Spiritual Counterfeits

Picking on the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ NWT translation of John 1:1 is a bit myopic. Did you know there are 50 other translations that also do not translate John 1:1 as “The Word was God”?

A diligent and unbiased Bible student shouldn’t be dogmatic over John 1:1 when there is this kind of variation amongst translators.

Brian,

You asked about other translations with “a”… I counted about 20+ on this list. And the other translations say something different than “The Word was God”. I think this list proves that it’s not only the New World Translation that sees it this way. The word “god” is a TITLE that means “mighty one”. It is applied to many different people in the Bible besides God the Father (i.e. YHWH). Why is the title “god” applied to various humans?

Harwood, 1768, “and was himself a divine person”
Thompson, 1829, “the Logos was a god
Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, “and the Word was a god”
Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was”
Abner Kneeland, 1822, “The Word was a God”
Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) “[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word”
21st Century NT “In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god.” Literal Belsham N.T. 1809 _the Word was a god_
Leicester Ambrose, 1879, “And the logos was a god”
J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god”
George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word”
James L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God”
Siegfried Schulz, 1975, “And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word”
Madsen, 1994, “the Word was a divine Being”
Becker, 1979, [a God/god was the Logos/logos]
Stage, 1907, [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].
Bohmer, 1910, [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being]
Holzmann, 1926, “ein Gott war der Gedanke” [a God/god was the Thought/thought] Rittenlmeyer, 1938, “selbst ein Gott war das Wort” [itself a God/god was the Word/word]
Smit, 1960, “verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen” [the word of the world was a divine being]
Schultz, 1987, “ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort” [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word].
John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, “The Word of Speech was a God”
Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, “the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god”
Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 “and the Logos was divine (a divine being)”
Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated … ‘the word was a divine being.’
Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. “a God”
Lant Carpenter, LL.D “a God”
Andrews Norton, D.D. “a god”
Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church “a God”
Goodspeed, 1939, “the Word was divine
Torrey, 1947, “the Word was god
New English, 1961, “what God was,the Word was”
Moffatt, 1972, “the Logos was divine
International English Bible, 2001, “the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek word]
Simple English Bible, “and the Message was Deity”
Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, “the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]
International Bible Translators N.T. 1981
_In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity._
Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, “[A]nd the Word was of divine nature”
Philip Harner, 1974, “The Word had the same nature as God”
Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, “The Word was divine”
Translator’s NT, 1973, “The Word was with God and shared his nature
Barclay, 1976, “the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God”
Schneider, 1978, “and godlike sort was the Logos
Schonfield, 1985, “the Word was divine
Revised English, 1989, “what God was, the Word was
Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One
Scholar’s Version, 1993, “The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was”
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, [the Word was of divine kind]
Haenchen, 1980, [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, [He was with God and in all like God]
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, “divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos”
William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, “And the Word was divine.”
Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University,1943, “And the Word was Divine”

Brian,

Jesus said over and over again he was “The Son of God”.

During his baptism, God’s voice came from heaven and said “This is my Son”.

I say that Jesus is God’s Son, the Christ.

Steve

Brian,

And as for the Trinity, I believe it is a fraud that Satan used to trick the early Christian Church.

For more information:

http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Steve

Jabbok,

I never said anything about the Trinitarian views of any translator. The complaint was that the NWT used “a God”. I pointed out that 50 other translations said something different than the KJV. I was then questioned if any of those translation used “a”, to which I pointed out 20 that did.

I believe I’ve made a very compelling point that the NWT is not the only translation out there that translates John 1:1 differently.

Can anyone hear actually admit the NWT is not alone in translating John 1:1 differently, or will everyone immediately change the subject?

Steve
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Brian,

You challenged my statement on the 50 translations, then you challenged me on if any of them used “a”.

I answered your questions simply and factually, with specific references. And yet, you didn’t say anything like “I stand corrected”… you just moved onto throwing out more questions.

Steve

Brian,

It is true that Thomas’ statement is curious. However, as a Christian, I have to first look to Jesus’ example as a far greater authority in deciding who to worship. Do you put Thomas statement over what Jesus himself explicitly said?

Jesus himself referred to his Father as his God (Rev 3:12)

“‘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.

Because Jesus diligently copies the example of his God, this has confused many people thinking that he might be almighty God. However, ultimately Jesus will subject himself to his God such that Jehovah will be over all. (1 Cor 15:24-28)

24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to HIS GOD and FATHER, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

Steve

Let’s do a quick review.

The first post here presents a case that Satan is misleading people away from Christ and makes this statement against one single translation, the New World Translation:

“Where John 1:1 clearly affirms the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Bible of the Jehovah’s Witnesses denies this critical doctrine, teaching instead that Jesus was merely one of many gods created by the Father. Where an accurate rendition of this verse teaches that Jesus is eternal, the counterfeit translation makes Him a created being.”

Very bold and provocative… calling it a “counterfeit translation”. No other translation is singled out with this criticism. It only speaks of “accurate translations” vs. the NWT which is called “counterfeit”.

Is this a fair and correct statement on the part of the author? Let’s see…

I pointed out that “there are 50 other translations that also do not translate John 1:1 as ‘The Word was God’ and therefore an “unbiased Bible student shouldn’t be dogmatic over John 1:1 when there is this kind of variation amongst translators”.

This is a fact. There is variation amongst translators on John 1:1. Significant variation. 20+ translations use “a”, while others use the word “divine”, and “divine being”, etc.

I didn’t say that all of these translators and the translation committees where anti-Trinitiarian. I made a simple statement and backed it up with references.

Is there no one here that can make the following statement: “Although I disagree with these other translations, I have to admit there are at least 50 other translations out there where the translators and translations committees looked at the text and decided to translate John 1:1 differently than the KJV. And, these translators include multiple Ph.D’s and Professors of Language from vararious religious backgrounds (other than JW’s) and from various Universities. The NWT is by no mean alone in translating John 1:1 differently than the KJV.”

If you can’t make this simple statement, I suggest that you are wearing spiritual blinders and are not open to really reasoning on the truth.

Steve

On your Alpha/Omega question, I will make these 5 points:

(1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy.

(2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there.

(3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6)

(4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it.

(5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.

I would suspect that this question of yours, brought up in the context of trying to prove that Jesus is Almighty God is based on the massively illogical view that if two different people share the same title, they must be the same person?

Jesus and some of his followers shared the title apostle, what does that prove?

Or, here’s another example of very weak logic. If two or more people share the title “Savior”, that must prove that Jesus is Almighty God.

If you are also thinking that is a Trinity proof text, I offer this:

The Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh•shi´a‛, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.

Have I answered your question fully?

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com

Dear David,

You are attempting to use John 8:58 as a Trinity proof text. I’ll show you why this doesn’t make sense.

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase “I AM” is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: “To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, ‘Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.’ Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] ‘I will be what I will be.’”
The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58:
1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.
1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.
1984: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God’s created “firstborn,” Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.—Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.

Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to “have seen Abraham” although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus’ natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he “was alive before Abraham was born!”—The Simple English Bible.
Here is some specific information to help you with your studies of this scripture:
Here are also some other references for your review that underscore the point that multiple translators from multiple religious backgrounds realize that John 8:58 is not a proof text of Jesus’ identify at Jehovah God of Exodus 3:
“before Abraham was, I have been” Syriac—Edition:A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894. (Fourth Century Manuscript)
“before ever Abraham came to be, I was” Curetonian Syriac—Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F.Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904. (Fifth Century Manuscript)
“before Abraham existed, I was” Syriac Peshitta—Edition: The Syriac New TestamentTranslated into English from the Peshitto Version,by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London,1896. (Fifth Century Manuscript)
“before Abraham came to be, I was” Georgian—Edition: “The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,” by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950. (Fifth Century Manuscript)
“before Abraham was born, I was” Ethiopic—Edition: Novum Testamentum … Æthiopice (The New Testament … in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.
If your into Greek and want more details, here you go:
The action expressed in Joh 8:58 started “before Abraham came into existence” and is still in progress. In such situation ειμί (ei•mi´), which is the first-person singular present indicative, is properly translated by the perfect indicative. Examples of the same syntax are found in Lu 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Joh 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; Ac 15:21; 2Co 12:19; 1Jo 3:8.
Concerning this construction, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: “Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues,—a state in its duration; as, Jno. xv. 27 απ’ αρχης μετ’ εμου εστέ [ap’ ar•khes´ met’ e•mou´ e•ste´], viii. 58 πριν ᾿Αβρααμ γενέσθαι εγω ειμι [prin A•bra•am´ ge•ne´sthai e•go´ ei•mi].”
Likewise, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: “The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress … It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Lk 248 137 … 1529 … Jn 56 858 … ”
Attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some say that εγω ειμί (e•go´ ei•mi´) is the equivalent of the Hebrew expression ’ani´ hu’, “I am he,” which is used by God. However, it is to be noted that this Hebrew expression is also used by man.—See 1Ch 21:17 ftn.
Further attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some try to use Ex 3:14 (LXX) which reads: ᾿Εγώ ειμι ο ων (E•go´ ei•mi ho on), which means “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One.” This attempt cannot be sustained because the expression in Ex 3:14 is different from the expression in Joh 8:58. (See Ex 3:14 ftn.) Throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures it is not possible to make an identification of Jesus with Jehovah as being the same person.—See 1Pe 2:3 ftn; App 6A, 6E.

Are you really sure you want to throw out John 8:58 as a Trinity proof text in light of the overwhelming evidence that “I AM” is not necessarily the correct English translation?

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

If there is anyone here that really wants to reason on the scriptures and look a little deeper than just the KJV, I’d be glad to do so by private email.

I don’t want to be disrespectful and post too much on this fellows blog.

I was raised as a Trinitarian and have read dozens of pro-Trinity and anti-JW books over the last 25 years. I am very familiar with all the standard arguments and have research both sides of every possible angle very diligently.

I’d be glad to share information with anyone who has a strong desire for the truth and a listening ear.

Don’t be fooled by by this silly anti-JW, anti-NWT propaganda. If you spend some time really checking it out, you’ll see.

Please feel free to email me:

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com

Dear Brian,

Here is your answer on your “worship” question. The information is from:

Truth in Translation, Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, by Jason David BeDuhn, University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland, 2003.

Jason David BeDuhn is an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, and M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington.

On page 42 BeDuhn says,
The verb proskuneo is used fifty-eight times in the New Testament. When the King James translation was made, the word picked to best convey the meaning of the Greek word was “worship.” At that time, the English word “worship” had a range of meaning close to what I have suggested for the Greek word proskuneo. It could be used for the attitude of reverence given to God, but also for the act of prostration. The word was also used as a form of address to people of high status, in the form “your worship.” So the King James translation committee made a pretty good choice.

But modern English is not King James English, and the range of the meaning for the word “worship” has narrowed considerably. Today, we use it only for religious veneration of God, so it no longer covers all of the uses for the Greek verb proskuneo, or of the English word in the day of King James. For this reason, it is necessary that modern translations find appropriate terms to accurately convey precisely what is implied by the use of proskuneo in the various passages where it appears. If they fail to do this, and cling to the old English word “worship” without acknowledging its shift of meaning since the days of King James, they mislead their readers into thinking that every greeting, kiss, or prostration in the Bible is an act of worship directed to a god. (p. 42)

BeDuhn then gives examples where proskuneo is used in the Gospels while pleading before man (Matthew 18:26). These verses are translated in most versions as “prostrated himself before,” “fell on his knees,” and “fell down before.” Following these illustrations before man, BeDuhn gives a list of verses which place the individual before Jesus using the same word proskuneo. He says,

But in other passages, translations revert to the KJV’s “worship” inappropriately. They do so primarily because the gesture of prostration is directed to Jesus, and in that circumstance they translate differently under the pressure of theological bias. (p. 44)

BeDuhn makes this comment,

Rendering a single Greek word into more than one English alternative is not necessarily inaccurate in and of itself. Since Greek words such as proskuneo have a range of possible meanings, it is not practical to insist that a Greek word always be translated the same way… . But in our exploration of this issue, we can see how theological bias has been the determining context for the choices made by all of the translations except the NAB and NWT. There are passages where many translators have interpreted the gesture referred to by the Greek term proskuneo as implying “worship.” They then have substituted that interpretation in place of a translation.

I am not going to enter into a debate over interpretation. It is always possible that the interpretation of the significance of the gesture may be correct. But the simple translation “prostrate,” or “do homage,” or “do obeisance” is certainly correct. So the question is raised, why depart from a certain, accurate translation to a questionable, possibly inaccurate one?

The answer is that, when this occurs, the translators seem to feel the need to add to the New Testament support for the idea that Jesus was recognized to be God. But the presence of such an idea cannot be supported by selectively translating a word one way when it refers to Jesus and another way when it refers to someone else… . They might argue that the context of belief surrounding Jesus implies that the gesture is more than “obeisance” or “homage.” It’s not a very good argument, because in most of the passages the people who make the gesture know next to nothing about Jesus, other than that it is obvious or rumored that he has power to help them. (pp. 47-48)

Dear Brian,

For a more simply, scripture based answer about your question on “worship”, consider this scripture:

(Acts 3:13-15) The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom YOU, for YOUR part, delivered up and disowned before Pilate’s face, when he had decided to release him. 14 Yes, YOU disowned that holy and righteous one, and YOU asked for a man, a murderer, to be freely granted to YOU, 15 whereas YOU killed the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses.

Questions:

- Who was “The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers”? (It was Jehovah)

Thus, this scripture is saying: “Jehovah has glorified his Servant Jesus”

It’s a bit illogical for to insist that Jesus is Jehovah.

That would make this sentence read: “Jesus has glorified his Servant Jesus”.

The simple truth is that Jesus is the Son of God,

This whole trinity concept is a fraud that is based upon a few verses that have been inaccurately translated, along with weak logic that insists that if anyone shares a descriptive title with someone else, they must somehow be the same person.

A Trinitarian has to go to absurd lengths to ignore simple logic to explain deep and mysterious, hard to understand, descriptions of a 3-in-1 being that simply is not true.

Jehovah is Almighty God. Jesus is his first born Son, being 2nd in command of he entire Universe.

Dear Brian,

You say: “You have yet to directly engage any of the questions I have put to you concerning the Alpha and Omega and the worship of Jesus.”

Regarding your “Alpha and Omega” question, I gave you a 550 word response with at least 15 scriptural references, pointing out what it said in multiple translations. I provided answers to you regarding every angle and argument that has been put forth in any Pro-Trinity book regarding this “Alpha Omega” argument.

Regarding your “worship of Jesus” question, I gave you a 740 word response about the greek word you insist must be only translated as “worship” and how that Greek to English translation only fit in terms of 1600’s English but not modern English. I included specific references.

Finally, I gave you very easy and logical scriptural point at Acts 3:13 to show that Jesus can not be Jehovah.

And you say I haven’t directly engaged the questions you’ve put forth?

Anyone who really wants to discuss Bible points can contact me by email.

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

The whole problem with the “I AM” argument is that Trinitarians only want to look at their favorite translation and nothing else. Why not layout multiple translations, along with multiple Greek manuscripts and see if this “I AM” is the most accurate translation of those Greek words?

Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58:

1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E.J.Goodspeed.

1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.

Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God’s created “firstborn,” Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.—Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.

Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to “have seen Abraham” although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus’ natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he “was alive before Abraham was born!”—The Simple English Bible.

Here’s some various manuscript translations:

“before Abraham was, I have been” Syriac—Edition:A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894. (Fourth Century Manuscript)

“before ever Abraham came to be, I was” Curetonian Syriac—Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F.Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904. (Fifth Century Manuscript)

“before Abraham existed, I was” Syriac Peshitta—Edition: The Syriac New TestamentTranslated into English from the Peshitto Version,by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London,1896. (Fifth Century Manuscript)

“before Abraham came to be, I was” Georgian—Edition: “The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,” by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950. (Fifth Century Manuscript)

“before Abraham was born, I was” Ethiopic—Edition: Novum Testamentum … Æthiopice (The New Testament … in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

Is a Bible Student really showing a desire for understanding truth if he dearly hangs on his only his favorite translation, ignoring translation facts that are clearly known to scholars from multiple religious backgrounds?

For goodness sakes folks, based on this Trinitarian “I AM” logic, the Apostle Paul was claiming to be Jehovah God when he said “I am what I am” at 1 Cor 15:10

Why not at least consider believing Jesus when he said over and over again that he was The Son of God?

(1 Corinthians 15:27-28) For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Dear David,

The Jews going overboard? Yes, the unbelieving Jews were already hysterically whipped up, looking to kill Jesus on any false charge, And, on multiple occasions they tried.

John 5:18, RS: “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.”

Did Jesus break the Sabbath? No, Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and he declared: “It is lawful to do good on the sabbath.”—Matt. 12:10-12, RS. (The Jews were claiming he did this, but he didn’t)

Did Jesus ever claim equality with God? No, while properly referring to God as his Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God. He straightforwardly answered the Jews: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” (John 5:19, RS; see also John 14:28; John 10:36.) (The Jews were wrongly interpreting)

Jesus was simply calling God his Father. Over and over again, Jesus specifically said that he was God’s Son, and that God was his Father.

PLEASE READ THIS SCRIPTURE VERY CAREFULLY… The Jews wanted to INCORECTLY stone him for blasphemy, thinking he was making himself a god. Jesus specifically said he was only claiming to be God’s Son.

(John 10:31-37) Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to YOU many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are YOU stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me.
It was the unbelieving Jews who reasoned that Jesus was attempting to make himself equal with God by claiming God as his Father. It was those unbelieving Jews, too, who claimed that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but they were wrong also about that.

At John 8:58, we find the Jews angrily arguing with Jesus, saying he is demonized… taunting him, arguing with every thing he says. They argue with him about his statement about “never tasting death”. They say: “Oh yeah! What about Abraham? He died didn’t he?” and “Who do you claim to be?”

When they argue with Jesus : “You aren’t even 50 years old, how did you see Abraham”. Jesus simply answers that he existed before Abraham. Once again, the Jews anger ignites over their own interpretation about what that meant.

Do you really want to form your beliefs based on what these angry Jews thought about Jesus? Do you believe Jesus was breaking the Sabbath, or is that just what the Jews were insisting?

(John 8:48-59) In answer the Jews said to him: “Do we not rightly say, You are a Sa•mar´i•tan and have a demon?” 49 Jesus answered: “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and YOU dishonor me. 50 But I am not seeking glory for myself; there is One that is seeking and judging. 51 Most truly I say to YOU, If anyone observes my word, he will never see death at all.” 52 The Jews said to him: “Now we do know you have a demon. Abraham died, also the prophets; but you say, ‘If anyone observes my word, he will never taste death at all.’ 53 You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died, are you? Also, the prophets died. Who do you claim to be?” 54 Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, he who YOU say is YOUR God; 55 and yet YOU have not known him. But I know him. And if I said I do not know him I should be like YOU, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word. 56 Abraham YOUR father rejoiced greatly in the prospect of seeing my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.” 57 Therefore the Jews said to him: “You are not yet fifty years old, and still you have seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” 59 Therefore they picked up stones to hurl [them] at him; but Jesus hid and went out of the temple.

This is why many translations don’t say “I AM” at John 8:58

Dr. James Moffatt was on the Revised Standard Version Bible Committee, and note how he translates John 8:58 in his own version: “‘Truly, truly I tell you,’ said Jesus, ‘I have existed before Abraham was born.’”

Professor E. J. Goodspeed was a member of the American Standard Bible Committee, and his translation renders John 8:58 as follows: “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!’”

Chas. Williams’ The New Testament: “Then Jesus said to them, ‘I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.’”

A. S. Lewis’ “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest: “He said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I have been.”

The Twentieth Century New Testament: “‘Believe me,’ Jesus replied, ‘before Abraham was born I was already what I am.’”

G. M. Lamsa’s The Modern New Testament: “Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was.”

Jas. Murdock’s The Syriac New Testament: “Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was.”

F. Pfaefflin’s Das Neue Testament (German): “Jesus: ‘Before there was an Abraham, I was already there [war ich schon da]!’”

C. Stage’s Das Neue Testament (German): “Jesus said to them: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [war ich].’”

Nácar Colunga’s Nuevo Testamento (Spanish): “Jesus answered: ‘In truth, in truth, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [era yo].’”

F. Delitzsch’s Hebrew New Testament and that by Salkinson-Ginsburg both have the verb in the perfect form “I have been” (haiithi) instead of in the imperfect form.

Dear Brian,

>In light of what is stated in these two passages about Jesus, how can He be a created being if >there was >NOTHING created that He Himself didn’t create? Are you suggesting that He created >Himself? The >passages are quite straightforward (though I’m sure you will have an interesting >take on them) that Jesus >created everything, and that there is NOTHING that has been created >that He did not create.

No, I am not suggesting that Jesus created himself.

Since you have asked to focus on the phrase “ALL THINGS”, let’s consider what the Bible means…

Notice what Paul said here:

(Ephesians 1:22) He also subjected ALL THINGS under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation,

(Hebrews 2:8) ALL THINGS you subjected under his feet.” For in that he subjected all things to him [God] left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him;

When Paul said ALL THINGS what did he mean?

Let him clarify:

(1 Corinthians 15:27-28) For [God] “subjected ALL THINGS under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

POINT: When the scriptures say that God subjected “ALL THINGS” under Jesus feet IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT IS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE WHO SUBJECTED ALL THINGS TO HIM.
Who was the exception? It was Jehovah God. This point was so self-evident to his readers that it didn’t even need mention the first two times, because it was “evident”… It went without saying because everyone knew that Jehovah was the Most High, Almighty God and that everything else was below him including Jesus Christ which was the point of verse 28:

“then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone”

>I am curious as to how you would explain John 1:3 which says, “All things came into >being through >Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the >life was the Light of men.”

So, for the exact same reason that Paul didn’t have to mention this every single time he used the term ALL THINGS, the apostle John didn’t either.
When John wrote at John 1:3 “all things” and Paul wrote Col 1:16 “all things” I want you to notice the rest of the sentence:

“… all things have been created through Him and for Him”

Through Jesus…. For Jesus?
By whom? By his father, Jehovah.

When Jehovah created all things he did this through Jesus and for Jesus.

Jesus is a created being. This is why Jesus is continually called “the firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15) and “the beginning of the creation by God” (Rev 3:14)

And Jesus specifically was alive because of his Father:

(John 6:57) Just as the living Father sent me forth and I live because of the Father, he also that feeds on me, even that one will live because of me.
In summary, let’s make sure you understand what I am proposing the Bible truth is. Jehovah is the Almighty God who has existed forever. The first life form that he created was his firstborn son, Jesus who lived in heaven with Jehovah prior to coming to the earth.

After Jehovah had created Jesus, he went on to create all other things THROUGH Jesus. This is similar to how any developer will accomplish his building goals THROUGH other people.

Jesus has always been a faithful Son to his God and Father Jehovah, imitating him, doing his will and purposes. Even though “ALL THINGS” were subjected to him and “ALL THINGS” were created through him, he ultimately subjects himself to the one person who is excepted in this “ALL THINGS”, his Father, Jehovah God:

(1 Corinthians 15:24-28) Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

Have I answered your question?

To others: I welcome private email discussions, so please email me…

Thanks!

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Dear David,

You’ve asked a very good question.

You said: “Let me make sure I understand: Jesus never claimed to be God, or even claimed to be equal with God. The Jews thought he did, but they were mistaken, and they killed him over that misunderstanding. Why would Jesus not correct the misunderstanding when he was charged with blasphemy by the Jews before Caiaphas? (Matt. 26) Why die for a lie?”

If Jesus ACTUALLY committed blasphemy, the Bible couldn’t accurately say “He committed no sin.” And that he was “undefiled, separated from the sinners.”—1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 7:26.

The Jewish leaders were intent on killing Jesus for the things he said about them. Remember all the negative things Jesus had to say about the Jewish leaders? In response, they angrily charged Jesus was from Satan, that he was demonized, that he was a drunkard, asinner, and that he had committed blasphemy. Where any of these charges true?

The Jewish religious leaders accused Christ Jesus of blasphemy because he said that the sins of certain persons were forgiven (Mt 9:2, 3; Mr 2:5-7; Lu 5:20, 21), and they tried to stone him as a blasphemer because of his declaring himself to be God’s Son. (Joh 10:33-36) When Jesus made a statement to the Sanhedrin concerning God’s purpose toward him and the high position to be granted him, the high priest ripped his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy, for which Jesus was condemned as worthy of death. (Mt 26:63-66; Mr 14:61-64) Having no authority from the Romans to implement the death sentence, the Jewish religious leaders shrewdly changed their accusation of blasphemy to that of sedition when taking Jesus before Pilate.—Joh 18:29–19:16.

When the chief priests and the older men falsely accused him before Pilate, Jesus “made no answer.” (Matthew 27:11-14) Intent on framing Jesus, the chief priests had no interest whatsoever in learning the truth. So in this volatile atmosphere, Jesus remained silent. (Matthew 7:6) He did not want to say anything that might interfere with the carrying out of God’s will for him. He chose, instead, to let his public record speak for itself. He knew that not even the truth would change their proud minds and hearts. So he ignored their charge, refusing to break his purposeful silence.—Isaiah 53:7.

Jesus did not remain silent, however, when the high priest demanded: “By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!” (Matthew 26:63) Since Jesus had been put under oath, it was time for him to speak. He therefore replied: “You yourself said it. Yet I say to you men, From henceforth you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”—Matthew 26:64.

But what was the purpose of all of this? Jesus, as a perfect and sinless man, did not deserve to die. He could have lived forever, just as Adam could have if he had not sinned. Jesus did not sin, but he voluntarily sacrificed his human life on our behalf. He took upon himself the punishment for our sins and thus became a ransom for us. The Bible tells us: “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.” (1 Timothy 2:5, 6) Again, the Bible says: “By means of him [Jesus] we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of our trespasses.” (Ephesians 1:7) Jesus himself said: “The Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.”—Matthew 20:28.

Have I answered your question?
I welcome private email discussions, so please email me…
Thanks!
Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Dear Brian,

I’m beginning to think you are not reading what I write.

I showed that Paul often wrote the phrase “ALL THINGS” and then explained that by “ALL THINGS” he meant with the exception of Jehovah God. Thus, Jesus had ALL THINGS subjected to him with the exception of his Father Jehovah God. The Bible specifically says that Jesus was the first born OF CREATION and he was the BEGINNING OF THE CREATION BY God. So when Jehovah used Jesus and created ALL THINGS THROUGH JESUS, it was as Paul said, wiht the exception of Jehovah God.

On the Alpha Omega discussion, please re-read it. I specifically said that the Alpha and Omega title only referred to Jehovah God and not Jesus. I went point by point through the arguments of how people thought that title was used on Jesus, but showed how it was not. You have made a huge incorrect assumption that Jesus was claiming to be the Alpha and Omega.

Take a little time and actually read through the well-referenced posts I’ve put together for you.

Steve

Dear Brian,

Here are 28 question for you to show us why the Trinity doctrine is true. Will you answer these questions or shrug them off?

If Jesus is Almighty God, Jehovah as you suggest…

1. Why is he called the “firstborn” of all creation? Col. 1:15, Rev. 3:14

2. Why did he say that he did not come of his “own initiative but was sent?”
John 8:42, 1 John 4:9

3. Why did Jesus not know the “day and the hour” of the Great Tribulation but God did? Matt.24:36

4. Who did Jesus speak to in prayer?

5. How did he “appear before the person of God for us”? Heb 9:24

6. Why did Jesus say “the Father is greater than I am”? John 14:28, Phil.
2:5,6

7. Who spoke to Jesus at the time of his baptism saying “This is my son”?
Matt.3:17

8. How could he be exalted to a superior position? Phil 2:9,10

9. How can he be the “mediator between God and man”? 1 Tim 2:5

10. Why did Paul say “the head of Christ is God”? 1 Cor.11:30

11. Why did Jesus “hand over the Kingdom to his God” and subject himself to God”? 1 Cor.15:24,28

12. Who does he refer as to “my God and your God”? John 20:17

13. How does he sit at God’s right hand? Ps.110:1, Heb.10:12,13

14. Why does John say “no man has seen God at any time”? John 1:18

15. Why did not people die when they saw Jesus? Ex. 30:20

16. How were Jesus dead and God alive at the same time? Acts 2:24

17. Why did he need someone to save him? Heb.5:7

18. Who is referred to prophetically at Prov.8:22-31?

19. Why did Jesus say “that all authority has been GIVEN to me in heaven and on earth”? Matt.28:18, Dan.7:13,14 (similar)

20. Why did he have godly fear? Heb.5:7

21. How could he learn obedience and be made perfect? Heb.5:8,9

22. Why would an angel be able to strengthen him or angels minister to him?
Luke 22:43, Matt.4:11

23. Why would Satan try to tempt him if he KNEW that he was GOD? Matt.4:11

24. Jesus when sent to earth was made to “be lower” than the angels.
Heb.2:7. (How could any part of a Godhead EVER be lower than angels?)

25. Then if Jesus was the same as God, who was he being tempted to rebel against?
(Could God be tempted to rebel against himself ?)

26. Near the end of his earthly life, Jesus cried out, ‘My God, why have you forsaken me?’ Matt.27:46 (Can God desert or forsake himself ?)

27. Heb.5:8 says that Jesus learned obedience! To whom would he obey if he were GOD?
(And does God need to LEARN anything?)

28. God’s justice is strictly perfect. Ex.21:23-25

For example: The ransom price was one perfect human for the life of another perfect human life.

An imperfect man’s life would not be equal to the required equivalent of a perfect life as an exchange as mans creator required the two to be of equal value, in every aspect of their make up, just any humans life would not be of equal value, far too low. Ps. 49:7

If Jesus were the same as God, the required ransom price paid a God would have been too high. Adam was a perfect

MAN and the ransom price was a perfect MAN, not higher or lower. Matt.4:1
Questions like these are far easier to explain if Jesus is simply as he himself claimed “The Son of God”.

In my 5 points on your Alpha/Omega Question, point #4 said:

(4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it.

At Col 1:15, Jesus is called the “first born of all creation”. Before Col 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?

The point is this. If Jesus is called the firstborn of all creation, he’s part of the creation.

At Rev 1:5, Jesus was called “the firstborn of the dead” because he had been part of the group that had been dead and he was to the first raised from the dead to endless life.

Lazarus and multiple others had been resurrected prior to Jesus death and resurrection. However, they simple grew old and died once again. Jesus was the first to be resurrected to endless life.

Steve

P.S. I’ve pointed out 28 reasons why believing Jesus is Jehovah conflicts with simple points from the Bible. Will you please address these.

Since you seem so interested in this Alpha and Omega question, let me expand on your question.

These are the names of the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet and are used as a title three times in the book of Revelation. The additional occurrence of this phrase in the King James rendering of Revelation 1:11, however, does not receive support from some of the oldest Greek manuscripts, including the Alexandrine, Sinaitic, and Codex Ephraemi rescriptus. It is, therefore, omitted in many modern translations.

While many commentators apply this title both to God and to Christ, a more careful examination of its use restricts its application to Jehovah God. The first verse of Revelation shows that the revelation was given originally by God and through Jesus Christ, hence the one speaking (through an angelic representative) at times is God himself, and at other times it is Christ Jesus. (Re 22:8) Thus Revelation 1:8 (RS) says: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God [“Jehovah God,” NW], who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Although the preceding verse speaks of Christ Jesus, it is clear that in verse 8 the application of the title is to “the Almighty” God. In this regard Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (1974) observes: “It cannot be absolutely certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically here … There is no real incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer to God as such.”

The title occurs again at Revelation 21:6, and the following verse identifies the speaker by saying: “Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” Inasmuch as Jesus referred to those who are joint heirs with him in his Kingdom as “brothers,” not “sons,” the speaker must be Jesus’ heavenly Father, Jehovah God.—Mt 25:40; compare Heb 2:10-12.

The final occurrence of the title is at Revelation 22:13, which states: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” It is evident that a number of persons are represented as speaking in this chapter of Revelation; verses 8 and 9 show that the angel spoke to John, verse 16 obviously applies to Jesus, the first part of verse 17 is credited to “the spirit and the bride,” and the one speaking in the latter part of verse 20 is manifestly John himself. “The Alpha and the Omega” of verses 12-15, therefore, may properly be identified as the same one who bears the title in the other two occurrences: Jehovah God. The expression, “Look! I am coming quickly,” in verse 12, does not require that these aforementioned verses apply to Jesus, inasmuch as God also speaks of himself as “coming” to execute judgment. (Compare Isa 26:21.) Malachi 3:1-6 speaks of a joint coming for judgment on the part of Jehovah and his “messenger of the covenant.”

The title “the Alpha and the Omega” carries the same thought as “the first and the last” and “the beginning and the end” when these terms are used with reference to Jehovah. Before him there was no Almighty God, and there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, forever vindicated as the one and only Almighty God.—Compare Isa 44:6.

Steve

P.S. I’ve shown you 28 scriptural reasons why Jesus is not Jehovah of the Old Testament. Will you be commenting on these?

Will anyone acknowledge that looking at the Greek text at Rev 22:12, 13 shows that the name “Jesus” is not really there? Can someone point me to any commentators that argue that the name “Jesus” really is there in the Greek?

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Dear Brian,

Growing up, I was raised in a traditional Trinity believing religion. I believed what the priests told me because frankly, I hadn’t read the Bible for myself.

After reading it for myself MANY times, I knew there was something entirely wrong with the thought that Jesus is Jehovah of the Old Testament.

For example, this scripture would have Jehovah talking to himself:

(Psalm 110:1-5) The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.” 2 The rod of your strength Jehovah will send out of Zion, [saying:] “Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.” 3 Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day of your military force. In the splendors of holiness, from the womb of the dawn, You have your company of young men just like dewdrops. 4 Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret): “You are a priest to time indefinite According to the manner of Mel•chiz´e•dek!” 5 Jehovah himself at your right hand Will certainly break kings to pieces on the day of his anger.

And this scripture would have Jehovah glorifying himself as his own Servant:

(Acts 3:13) The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom YOU, for YOUR part, delivered up and disowned before Pilate’s face, when he had decided to release him.

In understanding the relationship between Jesus and Jehovah, there are two main models

1) The Trinity Model where people believe Jesus is Almighty God in the flesh

2) The non-Trinity Model where Jehovah is Almighty God and Jesus is his Son.

I have read through the Bible many times keeping each of these models in mind.

Personally, with the Trinity model in mind, I find it extremely hard to understand and explain many scriptures that conflict with this model. (consider the list of 28 questions). I find apologists of the Trinity model giving all sorts of convoluted, non-Bible explanations about Eggs, 3 Leaf Clovers, and explanations that come from Greek Philosophy.

With the non-Trinity model, the vast majority of the scriptures are simple and easy to understand.

When I put the small number of remaining scriptures under the microscope (the so-called Trinity proof texts), I find that several immediately drop out because I can see various English translators trying inject their own bias.

Others drop out with very rudimentary analysis.

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Dear Brian,

One of the texts you have offered to prove your belief that Jesus is Jehovah is the scripture at John 10:30 “I and the Father are one”

When saying, “I and the Father are one,” did Jesus mean that they were equal, or that he was Jehovah of the Old Testament? By turning just a few pages over to John 17:21, 22, we see Jesus praying regarding his followers: “That they may all be one,” and he added, “that they may be one even as we are one.”

Jesus used the same Greek word (hen) for “one” in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ.

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Dear Brian,

When you say: “No where have I said that verses 12-13 of Rev. 22 has the name ‘Jesus’ in them…”

Did you overlook what you said in your last post:

“Rev. 22:12-13 - Jesus says, “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.””

I guess you were adding your own interpretation after the scriptural quote.

Since you added “Jesus says” after the Rev 22:12-13, it appeared you were suggesting the spurious addition found in the TEV… as I mentioned in Point #4

(4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it.

Steve

Dear Brian,

I invite you to make your points, but please stop with the silly comments that someone who has studied the Bible diligently and happens to have a different opinion than you has an “unsupportable position” and is not “honestly” engaging the scriptures.

I have diligently attempted to answer each of your questions with specific references.

I’d appreciate it if you answered a few questions I’ve asked you instead of just telling everyone how “obviously” true your opinions are.

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Dear Brian,

Thank you for the kind words.

Over the years, I have noticed a peculiar response from many people who believe that Jesus is Jehovah.

When I ask them to explain Psa 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13 they disappear, the conversation ends. There was even one fellow who ripped the page out of his Bible, saying “That’s not in my Bible”.

So, if you are going to answer any question I have asked you, please answer this one…

If Jesus is Jehovah as you believe, how do you understand these two scriptures?

For example, this scripture would have Jehovah talking to himself, asking himself to sit next him, telling himself he is a priest like Melchizedek:

(Psalm 110:1-5) The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.” 2 The rod of your strength Jehovah will send out of Zion, [saying:] “Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.” 3 Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day of your military force. In the splendors of holiness, from the womb of the dawn, You have your company of young men just like dewdrops. 4 Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret): “You are a priest to time indefinite According to the manner of Mel•chiz´e•dek!” 5 Jehovah himself at your right hand Will certainly break kings to pieces on the day of his anger.

And this scripture would have Jehovah glorifying himself as his own Servant:

(Acts 3:13) The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom YOU, for YOUR part, delivered up and disowned before Pilate’s face, when he had decided to release him.

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Dear Brian,

You said: “I’m not going to answer any of your questions until you acknowledge the words of Jesus in Rev. 22. By doing that, you will show that you are at least attempting to be honest with the text.”

It’s really amazing and amusing the lengths you are willing to go to avoid commenting on these two scriptures that clearly show that Jesus is not Jehovah God of the Old Testament. I have spent hours upon hours answering each and every one of your questions. I have already responded to your question regarding Rev 22. However, in response to all this time and effort, you answer none of my questions and you insist if I don’t hold the same opinion as you, I am not being “honest”.

Your silence in commenting on Psa 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13 is deafening…

Here are the two scriptures you are hiding from. Jesus clearly identified himself as the person Jehovah was speaking to. (Matt 22:43 and Luke 20:42)

You are hiding from these because they clearly show the truth that Jesus is not Jehovah of the Old Testament.

(Psalm 110:1-5) The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.” 2 The rod of your strength Jehovah will send out of Zion, [saying:] “Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.” 3 Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day of your military force. In the splendors of holiness, from the womb of the dawn, You have your company of young men just like dewdrops. 4 Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret): “You are a priest to time indefinite According to the manner of Mel•chiz´e•dek!” 5 Jehovah himself at your right hand Will certainly break kings to pieces on the day of his anger.

(Acts 3:13) The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom YOU, for YOUR part, delivered up and disowned before Pilate’s face, when he had decided to release him.

It’s interesting that you want to insist that Jesus is Jehovah God of the Old Testament by ignoring 2 different scriptures that blatantly show Jehovah talking with someone else who we all know is Jesus, calling him his Servant and yet you want to prove your believe by trying to do a “descriptive title match”. I can show you multiple examples in the Bible where a single descriptive title is used for more than one person. (Savior, Father, god, light of the world, apostle, etc.)

However, in the case of Revelation 22:12, 13 the attempt to do a “descriptive title match” fails. You are inserting your own preconceived bias and ignoring scriptures that specifically refute your premise.

You want so much to insist that the “Alpha and Omega” descriptive title applies to Jesus, but you ignore the clear cut, objective, blatant statements of Psalms 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13

It’s really curious to me that you refuse to comment on these 2 scriptures, even though I’ve put hours and hours into responding to each and every questions you’ve asked.

Why are you avoiding these easy to understand scriptures?

In order to help you understand how a diligent Bible student can actually have a different opinion than you, I will walk you through this step by step. I know you want to just focus on Rev 12, 13 to try to prove that Jesus is Jehovah, but let’s not ignore everything else in the book of Revelation and the Bible for that matter.

Let’s focus on a few facts.

According to Rev 1:1, 2 the message originated with “God”, who gave it to “Jesus”, who gave it to his “angel”, who gave it to “John” who wrote it down and gave it to the “congregations”.

God -> Jesus -> angel -> John -> congregations

Now, you wouldn’t ever try to prove that John and the angel were the same, or the angel and Jesus were the same, but you want insist that Jesus and God are the same. This the first point where your argument breaks simple logic.

(Revelation 1:1-2) A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, even to all the things he saw.

As we continue through the book of Revelation, we see all sorts of symbolism, and titles being attached with “Alpha and Omega” being applied to Jehovah God.

The final occurrence of the title is at Revelation 22:13, which states: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Notice how many different persons are talking in this chapter . Notice how verses 8 and 9 show that the angel spoke to John, verse 16 obviously applies to Jesus, the first part of verse 17 is credited to “the spirit and the bride,” and the one speaking in the latter part of verse 20 is manifestly John himself.

“The Alpha and the Omega” of verses 12-15, therefore, may properly be identified as the same one who bears the title in the other two occurrences: Jehovah God.

You argue that since verse 12 says; “Look, I am coming quickly”, we should immediately assume that verses 12-15 HAVE TO apply to Jesus

The expression, “Look! I am coming quickly,” in verse 12, does not require that these aforementioned verses apply to Jesus, inasmuch as God also speaks of himself as “coming” to execute judgment. (Compare Isa 26:21.) Malachi 3:1-6 speaks of a joint coming for judgment on the part of Jehovah and his “messenger of the covenant.”

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Dear Brian,

At this point, I’m seriously far more interested in hearing you play out your reasoning on your belief about Jesus being Jehovah vs. winning an argument with you.

So, please help me to understand how you reason on this…

In your reading of Rev 22, I understand you’ve decided that Jesus is calling himself by the title “Alpha and Omega”. And, I suppose you then look at Rev 1:8 and see that the “Lord God”, the “Almighty” calls himself by the same title, “Alpha and Omega”, so you make a conclusion that since they both have the same title, Jesus MUST be Jehovah God the Almighty.

Is that correct?

At this point do you test this conclusion against other Scriptures in Revelation or the rest of the Bible? Do you believe that IF your conclusion about Jesus being Jehovah God is correct, it would harmonize easily with any and all other scriptures throughout the entire Bible?

Or is that not a concern for you?

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Dear Afrikaner,

In addition to the link you supplied, I would also recommend the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_witnesses

http://www.watchtower.org

http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Steve

Dear Brian,

This is not much of a discussion if you are the only one that gets to ask questions.

I’ve asked you questions in posts 16, 24, 26, 32, 44, 53, and 65. Frankly, these are really good questions that any Christian should prayerfully consider about the relationship between Jesus and his father.

And, they are questions that have stumped people who believe Jesus is Jehovah.

You haven’t responded to any of these.

I’ve responded to every one of questions, but if you don’t agree with my answers, you brand me as not being “honest” and keep demanding another answer.

You even refuse to answer the simplest question about whether you look for harmony and continuity between the scriptures.

Steve

P.S. Now go ahead and tell me I’m not being “honest”….