Jehovah`s Witness/Romans 6:7: Rev 14:4
QUESTION: Hello Brother Abdijah,
Since leaving Catholicism I have been visiting the Jehovahs Witnesses web-site and also reading some books left by JW’s who called at my door.
I wonder if you could explain two questions which puzzle me?
Romans 6:7 NWT: “For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin.
Question: Does that only apply to all dead mankind who were ignorant of God? Or does it just mean that the dead can no longer sin (because the are dead Psalm 146:4) as many Bible translations just say “For whoever has died is freed from sin.”
The Weymouth New Testament, put it like this: “for he who has paid the penalty of death stands absolved from his sin.”
Revelation 14:4 Obviously refers to the 144,000 and the verse says “These are they who were not defiled by women, in fact , they are virgins.
Question: Surely this cannot mean the all the 144,000 chosen will have to be unmarried virgins?
ANSWER: Hi Fergus. I am sorry I took so long to respond to your questions.
in context is speaking that as Christians we are living our lives for Jehovah; we are dead as to the practice of sin. This illustration though is based on the fact that at death, we pay for our sins; there is no further punishment after we die for the sins we have committed in our lives. (Romans 6:23
However, it is the death of Christ that is the basis for forgiveness of our sins so that we can have eternal life. (John 3:16
along with others clearly shows that the doctrine of eternal life being tortured in a so-called hellfire is not Scriptural.
As to Revelation 14:4
, the 144,000 remain virgins in a spiritual sense by not defiling themselves with the beliefs and practices of the prostitute “Babylon the Great,” the world empire of false religion. (Rev. 17:5) No doctrinal falsehood is “found in their mouths,” and they remain “without blemish” from Satan’s world.
helps us understand that much in that Bible book is symbolic. We can conclude the meaning of the these “virgins” by understanding such things as the meaning of Babylon the Great being a prostitute, and also even in James 4:4
we read that “whoever wants to be a friend of the world” is spoken of as an “adulteress.” So as stated above, these “virgins” are not a part of false religion, and they are “no part of the world” as Jesus stated. (John 15:19; 17:14—16
Hope this was helpful.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Thank you for your explanation Bro. Abdijah which makes perfect sense. I was obviously taking the words too literally.
I abandoned Catholicism because the Trinity doctrine is incomprehensible.
I am presently debating a Roman Catholic online who is trying to get me to return to the “fold”. He has studied Theology at University and quotes Aquinus, Augustine, Tertullian etc. calling them all saints…but rarely quotes the Scriptures. When he does actually quote from the Bible he insists using the Douay Rheims Bible….but wasn’t that version translated from the Latin Vulgate by Jerome?
I use the NWT which was kindly given to me by Jehovah’s Witnesses when I invited them indoors rather than keep then standing at the doorstep on a cold day. They refused payment, but I insisted… such truly pleasant people!
I also bought “Truth in Translation” by Dr. Jason BeDuhn from Amazon. He writes in his summary page 169 “Having concluded that the NW is one of the most accurate English translations currently available….” See reviews:
Ps. Thanks once again for your help. I am presently attempting to compile verses which actually disprove the false Trinity doctrine, any suggestions from you would be most helpful….time permitting of course, there is no hurry.
Kind regards, Fergus.
You are quite welcome, Fergus. I am happy to be helpful whenever I can.
You are correct about the Douay-Rheims Version being translated from the Vulgate. Still, it contains the truth of God’s Word hidden in among added portions. One of my favorite verses in that translation is Isaiah 40:22
where read that Jehovah dwells “above the globe of the earth.”
And thank you for the links, especially to the one reviewing Dr. BeDuhns book.
There are a number of passages that help show the trinity is false, one of the strongest of which is John 17:3
where Jesus tells us that to get eternal life we must come to know his Father, whom he calls “the only true God” AND the one whom he (“the only true God”) sent, Jesus Christ. So Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and “the only true God.”
Another passage is Revelation 11:15
which says: “And the seventh angel blew his trumpet. And loud voices occurred in heaven, saying: ‘The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ
, and he will rule as king forever and ever.’”
There are number of other passages that speak of “God” as some distinct from Jesus. What I find of interest is that the few verses that seem to support the Trinitarian view are either additions to the inspired text, such as 1 John 5:7
,or the proper translation is ambiguous as is the case with John 1:1
and Hebrews 1:8
Detractors protest the use of the indefinite article in John 1:1
(“a god”) because of their Trinitarian bias, but they translate similar passages correctly when it has no effect on that false doctrine, as in the KJV and others of Acts 28:4
which reads in part “… this man is a murderer …” and is grammatically identical with John 1:1
is a direct quote of Psalm 45:6
which prophetically was speaking of Jesus but at the time it was written was addressed to a human king, probably Solomon.
The NWT of Psalm 45:6
reads “God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever; The scepter of your kingship is a scepter of uprightness.”
The KJV reads: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.”
Grammatically, either rendering is correct, but since this was spoken to a human king, which is more correct? And of course the quote must match the original. However, of both the human king and of the Son of God, they get their authority from Jehovah, so the rendering “God is your throne” is accurate in both cases.