Jehovah`s Witness/About 11 incorrect views on Jesus creation by his God and Father
Ho Bro. Hepburn I read an Allexperts answer about the trinity, could you please correct these 11 incorrections he put below his quote on behalf of all readers, thank you.
"Since the Bible clearly shows Jesus to be eternal in several passages, we can safely conclude from that fact alone, that Rev. 3:14 is not teaching that Jesus was created. Some passages which show Jesus' eternal nature, are...."
1.) Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
2.)Isaiah 9:6- "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
3.)Hebrews 7:3- "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."
4.)Rev. 1:17- "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:"
5.)Colossians 1:16-17- "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
6.)John 1:1-2- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God."
As we can see from the above verses, most notably the last one from the Gospel of John, Jesus was in the beginning with God, and Himself possesses the nature of God. It does not say He was the first thing God created...it says He was there with God, in the beginning.
In short, there is no Scripture that states that Jesus was created. There are the 3 passages that you listed, which are often used to support this view, by those who hold to it.
7.)In Rev. 3:14, something important needs to be noted. The phrase "the beginning", is from the word "arche", which is also where we get our word "architect". Jesus can rightly be said to be the "Architect" of God's creation. Another usage of this word "arche", is "origin". Jesus can be said to be the Origin of God's creation, which would make Him the CREATOR, and not a creation.
According to Strong's Concordance, this word can carry a variety of meanings. Such as:
the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
(This would be the usage that the JWs would adhere to)
"that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause"
(This is the view that Trinitarian Christians such as myself, adhere to)
Both are possible uses of the phrase "arche", but as stated above, the correct rendering would be determined in large part, by the teaching of the Bible as a whole. And the clear Biblical teaching, is that Jesus is the Creator, and not a creation. Therefore, this verse should not be used to contradict the clear Bible teaching, when it can so easily be harmonized with it.
On to the next Scripture....
8.) Colossians 1:15- "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:"
Unfortunately, this is one passage where the JW's NEW WORLD TRANSLATION , has overstepped its authority. In its zeal to make Jesus a created Being, they have added the word "other" exactly 4 times in verses 16-17, with no warrant whatsoever. In older editions of the NWT, the word "other" was placed in brackets (indicating it was an addition, not found in the manuscripts), but in the newest edition, the brackets have been removed, giving the false impression that the word "other" belongs there. It does not. It is an addition by the translators, in order to give the passage a doctrinal slant.
This passage, reading all the way to verse 18, is very clear that Jesus is the Creator, not a creation. In fact, the entire passage CONTRASTS Him with creation...not make Him a part of it. It shows His superiority over creation.
That is one of the reasons I quoted verses 16-17, in my discussion on the passage in Revelation. Those verses eliminate any and all possibility, of Jesus merely being a creation. If all you had was this passage of Scripture, and had never read any Watchtower explanation, and no Trinitarian explanation, would you come away thinking that Jesus was the Creator of everything, or Himself a creation? The passage speaks for itself.
Now, the confusion comes in, with the phrase in v. 15, "firstborn of every creature ".
It is important to remember that the word "Firstborn", does not always carry the same meaning in every passage. In other words, it does not always mean "first one born", as would seem at first glance. It actually sometimes refers to a position of pre-eminence...see verse 18.
Sometimes the word "firstborn" does mean "first one born"....such as, "Firstborn of Pharaoh" In this example, the "firstborn of Pharaoh", is Pharaoh's first son. If you use the phrase "firstborn" in this same exact parallel manner, it would be saying that Jesus was the "first son" or "offspring" of creation. But this is the exact opposite of what the entire passage is saying. Creation didn't "parent" Christ. Christ parented creation, according to the verses that follow verse 15. To understand "firstborn of every creature" to mean that Christ was the "first child of", or a product of creation, simply contradicts the rest of the passage, and is clearly not the intended usage.
Another usage of "firstborn", is "Ruler" or "Heir". It is a designation of pre-eminence. This is clearly the meaning in this context.
But once again, the first clue that the JW understanding of this passage is incorrect, should be in the fact that they had to add the word "other" 4 separate times in 2 verses, in order to make those verses teach that Jesus was a creation, in order to harmonize the rest of the passage with their viewpoint. If they had not added "other" those 4 times, then verses 16-17 show Jesus being the Creator of ALL things, which would contradict their understanding of verse 15.
9.)Proverbs 8:22- "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old."
This is a passage of Scripture that should never be used to prove Jesus was created, because this passage is not even speaking of Jesus. I realize the JWs (and even some Christian theologians) have a tendency to try and make this verse about Jesus Christ, but it simply isn't. And there is no good reason to try and make it such.
First of all, we are clearly told in the chapter itself, what it is about....Wisdom. In fact, one should not just read Proverbs chapter 8 alone, but the first 9 chapters of the Book, because the entire discourse is Wisdom PERSONIFIED...giving something that is non-human (wisdom), a description and qualities, as if it were human.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the "wisdom" in chapter 8, is a different "wisdom" than the "wisdom" spoken of in the other chapters. In fact, if one reads the first 9 chapters of Proverbs, the entire discourse has a consistent flow. Its all talking about the same quality...Wisdom. Wisdom is given personal qualities.
Wisdom is also spoken of with FEMALE pronouns (hardly applicable to a male Messiah).
If we are to take the "wisdom" spoken of in Proverbs chapter 8 to be a description of Jesus Christ, then we would have a huge problem, because this "wisdom" is also described as female, and dwells with someone named "prudence".
10.)Proverbs 8:1-3- "Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors."
11.)Proverbs 8:12- "I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions."
I think it should be plain to see, that this is simply a passage, 9 chapters to be exact, of giving human attributes to the quality of wisdom. There is simply no reason at all, to connect this passage with Jesus Christ being a created Being.
And even if someone wants to insist that it is referring to Jesus, in the absence of any such evidence, it still would not teach that Jesus is created.
The NWT rendering of the word "qanah", as "produced", is unfortunate. The KJB rendering is better, as it says "possessed".
I make this point, because after showing that the entire passage is speaking specifically of "WISDOM", some JWs might try to say that "Jesus is the wisdom of God".
But that is also problematic, because that would imply that there was a time when Jehovah was WITHOUT wisdom. Obviously, that is not the case. Wisdom is not something created by God...It is an eternal attribute of God. It is something He has always possessed...not something He later on created.
For those reason, I would say that Proverbs 8:22 should not, and cannot be used to support the idea that Jesus is a created Being.
End of quote:
Bro Hepburn I notice Derrick used to much personal interpretation and personal words such as " I would say..." And alot of contradictions to the scriptures by adding his own personal meaning and not allowing to let scripture interpret scripture.
Again is Derrick correct on all '11' things things here about Jesus correction???????????????!.
How are things in Texas (somehow, when you ask a question we get told where the question originates from)
Thank you for your question. First of all, I want to thank you for showing respect for Derricks beliefs.
There is a lot of information in your questions that will take time to answer, so in this post I will answer some of them. Please ask for more details later.
I went and had a look to see what you were talking about. I noticed that in the question that was asked of Derrick, Kay mentioned 3 key texts that we use to show that Jesus was created. They are “Revelation 3:14, Colossians 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22.”
In this reply I am only dealing with his response to Revelation 3:14 and the texts he uses to substantiate his understanding that our view is wrong.
First I have to agree with Derrick in that
“A good rule to remember, is that a correct interpretation of a verse of Scripture, will not be contradictory to another verse of Scripture...because the Bible doesn't contradict itself. If there is an apparent contradiction, there are a couple of possible reasons:”
I would also add that a correct translation is also important. That is where Derrick and I differ. He insists that the only Bible that we should use is the KJV. As far as I can remember, I believe he understands that KJV is actually an inspired version of the Bible. I will argue that there does not exist an inspired version of the Bible. The only inspired version was the original. We only have copies of copies of copies. The KJV, New Testament, is a translation of relatively new Greek texts that had been copied many times for 1200 years. The txt that the KJV translators used had been edited several times, and added to, by two different people. It is not a translation from of the oldest texts that had least time for errors to creep in. But, that is another story.
I looked at the original question that was asked of Derrick and In that series of texts that you gave me I see a pattern of what Derrick was trying to convey and that is, that to him those texts show that Jesus has always exsisted. I did not see where Derrick explained the texts. I assume he sees them as self explanatory
Before that list of texts he says
Since the Bible clearly shows Jesus to be eternal in several passages, we can safely conclude from that fact alone, that Rev. 3:14 is not teaching that Jesus was created. Some passages which show Jesus' eternal nature, are...
And afterward he says
As we can see from the above verses, most notably the last one from the Gospel of John, Jesus was in the beginning with God, and Himself possesses the nature of God. It does not say He was the first thing God created...it says He was there with God, in the beginning.
So he is saying that, “At first glace, I can see how someone might arrive at the conclusion that this verse is stating that Jesus is the first thing created by God.”
he believes those texts contradict or counter that view. So lets look at those these.
Some of the words used in the texts that Derrick gave, I consider as not translated correctly. I hope I can show why.
In Micah 5:2
we find the words “ from everlasting”. This rendering gives the reader the idea that Jesus always existed, without a beginning. Since Derrick refereed to Strongs Concordance, I will as well. The word “everlasting” is a translation of the Hebrew word עולם (‘owlam) and it is true that it can be translated as “everlasting” or perpetutaul. In Strongs Hebrew Concordance it is word number <5769>. There are a variety of meanings for this word. Other meanings given for this word include but not limited to “ always:— alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, , lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), at any time, (beginning of the) world”
Another Hebrew Dictionary “Gesenius' Hebrew -- Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament “ says this about this word in part
“what is hidden; specially hidden time, long; the beginning or end of which is either uncertain or else not defined....
(1) of time long past, antiquity...
(2) it more often refers to future time...
The idea of “everlasting”, as in no beginning, is not considered. The basic idea means an uncertain time, one we do not know when it began, it is undefined. The idea is of a long time in the past. But the idea of everlasting into the future is considered, that is to an undefined point in the future.
The KJV translators recognised that there are other meanings. Here are a few examples
“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old <5769>
, men of renown.”
“Remember the days of old <5769>
, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.”
“And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites: for those nations were of old <5769>
the inhabitants of the land, as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt”
“Remember, O LORD, thy tender mercies and thy lovingkindnesses; for they have been ever of old <5769>
“I remembered thy judgments of old <5769>
, O LORD; and have comforted myself.”
Hast thou marked the old <5769>
way which wicked men have trodden
“Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time <5769>
, which was before us.”
Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old <5769>
. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?
And of whom hast thou been afraid or feared, that thou hast lied, and hast not remembered me, nor laid it to thy heart? have not I held my peace even of old <5769>
, and thou fearest me not?
In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old <5769>
Then he remembered the days of old <5769>
, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?
The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old <5769>
prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence.
He hath set me in dark places, as they that be dead of old <5769>
When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old <5769>
, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old <5769>
Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old <5769>
Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old <5769>
, and as in former years.”
I chose that texts for a reason. Please notice the way these Bibles render the last part of Micah 5:2
“From the days of ages.” Calvin Bible
“ from ancient days.” English Standard Version
“ to days long ago.” Gods Word to the Nations
“from the days of the ages.” Jubilee 2000
“from most ancient days.” 1853 Leesser Old Testament
“from the days of long ago” New World Translation
“from the days of old” 1868 Noyes
“ from ancient days.” Revised Standard Bible
“From the days of antiquity.” Youngs Literal translation
Did you notice anything about those version’s? They all include the word “days”. The KJV does not. It says “of old, from everlasting.” The KJV has excluded a word. In the Hebrew text the word “days” is found. All the Bibles that I looked at that used the word “everlasting” missed,- excluded, - dropped, the word days.
Ask your self does the wording “of old, from days everlasting” sound correct or do the other renderings sound more correct. Please look back up the list to De 32:7; Isa 63:11; Am 9:11; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4;
Did you notice the rendering in the KJV at Mic 7:14
The KJV translates this correctly here. Check out the interlinear of this and Mic 5:2
The question you must ask your self is why would the KJV miss out the word “days”” in Mic 5:2
but include it in chapter 7? Was it to put forward the eternal existence of Jesus according to their theology? If the renderings that do not suggest eternal existence are correct (as the evidence tells us
) then there is no contradiction in the three passages that the we use to show Jesus was created.
A few words about Isaiah 9:6
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
The first thing to know about is that the KJV adds words to this text. In the Hebrew the definite article “the” is not there. The KJV has added it. The correct rendering of that last part of that text is “ shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” It is one name not plural names. The Hrebrew word here for name means more that just a name “ שׁם shem through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character: — + base, [in-]fame[-ous], named(-d), renown, report.” (Strongs word number 8034)
The words “everlasting Father” must be read in the context of that text. Notice it says that his name (keep in mind the meaning
) “will be called”. It is talking of a future time, not past
time. This text does not point to if Jesus had a beginning, or not, or to if he always existed, or not. It is looking at the future. Because Jesus gave his life as a ransom for us he becomes a father in the sense that he is the means that we can have everlasting life.
Here are some interesting way this text is rendered
“Father for ever,” Bible In Basic English
“Father of the age,” Calvin Bible
“Father of Eternity,” Darby
“Father of the world to come,” Douay
Or as many Bibles say “eternal father” - pointing to future time
The word for “everlasting” in this text is different from the one in Mic 5:2
The words has a very similar meanings. עד ‘ad means “properly, a (peremptory) terminus, i.e. (by implication) duration, in the sense of advance or perpetuity (substantially as a noun, either with or without a preposition):—eternity, ever(-lasting, more), old, perpetually, + world without end.” (Strongs word number 5703) It is pointing to the future
Now Hebrews 7:3
Derrick quotes without giving context. He himself said
“2. Failing to take into account the context....when something was written, and to whomit was written”
What is the context of the verse? First I will present it form the KJV starting in Hebrew 6:20
and going through to Hebrew 7:3
, then I will present it from the Bible In Basic English
Hebrews 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Hebrews 6:20 Where Jesus has gone before us, as a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
7:1 For this Melchizedek, the king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God, who gave Abraham his blessing, meeting him when he came back after putting the kings to death,
2 And to whom Abraham gave a tenth part of everything which he had, being first named King of righteousness, and then in addition, King of Salem, that is to say, King of peace;
3 Being without father or mother, or family, having no birth or end to his life, being made like the Son of God, is a priest for ever.”
What are we being told. That Jesus is to be a king/priest. This is very different to the Hebrew arranging. When Kings were finally appointed, they were to have no roll in the temple as priest, and priest were not to be kings. But now Jesus was to be both King and Priest. There is an example in the OT at the time of Abraham of a man that served as both King and Priest. His name being “Melchizedek”. This was well before the nation of Israel. We have no record of the genealogy of this man. So we do not know who his parent were or who his siblilngs opr extended family were. We also have no record of his death.
Again notice the last part of that text “abideth a priest continually” (JKV) “ is a priest for ever” (BBE). It is talking of a future event not past.
Do we know who the mother and father of Jesus was? Yes. Mary was the Mother, and God was the father, yet the text says without mother of father. That is not a reference to Jesus but to Melchizedek.
That text dose not teach us that Jesus had no beginning so it does not contradict the three texts mentioned that we use
Does Revelation 1:17
teach that Jesus had no beginning? NO. We need to look at the context again. How was Jesus the first and the last. (that is different to the alpha and omega. Derrick might point to verse 11 but most scholars will admit this there are words in that verse that are added. KJV Only people will disagree
A clue as to what is meant in verse 17 by “the first and the last” is found in verse 18 “ I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore,” Here we find that at one time Jesus was dead. Looking at Revelation 2:8
we are told “These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive”
In Colossians 1:18
we find these words in reference to Jesus “the firstborn
from the dead”. This indicates that Jesus was the first human to have been raised to heaven. It is also our understanding that Jesus was the last human to have been directly resurrected to heaven By God. Jesus becomes the instrument, or, agency through which all other such resurrections take place.
tells us “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live”)
In 1 Corinthians 15:20
we find a similar thought to Colossians 1:18
“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits
of them that slept.”
Look closely at Colossians 1:16-17
there is nothing in that text that tells us Jesus had no beginning. "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:”
It tells us that by the agency of Jesus all things were made. Now look closely at these words “ all things created, ... in heaven, …. and invisible, …. thrones, ... or powers: all things were created by him, and for him”
The NWT adds the word “other” to this text for good reason, it is implied. Without the word other, and without considering the context, this text would teach that Jesus created the Father. People insist that the word “all” means universal. The truth is, in the NT it rarely does so. Now suppose it did have a universal meaning what is the consequence of that?
Look at those words I picked out. Ask yourself, is God (the Father) in Heaven? Is God (the Father) invisible? Does God (the Father) have a throne and does he have power or authority? The idea of the trinity teaches that the Father, Son and holy spirit are three separate and distinct individuals. So if Jesus universally created “ALL THINGS” that would include the Father.
In that subject alone I can produce much more evidence, but that will do for now
Does John 1:1 teach that Jesus was before all things? Some think so. I will argue no. I will argue that Jesus was before the creation of the physical heavens and earth. I will argue that, that is the meaning of “in the beginning” - the beginning of the physical universe. Before the heavens and earth were created, all the heavenly hosts were created. Does John's beginning mean them as well. Most people tie those words in with Genesis 1"1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" That is talking about our literal, physical heavens and earth.
I will also argue that the KJV rendering of “and the Word was God” is a theological biased translation that does not follow rules of Greek Grammar. That however is a long discussion and I will leave that for another time.
There is more that I could write on the above texts but I will leave them for you or someone else to ask about if what I have given is not sufficient.
I haven't even touched on the Greek use of the word “arche”. The word arche in Revelation 3:14
actually does refer to beginning and I will demonstrate that if you want to ask about it
Derrick gives his take on the three texts that we use to support the truth that Jesus was created. I could spend a great deal of time on each one of those countering the arguments that Derrick as produced.
If you want to write and ask some more, please do so, but may I please ask that you wait a few days.
I look forward to continuing the discution.