Religions > Bible > Perversions In The New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Carl" |
| Date: |
28 Jun 2007 11:21:44 AM |
| Object: |
Perversions In The New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures |
More clear evidence that the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation can
not be trusted to be an accurate translation.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
PERVERSIONS IN THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
by Dave Geauvreau
(1) The first major perversion that Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to
foist upon the minds of the average reader is that it has remained
for them as God's true Witnesses to restore the divine name
"Jehovah" to the text of the New Testament. But let us observe this
pretext as they stated it in their own words.
The evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the
Christian Greek Scriptures has been tampered with, the same as the
text of the LXX [The Septuagint--a Greek translation of the Old
Testament] has been. And, at least from the third century A.D.
onward, the divine name in tetragrammaton [the Hebrew consonants
YHWH, usually rendered "Jehovah"] form has been eliminated from the
text by copyists....In place of it they substituted the words
"kyrios" (usually translated "the Lord") and "theos", meaning "God"
(page 18).
The "evidence" that the Witnesses refer to is a recently
discovered papyrus roll of the LXX which contains the second half
of the book of Deuteronomy and which does have the tetragrammaton
throughout. Further than this, the Witnesses refer to Aquila (A.D.
128) and Origen who both utilized the tetragrammaton in their
respective Version and Hexapla. Jerome, in the fourth century, also
mentioned the tetragrammaton as appearing in certain Greek volumes
even in his day. On the basis of this small collection of
fragmentary "evidence" Jehovah's Witnesses conclude their argument
thusly:
It proves that the original LXX did contain the divine name
wherever it occurred in the Hebrew original. Considering it a
sacrilege to use some substitute such as kyrios or theos, the
scribes inserted the tetragrammaton at its proper place in the
Greek version text (page 12).
The whole case the Witnesses try to prove is that the original
LXX and the New Testament autographs all used the tetragrammaton
(page 18) but owing to "tampering" all these were changed; hence
their responsibility to restore the divine name. Such is the
argument, and a seemingly plausible one to those not familiar with
the history of manuscripts and the Witnesses' subtle use of terms.
To explode this latest Watch Tower pretension of scholarship
completely is indeed an elementary task. It can be shown from
literally thousands of copies of the Greek New Testament that not
once does the tetragrammaton appear, not even in Matthew, possibly
written in Hebrew or Aramaic originally, and therefore more prone
than all the rest to have traces of the divine name in it yet it
does not! Beyond this, the roll of papyrus (LXX) which contains the
latter part of Deuteronomy and the divine name only proves that one
copy did have the divine name (YHWH), whereas all other existing
copies use "kyrios" and "theos", which the Witnesses claim are
"substitutes." The testimonies of Aquila, Origen and Jerome, in
turn, only show that sometimes the divine name was used, but the
general truth, upheld by all scholars, is that the Septuagint, with
minor exceptions, always uses kyrios and theos in place of the
tetragrammaton, and the New Testament never uses it at all.
Relative to the nineteen "sources" the Watch Tower uses (pages
30-33) for restoring the tetragrammaton to the New Testament, it
should be noted that they are all translations from Greek (which
uses kyrios and theos, not the tetragrammaton) back into Hebrew,
the earliest of which is A.D. 1385 and therefore they are of no
value as evidence.
These cold logical facts unmask once and for all the shallow
scholarship of Jehovah's Witnesses, whose arrogant pretension that
they have a sound basis for restoring the divine name (Jehovah) to
the Scriptures, while inferring that orthodoxy suppressed it
centuries ago, is revealed to be a hollow scholastic fraud.
No reasonable scholar, of course, objects to the use of the
term Jehovah in the Bible. But since only the Hebrew consonants
YHWH appear without vowels, pronunciation is at best uncertain, and
dogmatically to settle on Jehovah is straining at the bounds of
good linguistics. When the Witnesses arrogantly claim then to have
"restored" the divine name (Jehovah), it is almost pathetic. All
students of Hebrew know that any vowel can be inserted between the
consonants (YHWH or JHVH) so that theoretically the divine name
could be any combination from JoHeVaH to JiHiViH without doing
violence to the grammar of the language in the slightest degree. So
much then for this, another empty claim of the Watch Tower's
pseudo-scholars.
(2) Colossians 1:16 -- "by means of him all OTHER things were
created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and
the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or
Lordships or governments or authorities" (N.W.T.)
In this particular rendering, Jehovah's Witnesses attempt one
of the most clever perversions of the New Testament texts that the
author has ever seen. Knowing full well that the word OTHER does
not occur in this text, or for that matter in any of the three
texts (verses 16,17, 19), the Witnesses deliberately insert it into
the translation in a vain attempt to make Christ a creature and one
of the "things" He is spoken of as having created.
Attempting to justify this unheard of travesty upon the Greek
language and simple honesty, the New World Translation committee
insert a footnote, marked (a) after each use of the word "other",
which refers the reader to Luke 13:2,4, "and elsewhere," for
apparent support of their ungrammatical rendering. Upon turning to
Luke 13:2,4, however, the elementary Greek student can see that the
Witnesses plainly do not have any grammatical leg to stand on as is
shown by their immature reasoning. The verses utilized by the Watch
Tower to cover up their scholastic dishonesty are as follows:
So in reply, he said to them: "Do you imagine that these
Galileans were proved worse sinners than all OTHER Galileans
because they have suffered these things?" (verse 2, N.W.T.).
"Or those eighteen upon whom the tower of Siloam fell,
thereby killing them, do you imagine that they were proved greater
debtors than all OTHER men inhabiting Jerusalem?" (verse 4,
N.W.T.).
In the translation of these verses, the Watch Tower
translators also inserted the word "other," not present in the
Greek text, on the ground that it is implied in the context, owing
to the comparison made by Jesus. It is admissible, of course, that
Jesus was drawing a contrast between certain Galileans and their
fellow countrymen; but it is NOT admissible to insert terms in
order to prove a doctrinal point, and in Colossians 1:15-17 no such
comparison or contrast is being made anyway; unless, as is the case
with Jehovah's Witnesses, one assumes that Christ Himself was a
"creature" or a "thing", which would necessitate inserting the word
"other" in order to conform Scripture to a preconceived theology.
It is incorrect grammar, no reputable translation dares tamper with
doctrinal texts in this way, and not one single competent Greek
authority can be cited for this deliberate attempt to reduce the
Son of God from Creator to creature.
The entire context of Colossians 1:15-22 is filled with
superlatives in its description of the Lord Jesus as the "image of
the invisible God, the first-begetter [or 'original bringer
forth'-- Erasmus] of every creature." The Apostle Paul lauds the
Son of God as creator of all things (verse 16) and describes Him as
existing "before all things" and "holding together all things"
(verse 17). This is in perfect harmony with the entire picture
Scripture points of the eternal Word of God (John 1:1) who was made
flesh (John 1:14) and of whom it was written: "All things were make
by him, and without him was nothing made that was made" (John 1:3).
The writer of the book of Hebrews also pointed out that God's Son
"upholds all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3) and
that He is Deity in all its fullness, even as Paul wrote to the
Colossians: "For...in him should all the fullness [of God] dwell"
(Colossians 1:19 A.S.V.).
The Scriptures, therefore, bear unmistakable testimony to the
creative activity of God's Son, distinguishing Him from among the
"things" created, as THE Creator and Sustainer of "all things."
Jehovah's Witnesses have no conceivable ground, then, for this
dishonest rendering of Colossians 1:16,17 and 19 by the insertion
of the word "other" since they are supported by no grammatical
authorities, nor do they dare dispute their perversions with
competent scholars lest they further parade their obvious ignorance
of Greek exegesis.
(3) Matthew 27:50 -- "Again Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and
ceased to breathe" (N.W.T.).
Luke 23:46 -- "And Jesus called with a loud voice and said:
Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit" (N.W.T.).
For many years the Watch Tower has been fighting a vain battle
to redefine Biblical terms to suit their own peculiar theological
interpretations. They have had some measure of success in this
attempt in that they have taught the rank and file a new meaning
for tried and true Biblical terms, and it is this trait of their
deceptive system that we analyze now in connection with the above
quoted verses.
The interested student of Scripture will note from Matthew
27:50 and Luke 23:46 that they are parallel passages describing the
same event, namely the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In Matthew's
account, the Witnesses had no difficulty substituting the word
"breath" for the Greek spirit (pneuma), for in their vocabulary
this word has many meanings, none of them having any bearing upon
the general usage of the term, Biblically, i.e., that of an
immaterial cognizant nature, inherent in man by definition and
descriptive of angels through creation. Jehovah's Witnesses reject
this immaterial nature in man and call it "breath," "life," "mental
disposition" or "something wind like." In fact, they will call it
anything but what God's Word says it is, an invisible nature,
eternal by creation, a spirit, made in the image of God (Genesis
1:27). Sometimes and in various contexts, spirit (pneuma) can mean
some of the things the Witnesses hold, but context determines
translation, along with grammar, and their translations quite often
do not remain true to either.
Having forced the word "breath" into Matthew's account of the
crucifixion, to make it appear that Jesus only stopped breathing
and did not yield up His invisible nature upon dying, the Witnesses
plod on to Luke"s account, only to be caught in their own trap.
Luke, learned scholar and master of Greek that he was, forces the
Witnesses to render his account of Christ's words using the correct
term "spirit" (pneuma), instead of "breath" as in Matthew 27:50.
Thus in one fell swoop the entire watch Tower fabric of
manufactured terminology collapses, because Jesus would hardly have
said: "Father into thy hands I commit my breath" -- yet if the
Witnesses are consistent, which they seldom are, why did they not
render the identical Greek term (pneuma) as "breath" both times,
for it is a parallel account of the same scene!
The solution to this question is quite elementary as all can
clearly see. The Witnesses could not render it "breath" in Luke and
get away with it, so they used it where they could and hoped nobody
would notice it, or the different rendering in Matthew. The very
fact that Christ dismissed His spirit proves the survival of the
human spirit beyond the grave, or as Solomon so wisely put it:
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit
[pneuma -- LXX] shall return unto God who gave it" (Ecclesiastes
12:7).
(4) Philippians 1:21-23 - "For in my case to live is Christ, and
to die, gain. Now if it be to live on in the flesh, this is a
fruitage of my work .. and yet which thing to choose I do not know.
I am under pressure from these two things; but what I do desire is
the releasing and the being with Christ, for this, to be sure, is
far better" (N.W.T.).
In common with other cults that teach soul-sleep after the
death of the body, Jehovah's Witnesses translate texts
contradicting this view to suit their own ends, a prime example of
which is their rendering of Philippians 1:21-23. To anyone
possessing even a cursory knowledge of Greek grammar the
translation "but what I do desire is the releasing..." (verse 23)
signifies either a woeful ignorance of the rudiments of the
language or a deliberate, calculated perversion of terminology for
a purpose or purposes most questionable.
It is no coincidence that this text is a great "proof" passage
for the expectation of every true Christian who after death goes to
be with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). Jehovah's Witnesses realize
that if this text goes unchanged or unchallenged it destroys
utterly their Russellite teaching that the soul becomes extinct at
the death of the body. this being the case, and since they could
not challenge the text without exploding the myth of their
acceptance of the Bible as the final authority, the Watch Tower
committee chose to alter the passage in question, give it a new
interpretation, and remove this threat to their theology.
The rendering, "but what I do desire is the releasing...,"
particularly the last word, is a gross imposition upon the
principles of Greek exegesis because the untutored Russellites have
rendered the first aorist active infinitive of the verb analuoo
(analusai) as a substantive ("the releasing"), which in this
context is unscholarly and atrocious Greek. In order to translate
it "the releasing," the form would have to be the participle
construction (analusas), which when used with the word "wish" or
"desire" denotes "a great longing" or "purpose" and must be
rendered "to depart" or "to unloose". (See Thayer, Liddell and
Scott, Strong, Young and A.T. Robertson.)
Quite frankly, it may appear that I have gone to a great deal
of trouble just to refute the wrong usage of a Greek form, but in
truth this simple switching of terms is used by the Witnesses in an
attempt to teach that Paul meant something entirely different than
what he wrote to the Philippians. To see just how the Watch Tower
manages this, I quote from their own Appendix to the New World
Translation which appears on pages 780, 781.
The verb a-na-ly'sai is used as a verbal noun here. It occurs
only once more in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and that is at
Luke 12:36, where it refers to Christ's return. The related noun
(a-na'-ly-sis) occurs but once, at 2 Timothy 4:6, where the apostle
says: "The due time for my releasing is imminent." ...But here at
Philippians 1:23 we have not rendered the verb as "returning" or
"departing," but as "releasing". The reason is, that the word may
convey two thoughts, the apostle's own releasing to be with Christ
at His return and also the Lord's releasing Himself from the
heavenly restraints and returning as He promised.
In no way is the apostle here saying that immediately at his
death he would be changed into spirit and would be with Christ
forever....It is to this return of Christ and the apostle's
releasing to be always with the Lord that Paul refers at
Philippians 1:23. he says there that two things are immediately
possible for him, namely, (1) to live on in the flesh and (2) to
die. Because of the circumstances to be considered, he expressed
himself as being under pressure from these two things, not knowing
which thing to choose as proper. Then he suggests a third thing,
and this thing he really desires. There is no question about his
desire for this thing as preferable, namely, the releasing, for it
means his being with Christ.
The expression to a-na-ly'sai, or the releasing cannot
therefore be applied to the apostle's death as a human creature and
his departing thus from this life. It must refer to the events at
the time of Christ's return and second coming and the rising of all
those dead in Christ to be with him forevermore.
Here, after much grammatical intrigue, we have the key as to
why the Witnesses went to so much trouble to render "depart" as
"releasing." By slipping in this grammatical error, the Watch Tower
hoped to "prove" that Paul wasn't really discussing his impending
death and subsequent reunion with Christ at all (a fact every major
Biblical scholar and translator in history has held), but a third
thing, namely, "the events at the time of Christ's return and
second presence." With breathtaking dogmatism, the Witnesses claim
that "the releasing cannot therefore be applied to the Apostle's
death. It must refer to the events at the time of Christ's
return...."
Words fail the trained mind when confronted with this classic
example of unparalleled deceit, which finds no support in any Greek
text or exegetical grammatical authority. Contrary to the Watch
Tower's statement that "the word may convey two thoughts, the
Apostle's 'releasing' to be with Christ at his return, and also the
Lord's 'releasing' himself from the heavenly restraints and
returning as he promised" (page 781), the Greek text offers no such
thought. As a matter of plain exegetical fact, Christ's return is
not even the subject of discussion -- rather it is the Apostle's
death and his concern for the Philippians that is here portrayed.
That Paul never expected to "sleep" in his grave until the
resurrection as Jehovah's Witnesses maintain is evident by the
twenty-first verse of the chapter literally -- "For me to live is
Christ, and to die is gain." There would be no gain in dying if men
slept till the resurrection, for "God is not the God of the dead
but of the living" (Mark 12:27). Clearly then, Paul was speaking of
but two things: his possible death and subsequent presence with the
Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8), and also the possibility of his
continuing on in the body, the latter being "more needful" for the
Philippian Christians. His choice in his own words was between
these two (verse 23), and Jehovah's Witnesses have gone to great
trouble for nothing; the Greek text still records faithfully what
the inspired Apostle said -- not what the Watch Tower maintains he
said, all their deliberate trickery to the contrary.
Concluding our comments upon these verses in Philippians, we
feel constrained to point out a final example of Watch Tower
dishonesty relative to Greek translation.
On page 781 of the New World Translation, it will be recalled
that the Committee wrote: "The expression to a-na-ly'-sai or the
releasing cannot therefore apply to the apostle's death as a human
creature and his departing thus from this life."
If the interested reader will turn to page 628 of the same
Watch Tower Translation, he will observe that in 2 Timothy 4:6 the
Witnesses once more use the term "releasing" (analuseos), where all
translators are agreed that it refers to Paul's impending death.
The Revised Standard Version, often appealed to by Jehovah's
Witnesses, puts it this way:
"For I am already on the point of being sacrificed, the time
of my departure has come." (See also -- An American Translation
[Goodspeed], Authorized Version, J.N. Darby's Version, James
Moffatt's Version, J.B. Rotherham's Version, Douay Version [Roman
Catholic], etc.).
Jehovah's Witnesses themselves render the text: "For I am
already being poured out like a drink offering, and the due time of
my releasing is imminent" (2 Timothy 4:6, N.W.T.).
Now since it is admitted by the Witnesses under the pressure
of every translator's rendering of his text, that it refers to
Paul's death, and further, since the noun form of the Greek word
(analuseos) is here used and translated "releasing," why is it that
they claim on page 781 that this expression "the releasing"
(analusai -- Philippians 1:23) "...cannot therefore apply to the
apostle's death as a human creature and his departing thus from
this life"? The question becomes more embarrassing when it is
realized that Jehovah's Witnesses themselves admit that these two
forms (analusai and analuseos) are "related" (page 781). Hence they
have no excuse for maintaining in one place (Philippians 1:23) that
"the releasing" cannot refer to the apostle's death, and in another
place (2 Timothy 4:6) using a form of the same word, and allowing
that it does refer to his death. This one illustration alone should
serve to warn all honest people of the blatant deception employed
in the Watch Tower's "translations", a name not worthy of
application in many, many places.
(5) Matthew 24:3 -- "While he was sitting upon the mount of
Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: 'Tell us,
When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your
presence and of the consummation of the system of things?"
(N.W.T.).
Since the days of "Pastor" Russell and Judge Rutherford, one
of the favourite dogmas of the Watch Tower has been that of the
parousia, the second coming or "presence" of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jehovah's Witnesses, loyal Russellites that they are, have
tenaciously clung to the "Pastor's" theology in this respect and
maintain that in the year 1914 when the "times of the gentiles"
ended (according to Russell) the "second presence" of Christ began.
(See Make Sure of All Things, page 319 -- Watch Tower Bible and
Tract Society.)
From the year 1914 onward, the Witnesses maintain, Christ has
turned his attention toward earth's affairs and is dividing the
peoples and educating the true Christians in preparation for their
survival during the great storm of Armageddon, when all unfaithful
mankind will be destroyed from the face of the earth (op. cit.,
page 319).
For Jehovah's Witnesses, then, Christ is not coming; He is
here! (A.D. 1914) -- only invisibly -- and He is directing His
activities through His theocratic organization in Brooklyn, New
York. In view of this claim, it might be well to hearken unto the
voice of Matthew who wrote:
Then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ, or
there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and
false prophets, and shall deceive the very elect. Behold I have
told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold he is
in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers;
believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and
shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of
man be (Matthew 24:23-27).
Jehovah's Witnesses in their New World Translation on page 780
list the twenty-four occurrences of the Greek word parousia, which
they translate each time as "presence." They give the following
defense found on page 779:
The tendency of many translators is to render it here
"coming" or "arrival." But throughout the twenty-four occurrences,
the Greek word parousia...we have rendered it "presence." from the
comparison of the parousia of the Son of man with the days of Noah
at Matthew 24:37-39, it is very evident that the meaning of the
word is as we have rendered it. And from the contrast that is made
between the presence and the absence of the apostle both at 2
Corinthians 10:10-11 and at Philippians 2:12, the meaning of
parousia is so plain that it is beyond dispute by other
translators.
Following this gigantic claim, namely, that their translation
of the word parousia is "beyond dispute by other translators," the
theocratic authorities proceed to list the verses in question.
Now the main issue is not the translation of parousia by
"presence" because in some contexts it is certainly allowable (see
1 Corinthians 16:16, 2 Corinthians 7:6,7; 10:10 and Philippians
1:26; 2:12). But there are other contexts where it cannot be
allowed in the way Jehovah's Witnesses use it, because it not only
violates the contextual meaning of the word, but the entire meaning
of the passages as always held by the Christian Church.
Jehovah's Witnesses claim scholarship for this blanket
translation of parousia, yet not one great scholar in the history
of Greek exegesis and translation has ever held this view. Since
1871, when "Pastor" Russell produced this concept, it has been
denounced by every competent scholar upon examination.
The reason this Russellite rendering is so dangerous is that
it attempts to prove that parousia in regard to Christ's second
advent really means that His return or "presence" was to be
invisible and unknown to all but "the faithful" (Russellites, of
course). (See Make Sure of All Things, pages 319, 320-323).
The New World Translators, therefore, on the basis of those
texts where it is acceptable to render parousia "presence,"
conclude that it must be acceptable in all texts. But while it
appears to be acceptable grammatically, no one but Jehovah's
Witnesses or their sympathizers accepts the New World blanket use
of "presence," be the translators Christian or not. It simply is
not good grammar, and it will not stand up under comparative
exegesis as will be shown. To conclude that "presence" necessarily
implies invisibility is also another flaw in the Watch Tower's
argument, for in numerous places where they render parousia
"presence" the persons spoken of were hardly invisible. (See 1
Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6 and 10:10, also Philippians
1:26 and 2:12.)
If the Watch Tower were to admit for one moment that parousia
can be translated "coming" or "arrival", in the passages which
speak of Christ's return the way all scholarly translators render
it, then "Pastor" Russell's "invisible presence" of Christ would
explode in their faces. Hence their determination to deny what all
recognized Greek authorities have established.
Dr. Joseph F. Thayer, a Unitarian scholar, author of one of
the best lexicons of the Greek New Testament (who, incidentally,
denied the visible second coming of Christ), says on page 490 of
that work, when speaking of parousia: "...a return (Philippians
1:26) ...In the Advent, i.e., the future visible return from heaven
of Jesus, the Messiah, to raise the dead, hold the last judgement,
and set up formally and gloriously the Kingdom of God." (For
further references, see Liddell and Scott, Strong and any other
reputable authority.)
Dr. Thayer, it might be mentioned, was honest enough to say
what the New Testament Greek taught, even though he didn't believe
it. One could wish that Jehovah's Witnesses were at least that
honest, but they are not!
In concluding this discussion of the misuse of parousia we
shall discuss the verses Jehovah's Witnesses use to "prove" that
Christ's return was to be an invisible "presence" instead of a
visible glorious, verifiable event.
The following references and their headings were taken from
the book, Make Sure of All Things, published by the Watch Tower as
an official guide to their doctrine.
(1) Angels Testified at Jesus' Ascension as a Spirit that
Christ Would Return in Like Manner, Quiet, Unobserved by the Public
(page 320).
And after he had said these things while they (only the
disciples) were looking on, he was lifted up and a cloud caught him
up from their vision...."Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking
into the sky? This Jesus who was received up from you into heaven
will come thus in the same manner as you have beheld him going into
heaven" (Acts 1:9, 11, N.W.T.).
It is quite unnecessary to refute in detail this open
perversion of a clear Biblical teaching because as John 20:27
clearly shows, Christ was not a spirit, and did not ascent as one.
The very text they quote shows that the disciples were "looking on"
and saw him "lifted up and a cloud caught him from their vision"
(verse 9). They could hardly have been looking at a spirit, which
by definition is incorporeal, (even angels have to take a human
form in order to be seen [Genesis 19:1,2]) not with human eyes as
least, and Christ had told them once before, "Behold my hands and
my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a Spirit hath
not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Luke 24:39).
So it remains for Christ Himself to denounce the Russellite
error that He "ascended as a spirit." Moreover, since He left the
earth visibly from the Mount of Olives it is certain that He will
return visibly even as the Scriptures teach (see Matthew 26:63,64;
Daniel 7:13,14; Revelation 1:7,8; Matthew 24:7,8,30).
(2) Christ's Return Invisible, as He Testified that Man Would
Not See Him Again in Human Form (page 321).
A little longer and the world will behold me no more
(John 14:19, N.W.T.).
For I say to you, You shall by no means see me from
henceforth until you say, "Blessed is he that comes in
Jehovah's name!" (Matthew 23:39, N.W.T.).
These two passages in their respective contexts give no
support to the Russellite doctrine of an invisible "presence" of
Christ for two very excellent reasons:
(a) John 14:19 refers to Christ's anticipated death and
resurrection -- the "little longer" He made reference to could only
have referred to His resurrection and subsequent ascension (Acts
1:9,11), before which time and during the period following His
resurrection He appeared only to believers, not the world (or
unbelievers), hence the clear meaning of His words. Jesus never
said that NO one would ever "see Him Again in Human Form" as the
Watch Tower likes to make out. Rather in the same chapter He
promised to "come again and receive you unto myself, that where I
am, there you may be also" (verse 3). The Bible also is quite clear
in telling us that one day by His grace alone "we shall be like
him, for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). So the Watch
Tower once more is forced to silence by the voice of the Holy
Spirit.
(b) This second text, Matthew 23:39, really proves nothing at
all for the Watch Tower's faltering arguments except that Jerusalem
will never see Christ again until it blesses Him in repentance as
the anointed of God. Actually the text hurts the Russellite
position, for it teaches that Christ will be VISIBLE at His coming,
else they could not see Him to bless Him in the name of the Lord.
Christ also qualified the statement with the word "until," a
definite reference to His visible second advent (Matthew 24:30).
(3) Early Christians Expected Christ's Return to Be Invisible.
Paul Argued there Was Insufficient Evidence in Their Day (page
321).
However, brothers, respecting the presence of our Lord Jesus
Christ and our being gathered together to him, we request of you
not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be excited either
through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or
though a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of
Jehovah is here. Let no one seduce you in any manner, because it
will not come unless the falling away comes first and the man of
lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction (2 Thessalonians
2:1-3).
This final example from 2 Thessalonians most vividly portrays
the Witnesses at their crafty best, as they desperately attempt to
make Paul teach what in all his writings he most emphatically
denied, namely that Christ would come invisibly for His saints.
In his epistle to Titus, Paul stressed the importance of
"looking for that blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the great
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (2:13), something he would not
have been looking for if it was to be a secret, invisible parousia
or "presence."
Paul, contrary to Jehovah's Witnesses, never believed in an
invisible return, nor did any bona fide member of the Christian
Church up until the fantasies of Charles Taze Russell and his
parousia nightmare, as a careful look at Paul's first epistle to
the Thessalonians plainly reveals. Said the inspired Apostle:
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we
which are alive and remain unto the COMING of the Lord shall not
prevent them which are asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven [visible] with
a shout [audible], with the voice of the archangel, and with the
trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first (4:15,16).
Here we see that in perfect accord with Matthew 26 and
Revelation 1, Christ is pictured as coming visibly, and in this
context no reputable Greek scholar alive will allow the use of
"presence"; it must be "coming." (See also 2 Thessalonians 2:8.)
For further information relative to this subject, consult any
standard concordance and Greek lexicon available, and trace Paul's
use of the word "Coming," etc. This will convince any fair-minded
person that Paul never entertained the Watch Tower's fantastic view
of Christ's return.
These things being clearly understood, the interested reader
should give careful attention to those verses in the New Testament
which do not use the word parousia but are instead forms of the
verb elthon and related to the word erchomai, (See Thayer, page
250ff) and which refer to the Lord's coming as a visible
manifestation. These various texts cannot be twisted to fit the
Russellite pattern of "presence," since erchomai means "to come,"
"to appear," "to arrive," etc., in the most definite sense of the
term. (For reference, check Matthew 24:30 in conjunction with
Matthew 26:64 -- erchomenon; also John 14:3 -- echomai; and
Revelation 1:7 -- erchetai.)
Once it is perceived that Jehovah's Witnesses are only
interested in what they can make the Scriptures say, and not in
what the Holy Spirit has already perfectly revealed, then the
careful student will reject entirely Jehovah's Witnesses and their
Watch Tower translations. These are as "blind leaders of the blind"
(Matthew 15:14) who have "turned the grace of God into
lasciviousness, and denied our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ"
(Jude 4). Further, that they "wrest the scriptures to their own
destruction" (2 Peter 3:16), the foregoing evidence has thoroughly
revealed for all to judge.
Excerpt from: The Kingdom of the Cults; Walter R. Martin, Bethany
Fellowship Publishers, 1977
.
|
|
| User: "ResLight" |
|
| Title: Re: Perversions In The New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures |
01 Jul 2007 09:50:16 PM |
|
|
For some reason my responses disappeared from the newsgroups. I am supposing
that one of the groups cross-posted is moderated, and the moderate felt that
what I said was not appropriate his/her group.
Anyway, I have no way of knowing which group had my posts removed, so I am
removing groups I think may have been responsible, and will repost to those
groups one at a time, with hopes of being able to identify which group is
responsible for the removal.
See my comments below.
"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:f60n6q$ef0$1@news.utelfla.com...
More clear evidence that the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation can
PERVERSIONS IN THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
by Dave Geauvreau
(1) The first major perversion that Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to
foist upon the minds of the average reader is that it has remained
for them as God's true Witnesses to restore the divine name
"Jehovah" to the text of the New Testament. But let us observe this
pretext as they stated it in their own words.
The evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the
Christian Greek Scriptures has been tampered with, the same as the
text of the LXX [The Septuagint--a Greek translation of the Old
Testament] has been. And, at least from the third century A.D.
onward, the divine name in tetragrammaton [the Hebrew consonants
YHWH, usually rendered "Jehovah"] form has been eliminated from the
text by copyists....In place of it they substituted the words
"kyrios" (usually translated "the Lord") and "theos", meaning "God"
(page 18).
The "evidence" that the Witnesses refer to is a recently
discovered papyrus roll of the LXX which contains the second half
of the book of Deuteronomy and which does have the tetragrammaton
throughout. Further than this, the Witnesses refer to Aquila (A.D.
128) and Origen who both utilized the tetragrammaton in their
respective Version and Hexapla. Jerome, in the fourth century, also
mentioned the tetragrammaton as appearing in certain Greek volumes
even in his day. On the basis of this small collection of
fragmentary "evidence" Jehovah's Witnesses conclude their argument
thusly:
It proves that the original LXX did contain the divine name
wherever it occurred in the Hebrew original. Considering it a
sacrilege to use some substitute such as kyrios or theos, the
scribes inserted the tetragrammaton at its proper place in the
Greek version text (page 12).
The whole case the Witnesses try to prove is that the original
LXX and the New Testament autographs all used the tetragrammaton
(page 18) but owing to "tampering" all these were changed; hence
their responsibility to restore the divine name. Such is the
argument, and a seemingly plausible one to those not familiar with
the history of manuscripts and the Witnesses' subtle use of terms.
To explode this latest Watch Tower pretension of scholarship
completely is indeed an elementary task. It can be shown from
literally thousands of copies of the Greek New Testament that not
once does the tetragrammaton appear, not even in Matthew, possibly
written in Hebrew or Aramaic originally, and therefore more prone
than all the rest to have traces of the divine name in it yet it
does not! Beyond this, the roll of papyrus (LXX) which contains the
latter part of Deuteronomy and the divine name only proves that one
copy did have the divine name (YHWH), whereas all other existing
copies use "kyrios" and "theos", which the Witnesses claim are
"substitutes." The testimonies of Aquila, Origen and Jerome, in
turn, only show that sometimes the divine name was used, but the
general truth, upheld by all scholars, is that the Septuagint, with
minor exceptions, always uses kyrios and theos in place of the
tetragrammaton, and the New Testament never uses it at all.
Relative to the nineteen "sources" the Watch Tower uses (pages
30-33) for restoring the tetragrammaton to the New Testament, it
should be noted that they are all translations from Greek (which
uses kyrios and theos, not the tetragrammaton) back into Hebrew,
the earliest of which is A.D. 1385 and therefore they are of no
value as evidence.
These cold logical facts unmask once and for all the shallow
scholarship of Jehovah's Witnesses, whose arrogant pretension that
they have a sound basis for restoring the divine name (Jehovah) to
the Scriptures, while inferring that orthodoxy suppressed it
centuries ago, is revealed to be a hollow scholastic fraud.
No reasonable scholar, of course, objects to the use of the
term Jehovah in the Bible. But since only the Hebrew consonants
YHWH appear without vowels, pronunciation is at best uncertain, and
dogmatically to settle on Jehovah is straining at the bounds of
good linguistics. When the Witnesses arrogantly claim then to have
"restored" the divine name (Jehovah), it is almost pathetic. All
students of Hebrew know that any vowel can be inserted between the
consonants (YHWH or JHVH) so that theoretically the divine name
could be any combination from JoHeVaH to JiHiViH without doing
violence to the grammar of the language in the slightest degree. So
much then for this, another empty claim of the Watch Tower's
pseudo-scholars.
I am not with the JWs. I am not interested in defending the NWT itself, but
I do agree that the Bible writers did originally use some form of the holy
name in the New Testament. The above arguments only present a small fraction
of the evidence, and that evidence is distorted and misrepresented so as
make it easier to knock down. Nor do the above statements ever answer who
was responsible for the removal of the holy name in the New Testament. It
implies that perhaps Jesus and/or the Bible writers themselves were the
culprits in removing the holy name, which would by implication indicate that
Jesus did not actually come in the name of Yahweh (Jehovah), as foretold. --
Deuteronomy 18:15-19.
http://name.reslight.net
In service of Jesus and his God,
Ronald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elijahovah" |
|
| Title: Re: Perversions In The New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures |
02 Jul 2007 07:20:40 AM |
|
|
your little link on the paraousia contradicts what is happening.
The Catholic Church claims it is the Son Of Man.
Indeed we are all sons of Adam our father,
and we are all sons of Noah our father.
But the son of man is the humble one who knows
all that we dont and because of that he can save us
with more than an mechanical invention of salvation
that destroys us when it fails.
Many a man and men have said behold i give you life.
You would be dead without me.
The Church if the Son Of Man it claims to be is
present; Jesus in heaven invisible but the Church is
present. But in order to RETURN aas christ it means
that Jesus was away until the Church was established.
This means the establishing occurs centuries after
Jesus had started a Church. Is it Catholcism, is it her
daughters, or is it JWs. Well we have Vashti who
easily thought herself to rule the world, and yet she
did not obey her own husband the king. Vashti was
replaced. So if the Church is the Son of Man the
bride of Xerxes Ahasuerus and doesnt obey her
king then how can she be the Son Of Man without
her husband who is the true Son Of Man. Jesus
is the Son Of Man, how is the church part of the
Son of Man if it dares to stand alone as the Son of
Man without Jesus. This is how JWs become
Esther replacing Vashti. The fact remains that
British licensed IBSA have globally represented Jesus
since 1914 and everything done is parallel to the
new Jerusalem of Ezra Esther Nehemiah Zechariah
Haggai from 537-443 BC. It is true that she self-declared
herself in 1971 as in 480 BC, but how could she know
she should name herself JEHOVAH in 1931 AD as
Darius diod in 520 BC. And how could she choose
to fail and stop building in 1928 the way Smerdis did
in 523 BC, and how could she deliberately successfully
create her opposition in 1976 as Mordecai did in 475 BC.
Is it true during Egypts plagues that Israel would not have
been further deeper harassed by Pharaoh if Moses wasnt
interferring! Is it true that no attack would have been
made by Haman if Mordecai hadnt been rude to him !
Is it true Jacob only got a reaction he deserved from Esau,
a brother seeking to kill his brother the thief ! Is it true
Nehemiah was for certain to be accused of making himself
priest to hide in the temple, or king of Jerusalem if he
starts building the wall ! Is it true that Jesus brought his
death in him by repeatedly saying to them Why are you
trying to kill me, and they would say we arent trying to kill
you, and did he cause it by insulting Judas ! So you say
disasters and attacks of 1928 and 1976 was brought
upon them by themselves. What better prophet than the
one who knows his enemy and knows who he is weeding
out of his Church. If Russell and Rutherford were not
smart enough to do this, well the Jesus behind them was.
It still causes JW history to totally copy the ups and downs
success and failures of the new jeruslaem which spanned
537-443 BC identical to 1914-2008 AD. If that Church
is married to the Son Of Man and represents him, then
that Church of flesh is visible for all eyes to see while
her husband is invisibly present behind her. Exactly the
way God Jehovah appeared to us thru Jesus the first time.
The presence of invisible God in the visible flesh of Jesus
is identical to the presence of invisible Jesus in the
visible presence of his bride the Church Esther who is
named well, she is the morning star, the Easter, the
Ish-star, the dawn of Armageddon 2008 AD. I present to
you the Church you will see change all history and a
mass of death far surpassing the known history but
equal to that of the Flood. Millions now living will never
die, billions now living will die. Negligence is yours,
anyone speaking contrary to words of God from a
prophet who knows God is a false prophet for defying
and HE leads those who listen and read his posts into
the death that will hit in one day. Lucky is he who
defies, doesnt listen, and dies before that day comes.
But then thats typical, suicide upon seeing hell.
ELIJAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "ResLight" |
|
| Title: Re: Perversions In The New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures |
02 Jul 2007 02:29:12 PM |
|
|
"Elijahovah" <rschiller@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1183378840.298106.69640@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
your little link on the paraousia contradicts what is happening.
What link?
The Catholic Church claims it is the Son Of Man.
Indeed we are all sons of Adam our father,
and we are all sons of Noah our father.
But the son of man is the humble one who knows
all that we dont and because of that he can save us
with more than an mechanical invention of salvation
that destroys us when it fails.
Many a man and men have said behold i give you life.
You would be dead without me.
The Church if the Son Of Man it claims to be is
present; Jesus in heaven invisible but the Church is
present. But in order to RETURN aas christ it means
that Jesus was away until the Church was established.
This means the establishing occurs centuries after
Jesus had started a Church. Is it Catholcism, is it her
daughters, or is it JWs. Well we have Vashti who
easily thought herself to rule the world, and yet she
did not obey her own husband the king. Vashti was
replaced. So if the Church is the Son of Man the
bride of Xerxes Ahasuerus and doesnt obey her
king then how can she be the Son Of Man without
her husband who is the true Son Of Man. Jesus
is the Son Of Man, how is the church part of the
Son of Man if it dares to stand alone as the Son of
Man without Jesus. This is how JWs become
Esther replacing Vashti. The fact remains that
British licensed IBSA have globally represented Jesus
since 1914 and everything done is parallel to the
new Jerusalem of Ezra Esther Nehemiah Zechariah
Haggai from 537-443 BC. It is true that she self-declared
herself in 1971 as in 480 BC, but how could she know
she should name herself JEHOVAH in 1931 AD as
Darius diod in 520 BC. And how could she choose
to fail and stop building in 1928 the way Smerdis did
in 523 BC, and how could she deliberately successfully
create her opposition in 1976 as Mordecai did in 475 BC.
Is it true during Egypts plagues that Israel would not have
been further deeper harassed by Pharaoh if Moses wasnt
interferring! Is it true that no attack would have been
made by Haman if Mordecai hadnt been rude to him !
Is it true Jacob only got a reaction he deserved from Esau,
a brother seeking to kill his brother the thief ! Is it true
Nehemiah was for certain to be accused of making himself
priest to hide in the temple, or king of Jerusalem if he
starts building the wall ! Is it true that Jesus brought his
death in him by repeatedly saying to them Why are you
trying to kill me, and they would say we arent trying to kill
you, and did he cause it by insulting Judas ! So you say
disasters and attacks of 1928 and 1976 was brought
upon them by themselves. What better prophet than the
one who knows his enemy and knows who he is weeding
out of his Church. If Russell and Rutherford were not
smart enough to do this, well the Jesus behind them was.
It still causes JW history to totally copy the ups and downs
success and failures of the new jeruslaem which spanned
537-443 BC identical to 1914-2008 AD. If that Church
is married to the Son Of Man and represents him, then
that Church of flesh is visible for all eyes to see while
her husband is invisibly present behind her. Exactly the
way God Jehovah appeared to us thru Jesus the first time.
The presence of invisible God in the visible flesh of Jesus
is identical to the presence of invisible Jesus in the
visible presence of his bride the Church Esther who is
named well, she is the morning star, the Easter, the
Ish-star, the dawn of Armageddon 2008 AD. I present to
you the Church you will see change all history and a
mass of death far surpassing the known history but
equal to that of the Flood. Millions now living will never
die, billions now living will die. Negligence is yours,
anyone speaking contrary to words of God from a
prophet who knows God is a false prophet for defying
and HE leads those who listen and read his posts into
the death that will hit in one day. Lucky is he who
defies, doesnt listen, and dies before that day comes.
But then thats typical, suicide upon seeing hell.
ELIJAH
Much of the above appears incoherent, to say the least. After reading it
several times, as yet I have been unable to determine what point is trying
to be made.
I cannot say that millions living today will never die -- could be; there
probably will be billions who will yet die in Adamic death, but who are to
be raised for judgment and blessings in the millennial kingdom age.
For the truth about Armageddon, I suggest:
http://hereafter.reslight.net/arma.html
http://hereafter.reslight.net/cdj.html
For the truth about hell, I suggest:
http://hereafter.reslight.net/b-h.html
http://hereafter.reslight.net/hl.html
In service of Jesus and his God,
Ronald
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil MacDouglass" |
|
| Title: Re: Perversions In The New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures |
12 Jul 2007 08:47:16 AM |
|
|
are you the son of man? hehe! you think yer the reincarnation of elijah
(maybe jesus?)!!
"Elijahovah" <rschiller@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1183378840.298106.69640@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
your little link on the paraousia contradicts what is happening.
The Catholic Church claims it is the Son Of Man.
Indeed we are all sons of Adam our father,
and we are all sons of Noah our father.
But the son of man is the humble one who knows
all that we dont and because of that he can save us
with more than an mechanical invention of salvation
that destroys us when it fails.
Many a man and men have said behold i give you life.
You would be dead without me.
The Church if the Son Of Man it claims to be is
present; Jesus in heaven invisible but the Church is
present. But in order to RETURN aas christ it means
that Jesus was away until the Church was established.
This means the establishing occurs centuries after
Jesus had started a Church. Is it Catholcism, is it her
daughters, or is it JWs. Well we have Vashti who
easily thought herself to rule the world, and yet she
did not obey her own husband the king. Vashti was
replaced. So if the Church is the Son of Man the
bride of Xerxes Ahasuerus and doesnt obey her
king then how can she be the Son Of Man without
her husband who is the true Son Of Man. Jesus
is the Son Of Man, how is the church part of the
Son of Man if it dares to stand alone as the Son of
Man without Jesus. This is how JWs become
Esther replacing Vashti. The fact remains that
British licensed IBSA have globally represented Jesus
since 1914 and everything done is parallel to the
new Jerusalem of Ezra Esther Nehemiah Zechariah
Haggai from 537-443 BC. It is true that she self-declared
herself in 1971 as in 480 BC, but how could she know
she should name herself JEHOVAH in 1931 AD as
Darius diod in 520 BC. And how could she choose
to fail and stop building in 1928 the way Smerdis did
in 523 BC, and how could she deliberately successfully
create her opposition in 1976 as Mordecai did in 475 BC.
Is it true during Egypts plagues that Israel would not have
been further deeper harassed by Pharaoh if Moses wasnt
interferring! Is it true that no attack would have been
made by Haman if Mordecai hadnt been rude to him !
Is it true Jacob only got a reaction he deserved from Esau,
a brother seeking to kill his brother the thief ! Is it true
Nehemiah was for certain to be accused of making himself
priest to hide in the temple, or king of Jerusalem if he
starts building the wall ! Is it true that Jesus brought his
death in him by repeatedly saying to them Why are you
trying to kill me, and they would say we arent trying to kill
you, and did he cause it by insulting Judas ! So you say
disasters and attacks of 1928 and 1976 was brought
upon them by themselves. What better prophet than the
one who knows his enemy and knows who he is weeding
out of his Church. If Russell and Rutherford were not
smart enough to do this, well the Jesus behind them was.
It still causes JW history to totally copy the ups and downs
success and failures of the new jeruslaem which spanned
537-443 BC identical to 1914-2008 AD. If that Church
is married to the Son Of Man and represents him, then
that Church of flesh is visible for all eyes to see while
her husband is invisibly present behind her. Exactly the
way God Jehovah appeared to us thru Jesus the first time.
The presence of invisible God in the visible flesh of Jesus
is identical to the presence of invisible Jesus in the
visible presence of his bride the Church Esther who is
named well, she is the morning star, the Easter, the
Ish-star, the dawn of Armageddon 2008 AD. I present to
you the Church you will see change all history and a
mass of death far surpassing the known history but
equal to that of the Flood. Millions now living will never
die, billions now living will die. Negligence is yours,
anyone speaking contrary to words of God from a
prophet who knows God is a false prophet for defying
and HE leads those who listen and read his posts into
the death that will hit in one day. Lucky is he who
defies, doesnt listen, and dies before that day comes.
But then thats typical, suicide upon seeing hell.
ELIJAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ResLight" |
|
| Title: Re: Perversions In The New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures |
02 Jul 2007 02:11:51 PM |
|
|
I am reposting this since my earlier post disappeared from the newsgroups.
See below.
"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:f60n6q$ef0$1@news.utelfla.com...
More clear evidence that the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation can
not be trusted to be an accurate translation.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
PERVERSIONS IN THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
by Dave Geauvreau
(2) Colossians 1:16 -- "by means of him all OTHER things were
created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and
the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or
Lordships or governments or authorities" (N.W.T.)
Colossians 1:16
hoti en autw ektisthee ta panta en tois
BECAUSE IN HIM IT WAS CREATED THE ALL (THINGS) IN THE
3754 1722 0846_5 2936 3588 3956 1722 3588
ouranois kai epi tees gees ta horata kai
HEAVENS AND UPON THE EARTH, THE (THINGS) VISIBLE AND
3772 2532 1909 3588 1093 3588 3707 2532
ta aorata eite thronoi eite kurioteetes eite
THE (THINGS) INVISIBLE, WHETHER THRONES OR LORDSHIPS OR
3588 0517 1535 2362 1535 2963 1535
archai eite exousiai ta panta di autou
GOVERNMENTS OR AUTHORITIES; THE ALL (THINGS) THROUGH HIM
0746 1535 1849 3588 3956 1223 0846_3
kai eis auton ektistai
AND INTO HIM IT HAS BEEN CREATED;
2532 1519 0846_7 2936
Westcott & Hort Interlinear
Here we have the word *panta*, a form of the word *pas*, which always looks
to context as well as common evidence for what is being spoken of. "Ta
panta" literally means "the all" -- the word "things" is supplied by
translators.
In Colossians 1:16, the context indicates it is being used to describe: "all
.... in heaven and on earth, visible and invisilbe, whether thrones or
dominions or rulers or authorities." By this it is being limited to
intelligent creation that has thrones, dominions, rulers, etc. It does not
include the material universe itself. It is further evident that God
himself is not being included in this, since he was never created. And,
further, it is evident that the firstborn creature is not being included,
since, being the firstborn creature (Colossians 1:15), he was the first
living creature to be brought forth by God.
The intrumental Greek word *en* (Strong's #1722), in context, denotes that
he was the instrument used by the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus
(John 17:3; Colossians 1:3), in the creation spoken of, not the actual
Creator himself.
http://godandson.reslight.net/colossians1-16.html
In Colossians 1:15 Paul plainly tells us that Jesus is the first to receive
life from Yahweh as the firstborn, thus he was created before the "all" that
is being referred to here, and thus would not be included in "all" of verse
16. An example of such an exception is given in 1 Corinthians 15:27.
See:
Did Jesus Have a Beginning?
http://godandson.reslight.addr/jesus-beginning.html
"There went out to him all the country of Judea, and all those [Strong's
3956] of Jerusalem. They were baptized by him in the Jordan river,
confessing their sins." (Mark 1:5) Does this mean that absolutely every
person who lived in the country of Judea and in Jerusalem came to John and
was baptized by him? Absolutely not.
"With Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They
shall make known unto you *all* [Strong's 3956] things which are done
here." -- Colossians 4:9.
And then we have the example of the usuage of *ta panta* in Hebrews 2:8,
where Paul quotes Psalm 8 regarding mankind: "'You have put all things in
subjection under his feet.' For in that he subjected all things to him, he
left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we don't see all things
subjected to him, yet." What are the "all things" -- ta panta: the all --
that was subjected to mankind? Psalm 8:7 answers: "All sheep and oxen, Yes,
and the animals of the field, The birds of the sky, the fish of the sea, And
whatever passes through the paths of the seas." (See Genesis 1:26,28) It is
evident that pas is subject to inclusion or exclusion according the context
and evidence.
Thus it would be understood that the reference is speaking of all the other
things being spoken of. In many places qualifiers are added by translators
which endeavor the identify what the word Pas is referring to. (See the KJV
in Matthew 1:10; 12:31; 26:31,70; Mark 1:37; 7:14; 13:13; Luke 11:43; John
1:7; 2:24; 3:26; 5:23; 11:48; 12:32; 13:35; 15:2; Acts 1:24; 4:21; 21:28;
many more could be cited)
Therefore, some have suggested putting the word "other" as a qualifier of
the Greek word panta so that is would read "by means of him all other things
were created." As controversial as this seems, in view of the context, such
a qualifier would be appropriate.
Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus spoken of as the One doing the actions
in Colossians 1:1-10, *through* Jesus created all things (spoken of in
context); thus it is said that in him all [the] things were created -- the
things being spoken of, which of, course, would not include Jesus himself;
as he was given life as the firstborn earlier than "the all created" being
spoken of.
Paul continues in verse 16 with the same line of thought as he had begun as
shown in Colossians 1:13,14:
Colossians 1:13
who [Jesus' God] delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated
us into the kingdom of the Son of his love;
Colossians 1:14
in [Greek, en, Strong's #1722] whom we have our redemption through [Strong's
#1223] his blood, the forgiveness of our sins;
In Colossians 1:14, Paul uses the the same Greek instrumental words as used
in Colossians 1:16,17, that is, the Greek instrumental word "en", and the
instrumental word "dia". He is showing how God has performed works by means
of the Son of his love. God is the source of the actions, and Jesus is the
agent that is used by Yahweh, which actions show the pre-eminent place that
Yahweh has given to his firstborn creature.
Thus seen, Colossians 1:16,17 do not actually attribute this creation to
Jesus, but rather *through* or *in* him. Green's interlinear: "in [Greek
*en*, Strong's #1722] him were all things created." This is similar to the
expression "in you" in Romans 9:17: For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR
THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER *IN YOU*, AND
THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED
THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." -- NASV Green's Interlinear:
"For this very thing I raised up you, so as I may show forth in you the
power of me." Also in Galatians 3:8: The Scripture, foreseeing that God
would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to
Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." Green's
Interlinear: "that will be blessed in you all the nations."
More instances could be cited, but this makes the point. And the point is
that the Greek word is used in this way as meaning "by means of" or
"through". If the creation is done "by means of" Jesus, who is the One who
would be doing it "by means" of him? God the Father of Jesus (verse 15).
Thus God creates these things by means of his firstborn Son, Jesus.
In the latter part of the verse Paul tells that all these things have been
created through [Greek, di, Strong's Greek #1223] Jesus and for him. It is
Yahweh who is the Creator and it is Jesus who is used by Yahweh as the
executor of the commands of Yahweh in creation. Jesus acknowledges his God
as the Creator in Mark 13:19.
Thus Yahweh alone is the Creator -- since he is the One who is the designer;
yet as the Most High he creates all these things through Jesus and for
Jesus. -- Genesis 1:1; 2:4.
In service of Jesus and his God,
Ronald
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Perversions In The New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures |
01 Jul 2007 05:38:22 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 16:08:49 -0400, "ResLight"
<rday888@reject.comcast.net> wrote:
"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:f60n6q$ef0$1@news.utelfla.com...
More clear evidence that the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation can
not be trusted to be an accurate translation.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
PERVERSIONS IN THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
by Dave Geauvreau
(2) Colossians 1:16 -- "by means of him all OTHER things were
created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and
the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or
Lordships or governments or authorities" (N.W.T.)
Colossians 1:16
hoti en autw ektisthee ta panta en tois
BECAUSE IN HIM IT WAS CREATED THE ALL (THINGS) IN THE
3754 1722 0846_5 2936 3588 3956 1722 3588
ouranois kai epi tees gees ta horata kai
HEAVENS AND UPON THE EARTH, THE (THINGS) VISIBLE AND
3772 2532 1909 3588 1093 3588 3707 2532
ta aorata eite thronoi eite kurioteetes eite
THE (THINGS) INVISIBLE, WHETHER THRONES OR LORDSHIPS OR
3588 0517 1535 2362 1535 2963 1535
archai eite exousiai ta panta di autou
GOVERNMENTS OR AUTHORITIES; THE ALL (THINGS) THROUGH HIM
0746 1535 1849 3588 3956 1223 0846_3
kai eis auton ektistai
AND INTO HIM IT HAS BEEN CREATED;
2532 1519 0846_7 2936
Westcott & Hort Interlinear
Here we have the word *panta*, a form of the word *pas*, which always looks
to context as well as common evidence for what is being spoken of. "Ta
panta" literally means "the all" -- the word "things" is supplied by
translators.
In Colossians 1:16, the context indicates it is being used to describe: "all
... in heaven and on earth, visible and invisilbe, whether thrones or
dominions or rulers or authorities." By this it is being limited to
intelligent creation that has thrones, dominions, rulers, etc. It does not
include the material universe itself. It is further evident that God
himself is not being included in this, since he was never created. And,
further, it is evident that the firstborn creature is not being included,
since, being the firstborn creature (Colossians 1:15), he was the first
living creature to be brought forth by God.
The intrumental Greek word *en* (Strong's #1722), in context, denotes that
he was the instrument used by the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus
(John 17:3; Colossians 1:3), in the creation spoken of, not the actual
Creator himself.
http://godandson.reslight.net/colossians1-16.html
In Colossians 1:15 Paul plainly tells us that Jesus is the first to receive
life from Yahweh as the firstborn, thus he was created before the "all" that
is being referred to here, and thus would not be included in "all" of verse
16. An example of such an exception is given in 1 Corinthians 15:27.
See:
Did Jesus Have a Beginning?
http://godandson.reslight.addr/jesus-beginning.html
"There went out to him all the country of Judea, and all those [Strong's
3956] of Jerusalem. They were baptized by him in the Jordan river,
confessing their sins." (Mark 1:5) Does this mean that absolutely every
person who lived in the country of Judea and in Jerusalem came to John and
was baptized by him? Absolutely not.
"With Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They
shall make known unto you *all* [Strong's 3956] things which are done
here." -- Colossians 4:9.
And then we have the example of the usuage of *ta panta* in Hebrews 2:8,
where Paul quotes Psalm 8 regarding mankind: "'You have put all things in
subjection under his feet.' For in that he subjected all things to him, he
left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we don't see all things
subjected to him, yet." What are the "all things" -- ta panta: the all --
that was subjected to mankind? Psalm 8:7 answers: "All sheep and oxen, Yes,
and the animals of the field, The birds of the sky, the fish of the sea, And
whatever passes through the paths of the seas." (See Genesis 1:26,28) It is
evident that pas is subject to inclusion or exclusion according the context
and evidence.
Thus it would be understood that the reference is speaking of all the other
things being spoken of. In many places qualifiers are added by translators
which endeavor the identify what the word Pas is referring to. (See the KJV
in Matthew 1:10; 12:31; 26:31,70; Mark 1:37; 7:14; 13:13; Luke 11:43; John
1:7; 2:24; 3:26; 5:23; 11:48; 12:32; 13:35; 15:2; Acts 1:24; 4:21; 21:28;
many more could be cited)
Therefore, some have suggested putting the word "other" as a qualifier of
the Greek word panta so that is would read "by means of him all other things
were created." As controversial as this seems, in view of the context, such
a qualifier would be appropriate.
Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus spoken of as the One doing the actions
in Colossians 1:1-10, *through* Jesus created all things (spoken of in
context); thus it is said that in him all [the] things were created -- the
things being spoken of, which of, course, would not include Jesus himself;
as he was given life as the firstborn earlier than "the all created" being
spoken of.
Paul continues in verse 16 with the same line of thought as he had begun as
shown in Colossians 1:13,14:
Colossians 1:13
who [Jesus' God] delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated
us into the kingdom of the Son of his love;
Colossians 1:14
in [Greek, en, Strong's #1722] whom we have our redemption through [Strong's
#1223] his blood, the forgiveness of our sins;
In Colossians 1:14, Paul uses the the same Greek instrumental words as used
in Colossians 1:16,17, that is, the Greek instrumental word "en", and the
instrumental word "dia". He is showing how God has performed works by means
of the Son of his love. God is the source of the actions, and Jesus is the
agent that is used by Yahweh, which actions show the pre-eminent place that
Yahweh has given to his firstborn creature.
Thus seen, Colossians 1:16,17 do not actually attribute this creation to
Jesus, but rather *through* or *in* him. Green's interlinear: "in [Greek
*en*, Strong's #1722] him were all things created." This is similar to the
expression "in you" in Romans 9:17: For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR
THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER *IN YOU*, AND
THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED
THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." -- NASV Green's Interlinear:
"For this very thing I raised up you, so as I may show forth in you the
power of me." Also in Galatians 3:8: The Scripture, foreseeing that God
would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to
Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." Green's
Interlinear: "that will be blessed in you all the nations."
More instances could be cited, but this makes the point. And the point is
that the Greek word is used in this way as meaning "by means of" or
"through". If the creation is done "by means of" Jesus, who is the One who
would be doing it "by means" of him? God the Father of Jesus (verse 15).
Thus God creates these things by means of his firstborn Son, Jesus.
In the latter part of the verse Paul tells that all these things have been
created through [Greek, di, Strong's Greek #1223] Jesus and for him. It is
Yahweh who is the Creator and it is Jesus who is used by Yahweh as the
executor of the commands of Yahweh in creation. Jesus acknowledges his God
as the Creator in Mark 13:19.
Thus Yahweh alone is the Creator -- since he is the One who is the designer;
yet as the Most High he creates all these things through Jesus and for
Jesus. -- Genesis 1:1; 2:4.
In service of Jesus and his God,
Ronald
Ronald,
Have you considered that the "firstborn" of Colossians 1:15 is the
employment of the figure Anthopopatheia?
Col 1:15 KJV
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every
creature:
The firstborn of every creature refers to God; not the Son from verse
13 through the pronouns. The last noun preceding "the firstborn" is
"God". The next verse supports that "firstborn" refers to God because
it begins with "hoti" (in order that) "in" "him", referring to God,
were all things created. Genesis 1:1 tells us that God is the Creator
of the heavens and the earth.
Col 1:16 KJV
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:
God is not literally a creature; but ascribes to Himself the
attributes of creatures via the figure Anthropopatheia. Notice, too,
that God is the firstborn of every creature, the protokos, while the
Son is the firstborn from the dead (verse 18).
Jesus was not present in the beginning. He was born of a woman as
foretold in Genesis 3:15 in 4 B.C. and did not receive the spirit of
God until 28 A.D. when he was baptized. Jesus could not be the
firstborn of the creation because "spirit" is not born; people and
animals are born. Jesus was not born until 3 B.C.
BB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Perversions In The New World Translation Of The Holy Scriptures |
01 Jul 2007 05:38:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 16:15:21 -0400, "ResLight"
<rday888@reject.comcast.net> wrote:
"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:f60n6q$ef0$1@news.utelfla.com...
More clear evidence that the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation can
not be trusted to be an accurate translation.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
PERVERSIONS IN THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
by Dave Geauvreau
The entire context of Colossians 1:15-22 is filled with
superlatives in its description of the Lord Jesus as the "image of
the invisible God, the first-begetter [or 'original bringer
forth'-- Erasmus] of every creature." The Apostle Paul lauds the
Son of God as creator of all things (verse 16) and describes Him as
existing "before all things" and "holding together all things"
(verse 17). This is in perfect harmony with the entire picture
Scripture points of the eternal Word of God (John 1:1) who was made
flesh (John 1:14) and of whom it was written: "All things were make
by him, and without him was nothing made that was made" (John 1:3).
In John 1:3, "panta" refers to the world of mankind, and John is saying that
all the world of mankind were made through Jesus, and that without Jesus,
nothing in the world of mankind was made.
ohn 1:3
All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has
been made.
World English Bible translation.
More literally, verse three is rendered:
All [Greek, panta, Strong's #3956] came to be through him, and apart from
him not [Greek, oude, Strong's #3956] one came to be.
The Logos is not being called "the Creator", but rather the one "through"
whom these things were made. In other words, the only true God (John 17:3)
used the Logos as an agent in creation. The Logos was with the only true
God; the Logos was not the only true God whom he was with.
The Greek word "panta" (a form of "pas", Strong's #3956) always looks to
context as well as common evidence for what is included. Likewise the
negative oude (Strong's #3761), especially when used relative to any form of
the Greek word pas (Strong's #3956), also does the same. The word "things"
is often supplied by the translator with various usages of "pas". By
comparing scriptural spiritual revealment with scriptural spiritual
revealment, we can see the that the "all" being spoken of in John 1:3 is
relative to the world of mankind, the world that was made through the Logos,
and into which the Logos came. (John 1:10) Rather than adding "things" to
the Greek word "panta", it could also be rendered as "all of this" or "all
of these". -- See the KJV in Mark 4:11; Colossians 3:18.
If one would take a NT Greek Lexicon and look at how the word "pas" (and the
related "hapas", Strong's #537) is used all through the scriptures, it
become apparent that it is rarely, if ever, used of absolutely everything in
the universe (which would include God), nor even of absolutely everything in
the created universe (which would not include God). It is most often used of
things pertaining to man, in the world of mankind, and often not even all
that is the world of mankind.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/NewTestamentGreek/grk.cgi?number=3956
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/NewTestamentGreek/grk.cgi?number=537
A good illustration of the usage of pas and oude is in Hebrews 2:7,8, where
these words are used to refer to the things subjected to mankind as
described in Psalm 8:6-8. Please note that both pas and oude is used
relatively, and neither one is speaking of absolutely everything in the
universe, nor even of the created universe. Psalm 8:6-8 outlines all the
things that were subjected to man, of which nothing was left that was not
subjected to him. Another good example is Romans 3:10,12, where it is
evident that Jesus is excluded, since his flesh was specially prepared by
God, and he was not made a sinner due to Adam's disobedience. -- Romans
5:19; Hebrews 10:5.
And then we have Paul's example of evident exclusion in 1 Corinthians 15:27.
Thus seen, John 1:3 should be taken together in consideration of what is
being spoken of. John 1:1 speaks of a "beginning". The beginning of what?
What was the general thought of the NT writers when they spoke of the
beginning of creation, or of the world? We need to examine some scriptures
to see, and thereby compare spiritual with spiritual. -- 1 Corinthians
2:12,13.
The first scripture we will examine is Matthew 19:4:
He answered, "Haven't you read that he who made them from the beginning made
them male and female, ..."
We can learn from this that Jesus associated "the beginning" with time of
the creation of Adam and Eve. This agrees with Exodus 20:11: "in six days
Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them." This shows
that the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 is the six days that are
described in Genesis 1:3 through Genesis 2:1. Adam and Eve's creation was on
the last of the six days of creation in which God created the heavens and
the earth. Thus, the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 is regarding the
six days of creation.
However, do the six days include the creation of the planet earth, the sun,
the moon, the stars and the angels? No. Let us examine why this is so.
Before getting into the creation of the heavens and the earth -- the six
days -- we read: "the earth was formless and empty." (Genesis 1:2) It should
be apparent here that "earth" is referring to the planet. The planet earth
already "was" before the first day of creation, thus before the beginning
spoken of in Genesis 1:1.
So what was the "earth" that is spoken of that created in the "beginning"?
Genesis 1:9,10 tells us:
God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place,
and let the dry land appear," and it was so. God called the dry land Earth,
and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was
good.
Notice that is was not the planet that was created on the third day, but dry
land. This is the "earth" that was created in the beginning spoken of in
verse one. "Earth" in the Bible, however, also designates the society of
people who are living on the dry land. We read that "The earth also was
corrupt before God." (Genesis 6:11) Does this mean that the physical planet
itself was corrupt? No, it is speaking of mankind and his society upon the
earth: "the earth was filled with violence." And:
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the
earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them
with the earth. -- Genesis 6:13.
Here God says he will destroy all flesh with the earth. Did he mean that the
planet earth would be no more? No, but he did destroy the order of things
that man had made upon the earth.
Likewise, Abraham called Jehovah the "Judge of all the earth." (Genesis
18:25) Did he mean that the planet itself was to be judged by Yahweh? No, he
is speaking of mankind upon the planet.
More scriptures could be cited, but these show the point that the "earth"
referred to in Genesis 1:1 is not the planet, but rather the things upon the
land.
What about the heavens -- what is included in the statement that in the
beginning God created the heavens? Very evidently "heavens" does not include
the heavens that is God's throne, and where the angels see the face of God.
(Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:34; 18:10) As best as we can determine from the
Scriptural revealment, the invisible heavens where God throne is has always
been. (Psalm 93:2; 103:19; Isaiah 66:1; Acts 7:45) What, then, are the
"heavens" that is being referred to?
The word "heaven", like the word "earth", is used in different ways in the
Bible.
The Hebrew word *Shamayim*, usually rendered "heavens" in Genesis 1:1, is
precisely the same word that used in Genesis 1:8. Often it rendered by
translators as singular in Genesis 1:8; however, the it is plural in both
instances in the Hebrew -- it is exactly the same word used in both
instances. (Actually, the singular of *Shamayim* is never used in the Bible.
It is always plural.) The "heavens" spoken of as being created in Genesis
1:1, is that expanse, or firmament, that is spoken of in Genesis 1:8, but as
it involves the full of the six days, "heavens" also includes all that is in
these heavens (as seen from the surface of the planet.) Symbolically, it
refers to the spiritual ruling powers that had been set in place by God
through Jesus, which heavens -- spiritual ruling powers - is to pass
away. -- Psalm 102:25; Ezekiel 28:12-15; Hebrews 1:8,10.
http://godandson.reslight.com/heb-1-8.html
But what we are especially interested in is the "beginning" spoken of in
John 1:1. As already seen, Jesus elsewhere refers to this beginning as when
Adam and Even were created. It is speaking of the beginning of the world of
mankind and not the creation of the spirit world or even of the stars and
planet systems. (We should take note that there is a single "day" of
creation spoken of in Genesis 2:4, which "day" includes "six days" in which
he created the heavens [skies] and the earth [land masses]. -- Exodus 20:13;
see also Matthew 19:4,5, which refers to the beginning when Adam and Eve
were created.) The angels were already in existence in the spirit world at
the creation being spoken of. -- Job 4:11-17; Mark 10:6.
In Matthew 24:21, Jesus speaks of the "beginning of the world."
For then will be great oppression, such as has not been from the beginning
of the world until now, no, nor ever will be.
Is he here speaking of the world of the angels? No, he is speaking of the
world of mankind. The angels were already in existence when the world of
mankind was created. -- Job 4:11-17; Mark 10:6.
Mark 10:6 makes this even clearer:
But from the beginning of the creation, 'God made them male and female.'
The beginning of creation here is not the beginning of the creation of the
spirit world; the angels -- the spirit sons of God -- were already in
existence at the creation that Jesus spoke of. -- Job 38:4-7; see Job 1:6;
2:1.
Let us notice some usages of the word "creation" (Hebrew, ktisis; Strong's
#2937) that show that it usually (although not always) was used in the NT
times to refer to human creation, and not angels, sun, moon, stars, etc.
Mark 16:15 - He said to them, "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel
to the whole creation.
The whole "creation" here does not include the angels, nor the sun, the
moon, the stars, etc. Nor does it mean that we are go into the world and
preach to spirit beings -- angels. The "creation" being spoken of is the
human creation. The word translated "whole" in the Greek is "pasee", a
variation of the word "pas". "Panta" in John 1:3 is a variation of this same
word. (Strong's # 3956) The usage here further illustrates that "pas" in all
its variations does not refer to absolutely everything in the universe. Here
it is limited to the human creation, as it is also in John 1:3. It is
speaking of the world of mankind into which Jesus came. -- John 1:10.
Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of him since the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made,
even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.
It should be obvious here that the "world" being spoken of is the visible
world -- the world of mankind here on earth, and not the invisible world of
the angels, etc.
Romans 8:19 - For the creation waits with eager expectation for the sons of
God to be revealed.
Romans 8:20 - For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will,
but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope
The angels in heaven, who always see the face of God, were not subjected to
this vanity, but, due to Adam's disobedience, the human creation on the
earth has been subjected to vanity. -- Ecclesiastes 1:2,13-17.
Now getting back to the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1.
It should be apparent by a comparison of spriritual revealment with
spiritual revealment that this beginning is not speaking of everything in
the entire universe, but in John 1:1, it can be seen to be limited
especially to the world of mankind (the world that did not recognize him),
into which Jesus came, and was the light of the world while he was in it.
(John 1:10; 9:5) It is the world of mankind that John speaks of John 1:3 as
"panta" -- all. TON THEON made the all of the world of mankind, through
Jesus, and without him none of this world was made.
In service of Jesus and his God,
Ronald
Ronald,
Regarding what John 1:3 says.
Joh 1:1-3 KJV
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made
that was made.
The pronoun him in verse three is controlled by it's antecedent which
is "God" from verse two. Jesus is not mentioned in verses one through
three. Verse three agrees with the Genessis 1:31 which says that God
"made". Genesis 2:4 confirms it.
Gen 1:31 KJV
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very
good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Gen 2:4 KJV
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they
were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the
heavens,
The first part of verse four speaks of the heavens and the earth of
Genesis 1:1 while the converse earth and the heavens refer to what was
made "in the day" which was day three of the reconstruction period
when the dry land appeared.
Continuing with the next two verses and watching our nouns and
pronouns:
Joh 1:4-5 KJV
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it
not.
In God was life. All life has its source in God. The life that was
in God was the light of men and that light that was in God shineth in
darkness, and the darkness (absence of light) comprehended
(katalambano was not siezed upon) it not. So, -
The verses that follow speak about God. The life that was in God was
the light of men, so John couldn't be the light. However, the word of
God does say that God's word is light (Ps 119:105 NUN. Thy word is a
lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path). The logos of verses one
and two is the revealed will of God; the light from the life of God.
Joh 1:6-13 KJV
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all
men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into
the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world
knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the
sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor
of the will of man, but of God.
Verse 14 follows the chronological sequence of events of the preceding
verses.
Joh 1:14 KJV
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace
and truth.
The logos became flesh (put by the figure Synecdoche of the Part for
the Whole man). The logos contextually is the thoughts, will, plan,
of God announced in Genesis 3;15.
BB
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
