Posts Tagged ‘NWT’

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/

Advertisements

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

NWT Compared to Other Bible Versions

The New World Translations of the Holy Scriptures – Its Veracity and Benefits to Readers

A lot of bible versions were made nowadays to be able to read by the people in different languages. Many bible translations existed from old times which some people prefer to use because of the acceptance of the majority and clergy people such as the King James Version, one of the oldest translations in our time. Today, there are lot of Bible translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Every church religion has preference in using a bible version. They believe that their preferred bible version/s is/are better to use than the other translations. The Jehovah’s Witnesses also assert this statement and they believe that the New World Translation is the most accurate and the easiest version to understand by the readers according to their own language. However, despite of the usefulness and advantages of the NWT to its readers, many critics from different religious sects do not trust this translation. Instead, they deliberately criticize some parts of its translations. So the purpose of this article is to show the truthfulness of the NWT in the most credible way I could present. Here are some major biblical verses that detractors want to call attention to destroy the credibility of the NWT and also to lead and influence many people against NWT and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Please take this as an opportunity for everyone who wants to know the truth and uphold for the truth by reading this article most especially the links taken by the author to support the standing of the Watchtower in promoting NWT as the most accurate bible translation of this time.

GENESIS 1:2

NWT:  1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.

TNIV: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

NIV:     1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

KJV:      1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

DISCUSSION:

Some Trinitarians insist this as the Holy Spirit which is coequal and coeternal with the Father and Son. The original Hebrew words here are “ruwach elohim” which are accurately translated as “Spirit of God”. However, when reading this verse, one cannot easily and plainly understand what the word “Spirit” means on the situation or what the word is exactly trying to depict to the reader. This is the problem that encounters by the Trinitarians for they believe that Spirit of God (also Holy Spirit) is a person coequal with the Father and Son. Spirit of God as defined by Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon states, “Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and Son”. On the other hand, if this Spirit is not taken as the Holy Spirit then this would show multiple good spirits of God or a different Spirit from the Holy Spirit. This would violate Ephesians 4:5 which states that there is only one spirit from God. Moreover, a person without a bible knowledge would definitely think it as a soul of God that is in him since most people know that spirit and soul are the same and interchangeable. On the part of religionists who believe that spirit and soul are not the same, many from them still believe that the Spirit of God is something that is inside of him. Let us find out what the Spirit of God is. Spirit is described as an active force of God in Psalms 104:30. Here he sends out his spirit to create things. Just imagine the universe. How can someone create and maintain all the heavenly things with enormous forces acting on each if the creator won’t use a magnificent and very powerful force? Thus spirit of God is definitely a force that he sends out to perform his will. Spirit is also described as the force of breath given to all mankind and animals – Ecclesiastes 3:19 – 21. Jesus entrusted his spirit to his Father Jehovah – Luke 23:46. Spirit of human is not immortal. It goes back to God who gives it when they die – Ecclesiastes 12:7; Psalms 146:4. From all of these, we can clearly see that the Spirit (ruwach which literally means wind) is really an active force which sends out by Jehovah to create all things, give life to all human and animals and do His own will (just as what he did to all his chosen ones from the beginning unto this last days by pouring his spirit unto them). Thus, there is no reason to say that NWT translators altered the word of God but this is mainly to define the true meaning of the word Spirit on that context.

For further reading about the identity of the Holy Spirit please click this link site:

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/the-holy-spirit-a-person-or-power-372775/

The above link explains the nature of Spirit however, it describes that the Spirit is a power. Though Spirit is used by Jehovah it does not mean it is a power but rather a force use by God in exerting his power thus, Spirit is associated with power of God. In Science, force it said to be a power but in the Bible it is not actually a power but a force (Spirit of God) which is something that is used by God to perform his will in relation to his power. To illustrate this, we can say that the power of God can be seen from his creation. He creates  everything from nothing. He has set everything from nothing. Thus creation means – a thing made out of nothing. While force is something that holds everything (all creation) and causes everything to exist or to happen. A power can create elements out of nothing but what these elements have statutes or decree on itself is cause by the force of God according to his will generally by his own design. That is why heavens were made out of nothing by the power of Jehovah but what holds it in its constant and proper position is caused by the force of God – the Holy Spirit.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/200607a/article_01.htm

ZECHARIAH 12:10

NWT:   10 “And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and entreaties, and they will certainly look to the One whom they pierced through, and they will certainly wail over Him as in the wailing over an only [son]; and there will be a bitter lamentation over him as when there is bitter lamentation over the firstborn [son].

TNIV:   10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

NIV:     10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

KJV:      10And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

NASB:  10“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

DISCUSSION:

Actually the Hebrew word that is translated on some bible versions for the word “on me” is “et” which is an “untranslatable mark of the accusative case” thus there is no transliteration of the said word for the said verse. Accusative in dictionary means a grammatical case use to identify the direct object or other grammatical parts that affects the noun, pronoun and adjective. Thus it helps out the reader or hearer to identify the thing or person spoken about. Since Jehovah is the one who was speaking on the said verse, the only possible word to apply is “on me” and “to the one” since the person being mention is someone who was pierced through. And since Trinitarians believed that Jesus is Jehovah then they translated it “on me” and since Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is not Jehovah and that Jesus was the one pierced then they translated it as “to the one”. The question is if the words “on me” is really the appropriate translation for that verse then why do the Trinitarian translators did not use the word “for me” instead of “for him” on the next phrases? This is a raising issue to Trinitarians. Since there is no Hebrew word that corresponds to the word “him” and so the translators had to decide what corresponding pronoun (he, she, him, her) should be used based on the gender which the context present. Since the pronoun “him” is normally translated without Hebrew word for it, this is normal to write it as “him” and so they wrote it as “for him” and “over him”.  Moreover, it is true that Jehovah was the one who is speaking on that verse at that time – Zechariah 12:1, 10. But why would a speaker who first spoke on the first person (i.e. on me) would spoke on the second person (him)? Would it sounds not bad grammatically to use a personal pronoun in the first person (me) then switch suddenly to a personal pronoun in a second person (him) in one sentence? Still, even the second personal pronoun was in the second sentence (considering the first pronoun was the first sentence) this would only show a big confusion to the reader and hearer in relation to what the speaker have spoken about his preceding statement that is as to whom the word “him” refers to. By careful examining the context of the whole statement concerning the pronouns used, we could clearly understand the incapacity to connect the person described as “him” to the person described as “me”. The flow of grammar as to what it should appear to the reader or hearer which is exactly primarily and the only meaning of the said statement is that – there is another person being pointed out by the speaker that is not in relation to the person he is describing on the first. So definitely the pronoun “him” proves grammatically nonsense and incorrect with regards to the subject being discussed by the speaker itself. In order to prove the concordance of the context of each phrase we must show the singularity of the pronoun use. Thus, asserting the first pronoun to be “me” then it must also be “me” on the next phrases. This will lead to a precise grammar with good sense or understanding. Grammatically, the statement should appear like this: “ 10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for me (or over me) as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for me (or over me) as one grieves for a firstborn son.” Let us revise the original statement in NIV. Supposed we are going to remove the phrase “the one they have pierced” as this is possible because it is an identity clause of the subject (on me) spoken about by the speaker and try to connect the next phrase after the first phrase, this would lead as to this statement, “They will look on me and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son”. Bingo! It proves faulty! The identity clause “the one they have pierced” is very important in identifying the person spoken about by the speaker. By having the identity clause to be part of that scripture that identifies the words “on me” which I believe was incorrect as (NWT stands for) really proves that it was Jesus Christ and not Jehovah who was pierced through as man. However, if one will consider Trinitarian translations as real and original then how come the whole context does not give a single thought or a clear thought to be precise? The undeniable reason why Trinitarian translators use the word “him” though it calls them to write it as “me” is because if they will make it similar on the pronoun “me” it will look inconsistent with their translation since the untranslated Greek word “et” is absent within the next two phrases which is present on the first phrase. The translations of the Septuagint Interlinear about this verse show the words “on me” which is therefore used by Trinitarians to insist their Trinity doctrine or Sabellianism. If the Septuagint shows the words “to the one” unfortunately it is not then the translators for sure will show the next pronoun as “him” to the next two phrases. On the other hand, if the translators of the Septuagint wrote the word as “on me” then he must also write the next two pronouns as “me” in the next two phrases for this the only way the correct grammar calls considering Jehovah is the one who was pierced through as he is Jesus as man. There are only two possible ways to look on this matter about the Septuagint Interlinear of this verse. It is either the verse is altered to refer that Jehovah is also Jesus or simply Jehovah is the one that they will look for yet Jesus is a separate individual who was pierced when he was a man. The biblical proofs that the words “on me” that Trinitarians want to refer to Jehovah as equivalent to Jesus is not applicable since no human can ever see God and lived. No one has seen Jehovah ever since and no man (with flesh) will ever see Jehovah – Exodus 33:20; 1 Timothy 6:16; John 1:18; John 6:46.

Please see this link for further discussion about Zechariah 12:10.

http://www.thoughts.com/letusreason/blog/zech-1210-trinitarians-and-jws-656232/