So say the ones who would be exposed by truth. The term -all creation- occurred at the beginning, thus firstborn of that= created.= direct, first and last, (then all other things created-THROUGH-him Col 1:16.
Jesus is NOT God
- Thread starter Wrangler
- Start date
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
~
Below is the text of Col 1:16-17 quoted verbatim from the Watchtower Society's
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures ©1969.
"Because 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. All [other] things have been
created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means
of him all [other] things were made to exist."
The word "other" is in brackets to alert Bible students that it's not in the Greek
manuscript; viz: the Society's translators took the liberty to pencil it in; which gives
the impression that God's son was His first creation; and thereafter, the Son
created everything else.
NOTE: I heard it from a JW that the Society's translators added "other" because
that's what Col 1:16-17 means to say even though it doesn't say so in writing. In
other words; that portion of the Society's Bible is an interpretation rather than a
translation.
One day, a pair of Watchtower missionaries came to my door consisting of an
experienced worker and a neophyte. I began by having the inexperienced Witness
read the Society's text of Col 1:16-17 and then pointed out that the word "other"
is in brackets to alert him that it's not in the Greek manuscript. The experienced
worker corroborated my statement.
I then proceeded to have the inexperienced Witness read the passage sans "other".
It comes out like this:
"By means of him all 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. All things have been created through him
and for him. Also, he is before all things and by means of him all things were made
to exist."
The young man's eyes really lit up; and he actually grinned with delight to discover
that Col 1:16-17 reveals something quite different than what he was led to believe.
Had I pressed the attack; I would've pointed out that the Society is inconsistent.
They really should've penciled "other" into John 1:3 to make it read like this:
"All [other] things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even
one [other] thing came into existence."
FYI: The 1984 revised version of the New World Translation omits brackets around
the word "other" in Col 1:16-17. However, it's readily seen from the Watchtower
Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ©1969 that
"other" is nowhere to be found in the Greek text. Caveat Lector.
_
Below is the text of Col 1:16-17 quoted verbatim from the Watchtower Society's
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures ©1969.
"Because 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. All [other] things have been
created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means
of him all [other] things were made to exist."
The word "other" is in brackets to alert Bible students that it's not in the Greek
manuscript; viz: the Society's translators took the liberty to pencil it in; which gives
the impression that God's son was His first creation; and thereafter, the Son
created everything else.
NOTE: I heard it from a JW that the Society's translators added "other" because
that's what Col 1:16-17 means to say even though it doesn't say so in writing. In
other words; that portion of the Society's Bible is an interpretation rather than a
translation.
One day, a pair of Watchtower missionaries came to my door consisting of an
experienced worker and a neophyte. I began by having the inexperienced Witness
read the Society's text of Col 1:16-17 and then pointed out that the word "other"
is in brackets to alert him that it's not in the Greek manuscript. The experienced
worker corroborated my statement.
I then proceeded to have the inexperienced Witness read the passage sans "other".
It comes out like this:
"By means of him all 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. All things have been created through him
and for him. Also, he is before all things and by means of him all things were made
to exist."
The young man's eyes really lit up; and he actually grinned with delight to discover
that Col 1:16-17 reveals something quite different than what he was led to believe.
Had I pressed the attack; I would've pointed out that the Society is inconsistent.
They really should've penciled "other" into John 1:3 to make it read like this:
"All [other] things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even
one [other] thing came into existence."
FYI: The 1984 revised version of the New World Translation omits brackets around
the word "other" in Col 1:16-17. However, it's readily seen from the Watchtower
Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ©1969 that
"other" is nowhere to be found in the Greek text. Caveat Lector.
_
You consider the Word, who was God, as a "what". Do tell us how you worship God as a "what".
Wrangler
Well-known member
Lowercase. The word was a god, meaning has. This is an attribute of YHWH who is God, meaning the Supreme Being. See the difference?
Only in this way can something be a thing and with that thing, different senses of meaning.
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
~
FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society's Bible capitalize God in John 20:28 when
that spelling contradicts their opposition to Jesus as a deity?
REPLY: It is a Watchtower Society rule of grammar that capitalization is required
when the Greek word "theós" is modified by the article "ho".
However, I don't recommend making an issue of capitalization in this particular
case because skilled Witnesses can easily dodge that bullet. Instead, focus the
attention upon Thomas' possessive pronoun because he didn't just declare that
Jesus is a deity, instead he declared that Jesus is "my" deity. In point of fact, the
Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ©1969 renders
Thomas' statement as:
"The Lord of me and the God of me."
Now if Thomas was a Jew; then his association with Jehovah was governed by the
covenant that Moses' people entered into with God per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy. The very first of the covenant's ten commandments forbids Jews
to have more than one deity.
By saying nothing to Thomas about addressing someone other than Jehovah as his
deity, Jesus would've been in violation right along with Thomas because the Jews'
covenant required him to protest.
● Lev 19:17 . .You should by all means reprove your associate, that you may not
bear sin along with him.
FAQ: If it was okay for Jesus to be Thomas' deity, then shouldn't it be okay for Jesus
to be the Watchtower Society's deity?
_
FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society's Bible capitalize God in John 20:28 when
that spelling contradicts their opposition to Jesus as a deity?
REPLY: It is a Watchtower Society rule of grammar that capitalization is required
when the Greek word "theós" is modified by the article "ho".
However, I don't recommend making an issue of capitalization in this particular
case because skilled Witnesses can easily dodge that bullet. Instead, focus the
attention upon Thomas' possessive pronoun because he didn't just declare that
Jesus is a deity, instead he declared that Jesus is "my" deity. In point of fact, the
Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ©1969 renders
Thomas' statement as:
"The Lord of me and the God of me."
Now if Thomas was a Jew; then his association with Jehovah was governed by the
covenant that Moses' people entered into with God per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy. The very first of the covenant's ten commandments forbids Jews
to have more than one deity.
By saying nothing to Thomas about addressing someone other than Jehovah as his
deity, Jesus would've been in violation right along with Thomas because the Jews'
covenant required him to protest.
● Lev 19:17 . .You should by all means reprove your associate, that you may not
bear sin along with him.
FAQ: If it was okay for Jesus to be Thomas' deity, then shouldn't it be okay for Jesus
to be the Watchtower Society's deity?
_
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
~
FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society translate the second Greek word theós
per John 1:1 as a deity in lower case instead of upper case?
REPLY: The Watchtower Society's translation is based upon a self-imposed rule of
grammar, to wit:
When theós is modified by the little Greek definite article "ho" the Society translates
it in upper case, viz: in the Society's theological thinking; ho theós pertains to the
one true God, while theós alone is somewhat flexible; for example John 1:18 and
John 20:17 where the Society translates theós in upper case though it be not
modified by ho.
However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's "Grammar Of The Greek New
Testament", page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article is not
essential to speech. In other words: when theόs is in the predicate, ho can be
either used, or not used, without making any real difference.
So then; a translator's decision whether to capitalize the second theόs in John
1:1 or not to capitalize it, is entirely arbitrary rather than dictated by a strict
rule of Greek grammar.
Of course the Society prefers that the Logos be a lower case deity because that
spelling is agreeable with their version of his status; whereas most Christians prefer
the upper case because that spelling is agreeable with their version of the Logos'
status; whereas according to Robertson, either spelling is acceptable.
For that reason I do not recommend arguing with Witnesses over the spelling in
John 1:1 seeing as how the grammatical ground they stand on is just as solid as
ours.
However; the very fact that the Society recognizes the Logos as a theόs in any case
is problematic because there is no middle classification of deities in the Bible
between the true and the false; just as there is no middle between fools and wise,
nor good and evil, nor righteous and unrighteous. So then, if the Logos isn't the one
true deity, then he is by default a false deity right along with all the other tin Gods
per 1Cor 8:5.
_
FAQ: Why does the Watchtower Society translate the second Greek word theós
per John 1:1 as a deity in lower case instead of upper case?
REPLY: The Watchtower Society's translation is based upon a self-imposed rule of
grammar, to wit:
When theós is modified by the little Greek definite article "ho" the Society translates
it in upper case, viz: in the Society's theological thinking; ho theós pertains to the
one true God, while theós alone is somewhat flexible; for example John 1:18 and
John 20:17 where the Society translates theós in upper case though it be not
modified by ho.
However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's "Grammar Of The Greek New
Testament", page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article is not
essential to speech. In other words: when theόs is in the predicate, ho can be
either used, or not used, without making any real difference.
So then; a translator's decision whether to capitalize the second theόs in John
1:1 or not to capitalize it, is entirely arbitrary rather than dictated by a strict
rule of Greek grammar.
Of course the Society prefers that the Logos be a lower case deity because that
spelling is agreeable with their version of his status; whereas most Christians prefer
the upper case because that spelling is agreeable with their version of the Logos'
status; whereas according to Robertson, either spelling is acceptable.
For that reason I do not recommend arguing with Witnesses over the spelling in
John 1:1 seeing as how the grammatical ground they stand on is just as solid as
ours.
However; the very fact that the Society recognizes the Logos as a theόs in any case
is problematic because there is no middle classification of deities in the Bible
between the true and the false; just as there is no middle between fools and wise,
nor good and evil, nor righteous and unrighteous. So then, if the Logos isn't the one
true deity, then he is by default a false deity right along with all the other tin Gods
per 1Cor 8:5.
_
Wrangler
Well-known member
Which is a correct impression as the word son means created.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Why do you hijack the thread? Why do you ignore the evidence that Jesus is NOT God?
Diserner
Well-known member
Why do you call posting an on topic response as "hijacking"?
That's literally gaslighting.
Wrangler
Well-known member
This has to be one of the most illogical conclusions ever.
P1. No man has crossed the threshold.
P2. Lassie crossed the threshold.
C. Lassie must not be a man.
There is no logical basis to conclude that Lassie is a man or Jesus is God. None.
The interesting thing about Exodus 24:10-11, is that it informs us that others besides Jesus has seen God. Does this make them God also? If not, why not?
Let me type this slowly so you will understand. EVEN IF others have seen God, it does not support the conclusion that Jesus is God. Also, the OP presented numerous syllogisms, not just the notion that no one has seen God. Willful ignorance on display?!
Wrangler
Well-known member
Your post contradicts the point of the thread, which is hijacking.
There is already another thread on the evidence for your doctrine. Make like posts there. This thread is exploring the evidence that Jesus is NOT God.
Diserner
Well-known member
Your grasp of logic does not impress me.
You go ahead and keeping calling logical things as illogical.
You don't realize, it seems, that you are starting with your presuppositions, and then making your so-called "logic" fit it.
Diserner
Well-known member
Absurd to dominate a public forum and forbid all disagreement.
( personal attack removed )
Last edited by a moderator:
You're dancing around my question. How can that which was God be just a "thing" to you? How do you worship your God "thing"?
Wrangler
Well-known member
Appeal to Ad Homenim. You lost the argument.
Logis should impress you. You are obviously not logical as I showed and even you start with presuppositions. For instance, what would support the conclusion that a man (Jesus) is not God?
Wrangler
Well-known member
Hmmm. Is every thread a debate thread?
Let me explain something to you about education. One should learn the arguments one both sides BEFORE coming to a conclusion. You are jumping in with your conclusion as a means to prevent the arguments to be clearly expressed.
It's fine for you to point out how the evidence why Jesus is NOT God could be strengthened but that is not what you are doing, is it? You immediately re-state the other side of the argument AS IF there is only that one side.
Its fine that you do not agree with the theology under discussion in this thread. It begs the question of why are you posting here then?
Wrangler
Well-known member
I explained this very thoroughly with no dancing around the question at all. Re-read my previous post.
Guess what? Even though a word is a god (meaning a WHAT that has authority), it does not mean Jesus is God (meaning WHO is the Creator of Jesus).
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
~
I have a son. However, I wasn't my son's creator because according to Heb 7:9-10
he co-existed with me prior to his birth.
That is very interesting because it corroborates the fact that nobody alive today
was created on the day of their birth, rather, they co-existed with Adam from the
very beginning. I know that's true because God ceased creating things for the
cosmos after He wrapped the sixth day and has yet to come off sabbatical and pick
up where He left off.
Well; if what I've just explained applies to God, then it means the Logos of John 1:1-3
co-existed with God for as long as God has existed.
_
I have a son. However, I wasn't my son's creator because according to Heb 7:9-10
he co-existed with me prior to his birth.
That is very interesting because it corroborates the fact that nobody alive today
was created on the day of their birth, rather, they co-existed with Adam from the
very beginning. I know that's true because God ceased creating things for the
cosmos after He wrapped the sixth day and has yet to come off sabbatical and pick
up where He left off.
Well; if what I've just explained applies to God, then it means the Logos of John 1:1-3
co-existed with God for as long as God has existed.
_
Wrangler
Well-known member
Hebrew says nothing like what you claim. You are in denial that humans procreate.
