Sec. 1 - Jehovah's Witnesses

Article A:  Watchtower & The Trinity

Article B:  Watchtower & The Resurrection Of Christ

Article C:  Watchtower's Scriptural Distortions

Article D:  Watchtower Prophecy

Article E:   Watchtower & John 1:1

(A)  Jehovah's Witnesses And The Trinity

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity has been consistently misunderstood, probably more than any other teaching of the Bible. Frequently investigation into the doctrine of the Trinity has been dismissed from serious discussion or study by invoking the time-worn assertions - "It's a great mystery" or "This is incomprehensible" - thus discouraging many from investigating the scriptural basis of the doctrine.

Due principally to this attitude as well as certain complex aspects of the Trinity doctrine itself, there has been a revival of anti-Trinitarian heresies during the past one hundred and fifty years, and they have gone largely unanswered.

Prominent among those groups rejecting the historic doctrine of the Trinity are Mormonism, Christian Science, Unity, Spiritism, Herbert W. Armstrong and his Radio Church of God and Jehovah's Witnesses (-i.e., The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society).

According the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Trinity is a Satanic dogma of apostate Christianity that prevents people from knowing the true God, Jehovah. The Watchtower puts it this way: "The doctrine in brief is that there are three gods in one: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost...the Holy Spirit is not a person and is therefore not one of the gods of the Trinity...the Trinity doctrine was not conceived by Jesus or the early Christians...the obvious conclusion therefore is that Satan is the originator of the Trinity doctrine."(1)

Since the Watchtower denies that the Trinity doctrine is Biblical; and since they complicate the issue by defining it incorrectly - the task of true Christians is two fold: First, a definition in accord with historic Christianity must be given.

Secondly, it must be shown that the doctrine of the Trinity is both Biblical and essential to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

THE HOLY TRINITY Definition:

Within the unity of the One God there are three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; and these three share the same Nature and attributes. In effect, the three Persons ARE the one God.

From this concise statement, similarly set forth in many theological texts,2 it is clear that the Christian Church does not believe that "there are three gods in One." Quite to the contrary, we affirm that there is but one God, as Scripture repeatedly asserts (Deut. 6:4, Isa. 43:10, 1 Tim 2:5). (2)

Having defined the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, it becomes necessary, secondly, to demonstrate inductively from the Bible that it is true. To accomplish this, we begin with one basic premise: If it can be shown from Scripture that there are three persons, all of whom are called Jehovah (God), then, since there is only one Jehovah (Isa. 44:6, 48:12), those three Persons are the one God. Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.

Just how it is possible for three to be One and for that One to be three, will also be explained. But first, the evidence:

1. THE FATHER IS JEHOVAH

Jehovah's Witnesses are quick to agree with the Apostle Peter that the Father is called Jehovah. Moreover, Peter and many other Biblical writers identify Him as a "person" (2 Peter 1:17). It is therefore unnecessary to press this point, the Witnesses having already conceded it. However, we would point out that the word "person" is, by definition, descriptive of "ego" or "I." Without "ego," which distinguishes man from the beast, personality as such would cease to exist. Any reputable lexicon of Greek dictionary will substantiate the fact that the Greek word "ego," is the basis for our English term, "I." Jehovah designates His Being as The Great I AM (Ex. 3:14): So the Deity is Personal and possesses Ego, the hallmark of Personality. We see, then, that one of the three "Persons" - the Father - is designated "God."

2. THE SON IS JEHOVAH

A careful study of the first chapter of Revelation (vs. 11-18) will show that Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, identifies Himself as "the first and the last" and "the one who became dead" and who now lives for all eternity. It is of no small significance that in verse 13 of the last chapter of Revelation, He confirms this title with great emphasis, identifying Himself in verse 16 as "I Jesus," and declaring that He is "the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." The context reveals that it is Jesus speaking (vs. 12), for He - not the Father - is coming "quickly" (Rev. 1:7; 1 Thess. 4:15,16).

It must never be forgotten that these titles ("the first and the last," "the Alpha and the Omega'" "the beginning and the end") belong only to Jehovah God (Isa. 44:6,8; Rev. 1:8, 21:6). But Jesus Christ claims them as His own, because He, the Son is also Jehovah!

We see, then, that there are either two firsts and two lasts (a hopeless contradiction of terms), or the Son is Jehovah, the one who was pierced for our sins (Zech. 12:10; Rev. 1:7,11,13) and who is truly "the fullness of Jehovah in flesh" (Col. 2:9).

The angel who showed John the wonder Revelation forbade the Apostle to worship him, for he was but a created being, a "fellow servant." Quite properly, he declared, "worship Jehovah," (Rev. 2:9). Yet Jesus Christ, whom Jehovah's Witnesses say is also a created being (i.e., Michael the Archangel), commended the worship of Himself as Jehovah (John 20:28,29). This would have been a blasphemous act of presumption on His part and a direct violation of His Father's commandments (Ex. 20:3; Deut. 6:17), unless He were in some mysterious sense on in Nature and Being with His Father. In such a case He would in truth be "equal with God" and entitled to receive worship as Jehovah (John 5:18,23).(3)

Jehovah's Witnesses have always taught that Jesus Christ was no more than a perfect man, "certainly not the supreme God Almighty in the flesh."3 They state categorically that He was in no sense both God and man. Some insist that Jesus while on earth was both God and man. This theory is wrong.(4)

Jehovah's Witnesses also maintain that our Lord was "the first and direct creation of Jehovah God," and that prior to His earthly life He was an angel.

In contrast to this teaching, Scripture and the Christian Church declare the full Deity of Jesus Christ, and His equality with God the Father.

In the first verse of John's Gospel, Christ is revealed as the eternal Word of God who became flesh (verse 14) – the "image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4).

Consider the emphasis "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" John 1:1). Note that John 1:1 states that the Word already was in the beginning - it does not say the Word "became" or "was created" by God, as Jehovah's Witnesses teach. The Witness incorrectly translate this text to read "the Word was a god,"(6) but their translation is by both context and grammar an impossibility according to all recognized authorities on Greek. No recognized translation bears out their error. Moreover, the Scriptures proclaim that Christ made "himself equal with God" (John 5:18), and that "in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Deity bodily" (Colossians 2:9). The Bible further states that Christ claimed to be the great I AM(Jehovah) of the Old Testament (cf. Exodus 3:13-16 with John 8:58), and the Jews understood Him so clearly during His ministry that they sought to stone Him to death for blasphemy (John 8:59; cf. 10:28-33).

Jehovah's Witnesses pervert these texts and many others in their determined effort to demote our Lord from His position of God and Creator (Colossians 1; Hebrews 1); and they compound their error by translating the Greek of the New

Testament, in many places, contrary to all grammatical authorities. It is certainly true that during His earthly life our Lord voluntarily limited Himself as a man (Philippians 2:6-8), and thus He never strove to usurp the prerogatives of Deity.

But one does not have to "rob" what is His by inheritance (Hebrews 1). He was true Deity - "the great God" (Titus 2:13). We must not forget that Christ humbled Himself, even to the death of the cross, and therefore, as a man, could say, "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). However, let us remember that Christ never said, "My Father is better than I." "Better" is a term of comparison between natures (Heb 1:4), while "greater," as in the context of John 14, is a term of comparison relative to positions.

The President of the United States, for instance, is greater in position than any of his fellow-Americans by virtue of his office, but he would be the first to insist that he is not better than other human beings. So Christ was admittedly inferior to His Father positionally while on earth as a man, but the Scriptures clearly and unmistakably state that he was at all times His Father's equal on the spiritual plane of Divine Being or Nature (Heb. 1:3; John 5:18). Note also that in 1 Corinthians 15:28 it is function that is dealt with - not Deity.

Jehovah's Witnesses always point to Christ's humanity in the Bible; they carefully omit mention of His claim to full Deity, and they thus "wrest...the...scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).

The second Person, the Son, is also called God, then, despite the efforts of the Watchtower to prove the contrary.

3. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS JEHOVAH

It is peculiar, to say the least, that Jehovah's Witnesses can agree with the Apostle Peter when he declared that the Father is Jehovah - and then contradict his affirmation that the Holy Spirit is likewise Jehovah, as recorded in Acts 5:3 - 4. No Christian theologian has ever denied either the Person or Deity of the Holy Spirit, for the evidence to substantiate both is abundant in Scripture. For instance, a thorough study of the book of Acts, chapter thirteen, reveals that the Holy Spirit is a Person, because He possesses "ego." Luke records therein that the Holy Spirit as a Person has "ego" (13:2,4) and, furthermore, that He (not "it") prophesies to His servants and commissions them, as well (21:11). See also such verses as John 14:26, 15:26, Acts 8:29, 13:2, and Romans 5:5.

The Scriptures are clear that the Holy Spirit has a "will" (1 Cor. 12:11; Heb. 2:4), and since "will" denotes "ego" or personality, as opposed to the neuter (animals), obviously the Spirit is a person. We have also seen from Peter's words that when Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, he lied to Jehovah (Acts 5:4). Both the thirteenth chapter of Acts and Isaiah 48 add to the proof that the Holy Spirit is God, since He answers the prayers of the Apostles (Acts 13:1-4) and is designated Deity by the prophet Isaiah (48:16). Even the Watchtower admits that God alone answers prayer.

The Bible, then, does indeed teach that the Spirit is a Person and that He is called God. It is therefore apparent that there are three Persons mentioned in Scripture and that they are all identified as God: Yet there is only one true God (Isa. 45:22).

"LORDS MANY AND GODS MANY"

There are two other important points that must be mentioned. Jehovah's Witnesses claim that, because the Bible designates some beings and idols as "gods," it is proper for them to call Jesus "a god" and worship him as the angels did (Heb. 1:6). This is an important point and must be clarified.

Of course, it is true that God made Moses appear as a god in Pharaoh's eyes (Exodus 7:1). Moreover, Satan, certain of the judges of Israel and pagan idols are described as "gods" in the Bible (John 14:30, Psalms 82:6, 1 Cor. 8:4, 10:19, 2 Cor. 4:4). Nevertheless, they are not deity by nature, as the Apostle Paul flatly states (Gal. 4:8). They are "gods" by angelic or human acclamation, and God addresses them in that context. Worshiping a thing can make it your god; but it is not God by nature - for by nature there is only one God (1 Cor. 8:4-6, 1 Tim. 2:5).

When this cardinal distinction is made in Scripture, the Watchtower's doctrine is refuted, and the problem of the usage of the term "gods" or "a god" disappears.

COMPOSITE UNITY AND THE TRIPLE POINT

The second important fact to be remembered is that of the meaning of the term "one." "How is it possible," say the Jehovah's witnesses, "for Jehovah to be three and one both at the same time? It is illogical, unreasonable and confusing; and God is not the author of confusion!" To answer this all-too-common objection, it should be kept in mind that the word "one" can denote composite as well as solitary unity. For instance, in Genesis (chapter 2), Adam and Eve are called one flesh; and Numbers (chapter 13) speaks of "one" when the context indicates that is was in reality a cluster of grapes hanging from one stem. Here are bona fide instances of composite unity.

The same Hebrew word, "echod" (one) is used in both cases, however, even as it is in Deuteronomy 6:4 where we are told that God is "One." The evident composite unity indicated here is confirmed in the New Testament. Our Lord spoke of composite unity where marriage is concerned (Mk. 10:8); so He, too, was aware of this important distinction. See also Joshua 9:2; Judges 20:1; 2 Chron. 30:12; Isaiah 65:25; Nehemiah 7:66 and Ezra 6:20 for further instances of composite unity.

Finally, let us illustrate how it is both logically and rationally possible for three to be one and one to be three simultaneously, since Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT believe this is possible. It is a well-known fact of chemistry that plain water, when placed in a vacuum under 230 millimeters of gas pressure and at a temperature of 0 degrees Centigrade, solidifies into ice at the bottom of the container, remains liquid in the center and vaporizes at the top! At a given instant the same water is both solid, liquid and gas, yet all three are manifestations of the same basic substance or nature: H2O - hydrogen: two parts; oxygen: one. If one of the simplest of all created substances can be three in manifested form and yet remain one in nature, then the Creator of that substance can surely be Father, Son and Holy Spirit - three Persons and one Nature - without any violation of logic or reason whatever if He so wills.

God is not triples (1+1+1) - He is triune (1x1x1), and He has revealed Himself fully in the Person of our Lord, Jesus Christ (Col. 2:9; John 14:9).

Jehovah's Witnesses are not confused by the doctrine of the Trinity they are confused by the Watchtower Society, from whose power only the Son of God can liberate. It is our prayer that, in His own time, this will come to pass - "for ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free...and if the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed." (John 8:32,36).

Once the foregoing data have been understood, the following texts from the Old and New Testament confirm the doctrine of the Trinity. A prayerful reading of these passages will help strengthen your faith in this great and truly divine revelation of the Nature of God. It will promote faith in Him "who is able to save to the uttermost all who come to Him by faith," since He alone is "the Way," (Heb. 7:25; John 14:6; Acts 16:31; 1 John 2:2; Romans 10:9-13).

FOOTNOTES:

1. Let God Be True, Watchtower Society, Edition 1946, pp. 81, 82, 87, Reconciliation J.W. Rutherford, p. 115.
2. TheTrinity, Baker's Dictionary of Theology, p 115.
3.  Let God Be True, p. 87
4. The Truth Shall Make You Free, Watchtower Society, p. 49, The Harp of God, J.W. Rutherford, pp. 101, 128. 5. The Kingdom Is At Hand, pp. 46, 47-49. 6. Let God Be True, pp. 34, 35.

TRINITY TEXTS: (1) Old Testament Hints - Genesis 1:26, Genesis 3:22, Genesis 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, 48:12, Zech. 12:9,10. (2) The Creation - Genesis 1:2, In 1:3. (3) The Incarnation - Lk. 1:35. (4) The Baptism of Christ - Matt. 3:17,17. (5) The Resurrection of Christ - Acts 2:26, 1 Thess. 1:10 (The Father), Jn 2:19-21, (The Son), Rom. 8:11, 1 Pet 3:18 (The Holy Spirit), Acts 17:31 (God). (6) The Great Commission - Matt. 28:19. (7) The Divine Benediction - 2 Cor. 13:14. See also John 14:16,26, 15:26.

Copyright 1993 by the Christian Research Institute

(Permission Granted)

(B)     Jehovah's Witnesses & The

  Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Jehovah's Witnesses and their official organization, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, have historically denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and have maintained that His was a "spirit" or "spiritual" resurrection to quote the Watchtower. "The King, Christ Jesus, was put to death in the flesh and was resurrected an invisible spirit creature."(1)
Further developing their teaching, the Witnesses proclaim: "In His resurrection He was no more human. He was raised as a spirit creature."(2)

In addition to this, the Watchtower has even suggested that Christ's body was "dissolved into gases" or "preserved somewhere as the grand memorial of God's love."(3) In order to understand the true teaching of the resurrection, it is necessary to review briefly the Biblical position, which is at considerable odds with the Watchtower.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is quite literally the historical bedrock upon which the Christian faith rests. The Apostle Paul indeed tells us that "if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching in vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14). He also declares, "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, you are yet in your sins" (verse 17).

From these two statements in the Word of God, we can see the resurrection of our Lord determines the validity of our faith and even our salvation, for without His resurrection our faith is "vain" and we are "yet in our sins."

In this connection, it must also be remembered that every verse in the Bible which deals with the resurrection of the dead, and the Lord particularly, refers exclusively to the human body; i.e., a bodily resuscitation; never a spirit or spiritual resurrection. In fact the word "resurrection" is never applied to the soul or spirit of man. This fact is born out in the original Hebrew and Greek. Beyond this, our Lord specifically prophesied that His resurrection would be bodily; that is, in a glorified form of the body He then possessed. When speaking to the unbelieving Jews, as recorded in the second chapter of John's Gospel, Christ stated "Destroy this temple, and inn three days I will raise it up" (verse 19).

The Jews, however, thought he was referring to the temple in Jerusalem but the Apostle John clearly declares our Lord's meaning: "But he spoke of the temple of his body" (verse 21). The Greek word soma is translated "body" throughout the New Testament, so it is an inescapable fact that Christ was referring to his own physical form - hence a bodily resurrection.

Two classic New Testament references which corroborate our Lord's prophecy of His bodily resurrection are in the 20th chapter of John and 24th chapter of Luke. In John 20 when our Lord appeared to the doubting Thomas, the same body in which He died upon the cross is evidenced by His own words: "Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." (verse 27).

In Luke 24, we again see how the words of Christ refute the spirit resurrection idea of Jehovah's Witnesses:

While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said* to them, "Peace be to you." But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them. (verses 36-43).

Not only, then, did our Lord have "flesh and bones," but he showed them the same hands and feet which bore the wounds of Calvary (verses 39, 40). The fact that He also ate broiled fish and a honeycomb (verse 42 and 43) proves that He was not a "spirit creature" as Jehovah's Witnesses contend. Moreover our Lord's words, "It is I myself...a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (verse 39) was uttered according to verse 37 and 38 because the disciples thought He was a spirit. Jesus, however absolutely disproved that by offering His body as tangible evidence (verse 39, 40).

Sometimes Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to explain away these appearances of Christ by asserting that He had a "spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44) or that He merely assumed different bodies to encourage His disciples, which the Witnesses say accounts for the fact that those who knew Him the best in life did not recognize Him after His resurrection (John 20:11-16; Luke 24:15-30).

The Witnesses also argue that 1 Peter 3:18, which refers to Christ's resurrection and states that He was "made alive in spirit" (literal Greek), establishes their theory, but they are in error.

While it is true that Paul speaks of "a spiritual body" he nevertheless calls it a "body" (Greek "soma") and we have already seen how Christ possessed "flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). A spiritual body then is not "a spirit" as the Witnesses make our, but a glorified, immortal, physical form possessing certain spiritual characteristics or attributes (i.e., the ability to pass through locked doors or vanish at will. John 20:19, 26; Luke 24:31)

Again, Jehovah's Witnesses' idea that because Mary Magdalene and the disciples could not recognize Christ on three occasions "proves" that He had assumed "different bodies" other than the one in which He died upon the cross, is disposed of by Luke 24:16. Luke there tells us that when the disciples encountered Jesus their eyes were kept from recognizing Him as a direct act of Christ's will. When He finished His conversation, He allowed their sense of vision to perceive who He really was; thus "their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight" (verse 31).

Finally, 1 Peter 3:18, far from "proving" that Jesus was raised a spirit as the Witnesses insist, only proves that He was raised in or by the Spirit of God as the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 8:11. The main objections, then, that Jehovah's Witnesses raise against the bodily resurrection of our Lord are all thoroughly answered by the Scriptures themselves and represent no real threat to historic Christian doctrine of the resurrection.

The Bible, therefore, does have mush to say about the resurrection of Christ as we have seen, and nowhere supports the spirit-resurrection theory of Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, all of it contradicts their teaching.

To the sincere, zealous, yet misled members of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christian church must repeat the statement of our Lord Himself: "Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Luke 24:38, 39).

The true teaching concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ does indeed determine a person's eternal destiny (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17). For "If you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised him from among the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9, Literal Greek).

FOOTNOTES:

1. Let God Be True, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, p. 122, Edition 1946. 2. The Kingdom is at Hand, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, p. 258.

3. Studies in the Scripture, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, p. 129, Vol 2.

Copyright 1993 by the Christian Research Institute.

(Permission Granted)

(C)  Watchtower’s Scriptural Distortions

(1) The first major perversion that Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt to foist upon the minds of the average reader is that it has remained for them as “God’s true Witnesses” to restore the divine Old Testament name Jehovah to the text of the Greek New Testament. But let us observe this pretext as they stated it in their own words.

The evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been tampered with, the same as the text of the LXX [the Septuagint—a Greek translation of the Old Testament] has been. And, at least from the third century A.D. onward, the divine name in tetragrammaton [the Hebrew consonants , usually rendered “Jehovah”] form has been eliminated from the text by copyists. In place of it they substituted the words (usually translated “the Lord”) and , meaning “God” (p. 18).

The “evidence” that the Witnesses refer to is a papyrus roll of the LXX, which contains the second half of the book of Deuteronomy and which does have the tetragrammaton throughout. Further than this, the Witnesses refer to Aquila (A.D.128) and Origen (ca. A.D. 250), who both utilized the tetragrammaton in their respective Version and Hexapla. Jerome, in the fourth century, also mentioned the tetragrammaton as appearing in certain Greek volumes even in his day. On the basis of this small collection of fragmentary “evidence,” Jehovah’s Witnesses conclude their argument: It proves that the original LXX did contain the divine name wherever it occurred in the Hebrew original. Considering it a sacrilege to use some substitute such as or , the scribes inserted the tetragrammaton at its proper place in the Greek version text (p. 12).

The whole case the Witnesses try to prove is that the original LXX and the New Testament autographs all used the tetragrammaton (p. 18), but owing to “tampering” all these were changed; hence, their responsibility to restore the divine name. Such is the argument, and a seemingly plausible one to those not familiar with the history of manuscripts and the Witnesses’ subtle use of terms.

To explode this latest Watchtower pretension of scholarship completely is an elementary task. It can be shown from literally thousands of copies of the Greek New Testament that not once does the tetragrammaton appear, not even in Matthew, which was possibly written in Hebrew or Aramaic originally, therefore making it more prone than all the rest to have traces of the divine name in it—yet it does not! Beyond this, the roll of papyrus (LXX) that contains the latter part of Deuteronomy and the divine name only proves that one copy did have the divine name, whereas all other existing copies use and , which the Witnesses claim are “substitutes.” The testimonies of Aquila, Origen, and Jerome, in turn, only show that sometimes the divine name was used, but the general truth upheld by all scholars is that the Septuagint, with minor exceptions, always uses and in place of the tetragrammaton, and the New Testament never uses it at all.

Relative to the nineteen “sources” the Watchtower uses (pp. 30–33) for restoring the tetragrammaton to the New Testament, it should be noted that they are all translations from Greek (which uses and , not the tetragrammaton) back into Hebrew, the earliest of which is A.D. 1385, and therefore they are of no value as evidence.

These cold logical facts unmask once and for all the shallow scholarship of Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose arrogant pretension that they have a sound basis for restoring the divine name (Jehovah) to the Scriptures while inferring that orthodoxy suppressed it centuries ago is revealed to be a hollow scholastic fraud. The Watchtower itself admits, “But apart from [the use of “Jah” in “Hallelujah” in the book of Revelation], no ancient Greek manuscript that we possess today of the books from Matthew to Revelation contains God’s name [the tetragrammaton] in full.”

No reasonable scholar, of course, objects to the use of the term Jehovah in the Bible. But since only the Hebrew consonants appear without vowels, pronunciation is at best uncertain, and dogmatically to settle on Jehovah is straining at the bounds of good linguistics. When the Witnesses arrogantly claim then to have “restored” the divine name (Jehovah), it is almost pathetic. All students of Hebrew know that any vowel can be inserted between the consonants ( or ), so that theoretically the divine name could be any combination from JoHeVaH to JiHiViH without doing violence to the grammar of the language in the slightest degree.

(2) Colossians 1:16. “By means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities”(NWT).

In this particular rendering, Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt one of the most clever perversions of the New Testament texts that the author has ever seen. Knowing full well that the word other does not occur in this text, or for that matter in any of the three verses (16, 17, 19) where it has been added, albeit in brackets, the Witnesses deliberately insert it into the translation in a vain attempt to make Christ a creature and one of the “things” He is spoken of as having created.

Attempting to justify this unheard-of travesty upon the Greek language and also upon simple honesty, the New World Bible translation committee enclosed each added “other” in brackets, which are said by them to “enclose words inserted to complete or clarify the sense in the English text.” Far from clarifying God’s Word here, these unwarranted additions serve only to further the erroneous presupposition of the Watchtower that our Lord Jesus Christ is a creature rather than the Eternal Creator.

The entire context of Colossians 1:15–22 is filled with superlatives in its description of the Lord Jesus as the “image of the invisible God, the first begetter [or ‘original bringer forth’—Erasmus] of every creature.” The apostle Paul lauds the Son of God as Creator of all things (v. 16) and describes Him as existing “before all things” and as the one by whom “all things consist” (v. 17). This is in perfect harmony with the entire picture Scripture paints of the eternal Word of God (John 1:1) who was made flesh (John 1:14) and of whom it was written: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). The writer of the book of Hebrews also pointed out that God’s Son “[upholds] all things by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3) and that He is Deity in all its fullness, even as Paul wrote to the Colossians: “For in him should all fullness [of God] dwell” (Colossians 1:19).

The Scriptures, therefore, bear unmistakable testimony to the creative activity of God’s Son, distinguishing Him from among the “things” created, as the Creator and Sustainer of “all things.” Jehovah’s Witnesses, therefore, have no conceivable ground for this dishonest rendering of Colossians 1:16–17 and 19 by the insertion of the word “other,” since they are supported by no grammatical authorities, nor do they dare to dispute their perversions with competent scholars lest they further parade their obvious ignorance of Greek exegesis.

(3) Matthew 27:50. “Again Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and yielded up his breath” (NWT). Luke 23:46. “And Jesus called with a loud voice and said: Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit” (NWT)

For many years the Watchtower has been fighting a vain battle to redefine biblical terms to suit their own peculiar theological interpretations. They have had some measure of success in this attempt in that they have taught the rank and file a new meaning for tried and true biblical terms, and it is this trait of their deceptive system that we analyze now in connection with the above quoted verses.

The interested student of Scripture will note from Matthew 27:50 and Luke 23:46 that they are parallel passages describing the same event, namely, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In Matthew’s account, the Witnesses had no difficulty substituting the word “breath” for the Greek “spirit”, for in their vocabulary this word has many meanings, none of them having any hearing upon the general usage of the term, i.e., that of an immaterial, cognizant nature, inherent in man by definition and descriptive of angels through Creation. Jehovah’s Witnesses reject this immaterial nature in man and call it “breath,” “life,” “mental disposition,” or “something windlike.” In fact, they will call it anything but what God’s Word says it is, an invisible nature, eternal by Creation, a spirit, made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Sometimes, and in various contexts, spirit can mean some of the things the Witnesses hold, but context determines translation, along with grammar, and their translations quite often do not remain true to either.

Having forced the word “breath” into Matthew’s account of the crucifixion to make it appear that Jesus only stopped breathing and did not yield up His invisible nature upon dying, the Witnesses plod on to Luke’s account, only to be caught in their own trap. Luke, learned scholar and master of Greek that he was, forces the Witnesses to render his account of Christ’s words using the correct term “spirit”, instead of “breath” as in Matthew 27:50. Thus in one fell swoop the entire Watchtower fabric of manufactured terminology collapses, because Jesus would hardly have said: “Father, into thy hands I commit my breath”—yet if the Witnesses are consistent, which they seldom are, why did they not render the identical Greek term as “breath” both times, for it is a parallel account of the same scene!

The solution to this question is quite elementary, as all can clearly see. The Witnesses could not render it “breath” in Luke and get away with it, so they used it where they could and hoped nobody would notice either it or the different rendering in Matthew. The very fact that Christ dismissed His spirit proves the survival of the human spirit beyond the grave, or as Solomon so wisely put it: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7).

(4) Philippians 1:21–23. “For in my case to live is Christ, and to die, gain. Now if it be to live on in the flesh, this is a fruitage of my work—and yet which thing to select I do not know. 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” (NWT).

In common with other cults that teach soul-sleep after the death of the body, Jehovah’s Witnesses translate texts contradicting this view to suit their own ends, a prime example of which is their rendering of Philippians 1:21–23. To anyone possessing even a cursory knowledge of Greek grammar the translation “but what I do desire is the releasing” (v.23) signifies either a woeful ignorance of the rudiments of the language or a deliberate, calculated perversion of terminology for a purpose or purposes most questionable.

It is no coincidence that this text is a great “proof” passage for the expectation of every true Christian who after death goes to be with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). Jehovah’s Witnesses realize that if this text goes unchanged or unchallenged it utterly destroys their Russellite teaching that the soul becomes extinct at the death of the body. This being the case, and since they could not challenge the text without exploding the myth of their acceptance of the Bible as the final authority, the Watchtower committee chose to alter the passage in question, give it a new interpretation, and remove this threat to their theology.

The rendering, “but what I do desire is the releasing,” particularly the last word, is an imposition on the principles of sound Greek exegesis. The NWT renders the infinitive form of the verb as a substantive. In the context of this particular passage, to translate it “the releasing” would require the use of the participle construction, which when used with the word “wish” or “desire” denotes “a great longing” or “purpose” and must be rendered “to depart” or “to unloose.” (See Thayer; Liddell and Scott; Strong, Young, and A. T. Robertson.)

Quite frankly, it may appear that I have gone to a great deal of trouble simply to refute the wrong usage of a Greek form, but in truth this “simple” switching of terms is used by the Witnesses in an attempt to teach that Paul meant something entirely different than what he wrote to the Philippians. To see how the Watchtower manages this, I quote from their own appendix to the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (780–781):The verb is used as a verbal noun here. It occurs only once more in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and that is at Luke 12:36, where it refers to Christ’s return. The related noun occurs but once, at 2 Timothy 4:6, where the apostle says: “The due time for my releasing is imminent.” But here at Philippians 1:23 we have not rendered the verb as “returning” or “departing,” but as “releasing.” The reason is, that the word may convey two thoughts, the apostle’s own releasing to be with Christ at his return and also the Lord’s releasing himself from the heavenly restraints and returning as he promised.

In no way is the apostle here saying that immediately at his death he would be changed into spirit and would be with Christ forever. It is to this return of Christ and the apostle’s releasing to be always with the Lord that Paul refers at Philippians 1:23. He says there that two things are immediately possible for him, namely, (1) to live on in the flesh and (2) to die. Because of the circumstances to be considered, he expressed himself as being under pressure from these two things, not knowing which thing to choose as proper. Then he suggests a third thing, and this thing he really desires. There is no question about his desire for this thing as preferable, namely, the releasing, for it means his being with Christ.

The expression, or the releasing cannot therefore be applied to the apostle’s death as a human creature and his departing thus from this life. It must refer to the events at the time of Christ’s return and second presence, that is to say, his second coming and the rising of all those dead in Christ to be with him forevermore.

Here, after much grammatical intrigue, we have the key as to why the Witnesses went to so much trouble to render “depart” as “releasing.” By slipping in this grammatical error, the Watchtower hoped to “prove” that Paul wasn’t really discussing his impending death and subsequent reunion with Christ at all (a fact every major biblical scholar and translator in history has affirmed ), but a third thing, namely, “the events at the time of Christ’s return and second presence.” With breathtaking dogmatism, the Witnesses claim that “the releasing cannot therefore be applied to the apostle’s death. It must refer to the events at the time of Christ’s return.”

Words fail when confronted with this classic example of unparalleled deceit, which finds no support in any Greek text or exegetical grammatical authority. Contrary to the Watchtower’s statement that “the word may convey two thoughts, the apostle’s own releasing to be with Christ at his return and also the Lord’s releasing himself from the heavenly restraints and returning as he promised,” as a matter of plain exegetical fact, Christ’s return is not even the subject of discussion—rather it is the apostle’s death and his concern for the Philippians that are here portrayed. That Paul never expected to “sleep” in his grave until the resurrection as Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain is evident by the twenty-first verse of the chapter, literally: “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” There would be no gain in dying if men slept till the resurrection, for “[God] is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living” (Mark 12:27). Clearly, Paul was speaking of but two things: his possible death and subsequent presence with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8), and also the possibility of his continuing on in the body, the latter being “more needful” for the Philippian Christians. His choice, in his own words, was between these two (1:23), and Jehovah’s Witnesses have gone to great trouble for nothing; the Greek text still records faithfully what the inspired apostle said—not what the Watchtower maintains he said, all their deliberate trickery to the contrary.

Concluding our comments upon these verses in Philippians, we feel constrained to point out a final example of Watchtower dishonesty relative to Greek translation. On page 781 of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, it will be recalled that the committee wrote: “The expression , or the releasing cannot therefore be applied to the apostle’s death as a human creature and his departing thus from this life.”

If the interested reader will turn to page 626 of the same Watchtower translation, he will observe that in 2 Timothy 4:6 the Witnesses once more use the term “releasing”, where all translators are agreed that it refers to Paul’s impending death.

The Revised Standard Version, often appealed to by Jehovah’s Witnesses, puts it this way: “For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come.” (See also An American Translation [Goodspeed]; Authorized Version; J. N. Darby’s Version; James Moffatt’s Version; J. B. Rotherham’s Version; Douay Version [Roman Catholic]; etc.) Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves render the text: “For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the due time for my releasing is imminent” (2 Timothy 4:6, NWT).

Now, since it is admitted by the Witnesses, under the pressure of every translator’s rendering of his text, that this verse refers to Paul’s death, and further, since the noun form of the Greek word is here used and translated “releasing,” why is it that they claim on page 781 that this expression “the releasing” (—Philippians 1:23) “cannot therefore be applied to the apostle’s death as a human creature and his departing thus from this life”?

The question becomes more embarrassing when it is realized that Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves admit that these two forms ( and ) are “related” (p. 781). Hence they have no excuse for maintaining in one place (Philippians 1:23) that “the releasing” cannot refer to the apostle’s death, and in another place (2 Timothy 4:6) using a form of the same word and allowing that it does refer to his death. This one illustration alone should serve to warn all honest people of the blatant deception employed in the Watchtower’s “translations,” a term not worthy of application in many, many places.

(5) Matthew 24:3. “While he was sitting upon the mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: ‘Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?’ ”(NWT).

Since the days of “Pastor” Russell and Judge Rutherford, one of the favorite dogmas of the Watchtower has been that of the, the second coming or “presence” of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jehovah’s Witnesses, loyal Russellites that they are, have tenaciously clung to the “pastor’s” theology in this respect and maintain that in the year A.D. 1914, when the “times of the Gentiles” ended (according to Russell), the “second presence” of Christ began. (See Make Sure of All Things, 319.)

From the year 1914 onward, the Witnesses maintain, Christ has turned his attention toward earth’s affairs and is dividing the peoples and educating the true Christians in preparation for their survival during the great storm of Armageddon, when all unfaithful mankind will be destroyed from the face of the earth (p. 319).

For Jehovah’s Witnesses, it appears, Christ is not coming; He is here! (A.D. 1914)—only invisibly—and He is directing His activities through His theocratic organization in Brooklyn, New York. In view of this claim, it might be well to hearken unto the voice of Matthew who wrote:

Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

Matthew 24:23-27 (NASB)
²³ "Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There He is,' do not believe him.  ²⁴ "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.  ²⁵ "Behold, I have told you in advance. ²⁶ "So if they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go out, or, 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. ²⁷ "For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, on page 780 of their New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, list the twenty-four occurrences of the Greek word , which they translate each time as “presence.” They give the following defense found on page 779: The tendency of many translators is to render it here “coming” or “arrival.” But throughout the 24 occurrences of the Greek word we have consistently rendered it “presence.” From the comparison of the of the Son of man with the days of Noah at Matthew 24:37–39, it is very evident that the meaning of the word is as we have rendered it. And from the contrast that is made between the presence and the absence of the apostle both at 2 Corinthians 10:10–11 and at Philippians 2:12, the meaning of is so plain that it is beyond dispute by other translators.

Following this gigantic claim, namely, that their translation of the word is “beyond dispute by other translators,” the “theocratic authorities” proceed to list the verses in question.

Now, the main issue is not the translation of as “presence,” because in some contexts it is certainly allowable (see 1 Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6–7; 10:10; and Philippians 1:26; 2:12). But there are other contexts where it cannot be allowed in the way Jehovah’s Witnesses use it, because it not only violates the contextual meaning of the word but the entire meaning of the passages as always held by the Christian church.

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim scholarship for this blanket translation of , yet not one great scholar in the history of Greek exegesis and translation has ever held this view. Since 1871, when “Pastor” Russell produced this concept, it has been denounced by every competent scholar upon examination.

The reason this Russellite rendering is so dangerous is that it attempts to prove that in regard to Christ’s second advent really means that His return or “presence” was to be invisible and unknown to all but “the faithful” (Russellites, of course). (See Make Sure of All Things, 319–323.)

The New World translators, therefore, on the basis of those texts where it is acceptable to render “presence,” conclude that it must be acceptable in all texts. But while it appears to be acceptable grammatically, no one but Jehovah’s

Witnesses or their sympathizers accept the New World Translation’s blanket use of “presence,” be the translators Christian or not. It simply is not good grammar, and it will not stand up under comparative exegesis as will be shown. To conclude that “presence” necessarily implies invisibility is also another flaw in the Watchtower’s argument, for in numerous places where they render “presence” the persons spoken of were hardly invisible. (See again 1 Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6–7 and 10:10; Philippians 1:26 and 2:12.)

If the Watchtower were to admit for one moment that can be translated “coming” or “arrival” in the passages that speak of Christ’s return the way all scholarly translators render it, then “Pastor” Russell’s “invisible presence” of Christ would explode in their faces. Hence, their determination to deny what all recognized Greek authorities have established

The late Dr. Joseph H. Thayer, a Unitarian scholar, translator/editor of one of the best lexicons of the Greek New Testament (and who, incidentally, denied the visible second coming of Christ), said on page 490 of that work, when speaking of : “a return (Philippians 1:26). In the New Testament, especially of the Advent, i.e., the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, the Messiah, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the Kingdom of God.” (For further references, see Liddell and Scott, Strong, and any other reputable authority.)

Dr. Thayer, it might be mentioned, was honest enough to say what the New Testament Greek taught, even though he didn’t believe it. One could wish that Jehovah’s Witnesses were at least that honest, but they are not.

In concluding this discussion of the misuse of, we shall discuss the verses Jehovah’s Witnesses use to “prove” that Christ’s return was to be an invisible “presence” instead of a visible, glorious, verifiable event.

The following references and their headings were taken from the book Make Sure of All Things, published by the Watchtower as an official guide to their doctrine.

(1) “Angels Testified at Jesus’ Ascension as a Spirit that Christ Would Return in Like Manner, Quiet, Unobserved by the Public” (p. 320).

And after he had said these things while they [only the disciples] were looking on, he was lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their vision. “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who was received up from you into the sky will come thus in the same manner as you have beheld him going into the sky” (Acts 1:9, 11, NWT).

It is quite unnecessary to refute in detail this open perversion of a clear biblical teaching because, as John 20:27 clearly shows, Christ was not a spirit and did not ascend as one. The very text they quote shows that the disciples were

“looking on” and saw him “lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their vision”(v. 9). They could hardly have been looking at a spirit, which by definition is incorporeal, not with human eyes at least, and Christ had told them once before:

Luke 24:39 (NASB)
³⁹ "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

So it remains for Christ himself to denounce the Russellite error that He “ascended as a spirit.” Moreover, since He left the earth visibly from the Mount of Olives it is certain that He will return visibly even as the Scriptures teach (see Matthew 26:63–64; Daniel 7:13–14; Revelation 1:7–8; Matthew 24:7–8, 30).

Recently the Jehovah’s Witnesses “reinterpreted” their prophetic scheme to downplay the significance of 1914. As the Watchtower Society approaches the new millennium, it must somehow account for the fact that the Battle of Armageddon has not yet occurred, even though, according to the Society’s interpretation, it was supposed to occur at least within the lifetime of those born by 1914.

For decades the Awake! masthead contained the statement, “Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away.”

However, the November 8, 1995 issue (as well as all subsequent issues) states, “Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure new world that is about to replace the present wicked lawless system of things.” This is but the latest in a multitude of reinterpretations by the Watchtower to extend their erroneous end times scenario into successive decades as their “prophetic” prowess fails. Following is a chart that shows the successive replacement teachings of the Watchtower over the years.

(D)      Watchtower Prophecy

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society still has not learned to refrain from prophesying falsely. In the January 1, 1997 Watchtower (p. 11), it once again raises expectations among its followers that the Battle of Armageddon is just around the corner:

In the early 1920s, a featured public talk presented by Jehovah’s Witnesses was entitled “Millions Now Living Will Never Die.” This may have reflected over-optimism at that time. But today that statement can be made with full confidence. Both the increasing light on Bible prophecy and the anarchy of this dying world cry out that the end of Satan’s system is very, very near!

(2) “Christ’s Return Invisible, as He Testified That Man Would Not See Him Again in Human Form” (p. 321).

A little longer and the world will behold me no more (John 14:19, NWT).

For I say to you, You will by no means see me from henceforth until you say, “Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name!” (Matthew 23:39, NWT).

These two passages in their respective contexts give no support to the Russellite doctrine of an invisible “presence” of Christ for two very excellent reasons:

(a) John 14:19 refers to Christ’s anticipated death and resurrection—the “yet a little while” He made reference to could only have referred to His resurrection and subsequent ascension (Acts 1:9–11), before which time and during the period following His resurrection He appeared only to believers, not the world (or unbelievers), hence the clear meaning of His words. Jesus never said that no one would ever “see Him again in human form” as the Watchtower likes to make out. Rather, in the same chapter (John 14) He promised to “come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (v. 3). The Bible also is quite clear in telling us that one day by His grace alone “we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). So the Watchtower once more is forced into silence by the voice of the Holy Spirit.

(b) This second text, Matthew 23:39, really proves nothing at all for the Watchtower’s faltering arguments except that Jerusalem will never see Christ again until it blesses Him in repentance as the Anointed of God. Actually the text hurts the Russellite position, for it teaches that Christ will be visible at His coming, else they could not see Him to bless Him in the name of the Lord. Christ also qualified the statement with the word “until,” a definite reference to His visible second advent (Matthew 24:30).

(3) “Early Christians Expected Christ’s Return to Be Invisible. Paul Argued There Was Insufficient Evidence in Their Day” (p. 321).

However, brothers, respecting the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we request of you not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. Let no one seduce you in any manner, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction (2 Thessalonians 2:1–3, NWT).

This final example from Second Thessalonians most vividly portrays the Witnesses at their crafty best, as they desperately attempt to make Paul teach what in all his writings he most emphatically denied, namely, that Christ would come invisibly for His saints. In his epistle to Titus, Paul stressed the importance of “looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (2:13), something he would not have been looking for if it was to be a secret, invisible or “presence.” Paul, contrary to the claims of Jehovah’s Witnesses, never believed in an invisible return, nor did any bona fide member of the Christian church up until the fantasies of Charles Taze Russell and his nightmare, as a careful look at Paul’s first epistle to the Thessalonians plainly reveals. Said the inspired apostle:

“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven [visible] with a shout [audible], with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first” (4:15–16, bracketed mine).

Here we see that in perfect accord with Matthew 26 and Revelation 1, Christ is pictured as coming visibly, and in this context no reputable Greek scholar alive will allow the use of “presence”; it must be “coming.” (See also 2 Thessalonians 2:8.) For further information relative to this subject, consult any standard concordance or Greek lexicon available, and trace Paul’s use of the word “coming.” This will convince any fair-minded person that Paul never entertained the Watchtower’s fantastic view of Christ’s return. These things being clearly understood, the interested reader should give careful attention to those verses in the New Testament which do not use the word but are instead forms of the verb and those related to the word (see Thayer, 250ff) and which refer to the Lord’s coming as a visible manifestation. These various texts cannot be twisted to fit the Russellite pattern of “presence,” since means “to come,” “to appear,” “to arrive,” etc., in the most definite sense of the term. (For reference, check Matthew 24:30 in conjunction with Matthew 26:64; also John 14:3; and Revelation 1:7.)

Once it is perceived that Jehovah’s Witnesses are only interested in what they can make the Scriptures say, and not in what the Holy Spirit has already perfectly revealed, then the careful student will reject entirely Jehovah’s Witnesses and their Watchtower “translation.” These are as “blind leaders of the blind” (Matthew 15:14), “turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). Further, that they wrest the Scriptures unto their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16), the foregoing evidence has thoroughly revealed for all to judge.

It is probably time for us to really discuss this issue of “reason” as both the Watchtower and Charles Taze Russell state this as the criterion for the credibility of Bible doctrine. But a couple of comments first. I have enclosed a detailed documentation, and yes, it is from pastor friend, concerning the false prophecy equivocated by the Watchtower. You see, it just doesn’t make sense to me to believe someone who makes predictions that just don’t come to pass.

I also have a copy of John 8:58 in the NWT. The NWT states that, “Before Abraham was, I have been.” Footnote “c” states this is the a’orist infinitive clause of (ego eimi), rendered in the perfect indefinite tense. Well, my dear sister, there is no such tense in Greek. It is an invention – a way to escape the real meaning of the verse. That is dishonest! It doesn’t make any sense to commit my soul to organization that invents Greek tenses. I do have to documentation.

A. Pastor Russell wrote in the first volume of the “Millenial Dawn” on page 41, “… let us examine the character of the teachings claimed as inspired to see whether their teachings correspond with the character we have reasonably imputed to God.” It is plan to see, that to Pastor Russell, the understanding of God’s character is not in God’s revelation of Himself by faith, but in our ability to reason out that character subject to our reasoning processes. But Jehovah’s word is very clear in Isaiah 55:8-9:

        "For My thoughts are not your thoughts,

        Neither are your ways My ways," declares the Lord.

        [9] "For as the heavens are higher than the earth,

        So are My ways higher than your ways,

        And My thoughts than your thoughts.

This passage did not say to abandon reason and thought in the process of inquiry, but that no one can know the mind, nature or thoughts of God in all their fullness, seeing that we are finite and He is infinite. 88 times the word reason is used in Scripture and only once, Is. 1:18, “Come let us reason together…” does Jehovah address man. In this passage, Jehovah showed man the way to  salvation and invited him to be redeemed from sin. Jehovah never says to “reason out the construction of my Spiritual Substance or Nature”. He never invites us to explore His deity or probe into His mind. Paul states it this way: Romans 11:34-36

“For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?  Or who has first given to Him THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN?  For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen”.

B. In the article, “The Scriptures, Reason, and the Trinity”, the appeal is made to reason as the standard for determining what Jehovah thinks.

“To hold that Jehovah God the Father and Christ Jesus His Son are co-eternal is to fly in the face of reason…” Pg. 22.

“Jehovah God says: `Come now, let us reason together’ (Isaiah 1:18). The advocates of the Trinity admit that it is not subject to reason or logic so they resort to terming it a `mystery’. But the Bible contains no divine mysteries.

It contains “sacred secrets”. ..”

“There is a vast difference between a secret and a mystery. A secret is merely that which has not been made known, but a mystery is that which cannot be understood.”

Huh? And that is supposed to make sense. The two words are synonyms and the simple process of checking a dictionary confirms it. There is no “vast differences between the words. That makes no sense at all.

C. On Pg. 24, Pastor Russell states, “Jehovah God by His Word furnishes us with ample reasons and logical bases for all regarding which he expects us to exercise faith….We can make sure of what is right only by a process of reasoning on God’s Word.”

Is this a prime example of what the Watchtower represents as “sound reason”?

Some questions:

1)     Does Jehovah give us a reason for creating Lucifer the author of sin?

2)     Does Jehovah give us any fathomable reason for His choice in salvation of His elect?

           Romans 9:15

For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

3)     Does Jehovah anywhere give a reason for children being born dead, blind crippled or diseased?

4)     Does Jehovah clearly give understandable reasons for the suffering innocent bystanders during war, terrorism and untold misery?

But through it all, Jehovah asks us to believe that these difficulties and evils will ultimately work out His plan, and He asks us at times to believe in Him against reason and with the eyes of faith. This is the God who loves me, granted grace and love and the forgiveness of every sin. Plus I have the guidance of Holy Spirit, not just a process of reasoning, to teach me. And He is:

 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” (John 14:26)

I would much rather have the Holy Spirit than the “reason” that Pastor Russell or the Watchtower pontificate. However, the Watchtower assumes that human reason is capable of going where Jehovah does not even invite us.

Does Jehovah use our reason? Of course. But we are limited to believing what is only reasonable to our minds? I refuse to place that limitation on a Jehovah who is Omniscient.

It is quite interesting to follow along in Pastor Russell’s article in his quotation of Deut. 6:4. He becomes a polytheist by making Jesus a god in Jn 1:1. How many gods are there? That is polytheism – a garbled polytheism at best – but that is exactly what it is.

The article goes on to say, “The Trinity doctrine is a negation of both Scripture and reason.” This statement is a typical mixture of truth and error. God through His Word does appeal to our reason. But at the same, He does not invite inquiry into His nature or character. Pastor Russell assumes that human reason can do just that.

The Jews knew clearly what Jesus said of Himself – actually better than the Watchtower – “For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” (Jn. 5:18)

The Greek word ison, in Thayer’s Greek Lexicon means: “equal in quality as in quantity, to claim for one’s self the Nature, rank and authority, which belong to God.” I must note that Thayer was not a Christian but a noted Greek authority.

With God continuing to grant me grace through indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I will be faithful to Him who was once dead but now is alive, the First and Last, the Alpha & Omega. The Holy Spirit bears witness in us when we are His children.

(E)  John 1:1 and the Jehovah's Witnesses

John 1:1 (NASB)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 (NIV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 (ASV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1 (NKJV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Contrary to the translations of "The Emphatic Diaglott" and the "New World Translation", the Greek grammatical construction leaves no doubt whatsoever that this is the only possible rendering of the text. The subject of the sentence is "Word" (Logos), the verb, "was". There can be no direct object following "was", since according to grammatical usage, intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back to the subject, in this case, "Word" (Logos).*

It is therefore easy to see that non article is needed for "Theos" (God), and to translate it "a god" is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek, since "Theos" is the predicate nominative of "was" in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, "Word" (Logos). Christ, then, if He is the Word "made flesh" (John 1:14, KJV) can be no one else except God, unless the Greek text and consequently God's Word be denied. [* - Colwell's rule clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (Theos - God) NEVER takes and article when it precedes the verb ("was") as in John 1:1.]

Jehovah's Witnesses, in their "New World "Translation", attempt to discredit the Greek text on this point, for they realize that if Jesus and Jehovah are one in nature, their theology cannot stand, since they deny that unity of nature.[1] The refutation of their arguments on this point is conclusive. The claim is that since the definitive article is used with "Theon" and not with "Theos" in John 1:1, therefore the omission is designed to show a difference; the alleged difference being that in the first case, the one true God (Jehovah) is meant, while in the second, "a god", other than, and inferior to, the first is meant, this latter "god" being Jesus Christ.

The "New World Translation" claims that the rendering "a god" is correct because "all the doctrine of sacred Scriptures bears out the correctness of this rendering." [2] This remark focuses attention on the fact that the whole problem involved goes far beyond this text. Scripture does in fact teach the full and equal deity of Christ.

Why then is so much made of this one verse? It is probably because of the surprise effect derived from the show of pseudoscholarship in the use of a familiar text. Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean that "a god" other than the one true God is meant. Let one examine these passages where the article is not used with "Theos" and see if the rendering "a god" makes sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1).

The "a god" contention in this rendering of "a god", Jehovah's Witnesses would have to translate every instance where the article is absent as "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." This they do not do in Matthew 5:9; 6:24; Luke 1:35, 78; John 1:6, 12, 13, 18; Romans 1:7, 17. (See "New World Translation" and "Emphatic Diaglott" at above mentioned references.)

You cannot honestly render "Theos" "a god" in John 1:1, and then "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke1:35, 78; and John 1:6, when "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun (second declension), WITHOUT an article and MUST be rendered (following Jehovah's Witnesses' argument) "of A god" not "of God" as both the "Emphatic Diaglott" and "New World Translation" put it. We could list at great length, but suggest consultation of the Greek Testament by either D. Erwin Nestle or Westcott and Hort, in conjunction with "The Elements of Greek" by Francis Kingsley Ball, on noun endings. So then, if Jehovah's Witnesses must persist in this fallacious "a god" rendering, they can at least be consistent, which THEY ARE NOT, and render every instance where the article is absent in the same manner.

The truth of the matter is that Jehovah's Witnesses use and remove the articular emphasis whenever and WHEREVER it suits their fancy regardless of grammatical laws to the contrary. In a translation as important as God's Word, every law must be observed. Jehovah's Witnesses have not been consistent in their observance of those laws.

The writers of the note have also exhibited another trait common to Jehovah's Witnesses, that of half quoting or misquoting a recognized authority to bolster their ungrammatical renditions. On page 776 (NWT, 1950 Edition), when quoting Dr. Robertson's words, "Among the ancient writers O THEOS was used of the god of the absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods," they fail to note that in the second sentence following, Dr. Robertson says, "In the New Testament, however, while we have PRO TON THEON (John 1:1, 2) it is far more common to find SIMPLY "THEOS", especially in the Epistles." [Emphasis added.]

In other words, the writers of the New Testament frequently do not use the article with "Theos" and yet the meaning is perfectly clear in the context, namely that the one true God is intended. Let one examine the following references where in successive verses and even in the same sentence the article is used with ONE occurrence of "Theos" and NOT with another form, and it will be absolutely clear that no such drastic inferences can be drawn from John's usage in John 1:1, 2. (Mt 4:3-4, 12:28; Lk 20:37 38; Jn 3:2; 13:3; Ac 5:29-30; Ro 1:7-8, 17-19; 2:16-17; 3:5, 22 23; 4:2-3.)

The doctrine of the article is important in Greek; it is NOT used indiscriminately. But we are NOT qualified to be sure in ALL cases what is intended. Dr, Robertson is careful to note that :it is only of recent years that a really scientific study of the article has been made."[3] The facts are not all know, and no such drastic conclusion as the writers of the appendix note draw should be dogmatically affirmed.

It is nonsense to say that a single noun can be rendered "divine", and that an anarthrous noun conveys merely the idea of quality (NWT, 1950 Edition, pp. 773-774). the authors of this note themselves later render the same noun "Theos" as "a god" not as "a quality". This is a self-contradiction in the context.                  

In conclusion, the position of the writers of this note is made clear (NWT, 1950 Edition, p. 774); according to them, it is "unreasonable" that the Word (Christ) should be the God with whom He was (Jn 1:1). Their own manifestly erring reason is made the criterion for determining scriptural truth. One need only note the obvious misuse in their quotation from Dana and Mantey (NWT, 1950 Edition, pp. 774-775). Mantey clearly means that the "word was Deity" in accord with the over whelming testimony of Scripture, but the writers have dragged in the interpretation of "a god" to suit their own purpose, which purpose is the denial of Christ's deity, and as a result a denial of the Word of God.** [** - Dr. Mantey has formally repudiated the out-of-context quoting and general misrepresentation of his views in a private letter made public, and accuses the Watchtower of gross error in their handling of his grammar.]           

 Since the publication of the Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom interlinear translation of the Greek Scriptures in 1969, the Watchtower has quite literally backed itself into a corner with its translation of John 1:1 as it appears in the "New World Translation". In their "New Kingdom Interlinear Translation" of John 1:1, they render the Greek text on the left side of the page: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God and god was the Word." Directly across the page in the right column, the "New World Translation" says, "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was A god." It appears that the Watchtower is apparently trying to have its cake and eat it too. The Word (Christ who became flesh, see v. 14) is called God on one side of the page and A god on the other. Evidence of genuine grammatical confusion, and God, the Scripture reminds us, is not the author of confusion!

It is unnecessary to pursue this point any further, except to note that in their translation, "god was the Word," God is spelled with a small "g", another subtle attempt to demote Christ to the rank of demigod, apparently oblivious to the fact that the existing manuscripts of the New Testament were all written in capital letters, and the Witnesses have always made a great point of emphasizing capitals in John 1:1, when it came to translating the Greek "Theos". There is no grammatical reason for failing to capitalize "God" here; in fact, according to Colwell's rule, it must be.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] "New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures", pp. 773-777, remarks on Appendix note to John 1:1.

[2] Ibid., p. 776b.

[3] A.T. Robertson, quoted in NWT, p. 755.