Does the Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses Do Any Charity Work?

Just like Christ our organization teaches us to help the poor in any way that we can. But Jesus also never organized shelters or "Benevolence funds."

The W(atch) T(ower) S(ociety) uses 90%+ of all donations to disaster relief and printing Bibles and bible aids!! Jehovah's Witnesses have no monetary objectives and no individual benefits financially from donations given to the WTS. So you can be sure that the vast majority of any money donated to the WTS ends up going directly to pay for literature and disaster relief. No other religions organization can make this claim.

Witnesses have a fund to help both (J)ehovah's (W)itnesses and non-JWs in disasters and we have a local arrangement which makes sure that any poor and needy in the congregation are cared for. However, we follow the bible's teaching that is a responsibility first of the families. We also point them to the secular arrangements available.

You don't see any Jehovah's Witness "widows and orphans" homeless, begging on the street or lacking in any material needs. But, you do see members of EVERY other religion who are in those situations.

If other religions would take care of their own like the Witnesses we would not need all the food banks, homeless shelters and etc.!

Although doing good deeds for people in need was important to Jesus, preaching about God's Kingdom was his primary mission. And the ONLY needy he fed were those who were his followers! (Mt 14:15-21; 15:32-38; Jn 6:2-13; Rm 15:25,26; 1Cor 16:1; 2Cor 8:4).

People primarily called Jesus a "teacher," not "a healer" or "benefactor" (Jn 1:38; 13:13; Lk 4:43).

The "Great Commission" by Christ was NOT: "Go give to the poor..." or "Go build hospitals... schools... orphanages... old folks homes." He said "Go and make disciples...teaching them" (Mt 24:14; 28:19, 20).

The apostles and first century Christians understood clearly what Christ commanded them to do and in the whole book of acts we find absolutely no record of them setting up public “poor houses," but we do find them preaching! (Mt.24:14; Ac 1:8; 14:21; Rm 10:18; 11:13; Re 14:6).

Since the Bible urges Christians "to follow Jesus' steps closely," Christians today have clear guidance when it comes to setting priorities in their efforts to help others (1Pt 2:21) Like Jesus, they help people in need. However, also like Jesus, they make the work of teaching the Bible's message about the good news of God's Kingdom their top priority (Mt 5:14- 16; 24:14; 28:19, 20; Mk 1:14).

As usual, any criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses also condemns Christ since Witnesses follow Christ's directions exactly!

It is irrefutable that Jehovah's Witnesses are engaged in the greatest Bible education work that has ever occurred in all human history (Mt.24:14; 28:18-20).

Jehovah's Witnesses are publishing the greatest amount of Bible based literature ever published in all human history. Jehovah's Witnesses are now publishing literature in more than 600 languages!

It is also significant that Jehovah's Witnesses distribute bibles and bible based literature worldwide free of charge while other religions’ publishing houses are profit making operations. It is a proven fact that, like most “charitable” organizations, most of these groups are shams or actually end up giving very little to those in need. Money sent to them largely pay for the large salaries of their executives and preachers.

SOURCE: This is an answer provided by BAR_ANERGES to a question at Yahoo Answers.

Also see:

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Assist With Disaster Relief? (JW.ORG)

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Only Assist Fellow Members Suffering From War, Natural Disasters, or Other Calamities? (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

How Could the Snake in the Garden of Eden Talk When Snakes Don't Have Vocal Cords?

Some have proposed that the serpent only communicated with Eve through body language or gestures. However, the account tells us that Eve participated in a conversation, and actually answered the question raised by the serpent. The Bible clearly tells us that the serpent actually spoke to Eve. (Gen. 3:1-6)

But in addition to the serpent speaking to Eve, the possibility has been suggested that the serpent also ate of the fruit itself and showed that nothing immediately happened to it when that action was taken. This action (if it happened) may have proved to have been more powerful than any spoken words.

There is nothing to suggest that the literal serpent had vocal cords. But in another similar example, when God's angel spoke to Balaam through a she-ass, the animal did not need a complex voice box similar to that of a human. (Numbers 22:26-31) The power for this action came from the spirit realm. Reasonably then, the voice of the serpent must have come from some invisible person, who was using this snake as a ventriloquist uses a dummy. Possibly this was in order so Eve would not suspect that the inquirer was really an unseen spirit person that was determined to mislead her into breaking God's command and thus sinning. The spirit creature behind the serpent that spoke to Eve is identified in the Bible as "the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan." (Revelation 12:9)

Also see:

Why Would Satan Use a Serpent to Speak to Eve? (w11 1/1 p. 12; Watchtower Online Library)

Why Would Satan Use a Serpent to Speak to Eve? (Supporting the Brotherhood)

Was Satan around at the time of Adam and Eve and was he responsible for the snake? (Search For Bible Truths)

Who was the Serpent in Genesis 3? (Jehovah's Witnesses United)

Satan the Devil - Links to Information (Search For Bible Truths)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

Does Genesis 10:5 really suggest that various tongues (languages) already existed BEFORE the confusion of tongues at Babel (Genesis 11:1)?

Does Genesis 10:5 really suggest that various tongues (languages) already existed BEFORE the confusion of tongues at Babel (Genesis 11:1)?

"Speaking of Noah’s descendants through his grandson Javan, Genesis 10:5 says: “From these the population of the isles of the nations was spread . . . , each according to its tongue, according to their families, by their nations.”

"Genesis chapter 10 presents what is commonly known as the “Table of the Nations.” It lists 70 families or nations descending from Noah’s sons, giving some indication of where these eventually spread to and settled. Of course, Moses recorded this centuries after the Flood and the confusion of languages at Babel. So he was in position to bring together in what is now Genesis chapter 10 details of how things worked out over the centuries.

"After Genesis chapter 10 gives the details of the “Table of the Nations,” chapter 11 takes up the narrative or chronological history with Babel and shows how it was that many languages came about and why peoples spread over the globe.—Gen. 11:1-9.

"Thus the references in the 10th chapter to various languages are not to be understood as meaning that these developed prior to the confusion of languages at Babel. (Gen. 10:5, 20, 31, 32) But those tongues were later found among Noah’s descendants, whose lineage is provided in that chapter." - Questions from Readers, 7/15/78 Watchtower (Emphasis mine)

Related Articles:

When was Ba'bel built and what became of Nimrod after that? (Search For Bible Truths)

What Language did Adam and Eve Speak? (Search For Bible Truths)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

Addressing the False Claim that Jehovah's Witnesses' Literature Approves the Practice of Lying For Any Reason

The claim that Jehovah's Witnesses believe they can lie is an absolute falsehood spread by those who either purposely misinterpret our literature or rip quotes out of context while completely ignoring what was explicitly stated.

There is absolutely no quote from our literature which approves the practice of ever lying for any reason!

“WE MAY NOT TELL A FALSEHOOD....Should circumstances require a Christian to take the witness stand and swear to tell the truth, then, if he speaks at all, he must utter the truth..”--w60 6/1; 351-352

When you read the context of the “Aid” book you cite or the current “Insight to the Scriptures” you can easily see that it shows that there is a big difference between “hiding or not revealing the truth to those who are not entitled to it" and “telling lies.” Witnesses are told to never lie but to imitate Jesus when they are asked to reveal things that would be used to harm others. At times Christ either remained silent or he evaded the questions by misdirection (Mt.15:1-6; 21:23-27; Jn.7:3-10).

“Lying—Is It Ever Justified? ...being truthful does not mean that we are obligated to divulge all information to anyone who asks it of us... For example, individuals with wicked intent may have no right to know certain things... Jesus did not always disclose the full truth, especially when revealing all the facts could have brought unnecessary harm to himself or his disciples. Still, even at such times, he did not lie. Instead, he chose either to say nothing or to divert the conversation (Mt.15:1-6; 21:23-27; Jn.7:3-10).”–g2/8/00


In fact, the right to withhold the truth from someone who is not “entitled to know” or if “doing so would injure himself or another person" is a recognized legal principle and civil right in international law!!

Immanuel Kant categorically stated: "To tell the truth is thus a duty; but it is only in respect to one who has a right to the truth. But no one has a right to a truth which injures others." (See Matthew Stapleton, "Is Kantian Ethics Left Defenseless in the Face of Evil?")

“Therefore, Kant denied the right to lie or deceive for any reason, regardless of context or anticipated consequences. However, it was permissible to remain silent or say no more than needed (such as in the infamous example of a murderer asking to know where someone is).”–Wikipedia

This is no different than what EVERY other religious organization teaches.

The Sunday Times 2/21/10 said: “Is withholding information the same as lying? Withholding information is the suppression of truth rather than the expression of untruth that characterises a lie...information makes a secret of the truth, it doesn't distort it. Lying depends on spoiling the truth, and so undermines the very basis of justice.”

The Catholicism Answer Book: "It is not lying...rather, someone is merely withholding information that someone else is not entitled to know....Withholding the truth is not lying...to protect the safety and welfare of innocent persons who would be at risk from an enemy knowing certain facts and information." (John Triglio, Kenneth Brighenti)

“Fried argues that lying is an act in which someone asserts something he or she believes to be false to someone else entitled to the correct information."--Ethical Issues in Scientific Research by Edward Erwin, Sidney Gendin, Lowell Kleiman

Catholic Almanac Online: “Equivocation: ...in order to conceal information which a questioner has no strict right to know.”

For example, there are many religious organizations which smuggle bibles and religious literature into lands where they are banned. Do these religions tell their missionaries to just openly admit that they are carrying hidden bibles when asked? Do they not teach them ways to misdirect the questions and “hide the truth”!!!


That is why accusing Jehovah's Witnesses in this regard is also hypocritical! Further, such accusations also condemn Christ Jesus himself since he “hid the truth” when it was necessary!

As usual, those who criticize Jehovah's Witnesses’ beliefs must resort to misrepresentations of what we really believe. This method of promoting obviously prejudicial slander only demonstrates that these critics can neither support their own belief nor scripturally disprove ours. They must avoid doctrinal subjects which can be proven or disproved by the Bible. This is because they realize that we do teach the Bible so they can only present emotive arguments and biased and false opinions about our practices.

When we see how weak, unreasonable, illogical, and downright false such opposing arguments are then we are even more convinced that we have the Truth and are part of the Christ's True "Church" today (Dan.12:3; Mt.13:39-43).

SOURCE: This is an answer provided by BAR_ANERGES to a question at Yahoo Answers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

Should Babies Be Baptized?

Baptism publically symbolizes your dedication to God. It symbolizes dying to one’s former way of life and becoming alive to do God’s will. (1 Peter 4:2) So questions concerning whether babies or infants should be baptized on the basis of the faith of the parents are very valid since the child is nowhere near old enough to make a proper and informed decision in this matter.

For a Biblical precedent, in Acts it says that the ones who were baptized then were “men and women”... not infants. (Acts 8:12) Baptism was for those capable of ‘hearing the word,’ ‘embracing the word heartily,’ and ‘repenting’, something infants are not capable of doing. (Acts 2:14, 22, 38, 41)

Additionally, the Bible indicates that God considers holy the young children of Christian parents. (1 Corinthians 7:14) Such a statement would be pointless if the baptism of infants were necessary for their salvation.

For more, see:

Baptism - Link to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Acts 11:14 and Infant Baptism (Source4Good; ~it-1 p. 251 Baptism)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

Col. 2:9 and the NWT - "divine quality," "Deity / Godhead"?

The following is an excerpt from the Watchtower, August 1st, 1962, pages 479, 480:

"At Colossians 2:9 the word in the Greek that the New World Translation renders "divine quality" is theótes, and this is the only use of the word in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The same is true of a similar Greek word, theiótes, which appears only at Romans 1:20, and which the New World Translation there renders "Godship," as follows: "For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."The way these two words have been rendered in the New World Translation has given rise to the charge that the New World Bible Translation Committee let their religious beliefs influence them. That charge is true, but they did not do so wrongly, or unduly. The meaning that is to be given to these two Greek words depends upon what the entire Bible has to say about Jehovah God and Jesus Christ.

"How so? In that there is basis for translating these words either as "Deity," "Divinity" or "Godhead" and so attributing personality to them, or as "Divine Nature," "divine quality," "Godship," and having them merely denote qualities. Thus those who believe in the trinity will attach personality to these words, whereas those who do not will render them as qualities in view of the way God and Christ are described in the Scriptures and so as to harmonize the words with the rest of God's Word. This emphasizes the fact that one simply cannot properly and accurately translate the Bible unless one clearly understands its teachings.

"That the New World Bible Translation Committee were perfectly right in rendering these words the way they did is apparent from what Greek authorities have to say about them. Thus Parkhurst's A Greek and English Lexicon (1845) defines theiótes as "Godhead" (page 261) and theótes as "Deity, godhead, divine nature" (page 264). Note the definition "divine nature" as well as "Godhead."

"Liddell and Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon, in its new ninth edition, completed in 1940 and reprinted in 1948, Volume I, defines the two terms in the light of ancient usages apart from the Scriptures. Theiótes it defines as "divine nature, divinity" (page 788). Theótes it defines in exactly the same way, as "divinity, divine nature," and then cites as an example Colossians 2:9. In this connection it shows that the similar Greek expression, dia theóteta, means "for religious reasons" (page 792).

"Thus the New World Translation is fully justified in rendering Colossians 2:9 to show that Christ has in him all the fullness, not of God himself, the Deity, the Godhead, but of the divine quality dwelling bodily, and this in behalf of the spiritual body of Christ, so that this body of Christ's followers is possessed of a fullness by means of him: "It is in [Christ] that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And so you [Christians] are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority." - Col. 2:9, 10.

"It is also of interest to note that both Weymouth and An American Translation render the passage, "the fullness of God's nature."

"To get an objective view of the matter, in exploring questions such as these it is best to use the nonsectarian and nonreligious Hebrew-English and Greek-English dictionaries, instead of those that have been produced by some religious denomination."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is an excerpt from Insight on the Scriptures:

"Then, at Colossians 2:9 the apostle Paul says that in Christ "all the fullness of the divine quality [form of the·o´tes] dwells bodily." Here, again, some translations read "Godhead" or "deity," which Trinitarians interpret to mean that God personally dwells in Christ. (KJ, NE, RS, NAB) However, Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon defines the·o´tes in basically the same way it does thei·o´tes, as meaning "divinity, divine nature." (P. 792) The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as "divinity." Thus, here too, there is a solid basis for rendering thei·o´tes as referring to quality, not personality.

A consideration of the context of Colossians 2:9 clearly shows that having "divinity," or "divine nature," does not make Christ the same as God the Almighty. In the preceding chapter, Paul says: "God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him." (Col 1:19) Thus, all fullness dwells in Christ because it "pleased the Father" (KJ, Dy), because it was "by God's own choice." (NE) So the fullness of "divinity" that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father. Further showing that having such "fullness" does not make Christ the same person as Almighty God is the fact that Paul later speaks of Christ as being "seated at the right hand of God."-Col 3:1.

Considering the immediate context of Colossians 2:9, it is noted that in verse 8, Christians are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human tradition. They are also told that "carefully concealed in [Christ] are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge," and they are urged to "go on walking in union with him, rooted and being built up in him and being stabilized in the faith." (Col 2:3, 6, 7) In addition, verses 13 to 15 explain that they are made alive through faith, being released from the Law covenant. Paul's argument, therefore, is that Christians do not need the Law (which was removed by means of Christ) or human philosophy and tradition. They have all they need, a precious "fullness," in Christ. -Col 2:10-12." (Vol. 1, page 629)

For MUCH more, see:

Col. 2:9; "Trinity" (rs p. 405-p. 426; Watchtower Online Library)

Col. 2:9 "Divine" (Insight-1 pp. 638-639; Watchtower Online Library)

Does Col. 2:9 prove that Jesus is God? (Search For Bible Truths)

Col. 2:9 - "Fulness of Deity" (Examining the Trinity)

"Theotes simply does not literally mean "godhead," and the use of "godhead" by the KJV translators was not intended as some would understand it today..." (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

"The Fullness of the Divine Quality" in Colossians 2:9 (Bible Translation and Study)

Defending the New World Translation Index (Defending the New World Translation)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

Does the Fact That the Bible Contains Scribal Errors and Alterations Have Any Bearing on the Bible’s General Integrity?

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Bible AS ORIGINALLY TRANSMITTED was without error.

However, it would be extremely naive to claim that the extent original language manuscripts that we now have are without error.

The fact is that no reputable scholar of any religion believes in a totally unchanged Bible text. EVERY Bible translation in existence must choose between various text readings and make a determination as to what word(s) were lost or added. When this is done using sound textual principles we have a very accurate text and versions which are 99% in agreement.

While God did not prevent the copyists from making any mistakes, He did providentially limit the degree of variation so that the doctrinal content of the NT was not affected (except for several well known spurious verses added by Trinitarians in the 10th cent.).

While there are a number of scribal errors and alterations which crept into the text, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts.

As Sir Frederic Kenyon said: "The general result of all...this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and our conviction that we have in our hands, in substantial integrity, the veritable Word of God." - The Story of the Bible

The fact is that regardless of which variant reading is chosen, the meaning of the passage is not usually affected.

Kenyon stated: “The first and most important conclusion derived ...is the satisfactory one that they confirm the essential soundness of the existing texts. No striking or fundamental variation is shown either in the Old or the New Testament. There are no important omissions or additions of passages, and no variations which affect vital facts or doctrines. The variations of text affect minor matters, such as the order of words or the precise words used.... But their essential importance is their confirmation...of the integrity of our existing texts.”—Fasciculus I, p. 15.”

So the evidence demonstrates that the Scriptures have come down to us in essentially the same form as that of the original inspired writings. The variations of reading are of no consequence as to Bible teachings in general. And scholastic collations have corrected errors of any importance, so that today we enjoy an authentic and reliable text.

Scholar Richard Lloyd Anderson, Ph.D., stated: "all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99% of the verses in the New Testament. The events and the great truths contained there are agreed upon by all major manuscripts of the New Testament.”

Scholar W. H. Green observed: “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.” (Archaeology and Bible History, by J. P. Free, 1964, p. 5)

Care in copying was effective in practically eliminating errors as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, which is dated around 100 B.C.E. Though it was a thousand years older than previous manuscripts there are few differences, causing Professor Millar Burrows to observe in his book The Dead Sea Scrolls: “It is a matter for wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration.”

Kenyon also stated: “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.” —The Bible and Archaeology, 1940, pp. 288, 289.

The claim sometimes made that portions of the New Testament were removed in the early centuries of Christianity fails to bear up under scrutiny.

So, while Jehovah's Witnesses know that there are no perfect translations available we can be assured that God has preserved His Word to an exceptional degree and that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial” (2Tim. 3:16, 17).

SOURCE: This is an answer provided by BAR_ANERGES to a question at Yahoo Answers.

Also see:

What assurance is there that the Bible has not been changed? (Insight-2 pp. 312-318; Watchtower Online Library)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

Did Jehovah's Witnesses Really "Change the Original Meaning of the Bible to Suit their Beliefs" as Opposers Claim?

Most religions have their own preferred version of the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses translated and produced our own version of the Bible because we wanted a more accurate translation of the Bible.

In doing this Jehovah's Witnesses have not "changed the original meaning of the Bible". Jehovah's Witnesses will use almost any modern translations when they study with others, while at the same time they realize that some translations are better overall than others.

However, the accuracy of the NWT is proven by facts such as rules of grammar and translation principles.

I have personally found that in every case where the NWT is criticized it has usually proved to be accurate and in most cases more accurate than the most other translations. Most criticisms brought against it are usually themselves unwarranted and unfairly biased and usually demands an ignorance from hearers of Greek words and semantics according to standard Greek Lexicons and Dictionaries.

People who claim that we needed to translate "our own bible" in order to support our beliefs are being misled. Most of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs had been long established before the NWT ever came into existence.

Further, the claim that the NWT has been “changed to deny there being the possibility of a Trinity“ is a ludicrous statement. Even according to Trinitarians own scholars the Trinity is NEVER found in the Bible. And of you think that the NWT is the only bible which reads as it does in your cited examples, then you have been misled. The NWT has not removed any part which calls Jesus “God.” And in EVERY verse in which the NWT differs from the reading of the KJV other non-JW translations have rendered it exactly like the NWT.

In fact, the NWT reads EXACTLY like the KJV at Rm. 1:7! And no version calls Jesus “God” here. In fact this verse completely destroys the Trinity because it clearly and explicitly differentiates Jesus from “GOD.” According to the Trinity there can only be one God and while Jesus can be separated from the Father he cannot be separated from God. Yet the Bible repeatedly shows that Jesus is separate from and less than “GOD” and the Trinity is destroyed!!!

Those who post such simplistic and fallacious criticisms dishonestly demand that hearers do not do even the most basic of research.

Next, the claim that replacing the Greek word KURIOS with Jehovah is incorrect actually requires us to be ignorant of standard translation principles and practice.

The NWT inserts the Name Jehovah in the NT because textual and translation principles demand it. Many other translators have acknowledged these principles either by placing Jehovah "Jehovah" in the NT, or in the case of most translators by capitalizing LORD which ALWAYS denotes Jehovah (e.g., Ac.2:34; Mt.22:44; Mk.12:36). These versions usually state that when "Lord" is written as "LORD" it stands for Jehovah, so they are actually doing exactly what the NWT does.

Also confirming this as a valid principle, some respected Bibles replace the original Greek pronouns "he" or "him" with "Jesus" or “God” (NIV; NJB; NAB). For example look at 1Cor.15:27,28 in several Bibles (e.g., NIV, TEV) and you will see how much clearer replacing the pronouns with “Jesus” and “God” makes the text (cf. 1Jn 5:14, 15).

Now, it can be claimed that there is absolutely no Greek textual support for these translators to use this device, but this claim is simply based on theological bias and not translation principles.

In the above places "Lord" is textually accurate, though factually incorrect. But a translator's prime concern is with transmitting the meaning of the original writer, and it is a fact that in many occurrences of KURIOS the absolute semantic equivalence in the target language must be "Jehovah" (e.g.; Mk.12:25-36; Ac.2:21, 33-34; Rm.10:13) (see Girdlestone’s Synonyms of the OT p. 43).

Standard reference works provide evidence that this is in accord with translation principles:

"In the NT, likewise, KURIOS, when used as a name of God...most usually corresponds to hwhy Jehovah, and in this sense is applied." --A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament, by J. Parkhurst

So in EVERY place where the NWT and others have restored Jehovah to the text of the N.T. it has been fully in accord with the rules of translation. Therefore the NWT fulfills the requirement for accuracy in translation in this regard.

Christ is NEVER placed on an equal level with Almighty God in the Bible.

Even after his return to heaven the Bible speaks of Jesus having a God over him at least 17 times! (Jn.20:17; Rm.15:6; 1Cor.11:3; 2Cor.1:3; Eph.1:17; Heb.1:9; Rev.1:6; 3:2,12). It is illogical to believe that Christ could have equal glory with the One who is called his God.

SOURCE: This is an answer provided by BAR_ANERGES to a question at Yahoo Answers.

Also see:

New World Translation (NWT) - Links to Information that DEFEND THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION BIBLE (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Get Accused of Not Being Christians?

Many dictionaries define "Christian" as someone who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or who follows the religion based on his life and teachings.

Jehovah's Witnesses do believe in Jesus and follow his teachings. They believe that Jesus is extremely important...in fact he is the second most important person in the universe next to God Himself. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that no salvation occurs without Christ, that accepting Christ's sacrifice is a requirement for true worship, that every prayer must acknowledge Christ, that Christ is the King of God's Kingdom, that Christ is the head of the Christian congregation, that Christ is immortal and above every creature, even that Christ was the 'master worker' in creating the universe.

So yes, by every genuine definition, Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians. Even disinterested theologians and secular dictionaries acknowledge that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian religion. In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses are a true restoration of first-century Christianity.

The reason that some falsely accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of not being Christians is because they use an artificial, trinity-specific definition of the term "Christian" which excludes anyone who does not believe that Jesus is God Himself, rather than the Son of God.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God Himself. Rather, they believe just as the Bible describes Jesus - as the "Son *OF* God".

Nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned that Jesus ever claimed to be God. Rather, he specifically called the "Father...the only true God." (John 17:1-3; Also see John 20:17; 2 Corinthians 1:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6)

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus is God. Instead, the Bible repeatedly refers to Jesus as the "son of God". Because the Bible says that Jesus' "origin is from of old, from ancient days" (Micah 5:2), the Bible shows Jesus was created by God. Jesus is:

the "only-begotten Son" of God. (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9)

"the first-born of all creation". (Colossians 1:15)

"the beginning of God's creation". (Revelation 3:14)

The Bible shows that Jesus is subordinate to God: "The head of the Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:3) Jesus himself said: "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

For much more, see:

Jehovah's Witnesses Are Christians - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christians? (JW.ORG)

Must You Believe in the Trinity to Be a Christian? (JW.ORG)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

Son of Man Reaps Like An Angel - Rev. 14:14-20

(Also see the Archangel Category.)

Rev. 14:14-20:
"I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one "like a son of man" with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.

"Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, "Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe." So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth and the earth was harvested.

"Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, "Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth's vine, because its grapes are ripe." The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the winepress of God's wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia [about 200 miles]." - Revelation 14:14-20, NIV.

Noted trinitarian scholar William Barclay writes in his The Revelation of John, Vol. 2 (Revised Ed.), "The Daily Study Bible Series" that there are "difficult things" in this passage.

"... there is the fact that the one like a son of man reaps and also an angel reaps. We may regard the one like the son of man, the risen and victorious Lord [Jesus], reaping the harvest of his own people, while the angel with the sharp sickle reaps the harvest of those destined for judgment."

Dr. Barclay didn't go on to explain another difficulty: Why the scripture about the son of man reaping is so difficult for many trinitarians. So the purpose of this post is to explain why this scripture is so difficult for trinitarians.

Notice these statements by respected trinitarian authorities which also confirm that it is Christ being spoken of in the passage in question:
Rev. 14:14: "Christ is come for reaping this time (Heb. 9:28) for the harvesting of earth (verses 15-17). - p. 414, Vol. 6, Word Pictures in the New Testament, A. T. Robertson (extreme trinitarian).

`Crown': "Hence in the Apoc. [Revelation] a crown is represented on the conquering Christ (Rev 6:2, 14:14)" - p. 530, Vol. 1, A Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), James Hastings, Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.

`Crown' (Stephanos in NT Greek) - "Stephanos is the crown of exaltation bestowed upon Christ (Rev 6:2; 14:; He:2 9)." - p. 763, Vol. 2, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (very trinitarian), Eerdmans Publ., 1984 printing.14

"The linguistic usage of Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 reveals affinities to Dan. 7:13. Both passages speak of `one like a son of man' as walking (`amidst the lampstands') or `sitting' on the clouds of heaven. Note too how Rev. differs from the Gospels in leaving out the article; this is apparently an imitation of the text of Dan. 7:13: the apocalyptic `Son of man' is the figure found already in Dan. 7:13, but now as a glorified ruler and judge." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), p. 633, Vol. 3, Zondervan Publ. (trinitarian), 1986.

Also examine Acts 1:9; Daniel 7:13,14; Acts 1:11; Mark 13:26, 27; and Rev. 1:7:

"[the resurrected Jesus] was lifted up, and a cloud removed him from their sight [`a cloud hid him from their sight' - GNB; `he disappeared into a cloud' - LB]" - NEB, Acts 1:9.

"[Daniel saw in a vision:] behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days [God] and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom." - NASB, Daniel 7:13, 14.

"`This Jesus, who has been taken away from you up to heaven [hidden in a cloud], will come in the same way as you have seen him go.'" - NEB, Acts 1:11.
"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather [reap] his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens." - NIV, Mark 13:26, 27.

"Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him" - NASB, Rev. 1:7.

Notice how one scripture tells us that Jesus' followers will be `gathered by the sickle' (harvested) from the earth by Jesus the king who is still seated on the cloud (Rev. 14):

"So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth and the earth was harvested."

Does it say Jesus will actually physically return to earth? No. It clearly says he will still be seated in the clouds when he harvests his people from the earth. In the same way that the clouds hid him when he left (Acts 1:9), they could well be hiding him on his harvesting return ("in the same way as you have seen him go.")

Furthermore, Jesus doesn't even do it firsthand, but, instead, while "in clouds," actually sends his angels to earth to do it! (Mark 13:26, 27.) So, when it also speaks of Jesus being `seen,' we may decide that it really means we `see' in vision, or even `see' by means of our own understanding of what is happening. - see Insight, Vol. 2, p. 678, `Presence.'

After all, other righteous people described in the Bible as having `seen' God, did not physically see him, but, instead, actually saw a vision or even a representative (usually an angel) of God - See SF study paper. Job, for example merely heard Jehovah's voice coming from a windstorm (`whirlwind' - NRSV), but later he said ... "now my eyes have seen you." Job 38:1; 42:5, NIV. And the footnote for Job 42:5 in the New International Version Study Bible tells us:

"... now Job has seen God with the eyes of faith and spiritual understanding" - NIVSB, 1985 ed.

In line with this understanding is the rendering by many translators of Heb. 9:26. Here the inspired Bible writer tells us that Jesus has already "appeared once and for all" [hapax - see the NWT study paper]. - NEB, JB, NJB, GNB, Phillips; cf. RSV, NRSV, REB, NAB (1970 & 1991 revision). This would certainly seem to indicate that Jesus would not again physically appear to men.

But whether men actually, physically see him or not is not an important issue. Surely an honest misunderstanding of this would in no way threaten your standing with God.

An error in your understanding of who God is and, therefore, your worshiping God in truth (John 4:24), however, is a crucial issue which means everlasting life (John 17:3) or eternal destruction (2 Thess. 1:8, 9, NRSV).

- - - - - -

It is strange that so many respected trinitarian scholars admit that Christ is the `son of man' in Rev. 14:14. Of course the evidence overwhelms any other theory, but that doesn't stop many trinitarian "scholars" from constructing other poorly supported context-defying statements in other areas of the Bible.

Of course, they usually just ignore the great trinitarian difficulty of Rev. 14:14. And what is this great difficulty concerning Christ on the clouds in Rev. 14:14?

He is in all respects like an angel (Dan. 10:5; cf. Rev. 1:13; 14:15 - `another angel' besides that of 14:14 [Christ])." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), p. 633, Vol. 3, Zondervan Publ. (trinitarian), 1986.

Notice that the "son of man" on the clouds is given a command by "another angel" and he obeys that command. The command, of course, comes from God (the Father alone) through the angel. Both the "son of man" and the other angel are servants of God (the Father alone).

The wording " another angel" (although not certain, because of the description of other angels before the appearance of the "son of man") at least strongly indicates that the "son of man" here is an angel of God.

But we find absolutely no indication whatsoever in this account that the angel who orders Christ to harvest the earth is giving orders to God Himself! Can anyone believe that an angelic servant of God would speak this way to the Most High God Himself? Or that he would have to tell the omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) Most High "God the Son" when and how to do anything?

Isn't it obvious that Jesus here is in the role of a reaping angel of the last days and performing a task similar to the other reaping angel? Would the Most High Only True God actually wait subserviently for a command from the Most High Only True God to be brought to him by an angelic servant of God and then obey like any other servant?

Isn't the great "difficulty" for trinitarians here the fact that this scripture is actually strong evidence that the resurrected Son (and installed heavenly King) is still not really God ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

Have Jehovah’s Witnesses Ever Claimed to be INSPIRED Prophets?

The accusation that Jehovah’s Witnesses have claimed to be inspired prophets or have tried to foretell the future is absolutely false.

The flat-out truth is that the Watchtower Society has NEVER claimed to be inspired, infallible, or to be foretelling the future as Prophets.

Rather, it is an irrefutable fact that Jehovah's Witnesses' very doctrine has ALWAYS been that the gifts of inspired prophesying and direct communication from God ceased after the Apostles died. This is a belief that has NEVER changed from their modern day inception as Bible Students to the present day. Therefore, any claim that Witnesses have claimed to be prophets can only be viewed as a misrepresentation of the facts.

Notice this sentence in the "Purpose" statement that appeared in EVERY issue of the Watchtower up to the mid- 70's:

"No, The Watchtower is no inspired prophet, but it follows and explains a Book of prophecy..."

"It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any degree, but merely to give below what seems to us rather likely to be the trend of events—giving also the reasons for our expectations."–WT 3/1904.

There are scores of similar Watchtower quotes that go back to the 1800's.

Rather than claiming to foretell the future or be infallible, Jehovah's Witnesses have always been willing to change as they gained knowledge.

No Jehovah's Witness has ever claimed to be inspired or to have received a dream or vision from God. But I can show you several well known Evangelical Trinitarian ministers who have claimed exactly that (usually when they need more money, or to claim God has forgiven them for moral sins).

The "Father of Protestantism," Martin Luther, taught Christ would return by 1564. Does that mean that all Protestants are false prophets? No, of course not. But they are if we equally apply the reasoning of those who accuse Jehovah's Witnesses.

Irish Bishop James Ussher's prediction was for 1996. Puritans Issac Watts, Joseph Mede and the Mathers in America were date-setters. The most famous one was actually a Baptist....William Miller who predicted 1843.

Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel predicted the Rapture in 1981.
Dr. Jack van Impe speculated that the end would come between Sept 1999 and 2000.
Philip B. Brown stated that the millennial reign of Christ would begin Apr 6, 2008.


Now, did early Jehovah's Witnesses (Bible Students) have incorrect understandings of Bible prophesy? Yes, of course, as did nearly every other religion of that age. I can give you quotes from well known Protestant clergymen from 1823-1870 who pointed to some of the same dates that Bible Students did. You can trace almost every religion's roots back to some of these clergymen! Now just because they were wrong in their timing, does it prove that their current doctrine is wrong? No. Only the Bible proves doctrine right or wrong. Does it mean they were false prophets? No, just honestly mistaken. Virtually every religion was influenced by the "Advent Movement" of the time, and thus had incorrect expectations!! Since these "false prophet accusations do not take this into consideration, they are faulty and prejudicial reasoning.

Now is it fair of me to go back fifty to a hundred years to your religions roots and point out everything that was wrong, especially when they have commendably corrected wrong understandings? No, although a effective debate tactic, it would be unreasonable and a logical fallacy.

Any logic that says "they were wrong so that makes them false prophets" would make the Apostles "false prophets." Because even the apostles had incorrect understandings of end-times and had to be corrected. Their writings were misunderstood and misinterpreted several times by fellow Christians. Were these condemned as false prophets? Only by their enemies (Acts 28:22). They were humble enough to correct themselves, just as Jehovah's Witnesses have.


Jesus didn't say you would identify the true religion because they never misunderstood prophesy (indeed that would exclude the apostles). He said that you would discern the true Christian Organization from the false "by their fruits," or the results of their Biblical teaching (Mat.7:16,20).

We can examine the “fruitage” of all religions in light of scriptural requirements. Do their adherents even agree on abortion, homosexuality, special gifts, or baptism? (1Cor.1:10). Does its members shoot and kill each other at the command of Governments. Would Christ or the apostles do this? My religion imitates Christ, and this proves that they are True Christians! WWJD?

SOURCE: This is an answer provided by BAR_ANERGES to a question at Yahoo Answers.

Also see:
Inaccurate False 'Prophet' Claim Made Against Jehovah's Witnesses - Links to Accurate Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

Colossians 1:15 - "Firstborn" Versus "Pre-eminent"

Is Colossians 1:15 really saying that Jesus Christ is the "FIRSTBORN of all creation"? Yes.

However, some trinitarians insist that the literal "firstborn of all creation" describing Jesus at Col. 1:15 really means "the pre-eminent one over all creation."

Prototokos ("first-born"), literally means "born first" - see Young's Analytical Concordance - or Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. The New Testament in the King James Version and most other trinitarian translations use this meaning throughout. Here are all the instances of prototokos in the NT: Matt. 1:25 (King James only); Luke 2:7; Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15; Col. 1:18; Heb. 1:5, 6; Heb. 11:28; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 1:5 (compare Col. 1:18). None of them clearly means "pre-eminent". Not only do all of these scriptures that use prototokos have either the certain or the most probable meaning of "first-born," but we rarely (if ever) see any Bible translate them as anything but "first-born" or its literal equivalent except at Col. 1:15-18 where the actual meaning would disprove a trinity concept! A few trinitarian translations force an improper interpretation for prototokos at this scripture only (e.g. NIV, NEB).
 
The use of the word prototokos in the Bible always means one who has come into existence first in time - before all the rest of his "brothers" - the beginning (arkhe) of his father's creative (or procreative) works. - see pp. 77-88 in Dr. Jason BeDuhn's Truth in Translation, University Press of America, 2003.
 
Yet some trinitarians, however, still insist that the Biblical use of the Greek prototokos can, sometimes, mean "pre-eminent" because they dare not admit the obvious, true, literal meaning of Col. 1:15.
 
For much more, see:

Col. 1:15 "Firstborn of all creation" (Examining the Trinity)
 
'Beginning,' 'Wisdom,' and 'Firstborn' - BWF (Examining the Trinity)

Why doesn't the Sahidic Coptic text see a "genitive of subordination" at Colossians 1:15? (Yahoo Answers)

Col. 1:15 in the NWT (In Defense of The New World Translation)

Wes Williams' Response to Dr. Keay on "Firstborn of all Creation." (Jehovah's Witnesses United)

Wes Williams and Rob Bowman discussion concerning Prwtotokos (Jehovah's Witnesses United)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

Why is Numerology so Appealing and Does it Really Work?

Numerology—in which special significance is attached to figures, their combinations, and numerical totals—has been a widespread practice in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Why the allure? According to one Web site, decoding the letters of the alphabet used in names—one popular aspect of numerology—“yields accurate information concerning personality, nature, qualities and shortcomings.” According to this source, studying our “date of birth uncovers our life path, with its joys and trials.”

Are these claims true? Or could there be hidden dangers in the metaphysical study of numbers?

DOES numerology stand up under the scrutiny of science and reason? Are numbers the means by which our destiny can be revealed? Should you build your future around numerological findings and predictions?

One objection that numerologists have been unable to overcome is that different cultures use different calendars. For example, what if someone lives where the Chinese calendar is used? Consider [a memorable date]—September 11, 2001. According to the Chinese calendar, that was the 24th day of the 7th month of the 18th year of the 78th cycle. The Julian calendar would express the same date as August 29, 2001. According to the Muslim calendar, it was 22 Jumada II 1422, while the Hebrew calendar had it as 23 Elul 5761. How could there be numerical significance to a date that is expressed in so many ways? Another factor: Languages often have unique spellings of names. For example, the letters contained in the English name John have a numerological value of 2, but the letters in the Spanish spelling of the same name—Juan—have a value of 1.

It is one thing to recognize that many aspects of the universe can be explained by mathematical formulas. These formulas can be tested and demonstrated. But it is quite another matter to claim that your name was preordained to coincide with your date of birth and to be linked with certain numbers so that you can ascertain your destiny.

The conclusion is clear: To believe that numerological interpretations are accurate, when they are based upon such widely variable factors as calendar and language, is to stretch the limits of credibility to an absurd degree.

“Time and Unforeseen Occurrence”

Some become interested in numerology because they desire to make their life predictable. However, the Bible makes it plain that the details of human life cannot be mapped out in advance. We read: “The swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:11) Yes, many events take place unexpectedly. Such chance happenings defy efforts to predict outcomes based on birth date or numerical value of a name.

Consider another example: In encouraging generosity, the Bible states: “Send out your bread upon the surface of the waters, for in the course of many days you will find it again. Give a portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what calamity will occur on the earth.” (Ecclesiastes 11:1, 2) With few exceptions, calamities are things that people do not—indeed, cannot—know in advance. Hence, mathematics professor Underwood Dudley writes regarding numerologists: “They fail to give chance sufficient credit. Amazing things can happen at random.”

It is true that numerologists may make some predictions that come true. What accounts for this? In some instances, the outcome may be coincidental. Then, too, sometimes the language of numerologists is so ambiguous that it could apply to several outcomes. But there is something more serious to consider.

A Form of Divination?

The Bible does not mention numerology by name. But it does tell of Haman, an Amalekite who plotted the extermination of the Jews living in Persia during the fifth century B.C.E. The account says: “Haman ordered the lots to be cast (‘purim,’ they were called) to find out the right day and month to carry out his plot. The thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar, was decided on.” —Esther 3:7, Today’s English Version.

In ancient times, casting lots was a legitimate way of settling a controversy. (Proverbs 18:18) But Haman cast lots to practice divination—something that the Bible condemns. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 states that God detests “anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events . . . Everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah.”

The Bible links divination and uncanny power to spiritism. Wicked spirits can maneuver events to suit their purpose. Whether this is the case in a specific instance or not, one thing is certain: The practice of spiritism is condemned by God, and it can bring one under the control of wicked spirits.—1 Samuel 15:23; Ephesians 6:12.

Numerology is devoid of scientific basis, and it fares badly when examined under the light of reason. More important, because it is a form of divination, numerology conflicts with Bible teachings. In view of that, numerology is not a beneficial means of regulating your life or planning your future. - 9/8/02 Awake!

For more, see:

Numerology - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)

Bible Usage Not Numerology (Insight-2 pp. 510-513; Watchtower Online Library)

Numerology (Search Results From the Watchtower Online Library)

Numerology - Why is it so Appealing and Does it Really Work? (Search For Bible Truths)

Associated articles concerning numbers and the Bible:

Theomatics - Does it Work? Does the Bible Have a Hidden Code? (Search For Bible Truths)

Does the Bible Have a Hidden Code? (w00 4/1 pp. 29-31; Watchtower Online Library)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX 

'Echad' - 'One' (Original Study Paper)

ECHAD
(Hebrew: 'One')
Echad ('Plural' Oneness) and Yachid ('Absolute' Oneness)

I have seen Deut. 6:4 - "YHWH [Jehovah] our God, YHWH [Jehovah] one [Echad, in Hebrew]" - rendered in several ways. (I prefer "Jehovah [is] our God, Jehovah alone.") Some trinitarians misinterpret this. They usually say something like this: "At Deut. 6:4 the word 'one' is echad [1] in Biblical Hebrew, which means 'composite unity' or 'plural oneness'."

The examples that they cite which are supposed to verify this understanding for echad are usually either Gen. 2:24 - "They [two persons] shall be one [echad] flesh," or Gen. 1:5 - "the evening and the morning were the first (or one) [echad] day," or Numbers 13:23 - "one [echad] cluster of grapes."

In addition to insisting that echad means "plural oneness" some of them also insist that, if God had intended the meaning of "absolute oneness" (singleness, only one individual) at Deut. 6:4, he would have used the word yachid (or yacheed).

So let's examine the intended meanings of echad and yachid and the scriptures cited above.
First, it certainly wouldn't be surprising to find that some recognized trinitarian authority on Biblical Hebrew had written somewhere that echad means "united or plural oneness." but I haven't found one yet!

Here is what I have found written about echad by authorities on Biblical Hebrew:
The only definition given for echad in the very trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance is: "a prim[ary] card[inal] number; one". We find no "plural oneness" there!

The highly respected Biblical Hebrew authority, Gesenius, says that echad is "a numeral having the power of an adjective, one." He then lists the various meanings of echad as:

"(1) The same,"
"(2) first,"
"(3) some one,"
"(4) it acts the part of an indefinite article,"[2]
"(5)one only of its kind,"
"(6) when repeated [echad ... echad] 'one ... another'"
"(7) [Kechad] AS one man." [The initial consonant of this word, "K," actually means "as" or "like," so in this special form the meaning is close to that of a plural oneness. But this is not the form used at Deut. 6:4 !! ]

Gesenius also lists a plural form of the word (achadim, in Hebrew) which means "joined in one, united." This, too, is not the form used at Deut. 6:4 which context shows, instead, to have meaning #5 above. - See Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, #259, Baker Book House. Surely, if God (or Jehovah) were really a union of persons, a united one, this form which truly means "united one" would have been used to describe "Him" repeatedly in the Holy Scriptures. But it and all other words with similar meanings were never used for God (or Jehovah)!

By using a good Bible Concordance (such as Strong's or Young's) we can find all the uses of echad in the Bible. Unfortunately (due to space limitations), Young's and Strong's both list the rare plural form (achadim,) and the "AS one" (Kechad) form along with the common singular form (echad) without distinguishing among them.

Nevertheless, since both the plural form and the kechad form are used quite rarely (see Ezek. 37:17 for an example), we can see that the overwhelming majority of the uses of echad listed in these concordances (over 500) obviously have the meaning of singleness just as we use the word "one" today.

If you should find a scripture listed as using echad in your concordance that definitely has the meaning "plural oneness" or "together," or "as one," you should check it out in an interlinear Hebrew-English Bible. If the word in question is really the echad form of the word (as at Deut. 6:4), then it will end with the Hebrew letter "d" (looks like a '7') in the Hebrew portion of your interlinear. If, however, it is really the plural form of the word (achadim), then it will end in the Hebrew letter "m" (looks like a square). And if the word is really Kechad ("AS one"), it will begin with the Hebrew letter "k" (looks like a backward 'C'). Remember, though, that Hebrew reads from right to left (so the LAST letter of a Hebrew word is really the letter at the extreme LEFT.)

Using your concordance along with an interlinear Hebrew-English Bible in this manner, I don't believe you will ever find echad (as used at Deut. 6:4) literally meaning "plural oneness"!

Further emphasizing the impropriety of this "plural oneness" interpretation of echad are the many trinitarian renderings of Deut. 6:4. In the dozens of different trinitarian Bible translations that I have examined none of them have rendered Deut. 6:4 (or Mark 12:29) in such a way as to show anything even faintly resembling a "plural
oneness"!!

Even the highly trinitarian The Living Bible, which, being a paraphrase Bible, is able to (and frequently does) take great liberties with the literal Greek and Hebrew meanings in order to make better trinitarian interpretations, renders Deut. 6:4 as "Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone." Notice that there's not even a hint of a "plural oneness" Jehovah!
The equally trinitarian (and nearly as "freely" translated as The Living Bible) Good News Bible (GNB) renders it: "The LORD - and the LORD alone - is our God." - Compare the equally "free-handed" (and trinitarian) The Amplified Bible.

And even among the more literal trinitarian translations of Deut 6:4 we find:

"The LORD is our God, the LORD alone." - New Revised Standard Version.

"The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!" - New American Bible.
"The LORD is our God, the LORD alone." - The Holy Bible in the Language of Today, Beck (Lutheran).
"Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh." - New Jerusalem Bible.
"Yahweh is our God, - Yahweh alone." - The Emphasized Bible, Rotherham.
"The LORD is our God, the LORD alone." - An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed).
"The Eternal, the Eternal alone, is our God." - A New Transation, Moffatt.

The trinitarian ASV (also the RSV) gives 4 different possible renderings of Deut. 6:4. One of them is identical with The Living Bible, and none of them includes an understanding of a "plural oneness" God!

The paraphrased The Living Bible also renders Mark 12:29 (where Jesus quotes Deut. 6:4 and an excellent spot for him to reveal a "trinity" God --- or even just a "plural oneness" God) as: "The Lord our God is the one and only God." Notice the further explanation of the intended meaning of this scripture at Mark 12:32, 34. "'... you have spoken a true word in saying that there is only one God and no other...' Realizing this man's understanding, Jesus said to him, 'You are not far from the Kingdom of God.'

Why doesn't this highly interpretive trinitarian paraphrase Bible (or any other Bible for that matter) bring out a "plural oneness" meaning at these scriptures (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29) if that can be a proper interpretation for echad?

Surely, if the trinitarian scholars who made this Bible had thought there was even the slightest justification for an echad = "plural oneness" interpretation, they would have rendered it that way: "Jehovah is a composite unity;" or "Jehovah is the United One;" or "Jehovah is a plural oneness;" etc.

Instead they have clearly shown that God (who inspired it), Moses (who wrote it under inspiration), and even Jesus himself (who taught that it was part of the most important commandment of all - Mark 12:28-29, LB; GNB; etc.) intended this scripture to show God as a single person only!

Similarly, the three annotated trinitarian study Bibles I own would certainly explain any intended "multiple-oneness" meaning for echad at Deut. 6:4 (if there were any possibility of such an interpretation). But the trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., gives no hint of such an understanding of echad in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). And the trinitarian The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed., likewise gives no hint of such an understanding in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). And that trinitarian favorite: The NIV Study Bible, 1985, also gives no hint of such a meaning for echad in its footnote for Deut. 6:4 (or anywhere else). The only possible reason for all these trinitarian study Bibles ignoring this "proof" is that it simply is not true!

The examples given by some trinitarians to show a "plural oneness" meaning for echad don't stand up either. The Gen. 2:24 example of a man and wife becoming "one (echad) flesh" certainly does not mean one literal body of flesh is composed of two people.

A man and wife becoming "one flesh" also doesn't mean that two different persons suddenly become equal or identical. They are still two distinct individuals (one is lord and head over the other according to the Bible) and do not share nervous, circulatory, skeletal, etc. systems. They both did not have to (and, in fact, did not) come into existence at the same time, nor do they both have the same minds, personalities, nor even equal authority!

So, then, how did the Bible writers understand that the two became "one"? It should be enough to show that being "one" with someone else merely shows how two (or more) people are "united in purpose" as though they were one person in that respect only (purpose). - See the ONE study.

Another way a man and wife can be considered "one flesh" has to do with what the word "flesh" (basar) meant in ancient Biblical Hebrew. Any good concordance will show you that "flesh" (basar) in Bible usage often means a close relative. Gen. 37:27 is an example of this: "for he is our brother and our flesh."

And the equivalent NT Greek word for "flesh" (sarx) could be used in the same manner. At Ro 11:14, "my flesh (sarx)" - KJV is also rendered: "my fellow Jews" - RSV; "my own race" - MLB, TEV, GNB, NEB; "my own people" - NIV; "my fellow countrymen" - NASB.
The King James Version even translates this OT Hebrew word (basar) as "KIN" at Lev. 18:6 and 25:49. The New English Bible translates it "blood-relation." With this common understanding for "flesh" it is clear that the expression "one flesh" at Gen. 2:24 can simply mean that the two married people are now to be considered as closely related as "blood-relatives." In other words, their closest "flesh" (relatives) used to be their parents. Now they are to consider their new relationship to one another as being even stronger than that with their parents: "therefore shall a man leave his mother and father" - Gen. 2:24. To argue that a man and woman somehow, in some mysterious supernatural way, literally become one flesh, is simply not what was intended in the original language.

It is no more mysterious than my saying that my wife and I (and our children) have become a single (or "one") family ("relationship," "kin"). I certainly don't mean to imply some "mysterious" plurality by the word "single" even though there happen to be two (or four) members in that one family (relationship, "flesh"). Or, a person could have dozens of members in his one, single family ("flesh"). Or, a person might be the sole surviving member ("absolute mathematical oneness") of his one family - it's still only one family and the singularity or plurality of its composition has nothing whatsoever to do with its being one single family!

It's no different from talking about two families, three families, etc. We are talking about a definite mathematical number of families, not the numerical composition within those families. The "one flesh" example works exactly that same way.

A few "echad = multiple oneness" trinitarians even claim that a man and woman becoming "one flesh" means "they are one in nature ... one in human nature as the Father and Son are one in the God-nature."

This kind of reasoning would mean that the man (or the woman) before marriage (before they "became one flesh") was not by himself already equally "one" in human nature with the rest of mankind! Then what kind of nature did this person possess before he married?
Each person (whether they ever marry and become "one flesh" or not) obviously already possesses human nature equally with any other human being. But when they marry, they are supposed to become one in purpose, goals, etc., the closest of relatives, not suddenly become human beings and thereby gain human nature!

Strangely, one recent anti-Watchtower letter sent by a relative to a local Witness used the above example for "one" in marriage being "one" in nature and then said:

"'the marriage relationship portrays the mystical oneness and union of Jesus, the Bridegroom with His Bride, His Church' just as it portrays that the man and his wife 'are ... one in nature ... as the Father and Son are one in the God-nature.'"

Yes, this writer was actually saying, then, that just as the Father and Son are one, so the man and wife are one, and so Jesus and his Church (all his true followers) are one! In other words, in trinitarian terms, Jesus and his Father are equally God; and Jesus (God in every sense, they would say) and his Church (also equal in nature with Jesus) must then be equally God also!!

Clearly it means, instead, that Jesus, the bridegroom, and his bride, his church (of "brothers") are one in purpose only (as are God and his Son).

"That they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they may also be in us ... that they may be one even as we are one." - John 17:21, 22, ASV.

Even if the Hebrew echad were used here at John 17:22 for "one" (as the famous Lutheran trinitarian scholar, Franz Delitzsch translated it in his Hebrew New Testament), it is obvious that it does not mean some mysterious plural oneness wherein the individuals are all equally the Father, or equally the Son, and certainly not all equally God! (In any case, John would have used the masculine form of "one" in the NT Greek, heis, at John 17:22 if he had intended any of the above "trinitarian" meanings. Instead, he used the neuter form, hen, [looks like ev in Greek letters] in NT Greek which signifies a union of purpose - see the ONE study).

Delitzsch also translates the NT Greek heis at 1 Cor. 9:24 ("only one" - NIV, NEB, TEV, GNB, RSV; "only one person" - The Living Bible) as echad! There is certainly no "plural oneness" intended here! - Hebrew New Testament, Delitzsch, The Trinitarian Bible Society, 1981.

If a person will not acknowledge the obvious figurative meaning of "one" as "united in purpose," then he is saying that as man and wife become absolutely equal in nature by marriage (and as Jesus and the Father are "absolutely equal in nature" and are, therefore, equally God) so do Jesus and his Church become "one" or "equal in nature" and, therefore, the Church (Jesus' "brothers") is equally God!

Such reasoning is obviously ludicrous and illustrates what was really figuratively intended by "one" in marriage and other relationships: they are as though they were literally "one" in only one respect: unity of purpose!

As the bride is to become "one" in purpose with her husband (although he is designated to be head over his wife - 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23), so, too, those chosen ones are to become "one" in purpose with Jesus (although he is to be their head - Eph. 5:23; 1 Cor. 11:3 - so he does not conform to their will and purpose, nor are they equal to him, but they willingly conform to his purpose so that they may be "one"), and so, in like manner, Jesus has become "one" in purpose with his Father (the only true God - John 17:3) who is his head. The Father does not conform to the will and purpose of Jesus, nor is Jesus in any way equal to the Father, but Jesus willingly and perfectly conforms to his Father's purpose and will! - "The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman (wife) is the man; and the head of Christ is God [not 'Christ is equal to God']." - 1 Cor. 11:3, ASV.

So, why couldn't the absolute mathematical oneness of echad at Deut. 6:4 be describing a figurative unity of purpose just as the Greek "one" (hen) does at John 17:21, 22?
That is, if Jesus can describe certain chosen men, and his Father (God alone), and himself figuratively as all being "one" (in purpose only), why couldn't God be telling us at Deuteronomy 6:4 that he is more than one person, all of whom are united in purpose? One reason is that the word used for "one" in this sense is neuter (hen). But the word used for "one" at Deut. 6:4 in the ancient Greek Septuagint (and at Mk 12:29 in the New Testament) is the masculine heis! - cf. Mk 2:7.

We also know that such an interpretation is ridiculous because of the clear context of Deut. 6 (and the clear statements of the rest of the Bible). Nowhere in Old or New Testament is God said to be more than one person. No one would have possibly understood Deut. 6:4 as meaning "Jehovah is a 'many persons united in one purpose' God" at that time or for thousands of years thereafter (certainly not until hundreds of years after Jesus' death - see the HIST and ISRAEL studies).

The context of Deut. 6:4 and 6:13-15 shows that God is not speaking of all persons who could be considered to be "united in purpose" with the Father (this would have included the Father and the Word, of course, but it would also have included the millions of faithful angels, and today it would include a large number of faithful Christians!). Remember that when "one" is used figuratively for "united in purpose" it is always describing a relationship between certain individuals or groups who are identified in context. There is no such identification (nor even the slightest suggestion of such an identification) found in Deut. 6.

We cannot believe that Deut. 6:4 is saying that all those who are "united in purpose" with Jehovah are Jehovah! But that is the only figurative use we could possibly have for echad at Deut. 6:4. Otherwise we are left with the literal meaning (mathematical oneness, a single individual) of echad (which is obviously intended in the vast majority of uses of echad and which is obviously intended at Deut. 6:4, 13-15 and further explained at Mark 12:29, 32.)
Just as no Bible translation (including all the many trinitarian translations I have examined) renders Deut. 6:4 with any kind of suggestion that "Jehovah is a multiple unity," no translation suggests it should be rendered with the understanding that "Jehovah is united in purpose."

It is also clear from other Bible statements that God is a single person: the Father in heaven. (Jehovah is never described as "the Son," "the Messiah," "the Holy Spirit," or any other individual but the Father - Deut. 32:6; Is. 63:16; 64:8; Jer. 3:4; 3:19 - and conversely, no heavenly person except Jehovah is ever called the Father! - Matt. 23:9.)
Notice how Jesus used the word monos ("only," "alone") to describe God (Jehovah, the Father) at John 17:1, 3. "Father ... they should know thee the only [monos] True God." Or, "Father ... who alone art truly God" - NEB.

But let's look at another example where echad is supposed to literally mean "plural oneness."

Almost anything we can name is composed of different elements or parts. If I should say, "Randy was the first (another way echad may be rendered into English) runner to cross the finish line," I am not referring to the fact that he has two legs (or flesh, blood, and bones) which together help compose the whole of that one (or "first") individual. I am saying (as everyone well knows) that, at the time he crossed the finish line, Randy was the only one who had done so (whether he had one or two legs, etc.). In the same sense of absolute mathematical order I would say that the very next runner (whether it should happen to be a woman, horse, octopus, snail, etc.) is the second individual runner to cross the finish line regardless of how many legs, arms, etc. that racer has. So, Robin, the second runner to cross the finish line is no more a "plural twoness" than Randy, the first one, is a "plural oneness"!

Therefore, "the evening and the morning were the first [echad] day ['one day' - RSV]" - Gen. 1:5, KJV - means exactly what it says, just as "the evening and the morning were the second [sheni] day" - Gen. 1:8 - means exactly what it says and so on through six days! "The first [echad] day" does not in any sense refer to the individual parts which compose that day (or a "plural oneness") any more than "the sixth day" refers to a "plural sixness" making up that single day! They are absolute mathematical numbers and do not refer to internal composition but, instead, to single, individual things.

And so it is with the example of "one [echad] cluster of grapes" at Numbers 13:23. Here again "one" [echad] obviously means only one (singleness, absolute mathematical oneness) for whatever word it is applied to.

It is the word "cluster" in this scripture which means "one thing composed of many individual items," but there is only one single (absolute mathematical oneness) "cluster"!
This is no different from one (echad) single tribe (whether composed of one single, last person or millions of persons) at Judges 21:3, 6 and two tribes (whether each is composed of one person or millions) at Joshua 21:16. Echad literally means "single," "only" as can plainly be seen at Exodus 12:46, "one house;" Ex. 33:5, "one moment;" Numbers 7:21, "one bullock, one ram, [etc.]."

Yachid

A few trinitarians insist that not only does echad mean "plural oneness," but that, if singleness were intended by the Bible writer, the Hebrew word yachid
would have been used at Deut. 6:4.

Here is how it was presented to me by one trinitarian:

"The word for 'one' in this great declaration [Deut. 6:4] is not Yachid which is an absolute oneness but rather echad which means 'united one.' Had the Holy Spirit desired to state absolute mathematical oneness in this all-important declaration, He could have easily used the word yachid, couldn't He?"

We have already seen the absolute falsity of the "echad-means-'plural-oneness'" idea. But what about yachid? Did the Bible writers really use it whenever they meant "absolute mathematical oneness"? We have already seen that they really used echad for "absolute mathematical oneness," and a good concordance will show they did this consistently - many hundreds of times!

Yachid, on the other hand, is only used about 12 times in the entire Bible and then only in a narrow, specific sense.

The Old Testament language authority, Gesenius, tells us that yachid is used in three very specialized ways: 

(1) "only" but primarily in the sense of "only begotten"! - Gen. 22:2, 12, 16; Jer. 6:26; and Zech. 12:10. 

(2) "solitary" but with the connotation of "forsaken" or "wretched"! - Ps. 25:16; 68:6. 

(3) As yachidah (feminine form) meaning "only one" as something most dear and used "poet[ically] for 'life' - Ps. 22:20; 35:17." - p. 345 b.

We find yachid is never used to describe God anywhere in the entire Bible! But it is
used to describe Isaac in his prefigured representation of the Messiah: Gen. 22:2, 12, 16. It is also used at Judges 11:34 for an only-begotten child. The ancient Greek Septuagint translates yachid at Judges 11:34 as monogenes ("only-begotten"): the same NT Greek word repeatedly used to describe Christ (even in his pre-human heavenly existence - 1 John 4:9). Monogenes, however, like the Hebrew yachid, is never used to describe the only true God, Jehovah (who is the Father alone).

So, if Jehovah were to describe himself as "forsaken" or "wretched," or were speaking poetically about his "dear life," or were describing himself as the "only-begotten son" (which he never does anywhere in the Bible!), then he might have used yachid.[3]


But since he was describing his "mathematical oneness" at Deut. 6:4, he properly used echad!

As we pointed out at the beginning, there are Hebrew words that mean "plural oneness," but echad is not one of them. As another example, notice the clear meaning of echad as "absolute mathematical oneness" at Gen. 42:11 where the sons of Jacob say, "we are all one [echad] man's sons." They certainly weren't saying "we are all sons of different men who together make up a 'plural oneness' man"! Instead, the inspired Bible writer wrote that they were all sons of one [echad not yachid] single, solitary man.

We see the same thing at Malachi 2:10 even though we find two different interpretations by trinitarian translators.

Some translate it:

"have we not all one [echad] father? Has not one [echad] God created us?" - RSV.

The meaning of this rendering seems to be that everyone has a single person as his earthly father and, by comparison, we also all have a single [echad] person as our God and Creator in heaven.

Other trinitarian scholars translate Malachi 2:10 as:

"Have we not all the one Father? Has not the one God created us?" - NAB (1970 and 1991).
"Is there not one Father of us all? Did not one God create us?" - NJB.
"Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us?" - JB.
"Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?" - NKJV.
"Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?" - The Amplified Bible.
"Is there not one Father to us all? Has not one God created us?" - MKJV, Green.
"Don't all of us have one Father? Hasn't one God created us?" - In the Language of Today, Beck.
"Do we not all have one Father? Has not one God made us?" - NLV.

We clearly see in these trinitarian translations that the common Hebrew use of parallelisms was intended by the inspired Bible writers. That is, the first half of the verse is differently worded but parallel in meaning with the second half. Therefore, the first half refers to God just as the second half does, so the translator has capitalized "Father" to make such an interpretation unmistakeable. The meaning in this interpretation, then, is:

"We all have one [echad] Father (the only person who is God)," and, in parallel meaning,

"We all have one [echad] Creator (a single person as God)." - Compare 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6.

No matter which interpretation you prefer, it is clear that the comparison with (or parallel with) a single individual father (whether we interpret it as the single male human parent or the single person, God the Father), who is called "one [echad] father/Father," is a single individual who is called "one [echad] God"! The comparison (or parallel) would be senseless if echad meant one single person for "father/Father" (as it must) in its first half and "plural oneness" persons for "God" (as it clearly doesn't) in its second half!

The inspired Bible writers at Gen. 42:11, Malachi 2:10, and Deut. 6:4 could easily have used a word that really means "united one"[4] - but they didn't! The inspired Bible writer at Deut. 6:4 could also have easily said (and definitely should have said if it were true) that "God is three persons who together make up the one God" or even just "the one God is three persons," but he didn't, and neither did any other Bible writer! He should also have used yachid repeatedly in the Bible for God if Jehovah is ever to be understood as being Jesus ("the only-begotten"), but no Bible writer describes Jehovah that way, ever!

A footnote for Deut. 6:4 in the very trinitarian The New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, says:

"this passage contains the basic principle of the whole Mosaic law, the keynote of the Book of Deuteronomy: since the Lord [Jehovah] alone is God, we must love him with an undivided heart. Christ cited these words as 'the greatest and the first commandment,' embracing in itself the whole law of God (Mt 22:37f and parallels [especially see Mark 12:28-34])."

As the ASV renders it in a footnote for Deut. 6:4 - "Jehovah is our God; Jehovah is one". Yes, the great distinction between Israel and all the nations around them was that they worshiped only one ["absolute mathematical oneness"] person as God (as they always have, and as they still do today - see the ISRAEL study).

The only honest interpretations of "this great declaration" of Deut. 6:4 are "Jehovah our God is only one [echad] person" or "Jehovah our God is only one God"!

Judging by the literal meanings of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek (NT and Septuagint OT) Scriptures Deut. 6:4 actually says: "Hear Israel, Jehovah the God of us, Jehovah is one" (Sept. Greek) and "Jehovah our God, Jehovah [is] one" (Hebrew - Interlinear Bible). But in any case echad clearly refers to a single, solitary [absolute mathematical oneness] being, not a "multiple oneness"!

So even the very trinitarian literal translation, the New King James Version[5], (like the very trinitarian ETRV [6] paraphrase Bible) translates echad at Deut. 6:4 correctly as: 

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Jehovah] our God, the LORD [Jehovah] is one!"

The meaning is clear. It is expressed perhaps even more clearly in the popular trinitarian paraphrase Bible, The Living Bible: "Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES

1. Or echod according to Dr. Walter Martin's use of this preposterous "evidence" - p. 69, The Kingdom of the Cults, 1985 ed.

2. In English the words "a" and "an" are indefinite articles. For example, then, 'one [echad] cow' in Hebrew could mean 'A cow' in English - it certainly would not mean 'a plural oneness cow'! In fact this whole "proof" is exactly like saying "a" is a multiple oneness indefinite article. And, of course, they would find a few (out of thousands of others) uses like "a committee," "a month," "a musical trio," etc. and brilliantly conclude that "a" here has to be a multiple oneness, because "committee, or "trio," etc. is composed of more than one person!

3. As for any use of yachid by a 12th or 13th century A.D. Rabbi (as a few trinitarians resort to in defense of "yachid" for God), what has this to do with what Scripture actually says? Maimonides (or Moses Ben Maimon) lived from 1135-1204 A.D. and was a well-known Jewish philosopher and commentator.

For what it's worth, Maimonides also wrote: "Can there be a greater stumbling block than [Christianity]? .... [Trinitarian Christianity] caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord."- Mishnah Torah, "The Laws of Kings and Their Wars," chapter 11.

And Steve Gross writes:

"Let me quote Evelyn Garfiel, author of Service of the Heart: A Guide to the Jewish Prayerbook (Jason Aronson, Inc., 1958, 1989). Here she is discussing the Yigdal prayer (pp 52-54):" '.... It must be stated categorically that this "Confession of Faith" [the "Thirteen Creeds" of Maimonides] as it has sometimes been called, has no legal, doctrinal standing in Judaism; that it is not, in any case, the Jewish creed. It was written (in his Commentary to the Mishnah) by Maimonides when he was twenty-three years old, and he never referred to it again in all the rest of his writings.

" 'The need to formulate the Jewish religion in a clearly stated creed had apparently not been felt in the previous two millennia of its existence. It was only in the late Middle Ages, when Aristotelian philosophy dominated the whole intellectual world, that Maimonides was impelled to try to set down the basic axioms of Judaism as he understood them, and in the light of the philosophy current in his day.

....

" 'During his lifetime and for many years afterward, Maimonides was bitterly opposed by many Rabbis. They felt that something extraneous to the genuine Jewish tradition was being injected into it by this precipitation of Aristotelian philosophy and by these strange formulations of belief... Crescas, in some ways the most subtle and brilliant of the Jewish philosophers, Nachmanides (the Ramban), Abarbanel, and others all registered strong opposition to Maimonides Creeds. 

....

" 'The Shulhan Arukh ... does not even mention the Thirteen Creeds. Someone - perhaps a printer, but no one knows exactly who - included the Creeds in an edition of the Prayer Book sometime after 1400....' " [emphasis added - RDB]

4. Among the Hebrew words that can mean "united oneness," such as achadim and Kechad, are the various forms of yachad. The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance, 1981, p. 1529, tells us that #3161 yachad means "to be united" and #3162 yachad means "unitedness".

Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 430, 431, also describes the various forms of yachad: "yachad appears about 46 times and in all periods of Biblical Hebrew. Used as an adverb, the word emphasizes a plurality in unity." Used as a verb "yachad means 'to be united, meet.'" And, although the noun yachad occurs only once, it is still used "to mean 'unitedness.'"

You will not find yachad in any of its many forms that mean "united" or "plurality in unity" ever used to describe God!!

However, we do find other Hebrew words that, like echad, clearly mean "single," "only," "alone," etc. and these words are used to describe the one person who alone is the Most High God.

For example, The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance, p. 1496, tells us that #905 bad ("bod") means "separation, apart, alone."

Also Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, pp. 280, 281, states, "in most of its appearances (152 times) this word [bad] is preceded by the preposition le. This use means 'alone' (89 times): 'And the Lord God said. It is not good that the man [Adam] should be alone [bad] ....'" - Gen. 2:18.

Yes, Adam was the only person of humankind in existence, and, therefore, he was described by God as being alone in that special sense (bad in Hebrew). (There were myriads of spirit persons, the angels. There was God Himself. There were innumerable other creatures. And yet, Adam, as the only one of mankind, was alone [bad]!) Then, as soon as God created another person of his own kind for Adam, he was no longer alone (bad)!
This use of bad ("alone") is frequently used to describe the person who is God. For example, 1 Sam. 7:3, "direct your hearts unto Jehovah [a personal name] and serve him [masculine singular] only [bad]." - ASV.

And 2 Kings 19:15, "O Jehovah, the God of Israel, that sittest above the cherubim, thou [second person singular] art the God, even thou alone [bad]." - ASV.

And Psalm 83:16, 18, "Fill their faces with confusion, that they may seek thy name, O Jehovah. .... That they may know that thou [singular] alone
[bad], whose name is Jehovah [singular personal name], art the Most High over all the earth." - ASV. - (Also see Neh. 9:5, 6; Ps. 86:10; Is. 37:16.)

5. With a "symbol for the Trinity" on the title page which symbolizes "that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ... indivisibly One God." Published and copyrighted by Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982.6. "Listen, people of Israel! The Lord [Jehovah] is our God. The Lord [Jehovah] is one!" - Holy Bible - Easy-to-Read Version, World Bible Translation Center, Fort Worth Texas, 1992.

Note: Although Watchtower Society (WTS) research and scholarship is usually at least the equal of (and often superior to) that of other sources, I have tried to rely most heavily on other sources in Christendom itself (preferably trinitarian) or my own independent research to provide evidence disproving the trinitarian `proof' being examined in this paper. The reason is, of course, that this paper is meant to provide evidence needed by non-Witnesses, and many of them will not accept anything written by the WTS. They truly believe it is false, even dishonest. Therefore some of the following information, all of which helps disprove specific trinitarian "proofs," may be in disagreement with current WTS teachings in some specifics (especially when I have presented a number of alternates). Jehovah's Witnesses should research the most recent WTS literature on the subject or scripture in question before using this information with others. – RDB.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX