Jehovah`s Witness/koinonia

Advertisement


Question
QUESTION: Hi Brenton,

You state that you are a "person that must do his best to prove everything". You are to be commended for this.

On top of what I have already presented, let us now consider another line of evidence which demonstrates that as the God the Father and the Son are persons, likewise the Scriptures demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is also a person.  

The Scriptures reveal in 1 John 1:3 that we have "koinōnia" with the Father and with the Son.

Likewise 2 Cor. 13:14 we have "koinōnia" with the Holy Spirit.

In order to have "koinōnia" with The Father and with the Son requires that they are persons, right?

The same is true to have "koinōnia" with the Holy Spirit. In order to have "koinōnia" with Him, He must be an actual person.

Arthur W. Pink explains:

" Let it be duly weighed that "communion" (koinōnia) is a mutual thing, a giving and receiving. In our communion with the Father we receive from Him, and then return to Him love and obedience. From the Son we receive life, and acknowledge it in our praises. From the Spirit we receive regeneration and sanctification, shall we render Him nothing in return?

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Holy_Spirit/index.htm

ANSWER: G'day Cos


Thanks for that link.  I actually have over 30 works by Arthur Pink  on my computer attached to a Bible program. I can look up all the texts he quotes just by clicking on the text. I looked up and browsed through the art5icle  that you mentioned.  I noticed that he constantly and wrongly uses the masculine personal pronoun “he” when referring to the spirit, but that is not unusula for someone who believes in the “person” of the holy spirit, and quotes from a Bible that wrongly atributes such pronouns to it..  Its  also quite interesting seeing how he tries hard to prove his ideas but misses the point of so many of the  texts he uses.

Pink has a simple reply to the idea mentioned at Acts 2:18,33 of the spirit being poured out or shed forth (JKV). He simply says that is figurative not literal. He says  “literal it cannot be for that which is spiritual is incapable of being materially "poured out." “ -   Think about that.  The reasoning we use is, that because the holy spirit is not a person but belongs to God as his breath, his active force, vital force, then it can be poured out.  His simple reasoning works both ways.  The evidence of what  the holy spirit is, is in the rest of the writings about it.  Many of the texts he quotes form the KJV actually show that the holy spirit belongs to God. Words such as “the Spirit of God”  as found in the following texts.  The word “of” shows ownership. The spirit belongs to God [the Father] and not a separate entity.  Please , take particular note  of, and, think about how the other times the word “of ” is used, as highlighted in bold, and how it shows ownership.

Matthew 3:16  And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and lighting  upon him;

Matthew 12:28  But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God , then is the kingdom of God come upon you.

Romans 8:9  But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Romans 8:14  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God , they are sons
of God.

Romans 15:19  Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God ; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:11  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God .

1 Corinthians 2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things the Spirit of God : for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 3:16  Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1 Corinthians 7:40  But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God .

1 Corinthians 12:3  Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Ephesians 4:30  And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God , whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Philippians 3:3  for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God , and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh:

1 Peter 4:14   If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are ye; because
the Spirit of glory and the the Spirit of God resteth upon you..

1 John 4:2  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God : Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: [KJV]

I will repeat what I said in the last post.  No where in the NT is the holy spirit ever refereed to with a masculine pronoun such as “he” “his”.   The only places where it is mistakenly thought that happens, is where the masculine pronouns are used in relation to the Greek word “paraklēton”.  Many people wrongly assume that the masculine pronouns refer to the word spirit.  But they just do not.

The word “pneuma” (wind, breath, spirit) grammatically is the same as
hudor  (water)
dendron (tree)
oros  (mountain, hill)
pur  (fire)
xulon  (wood, tree)

These are all neuter words. They are not referred to with gender personal pronouns but with neuter pronouns.

The  above points are vital in the overall understanding what is meant by the holy spirit.  

So, lets look at the Greek word  koinōnia.  It  is found 20 times in the NT.  The KJV renders it in these ways “fellowship 12, communion 4, communication 1, distribution 1, contribution 1, to communicate 1”

The NAS renders it in these ways “contribution 2, fellowship 12, participation 2, sharing 3”

The NWT renders it in these ways  “Administration 1, Associating 1,  contribution 3,  Fellowship 8, share 3, sharing 4”  

In the particular text you are referring to (2 Corinthians 13:14 ) is rendered in different ways by different Biles.  I did not recall you in the past telling me what Bible you are using, and, that would always be helpful when you quote from it.   The ASV And the KJV both say  communion, as do several Bibles.  Some say fellowship as does the EMTV ESV and NIV

The NWT reads  “The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the holy spirit be with all of you.

The Bible in basic English reads “... and the harmony of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”

The Diaglot  reads “ .. and the joint participation of the holy spirit with all of you.

Why these differences? Strongs Greek Lexicon gives us this “ partnership, i.e. (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction: —  (to) communicate(-ation), communion, (contri-)distribution, fellowship.”

Thayer's Greek Lexicon  also says “the share which one has in anything , participation; with the genitive of the thing in which he shares” -   When Thayer says “ the genitive of the thing in which he shares”  he is talking about a particular Greek Gramma construction.

These are all the places where the Greek word koinōnia (in its various forms) are found.   These texts are from the KJV

Acts 2:42  And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship <2842> , and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Romans 15:26  For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution <2842> for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.

1 Corinthians 1:9  God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship <2842> of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Corinthians 10:16  The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion <2842> of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion <2842> of the body of Christ?

2 Corinthians 6:14  Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion <2842> hath light with darkness?

2 Corinthians 8:4  Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship <2842> of the ministering to the saints.

2 Corinthians 9:13  Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution <2842> unto them, and unto all men;

2 Corinthians 13:14  The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion <2842> of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

Galatians 2:9  And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship <2842> ; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Ephesians 3:9  And to make all men see what is the fellowship <2842> of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Philippians 1:5  For your fellowship <2842> in the gospel from the first day until now;

Philippians 2:1  If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship <2842> of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,

Philippians 3:10  That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship <2842> of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

Philemon 1:6  That the communication <2842> of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.

Hebrews 13:16  But to do good and to communicate <2842>  [share forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

1 John 1:3  That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship <2842> with us: and truly our fellowship <2842> is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

1 John 1:6  If we say that we have fellowship <2842> with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

1 John 1:7  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship <2842> one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

In Hebrews 13:16    the following Bibles read “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.” or very similar ESV; GNB; GWV; HSCB; Message; NHEB; NJKV; NWT; Philips; RSV; RWB; WEB;

In most Bibles at Romans 15:26   the English word used is “contribution”.  The context is very similar to Hebrews 13 and is talking about sharing material things with those in need.

The same thought is found in 2 Corinthians 9:13  where a “distribution”  (sharing) of materiel needs are made

So it is not out of place to render  koinōnia as to share as is done in the NWT at 2 Corinthians 9:13 .

What about its use at 2 Corinthians 9:13 .  Is this teaching that we  are having fellowship with the holy spirit like we would have fellowship with an individual, or are we sharing something with the holy spirit, or, is the holy spirit being shared with us by someone else.

The NWT reads “The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the holy spirit be with all of you”

What this text is teaching is that Paul was saying to the congregation in Corinth  that he wished that the grace (  undeserved kindness) and the love of God be with them as well as they  sharing in the  holy spirit that God gives out.    
Luke 11:13 “...how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”

1 Thessalonians 4:8 ...but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you.

1 John 3:24  ..., by the Spirit which he gave us.

Just as in the past different ones were filled with holy spirit

Acts 2:4  And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit , and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 4:8  Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit , said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders,

Acts 4:31  And when they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein they were gathered together; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit , and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Acts 9:17  And Ananias departed, and entered into the house; and laying his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way which thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit .

Acts 13:9  But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit , fastened his eyes on him,

The conclusion that must be reached  is that the holy spirit is something that belongs to, and originates with God.  We do not have interpersonal fellowship (relationship) with the holy spirit.  We can have an interpersonal fellowship (relationship) with God.  It is up to God to grant individuals the chance to share in his holy spirit, when, and if, he decides to give (pour out, impart) some of His spirit to us.   When the holy spirit is credited with same aspect it is actually God that is being credited.  





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

QUESTION: Hi Brenton,

Thank you once again for your response.

I see that for some reason you have taken offense to Arthur Pink using the personal pronoun "he" when Pink refers to the Holy Spirit. The question is whether he is wrong to do so, as you claim, or is he right in doing so.

You say:

"I will repeat what I said in the last post.  No where in the NT is the holy spirit ever refereed to with a masculine pronoun such as “he” “his”.   The only places where it is mistakenly thought that happens, is where the masculine pronouns are used in relation to the Greek word “paraklēton”.  Many people wrongly assume that the masculine pronouns refer to the word spirit.  But they just do not."

Hmmm, John 16:7-8 from the NWT, "Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth, It is for your benefit I am going away. For if I do not go away, the helper will by no means come to you but if I do go my way, I will send HIM to you. And when THAT ONE arrives HE will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin..." (emphasis mine).

Then later in John 16:13-15 again from the NWT, "However, when THAT ONE arrives, the spirit of the truth, HE will guide you into all the truth, for HE will not speak of HIS own impulse, but what HE hears HE will speak, and HE will declare to you the things coming... HE will receive from what is mine...HE receives from what is mine..." (emphasis mine).

Maybe you think that the Greek here in these places should read "it"... but, no, not grammatical because the meaning of words is based on the context of that word in a sentence among other words. If it were possible to not use the personal pronoun "he", "him" in the above then don't you think the NWT would have done so? See also the 2013 edition of the NWT.

There is a Bible version I have seen that tries to use the word "it" in some of the above but that translation is visibly flawed for it ignores context and the sentence structure of the semantic field of the text from the base language into the target language.

The personal pronoun "he," "him" all refers to the Holy Spirit in the above verses. I would say that Pink is quite justified to use the personal pronoun "he" when writing about the Holy Spirit. If you want we can discuss this some more, let me know.

Your claims regarding the genitive of the phrase "the Spirit of God" I have already shown that this has no substance when it comes down to whether or not the Holy Spirit is a person.

You ask;

"I did not recall you in the past telling me what Bible you are using, and, that would always be helpful when you quote from it."

Thanks for asking, the Bible I prefer is the Greek, and the translations that best reflect the Greek. I have a lot of versions but I do not restrict my usage.

Let's turn to the main question here, the meaning of or our understanding of the apostle Paul's use of Koinonia in 2 Cor. 13:14. Your ask;

"Is this teaching that we  are having fellowship with the holy spirit like we would have fellowship with an individual, or are we sharing something with the holy spirit, or, is the holy spirit being shared with us by someone else."

And then you conclude

"What this text is teaching is that Paul was saying to the congregation in Corinth  that he wished that the grace (  undeserved kindness) and the love of God be with them as well as they  sharing in the  holy spirit that God gives out."

And to you this means that the Holy Spirit is not a person. But to use that kind of reasoning would mean that at 1 Cor. 1:9 where the exact same Greek construction is used, then that would mean that Jesus is not a person, and that we don't "have interpersonal fellowship (relationship)" with Jesus either.

The NWT translation has for 1 Cor. 1:9; "God is faithful, by whom you were called into A SHARING with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord."

What is striking and cannot be overlooked is the parallel of Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit in 2 Cor. 13:14 which indicates clearly that there are three persons involved in this verse, The distinctive personality of each is clearly implied by the independent activity denoted in the threefold operations of grace, love, and "koinonia." Whosoever "koinonia" of the Holy Spirit participates also in the grace of our Lord and in the love of God, the three are inseparable.

I will simplify what I am showing; the Scriptures tell us that Christian's "koinonia" with the Father (1 John 1:6), with Jesus (1 Cor. 1:9), with the Holy Spirit (Phil. 2:1, 2 Cor. 13:14). The experience of "koinonia" exists because of the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit. Those who believe the Bible message are united in the Spirit through the Son to the Father. The three are inseparable and the "koinonia" is with each.

With 2 Cor 13:14, we have a three part combination verse that stress participation, grace, love and “koinonia” equally ascribed to three corresponding persons. What better way to end the letter.

ANSWER: Hi Cos,

I really appreciate the reasoning that you are coming up.  There is just so  much information that we are looking at.  Replying to each and every one is very time time-consuming (which I do not mind) and many aspects actually overlap.  Some can not be fully appreciated or explained without covering other details first.

I also like the fact  that you are not stuck on any one Bible.  You would have noticed that I am not stuck an any one Bible as well, but use a wide variety.  The original Greek text is so important to go back to. It is so unfortunate that we do not have a known 100% accurate copy of the original Greek writings.  The various master Greek texts in use today vary in some way by some minor details, at times enough to alter the English translation considerably.  I have several electronic  Greek Master texts  that I refer to.  They are

Byzantine/Majority Textform
Tischendorf 1872 Greek NT
1881 Westcott-Hort Greek Text  With variant readings from the  UBS 3-4/Nestle 26-27 editions.

Those are  Keyed to Strongs and fully parsed


I also have

UBS 4th revisions
1550 Stephens Textus Receptus
Scriveners  Textus Receptus  1894
Nestle Alands 27 edition
Tregelles  Greek text 1854
Codex Sinaiticus 4th centry
Codex vaticanus  B

These are fully Parsed and keyed to Strongs, Thayer's and, Liddell and Scott's Greek lexicons.  I compare and different texts and the dictionary meanings and usage of words

I appreciate it  if and when you tell me which Bible you are quoting from, it allows me to compare that text with other versions.  

In the last correspondence you covered a lot of materiel of which, so far, I have only replied to a very small portion.  I was wondering if we could stay on one topic at a time.  There is so much in the previous post that needs to be talked about.   I have started to prepare a reply that covers only this statement form yourselves

QUOTE

To use this same logic the way you employ the genitive phrase "the Word of God" (Rev 19:13) must also mean that Jesus is not a person, and because we read in 1 Cor. 1:24 that Christ is "the power of God" and also "the wisdom of God" this would confirm that Jesus is not a person. Would you say that this is the case? I think not.

End Quote

So perhaps we could deal with that in more detail first.  I await your response on that.

While I am here, though, I will will give a reply to this part of what you said above.

QUOTE

Hmmm, John 16:7-8 from the NWT, "Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth, It is for your benefit I am going away. For if I do not go away, the helper will by no means come to you but if I do go my way, I will send HIM to you. And when THAT ONE arrives HE will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin..." (emphasis mine).

Then later in John 16:13-15 again from the NWT, "However, when THAT ONE arrives, the spirit of the truth, HE will guide you into all the truth, for HE will not speak of HIS own impulse, but what HE hears HE will speak, and HE will declare to you the things coming... HE will receive from what is mine...HE receives from what is mine..." (emphasis mine). 

Maybe you think that the Greek here in these places should read "it"...

End Quote

Should I think the Greek here should read “it ”.  The answer is absolutely  NO .  The NWT correctly uses the words “HIM” and ”HE”.  Those masculine pronouns refer to their antecedent  word  “paraklēton” and NOT to the word “pneuma”. The pronouns that can only be used for “pneuma” are neutral pronouns such as “it”  When ever the words “him” and “he” are used in those text mentioned, it refers to the “helper” (paraklēton ).   The holy spirit  (Gods breath or active force) becomes a helper as in my previous examples of wind in a sail, but always remains as an “it”.  

Pink, like so many other theologians has mistakenly taken the “him” and “he” to be referring to the holy spirit and thus have, without cause, applied those pronouns arbitrary to the holy spirit, not only in these texts, but when generally referring to “it” (the holy spirit), disregarding the natural meaning and use of the word ( “pneuma”)  to the Greeks, and to what the Bible writers themselves understood about the use of and meaning of pneuma. Putting ourselves back into the mind set of the Hebrews that penned the Bible and their understanding of pneuma   clears up any misunderstanding that has developed about the “pneuma hagion” (holy spirit).  The idea that the holy spirit was a person developed over several centuries and it was not until the council of Constantinople in 381 AD that  “pneuma hagion” was recognised as a person.  Neither Jesus or his disciples recognised (addressed) the holy spirit as a person.

There were problems  trying to reconcile  this idea that was perceived to have been taught in the NT  with the use of the term  “ hagion pneuma” with the OT (Hebrew) ussage of “qodesh ruwach” (holy spirit).     The expression  “qodesh ruwach” only occurs 3 times in the OT and not in relation to a perceived person, but, as belonging to the God of the Hebrews that he can impart or take away.  Along with all the other uses of the word  ruwach, the NT Bible writers NEVER understood that  the Hebrew word “ruwach” was anything different to the Greek word “pneuma”.  So in understanding what was meant by the Bible writers we MUST look at the words from their standpoint and not the ideas conjured up by men 4 hundred years latter.

Early English Bibles even, before the KJV made the distinction between the “ruach” of the OT and the “pneuma” of the NT by using the term “Holy Ghost” and capitalising the “S” when their theology suggested that “pneuma” was the third person of the trinity.  In the OT the word “ruach” was used in these ways

1) wind, breath, mind, spirit
   1a) breath
   1b) wind
         1b1) of heaven
         1b2) quarter (of wind), side
         1b3) breath of air
         1b4) air, gas
         1b5) vain, empty thing
   1c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation)
         1c1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour
         1c2) courage
         1c3) temper, anger
         1c4) impatience, patience
         1c5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented)
         1c6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable impulse
         1c7) prophetic spirit
    1d) spirit (as seat of emotion)
         1d1) desire
         1d2) sorrow, trouble
    1e) spirit
       1e1) as seat or organ of mental acts
       1e2) rarely of the will
       1e3) as seat especially of moral character


It was never used in relation to a person, even though in Hebrew the word “ruach” is not a neuter word “it”.  In Hebrew it is a feminine word


Getting back to 1 Corinthians 1:9  and 2 Corinthians 13:14.   You are under the impression that they “...where the exact same Greek construction... ”   After closely examining the gramma of both of these, I would suggest, however,  that they are not of the exact same grammatical construction. If that being the case, then your rebuttal does not work.    Why do I say that they are not the same?

A very literal rendering into English of these two verses will shed light on that :

1 Corinthians 1:9
faithful the  God  thru  whom   you-were-called into  "koinonia" (share,communion,  fellowship, participate)  of-the son   of-him  Jesus Christ   the  lord of-us  

God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. (KJV)


2 Corinthians 13:13,14
13 are-greeting you the holy-ones all  14 the grace   of-the  lord  Jesus   Christ  and   the  love of-the  God   and   the   "koinonia" (share,communion,  fellowship, participation) of-the  holy  spirit  with  all   

“13  All the saints greet you. 14  The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”  (RSV)

Some information about the Greek Gramma of those texts will also help.

In First Corinthians the word “koinonian” is in the accusative case, that is,  being the direct object of the verb.  In Second Corinthians the word “koinonia” is in the nominative case, referring to the subject of the sentence.  For the sake of other readers, I will briefly explain the difference by using the following sentence.

Jim, Sue and Julie went to the beach.

“Jim, Sue and Julie”  are in the subject(s) of the sentence, that is, who the sentence is about.

The word “went”  is the verb, telling us what the subjects did

The word “beach” is the direct object of the verb “went”.  It tells us where.  


In First Corinthians the subject of the text is “God”.  The verb is “ekiethete” ( you-were-called) and the direct object is the Greek noun "koinonia" (share, communion, fellowship, participation).  The rest of that text is in the  genitive case describing something that belongs to God (the Son)

We are being told that God called people to be  sharing the benefits of his Son.  In the proceeding verses we learn that by Gods “grace” (his undeserved kindness toward mankind) because through Jesus   we “were enriched in him, in all utterance and all knowledge” (ERV)  We as humans can benefit by the fact that God sent his Son here, first of all to die as a ransom sacrifice and that his teachings lead us to God.

Some people view the  words in Second Corinthians as a Closing Benediction (blessing). That in itself is different from First Corinthians. There are several words that are in the nominative case the subject of this verse. They are “grace”  “love” and "koinonia" (share, communion, fellowship, participation) In the Greek text there is no verb directly associated in verse 14.  English translations add the verb “be” (“be with you all”).   Because there is no verb in this verse, there is also no direct object in the Greek associated with a verb.

Of this passage you said “..we have a three part combination verse that stress participation, grace, love and “koinonia” equally ascribed to three corresponding persons...”  I am finding it difficult to see where you get the word “participation” from. (I assume that you may have been thinking of one of  the English meanings of “koinonia”, if that is the case  you included it twice, if not then I am not sure what your meaning is here. ).  I can see how you come to the conclusion that there are “.. three corresponding persons..” because you have accidentally ascribed gender to the holy spirit.  If you think that the holy spirit is an individual instead of as it is in the Greek an “it”, then the real meaning is missed.  

We are being told in that verse, that we are able to enjoy the benefits of the  “grace” of Jesus, the benefits of the “love” of God and are able to enjoy the benefits of "koinonia" (sharing, partnership, fellowship etc) that God imparts with his holy “pnuema”  (breath / active force / spirit).


I therefore conclude that the two texts (1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor 13:14 ) are not exactly the same, and  what I have said (previously and here) about 2 Cor 13:14 does not mean that 1 Cor. 1:9 precludes  “ that Jesus is not a person".  Each text must be taken on their own merit, and context.







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

QUESTION: Hi Brenton,

You ask:

I appreciate it  if and when you tell me which Bible you are quoting from, it allows me to compare that text with other versions.  

I think that so far I’ve only quoted from the NWT... but I will keep what you ask in mind as we go.

You go on to say;

“I have started to prepare a reply that covers only this statement form yourselves”

QUOTE

To use this same logic the way you employ the genitive phrase "the Word of God" (Rev 19:13) must also mean that Jesus is not a person, and because we read in 1 Cor. 1:24 that Christ is "the power of God" and also "the wisdom of God" this would confirm that Jesus is not a person. Would you say that this is the case? I think not.

End Quote

“So perhaps we could deal with that in more detail first.  I await your response on that.”

When ever you care to expand on this is fine with me, I was expecting something in the other post but that did not come about. You once told me that you can re-send post that was what I was expecting. You can append what you have prepared at the end of this post if you want?

You move on and say;

“When ever the words “him” and “he” are used in those text mentioned, it refers to the “helper” (paraklēton ).

You know I find it bizarre that you will argue that parakletos when used for the Holy Spirit does not refer to a person but here you say that the use of “He” and “Him” is because it is referring back to this very word. That alone argues against your own position.

But more to the point, lets read John 16:13, from the NWT, "However, when that one arrives, THE SPIRIT of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own impulse, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things coming” {emphasis mine}

Who are the pronouns “He” and “Him” referring to in this verse? Read it carefully.

The antecedent to which the “he” and “him” in this verse, and the verses that following, is the Spirit, pneuma! Maybe you missed this, nonetheless, it is a far stretch to try and claim that the antecedent is otherwise. Please look it up in the many Greek text you mention that you have.

You say that Pink and other theologians are mistaken in referring to the Spirit as “he” and “him” yet the Scriptures do just that…someone is mistaken and I don’t think it is Pink or any other theologians.

I just want to mention that your brief look at history is tainted by Watchtower propaganda. And if this comment leads into another topic, then that’s up to you.

You say;

"There were problems  trying to reconcile  this idea that was perceived to have been taught in the NT  with the use of the term  “ hagion pneuma” with the OT (Hebrew) ussage of “qodesh ruwach” (holy spirit).     The expression  “qodesh ruwach” only occurs 3 times in the OT and not in relation to a perceived person, but, as belonging to the God of the Hebrews that he can impart or take away."

It is unwise to base an understand about the Holy Spirit solely from the OT, because you and I both know the NT builds on the OT on many matters. But what we do notice is even in the OT there is clear distinction between God and the Spirit of God/the Holy Spirit, for example see Neh. 9:20, Zech 4:6, Psa. 51:11, Isa 63:10-11.

You go on to say,

Getting back to 1 Corinthians 1:9  and 2 Corinthians 13:14.   You are under the impression that they “...where the exact same Greek construction...”   After closely examining the gramma of both of these, I would suggest, however,  that they are not of the exact same grammatical construction. If that being the case, then your rebuttal does not work.    

I’d like to quote from The Expositor’s Greek Testament regarding 1 Cor. 1:9;

“The κοινωνία τ. υἱοῦ is the same, both in content and constituency, as the κοινωνία τ. πνεύματος (see 1 Cor. 12:13, 2 Cor. 13:13, Php 2:1, Ephesians 4:4-6).”

BDAG also places 1 Cor. 1:9 together with 2 Cor, 13:14 and says that “there is linguistic warrant” for translating these passages the same.

You then go on to say that because the last part of the text of 1 Cor. 1:9 is in the genitive so therefore the meaning is “that God called people to be sharing the benefits of his Son”

What I’d like to know is, from this passage in 1 Cor. 1:9, do we or do we not have an “interpersonal fellowship (relationship)” with the Son?

You go on to question my use of the word “participation” where I said;

“”What is striking and cannot be overlooked is the parallel of Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit in 2 Cor. 13:14 which indicates clearly that there are three persons involved in this verse, The distinctive personality of each is clearly implied by the independent activity denoted in the threefold operations of grace, love, and "koinonia." Whosoever "koinonia" of the Holy Spirit participates also in the grace of our Lord and in the love of God, the three are inseparable.

I will simplify what I am showing; the Scriptures tell us that Christian's "koinonia" with the Father (1 John 1:6), with Jesus (1 Cor. 1:9), with the Holy Spirit (Phil. 2:1, 2 Cor. 13:14). The experience of "koinonia" exists because of the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit. Those who believe the Bible message are united in the Spirit through the Son to the Father. The three are inseparable and the "koinonia" is with each.

With 2 Cor 13:14, we have a three part combination verse that stress participation, grace, love and “koinonia” equally ascribed to three corresponding persons.””

If I was using “participation” for koinonia then I can understand your questioning. I’m not. I believe that koinonia expresses a more intimate meaning in this verse which goes hand in hand with grace and love; and that we are participants of all three. My apology that I wasn’t clearer on this.

Brenton I did not “accidentally ascribed” personhood to the Holy Spirit, it was intentional. You imagine that the verse of 2 Cor. 13 mentions two persons and a ”thingy”; I contend otherwise.

You then conclude by saying that 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor 13:14 are not the same…in 1 Cor 1:9 you say we are “sharing the benefits of his Son” and in 2 Cor 13:14 you say we are “enjoying the benefits of…” the verses are not the same…why…?

Lets once again do our substitution of what you JWs think the Holy Spirit is, remembering that this is what you must always recognize as you read this passage

From the NWT “The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the [active force] be with all of you”

It is quite farcical when the passage is read in this way, but this is how you must read and understand this passage each and every time you come upon it!

Talk with you again soon.<><

Answer
Hi Cos

Thanks for the reply.

Again there is so much in your reply to think about and try to answer, so I am at this time only going to deal with the word  parakletos and if it is the antecedent  of the words “him” and “he” in John  14,15 and 16.    Getting this correct has a big influence on the rest of the discussion about the holy spirit.  All your arguments seem to be based on the mindset that the Bible clearly indicates that the holy spirit is a “he/him”.  From whaty you have said I think you made it quite cleqr that is your perspective

You made the following argument

Quote
But more to the point, lets read John 16:13, from the NWT, "However, when that one arrives, THE SPIRIT of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own impulse, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things coming” {emphasis mine}

Who are the pronouns “He” and “Him” referring to in this verse? Read it carefully. 

The to which the “he” and “him” in this verse, and the verses that following, is the Spirit, pneuma! Maybe you missed this, nonetheless, it is a far stretch to try and claim that the antecedent is otherwise. Please look it up in the many Greek text you mention that you have. 

You say that Pink and other theologians are mistaken in referring to the Spirit as “he” and “him” yet the Scriptures do just that…someone is mistaken and I don’t think it is Pink or any other theologians.

End Quote

You go in to say

Quote
I just want to mention that your brief look at history is tainted by Watchtower propaganda. And if this comment leads into another topic, then that’s up to you.
End Quote

My look at history is not  “tainted by Watchtower propaganda”.  I have looked at secular sources for that.  Can you be absolutely and brutally honest with yourself and honestly say that your outlook on the holy spirit has not been tainted by your religious background.?  I hope after reading this reply you will seriously consider that.

So, I will do what you suggested, and look closely at John 16:13 .  I will also be looking at John 14:26, 15:26 16:7 .    No one text can be taken on its own.  The whole Bible is a message from God and so the whole Bible needs to be considered when examining any one text. So all these have a bearing on understanding who the antecedent is of the pronouns “he” and “him”.  I am going to assume that your taking the position that the nearest noun (in this case pneuma/spirit)  is the antecedent of “him” and “he”.  Many trinitarian scholars have came to the same conclusion. Most of the adherents of this view simply assert the argument, but do not provide reasons for it. The only thing that they come up is the proximity of the noun pneuma to the pronouns.   I want to demonstrated that the nearest noun does not necessitate that it is the antecedent of a pronoun, and in the case of the accounts in John under discussion this is the case.

(For other readers the who may not be familiar with some words,  In a grammatical setting, the “antecedent” is a word such as a noun that is replaced by a pronoun later in the sentence or paragraph)

First a I will give the Greek with a very literal English translation in ( )   then the KJV followed by the NWT of each text

John 14:26

ὁ (the ) δὲ (yet ) παράκλητος, (parakletos ) τὸ (the ) πνεῦμα  (spirit ) τὸ (the ) ἅγιον, (holy ) ὃ  (which ) πέμψει  (shall-be-sending ) ὁ (the ) πατὴρ (father ) ἐν (in ) τῷ  (the ) ὀνόματί  (name ) μου, (of-me ) uἐκεῖνος  (that one ) ὑμᾶς (you ) διδάξει (shall-be-teaching ) πάντα (all ) καὶ  (and ) ὑπομνήσει  (shall-be-reminding ) ὑμᾶς (you ) πάντα  (all ) ἃ (which ) εἶπον (I-said ) ὑμῖν  (to-you )

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”  (KJV)

“But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you” (NWT)

John 15:26

Ὅταν (whenever ) de (yet ) ἔλθῃ  (may-be-comming ) ὁ  (the ) παράκλητος (parakletos ) ὃν (whom ) ἐγὼ (I ) πέμψω (shall-be-sending ) ὑμῖν (to-you ) παρὰ  (beside ) τοῦ (the ) πατρός,  (father ) τὸ  (the ) πνεῦμα  (spirit ) τῆς (of-the ) ἀληθείας  (truth ) ὃ (which ) παρὰ (beside ) τοῦ  (the ) πατρὸς  (father ) ἐκπορεύεται, (is-going -out ) ἐκεῖνος  (that-one ) μαρτυρήσει (shall-be-testefying ) περὶ (about ) ἐμοῦ (me

“ But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me” (JKV)

“When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me” (NWT)

John 16:7

ἀλλ᾽ (but ) ἐγὼ (I ) τὴν (the ) ἀλήθειαν (truth ) λέγω  (am-telling ) ὑμῖν, (you ) συμφέρει  (it-is-being-expedient ) ὑμῖν (to-you ) ἵνα (that ) ἐγὼ (I ) ἀπέλθω. (may-be-commimg-away ) ἐὰν (if-ever ) γὰρ  (for ) μὴ (no ) ἀπέλθω, (may-be-commimg-away ) ὁ (the ) παράκλητος (parakletos ) οὐκ (not ) ἐλεύσεται (shall-be-comming )  πρὸς (toward ) ὑμᾶς· (you ) ἐὰν (if-ever ) δὲ (yet ) πορευθῶ, (I-may-be-being-gone ) πέμψω (I-shall-be-sending ) αὐτὸν (him ) πρὸς (toward ) ὑμᾶς (you )

“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” (KJV)

“Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you.” (NWT)

The NWT uses the personal pronoun “him” here, why?   Because it is what the Greek texts says. The Greek uses αὐτὸν (him ) .   The word αὐτὸν is a singular masculine “personal pronoun ”.  This pronoun refers back to its antecedent "the  advocate (helper)". The holy spirit is not mentioned in this text so it is very easy to find the antecedent of αὐτὸν .

John 16:13
(Please be aware of the 5 [ NOTES ] )

ὅταν  (when-ever ) δὲ (yet ) ἔλθῃ (may-be-comimg ) ἐκεῖνος, (that-one ) τὸ (the ) πνεῦμα (spirit ) τῆς  (of-the ) ἀληθείας, (truth ) ὁδηγήσει (shall-be-guiding ) [ NOTE 1 ] ὑμᾶς (you ) ἐν (into ) πάσῃ (all ) τῇ  (the ) ἀληθείᾳ (truth )   οὐ  (not ) γὰρ (for  ) λαλήσει (shall-be-talking ) [ NOTE 2 ]  ἀφ ’ (from )  ἑαυτοῦ  (self ) [ NOTE 3 ] ἀλλ  (but )    ὅσα  (as-much-as ) an   (ever ) ἀκούσει  (should-be-hearing ) [ NOTE 4 ]  λαλήσει (shall-be-talking ) [ NOTE 2 ] καὶ  (and  )  τὰ  (the )  ἐρχόμενα  (things-coming ) ἀναγγελεῖ   (shall-be-informing ) [ NOTE 5 ]  ὑμῖν  (you )      

“Howbeit when he , the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth for he shall not speak of himself [ NOTE 3 ] ; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak : and he will shew you things to come.” (KJV)

“However, when that one comes , the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth , for he will not speak of his [ NOTE 3 ] own initiative, but what he hears he will speak , and he will declare to you the things to come” (NWT)

[ NOTE 1 ] the Greek word ὁδηγήσει (it-shall-be-guiding ) used here is a verb in the indicative mood not a pronoun.
[ NOTE 2 ] the Greek word λαλήσει (shall-be-talking ) used here is a verb in the indicative mood    not a pronoun
[ NOTE 4 ] the Greek word ἀκούσει  (should-be-hearing )    used here is a verb in the Subjunctive Mood,    not a pronoun
[ NOTE 5 ] the Greek word ἀναγγελεῖ   (shall-be-informing )   used here is a verb in the  indicative mood    not a pronoun

(If readers would like to know the function of these verbs are go to http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#INDICATIVE)

As verbs these have no gender assigned to them as do nouns and pronouns.  It is the up to the translators to decide on context and flow of reading if  a personal pronoun should be included in the sentence with these verbs.  In this case the translators have used the personal pronoun “he”.  This pronoun does not refer to the “spirit of truth”, but refers back the word ἐκεῖνος, (that-one ) which refers back to parakletos.

[ NOTE 3 ]   the Greek word ἑαυτοῦ  (self ) is a reflexive pronoun. The function of the reflexive pronoun expresses action of the subject upon itself.  The subject of the discussion is the  parakletos.

In the Greek texts above we find   ἐκεῖνος, (that-one ) .  The KJV renders that as ”he” while the NWT says “that one” (so does the Greek interlinear software that I used)   The Greek word  ἐκεῖνος is not a personal pronoun . In its use here, it is  a single masculine  demonstrative pronoun.  [For readers who what to know what that a demonstrative pronoun means go to  http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/parts-of-speech/pronouns/what-is-a-demonstrati  then you can decide for yourselves which rendering you think best suites the context. ]

The question is to which noun does  pronoun  ἐκεῖνος (“that one” or “he”) belong to.

Lets just go back to John 14:26 and the phrase “ the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name”. In gramma this is known as an “appositive” phrase. Appositives interrupt the flow of a sentence momentarily to add more information, but then the sentence returns to what it was saying before. (for a definition and examples see http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/appositive_apposition.htm).  Here in John the appositive phrase is  employed to provide further detail about παράκλητος (the advocate/helper).   Therefore the words  “that one” refers back to “the parakletos,” and, it is masculine because its antecedent is masculine. So, in this verse we do not have grammatical grounds to argue that the spirit is a person.


Looking at John 15:26 the phrase “ the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father” is also an appositive phrase and is further description in reference to  παράκλητος (the advocate/helper)

Looking now at the text that is the subject of this post John 16:13 we have a similar appositive phrase “ the spirit of the truth”.  But does ἐκεῖνος  (“that one” or “he”) belong to that phrase? The answer is no.  We have to go back to verse 7 to find the referent


Noted trinitarian scholar and  professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary  Daniel B Wallace (author of books such as “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of New Testament Greek”.)  has this to say about the subject

QUOTE
“The first two passages, John 14:26 and 15:26, can be handled together. In both of them, πνεῦμα is appositional to a masculine noun,  rather than the subject of the verb. The gender of ἐκεῖνος thus has nothing to do with the natural gender of πνεῦμα. The antecedent of ἐκεῖνος, in each case, is  παράκλητος, not πνεῦμα.”   END QUOTE  page 104

He further goes on to tell us that there is a very large sentence between verse 7 and verse 13

QUOTE
“First, regarding the flow of argument, it should be noted at the outset that, although the παράκλητος is introduced in v. 7 and is not mentioned again by name, this Counselor never really disappears. The intervening material (16:8-11) keeps the παράκλητος ever before the reader in a way that is impossible to miss, since vv. 8-11 constitute one sentence in Greek, with ἐκεῖνος, (v. 8) as the lone subject …. Yet, as soon as v. 12 disrupts the flow of thought ("I have many more things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now"), the Paraclete is immediately brought back into view by the resumptive ἐκεῖνος, followed by his identification as to πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας. Thus, in spite of the distance between παράκλητος in v. 7 and ἐκεῖνος in v. 13, since the παράκλητος never really fades from view throughout the discourse, the masculine gender of ἐκεῖνος can easily be accounted for on grounds other than the Spirit's personality. “  END QUOTE (italics original) Page 110

On page 111, Wallace gives us an example of a very large distance between the antecedent and its referent

QUOTE
“one of the most remarkable examples of an absentee referent is found in Mark 6:31-8:26. In the span of ninety verses, "Jesus" is not mentioned once. Nor is any other identifying noun that refers to him. Instead, he is kept in view largely by pronouns. Yet, even here, the pronouns are relatively sparse: they appear in only 29 of the 90 verses, or approximately once every 40 words. The point is that referential distancing is not out of the ordinary for pronoun usage— even in the less-refined writers.”
End Quote

The conclusion that Wallace comes to is

QUOTE
In sum, in John 16:13 the ἐκεῖνος is best explained as reaching back to v. 7, where παράκλητος is mentioned. Thus, since παράκλητος is masculine, so is the pronoun. Although one might argue that the Spirit's personality is in view in the Upper Room Discourse, the view must be based on the nature of a παράκλητος and the things said about the Counselor, not on any alleged grammatical subtleties. The fact is that, in all of John's Gospel, the only time a masculine pronoun is used concerning the πνεῦμα is in relation to ὁ παράκλητος . This suggests that the philological argument in John 14-16 may be a case of petitio principii. END QUOTE  page 111

The above quotes can be found at  
https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2003a_05_Wallace_HolySpirit.pdf


The words petitio principii. Have this definition “a logical fallacy in which a premise is assumed to be true without warrant or in which what is to be proved is implicitly taken for granted “  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/petitio%20principii

I only found that material by Wallace today as I was researching this subject.  What I found of benefit to this discussion is that we (JWs) have maintained that there are no occurrences of the holy spirit being refereed to in the Bible as a “he”, and that it is always refereed to in the neutral gender “it”.  I have made several comments about that.  

Now, here we have a confirmed  trinitarian scholar, who lectures at various universities, seminaries, churches, including the  Southeastern Baptist Seminary and New Orleans Baptist Seminary,   whose books are used in teaching Biblical Greek  agreeing with what I have been saying. In that paper I point to, Wallace looks at various scholars that hold the view that you do and says why they are mistaken.  He also looks at seeming contradictions in the use of grammatical rules where neutral words may at times have the appearance of referring to a gender (he/her) noun.  In spite of all the examples he gives he has this to say about  πνεῦμα

Quote
 “The fact is that, in all of John's Gospel, the only time a masculine pronoun is used concerning the πνεῦμα is in relation to ὁ παράκλητος” as quoted above, and, that although many scholars seem to think that the passages under discussion where the masculine pronouns are used seem to refer to the πνεῦμα  note what he says  ... “That is to say, these passages seem to refer to the Spirit with the masculine gender in spite of the fact that πνεῦμα IS neuter , and grammatical concord would normally require that any reference to the Spirit also be in the neuter gender ”  END QUOTE page 97   (All emphasis mine)

No where is the holy spirit every given a masculine slant in the NT.  it is never refereed to by the Bibles writers as "he" or "him".  From their Hebrew background they knew that ruach (pneuma) is never used to describe a "spirit person".  Those that were used to pen the Bible  understood that  is that  ruach (pneuma) always refereed to some form of "force" as per the various uses above

When John wrote that God was a "spirit" he is describing the nature of God, an invisible unseen person that exercises unsurpassed force throughout the universe (Isa 40:25-31)


You said  

QUOTE
It is unwise to base an understand about the Holy Spirit solely from the OT, because you and I both know the NT builds on the OT on many matters. But what we do notice is even in the OT there is clear distinction between God and the Spirit of God/the Holy Spirit, for example see Neh. 9:20, Zech 4:6, Psa. 51:11, Isa 63:10-11.
End Quote

The whole Bible MUST be considered as one message form God  as 2 Timothy 3:16  tells us “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching , for reproving, for setting things straight , for disciplining in righteousness” (NWT).  To an extent the NT builds on aspects of the OT.  This is in area of the law code – The old law code mediated by Moses was replaced with a new one that is summed up in one word “Love”.  Jesus also fulfilled the messianic prophecies. Emphasis was now placed not accepting people from the gentile nations as his people [Acts 15:14 “ Simeon  has reported how God first intervened to take from the Gentiles a people for His name” (HCSB) ].  Not a physical nation but, a spiritual nation,  [Romans 2:28,29 ”For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29  But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.”(ESV) ]  However, the core ideas taught in the OT did not change, that is that the Almighty God that the Hebrews worshipped was Jehovah, and that the holy spirit was Never a person, Gods purpose for the earth and mankind  never changed as well. So yes the meanings and uses of the word ruach  to the Hebrew writes had a marked meaning on  pneuma in NT and the way it was used.  It is the same.  

The line of reasoning I have been perusing shows that any reference to the holy spirit must be looked at very carefully in light of both gramma and the way that the Hebrew writers understood it and not in the way that was developed some four centuries later.  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


Brenton Hepburn

Expertise

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 . . . . .

Experience

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.

Education/Credentials
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 About.com. All rights reserved.