned at John 1:1.
What does *divine* mean anyways? Mirriam-Webster states it as:
"1divine \de-vn\ adj diviner; -est 1 : of, relating to, or being God or a god 2 : supremely good : superb; also : heavenly  divinely adv"
Certainly, Yahweh, Jesus, and even the angels, fall into the category of divine beings.
Just take a look at the ways angels are represented in the Bible at Genesis 6:2:
"supernatural beings" TEV1, CEV
"heavenly beings" TEV2, New Jewish P.S.,
"the sons of God" NRSV, NKJV, NWT
"beings from the spirit world" Living Bible
"angels" LXX Codex Alexandrinus, Moffatt
"sons of heaven" NAB
The whole argument stems from Rhodes refusal to accept Jesus as "a god" at John 1:1, yet no one complains as the highly respected American Standard Version calls Jehovah "a god" at Deut 4:7, "For what great nation is there, that hath a god so nigh unto them, as Jehovah our God is whensoever we call upon him?"
Many, like Julius Mantey prefer "the Word was Deity." But again, what does DEITY mean?
Again, let us turn to Mirriam-Webster: "deity \de-e-te, da-\ n, pl -ties 1 : divinity 2 2 cap : god 1 3 : a god or goddess"
For more on John 1:1c click here, for more on Deity/Divinity, click here.
Scriptures Misrepresented!!
Consider: Rhodes says  the following regarding the NWT's rendering of the verse at Acts 20:28, "The New World Translation rendering of this verse GOES AGAINST ALL LEGITIMATE TRANSLATIONS OF SCRIPTURE" (p. 86)
Does that mean that  J.B. Rotherham, William Barclay, John Nelson Darby, The Revised Standard Version, The Concordant Literal New Testament, The Translator's New Testament, The Holy Bible in Modern English, by Ferrar Fenton, The New Revised Standard Version, the New Jerusalem Bible, Today's English Version, The Contemporary English Version, Alfred Marshall (see the footnote in his Interlinear), etc., are NOT LEGITIMATE!!!

About Zechariah 12:10, Rhodes says "In order to avoid Jesus appearing to be Jehovah or Almighty God, the Watchtower Society deliberately ALTERED the text". But this is a lie, or does Rhodes also consider the Moffatt Bible, Smith & Goodspeed, The Bible in Living English, The Revised Standard Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The New American Bible, The Jerusalem Bible, The Contemporary English Version, and many others.  With the above statement he also condemned Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press), F.F. Bruce (see his History of the Bible in English, p. 199, 200), the editor of the New Interpreters Bible (see vol. 7, p. 828) and none other than the Apostle John!  Yes, the Apostle John, quoting Zech. 12:10 says "They will look on the *one* they have pierced" (see ch. 19, verse 37 in the NIV).

As for John 8:58 (I have been), Rhodes says, "That is one of the clearest examples of the JW's mistranslating the Bible in order to support a doctrinal bias." p.113
What Rhodes does not tell you is that even his own precious NASB had at one time offered "I have been" as variant reading. In fact, many trinitarians have abandoned the traditional rendering and offered one more in line with the NWT (see New Living Translation, Living Bible, Lamsa, International English Bible, Simple English Bible, Beck, Williams, International Bible Translators, Schonfield, etc etc.) for more click here

Rhodes never gives these alternatives. In fact, the above is just the tip of the iceberg. Rhodes time and again misleads and lies to his readers ad nuaseum.
Does Job 1:4 advocate Birthdays?
Rhodes seems to favor the view (p. 393) held forth in such paraphrased Bibles like the Living Bible and the NLT. But is this accurate?
"The feast at each brother's house seems to have lasted only a single day, and there was a regular cycle of feasts, lasting seven successive days. When one cycle of feasts was ended Job offered sacrifices, and a new series began. Some think this cannot be the meaning, but that feasts were held more rarely, each feast lasting several days, and ending with sacrifice. *His day* would in that case probably mean birthdays (cf. Hos. vii. 5). But the language of verses 4, 5 does not favour the view that the feasts occured at regular intervals. We are not reading prosaic history.  The life depicted is like that of princes in fairy tales, a never-ending round of mirth, disclosing at once the great prosperity of Job and the happiness of his family. 'His day' means the day that falls to each in the order of seniority, the eldest son entertaining on the first day and the youngest on the seventh."
The Century Bible/Job by Rev. Prof. A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D., p. 56
"This reference to the main meal of each day of the week, which moved from house to house, implies the love and harmony of the family members." NKJV MacArthur Study Bible
What are the chances of having everyone's birthday in the same week? This is why the Message translates it as "took turns throwing parties."

Mr. Rhodes on p. 162 says: "Ask the JW's: Did you know that the same word used for "Lord" (adonai) in Ps. 110:1 of Jesus Christ is also used of the Father numerous times in Scripture…?" The argument is a lie, because the word in Psalm 110 is not adonai, but adoni, which is never a reference to Deity and always (195 times) a reference to someone who is not God. To prove my point, I have created  a chart (click here) using the occurences of adoni...and it never refers to the Father.
At this point, the only logical conclusion is that Rhodes is a constant embarrasment to himself, and his community. Does he even know what he is talking about? What a disgrace!
Do Jehovah's Witnesses Use Disfellowshipping(excommunication) as a Method of Control?
Something similar came up at work. My co-workers asked me me how it is I can remove someone from my church. Who am I to judge? Doesn’t the Bible say, “Judge Not?”
So I showed them the above scripture in my NASB Study Bible (Zondervan), which provided this footnote, “Jesus did not relieve His followers of the need for discerning right or wrong (cf. vv.43-45), but He condemned unjust and hypocritical judging of others.”
From there I turned to 1 Cor 5:11-13, which says, "You are not to associate with anyone who is supposed to be a Christian brother, and yet is immoral or greedy or idolatrous or abusive or grasping- with such a person you must not even eat. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not your part to judge those inside the church, and God’s, to judge those who are outside? Drive the wrongdoer out from among you.” American Translation
The above study Bible provides this footnote, “Calling oneself a Christian who continues to live an immoral life is reprehensible and degrading, and gives a false testimony to Christ. If the true Christian has intimate association with someone who does this, the non-Christian world may assume that the church approves such immoral, ungodly living and thus the name of Christ would be dishonored. Questions would arise concerning of the Christian’s own testimony, …judge those who are within, The church is to exercise spiritual discipline over the professing believers in the church.”
“REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.” 1 Cor 5:13 NASB (emphasis theirs)

What the Ron's doesn't mention is that this practice was used by the first century christians(1Tim.1:20; 1Cor.5:5,6,13;) And it was used before that also. Jehovah(Yahweh God) took expelling, or disfellowshipping, action in numerous instances. He sentenced Adam to death and drove him and his wife Eve out of the garden of Eden. (Ge 3:19, 23, 24) Cain was banished and became a wanderer and a fugitive in the earth. (Ge 4:11, 14, 16) The angels that sinned were thrown into Tartarus, a condition of dense darkness in which they are reserved for judgment. (2Pe 2:4) Twenty-three thousand fornicators were cut off from Israel in one day. (1Co 10:8) Achan was put to death at God's command for stealing that which was devoted to Jehovah God. (Jos 7:15, 20, 21, 25) Korah the Levite along with Dathan and Abiram of the tribe of Reuben were cut off for rebellion, and Miriam was stricken with leprosy and eventually might have died in that condition if Moses had not pleaded for her. As it was, she was expelled from the camp of Israel under quarantine seven days.—Nu 16:27, 32, 33, 35; 12:10, 13-15. Yes, there is more, but let's be brief. The book accuses the Witnesses of using this as a scare tactic. But really, nothing is quite as effective as the HELLFIRE doctrine when it comes to scare tactics. "Come to church or you will burn in hell. Bad people burn in hell." The Bible says nothing of the kind. But it is the ultimate scare tactic.
"Even the most relaxed and liberal of today's established and organized religions...have trafficked-and often continue to traffic-psychological manipulation, in the machinery of sin and guilt, emotional blackmail, punishment and reward."(M.Baigent/R.Leigh)
Are Only Jews named Jehovah's Witnesses!
Isaiah 43:10 says, "Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he. (ASV) But Ron Rhodes says that this scripture applies only to the nation of Israel. The last time I checked, Jewish Bibles have taken out the Divine Name almost completely. They will not use the name Jehovah. Let us read the beginning of Isaiah 2. It says,"The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem." So it was directed towards the Jews again, but further down in verses 4 and 5 it says,"And he will judge between the nations, and will decide concerning many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.  O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of Jehovah." This scripture is oft quoted by churches and it is permanently posted in front of the United Nations Building. According to the reasoning of this book, we shouldn't be allowed to use this scripture because it applies only to the Jews(Israel). Nonsense!The WHOLE Bible is for everyone:"Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work."(1 Timothy 3:16 ASV)
We Don't Need Bible Study Aids for People to learn the Truth!!
The book complains that we do not need books other than the bible to teach people. Then why did the author of this book, Ron Rhodes even write it. This is like an environmentalist complaining about people abusing the environment while driving an 8 mile an hour tank. If we don't need study aids like the Watchtower, then we certainly don't need an over-priced book by Ron Rhodes.
Do We Need an Organization?
The book also doesn't believe we need an organization. Well, God had an organization. (Daniel 7:9,10; Psalms 103:20,21; Isaiah 6:1-4; 40:26; Ezek 1:24-28; Rev 4:1-11; 14:6,7) Does God want christians to be organized?
Matt. 24:14; 28:19, 20: “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come.” “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:  teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.” (How would this be accomplished without organization? When Jesus trained his early disciples for this work, He did not simply tell each one to go wherever he desired and to share his faith in whatever way he chose. He trained them, gave them instructions and sent them out in an organized manner. See Luke 8:1; 9:1-6; 10:1-16.)
Heb. 10:24, 25: “let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works;  25  not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting [one another]; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh.” (But to where would a person direct interested ones so they could obey this command if there were no organization with regular meetings where they could gather?)
1 Cor. 14:33, 40: “for God is not [a God] of confusion, but of peace. . . . . But let all things be done decently and in order.” (The apostle Paul is here discussing orderly procedure at congregation meetings. Applying this inspired counsel requires respect for organization.)
1 Pet. 2:9, 17: “But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for [God's] own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. . . .  Love the brotherhood..” (An association of people whose efforts are directed to accomplish a particular work is an organization.)
Are those who are faithful servants of God simply individuals who are scattered in the various churches of Christendom?
2 Cor. 6:15-18: “And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you,  And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” (Is a person really a faithful servant of God if he continues to share in worship with those who show by their way of life that they really are unbelievers?”)
1 Cor. 1:10: “Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (Such unity does not exist among the varied churches of Christendom.)
John 10:16: “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.” (Since Jesus would bring such ones into “one flock,” is it not obvious that they could not be scattered in Christendom’s religions?)
Didn't Jesus condemn the Pharisee's? Yes! He did so because of a difference of opinion, even though they shared the same faith and scriptures.
This author promotes diversity of opinion, and, my opinion differs greatly from his. So really, he is upset that the witnesses have an opinion different than his. It's a catch-22.
Page 43 and 44 includes Romans 14:2-5 and states that this verse promotes diversity. If you would read the surrounding chapters, the push was to include non-isrealite into the fold. That was where the Romans had to make changes.
Is John 17:3 Translated Incorrectly in the New World Translation
Ron also says that John 17:3 in the NWT is incorrectly translated. To get the full meaning of the word "know" I turned to the Amplified Bible and it has, "And this is eternal life: [it means] to know (to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with and understand) You, the only true and real God, and [likewise] to know Him, Jesus [as the] Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah, Whom You have sent." The Greek word translated "to know" carries a deeper meaning than our English word "know" generally implies, though often when we say we know a person we mean that we understand him and his qualities. In these Bible contexts the verb form of "to know" means "to come to know, to get acquainted with, to understand." In John 17:3 it indicates a continuing relationship between God and the person that brings ever-increasing knowledge of God and Christ; what is known about God is not merely partial information but is of value or importance to the one who grows in knowledge. It also implies a closeness of trust and confidence. (John 17:3, Kingdom Interlinear) In fact, the apostle John says: "He that does not love has not come to know God."-1 John 4:8. But the Bible also says, "With his mouth the godless man destroyeth his neighbor; But through knowledge shall the righteous be delivered."(ASV) Again, I re-iterate, the author thinks studying anything other than the Bible is wrong...and we could save $19.25 from buying his book which is full of untruths so far.

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated "the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being." Dictionary of the Bible, 317, John McKenzie

As quoted in _Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses_ by Ron Rhodes, p. 105:
"The Watchtower reasoning seems to be that since Jesus was just a 'divine being,' He is less than Jehovah....However, on the same page McKenzie calls Yahweh (Jehovah) 'a divine personal being'; McKenzie also states that Jesus is called 'God' in both John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 and that John 1:18 expresses 'an identity between God and Jesus Christ.' So McKenzie's words actually argue against the Watchtower position."

Reply: Is this really true though?
A) Are not both Jesus and Jehovah "divine beings?" So what exactly is the point, especially since they are differentiated with the adjective "personal." Obviously, the fact that Jesus is only a "divine being" and Jehovah a "divine personal being" has led to some websites stating incorrectly that Jesus was termed a "divine personal being."
Next to "the God [=the Father]" Jesus was just a "divine being", not even a "divine personal being."
Additionally, Catholics like McKenzie have no problems calling angels "divine beings":
"All gods: divine beings thoroughly subordinate to Israel's God. The Greek translates 'angels,' an interpretation adopted by Hebrews 1:6." Ps. 97:7 NAB footnote
I have no problem in "an identity between God and Jesus Christ" since it was Jesus who said that he that seen him has seen the Father. To see Jesus was to see what God was like. McKenzie goes on to state that this is an "identity of Jesus and the Father", and McKenzie's use of Scriptures like Jn 20:28 and Tt 2:13 in regards to Jesus, and titles "which belong to the Father." Trinitarianism does not see Jesus as the Father, and neither should anyone else.
When the Judges are called "God" at Ex. 21:6; 22:8; Ps. 82 and John 10, they are called a title "which belongs to the Father." This does not imply an ontological identity
Further, McKenzie never uses the terms "God the Father and God the Son."
In fact, I cannot find any reference to words *persons* or *nature* either. If you move ahead (to the subheading "Trinity") you will see that even he says these terms are from Greek philosophy and are NOT IN THE BIBLE. He DOES state that ho theos [the God] is not used of Jesus in the NT. The preceding paragraph in question states that "Yahweh is not man" and "Yahweh was not flesh" and the entire article ends with this beautifully put paragraph:
"In Jesus Christ therefore not only the word of God is made flesh, but all of the saving attributes of Yahweh in the OT. In Him God is known in a new and more intimately personal manner, and through Him God is attained more nearly; for He speaks of "my Father and your Father, my God and your God"

BUT WHAT ELSE DOES MCKENZIE BELIEVE?

"The relation of the Father and Son as set forth in [John 5:17ff] is the foundation of later developments in Trinitarian and Christological belief and theology; it is not identical with these later developments. Much of the discourse seems to be a refutation of the charge that Jesus claimed to be equal to God. This is met by affirming that the Son can do nothing independently of the Father. Later  theology found it necessary to refine this statement
by a distinction between person and nature which John did not know" (Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More, 1976. Mckenzie p.187).

"The New Testament writers could not have said that Jesus Christ is God: God meant the Father. They could and did say that Jesus is God's Son" (Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More, 1976. Mckenzie p.188).

"it is altogether impossible to deduce the Nicene Creed, and still less the dogmatic statements of the Council of Chalcedon from the Synoptic Gospels . . The word "consubstantial" had not even been invented yet: far from defining it, the evangelists could not even have spelled it. No, they did not know and they did not care" (Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More,
1976. Mckenzie p.188).

____Ask...____________________________________________________________

• What conclusion can you make about Ron Rhodes when you learn that he consistently quotes scholars out of context to support his distorted views.

A Review from Amazon.com
"Probably the worst book on JWs ever written. Instead of giving you my opinion, I would prefer to cite specific examples from different chapters of Rhodes' book, and then give you my opinion based on those examples. LIST OF 5 UNPROVEN AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS 1) On page 177 of Rhodes' book, he says, "The fact that Michael [the archangel] is ONE AMONG EQUALS [emphasis added] proves that he is not unique." Of course, the Bible nowhere says Michael is "one among equals." But he certainly is unique to Daniel, as he is "the prince of you people [=Israel]."--Daniel 10:21. 2) Rhodes, on page 123 of his book, cites the Greek-English lexicon by Bauer (commonly referred to as BAG), and says that this lexicon defines the Greek word ARCHE in Revelation 3:14 as "first cause." This is one of the definitions BAG gives, but the lexicon also states, "The the mng. [meaning] beginning=first created is linguistically poss. [possible]." Thus, Rhodes witholds this crucial qualification from his readers. 3) On page 63 of his book, Rhodes claims that Jesus used the expression EGO EIMI ("I am") "as a way of identifying Himself as God." But nowhere does he comment on the use of this expression by the man Jesus healed in John 9:9. Of course, EGO EIMI is often associated with Jesus' identity as the Messiah (compare John 4:25-26), not God. Rhodes' failure to deal with texts such as John 9:9 reveal that he is not interested in presenting a complete discussion of the facts, but only his dogmatic opinion. 4) This one is truly amazing. On page 113 of his book, Rhodes contrasts the New World Translation's rendering of John 8:58 ("I have been") with the New American Standard Bible's reading ("I am"). He then concludes on page 116 of his book, "Scholars agree that the Watchtower Society has no justification for translating ego eimi in John 8:58 as `I have been.'" However, Rhodes fails to recognize that the very same Bible he uses in comparision with the NWT, namely, the NASB, contains this alternate reading in the margin of its editions of 1960-73, "Or, I have been"! Also, it is NOT true that "Scholars agree that the Watchtower Society has no justification." In fact, one of the world's leading Greek grammarians, K. L. McKay, translates John 8:58, "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born."--A New Syntax of the Verb in New
Testament Greek (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 42. 5) Finally, as if the above were not enough to warn you of the misleading content of this book, consider Rhodes' unfounded statement on page 173 of his book, the opening words of Chapter 7: "According to the Watchtower Society, Jesus Christ is a MERE ANGEL." (emphasis added to "mere angel") The truth is, Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus Christ is the Archangel, and thus the ruler of the angels. Also, the Witnesses believe Jesus is second only to Jehovah God Himself. Such a being could hardly be considered a "mere angel"! Still, Rhodes misleads his readers into thinking that the Witnesses' view of Jesus is one that gives him no glory at all, and relegates him to the position of a "mere angel." There are many other statements from Rhodes' book that would also support my negative review, but the above should be enough to encourage any reader of his book to exercise great care, and to never take what he says as the final court of arbitration when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses. The reader should question Rhodes the same way you would question the Witnesses or anyone else. Never let the fact that someone put something in print convince you that it is true based on that fact
alone."
For more Conversations on the Trinity click here.
See the SiteMap