This is an upload from RUFO’S TWITTER. A new, powerful, concise video by investigative journalist Christopher Rufo exposes the monied interests, activist intellectuals and influential doctors behind the aggressive “trans” revolution in America. Rufo’s SUBSTACK IS HERE.
? Jim Jordan’s Opening Statement in FBI Director Christopher Wray’s Oversight Hearing Testimony ?
Gets FBI Director To Admit That Weekly Meetings With Social Media Companies Continued Until Judge Issued Injunction
FBI Director Confirms Biden Is Under Criminal Investigation Then BACKTRACKS
TWO SHORTS FIRST:
Michael Shellenberger Rips Zuckerberg’s Threads Censorship
Over ONE MILLION FISA queries were conducted ILLEGALLY under FBI Director Wray’s watch. No one has been held responsible or accountable.
Spectator-TV
Michael Shellenberger, Twitter Files journalist and founder of Public is in London to discuss the international censorship industrial complex. He explains to Winston how the complex web of government, big tech, intelligence and media collude to suppress speech in the UK, America and beyond.
Republican Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson rattled off several scandals by the FBI to his face during a Weaponization Committee hearing Wednesday.
Matt Gaetz questions Wray on FBI Cover-up
Here is the Internet Responding to the FBI Director (and THIS IS the questioning that Rep Gaetz was talking about):
Thomas Massie: Gun purchases and Pipe Bomber
Rep. Andy Biggs: “How many agents or human resources were present at the Capitol Complex Facility on January 6th?”
TIMCAST
FBI GETS DUPED By Russians Pretending To Be Ukrainian, Fulfilled False Censorship Requests
JOHN 1:1-3
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was with God in the beginning. 3. All things were created through him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. (CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE, CSB)
I chose three excerpts below from a longer video to show how this Jehovah Witness (J-Dub) apologist rips peoples thoughts from their larger context. (LINK TO THE FULL VIDEO.) BTW, his videos are numerous and can keep the apologist busy in counter-cult responses. Also, it is worth pointing out as I watched the guy pick up and read from THE NET BIBLE, front pages, noting the contributors and scholastic notes. Something the NWT is missing. He sorta shot himself in the foot a bit with that as his inflection on the description was to give some weight or authority to it.
This should be paired with my:
THE NET BIBLE
This J-DUB Apologist misquotes, or, quotes out of context, not allowing the Bibles wonderful notes to speak for themselves:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. [1]
tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266–69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.[2]
[1] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), Jn 1:1,
[2] IBID.
So, the full context of the notes in the NET BIBLE show that the end result refutes the New World Translations rendering of John 1:1. Come on, give it up for the NET saying John 1:1c should read:
As well as the NET throwing Moffat and other translations under the short bus a tad.
JAMES R. WHITE
I really do hope curious Jehovah’s Witnesses see the video and go get these books to “disprove” Trinitarians. The free thinking J-Dubs may be blessed in a real sense by these “refutations”.
INDEFINITE, DEFINITE, QUALITATIVE, OR WHAT?
Before leaving John 1:1, we need to wrestle with the controversy that surrounds how to translate the final phrase. We’ve touched a bit on it above, but it would be good to lay out the possibilities. Without going into all the issues, the possible renderings fall into three categories:
Indefinite: hence, “a god.”
Definite: hence, “God.”
Qualitative: hence, “in nature God.”
Arguments abound about how to translate an “anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative,” and most people get lost fairly quickly when you start throwing terms like those around. Basically, the question we have to ask is this: how does John intend us to take the word θεός in the last clause? Does he wish us to understand it as indefinite, so that no particular “god” is in mind, but instead, that Jesus is a god, one of at least two, or even more? Or is θεός definite, so that the God is in view? Or does the position of the word (before the verb, adding emphasis), coupled with the lack of the article, indicate that John is directing us to a quality when he says the Word is θεός? That is, is John describing the nature of the Word, saying the Word is deity?
In reference to the first possibility, we can dismiss it almost immediately. The reasons are as follows:
Monotheism in the Bible—certainly it cannot be argued that John would use the very word he always uses of the one true God, θεός, of one who is simply a “godlike” one or a lesser “god.” The Scriptures do not teach that there exists a whole host of intermediate beings that can truly be called “gods.” That is gnosticism.
The anarthrous θεός—If one is to dogmatically assert that any anarthrous noun must be indefinite and translated with an indefinite article, one must be able to do the same with the 282 other times θεός appears anarthrously. For an example of the chaos that would create, try translating the anarthrous θεός at 2 Corinthians 5:19 (i.e., “a god was in Christ …”). What is more, θεός appears many times in the prologue of John anarthrously, yet no one argues that in these instances it should be translated “a god.” Note verses 6, 12, 13, and 18. There is simply no warrant in the language to do this.
No room for alternate understanding—It ignores a basic tenet of translation: if you are going to insist on a translation, you must be prepared to defend it in such a way so as to provide a way for the author to have expressed the alternate translation. In other words, if θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος is “the Word was a god,” how could John have said “the Word was God?” We have already seen that if John had employed the article before θεός, he would have made the terms θεός and λόγος interchangeable, amounting to modalism.
Ignores the context—The translation tears the phrase from the immediately preceding context, leaving it alone and useless. Can He who is eternal (first clause) and who has always been with God (second clause), and who created all things (verse 3), be “a god”?
F.F. Bruce sums up the truth pretty well:
It is nowhere more sadly true than in the acquisition of Greek that “a little learning is a dangerous thing.” The uses of the Greek article, the functions of Greek prepositions, and the fine distinctions between Greek tenses are confidently expounded in public at times by men who find considerable difficulty in using these parts of speech accurately in their native tongue.
A footnote appears after the comment on the article, and it says:
Those people who emphasize that the true rendering of the last clause of John 1:1 is “the word was a god,” prove nothing thereby save their ignorance of Greek grammar.
So our decision, then, must be between the definite understanding of the word and the qualitative. If we take θεός as definite, we are hard-pressed to avoid the same conclusion that we would reach if the word had the article; that is, if we wish to say the God in the same way as if the word had the article, we are making θεός and λόγος interchangeable. Yet the vast majority of translations render the phrase “the Word was God.” Is this not the definite translation? Not necessarily.
The last clause of John 1:1 tells us about the nature of the Word. The translation should be qualitative. We have already seen in the words of F. F. Bruce that John is telling us that the Word “shared the nature and being of God.” The New English Bible renders the phrase “what God was, the Word was.” Kenneth Wuest puts it, “And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity.” Yet Daniel Wallace is quite right when he notes:
Although I believe that θεός in 1:1c is qualitative, I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is, “and the Word was God.” It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father, than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Father.
Here we encounter another instance where the English translation is not quite up to the Greek original. We must go beyond a basic translation and ask what John himself meant.
In summary, then, what do we find in John 1:1? In a matter of only seventeen short Greek words, John communicates the following truths:
The Word is eternal—He has always existed and did not come into existence at a point in time.
The Word is personal—He is not a force, but a person, and that eternally. He has always been in communion with the Father.
The Word is deity—The Word is God as to His nature.
We would all do well to communicate so much in so few words! But he did not stop at verse 1. This is but the first verse of an entire composition. We move on to examine the rest.[1]
[1] James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 55–58.
This next quote I really couldn’t believe, have read through large swaths of this book during my seminary years.
DANIEL B. WALLACE
I have a link to a reference Doc Wallace uses that takes you directly to the source in the excerpt.
Application of Colwell’s Construction to John 1:1
John 1:1 states: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In the last part of the verse, the clause καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1c), θεός is the PN. It is anarthrous and comes before the verb. Therefore, it fits Colwell’s construction, though it might not fit the rule (for the rule states that definiteness is determined or indicated by the context, not by the grammar). Whether it is indefinite, qualitative, or definite is the issue at hand.
If θεός were indefinite, we would translate it “a god” (as is done in the New World Translation [NWT]). If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.
The grammatical argument that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous. Yet they are inconsistent, as R. H. Countess pointed out:
In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the time.…
The first section of John-1:1–18—furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Θεός occurs eight times-verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18—and has the article only twice-verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.” [1] (See page 54, you can turn to 55 once there.)
If we expand the discussion to other anarthrous terms in the Johannine Prologue, we notice other inconsistencies in the NWT: It is interesting that the New World Translation renders θεός as “a god” on the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article. This is surely an insufficient basis. Following the “anarthrous = indefinite” principle would mean that ἀρχῇ should be “a beginning” (1:1, 2), ζωὴ should be “a life” (1:4), παρὰ θεοῦ should be “from a god” (1:6), Ἰωάννης should be “a John” (1:6), θεόν should be “a god” (1:18), etc. Yet none of these other anarthrous nouns is rendered with an indefinite article. One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation.
According to Dixon’s study, if θεός were indefinite in John 1:1, it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal PN in John’s Gospel to be so. Although we have argued that this is somewhat overstated, the general point is valid: The indefinite notion is the most poorly attested for anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives. Thus, grammatically such a meaning is improbable. Also, the context suggests that such is not likely, for the Word already existed in the beginning. Thus, contextually and grammatically, it is highly improbable that the Logos could be “a god” according to John. Finally, the evangelist’s own theology militates against this view, for there is an exalted Christology in the Fourth Gospel, to the point that Jesus Christ is identified as God (cf. 5:23; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28, etc.).
Grammarians and exegetes since Colwell have taken θεός as definite in John 1:1c. However, their basis has usually been a misunderstanding of Colwell’s rule. They have understood the rule to say that an anarthrous pre-verbal PN will usually be definite (rather than the converse). But Colwell’s rule states that a PN which is probably definite as determined from the context which precedes a verb will usually be anarthrous. If we check the rule to see if it applies here, we would say that the previous mention of θεός (in 1:1b) is articular. Therefore, if the same person being referred to there is called θεός in 1:1c, then in both places it is definite. Although certainly possible grammatically (though not nearly as likely as qualitative), the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεός in John 1:1c.
Further, calling θεός in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with λόγος (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem of this argument is that the θεός in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the θεός in 1:1c is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.” This, as the older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism.[2] The Fourth Gospel is about the least likely place to find modalism in the NT.
The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ … θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμί is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).
Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father. [3]
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 266–269.
THREE FOOTNOTES I THOUGHT WERE RELEVANT:
[1] R. H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Philipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982) 54–55.
[2] Before 1933 NT commentators saw θεός as qualitative. For example, in Westcott’s commentary on John: “It is necessarily without the article (θεός not ὁ θεός) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say ‘the Word was ὁ θεός.’ ”
Robertson, Grammar, 767–68: “ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (convertible terms) would have been pure Sabellianism.… The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea.”
Lange’s commentary on John: “Θεός without the article signifies divine essence, or the generic idea of God in distinction from man and angel; as σάρξ, ver. 14, signifies the human essence or nature of the Logos. The article before θεός would here destroy the distinction of pesonality and confound the Son with the Father.”
Chemnitz says: “θεός sine artic. essentialiter, cum artic. personaliter.”
Alford points out: “The omission of the article before θεός is not mere usage; it could not have been here expressed, whatever place the words might hold in the sentence. ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός would destroy the idea of the λόγος altogether. θεός must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,—not ὁ θεός, ‘the Father,’ in Person.… as in σὰρξ ἐγένετο [John 1:14], σάρξ expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in θεὸς ἦν, θεός expresses that essence which was His ἐν ἀρχῇ:—that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,—was with God (the Father),—and was Himself God.”
Luther states it succinctly: “ ‘the Word was God’ is against Arius; ‘the Word was with God’ against Sabellius.”
[3] Although I believe that θεός in 1:1c is qualitative, the simplest and most straightforward translation is, “and the Word was God.” It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father, than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Father.
To the contrary of the three excerpts of the points made by this J-Dub apologist… the facts don’t fit the narrative.
A BONUS EXCERPT
Edmund C. Gruss, Apostles of Denial; an Examination and Expose of the History, Doctrine and Claims of the Jehovah’s Witness (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub Co, 1970). (FREE TO VIEW HERE)
PAGES 118-119
On page 776 of the Appendix the New World Translation translators quote from the recognized authority, A. T. Robertson, in support of their “a god” rendering: “Among the ancient writers ho theos was used of the god of absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods.”32 (Supposedly proving that God with the definite article is to be distinguished from God without the article.) What the translators failed to include was Robertson’s further statement: “In the N. T. however, while we have pros ton theon (John 1:1, 2), it is far more common to find simply theos, especially in the Epistles.”33
On pages 774 and 775 the translators quote Dana and Mantey who they misuse, as a check of these citations demon-strate.34
To this evidence also may be added the weight of the great majority of the translations and versions now in existence, as well as almost every recognized Greek scholar. The writer has checked over twenty translations as well as many commentaries based on the Greek, and in every case (except for Moffatt’s and Goodspeed’s readings) the translation “the Word was God” or its equivalent was found.35
One of the strongest arguments against the New World Translation reading is the fact that such a reading would be absolutely abominable to the Jewish ear. The Jews were strict monotheists and to accept the Witnesses’ translation would make John guilty of polytheism. The New Testament makes it clear that the believers were worshipping Christ (Matt. 14:83; 28:9, 17; John 20:28).36
On page 107, the Jehovah’s Witnesses introduce four more verses, three of which are wrongly understood. The argument is as follows: (1) “Psalm 90:2 declares that God is `from everlasting to everlasting’.” (2) If this is true Jesus could not be God for He had a beginning. (3) Proof that Jesus Christ did have a beginning is found in Revelation 3:14; John 1:14; and Colossians 1:15.
Revelation 3:14 is quoted according to the New World Translation rendering which makes Christ “the beginning of the creation by God.” On the surface this verse seems to say that Christ was God’s first creation, but an examination of the scripture shows this understanding is not acceptable. The first thing which is erroneous is the translation of the verse. The translation “by God” cannot be justified, for the genetive tou theou, means “of God” and not “by God.” For the translation given by the Witnesses the genitive would require the proposition hupo, which is not found in the passage.37 The second word which is wrongly understood is the Greek word arche, translated “beginning.” Concerning
32 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (fourth edition; New York: George H. Doran Company, 1923), p. 761. Arndt-Gingrich state that then is used of “the true God, sometimes with, sometimes without the article.” Arndt-Gingrich, op. cit., p. 357.
33 Robertson, loc. cit.
34 Cf. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: The Macmillian Company, 1955), pp. 140, 148, 149. See Dr. Mantey’s own reaction in M. Van Buskirk’s The Scholastic Dishonesty of The Watchtower (Canis, P.O. Box 1783, Santa Ana, Calif. 92702).
35 An interesting and informative presentation on the deity of Christ with special reference to John 1:1 and the Witnesses’ official reply is found in the article by Victor Perry, “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Deity of Christ,” The Evangelical Quarterly, 35:15-22, January-March, 1963.
36 “For an excellent presentation on worship given to Christ see: Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), pp. 889-44.
37 “Dana and Mantey, op. cit., p. 112: “In fact, agency is expressed with the aid of hupo more frequently than it is by all the other methods combined.”
Page 208-211
5. Arbitrary use and non-use of capitals when dealing with the divine name. The place where this is especially evident is John 1:1 where the New World Translation translates “the Word was a god.” According to the Witnesses’ argument “god” appears here without the article. If this is the rule that the Witnesses themselves establish, why are they not consistent? In John 1: 18, which is a parallel passage, why have they not translated it: “No man has seen a god,” as there is no definite article before “God”? The same might be asked concerning Romans 8:8; Philippians 2:6; and Philippians 2:11. It also causes one to wonder, if Christ is “god” with a little “g,” how, when Thomas in John 20:28 gives his great declaration of faith to Christ’s deity, does the NWT have “My Master and my God.” It can be seen that the theos in John 20:28 is with the definite article, but how can the translators apply both “god” and “God” to Christ in the same book?
Other reviewers’ comments on the New World Translation of the Christian. Greek Scriptures. What do qualified men say concerning this Watch Tower translation? What is the purpose of the translation?
Ray C. Stedman writes:
. . . A close examination, which gets beneath the outward veneer of scholarship, reveals a veritable shambles of bigotry, ignorance, prejudice, and bias which violates every rule of biblical criticism and every standard of scholarly integrity.42
Henry J. Heydt draws his conclusion:
“We consider the New World Translation a gross miscarriage of what a translation should be, and a biased travesty of God’s Holy Word.”43
Martin and Klann conclude their chapter on the New World Translation with the following comments:
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 Watchtower translations.44
F. E. Mayer shows the purpose of the translation as he writes:
The New World Translation sets forth other distinctive views which are essential to the entire doctrinal structure of the witnesses’ message. It is a version that lends support to the denial of doctrines which the Christian churches consider basic, such as the co-equality of Jesus Christ with the Father, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and the survival of the human person after physical death. It teaches the annihilation of the wicked, the non-existence of hell, and the purely animal nature of man’s soul.45
Lewis W. Spitz, writing in the Introduction to Mayer’s booklet, Jehovah’s Witnesses says:
The purpose of this translation is to support the basic tenets of the cult with the use of its own sectarian terminology. Theological discussions with the Witnesses will in the future prove more futile, for they will insist on using this translation as their authority. 46
In his appraisal of the entire translation Anthony Hoekema says that:
their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which. many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself. 48
In a balanced statement dealing with the New World Translation F. F. Bruce states that
some of its distinctive renderings reflect the biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah’s Witnesses (e.g. “‘the Word was a god” in John 1:1). . . . Some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite good. . . .48
Bruce M. Metzger in his article “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ,” clearly shows the errors of many Christological passages found in the New World Translation. For the reader who either agrees or disagrees with this reviewer’s comments, this writer urges a study into the evidence presented by Metzger and the articles of the other reviewers cited.
Conclusion. After just this cursory look at the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures the honest mind can only conclude that this work, although outwardly scholarly, is plainly in many places, just the opposite. Its purpose is to bring the errors of the Witnesses into the Word of God. This translation carries no authority except to its originators and their faithful followers, and should be rejected as a perversion of the Word of God.
42 Ray C. Stedman, “The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures,” Our Hope, 50:34, July, 1953. p. 30.
43 Henry J. Heydt, Jehovah’s Witnesses: Their Translation (New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, Inc., [n. d.]), p. 9. John 13:18 has been revised in the 1961 edition., p. 19.
44 Walter R. Martin and Norman H. Klann, Jehovah of the Watchtower (sixth revised edition, 1963; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1953), p. 161.
45 F. E. Mayer, The Religious Bodies of America (fourth edition; St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1956), p. 469.
46 F. E. Mayer, Jehovah’s Witnesses (revised 196?; St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1942), p. 4.
47 Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), pp. 288, 239.
48 F. F. Bruce, The English Bible: A History of Translation (London: Lutterworth Press, 1961), p. 184.
PAGES 132-133
One Old Testament reference should be mentioned: in Isaiah 9:6 the Messiah is designated the “Mighty God,” even in the New World Translation. The Hebrew words translated “Mighty God” (el gibbor) in Isaiah 9:6 also appear in Isaiah 10:21. This reference uses the identical expression to identify Jehovah. Hoekema points out that this designation “is, in Old Testament literature, a traditional designation of Jehovah—see Deuteronomy 10:17, Jeremiah 32:18, and Nehemiah 9:32.”66 When Witnesses attempt to make a dis Unction and say that Christ is a “Mighty God” and Jehovah alone is the “Almighty God,” they must violate the Scriptures and teach polytheism. The New World Translation rendering of Isaiah 44:6-9 shows that the Witnesses are wrong: “‘. . . Besides me there is no God. . . . Does there exist a God besides me? No, there is no Rock’.”
True, others are designated “gods” (angels, idols, false gods, magistrates), but these are never made objects of true worship. Paul makes the situation clear in I Corinthians 8: 4-6: 4-6 :
. . . There is no God but one. For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him, and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him [NWT].
B. B. Warfield remarks cogently: “You cannot prove that only one God exists by pointing out that you yourself have two.”67 When the Witnesses admit that there is a “Mighty God” and an “Almighty God” they are doing just this and they make the admission that they are polytheists!
Arndt-Gingrich point out that Ignatius (died c. 110) calls Christ “God” in many passages.68 He is an important witness to the Christological thought of the early Church because he was born shortly before or after the ascension and his life spanned the writing of the New Testament. In his Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Romans he used such expressions as: “Jesus Christ our God,” “in the blood of God,” and “our God Jesus Christ” Ignatius also wrote: “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived in the womb of Mary…. God appeared in the likeness of man.” At another place he stated: “Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God.”69 It is evident that the Christological statements of John and Paul were preserved by Ignatius.
66 Anthony A. Hoekerna, The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), p. 332.
67 Benjamin B. Warfieid, Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1952), p. 75, 76.
68 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Earlij Christian luiteratitre, ed. and trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 367.
69 J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, ed. J. R. Harmer (1891 edition; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962), pp. 63-68, 75-79
The below are some old posts combined circa:
January 2018 / March 2018 / August 2018 / January 2021 / March 2021/UPDATED Oct 2023
Hat-Tip to BREITBART:
…Following Schumer’s quota-based logic, Prager asked if the share of Jews within the judiciary should be reduced in pursuit of proportionate ethnic representation:
Rogan & Maher Discuss Today’s Woke Progressives — Bill Maher Just Leveled Woke Progressives With the Most Damning Comparison Ever: “They believe race is first and foremost the thing you should always see everywhere, which I find interesting because that used to be the position of the Ku Klux Klan.”
And we can’t forget Schumer’s explicit racist policies to help get him elected into government waaaay back when:
| Sen. Chuck Schumer’s “Race-Card” Backfires! |
Jay Homnick Discusses Sen. Schumer’s Bigoted Past |
Jay D. Homnick is interviewed about his 2006 American Spectator article on U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (NY), entitled, “RACE TO THE TOP“.
….What Schumer explained to these audiences was as follows. If they elected him to the State Assembly, he would put forth a bill that would create a set of provisions, ostensibly to “help” the underprivileged urban blacks. It would identify those apartment buildings on Ave. K as being in a state of some dilapidation, requiring an extensive facelift and revamping of the apartments. I don’t recollect with certainty if ownership would be assumed by the State itself or one of those “community rehabilitation organizations” that served as the instrument of choice for soaking up large sums of government money for the stated purpose of redeveloping slums.
The residents would then all be relocated into government or government-subsidized housing in other areas while the apartments were being renovated. At the end of the process, the individual apartments would be redefined as co-ops or condominiums to be sold to private owners. Although on paper the current tenants would be given priority for the right to purchase the newly upgraded condos, we could be sure that — ha, ha, ha — the blacks would not be able to raise the cash required, which would be not inconsiderable.
The presumption was that by then they would have grown comfortable in their new surroundings and they would not feel victimized by the process. The refurbished apartments would be purchased by white people and, shazzam, the neighborhood sore spot would be fixed. I am ashamed to say that the people bought into this mean-spirited and racist proposition. On top of its other faults the idea was also chimerical, with no real chance of working in the political reality of our time.
In the end, construction was done on those buildings through some sort of government project, but all the black people remained. Naturally no one could complain, because their original intent was not something that could be publicized. So there it is, the inside scoop on how Charles Schumer, the patron saint of anti-racism, rose to power in a Brooklyn neighborhood….
This is important because (a) it is noted that the media has not asked Sen. Schumer about this — whereas if he were a Republican I am sure everyone’s 12-year-old to the oldest infirmed member of the family would have heard about this “racism.” (Read here media bias.) And secondly (b), it brings into context all the “holier than thou” attitude Chuckie Boy has been spouting as of late. TO WIT… Senator Chuck Schumer tells Stephen Colbert that, yeah, of course Donald Trump’s a racist
Rich Weinstein (@phillyrich1) has many more at his TWEET — he says he is “old enough to remember when the Dems didn’t think ‘Monkey Around’ was racist.”
Firstly, at the very end of this upload, Maryam Qudrat, a parent who called out the teacher union’s almost fascistic obsession with race mentions they are trying to create a race war. Thomas Sowell as well mentions this in a 2013 National Review article: “Early Skirmishes in a Race War”
Larry Elder discusses the latest regarding Cecily Myart-Cruz, president of United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), L.A.’s largest teachers union. This woman is a radical Marxist. She pushed the self-admitted Marxist organization Black Lives Matter onto teachers and children. She has close ties to Bernie Sanders, and is really a racist at heart.
(Remember, you can change the quality of the video in the settings icon)
THE BIG FINISHER!
Do you know what’s going on in your kid’s school? The three R’s – reading, writing, and arithmetic – have taken a back seat to a fourth R. Max Eden, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, explains what that fourth R is, and why it’s so destructive.
Note my growing stories on IBRAM X. KENDI.
COUNTER NARRATIVE!
Renowned political science professor Carol Swain started out life with every possible disadvantage. She ended up teaching at two of the most prestigious universities in the country. How did she do it? She shares her story and her wisdom in this inspiring video.
FLASHBACK
I get “Whitesplained” to about white privilege by snowflakes!
(Posted late 2015)
I posted this earlier this morning as part of a LARGER POST… but it deserved to stand alone:
The above is somewhat — already — true:
This (the above and below) comes from EAG.org, here is part of the post by them, which can be linked to below:
…EAGnews has previously reported about the social justice math activists’ tricks in a book called “Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers,” edited by Peterson.
The book includes “lessons and essays about racial profiling, environmental racism, unfair mortgage lending practices of Big Banks, the ‘overabundance of liquor stores’ in minority communities, and slave-owning U.S. presidents,” EAGnews’ Ben Velderman wrote.
“The book’s other major theme is that capitalism’s unequal distribution of wealth is the root cause of the world’s suffering. Students learn to despise free market economics in lessons about third-world sweatshops, ‘living wage’ laws, the earnings of fast food workers and restaurant CEOs, and the ‘hidden’ costs of meat production,” Velderman reported.
In the book, Peterson explains his rationale for attacking the American narrative:
“I figure that if kids start questioning the ‘official story’ early on, they will be more open to alternative viewpoints later on. While discovering which presidents were slave owners is not an in-depth analysis, it pokes an important hole in the godlike mystique that surrounds the ‘founding fathers.’”
Unionists now can’t even leave math alone and have hijacked it to push their own political agenda.
Thank goodness a growing number of parents have access to charter schools, cyberschools, voucher schools and homeschools – all of which provide an alternative to government schools, many of which have been infiltrated by left-wing activists like Lewis and Peterson.
(EAG NEWS)
Another example can be found in this story (there are too many to note here): Physics Teacher Develops Unit About Racism, White Privilege, Social Justice
See also:
During this interview, the “individual” came up. Why is this important? Because in totalitarian movements the individual is extinguished (which is opposite of our countries [the USA] documents). Below are some quotes from the socialist movement in Germany as an example. Here are the four parts mentioned in the above interview:
Why is the individual “being lambasted” (as mentioned above) important?
…Hitler noted that his task was to “convert the German Yolk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists.” Hitler informed Wagener that the task was to “find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution.” Hitler also admitted that Marx and Lenin had the right goal, but the wrong route.
[….]
Even the school textbooks were heavily peppered with opinions which exhibited a strong bias against free enterprise and capitalism. For example, a 1943 geography textbook stated: “Until the National Socialist takeover, the German economy followed the principles of economic liberalism, which held that a nation’s economy could develop irrespective of its natural economic foundations. If the National Socialist economic plan was to be successful in reviving the German economy, all participants in economic life had to be convinced of National Socialist economic thinking. In the economy too, the guiding principle had to be: The common good comes before the individual good.”…
Nevin Gussack, The NAZI War Against Capitalism (Self Published, can order on Amazon), 10, 26.
The reason I got the above book is because of some comments by Bernie Sanders, and the fact that Hillary’s voting record is as leftist as this self-avowed democrat-socialist (which the NAZI’s were). Democrats like Bernie, even having Ronda Rousey coming out in support of. I recalled this quote from a biography of Hitler I read:
One may wish to read my “SCANDINAVIAN SOCIALISM” post for more info on Nordic socialism’s failure.
(See also: 128 ‘Artists And Cultural Leaders’ Sign Open Letter Endorsing Bernie Sanders)
Originally Posted August 2010 (Conversation was from 2001 via SPACEBATTLES)
Updated in January of 2017, and again today (July 2023)
Susan said:
“No SeanG, unlike you, we are not forcing morality on anybody. We are for allowing a choice. NOWHERE in the pro-choice agenda is there anything about making abortion mandatory.” (Emphasis in the original)
Answer: For women, Roe means more than having control over their bodies; it allows them to plan her life. If there’s a contraceptive failure, the law protects her, permits her to decide whether-or-not to become a parent.
Once contraception has failed, the women have ALL the rights. She can get an abortion. If she decides to have the child, she can make the father pay support, whether or not he wanted it. According to Roe, the man’s obligation begins and ends with his wallet. This is true, but money facilitates existence (one of the reasons an abortion is allowed… monetary standard of living). The quality of life is measured in dollars and cents. 
Inarguably, the man is required to pay support for eighteen years and will have his standard of living diminished (severely so, if his circumstances are modest). Certain career, education, and family options will be foreclosed – for the man at least. >> UPDATE TO THIS PART BELOW | JUMP
(Sound familiar? These are excuses for the women to get “off the hook” – e.g., abort a life – but men don’t have that choice.)
If maximizing personal freedom is the primary goal of our legal system, why should men be held to their traditional obligations (supporting the children they’ve fathered) while women are liberated from theirs?
Question:
Well? This is precisely what is being done by the government à as I speak! You would argue that the government should stay out of your affairs when choosing whether to become a parent (i.e., to abort or not), however, you wish the government to be involved in telling the father that he has to become a parent and supply all the necessary needs for that child. Thus, you are forcing your morality on me Susan (as a defined group) and using the power of the Federal Government to boot!!! You cannot say any differently with what I just have shown above. This belief is self-refuting and shows you to-be-the hypocrite, and not me. You see… I am for equal rights under the Constitution. A “right” has no “moderation (see below). You, on the other-hand, are for special rights inferred upon groups of people.
An aside: in the Laws of Logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction is the most important and can thus be stated like this – “A” cannot both be “A” and “non-A” at the same time. This law is valid in science, law, politics, philosophy, etc. Any theory which purports something, cannot also deny that purport’ion. As in this case, the pro-choice movement is purported to be about liberating – “civil” rights – etc., however, in doing this they deny to some what they want for others… it is self-refuting, a non-logical theory that is really about special rights rather than equal protection under the law.
An Update via Gay Patriot:
Good point: If women can’t be “forced” to become mothers, why should men be “forced” to become fathers?
Swedish Liberal Youth argues that men should be given an equal say in whether or not they wish to become a parent, and be granted the option to cut any lawful responsibilities.
The suggested ‘legal abortion’ would be irreversible and would see the man renounce all parental duties and rights to see the child once it has been born.
This completely at odds with the position of the American Feminist Left which is that men should be forced to provide child support even for children that are proven to be someone else’s…
UPDATED VIDEO ADDITION:
Pro-Life Man Hilariously Trolls Women’s March
See more on this at LIFE NEWS.
(SHORT VERSION) Tucker Carlson Reveals Capitol Police Chief Told Him J6 Crowd Was ‘FILLED With Federal Agents’
(LONGER INTERVIEW SNIP) Tucker Carlson exposes the falsehoods surrounding January 6th, unveiling that Fox News declined
(Originally Posted Nov 2011)
I have used this audio to teach a men’s class when filling in at church (when the regular teacher was on mission). As part of this update I just wanna note a post detailing my acknowledgement and position on the entire Ravi “fallout.” My old tribute to Ravi has a new intro that explains the entire thing. I still confidently say enjoy the MESSAGE, not the deliverer:
UPDATE
Which itself is actually an old video from 2010’ish
I wanted to add this update with a sermon excerpt noting another “miracle” of God imprinted on us. It has ta do with what is called “laminim.”
Here is a basic rundown of Laminim:
What Is Laminin?
Laminin is a protein that is part of the extracellular matrix in humans and animals. The extracellular matrix (ECM) lies outside of cells and provides support and attachment for cells inside organs (along with many other functions). Laminin has “arms” that associate with other laminin molecules to form sheets and bind to cells. Laminin and other ECM proteins essentially “glue” the cells (such as those lining the stomach and intestines) to a foundation of connective tissue. This keeps the cells in place and allows them to function properly. The structure of laminin is very important for its function (as is true for all proteins). One type of congenital muscular dystrophy results from defects in laminin.
Yes, I know all the “rebuttals” of this amino acid.
You hold it sideways, it looks like a sword.
It isn’t always straight like a cross. Sometimes it looks like a “shot put Olympian.”
Yada, yada.
Remember, it ISN’T being used as “evidence” to prove God exists. Rather, it is an evidence to those who already believe in God. It is similar to Protestant’s views on good works. Good works come after you are saved, not that good works save you or assist in your salvation. One view pre-dates, the other post-dates.
It is being used analogously to bring home a Biblical truth, and, a visual one at that. Here is a multiple micron-microscope of the laminim, for the record:
AIG, even though the article is a mixed bag of caution, goes on to note the following:
K. Beck, I. Hunter, and J. Engel, “Structure and Function of Laminin: Anatomy of a Multidomain Glycoprotein,” The FASEB Journal 4 (1990): 148–160, doi:10.1096/fasebj.4.2.2404817.
Here is a great two paragraph explainer that sets the skeptic and the Christian who misinterpret the presentation as a “proof” of God rather than a beautiful picture of God’s grace and sacrifice.
Having watched Louie’s video several times over the years, I believe he is saying laminin [cross-shaped proteins] is an illustration, a signpost pointing to the reality of Colossians 1:17, Jesus holding all things, including us, together, and he’s not saying that laminin is literally the meaning of that verse. But I could see how someone could take his words that way.
I found this short analysis helpful. Here’s an excerpt: “The structure of laminin is only an image which by itself does not necessarily prove anything. However, when this image is considered as a parallel to the symbolic aspect of the cross and the religious significance therein, a resounding message appears: laminin is to our bodies as Jesus is to our souls. No proofs or support, nor debates, just a beautiful picture.”
With all that in mind (and my inane thought after the video), the presentation is still excellent!
After seeing the mixed micron microscope of the various laminim pictures above, I suppose you could say it also resembles the DRI guy.
Lol.
What is my “inane,” humorous thought? I am thinking of the Biblical passage that says,
Does this mean I have this “box” checked?
(When my son was out of country [military], Signal was preferred by the Dept. of Defense as a way to text with him. In fact, that was the only text app they could use… that sold me, #1 — but here is why the military prefers it over other messaging apps.)
In this episode, we explore why it’s time to drop WhatsApp and switch to Signal.
Via BERNIE’S TWEETS:
SURVEILLANCE – Listen carefully to the CEO of Signal explain the depth of the Online harms bill Ofcom and the WEF have specified.
It would mean Ofcom has the power to force all UK citizens to download Spyware that checks their messages before they are sent against a database of what is permissible to say!
Authoritarian invasions of your privacy will be mandatory in the new world order they didn’t ask you to vote for.
How secure is WhatsApp?
Facebook cannot access chats due to the end-to-end encryption, but the firm can take user data.
Facebook has access to WhatsApp user phone numbers, IP addresses, mobile network, length of time using the messenger, payment data, cookies, and location data, according to WIRED.
Some users had chosen to opt-out of allowing Facebook to access personal data back in 2016. But WhatsApp said if all users do not agree to share information by February 8, they will lose access to the app.
Insider’s Rob Price reported that outside apps can track WhatsApp users’ online activity, including who they’re talking to, when they’re using the app, and even when they’re sleeping.
How secure is Signal?
Signal says it does not obtain user messages, groups, contacts, or profile information. The only two pieces of information Signal collects are how long users have had Signal installed and the last date it was installed.
The company also open sources all of its software, meaning the public can view how the tech was made inspect the code themselves.
Signal has received a vow of confidence from many security experts, including Edward Snowden. Journalists at Vice and The Intercept recommend using Signal over WhatsApp to ensure your messages remain private.
What’s causing the furor over WhatsApp’s new policy? Updates terms of service & privacy for users, users have to accept it if they want to continue using the app. Changes in the way user data are handled. More information & data may be shared with Facebook. The new policy comes into effect from Feb 8th. Is Signal the alternative to WhatsApp? It is the most secure of all messaging apps in terms of privacy.
Non- profit organization with privacy tech at its core. Edward Snowden & Elon Musk swear by it. Watch the full debate with Amit Somani, Managing Partner, Prime Ventures, Pavel Naiya, Senior Analyst, Counterpoint Technology Market Research, and Aditya Chunduru, Journalist, Medianama with Tamanna Inamdar.
This large excerpt is from VPN OVERVIEW:
WhatsApp has been the go-to instant messaging app for many years, with two billion people using it each month to exchange messages with colleagues, friends, and families. But, as people began looking for more privacy-focused alternatives, the debate between Signal vs. WhatsApp continued to heat up.
Users like WhatsApp because it is free, most of their connections already use it, and it doesn’t require you to have a social media account to use it. (Hello, Facebook Messenger, we’re talking to you.)
But WhatsApp isn’t always the perfect way to chat, as recent events have shown. It also has its share of privacy issues. Add to this the fact that WhatsApp is owned by Facebook, and it isn’t surprising so many WhatsApp users are considering a change to how they instantly communicate with friends and family.
Signal, a privacy-focused messaging alternative to WhatsApp, has surged in popularity dramatically over the past year or so.
But as you weigh Signal vs. WhatsApp, you need to understand what each side brings to the table (and doesn’t) to determine which messaging app is best for you. To help, we’ve put together this short Signal app review and included how WhatsApp stacks up in key areas of functionality, privacy, and security.
What is Signal?
If you’re not familiar with Signal, it is a free instant messaging app with a heavy focus on privacy. It is a product of the Signal Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. The app is built on open-source software (meaning anyone can scrutinize the source code and test it for security purposes), and is entirely funded by grants and donations.
There are no ads, affiliate links, or any kind of tracking when you use the app. It is also not tied to, even indirectly, any major tech company. As such, concerns about data sharing are much less of an issue.
Signal is available on Android, iOS, Windows, and macOS. It’s one of the best encrypted messaging apps in the world right now.
What is WhatsApp?
WhatsApp is the world’s most popular messaging app, used by billions of people. It encrypts communication on both ends, but since it is owned by Facebook, there are quite a few privacy concerns.
WhatsApp doesn’t show any ads, and just like Signal, you don’t need to pay anything to use WhatsApp. WhatsApp also offers added features for business accounts.
The following is a section from David Reed’s
Paradise
Since its release in 1982 the Watchtower Society’s book You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth has been the primary study text for prospective new converts. During its first fifteen months in print nearly 15 million copies were produced in 55 languages according to The Watchtower of January 1, 1984, page 28. As the book’s title indicates, it introduces readers to the hope that draws millions of people to become Jehovah’s Witnesses—the hope of everlasting life in a beautiful earthly paradise.
Such a promise is certainly attractive, especially for men and women who have not come to enjoy a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Not knowing anyone in heaven, why would they want to end up going there? In fact, coming face-to-face with God on his home turf can be a frightening thought for many. A subtropical paradise in an earth forever rid of poverty, sickness, and death proves more appealing to human nature. But is it truly biblical to proclaim this as the Christian hope?
The Greek word translated paradise appears three times in the New Testament—at Luke 23:43, 2 Corinthians 12:4, and Revelation 2:7—but Jehovah’s Witnesses largely ignore the two later verses and instead hang their hope on Jesus’ words to the dying criminal nailed up next to him, as these words appear in the JW New World Translation: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43) This constitutes Christ’s promise that the man would be resurrected more than two thousand years later to life on an earth transformed to a beautiful garden park, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe.
Unfortunately, however, the meaning of the verse in the New World Translation is affected by the anonymous translators’ choice to punctuate Luke 23:43 differently from the way it appears in most other Bibles. Placing the comma after the word “today” instead of before it, the NWT gives Jesus’ words a unique twist. It has Jesus speaking “today” to the man about being with him in paradise some time in the future, whereas the customary rendering with the comma before the word “today” indicates that they arrive in paradise that very day. Since ancient Greek manuscripts do not feature any punctuation to break the sentence into two parts, the comma’s location in English depends on the translator’s understanding of what is meant.
Interestingly, the Watchtower Society’s Comprehensive Concordance of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (pictured to the right – click to enlarge) lists dozens of passages where Jesus uses the expression “Truly I say to you” or “Truly I tell you.” (The same Greek word is rendered both “say” and “tell.”) Comparing these verses reveals that the Society’s translators punctuated them consistently—except Luke 23:43. Why did they punctuate that one verse differently? Perhaps because to do otherwise would disprove the Watchtower Society’s teaching that the dead go nowhere—that those who die cease to exist. Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught that it would be impossible for the dying man to go to Paradise that day, because he went into nonexistence pending a future resurrection.
Logically, though, there would be no need for Jesus to use the word “today” to point out when he was speaking. Whenever we open our mouth to speak, we are speaking “today,” and the fact is so obvious that we need not mention it unless making a contrast with something spoken on a different day. Here the context reveals nothing of that sort that would call for Jesus to verbalize the obvious fact that he was speaking “today.” Rather, the only time factor under discussion was the matter of when Jesus would be in Paradise. The man dying next to him begged, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Luke 23:42 NIV) Yes, Jesus would remember him. When? Today!
Moreover, it would be reasonable to assume that the Paradise Jesus spoke of as his destination after death would be the same Paradise that Revelation speaks of Christian overcomers going to: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” (Revelation 2:7 KJV) According to the Watchtower Society’s own publications, this verse speaks of a heavenly paradise, not an earthly one:
—Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand! (page 37)“Hence, the reference here must be to the heavenly gardenlike realm inherited by these conquerors. There, ‘in the paradise of God,’ yes, in the very presence of Jehovah himself, these overcomers who have been granted immortality will continue to live eternally, as symbolized here by their eating of the tree of life.”
The Apostle Paul likewise speaks of paradise as heavenly rather than earthly. At 2 Corinthians 12:2–4 he speaks of being “caught up into paradise” which he also calls “the third heaven.”
Clearly, the earthly “paradise” Jehovah’s Witnesses are promised by their organization and the heavenly “paradise” the Bible promises for Christians are not one and the same.
David A. Reed, Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses: Subject by Subject, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997).
Apologetics To The Jehovah’s Witness – Properly Rendering Luke 23:43 & John 10:18
Here are the 1969 Kingdom Interlinear grabs from all the “Trulies” boxed off in the graphic above:
LUKE 4:24 (no comma needed)
LUKE 12:37 (normal placement)
LUKE 18:29 (normal placement)
LUKE 21:32 (normal placement)
LUKE 23:43 (abnormal placement)
See more at these links:
The verse comparison below has 4 from the Jehovah’s Witness website, in burgundy:
Why in every terrorist attack, terrorists shout “Allahu Akbar”? Who was the first Muslim who shouted “Allahu Akbar” before killing people?
Jihadis shout “Allahu Akbar!” during their attacks, while Western journalists insist that it’s a peaceful expression. “Allahu Akbar” is an Arabic phrase that means “Allah Is Greater.” In Islam, the expression signifies that Allah is greater than anything else, especially the gods of unbelievers. Muhammad himself would shout “Allahu Akbar” when attacking non-Muslims, including the Jews of Khaybar. In this video, David Wood responds to attempts by CNN, the Huffington Post, and the New York Times to ignore the violent history of the phrase