===============================================================================
Message 4882 DATE/TIME: 03/20/89 18:13
From : JAMES WHITE
To : BC BLAD
Subject: (R) new file continued conversation
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”
Once again, Brian, why hide this stuff in uploaded files? I have sent
to you a large number of posts – went back and forwarded a bunch of
stuff that had been sent to another JW who didn’t come back – but if we
are going to discuss this, why not discuss it out in the open? Some
people don’t have time for downloading, unarcing (some can’t even do
that) etc. Let’s deal with the Watchtower right out in the open –
where everyone can judge for themselves. If the WT is the “faithful
and discreet slave” then let’s let everyone in on it! If not…
James>>>
—————————————-
Message 4902 DATE/TIME: 03/20/89 22:46
From : JAMES WHITE — RECEIVED —
To : BC BLAD
Subject: Review of .arc file
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”
*******ATTENTION*******
Below I am providing for everyone the contents of “JAMES2.ARC” by
BC BLAD. As you will note, the entire file *could* have fit into
one single post – why Brian insists on archiving a file that is
only 5.1K I do not know. But, be that as it may, I give you his
post below. I will also provide rebuttal to the post, and will set
off my remarks with asterisks.
James, 09 march 89
to continue with our discussion on the trinity please note what
was said in “JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE” vol.92 1973 printed in
Philadelphia page 85 article by Philip B. Harner and I quote “with
an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb,are primarily
qualitative in meaning.They indicate that the logos has the nature
of theos.There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as
definite.” on page 87 of his article he concluded”In John 1:1 I
think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent
that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.”
*******************************************************************
REPLY:
It is extremely frustrating, Brian, when the person with whom
you are trying to speak does not even read the material you post to
him. Your comments prove beyond question that you have not even
begun to seriously deal with the material I have provided to you.
I am well acquainted with Harner’s work – I have the article should
you wish to read all of it – and in fact I addressed the common
misunderstanding by Jehovah’s Witnesses of his comments in my work
on John 1:1 which I forwarded to you two weeks ago. Here are the
specific comments I made:
The third clause of this verse has occasioned great debate
and controversy, mainly due to the fact that the Greek word for
God, theos, does not have the definite article (“the”) before it.
Some pseudo-Christian or Arian groups have said that this means
that the Word was a “god” or a god-like being like an angel
(Jehovah’s Witnesses). But is this the case? Other Christian
scholars have put great weight into the idea that the term theos
is being used as an adjective to describe the Logos, and that is
why John did not put the article there.
Actually, the answer to the whole question seems fairly
obvious, even to a first-year Greek student. The third clause of
1.1 is a copulative sentence – that is, it follows the form
“The (noun) is (predicate nominative)”. In Greek, one
distinguishes the subject of a copulative sentence by which noun
has an article in front of it. For example, in 1 John 4:8 we
have the last clause reading “God is love.” Now, in Greek this
is ho theos agape estin. There are two nominative nouns in
this sentence – God (theos) and love (agape). However, the
first noun, God, has the article ho before it. This indicates
that “God” is the subject of the sentence, and love is the
predicate nominative. It would be wrong, then, to translate 1
John 4:8 as “Love is God.” The only way to make the two
nouns interchangeable is to either put the article with both
nouns, or to not put the article there at all. As long as one has
the article and the other does not, one is definitely the subject
and the other the predicate. Hence, 1 John 4:8 does not teach
that all love is God, nor that God and love are interchangeable
things. Rather, the term “love” tells us something about God –
it functions almost as an adjective, describing the noun (God)
that it modifies.
We have the same situation in 1.1c. The Greek reads, kai
theos en ho logos. Notice that the term Logos has the article ho
while the term theos does not. This tells us that the subject of
the clause is the Logos. Hence, we could not translate the phrase
“and God was the Word” for that would make the wrong term the
subject of the clause. Hence, the term “God” is the predicate
nominative, and it functions just as “love” did in 1 John 4:8 –
it tells us something about the Logos – and that is, that the
nature of the Logos is the nature of God, just as the nature of
God in 1 John 4:8 was that of love. Now, John does emphasize the
term “God” by placing it first in the clause – this is not just a
“divine nature” as in something like the angels have – rather, it
is truly the nature of Deity that is in view here (hence my
translation as “Deity”). Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor
of Greek at Moody Bible Institute rendered the phrase, “And the
Word was as to His essence absolute Deity.”
Before summing up the verse, then, let the reader note that
when groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses quote from Dr. Philip
Harner’s article on the nature of anarthrous (=without the article)
predicate nominatives, they don’t understand what they are
talking about. Harner accurately pointed out that the
anarthrous predicate nominative functions as a descriptive term
rather than a specific term. Problem is, the Jehovah’s
Witnesses make “God” in John 1.1 just as definite as the
translations they attack! The point Harner is making is that it
is not the definite “God” that is in view, far less the JW
translation of “a god” (both are definite) but rather the nature of
the Logos that is important.
Hence, 1.1 tells us some immensely important things. First,
we see that the Logos is eternal, uncreated. Secondly, we see
that there are two Divine Persons in view in John’s mind – the
Father and the Logos. Thirdly, there is eternal communication and
relationship between the Father and the Logos. Finally, we see
that the Logos shares the nature of God. These items will be
important for a proper understanding of many of the statements
made by our Lord in this book. It seems to me that John felt it
was vitally important that we understand the majesty of the Person
of Jesus Christ right from the start. We will see these concepts
played out through the rest of the book.
Now, as anyone can see, I spent a good deal of space pointing
out the proper greek structure and how this is to be understood. I
pointed out what Harner said, and explained that the Witnesses
misunderstand Harner – just as you did. Translating it as “a god”
is *just* as “definite” as translating it “God”, Brian! The point
Harner is making is that “theos” is not *identifying* the Logos,
but it *describing* the Logos. The preceding clauses of John 1:1
had already asserted that the Logos was eternal in being, and had
eternally been in communication with the Father – the final clause
just simply describes the nature of the Logos – He has the nature
of God (which is what Philippians 2:6 says). I would truly
appreciate it, Brian, if you would *read* what others say – I have
no intention in trying to engage you on Biblical grounds when you
won’t listen to what anyone else says.
*******************************************************************
Brian Continued:
please note the following list in which various translators of Mark
and John have translated the singular anarthrous predicate nouns
occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the
indefinitive and qualitative status of the subject nouns:
The translations involved are:
1> NWT
2> KJV
3> NIV
4> RSV
They will be referred to by theses numerical designations to save
space.
MARK
6:49 1.an apparition 2.a spirit 3. a ghost 4. a ghost
11:32 1.a prophet 2.a prophet 3.a prophet 4. a real prophet
JOHN
4:19 1. a prophet 2.a prophet 3.a prophet 4. a prophet
6:70 1. a slanderer 2.a devil 3. a devil 4. a devil
8:44 1. a manslayer 2.a devil 3.a devil 4. a devil
8:44 1. a liar 2. a liar 3.a liar 4.a liar
8:48 1. a Samaritan 2. a Samaritan 3. a Samaritan 4.a Samaritan
9:17 1.a prophet 2.a prophet 3.a prophet 4.a prophet
10:1 1.a thief 2. a thief .3.a thief 4.a thief
10:13 1.a hired man 2. an hireling 3.a hired hand 4.a hireling
10:33 1.a man 2.a man 3.a mere man 4.a man
12:6 1.a thief 2.a thief 3.a thief 4.a thief
18:37 1.a king 2.a king 3.a king 4.a king
18:37 1.a king 2.a king 3.a king 4.a king
I include this because i gather that you are knowledgeable about
Greek so this way you can look at your source docs. and see how
John 1:1 was not point to the divinity of Christ.
*******************************************************************
REPLY:
Brian, I have most of the modern Watchtower publications, so I
have this listing (plus more) in the appendix to the 1984 Reference
edition. Again, each of these instances assumes that there is more
than one thief, more than one man, more than one king, etc. There
is not more than one God. It is interesting to me that the NWT
violates its own rule in this regard 94% of the time – only 6% of
the time, when translating an anarthrous “theos” does the NWT
render it “a god.” For example, I point out Philippians 2:13. In
Greek it reads:
theos gar estin ho energon…
God for is the one working…
Now, in this text, the term “theos” is anarthrous, just as it is in
John 1.1c – that is, it does not have the article. This is a
copulative sentence just as John 1.1c – that is, the verb eimi is
used here (in its third person singular form, estin). The subject
is arthrous – the participle ho energon. But, does the NWT follow
its own rule here? Does it translate the phrase “for a god is
working…”? No, the NWT reads, “…for God is the one that, for
the sake of [his] good pleasure, is acting within you…” If what
the WT says about John 1.1 is true, then they should translate this
passage as “a god”, too.
Another example is found in 2 Corinthians 5:19 – here theos is
anarthrous, it precedes the verb (which here happens to be the same
form of eimi found in John 1.1c) and how does the NWT translate it?
“namely, that God was by means of Christ reconciling…” Why not
“a god” Brian?
You said you gave me this information (which I have read and
replied to literally years ago) because I am “knowledgeable about
Greek…” Yes, I am. In fact, let’s do a little comparison here.
The committee that translated the NWT was headed up by Fred Franz.
He was the only person on the committee who had any training what-
soever in a Biblical language – and that only in Greek. He had two
years of study in the subject on the undergraduate level. So, we
have –
Translators of NWT —- 2 years undergraduate training
I have a Bachelors degree in Bible, including a minor in koine
Greek. That requires three years of undergraduate training in
Greek. I am also only 12 weeks away from graduating with a Masters
degree in Theology, which includes three years of training in koine
Greek on the graduate level. Now, a year at the graduate level is
considered to be the same as two years undergraduate. That means
the comparison would be like this:
Translators of NWT —- 2 years of training total
James —- 9 years of training total
or, if we wanted to do the comparison on graduate level, it would
be one year for NWT verses 4.5 for myself. I do not include in
these figures my training in Hebrew, of which the NWT translation
committee had *none.*
Why tell you this? Simple – the WT tells you that the NWT is
a “scholarly” translation. It is not. I would not sit down and
attempt to translate the entire Bible and then put the resulting
work forward as being a “scholarly” translation. And yet, you, as
one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, believe what you are told to believe by
the WT, including the lie that the NWT is an accurate translation
of God’s Word.
*******************************************************************
Brian Continues:
please also look up for yourself the following scriptures although
i have written them out for you.
1: 1 Cor. 8:6 revised standard version “For us there is one
God,the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and
one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and from whom we
all exist.”
now for some history john 1:1 the word in medieval times and in
some countries today the king never spoke directly to his subjects
he had a mouthpiece or lieutenant if you will,Christ being the
first thing (person) created by God was his spokesman or word and
all things were created through him as all decrees were issued
through the mouthpiece. the exist part is exist as Christians if
you care to read the surrounding verses and gain the context of the
passage.
*******************************************************************
REPLY:
I’m not sure why you cite 1 Cor. 8:6, as it contradicts what
you then go on to say. This passage, in describing the Lord Jesus
Christ, says that it is through Him that all things are – not all
“other” things, as your NWT tries to render Colossians 1:16ff, but
*ALL* things. Jesus is the Creator. Not only this, but Jesus is
the Sustainer of the universe He created, for the next clause says,
“and from whom we all exist.” Brian, I owe my existence to my
Creator – Jesus Christ – not to Michael the Archangel, which is
what you would have us believe!
Yes, Jesus functions as the Logos of God. It is in the Son
that the Father has revealed Himself. This has always been true.
When Yahweh walked with Abraham by the oaks of Mamre in Genesis 18,
that was none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, there clearly
identified as Yahweh God! When Isaiah saw Yahweh sitting upon His
throne in Isaiah 6, John 12:41 tells us that was Jesus Christ! The
Father is the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) who is made known by
the “unique God”, the Son, Jesus Christ (John 1:18)! How this
denies His deity is certainly unclear.
*******************************************************************
Brian Continues:
2:from the authorized version of the King James..John 20:17
“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to
my Father: but go to my bretheren and say unto them,I ascend unto
my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”
*******************************************************************
REPLY:
One of the normal difficulties in talking with Witnesses is
that they do not take the time to learn what others believe – they
don’t *listen.* Christians believe what the Bible says:
Have the same way of thinking which was in Christ Jesus,
who, although eternally existing in the very form of God,
did not regard that equality with God as something to be held
tightly;
rather, He made Himself of no reputation by taking the form of a
slave,
being made in the likeness of men;
and, being found in appearance as a man,
He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross!
Because of this, God highly exalted Him,
and gave to Him freely the name which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow –
those in heaven and on earth and under the earth –
and every tongue will confess, saying,
“Jesus Christ is Lord”
to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:5-11, personal translation)
This passage teaches us that Jesus Christ, who eternally existed in
the very form of God, did not regard that equality which He had
with God something to be held on to tightly, but, for the sake of
us, made Himself of no reputation. Note He was not *made* that
way, as if by an outside force, but rather His action was
completely voluntary. He was perfect man – the second Adam. He
did not cease to be what He was before – the Word became flesh, but
did not cease to be the eternal Word. As the perfect man He would
do all that the perfect man would be expected to do. He prayed to
the Father regularly. He worshiped the Father. He called the
Father His God. As the perfect man this is only proper. So why,
because of His great love for us in humbling Himself and becoming a
man, do you deny His deity? This very passage quotes from the
prophet Isaiah, where, in 45:23, we hear Yahweh say,
“I have sworn by Myself,
The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
and will not turn back.
That to Me every knee will bow,
every tongue will swear allegiance.”
Here, Paul applies this passage from Isaiah to Jesus Christ!
Brian, do you seriously believe that the Apostle would take a
passage that is specifically about Yahweh, and apply it to a mere
created being? Never! Yahweh alone is God! There is none beside
Him! So what must we conclude? That Jesus Christ is here
identified as Yahweh God, surely.
So back to John 20:17. Is there anything here that
contradicts the Christian teaching of the Deity of Christ?
Certainly not. The resurrected Jesus Christ informs Mary that He
is ascending to His Father, to His God. This is no different than
His words to the disciples in John 14:28. And do remember, Brian,
that in only a few verses we shall hear the confession of Thomas,
“My Lord and my God!”
*******************************************************************
Brian Continues:
3: also from the authorized version 1 Peter 1:3 “Blessed be the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” acknowledging that Christ
is not co-eternal he had a beginning.
*******************************************************************
REPLY:
How does this common greeting prove that Jesus is not co-
eternal? How does it say that He had a beginning? It says nothing
of that at all. What are you getting that? Remember that the
same author began his second epistle with these words, “Simon
Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who
have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the
righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ…” Peter
identifies Jesus as our “God and Savior.” Do you?
*******************************************************************
Brian Continues:
4: also from authorized..Mark 15:34 “At the ninth hour Jesus
cried with a loud voice, saying, Elo’i, Elo’i, la’ma sabach-tha’ni?
which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?”
*******************************************************************
REPLY:
So? Seems you are misrepresenting the Trinity again, Brian.
The Son is not the Father. The Father is not the Son. Three
persons, one being that is God. Here the Son cries out to the
Father in the words of Psalm 22:1. What does that have to do with
denying the Deity of Christ?
*******************************************************************
Brian Continues:
5: from the revised standard John 17:1,3 “When Jesus had spoken
these words,he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said,’Father, the
hour has come; glorify thy SON that the SON mat glorify thee.And
this is eternal life, that they know thee THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and
Jesus Christ whom thou has sent.'”( caps added) Jesus here called
his Father the”only true God,” excluding himself from a godhead.
*******************************************************************
REPLY:
Reading this entire passage, however, renders your conclusions
inadequate. First, verse 2 says that to Christ has been given all
authority – can a finite, created being have all authority, Brian?
Then, eternal life is defined as knowing *both* the Father *and*
the Son. The Father *is* the only true God – but the Father is not
the only one who can be so described – Jesus is called our “only
Lord and Master” in Jude 4 – that hardly means that the Father is
not our only Lord and Master as well. Verse 5 tells of Jesus’
request to be glorified with the glory He shared with the Father
before the world was created. Since Isaiah 48:11 tells us that
Yahweh does not share His glory with any others, this surely tells
us that the Father and Son both share the Name, and the glory of,
Yahweh.
*******************************************************************
Brian Continues:
6: revised standard John 1:34 ” I have seen and have borne
witness that this is the Son of God.” I being John the Baptist and
notice he bore witness..not by sitting and waiting ,but by actively
preaching the good news.
*******************************************************************
REPLY:
So? I’m leading an entire group of Christians in sharing the
Gospel with the 70,000 or so who will be attending the Mormon
Easter Pageant in Mesa this week. The Witnesses are not the only
ones who go out with their message – major difference being, we
preach Jesus Christ, you preach the Watchtower.
*******************************************************************
Brian Continues:
7:also off the subject a little,but regarding faith and works
James 2:14-26 just a little food for thought.
*******************************************************************
REPLY:
Have studied James 2 intensely – and, since it is off the
point, I’ll let it stay right where it is.
*******************************************************************
Brian Concludes:
Here are some others that I will leave you to look up (if you are
willing to do so):
JOHN 10:36 JOHN 14:28
JOHN 5:37 JOHN 13:16; 8:42
JOHN 8:17,18 JOHN 5:19
JOHN 14:1,6,9 PLEASE COMPARE JOHN 1:14,18 WITH THIS
LUKE 22:41,42 1 COR.11:3
MATT 20:23 PHIL. 2:5-7 REVISED STANDARD IS CLEAREST ON POINT
BEING MADE.
REV. 1:1 3:14
COL 1:15,16
JOHN 1:18
ACTS 2:2-4,16,17 ACTS 1:5 ACTS 7:55,56
DAN. 7:9,13
MATT 28:19 DOES MENTION THREE TOGETHER,BUT NOT THAT THEY ARE
EQUAL,COETERNAL,OR ONE GOD.
This should provide enough material to thoroughly disprove the
trinity so I think we should move on to some other topic don’t you
agree? I’ll even let you pick this time as I chose first. Again let
me emphasize that this is meant conversationally not
controversially.
*******************************************************************
REPLY:
You really can’t believe that listing some verses (a number of
which directly contradict your own beliefs, such as John 1:18,
Revelation 3:14, Colossians 1:15-16, and Matthew 28:19) ends the
discussion, do you? Well, for a Witness, it might. I have to ask
you – are you really concerned with truth, Brian, or just winning a
battle? Are you more dedicated to the WT than you are to the
Bible? I believe you are.
I have forwarded to you at least 120K of material, and you
have replied with just under 10K of writing that had little or
nothing to do with the topic at hand. I forwarded to you a study
of John 1:1-18 – you ignored it. I forwarded to you a paper on the
Bible’s identification of Jesus as Yahweh. You ignored it. I
forwarded to you an entire booklet answering just about every
Witness excuse about the 144,000 – no reply.
You asked me to pick the topic – OK, let’s see if you are a
Bible student or not. Here’s the topic:
WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST PRESENTED IN THE BOOK OF COLOSSIANS?
I will not accept copied pablum from WT books. Open your Bible to
the book of Colossians – get out your Kingdom Interlinear, too. We
will start with the first chapter. I give you first shot. Stick
with the topic, please.
As I mentioned above, I will be leading volunteers from Alpha
and Omega Ministries in witness to the Mormons attending the Easter
Pageant in Mesa each night this week. This will severely limit my
BBSing time, but I will do my best to stay current.
“For it is in Him that all the fulness of Deity is dwelling in
bodily form…” Colossians 2:9
===============================================================================
Message 5017 DATE/TIME: 03/26/89 20:31
From : JAMES WHITE — RECEIVED —
To : BC BLAD
Subject: (R) reply to your questions
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”
Bc – you can still use your word processor without archiving your
replies – I do it all the time. Just send “lines” rather than the
whole file at once – it works real well. Secondly, your archive files
are filled with control codes that can drive another word processor,
like mine, crazy. There simply is no logical reason to archive a
response that would not even fill up one single post.
James>>>
—————————————-
===============================================================================
Message 5194 DATE/TIME: 04/03/89 18:41
From : JAMES WHITE — PRIVATE — — RECEIVED —
To : BC BLAD
Subject: Work on Replies
Folder : A, “General Mail Folder”
Brian:
I am encouraged that you are “doing research” in response to
the 100K+ of material that I have forwarded to you. I do hope that
your replies will deal with the issues on the basis of the Biblical
text itself, and not simply from a preconceived acceptance of
everything the WT tells you.
As to the form of this discussion: if you will write your
replies in straight ASCII format (non-document mode, as Sue Miller
suggested as well) with about a 67-column line, you can then upload
the post line-by-line. My terminal program, SmartCom II, has this
as an option. Most modern communications packages have this
capability. Each post on this board can have 150 lines in it –
about 10K according to my past experience. It takes unnecessary
time to clean up your archived replies, as they are full of command
codes that drive my word-processor (Wordstar 4) crazy. If a reply
was 100K, I could see the use in archiving it – but your replies
have rarely exceeded 8 or 9K, and only when replying to Rod did you
go longer, and that only because you quoted the Watchtower
extensively.
In regards to that very thing (quoting the WT): you surely
must realize that the pronouncements of the Governing Body have no
weight whatsoever with anyone who has seriously examined their past
history and realizes the very human nature of that group. Rod Bias
has done much original research into the WT’s writings, as I am
sure you will soon discover for yourself, and has documented many
an error and falsehood on their part. I am sure, as well, that Rod
has a larger WT library than my own.
I trust your recovery is going well, and I do look forward to
a reply from you that demonstrates that you are capable of
examining issues on a Biblical rather than religious basis.
James>>>
266-2JWS
===============================================================================
Message 5321 DATE/TIME: 04/07/89 07:54
From : JAMES WHITE
To : BC BLAD
Subject: (R) Work on Replies
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”
First, according to the WT, Brian, Jerusalem fell in 607 B.C.E. to King
Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Also according to the WT, this was in
Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th regnal year. The old “Aid to Bible
Understanding” book’s longest section was on “Chronology,” and I think
the new 2-Volume “Insight” set is pretty much the same material with
very few changes.
The fact is, Brian, that Nebuchadnezzar did not become king until
605 B.C.E. and hence his 19th regnal year would be 587/586, not 607!
The WT is off by about 21 years. Raymond Franz *wrote* the
“chronology” section of the Aid book, and, since the Insight volumes
don’t change hardly anything in that section, you are reading his own
words as your source of info. He has admitted that even after
searching the entire New York Public Library, he could find not one
shred of evidence that Jerusalem fell in 607.
As to John 1:1, I have forwarded to you already, Brian, a full
discussion of John 1:1 – indeed, the entire Prologue of John, as well
as specific comments that demonstrate that tiu WT violates its own rule
of the “anarthrous theos” being “a god” 94% of the time, and have
provided to you examples thereof. Did you not receive these posts?
James>>>
===============================================================================
Message 5383 DATE/TIME: 04/08/89 20:33
From : JAMES WHITE — RECEIVED —
To : BC BLAD
Subject: John 1:1
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”
Brian:
In your recent post, you asked what was wrong with the
Society’s claims about John 1:1, particularly as presented in the
“Insight on the Scriptures” volumes. As I mentioned, I have
already provided to you a good deal of information on John 1:1. I
am going to go back and check and see if I sent to you my article,
“Germans, JWs, and John 1:1”. If I did, there will be a good deal
of material there for you to look into, and if I didn’t, I’ll look
for it and see that you get it.
But, in direct reply to your question, I refer to “Insight on
the Scriptures” volume 2, pages 52 and following, particularly
pages 53 and 54.
On pages 52 and 53, the Society engages in more of its normal
misrepresentation and illogic in denying the Deity of Christ as so
clearly taught in Scripture. For example, we read “Since Jehovah
is eternal and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re 15:3), the Word’s
being with God from “the beginning” must refer to the beginning of
Jehovah’s creative works.” This is of course a blatant error,
Brian. The text itself says that the Word *was* in the beginning,
not that the Word was *created* in the beginning. The Greek verb
“en” found here is no way intimates creation; rather, it directly
asserts eternal being. The Word already “was” when “the beginning”
took place. Hence, the Society is here misrepresenting the
teaching of God’s Word. And, to help them in their deception, they
cite a mistranslation of their own creation – they cite Revelation
3:14 as it is found in the NWT – they describe Jesus as “the
beginning of the creation by God.” However, that is not what the
text says – the correct translation, as any individual who is able
to read koine Greek knows – is not “*by* God” but “*of* God.” The
entire phrase in Greek is “he arche tes ktiseos tou theou.” The
word “arche”, like the Hebrew term “rosh”, means both “beginning”
as well as things such as “ruler, origin, or source.” Here the
term would refer to the same aspect of Christ’s rulership as the
term “prototokos” does in Colossians 1:15 – that Christ is the
ruler, origin, or source of God’s creation, not that He is the
creation of God.
The Society goes on to blatantly deny a great Biblical truth –
they have a paragraph entitled “Not a co-Creator” in which they
deny the teaching of John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17 (based, of
course, on their own mistranslation of this passage), Hebrews 1:1-
3, Isaiah 44:24, etc. The Biblical fact, of course, is that Jesus
Christ is directly asserted to be the Creator of all things –
indeed, He is the I AM of the Universe.
But, you asked specifically about John 1:1, and the comments
on this begin on page 53 with the question, “Why do some Bible
translations refer to Jesus as “God,” while others say he was “a
god”? This is quite misleading, Brian. 99% of all scholars who
translate John 1:1c say the Watchtower is blowing smoke – indeed,
if this were not so, why is the WT forced to cite at least two
“translations” that came not from scholars, but from spiritists?
And also, why, Brian, does the WT have to cite scholars who deny
the most basic teachings of the Society in order to find support
for their translation? My article on the German scholars cited in
the ’84 reference edition demonstrates this clearly; and, in
looking at the “Insight” volume, I am intrigued to find that the
commentary cited there, by Haenschen, is not only from the
mainstream of German liberal scholarship following Rudolph
Bultmann, but this particular work was translated by Dr. Robert
Funk – who happens to be the founder and leader of the “Jesus
Seminar” who just recently decided that Jesus didn’t say He was
coming back, hence He isn’t! These scholars the WT is forced to
cite don’t believe the Bible is God’s Word, that it is inspired,
and, if you dared to say “inerrant” around them they would laugh
you to scorn – indeed, Funk called me “stupid” and told me to “go
to hell” on KFYI just about three weeks ago for asserting that the
Bible means what it says. Well, Brian, if you must cite people
like that to attempt to find scholarly support, you and your
Society is in a world of hurt. Try finding a scholar who actually
believes in the Bible to support your views!
Anyway, to the particulars of the Society’s claims – as
normal, the Society misrepresents the position it seeks to attack.
This is standard procedure for people who don’t really have facts
to back up their accusations – its much easier to attack a straw
man than the real thing! They don’t deal with the fact that the
first clause, 1.1a, states that the Word is eternal. When they
point out, correctly, that the second clause says the Word was
*with* God, they seemingly hope that their readers, blinded by WT
propoganda, won’t see how this fits perfectly with the Christian
teaching of three persons in one divine essence – that is, that
Christians do not believe that the Son is the Father, but that the
Son has eternally shared the one divine essence with the Father.
This is what 1.1b says, “and the Word was with God…” – the term
“en” is just as eternal here as in 1.1a; there is eternal communi-
cation and fellowship between Father and Son.
Now, as to the Soceity’s translation of 1.1c as “the Word was
a god.” I have already pointed out to you that citing Philip
Harner’s article only goes to show how little the Society actually
knows about what its talking about. If you have read Harner’s
actual article (I have, have you?) you would know that Harner is
not in any way suggesting that 1.1c be translated “a god.” That is
just as “definite” as “the Word was God.” What Harner is saying is
that the particular construction in 1.1c emphasizes the *nature* of
the Word, not the *identity* of the Word. Hence, Dr. Kenneth
Wuest’s translation would agree with Harner’s work, though it was
made over 20 years before Harner’s research – “and the Word was as
to His nature absolute Deity.” If John had wished to assert that
the Word was “a godlike one” or “divine” in a sense different than
“deity”, he could have used “theios” rather than “theos.” But he
didn’t. Harner’s article in no way supports the JW translation,
and it continues to amaze me that they would cite it as support
when anyone who *knows* the language knows they are either
completely without knowledge of the subject or, more likely, are
blatantly lying about it.
Now, let’s examine the NWT to see if the Witnesses are
consistent in their own translation. According to the “Kingdom
Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures” 1985 ed., page
1139, John 1.1c is translated “a god” because “the Greek word
(theos) is a singular predicate noun occuring before the verb and
is not preceeded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous
theos.” Let’s examine some passages from the NWT and see if the WT
follows its own rules.
In Philippians 2:13 the Greek reads,
theos gar estin ho energon en humin
God for is the one working in you
Here the term “theos” appears before the verb “estin.” This is a
singular predicate noun, appearing before the verb, and, as can be
seen, the noun is without the article – it is anarthrous. Hence,
if the WT is consistent, it should translate the passage “and a god
is working in you.” Obviously, the NWT doesn’t say that. Hence,
they violate their own rule.
Let’s look at another passage – Hebrews 11:16:
theos epikaleisthai auton
God to call them
“theos” is before the verb, and it does not have the article. Is
it translated “a god” by the NWT? No, it is not. Interestingly,
in both Philippians 2:13 as well as there, the anarthrous “theos”
is clearly Jehovah God Himself. My friend Jeff Niell wrote in
reference to these passages, “The NWT and the Jehovah’s Witnesses
affirm in Phil. 2:13 and Hebrews 11:16 that Jehovah God, the One
True God, is referred to. Yet according to the method of
translation put forth in the appendix of the Kingdom Interlinear
and in the 1971 reference edition of the NWT it is clearly seen,
even by those who are unaquainted with the Greek language, that the
translation of John 1.1c is inconsistent.”
Now, you may reply that since the term “theos” does not have
the article, it does not refer to Jehovah God. Many JWs have made
this claim in my presence. But is it true that Jehovah God is
always referred to with “ho theos” rather than “theos”? Let’s let
the Scriptures decide:
In Mark 12:26 and 27, the term “theos” appears three times
anarthrously – that is, without the article. Yet, in each of these
passages it is clearly Jehovah God who is under consideration. Are
we to believe that since the writer uses “theos” without the
article in these passages that he would like us to believe that it
was “a god” who spoke to Moses from the burning bush? Hardly! Not
only this, but in the prologue of John (1:1-18) the term “theos”
appears 8 times – only twice does it appear with the article. Of
the six occurences of the anarthrous theos in the prologue, the NWT
translates it “a god” only twice, the other four times translating
it “God”! Indeed, of all the occurences of the anarthrous theos in
the New Testament, the NWT breaks its own rule ***94%*** of the
time! Really, Brian, how do you respond to that? For example, in
John 1:12 the anarthrous theos appears – if your teaching is
correct, it *should* be translated, “However, as many as did
receive him, to them he have authority to become children of a
god…” Why doesn’t the NWT follows its own rule? Simple. They
can’t – its a lie, a farce, a fabrication designed specifically to
hide the truth of God’s Word.
– More – [C]ontinue, [S]top, [N]onStop? n
I would love to have a researched, honest response to this
material, Brian. But the fact is, you aren’t allowed to give one.
The Society tells you to believe what they say no matter how much
it contradicts the Bible, truth, or fact. My prayer, Brian, is
that you will see through the deception and allow God’s Word to
speak for itself.
James>>>
===============================================================================
Message 5436 DATE/TIME: 04/10/89 21:36
From : JAMES WHITE — RECEIVED —
To : BC BLAD
Subject: (R) recieved
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”
I see – a stalemate? Brian, a stalemate occurs when two sides present
equally founded arguments – you haven’t provided a single fact to
substantiate your position! You have been provided now over 100K of
written material – and you have nothing to say in reply but
“well, I can’t give you a single answer or reply, but I know I
have the truth!” No, Brian, you are doing what every single other
Witness *must* do – you are closing your eyes, closing your mind,
refusing to look at the facts. If you keep telling yourself you have
the truth, you hopefully will convince yourself of it. But we both
know you don’t. People who know the truth don’t hide behind platitudes
and self-deception. They are willing, just as Paul was, to engage in
dialogue and to “give a reason for the hope that is within” them. You,
like Larry Kelly before you, are unwilling to do that. Oh, don’t get
me wrong – you are unwilling because the WT Society tells you what to
do and what to think. My sincere prayer is that you will see the
deception for what it is.
Don’t delude yourself, Brian. You are totally wrong in saying that
“hey, if you are right, I’m going to heaven…” If I am right, Brian,
then you are guilty of teaching people that the very Creator of heaven
and earth, Yahweh God in human flesh, our *only* Lord and Master, Jesus
Christ (Jude 4) is actually Michael the Archangel! You are guilty of
denying the I AM! You tell people that they need not be born again,
but instead can be in a “great crowd” that lives forever on paradise
earth. You have the wrong God, the wrong Savior, and the wrong Gospel,
Brian. You are as lost as any Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu. You don’t
even believe that you can have a personal relationship with Jesus
Christ since He’s not deity. No, Brian, don’t delude yourself – you
are lost, separated from God, and abiding under His wrath. All your
struggles, all your good works, will never, ever earn you a place in
His kingdom. Brian, I beseech you, look to Jesus, not to an
organization! An organization can’t save you – it can only use you,
and then leave you with nothing. Jesus Christ is not a created being,
but He is your Creator! There is no other name under heaven given
among men by which we must be saved than the name of Jesus Christ!
Won’t you become a witness of Jesus Christ, too? Stop playing a game –
really think about the material I’ve provided to you. Examine God’s
Word for what it says, not for what the WT tells you to think! Read
the Bible, not the Watchtower! Lay aside the teaching of men for just
long enough to see Jesus Christ as He really is! You will never forget
the experience.
From the last line of your message, it sounds like you are leaving
the board. Every Witness faces that decision when God brings into
their lives a Christian to share the truth with them. They come to a
crossroads – do they continue to really search, to really be honest?
Or do they do as the Society tells them, and turn off their minds, turn
off their honesty, and go back to mouthing the Society’s ideas? I pray
you have not yet made that decision. Make sure of all things, Brian –
how can you do that if you go away and hide?
James>>>
===============================================================================
Message 5475 DATE/TIME: 04/12/89 22:03
From : JAMES WHITE — RECEIVED —
To : BC BLAD
Subject: The Watchtower Strikes Again
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”
Brian:
A number of items from your recent posts: first, I find it
incredible that you would say to Larry Kelly that we “defend one
issue so strongly” because we “lack the knowledge to broach the
others.” Brian, we both know that is ridiculous. I have brought
up at least a *dozen* issues with you – to which you have had
almost no reply. I have provided to you extensive information on
John 1:1-14 – [no reply]; on John 8:58 and the identification there
of Jesus Christ as the I AM of the Old Testament – [no reply]; on
the meaning of the term “prototokos” at Colossians 1:15 and how it
does *not* mean “created” – [no reply]; on the many New Testament
passages that identify Jesus as Yahweh – [no reply]; on the error
of the WT’s teaching on the 144,000 in Revelation 7 and 14 – [no
reply]; on the error of the Witness teaching on the Memorial Supper
and the New Covenant – [no reply]; on the error of the Witness
teaching about the fall of Jerusalem – [no reply]; on the folly of
the teaching of 1914 – [no reply]; on the fact that the Society
used to teach that Jesus returned invisibly in 1874 – [no reply];
that the Society has prophesied Armageddon for 1914, 1915, 1918,
1925 and 1975 – [no reply other than a bland denial without any
supporting facts]; that the Society’s Governing Body voted on
changing 1914 to 1954 – [no reply]; and that the Society has cited
spirit-mediums to support their supposed “translations” – again, no
reply. If you can call that one issue, Brian, you are using a very
different kind of logic than I!
Now, in reference to Message #5462 which you titled “Divinity?
not in English”. Unfortunately, as normal, you have provided a
glistening example of an assertion I have made many times before –
you are not a student of the Bible, you are a worshiper of the
Watchtower Society. Whatever they teach, you believe, whether the
Bible teaches it or not. Your simplistic, and equally erroneous,
presentation on the term “begotten” documents the false teaching of
the Society for all who are reading this discussion. Allow me to
demonstrate the falseness of your assertions.
First, what “begotten” means in English is, of course,
completely irrelevant to the whole issue. John, or Luke, did not
write in English. They wrote in Greek. The list of verses you
gave represents two completely different terms in Greek – Acts
13:33 refers to the Greek term “gennao” while the other verses use
the term “monogenes.” Now, the term “gennao” does mean “beget” or
to “procreate.” But the term “monogenes” does *not* mean to beget
or to procreate.
The shorter edition of the Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich/Danker Greek
Lexicon, the most modern and accurate lexicon available, gives only
two meanings for the term – “only” and “unique”. Note, Brian, that
the idea of “begettal” and hence creation or beginning is absent
from the term. The reason that the translation “only-begotten”
arose was due to the false idea that the term “monogenes” came from
two Greek terms – “monos” and “gennao”. We have since discovered
that the term comes from “monos” and “genes” – “genes” meaning
“kind or sort.” Hence, “monogenes” means “one of a kind – unique”.
Indeed, John 1:18 is translated by the NIV as “God the One and
Only”.
The other term used in Acts 13:33 is a quotation of Psalm 2:7;
in the Psalm God addresses the king on the day of his coronation;
hence, the “begettal” spoken of is hardly one of creation, is it
Brian? Do you wish us all to believe that God created the king of
Israel on the day the king was crowned? Well, I guess you might.
The other use of the term “monogenes” in Hebrews shows how
your own view is wrong – it refers to Isaac as the “monogenes” of
Abraham. Now, does this mean that Isaac was Abraham’s only
begotten son? No, Abraham also had Ishmael, didn’t he? So the
term refers to the uniqueness of Isaac, not to any concept of
birth. Isaac was the child of promise – the covenant child.
Now, given that you have misrepresented the underlying Greek
language in your presentation, will you retract those statements in
the face of scholarly evidence to the contrary? Also, given that a
number of passages have been provided to you that demonstrate that
Jesus was not created but is instead the Creator (John 1:1-3,
Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1:1-2, etc.), how can you continue to
present falsehoods?
Now, you then went on to think that quoting from a Watchtower
publication (you certainly don’t get the “Classical Journal” do
you? I read the same propaganda in the Awake and Watchtower that
you did) as to how accurate the NWT is, and actually figured that
quoting one nebulous promo for the Kingdom Interlinear was
sufficient to rebut all the factual and scholarly material that has
been presented to you. Have you given me a single scholarly
citation to support the NWT’s translation of John 1:1? John 8:58?
Colossians 2:9? Any of these disputed passages? Not a one. No
replies. No dialogue. No defense. Nothing. And to what does the
JW have to turn to provide scholarly support? Yes, the University
of Nebraska is indeed the place to look for your leading Greek
scholars, that’s for sure!
Baird of Grand Canyon College and Fuller Seminary has provided to
me comments demonstrating the gross error of the NWT’s translation
of John 1:1. Now, Dr. Baird’s PhD is in New Testament – what is
Thomas Winter’s PhD in? Does this man actually support the false
translations of passages such as John 1:1, 8:58, Colossians 2:9,
etc.?
Now, as to the scholarly view of the NWT, lets look at what
some real, *leading* scholars have said concerning this
“translation”:
Dr. Julius Mantey, co-author of one of the standard
intermediate grammars used in our nation, and a recognized leader
in the field of New Testament Greek, called the Watchtower
translation of John 1:1 “A grossly misleading translation.” He
also said, “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate
John 1:1 ‘the Word was a god.’ But of all the scholars in the
world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as
Jehovah’s Witnesses have done.”
Dr. Bruce Manning Metzger, formerly of Princeton Theological
Seminary, leading expert on New Testament textual criticism, world-
renowned scholar, has written, “Far more pernicious in this same
verse is the rendering…’and the Word was a god,’ ” with the
following footnotes: ” ‘A god,’ in contrast with ‘the God.’ It
must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take
this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the
additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such
a representation is even more reprehensible than were the
heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so
prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a
rendering is a frightful mistranslation.”
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of the translation department of the
American Bible Society, co-editor of one of the newest Greek
lexicons available today, wrote, “With regard to John 1:1 there is,
of course, a complication simply because the New World Translation
was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the
syntax of the Greek.”
Dr. William Barclay, whom the Watchtower Society has
deliberately misrepresented and misquoted more than once, has
written, “The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen
in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated:
‘…the Word was a god’, a translation which is grammatically
impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate
the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
Dr. B. F. Westcott, whose Greek text the Society uses in its
Kingdom Interlinear as the basis of its New Testament translation,
wrote, “The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24.
It is necessarily without the article…No idea of inferiority of
nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms
the true Deity of the Word…in the third clause ‘the Word’ is
declared to be ‘God’ and so included in the unity of the Godhead.”
Dr. F. F. Bruce, widely renowned Bible scholar and
commentator, wrote, “Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of
the omission of the definite article with ‘God’ in the phrase ‘And
the Word was God’. Such an omission is common with nouns in a
predicate construction. ‘a god’ would be totally indefensible.”
As can be seen, Brian, there are quite a few renowned scholars who
have said the exact same thing I have – your NWT is wrong. The
Society is forced to either misquote leading scholars such as
these (as they have misquoted Barclay, Mantey, and the greatest
like Alexander Thomas or Johannes Greber, or quote scholars who do
not believe in the miraculous, or in inspiration, or almost any
other Christian tenet like the existence of a personal God! Of
course, the Society knows that 99% of its people won’t take the
time to really investigate what they say (as you have shown for us
over and over again), so they are safe in their lies and
deceptions.
You said a while back, Brian, that you were doing research in
reference to the very large amount of documentation I have provided
to you. I have yet to see the fruits of your labor. I do hope you
will really do some research on these issues.
In the name of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13),
James>>>
===============================================================================
Message 5514 DATE/TIME: 04/13/89 23:12
From : JAMES WHITE — RECEIVED —
To : BC BLAD
Subject: Double-think
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”
Brian:
You know, those who take all their time asserting “I’m right,
I’m right” but who are seemingly incapable of even beginning to
enter into rational, logical dialogue or debate on the disputed
issues don’t lead too many people to believe that they are living
in the real world. Every person reading this board with any
regularity recognizes that you are presented with facts, and you
reply with nothing but the same old assertions that “I’m right, you
are wrong, but don’t ask me to provide facts, Biblical or
otherwise!” Your continued insistence on ignoring the truth is a
glaring advertisement for Biblical Christianity over against the
Watchtower’s false teachings.
Your comment to Larry Kelly was rather intriguing – “I know
that their statements are not accurat (sic) as God’s true servants
don’t lie or twist facts…” You are partly right – God’s true
servants don’t lie or twist facts. And, since it has been
documented over and over again on this board that the Watchtower
has lied and twisted facts, then the only logical conclusion is
that they (the WT) are not God’s true servants! But such logic
seems too clear for you. You remind me much of many Mormons I have
spoken to. I remember showing a number of verses out of Isaiah to
a Mormon lady one evening at the Mormon Easter Pageant in Mesa.
She looked at the verses and said, “well, those verses must be
wrong, since they contradict the teaching of the Church.” The
possibility never entered into her mind that the Mormon church
might be wrong, and Isaiah right! You are the same way, Brian –
when faced with facts, you can only say, “well, the facts must be
wrong, since I know the Watchtower is right.”
One evening about three years ago I went to share the gospel
with two Jehovah’s Witnesses. As we got into the Bible, I sat next
to an elderly Witness lady. I opened up the Kindgom Interlinear
and showed her John 14:14 where the Watchtower Society has been
forced to delete a word from the Scriptures to help them teach
their doctrines. I showed her right from the Watchtower’s own
publication. You know what she did? She was so flustered that she
slapped me across the face for showing her the passage!
James>>>
===============================================================================
Message 5686 DATE/TIME: 04/20/89 06:35
From : JAMES WHITE — PRIVATE —
To : BC BLAD (CARBON COPY)
Subject: (R) Last Days
Folder : A, “General Mail Folder”
Larry:
I doubt that any of us on this board have lots of free time just
laying around to do what we do here. For me, it would be far easier to
quit BBSing altogether, for there is never enough time in the day to do
all that I need to be doing.
However, the topics discussed here are of utmost importance. I
have challenged you and Brian to answer a direct allegation against the
Watchtower Society’s “Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures.” I provided full and accurate information concerning the
passage (John 14:14) and the fact that the Watchtower Society has
perverted the Word of God at that verse in order to hide from its
readers Biblical teaching that contradicts the Watchtower’s doctrines.
You have decided that such an allegation seemingly is not important
enough for you to deal with. I guess whether someone is honest with
the Bible or not is not really important to you – believing the Society
is more important than perverting the Bible. That is an extremely sad
commentary on the “Bible Students” is it not?
Who is “a man of lawlessness” Larry? Do you use that term to
describe anyone who is not a follower of a society of men called the
Watchtower? Try to recognize that you are the one who is not willing
to deal with the Biblical text on its own merit – I have provided to
you large amounts of Biblical material to which you have had no reply.
Does providing someone with Biblical material make them a “lawless
one”? Or is it just that I won’t bow to the Governing Body that does
that? I bow to Jesus Christ, not a group of elderly men who wish to
force me to believe that Jesus is an archangel, the Holy Spirit an
impersonal force, and heaven a private club for 144,000 “christs”.
Well, now we will see if Brian will accept the challenge…
James>>>