AboutBrenton Hepburn Expertise I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I can answer questions on the reliability of the NWT, the so called mind control problems, so called prophecies, and general practices and history of Jehovah’s Witnesses.....
>>>>WARNING<<<<<< ....Please be aware that there are at least ... 3 .... people here who ARE NOT practicing JWs and, (at other times there have been as many as 5.) These ones will, at times, appear to have an agenda against JWs., and will often 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 them 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
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 yrars untill SEP 2009 when I gave it up.
Question If your presoposed belief is either trinitarian or not, because Greek has less words their meaning will always be emplied by what you already believe is the correct way to translate the passage. Even how greek scholarship is reviewed. I do understand this principle, as it also must necisitates a position by the watchtower/Jehovah's Witness, in which a valid schollarly conclusion must be made, otherwise there is no basis for belief.
This goes the same way as to say "Mighty one" should be inserted everywhere where the word Theos is used and is not accurate because the nature of the use of the word in most cases almost always is specific. It has to be inferred (presupositionally) to be imposed in such a way, wheras, in scripture when it is used in such a way the context is quite specific.
While the JW position is to say that it has to be translated "a God", by the same token how could John have written "God was the word" which is the only alternate way to write the passage, when of course the subject is the word. I think every greek schollar understands what John meant was that the word was equal but no less than God, therefore the default translation becomes was God (which is also not necessarily accurate to the greek meaning either). While they also understand that it was common to leave the "a" anarthrous off, in other words to put an a while not always done is not only inferred but in some cases when translated to english can completely change the meaning of the text. The problem is that it implies that Jesus is less than God (apprentice), which cannot from my understanding be drawn out from the greek meaning in the text but is in english once an a is included. Whether you say it has to be inserted or not. This is why it then becomes inconsistent with the greek to translate to english and put an "a" as it then changes the meaning that is not their in the Greek. You are incorrect in saying it is only trinitarian schollars that hold this position (however 100% of those the Watchtower quotes seem to be trinitarians) and even those Greek Schollars (not JW's or Mormons for example) almost all seem to uphold the same position.
The builder and apprentice as an anology asumes to start with that the two are not equal. For this to be accurate the Apprentice could not say, I and the Father are one & who has seen me has seen the father. If you used the analogy of the Son and the Father (which seems to be biblically accurate as this is the "anology" used in scripture), understanding the enlgish culture the Father is again always greater than the Son but in Jewish culture the firstborn son is always equal to the Father. This is why when Jesus claims to be sit at the right hand of the Father, the high priest cries out Blasphemy, or when any other similar reference found throughout the New Testament Gospels where the people try to find some way to kill him, because of the claim not of just some deity (which any lunatic would be forgiven for) but because it meant he was claiming equality with God as the only begotten son.
Answer Hi Michael,
As I breifly mentined on the other reply, I am on vacation, and forgot to mark this on my profile, so I do not have at this time all the information with me. After the 23 July send me a brief note so that I can reply to you in more detail.
While I am away I sometimes log in to check my email by using www.mail2web.com
Brenton
Follow up reply
Hello Michael.
Sorry for the delay but I forgot about this question until today when I was looking through the list of questions I had already answered.
In part you are correct, the word "a" or "an" has to be assumed according to context. The context must dictate when to insert the indefinite article ("a" or "an") The context of John 1 does indicate that the indefinite article be used, otherwise as you say the meaning can, and in this case, does change. I will come back to that.
I have been trying to go back through the other correspondences we have had in regard to your comment
"This goes the same way as to say "Mighty one" should be inserted everywhere where the word Theos is used and is not accurate because the nature of the use of the word in most cases almost always is specific."
From my re reading of that I, do not think I was saying "Mighty one" should be inserted, I was just saying that was the basic meaning of the word "god" that applied to all that are called "gods". So I agree with you "because the nature of the use of the word in most cases almost always is specific"
You are correct in that the illustration of the builder and the apprentice is implying that Jesus is less than God. So how can Jesus say "I and the Father are one & who has seen me has seen the father"
We can start to understand what Jesus was saying here by referring to John 17:17-26. As we read this passage we see how Jesus is illustrating the relationship he has with his disciples with the relationship he has with his father. Please notice this prayer of Jesus to his Father (Capitals mine) "17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As THOU DIDST SEND me into the world, so I HAVE SENT them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that THEY may ALL BE ONE; EVEN as thou, FATHER, art IN ME, and I IN THEE, that THEY also may BE IN US, so that the world may believe that THOU HAST SENT me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that THEY MAY BE ONE even AS WE ARE ONE, 23 I IN THEM and THOU IN ME, that THEY may BECOME perfectly ONE, so that the world may know THAT THOU hast sent me and HAST LOVED THEM even AS THOU HAST LOVED ME.
24 Father, I DESIRE THAT THEY ALSO, whom thou hast given me, MAY BE WITH ME where I am, TO BEHOLD my GLORY which THOU HAST GIVEN ME in thy love for me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, the world has not known thee, but I have known thee; and these know that thou hast sent me. 26 I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the LOVE WITH WHICH THOU HAST LOVED ME MAY BE IN THEM, AND I IN THEM."
What I learn form this, is that Jesus had a very, very close relationship with his Father, that same sort of relationship he was asking for his disciples. God sent Jesus, he sent his disciples, God and Jesus were as one and he and is disciples were to be as one (Verse 22) That does not make the disciples all one person any more that Jesus is God. This also shows that Jesus was not equal to the Father because God SENT him. That shows a difference in authority just as Jesus sent his disciples.
When Jesus was on earth he referred to the Almighty as his God (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 20:17, " I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.") Also the Apostle Paul recognized Jesus to have a God Ephesians 1:17 "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ," Also 1 Corinth 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. " This last text shows the same relationship that Jesus had with regard headship as man has to Christ, that is, God is of a superior position.
Notice what we learn from the book of Hebrews chapter 5. Jesus was appointed by some one with higher authority to be a High Priest. This shows he did not have the sane authority as his God and Father. Jesus had to be saved by someone. Also who was Jesus going to be "obedient" to if he was equal ion authority to his God. Lets start in verse 5 (Capitals mine)
"5 So also Christ DID NOT EXALT HIMSELF to be made a high priest, BUT WAS APPOINTED BY HIM who said to him, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"; 6 as he says also in another place, "Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek." 7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up PRAYERS and SUPPLICATIONS, with LOUD CRIES and TEARS, to HIM who was able TO SAVE HIM from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. 8 Although he was a Son, HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE through what he suffered; 9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,"
Remember this was written AFTER Jesus had died and left the earth.
Into the future we see that Jesus still being in subjection to God his Father. see 1 Corinthians 15:27,28 "27 "For God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection under him," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, THEN THE SON HIMSELF WILL ALSO BE SUBJECTED TO HIM WHO PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIM, THAT GOD MAY BE EVERYTHING TO EVERY ONE."
In a question you posted to me on 16th June 200r you asked this question.
"(you yourself said "the context warrants it" the context of what?! what you already believe John means),"
SO what context am I referring to? I am referring to the context of John 1. Starting in verse 3 "3 all things were made THROUGH him, and without him was not anything made that was made." In the AV Bible the word "THROUGH" is replced with the word "BY". The Greek word rendered here as either through or by is "dia". Strongs Lexicon says "1223. dia dia dee-ah a primary preposition DENOTING THE CHANNEL OF AN ACT; through (in very wide applications, local, causal, or occasional):” after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause)...fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through(-out), to, wherefore, with(-in). In composition it retains the same general import."
So John is saying that the Word was the agency "by which" of or "through which" the acts of creation were done. So at the beginning of the creation of the earth the Word was with God of the universe and the word has "a god" having the same spiritual nature or existence as the God that he was with, and God used the Word as the agency by which creation was done. Then, when the context of the other Bible writers are considered, John 1:1c shows that "a god" is the correct rendering
