Archive for October, 2010

THE TRUTH ABOUT SOUL AND HELL

The Truth about Soul and Hell


Many religions in the world believe that the soul is something that is inside our body and that it will depart from our body when we die and it will go to hell or heaven. They say that if you follow God’s command and have faith in God, your soul would be in heaven but if you’re not good, then you will be punished eternally on hell or in the lake of fire. Is this really the teachings of the Holy Scriptures? Let us know the truth.

We know that the Holy Scriptures were written originally in Hebrew and Greek. The word “soul” was translated from the word “nephesh” in Hebrew and “psyche” in Greek. These two words appeared in more than 800 times in the Scriptures and have written these words in New World Translation as “soul”. If we are going to study the word “soul” or “souls” in many uses in the Bible, it would relates to (1) persons, (2) animals or (3) life of persons or animals. Let us consider some examples that relates to these three thoughts. The following was an English translation from the Tagalog version of “What Does the Bible Really Teach?

(1) Persons – 1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. – KJV;

Genesis 2:7 And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul. – NWT

Other verses that shows the soul as person can be found in Exodus 16:16, Genesis 46:18, Joshua 11:11; Acts 23:37; Romans 13:1 (The word “soul” usually found in NWT was written originally in Scriptures as “nephesh” and “psyche”, that is why NWT preserved the real translation of the two original words.)

(2) Animals – Genesis 1:20 And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.” – NWT

24 And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. – NWT (other verses that shows souls as animals are Genesis 9:10; Leviticus 11: 16; Numbers 31:28; for the veracity or the translation of NWT, seek original versions in Hebrew and Greek Scriptures)

(3) Life of a Person – Exodus 4:19 After that Jehovah said to Moses in Mid´i·an: “Go, return to Egypt, because all the men who were hunting for your soul are dead. – NWT

Other verses are Genesis 35:16 – 19, 1 King 17:17 -23; Matthew 10:39; John 15:13; Acts 20:10; John 10:11. I am the fine shepherd; the fine shepherd surrenders his soul in behalf of the sheep. – NWT

There is no word in the Bible such “immortal” or “eternal” that links to soul. But instead, it is said in the Scriptures that soul is mortal, meaning it is dying. – Ezekiel 18: 4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. – KJV

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. – NIV

In fact, the word in the Bible in which one is dead is written as “dead soul” – Leviticus 21:11 And he should not come to any dead soul. For his father and his mother he may not defile himself. – NWT

We have now discussed the meaning of the word “soul” in many verses. Now let us see whether the soul will go through a literal hell if you were not good or will punish eternally to a literal lake of fire.

The word “hell” derived from the word “sheol” in Hebrew and “Haides” in Greek. “Sheol” and “Haides” were used in the Bible for more than 70 times. In other versions of the Bible, it translated as “grave” or “hell”. What does the “hell” really means?

In Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, [a] where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom. – NIV

Footnotes:

  1. Ecclesiastes 9:10 Hebrew Sheol

Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going. – RSV

However, “sheol” doesn’t mean as a specific or particular grave area or cemetery where we buried or loved ones. When a Bible points a specific burial place it uses other words in Hebrew of Greek, not “Sheol” and “Haides” (Genesis 2:7 – 9; Matthew 28:1) The Bible doesn’t use also the word “sheol” for one grave place wherein few individuals are together buried, like a grave for a family or a grave for many individuals. So what kind of place “sheol’ refers to? The Bible shows that “sheol” and “hades” refers to a much bigger than an ordinary burial place like a cemetery. For example, it says in Isaiah 5:14 that sheol is spacious. Therefore She´ol has made its soul spacious and has opened its mouth wide beyond bounds; and what is splendid in her, also her crowd and her uproar and the exultant one, will certainly go down into it. – NWT

Despite sheol swallowed many people, yet it seems it still hungry. Proverbs 30:15 The leeches have two daughters [that cry]: “Give! Give!” There are three things that do not get satisfied, four that have not said: “Enough!” 16 She´ol and a restrained womb, a land that has not been satisfied with water, and fire that has not said: “Enough!” – NWT

Unlike to any literal grave which can contain only a limited number of dead, sheol never satisfy. Proverbs 27:20 Death and Destruction [a] are never satisfied, and neither are the eyes of man. – NIV

Footnotes:

  1. Proverbs 27:20 Hebrew Sheol and Abaddon

Proverbs 27:20 Sheol and Abaddon are never satisfied, and never satisfied are the eyes of man. – RSV

Therefore, sheol and hades are not literal site in a specific location. But instead, it is a symbolic place wherein a great part of humanity is sleeping on death. In the Bible, the word “sheol” and “hades” link to a kind of death that will have resurrection. (Job 14:13, Acts 2:31, Rev. 20:13). It shows also in the Word of God that not only those who served Jehovah are in Sheol or Hades, but also those who were not served him. (Gen. 37:35, Psalms 55:15). In accordance with this, the Bible teaches that there will be resurrection of both righteous and unrighteous. – Acts 24:15. – end of translation

The wicked people mentioned by Jesus will be put also in a symbolical place called Gehenna – Matthew 5:30; 10:28; 23:33.

Let us consider now the Biblical verses that prove this truth.

The wicked will die:

Job 11:20 But the eyes of the wicked will fail; all way of escape will be lost to them, and their hope is to breathe their last. – RSV

In NWT it renders as “soul” which will die.

Job 11:20 But the wicked will be blinded. They will have no escape. Their only hope is death. – New Living Translation

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. – KJV

Proverbs 10:2 Ill-gotten treasures are of no value, but righteousness delivers from death. – NIV

Proverbs 14:27 The [a]fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, That one may avoid the snares of death. – NASB

Note:   It says that a person may avoid snares of death. The righteous person cannot avoid the death due to circumstances but they can avoid the death of eternal destruction. Unlike the wicked people they are lead to death.

Romans 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. – NIV

Romans 6:16 Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Romans 6:20 For when YOU were slaves of sin, YOU were free as to righteousness. 21 What, then, was the fruit that YOU used to have at that time? Things of which YOU are now ashamed. For the end of those things is death.

Galatians 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. – KJV

Romans 6:8 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. – RSV

James 1:14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.- NIV

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. – RSV

Psalms 49:13 This is the way of those who have stupidity,
And of those coming after them who take pleasure in their very mouthings. Se´lah. 14 Like sheep they have been appointed to She´ol itself; Death itself will shepherd them; And the upright ones will have them in subjection in the morning, And their forms are due to wear away; She´ol rather than a lofty abode is for each one. – NWT

Psalms 9:17 The wicked will return to Sheol, Even all the nations who forget God. – NASB

Psalms 37:38 But all sinners will be destroyed; the future [a] of the wicked will be cut off.- NIV

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. – RSV

How can be a soul who sins exist forever when in fact it is stated in the Bible that it is subject to cease. – Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins shall die.– RSV ; Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. – KJV

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him. – NIV (If the soul will be tormented in fire eternally still there is life. But the previous verse said those who rejects the Son will not see life.)

John 3:36 And he who believes in (has faith in, clings to, relies on) the Son has (now possesses) eternal life. But whoever disobeys (is unbelieving toward, refuses to trust in, disregards, is not subject to) the Son will never see (experience) life, but [instead] the wrath of God abides on him. [God’s displeasure remains on him; His indignation hangs over him continually.] – Amplified

It says here that the wicked will come to death. And when we say of death can we say life is still there? Death is the end of one’s life. He has no thinking or knowledge. – Eclessiastes 9:10 It never said on the previous verses in Hebrew that wicked will suffer from eternal punishment. Actually, there is no single saying in the Hebrew which states that the wicked will be tormented in fire literally.

Job 12:9 Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this? 10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind. – KJV

Note: The word “soul” is singular yet it is said that every living thing is in the hand of God. Clearly, the word “soul” means “life”. You make look the original word of this in Greek or Hebrew translation in Interlinear bible or you can look the original word in Septuagint version.

So what does Revelation 20:10, 14, 15 means? Would it mean to a literal lake of fire or hell? In verse 14, it is clearly states that the lake of fire means second death. Notice that the dead people who are not written in the Book of Life will be thrown to the lake of fire. But are they going to feel the heat and suffer eternally? If that would mean this, then the previous verses that shows wicked will die and not continue to exist are all false. So what is the meaning of second death? It means there is no more hope for them to live. They are eternally destroyed. We know that the dead people don’t know anything. – Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10. So in order not to contradict to all these verses, we must understand its meaning in its deeper sense. So what is fire symbolizes for? In Jude 7 fire symbolizes as to eternal destruction “So too Sod´om and Go·mor´rah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.” – NWT

We do not see anymore the fire that came to Sodom and Gomorra yet it is said that they have punishment of everlasting fire. In Luke 17:29 Jesus told Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Consider this verse also.

Isaiah 34:9 And her torrents must be changed into pitch, and her dust into sulphur; and her land must become as burning pitch. 10 By night or by day it will not be extinguished; to time indefinite its smoke will keep ascending. From generation to generation she will be parched; forever and ever no one will be passing across her.

The verse refers to the judgment to Edom. It will be destroyed by fire eternally. If this would mean literally then verse 11, 13, 14 – 17 of the same chapter would not be true. Owls, ravens and vultures will live there forever as it was promised by Jehovah. (Isaiah 34:16, 17)

It is therefore to conclude that fire symbolizes a total destruction or not existing anymore of someone. Another text proof can be found on Isaiah 66:24. It says on this text that the dead bodies of the wicked will eat by worms that will never die and the fire that burns the dead bodies will never be put out. Do you think it is possible? How come a worm be survived on a literal fire and not die and a body which doesn’t melt on a fire? How come a fire will burn them forever when in fact wicked people are all over the world? Would it mean that in every place of earth there would be a fire that will last forever? That’s impossible as for the “new earth” that will possess by God’s people. Righteous people will remain on earth but the wicked will be uprooted out of it. (Psalms 104:5; Ecclesiastes 1:4; Proverbs 2:21,22) This earth will restore again. It will become paradise.

Proofs on soul that might die or may offer to give:

James 5:20 Let the [latter] one be sure that whoever turns a sinner from his evil course will save [that one’s] soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins [[a]procure the pardon of the many sins committed by the convert]. – Amplified

TAKE NOTE JOHN 5:20 IN KJV AND GREEK INTERLINEAR:

***James 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. – KJV

James 5:20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. – NASB

Matthew 16:25 For whoever wants to save his life[a] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. – NIV

Matthew 16:26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? – NIV

See also other versions such as NASB, KJV, Amplified, NIRV, NWT, NIVUK, NLT. There they indicate the soul that may be lost.

Footnotes:

  1. Matthew 16:25 The Greek word means either life or soul; also in verse 26.

Psalms 78:50 He made a way to his anger; he spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence; – KJV

Psalms 78:50 He leveled a path for His anger;
He did not spare their soul from death,
But gave over their life to the plague, – NASB

Psalms 107:26 They mount up to the heaven, they go down again to the depths: their soul is melted because of trouble. — KJV

Psalms 107:26 They rose up to the heavens, they went down to the depths; Their soul melted away in their misery. – NASB

Psalms 56:13 For thou hast delivered my soul from death: wilt not thou deliver my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the light of the living? – KJV

Psalms 56:13 For You have delivered my soul from death,
Indeed my feet from stumbling,
So that I may walk before God
In the light of the living. – NASB

Two choices of the people (life and death)

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, – NASB

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: – KJV

Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. – KJV

Romans 8:6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, – NASB

Romans 6:16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? – NIV

Romans 6:16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? – NASB

NOTE: Notice the words said “slaves to sin which leads to death”. Clearly if we are slaves of sin then we will die. It did not say “if you are slaves of sin then you will be punished in hell eternally”. No showing of that thought indeed.

Romans 8:12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, – NIV

Romans 8:12, 13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. – NASB

Galatians 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. – KJV

Galatians 6:8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. – NASB

John 3:16 For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten ([a]unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life. – Amplified

John 3:16 God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son. Anyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life. – NIRV

John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. – NWT

About Spirit (ruwach in Hebrew and pneuma in Greek) which other people think as the same as soul which is inside the body and eternal, the concept of that teaching is not true. In fact, the spirit means force of life. In Psalms 104:29 it is stated that when Jehovah taken out the spirit in all human, then they return to dust. It is also said in James 2:26 that the body without spirit is dead. The same thought could also be seen in Genesis 6:17; 7:15, 22 wherein the force of life is taken out by Jehovah from all the living animals and human in the world before. Therefore, spirit serves the source of life. The spirit also goes back to God when a person dies – Ecclessiastes 12:7; Job 34:14, 15. This doesn’t mean that the spirit travel to God but rather it shows that the spirit of a person lie in the hands of Jehovah. The proof of this that this is not literal spirit that goes back to Jehovah is in Psalms 146:4 which states that the spirit may disappear, cease or gone. Another proof that the spirit of people does not travel back to God is in Ecclesiastes 3:19 which states that all animals and human have one spirit given by God. Spirit also means a feeling of a person which can be incorporate as to being happy or sad.

Some religious leaders or persons used one verse in the bible that identifies the three which are components in human body and so they say that spirit and soul will be punished in eternal fire if you are wicked. As I have said above this is not possible. Here is an illustration of the three things which are components in human: the spirit, the soul and the body. The spirit represents the force of life. We can represent it as the electrical force with a high voltage. If the electrical force or voltage is really high, the power or energy [which represents the life] is also high. Thus, if the energy of  a person is high then of course his life is in good condition. This power or energy of human can protect our immune system but once our energy started to lose then eventually our resistance to sickness will also decrease and so our life may lost. And when the source of life [the spirit which represents the electrical force power that gives life to our body] will be lost then our life also will be lost too and so our body will be destroyed. That is why in the bible, the spirit, soul and the body of human can be destroyed.

With all of the verses I have presented, I hope viewers will come to realize the truth what the Word of God has revealed to us. Please read also my other blog in this linkhttps://fromthesunrising.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/will-the-earth-be-destroyed/

PLEASE SEE THE LINK BELOW FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE WORD ‘HELL’.

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/the-biblical-hell-sheol-hades

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/death-and-the-afterlife-by-dr-ra-morey-a-review-by-edward-fudge

The last link explains that those who oppose God’s will die or come to corruptness on their body. The author explains that those who are resurrected for second chance of life yet disobeyed to God’s will will still be killed by God at final judgment (after 1000 years) and will be thrown to a symbolic place ‘lake of fire’ that depicts eternal destruction.

ADDITONAL BIBLE VERSES:

Philippians 3:19 and their finish is destruction, and their god is their belly, and their glory consists in their shame, and they have their minds upon things on the earth.

http://interlinearbible.org/philippians/3-19.htm

The word “destruction” means to die, perish or ruin. The word signifies of being inexistence from being existence before which denotes that life has come to cease or had end.

See also 1 Thessalonians 1:8, 9 which states “8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength”. See the interlinear of these verses. (http://interlinearbible.org/2_thessalonians/1-8.htm and http://interlinearbible.org/2_thessalonians/1-9.htm)

Acts 3:22 In fact, Moses said, ‘Jehovah God will raise up for YOU from among YOUR brothers a prophet like me. YOU must listen to him according to all the things he speaks to YOU.23 Indeed, any soul that does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people.’

http://interlinearbible.org/acts/3-23.htm

NOTE: Notice the original word use which is “every soul” which indicates of being every people who will be destroyed if not listen to that Prophet (Jesus). Destroy means to ruin or to put something unusable or not functionable anymore.

HADES AND SOUL WHICH MEANS HELL (GRAVE)

Jesus was said to be in hell (hades) when he died – Acts 2:31 (http://interlinearbible.org/acts/2-31.htm) and those dead who are in Hades will be brought up in the time of resurrection (Revelation 20:13). Compare also the illustration of Jesus in Luke 16:23 (http://interlinearbible.org/luke/16-23.htm) whom the rich man is said to be in Hades with fire. He was suffering indeed yet how come this description about Hades though it was said with torment of fire is said to be the lying place of Jesus [in Hades also] when he died (Acts 2:31) but without fire? It is logical to think that the literal fire (lake of fire) is also symbolic in nature giving its meaning of no hope of resurrection or eternal destruction which is the thing being pictured in the illustration of Jesus about the rich man. While the hades without torment of fire just like Jesus was put in hades will have hope in resurrection. The two hades can be seen – one is with fire i.e. no hope of resurrection and eternal destruction while the hades without fire is the one with hope of resurrection and a chance to have eternal life which is pictured in the book of Revelation.

Advertisements

IS JEHOVAH THE SAME PERSON AS JESUS?

Is Jehovah The Same Person as Jesus?

(A discussion about terms applied both to Jehovah and Jesus)

Some terms in the Bible are used to address both to Jehovah and Jesus. These terms are the “savior”, “father”, “first and last” and “lord of lords” and “king of kings”. Let us first study the term “savior” used to address Jehovah in Isaiah 43:11 which states, “I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.

In this verse Jehovah is saying that there is no savior other than him, thus Trinitarians say that since Jesus is also called as “a savior” in Luke 2:11 he is also Jehovah. However, let us compare Isaiah 49:26 in which Jehovah is called as the “Savior” of the Israel wherein in Septuagint interlinear there is an article in the preceding of the word “Savior” and in Luke 2:11 in which Jesus is also called as “a savior” there is no article before the word “savior”. Thus, it is proper to translate it as “a savior” to emphasize that he is not the one and only Savior which is Jehovah but the savior who is appointed by Jehovah. This is in conformity with the text in Jude 1:25 in which Jehovah is said as the Savior but it is only through Jesus Christ. However in KJV it does not have Jesus Christ as acting as the savior on behalf of Jehovah. Thus if we will follow the original Greek translation of this verse (in which Jesus Christ is not written), still the one and only identified as the “savior” is only Jehovah. However, since Jesus is the one sent by Jehovah to be the savior of the world, he is therefore acting as the savior on behalf of Jehovah. A very good proof of this matter which explicitly shows that they are distinct and that Jesus is acting as the savior on behalf of Jehovah is in Acts 5:31 which states, “31 God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these matters, and so is the holy spirit, which God has given to those obeying him as ruler.” – NWT

It is clearly said in this verse that Jesus was exalted by his Father and that he was on the right side of God. There would be no valid interpretation of it than to say that Jehovah is separate from Jesus and are both present at particular time.  The Greek text of this verse has no article before the word “Savior” making it as indefinite thus it shows it is not Jehovah and also it is clear in the text that Jehovah exalted him to be the Chief Agent and [the] Savior on his right hand. Consider also Acts 13:23 in which in Greek interlinear it has no article thus NWT renders it as “a savior” and not the savior unlike in other bible versions which renders it as “the savior”. However in John 4:42 and 1 John 4:14 Jesus was identified as to be “the savior” of the world. Should we say that he is the Savior in the Old Testament or he is Jehovah? No. In these verses it only shows that Jehovah sent his son to be “the savior of the world”. Using an article on the Greek text by the writer was valid because Jesus was the one acted as the savior of the world in “physical” sense when he offered his life for the mankind. There is no other savior in the world who came in the world and who acted as the savior of mankind literally. We can see the difference of using the word “savior” to Jesus when he was described in heaven in Philippians 3:20 which states,“But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,”. In this text we can clearly see the carefulness of the writer in addressing Jesus as a “savior” who is being compared with Jehovah as “the savior” of all since both of them are in heaven. We can see an example of this using an article in Titus 1:3 and 1 Timothy 2:3 which identifies Jehovah as “the savior”. A good verse example in the Bible that identifies Jesus as “a savior” is in Isaiah 19:20.

20 And it must prove to be for a sign and for a witness to Jehovah of armies in the land of Egypt; for they will cry out to Jehovah because of the oppressors, and he will send them a savior, even a grand one, who will actually deliver them. – NWT

The original Greek interlinear has no article before the word “man” in which in Bible translations renders it as “a savior”. This clearly identifies that Jesus is a savior on behalf of Jehovah and Jehovah is the only savior.

Another term use both to Jehovah and Jesus is the “Father”. Jehovah is address as the “Father” many times in the Bible both in Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. On the other hand Jesus was once addressed as a “Father” in Isaiah 9:6.

“6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” – NWT

Is it right to say that because of this title used to address to both of them we can say that Jehovah is also Jesus? No. Take note that Abraham was also called the “Father” of all nations and this means he is a father to God’s people. Since Jehovah is the father of all Christians (that is on the time of adoption of men) and those who will be resurrected and be saved should we say that Abraham as he is the father of all nations (God’s people) is also Jehovah? Of course not. Saying Jesus is the Father of Christians is saying also that Abraham is the Father. Abraham was called “the father of all nations” in Genesis 17:4, 5 since through him all the people on earth will be blessed – Genesis 8:18; Genesis 12:3 and Galatians 3:8. Jehovah made a covenant with him that the promise “seed” will come through his descendants and this was Jesus and there are 144, 000 who belong to this seed. They are also called the seeds of Abraham who will have the promise of God of heavenly life – Galatians 3:29.  Therefore, Jesus as a “Father” doesn’t mean that He is the Heavenly Father but rather a father to the congregation of God for he is the head of the church whom appointed by Jehovah. Jesus is called to be as n “Everlasting Father” since it is through him the people on earth will be blessed – Acts 3:25; Genesis 22:18; Galatians 3:14. Do you think Abraham could be the father of all nations if the will of God did not happen through Jesus Christ? Abraham became the father of all nations only because of Jesus’ performance who acted in the foundation of the Christian congregation of God. It was through Jesus Christ the foundation of the congregation of God was established. Just as the head of the house – the father is also concern with his children and thus he feeds them and provides them everything they need. Jesus as the head of the congregation of God provides spiritual foods through his faithful and discreet slaves and provides them physical needs through his name in relation to the requests of the Christians to his Father. Moreover, Jesus is a father to all Jehovah’s Witnesses (after the final salvation) since it is through him the salvation for them is assured and the blessings for them came after. Jesus is a father since he let feed God’s people with right instructions and words of God as well as those people who are not yet part of the congregation of God but have chance to enter into it.

Another term used to address to both of them is “first” and “last”. Jehovah used this term to identify himself in Isaiah 44:6 which states, “This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.”

While the text that identifies Jesus as the “first” and “last” is in Revelation 1:17 – 18 and Revelation 2:8. Since Jesus died as a man before therefore all Christianity agreed that this is Jesus however, since he is also called as “the first and last” the same descriptions to Jehovah in Isaiah 44:6, then Trinitarians concluded that they are one or coequal. However, this cannot be true since in Revelation 3:21 Jehovah and Jesus were identified as separate individuals who are both present at the same time. This is a proof from among many verses in the bible that identifies Jesus who is in the right side of Jehovah. So definitely Jesus is not Jehovah. He is called “first” since he is the first creation of Jehovah – 1 Colossians 1:15, 17 – 18. He is “first” – the beginning of all creation of Jehovah as he was described in Proverbs 8:22 – 23. Some bible versions translated verse 22 as the wisdom [the personification of Jesus] which was not created but possessed by God showing it is an eternal nature of God which is present in him. This is not true since verse 23 in their versions and in NWT suggests that this “wisdom” was established by Jehovah and all the terms used by other bible versions shows the same meaning of producing and forming it which is really synonymous to the word “created”. That is why this wisdom was called the master worker or craftsman who is being delight with his Father and who is beside of the Father. Can wisdom as nature of God can have delight to God and act as a master worker or craftsman who is beside of God? It cannot be possible unless the wisdom is a person. Jesus is also the “first” since he was the first one resurrected from dead who have eternal life in heaven and he is the one whom Jehovah appointed to be first in all things both in heaven and on earth. But this doesn’t mean he is Jehovah who is above everything. In 1 Corinthians 15:24 – 28 Jesus was described as the king who will hand over his kingdom to his God. Verse 25 clearly stated that God made him the king to put all God’s enemies under his feet but verse 27 and 28 clearly reveals that Jesus will subject himself to his God so that the God may be above in all. Thus in this verse it shows he is the “last” – the last person who will have the highest authority with everything in heaven and on earth and that he is also the last person who will subject himself to God and who will turn over his kingdom to the only true God.

What about the word “lord of lords” and “king of kings” which were used both to Jehovah (1 Timothy 6:15 – 16) and Jesus (Revelation 19:16)? Do these verses prove that they are one and coequal? No. Even Nebuchadnezzar was also called as “king of kings” in Daniel 2:37 but this doesn’t mean he is literally the king of all the other kings on earth. This only means that he is the most powerful king on earth on that time thus in his dream which was explained by Daniel that he (symbolizes by a tree in Daniel 4:4 – 37) is the most powerful on that time yet his kingdom will be taken away from him and this happened when he got sick mentally because he became too proud of himself however, he got back his power and kingdom when he recognized Jehovah as his God and humble himself in the eyes of God. This suggests also the same in reference to Jesus. He is the “king of kings” and “lord of lords” on the time it was given to him by Jehovah but Jehovah will be the King of all and Lord of all when Jesus subject himself to the God Almighty – 1 Corinthians 15:24 – 28.

THE UNRELIABILITY OF THE TRINITY DOCTRINE

Breaking the Trinity Doctrine Through Grammatical Force of Some Verses

A possible way to identify the truthfulness of a certain matter can be found through the grammatical force of some biblical verses. In this article, we will see two examples that I have found as interesting and strong proof to discredit the doctrine of trinity. The approach of this study is based on a simple grammatical rule. The word which is use in a sentence and its usage to clarify the thought of a sentence gives us way in knowing the truth of a particular subject. For an example of a word use to identify the subject, let us quote John 3:14 – 15.

14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life.

The person who was speaking on these verses was none other than Jesus. Thus the pronoun “him” which spoken about by Jesus is himself. However, when I say “You must trust him for you to have peace of mind”, of course the pronoun “him” would only refer to the speaker itself if he had just admitted to himself that he was the one whom he was referring about to the hearer. Obviously, it would have another person spoken about if the speaker would identify as to whom the word “him” really refers to. Thus the preceding statement or statements before his statement that identifies the pronoun “him” is necessary and important. Thus in John 3:15, the pronoun “him” is referring to the Son of Man which was mentioned in verse 14.

One example that gives us a revelation as to distinction and separateness of God and Jesus is from Jesus words in John 14:23 – 24 .

John 14: 23 – 24

23 In answer Jesus said to him: “If anyone loves me, he will observe my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make our abode with him. 24 He that does not love me does not observe my words; and the word that YOU are hearing is not mine, but belongs to the Father who sent me.

Notice in Jesus words that he used the pronoun “we” and “him”. The pronoun “we” is the same as “I and you” when the speaker is yourself or it could be “he and they” when it is stated by another person. While the pronoun “him” suggests another person to which they will come about. Once the subjects are said to come about to another subject, it is necessary and it should only be meant that the subject or object that they will come across to is really present before them. Therefore, when Jesus said this, he and those he mentioned that will be saved or the righteous people will come to a certain person. This one example from among many verses breaks the doctrine of trinity. For how come would Jesus bring or accompany those persons to the person he is saying (that he identifies as him) if he is also that person. This is very senseless thought to say that Jesus is Jehovah just as the same senseless thought of writing it in this English grammar – “we will come to me”. This is nothing but the same as “I and you will come to me” which is too illogical, nonsense and faulty statement. “I will come to me” as if we will break the sentence in to two cannot be considered as a sentence because there is no thought within the context. The truth in grammar which is very explicit to perceive by our understanding is that when someone says “we will come to…” it requires a thing which is really separate from the one who speaks and from those his companions. This is to say that “he and his companions” will come across to a certain thing, place or person. Thus the statement of Jesus as “we will come to him” makes sure of us that he will bring those righteous people to his Father. He will bring them near or present them before his Father (either heavenly or earthly hope) after the Great Day of Jehovah.

A verse that supports this example can be seen in Revelation 3:21.

Revelation 3:21

21 To those who are victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne. – TNIV

21To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. –  NIV

21To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. – KJV

21‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. – NASB

This verse is another proof against trinity. The preposition “with” as I discussed in my blog  explaining John 1:1 definitely requires that another thing is present with or within the subject that is spoken about. Thus in this clear verse, Jesus is described to be seated with his Father on its throne just the same as his people will be seated with him on his throne. A simple sentence that we may get the parallel thought of this verse is this “I sit with my friend”. There is no other meaning of it but to say that “I sit beside my friend”. There are many verses in the Bible use by Trinitarians though some of them are really deep in context and need an in depth study yet the examples above are very plain and obvious and have explicit thought which are undeniable and are understandable even by elementary grades which don’t need a deep explanation because the meaning is really bold in its structure. To sum up this, the grammatical structure of a sentence gives its meaning based on the strong force of meaning that it suggests which we cannot just deny or neglect whether it is literally or figuratively.

See this link for additional information that says Jehovah is not Jesus.

https://fromthesunrising.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/the-underlying-truth-in-john-11/

https://fromthesunrising.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/trinitya-false-doctrine-of-a-false-church/

https://fromthesunrising.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/about-john-11/

THE IMPLICIT THOUGHT OF JESUS IN JOHN 2:19 (AGAINST TRINITY)

THE IMPLICIT THOUGHT OF JESUS CHRIST IN JOHN 2:19

John 2:19 In answer Jesus said to them: “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

When Jesus said these words, the temple he is talking about is the congregation of God which is symbolize by his body (see Ephesians 1:22 – 23 and Colossians 1:18). A temple in dictionary means a place of worship or a church. Since Jesus’ body is the church or congregation of God, it is accurate to say that the temple refers to the congregation of God. Was Jesus saying that the congregation of God resides in his body? Certainly no! What Jesus meant was that his body gives life to and symbolizes the congregation of God. Thus when Jesus died, the congregation of God also cease for a moment but when Jesus resurrected the congregation of God also arose and continue to live just as in the same manner as Jesus arose and continue to live. In Jesus words the temple of God or the congregation of God could not be proven real if Jesus was not resurrected. Therefore, when Jesus spoke as to the temple (his body) to be destroyed, he made sure that he will build it again after three days thus he is saying that the congregation of God will not be worthless. This is true because his body symbolizes the congregation of God and if his body was destroyed by killing him and he was not resurrected, the congregation of God would not be valid and real for promoting the faith of resurrection and may consider as dead also. The life which gives by Jesus’ body (as a ransom) through his Father’s will can be found also in the congregation of God. It is through the congregation of God our faith established which lead us to eternal life. The faith we had in the congregation of God also founded our faith to Jehovah through Jesus Christ whom he appointed as our Savior. Now, the question is does these words of Jesus proved to be true that he was the one that cause himself to live again and so it supports the doctrine of Trinity? No. The words of Jesus here may have a deeper meaning. What Jesus was saying as he will build his temple again after three days would mean that he has the right to take back again what he would loss for a moment – his life. To have a clear thought of what I am saying, let us have an illustration. If for example I have a property which was taken away from me by someone, then because of my belief as my right to have it, I could also say “I will take it back again”. This shows the assertion of my legal right to take my property back again to myself. Do I have my own right or power to have it again? From whom my own right or my power will come from? Of course, I must have an authority or power that will grant my right to have it back. It is none other than through a law which will guarantee my right of having back my property. The court which represents by a judge or a jury is the one that will grant my vested right. Therefore, though Jesus said he will build again the temple, his words means implicitly that he has the right to establish it again through the right given by his Father and that his Father will act upon for him in connection to his right and not by himself alone. This is in conformity of his words in John 10:17 – 18 which states that he has authority to give and take back his life again. The word “authority” here that is used by Jesus doesn’t mean a literal power but rather right or privilege given to him by his Father. However, Jesus didn’t act for his right but rather his Father who gave his right was the one who acted on his behalf for his right to live again. Notice in verse 18 that he had received the authority from his Father and not by his self established authority. Thus, what Jesus meant on John 2:19 was that he will raise his body (spiritual) again not by his own effort but through his Father’s effort. He asserted implicitly to the people before that he will have his life back again through God’s will and not by his own will – that is through God’s power and not by his own power. It is true that the sacrifice will only take effect only through the death of a sacrifice. Jesus proved to be worthy of as a sacrifice since he died literally and he had placed his spirit unto his Father thus his spirit is not the one who made himself alive. It was through God’s will and God’s spirit that Jesus became alive.

Hebrews 9:16 – 18

16 For where there is a covenant, the death of the [human] covenanter needs to be furnished. 17 For a covenant is valid over dead [victims], since it is not in force at any time while the [human] covenanter is living. 18 Consequently neither was the former [covenant] inaugurated without blood. – NWT

16 In the case of a will, [a] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. – TNIV

Luke 23:46

46And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT.” Having said this, He breathed His last. – NASB

Acts 2:24 (among many verses)

24“But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. – NASB

Romans 8:11

11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

The Divine Name in Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament)

The Divine Name in the New Testament (Christian Greek Scriptures)

(An excerpt taken from the Watchtower site)

God’s Name and the “New Testament”
The name Jehovah
Jehovah’s name as it appears in a monastery in Bordesholm, Germany and over a church door in Fehmarn, Germany
The name Jehovah

THE position of God’s name is unshakable in the Hebrew Scriptures, the “Old Testament.” Although the Jews eventually stopped pronouncing it, their religious beliefs prevented them from removing the name when they made copies of older manuscripts of the Bible. Hence, the Hebrew Scriptures contain God’s name more often than any other name.

With the Christian Greek Scriptures, the “New Testament,” the situation is different. Manuscripts of the book of Revelation (the last book of the Bible) have God’s name in its abbreviated form, “Jah,” (in the word “Hallelujah”). But apart from that, no ancient Greek manuscript that we possess today of the books from Matthew to Revelation contains God’s name in full. Does that mean that the name should not be there? That would be surprising in view of the fact that Jesus’ followers recognized the importance of God’s name, and Jesus taught us to pray for God’s name to be sanctified. So what happened?

To understand this, remember that the manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures that we possess today are not the originals. The actual books written by Matthew, Luke and the other Bible writers were well used and quickly wore out. Hence, copies were made, and when those wore out, further copies were made of those copies. This is what we would expect, since the copies were usually made to be used, not preserved.

There are thousands of copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures in existence today, but most of them were made during or after the fourth century of our Common Era. This suggests a possibility: Did something happen to the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures before the fourth century that resulted in the omission of God’s name? The facts prove that something did.
The Name Was There

We can be sure that the apostle Matthew included God’s name in his Gospel. Why? Because he wrote it originally in Hebrew. In the fourth century, Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate, reported: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language . . . Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea.”

Since Matthew wrote in Hebrew, it is inconceivable that he did not use God’s name, especially when quoting from parts of the “Old Testament” that contained the name. However, other writers of the second part of the Bible wrote for a worldwide audience in the international language of that time, Greek. Hence, they did not quote from the original Hebrew writings but from the Septuagint Greek version. And even Matthew’s Gospel was eventually translated into Greek. Would God’s name have appeared in these Greek writings?

Well, some very old fragments of the Septuagint Version that actually existed in Jesus’ day have survived down to our day, and it is noteworthy that the personal name of God appeared in them. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 512) says: “Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb[rew] characters in the G[ree]k text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the O[ld] T[estament] in the first centuries A.D.” Therefore, whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in Hebrew or Greek, they would come across the divine name.

The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures properly uses God’s name 237 times

Thus, Professor George Howard, of the University of Georgia, U.S.A., made this comment: “When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations.” (Biblical Archaeology Review, March 1978, page 14) What authority would they have had to do otherwise?

God’s name remained in Greek translations of the “Old Testament” for a while longer. In the first half of the second century C.E., the Jewish proselyte Aquila made a new translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, and in this he represented God’s name by the Tetragrammaton in ancient Hebrew characters. In the third century, Origen wrote: “And in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today’s Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones.”

Even in the fourth century, Jerome writes in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: “And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton [Four Hebrew letters], in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters.”

The Removal of the Name

By this time, however, the apostasy foretold by Jesus had taken shape, and the name, although appearing in manuscripts, was used less and less. (Matthew 13:24-30; Acts 20:29, 30) Eventually, many readers did not even recognize what it was and Jerome reports that in his time “certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find [the Tetragrammaton] in Greek books, were accustomed to read Greek letters PIPI.”

In later copies of the Septuagint, God’s name was removed and words like “God” (The·os’) and “Lord” (Ky’ri·os) were substituted. We know that this happened because we have early fragments of the Septuagint where God’s name was included and later copies of those same parts of the Septuagint where God’s name has been removed.

The same thing occurred in the “New Testament,” or Christian Greek Scriptures. Professor George Howard goes on to say: “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.”

Hence, while Jews refused to pronounce God’s name, the apostate Christian church managed to remove it completely from Greek language manuscripts of both parts of the Bible, as well as from other language versions.

(Quoted from the articles of Watchtower)

Please see the link below that discusses the claims of the Ante-Nicene Fathers about Jehovah and Jesus and the other proofs that says Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and the other one for further explanations.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_03.htm

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/gods-name-inside-and-outside-of-the-nt-353447/

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/the-tetragrammaton-and-the-christian-greek-scriptu-215563/

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/the-septuagint-and-gods-name-yhwh-jhvh-169019/

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/yhwh-and-the-nt-syrohexapla-and-other-syriac-mss-165107/




THE UNDERLYING TRUTH IN JOHN 1:1

THE UNDERLYING TRUTH IN JOHN 1:1

(An Analysis Based on Grammar Syntax and Meaning)


One of the debatable topics in the Bible is John 1:1. Some Bible scholars translated the verse of John 1:1c as “the word was God” while the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) version translated it as “the Word was a god.” In this article we would find out whether it is possible to render it as “a god” as well as to know whether “God” in John 1:1c is correct. Many scholars say that if the subject and predicate has definite article (the), then both nouns are interchangeable.  As an example of this consider the study in Greek text of Matthew 13:38 which states, “the world is the field.” This would mean also as “the field is the world” which is true in the English grammar rule. However when the article is absent in the predicate then it would mean that they are not interchangeable. For example “the 144,000 people are chosen ones” could not mean as “the chosen ones are the 144,000 people.” In the previous example when using the concept of logic, one can say that all 144,000 people are chosen ones but one can never say that “the chosen ones are the 144,000 people” which would mean that the chosen ones are only 144,000 people and this is because we know that a lot of persons in the Bible are chosen people of God but not part of the 144,000. In studying logic, the validity of a sentence depends on how it is being delivered or structured. Thus, the sentence “the teacher is male” cannot mean as “the male is teacher” which would sounds bad definitely. So as with the sentence “the valedictorian was girl” (if for example it was written as the same as in Greek without article) cannot mean as “the girl was the valedictorian”. The first sentence states that the valedictorian was [a] girl (showing indefinite characteristics as of a girl and an indefinite noun who belongs from the class of girls), while the second sentence shows identity (a definite noun which was being identified from among the other students). The first sentence defines the characteristic of the valedictorian [i.e. the valedictorian has a nature of a girl] and that the valedictorian belongs to a group or class of girls while the second sentence identifies the valedictorian as the only girl who is different from the other students. This is true in the statement “the Word was God” which cannot mean as “[the] God was the Word” and “the Word is Man” which also cannot mean as “The Man is the Word” which is not in the rule of grammar (whether it could be in English or Greek) for the word God has no article and that it falls as a quality and not an identity – being an indefinite noun and not a definite noun. Unlike in the statement “the Word was a god’, it can mean definitely as “A god was the Word” which shows both sameness to “the valedictorian was girl” and “a girl was the valedictorian”. The statement “the valedictorian was girl” is almost the same as “the valedictorian was a girl”. The first statement shows that the valedictorian has a nature of a girl while the second statement shows the valedictorian is a girl [identified as a girl physically who has a nature of a girl and is belong to a group called girls]. To have a clear illustration of the thought let us have another example. Suppose the statement is “the model is girl”. How could we sense the sentence? The statement shows the model has a nature of being a girl. However, when you say “the model is a girl”, it really identifies as to what class or group of model it belongs i.e. it belongs from girls and on the other hand it also shows that the model has qualities like of a girl. The statement “the model is girl” is not really identifying the model as a literal girl but rather describing the model as it has the characteristics or attributes of a girl. Thus, when a model (suppose to be a male cross dresser is identified as “the model is girl./!”, it would definitely shows that he has a quality or nature of being a girl in the sense of fashion modeling and not that he is a girl (literally). Likewise, the statement “the model is a girl” shows that the model is identified as being literally a girl [someone who has the qualities or nature of being a girl] and is belong to the class or group of girls. So “the word was God” doesn’t really mean that the Word is the God Almighty but rather the Word is a god who has the quality or nature of God. The word “God” in John 1:1 that refers to the “Word” really refers only to someone who looks like a god. If we will not take the Word as “a god” and we take it as “God”, still the “Word” is described as someone who has the qualities or nature of a god therefore he is really a god. For if we say in a statement “Michael is spirit” we would always arrive in one conclusion – that is, Michael has the quality of being spirit (qualitative noun) and that he is a spirit from among many spirits (indefinite noun).

An example verse in the Greek Scriptures (NT) where Paul is identified as “theon” (god) without article is below. Here, Paul is being considered as a god and not the God. Someone who has a quality of a god because the power of God is manifested through him by the miracles he had performed in the eyes of many people. You can check the interlinear link of Acts 28:6 here (http://www.interlinearbible.org/acts/28.htm) Paul is described as GOD (THEON) without article therefore it shows qualitative and that he may be a god also.  Thus, we can say that if the subject is defined by a noun then it has an important and necessary force of meaning within that noun. However, we can only get the right and exact interpretation of the word based on the context of the whole sentence. We would not interpret the word that identifies the subject as it would contradict the other phrases. Thus, in getting the meaning of the word that identifies the subject, we have options on how to deal with the grammar structure of the whole sentence. These options that we may take vary on the degree of relevance of the word that defines the subject. Thus, when a sentence is translated into English we may have to look back for the original writings of that sentence whether it could be in Hebrew, Greek, Latin or Coptic and others. Basically, this is important and does matters especially when the word which is being identified has no related phrases to further support its identity. However, when the English translation is so obvious in its context we would need a little process on how we would deal with the words to interpret. In John 1:1b it is clear and obvious as it was said that the Word was with God. The preposition “with” when use in English varies differently according to its usage but basically all the usage of “with” when connected to the subject generally refers to something which is present with or within the subject. An example of this is: “I have come to this idea with my knowledge in English.” It means that I have known an idea because of the knowledge I have in English. Thus, my idea is presented with the knowledge I have. Another example using “with” as external objects is this: “He brought up this study with his colleagues.” Therefore, this means the person brought up a study together with his colleagues or it could be in this way, he and his colleagues brought up a study. Thus, there are two objects which are present with the brought up study. To have a plain example let us have this statement: “I went out with my friend” or “I am with my mother.” Obviously, a grade one American student could understand this plainly. That the two sentence means that I and my friend went out and I and my mother are together at the same time. Both suggest that there are two distinct subjects who are both present at a particular time.

In another example of the Watchtower in their magazine, the study presented in one example verse in Greek words “ho theos phos” which means “God is light” would not mean as “Light is God”. “Ho” is a definite article before theos but notice phos has no preceding definite article thus they are not interchangeable. They say this is also true in a Bible verse such as “God is a Spirit” which cannot be written interchangeably as “Spirit is God”. Take note the use of indefinite article (a) in that verse by the NWT translators to emphasize that God is a kind or sort of spirit. Some bible translation uses “God is Spirit” which made them conclude that Spirit is God (a person) and so likewise they would interchange it as “Spirit is God” (Holy Spirit is God). But this is not proper way to do so. The same also with “God is love” which is wrong to say as “Love is God”. These examples show that whenever God is describe by another noun which shows quality (that is abstract noun) or a noun that shows nature of God then the writer does not use article for the nouns that describes God. In John 1:1b it says that the “Word was with God” thus there are two separate beings that are together. Actually when you indicate definite article (the) before the word “God” in John 1:1b which makes it “the Word was with the God”, it would definitely mean very explicit that the Word is present with the God having a clear distinction of the two objects or subjects. Another example, “The Secretary was with the President.” It would mean that the Secretary is together with the President. In writing sentences in English which begins with God we usually don’t write the definite article “the” before God. Instead, we say like “God created everything” not “The God created everything” for we mean there is only one God that would stands for God – the Almighty. Now consider these examples:

1.      The Word was the King. (This is interchangeable – meaning the King is also the Word which is not acceptable in relation to verse we are talking because it would teach equality thus saying Jesus is Jehovah. Many scholars disregard this kind of translation in relation to John 1:1 but still they follow the doctrine of Sabellianism or the belief in a triune God that God became Jesus as a God-Man and died. The above example shows definiteness.)

2.      The Word was King. (Although it sounds not as good to the hearer, this clearly state a state of showing attribute or quality of being a king thus we may say in the verse above that we are talking that the Word was divine or having a godlike nature. This shows indefiniteness. This example really shows the meaning of John 1:1c. “The Word was King” shows that the word is a king who has the quality or attributes of being a king. This example shows not a definite king but rather indefinite from a group of kings. The Word is being described as a king who can compare to other kings but not the definite king who may be above and incomparable to other kings.)

3.      The Word was a king. (This indicates that the Word was one of a king from the class of kings. This would tell that the Word has the attributes of being a king and can have same nature as the other kings.)

Consider also the following statements in which the noun “man” is use by some scholars:

1.      “HE IS MAN.” – This really means that he is a man – a physical qualities and inner qualities that shows of being man. It does shows that the spoken about is human. For example: “Volta is man”. The peculiar name tells the hearer or reader as to what nature Volta has. Thus it suggests Volta has a nature like of a man therefore he is a man. The same suggests in the words “THE WORD IS GOD” in John 1:1c which really suggests “THE WORD IS A GOD”.

2.      “HE IS A MAN” – This really means that he has the good nature of being man; it shows attributes of a person that shows good qualities as man and that he is a man literally and belongs to a class of man.

3. “HE IS THE MAN” – This really means that he is identified as being “The Man” and would only refer to him as his identity who is distinct from all other men.

Thus you may render John 1:1c as “God” ONLY because the “Word” was divine in nature or having a godlike nature or is describe as being divine like of God but not to identify it as an identity as God (the Almighty) and it is also possible to translate it as “a god” for the Word is a kind or sort of god (that belongs to the class of gods) who is lower than the Almighty God Jehovah and has the qualities or nature of being god. It says in the Bible that the head of Christ is God and that he is going to give his kingdom to his Father after he defeated all his enemies and he will subject himself to God – 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:27 – 28) These shows that they are not equal (Jesus ≠ Jehovah). Other translations use “The Word is God” to say that he is the God himself or equivalent to Jehovah but in John 1:1b and verse 2 it does shows that they are not equal but distinct who are both present at the same time. One thing would fail in the nature of Jesus with Jehovah is Jesus was created and has beginning while the God Almighty has no beginning and no ending or cannot die. – Proverbs 8:22-31 (Jesus is called the master worker or the craftsman); Colossians 1:15, John 1:14, 18; Habakkuk 1:12; Psalms 90:2

If the reader would insist the Word is God (Jehovah) then he would be violating the truth in the second phrase which states, “the Word was with God”. Take note the Greek term used here is “TON THEON” which would refer to Almighty God. Now, using the verse as “the Word is a god” would sense very acceptable because it clearly distinguishes the two persons discuss in John 1:1b which is “the Word was with God” and also with verse 2 which states “This one was in [the] beginning with God”. In this verse it does not only suggests two subjects but also suggests the presence of the two subjects at the same time. The verse that would prove that Jesus is “a god” and not the “God” is John 1:14 and John 1:18: Let us see some of the different Bible versions.

14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth. – NWT

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.  – NASB

18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. – NWT

18No man has ever seen God at any time; the only [e]unique Son, or [f]the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known]. – AMP

Footnote:  f John 1:18 Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament: This reading is supported by “a great mass of ancient evidence.”

18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. – KJV

18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him – NASB

The evidence that it has the word “only-begotten” in Greek (which is monogeneses) from the early manuscripts would definitely show that Jesus was created by his Father or was begat by his Father but not literally. It only shows Jesus was brought up by his Father or in the same sense that someone has brought him in existence. He had just not existed by his own but someone had caused him to exist. Thus, he did not exist eternally but rather he existed from a definite time or from a very long and particular time ago. Some scholars say it should be translated as “one and only” for the root word of gennao was from “genos” which means “type” or “kind’ thus they say it could be “one of a kind” or simply “unique” and so the NIV and TNIV renders it as “one and only”. Even this word is going to use in the translation above, still it does not prove faulty that God is distinct and separate with the Word for the subject “only-begotten” or “only child” or “only one” is being described as the one who is in the bosom [position] of the Father that is the Word is in the presence of the Father literally because of the use of preposition “with” (NWT) but sadly, it is not the way it is written in other bible versions. However, when I say “the baby is in the bosom of the mother” how would it mean to a person? There is no other meaning of it than to say that the baby is in the close position (literally) of the mother. It cannot be the same as in a close relationship with someone because the Greek word for bosom which is “Kolpon” means place or position which requires a literal closeness of position of the two subjects spoken about. There is in no way to say that the Word (the begotten god) is equal with God (the Father) for they are described as they are both present at a particular time. Below is a quote that was taken from a commentator in one blog regarding John 1:1:

“As an aside to the discussion is the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c (Auw ne-u-noute pe p-shaje). The Coptic uses the indefinite noun possibly to refer to the abstract, or essence. More than likely the failure to use the article is possibly due to recognizing the previous phrase (Auw p-shaje ne-f-shoop n-nahrm p-noute) as contradictory if they did. Please note Horner’s Coptic translation (need this New Athena Unicode font) says, “[a] God was the word.” While he recognizes “a god” as a possible English translation of the Coptic, it is not the probable translation, based on the Greek.”

Notice that the commentator said that Horner statements said that “a god is not a probable translation based on Greek”. But how come the Coptic translated it as “a god”. The fact this was made in this translation is that the translators of the Coptic were really knowledgeable about the distinction of Jehovah and Jesus and that they see other texts on that chapter that identifies the separateness of God and Jesus in a same particular time. Many verses in the bible do not use article in Greek but when translated in English they use an indefinite article (a) to represent that the word is not definite or unique or simply to say that it belongs to a group or class of something.

Actually when a person said “HE IS GOD!”, it does shows that the person spoken about is like a god or that he is the God. To get the real meaning of what the speaker is trying to say is to see how it is being written. If this is translated in Greek and the speaker refers the person spoken about is the God then he would have to write an article before God and if the speaker refers the person spoken about as a quality and an indefinite noun then he have to leave the article before the word God showing that it is not an identity but rather a quality and an indefinite noun. Of course in English grammar the statement “He is God!” provide us two meanings. One is that he is [a] god showing a nature of God and the second is that He is God (the Creator). This now reveals our topic.  With this we can see that the first meaning applies to John 1:1c – that is the Word is a god [someone who belongs to gods] who has the nature of God but not the second meaning for it would show that Jesus is God (the Almighty) which is not in concordance with many verses in the Bible that speaks Jesus is not God (identity). Thus in order not to have misconception with the English translation of John 1:1c it should be necessary to render it as “a god” to emphasize that the word is not the God but a god who has the nature of God making it clear with the distinction of the Father and Son. In addition to this, God was addressed as the “Father” and Jesus as the “Son” in the Bible. Although Jesus was addressed also as a “Father”, God was never addressed as a “Son”. Likewise Jesus was addressed as a “brother” but God was never addressed as a “brother”. Moreover, God addressed his chosen ones as his “children” but Jesus addressed the little flock as to be his “brothers” and also Jehovah is identified as “Almighty God” but Jesus is only address as “Mighty God” and never as “Almighty God”.

rmnnoute shared a good comment on this post and he shared this link:

http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/2010/03/nominal-sentence-predicates-and-coptic.html

For discussion about the Trinity Doctrine please see the link below:

https://fromthesunrising.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/trinitya-false-doctrine-of-a-false-church/

For articles concerning about NWT please see the links below.

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/nwt-and-what-other-scholars-have-to-say-to-its-critics

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/nwt-and-other-translations-john-11

FOR IN-DEPTH discussion about qualitative, definite and indefinite nouns please see this link below.

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/the-word-was-a-god-and-qualitative-noun

ADDITIONAL STUDY:

Concerning about qualitative noun let us have examples again.

1.      “That boy is star!” and “That boy is a star.”

2.      “He is gay.” and “He is a gay.”

The first person in the first number indicates that the boy is describe as to being a star, suggesting he is famous and showing a quality of being a star while the second sentence in the first number indicates that he is a star who belongs to a group of stars. In the second example, the first person in the second number who is spoken about indicates a quality of being gay and so he may be therefore a gay. The second person in the second number indicates that he is a gay and belongs to a class of gays.  Both first examples in the two numbers show that the qualitative noun shows also as being an indefinite noun.

Now let us consider an example that is related issue to the Trinitarians.

“You are my princess.”

There are two meanings that implies here. The first one could be that she portrays the qualities of being a princess but never a literal princess in real life. Thus, it shows only qualitative but not definite or indefinite. The other one is, it implies that she is a literal or real princess in true life and she possesses the qualities of being a real princess and thus she belongs to a class of princess. Therefore, it suggest both qualitative and indefiniteness.

This is the thing that arises in theology in relation to John 1:1c. Some Trinitarians insist that the word “THEOS” is only qualitative and not definite nor indefinite because to say by them that “THEOS” is definite would mean the “Word” is “God [the Father]” but it prohibits them because of Greek grammar rule and to say the “Word” is indefinite means the “Word” is a god who belongs to a class of gods also dislike by them. Some still insist that “God” here is definite and would mean as “God” as being an identity even an anarthrous article (ho) is absent before the word “God”. However, this doesn’t hold true in Greek language when it comes to grammar rule and thus weakens the Colwell’s rule. If however, Trinitarians would not accept the word “THEOS” pertaining to the “Word” as indefinite noun but cannot accept it also as a definite noun because of the fact in the Greek grammar rule, and believing it is only a qualitative noun then there are two questions for them to be answered. One, if “THEOS” here in John 1:1c is qualitative only and they believe that Jesus is God as a definite being and consider no other gods, is it not true that being a qualitative noun as for a definite person (identity) means that the qualitative noun is also a definite noun? If yes, can you cite an example of qualitative noun in the Bible that suggests of being a definite noun or even in the English grammar? Second, if the qualitative noun is not a definite noun then how come it is not an indefinite noun?

Let us go back with the sentence “He is gay.” Obviously, the word ‘gay” is a qualitative noun. This shows not definite for there is no one consider as “the Gay” who is distinct from among the gays and so it is indefinite (a gay) who belongs to the class of gays. Trinitarians might use the point I have discussed in the examples above (as to the model and to the princess) that qualitative here maybe also refer to a definite noun but clearly in these two examples they are not have the legitimate characteristics to be called as a true girl and a true princess. In relation to “THEOS” in John 1:1c, some Trinitarians as those who claim it is both qualitative and definite noun only based their belief on assumptions on the belief that Jesus is God (the Almighty) founded back in the Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed without really understanding the real truth presented in the Bible. On the other hand the Jehovah’s Witnesses asserted they belief based on what the Scriptures states alongside with the logic of reasoning and understanding plus the evidence of the factual information written by the early people in the early history of Christianity.

Some Trinitarians (as I am not sure if all of them) believe that there are no other gods to be considered because they believe there is only one true God and all the other gods are false gods. True Christians (the JW) believes that there is only one true God (John 17:3) yet they believe that there are other called gods but never to be considered as false gods. Read Psalms 97:9; 136:2 and 1 Corinthians 8:5. Remember the word “Almighty God” would not be meaningful and worthy of the title itself unless there are called other gods. (Compare Psalms 135:5; Deuteronomy 10:17) Being Almighty God means being the most powerful God among the other gods.

So the word “THEOS” in John 1:1c implies it is qualitative and indefinite. Trinitarians can only say it is qualitative and definite only in a sense of assumption of the belief that the “Word” is also the Almighty God. Yet, when force by grammatical standard rules in Greek language and by the supporting verses that identifies Jesus as the Son of God, it does not cope with the truth that the “Word” is “a god” (indefinite identity) who belongs from among the other called gods. What does the Greek Scriptures portend grammatically? Because of vast examples of showing definite nouns with anarthrous article before the nouns itself, it thus shows that the Greek writers are really aware and applied the knowledge of identifying the definite and indefinite nouns. Now, is a NWT version a valid and truthful translation with regards to John 1:1? Really it is. To say that a person is “a god” is to say that he has qualities of being god. What is implicit in John 1:1c shows explicitly by the NWT translators. Therefore, the sentence “THEOS EN HO LOGOS” implies that the Word is a person who has divine qualities like of God.

The word “THEOS” in John 1:1c suggests explicitly of being qualitative but implicitly indefinite and the translation word “a god” for “THEOS” in John 1:1c implies explicitly that it is indefinite (i.e. he belongs from a class of gods) and implicitly shows qualitative (i.e. he has the qualities as of being a god). A vice-versa rule indeed!

QUALITATIVE NOUN  IMPLIES   INDEFINITE NOUN = INDEFINITE NOUN  IMPLIES  QUALITATIVE NOUN

(Note: This applies to some qualitative nouns and some indefinite nouns. But what matters here is that most qualitative nouns can be indefinite nouns. While not many indefinite nouns can be qualitative nouns.)

For a final example, let us consider these statements.

1.      “HE IS DEVIL.” (if however written in Greek)

Should we mean that he possesses the qualities of Devil and that he is the devil or that he is a devil that possesses the qualities of the Devil? This is another example in the Bible that does not have definite article and so in one verse it is translated as “a devil”. I have an explanation of like this in one of my blogs about John 1:1.

2.      “Enjoy the power of majesty.

Basically, majesty is a qualitative noun merely an abstract noun. We know that majesty is used for a high class of persons and this could be used for a king or god such as in the expression as “Your majesty”. Thus, the word “majesty” shows qualitative and that it shows also of being indefinite from among those called “majesty”.

Regarding Isaiah 45:5 and 44:8 and among others saying that there is no God other than Jehovah, this does not mean literally that there is no other gods apart from Jehovah since he himself told in many verses in the Bible that there are other gods just for example he said in Deuteronomy 10:17 which he said He is God of gods. Literally, he is God of gods (those who possess his nature of course i.e. love, wisdom, power and justice) and so it involves gods in heaven and on earth and this is true in 1 Corinthians 8:5 in relation to Psalms 82:6 and Psalms 8:5* [*see the word used in Interlinear which suggest of being godlike because of the root word which suggest of being god]. Therefore, when Jehovah said that there is no God other than him, it is not literally but lexically with deeper sense, he is implying that there is no one like him being identified as the only true God (John 17:3) i.e. no other gods can be equated to him for all those gods are just like dust to him though he give importance with those gods he created and belongs to him and for him. He is identifying himself as someone who is unique and is incomparable with the other gods. We must interpret the words of Jehovah not as we understood it in literal way but through its lexical force of meaning and beyond what we thought plainly but according to his thought and not by our own understanding.

Regarding Isaiah 44:24 and among other verses, it is true that Jehovah who is Almighty God claim that he alone stretches the heavens and made the earth yet this doesn’t mean Jesus Christ is not with him. Although he asked who is with him and said no god is beside him, which would sound that he is alone by that time and he is alone when he stretches the heavens and made the earth, this doesn’t mean of literal interpretation. What he is saying that subject by himself alone (i.e. through HIS AUTHORITY, POWER AND SPIRIT) all of the things in the universe were created because of himself alone. When I say, “I, by myself  built this good system of government.”, would it not mean that I may have used someone or others who have helped me to built the good system of government I have planned to have? Also in this statement, “I by myself created this movie.” Does it only limit to myself or rather it may mean that there are persons involved when I created the movie? It only means that subject to the original thought of the creator of the movie as well as being part of the creation of the movie, he gave his authority, power and direction to others to create the movie he wanted. Therefore, God as the Creator alone or as the one who created the universe by himself alone means lexically (beyond the shallow thought of the sentence and in order not to contradict with the other proofs about Jesus Christ as being also his partner in creating all things) that He is the only one from whom by himself his original thought and plans were executed and subject only by himself alone. Now we can understand that in the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures), Jehovah is proclaiming himself as the only one who has authority and power above all yet when he sent Jesus Christ to earth, he introduced him as someone he used to create all things in heaven and on earth (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17) thus giving Jesus Christ the authority, power and spirit but in accordance or subject with the will of God. His will in the New Testament (Christian Greek Scriptures) is to reveal his son to mankind as the Son of God and that his son is the appointed ruler of all things both in heaven and on earth (Hebrews 2:8; 1 Peter 3:22; 1 Corinthians 15:27 – 28). But before the book of Isaiah were written it was foretold earlier that the Wisdom (personification of Jesus Christ) was beside of God who is acting as the master worker of God – Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30 (Note: He was the beginning of the works of Jehovah and he was set up or established but the literal wisdom of God is something which is eternally possess by God as he existed eternally yet this Wisdom (Jesus Christ) was said to be set up or established thus it means he was brought up into existence i.e. from being inexistence into being existence. Some would say before the universe were set up or created there is no knowledge upon yet that is why God created or establish his wisdom in himself. Is the Wisdom really the wisdom of God as it is the nature of God? No, because the wisdom of God is in his mind and acting only as his instrument in understanding his will. However, this Wisdom was called to be at the side of God who is delighted with God and acting as someone who has wisdom in creating things (Proverbs 8:30). If I have knowledge about something and wanted to build something through it, could my wisdom create that thought in my mind into physical things? Certainly no. But rather in order to have the concrete product of my thought, I will use someone/something who/that will help me to concretize the wisdom I have in my mind and that the person I will use will have the likeness of wisdom I have thus we will be having the same idea and so we can create the things which I wanted to create. Finally, we should remember that it is not through the mind (as if the mind can produce and hold things together) of God that all things were created but rather it is through his spirit (compare Psalms 33:6 104:30; Job 33:4) everything were created and that all hold together. Yes, the mind is used by God in organizing his will but not in creating though he uses it of course but it is through his spirit which is the powerful force in the universe that he use to perform or execute his will including in creating things.

In the concept of JOHN 1:1 the word THEON is a definite being of which he is identified as an identity. From the word THEON/THEOS (definite) there would be class of theon/theos of which they are in the nature of the word THEON/THEOS but they are indefinite from the groupmates of theon/theos. They show the qualities of being THEOS/THEON but not of the same substance or composition of THE THEON/THEOS. So whether they are taken as a whole group (all the theos/theon) but considered everyone individually or as individual they are really indefinite from among the other members of the group and are not really the same with THE THEOS/THEON which is identified as a single entity. Therefore, even the word “law” without article denotes all the laws of THE LAW it does not convey of being THE LAW but it suggest of all the laws in the law taken individually which are indefinite from among all the other laws within The Law and have the nature or qualities of being called a law. Lastly, if the Set A is THE THEOS from whom he created the class of theos which are his subsets, then every theos he created are being indefinite from among the other theos (elements) that THEOS had created and are his elements but all the theos or every theos is not the set THE THEOS. To have an example suppose a box is set A and its element is a ball (b). The element which is ball cannot be Set A since they are really different in nature. But what it says here is that A contains b and that b cannot contain A since you cannot put the box on the ball.

I do not say that this topic is of high level of proving yet I hope it may help in giving a more concrete explanation about the subject core I have discussed.

Here is the link about the words of Colin which got me interested to tackle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/NF2213235?thread=8151777

ANOTHER SCOPE OF STUDY:

Yes, it is true that there are some instances in the Bible that speaks of God yet without article in Greek texts but how come the word “God” in John 1:1c should not mean definitely as the God but should determine only as “a god” that shows in the nature of the God?  The reasoning of Trinitarians in finding the many instances of word “God” without article in the Greek texts that suggest of being God himself is really shallow in thinking. Why? First, they do think that nouns without article is always definite which is not always true and with the other nouns (count nouns) without article can they say it can be a definite noun? Why for certain reason that those count nouns without article (except as identified explicitly by the context of the verse that the count noun is definite) is always indefinite? Why not use the same thought of being definite like of the word “God” without article without hesitantly doing it with the count nouns without article? The real thing is it cannot apply that thought of being definite since it is always identified that all the definite count nouns should have the definite article (the) except for those without article but clearly conveys of being definite because of the supporting context of a verse given. However, when speaking of the word “God”, whether there is an article present or absent before the word “God” if the context of the verse conveys of being the definite God then it has always no problem dealing with the word “God” as to be definite because it is really a requirement to do so that the rendering of the word “God” should be definite and not indefinite. If Trinitarians would insist in a way that “God” without article would show definite in many instances as it is acceptable even with those who believes only in one person God and would use this to back up the case in John 1:1c then why not by the same logic of reasoning use the same concept of definiteness with those nouns without article? The main point that always pointing by the Trinitarians is that God without article that refers to God is always definite and since they believe Jesus is God then he is God definitely. Even if we write in English translations the word THEON and THEOS of John 1:1 with the word “God” as it may be written as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word” [I put it in a literal transliteration of the original Greek], or in very transliterated way of the original root word of the Greek text as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards to [the] God, and God was the Word”, should we say that the Word is [the] God? Even getting the meaning of it literally it cannot equate equivalently since the Word is towards with the God and so would mean that in the beginning the Word was coming closer with [the] God. How about “and God was the Word”? Since many Trinitarians misinterpreted the word “God” in John 1:1c which they refer to God (the Father) but others only as the qualities of the Father (the divinely being of the Father) then they say that “the Word is God” would mean as “the Word is Divine” (in which I agree also) or “what the God was, the Word was” (in which I do not agree which means having same substance). If we will put on a mapping the word that identifies the qualities of God as the divinely being of the Father in the original Greek text of clause c then we will have “the divinely being of the Father was the Word” but it cannot be and would never be the same as “the Divine Being was the Word” which shows sameness with “the God was the Word” or “what the God was the Word was.” Let us focus on the words “the divinely being of the Father was the Word”. The divinely being of the Father includes all the qualities and nature of the Father which composed of love, power, wisdom and justice and all these four major qualities of God is represented by the Word and not just as “what the Father was the Word was” which shows of same or equivalent substance. What it conveys here is that the full attributes or divine nature of the Father can be seen through the Word (compare Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15). Even in the Holy Scriptures these four major divine attributes of God which is love, wisdom, power and justice can be seen clearly from all the creation of God or of all the things he made or done – Romans 1:20. But the divine attributes of God is not limited unlike all the things he made or created. However, these works or creation [which are temporal in its qualities or in its own sense unlike with Jehovah] of Jehovah including Jesus as the Wisdom (Proverbs 8:22,23,30) shows the very attributes of the divinely being of the Father. Now, since the Father has divinely being of himself then he of course can be called as The Divine Being (identity). And since the Divine Being (the Father) has divinely being to himself and that his divinely being is represented by the Word or can be seen through the Word, then the Word is absolutely a divine being who has divinely being just like as of the Father. Thus, God who shows the qualities of being God himself is represented by Jesus who is also a god which shows the qualities of being God (Divine Being). In conclusion, the possible transliteration of the original Greek text of John 1:1 is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards to [the] God, and the divinely being of God* was the Word.” But it is more acceptable and par of John 1:1c if this is translated as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and being divine was the Word.” And as I have explained above the possible parallel translation of these in its core meaning is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word is being divine” or “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a divine being [or a god].”

*The divinely being of God may show as the equivalent meaning of the qualitative noun “God” in John 1:1c of which the qualities of God can be seen through the Word or that it represents by the Word (see 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30) thus the Word has the qualities of God or of being divine or has godly nature and therefore can be called as a god who has also the nature of God.

Another good literal transliteration of John 1:1c is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards to [the] God, and being like God was the Word” or in a good translation in English we may have “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and being like God was the Word.” Therefore in proper English structure translation it would be “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was being like God.”

Let us focus on the third clause. The word “being like God” literally means of showing the qualities or nature of being God thus the Word was being like God in the beginning or in contractions it would definitely become as “the Word was like God.” In illustration if I say “the girl is like the princess” it means that the girl I am spoken about looks like the princess I am talking about. In other words, the girl shows her qualities of being a princess like of the princess (definite) I have mentioned and not the girl is being or becoming the princess. This means that the girl has the qualities of the princess but it does not conveys that all the exact and full nature of the princess is in her as like the identity of the princess was incarnated to her. The girl of being like a princess represents the whole being of the Princess but not really acting as the Princess or in other words the full nature of the Princess can be seen through her but not all the full nature of the Princess is also in her. She is only the representation or the manifestation of the princess i.e. the full qualities of the princess can be seen through her but her qualities are not the same or exact with the full attributes of the Princess. Therefore, the words “the Word is like God” simply shows that the Word shows the qualities like of [the] God and not that he is being God or the God and so in conclusion we can say that he is a god possessing the nature of God.

Thus the translation “The Word is Divine” only means that the Word is being divine and that he is a divine being but not as he is the Divine Being [the Father] (Compare Philippians 2:6).

What about the terms “It is in him that all the fullness of “THEOTES” dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9)

THEOTES could have a meaning of a Diety, God, being God, divine nature/qualities

If we would write the words as “It is in him that all the fullness of the Diety dwells bodily.”

And since the Diety means Godhead then Trinitarians insist that the Diety which is the Godhead [God] is also Jesus.

Again, as I have explained in the previous above the divinely being of the Father (i.e.) his full nature of being God can be seen through Jesus or represents by Jesus. Thus, even it may mean as all the fullness of God resides in Jesus this does not mean that Jesus is also God. What the real context mean is that all the divine nature of God can be seen bodily or physically (i.e. by the naked eyes of man and by perceiving the wonders of works of God) through Jesus or that all the divine nature of God represents by Jesus since Jesus is the exact representation of the Father (Hebrews 1:3) and the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) and that through him ALL THINGS were created (1 Colossians 1:16 – 17, Proverbs 8:30; John 1:3) which of course literally shows the full divine attributes of the Father. Like I have said about the girl who is like a princess, the girl never exists as the incarnated identity of the princess. The same thought can be seen between God and the Word. The Word never exists as the incarnated identity of God. To have a clear concrete illustration, let us say “Denver is the exact image of his father Billy.” or “Denver is the exact representation of his Father Billy.” Even you get the DNA analysis of Denver it would never be the same as unique as the DNA of the father Billy! To point one of the uniqueness of each other is their fingerprints. Clearly as asserted by Science no one in the world have the same fingerprint! What about the other qualities like the level of their IQ (wisdom), their inner personalities (emotional IQ), their physical image and strengths (power), the marks on their body, their ways of their thinking (judgment), their likes and interest, etc. Thus, even Denver is the exact image of the father Billy then it must not to conclude that Denver is the Father Billy. Thus, the sentence could only mean as “Denver has qualities like of his Father Billy.” The only acceptable and undeniable truth if Jesus is God (the Father) is that there would be words written as “and God became the Word” or “and God became Jesus” or “and God became the Son” however, no text or even single hint in all the Scriptures that gives this plain understanding.

Thus, the words “It is in him that all the fullness of the Diety dwells bodily” would only mean as “It is in him that all the full divine qualities (or nature) [of God] dwells bodily.”

See this in depth study about Colossians 2:9 in this link: (http://jehovah.to/xlation/theotes.html)

Here are the examples of words that are of the same structure as of divinely being:

powerful being, merciful being, godly being, friendly being, loyal being, almighty being, cheerful being, crazy being, etc.

AN OLD EXPOSITION ABOUT THE DIVINE NAME

The Name of God: Should We Used it or Not?

(An Old Exposition about the Name of God)

Most religions in Christianity believe that LORD and God are enough to address the God Almighty. For them, since the Christian Greek Scriptures or the New Testament (from which they claim the manuscripts found were original) has no name of God but rather only Lord and God and so they say it is proper and acceptable to call God in that way. These religions are deliberately criticizing the Jehovah’s Witnesses for using Jehovah as the name of God. For them it is a false and an invented name and an improper way of addressing God. However, despite of this, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are still upholding for their faith using the name Jehovah as the name of God. Some questions the Jehovah’s Witnesses as if why Jehovah is only the acceptable name of God. The Watchtower is claiming that Jehovah is the only acceptable name for God since they believe that they are the true God’s nation and they assert that the name they call upon is the appropriate and the only name of God which is in the true congregation of God. Thus, whoever believes in their presented biblical doctrines then they have to accept this name. For how can you accept the true teachings of the true God through his true congregation and yet denying the name of God that they call upon? On the other hand, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are using many different forms of name of God that differs in pronunciation. You can check those forms of name in  https://fromthesunrising.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/the-divine-name/ Moreover, the name Yahweh is recognized by the Watchtower because it is also a possible name of God because it contains the tetragrammaton (YHWH). The Watchtower had accepted the use of the name Jehovah as the name of God since this is the name that is being used and was common to the people as early as in the 14th century and is being written in some literatures by early writers before. While the name Yahweh originated only in 19th century. Some would say, “Since the Watchtower recognize Yahweh, it is also possible to use other names that have tetragrammaton.” While other claims it is possible to call God as Jahveh or Yahveh, still I believe the Watchtower believes in only one name of God just as what Zechariah 14:9 states. So we cannot just accept other names for God especially when the tetragrammaton is not in the formed name of God. Others say Jehovah’s Witnesses is uncertain in the right pronunciation of the original name of God so it is not also proper to say or use Jehovah. That is not a big problem in addressing God. Many names in the Bible differ in some languages. As I have said lately, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are using many different forms of name of God according to their own language. They may differ in pronunciation yet it is all the same in English translation of the name of God which is Jehovah. Others say Yahweh is more correct since it has all the tetragrammaton (YHWH) unlike Jehovah which has JHVH. The Modern Hebrew alphabet does not have Y and W now. It has changed to J and V. For Hebrew Alphabet and Modern Hebrew Alphabet please see this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet#The_alphabet

We all know that some names in Hebrew Bible starts with Y such as Yeshayahu, Yeremeyahu, Ya’akov, Yonah, Yonathan (not quite sure with this) and others were translated as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jacob, Jonah and Jonathan in English translation respectively. But we accept all of these translations having  no problem in dealing with these names. Jesus was written as Iesous in Greek and it was believed by many scholars and was accepted by many religions in Christianity that it maybe pronounced as Yeshua or Yehoshua in Hebrew and since this is true we accept the name of Jesus in our Bible translations having no problem on how it was pronounced before. The names in the Bible were written in different languages. Malachi is Malakias in Tagalog. Isaiah is Isaias in Tagalog, Peter is Pedro, John is Juan, Stephen is Esteban and James is Santiago (which is quite so far from English) in Tagalog. All of these names in Tagalog are accepted by Filipino. In other countries they also render these names according to their own language. So what’s the problem in pronouncing the name of God in different ways? We all accept it because of our faith and believe in the identity and personality of the carrier of that name. So why questions the name Jehovah? The question that should be asked by all is should we not use the name of God? The answer can be found in Romans 10:13.

Romans 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” – NWT

13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” – TNIV

Joel 2:31 – 32

31 The sun itself will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah. 32 And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah is calling.” – NWT

31 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.

32 And everyone who calls
on the name of the LORD will be saved
;
for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
there will be deliverance,
as the LORD has said,
even among the survivors
whom the LORD calls. – TNIV

The original Hebrew texts contain the Divine Name for that verses that is why NWT has the name Jehovah. It is said that all people who is calling the name of God will be saved. Is only by calling the name of God assures our salvation? No. It is clear in James 2:26 that faith without works is dead. Faith without works is useless. It is like having wisdom yet not applying the truth or righteousness in your life. Wisdom alone cannot save us. But what matters to God is the love. The love for the truth and love for God. The love for the truth is the love for accurate knowledge about the word of God and the love for God is to follow his commands – 1 John 5:3. When you follow his commands then you follow his will and following his will means righteousness. And what is his will concerning his name? We are all required to praise him. All living things are required to praise God – Psalms 150:6. How are going to praise God? Of course the first way is to praise him through his name. Read Psalms 148:1 – 14.

Psalms 148:1-14

Praise Jah, YOU people!
Praise Jehovah from the heavens,
Praise him in the heights.

2 Praise him, all YOU his angels.
Praise him, all YOU his army.

3 Praise him, YOU sun and moon.
Praise him, all YOU stars of light.

4 Praise him, YOU heavens of the heavens,
And YOU waters that are above the heavens.

5 Let them praise the name of Jehovah;
For he himself commanded, and they were created.

6 And he keeps them standing forever, to time indefinite.
A regulation he has given, and it will not pass away.

7 Praise Jehovah from the earth,
YOU sea monsters and all YOU watery deeps,

8 YOU fire and hail, snow and thick smoke,
You tempestuous wind, accomplishing his word,

9 YOU mountains and all YOU hills,
YOU fruit trees and all YOU cedars,

10 YOU wild animals and all YOU domestic animals,
YOU creeping things and winged birds,

11 YOU kings of the earth and all YOU national groups,
YOU princes and all YOU judges of the earth,

12 YOU young men and also YOU virgins,
YOU old men together with boys.

13 Let them praise the name of Jehovah,
For his name alone is unreachably high.
His dignity is above earth and heaven.

14 And he will exalt the horn of his people,
The praise of all his loyal ones,
Of the sons of Israel, the people near to him.
Praise Jah, YOU people!

Take note verse 5 and 13. What does it says? God calls us to praise his name. There are other verses in the Bible that required human to praise the name of God.  Back to Romans 10:13. In other versions it is only “call upon the name of the Lord” but what name should we call upon? When Paul wrote Romans 10:13, he quoted it from Joel 2:32 however, take a look of verse 31. When this is about to happen? It is in the coming Armageddon – on the Great Day of Jehovah. It was said that all who is calling upon the name Jehovah will be saved. Thus, we really need a name for God to call upon for us to have salvation. In addition to this, Psalms 68:4 provides us that Jah (YH = י ה , read backwards) is a short form of the name of God. You can see it in the original translation of KJV. The name Jehovah can be found also in Psalms 83:18 in KJV and Ang Dating Biblia or Ang Biblia. Thus, looking the name Jah in Hebrew Scriptures with tetragrammaton we can see that it has YH. All the names Jah and Jehovah in Hebrew Scriptures which can be found in Interlinear Bible corresponds from proper characters in Hebrew Scriptures for the name of God i.e. YH (

י ה

)and the tetragrammaton YHWH (

י ה ו ה

) How come Jehovah’s Witnesses is sure of the name Jah? It is because in the book of Revelation in the New Testament there is a word Aleluia in Greek which is the same as Halleluyah in Hebrew and when translated in English it becomes Hallelujah which means praise Jah (see Revelation 19:1,3 from NWT and other bible versions). “Hallelujah” or “praise God” is accepted by Christianity. Since Jesus was Iesous in Greek and might be pronounce his name in Hebrew as Yeshua of Yehoshua which has Y in the beginning of his name then it is also true that Jah is a translation of Yah which is Ia in Greek. Thus the last two letters in Allelouia in Greek language [IA] (wherein there is no letter H) was really from Ya which is also Yah. How sure that Ia is Yah? Notice if we are going to see again Psalms 68:4 which has a short form of a name of God which is (

י ה

)  we can also be sure that Ia (Ya) is really Yah because in all short form of names of God in Hebrew it has two characters which is YH. The J and V as modern translation of Y and W in Hebrew was formed now in the name Jehovah. While YH becomes JH in modern Hebrew Alphabet. Thus Jah (Yah) from YH is really the actual and correct and UNDENIABLE short form of the name of God.  Actually, there are early manuscripts that shows the IAW as the name of God in Greek which when dividing the letters will become IA – W and that is Ya (Yah) and W. Thus we may have YHW which was written in early inscriptions in stone in one particular area. I remember I have read an article that this name came from the people called Shasou or Shosou. This article is dated on May 1, 2010.Many scholars believe that this is the name of God.

Psalms 83:18

18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth. – KJV

18 Upang kanilang maalaman na ikaw lamang, na ang pangalan ay JEHOVA, ay Kataastaasan sa buong lupa. – Ang Dating Biblia o Ang Biblia

See this link   http://adb.scripturetext.com/psalms/83.htm

Psalms 68:4

4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him. – KJV

Revelation 19:1, 3

1 After these things I heard what was as a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven. They said: “Praise Jah, YOU people! The salvation and the glory and the power belong to our God,

3 And right away for the second time they said: “Praise Jah, YOU people! And the smoke from her goes on ascending forever and ever.” – NWT

1And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:

3And again they said, Alleluia And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. – KJV

1After these things I heard something like a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, “Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God;

Please see the link below that shows the original writing in Greek of the word “hallelujah”.

http://interlinearbible.org/revelation/19.htm

2BECAUSE HIS JUDGMENTS ARE TRUE AND RIGHTEOUS; for He has judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality, and HE HAS AVENGED THE BLOOD OF HIS BOND-SERVANTS ON HER.”

3And a second time they said, “Hallelujah! HER SMOKE RISES UP FOREVER AND EVER.” – NASB

Please see the following links below for further reading concerning the name of God.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/index.htm

http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/index.htm

The word hallelujah was taken from Hebrew word halleluyah wherein the word hallelu means praise followed by YH which is Yah. You can check Psalms 150 in the link below to see the word hallelujah.

http://interlinearbible.org/psalms/150.htm

Notice the other word praise (hallelu) which is also in this link and is connected in the word hallelujah.