Jehovah`s Witness/ego eimi follow up 3


QUESTION: Hi again brenton.

i dont really use other peoples interpretations to be honest, im not saying reading what so called scholars have to say is wrong but most of all prayers and study of the bible itself is enough with some bible helps. However when looking into a subject like this I do use a strongs bible concordce. The bible is all you need it explains itself when study under the illumination of the holy spirit.

back to the word echad have you ever realised the greek word used in the new testament for echad? It ls the word hen which is also a plural word for one, its used when jesus said a man and a women become one flesh also he quoted deutoronomy 6:4 in hear o israel the lord our God is one/HEN. quite intresting the singular word for one in greek is mono.


ANSWER: Greetings again Daniel

I was not suggesting you give me  someone’s interpretation of those texts.  I agree that the Bible interprets itself. However we must understand that NO Bible today is 100 %  accurate to the original. There are many factors that effect that.  Small mistakes that creept into hand written copies,  intentional insertion of words or phrases, and the translation process itself.  

The “scholars” I refereed to in the previous post, and asked you to refer me too, were language scholars not theological scholars to support the meaning of the particular words used in those verses.  

When the first lot of English Bibles were translated into English such as The Great Bible, Geneva, Coverdale and King James Bibles were produced they had only a few manuscripts to use.  Since then many more older manuscripts have been found and compared, and Hebrew and Greek master Texts have been prepared form these from which modern Translations are done

Translating form any language into another  is not easy to get a 100% accuracy.  The  gramma of Hebrew and Greek is quite different to English.  So I use a wide variety of Bibles as well as Hebrew and Greek Lexicons such as Strongs (Hebrew and Greek) and  Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon as well as   Thayer's Greek Lexicon , and Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon.

Strongs is very good, but  mainly only gives basic root definitions of Hebrew and Greek words.  The other lexicons go into greater detail of each word and some of the variations.  That web site I keep referring you to  also gives you the grammatical parts of speech of words for example it will tell us if the word is a verb, noun, adverb etc.,  or  if it is masculine or feminine (or neuter in the Greek) if it is first person or second person, etc.... So one gets a better feel of the original word.

Because of the variations one can use different English words to translate form the Hebrew and Greek.

The grammatical make-up of  Greek word  “ ἓν   =   hen”  is an Adjective, in the nominative case, neuter , feminine word  

Using a KJV Bible linked to Strongs Greek Lexicon at  Matthew 5:18 we will see the  word “one”  is used twice  “"For  assuredly, I say  to you, till heaven  and  earth  pass away, one <1520 > jot  or  one <3391 > tittle  will by no means  pass  from  the law till  all  is fulfilled .”  (KJV)  - numbers are to Strongs Greek Lexicon.

1520 . εις heis hice; (including the neuter [etc.] εν hen); a primary numeral; one : —  a(-n, ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. “

3391 . μια ; irregular feminine of 1520; one or first: —  a (certain), + agree, first, one,”

If you use a  Greek interlinear Bible, you will see that the  first Greek word for “one” at Matthew 5:18 is  “ ἓν   =   hen”  (The word you mention)

PLEASE go and look at that text at

You will see that the grammatical make-up of  Greek word  “ ἓν   =   hen”  is an Adjective, in the nominative case, neuter , feminine

Now, Here is Mark 12:29 from a Bible that is linked to Strongs Greek Lexicon

“Jesus answered  him , "The  first  of all  the commandments  is: ‘Hear , O Israel , the LORD  our  God , the LORD  is   one <1520 > “

Again, the link  to  Strongs is the  word number 1520

Now if you use a Greek interlinear Bible you will see that the Greek word for one here is “εἷς = heis”  (It is a different form of “ ἓν   =   hen”, but Strongs does not tell us that, in  that way Strongs has its limitations)

Now, PLEASE  go to  and you will see that the Strongs word number 1520 as used in this text   is “εἷς = heis” and the the grammatical make-up of this word is an Adjective, in the nominative case, masculine  singular ,  word.      (The nominative refers us to the subject of the sentence or phrase wich is the word “Lord” in this case )

Now to highlight this problem even further lets look at Matthew 19:5  “And  said , For this  cause  shall a man  leave  father  and  mother, and  shall cleave  to his  wife : and  they twain  shall be one <3391> flesh ?”

Other Interlinears will point you to Strongs word Number 1520.  Now srongs word number 3391 is mentioned up the page but here it is again  “μια mia  irregular feminine of 1520; one or first: —  a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.”  

Here is the link to the on line interlinear

The grammatical make up of “ μια”  here is Adjective, accusative case , feminine, singular.   (The accusative is used to limit the action of a verb as to extent, direction, or goal. "The accusative measures an idea as to its content, scope, direction"  )

The form of “hen” is different for the joining of Husband and wife as “one” that what Jesus used in regard to God being “one”

The Greek word “mono” is generally rendered into English as “Alone”

Strongs definition = “3441. μονος monos ;  remaining, i.e. sole or single; by implication mere: —  alone, only, by themselves.”

The word appears 47 times in the NT.  Notice the various ways the KJV rendered the word only 24 times, alone 21 times, by (one’s) self 2 times;

 PLEASE  go to  and see  how some various Bible uses of this word.

So I am not using theological reasoning here I am using the language of the day.  From the above evidence what do you honestly see?

Remember at the start I mentioned that there had been scribal errors that inadvertently crept into the old hand copied texts and that at times they were intentional. I also  said that more manuscripts have been found that show where these errors occurred.

Well I would like to share one of these errors with you.  It was sent to me by private email yesterday.  It is at Genesis 19:18.  The oldest manuscripts do not use “ ןודא " adonay   but  הוה  YHWH.

“18And Lot said to them, “Oh no, יהוה!
19“Look, please, your servant has found favour in your eyes, and you have increased your “  as copied  from

This is Lot speaking to one of  the two angels that  you acknowledge came to visit him.   This shows that these angels were all representing The Almighty one while thery were here and being his messengers.

 PLEASE go to  and look down the page.   The American King James recogises that Lot was addressing the “LORD” ... “ And Lot said to them, Oh, not so, my LORD:”

Go down further and read the commentaries not just he ones there but the  link to the extra ones as well .

See also

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

QUESTION: Hi brenton.

So, if you believe the bible has been corrupted through the yrs how do you determine whats is inspired and what isn't? this is the same argument I hear when speaking to muslims about the person of jesus christ, when pointing to scriptures that reveal him as God they explain the verses away by saying its a corrupted verse???

ANSWER: Hello Daniel

Thank you for that question.

Many  Muslims may be aware of Muslim internet  sites that have a headline “50,000 Errors In The Bible”.  They take this information from an article published by The Watchtower Society in the Awake magazine of September 8 1957.  At the end of this discussion I have copied the article for you and any other reader that may be interested

The  Modern Bible can be trusted .  We do not have in our possession a 100% copy of the original writings, but what we do have is so very close.  

For many centuries the Bible was copied by hand. In comparison to the whole Bible, there are only very small portions of the Bible that have been corrupted.  Some were unintentional due to errors by the scribes coping older manuscripts and in a very few places extra words have been added, but are now taken out.

Some details I have copied from different articles

Variations are to be expected in view of human imperfection and the copying and recopying of manuscripts, especially by many copyists who were not professionals. If certain manuscripts had a common ancestor manuscript, perhaps came from a particular revision of early texts, or were produced in a particular area, they would probably have at least some variations in common, and hence they are said to belong to the same family, or group. On the basis of similarity in such differences, scholars have sought to classify the texts into groups, or families, the number of which has increased with the passing of time, till reference is now made to the Alexandrian, Western, Eastern (Syriac and Caesarean), and the Byzantine texts, represented in various manuscripts or in different readings scattered throughout numerous manuscripts. But despite the variations peculiar to different manuscript families (and the variations within each group), the Scriptures have come down to us in essentially the same form as that of the original inspired writings. The variations of reading are of no consequence as to Bible teachings in general . And scholastic collations have corrected errors of any importance, so that today we enjoy an authentic and reliable text.

There are possibly 6,000 manuscripts of all or portions of the Hebrew Scriptures extant today in various libraries. The vast majority contain the Masoretic text and are of the tenth century C.E. or thereafter.

They scribes that had the resposability of copying  ald and warn out manuscripts had to  aloud each word before writing. To write even a single word from memory was regarded as gross sin. Absurdities of practice crept in. It is said that the religious scribes prayerfully wiped their pen before writing the word ʼElo·him′ (God) or ʼAdho·nai′ (Sovereign Lord).

But, despite this extreme care to avoid inadvertent errors, in process of time the Sopherim began to take liberties in making textual changes. In 134 passages the Sopherim changed the primitive Hebrew text to read ʼAdho·nai′ instead of YHWH. In other passages ʼElo·him′ was the word used as a substitute. Many of the changes were made by the Sopherim because of superstition in connection with the divine name and to avoid anthropomorphisms, that is, attributing human attributes to God

In standard Hebrew manuscripts the Masorah, that is, the small writing in the margins of the page or at the end of the text, contains a note opposite a number of Hebrew passages that reads: “This is one of the eighteen Emendations of the Sopherim,” or similar words. These emendations were made evidently because the original passages in the Hebrew text appeared to show irreverence for Jehovah God or disrespect for his earthly representatives. However well intentioned, this was an unjustified alteration of God’s Word

The Christian Scriptures were written in Koine. Though no original autograph manuscripts thereof are known to exist today, according to one calculation, there are some 5,000 extant manuscript copies, whole or in part, of these Scriptures in Greek

Christian copyists were not often professional, but having respect and high regard for the value of the inspired Christian writings, they copied them carefully. Typical of the work of these early Christian copyists is the oldest extant fragment of any of the Christian Greek Scriptures, the Papyrus Rylands No. 457. With writing on both sides, it consists of but some 100 letters (characters) of Greek and has been dated as early as the first half of the second century C.E.

End of quotes

When the “King James “Bible  was translated into English it used a master Greek text that put together and edited several times.  The New Testament portion was compiled of only eight or nine partial Greek manuscripts dating from the 12 century as well as a Latin text.  

Since that time older manuscripts dating back to the second century have been found. When texts have been compared the errors (both unintentional and intentional) have been picked up.  By comparing the ancient text new master texts have been prepared that have eliminated the errors.

Then when translators work on producing a Bible in an other language unfortunately some of their theological bias determines how to translate a passage.

A good example is in the Divine Name.  Few Bibles will include it in the Old Testament, because if they do it has two effects. 1) it becomes associated with Jehovah's Witnesses and people have been conditioned by their religious leaders to shun us so the Bibles wont sell as well as they would like, and 2) it puts a spanner in the idea of the Trinity for many people.

An example of added words is at 1 John 5:7.   Modern up to date scholars say these words   appear in NO Greek text before the 12 century , however,  they do appear in Latin text from the 5 century.  The KJV reads ….  “7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8  And there are three that bear witness in earth  , the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” It is the words underlined that we are talking about

Bibles that use more accurate Greek master texts say   “7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement”  (CJB GNB; NIV; NRSV; and Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament to name a few)   These can be checked out at

The KJV was based on a Greek text that was originally prepared by a scholar name  Erasmus.   that  started the prepared it was asked by the Catholic Church to include the words underlined above, because they were in the Latin Bible that the Catholic Church used.  The  first three editions of his work did not include those words and he did not want to include them.  He worked form only a very small handful of texts.

He used only eight Greek manuscripts in producing the first edition.

Codex Basilensis A. N. IV. 2 The codex contains the entire New Testament (except of Book of Revelation) dated to the 12th century

Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1 The codex contains a complete text of the four  Gospels   dated  11th or 12th century.

Codex Basilensis A. N. IV. 4 The codex contains a complete text of the Acts of the Apostles, General epistles, and Pauline epistles  dated to the 12th century

Minuscule 7 The codex contains the complete text of the four Gospels  dated to the 12th century

Minuscule 817  The codex contains the complete text of the four Gospels dated to the 15th century

Minuscule 2814 The codex contains the  Book of Revelation  with a commentary of  Andreas from Caesarea. Last six verses were lost (22:16-21) dated to the 12th century   

Minuscule 2816 The codex contains a complete text of the Acts of the Apostles, Pauline epistles, and General epistles dated to the 15th century

Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from the standard form of that text-type, as represented by the "Majority Text"

In His second editing (revision - 1519)  he  also consults Minuscule 3 .  The codex contains the entirety of the New Testament except the Book of Revelation

With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included, because "Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy", even though he remained "convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John (H. J. de Jonge, Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses (1980), p. 385)

The modern Bibles have been able to eliminate the errors that slowly crept into the text.  The only problem that now arises is theological bias when translation the Bible. ALL Bibles have some minor passages that are influenced by the theology of the translators.

Bellow is the article I mentioned that Muslims misquote

Awake September 8 1957 pages 25,26  in a regular feature entitled “Your Word Is Truth” - John 17:17” was the following article   (Italics original)

50,000 errors in the Bible?

RECENTLY  a young man purchased a King James Version Bible thinking it was without error. One day when glancing through a back issue of Look magazine he came across an article entitled "The Truth About the Bible," which said that "as early  as 1720, an English authority estimated that there were at least 20,000 errors in the two editions of the New Testament commonly read by Protestants and Catholics. Modern students say there are probably 50,000 errors." The young man was shocked. His faith in the Bible's authenticity was shaken. "How call the Bible be reliable when it contains thousands of serious discrepancies and inaccuracies?" he asks.

Bear in mind that the author's purpose in presenting the material that appeared in Look , February 26, 1952, was to show why an intensive study of ancient manuscripts has been undertaken by scholars. Hence his article deals with the errors that have crept into the Bible text, rather than the general reliability of the text. He cites the most outstanding errors and, by stating that some students claim the King James Version has 50,000 errors, he leaves the impression that 50,000 such serious errors occur in the Bible, which, of course, is not true. Most of these so-called errors have been corrected by modern translators.  The remaining discrepancies are of an extremely minor nature, which do not appreciably affect the authenticity of the Bible text.

The article begins with a question: "How accurate is the Holy Bible that we read today?" But throughout his entire article the author never answers that question. But if he had, he would have had to answer that as a whole the Bible is accurate, true and authentic.

But what about the other paints the article raises, such as, "Was there really, in Jesus' time, an adulteress whose accusers were sternly told, 'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her' ... ? Did Jesus really say, 'Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel .. .' or 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved' ... ? Did St. John himself write the reference to the Holy Trinity attributed to him? From information modern scholars have developed, the answer to each question is probably 'No.' .. Here again, the author of the article, Hartzell Spence, is only partly correct.

The passage - "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" is not found in several of the older manuscripts of the Bible. The New World Translation of the Bible sets aside the first eleven verses from the rest of the text of John chapter eight. It is given as a footnote, which shows that the Sinaitic manuscript, the Vatican MS. No. 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac codex do not contain these words. Keep in mind that the Sinaitic and the Vatican No. 1209 manuscripts are two of the oldest in existence, dating from the fourth century. 'These verses are found in the Codex Bezae of the sixth century, the Latin Vulgate of the fourth and fifth centuries and the Jerusalem Syriac version of the sixth century. But since the oldest Greek manuscripts do not contain these verses their origin is doubtful.

What about the next point, "Did Jesus really say, 'Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel'?" The author quotes from the last twelve verses of Mark chap ter sixteen, which have long been challenged. The New World Translation sets apart those last verses from the general text. It shows that certain ancient manuscripts and versions of the Scriptures add a long conclusion, but that the Sinaitic, the Vatican No. 1209, the Sinaitic Syriac codex and the Annenian version, of the forth and fifth centuries, do not contain this passage and hence it is of doubtful authenticity.

The author leaves the impression that the good news or gospel is not to be preached because this text containing such admonition is not authentic. However, in several other places in God's Word this same admonition is given, which passages are reliable. For instance, Matthew 24:14 (New World Trans. ): "And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for the purpose of a witness to all the nations, and then the accomplished end will come." Also at Matthew 28:19 (New World Trans. ) Jesus commands: "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them." So other scriptures, besides this questionable one in Mark, prove that Christ's followers are to preach and baptize.

What about this point: "Did St. John himself write the reference to the Holy Trinity attributed to him?" The scripture referred to is 1 John 5:7, 8. In commenting on this text a Greek Scripture translator, Benjamin Wilson, writes in his The Emphatic Diaglott : "This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers; nor by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority. It is therefore evidently spurious." The truthfulness of this statement is borne out by the fact that the modern translations (except Roman Catholic translations from the Latin versions) do not include the text.

An extremely significant point is that most modern translations have already elimiriated the errors to which this writer refers in his article. Notice that the twenty to fifty thousand errors are accredited to the "two editions of the New Testament commonly read by Protestants and Catholics." Those would be the King James Version and the Catholic Douay Version, which were produced in 1611 and 1600 respectively. So they were both more than 300 years old.

When these translations were made the koine Greek in which the Bible was written was not so well understood as it is today. So those translators made errors in translation that have been corrected by modern scholars. Archaeologists also have contributed to Bible research by finding many ancient manuscripts of the Scriptures.

Bible errors have been eliminated to the point where the remaining minor discrepancies are negligible. Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, an outstanding English scholar, in his book The Bible and Archaeology , pages 288, 289, says: "The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures  have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."

The Bible is reliable and beyond all doubt is God's Word.

End Quote

So yes Daniel we can have confidence in the Bible.  I use and compare over 20  English Bibles as well as Hebrew and Greek Master texts and Hebrew and Greek Lexicons.

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

QUESTION: Hi brenton.

A Good reply and good to know you do believe the bible is the Word of God.

continuing with our conversation..... In john 10 : 30 We have that greek word hen again, which is the greek translation of the hebrew word echad which carrys the plural meaning.

How would you interprete this account when jesus said he and his father are hen or echad If he used hebrew?

Also notice how the jews react to this statement, they pick up stones to stone him f
or blasphemy because they understood him making himself to be God. Verse 33.


Hi Daniel

Another couple of  interesting, but,  misunderstood text because of wrong translation of the Greek. (Vs 33)

The first thing I want to say is in answer to what you said ... “which is the greek translation of the hebrew word echad which carrys the plural meaning.  ”....  You keep going back to saying that “echad... carrys the plural meaning ”.    It  can carry the meaning of unity,  but it is not plural.    It works as both an Ordinal number (first) and / or as a cardinal number - natural number and may indicate quantity - 1 of or 3 of   It also  has the meaning of absolute one    see  go down to point 7  “ 7 as ordinal, first (mostly P & late)  ….  absolute “

In John 10:30 ,  this time you are partially correct.  The word used here is in deed “hen”, but   it is not plural it is singular.    You are  correct in that it does denote a unity, a very special unity that of showing oneness in cooperation,  not in nature or substance.

The same word “hen” is used at John 17:21  which reads from the KJV   “ That they all may be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”

Lets just go back a few verses to John 17:11 which reads “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one , as we are .” (KJV)

Now, if we follow the reasoning that because Jesus used the word “hen” to refer to his relationship with his God to mean that they had the same nature, and are part of a “godhead”, then we must also apply that to ALL his followers, that they share the same nature as Jesus and his Father.  So then how many individuals according to that make up the “godhead”?   How are they united then?  Jesus and his disciples are united in the same cause with The Father (The Almighty) in that they all are wanting to do the will of God.  

Whose will did Jesus do when he was here?  Dis he ever say I have come do do  “my will “  or “our will”?  NO.  He said  “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” (John 6:38 JKV)   This was said earlier by Jesus as well “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will , but the will of the Father which hath sent me .” (John 50:30 KJV)

The followers of Jesus were united  in following him in  doing Gods will “....but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” (1 John 2:17 KJV)  

The Greek word “hen” IS NOT PLURAL, but it always  denotes sharing a oneness of purpose  not not being of the same nature or substance.  This is further highlighted in another example of the use of “hen”

Do you recall the problem in Corinth that caused some divisions?  Individuals in that congregation were saying I belong to Paul but I belong to Apollos.  Paul said that many people water but it is God that makes one grow as a Christian.  Now lets look at 1 Corinthinas 3:5-8 “5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6  I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7  So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 8  Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one : and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.”

That is telling us that the Paul and Apollos and anyone else that cultivates,  by evangelical work, someones  interest in learning of Jesus, are all one  that is united in doing the same work. ( see Matthew 24:14; 28:19,20 )

The next verse you point to, is Vs. 33. ... “The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”  KJV

First of all Jesus did not say he was God, nor did he say he was “Trying” to “make” himself  God.

look at  these slight variations

“... You, being a Man, make Yourself God."  EMTV;  NKJV

“... You are only a man, but you are trying to make yourself God!"   GNB

“... who are only a man, are making yourself out to be God."  Phillips

“... even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god”   NWT

Why does the NWT say “a god”?   First of all,  in the Greek text, the  the definite article (ho) is missing before the Greek word anthropos ("man"), and , the Greek word theos   (God/god).  So why are translators   happy to translate the passage as "you being A   man."  At the same  time they refuse  be consistent and  translate  theos   as "make yourself A god."  The most natural way to read this passage is   "you being a man make yourself a god."   If an ancient Koine Greek speaker really  wanted to say, "make yourself a god", this is precisely how he would say it.

Secondly it is in line with the context that leads support to “a god”.  Jesus defends the charge of blasphemy against him in the following verses.   Before we read them,  we must understand the meaning of the Hebrew words for God.  What did the Hebrew understand by the word God especially in the Hebrew language.  The root word  for God is “’el”  (Strongs word number <410> ) and simply means “a mighty one” or “powerful one”  or “strong one”  The word “elohim”  (Strongs word number <430> ) is a plural version of “el”

Here are some examples of “el” from the KJV.  You will notice that at times it is rendered as power, and also refers to tree and mountains as well as having reference to the God that the Hebrews worshiped.

Ge 14:18  "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God <0410>."

Ge 17:1  "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God <0410>; walk before me, and be thou perfect."

Ge 21:33  "And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God <0410>."

Ge 31:29  "It is in the power <0410> of  my hand to do you hurt: but the God  <0430> of your father spake unto me yesternight, saying, Take thou heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad."

Ps 29:1  "Give unto the LORD, O ye mighty <0410>, give unto the LORD glory and strength."

Ps 36:6  "Thy righteousness is like the great <0410> mountains ; thy judgments are a great deep: O LORD, thou preservest man and beast."

Ps 50:1  "The mighty <0410> God<0430>, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof."

Ps 80:10   "The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly <0410> cedars."

Ps 82:1 "God  <0430> standeth in the congregation of the mighty <0410>; he judgeth among the gods <0430>."

Pr 3:27  "Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power <0410> of thine hand to do it"

Eze 32:21  "The strong <0410> among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword."

In the context of John 10,  Jesus shows us what it is,  that the Jews meant.   Look at Vs 34 , 35    “34  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods  [or mighty ones ]? 35  If he called them gods [mighty ones ], unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; “   Who are the ones that Jesus is referring to here as the ones that were rightly called gods by GOD?  Jesus is quoting Psalms 82:6  which reads  “I [ GOD speaking ] have said, Ye [ referring to Judges see vs 2 ] are gods ; and all of you are children of the most High.”   

His defense against blasphemy is  by asking why they charge him with blasphemy for claiming to be the son of God when GOD calls others "gods."  To paraphrase, Jesus essentially says, "Why do you have a problem with me being a god? The Scriptures show us  that GOD himself called other men "gods." So what then do you say about me, the one who God himself set apart and sent into the world? Why do you charge me with blaspheming when I say, "I am a son of God?" In other words, Jesus completely silences the Jewish objections with Jehovah's very own words where He calls other men "gods," and the Jews did not have a leg to stand.  Jesus is saying that these Jews were dishonestly charging him when their God himself calls lower identities other than himself "gods."

That the Jews never ever understood Jesus to be claiming to be God, and therefore their God, is made abundantly clear in the following passage at Matthew 72:41-

“41  Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, 42  He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.43  He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.”  (KJV)

So no, in John 10:30 Jesus was not saying he was part of the godhead or was God.  He was saying that he worked in harmony with his Father and God in doing Gods will. And, the Jews did not accuse him of being making himself equal to the God they worshiped in John 10:33 , but of elevating himself to a higher position. After all he was only a carpenters son how can he, this lowly man, have a position higher then themselves by calling himself a Son of God.

May peace be with you and your family

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.

©2016 All rights reserved.