ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Jehovah Witness Bible

When was the Jehovah Witness bible written, and who wrote it?

Join Our Christian Chat and Take The Cults Bible Quiz
 ---Rob on 10/12/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (6)

Post a New Blog

Hi scott- just breaking away from my Watchtower study for Sunday- 'Pursue Peace', which reminded me of your comments about the uniqueness found in Jehovah's organisation, a peace and unity that's not found in the world in general.

I've been worshipping Jehovah God for over 25 years and there is nothing in the world with which I can compare the peace and unity I find in Jehovah's organisation.

By the way, I have enjoyed reading your well researched comments here (I've used one or two on the ministry- if you don't mind).

I know we've never met, but I recognise you as a brother and am overjoyed to be a part of this amazing worldwide brotherhood with you. All the best in your continued service to Jehovah God.
---David8318 on 10/19/11

"Phil 2:6, 7" Rob (2)

"We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [harpagmos] has the sense of `holding in possession,' `retaining'. It seems invariably to mean `seize', `snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense into one which is totally different, `hold fast.' " Expositor's Greek Testament, pp. 436, 437.

W. E. Vine, says harpagmos is "akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force." An Expository Dictionary of NT Words, p. 887.

"He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God"- TEV, GNB.

"He did not think to snatch at equality with God" - NEB.
---scott on 10/19/11

"Phil 2:6 & 7" Rob (1)

Look to the actual meaning of the Greek for your answer.

"He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos] equality with God". NEB.

"He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God". TEV and GNB.

Harpagmos means "plunder". It comes from the source word harpazo which means "to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force)." Strong's Exhaustive Concordance: #725, 726, Abingdon Press, 1974

"Harpagmos, from [harpazo], the act of seizing or the thing seized." "Harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away." The New American Standard Concordance of the Bible #725, #726.
---scott on 10/18/11

2 Peter 3:8 'one day is with the Lord as a thousand years'- KJV.

Regardless of the context of the verse, the King James version dispels all false Warwick teachings that a day with a number in God's count of time must always be 24hours in length.

'one day is like a thousand years'- NAS.

'one day is with the Lord as a thousand years'- ASV.

Warwick confuses God with man- obviously! Warwick's consistent contradictory rhetoric is for all to see. In one post he knows God is outside time- 'is eternal', but in another Warwick believes God needed a 24 hour break! Fundamentalists miss the point of God's Sabbath resting- Heb.4:9,10. Fundamentalist trinitarians have not entered 'God's rest'- they don't know what it is!
---David8318 on 10/18/11

Cliff, I sincerely thank you for your concern. In reality very very few racing drivers are killed, for a number of reasons. Multi point harnesses and helmets being just two. Added to that I race with people who really know what they are doing.

I sometimes think I am at greater risk when crossing the road. Probably even more so when driving on our highways where many drive boozed, drugged or just plain stoopid.

Thanks again.
---Warwick on 10/18/11

"Your members in Nigeria do not pray in Christ's name..." Adetunji


To be very direct you are simply mistaken. Jehovah's Witnesses, earth-wide know that Jesus said "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son." (John 14:13 NASB)- In this they are absolutely united.

"Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment." 1 Cor 1:10

In harmony with Paul's words, Jehovah's Witnesses are a uniquely united brotherhood. It's a beautiful thing to behold and to be a part of.
---scott on 10/18/11

Warwick- there is no 'logic' to your view that 'the lack of "And there was evening and there was morning" concerning the 7th day means it never... began.'

We all know when the Jewish day began and ended. Repeating your previous post is a clear indication you ignore the fact that God's 'evening and morning' statement is past tense and thus you're unable to refute the fact that God gives this statement at the conclusion of each day after the beginning and ending have occurred. God will also say 'and there was evening and there was morning a seventh day' when it finishes- just as he did when the previous 6 days finished.

This fact is obviously too difficult for you to grasp.
---David8318 on 10/18/11

I'm not that interested where you've been on holiday Warwick, but who said the creative periods were not of the same length? I didn't. I believe they were of the same length of time, but not 24hours.

Again you are unable to distinguish between God's count of time and man's count of time. 'Nor are my ways your ways'- Isaiah 55:8,9. No doubt because of your indoctrination into the God-man/trinity mystery. God said 'for I am God and not man'- Hosea 11:9.

So when an imperfect man tries to compare his count of time with God's, his reasoning is seriously flawed. God's 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc... 'days' were of the same length. But the ordinal numbering gives no basis for concluding how long these days were.
---David8318 on 10/18/11

"Col 1:15" StrongAxe (to grind)

Truth in Translation, (Non-Witness) Jason BeDuhn, Ph.D., Historian of religion, Professor of Religious Studies, p 85:

"What exactly are objectors to "other" arguing for as the meaning of the phrase "all things"? That Christ created himself (v.16)? That Christ is before God and that God was made to exist by means of Christ (vs 17)?...

...those who object want to negate the meaning of the phrase "first-born of creation".

"In Col:15-20 it is inaccurate to add the word "over" in place of "of" in the phrase "first-born of creation." This is a distortion of the possible meaning of the Greek."
---scott on 10/18/11

scott, i can see how you missed ---aka on 10/14/11, things get buried quickly here.

nevertheless, i understand that inanimate objects can be personified like in your examples, but they seem to be utilized in poetry and in analogy or hyperbole. yet acts 13 seem to be prose. isn't there a difference?
---aka on 10/18/11

David, as a day in the middle East begins at evening, concluding at the next evening, "And there was evening and there was morning" describes the beginning (nighttime) and the daylight portion of one day, which leads to the evening, the beginning of the next day. Where I live (where each day begins at morning) it is likewise composed of daylight and nighttime.

Therefore if the lack of "And there was evening and there was morning" concerning the 7th day means it never ended it also by the same 'logic' never began.

If God's 7th day of the creation week has never finished, and God is still 'resting' who has done all the mighty miracles and healings which have occurred?

I look forward to your usual silence.
---Warwick on 10/18/11

David, it matters not whether 'day' is accompanied by 1,2,or 3 etc, or 1st, 2nd, 3rd this still describe a 24hr day.

Let me supply a simple example: I had a holiday for 7 days.

It took 1 day to fly there.

The 1st day was spent flying there.

I spent days 4,5, and 6 on a boat. Good therapy.

I spent the 4th, 5th and 6th days on a boat. Good therapy.

Are these days of the same length, or not?

Regarding the WTS, the bastion of morality, what are the "immoral perversions of Satans world" I supposedly prefer? If you don't spell it out how do I know what you are talking about? Kissing maybe! God forbid!
---Warwick on 10/18/11

David, when quoting Scriprure it is good policy to include the whole quote, lest charges of attempted deceit be made!

2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.


This refers to God's time, not mans, God being eternel, therefore outside of time. Eternity is an absence of time.

This does not say a day is a thousand years or a thousand years a day. Peter illustrates a point confident his readers knew what these words mean.

This verse has nothing to do with day length, but refers to those impatient for Christ's return.
---Warwick on 10/18/11

So I'm told by Warwick that I'm following man and that I'm not a free thinker. Let's take John 20:28 the verse trinitarians are fascinated with as an example.

Thomas said to Jesus, 'my Lord and my God'. I have the freedom to consider a number of possible scenarios.

Thomas could have simply been surprised. Or, he may only have had Jehovah in mind when he said what he said to Jesus.

The scenario I favour is Thomas had both Jesus and Jehovah in mind, realising and seeing first hand his Lord's resurrection and God's power over death through the resurrection of His Son. Thomas' praise thus included both 'my Lord and my God'.

Thus I am not tied to a single, narrow-minded, man-made belief that stifles free reasoning.
---David8318 on 10/18/11

Warwick, As much and all as we differ theologically I pray that we don't lose you in a "Dan Wheldon" type accident in your dangerous occupation!
Via con Dios Amigo!
---1st_cliff on 10/18/11

Incredible that Warwick continues to ignore the fact that the 'evening and morning' statements in the Genesis creation account are given in the past tense when each respective day has concluded. Thus by the time God makes the 'evening and morning' statement both the beginning and the ending have occurred so that God correctly states, 'and there was evening and there was morning...'

'There was a beginning and there was an ending.'

Why is there not a beginning if the past tense statement is not there? When we get to the end of the 7th day God will then state- 'there was evening and there was morning a 7th day'. Warwick doesn't understand and his argument is nonsensical bordering on the clueless.
---David8318 on 10/18/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance

I'm not surprised Warwick needs therapy. His trinitarian warlords have caused much more physical and emotional damage to their adherents throughout the ages than Warwick would care to imagine.

And of course Warwick is full of hatred toward the Watchtower who dare print articles upholding Jehovah's righteous moral standards. Warwick of course preferring the immoral perversions of Satans world.

Does Warwick honestly believe John 20:28 is the undoing of monotheist theology? Here we are to believe not only is John 20:28 Thomas' conversion to trinitarianism, but also the Bible's shift from monotheism to polytheism!

Oh well- keep up the therapy Warwick!
---David8318 on 10/18/11

Warwick again shows his clueless naive approach to Bible understanding and English grammar. 'A student of grammar knows 'day' accompanied by a number means 24 hours.' (Warwick 10/17/11) This is ridiculous!

The number associated with each Genesis 'day' are ordinal numbers, not cardinal numbers (one, two, three etc...) as Warwick wants us to believe.

The use of ordinal numbers- 'first', 'second', 'third' etc... denote order and rank. It has absolutely nothing to do with the duration of the 'day' to which it is associated. Warwick's DIY knowledge of grammar and numbers is naive to say the least.

2 Peter 3:8- 'one day is with the Lord as a thousand years.' Cardinal number with 'day' always means 24hrs? Work it out Warwick.
---David8318 on 10/18/11

the NWT is no better or no worse than KJV, NIV, RSV or any other translation. Each of those translaton has a doctrinal bias.
---Francis on 10/18/11


Translators must necessarily sometimes include words in English that are not explicitly in the Hebrew or the Greek, but are either required by English grammar (articles and the verb "to be" are frequent examples of this), or which sometimes clarify constructions in one language that may be ambiguous in another. However, the NWT use of "other" does neither - it deliberately changes the meaning from "who created everything" to "who created everything (except himself)", thus adding the implication that Jesus is a created being, something in no way stated either explicitly or implicity by the original Greek, but which is an essential part of JW thelogy.
---StrongAxe on 10/17/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling

David, "and there was evening and there was morning-describes 1 day. In Middle Eastern practice each day begins at evening-"there was evening" describes the beginning of a day. "And there was morning" refers to night's end and the beginning of the daylight portion of that day. The next day begins with "And there was evening."

That you do not know the Sabbath is sunset Friday to sunset Saturday (when Sunday begins) shows your ignorance of reality. This has never stopped you in the past and certainly will not stop you now.

You say the absence of "And there was evening and there was morning-the seventh day", means it has never ended. By the same 'logic' it also never began.
---Warwick on 10/18/11

Possibly the NIV adds 'over' in Colossians 1:15 to enforce the reality that Jesus, being Creator of everything is indeed God over everything-16 "For by Him all things were created:things in heaven and on earth."

John 14:9 obviously supports Jesus' supreme position "Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'"? John 14:9

If Jesus is not God this verse exposes Him as a boasting blasphemer-you see me you see God!

BTW 'firstborn' refers to position, as we know Jesus was never born, first or last!
---Warwick on 10/18/11

Scott, please do comment on Philippians 2:1-11. I am curious to see how you will take this passage and do what is written in Romans 1:25.
---Rob on 10/18/11

Scott: JWs are not Christ followers. Your members in Nigeria do not pray in Christ's name as commanded, though you claim that you believe in Christ. Your rejection of Christ like this implies the Holy Spirit is not with your Sect & you have rejected the Way to God's Paradise(Jn.3:13-20, 10:9, 14:6)!
---Adetunji on 10/18/11

Search For Christian Ministries & Missions

"JW's reject what is written in Psalm 100:3, and Philippians 2:1-11."

"Know ye that Jehovah, he is God: It is he that hath made us, and we are his, We are his people, and the sheep of his pasture." Ps 100:3 ASV

Jehovah's Witnesses are in full agreement with the Psalmist's words. We champion our Creator and his Name.

I've commented on Philippians 2 quite a bit. Happy to do so again if you like.
---scott on 10/17/11

If people want to believe in the Trinity, it's okay by me. :) on 10/17/11

Scott, it is very evident that you along with the other JW's reject what is written in Psalm 100:3, and Philippians 2:1-11.
---Rob on 10/17/11

"Collossians 1:16" StrongAxe (sic)

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." Col 1:15, New International Version

What is the Greek word for "over" found in the NIV for this verse?
---scott on 10/17/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief

"Young's Concordance does not seem to support your views. Even if it had..." Warwick

Warwickian double-speak.

So which is it?

Did the highly respected (Trinitarian), biblical scholar Robert Young list John 20:28 as an example of 'God' being applied to someone other than the true God (judges, angels, prophets, etc.) or not?

If not, prove it.

The fact that you will not admit even the most obvious point(s) demonstrates a myopic perspective, void of any shred of objectivity.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires." 2 Tim 4:3
---scott on 10/17/11


The NWT is the pot calling the kettle black. All translations are inaccurate one way or other. Some bias is unavoidable. However, the NWT translators discount other translations as distorted and inaccurate, requiring a more faithful translation - then produce the NWT with biases just as bad (if not worse).

In some cases, they deliberately insert words not indicated by the original, only to conform to a theological bias. For example, in Collossians 1:16 "because by means of him all [other] things were created", the word "other" is not implied by Greek grammar, but only by the JW preconception "Jesus is not God, but rather a created being, so he could not possibly have created himself".
---StrongAxe on 10/17/11

David, in Genesis 1 God refers to the physical things He created as 'good'-vs. 4,10, 12, 18, and 21. When it was finished He said "it was very good." He then says "And God blessed the seventh day, and made it holy, because on 'it' (specific day) he rested from all the work of creation that he had done."

A student of grammar knows 'day' accompanied by a number means 24 hours. 'Day' appears outside of Genesis 1, 401 times, always meaning 24hrs. See Numbers 7:11-78 for example.

"And there was evening, and there was morning-the" describes both the beginning and the ending of one day.

If God has been resting since completing creation who accomplished all the miracles?
---Warwick on 10/17/11

David, I didn't know I was such a neo-Platonic, disfunctional, biased, Trinitarian before you told me. I am having therapy now!

That you would suggest a WTS victim (which organization proscribes all JW belief and life-style, even in the bedroom) is free to come to their own understanding of Scripture is perversity.

Having had countless discussions with Christians of many denominations I know JW's beliefs are cultic, following the dictates of men, whereas Christians follow the word of God.

I am not forced to believe anything, only what God's word says. JW's fight furiously regarding John 20:28 knowing it destroys your whole rasion d'etre, your reason for being.
---Warwick on 10/17/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement

In 2 Corinthians 4:4, Satan is called "the god of this age". This word in Greek for "god" is "theos", the same as used for our Father and for Jesus. So, I can see we need to simply understand what is meant.

Images can help us, I would say. Jesus is "the Son of God". The son of a human is human. But Jesus is the Son of God. Also, He is "the image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4). If an image is made of gold, it is gold, though it is not the gold everywhere. Jesus is "the image of God". "He is God who is love, in the form of Jesus His Son." It's like how a baby in the womb is composed from the liquid of the mother's blood, so the child is actually made of the child's mother.
---Bill_willa6989 on 10/17/11

Marc- what Plato called the 'Demiurge', Philo referred to as 'the Logos.'

S. E. Frost, Jr., Ph.D, writes:

'Philo taught that there were many powers, or spirits, which radiated from God... One of these powers, which he called the 'Logos,' was the creator of the world. This Logos, worked with matter and out of it created everything in the universe... God, through the Logos, created the universe.'

Certain individuals transferred to 'the Word' of the Gospel of John characteristics of the 'Demiurge' and 'Logos' mentioned in the non-Biblical writings of Plato and Philo. Since that pagan 'Demiurge' or 'Logos' evidently had always existed alongside the supreme God, it became 'orthodox' to teach that Jesus was coeternal with God.
---David8318 on 10/17/11

"Worship...their translation [NWT] is based entirely on their theological bias". StrongAxe (to grind)

Mr. Axe misrepresents the NWT here and demonstrates a lack of understanding of bible translation in general.

"In our exploration of the Greek word proskuneo in the New Testament, therefore, the NAB and NWT receive the highest marks for accuracy, while the others [NASB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, AB, LB, KJV] show a tendency to lapse into interpretive judgments guided by their theological biases." Jason BeDuhn, Truth In Translation
---scott on 10/17/11

Warwick's fundamentalist trinitarian belief is narrow-minded. There is only one outcome for Warwick and it must be a trinitarian one. Warwick is forced to tow the trinitarian party line and suck whatever his trinitarian warlords pass his way.

I am however free to reason on scripture. Because I am not bound by Warwick's trinitarian indoctrination, I can reason on Thomas' words and think Thomas could have said 'my Lord and my God' out of sheer surprise- perhaps. On the otherhand Thomas could have said this because he now believed his Lord had been resurrected and saw firsthand Jehovah God's power over death- a more likely scenario.

Warwick however can't reason because it's already done for him- he parrot repeats what he's told.
---David8318 on 10/17/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning

"What HE says we have to accept." Adetunji

Agreed. He said:

"No man may see me [God] and yet live". Exodus 33:20
---scott on 10/17/11

Marc- trinitarians are indoctrinated into the Neo-Platonic trinity.

'The Platonic trinity... appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches... This Greek philosophers conception of the divine trinity can be found in all the ancient (pagan) religions.'- Dictionnaire Lachatre.

'Such a Hellenization did, to a large extent, take place. The definition of the Christian faith as contained in the creeds of the ecumenical synods of the early church indicate that unbiblical categories of Neoplatonic philosophy were used in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.'- Encyclopedia Britannica (1976).
---David8318 on 10/17/11

Scott: Please read Gen.18, God appeared to Abraham in human form(as Jesus?)with 2 angels. After their discussions the 2 angels proceeded to Sodom to evict Lot's family before destruction. As humans that we are, we cannot limit God by our knowledge & understanding. What HE says we have to accept. Jesus is ETERNAL FATHER.
---Adetunji on 10/17/11

//Did God appear to Adam & Eve? Adetunji

"No man may see me [God] and yet live" Exodus 33:20//

Adam and Eve had perfect relationship with God because they were without sin for a period of time.
---Scott1 on 10/17/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Education

Warwick- I can understand why you're so anxious to believe Thomas' words 'my Lord and my God' to mean 'Jesus is God' because there's not a lot left in the Bible to support your indoctrination by trinitarian warlords. Your indoctrination forces you to believe Thomas meant only one thing. I however can reason on many scenarios.

Thomas doubted Jesus had been resurrected. He didn't doubt who Jesus was. Thomas one of the disciples knew Jesus was 'the Son of God'- Mt.16:13-20. You believe it required Thomas to see Jesus to believe he was God? How ridiculous! Thomas saw and believed Jesus' resurrection.

Thomas' words are irrelevant in that my salvation is dependent on Christ's words- 'I am ascending... to my God.' Jo.20:17.
---David8318 on 10/17/11

Did God appear to Adam & Eve? Adetunji

"No man may see me [God] and yet live" Exodus 33:20

When God spoke to humans, it was often through an angel. (Gen 16:7-11, 18:1-3, 22-26, 19:1, Judges 2:1-4, 6:11-16,22, Matthew 3:17, 17:5, John 12:28)

God's chief spokesman was his only-begotten Son, "the Word." (John 1:1) Very likely God spoke to Adam and Eve through "the Word." Genesis 1:26-28, 2:16, 3:8-13.

Even the Law given at Mount Sinai was transmitted by angels, although Moses was represented as talking directly with God himself. Paul wrote:

"The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator." Gal 3:19
---scott on 10/17/11

When we read anything from one indoctrinated into JWism, (as opposed to those saved by Christ and enlightened by the Holy Spirit) we have to take his words with a grain of salt! Christians are akin to those who vote in elections, being free to to support whomsoever they choose. JW's are akin to the party faithful manning the How to Vote booths.They are no longer free!

Young's Concordance does not seem to support your views. Even if it had, the others I viewed disagreed.

However what Scripture says is the point. Therein both God and Jesus are called Creator, Saviour, Redeemer, etc, and in John 20:28 Thomas calls Jesus ho Theos, the God, not just God, or god, This is in line with the flow of Scripture.
---Warwick on 10/17/11

Cliff, Yahweh, is a name, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are technically not names. Nonetheless Matthew 28:19 reads "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

You wrote "You can "fellowship" in your local library with countless authors!" Only because they are persons, not an impersonal force! You make my point.
---Warwick on 10/17/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans

Scott: The Bible says God visited Adam & Eve in the cool of the evening. In what form do your Sect teach that God appeared to them? The Bible says God walked in the garden & also had a question & answer session with them. Did God appeared to them as Jesus OR like HE appeared to Enoch and he was no more?
---Adetunji on 10/17/11

Well said StrongAxe.

Anyone who has had long-term up-close relationship with the JW's knows they are truly indoctrinated.

They used to visit me regularly and always offered me their literature. Conversely they quickly rejected the offer of any of my literature.
---Warwick on 10/16/11


The NWT seems to translate the same word as "worship" when it applies to God, but "do obeisance to" when it applies to anyone else - i.e. their translation is based entirely on their theological bias, rather than any grammatical reasons.

Also, they hold two contradictory views:
1) They are given a special insight into God's revelation, surpassing that given to anyone else. Anyone who disagrees does not have the light they do.
2) They are given "progressive light". Like Pauls "we see through a glass darkly", they excuse their past errors by saying they know better now than they did then.

The upshot is that they are never wrong, but when they are, it isn't their fault.
---StrongAxe on 10/16/11

Are truth, land, justice, uprightness and righteousness persons? ---scott on 10/14/11

are you trying to say that the use of holy spirit in Acts 13 is personification of an intangible concept like truth, justice, uprightness, and righteousness?


are you saying that the holy is a tangible object?
---aka on 10/14/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates

David, your belief is unBiblical and irrational.

You would have us believe that when Thomas called Jesus "My Lord and my God" (see also Psalm 35:23) is was not an identifier, therefore irrelevant to the story. Was it an identifier in Psalm 35:23?

You have Thomas saying nothing relevant and Jesus says he now believes! Believe what?

Jesus being God knows our minds but I note He usually reacts to what people say. See Matthew 16:13-16 for a good example.

In the real world Jesus challenged Thomas who replied, calling Him 'My Lord and my God.

But you cannot accept what Scripture says unless your masters of the WTS give you permission to do so. You are a slave to man.
---Warwick on 10/14/11

Thomas / John 20:28-

"...[note] that 'the god of me' [Jn 20:28}, whether it is taken as vocative [direct address] or nominative, [identification] is predicative in sense and so cannot be used as evidence either way to show whether the god in New Testament usage ever appears as subject of a statement referring to Christ." Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, Vol. i, p. 136.

"'my Lord and my God' (Joh.xx.28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself...(v.17):...'I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'" The Divinity of Jesus Christ, J. M. Creed, p. 123.
---scott on 10/14/11

David, you never answered my recent question.

The 1961 version of the JW NWT Bible renders Hebrews 1:6 as saying we should "worship" Jesus. However the 1971 version says we should only do "obesance" to Him.

Now this translation comes from the WTS God's witness on earth. Which version is correct? How did they make such an amazing mistake?

What other mistakes followed by u-turns have they made, other that innoculations and organ transplants?
---Warwick on 10/14/11

Thomas/John 20:28 (2)

Youngs Analytical Concordance (Preface) In the section entitled Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation" trinitarian Young states:

"65. God - is used of any one (professedly) mighty, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to ... magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. Exod. 7:1 ... John 1:1, 10:33, 34, 35, 20:28 ...
2 Thess. 2:4..."- Eerdmans Publ., 1978 reprint.

Notice how this famous trinitarian has listed John 20:28 as an example of God (or god) being applied to someone other than the true God (as in the case of judges, angels, prophets, etc.).
---scott on 10/14/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing

Warwick, Old "Slippery" at it again huh?
On "line" you can be counseled, taught,commanded,reminded,spoken to,testified about etc..does this mean your computer is a person?
**People are baptized in His name**?
Neither Father, Son nor Holy Spirit are "names" HS does not have a name like,Yahweh or Jehoshua!
You can "fellowship" in your local library with countless authors!
"He" is the translator's choice as "pneuma" (spirit) is not in the masculine gender !
---1st_cliff on 10/14/11


Capitalization is a feature of modern languages, not ancient Hebrew or Greek. Whether some words should be capitalized is a matter of grammar (I, the first word of a sentence, proper nouns, all nounse in German, etc.), but for others like Spirit it the translator's choice.

Similarly, the old languages have neutral pronouns that are most accurately translated as "that". However, in addition, English has additional similar pronouns "which" and "who" that respectively refer to inanimate and animate antecedents. The choice of which of these three words to use is up to the translator, since the words in the original languages are neutral do not implicitly select animate or inanimate ones.
---StrongAxe on 10/14/11


You keep on accusing Trinitarians of being neo-Platonic. As someone who actually has a degree in Philosophy and Religion, my guess is that you've read lots of original material by neo-Platonists and their modern commentators to arrive at such a claim.

Re your ''explanation'' of Thomas' ''The God of me'', I notice that both you and Scott always omit the Greek/English which tells you Thomas said it TO Jesus...and not as part of an oath (i.e. the oath being taken by a person said to another person). Very disingenuous!
---Marc on 10/14/11

How can we fellowship with an impersonal force?

See for example Matt. 28.19, John 14:26 & 15:26,Acts 13:2, & Acts 5:3-4 where referring to The Holy Spirit, it says:

People are baptized into His name
He is referred to as he
He is counselor
He teaches
He reminds
He testifies
He speaks
He commands
He calls Himself I
Peter equates lying to Him as lying to God.
We can have fellowship with Him

Nothing in these verses suggests anything other than the Holy Spirit being a person. These references don't fit with Him being a force, or impersonal.

That view is contrary to Scripture.
---Warwick on 10/14/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance

Ok, David . . . understood. "God is love" and love is personal. And God made man in His image . . . and mankind is three basic persons . . . father, child, helpmate . . . except humans have been leaving out being of family caring and sharing love. And love, of course, does have force (1 John 4:18) . . . of God in His almighty power. So, He is personal in us, sharing His own love with us. So, the Holy Spirit is personal, being of love. He is spiritual, being personal wherever He is.
---Bill_willa6989 on 10/14/11

Bill willa, Romans 5:5, "which"-

'the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.' (KJV)

'the Holy Spirit which was given unto us.' (ASV)

Have these translations been compiled by blasphemers because they use the word 'which'?

It is trinitarian indoctrination to demand God's holy spirit must be capitalised and referred to as 'who' to give God's spirit a sense of personage.

Who is saying the holy spirit is an 'inanimate object'? Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe the holy spirit is an 'inanimate object'. God's holy spirit is His active force, the means 'by which' God 'pours out his love into our hearts'.

How can you 'pour out' a person into the hearts of many people?
---David8318 on 10/14/11

It is called the "New World Translation". In Romans 5:5 it says God's love has come "into our hearts" by means of the Holy Spirit, but they do not capitalize "Holy Spirit", plus they call the "Holy Spirit" "which". So, this is blasphemous. Blasphemers, then, wrote it, I consider. God's own love comes into our hearts, by means of the Holy Spirit. So, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God's own love. Only God can be the Spirit of His own love. Since when can an inanimate thing bring us God's own love "in our hearts"?
---Bill_willa6989 on 10/14/11

Warwick- Thomas' remark 'my Lord and my God' was not given as an identifier of who Jesus was. This is your assumption based on your Neo-Platonic, trinitarian indoctrination.

Thomas' remark was given when he understood and 'believed' Jesus had been resurrected. The whole issue of John 20 is Jesus' resurrection- not who he was.

Thomas was not a trinitarian and John 20:28 is not Thomas' conversion to trinitarianism as you suggest. Thomas doubted Jesus had been resurrected and thus doubted that the other disciples had seen him. Reason why Jesus invited him to touch him for himself.

Thomas saw and believed not only the resurrection of his Lord, but also Jehovah God's power over death- thus his remark, 'my Lord and my God'.
---David8318 on 10/14/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money

Scott, you claim Thomas' words in John 20:28 are but some utterance, not an acknowledgement that Jesus is the God. Let me do an experiment and delete this socalled utterance from the text.

vs 27 "Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

vs 29 Jesus said "Because you have seen me, you have believed,..."

However if you are correct Thomas has not expressed any belief at all! None!

But your postulate is false. It is obvious Jesus' statement (that Thomas now believes) was spoken in direct responce to Thomas calling Jesus "My Lord and my God!"
---Warwick on 10/14/11

Scott further to John 20:28 take a peek at Psalm 35:23 where David speaks to Yahweh "Awake and rouse yourself for my vindication, for my cause, my God and my Lord!

How similar this is to John 20:28. I am confident Thomas, as a Godly man, trained in the Scriptures, knew full well what he meant when he spoke "My Lord and my God to Jesus! Thomas reverses the order most probably because he knew Jesus as Lord, before he knew Him as God.
---Warwick on 10/14/11


We are quibbling over semantics. Only JWs use the NWT as a reliable source. You use it as an object of criticism to prove them wrong.


A dictionary definition of "speak":
1. to utter words or articulate sounds with the ordinary voice
2. to communicate vocally
3. to converse
4. to deliver an address, discourse, etc.
5. to make a statement in written or printed words.

Phones do 1 and 2. If they didn't, nobody would use them. So do lips. We use phones and lips to do 3. Even bibles (also inanimate objects) do 5 - we often say "the bible speaks to us...". However, none of these objects speak of their own accord, and I never said they did.
---StrongAxe on 10/14/11

My educated guess would be that their "New World Translation" was published about 50 years ago, and probably written by members of their Watch Tower group.
---Eloy on 10/14/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments

but who refuses that The father is God of Jesus? or Jesus is God of the Father, and the Spirit is god of jesus and The father.
Points made here is like putting difference between humanity and mankind. basically both mean the same.
Jesus can easely say My God and still be God.
---andy3996 on 10/14/11


You're disingenuous. You avoid what I said about Moule, now you avoid 1 Sam 20's context.

'Then David took an oath again...''But truly as the Lord lives...'So Jonathan said to David, ''...I will do it for you.''' (verses 3,4)

'The Jonathan said to David: ''The Lord God of Israel [he then pledges and explains to David what he'll do]....may the Lord do so and much more to Jonathan''...So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, ''Let the Lord require it at the hand of David's enemies.''' (vv12,13,16)

There's no oath at John 20:28. Thomas says to Jesus, ''You are the Lord of me and the God of me.''

The Watchtower's Arian heresy's finished. Its first appearance isn't until the third century AD.
---Marc on 10/14/11

"How does an inanimate object speak?" aka

"The land cries out"- Job 31:38-40

The bible uses language that personifies lots of things that are not actually persons.

Truth dies- Jer 7:28

We can lie against the truth- James 3:14 KJV, RSV

"Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands far away, for truth has stumbled in the public squares, and uprightness cannot enter." Is 59:14 ESV

Are truth, land, justice, uprightness and righteousness persons?
---scott on 10/14/11

\\''Telephones speak.''\\

Psychics hear hidden voices in radios, too.

BTW, "telephone" in German is "fernsprecher"--literally, "far speaker," a calch of "telephonos"

\\Hey, Strongaxe, seen a doctor recently?\\

I'll bet you think you're a wit, Marc, and you could be half right.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/14/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks

''Telephones speak.''

Hey, Strongaxe, seen a doctor recently?

---Marc on 10/13/11

Marc (1)

Anyone with a passing interest in our one-sided exchange can decide for themselves who is being honest and who is not.

If you can produce one answer that you have (ever) given to a question I have asked of you then please direct my attention to it.

It's apparent that you are running out of names to call me so you have broken out the Thesaurus for some new, fancier ones. So be it. I won't (and have never) resorted to this weak and distasteful form of apologetics. Have at it.

I have addressed why Thomas' words could appropriately be directed to either Jesus or Jehovah.

It is my opinion that neither case is problematic from a non-Trinitarian perspective.

---scott on 10/13/11

Marc (2)

Regarding your "analysis" of 1 Samuel 20:12- Translators have struggled with this text for years. Whether, contextually, Samuel is describing an "oath" doesn't change the (somewhat curious) fact that Jonathan, according to the Hebrew text, calls David Jehovah God.

The Hebrew says: "waiyomer yehonatan el david yehowah elohei yisrael ki echkor et avi kaet machar."

Literally: "And Jonathan said unto David, Jehovah God of Israel, when have I sounded my father about tomorrow any time..."

Of course most translations add words to bring out, what they believe to be, the intended meaning. Some, like the KJV, have opted for a literal translation.

David is not Jehovah.
---scott on 10/13/11

I learned from the NWT that the Word was a god. :-) on 10/13/11

Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes

//Lips speak. Telephones speak. //

these are instruments that help form the sounds and transmission of speech, but they themselves do not speak. before a sound is made, speech requires thought and instructions which are far beyond the capabilities of any inanimate objects.

//I am curious why, since, as you yourself just pointed out, it contains contradictions.//

exactly. i use the text that is used by the JWs to point out obvious fallacy. BTW, I think all versions are edited to try to "prove" denominational or cultic slant.
---aka on 10/13/11


You asked: how does an inanimate object speak?

It is very easy. Lips speak. Telephones speak. Yet we would not assign independent sentience to either of these. (Note that I am not claiming that the Holy Spirit is an inanimate Star Wars-like force, just that it is possible for an inanimate object to speak).

Also, you said that you use it [the JW's NWT translation of Bible].
I am curious why, since, as you yourself just pointed out, it contains contradictions.
---StrongAxe on 10/13/11


No you haven't really addressed anything. Notice you don't rebutt my 1Sam analysis.

''Why are Thomas' words "My God" relevant and Jesus' words "My God" irrelevant?''

Notice you don't actually provide an answer to why Thomas would call Jesus HIS God. Scripture says that Thomas called Jesus ''The God of me''.

Flipping through your files to find some Trinitarian authority, cherrypick his writing, then paste these words on this site in order to not actually deal with the question is disingenuous and commits the fallacy of authority. Deal with what's on the table and then I can respond to why Jesus called The Father his God.
---Marc on 10/13/11

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.