Mikeboll64 vrs worshippingjesus

[Worshipping Jesus]

Mike

Okay it has been brought to my attention by Jack that I misunderstood you about saying Jehovah is not our Lord. So I removed the following from the post and say sorry for the missunderstanding…

The following is invalid and I ask for Mike to forgive me for the misunderstanding.

Quote

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18) And you don't think about the fact that “only Lord and master” taken literally means Jehovah is no longer our Lord.  Yet Jesus knows Him as “the Lord of heaven and earth”, and “my God”. Jehovah is no longer your “Lord”? Is this some more of the witnesses’ false teaching? If Jehovah is no longer your Lord that must mean the following scriptures are speaking only of Jesus… And thou shalt love the “LORD THY GOD” with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. Mk 12:30 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith “THE LORD, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty”. Rev 1:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about [him]; and [they were] full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, “LORD GOD ALMIGHTY”, which was, and is, and is to come. Rev 4:8 Thou art worthy, “O LORD”, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Rev 4:11 Hey everyone, this debate is over and it is a checkmate for the Trinitarians because Mike says the Father is no longer our “Lord” therefore according to the above scriptures if the Father is not Lord then Mike has just admitted that Jesus is indisputably God. So again Mike now that you have said that the Father is no longer our Lord then that would only support us in that Jesus is the Lord that delivered his people out of Egypt. Look again… So please don’t try to argue that the “Lord” in verse 5 is Jehovah anymore because Jude uses the term Lord, it will just jump up and bite you in the butt.

I also edited out my questions regarding Jehovah being Lord.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi Mike

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

How clear is that Mike? “THERE IS NO GOD (THEOS) BUT ONE”

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Crystal clear, Keith.  And who does Paul say that “one” God is?  The Son?  The Holy Spirit?

Good, so there are no other gods, right? So then when the scriptures call Jesus God then he can’t be a god but One God with the Father.  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

No, the only “one” God is The Father.

But yet you say there are other Gods.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

To the believer he is not “a god” at all. To the unbeliever he is a god who is false and the father of lies.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Was Paul a “believer”?  He's the one who calls Satan “the god of this age”.

So if I say that “the god of Assyria” was worshipped by King Sennacherib, then that means that “Nisroch” was a god, or was he a false god or so-called god who was only a god to the Assyrians and the King, yet to the Hebrew children and to us he is not a god at all. Isa 37:37, 38

Paul clearly said “THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE.”, was he lying or playing word games?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Do you think he meant God?

That’s what I have been trying to tell you. NO!  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Of course not.  Just like John did not mean God in 1:1.

So then YHWH is a liar when he says…

YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE“. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” Isa 43:10 NWT

“This is what the Lord says— Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; “APART FROM ME THERE IS NO GOD. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come— yes, let him foretell what will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. “IS THERE ANY GOD BESIDES ME”? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” Isa 44:6-8

I am the Lord, and there is no other; “APART FROM ME THERE IS NO GOD”. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know “THERE IS NONE BESIDES ME. I AM THE LORD, AND THERE IS NO OTHER”. Isa 45:5, 6

Remember the former things, those of long ago; “I am God, and **THERE IS NO OTHER**; I am God, and there is none like me”. Isa 46:9

“See now that I myself am He! “THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME”. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand. Deut 32:39

The problem you have Mike is the followers of Jesus call him their own personal God.  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

And do you think that Jehovah, who “tells the end from the beginning” and inspired all the writers of Scripture knew that Paul would call Satan a god before he ever did it?  Of course.  Yet he still said, “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE”  .   Hmmm….  Could it be that He meant no True God Almighty, Host of the Heavens, Jehovah the Most High God?  Or are you insistent that He meant no “mighty one” whatsoever?

No Mike, show me where YHWH says he formed any gods at all. YHWH speaks through Isaiah the prophet calling “Nisroch” the god of the Assyrians, does that mean that he formed that god or is it that he is a god to the King and the Assyrians who formed and fabricated him?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

No Jesus is not a god!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Webster’s defines god as, “any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature”.

Mike, so by that definition if Jesus is not your God then he does not have “special powers over your life and affairs” does he?

Did YHWH make satan a god over peoples lives or did satan usurp that authority by virtue of men giving him power through their unbelief?

What was part of the attraction to Eve in the garden…  “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and “ye shall be as gods”, knowing good and evil.” Gen

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Is Satan a god?

Only to the blind hearts of those that believe not!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Is Jesus?

Yes Jesus is God who was with the Father in the beginning. John 1:1

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Moses doesn’t work for you because he was God to Pharaoh

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

What?!?   Did you say God?  Just like the NWT?   You're coming along just fine, Keith.

You didn’t get my drift. It doesn’t matter if you add the cap or not in reference to the Pharaoh, because Moses was not a God at all, but only to the Pharaoh.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Not so with Jesus because he is “The Saviour” by his own blood and life. His blood is the blood of God, (Acts 20:28) that purchased the Church for himself.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Yes, because it was the will of his Father and God.  And Acts 20:28 literally says, “with the blood of his own.” The Greek words τοῦ ἰδίου (tou i‧di′ou) follow the phrase “with the blood.” The entire expression could be translated “with the blood of his own.” – Watchtower

Or it also could say “with his own blood”, and compare that with this…

while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, “WHO GAVE HIMSELF FOR US” to redeem us from all wickedness and “TO PURIFY FOR HIMSELF A PEOPLE THAT ARE HIS VERY OWN”, eager to do what is good. Titus 2:13, 14

Why didn’t Paul say that he purchased a people for the Father? Paul clearly is claiming the deity of Jesus in these verses.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Only the Blood of God and not “a god” could do that!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

I must have missed that part in the Scriptures.  Can you show me where it is?

Yea you do that a lot. Your denial of scriptures is evident.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Yet you believe Jesus is a “True God” or is he a false god? It’s hard to know what he is to you and others for you say he is a god yet you do not confess him as your god. You give just lip service to who Jesus really is?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Jesus is a god in the definition from Webster's I gave above.  If you ask again, I will answer, “Webster's”.  That way I don't have to waste time saying the same thing over and over.  That's the new “code”, okay?

And I will keep asking the same thing…if Webster’s definition also includes “having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature” and Jesus is not your god then that means he doesn’t have “special powers over your life and affairs”, right Mike?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

How can you say there is “only one true theos” and then turn around and say “there are other true theos”?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

I know this isn't that hard for you – you just like yanking my chain.

If that is what is happening then so be it because “no god but one” means “no other gods”.  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

So here's another definition of God from Dictionary.com:  the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.  “D.com” is codeword #2.  So the “only one true theos=D.com.  The other true theos=Webster's.  Got it?  Do you understand the code?

Thanks Mike. Who created the Universe and who is reigning supreme? So if Jesus is a god then he must be the “One Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe”.

So from now on when you say Jesus is a god, then I will use the code word D.com, how is that?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

No because Paul understood he was a god to the world but to him there was “no God but one” and Satan is a so-called god!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

See why I made the code?  You ask the same thing 100 different ways expecting a different answer.  “No God but one=d.com.  Satan=Webster's.

D.com. Jesus is the creator and ruler of the universe.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

There are two options for the words“'elohiy m” or “theos” in scriptures depending on context, and they are “The One True God YHWH” or false gods.  Where is a scripture that speaks of any Hebrew in the OT or NT calling any other their God but YHWH and Jesus?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Where is one where Jesus is called “the only true God YHWH”?

We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. “And we are in him who is true–even in his Son Jesus Christ. HE IS THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE”. 1 John 5:20

Johns words agree with John 1:1 –John 20:28 – 1 John 1:1-3. Who is the “Eternal Life” in 1 John 1:1-3 Mike?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Bingo! To Pharaoh he was God, but Moses was not a God at all was he? Did any of his followers call him God?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Moses would be “God” to Pharaoh, not “a god”, because that's the way it should be understood.  Just wait; there will be more things you learn from the NWT before I'm done with you.

It doesn’t matter Mike because Moses was not a god at all. You build your theology on the theology of the Polytheist Pharaoh.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

And no, Moses was not God at all.

Exactly!    

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

And none of Jesus' followers thought he was God, either.

This is not true. John 1:1 – John 1:18 – John 20:28 – 1 John 5:20 – Phil 2:6 – Tit 2:13, 14 – Jude 1:3, 4 – Rev 1:8 – Acts 20:28 – Heb 1:8 – 2 Peter 1:1  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

I will prove that to you in the next segment.  We will do a Scripture vs. Scripture comparison of the writings of John to find out who he thought Jesus was.  If you're so sure of your beliefs, you should be happy for the chance to prove your trinity, so don't balk at this.

I am not balking at all. You were the one balking and complaining about answering my last post. But it will be interesting to see if you can debunk the Trinity though it hasn’t been debunked in 100s of years and has survived the attacks.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Except the NWT should be more consistent and put the big “G” in John 1:1c right?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Jesus wasn't sent to be God to us.  He was sent as who he was – the Son of God.  The one who is not God, but has explained Him to us.

So you say!

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Show me where any of these so-called gods had divine nature and were gods to the Hebrew children! Show me where any of these so-called gods had any divine power of their own and worked miracles!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Do you know what divine means? D.com says:  1.of or pertaining to a god, esp. the Supreme Being. 2.addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship. 3.proceeding from God or a god: divine laws. 4.godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity. 5.heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom. 6.Informal. extremely good; unusually lovely: He has the most divine tenor voice. 7.being a god; being God: a divine person. 8.of superhuman or surpassing excellence: Beauty is divine. Satan is these things, Keith.

Satan is Divine? That’s a first. I am talking about God like characteristics Mike and you know this but are trying to create a diversion here. Is there any good in satan Mike?  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

You can't take away from what he is just because you don't like him.  He is one of the most powerful beings ever created.  He and his army are so powerful, in fact, that God has to break him down for Jesus and his army to be able to defeat him.  At least that's how I understand it.  And many of the Hebrew children worshipped him.  The ones who practiced magic, fortune telling, raising the spirits of the dead, etc.  Don't you think Baal is one of Satan's army?  He's not one of Jesus'.  And if Jesus worked a miracle by expelling the demons, wasn't it a miracle that they were in the humans in the first place?  They are spirit creatures so much more intelligent and powerful than us, it isn't even funny.  They could squash us like a bug, if God permitted.

So because satan has power that makes him a god? The president of the USA is the most powerful man in the world, does that make him a god? Why doesn’t satan have the same power over us? It’s because to us he is not a god at all and to refer to him as a divine being who is a god is anathema! To the world he is a god because of their unbelief.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Really? But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to “LIE TO THE HOLY G HOST”, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? “thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God”. Acts 5:3, 4

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Yes, really.  Read a little farther down the page, and it becomes clear what Paul meant.  Verse 9 says, “9Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”   Context, Keith.  By lying to the Spirit OF God, wouldn't you in that same instant, be lying to God Himself?

You are making my argument. Yes they were lying to God himself because the Spirit of God is God. The Spirit of Jesus is Jesus!

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Cor 3:17

Is Paul talking about 2 Spirits here? Notice the Lord is the Spirit yet Paul says “where the Spirit of the Lord is”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

If the Spirit IS God, then verse 9 says, “How could you agree to test the God of God?”  Is that what is meant?

It means that they lied against the Spirit of God for God and his Spirit are “One”! If the Spirit is an amorphous force or power like the JWs teach, then how do you lie against a force or power?  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Why do you think Jesus said blasphemy against him would be forgiven, but not against the Holy Spirit?  Because that would be the same as blasphemy against God Himself.

You are making my point again. How can you blaspheme against an amorphous force or power?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

You just finish your debate with JA on the spirit.  You and I have got other things going right now.

I can’t wait to get into it.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

An amorphous force or power has no mind or will to set men over others does it? This is another one of those heretical doctrines the JWs teach and I cannot wait to get into the subject.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Again it is just the wording that throws you off.  We know from Scripture that the Spirit speaks only what God tells it to.  The Holy Spirit didn't appoint anyone. God appointed and they knew this by the Spirit OF God.

Apologetic junk! The wording doesn’t throw me off Mike, it throws you off for it clearly says they “Lied to the Holy Spirit” then plainly makes known there is no difference in the Holy Spirit and God! But there you go again Mike making the word of God of none effect simply because it does not fit into you doctrine. Read it again Mike…

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath “MADE (Greek tithēmi)”  you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

The Greek word for “made” is tithēmi which means;  to set, put, place. It is in the “middle voice” which “indicates the subject performing an action upon himself (reflexive action) or for his own benefit. E.g., “The boy groomed himself.” Many verbs which occur only in middle voice forms are translated in English as having an active sense; these are called “deponent” verbs, and do not comply with the normal requirements for the middle voice”. Strongs

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Like Jesus, it is a mediator between God and us.  It is OF God, not God.  No more on the Spirit until JA has his chance at you.

JA has not addressed my points about there being “One spirit” that we have been made to drink of, yet the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit lives in us according to the scriptures. Maybe you can explain this conundrum that the ATs have in common!

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

No proof at all. Just JW conjecture! Follow the NWT if you like, but practically every other credible version translated by 100s of Greek scholars disagrees.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

The same scholars that say Moses was “a god” to Pharaoh?  But you now seem to know and use the better translation.

Yea the same scholars that gave Moses a capitol “G” for god yet gives Jesus a small “g” in John 1:1. I only use their translation to show you how they contradict themselves.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

It might as well have been written by 2 year olds Mike because not a single translator could read or speak a single Hebrew or Greek sentence.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

I've just overheard this past weekend that the NWT translators maintain anonymity.

Yea, why do you think they wanted to remain anonymous, because none of them could translate a single Hebrew or Greek sentence?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

I can look into these claims when I get time.  For now, I'll just let two things work themselves out.  1.  Slowly, you'll see how, when the NWT translates differently from t he others, the NWT is the one who gets it right.  You see that with Moses already.  2.  If you seriously believe that someone could translate the whole Bible without speaking the languages, you are very gullible

Okay Mike, I thought you might sincerely look into this but since you are not going to do any homework I will help you. The next post will be only one source of many that can be verified. Enjoy!

More to come

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

To all and Mike!

The following is information about the NWT and its corruption.

Translators of the New World Translation

The following list of translators of the New World Translation is a compilation from a variety of sources:
Frederick W. Franz: Main translator.

Took liberal arts sequence at University of Cincinnati; 21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin. Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year; course titled “The New Testament–A course in grammar and translation.” Left in spring of 1914 before completing junior year. Self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Entered Brooklyn headquarters facility of Watchtower Society in 1920. Probable ghost writer for J. F. Rutherford (2nd president of WTS) from late 1920s through 1942. Vice president of WTS from 1942 to 1977, president from 1977 until death in 1992 at age 99.

Franz writes in his autobiography: “What a blessing it was to study Bible Greek under Professor Arthur Kensella! Under Dr. Joseph Harry, an author of some Greek works, I also studied the classical Greek. I knew that if I wanted to become a Presbyterian clergyman, I had to have a command of Bible Greek. So I furiously applied myself and got passing grades” (The Watchtower, May 1, 1987, p. 24). Franz gives the impression that the bulk of his Greek studies were “Bible Greek” under “Professor Kensella” and that classical Greek was secondary under “Dr. Joseph Harry.” The opposite is true. As mentioned above, Franz only took one 2-hour credit class of “Bible Greek” but 21 hours of classical Greek. According to the course catalog of 1911, Arthur Kensella was not a professor of Greek, as Franz wrote, but an “instructor in Greek.” Kensella did not have a Ph.D. and he therefore taught entry-level courses.

Nathan H. Knorr

No training in biblical languages. Entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1923; 3rd president of WTS from 1942 to 1977. Died 1977 at age 72.

Milton G. Henschel

No training in biblical languages. Private secretary and traveling companion to N. H. Knorr from late 1940s until early 1970s. 4th president of WTS from 1992 to 2000. Still living, age mid-80s.

Albert D. Schroeder

No training in biblical languages. Took 3 years of mechanical engineering, unspecified language courses in college, dropped out in 1932 and soon entered Brooklyn headquarters. Registrar of “Gilead School” from 1942 to 1959. Still living, age 90.

Karl Klein

No training in biblical languages. Entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1925; member of Writing Dept. since 1950. Died 2001 at age 96.

George D. Gangas

No training in biblical languages. Greek-speaking Turkish national, entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1928 as a Greek translator from English to modern Greek publications. Died 1994 at age 98.

Franz was the only man capable of doing translation work. Gangas was a native Greek speaker, knew little of Koine Greek, and apparently helped out with a variety of non-translation tasks including reviewing the English grammar for continuity of expression. From all information published about him personally, one readily concludes that Knorr was the business administrator for the Translation Committee. Henschel might have been on it to take care of legal/secretarial matters. Schroeder and Klein did the copious footnotes (which included textual sources) and cross references and marginal notes, which in the original six volumes of the NWT were more extensive than in the 1984 edition.

The NWT Committee has always been extremely secretive, and so information about who was on it has only trickled out of the Brooklyn headquarters as various staff members have left and revealed what they knew. Scant information has been published, other information has leaked by word of mouth.

Frederick Franz has been criticized for supposedly not being proficient in Biblical Hebrew. This is patently false, since *someone* had to be competent enough to produce a workable translation, and it certainly was not the other men on the NWT Committee. Franz's nephew, Raymond Franz, who resigned from the Jehovah's Witnesses Governing Body in 1980 and was excommunicated in 1981, listed some of the members of the NWT Committee in his 1983 book “Crisis of Conscience”. He has told me and others that he once observed his uncle silently reading an ancient Hebrew manuscript in a museum display case, which the elder Franz is not likely to have done in private unless he was actually able to make sense of it.

But because the elder Franz has internally been termed “the oracle of the [JW] organization” and was clearly its “head theologian” from 1942 until his gradual retirement in the 1980s, he certainly inserted his religious biases into his translation work.

Someone on the private list asked some questions and I answered as follows:

“How much paraphrasing did the translator(s) of the NWT intend to employ?”

I'll let the “Introduction” to the 1984 NWT Reference Bible answer (p. 7):

“Paraphrases of the Scriptures are not offered. Rather, an effort has been made to give as literal a translation as possible where the modern-English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not, by any awkwardness, hide the thought. In that way the desire of those who are scrupulous for getting an almost word-for-word statement of the original is met. It is realized that even such a seemingly insignificant matter as the use or omission of a comma or of a definite or an indefinite article may at times alter the correct sense of the original passage.

Taking liberties with the texts for the mere sake of brevity, and substituting some modern parallel when a literal rendering of the original makes good sense, has been avoided. Uniformity of rendering has been maintained by assigning one meaning to each major word and by holding to that meaning as far as the context permits. At times this has imposed a restriction upon word choice, but it aids in cross-referencing work and in comparing related texts.

Special care was taken in translating Hebrew and Greek verbs in order to capture the simplicity, warmth, character and forcefulness of the original expressions. An effort was made to preserve the flavor of the ancient Hebrew and Greek times, the people's way of thinking, reasoning and talking, their social dealings, etc. This has prevented any indulgence in translating as one may think the original speaker or writer should have said it. So, care has been taken not to modernize the verbal renderings to such an extent as to alter their ancient background beyond recognition. This means the reader will encounter many Hebrew and Greek idioms. In many cases the footnotes show the literalness of certain expressions.”

Next question:

“Another realm that must be addressed in evaluating a translators skills or the validity of a translation is understanding the presuppositions of the translators.”

You are absolutely correct that “Every translator translates with presuppositions.” You may have noted Dr./Mr. Swift's observation that Franz 'freely admitted his presuppositions'. These were set by previous Watchtower doctrines, some of which he himself had a hand in formulating. Some of these are clearly enunciated in the introductory material to specific volumes. A solid discussion of these is probably beyond the scope of this forum, but an idea can be readily derived by understanding the very basic doctrines held by the Watchtower Society when the NWT originally was produced, from the late 1940s through the late 1950s.

These include the notions that the Bible is absolutely inspired and inerrant, that Christ returned invisibly in 1914 (hence the concern with “parousia”), that a special group of Jehovah's Witness leaders are God's exclusive and collective 'spokesman' to all mankind, that the Bible does not teach the Trinity, and so forth. As “head the
ologian” and vice-president of the Watchtower Society, Franz was required to ensure that his work was consistent with existing doctrine, just as any group of translators is required by those who commission them to follow the precepts of the group. Deviation from accepted ideas may be grounds for dismissal.

Next comment:

“Knowing his or her name permits a scholar to look at the corpus of the translators writings and discover the translators presupps.”

Frederick Franz either wrote or contributed to most of the WTS's large-format bound theological books published from the late 1920s through the early 1970s. He also wrote or contributed to countless articles appearing in “The Watchtower” magazine. Once one becomes acquainted with Franz's distinctive writing style, it is not hard to see which publications he wrote or contributed substantially to. Of course, these are not easy to come by for people outside the Jehovah's Witness organization, and the task of reading them is daunting, so I don't know what to tell you. Source

These facts can be verified! Not to mention the JW organization has over their history had many failed prophesys, and false claims as well as have changed their beliefs over and over again.

Here are some websights that show their fallacies.

http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm

http://www.watchman.org/jw/nwt.htm

http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html

http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/20021013.htm

There are many more that a google search can get you.

Hopefully Mike will take an honest look at the evidence and make a wise descision to at least question their material!

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi Mike

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

So I'll let you rant and rave, because the more you do, the more crow you will eat when I reveal the truth to you.

How does that crow taste Mike?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Worse than that they totally abandon their practice in every other time that they translated the word theos in referring to the Father and Jesus without the indefinite article which clearly shows their bias in John 1:1c. Why do you insist that the JWs got it right when there are mountains of evidence against them?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

It's simple, Keith.  Most of the other translations are done by groups of trinitarians.

This is so weak I don’t know where to start. First you are claiming that because the majority of the Translators maybe Trinitarian (which is a claim you cannot prove) that somehow these hundreds of translators conspired together to corrupt the Hebrew and Greek text. If that was true Mike don’t you think someone would have proven where they were biased. If they wanted to be biased then they could have done a whole lot more in favor of Trinitarians. Your claim is preposterous. Could it be Mike that because the real Hebrew and Greek scholars unlike the NWT committee are Trinitarian because they could see the Trinity in the original scriptures?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

The NIV scholars had to sign off on being a trinitarian before they were allowed on the project.

Is this more of the JWs lies or do you have proof of this?  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

If the rest of Scripture teaches Jesus as a subordinate of God, then why in the world would John 1:1 imply that he WAS God?  That's why we're going to see what John thought about Jesus before I move on with any more of this debate.

The problem that you have is being subordinate does not prove that Jesus ontology is different from the Fathers. The Holy Spirit is subordinate to Jesus does that mean that the Holy Spirit is not equally the same in nature as the Father and Jesus? You still keep avoiding the fact that Jesus has not yet subjected the Kingdom and himself to the Father. He is at the right hand of God Mike, with all authority and power subject to him.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Okay, you have me on that one. I concede! Even so, Jesus is still called “Mighty God” (El Gibbor).

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Chalk another point up for the NWT verses the trinitarian translation you quoted.   And now you're making some headway.  All you have to do now is find the Scripture where he is called “Almighty God”.

Is YHWH Almighty God?

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, “THE MIGHTY GOD (El Gibbor)”, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isa 9:6

In that day the remnant of Israel, the survivors of the house of Jacob, will no longer rely on him who struck them down but will truly rely on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, “TO THE MIGHTY GOD (El Gibbor”) Isaiah 10:20-21

Looks like the same God to me. Did Isaiah have a memory lapse from one chapter to the next? You totally ignored my point anyway because here we see that YHWH is called “The Mighty God”, though “Mighty God” is anarthrous. Once again this proves that the lack of the indefinite article in no way substantiates that (elohim) or (Theos) is not the “One True God”. But in fact in these verses they lend themselves as Jesus being called YHWH, “The One True God” also.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

What is also interesting Mike is Isaiah in the very next chapter refers to YHWH as “Mighty God” (El Gibbor) without the article.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Remember my square verses rectangle post?  The Almighty God Jehovah CAN be called “Mighty God”.  But the mighty god Jesus CANNOT be called “Almighty God”.  Because “almighty” basically means “the most mighty”.  And only one can be “the mightiest”.  Otherwise, it cancels out the meaning of “almighty”.

So you say but Isaiah doesn’t make any such distinction does he. And besides I have already proven to you that Jesus is called “Almighty” in Rev 1:8 – Rev 22:12, 13 – Rev 22:21, but you chose to close your eyes to the truth and stick your head in the sand. If Jesus possesses all things and he has all authority and power Mike, then he is “Almighty”.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Mike, you are good at building straw mans. You try and make a case without using all the facts therefore making your own argument fallacious. You left out that in Titus 2:13 the words God and Saviour are also “genitive”, so thanks Mike for verifying that the words “God” and “Saviour” in Tit 2:13 are speaking of the same person, Jesus Christ. But you also have failed to address the GSR in both verses.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Okay.  Then let's burn down this straw man that apparently I've made. In Titus 2:13, “God” is not genitive.

 
Mike you are embarrassing yourself and before you start teaching Greek you should know what you are talking about. The word “God” is genitive. Click here. Do you see the word “qeou”, what does it say Mike?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

But the Greek word for “of the” is present before the “God”.  So it means “of the great God”.

No “of” is not there, it is simply added to the article to make sense.  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

This much we can agree on.

No agreement yet.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

And as I said while building my straw man, the word “savior” is genitive.  So is the word “Christ”.  What you fail to see is that the word for “and” is placed between “God” and “of Savior”.  So it literally reads:  “of the great God AND of Savior of Christ”.  It's the “AND” that sets God apart from “the savior Christ Jesus.  Like I said, two people are talked about in this Scripture, Keith.

No not at all. Here is why. The Greek word for “appearing” in verse 13 is  “epiphaneia” which means; an appearing, appearance and it is used 6 times in the NT and all 6 times it was Paul that spoke it. In every case the word refers to Jesus.

That thou keep [this] commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing (epiphaneia) of our Lord Jesus Christ: 1 Tim 6:14

But is now made manifest by the appearing (epiphaneia) of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: 2 Tim 1:10

I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing (epiphaneia) and his kingdom; 2 Tim 4:1

Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing (epiphaneia). 2 Tim 4:8

And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness (epiphaneia)  of his coming: 2 Thess 2:8

This is unambiguous proof that Paul is referring to Jesus appearing as the Great God and Savour, and you keep avoiding the GSR for Titus 2:13

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

One is our great God, AND the other is the savior Jesus Christ.  Chalk one more up for the NWT verses the trinitarians translations.   I wonder how these non Greek speaking 2 year olds pulled this off?  BTW, I'm reading this directly out of the NWT Greek Interlinear.  Someone over there must have known Greek.

Mike, NWT has it wrong. God is genitive in Titus 2:13 and the GSR proves them wrong.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

No, the Father didn’t empty himself and come in the likeness of sinful flesh to become the Son of man and the Son of God, did he? The Father because of Jesus being in the flesh is his God and Father but that in no way means Jesus ontology is less according to the Spirit, than you being less human than your earthly Father who you came from. Can we say straw man once again?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Sure, let's burn down another one of “my” straw men.  First, the person who already was the only begotten Son of God in heaven

Scripture please?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

… did his God's will and was SENT by his God to earth.  Second, the Father is not only Jesus' God while he was flesh.  Jehovah is STILL his God according to Scripture.

And Jesus willingly came and laid down his life! So what does that prove? Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, so are you willing to concede that Jesus is greater than the Spirit of God?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

And third, I am as much human as my father, just as Jesus was (and is again) as much of a spirit being as his Father.  But I am not my father, Bob, just as Jesus is not his Father, Jehovah.

You are proposing Jesus is “another kind” of spirit that the Father begat.  Do you have another kind of flesh than your Father? Animals do.. If you insist that Jesus was “Begat” from the Father then he would be of the “same kind of Spirit” in other words he would be God. But we know that didn’t happen because there is no scripture that says Jesus had a beginning before his incarnation.  

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

You are right, Jesus is not the Father but he is also “True God” right?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Jesus=Webster's.

D.com  Jesus is supreme for he created all things and has all authority and power.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

So you say, Jesus says he and his Father are “One”, and the Apostles call him God and they were not Polytheist!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

John called him =Webster's.  Just as Paul called Satan.  Just as the Psalm that Paul quoted was calling a man god originally.  Was the one whom the Psalm was originally written about God Almighty?  And Jesus also says we will be one with them.  Will we be God Almighty?

John was not a Polytheist. You have proven nothing!

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

That creates a real conundrum for you Mike, for you say Jesus is “a god” but he is not your god”. Seems confusing to me?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Hopefully the code will make it less confusing for you.  Jesus=Webster's.

Jesus = Webster’s  means he has no authority or power over your life for he is not “Your God”. D.com =Jesus!

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Yet you say that “the Word was a god” in John 1:1c and you think that isn’t confusing to a Monotheist? If he is not your god Mike then he is not “a god” at all is he? Stop with all the double talk!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Jesus=Webster's.

D.com Mike serves “a god” that he claims is not “his god”.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

As far as the Scholars, I come into the court room with the cream of Greek scholarship that totally destroys the so called Greek scholarship of the JWs precious NWT and its translators.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Yet, you use the NWT's version of Moses.  And whether you're honest enough to admit it or not, the NWT is correct on Titus.  And the NWT was correct about “monogenes”.  And Rev “my God”.  So far, so much for your “cream”.

See above! Are you embarrassed yet?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

So when God says “they two shall be “one flesh” then it was a fairy tale. If God says “Two makes one flesh” then you should believe him though you may not be able to see how that is so.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

I don't know, Keith.  Are you and your wife like conjoined twins?  Are you like “The Fly”?  Or are you still two separate people?

Two persons yet “One flesh”, so tell me how scripturally that is not so?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

So I guess the Church which is Christ Body is not literal either is it?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Christ has a “heavenly spirit body” now, according to Paul.  Is the church on earth a “heavenly spirit body”?

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: “IN WHOM YE ALSO ARE BUILDED TOGETHER FOR AN HABITATION OF GOD THROUGH THE SPIRIT”. Eph 2:19-22

Is that literal or not Mike? Or is it just a figment of Paul’s imagination? Though his words may be metaphorical, yet they describe a reality. True believers are really being built together as a habitation of God through the Spirit!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Are you literally Christ's hands and feet?  Are you, like a big toe?

In reality we are the “body of Christ or church” and made up of many members. 1 Cor 12:12-27 – Eph 4:12 Though Paul speaks in a metaphor does that mean that it is not a reality? Of course not, true believers are literally his Body the church made up of many members.  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Did the land actually vomit out the Canaanites?  Did God actually hook a ring in ?'s (I don't remember and I'm too tired to search) nose and lead him?  Was it a literal ring?  Was it visible to those around him?  Do you want me to search some more?  There are literally hundreds of metaphors in the Bible.

Yes and were any of them not a reality or literal in some sense?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

Good! Then Jesus is no less God in nature than the Father.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

No. Jesus is no less a spirit creature than God.

What happened to the “everything begets after its own kind”. Have you reinvented the word “Begat”?

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

So then God begat “a god” who’s Spirit was not Equal to God in nature? How does that work. Everything begets after its own kind. A dog has puppies that are equal in every way as a dog than its parents. That’s the flaw that the “begotten” theory has because that which is begotten is some sort of different creature, like a demi-god or something!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Imagine if you were 25 and strong.  You begat a son who was 12 and not as strong.  Now imagine you never age and never gain or lose any strength.  A million years from now, you will still be more powerful than you perpetually 12 year old son.

What? This is a poor analogy. Since when does anything begat anything 12 years old? You must be tired. Am I supposed to base my theology on my imagination or yours? Even if I follow your logic I would still be of the “same kind of flesh” or being.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

You can not compare heavenly things to worldly things, Keith.  It's apples and oranges.  God created His Son who was not as strong or as wise as Him.  They never age.  The situation remains the same forever.

Scripture please. Where does the scripture say Jesus was created?  Jesus has all things, remember Mike. All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in him. Col 2:3

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

He also created many other spiritual beings, why don't you argue that they are God too?

You are the one making that argument. But since you mention it, there are no scriptures where YHWH calls other spirit beings “god”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

They are also created in God's spiritual form.

Anathema!

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 19 2010,15:52)

That’s because you do not understand the “hypostatic” union concept. Jesus took on the likeness of sinful flesh by emptying himself of his divine prerogatives while retaining his nature as God, and was found in fashion as a man. He was in every way fully human after the flesh “Like the first Adam before the fall, yet he is fully God according to the Spirit which is in very nature God. He is the Word/God in the flesh. John 1:1, 14, 18

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

Is this understandable English of gibberish?  Jesus is not God.

But you say he is “a god”. Make up your mind because there is only one God.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

That's it for the million word posts for me.  It's too time consuming and too much will go unanswered.  By the time I read your response to this, I will have forgotten all the points I made.  So if you skip some, I'll never know.  I want to do this debate, but these long post leave too much “run and hide” room.  Also too much “diversion tactics” room.  From now on, I will only answer one segment at a time.  So don't even bother answering this whole post – I won't respond.  You and thinker just today have accused me of not answering your questions.  I will answer every single one.  But one at a time.  Right now, I will expect two more Scriptures from John that prove he thought Jesus was God.

John 1:1 – John 20:28. There are more, but how many does it take Mike?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 23 2010,02:18)

peace and love, mike ps  So far, the NWT has it right on “my God”,  “great God AND Savior Christ Jesus”, “you will be God to Pharaoh”, “Mighty God”  and “begotten” .  You might want to reconsider their translation of John 1:1.

Wrong again. What about the GSR?

More to come.

WJ

[mikeboll64]

You know, I haven't even read your fourth previous post, and you keep adding pages. Are all of these to my one reply? I just skimmed them, and a lot of the language is angry and confrontational. Are you mad? Why? Does the truth upset you when it turns out to be something other than what you had thought? I'm starting to read the first reply right now. Since there are like a million words to respond to, it might take me a while. BTW, I won't be answering to the same thing over and over, for example, “And yet you think Jesus is a false god”, and “you think Jesus is a god, do you worship him as a god?'. I've answered clearly on this point and you know where I stand.

peace and love,
mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2010,23:16)

You know, I haven't even read your fourth previous post, and you keep adding pages.  Are all of these to my one reply?  I just skimmed them, and a lot of the language is angry and confrontational.  Are you mad?  Why?  Does the truth upset you when it turns out to be something other than what you had thought?   I'm starting to read the first reply right now.  Since there are like a million words to respond to, it might take me a while.  BTW, I won't be answering to the same thing over and over, for example, “And yet you think Jesus is a false god”, and “you think Jesus is a god, do you worship him as a god?'.  I've answered clearly on this point and you know where I stand. peace and love, mike

Mike

No not mad at all! I think my post is pretty cordial. In fact they are far less confrontational than what I have seen from the ATs.

Where do I sound mad? Please give me an example!

I am not worried about what you say is truth. I am 100% confident in what I believe. I have scriptural support.

Take your time, but if you are going to deal with John 1:1 you have to deal with the Polytheism issue.

You have to prove John believed in other gods!

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Hi WJ,

You said:

Quote

No those are not my words but yours.

Not true.  I never called Jesus a “smaller god”.  Don't lie.

I gave you a part of John 3:16-17 16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent forth his Son into the world, not for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him.

To which you said:

Quote

Nope doesn’t say Jesus is not God.

Is it at least clear to you that two separate persons are being talked about here?  If so, then it should be equally clear that only one of them is God, and the other one is someone OTHER THAN GOD.

You said:

Quote

Jesus also said that he had the power to lay his own life down and to raise himself from the dead.  John 10:17, 18 – John 2:19

John 10 says, 17 This is why the Father loves me, because I surrender my soul, in order that I may receive it again. 18 No man has taken it away from me, but I surrender it of my own initiative. I have authority to surrender it, and I have authority to receive it again. The commandment on this I received from my Father.”

Do you just choose not to read the whole thing?  You take this Scripture and try to use it for proof that Jesus is God because he has authority, but you ignore the last sentence which clearly contradicts what you try to prove with the Scripture in the first place.

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

Yes, I can see why at first glance one could think Jesus was saying he could raise himself from the dead.  But the “I will raise it” has more to do with the things he did to fulfill God's prophecies, therefore becoming the new “temple” of God.  What Jesus was saying to the Jews who did not accept that he was the Messiah was, “Look, your house is left to you desolate”, so I will be the new temple for the nations. (Matthew 23:38)  He was not saying that he would raise himself from the dead.  Consider some of the other scriptures that concern Jesus’ resurrection.  

In Matthew 17:23, Jesus says about himself,“They will kill him, and on the third day he will raised to life.”  
Jesus says in Matthew 16:21, “…he must be killed and on the third day raised to life.”
And in Matthew 20:19, Jesus says, “On the third day he will be raised to life!”
In Acts 3:15, Paul says, “You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead.”

And the list goes on and on of Scriptures that clearly say that God (Jesus' Father and God, not your #2 God Jesus) raised him.  And no NT writer ever said, “Jesus raised himself from the dead”, did they?

I gave you John 17:3, 3 This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

To which you said:

Quote

Nope doesn’t say Jesus is not God but in fact implies being equal to God because knowing him and the Father is a prerequisite to eternal life. Not only that, but the same John calls him God in John 1:1 – 20:28 and 1 John 5:20

Hmmmm…  It implies equality when one of your Gods calls the other “the ONLY true God”?  The word “AND” should signify that one is “the only true God” AND the other is someone other than “the only true God”.  Don't you agree?  If not, please tell me why.

John 1:1 says basically in the Greek, “the word was with the god, and the word was god”.  So John called no one God with a capital “g”.  But this is the one that's meaning we are trying to figure out by the other things John wrote.  So let's not use this Scripture as proof of what this Scripture means.

John 20:28 says, ” 28 In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!”

This one is tougher to explain because so little else is known about Thomas.  But we can assume that Thomas, as an apostle, understood that Jesus is the Son of God as clearly as John, who wrote this, did.  And John, three verses later, shows that he did understand, “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God…” (John 20:31)  We also have to assume that Thomas knew what every good Jew did; that no man could see the face of God and live.  And since he wasn't immediately worried about dying, like Manoah when he saw the angel of Jehovah, we can assume that Thomas didn't really think that Jesus was in fact God Almighty.  Had it been said in a way or with a manner that made Jesus and John think that Thomas actually thought Jesus was God, I'm sure something would have been said.  And this is about what John believed, not Thomas.

1 John 5:20 says, 20 But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.

I've gone round and round with thinker on this one.  It's not that hard.  Jesus is the Son of whom?  God.  And it is this Son that has given us the capacity to gain knowledge of whom?  Himself?  No, but the “true one”.  And we are in union with this “true one” THROUGH His Son, Jesus.  Who is this “true one”?   The last sentence answers that.  Do you really think that John is saying that the Son of God is the true God that we are in union with through himself?  It would then say, “The Son has come to give us understanding of the Son and we are in union with the Son by means of the Son.”  Does that make sense?

I gave you Acts 4:30, which says, 30 while you stretch out your hand for healing and while signs and portents occur through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

To which you said:

Quote

The Greek word “pais” for “servant” is also translated as “Son” in Matt 21:15 – John 4:51 – Acts 3:11 – Acts 3:26 so it is inconclusive. Seeing that Jesus is no longer the “servant Messiah” but in fact is running the show now, so it should be translated, Son.

Online Bible Study Tools says:

Pais 5:636,759
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
paheece    Noun  

Definition
a child, boy or girl
infants, children
servant, slave
an attendant, servant, spec. a king's attendant, minist
er

It doesn't seem to apply to “full grown” sons.  Just little kids and servants.  But how does your 100+ scholar NIV you bragged about translate the Scriptures you listed?

Matt 21:15 But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant.

John 4:51 51While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living.

Now these two aren't really fair comparisons, are they?  They are actually talking about little kids.  And Acts 3:11 must be a misprint, for the word is not in there.  How about the other one that actually talks about Jesus?

Acts 3:26 26When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”

So, unless the one now “running the show” is a little boy, I don't think “son” is an appropriate translation of the word.   So what say you to Jesus still being a servant in Acts 3:26 and 4:30?  Can he be God's servant AND God?  

I gave you Revelation 3:12, 12 “The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine.”

To which you said:

Quote

Jesus already has the name of the Father and in fact both he and the Father share many names and titles so he has a new name, what of it?

Does God call anyone “my God”?  And can you see that there is one name of the Father and a different name of his Son that will be written?  Jesus will write the name of “my God” – a name that is different from his.  Yet you say they have the same name.  Curious.  

Keith, I'm going to stop here for now.  The posts are too long, and the first thing we are supposed to be debating is John 1:1.  Somehow we're off on a hundred different topics.

I gave 4 Scriptures that you somewhat rebutted, to which I have responded.  I have also rebutted your Scriptures, to which I await a response.  If you feel you have valid points that need addressed in the rest of your posts, bring them one at a time, not in a jumbled up mess that jumps all over.  It is also my fault for getting these long posts going, I'm not blaming you.  But it is useless to prattle on about everything in the Bible when we've barely scratched the surface of the very first point we are supposed to be debating.  

I await your response to this post only for now.  I will debate the whole Bible with you verse by verse (including the NWT's translation of it) if you want, but not all at once.

peace and love,
mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 28 2010,02:07)

Keith, I'm going to stop here for now.  The posts are too long, and the first thing we are supposed to be debating is John 1:1.  Somehow we're off on a hundred different topics.

Mike

This is the difference in ATs and Trinitarians. ATs have a birds eye view of the scriptures. They are one dimensional in their Biblical theology because they do not see the whole picture or whole council of God.

They use single proof text to prove their point without backing it with other scriptures.

For instance John 1:1 in and of itself is not proof of the Trinity and no Trinitarian claims that he can prove the Trinitarian view simply by using it. So you have to look at all of scripture, and all of Johns writings in particular and most importantly you need the inspiration of the Spirit of God.

So if you are going to debate you must bring in other points that solidify the point that you are making.

As long as the points are realated then it is fair game.

John 1:1 is dealing with the Deity of Jesus or the question as to whether he is the True God or not.

So everything in scriptures that is related to Jesus being God is fair game to bring support to John 1:1 or visa versa.

I will answer your post later, in the mean time if you want to deal with John 1:1 then you need to find proof that John believed in “other gods” and that John 1:1 must have the definite article to prove that he is “the true God”.

Then you have to have a grammatical reason why John 1:1 must have an indefinite article and violate the scholarship of 100s of Greek scholars, experts in the Biblical Koine Greek language and translation.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Mike

Because you have mentioned my name and lied against me in another post to Jack I brought the comment here so I can address your lie.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 27 2010,01:17)

No, you actually said that right now Jesus is in fact more supreme than the Father.  WJ agreed, and both JA and I called you out for blaspheming.  I don't have the time to find the exact post, but it happened.  Anyway, it's irrelevant.

It is relevant if it is a lie against us.

This is a lie against me and you know I nor Jack has ever infered that Jesus was more supreme to the Father.

The way I remember it is my response to Jacks post was you misunderstood him.

Before you make these kind of accusations you need to copy and paste what was actually said.

So lets see the evidence!

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 29 2010,06:49)

It is relevant if it is a lie against us. This is a lie against me and you know I nor Jack has ever infered that Jesus was more supreme to the Father. The way I remember it is my response to Jacks post was you misunderstood him. Before you make these kind of accusations you need to copy and paste what was actually said. So lets see the evidence!

Hi WJ,

First, if you think it will make things easier, we'll do it your way.  Let me know, and I will start from the beginning of the Bible and go all the way to the end and post every Scripture that disproves the trinity in one post.  It will take you 5 days to read and a month to answer.  Then I will answer back in another month.  Sound good?   How about I start with Jesus saying there is only one true God?  I'll finish with Paul saying for us there is but one God – the Father.  And for filler, I'll post every Scripture where Jehovah makes clear that he is the only God.  

But see if I do that, you come in with all the Scriptures you think prove the trinity, and it gets messy with us counter-posting Scriptures and never getting to the bottom of what they mean.  

No, this is a much better way.  You should have plenty of Scriptures that John wrote to prove he thought Jesus is God.  Let's evaluate them one at a time, and actually get somewhere instead of flipping comments and beliefs back and forth.  You don't need the whole Bible to prove what only John thought.  Just the works of John.

As far as the “lie”, I couldn't find it and am tired of looking.  But you obviously know to what I refer.  And you know what thinker said, and you know that you added an agreeing comment behind his post.  And you know I called him blasphemer, so you tried to say I misunderstood him.  And then I told you, “It's right there in his post, man!”  He said Jesus was more supreme.  And now you both deny it because you think the proof is hidden?  Why didn't you get your panties all in a bunch when it first happened and the proof was right there?

I'll ask JA if he remembers what thread it was in.

peace and love,
mike  

I'll

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2010,00:30)

He said Jesus was more supreme.  And now you both deny it because you think the proof is hidden?  Why didn't you get your panties all in a bunch when it first happened and the proof was right there?

Like I said, my response was you missunderstood him. I never once agreed that if that is what he said then I agree.

I have never in any post implied that Jesus was more supreme or greater than the Father. And if Jack said it that way then I am sure he would explain because you know full well other than the questionable post Jack doesn't believe that either.

Unless you have the facts you should stop accusing me of what is not true.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2010,00:30)

First, if you think it will make things easier, we'll do it your way.  Let me know, and I will start from the beginning of the Bible and go all the way to the end and post every Scripture that disproves the trinity in one post.  It will take you 5 days to read and a month to answer.  Then I will answer back in another month.  Sound good?

Mike

Come on. I simply addressed your points one by one. If you look back you will see it has been mostly about John 1:1 but for example when you bring up a scripture in Acts about Jesus being a servant in order to support your Jesus is “a god” theory then I respond to it and now it has diverted from John 1:1, yet it is all related.

I don't think you want to respond to my points which were in response to yours.

How can you have dialogue or debate if there is no way to discuss other points that are related?

Like for instance the NWT Translators. I have to prove to you that they were not Greek or Hebrew scholars and basically the NWT is a paraphrase by the JWs to inject there biases into the Bible, in order to show you that they had no authority to inject an “a” in John 1:1c. They are still making changes.

Why is it a big deal to you? I am not asking to go through the whole Bible but why shouldn't I have the right to discuss scriptures related to John 1:1 and Jesus being the True God?

You have the right to discuss those you think prove his inferiority.

Have you read Pauls exegesis on John 1:1. It is long and it has to be because it is not a subject that is settled because of a handfull of non Biblical scholars who claim it should be translated with the indefinite article. Click here.

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Hi WJ,

I don't know about you, but Jack and I are both getting worn down by these debates.  I simply just don't have enough computer time to answer a 3000 word post.  I agree that the Bible as a whole has the answers, not just a Scripture here and there.  Funny, I think it is the trinitarians who like to just take a Scripture out of context here and there, not the TRUE believers.  

Acts 4 contains a prayer said by Peter AND John, therefore, I included it.  The NWT's translation is not in question as of yet because you will not move on to the Scriptures that can prove what John believed.  If it turns out that John thought Jesus to be God Almighty, then the NWT is likely faulty, but that remains to be seen.

I don't know how many times I have to say it.  I will run from no question or point you put forth.  If you're right, you're right.  So, in good faith, I ask you to put forward ANY ONE of the Scriptural points I have not yet addressed, and we can debate that one point to the extent that is possible.  

Then will you agree to a “Scripture check” to see what John believed?

You can read about the “lie” in my debate with Jack.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

WJ,

I'm in no hurry. I eagerly want to get to the bottom of the trinity falsehood, but we can do that one sentence a day, if we want. I'm not going anywhere.

mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi Mike

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2010,22:31)

Hi WJ, I don't know about you, but Jack and I are both getting worn down by these debates.  I simply just don't have enough computer time to answer a 3000 word post.

I understand, and the debate has no timeline!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2010,22:31)

I agree that the Bible as a whole has the answers, not just a Scripture here and there.

Good!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2010,22:31)

Funny, I think it is the trinitarians who like to just take a Scripture out of context here and there, not the TRUE believers.

True believers? In what?  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2010,22:31)

Acts 4 contains a prayer said by Peter AND John, therefore, I included it.  The NWT's translation is not in question as of yet because you will not move on to the Scriptures that can prove what John believed.

The NWT is always in question because of the evidence I have given you of the Translators bias and their dishonesty!  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2010,22:31)

If it turns out that John thought Jesus to be God Almighty, then the NWT is likely faulty, but that remains to be seen.

The burden of proof is on you because John 1:1c reads “the Word was God”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2010,22:31)

I don't know how many times I have to say it.  I will run from no question or point you put forth. If you're right, you're right.  So, in good faith, I ask you to put forward ANY ONE of the Scriptural points I have not yet addressed, and we can debate that one point to the extent that is possible.

I don't believe you Mike. For unambiguous proof has been put to you and you still do not concede. You won't even admit that John 1:1c can mean “the true God” even though it is anarthrous. You are also being stubborn about the NWT and the translators!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2010,22:31)

Then will you agree to a “Scripture check” to see what John believed?

I thought that was what we were doing? I gave you John 1:1, 14, 18 – 20:28, 1 John 1:1-3 – 5:20 – Rev 1:8 -Rev 22:12, 13 and Rev 22:20

John clearly calls Jesus God and ascribes equality in other verses, and he also ascribes other Divine titles to Jesus like “first and last”, Alpha and Omega”, “almighty” and the “Eternal life”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2010,22:31)

You can read about the “lie” in my debate with Jack.

I did and there is nothing that I said that even implys that Jesus was superior to the Father even in his Love.

Your accusation toward me was totally false.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 29 2010,22:36)

WJ, I'm in no hurry.  I eagerly want to get to the bottom of the trinity falsehood, but we can do that one sentence a day, if we want.  I'm not going anywhere. mike

Mike

If the Trinity can be proven false it would have been done hundreds of years ago. But instead believers in the Trinity are growing.

Matt 28:19 speaks of a Trinity, and those are Jesus own words.

The difference is you and the ATs believe in a different kind of trinity!

But take your time because you will need it since getting to the bottom of the Trinity being false is a bottomless hole!

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Hi WJ,

Thanks for the short post!

You said:

Quote

True believers? In what?

You missed it?  Trinity Reasonings = Unsubstantiated Excrement.

You said:

Quote

The NWT is always in question because of the evidence I have given you of the Translators bias and their dishonesty!

I offered you a challenge a while back to show Scripture by Scripture where the NWT got it wrong.  You balked.  The NIV had it's scholars sign off on being trinitarian before they were allowed on the project – and you are okay with that?  Talk about bias.  Were they afraid someone might want to translate it without a trinity bias?  But now this is for another time.  We'll get to it, trust me.

You said:

Quote

The burden of proof is on you because John 1:1c reads “the Word was God”.

Does it have the capped “g” in the Greek?  Yes or no.

You said:

Quote

I don't believe you Mike. For unambiguous proof has been put to you and you still do not concede. You won't even admit that John 1:1c can mean “the true God” even though it is anarthrous.

Sure it could.  But then 1:18 would read, “No one has ever understood God, but the one and only God, who is at God's side, has explained God.”  How does this language make sense to you?  And how can the being of God be WITH the being of God?  Can WJ be WITH WJ?

You said:

Quote

I thought that was what we were doing? I gave you John 1:1, 14, 18 – 20:28, 1 John 1:1-3 – 5:20 – Rev 1:8 -Rev 22:12, 13 and Rev 22:20

And I have posted rebuttals to them, but have heard nothing back on the matter.

John 1:14 says, 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.

I don't get it.  It says Jesus was begotten from a father.  How does this make him God?

Your turn.  John 1:12 says, 12 However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in his name;

John knew that Jesus gave authority to become GOD'S children.  By this statement, did John think Jesus to be God, or someone else?

You said:

Quote

I did and there is nothing that I said that even implys that Jesus was superior to the Father even in his Love. Your accusation toward me was totally false.

You should have rebuked your friend, instead of encouraging him IMO.  But while searching for that incident, I came across other posts that make it clear you do not think Jesus to be superior to the Father.  Good!  One thing in common.

peace and love,
mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi Mike

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,02:34)

Hi WJ, Thanks for the short post!

Your are welcome!  But we will see how you feel after this.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 30 2010,12:02)

True believers? In what?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,02:34)

You missed it?  Trinity Reasonings = Unsubstantiated Excrement.

Cute, how about…
Arians Reasoned Idioms Are Nasty Secretions!

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 30 2010,12:02)

The NWT is always in question because of the evidence I have given you of the Translators bias and their dishonesty!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,02:34)

I offered you a challenge a while back to show Scripture by Scripture where the NWT got it wrong.  You balked.

This is funny Mike!  You are complaining about the post being to long and you want to go through the NWT scripture by scripture. I never balked. In fact I have posted a mountain of evidence on this sight about the NWT paraphrase and its corruption and you have not even bothered to mention it.

So here are a few we can start with if you like.

Genesis 1:2
“Spirit of God” changed to “God's active force.”
The revision modifies the original noun with a more impersonal form as the JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit.

Exodus 3:14
“I am” changed to “I shall prove to be.”
The revision clouds the connection between God's self proclaimed title and Jesus' proclamation of being the same in John 8:58, as the JW rejects the deity of Jesus.

Numbers 1:52
“Under his own standard” changed to “by his [three-tribe] division.”
The Hebrew word degal translated as “standard” literally means flag or banner. Since the JWs regard saluting a flag as an act of idolatry, the text has been altered according to their doctrinal bias. (Same revision found in Num. 2:2, 3, 10, 18, 25; 10: 14, 18, 22, 25.)

Isaiah 43:10
“Nor will there be one after me” changed to “after me there continued to be none.”
The original future tense of the verb indicates that there will never be another being sharing in God's divinity. The altered tense suggests credibility to the JW doctrine of Jesus' becoming a “mighty god” while still being less than Jehovah in nature. (See the John 1: I discussion below for another expression of this JW distortion.)

Ecclesiastes 12:7
“The spirit returns” changed to “the spirit itself returns.”
The passage indicates the return of a human spirit to God after death. Since the JWs believe in an unconscious state after death, “itself' has been inserted to suggest a more impersonal reference to spirit.

Matthew 2:11
“Bowed down and worshipped him” changed to “did obeisance to it”
The JWs evade recognizing Jesus as worthy of worship as a divine being by altering the form of honor that he receives from men and angels. The Greek word proskuneo literally means “worship.” The use of “obeisance” is a NWT adaptation. (Same revision found in Matt. 8:2; 9:18, 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; 15:19; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6.)

Matthew 5:19
“Least in the kingdom of heaven” changed to “least in relation to the kingdom of the heaven.”
The passage indicates that a disobedient believer who sins can still find forgiveness and eternal life. The JWs believe heaven is reserved for only 144,000 specially designated servants of God. The revision suggests more separation between these groups through a status hierarchy.

Matthew 25:46
“Eternal punishment” changed to “everlasting cutting-off.”
The Greek word kolasis translated “punishment” indicates continuous torment, but the NWT revision suggests “termination,” as the JWs promote the doctrine of annihilationism regarding condemned souls.

Mark 1:4
“Baptism of repentance” changed to “baptism [in symbol] of repentance. ”
Nothing in the original Greek text justifies the insertion of “in symbol.” The revision undermines the significance of John the Baptist's ministry, the Jewish meaning of baptism and the Christian sacrament of baptism in contrast to the more regimented JW baptism requirements.

Luke 12:8
“Acknowledges me” changed to “confesses union with me.”
The addition of “union” suggest something more than what the original Greek actually states and adds further credibility to the NWT distortion presented in John 6:56 below.

Luke 23:43
'Today you will be with me” changed to “I tell you today, You will be with me.”
Jesus assured the thief on the cross that their spirits would soon enter the spiritual/heavenly realm together. As the JWs reject the belief in the conscious survival of the human spirit after death, their revision suggests that “today” deals with the time of the statement rather than the relocation of their spirits.

John 1:1
“Word was God” changed to “Word was a god.”
The JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the deity of Jesus. The revision asserts that Jesus was someone other than God Himself.

John 1:12
“Believe” changed to “exercise faith.”
The orthodox Christian doctrine of spiritual justification and rebirth before God by belief in Jesus is in conflict with the JW doctrine of salvation by works (i.e., obedience to their organization). The revision attempts to describe salvation as a continuous process rather than a radical encounter and transition (Same revision found in John 3:16, 18; 6:29; Rom. 4:3, 10:4, 9, 10.)

John 6:56
“Remains in me” changed to “remains in union with me.”
The mystical union between the individual human spirit and the Spirit of Jesus is obscured by restructuring “in” with a compound form. The substitution implies more separation between a Christian and Jesus. (Same revision found in John 14:20; Rom. 8:1, 2, 10; 12:5; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 1:13*; 2:10, 13, 15, 21, 22; 3:6; Col. 1:14*, 16*, 27
; 2:6, 10*, 11, 12*; 3:3; 1 Thes. 4:16; 5:18; 1 John 3:24; 4:4; 5:20. Verses with an asterisk (*) indicate where the revision uses “by means of” or “in relationship to” rather than “in union with.”)

John 8:58
“I am” changed to “I have been.”
Same intent as described in Exodus 3:14 above.

John 14:14
“IF YOU ask [me] anything in my name, I will do it.”

“me” is omitted to deny the fact we pray to Jesus.
John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads; “IF YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it.” The Greek text in the KIT, however, has ME after ask, so that it should be translated; “If you ask ME anything in my name, I will do it.” It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones include it, and most modern editions of the Greek NT include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this in a note!

John 14:17
“Beholds him or knows him” changed to “beholds it or knows it.”
The revision ignores the context of the pronoun with the Comforter role in the preceding verse to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.

John 17:5
“Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you” changed to “glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you.”
The original text reflects the shared deity of God the Father and Jesus before the creation of the world, but the revision suggests different natures as implied by different states of glory.

John 17:21
“Are in me” changed to “are in union with me.”
The original statement by Jesus indicates his shared deity with the Father. The revision undermines this by suggesting a greater separation between them.

Acts 10:36
“Lord of all” changed to “Lord of all [others].”
The revision suggests that even though Jesus is highly honored, he is still one among many of God's created beings. (Similar revisions found in Rom. 8:32; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1: 16-17.)

Acts 20:28
They change “God purchased the church with His own blood” to God purchased the church with the blood of His son”
Wrath and indignation will come to every Jw from the Governing Body, who even suggests God purchased the church with His own blood… the blood of Jesus… who is God!

Romans 2:29
“By the Spirit” changed to “by spirit.”
Although the definite article 'the” does not literally appear in the Greek, it is implied by the form that (pneuma) appears in. The revision, however, translates pneuma in a more abstract form to evade the reality of the Holy Spirit. (Same revision found in Rom. 15:19; Eph. 2:22; 3:5; Titus 3:5; James 2:26; 2 Peter 1:21.)

Rom 8:1
“Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation,” Which omits the word NOW.
The NWT omits key words when to include them may contradict JW doctrine. The most glaring example is Rom 8:1 “Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation,” Which omits the word NOW. This omission is evidently motivated by the fact that the JW's do not believe anyone can claim NOW to be free of condemnation.

Romans 8:23a
“Have the firstfruits of the Spirit” changed to “have the firstfruits, namely the spirit.”
This represents another form of disguising the separate personality of the Holy Spirit as in Rom. 2:29 above. The original text refers to the derivatives of the Spirit, but the revision identifies the spirit as a derivative.

Romans 8:23b
“The redemption of our bodies” changed to “the release from our bodies by ransom.”
This revision avoids the suggestion that there is continuity of either body or soul after death. Their teaching that the soul ceases to exist at the death of the body precludes the ownership of, or relationship to, a body that must be redeemed.

Romans 8:28
“All things” changed to “all his works.”
The revision undermines the sovereignty of God by suggesting that He controls only the things He is directly involved in doing. This implies that God does not work ALL things together for the good of those that love God, but only those things which he himself does, over which he has control.

Romans 8:29
“Those God foreknew” changed to “those whom he gave his first recognition.”
The revision obscures the nature of God's knowledge and power as a first recognition may or may not be foreknowledge.

Romans 9:5
“Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!” changed to “Christ, [sprang] according to the flesh: God who is over all, [be] blessed forever.”
The direction proclamation that Christ is God is obscured by the altered text.

Romans 10:13
“Lord” changed to “Jehovah.”
This revision obscures the fact that the Lord referred to in verse 13 is the same Lord called Jesus in verse 9. Since the JWs reject the deity of Jesus, the revision is made accordingly. The Greek word, kurios, translated “Lord” has been revised to “Jehovah” over 200 times in the NWT. The JWs insist that this is the only valid title for God, even though Greek-speaking Jews used “Lord” and “God” in place of “Yahweh” (the source of “Jehovah”) throughout their Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Bible contains dozens of names for God other than Lord, Yahweh, or Jehovah.

Romans 13:1
“Authorities that exist have been established by God” changed to “authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.”
Since the JW regard saluting a flag, military service and similar forms of submission to government as idolatry, they have added words to the text to weaken the proclaimed authority of government.

1 Corinthians 6:19
“Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit” changed to “the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the holy spirit.”
To avoid recognition of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, the revision modifies “body” to a more collective form in harmony with the opposing JW doctrine.

1 Corinthians 10:4
“The Rock was Christ” changed to “that rock-mass meant the Christ.”
The passage depicts the preincarnate Jesus exhibiting his divine nature by being present many centuries earlier. This revision tries to conceal his eternal nature with a more figurative interpretation of “the Rock.”

1 Corinthians 12:11
“As he determines” changed to “as it wills.”
The NWT finds many ways to disguise the personality of the Holy Spirit. In this case the third person pronoun exercising individual conscience and will is replaced with an impersonal pronoun.

1 Corinthians 14:14-16
“Spirit” changed to “[gift of the] spirit.”
Like several other Biblical passages, this one indicates the distinctive presence of the human spirit as distinguished from the mind and body. The JWs evade these distinctions and try to disguise them with related revisions.

The phrase GIFT OF THE is added in brackets five times, changing “SPIRIT” to “[GIFT OF THE] SPIRIT.” The NWT elsewhere frequently paraphrases the simple word SPIRIT, especially when referring to the immaterial aspect of human nature, to avoid the implication that such a spirit has a reality distinct from the body. For instance, Heb 12:19 “the Father of spirits” (or the spirits) becomes “the Father of OUR SPIRITUAL LIFE.” In Gal. 6:18 “your spirit” is paraphrased “THE SPIRIT YOU SHOW.” Similar rewording's are introduced in passages where the simple translation of “spirit” or “Spirit” might imply that God's Spirit is a person, contrary to the JW's doctrine that the Holy Spirit is God's “active force.” So, Jude's description of certain men as “not having the Spirit” (or more literally, not having spirit”) is rendered “NOT HAVING SPIRITUALITY” (Jude 19).

1 Corinthians 15:2
“By this gospel you are saved” changed to “through which YOU are also being saved.”
Similar to the Acts 16:30 revision above, this one again obscures the completeness of salvation by grace. The JW's salvation exists as an extended process (“being saved”) wi
th the outcome being uncertain until final judgment before Jehovah.

Galatians 6:18
“Your spirit” changed to “the spirit YOU [show].”
Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision above, this one attempts to obscure the reality of the individual human spirit by presenting it more as an attitude of action than an entity.

Philippians 1:23
“To depart and be with Christ” changed to “the releasing and the being with Christ.”
Paul's eagerness indicates that the believer's spirit goes immediately into Christ's presence at death. The revision suggests that death and being with Christ are two separate steps in an extended process, as the JWs believe in soul sleep (i.e., the unconscious state of the human spirit awaiting the resurrection).

In Phil 1:23-24 several words are added without brackets that, along with some other changes, completely alter the structure and thereby also the meaning of the text. The passage reads in the NWT (with added words in brackets so you can see here) “I am under pressure from [THESE] two things; [BUT WHAT] I do desire is the releasing and the being with Christ, for this, [TO BE SURE], is far better.” There are other errors as well, but the additions indicate here clearly change the meaning so as to avoid the test's implication that Paul would be with Christ after death. Some of the additions in brackets in the NWT so clearly change the meaning it is a wonder that more JW's don't question them? In 1Cor 14:12-16 the phrase GIFT OF THE is added in brackets five times, changing “spirit” to “[GIFT OF THE] spirit.” The result is that Paul's contrast between his own personal “spirit” and his “mind” is removed. To assure that this contrast is missed, the word “MY” is also added in brackets before “MIND” twice in verse 15 but not before SPIRIT. Thus the simple contrast between “the spirit” and “the mind” (or “my spirit” and “my mind” NASB) is changed to “the [GIFT OF THE] spirit” and [MY] mind.”

Phil 2:6
“Although Jesus existed in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself” (He grasped equality and let it go to become a man) has been changed to “although Jesus was existing in God's form, he gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.”
NWT teaches that Jesus was never equal with God nor did he ever grasp at it. Notice the word seizure, which implies grabbing that which is not yours to grab ie equality. If Jesus was created by God, why would He be considered humble for not thinking of himself as equal to God. That is not humility, but reality! However since Jesus was equal to God, it would require great humility to give up his status as God and become a man through Mary.  

Col 1:16-20
the word “[other]” has been added 5 times where it is not in the Greek
Awful embarrassing for Jw’s to read this verse with the [other] removed. Why it would mean Jesus was not a creature but God. By adding “other” to “all other things” Jw’s attempt to avoid the obvious original intent of the Greek that Jesus is above all created things implying Jesus is not a creature!

The addition of the word OTHER is usually justified by an appeal to such texts as Luke 11:41-42 and Luke 13:2,4, where the word OTHER is also added after the word ALL. However, in these passages (and in others were the same practice is rightly followed) the addition of the word OTHER doesn't change the meaning, but simply makes it read smoother. In Col 1:16-20, however, whether one adds “OTHER” makes a great deal of difference to the meaning! What is so often noticed is that the NWT does this same thing in several other passages as well (Acts 10:36; Rom 8:32; Phil 2:9). In Rom 8:32, the word OTHER is not even placed in brackets, contrary to the work's stated practice. In all of these text, the intent seems to be to undermine the implication of the text that Jesus Christ is God.

Colossians 1:19
“His fullness” changed to “fullness.”
The definite Greek article (to), translated “his,” indicates that Jesus shares the Father's divine nature as also shown in Col. 2:9. The revisions evade the truth by concealing the similarity of the two passages.

Also notable is Col 1:19 “because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him.” Here the little word THE is omitted before FULLNESS. This is significant, because NWT renders “ALL FULLNESS” is ambiguous, whereas “ALL THE FULLNESS” clearly refers to the fullness of God's own being (compare Col 2:9).

Col 2:6-12
 
Again, in Col 2:6-12 “IN HIM” and “IN WHOM” (en auto, en ho) becomes “IN UNION WITH HIM” (v.6) “IN HIM” (V.V. 7,9) “BY MEANS OF HIM” (V. 10) and “BY RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM” (V.V..11,12). These variations serve only JW doctrine! They have no other purpose, they undermine the unity of the passage, which is that Christian life consists solely of a supernatural relationship with God through faith in Christ. There are many other passages where IN is paraphrased to avoid the otherwise clear meaning of the text. For example, In Matt. 5:19 IN becomes “IN RELATION TO” so as to avoid the passages teaching that some who disobey the law's commandments and teach others to do so will nevertheless be accepted “in the kingdom of heaven” (which JW's believe will be restricted to the 144,000 special chosen and sanctified believers).

Colossians 2:9
“The fullness of deity” changed to “the fullness of the divine quality.”
The Greek theotes, translated “deity,” literally means divine essence or divinity. As the JWs reject the divine nature of Jesus, a revision is inserted to suggest that Jesus is limited to only divine-like characteristics.

I Timothy 4:1
“The Spirit” changed to “the inspired utterance.”
This revision attempts to obscure the reality and activity of the Holy Spirit by representing it as a message instead of an entity. (Similar revisions found in 1 John 4:1, 3, 6 with “expression” being utilized in place of “utterance.”) A straightforward “the SPIRIT says” would too obviously imply the personality of the “Spirit”.

Titus 2:13
“Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” changed to “the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus.”
Similar to the Rom. 9:5 revision shown above, a distinct proclamation of Jesus as God is obscured by the altered text. (Similar rewording also found in 2 Peter 1:1.)

Hebrews 1:6
“But when He again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels worship him' .” (New World Translation, 1950, 1961, 1970 editions,
The NWT revised 1971 edition was changed to read, “do obeisance to” rather than “worship”. This change remains to this day, even though the original word chosen by the 4 NWT translators, was accurate to the Greek. However the Watchtower society was losing so may new converts because of the word “worship” (only God gets worshipped) that they did the typically dishonorable thing and chose the obscure unknown word “obeisance” to complete the deception of new converts.

Hebrews 1:8
“Your throne, 0 God” changed to “God is your throne.”
The revision avoids addressing the Son, Jesus, as God to validate the JWs' rejection of his divine nature.

Hebrews 9:14
“The eternal Spirit” changed to “an everlasting spirit.”
Similar to the Rom. 2:29 revision above, the switching of the article before the adjective represents the work of the Holy Spirit in a more indirect/ impersonal manner.

Hebrews 12:9
“Father of our spirits” changed to “Father of our spiritual life.”
Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision shown above, this one tries to obscure the distinctive reality of human spirits by replacing them with a more abstract noun.

Hebrews 12:23
“The spirits of righteous men” changed to “the spiritual lives of righteous ones.”
This revision represents the same noun-switching as described in Heb. 12:9 above.

Hebrews 12:28
“We are receiving a kingdom” chan
ged to “we are to receive a kingdom.”
An orthodox Christian understanding of the Kingdom recognizes it as primarily established through Jesus' victorious death, then further through post-resurrection displays of his power, and perpetually through the addition of new believers into God's family. The JWs teach that Jesus' Kingdom did not begin until his invisible return in 1914. The form of the Greek word for “receiving” (paralambano) implies a current condition, but the revision suggests a future event according to the JW doctrine.

1 Peter 1:11
“Spirit of Christ in them was pointing” changed to “the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ.”
Another example of the supernatural presence of Jesus in the life of a Christian is obscured again by this revision as the JW doctrinal view presents him as more limited.

I Peter 3:18-19
“By the Spirit, through whom” changed to “in the spirit. In this [state].”
Similar to several examples presented above, in this passage the presence and personality of the Holy Spirit is obscured with a more abstract representation of the Holy Spirit to accommodate the JW doctrine.

1 John 4:1-6
“Spirit” changed to “inspired expression”
Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we know our union with God is secure “owing to the spirit which he gave us” (3:24). The next sentence in the NWT reads; “Beloved ones, believe not every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God” (4:1). One would never suspect from this rendering that “INSPIRED EXPRESSION” translates the same Greek word (pneuma) as “SPIRIT” in 3:24 (see 4:2,3,6). John's whole point is that although the Spirit's presence assures us of God's love, we are not to believe every “spirit” that claims to be from God but test each one by the teachings it prophets espouses. “Because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (4:1). The NWT obscures this point to avoid the implication that God's Spirit is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic spirits are personal entities and not impersonal forces, as the JW accept).

The same doctrinal bias can be seen in 1 Tim 4:1, where the NWT reads; However, the inspired utterance says….” A straightforward “the SPIRIT says” would too obviously imply the personality of the “Spirit”.

Jude 19
“Have the Spirit” changed to “having spirituality.”
Similar to Gal. 6:18 above, this revision attempts to obscure the separate presence of the Holy Spirit.

Revelation 3:14
“Ruler of God's creation” changed to “beginning of the creation by God.”
The altered prepositions distract from the sovereignty of Jesus indicated in the passage and suggests that the real power of creation was accomplished through the Father, as the JWs believe that Jesus is a created being.   Source

So please do not say “I have balked”.

More to come!

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Hi WJ,

I challenged you in another thread a month or two ago to debate the NWT's version of the Scriptures.  I said you should start a thread so others could join in.  I said, “Who knows, maybe I'll end up eating crow.”  At that time you balked.  You response was something like, “I don't have the time to waste on it”, or something to that effect.   Now, as I clearly stated, it will have to wait.  We are in the middle of something.  Show me Scriptures from John that make you think that he thought Jesus was God Almighty or even equal to Him.

I will be glad to go through every NWT Scripture you quoted, but I think this is an “end run”.  You are avoiding the debate issue at hand.

The most recent I gave you was John 1:12

12 However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in his name;

John knew that Jesus gave authority to become GOD'S children.  By this statement, did John think Jesus to be God, or someone else?

In good faith, I will tackle the first two or three of you NWT quotes.

Quote

Genesis 1:2 “Spirit of God” changed to “God's active force.” The revision modifies the original noun with a more impersonal form as the JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit.

While I agree with their belief that the Holy Spirit is God's active force – the means by which He accomplishes His purposes, you are right.  I agree that they should not have let their doctrinal beliefs overide translating this Scripture as it should be.

Quote

Exodus 3:14 “I am” changed to “I shall prove to be.” The revision clouds the connection between God's self proclaimed title and Jesus' proclamation of being the same in John 8:58, as the JW rejects the deity of Jesus.

  You like “I am” because you think that because Jesus says it, he is God.   Talk to Ed J, he says that the Hebrew couldn't even be forced into meaning, “I am”.  Anyway, even your NIV adds a footnote saying, “Or, 'I will be what I will be'”.  Wikipedia says,

Yahweh is the personal name of God in the Hebrew Bible. This form is a modern scholarly convention: Hebrew scripts write it as four consonants, rendered in Roman letters as YHWH. The most likely meaning of the name may be “He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists,” but there are many theories and none is regarded as conclusive by scholars.[1]

Inconclusive at best.  No demerits for the NWT on this one.

Quote

Numbers 1:52 “Under his own standard” changed to “by his [three-tribe] division.” The Hebrew word degal translated as “standard” literally means flag or banner. Since the JWs regard saluting a flag as an act of idolatry, the text has been altered according to their doctrinal bias. (Same revision found in Num. 2:2, 3, 10, 18, 25; 10: 14, 18, 22, 25.)

If I remember right, Jehovah arranged how the Israelites should camp and progress.  Three tribes to the north, 3 to the south, etc.  The NWT version actually makes more sense.  I don't remember any flags or banners being made signifying northern 3 tribes, southern 3 tribes, etc.  Am I wrong?  Either way, this is a “nit-pick”.  It doesn't change the meaning of Scripture in any way, does it?

Quote

Isaiah 43:10 “Nor will there be one after me” changed to “after me there continued to be none.” The original future tense of the verb indicates that there will never be another being sharing in God's divinity. The altered tense suggests credibility to the JW doctrine of Jesus' becoming a “mighty god” while still being less than Jehovah in nature. (See the John 1: I discussion below for another expression of this JW distortion.)

Says the same thing.  None before and none after.  Nit-pick, no demerits.

Quote

Ecclesiastes 12:7 “The spirit returns” changed to “the spirit itself returns.” The passage indicates the return of a human spirit to God after death. Since the JWs believe in an unconscious state after death, “itself' has been inserted to suggest a more impersonal reference to spirit.

This is their “poetic” way of writing.  I don't personally care for it, but it doesn't change the Scripture.  JW returns.  JW himself returns.  What's the dif?  No demerits.

Quote

Matthew 2:11 “Bowed down and worshipped him” changed to “did obeisance to it” The JWs evade recognizing Jesus as worthy of worship as a divine being by altering the form of honor that he receives from men and angels. The Greek word proskuneo literally means “worship.” The use of “obeisance” is a NWT adaptation. (Same revision found in Matt. 8:2; 9:18, 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; 15:19; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6.)

OBST says,

Original Word Word Origin
proskunevw from (4314) and a probable derivative of (2965) (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Proskuneo 6:758,948
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pros-koo-neh'-o    Verb  

Definition
to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
to the Jewish high priests
to God
to Christ
to heavenly beings
to demons

Not once do I see the word “worship”, do you?  I do see “obeisance” though.  And look at the origin of the word.  A dog licking his master's hand?  Not only no demerits for NWT, but 1 demerit for your translation.  

This is one of your “tricky” ones, WJ.  You say that Jesus said, “the Father is greater” because he was in the form of a man, and not 100% equal with God at the time.  But then you turn around and insist that people worshipped him as 100% God at this same time.  And you think that John thought he was equal for saying he was God's Son, but when he prays to his God it's because he's not 100% equal at the time.  Make up your mind.  Was Jesus 100% God while on earth and therfore worthy to be worsh
ipped as God?  Or was he in a “lowered position” while on earth and therefore said things like “the Father is greater”?  Which is it?  It is impossible for him to be 100% equal with God and at the same time say the Father is greater.  This is a paradox, my friend.

That's a good place to leave off for now.  I'll get to the rest of the NWT quotes later.  So far, only 1 demerit for the NWT and 1 for your translation. (Unless you believe Ed J that “I am” cannot possibly be – then 2 demerits for your translations)  

Please answer to John 1:12 and the last parts I bolded.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Hi WJ,

Continued.

Quote

Matthew 5:19 “Least in the kingdom of heaven” changed to “least in relation to the kingdom of the heaven.” The passage indicates that a disobedient believer who sins can still find forgiveness and eternal life. The JWs believe heaven is reserved for only 144,000 specially designated servants of God. The revision suggests more separation between these groups through a status hierarchy.

Show me where anyone except the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, ones killed for the name of Christ and the 144,000 will enter heaven.  Most people believe that when you die, you go to heaven or hell.  That's not Scriptural.    Regardless, “in relation to” is not in the text, and should not be in the translation.  Demerit #2 for the NWT.

Quote

Matthew 25:46 “Eternal punishment” changed to “everlasting cutting-off.” The Greek word kolasis translated “punishment” indicates continuous torment, but the NWT revision suggests “termination,” as the JWs promote the doctrine of annihilationism regarding condemned souls.

The word “kolasis” has as it's root “kolazo” which means “to lop off or prune, as trees or wings” according to Strong's.  In the NWT Interlinear, they define the Greek as “lopping off” and translate it as “cutting off”.  True, they don't believe that a God that is love can abide the eternal physical torment of any of His creations.  They think that being cut off completely from God is that eternal torment.  I lean away from their view on this one in view of the “gnashing of teeth” comments, but I could be wrong.  I haven't delved that deeply into this yet.  Anyway, in view of the root word “kolazo”, their version is as fair a translation as yours.  No demerits.

Quote

Mark 1:4 “Baptism of repentance” changed to “baptism [in symbol] of repentance. ” Nothing in the original Greek text justifies the insertion of “in symbol.” The revision undermines the significance of John the Baptist's ministry, the Jewish meaning of baptism and the Christian sacrament of baptism in contrast to the more regimented JW baptism requirements.

They are only clarifying, like many translations often do.  The fact that “in symbol” is in brackets let's the reader know it is added for clarification.  John offered baptism as “a sign of” one's willingness to repent of their sins.  It infers nothing of the various ways different religions baptize today.  Nit-pick.  No demerit.

Quote

Luke 12:8 “Acknowledges me” changed to “confesses union with me.” The addition of “union” suggest something more than what the original Greek actually states and adds further credibility to the NWT distortion presented in John 6:56 below.

The KJV says,

8 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess * me before men *, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:

Do you see the 2 asterics?  They are the word “in”.  The Greek literally says, “Who will confess in me before men, in him will the Son confess…”  It doesn't mean one only has to “acknowledge” Jesus.  One has to confess that they are “in” him.  Or to be better understood in English, “in union with” him.  No demerit for the NWT, 1 demerit for your translation.

Quote

Luke 23:43 'Today you will be with me” changed to “I tell you today, You will be with me.” Jesus assured the thief on the cross that their spirits would soon enter the spiritual/heavenly realm together. As the JWs reject the belief in the conscious survival of the human spirit after death, their revision suggests that “today” deals with the time of the statement rather than the relocation of their spirits.

The actual Greek says, “and he said to him amen to you I am saying today with me you will be in the paradise”.  There is no punctuation, so how can you be so sure?  It could read, “I am saying to you today, 'You will be with me ….'” or it could read, “I am saying to you, 'Today you will be with me…'”
Inconclusive.  No demerits.

Quote

John 1:1 “Word was God” changed to “Word was a god.” The JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the deity of Jesus. The revision asserts that Jesus was someone other than God Himself.

The Greek says, “in beginning was the word and the word was toward the god and god was the word”.  Just the fact that one “god” has the definite article “the” preceeding it and the other doesn't should tell you something.  But the correct translation of John 1:1 is what our debate is about right now.  Remember, we are searching the other things John wrote to find out how 1:1 should be translated.  The NWT translation breaks no Greek grammar rules at all, only your heart.  Inconclusive.  No demerits.

Quote

John 1:12 “Believe” changed to “exercise faith.” The orthodox Christian doctrine of spiritual justification and rebirth before God by belief in Jesus is in conflict with the JW doctrine of salvation by works (i.e., obedience to their organization). The revision attempts to describe salvation as a continuous process rather than a radical encounter and transition (Same revision found in John 3:16, 18; 6:29; Rom. 4:3, 10:4, 9, 10.)

One of the Strong's definition of the word “pisteuo” is intellectual faith.  Their point on this is anyone can just “believe” Jesus existed.  True Christians need to not only “believe” in him, but actually “exercise faith” in him.  You must live in accord with the fact that your faith in Jesus will produce fruit.  Even atheists can “believe” in Jesus.  It is their way of saying it more emphatically.  It has nothing to do with the nonsense you wrote.  It is grammatically correct.  No demerit.

Quote

John 6:56 “Remains in me” changed to “remains in union with me.” The mystical union between the individual human spirit and the Spirit of Jesus is obscured by restructuring “in” with a compound form. The substitution implies more separation between a Christian and Jesus. (Same revision found in John 14:20; Rom. 8:1, 2, 10; 12:5; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 1:13*; 2:10, 13, 15, 21, 22; 3:6; Col. 1:14*, 16*, 27; 2:6, 10*, 11, 12*; 3:3; 1 Thes. 4:16; 5:18; 1 John 3:24; 4:4; 5:20. Verses with an asterisk (*) indicate where the revision uses “by means of” or “in relationship to” rather than “in union with.”)

Are we physically inside Jesus' heavenly body?  The “in” means “in union with”.  This wording more readily explains the context in English.  No demerit.

Quote

John 8:58 “I am” changed to “I have been.” Same intent as described in Exodus 3:14 above.

You hate that “I am” cannot conclusively prove Jesus is your God, don't you?   I think that's funny.  OBST says,

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Eimi 2:398,206
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
i-mee'    Verb  

Definition
to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

  King James Word Usage – Total: 146
I am + (1473)&version=kjv 74, am 55, it is I + (1473) 6, be 2, I was + (1473) 1, have been 1, not translated 7

None actually say “am”, but to make it clear in English, we can translate it as such.  But look at the KJV usage I bolded.  It translates the same word as “have been”.  And the NWT is not the only Bible that doesn't translate it as “I am”.

John 8:58
New Living Translation
Jesus answered, “The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!”

It's about conveying the meaning.  Jesus said “I am” a number of times, but only once do you say it to mean he is God.  Once you figure out that “I am” is one of the least likely translations of JHWH, we can put this one to rest.  The Greek says “I am” for sure, but because I have support from a trinitarian Bible, no demerit.

Quote

John 14:14 “IF YOU ask [me] anything in my name, I will do it.” “me” is omitted to deny the fact we pray to Jesus. John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads; “IF YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it.” The Greek text in the KIT, however, has ME after ask, so that it should be translated; “If you ask ME anything in my name, I will do it.” It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones include it, and most modern editions of the Greek NT include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this in a note!

Agreed.  1/2 demerit for not including a footnote.

Quote

John 14:17 “Beholds him or knows him” changed to “beholds it or knows it.” The revision ignores the context of the pronoun with the Comforter role in the preceding verse to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.

OBST says of the word “autos”,

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Autos None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ow-tos'    

Definition
himself, herself, themselves, itself
he, she, it
the same

And here is the KJV's translation record of that word,

King James Word Usage – Total: 5118
him 1947, them 1148, her 195, it 152, not tr. 36, miscellaneous 1676

It can be translated correctly either way.  No demerit.

Quote

John 17:5 “Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you” changed to “glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you.” The original text reflects the shared deity of God the Father and Jesus before the creation of the world, but the revision suggests different natures as implied by different states of glory.

The Greek says, “and now glorify me you father beside to yourself to the glory which I was having before of the world to be beside you”.  The NWT translates it a lot closer than your translation.  Besides, this is one of those pointless “proof texts” you trinitarians try to use.  It says nothing of God giving Jesus HIS OWN glory.  Only the glory Jesus used to have.  No demerit for the NWT, 1 demerit for your translation.

Quote

John 17:21 “Are in me” changed to “are in union with me.” The original statement by Jesus indicates his shared deity with the Father. The revision undermines this by suggesting a greater separation between them.

Again, “in” and “in union with” mean exactly the same thing based on context.  Jesus isn't physically inside the Father anymore than we are physically inside Jesus.  No demerit.

Well, that gets us through the gospels.  What's the score?  2 1/2  demerits for the NWT vs. 4 demerits for your translations?  Come on WJ, this is silly.  You have come up with 2 valid claims so far out of 55 Scriptures. I could problably come up with more than that in any translation you choose.  And for your first one in Acts you actually say the word “the” isn't in there, but you think the NWT should insert it anyway?

I'll do the rest of them when I get time.

peace and love,
mike

[Author]

Posts