Archive for the ‘Defending NWT – REEDITED’ Category

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 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.

TITUS 2:13 – ONE IDENTITY OR TWO IDENTITIES

TITUS 2:13

NWT:   13 while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus,

TNIV:   13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

KJV:      13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

NASB:  13looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

DISCUSSION:

Trinitarians insist that NWT is again faulty here because of insertion of the word “the” which makes God and Jesus as two distinct persons. They use Isaiah 43:11 as a proof that since Jesus is also called as a savior also such as in Luke 2:11 and John 4:42, they conclude that Jehovah and Jesus are coequal. Isaiah 43:11 says, “I, even I, am the Lord [Yahweh], and apart from me there is no savior.” However, those statements should not be treated as they are equal persons. Jude 1:25 clearly states that Jehovah is the savior through Jesus Christ. How we are going to understand this? The word “through” has also the same as by, by way of or by means of. Obviously, when using the word “by means of” as substitute terms for “through” this could lead to this statement: Jehovah is the savior by means of Jesus. Although, the latter statement may sounds like as not as good as the first statement, still we could clearly see that it delivers the same meaning i.e. Jehovah gave his son Jesus the authority to be the savior of mankind in relation to his will. But, to some point of view of some critics, they might say that Jehovah is the savior in the person of Jesus. However, this couldn’t be possible. If we are going to modify the statement by using the exact thinking of these critics we could possibly restate the statement as “Jehovah is the savior in the person of Jesus Christ” which I truly believe not in parallel with the original statement. Trinitarians of course can say that it can be possible but from the point of view of the writer of this verse, he is definitely aware of the distinction of Jehovah and Jesus and nowhere in the Greek Scriptures uses the words “in the person of Jesus” by those writers. This is really a raising issue that if the Greek writers really believe that Jehovah comes in the person of Jesus, they would use at least the possible Greek terms that would identify Jehovah’s coming in the person of Jesus. Contrary to that, these Greek writers clearly identify Jehovah and Jesus as separate individuals. Though some critics insist of some verses that points their equality like the words “the Word is God” and “the Father and I are one” still, it does not validate the statements because of the following verses on it that point out or clearly suggest their distinction. What I am trying to say is, if Jesus is really Jehovah then why there is no literal claim from Jesus himself and from his apostles that he is really God (the Almighty) – that is saying that Jehovah is in the person of Jesus. To have an illustration of this, an actor can say he is portraying a character in the person of that name. This is the same as he with his own real name is portraying another character in a role with a screen name. Thus, he leaves his present identity to portray another character in a role. This didn’t happen with Jesus. All of his life on earth he addressed his Father and prayed to him. This is in contrast with the truth that Jesus was sent by Jehovah to be the savior of the world – 1 John 4:14 and that Jehovah exalted Jesus on his right hand to be the Leader and Savior of the people – Acts 5:31.

MATTHEW 14:33 (and among others) – worship or obeisance?

MATTHEW 14:33

NWT:     33 Then those in the boat did obeisance to him, saying: “You are really God’s Son.”

TNIV:     33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

KJV:       33Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

NASB:      33And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!”

DISCUSSION:

The Greek word used for the verse is “proskyneo” (some use proskuneo) which can be transliterated as to “worship” or “obeisance”. The two words can also be defined as “giving a homage” or simply showing a respect, however “worship” means much more. It involves praying to the only God and claiming that he is the only true God. NWT critics and Trinitarians question why almost all Bible versions used the word “worship” to this particular verse unlike in NWT. Since the NWT translators believe that Jesus is not to be worshipped but rather worship should only be given to Jehovah alone and so the translators did it. How did the NWT translators say it so? In Matthew 4:8 – 10, Jesus told to Satan that Jehovah is the only one that should be worshipped and he quoted it from Deuteronomy 6:13 or Deuteronomy 10:20. If Jesus is God that should be worshipped then eventually he have just told to Satan that Satan must be the one to worship him. If Jesus wants to identify himself in the third person (as what claims by Trinitarians), then it must come to know to Satan that he is God and so why would Satan asked Jesus to worship him if Jesus is the God who created everything including him? It would be awkward to Jesus as if he is God who created everything yet commanded by his only created being to bow and worship on him. It would be a great insult to Jesus (if he is God) and a foolishness of Satan to express that to Jesus if Jesus is God. Satan addressed Jesus as “if you are the Son of God” and not as if Jesus is God. Would this mean he really don’t know the identity of Jesus or is he confused as to who is Jesus? Certainly no. Trinitarians insist Jesus as God and claimed they truly know God what more could it be for Satan to know as to who is Jesus to distingiush from God when he (Satan) read also Scriptures as a way of testing Jesus and it could be a definitely way for him to identify God and Jesus because of one that he might read in Exodus 33:20 which I think cannot perceive by the Trinitarians and that is no one can see God. And the best proof is that he had seen before the separateness of Jesus and Jehovah when he is with them in heaven. So there is no reason to doubt as Jesus is not God but rather the Son of God. That is why he addressed him “if you are the Son of God” not “if you are God”. Thus, when Jesus (as man) answered Satan, that only Jehovah is worthy of worship, he really meant it that way. In the verse above, if Jesus (as man) was really worship by the people and Jesus did not rebuke any person then he is lying to himself, to Satan, to the person itself and to Jehovah in relation to his words to Satan. Therefore, NWT translators used the word “do obeisance” and not “worship” in many texts in reference to Jesus (as man) to show that Jesus was only given a homage or respect by many people. How about the word “worship” to other texts in the Bible that refers to other identities? NWT is not biased. The word “worship” on other texts shows that those identities that refer to it are being worship (i.e. praying and trusting to it) by some people and not only as by giving respect or homage. However, when Jesus exalted to his position by his Father, God commanded all the angels to worship Jesus – Hebrews 1:6. The Watchtower explained that they applied the word worship in reference to Jesus because he was already exalted by his Father and all the authority was given to him on heaven and on earth. What Jesus (as man) proved that he is not worthy of worship and that only his Father deserved it, is when he said that he did not come to be served but to serve – Matthew 20:28. In his words he is showing that he as a one sent by God and as a man on that time, he is not worthy to be praised or worship by the people at that time. This is in relation to his words in John 5:41 in which he said he don’t seek praise from the people. In dictionary, the word “praise” means expression of approval or admiration and worship. Since Jesus (as man) doesn’t want to be praised then he of course is saying that he is not worthy of worship from man and this is true when he said in Mark 10:18 that only God is good and not even himself. Two from among many verses that proves Jehovah and Jesus are distinct to each other but are present together at the same time can be seen on the verses below.

Daniel 7:13 13 “I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One.

NASB:     13“I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.

This is in relation to Daniel 7:9 “I kept on beholding until there were thrones placed and the Ancient of Days sat down. His clothing was white just like snow, and the hair of his head was like clean wool. His throne was flames of fire; its wheels were a burning fire.

Revelation 1:1 1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: – KJV

Notice the verses above. It is clearly stated that Jesus, the Son of Man is appearing in front or in the presence of God.

For in depth discussion about the word “proskyneo” please see the link below.

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/proskyneo-always–44398/

ABOUT JOHN 8:58 – “I AM”

JOHN 8:58

NWT:   58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

TNIV: 58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

KJV:    58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

NASB:   58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

DISCUSSION:

Many critics are spreading their derogation to NWT about this verse. Trinitarians are very eager to discredit the NWT and the Watchtower by throwing false accusation as tampering the Word of God. Since Jesus also used the word “I am” which Jehovah also said to Moses in Exodus 3:14, then they conclude that they are the same and coequal. However, when studying the name of God as to what it means, some scholars noticed the three letter “HWH” (hawah or havah) has a basic meaning of “to be” indicating of an action word or verb. Since the Hebrew Scriptures don’t use “be verbs” which we know as is, was, are, were, am, and will, the main verb “to be” in the Hebrew language means that it had became, it is (becoming) or will become. Thus, when a word is described as it had became or it is becoming or will become, all words pertaining to an action use Hebrew verbs that indicates “to be”. Therefore when someone states “he was a doctor, he is the father, or he will become king”, the word/s used to identify the becoming of such a person or thing has one meaning which is “to be”. Thus, when Jehovah spoke to Moses as to who is he and said “I am who I am”, he basically mean that “He is the one who was, who is and who will be.” This is the basic meaning of his name as he introduced his name to Moses as Jehovah (YHWH). The Watchtower believes on the meaning of the name of God (YHWH) thus in NWT they rendered it as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHATEVER I SHALL PROVE TO BE”. The word “prove” can mean to show but “prove” is deeper in its context. The word “prove” as used by God to identify himself indicates that he wanted to show to all his all-being with valid reasons. This includes his nature and qualities to be presented in public with proofs that can be perceived in many ways. Since God introduced himself to Moses as “Jehovah” and “I am who I am” we can say it as congruent but not equal. Not equal because the word “I am” is only the meaning of the name Jehovah. In dictionary the words may be the same in a certain use but not the same in its own definition. One word may use to substitute the other word based on how it is being used and so they are said to be congruent however, a word is not always possible to substitute to a certain word when it does not shows its concordance to the context of the sentence or statement. Words can be used alternately when it is possible to do so however, their own definition might vary for not all the definition of one word is the same as to other word and so they are not equal but can be congruent when use alternately to modify the meaning of the other word. Thus we cannot use the word “I am” as a name for God but rather it is a word that identifies him in another context. When an ordinary someone say “I am who I am”, he is basically saying that he is the one who himself really is, thus it means he is showing his real identity as to who he is before, now and then. He is admitting to himself and want to introduce to others that he prefer to show himself as to what he want for himself to be known by the others. That is the same when it comes to Jehovah. He wanted to show himself in his own way. Thus, the Watchtower believed and accepted the definition of Rotherham for the name of God. With regards to the said verse on how we will understand it by its context, we must consider the preceding words of Jesus as to what he is speaking about. When the person contradicts the words of Jesus as Jesus is not yet 50 but has seen Abraham, Jesus answered him on a figurative sense. Of course, Jesus will not say the words “I am” as his name because he is answering the question of the person as to his existence and not as to his name. The words “before Abraham was, I am” is the same as “before Abraham was born, I was born (literally created).” To make the word “I am” satisfy the answer of Jesus, we should map the possible meaning of the word “I am” to the original statement of Jesus. We will take all the meaning of the word “I am” as Jehovah (YHWH), Jesus, God and was (one of the be verbs).

1.      Before Abraham was, Jehovah.

2.      Before Abraham was, Jesus.

3.      Before Abraham was, God.

4.      Before Abraham was, I was.

The first three statements are not showing a thought. The second clause does not connect on the first statement. Only # 4 shows significance. Supposed we will attempt to show the implicit term after was. This will show as the following statements.

1.      Before Abraham was born, Jehovah.

2.      Before Abraham was born, Jesus.

3.      Before Abraham was born, God.

4.      Before Abraham was born, I was born.

It is only the last statement that shows validity and that is saying that he existed before Abraham. Since Jesus was not born literally but figuratively and since the word “born” means came into existence (brought into life) then NWT can render it as “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” The NWT shows that Jesus had been existed before Abraham came into existence which is parallel to any of the statement # 4 and which is in concordance to the implicit statement of Jesus. Actually the word “I am” in Hebrew is “ehyeh” which has a basic meaning of to be or become therefore all of these statements mention by Jesus and Jehovah means they become. “I am who I am” may be written as “I am who I become” and “Before Abraham was, I am” may be written as “Before Abraham was, I become” which shows implicit thought of had became, becoming and will become of his own identity. Please see the links below for a depth discussion about this subject. The word become (or to be) doesn’t only shows its meaning in present tense but also in past and future. Thus, I believe when someone in Hebrew is saying that someone had became, has become or will become they use the Hebrew characters that denotes “to be” even in different tenses i.e. whether past, present or future.

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/ego-eimi-and-some-ot-texts-356103/

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/john-858-and-i-am-361402/

THE TRUTH IN COLOSSIANS 1:15-17

COLOSSIANS 1:15 – 17

NWT:  15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,

NIV: 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

KJV:  15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist

NASB:  15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

DISCUSSION:

Most of the critics of NWT regarding these verses are Trinitarians for the very reason of promoting their Trinity doctrine. By criticizing the inserted word “other” as not originally part of the Greek scriptures, they derogate the NWT and consider it as a tampered and not credible translation of the Bible. For some religions that do not teach the doctrine of Trinity, they may accept the NWT when trying to expose the explicit teachings about the distinction of Jehovah and Jesus. However, because it is not in the original texts in Greek Scriptures, some religionists who do not believe in Trinitarians still discredit the NWT version. With the united thought of the Christendom against the JW and the NWT, some people who are wanting and starting to know the truth and even some of those who are in truth were powerfully driven their minds to deceptions.  The links below allows the reader to perceive explicitly the truth concerning the verse above. I suggest you read the entire links for clarity of the subject and to erase the misconception of the many people about NWT.

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/col-115-20-nwt-and-other–272818/

http://jehovah.to/xlation/other.html

With regards to the insertion of the word “other” in NWT, verse 15 shows the relation of how important to insert the word “other”. The word “firstborn” (prototokos in Greek) as explained in Watchtower’s publication and from the links above provides us a better understanding of its meaning. They explained that in the Bible when “firstborn” is being discussed this means generally that the firstborn belongs to a group or class. Even there are verses in the Bible as some critics points out that firstborn is also first in position or rank or simply preeminent over the others, still the firstborn belongs to a group or class. Thus, Jesus as firstborn can be taken as first in rank or preeminent from all creation and as the first creation from all creation of God. All the word “firstborn” in the Bible belongs to a group or class that is a group of family, animals and even a place. As examples of this is from Exodus 4:22 which says, “Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,”; Exodus 12:12 which says, “On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD.” We know that Israel is the chosen nation of God as this is the first land he has taken to be his own and later he also included the Gentile nations to be his own nation. He affirmed it in Oseas 2:23 and Romans 9:25 and we can clearly see it now in the true congregation of God which is all over the world, the Jehovah’s Witnesses from all nations. Exodus 12:12 clearly identify not only on a particular family but rather by taking all men and animals in Egypt as two groups or classes. The link below provides a broader explanation about the relation of the word “firstborn” to the word “begotten”.

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/monogenes-and-jehovahs-witnesses-121681/

Here are the links that explains about the word “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15:

http://www.jehovah.to/exe/discussion/prwtotokos_lexical.htm

http://www.jehovah.to/exe/discussion/response1.htm

Concerning Job 18:13 which used BeQor in Hebrew but not Prototokos in Greek. Wes Williams explained implicitly that the writer did not use “prototokos” since death cannot bear illness but rather illness can bear death. It is an abstract noun which does not require literal bearing of death.

So what does “firstborn of death” means here?

Figuratively, it means sickness is the number one cause of death, preeminent from all other death-causing cases. Literally, it means that sickness is the first one that causes death (literally speaking). Of course we know that Adam and Eve died because of their sin but what causes them to die is because of their health –their body’s failure to sustain their life. Thus, sickness as the first born of death is acting as the over-all causing death and the first cause of death of Adam and Eve. “Firstborn” here does not mean first created but rather first reason of death. Sickness is the major reason of death followed by other reasons such as by accidents, suicides, killings and natural calamities. Thus, sickness as the firstborn of death requires that there are still reasons of death that follows.

Jesus as firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) cannot mean he came from all creation or he was fathered by all creation like the basic meaning of the firstborn of Jacob is Rueben as Ruben was fathered by Jacob or Rueben is the son of Jacob. So we cannot take the “firstborn” literally on the way it should mean that Jesus was fathered by all creation.

But figuratively we can take that he is preeminent over all creation and the first one brought into existence from among all creation. Can we take only the first definition and not take the second definition? No. A related example can be seen in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5.

Jesus was described as the “firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5) though it does not used the word “of all” which is also not in Greek because it would give meaning as Jesus had existed from being dead before.

Literally, Jesus was the firstborn from the dead. Thus, he is the first one resurrected from all the dead that has given eternal life. Figuratively, he is preeminent over all the resurrected people for heaven (for heaven only because firstborn requires same quality i.e. being spirit – see Romans 8:29). Consequently, Jesus as firstborn among the dead literally requires that he became part of the group and that he was dead once. He was the first dead person resurrected for eternal life in heaven and he belongs to a certain group i.e. from among other dead who will have eternal life. Literally, Jesus was the first “created” spiritually that has resurrected from grave against all other dead. Figuratively, he is the first one given a predominant power over the other resurrected people (the144,000) who will become kings on heaven. Thus it requires literally that he belongs to the dead people before.  So, firstborn of all creation means Jesus belongs to the class of creation and that he is the first one created from among other creation. I agree with Wes Williams, the word “firstborn” literally requires that the firstborn belongs to a certain group or class and that it requires others to come after him in the following time.

Example:

the words “firstborn of all angels” would mean he is the eldest among the angels and that he is preeminent with all the angels.

This is the only way it calls for the definition of the words. We cannot neglect one and accept only one. There is no reason to do it unless the user of it is being biased in his position.

Here is a very good example that shows “firstborn” as preeminent and that it belongs to a class or group.

Psalms 89:27

27 Also, I myself shall place him as firstborn,
The most high of the kings of the earth.

Thus David is a king preeminent to all other kings on earth and that he is also a king who belongs to a class or group of kings. 🙂

PLEASE SEE THIS LINK IN WHICH JESUS IS DESCRIBED AS THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD OR THE FIRSTBORN OF GOD’S CREATION.

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/the-bibles-view-jesus-christ-as-the-first-born-of-all-creation

ACTS 20:28 in NWT and other Bible Versions

ACTS 20:28 NWT:   28 Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed YOU overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].

TNIV:   28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

KJV:      28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

NASB:  28“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

DISCUSSION:

In a blog that I have read concerning this subject, the writer told that there are some early manuscripts found in which on the last part of the word “own” there is an ellipsis (…) which we of course are familiar with in a grammar language. Ellipsis is use to indicate that there is a next word/statement that follows after a certain word. Upon looking for the Greek text of this verse, we can see that there is an article before the word “idiou” and that is “tou” which means “the”. So it is possible to say that “idiou” may refer to an identity to which Jesus is being identified implicitly and not just only the word “own” that refers to the speaker itself. If someone will say, “…which he made with (through/by) the effort of his own” would it not mean that he made something through the effort of the thing he own and not just by his own effort? Basically, the two are possible meaning. Since the Greek term used for “with” on the said verse was “dia” which means “with, by or through” then it could also proper to restate the said phrase verse to “…which he purchased through the blood of his own” or “… which he purchased by the blood of his own” or “… which he purchased with the blood of his own”. The first two possible phrases denote an implicit thought of an implicit identity i.e. he purchased something through the blood of someone he own. Ironically, Trinitarian Greek translators put this statement on its opposite way which we can see on many bible versions. Though all possible meaning of the word “dia” can be used in any way one chooses and reversing the thought of the context by interchanging the position of the noun “blood” and “his own” to be acceptable and valid statement and to say that this is the thought of God, it is also possible (but the only possible as the JW believe) that the “blood of his own” really show that God purchased his church through the blood of his own son. The proof to this assertion can be noticed and considered as parallel to John 1:11 which says, “11He came unto his own, and his own received him not” wherein in Greek it is written as

“eis / ta / idia / ēlthen / kai / oi / idioi/ auton / ou/ parelabon” (slash put for division of words) which can be transliterated in English as  “unto / those / own / he came / and / those / own / him / not / receive”.  Thus when looking to the final output of the translation, it shows he (Jesus) came to his own, in which “own” implies implicit identity (noun) that is own by Jesus which is the Israel, the nation which God has chosen to be his own. Let us show some examples from the Greek Scriptures that uses the kind of Greek word to Greek word “idiou”. Notice the Greek word for “own”, the “idia” and “idioi”, both of them has article which is “ta” and “oi” thus the “own” signifies identities or persons involved because there is no noun mention after the word “own”. The words “his own” refers to a certain group of people. Consider also 1 Thessalonians 4:11 in which the word “business” is implicitly mention in Greek text. The exact phrase mention to that is “kai/ prassein/ ta/ idia” which in transliterated English becomes “and/to do/the/own” but when looking to some Bible translations it has the implicit words “business”. Thus it shows an exact example of Acts 20:28 where “son” is implicitly identified in the context. Thus, there is a valid reason to render it as “with the blood of his own son” even without the necessary to put a bracket on the word son.Let us quote Galatians Galatians 6:5 which states, “For every man shall bear his own burden.” – KJV In Greek it is written as “ekastos/gar/to/idion/phortion/bastasei” which when transliterated in English becomes “man/for/the/own/load/will bear” and arranging it in proper position it will become for/man/will bear/the/own/load and so it is proper to write it now as “for every man will bear his own load”. Let us now compare the Greek text to English text. We can notice that “idion” as it has the meaning of “one’s own” has an article before it and the Greek word “phortion” has no more article. Thus, the thing that is own by every man is his own load (or burden in another term). There is only one article use to describe that one’s own load of a man. Since there is article on it, the load which is being described and own by every man is not only a load which is part of many loads but rather in general it speaks for all the load of every man. When we say “death is a load of every man” it means death is one of the loads of every man. But when we say “trials are the load of every man” it speaks about all the problems in life of a man in general. It involves all the problems that every man may encounter rather than a single problem that may come to a person.

Let us use another verse that used the word “own” in which the Greek is somehow related to the word “idiou”. Let us quote James 1:14 which states, “But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed.” The Greek text of this verse is “ekastos / de / peirazetai / upo / tes / idias / epithumias / exelkomenos / kai / deleazomenos” which when transliterated in English becomes “man / but / is tempted / of / the / own / lust / being drawn away / and / enticed. As you can noticed there is also an article before the Greek word “idias” (own) but no article before the Greek word “epithumias” (lust or desire). The word lust was used in KJV but in other translations it generally refers to desire which means eagerness to something. Thus, again this is in parallel of the example above. The desire which is spoken about can be used as a general term that refers to all the desires of man in general. Another example that shows this sameness can be found in John 4:44 which states, “For Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.” The same structure can be seen on the word “his own country” which written in Greek as “te idia patridi” which when transliterated in English becomes “the own country” but can be written properly as what the whole context suggest as “his own country”. From all of the three examples we can say that whenever the noun is spoken as one’s own whether it refers for a collective group or a single person it is usually has an article before a specific noun is being introduced. The country in the last example suggests not a single country but speaks of the countries of prophets in general. Thus, the article use from the three examples above shows not only a single or unique identity or a single or specific object but rather suggests a singular noun which generally refers to many identities or objects if not all. Let us go back to Acts 20:28. The Greek texts of the phrase “which he purchased with the blood of his own” generally written in other versions as “which he purchased with his own blood” is written as “en periepoiesato dia tou aimatos tou idiou” which when transliterated in English becomes “which/he purchased/with/the/blood/the/own”. We can noticed that there are two articles mention i.e. before the word “blood” and before the word “own”, so this is very significant in knowing the truth. What the Trinitarians suggests in their translation is that the blood of Jehovah is the one that purchased the church (God’s church). However, when looking in the above examples above and trying to connect it in their versions we could see that their translation falls to the above examples. So in getting back the Greek translation of their own translation it must show similarity on the above examples and that it should follow the structure of the said verses though the noun spoken in Acts 20:28 shows a single object from a single person unlike those nouns from above which shows multiple identities or objects. If for example one will translate in Greek the words “He live with his own effort” then the only possible way to write it in Transliterated English of its Greek is “He live, with, the own, effort” and not “He live, effort, with, the own”. If the word “effort” has article then the statement will go like this “he live, the effort, with, the own” and if translated as like in NWT we could have as “he live with the effort of his own (…)” Seemingly, the sentence clearly shows that he lives not by his own effort but by an effort of someone he own (a person). The thing that the word “blood” has an article denotes that it is a definite object from the person he own and not simply as his own blood. I think if Jehovah claims this blood as his own I guess the proper rendering of the word in Greek that should be used is “eautou” which means “of himself” just what it would show as, “which he purchased with the blood of himself”.

Of course, when Trinitarians insist their own version to put up their own doctrine as Jehovah and Jesus are coequal then definitely this would favor their own doctrine without considering many verses and proofs that point out the distinction of Jehovah and Jesus. Contrary to other versions, NWT provides the original thought of God and not of man which does not conflict from all the other verses in the Bible. Consider the following verses and study the real thought of Jesus here.

John 15:15 I no longer call YOU slaves, because a slave does not know what his master does. But I have called YOU friends, because all the things I have heard from my Father I have made known to YOU.

John 16:32 Look! The hour is coming, indeed, it has come, when YOU will be scattered each one to his own house and YOU will leave me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

John 12: 49 because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak. 50 Also, I know that his commandment means everlasting life. Therefore the things I speak, just as the Father has told me [them], so I speak [them].”

If Trinitarians still insist their own doctrine, then definitely they do not accept the plain but true words of Jesus. It is a matter of acceptance and refusal. If you deny Jesus words about his distinction to his Father, then one must explain what Jesus meant on his words. If those words are methaphor, then how would they interpret the words of Jesus and why did Jesus said it on that way and for what reason?

For further discussions that supports the veracity of the translations of Acts 20:28 of NWT please see the link below.

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/acts-2028-son-implied-or-not-334338/

http://onlytruegod.org/defense/acts20.28.htm