Jehovah`s Witness/List of Scholars-John 1:1

Advertisement


Question
QUESTION: Hello Brother Grunbaum: As usual I was reading through the questions and responses and saw that this discussion is continuing. As I stated in my earlier comments on this subject, I did not wish to participate in the debate, but rather make comments and pose questions for consideration in order to bring a more in depth reasoning on the subject.

However, this now seems impossible, for there are things that must be brought to light, corrected and commented on so this discussion brings truth to the surface.

In this writing, I will be commenting on past as well as present questioning and responses on this topic, as well as your response to me. It should be understood that both the questioner and you as responder present good points.

First..Let me start by debunking a myth that seems to be ever present in this argument. The Myth about the New World Translation.

1. The New World Translation IS NOT a False Translation of Scripture and is not Thought to be in the community of Scholars. It is however thought to be theologically biased, in some cases inaccurate in rendering, and off the mark as concerns the Deity of Christ. This is the specific commenting on the NWT by the scholars, however the general and overall comments about the translation is that it is a "good" and 'scholarly work". Again, that is the comment on the translation in overall review.

2. It is true that most that agree with the NWT rendering of John 1:1 are not "scholars", are "Unitarians", Members of the Occult, or Novice as pertains to Greek Grammar, Context etc. However, again, when not dealing with issues of Christ, the community of recognized scholars in fact do state that the NWT is  one of the translations closer to the intended meanings and expressions of scripture.

3. The most common of the disagreements with JWs and the WTBS is not the NWT, but in their Doctrines, Theologies and Theosophy. Further disagreement is with the WTBS prophecies#although they say they are not prophecies# especially that of 1914 which is stated to be testified too by Christ himself; attempts at re-defining words to justify position # will be addressed in a forthcoming question# and their view of being the "new chosen ones".


Now..as far as the rendering of John 1:1 Lets look at it from the Greek:


Ev   arche      en    logos  kai  logos  en   pros          theos

In   beginning  was   Word   and  Word   was  toward#with#   God


kai   Logos   en   theos

and   Word    was   God


Now, any true Greek scholar would definitely state and agree that the correct rendering of the above would not be "a" god. However, does the passage support the Trinitarian view that this passage of scripture testifies to Jesus being God? Absolutely not!!

Example: If a man wrote a passage in a book and it read:

"In the beginning was the blood and the blood was with the meat and the blood was meat."

Is the writer saying that the blood and the meat are the same?

How about:

"In the beginning was the egg and the egg was with the chicken and the egg was chicken."

Is the chicken and the egg the same?

On the same token, would it be proper to say the "egg was a chicken" or the "blood was a meat"?

In order to find the perspective of the writer, we must examine the full context of what he is saying by examining all the surrounding and relevant writings about the subject of his writings.

So lets say we examine the entire chapter of John 1 alone. How then is the subject identified?

Much is learned in the first 32 verses:

1. Verse one "He is the Word" 2. He was With God in the beginning. 3. Hes the one who made all things 4-8. In Him is the Life; He is the Light of the world

As the scriptures continue we see another testimony for verse 14 says; "The Word Became Flesh"! He is the Only Begotten Son

If we were to stop right there we would have enough to conclude  the issue of the meaning of John 1:1 because the passages deal extensively in identification.

Question: If I speak out a word, is that word me or part of me? Is it not from me?

Does Jesus being God agree with the text in John 1? No.

Lets look at a passage of scripture from John 10.


John 10:34

King James Version #KJV#


34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

NWT

.”34Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU​ are gods”’?

The word 'gods" is translated from the same word in John 1:1..theos..there were no lower and upper case G's etc, just the word "theos". Is Jesus then saying the men are Gods? In order to understand what is being said, examination of the full text for context would most definitely be required as well as understanding the full meaning of the word "theos"!

Now it should be also noted, that any scholar worth his weight would tell you that John 1:1 presents a problem for most because of it being absent the wording "Ho Theos" which we would tranlsate "The God' Or "The Chief Deity".


So lets look at things another way. Lets say the JWS are totally incorrect in the rendering "a" god. The question would then be, are they incorrect in meaning or what is trying to be expressed?

It is often said that JWS do not believe in the Deity of Christ, or simply put, his divine nature.  Now coming from a family of Baptized Witnesses and being a Baptist Minister no doubt presents problems, but the one argument we have never had is about the divine nature of Christ.

I have heard and have seen the arguments that the WTBS rendering "a" god, takes away from the deity of Christ. I have also heard it stated, that by rendering it in that way, it shows that they believe in more than one God, thereby making them Non-Christians and polytheists. I find this to be a very ignorant and theologically challenged stance.

Reason? Many Bible translations render the ending of John 1:1:

"the Word was Divine"
"the Word was of Divine Nature"
"The Word was Divinity"

Now does that make them Non-Christians? After all, although saying the Word was Divine, they don't say the Word was God.

So in reading the NWT rendering of John 1:1 my question to the WTBS and Witnesses is simple. Are you expressing that the Word in John 1:1 is of Divine Nature? Now if the answer is no, then and only then would there be a problem. So, Brother Grunbaum, can you please explain for all who are reading what is being expressed with the rendering "a" god?

If the rendering "a" god is incorrect, but the expression being taught is that the Word was Divine or of Divine nature, then the "teaching" would be in harmony with the scriptures although the rendering is incorrect.

This is a similar but more serious problem for a Trinitarian. Although the translation "word was god" may be correct, the teaching that the Word Is God does not harmonize with the scriptures.

Lets look at this deeper:

John 5:31-40
31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.

34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.

36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Pay close attention to verses 39 and 40:

You can read the scriptures all you want, but if you cant see how Christ is identified it is all for nothing, for if you cant identify him, you cant come to him. The scriptures clearly testify of who He is, was, and will be!

Now because of length I am going to cut this short and address other things in forthcoming writings or should I say comments and questions. And so it is not misunderstood, I do not agree with most of the JW Doctrines and Theologies; I am a Baptist Minister, but when discussing scripture, your argument must be firmly based on scripture. This argument has tones of Trinity VS Non-Trinity disguised by an argument about renderings and scholar comments.

Something to be considered:

How does the scriptures testify of Jesus from Genesis to Revelations?

What does the Father say in Testimony of Jesus?

As for renderings and re-definition of words by the WTBS, again, I will address in a forthcoming writing.

God Bless and Keep You Both;

Rev. Darryl Murphy

ANSWER:
Hello I see you are still monitoring this. Ill comment on this statement first,now as a GK scholar you said this:


"Now, any true Greek scholar would definitely state and agree that the correct rendering of the above would not be "a" god"




Let me then ask you the same question I asked of Scott who refused to answer:






"all English translations of scriptures do contain the indefinite article hundreds of times we see this yet not at John 1:1.

Why is it then that some GK scholars agree and some do not,it has to be in the end to personal bias,cant be anything else,if as a noted GK scholar who was brought up as a church person and taught Jesus is GOD he will be slanted to prove John 1-1 is GOD and not a god,thats just common sense,but what about the GK scholar who says it could be rendered a god just as well GOD,why would any noted GK scholar agree is a question.





Now my other question is we have definite and indefinite articles but in Greek there are definite articles but no indefinite article,

In the text the term for God is twice used. In the first instance, the word is accompanied by the article in the second to the word,logos there is no article,
any Greek scholar like myself or any learned Greek scholar on the list or not can with the rule insert an  "a" there and all Greek scholars know that.


Are you saying it cant be inserted according to the rule. If so then why in Mark 6:49 just for an example and there are hundreds more its being inserted since as we know in Koine Greek which the NT was written in  there is no “a” before spirit.



Lers take Benjamin Wilson from the list he says:


"and a god was the word."

Why would a non witness bible scholar render it a god and a believer in another religion.








"So in reading the NWT rendering of John 1:1 my question to the WTBS and Witnesses is simple. Are you expressing that the Word in John 1:1 is of Divine Nature? Now if the answer is no, then and only then would there be a problem. So, Brother Grunbaum, can you please explain for all who are reading what is being expressed with the rendering "a" god?"




Jesus is just as it says a god which means a mighty god

Literally the Greek text reads:


“In beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word.”

The translator must supply capitals as needed in the language into which he translates the text.
. It is clearly proper to capitalize “God” in translating the phrase “the god,”

but capitalizing of the word “god” in the second case does not have the same justification.



So Jesus is Divine,a deity

(Isaiah 9:6) . . .For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,. . .



Now the Heb here ´El Gib·bohr´ not ´El Shad·dai´




Prophet/Prince
 Grünbaum


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

QUESTION: Hello Brother Grunbaum...


Lets review your questions and give them answers:

You:
"all English translations of scriptures do contain the indefinite article hundreds of times we see this yet not at John 1:1."

"Why is it then that some GK scholars agree and some do not,it has to be in the end to personal bias,cant be anything else,if as a noted GK scholar who was brought up as a church person and taught Jesus is GOD he will be slanted to prove John 1-1 is GOD and not a god,thats just common sense,but what about the GK scholar who says it could be rendered a god just as well GOD,why would any noted GK scholar agree is a question."

Reply:

The true question is do some scholars really agree? I have seen your list of scholars and would therefore say, considering the backgrounds and beliefs of some of them, agreement would be because of bias. It should be noted, that some you list are not regongnized as Greek scholars.

Example: Some of the so called scholars you list are Unitarians. Unitarians do not believe in a Divine Nature of Christ. THey believe him to be "fully man" chosen and anointed to reveal God and Point the way. So yes, a Unitarian would agree with the rendering, but for different reasons than a JW would agree.

At the core of the rendering there are theological questions that have to be answered:

1. Does the language in John 1:1 state Jesus(THE WORD) is "THE GOD"?
2. Is "JESUS" (THE WORD) of DVINE NATURE?
3. Was Jesus God in the flesh?
3. Does the view agree with the central theme of the Bible and Testimony about the "WORD" ?

Depending upon how one would answer the above questions, we will find them "theologically" biased to a particular rendering. To a Unitarian who has no belief in Jesus being God or of Deity/Divne Nature we will then find agreement with the rendering "a god" for the lower case "g" would denote a "lessor" or "false god".

Now I used the term "true scholar" for a reason. A true Greek scholar would not change the rendering of a passage in order to satisfy bias. He would render the passage exactly or as close as possible, to the orginal text. In so doing, the context of the passage is preserved, but his bias will come out during his debate and or teachings on the particular passage.

You:

"Now my other question is we have definite and indefinite articles but in Greek there are definite articles but no indefinite article,

In the text the term for God is twice used. In the first instance, the word is accompanied by the article in the second to the word,logos there is no article,
any Greek scholar like myself or any learned Greek scholar on the list or not can with the rule insert an  "a" there and all Greek scholars know that."

Reply:  You are correct, in the english language there are definite and indefinite articles and only definite articles in the Greek. You are also correct in stating the a Greek scholar knows that an indefinite article can be placed according to the rule.

Now as Greek scholars, we both know that placement of an article can change the meaning of a particular passage. We also know, that omission of a "definite" article does not justify placement of an "indefinite article". In fact, when placing the articles extreme care is given to preserve the original meaning or expression, and is governed by the context of the scripture.

We must be mindful to use the articles in proper fashion.

The indefinite article "a" would denote "one of many", it is broad, whereas the definite article "the" is specific.

Example:

Give me "a" book.

In the above sentence, use of the indefinite article speaks of one of a number of books, any book. It is broad.

Give me "the" book.

Now use of the definite article "the" speaks of a specific book.

So now we have two problems with the JW rendering "a" god in John 1:1.

First problem: The use of the indefinite article denoters one of many gods.

Second problem: The use of the lower case "g" denotes a "lessor" or "false" god. It is common knowlege, that this is the usage of the lower case "g" and where we find the Upper case "G" it identifies the True and Chief Deity.

So a literal translation of the NWT John 1:1, based on its grammer in the English according to the rules for which it was translated would be:

In the beginning was the "Word" and the "Word" was toward/with God and the "Word" was one of many lessor or false gods.

So if it cannot be shown that the indefinite article "a" has a different usage, or the lower case "g" has another usage, then it can only be concluded by the language and rules of interpretation, that the rendering in the NWT is as I have rendered it above.

Now in my previous writing to you, I stated that it can be wrong in translation, but the teaching or expression can be correct.

Example: One of the meanings or usages of theos is:

4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

So my question to the WTBS and Witnesses as stated is simple. What is your teaching about the passage as relates to Christ? We know from scripture Christ is the "expressed image" of the Father. He is the "only begotten" of the Father. He is Gods Vice-regent.

So in consideration of the scriptural testimony about Christ, is the attempt in the NWT rendering of John 1:1 to express the Divine nature and authority of Christ as one likened unto God?


You: "Are you saying it cant be inserted according to the rule. If so then why in Mark 6:49 just for an example and there are hundreds more its being inserted since as we know in Koine Greek which the NT was written in  there is no “a” before spirit."

Reply:   I have already answered the question of can an "a" be inserted according to the rule, and you are correct, there is no "a" before spirit so now lets look at Mark 6:49 and see why this "a" appears in translation.

Mark 6:49

King James Version (KJV)

49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out:

NWT
49At catching sight of him walking on the sea they thought: “It is an apparition!” and they cried aloud.

Now first before we get into the placement of the indefinite article, let us see if the NWT and King James Version are saying the same thing. In order to do so, we have to find the meaning of "apparition"

Now in the Greek text, the words "spirit" in the KJV as well as the word "apparition" were translated from the Greek word "phantasma" which means: 1.Apperance 2. Apparition, specter

So what is an "apparition"

apparition [ˌćpəˈrɪʃən]
n
1. an appearance, esp of a ghost or ghostlike figure
2. the figure so appearing; phantom; spectre
3. the act of appearing or being visible

spec·ter (spktr)
n.
1. A ghostly apparition; a phantom.
2. A haunting or disturbing image or prospect

So we know from the definitions above that they thought they saw a "spirit".

Now as we read the surrounding scriptures we also find that they could not identify the "spirit" or "apparition" for Jesus was left on shore.(read Mark 6 for background and context of scripture)

The scriptures state they all saw him, but did not know it was him until they came ashore. So why then was it proper to insert the indefinite article "a" before "spirit" in this case? Simple, his disciples could not identify the "spirit" they thought they saw, so "a" denoting that it could have been one of many spirits is justified. It was not until they came ashore that the definite article "the" could have been used.


You: " Lers take Benjamin Wilson from the list he says:


"and a god was the word."

"Why would a non witness bible scholar render it a god and a believer in another religion."

Reply: It was expected that Benjamin Wilson and the Emphatic Diaglott would come up. I own 4 copies and was reviewing the diaglott as I was writing this. I also own several copies of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.

First the Diaglott: I must inform you that Benjamin Wilson never agreed with nor did he ever say or write the rendering "and a god was the word". On page 312 of the Diaglott; Titled Glad Tiding According by JOHN We find on the right hand column the actual rendering By Benjamin Wilson and it reads:

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with GOD, and the Logos was God"

At the bottom of the page, in the footnotes: Vatican Manuscripts-Tite- According to John, we find the full explanation of why the word "logos" was not translated and kept in its original form.

Now on the left side of the page we find what is supposed to be a word for word translation under the Greek wording and it reads:

" In a beginning was the Word ,and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word"

Now we know there are no indefinite articles in the Koine Greek, so why then do we see in what is supposed to be a "word for word" translation continued usage of the indefinite article "a"? Simple. The translation on the right hand side was translated definition by definition.

Example: If I looked up the Greek word theos i would find this:

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

If I look up the Greek word Arche...I find this:

1) beginning, origin

Now what stands out is that when we look up theos we see"a" meaning that the word is applied to many gods etc etc, but when we look up Arche...it does not denote "a" beginning, it is specific and denotes "beginning". We also see the indefinite article placed all throughout the Diaglott left hand translation but not in the the right hand column.

Example vers 2 reads:

"2 This was in a beginning with the God"

However in the right hand column we find:

"This was in "the" Beginning with God"

When we reveiew the NWT we find:

1In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

Two things of note here. 1. The NWT accepts the right hand translation and definite article "the", however it breaks from this when pertaining to Christ and then accepts the indefinite article "a". It furhter breaks with the translation and places "god" lower case "g" instead of "God" upper case "G".

In Verse two from the NWT we read:

"2This one was in [the] beginning with God"

Again we see a break from the translation and acceptance of the definite articel, whereas the left hand word for word translation places an indefinite article "a".

So now the question becomes, by what rule are the Witnesses and WTBS basing the rendering? We are both Greek Scholars and know full well that the placement of the indefinite article in the left hand word for word translation of the Diaglott is improper, unjustified and shows lack of understanding of Greek syntax, especially if it is to be used as more than just a word for word compilation. We also know that the literal translation of Benjamin Wilson actually appears on the right.

Now was Benjamin Wilson a Greek Scholar? One could argue, for he was an "autodidact" Biblical scholar, meaning he was self-taught. He was not a Greek Scholar. We also know that Mr. Wilson although having Trinitarian beginnings(Baptist), became a Non-Trinitarian and Co-Founded two Churches based on his doctrines and beliefs. Some, not all of these doctrines are simular to those of the WTBS and Witnesses.

So now we get to what makes the Greek scholars suspicious and claim that the NWT is not without flaw, inaccurate in rendering and theologically biased.

After breaking from using the Diaglott, the WTBS printed the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. Now this translation is said to be in line with Wescott/Hort..However Wescott/Hort do not agree with the rendering of the NWT John 1:1 and have made it clear that they do not agree and they were misquoted.

Nevertheless..Lets look at John 1:1 from the Kingdom Interlinear:

Left side:

"In beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word.

Right Column

"In (the) beginning was the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"

Wescott/Hort

en arche en ho logos, kai ho Logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos

translation:

In Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word.

Now there are two sources...'Textus Receptus" and "Wescott/Hort" The WTBS follow the text of Wescott/Hort. the wording "Pros Ton Theon" does not appear in the "textus receptus". Now in reviewing the passage..we find that the wording does not reduce the Word to being "a" god..Ton Theon identifies the God, and usage of the word theos as applied to the word would denote the Word is of or belonging too God. Thus the Word is of Divine Nature and Essence.

Now one should be reminded that I am not a Trinitarian and do not defend in anyway the Trinitarian belief.

Again, the usage of lower and upper case "G" is how in the english The God and lessor for false gods are identified in the text. There was no distinction made by Lower case "g" in the translation by Wescott/Hort.


You: "Jesus is just as it says a god which means a mighty god"

Reply: This is where symantics come into play. You say the texts say Jesus is a god..ok..the texts says He is "theos". You say he is a mighty god..the text says He is "gibbowr el". Now to a novice or unlearned person reading this, they would say we are saying the same thing, however, in actuality we are not. Why? Well because of the way things are translated into english. A full explanation would be required in order to realize the true meaning of what is being said.

In your writing you said "a god" which would agree with your rendering of John 1:1. By use of the lower case "g" you imply that He is a lessor god. You then say he is a "mighty god" all lower case "g" denoting him to be a strong and powerful lessor god.

But when we apply the Hebrew from Isaiah 9:6 properly, do we not get a rendering that is closer to saying "Mighty God-Like One"? El-Shaddai would say "GOD ALMIGHTY" we know that this is the Identification of the Father.

So again we find the same question...which you have answered by saying "So Jesus is Divine,a deity"

Well we finally gotthe answer,,,so you agree that Jesus is of Divine Nature correct?

Deity: Divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity.

The Deity: The God. Or as we know, The Father, from whom the Son comes.


As always..it is a pleasure reasoning with you, I await your response, and look forward to the original questioner sharing.

Rev. Darryl Murphy

ANSWER: I'm at a lost here,as a Baptist Minister and Greek scholar you are the first one I've encountered that has publicly admitted :



Reply:  You are correct, in the english language there are definite and indefinite articles and only definite articles in the Greek. You are also correct in stating the a Greek scholar knows that an indefinite article can be placed according to the rule.




So something doesn't add up here,you dont believe in a trinity,you dont believe in the holy spirit as a person ,you accept our teachings on a number of subjects.


It seems to me you have a made up belief that is different from mainstream Christendom yet some type of pieced together rapture belief and a 3rd godhead which is triune in nature.


You agree with Christendom that the nation of Israel over in the middle east is in the NT PROPHECIES .



To me with all these different beliefs If I didn't really know any better I would think that God is behind a certain door like a game show but the difference is there are thousands not 3 doors ,just a hodge podge of globlty gook of beliefs and dogma of golden plates provided to John Smith on a hill in NY ,not a mountain in Israel or the mountains of Ararat but a little mole hill or church people provided proof their church is of God my miracles performed right in the church.


How about yet another door where we see men bringing poisonous snakes right into the church as proof surely this would be the right door or how about the door where a man

This door has to be right since about 1.5 billion believe in islam where a guy claimed  Gabriel came to him and took him on the back of an animal to heaven and he met different prophets, angels then met God who told him his name was not Jehovah,not Jesus but Allah,that has to be the right door since its so many would you not think.


So it appear this is just a huge game show of different holy books ,writings and golden plates.


I ask you is this the way to God:



1.Christianity: 2.1 billion

2.Islam: 1.5 billion

3.Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

4.Hinduism: 900 million

5.Chinese traditional religion: 394 million

6.Buddhism: 376 million

7.primal-indigenous: 300 million

8.African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million

9.Sikhism: 23 million

10.Juche: 19 million

11.Spiritism: 15 million

12.Judaism: 14 million

13.Baha'i: 7 million

14.Jainism: 4.2 million

15.Shinto: 4 million

16.Cao Dai: 4 million

17.Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million

18.Tenrikyo: 2 million

19.Neo-Paganism: 1 million

20.Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand

21.Rastafarianism: 600 thousand

22.Scientology: 500 thousand







YOU TELL ME MONTY HALL MURPHY WHICH DOOR IS THE RIGHT ONE,ARE THEY ALL RIGHT? IS THESE JUST A DIFFERENT WAY TO GOD?

IS THIS REALLY WHAT GOD HAS SET UP TO FIND HIM?





My personal opinion if I had the power I would destroy every one of these religions and kill everyone who followed these teachings.All who would be left is Jehovahs Witnesses religion and non believers in God.





That leads me to the agency who will do it for me:



         THE UNITED NATIONS


Before you laugh guess what:



Thessalonians 5:3) 3 Whenever it is that they are saying: “Peace and security. . .

And while you are laughing click this link



      http://www.un.org/en/peace/





Whenever it is that they are saying: “ Peace and security  ,


the United Nations foundation is Peace and security


Still laughing?




Prophet/Prince
Benyamin Grünbaum


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

QUESTION: Hello Brother Grunbaum; You say you are at a loss, but it is I that is at a loss. Now I don't know how the conversation turned,but, I will respond to a couple of things.

First You: I'm at a lost here,as a Baptist Minister and Greek scholar you are the first one I've encountered that has publicly admitted :

"Reply:  You are correct, in the English language there are definite and indefinite articles and only definite articles in the Greek. You are also correct in stating the a Greek scholar knows that an indefinite article can be placed according to the rule."

Why would you  be at a loss? Why wouldn't anyone publicly admit this? Any Greek Scholar will tell you that there are no definite articles in the Greek. He will also tell you that although there is only one article in the Greek#definite#, there are 24 forms of it. Syntax is very important because the positions of words in the Greek can change a meaning tremendously. But, if they wont admit it, then so be it.


You: "So something doesn't add up here,you don't believe in a trinity,you don't believe in the holy spirit as a person ,you accept our teachings on a number of subjects."

Reply: Again, I am at a loss, even a little confused. What is it that doesn't add up? I do not accept the JW teachings, I accept the Bible Teachings, it just happens that the JW's believe in the same teachings. I unlike most, am not afraid to say the JWS are right...right about alot of things. But that is another conversation. But, lets review the example below:

Example: JWS teach that Jesus and Michael are the same. I do not believe in this doctrine or theology. However, the Seventh Day Adventists do believe it. In fact, they taught it long before the WTBS did. It should also be noted that it was from the Seventh Day Adventists that Russell got this teaching. So do we then say the JWS accept certain teachings of the Seventh Day Adventists?

As for the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, the Bible does not support such teachings. Now without getting into a long drawn out explanation, let me give this example by questions one should ask:

1. What scripture or scriptures state that God Himself will come down, wrap Himself in flesh, be crucified and then return to his own right hand?

2. Is God his own only begotten son?

3. What do the prophecies say about the Messiah?

4. Who does Jesus himself say he is?

5. Who does God say Jesus is?

There are many Non-Trinitarian Clergy and Churches.I am sure you are aware, the NON-Trinitarian Christendom existed before Russell and his movement.

You: "It seems to me you have a made up belief that is different from mainstream Christendom yet some type of pieced together rapture belief and a 3rd godhead which is triune in nature."

Reply: Well, I am having trouble figuring out how you could ever come to this conclusion. My beliefs are strictly Biblical an not a bunch of made up beliefs and theologies. As far as the "rapture", although I prefer the word "gathering" to describe the day of being "caught up"; we have never discussed it.

As far as a 3rd godhead of triune nature....I have no idea how you could come close to a conclusion like this. It is crystal clear that I am not a Trinitarian in any fashion. However, a Trinity does exist, just not in the way it is taught. Now so that statement is not confused, all I am saying is, there is The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit, These Three are one in agreement. The rest is for later conversation.

You: You agree with Christendom that the nation of Israel over in the middle east is in the NT PROPHECIES .

Reply. I agree with the Bible which makes it clear that Israel, in the middle east, and all of her descendants are in New Testament Prophecies. Because of JW Replacement Doctrine and Theology, you don't see it.

But, a little hint for you, and please take this as being no more than humorously said....Meggido is not in the US or any other country or located on Kingdom Hall soil etc. Nor is the Assembly Hall going to be surrounded and made desolate.

Now, since you used the term Christendom, I must bring this to your attention again. JEHOVAHS WITNESSES ARE PART OF CHRISTENDOM!

Now from a child sitting at the table with my grandparents at Bible Study or should I say Watchtower and Awake Study, I have heard the re-definition of the word Christendom by the WTBS and Witnesses. So once again let us look at this word and definition:

Christendom: Christendom,[1] or the Christian world,[2] has several meanings. In a cultural sense, it refers to the worldwide community of Christians, adherents of Christianity. In a historical or geopolitical sense, the term usually refers collectively to Christian majority countries or countries in which Christianity dominates[1] or nations in which Christianity is the established religion.

WTBS Definition: False Religion; THe World of False Religion.

Now if we look at the definition of Christendom, then there is no way around JWS being part of it, unless JWS don't consider themselves Christians. Now, I do personally know, that at one time, especially during the 60 and 70s, JWS did not really accept the term Christian being applied to them and preferred to be called Jehovahs Witnesses. And of course..seared into my memory in defense of this:

Isaiah 43:12 NWT: I myself have told forth and have saved and have caused [it] to be heard, when there was among ​YOU​ no strange [god]. So ​YOU​ are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah,

Just last week I had the conversation with my little sister about the word Christendom. SHe being a Baptized witness pulled no punches. Even using the word Christian found in the definition to prove JWS were not part of Christendom.

She said: "That is the term for false religion,"Christian" means to be Christ like..the Churches are not Christ like so they are "False Christians" We are True Christians" Witness of Jehovah God and proclaimers of His Kingdom. That term does not apply to us".

So I laughed. I then showed her the definition of Christendom and told her that the word Christian did not mean "Christ like" it meant "followers of Christ"..but the funniest moment was when I told her she was boxed in to being part of Christendom.

You see...if the Jehovahs Witnesses are the only true Christians, then the word Christendom, would apply only to them. The world wide community of Jehovahs Witnesses. Just thought Ide share a little story.

Now, if we review the original definition of Christendom:

Its original meaning, in yet a more restrictive sense, refers to the sum total of nations in which Catholic Christianity is the established religion of the state.

In reference to the above definition, JWs would be right, but so would all the other protestant religions if they said they were not part of Christendom.

Now as too your other comments, I must first correct something. Mohammed never said God told him his name was Allah. The word Allah is spoken by more than Muslims. This word is simply Arabic for God.."The God". Please review below:

Allah is the Arabic word for God #literally "the God", as the initial "Al-" is the definite article#.It is used mainly by Muslims to refer to the Islamic God,[4] Arab Christians, and often, albeit not exclusively, by Bahá'ís, Arabic-speakers, Indonesian, Malaysian and Maltese Christians, and Mizrahi Jews.[

As for the list of Religions, some of which I have personal experience and knowledge..I will only say...If Jesus is not the Son of God and The Way...then not much is too talk about.


Now as I understand your comment on the U.N., I assure you I am not laughing. However, when it comes to Eschatology, New World Order etc. I am probably far ahead of you on that one. I look forward to having an End time discussion with you sometime.

The way to God:

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


1.Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Brother Grunbaum, as always, it is a joy discussing and reasoning with you. I look forward to talking with you soon.

Rev. Darryl Murphy

Answer
Why would you  be at a loss? Why wouldn't anyone publicly admit this? Any Greek Scholar will tell you that there are no definite articles in the Greek. He will also tell you that although there is only one article in the Greek#definite#, there are 24 forms of it. Syntax is very important because the positions of words in the Greek can change a meaning tremendously. But, if they wont admit it, then so be it.



No my point was GK scholars say the   a   CANT be inserted





Again, I am at a loss, even a little confused. What is it that doesn't add up? I do not accept the JW teachings, I accept the Bible Teachings, it just happens that the JW's believe in the same teachings. I unlike most, am not afraid to say the JWS are right...right about alot of things. But that is another conversation. But, lets review the example below:

Example: JWS teach that Jesus and Michael are the same. I do not believe in this doctrine or theology. However, the Seventh Day Adventists do believe it. In fact, they taught it long before the WTBS did. It should also be noted that it was from the Seventh Day Adventists that Russell got this teaching. So do we then say the JWS accept certain teachings of the Seventh Day Adventists?



Is that not somewhat of a contradiction  ,you say you reject our teachings  ,then say we have teachings you believe in ,sorry that is not scriptural ,the bible says:


(1 Corinthians 10:21# . . .YOU cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons; YOU cannot be partaking of “the table of Jehovah” and the table of demons  ,




Each table is identified by the kind of symbolic food placed on it,and its God who provide the food ,God has a table and the Devil has a table.
What you are in essence are saying is ,Ill nibble off your plate and eat of my plate.
But one of the plates is Demonic ,either my plate or yours
#1 Timothy 4:1# . . .utterances and teachings of demons. . .
So your beliefs are not biblical,me I dont believe any teachings of Christendom
Now you show me from scripture that you can accept JW teachings ,you cant,I think you need to come to terms that we have all Divine truth
,













I agree with the Bible which makes it clear that Israel, in the middle east, and all of her descendants are in New Testament Prophecies. Because of JW Replacement Doctrine and Theology, you don't see it.

But, a little hint for you, and please take this as being no more than humorously said....Meggido is not in the US or any other country or located on Kingdom Hall soil etc. Nor is the Assembly Hall going to be surrounded and made desolate.


As I'm sure you know the Heb name Har–Magedon, or Armageddon, means “Mountain of Megiddo.”
what evedently what you dont know there is not a geographical location in ancient or modern times called Mountain of Megiddo

So the symbolic book Revelation that is filled with figurative language, the term has symbolic meaning not literal


#Revelation 16:16) . . .And they gathered them together to the place that is called in Hebrew Har–Ma·ged´on. 




There is no mountain at Megiddo in the middle east itself so this is symbolic of something else its more on a mound called Tell el-Mutesellim


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Megiddo



Since there was many decisive battles fought there that why its reffered to in the text.


It makes a good DVD where TV preachers have made money on this as the place of a final war but its not scriptural.




International Standard Bible Encyclopedia :

"it is possible that Armageddon is used not as a name for a particular locality but as a symbolic term for the final decisive conflict.”







Prophet/Prince  
Grünbaum

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


Benyamin Grünbaum

©2016 About.com. All rights reserved.