Under construction

Scriptures Revealed

John 8:58 - To say Jesus is referring to the verse in Exodus here, is really reaching for something that is not there. This is not even a quote from Exodus. If you look at the verse in the Greek Septuagint you will see that God said "ego eimi ho On", in English that is, "I am the Being", Jesus said, "ego eimi", English "I am" or "I exist". These are not the same words. You have to remember that the words in the Septuagint are a translation of the original words. In addition, if you look in your Greek Scriptures in John and other Books, you will see many sentences of Jesus and others using (ego eimi). Why are these not said to be quoting Exodus? Because it was just the common way to refer to your own existence. If the words were used that freely, how could the religious leaders take this one instance and think Jesus was quoting Exodus, when they heard him say this phrase many other times? That would be like someone saying "I AM" and the people listening would automatically think you were saying you were God. Moreover, this does not fit the context. The context of Exodus was "What is your name" the context of John 8:58 was " you are not yet 50 years old". The context in John is referring to time not identity. So the answer "I have been" fits the context more then saying the definition of the Divine name. It is obvious the Jews wanted to stone him for saying he existed before Abraham, meaning this man who didn't even look 50 years old yet was claiming to be thousands of years old. If the translators of the New World Translation defy Greek grammar, so do other Bible translators. Notice the Greek at John 14:9 where the NIV translates (eimi) as "I have been" the exact phrase the New World Translation uses.

Colossians 1:15-17- . The first sentence should be noted, the Image of the invisible God. When have you ever known an image to be the exact same thing as the real thing? Moreover, to apply a word like First-born to the eternal God Jehovah is a dishonor to his Glory. He is never described in any inferior titles, such as the Prince of Peace. Why and how can the King of eternity ever be referred to as a Prince? (The son of a King). In addition, if Jesus were God why would we have to be told that he was First in all things? Then in the Greek for the verse "...all things were created by him." the Greek word for (by) is "di" or "dia" and means (through.) So all things were made (through) him, through him as an instrument of God. Compare John 1:3. Thus, why is this word "through" used many times in connection with Jesus when talking about creating, but never with Jehovah?

Yes, the New World Translation inserts the word [other] to complete the meaning. Just as a lot of other versions insert words to complete the meaning of a verse. Especially during a Greek idiom. And words are completely changed to get the sense. And what about paraphrasing Bibles that change and add a lot of words not in the original Text? In fact the King James Version inserts not only words to complete the sense but adds whole phrases that are not in it's Greek Textus Receptus. So if these Bibles can do this much changing without being a bad translation, why can't the New World Translation add a word in brackets to show the reader it was added to complete the sense as to the Truth they believe? Now if you want to talk about adding words to change the sense. look at Exodus 6:3 in the King James Version. " And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." The original does not say "by the name of" So this is a lie to say God Almighty is Gods name. Then let us move to a much worse situation where the translators did not insert a word, they replaced the word nearly 7,000 times with a word that does not give the true sense by any means. That word is (YHWH) Jehovah. a very important word that has been replaced with the mere title LORD thousands of times. So many verses like Isaiah 42:8 read as such: "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." Now that is BAD translating.

The problem with these scriptures has to do with theology and grammar, not just translating the Greek. The whole concept of these verses revolve around the phrase "firstborn of all creation". But many want to change the meaning of the word "firstborn" from its litteral meaning, because this is not in line with there theology of Jesus being God. So they change that meaning to its secondary meaning "authority of a firstborn son" and reject the rest of it's literal meaning of being "begotten" (protos - first, and tikto - to beget) And what reason do they have for doing this? Not anything that has to do with Greek grammar. But their theology. And even if a translator believes different, he sure is not going to go against the people and have them reject his version.

Now the reason for the word [other] again has to do with theology and grammar. When you take "firstborn" at it's literal meaning that requires you to believe that Jesus was the first created being. Then to render the next verse grammatically correct in English, the word [other] is helpful in making it correct. Because in grammar, once you have mentioned one object from a group and distinguish it from the rest of the group, you need to make known that it is not included in what you are saying about the rest.

For example:

" Tom was the first one in the club, because of him all the people came into the club."

This sentence is not as accurate because the "all" now includes "Tom" which is not what took place. Whatever action Tom took that let "all" the people in, does not include him because he was already in. So to make this more accurate we need to distinguish between the two events.

"Tom was the first one in the club, because of him all the [other] people came into the club."

So it has nothing to do with bad translation it has to do with who you think Jesus is. If you think he is God then your translation is fine. If you don't believe Jesus is God, but his first creative action, then the New World Translation is fine. But you cannot deny that if the word "firstborn" was meant to mean it's literal meaning of begotten or created then the New World Translation is accurate.

So the bottom line of this difference is the trinity, not correct translations. And as for the scriptures in Colossians, it comes down to the definition of "firstborn" and not the word "other" So it is just "OPINION" that the word means either "authority" or "begotten" and this opinion is based on the rest of the scriptures. And a lot of people see no trinity in it. There are a number of scholars and reference works that admit the trinity is not taught in the Bible. But if you wish to believe it, that is your right. It's not a mistranslation to have [other] in Colossians. All translators translate parts of the Bible in ways that show an opinion to what they believe is the truth, or what's held by most to be the truth.

Hebrews 1:3 - These words are basically saying that Jesus is an exact copy of what God really is. The word used in this verse is the same word used to describe how the image of a coin is impressed on it. And the key word here is "COPY" or "IMAGE" but never is a copy or image the same thing as the original or of the same substance. So yes, Jehovah produced Jesus as an exact image of himself. "The only begotten God or Son" But with Jehovah being Almighty, Jesus can only be second to that, being only an image. But superior to all the rest of creation. That is why Jesus could say, to see me is to see the father.

John 1:1 - It is right to say, "The word was already there." However, it does not mean the word "was" goes back to eternity. The same Greek word for "was" (en) is used over 400 times in the Greek Scriptures and it would be ridiculous to say all or some of these go back to eternity, so again, that statement is only an opinion based on a persons belief that the Word was God an that this must mean eternity. And this is referring to the creation of heaven and Earth only after the creation of Jesus. Because there is no disagreement, that everything was created THROUGH Jesus. So Jesus has to predate this creation of heaven and Earth. And this alone does not prove it was eternity or that Jesus was God. Jesus' creation was a special creation because he is the only thing created by God alone. In fact, we can only use the word TIME to go back only as far as the physical creation of the universe. Because what time really is, is a measurement of how physical objects relate to each other. So how can we use this same physical measurement to measure things in the spirit realm? Can we use a ruler to measure an inch in the spirit world? So Jesus creation is not part of the subject here, since its talking about the creation of the physical universe, thus the creation of time as well. Take for example Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Here Jesus is referring to humans, were they in fact created "from the beginning of creation"? Were not the heavens (spirit realm) (universe) created first? Possibly, even thousands of years before. In addition, just think about it for a minute, If this verse is trying to teach a co-eternal trinity. Why would it use the phrase "the Word already existed" as if there was a time when the Word did not exist. What it is doing is showing a comparison of Jesus creation as to the rest of creation, So in my opinion John 1:1 is saying: In the beginning [of the creation of heaven and earth], the Word already existed [by this time], and the Word was with God, and what God was the Word was. [A powerful spirit being like his God and Father.]

The ending phrase of John 1:1 is not saying Jesus is the "same being" as Jehovah, it is saying he is "the same type of being" having the qualities of the true God. Take for example the anarthrous construction of John 6:70 "Yet one of you is a devil." Is this saying one of the apostles shared some sort of essence or substance with the Devil? No, it's saying he has the same qualities of the Devil.

Regarding the use of articles, Ray Summers states on page 129 in "Essentials of New Testament Greek": "The Greek had no indefinite article. The words tis and eis many times are close to the English use of the indefinite article "a" and "an." The Greek definite article o, h, to was much used and is of tremendous importance in the interpretation of the New Testament. ... The basic function of the Greek article is to identify. At this point an important differentiation should be observed. When the article is used with a construction, the thing emphasized is "identity"; when the article is not used, the thing emphasized is quality of character. ...The difference is clearly seen in the use of o theos and theos. o theos is used of the divine Person "God." theos is used (generally) of the divine character or essence of God. Thus "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (ton theon) and the Word was divine (theos)"

Some say if the Anarthrous (theos) in John 1:1 means "a god" then shouldn't the other anarthrous (theos) in the Bible be the same. Like John 1:6. But according to the book: "Greek Enchiridion - A Concise Handbook of Grammar for Translating and Exegesis" on page 118 under the heading "Anarthrous Construction" it says "When used with a preposition a word is far less likely to have the article then when no preposition occurs." then gives the example of Col. 2:20 - (tou kosmou.....ev kosmo). Also from Robertsons Word Pictures under 2 Peter 1:1 " {In the righteousness} (en dikaiosune). Definite because of the preposition en and the following genitive even though anarthrous."

This is telling us that when there is a preposition but no article the article can be implied. So John 1:1,2 "In beginning", - In (en) is the preposition, thus "In (the) beginning". John 1:6 "from God" - From (para) is the preposition, thus "From (the) God" or From God".

It should be apparent that languages use many ways of expressing things and sometimes the definite article is used, sometimes the indefinite and still others no article is used. For example, we translate Philippians 1:8 "For God is my witness..." even though the definite article is there in Greek. We do not say "For the God is my witness..." and again at 2 Corinthians 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father..." Here we do include the article, as the English requires it. And what about Acts 28:6 "....saying he was a god." No definite article here, should we put one and call Paul, God Almighty? Or maybe 2 Corinthians 4:4 "Among whom the god of this...." The article DOES appear here in the Greek and English. So, should we conclude that Satan is God Almighty? Not to mention the use of the article in English where it does not appear in the Greek as we have just discussed.

There is only one True God, Jehovah. Again to say because someone or something is called god it has to be referring to Almighty God, It does not. The word god is again just a title and means Powerful one. Jehovah, Jesus, angels and men are all referred to as gods in the Bible. So, the true sense of being polytheistic means you believe in more then one god and that neither is supreme or that one can be worshipped just as others. This is not the case, there is only one True God in the fullest sense of the word, but there are other powerful beings that are under Jehovah's control. So calling Jehovah God means he is the Almighty and no one to challenge him. To call others god, mean they possess a certain amount of power or they are wrongly worshiped. Do you dispute the Bible when it calls Satan the god of this age? 2 Corinthians 4:4; So if the Bible calls Satan a god and you believe Satan exists, are you polytheistic?

Does Colwell's rule prove that "a god" is a mistranslation at John 1:1? Perhaps you noticed this scholar's wording that an anarthrous predicate noun that precedes the verb should be understood as definite "if the context suggests" that. Further along in his argument Colwell stressed that the predicate is indefinite in this position "only when the context demands it." Nowhere did he state that ALL anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek are definite nouns. Not any inviolable rule of grammar, but context must guide the translator in such cases.

Here are a few other quotes, In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in Joh 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite." On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."

"When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor do they think of him as God. He is God's Christ, God's Son, God's Wisdom, God's Word. Even the Prologue to St. John, which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous [the·os'] than it appears to be in English."-"The Divinity of Jesus Christ," by John Martin Creed.

How can you have 2 distinct persons in one God. Because The word God or Deus or Theos or El or Elohim are titles or descriptions of a PERSON. Are Jesus and God the Father two persons, (Yes; Luke 22:42). Is Jesus deity, (yes; Isaiah 9:6). Is God the Father deity, (yes; Exodus 6:3). Are Jesus and God the Father the same Deity, (No, show me the scripture). Jesus can and is deity without being the same deity as God the Father or Jehovah. Even Strong's Dictionary says (theos) - a deity, and especially with the definite article, the Supreme Divinity. So according to Strong's, (theos) does not in itself imply the Almighty God.

Is Jesus Almighty? (Jehovah is; Genesis 17:1) Has he been King for all eternity? (Jehovah has; Psalms 10:16.) If Jesus were these things please explain why Isaiah 9:6 refers to Christ as only Mighty God and not Almighty God? And why is he called Prince of Peace? (the son of a King, inferior as to position) And if the answer has something to do with Jesus as a human being inferior for that time period. Then there goes being Co-equal for all eternity.

if Jesus is Almighty God because the fact that he shares the divine nature with God the Father, then are the Spirit begotten followers of Christ, like Peter also God? 2 Peter 1:4 " Through these things he has freely given us the precious and very grand promises, that through these you may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust."

Zech. 12:10 - As many like to say, The Jehovah's Witnesses CHANGE "me" to "the one"? in Zech. 12:10. Any honest and informed person will realize it was the scribe who wrote the manuscript that had the change who is responsible for the variation hundreds of years ago. Now concerning this change. Read this scripture again: Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon ME whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for HIM, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for HIM, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn." Why the change in structure from ME to HIM? If it was God who was pierced why not say ME through out? As to it being a minor variant reading, and some say. "The Watchtower Organization has seized upon a lesser known and less authoritative text to justify its version." For the truth of the matter, not only have Jehovah's Witnesses seized this variant reading so have: the Revised Standard Version, The New American Bible for Catholics, The Good News Bible, The Way Living Bible, etc. And some reason on this by saying: "Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in flesh, then Zech. 12:10 would present obvious problems--so they changed it." Most of the users and translators of the translations I just mentioned DO believe Jesus is God, so what is their excuse for using the variant reading? And the most important authority for using this variation is from the Apostle John himself quoting the scripture in question at John 19:37 "....the One whom they pierced."

Heb 1:6 - Is it truly only Jehovah's Witnesses that translate (proskuneo) as obeisance? Here are a few verses from Greens Literal Translation:

Matthew 9:18 "As He spoke these things to them, behold, coming up a ruler bowed before Him, saying, My daughter has just now died; but coming lay Your hand on her, and she will live."

Matthew 18:26 "Then falling down, the slave bowed the knee to him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay all to you."

Mark 5:6 "And seeing Jesus from afar, he ran and bowed the knee to Him."

Mark 15:19 "And they struck His head with a reed, and spat at Him. And placing the knees, they bowed to Him."

And I'm sure you can find more versions that do the same. If this word can only mean to worship as God, Why would the King James and other versions at Matthew 18:26 have a slave worshiping his (human) master as God? And To say it is bad translating to translate (proskuneo) as obeisance, Lets have a look to see what the main Lexicons have to say:

Vine's Dictionary - PROSKUNEO, to make obeisance, do reverence to (from pros, towards, and kuneo, to kiss)

Strong's Lexicon - proskuneo; from 4314 and a prob. der. of 2965 (mean. to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (lit. or fig.) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore)

Young's Analytical Concordance - To Kiss (the hand) toward

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon - Proskuneo, (pros + kuneo, to kiss) to do reverence to or homage kissing the hand; in N.T. to do reverence or homage by prostration,

Now lets see who's English definition is closer to the Lexicons. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Obeisance: 1. A gesture or movement of the body, such as curtsy, expressing deference or homage. 2. An attitude of deference or homage.

Worship - 1a. The reverent love and allegiance accorded a deity, idol. b A set of ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed. 2a. Ardent humble devotion. b. the object of such devotion.

So this Greek word (proskuneo) is mainly showing a body position of respect to another. (anyone), But does not imply the whole concept of worship of a deity as the English word is defined. Proskuneo is a part of the worship to God if this is who is receiving the homage

As to Jesus being worshiped, Some are still too dogmatic about the word worship, as any Greek Lexicon or English Dictionary, will give you a list of alternate words that apply. and obeisance is usually one of them. Even these dictionaries show the different shadings in the meaning of words. Now if you feel the English word worship has to be used. I suggest you check on the etymology of this word to get some insight to its root meaning and how it came into the English language. Its basic meaning is worth- ship meaning designating anything that has worth. So the word worship is telling us something has worth. Now the level of this worth depends on the object being discussed. And yes, we no longer use this type of thinking concerning the word worship, but evidently it was, since that's how it came to our language. Do you Believe Jesus has worth? Then in the light of what the original meaning of the English word was the gratitude you show him for his worth can be called your worship to him. But you are not worshiping him as Almighty God, You are recognizing his worth as God's Anointed King and Savior. See Worship Chart

Heb 1:8 - If this verse is to imply that Jesus is God, then it has to imply that King Solomon is God, the one who was addressed at Psalm 45:6. But we know King Solomon was not God. What this scripture is referring to and the reason it is translated like it is in the New World Translation both times, is because it is referring to others sitting on God's throne. The Earthly throne of Israel represented God's throne. 1 Chron. 29:23 " And Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah as king instead of his father David, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him." Then Jesus took over this throne at a later time. Luke 1: 31-32 " And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:" So they both sat on the throne of God. And by the way, if this scripture means Jesus is God? Why did this God have to be anointed by HIS God as the verse goes on to say?

Jehovah - Is it ok to use LORD as a replacement for God's name Jehovah? The various reasons for not using it are that we do not know the exact pronunciation or that it is not needed. To use LORD is like a person commanded to love his neighbors, but because this is hard for him, he isolates himself from all people so he does not sin on this matter. Is that a reasonable solution? On the other hand, should he have tried his best to do what God had commanded? Even failing, God will know that he tried his very best and he will not be condemned for this. God said to know and use his name. We have the consonants but not the vowels, so we do are best to reproduce the pronunciation according to the consonants. If perfect pronunciation is so important that a person would rather skip the Divine Name altogether and say LORD then to TRY to pronounce it, then this leaves us in a bit of a problem. For the ones who think they are addressing God when they say Jesus, Are not pronouncing his name correctly either according to the Hebrew pronunciation. In fact, No human knows for certain how Jesus friends and family pronounced his name, but it may have been something like Yeshua or Yehoshua.

Home