You are here:

Jehovah`s Witness/Psalm 12:6,7 2 John 5:6,7 and 1 Timothy 3:16


QUESTION: Hello Mr Hepburn  I have been  reading some of the  answers that Mr Holland has given about the  King James Bible and the trinity, and I have been hoping one of the JWs here would address those, but no one has so I now I am asking you for the JW understanding of these.  

In one of his answer he makes a very interesting point. He quotes   Psalm 12:6-7  "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” That seems to support his understanding and argument that the the words of God would remain correct. He goes on to say “That God not only inspired the originals, but actually honored His promise to protect and preserve His words from error through ALL generations”  This comment was made in an answer he gave where he defends the Trinitarian view and in particular the King James Bibles renderings of  1 John 5:6,7 and 1 Timothy 3:16. Now you seem to have a good knowledge of these matter’s what is your view of the promise God made to preserve his word.?

ANSWER: Hello Henry

Thank you for those questions and nice to hear from you again.

(Just a  quick NOTE:for some reason that I can not determine I have had problems getting all the Greek words in Greek fonts to reproduce here when I pasted this in )

Quite some time ago I remember having some correspondence with Derrick about the KJV  (I have not tried to find the posts) and why he is a King James Only adherent. (KJO) adherent.   And  yes I am sure I have seen Derrick use Psalms 12 in the past as well.  From my research, it seems that text is used and relied upon by KJO adherents  to support their belief, that, only that Bible is Gods true word for man kind (at least in English ) today. It is interesting that other modern Bibles that support the trinity idea do not include the verses / words in question at  1 John 5:6,7 and 1 Timothy 3:16.  It seems that the general consensus of opinion today is that the Greek text that the KJV was rendered from  has a lot of added words and verses in it.  The KJO adherents will argue that the modern Bibles that do not follow the Greek text used by the KJ Translators have deleted those words and verses.  It is beyond the scope of this page and forum to present the arguments for both sides.  I will I give, I hope, some information from both sides.  But to be upfront I adhere to the idea that the KJV is in error.  I also hope that I do not appear dogmatic  about all the finer details I am presenting on this subject as I have not done a side by side comparison of all the evidenced from both sides of the argument, but I have certainly done enough comparisons to be able to give a accurate overview of the matter.

Seeing that so many KJO people use Psalms 12 to add weight to their side of the story, I will start there  

Unfortunately I have to completely disagree with JKO people as to the meaning of that text. I have no allusions that I would ever be able to convince any KJO adherents that they have misunderstood, thus wrongly apply that passage  any more they could convince me that I am wrong in my perspective of that passage.  But never the less I do hope that any KJO readers  here will be honest hearted enough to have their thinking jolted to life by this brief exposition of Psalms and the other 2 texts.  I am absolutely convinced that Psalms 12 does not say what KJO people think it means.

I want to examine this in two parts. Many KJO websites I have seem will quote this verse to suggest that there will be, if you like, an unbroken line of accurately preserved words and that these words are preserved only in the the KJV.  But, is that really the case of what this verse is saying.

The first thing that crosses my mind is, that if that text  does say what KJO people say it does, then we should not have any English Bibles at all, or any other language at that.  We should all be reading in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  The very act of translating from one language into another means that words change.  The gramma of those three ancient languages is so different form ours (and  modern English is even different from the English of the JKV ).  The very science of translation means that words are added and subtracted in order to convey the true thoughts and intentions of the original.  So I will contend that Bibles do not have to be word for word the exact equivalent as the original languages.  Many words in the original languages just do not translate correctly into English so the best we can do is find equivalent words that have as close a meaning as possible without destroying the intent or meaning of what was originally written.  

The very fact that the KJV is a translation and  was rendered form only one Greek text for the New Testament, that of Stephanus (some resources say it was his 1550 edition, other sources say it was his 1552 edition ) that had been corrected a couple of times and was itself a revision of the works of   Erasmus (who edited – revised - his own Greek text 3 times ) shows it was not an unbroken line of preserved words. (more about the source of the KJV later). Besides the Greek text of  Stephanus the KJV translators were ordered to  follow the commonly called the Bishops' Bible and to use and compare  the following Bibles - Tyndale's, Coverdale's,  Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], and Geneva. When they disagreed with the Bishops but were closer to the  Stephanus Greek.  For their Old Testament, the translators used a  Hebrew text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg,  but  at times, adjusted this to conform to the Greek Septuigant or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.     In all, King James set 15 rules to be followed.

It is the understanding of ALL modern researchers of the ancient manuscripts that words  and phrases were added to the text as the sacred texts were rendered into mainly Latin (but other languages as well ) and then sometimes back into Greek that words were added. Also there is evidence, by comparing manuscripts  that at times copyists made mistakes  such as copying lines twice (especially if they started in the same way ) and some added words to clarify what they believed should be there.  At times some made marginal notes and later others included those notes into the body of the text.

So again if that text   does say what KJO people say it does, then seeing that the KJV is a translation of master Hebrew and Greek Texts  that had been edited and revised, why is it that they can not accept that, that process has continued in order to fine tune tune the Words of God.  Why did that process of revisions stop with the KJV?  I have not seen any answer  for that from any KJO people. Maybe someone here will give a reason.

However, the context tells a different story . Those words do not mean that God had made a “promise to protect and preserve His words from error through ALL generations”.  The context says something quite different.   I will not use JW ideas on this at all, but what  Trinitarian theologians, that used and taught from the KJV.

Albert Barnes (1798-1870) American Presbyterian
“Thou shalt keep them” That is, the persons referred to #Ps 12:5  —    the poor and the needy who were suffering from the wrongs inflicted on them. The idea is, that God would guard and defend them. They were safe in his hands. Compare #Ps 37:3-7.

  From this generation This generation, or this race of detractors, flatterers, and oppressors. The idea is, that that entire generation was eminently wicked, and that none but God could deliver the poor and the needy from their designs.

  Forever That is, “constantly,” or as long as they would need the divine protection. God would not interpose and save them from the “present” trouble, and then leave them to the designs of their enemies, but he would “always” interpose as often as there was any need of his help. That is, they were now, and would be at all times, entirely safe. They had nothing to fear, for God was their refuge and their help.

Adam Clarke  (1760 or 1762–1832) a British Methodist theologian and biblical scholar.

Verse 7. Thou shalt keep them  — thou shalt preserve them Instead of the pronoun them in these clauses, several MSS., with the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Arabic, have us. The sense is equally good in both readings. God did bring forth the Israelites from Babylon, according to his word; he separated them from that generation, and reinstated them in their own land, according to his word; and most certainly he has preserved them from generation to generation to the present day, in a most remarkable manner.

John Gill ( 1697- 1771) was an English Baptist, a biblical scholar (Bold and underline mine)
Ver. 7. Thou shall keep them, O Lord, &c.] Not the words before mentioned , as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine; not but God has wonderfully kept and preserved the sacred writings; and he keeps every word of promise which he has made; and the doctrines of the Gospel will always continue from one generation to another; but the sense is , that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes: they are not their own keepers, but God is the keeper of them; he keeps them by his power, and in his Son, in whose hands they are, and who is able to keep them from falling; they are kept by him from a total and final falling away; from the dominion and damning power of sin, and from being devoured by Satan, and from the evil of the world: and this the psalmist had good reason to believe, because of the love of God to them, his covenant with them, and the promises of safety and salvation he has made unto them;

thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever; or "thou shalt preserve him" {p }; that is, everyone of the poor and needy, from the wicked generation of men in which they live, from being corrupted or intimidated by them; and who are described in the beginning of the psalm. Some take these words to be a prayer, "keep thou them, O Lord, and preserve them," &c. {q }; and so the following words may be thought to be a reason or argument enforcing the request.


As far as I have seen, it is only KJO advocates that will insist on the idea Psalms 12:7 is referring to God keeping all his words. The context clearly says otherwise to the rest of us.  But wait -  the KJO adherents will say no that is not the case.  They argue that the in verse 7 the  Hebrew verbs  rendered into English “Thou shalt keep them ” (shamar ) and “thou shalt preserve them ”  (natsar ) must relate to the nearest nouns, and the nearest nouns are in verse 6 and is the Hebrew word rendered as “word”.  On the face of it that sounds reasonable.  However, Hebrew is quite different to English.  Hebrew words have grammatical gender All nouns  are rendered as as masculine or feminine.  The accompanying verbs and pronouns are also rendered as either masculine or feminine according to the noun.  In verse 6 the Hebrew word rendered as “words in the KJV is imrâh  (Strongs Hebrew word number 565) and means “commandment, speech, words”.  This has the  feminine grammatical gender.  The Author of that passage  could have used “ay´-mer (which is the masculine form of the same word) , in that case the “”them” would relate to the word – words. --- BUT that word was not used, the feminine form was used, so we need to look for the closest masculine noun(s) that the verbs (shamar , and  natsar ) would relate to, that are masculine. And that brings us back to verse 5 to the words  "poor"(aw-nee', Strong's Hebrew word number 6041) ,  and "needy" (eb-yone', Strong's #34) These words are both in  masculine form. That is why the context is not talking about the God preserving his words in an unbroken form through time as the KJO adherents put across, as the quotes above show, the context is talking about the poor and the needy that are worshippers of the almighty.

The  words of 1 John 5:7   namely “there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” are absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin, and four in the main body of the text  and all these manuscripts from the period known as the “middle ages” (about 10th and 12th century approx.) as a later addition to the manuscript. The evidence suggest that they originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts also during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts.

The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
KJO advocates will point to evidence that there were “church fathers” that quoted those words.  And that is true.  From what I have found it was Latin speaking “ church fathers” from around the sixth century” and Greek after about the twelfth. I have this information (bold and underline mime)


The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin  treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars.

End quote

The historical evidence shows that the words in the KJV of ““there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” are definitely added.

Now a brief note on 1 Timothy 3:16.  there are KJO website out there that will quote from sources that show that some older texts (pre 12 century) do have θεὸϛ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,  ( theos  phaneroo en sarx – God was manifest in flesh) and there are others that will say that the oldest of the manuscripts say ὅς  ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, (hos phaneroo  en sarx – who[or he]   was manifested in the flesh,)  Why the difference?

A lot of scribes started using  some abbreviations  when hand copied the texts. The Greek word for "God"  theos written in the Greek alphabet as qeoV, or QEOS. The copyist abbreviations correspondingly took the form qV, or QS, with an faint overscore line stroke over the abbreviation  These strokes would often become quite faint in the copies. Now the Greek word for "who" is the word hos which is written in Greek as oV, or OS. Can you  notice the similarity between these two words QS, and OS. Now  they were written by hand and would not be written so perfectly and distinctly as the typed letters on this page. Except for one small penstroke, the Omicron (O) and Theta (Q) are nearly identical. It would be very easy to make a mistake here when copying from one manuscript to another and if that is what happened then it would be excusable. But it would also be very easy for an overzealous scribe to suppose he was doing God a favor and execute a forgery here by changing the manuscript and the handwritten O (Omicron) into a Q (Theta) with a stroke of his pen and thereby completely change the meaning of the verse. It would be also easy to change the word hoto theos by adding a stroke and an "s." And it would be far more difficult to do it the other way around without getting caught (removing the stroke). There is also evidence that ink may have bled through the other side of the media and made it appear to a copyist to read QS because the bleeding ink added what appeared to be a line where     OS     had been written. Whether or not it was an honest copying mistake or a forgery, it is very likely that the error was produced in this manner.

Now the KJV  twice adds a word here. It says “God was manifest in THE flesh” The word THE is added. In the Greek it read  “... manifest in flesh”. Later in the verse it reads “justified in THE Spirit”.  Again  THE is added.  It does tend to change the meaning to a degree.

At the start of the verse it reads in the KJV  “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:”  There is a problem with the word godliness.  The Greek word rendered as godliness (ευσεβεια)  means  to show piety towards God.  Some seem to take  “godliness” here as being associated with being divine, which it is not. A more literal rendering into English would be “great is the secret of his devoutness (piety to ward God)”  

Here are some renderings from  other Bibles

And without argument, great is the secret of religion: (BBE)

And confessedly the mystery of piety is great.  (Darby)

No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: (GNBE)

The mystery that gives us our reverence for God is acknowledged to be great: (GWV)

and truly great, is this mystery of righteousness, (Murdock)

Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great (NWT )

What the oldest manuscripts say

who     was manifest “  as per
Codex Sinaiticus   350c   Codex Alexandrinus  450c  Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus 450c

which    was manifest”  as per
Codex Claromontanus  550c  and known copies of  Peshitta,   Coptic, Ethiopic, Sahidic and  Gothic

One KJO reference suggest that  old manuscripts that not not sat “thoes” God but in stead use  the pronoun “whom”  is bad gramma and thus can not be correct .  To quote the recourse it says “the scant few manuscripts missing the horizontal lines creates a SEVERE grammatical problem, for the Greek word OS (without the horizontal lines, which means "who") is a masculine relative pronoun that ends up modifying a NEUTER noun - in this case the noun "mystery." Significantly, this is not only HORRIBLE GREEK GRAMMAR, but the resulting clause ends up containing A PREDICATE WITHOUT A SUBJECT – “ (Capitals original)

Now this reference does not give any examples as to what it claims. So does the rendering  OS (who ) create a grammatical problem. First he says that “who.. is a masculine relative pronoun that ends up modifying a NEUTER noun”.   It is true that the word for “mystery” is in the neuter form, but the problem here is that the  relative pronoun “OS (who )” is not modifying the neuter noun for “mystery”

A “relative pronoun that introduces a relative clause normally agrees with its antecedent (i.e., the noun it modifies) in GENDER and NUMBER,” (Bold and underline mine capitals original) So, now the question is which is - does  “OS (who )”  modify the neuter Greek  word  rendered as “mystery” as suggested.  I would argue No it does not.  Why? Because in this case the relative pronoun is acting as the subject of the sentence, that is taking the place of the subject.  I do not know of any person who will say that the subject here is Jesus.  Those that insist on recognising the rendering “God  was manifest  … “ will acknowledge that was in reference to Jesus just as the rest of us that understand that “he was manifest...” refers to Jesus.  The subject, Jesus. Is not directly mentioned but is understood by context to that it is he who is being mentioned.

The understanding that it is Jesus being refereed to here goes back to 1 Timothy 2:5,7   “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6  Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.7  Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” (KJV)

As comparison here is the NWT “5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all—[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times. 7 For the purpose of this witness I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—a teacher of nations in the matter of faith and truth.”

Paul hen goes on to describe some of the aspects of being “ ordained a preacher” and, if you like a hierarchy or line of command  in the Christian Congregation, and their respective qualifications and responsibilities, then in Chapter 3:16 he returns to the subject, Jesus.  

I am convinced that the historical and internal evidence of the Bible is  well and truly against the ideas put forward by KJO adherents.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Brenton I read your reply with interest and I must say  for me it puts to rest the things that Derrick has said about those texts.  But what I am writing you about this time is something Derrick said  recently just after you answered my question.  He points out that you and Eddie G have given different and conflicting explanations of Psalms 12:6 and 7.  You say it does not show that God will protect his word and Eddie uses it to show that God will protect his word.  As Derrick says please clarify what the JW position actually is?   In extra comments at the bottom of the page someone has suggested to Derrick that he ask both of you.  Derrick replied and makes the statement that  JWs claim to speak in unity but here is a contradiction. Can you explain please this contradiction?

Hello again Henry,

Thank you for the follow up, I hope I can clear things up for you, at least from my perspective.

First I can understand why people make a mistake with Psalms 12:6,7.  IF those two verses are read on their own, it is easy to misunderstand them.  Those that believe in the trinity misunderstand so many scriptures for the same reason.  They do not consider the context.

I can not speak for Eddie, but from what I have read here I am going to assume a few  things 1) that he was just using that text at Psalms in the same way that Derrick did, because of the way that Derrick used it.

2) Or he has assumed that, that text says what Derrick says without looking at the context.

3) He was lead to believe that  is what the text may mean from a couple of minor references in Watchtower publications that may allude to that idea

Any way  I assume it was a simple mistake on his part.

Many people here on this forum have done that, ignored context, including people who have asked questions, as well as people who have answered questions. I have no doubt that if some one was to go back and read all the texts that I have used, that they will find some that I have inadvertently used out of context. Often we do that because we see a principle in a text or an idea  that seems to relate to what we are discussing at the time and do not take the time to fully see the context.  Sometimes the principle that we are trying to convey is relevant from a particular text.  Those that believe in the trinity are prone to using texts out of context (though to be fair, they are possibly not aware they do that)

When I wrote the first answer I did not use any Watchtower publications at all . I went straight to commentaries by  trinitarian theologians that use and support the KJV to see what they had to say about Psalms 12.  So, I have now done a research of articles in Watchtower publication for the use of that text using our electronic library. I will not attempt to hide anything here. Following are the only places I found where that text is mentioned.

In the October 15 Watchtower 1992 there was an article that used Psalms 12:7 specifically. The context of the article was on  council on Biblical aspects of protecting the family  from Satan’s world using the principle that just as God had promised to protect the lowly and the poor that served him Jehovah he will help families if they strive to worship him in they way he wants to be worshiped.

Quote (bold mine)

The psalmist prayed: “You yourself, O   Jehovah, will guard them; you will preserve each one from this generation to time indefinite.” (Psalm 12:7) Pressure from Satan is sure to increase—especially against families of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yet, it is possible to withstand this ever-increasing attack. With Jehovah’s help and fierce determination and hard work on the part of husbands, wives, and children, families—including your family—can have the hope of being preserved alive during the great tribulation.

End quote

In July 1 1958 a Watchtower article made  the application of that text to protecting people

quote (bold mine)

Today the people of the world are confused and at their wits’ end. They know not where to turn for deliverance from their befuddled state. Innocently and ignorantly they have entrusted their lives to men who have skinned them and knocked them about and led them further astray from the path of righteousness. Is there no hope for the people ? Is there no escape from the labyrinth of confusion into which they have been led by their worldly leaders?—Ps. 107:27; Matt. 9:36.

Since the self-appointed religious instructors, schooled by the present evil world, cannot be relied on to provide education leading to life, where can these who are sighing and crying because of the abominations practiced in the land turn for succor? To Jehovah. He will not abandon them . “‘For the violence to the afflicted ones, for the sighing of the poor ones, I shall at this time arise,’ says Jehovah. ‘I shall put [him] in a place safe from anyone that puffs at him .’ The sayings of Jehovah are pure sayings, as silver refined in a smelting furnace of earth, clarified seven times. You yourself, O Jehovah, will guard them ; you will preserve each one from this generation onward, which is to time indefinite.”—Ps. 12:5-7.

Jehovah, “the Father of the celestial lights,” has indicated the way of escape . In order to have his favor one must enter upon the path of light and pursue it constantly, turning neither to the left nor to the right.—Jas. 1:17; Prov. 4:18.

end quote

In July 15 1952 a Watchtower article used  the principle of that text in relation to how we should purify our hearts as God has purified his word, as that becomes a protection for us.  The paragraph there was    


“Those whose hearts were honest were only too glad to get the increased light and to let go of the false teachings and wrong practices as soon as the fire brought them to their attention. They had no selfish affinity for such. They wanted their message to be as pure as Jehovah’s words, as silver purified in a furnace seven times. (Ps. 12:6, 7, AS; Isa. 12:1) Their chief concern was to have Jehovah’s approval and share in the vindication of his name.—Prov. 27:11”

end quote

Now I did find that writers of  Watchtower publications, on two occasions, may  have  alluded to the idea that Jehovah protects his words by using using Psalms 12:7, though it was not specific. One place was back in  a  September 1 1962 Watchtower.  

You can read of individuals in the Bible that departed from the knowledge of God and got into trouble that swallowed them up and erased them from God’s service entirely and forever. There were Adam, Solomon, Judas, just to mention a few. Remember, too, that we live in the last days—when people will always be learning and yet never be able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth. (2   Tim. 3:7) Avoid such a disastrous course by sticking close to Jehovah as your teacher and use your knowledge to praise him. Knowledge that comes from Jehovah is pure, and he not only protects the student but assures you that his Word is pure and he is on guard to keep it that way.—Prov. 30:5, 6; Ps. 12:6, 7.

end quote

The second one I found was in  the publication “You can live forever” in chapter 5 it makes the connection that God will preserve his word forever. That book reads


“So anyone who says that the Bible does not contain the same information as when it was originally written simply does not know the facts. Jehovah God has seen to it that his Word has been protected not only from mistakes copyists made but also from attempts of others to make additions to it. The Bible itself contains God’s promise that his Word would be kept in a pure form for us today.—Psalm 12:6,   7; Daniel 12:4; 1   Peter 1:24,   25; Revelation 22:18,   19..”

end quote

I have been told that I often see things differently to most people. When I read that paragraph it is teaching that God promised to keep his information and that he would not allow people to add to it (as the KJV has done – but others have corrected).  However, when I stop and consider that paragraph, I can being to see how some might conclude it was saying  (or alluding to) what the KJO people say but, to me, it is not.

So basically I would conclude, I think, that one would have to be really hard pressed (but it is possible ) to conclude that the WT publications in some way agreed with the KJO idea of Psalms 12:7.  If by some chance those particular writers did have that thought in mind, my answer would be they did not consider the context.

Now to preempt an attack from some readers  here that it would be wrong for any JW  to suggest that a  writer of any WT publication got things wrong –  “why don't JWs claim that God personally directs them.? “ some will say.  I will add the following

Personally, I expect human failings. I am realistic. No human since the last Bible writer is or has been inspired. Even the 1st century Christians, starting with the 12 apostles, and then the expanding congregation got matters wrong at times.  We have many examples of that in the Bible.

I will emphasize what has been said many times.  None of the Watchtower publication writers  are inspired.  They all make mistakes as the rest of us do.  There are people here who oppose the Watchtower who will often quote out of context  some small portion of what the WTS has published and present a completely different picture as to what was said. As I say on my profile ….

“ Depending on the question you will get an honest answer, but , generally the answer you get, will mislead you as to what we believe,  often because, they do not give ALL the relevant details . These ones will, have an agenda against JWs., and will at times give answers that are not correct in regard to JW teachings and practices.”....  

If you come across any of those so called quotes please ask me about them, there are so many that get thrown around here I will  not go into any at this time.

So mistakes can and are made by a  WTBTS writer just as mistakes are made by every one else. Yes God has said that his words (sayings – commands – teachings – council etc) will endure 1 Peter 1:24, 25 “ 24   For “all flesh is like grass, and all its glory is like a blossom of grass; the grass becomes withered, and the flower falls off, 25  but the saying of Jehovah endures forever .” Well, this is the “saying,” this which has been declared to YOU as good news.”

However, God never promised that the exact words would never be changed. And that is the argument that  I understand the KJO adherents put forward for Psalms 12:7.  When the context is examined it is NOT claiming that the exact words would be preserved as mentioned in the first reply. The statements of God have been preserved and, added corruptions, (such as 1 John and 1 Timothy) have been weeded out.

Basically, then I am assuming Eddie made a mistake when he used  that text OR he was keeping things in common and using that text in the same manner that Derrick does to drive a point home to him

Getting back to my favorite subject of discussion – the Trinity - the KJO people try to use  Psalms 12 to support the idea of the trinity but that verse is not teaching what they think it does and   can not rely on that verse to support the added words of 1 John 5:7. or the wrong rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16

The words of 1 John 5:7 just DO NOT BELONG IN THE BIBLE .  They are added words after the “Arian controversy”, and,  after the “official” formulation of the trinity – added to support this false doctrine.  So both the internal evidence (context of  the Bible as a whole ) and the external  evidence (history showing that it was not in any Greek Manuscripts before the 14 century nor in any Latin before the seventh century ) show that  (and I repeat ) they are added words to support a false, God dishonoring, doctrine. They rely on them too much and I find it so sad that  KJO people can not see that. If anyone thinks they can defend the trinity without those corrupted verses of  1 John 5 and 1 Timothy 3   I would like to see some one try to prove the trinity idea from the Bible without those words.  I will use any Bible. I will also use Greek and Hebrew grammar and dictionaries. If anyone is willing to discuss the trinity under those conditions just write.  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Brenton Hepburn


I AM one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I am always learning. I am NOT an expert in the full sense of the word but I can answer questions on the reliability of the NWT - the so called mind control problems-so called prophecies - how being a JW affects the individual and relatives and general practices and history of Jehovah’s Witnesses. >>WARNING<< Please be aware that there are people here who ARE NOT practicing JWs. By all means ask these ones questions. Depending on the question you will get an honest answer, but, generally the answer you get, will mislead you as to what we believe, often because, they do not give ALL the relevant details. These ones will, have an agenda against JWs., and will at times give answers that are not correct in regard to JW teachings and practices. If you are after a answer from one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, please read some of the answers that the various experts have published before choosing someone. If you want to ask one of the NON JWs a question, that is fine, BUT if you want a balancing view after asking one of the NON JWs, ask a JW the same question. PLEASE ALSO NOTE: There(have been)and are, some "experts" here who are NOT always the most courteous and polite, at times are actually quite rude, that applies to both JW's and non JW's and their answers may offend, especially when they get personal and attack the character of the person and not the message. Unfortunately some here that have done that. So it IS IMPORTANT to chose an "expert" that YOU feel will best suit YOU by reading some of their past answers . . . . .


I have been a publisher since 1964. When I first went on the internet I found a lot of negative information dealing with Jehovah’s Witnesses covering prophecy, mind control and what many said was a very bad translation of the Bible known as the NWT. It shook my faith. After may hours researching these topics I could see why some felt that way, but, I was also able to explain why there were these misleading views. I can now set matters straight for anyone that has negative information about Jehovah’s Witness to show them that such information is at best misleading and at worst dangerous lies.

I have been a student of the Bible for many years, am trying to teach myself Biblical Greek. Was a public tax accountant for many years untill SEP 2009 when I gave it up due to health problems.

©2017 All rights reserved.