• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Where does the NWT Bible Falsify?

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The Jehovah's Witnesses deny the eternal deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit - making the former into a created being instead of the Creator, and blaspheming the Holy Spirit by making him into some kind of Star Wars Force instead of the Third person of the Godhead.

And since JW's don't believe Jesus is Jehovah God, then John 8:24 signals their eventual downfall. With sins not forgiven, Hell is the only place left for them.

"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” - John 8:24


Thereafter, the Jews asked Jesus who he was. Jesus answered them in John 8:58 by saying, "Before Abraham was, I am." That's right - Jesus is claiming to be the I AM of the Burning Bush. John 8:59 then noted, "At this, they (the Jews) picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." Why did they want to stone him? Not for claiming to be a man, but for claiming to be God.

But the Jehovah's Witnesses couldn't stomach such a clear representation of the deity of Jesus as that.

"So strong was Jesus’ affirmation of deity in John 8:58 that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Bible (the (NWT) had to mistranslate the present active indicative verb, eimi (“am”) turning it into a past tense: “I have been”. From this, the JW’s argue that Jesus was not claiming to be deity (“I am”), but rather He was claiming to be “older” than Abraham was (as Michael the archangel), which incited the Jews to want to kill Him. However, what immediately refutes this false notion is:

1) Simply, the Greek text contains the PRESENT indicative verb eimi (“am”) and not any kind of past tense. This clearly shows that the NWT purposely altered the Greek NT text, from the present “I am” (viz. the Eternal One) to a past “I have been” (as if Jesus was merely saying that He is older than Abraham) to fit the distinctive theology of the WT (WatchTower)." - cited from Christian Defense dot org.

That's satanic, IMO, to de-deify Jesus Christ.

And so, the JW's lead many into perdition by virtue of their massive revisions to the Bible and by their subsequent false and demonic teachings based on their corrupted mistranslations.
Actually jws make deity into a force, it seems; it would be good if they cleared that up.

Perhaps beliefs vary in the organization
 
Last edited:

tigger2

Active Member
I remember back about 50 years or so talking to two Jehovah's Witnesses. We were looking at John 14:16-17: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."

Back then I predicted to the two JW guys that, because the JW's don't recognize the Holy Spirit as a person - as the 3rd Person of the Trinity - that they would have to redact John 14:16-17 to make the Person of the Holy Spirit into an "it" or something like that, and they did just that. Now the JW New World Translation reads, 16 "And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever, 17 the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you."

The JW's changed the Holy Spirit from a "him" and a "he" to an "it" in order to depersonalize God the Holy Spirit in an attempt to negate the Trinity. And they've done a lot of things like that. And once again, the earliest manuscripts don't conform to the JW's redactions on that.


"the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you." - NAB.

"the spirit of the truth, which [ho, not hos] the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it [auto] nor knows it. You know it [auto], because it remains with you and is in you." - NWT.

“Holy Spirit” in the original Greek is neuter and therefore the neuter pronouns meaning “it,” “itself” are used with it in the original NT Greek! Any strictly literal Bible translation would have to use “it” for the holy spirit (since it is really not a person, but God’s active force, a literal translation would be helpful in this case).

As the trinitarian New American Bible (Catholic), 1970 ed. admits:

“The Greek word for ‘spirit’ is neuter, and while we [trinitarians] use personal pronouns in English (‘he,’ ‘his,’ ‘him’), most Greek manuscripts employ ‘it.’” - New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., (footnote for John 14:17).

In other words, even if the Greek words for ‘holy spirit’ were in the masculine gender (and, therefore, the Greek masculine pronouns would be used with it), it still would not indicate that the holy spirit must be a person! Just as in many other languages things are often given feminine and masculine genders in Bible Greek.

However, since its literal title (“holy spirit”) is really neuter in the NT Greek and really uses the neuter pronoun (“it”) and takes the neuter definite article (Gr. to), there is the extremely high probability, from grammar alone, that it is not a person.

Not only is the literal “Holy Spirit” neuter in the original Greek, but so are the article (to - p. 34, Machen) and the pronouns (αὐτό [‘it’] and ὅ [“which”]- pp. 19, 68, Marshall) which go with it!


"The JW's changed the Holy Spirit from a "him" and a "he" to an "it" in order to depersonalize God the Holy Spirit in an attempt to negate the Trinity. And they've done a lot of things like that. And once again, the earliest manuscripts don't conform to the JW's redactions on that."

You seriously need to check out what JW-haters have told you before 'spreading the news.' Everything you wrote in the paragraph above is provably false!
 
Last edited:

Spartan

Well-Known Member
"the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you." - NAB.

"the spirit of the truth, which [ho, not hos] the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it [auto] nor knows it. You know it [auto], because it remains with you and is in you." - NWT.

“Holy Spirit” in the original Greek is neuter and therefore the neuter pronouns meaning “it,” “itself” are used with it in the original NT Greek! Any strictly literal Bible translation would have to use “it” for the holy spirit (since it is really not a person, but God’s active force, a literal translation would be helpful in this case).

As the trinitarian New American Bible (Catholic), 1970 ed. admits:

“The Greek word for ‘spirit’ is neuter, and while we [trinitarians] use personal pronouns in English (‘he,’ ‘his,’ ‘him’), most Greek manuscripts employ ‘it.’” - New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., (footnote for John 14:17).

In other words, even if the Greek words for ‘holy spirit’ were in the masculine gender (and, therefore, the Greek masculine pronouns would be used with it), it still would not indicate that the holy spirit must be a person! Just as in many other languages things are often given feminine and masculine genders in Bible Greek.

However, since its literal title (“holy spirit”) is really neuter in the NT Greek and really uses the neuter pronoun (“it”) and takes the neuter definite article (Gr. to), there is the extremely high probability, from grammar alone, that it is not a person.

Not only is the literal “Holy Spirit” neuter in the original Greek, but so are the article (to - p. 34, Machen) and the pronouns (αὐτό [‘it’] and ὅ [“which”]- pp. 19, 68, Marshall) which go with it!


"The JW's changed the Holy Spirit from a "him" and a "he" to an "it" in order to depersonalize God the Holy Spirit in an attempt to negate the Trinity. And they've done a lot of things like that. And once again, the earliest manuscripts don't conform to the JW's redactions on that."

You seriously need to check out what JW-haters have told you before 'spreading the news.' Everything you wrote in the paragraph above is provably false!

Nonsense. You JW's have butchered the Bible and mocked God.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Thank you for your Christian post.

Here's more Christian truths for you.

Jesus Must be Jehovah

John 1:23 quotes Isaiah 40:3 as saying John the Baptist was to prepare the way for the LORD (Jehovah). John prepared the way before Jesus so Jesus must be LORD (Jehovah).

In Isaiah 44:8 God is the only Rock. Psalm 18:31 says, “Who is the Rock except our God”? I Corinthians 10:4, identifies Jesus as the Rock. Jesus must also then be God the Rock.

Isaiah 44:24 says that God (Jehovah) is the one who has made all things. Colossians 1:16, speaking of Christ, says that “all things were created by Him and for him”. Jesus must therefore be Jehovah God.

In Jeremiah 10:10 it says “the LORD (Jehovah) is the true God”. I John 5:20 states that Jesus is the “true God”. Jesus must be the true God.

Isaiah 43:10,11 says that “I, even I, am the LORD; and there is no savior besides Me. Jesus is the Savior (Matthew 1:21, Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1, etc., etc.). Jesus must be God the Savior.

Jehovah knows all things (Psalm 147:5). Jesus knows “all things.” (John 16:30). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah alone is the only one who knows the hearts of all men. (1 Kings 8:39; Jeremiah 17:9-10). Jesus knows the hearts of all men. (John 2:24-25; Rev. 2:18, 23). Jesus must be God.

Jehovah is our sanctifier. (Exodus 31:13). Jesus sanctifies us (Hebrews 10:10). Only God is the sanctifier of men. Jesus must be God.

Jehovah is our peace (Judges 6:23). Jesus is our peace (Ephesians 2:14). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is our righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6). Jesus is our righteousness. (Romans 3:21-22; 1 Corinthians 1:30). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the giver of life who will not allow His people to be delivered / snatched out of His hand (Deuteronomy 32:39). Jesus is the giver of life who will not allow His people to be “snatched” out of His hand. (John 10:28). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah’s voice is “like the roar of rushing waters” (Ezekiel 43:2). Jesus’ “voice was like the sound of rushing waters” (Revelation 1:15). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is present everywhere.(Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:24; I Kings 8:27); Jesus is omnipresent (John 1:48; Matthew 18:20; 28:20). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah’s nature does not change (Malachi 3:6). Jesus’ nature does not change. (Hebrews 13:8).

Jehovah is the only God we are to “serve”(2 Kings 17:35); Jesus (identified as the Creator in Colossians 1:16-17) is to be served (Colossians 3:24). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah the Lord is to be set apart as holy (Isaiah 8:12b-13). Jesus, as Lord, is to be set apart as holy (1 Peter 3:14b-15a).

Jehovah’s glory is not to be given to another (Isaiah 42:8). Jesus shares Jehovah’s glory (John 17:5). Jesus must be Jehovah.

God’s name is Jehovah (or Yahweh—YHWH – Isaiah 42:8). Jesus has Jehovah’s name (John 17:11; John 16:14-15). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the “mighty God” (Jeremiah 32:17-18; Isaiah 10:20-21). Jesus is the “mighty God”
(Isaiah 9:6) who is “Almighty” (Revelation 1:7-8).

Jehovah is “the first and the last” (Isaiah 44:6; 48:12). Jesus is the “first and the last” (Revelation 1:17-18; 22:12-13, 20). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the “Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6-7). Jesus is the “Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 22:12-13, 20). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah’s title is “the Holy One” (Isaiah 47:4). Jesus is “the Holy One” (Acts 3:14; John 6:69). Jesus must be Jehovah, the Holy One.

Jehovah is the “stumbling stone” of Israel (Isaiah 8:13-15). Jesus is the “stumbling stone” of Israel (1 Peter 2:6-8). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the great Judge who gives life to whom he wishes and who renders to each man “according” to his “deeds” (Psalm 98:9; Deuteronomy 32:39; Jeremiah 17:9-10). Jesus is the only judge who gives life to whom he wishes and renders to each man “according” to his “deeds” (John 5:21-22; Revelation 2:18, 23). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the great “shepherd” who leads his people to “the spring of the water of life” (Psalm 23:1-2; Revelation 21:6-7). Jesus as the “shepherd” of His people, leads them “to springs of the water of life” (John 10:11-18; Revelation 7:17). THERE IS ONLY ONE SHEPHERD –John 10:16.

Jehovah is “Lord of Lords” (Deuteronomy 10:17). Jesus is “Lord of Lords.” (Revelation 17:14; 19:16). The Father is Lord of all (Matthew 11:25; Acts 17:24). Jesus is “Lord of all.” (Acts 10:36). THERE IS ONLY ONE LORD (Jude 4) .

Jehovah created the universe (Psalm 102:25-27). Jesus created the universe (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-19; Hebrews 1:10-12). THERE IS ONLY ONE CREATOR. (Isaiah 44:24). Jesus must be Jehovah. righterreport.com
 

tigger2

Active Member
Nonsense. You JW's have butchered the Bible and mocked God.

The earliest manuscript with John 14:17 is p75 (ca. 175 A.D.) and it reads the same as the modern texts with the neuter article and pronouns (leaf 67 recto).

I won't be answering you again because of your nasty (unChristian) attitude and your unwillingness to look up readily found truth. I wish you well.
 
Last edited:

tigger2

Active Member
Rev. 3:14
"...the beginning of the creation by God..." - NWT.


Since we have answered one complaint about the NWT's translation of Rev. 3:14, we might as well note that certain anti-Watchtower writers (evidently not Mantey, however) have also condemned the NWT rendering of the genitive noun theou at Rev. 3:14 ("the creation by God"). This genitive noun, like most genitives, can be (and usually is) translated with the word "of" preceding it. Therefore, theou is usually translated "of God." So, at Rev. 3:14, most translations read: "the beginning of the creation of God." Certainly this is a grammatically correct translation, but it does allow a potential ambiguity. Grammatically it could mean "the creation belonging to God," or "everything created by God," or even, "God himself being created" !

For example, notice how the genitive noun at Acts 1:22 causes difficulties with its usual rendering of "baptism of John." This rendering can lead readers to believe that John's own baptism (by some other baptizer) is being spoken of here. Instead, many (if not all) Bible scholars believe the intended meaning here is a baptism performed by John! Therefore, some respected trinitarian translations have used the equally honest (and much clearer, in this case) rendering of "baptism by John" (or its clear equivalent): LB; NEB; REB; ISV; NET; JB; NJB; NLT; AT; CBW; VOICE and translations by Phillips, and Rotherham.

Also notice that the genitive form of "Jesus Christ" at Rev. 1:1 can be properly rendered as "by Jesus Christ" (rather than "of Jesus Christ" as in KJV, ASV, etc.): Mo, AT, and Beck's The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed. - see p. 236, So Many Versions?, Zondervan, 1983.

We can also find the genitive theou (as at Rev. 3:14 itself) at 1 Tim. 4:4 ("creation of God") is rendered "everything created by God" in the NASB, RSV, NRSV, NAB [1991] (or its equivalent: NEB, REB, JB, NJB, CBW, AT, NIV, NAB [1970], etc.)

And "taught of God" (theou as found at Rev. 3:14 itself) at John 6:45 is properly rendered "taught by God" in RSV, NRSV, NIV, JB, NJB, NEB, REB, AT, MLB, NAB (1970), NAB (1991), GNB, TEV, Mo, CBW.

Surely no honest Bible scholar can condemn the same rendering by the NWT at Rev. 3:14! .
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
It appears to me as if you have never ever checked out what JW's believe......and comments like the above prove it. Why not find out first before making a judgment?

It's not about whether its "God or Jehovah"....its about whether the very nature of God is something different to that taught by Jesus Christ himself. In John 1:18 just a few verses on from John 1:1 it clearly states that "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him."

If no man has ever seen God, how many thousands saw Jesus Christ? If Jesus is described as an "only begotten god" then, in order to be "begotten" he had to have a 'begetter'. Understanding the Greek word "theos" will help us to see that Jesus and his Father as two separate divine and powerful individuals....but only one is the Almighty.
Genesis 12:7
The Lord appears to Abram
Genesis 15:15
Lord appears to Abram
Genesis 17:17
The Lord appears to Abram
Genesis 17:3
Abram falls before the Lord
Genesis 18:18
The Lord appears to Abraham
Genesis 18:22
Abraham stood before the Lord
1 Samuel 3:10
The Lord stood before Samuel



The Lord is all over the Old Testament, it seems you worship a different entity.

If your god is JHVH, that's the Lord, appeared many times, was heard, so forth.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Genesis 12:7
The Lord appears to Abram
Genesis 15:15
Lord appears to Abram
Genesis 17:17
The Lord appears to Abram
Genesis 17:3
Abram falls before the Lord
Genesis 18:18
The Lord appears to Abraham
Genesis 18:22
Abraham stood before the Lord
1 Samuel 3:10
The Lord stood before Samuel


The Lord is all over the Old Testament, it seems you worship a different entity.

If your god is JHVH, that's the Lord, appeared many times, was heard, so forth.

Do you believe that the Bible contradicts itself? I don't.
When Moses asked to see God, he was told...."You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live.” (Exodus 33:20) Do you believe that the Creator could say that to his servant Moses if it was not true?

God is always represented on earth by his angels. That is what the word "angel" means...."messenger".

Jesus in his pre-human existence was called the "Logos" which means spokesman, meaning that he spoke for God...

If John could also write that "no man has ever seen God" (John 1:18) then we can be sure from those two statements that God has never been seen on earth by any man because the experience would mean their death.

YHWH (Jehovah) has never appeared to any man unless it was in a vision. He would not endanger life to make an appearance to any mere mortal. He didn't have to.

The incidents that you have quoted from the OT are more likely then to be the Logos, who as an angelic messenger has always spoken for God. He often spoke as if he were God, conveying his Father's accurate words to his earthly servants.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
In my limited personal experience with the JW, their interpretation of scripture has been inexplicable to me. As to John 1:1 it makes no difference to me if the word is God or Jehovah. To insist that one is more accurate than the other is just plain vapid. They do a cute trick with the 144,000, I think insisting that only that number go to Heaven. If that is the case, then to hell with it. It's not worth trying. Their insistence that good works influence that is repulsive to me.
I don't understand your statement about 144,000 go to heaven. So let's say, for instance, that more than 144,000 would go to heaven. You then say that if only 144,000 go to heaven it's not worth trying. So would you think it would be worth trying (your expression) if millions upon millions could go to heaven?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
OP: ".... I have seen that John 1:1c is the most-accused verse for 'falsifying,' but I know from an intensive study of my own that the NWT is one of the very few Bibles which translates it properly according to John's own usage: 'a god.'

"So disregarding 1:1c..."

I guess so many of you are ignoring my OP because John 1:1c is so important to trinitarian apologists.

.......................................

For those who insist on beating this dead horse, here is the proof, again, that it is most trinitarian translations which falsify this important scripture. My personal study:



http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2013/02/seven-lessons-for-john-11c-a.html

and,

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html

and my original study of this:

http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2011/06/definite-john-11.html

I notice that most posters here are not criticizing a NWT 'falsified' verse, but just Trinitarian arguments about JWs in general. I am answering only those who stick to the subject: "Where does the NWT Falsify"
OK, good point. I tend to link on to a post I find intriguing rather than sticking to the subject sometimes. Thanks for reminder.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Actually in the Greek manuscripts, there is no "the" there, between 'in' and 'beginning'.
Some words have to be added, to give the context clarity.

Same in being "with" God, and then being that God. John would not have written something so ambiguous, if he had meant Jesus was God. Because he further states, "No one has ever seen God."

So then we should ask, which rendering fits the context?

...
Yes, good point. Because the inference is also what is important.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
I don't understand your statement about 144,000 go to heaven. So let's say, for instance, that more than 144,000 would go to heaven. You then say that if only 144,000 go to heaven it's not worth trying. So would you think it would be worth trying (your expression) if millions upon millions could go to heaven?

I was actually speaking with a JW woman in the laundry room, and she gave me some insight into that issue. It was something like the restoration of Earth where those who would heed the call would come to Christ? I think?

You say you are Christian. Why don't you just say you are JW?

As for me, I am completely sure that the JW would never want anything to do with me. That's fine. I do not need an organized Religion.

Blessings.

Ellen
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I was actually speaking with a JW woman in the laundry room, and she gave me some insight into that issue. It was something like the restoration of Earth where those who would heed the call would come to Christ? I think?

You say you are Christian. Why don't you just say you are JW?

As for me, I am completely sure that the JW would never want anything to do with me. That's fine. I do not need an organized Religion.

Blessings.

Ellen
The point I was addressing is not who or what you are, or who or what I am. You said (and I paraphrase) that if only 144,000 go to heaven it's not worth it to you to try. So that led me to ask if (1) everybody had an opportunity to go to heaven instead of 144,000, would you feel differently about it--in other words--would you try to get there? Using your expression earlier. It's not whether I believe if trying to go to heaven gains entrance. And another question is (2), do you mind having been born on the earth? (Two questions.)
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
The point I was addressing is not who or what you are, or who or what I am. You said (and I paraphrase) that if only 144,000 go to heaven it's not worth it to you to try. So that led me to ask if (1) everybody had an opportunity to go to heaven instead of 144,000, would you feel differently about it--in other words--would you try to get there? Using your expression earlier. It's not whether I believe if trying to go to heaven gains entrance. And another question is (2), do you mind having been born on the earth? (Two questions.)

I read and understood the words that Jesus is said to have said. It was clear to me that this temporal life was interfering with my spiritual life to the extent that I would never please God. One must take to heart Matt. 5, Matt.19:12, and Isaiah 56:4-5 as a start into a changed life, more pleasing to God. That is the beginning and then the narrow road lies before them. It is not a choice that everyone can make. There are promises made, and one must try to learn to be sensitive to His direction.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Do you believe that the Bible contradicts itself? I don't.
When Moses asked to see God, he was told...."You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live.” (Exodus 33:20) Do you believe that the Creator could say that to his servant Moses if it was not true?

God is always represented on earth by his angels. That is what the word "angel" means...."messenger".

Jesus in his pre-human existence was called the "Logos" which means spokesman, meaning that he spoke for God...

If John could also write that "no man has ever seen God" (John 1:18) then we can be sure from those two statements that God has never been seen on earth by any man because the experience would mean their death.

YHWH (Jehovah) has never appeared to any man unless it was in a vision. He would not endanger life to make an appearance to any mere mortal. He didn't have to.

The incidents that you have quoted from the OT are more likely then to be the Logos, who as an angelic messenger has always spoken for God. He often spoke as if he were God, conveying his Father's accurate words to his earthly servants.
A more direct understanding of the other verses that note the Lord interacting, in the Old Testament, would be as I wrote earlier, the Word is the personal aspect of Jehovah, thusly Jesus being a manifested form of Jehovah, the Lord, which is also why Jesus isn't an angel, in accordance with Judaic belief regarding Jehovah.
• as noted in book of Acts, some of the Christians, were speaking against 'angel worship', yet, as Stephen says, the priests that he is rebuking, Stephen mentions what we might consider 'different gods', in other words, not the Host of God, or Host of the Lord.

As it seems, when Jesus as a 'different god', or an angel, is argued, then references to the Lord generally, become very interpretive, or just too interpretive to present a direct argument.
• thusly a Traditional belief does work in the texts,
• Jesus is a manifestation of the Lord
• the Lord isn't an Angel, and is an aspect of 'God' singular, as noted the Lord of Hosts
• Lord God singular reference means One God, therefore why we default the name Elohim, as singular 'God', when referring to the Biblical God.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
A more direct understanding of the other verses that note the Lord interacting, in the Old Testament, would be as I wrote earlier, the Word is the personal aspect of Jehovah, thusly Jesus being a manifested form of Jehovah, the Lord, which is also why Jesus isn't an angel, in accordance with Judaic belief regarding Jehovah.
• as noted in book of Acts, some of the Christians, were speaking against 'angel worship', yet, as Stephen says, the priests that he is rebuking, Stephen mentions what we might consider 'different gods', in other words, not the Host of God, or Host of the Lord.

As it seems, when Jesus as a 'different god', or an angel, is argued, then references to the Lord generally, become very interpretive, or just too interpretive to present a direct argument.
• thusly a Traditional belief does work in the texts,
• Jesus is a manifestation of the Lord
• the Lord isn't an Angel, and is an aspect of 'God' singular, as noted the Lord of Hosts
• Lord God singular reference means One God, therefore why we default the name Elohim, as singular 'God', when referring to the Biblical God.

Too far outside what I believe.
 

tigger2

Active Member
Rev. 3:14 - 'Beginning' or 'Ruler'

The Watchtower Society says that when Jesus called himself “the beginning [Greek – arkhe/arche, ἀρχὴ] of the creation by God” - Rev. 3:14, KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, MLB, Douay, Byington, Rotherham, Lattimore, Lamsa, Phillips, Darby, Webster, etc. - he meant “the first thing created by God.”

Some trinitarians, however, insist that the word arkhe (sometimes written in English as arche) here does not mean “beginning” but should be rendered “source” or “origin.” A few even suggest that John meant “the ruler of the creation of God.”
...................................................

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler [arche] of God’s creation. - NIV.

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning [arche]of the creation of God, says this:" - NASB.

““To the messenger of the church in Laodicea, write: The amen, the witness who is faithful and true, the source of God’s creation, says: - GW.

The BAGD, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt (Translator), F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (Editor), has been revised as the BDAG. On page 138, the interpretation of Rev 3:14 that `ARXH [arche] of creation' means that Christ was created ['beginning of God's creation'] has been upgraded from poss. [possible] to prob. [probable].

"BDAG states that the meaning `beginning = first created' for ARXH in Rev 3:14 `is linguistically probable.' The sense `origin' or `source' hardly seems to fit the context of Rev 3:14. This meaning of the word does not seem to figure in biblical usages here or elsewhere. See Job 40:19." - https://onlytruegod.org/defense/revelation3.14.htm

Greg Stafford writes on this: "...a check of all the occurrences in NT of arkhe followed by a genitive expression ... show that it always denotes a beginning or first part of something." Further on he writes, "Thus the use of arkhe in general, and when used with a genitive expression specifically, favors (statistically at least) the meaning 'beginning' [rather than 'originator'] in Revelation 3:14." -Jehovah's Witness Defended, An Answer to Scholars and Critics, 1st ed.p.109.

It is because of this common Bible metaphor ("begotten," "born") that "father" was considered as synonymous (whether as "creator" or "procreator") with "source"! - See p. 190, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1984.

The famous Biblical Hebrew authority, Gesenius, tells us that "Father" [ab] means:

"Of the author, or maker, of anything, specially of the creator.... And in this sense God is said to be `the father of men,' Is. 63:16; 64:8; [etc.]. All these ... come from the notion of origin." - p. 2, Gesenius' Lexicon.

Trinitarian Robert Young in his Young's Analytical Concordance, p. 331, also shows this meaning for the Hebrew word ab: "Father, ancestor, source, inventor."

God's people have used "Father" synonymously with "source" or "origin" for thousands of years. When they wanted to use a word that denotes absolute "source" they most often used "Father." Obviously the Son is not the "source of creation" - his Father is! (And what could be more appropriate than the Father's very first creation being called his "Firstborn Son"?)

In all the writings of John you will find that he never uses arkhē (ἀρχ) to mean “ruler” but, more properly, always uses arkhōn (ἄρχων). If you will check the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (1981), you will find that even the very trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB) never translates John’s uses of arkhe as “ruler” but does translate arkhon for “ruler” eight times: John 3:1; 7:26; 7:48; 12:31; 12:42; 14:30; 16:11; and Rev. 1:5. Not only is this word (arkhon) always used with the meaning of “ruler” by John, but it is the only word he uses for “ruler”! (underlined verses use the plural form).

Notice that the only use of “ruler” in Revelation by John, is, of course, arkhon: “from Jesus Christ, ... the first-born of the dead, and the ruler [arkhon] of the kings of the earth” (Rev. 1:5, NASB; cf. ASV; JB; NEB; REB; CEB; CEV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; NCV; NIV; NKJV; NLT; ERV; ESV; GNB (TEV); GW; HCSB; ISV; LEB; MEV; Mounce; ETRV; WEB; YLT; Barclay’s translation; and a number of others (such as KJV which render it “prince of the kings...”). And it is highly significant that it is applied to Jesus in a way that most likely would have been duplicated at Rev. 3:14 if he had also meant “ruler” to describe himself there.

To pretend that “ruler” was intended by John in Rev. 3:14 not only ignores John’s strict adherence to always using forms of arkhon to mean “ruler,” but also ignores the clear scriptural Messianic use of the terms arkhon and arkhe! The well-known Messianic scripture of Micah 5:2 sets the pattern for uses of arkhon as applied to the Messiah. The ancient Septuagint version, often quoted by the NT writers, renders Micah 5:2, “out of thee [Bethlehem] shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler [arkhonta, a form of arkhon] of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning [arkhe]...”. Clearly, if John wanted to use the term ‘ruler’ to apply to the Messiah, it would have been the already scripturally-established arkhon NOT arkhe! Arkhe was also scripturally-established as meaning “beginning” when applied to the pre-existent Messiah.

Conversely, the only NT word John has used when he intended the meaning of “beginning” is arkhe. (The only apparent exception to this is archomai (arkhomai) found at John 8:9 - see p. 139 in the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. However, even trinitarian scholars admit that this verse is spurious, not written by John but added by a later copyist! - [Jn 9:32 should be more literally translated “from of old”.])

“ARCHE (ἀρχὴ) means a beginning. The root arch- primarily indicated what was of worth. Hence the verb archō meant ‘to be first,’ and archōn denoted a ruler.” - p. 103, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine (trinitarian), Thomas Nelson Publ., 1984.

The NWT's rendering is not only honest, but the most likely intended by the original inspired writer.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I read and understood the words that Jesus is said to have said. It was clear to me that this temporal life was interfering with my spiritual life to the extent that I would never please God. One must take to heart Matt. 5, Matt.19:12, and Isaiah 56:4-5 as a start into a changed life, more pleasing to God. That is the beginning and then the narrow road lies before them. It is not a choice that everyone can make. There are promises made, and one must try to learn to be sensitive to His direction.
Certainly I agree that it is essential to do our best to know God so we can see what is pleasing and displeasing to him. Jesus did say that one must love God above all. But we are not going to be perfect until God makes us perfect. That will require a change over a long period of time evidently.
John 17:3, Jesus said it distinctly. I must say that the infamous torture by religious leaders to infidels or dissidents over the past centuries certainly showed they did not know God. He would never be pleased with that type of behavior toward other individuals. "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (John 17:3)
 
Top