Defend Jehovah's Witnesses

Friday, August 12, 2011

The New World Translation and the use of "Other" at Col. 1:16

"Other" at Col. 1:16:

"For through [Jesus] all things were created in heaven and on earth" - MLB.

"by means of [Jesus] all [other] things were created" - NWT.

The use of the word "other" by the New World Translation at Col. 1:16 makes many trinitarian "scholars" very upset. The accusation is perfectly clear: they are claiming that the NWT has dishonestly added to God's Word. But what is the truth about words added to the original text?

Well, the KJV also adds words at many places in the scriptures and frequently signifies these additions by italicizing such added words. In fact all Bible translations add words to make the intended meaning of the original language clear to the readers of another language. The NWT usually indicates added words with brackets [ ] and does so at Col. 1:16, 17 with ["other"]!

Yes, all Bible translators supply needed words in accordance with their own under-standing of what meaning the Bible writer actually intended. Any serious Bible student knows this elementary fact. You can see that the KJV translators (and NIV, NKJV, TEV/GNB, Beck, etc.) added the word "other" at Acts 5:29 (and rightly so) even though it is not actually written in the original text (also compare KJV at Job 24:24). Were they, then, dishonestly, blasphemously adding to God's Word? Of course not!

The Bible writers very often excluded the subject (and others) when using the term "all" (and "every"). This is a common usage even today. For example, the police sergeant making an arrest of a criminal group might say: "Everyone in this room is under arrest!" Obviously the sergeant does not include himself (nor his captain who is with him) even though he says "everyone"! Or "the criminal tied up everyone in the room before stealing the gems."

Here is the most recent example that just presented itself a few minutes after I was re-reviewing this study paper in 2004:

Jun 5, 5:47 PM (ET)
By TERENCE HUNT

WASHINGTON (AP) - Ronald Reagan, the cheerful crusader who devoted his presidency to winning the Cold War, trying to scale back government and making people believe it was "morning again in America," died Saturday after a long twilight struggle with Alzheimer's disease. He was 93.

....

"Reagan lived longer than any U.S. President, ...."

But to be accurate we must remember that Reagan was one of those U.S. Presidents! Obviously the AP writer did not mean to imply that Reagan hadn't ever been President. We all understand that what he meant was "Reagan lived longer than any other President." [added 5 June 2004, emphasis added.]

This also applies to the word "all" as used in the early Greek manuscripts of the Bible. For example, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel and Friedrich (abridged in one volume by G.W. Bromiley) tells us of this word in the ancient Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint): "In many passages, of course, the use is rhetorical". And in the NT this esteemed work tells us of the word "all" that it is often "used in the NT simply to denote a great number," not literally "all." -pp. 796, 797, Eerdmans, 1992 reprint.

And Dr. Young wrote in the foreword ("Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation") of his well-known Bible Concordance:

"Some particles such as ALL, are frequently used for SOME or MOST, e.g., Matt. 3:5; 26:52 [even King David?]; 1 Cor. 6:12; Col. 3:22" Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 reprint.

(Also see p. 97, vol.1, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans, 1984; examine Isaiah 44:24)

The highly regarded NASB (and NEB; REB; NIV; JB; NJB; NKJV; ETRV; BBE; NLV; MKJV; MLB; Darby; Beck; and Young's) translate Is. 45:14 - "There is no other God." The word "other" is not in the Hebrew OT manuscripts and has been added by the translators (and rightly so)! The NWT renders it "there is no [other] God." RSV and NRSV have also added "other" and also another, similar phrase: "there is no other, no god besides him."

And we find NEB; REB; NJB; NAB ('91); GNB; and LB (for example) have honestly added "other" at Ezek. 31:5 to show that a certain tree towered above "all other trees" whereas KJV, NASB, RSV (for example) have it towering "above all trees." Since it does not tower above itself, the Bible writer obviously excluded it from the phrase "all trees" (even though it is also a tree itself and a part of "all trees") just as Col. 1:16 excludes Jesus from all other things.

In Matthew 10:22, Jesus tells his followers: "and you will be hated by all because of my name." - NRSV. Certainly, Jesus didn't mean that his true followers would be hated by Jesus himself or God. And most certainly he didn't mean they would be hated by themselves! (Remember, the subject - as in 1 Cor. 1:16 - is most often understood to be excluded from the "all" statements.)

The Moffatt translation, An American Translation, The Common Bible, The Amplified Bible, and translations by C. B. Williams, and Beck all add "other" after "all" at 1 Cor. 15:24 (e.g. "when he will put an end to all other government, authority, and power" - C. B. Williams, The New Testament in the Language of the People, Moody Press, 1963). Although the NWT does not happen to add "other" at that scripture, its translators (as well as every other Jehovah's Witness on earth) would whole-heartedly agree that those who have added "other" there have done so properly and that the original Bible writer so intended the meaning! And conversely, at Jn 2:10 the NWT has added "other," and, although most [other] translations do not add it, I'm sure most people would agree that, whether actually written in the scripture or not, context demands such an understanding: "Every other man puts out the fine wine first..."

Again, at 1 Cor. 6:18 the respected trinitarian Bibles NIV, NASB, NEB, REB, AT, GNB, TEV, JB, NJB (among others) have added "other" to the text. And the NWT agrees whole-heartedly! And at Matt. 6:33 JB, AT, GNB, TEV, and Beck (Lutheran scholar) have added "other" (NEB has added "the rest"), and, again, the NWT agrees. Or how about Luke 13:2:

"all the other Galileans" - NIV, Luke 13:2

"all other Galileans" - NASB

"all other Galileans" - NAB ('91)

"all other Galileans" - NRSV

"all other Galileans" - NKJV

"all the other Galileans" - RSV

"anyone else in Galilee" - NEB and REB

"than any other Galileans" - JB

"than all other Galileans" - NJB

"any other Galileans" - AT

"everyone else in Galilee" - CEV.

"all other Galileans" - TEV.

"all other Galilaeans" - BBE

"other people from Galilee" - GodsWord

"all the other Galileans" - ISV NT

"the rest of the Galileans" - Moffatt

When Gen. 3:20 tells us that Eve "was the mother of all living," does that really make her the mother of Adam? of all animals? of all plants? of angels? of God? So, although the literal Hebrew says "all," we know from the teachings of the rest of the Bible that this is a severely qualified "all," and it would be perfectly honest to add some qualifying word or phrase ("all other humans" - after all, she, although the subject, wasn't her own mother, or Adam's).

Notice also God's words to Noah at Gen. 6:17, "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens" - NIV. Since the rest of the Bible shows that Noah did not die in that flood, this scripture could honestly be rendered "to destroy all [other] life." Noah knew God was using a qualified "all" which did not apply to himself and so should we!

When the angel of Jehovah told his mother about Ishmael that "His hand will be against every man, and every man's hand will be against him," She did not think by this that Ishmael's own hand would be against himself. As usual the "every" or "all" excepted the one who was the subject.

Another good example of honest adding can be seen in reference to another too literal interpretation of "all." Romans 3:23 says literally, "All have sinned" -- but, obviously, Jesus, the Father, and myriads of faithful angels have not sinned! So some Bibles (including TEV and NAB [1970 ed.]) have honestly qualified this "all" by adding to this scripture and translated it "All men have sinned." You may notice also that they haven't even bothered to indicate that the word "men" has been added.

Also in Romans we find the very same words used by Paul in Col. 1:16 (ta panta) - "He [God] didn't spare His own Son but gave him up for all of us - He will certainly with Him give us everything [ta panta]." - Ro. 8:32, Beck (Lutheran). Obviously, the "everything" that is given to Christians does not include God or Jesus, or even fellow created Christians. It certainly would not be improper to translate this as: "He will ... give us all [other] things." In fact, notice these trinitarian Bible translations:

"... how can he fail to lavish every other gift upon us?" - REB.

" ... will he not with him also give us everything else?" - NRSV

"... won't he also surely give us everything else?" - Living Bible.

"... will he not also give us everything else along with him?" - NAB ('91)

"... will He not with Him graciously give us everything else?" - CBW.

Since ta panta does not include all created things in this scripture, it certainly does not have to mean all created things in Col. 1:16!

Even the Seventh-day Adventists themselves admit: "It is also very clear that in Genesis 9:3 the word 'every' tacitly excludes the unclean animals and those whose flesh might be poison to man, as some creatures are today." - Signs of the Times, Feb. 1976, p. 28. Here they admit that "every" (or "all") must sometimes be qualified! But if the NWT does something similar it has "obscured" or "mutilated" God's Word!

Yes, Col. 1:16, 17 needs a qualified "all" as the teaching of the rest of the Bible testifies. It is similar to Hebrews 2:8 in this respect.

At Heb. 2:8 we read: "Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him." However, it would certainly be honest and proper for a translator familiar with the teachings of the rest of the Bible (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:27) to add the qualifying words to this scripture that were understood and intended by the original writer. E.g., "Thou hast put all [other] things in subjection...;" or even, "Thou hast put all things [except the Father and yourself] in subjection..." - see 1 Cor. 15:27.

Similarly, we find Paul saying at Phil. 2:9 that God exalted Jesus and "bestowed on him the name above all names." - NEB. But, obviously, his name is not above the name of the God who exalted him. Nor can it be above his [Jesus'] own name. Therefore, it is not wrong to add "other" and render this as "God ... gave him the name which is above all other names" as did the translators of JB; NJB; NAB (1970); AT; GNB/TEV; LB; CBW; Beck (NT); ETRV; and NLV.

Paul continues in Phil. 2:10, "So that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth...." But, obviously, the Father in heaven does not bend his knee, and Jesus certainly does not bend his knee to himself! This, too, should be a qualified "every knee"! (And analyze 1 Pet. 4:7)

So how accurate is Martin when he says the translators of the NWT have made a "dishonest rendering of Col. 1:16, 17, and 19 by the insertion of the word "other"?

Well, let's look at Col. 1:17 itself: "And he is before all things." - KJV. This is the literal wording and what Martin wants.

But look at what these (other) trinitarian translations have added to this verse:

"He is before all else that is..." - NAB ('70).

"He was before all else began..." - LB.

"Before anything was created, he existed" - JB.

"Christ was there before anything was made." - ETRV.

Since it is obvious that Christ did not exist before himself, nor before the Father, these two, at least, have to be excluded from "all things." Therefore, the very trinitarian NAB and LB above have properly added "else" to this scripture. This is the same thing as writing "before every [other] thing"!

And the trinitarian Jerusalem Bible has added "created" and the trinitarian ETRV has added "was made" for the very same reason.

Certainly it is not wrong from a grammatical viewpoint (nor is it a "dishonest rendering") to add "other" as the NWT has done at Col. 1:16, 17 (and the LB and the NAB have done with "else" at Col. 1:17) and so many trinitarian translators have done in other similar situations. Whether it is doctrinally correct as Rev. 3:14, Prov. 8:22-30, 1 John 4:9 ("only-begotten"), and Col. 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation") suggest is a matter for all honest-hearted persons to discover but not a reason for falsely accusing someone of dishonestly rendering God's Word!

[If above reasoning is refused, consider John 10:29: "My Father...is greater than all" -KJV.

Then the Father is greater than the Son and greater than the Holy Spirit and "greater even than Himself???"

The Living Bible says, My Father "is more powerful than anyone else," which still means He is greater than the Son and greater than the Holy Spirit [if it were really a person], but, of course, shows He is not greater than Himself. The NRSV also uses "else" here.]

[[Note to self: analyze the following:

Eph. 3:9 "... God who created all things." - NRSV, NASB, etc. (Obviously he didn't create Himself).

(NKJV) Hebrews 3:4 For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things [panta] is God.

(NASB) Hebrews 3:4 For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things [panta] is God.

And, Rev. 4:11 "For you [the Father seated on the throne] created everything" - CBW. (But, literally, panta -"all" or "all things" - would have to include the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!).]

For more, see:

Does the New World Translation Add Words to Colossians 1:16, 17? (Bible Translation and Study)

Why does the New World Translation employ the word "other" in verses 16, 17 and 20? (IN Defense of the NWT)

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

BACK TO HOME PAGE INDEX

Friday, August 5, 2011

Did Jehovah's Witnesses Really Believe That God's Throne Dwelled in the Alcyone Star System in the Pleiades Group?

On occasion, opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses have on offered this eons-old quote to try and discredit them:

"Alcyone, the central one of the renowned Pleiadic Stars... Alcyone, then, as far as science has been able to perceive, would seem to be the 'midnight throne' in which the whole system of gravitation has its seat, and from which the Almighty governs his universe..." - Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. III, 1891, p 327 and Reconciliation, 1928, p. 14

Some astronomers of that time long ago (1891) calculated that the Pleiades group of which Alcyone is the brightest was the center of our universe and the source of all gravitational attraction. Astronomers felt that the Pleiades were veiled by an unusual amount of "nebulous matter, a cosmical fog." The Bible uses the direction "north" often in referring to God and His actions. The Bible Students at that time and theologians from other religions assumed that all this gave evidence that God's throne or dwelling was in this system.

Note that even armed with the best astronomical data at the time, the quote above still does not make absolute statements (i.e. "...as far as science has been able to perceive", and "...would seem to be".)

Just like all other religions of the time, the early Bible Students were simply using the scientific knowledge of their day and trying to relate it to what the Bible says regarding God and His heavenly dwelling.

Just one example: All religions used to believe that the Earth and heavenly bodies were held up by an invisible "fluid" called "ether." But now everyone has changed this view as more accurate scientific information has become available.
So is it really fair to go back more than a hundred years to a religion's roots and point out everything that was wrong, especially if it has corrected it's understandings? These claims against Jehovah's Witnesses are hypocritical because they fail to tell others that EVERY religion has changed it's beliefs and practices over the same time period.

The very fact that critics of Witnesses constantly resort to such ridiculous arguments only proves that they realize that they have no real evidence against their beliefs now.

Additionally, is it really fair to say that this disproves what Jehovah's Witnesses believe now?

Jehovah's Witnesses have always been willing to change any belief in order to harmonize better with increased knowledge of Scriptural teaching. On the other hand, most other religions have proved that they will not change MAJOR doctrines such as the Trinity, the immortal soul, and hell fire even though their own scholars admit these beliefs are not taught in Scripture.

While Witnesses still adjust minor understandings of prophecy and periphery beliefs, major doctrines will not be changed. This is because the doctrinal knowledge has increased tremendously, so any recent changes have not been to doctrine but simple refinements in knowledge.

For those who wish to learn more about Jehovah's Witnesses, instead of relying on unreliable sources, you may wish to visit THE source at the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses:

The Home Page of the Official Web Site of Jehovah's Witnesses

Search The Online Library of the Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

Jehovah's Witnesses FAQs

Questions Often Asked by Interested People

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

BACK TO HOME PAGE INDEX

Monday, July 25, 2011

How Important or Essential are the Subjects of Opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Most other religions have proved that they will not change doctrines such as the Trinity, the immortal soul, and hell fire even though their own scholars admit these beliefs are not taught in Scripture. In contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses have always been willing to change any belief in order to harmonize better with increased knowledge of Scriptural teaching.

In reality, everything that opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses believe to be so important today is comparatively inconsequential. While Jehovah's Witnesses still adjust minor understandings of prophecy and periphery beliefs, major doctrines will not be changed because the doctrinal knowledge has increased so much that any recent changes have not been to doctrine but simple refinements in knowledge.

Opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses constantly have to go back many decades or more to find significant changes. Any recent adjustments in Witnesses' understandings must be over-exaggerated by opposers who cannot disprove the doctrines of Witnesses nor support their own beliefs Scripturally. This is why views that were presented in ancient articles by the early Bible Students just does not matter nor does it disprove what Jehovah's Witnesses believe now.

The very fact that opposers of Witnesses constantly resort to non-essential (and many times, ridiculous) arguments only proves that they realize that they have no real evidence against their beliefs.

The essential teachings of the Watchtower organization should convince any interested person which organization is the one organization. Because when considering only these few essentials even, it becomes obvious that there is either only one organization today being guided by Jehovah's spirit or there is none.

As Peter said when even Jesus taught some things that stumbled his followers who didn't completely understand,

"Who shall we go to? You have the MESSAGE OF ETERNAL LIFE" - John 6:68 The Jerusalem Bible.

Many who became Jehovah's Witnesses came to this same conclusion in spite of some doubts about the certainty of various other teachings and scriptural interpretations by the Watchtower Society. Some of these teachings can seem quite important, but, even if wrong, these are not really the "messages of eternal life".

Shouldn't people hope to follow the God-appointed leadership on earth which has "the message of eternal life" even if it tells them a few things they personally find difficult to accept? Even if they believe they can prove it is probably wrong in certain of these secondary areas? After all, "Who else is there to go to?" Who else has the message of eternal life?

It's not worth being "right" and end up risk losing a hope of everlasting life for it. There must be priorities in all things. Being right in one area does not compensate for being wrong in a greater area. For instance, who would choose an operation to remove a small non-harmful blemish which may be causing some slight irritation when there is a distinct possibility that the operation itself will lead to death?

Also see:

Organization and Obedience (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

United by LOVE OF GOD (w05 1/1 pp. 4-6; Watchtower Online Library)

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

BACK TO HOME PAGE INDEX

Thursday, July 7, 2011

J. F. Rutherford and "Beth-Sarim"

"Beth-Sarim"

Opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses have occasionally made references (most of the details being incorrect) to J. F. Rutherford and "Beth - Sarim" in an attempt to discredit the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. A look at the context and actual records would be beneficial:

The 1975 Year Book tells us that

"Brother Rutherford had a severe case of pneumonia after his release from unjust imprisonment during 1918-1919 because of his faithfulness to Jehovah. Thereafter he had only one good lung. It was virtually impossible for him to remain in Brooklyn, New York, during the winter and still carry out his duties as the Society's president. In the 1920's he went to San Diego under a doctor's treatment. The climate there was exceptionally good and the doctor urged him to spend as much time as possible in San Diego. That is what Rutherford did ultimately.

"In time, a direct contribution was made for the purpose of constructing a house in San Diego for Brother Rutherford's use. It was not built at the expense of the Watch Tower Society. Concerning this property, the 1939 book Salvation stated: `At San Diego, California, there is a small piece of land, on which, in the year 1929, there was built a house, which is called and known as Beth-Sarim.'" - p. 194.

By November of 1941 Brother Rutherford's condition compelled him to return to Beth-Sarim for his final illness. He died there January 8, 1942.
However, the Salvation book (written by Brother Rutherford) quoted above goes on to say:

"The Hebrew words `Beth Sarim' mean `House of the Princes'; and the purpose of acquiring that property and building the house was that there might be some tangible proof that there are those on earth today who fully believe God and Christ Jesus and in His kingdom, and who believe that the faithful men of old will soon be resurrected by the Lord, be back on earth, and take charge of the visible affairs of earth. The title to Beth-Sarim is vested in the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in trust, to be used by the president of the Society and his assistants for the present, and thereafter to be for ever at the disposal of the aforementioned princes on the earth. .... and if and when the princes do return and some of them occupy the property, such will be a confirmation of the faith and hope that induced the building of Beth-Sarim." - p.311.

Apparently Brother Rutherford had earlier written that he expected the return of these princes in the year 1925. I don't have a copy of that, but I see no reason to doubt it. Note, however, that Beth-Sarim wasn't built until 1929.

Money had been contributed for the specific purpose of "constructing a house in San Diego for Brother Rutherford's use" during his illnesses. The money, of course, could not be legally (or morally) used for any other purpose.

It's not surprising that in his book Brother Rutherford didn't care to detail these conditions which would have necessarily put his physical illnesses on public display. His decision to also dedicate this ground and building to those princes whom he truly expected to soon return is certainly understandable.

The fact that the princes did not return as soon as he expected was obvious even before Beth-Sarim was even built and certainly does not make Brother Rutherford a False Prophet.

Related Article:

Beth-Sarim (1929 - 1947) (Pastor Russell)

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

BACK TO HOME PAGE INDEX

Friday, July 1, 2011

How Do Jehovah's Witnesses View the Consumption of Alcohol?

Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to the Bible as the standard for all their beliefs. So when it comes to alcoholic beverages, they acknowledge that the Bible’s view of alcoholic beverages is balanced. On the one hand, the Scriptures say that wine is a gift from God “that makes the heart of mortal man rejoice.” (Psalm 104:1, 15) Jesus himself often drank wine with his meals. (Matthew 11:18, 19) On the other hand, in condemning overindulgence the Bible uses the expressions “heavy drinking,” “excesses with wine, revelries, drinking matches,” ‘given to a lot of wine,’ and being “enslaved to a lot of wine.” (Luke 21:34; 1 Peter 4:3; 1 Timothy 3:8; Titus 2:3) The Bible forbids overindulgence in drinking. Drunkenness is a sin against God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

As a result, drinking alcoholic beverages is not central in the lives of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They do not come dangerously close to drunkenness nor do they allow alcoholic beverages to impair or in any way interfere with their serving God with their whole soul and with a clear mind. (Matthew 22:37, 38)

The Bible helps to determine what constitutes a godly view of alcoholic beverages. Any amount of alcohol that may impair your “practical wisdom and thinking ability” as a Christian is too much alcohol. (Proverbs 3:21, 22) It also would seem unreasonable to conclude that a Christian would be “acceptable to God” if he drinks alcohol to the point of relinquishing his “power of reason”. (Romans 12:1)

For more, see:

What Is God’s View of Alcohol? (w10 1/1 pp. 4-6; Watchtower Online Library)

The Bible’s Viewpoint - Is It Wrong to Drink Alcoholic Beverages? (g 12/06 pp. 18-19; Watchtower Online Library)

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (dx86-11; Watchtower Online Library)

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

(To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs), please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information about the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's (WTBTS) Bible-based beliefs and practices, you should look to our OFFICIAL WEBSITE at http://www.jw.org/en. Numerous publications as well as the New World Translation Bible (NWT) and the very useful Watchtower Online Library can be found there.)

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

"First and the Last" (Isa. 44:6 / Rev. 1:17)

"First and Last"

Another interesting example of the "title confusion trick" frequently used by anti-Watchtower trinitarians is the use of "First and Last" at Is. 44:6 and Rev. 1:17.

(Actually you might prefer to call this a "description-confusion trick" since Jehovah calls himself Protos kai ego meta tauta - "First and I [am] hereafter" - Septuagint, Is. 44:6; whereas Jesus calls himself ho protos kai ho eskatos - "The First and the last" - somewhat similar descriptions but much different wording or title. (Is. 48:12 is sometimes used , but it says in the Septuagint that he is: protos, kai ego eimi eis ton aiona - "first, and I am into the ages.")

Is. 44:6 - "Thus saith Jehovah, ... I am the first and I am the last; and besides me there is no God .... (:8) Is there a God besides me? ... I know not any." - ASV.

Rev. 1:17 - "... And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, (:18) and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." - ASV.

The trinitarian "proof" goes like this: "since only one can be first (and last), and since Jehovah is `first' (and `last') and Jesus is also `first' (and `last'), then they must both be the same one!" Therefore, they say, Jesus must be Jehovah!

The answer is, of course, that there can be many who are "first and last." We must discover, from context, in what sense they are "first and last."

For example, in the Biblical understanding of the meaning of the term "first and last" (or "only"), Adam was "the first and last" human created from the dust of the earth. But calling him "the first and the last" would certainly not mean he is Jehovah, and it does not mean he is Jesus (although any devious Bible student could find such "evidence" at 1 Cor. 15:45)!

We could certainly call Jesus "The first and the last" because he was the first and last (only) direct creation by Jehovah himself. The rest of creation from Jehovah came through Jesus. But, instead of speculating on the many ways Jesus could be considered the "first and the last" (only), we need to examine the use of "first and last" in context to discover in what sense it probably was intended originally!

Examining Is. 44:6, 8, we see that "first and last" refers to Jehovah being the only person who is the Most High God: "I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God ... I know not any." - compare Is. 43:10.

Now if we examine Rev. 1:17, 18, we can see in what sense "the first and last" (only) is intended there. Context shows that it is not (as it could have been) in the sense of the only direct creation by the Father, Jehovah, and it is certainly not in the sense of the only true God (John 17:1, 3), but it clearly refers to the resurrection (the dying and then living again) of Jesus!

Notice that the entire context refers to death and living again: Rev. 1:17:

"I am the first and the last, (:18) and the living one; and I was [or `became'] dead, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death ..." - compare Rev. 2:8 (the only other place Jesus calls himself "the first and the last").

Jehovah, the Father, uses the expression at Rev. 22:13 - and makes no reference to dying and living again, apparently intending it as he did at Is. 44:6 - "I am the only God."

So in what sense is Jesus the first and last (only) resurrected person? Just as he was the first and last (only) of Jehovah's direct creations (and all other things were created through Jesus), so Jesus was also the first and last (only one) of those resurrected to eternal life who was resurrected directly by the Father (Jehovah) Himself (and all others are to be resurrected through Jesus who now has "the keys of death") - see John 6:39, 40; Acts 3:26; Acts 13:30, 33, 38.

For more, see:

TC - Title Confusion Trick (Examining the Trinity)

Exposing the False Reasoning Behind Trinity 'Proof'- Texts (Examining the Trinity)

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

BACK TO HOME PAGE INDEX

Monday, June 27, 2011

Charles T. Russell and "Pyramid Chronology"

Pyramid Chronology

Opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses occasionally cite Charles T. Russell's interest in "Pyramid Chronology" as another one of their attempts to discredit the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. In order to address this subject properly, a brief look at the history of the subject and the broad general perception at that time would be beneficial.

In 1859, an "eminently respectable Nottinghamshire Victorian" (Moffett quote) and respected London publisher, John Taylor, published his book, The Great Pyramid: Why Was It Built? And Who Built It?.

Taylor was also an earnest student of mathematics who had spent many long hours examining and analyzing the most accurate and detailed measurements then available for the Great Pyramid: Howard Vyse's survey in 3 volumes - Operations Carried On At The Pyramids Of Giza.

Taylor's eight-volume work claimed the Great Pyramid had been built through the inspiration of the God of the Bible. The various measurements of that pyramid were, he said, God-inspired messages to His people.

Then Dr. Charles Piazzi Smyth took over. He was

"a fellow of the Royal Society, Britain's august high command of the sciences, [and] his father, Admiral William Henry Smyth, had been one before him. At the time the younger Smyth encountered Taylor's theories, he was both professor of astronomy at Edinburgh University and Astronomer Royal of Scotland." - Moffett.

Inspired by Taylor's studies, Smyth launched into a fresh analysis of Howard Vyse's figures. His calculations and conclusions startled the world: not only was Taylor correct, he declared, but there were many new revelations to be found!

From 1864 until 1890 (at least) Piazzi Smyth was the greatest authority on the revelations of the Great Pyramid measurements. This respected scientist sincerely believed and taught, among other things, that the various measurements in and on the Pyramid were put there through inspiration from God by its Hebrew builders to encourage and inform God's modern people.

Many later studies by others came up with slightly different measurements and different interpretations, but Piazzi Smyth's were certainly the most impressive from the standpoint of scholastic authority, scientific sincerity, and world-wide endorsements. "As late as 1932," Moffett tells us, "there were still those ready to take up the cudgel for the Astronomer Royal." Others, however, also became popular in this field.

"The heyday of pyramidology was to dawn in 1924, with the publication of The Great Pyramid: Its Divine Message. This was primarily the work of an English structural engineer named David Davidson." - Moffett.

Many intelligent, knowledgeable people around the world were convinced that the Great Pyramid had been divinely constructed to reveal Biblical truths. True, there was some argument as to which of the many different measurements being reported were the proper measurements. And there were various interpretations as to what each measurement actually represented. And there were a number of stuffy "curmudgeons" who still wouldn't be convinced by what seemed to be overwhelming statistical proof. But "Pyramid Fever" ran high, nevertheless.

And in 1890 the respected Dr. Piazzi Smyth was the Pyramid Chronology expert!

So, when C. T. Russell began examining Dr. Smyth's work and comparing it to his own attempts at chronology based on the Bible alone, it is no wonder he became very excited at what appeared to be an exact proportional match between the lengths of various consecutive measurements in the Pyramid and the lengths of consecutive time periods in his own Bible chronology.
As a result, in 1890, Russell's "Pyramid" calculations and their interpretation by him were forwarded to Piazzi Smyth in England. Smyth heartily endorsed them in his Dec. 21, 1890 letter which was reproduced in Studies in the Scriptures when Russell published his Great Pyramid testimony. - see pp. 311-312, Thy Kingdom Come.

As Russell tells us in that very same work which Piazzi Smyth had reviewed and praised:

"The first work of importance on the subject, proving that the Great Pyramid possessed scientific features, was by Mr. John Taylor, of England, A.D. 1859, since which time the attention of many able minds has been given to the further study of the testimony of this wonderful `Witness;' especially since Prof. Piazzi Smyth, Astronomer Royal for Scotland ... gave to the world the remarkable facts of its construction and measurements, and his conclusions therefrom. To his scholarly and scientific work, `Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid,' we are mainly indebted for the data made use of in this chapter....

"A few years after Prof. Smyth's return, came the suggestion that the Great Pyramid is Jehovah's`Witness,' and that it is as important a witness to divine truth as to natural science .... The suggestion came from a young Scotsman, Robert Menzies, who, when studying the scientific teachings of the Great Pyramid, discovered that prophetic and chronological teachings co-exist in it.

"Soon it became apparent that the object of its construction was to provide in it a record of the divine plan of salvation, no less than the record of divine wisdom relating to astronomical, chronological, geometrical, and other important truths." - pp. 319-320, Thy Kingdom Come, Studies in the Scriptures.

Later confirmation for Russell's "pyramid chronology" came from Dr. John Edgar, M.A., B.So., M.B., C.M., F.F.P.S.G., of Glasgow, Scotland, who, with his brother Morton, visited the Great Pyramid in 1909 to critically test Russell's interpretations.

"Their verdict, after a most elaborate investigation, was a thorough endorsement of Pastor Russell's interpretation" - p. 4953 [bound volume], Jan. 1, 1912 WT.

However, it must be noted that it was extremely difficult to determine exactly where to start (or end) many of the measurements in the Great Pyramid, and more and more differing measurements began to be made and promoted as Smyth's theories became more and more popular. It is even claimed that Smyth himself had used two different measurements for one of the passages - WT, p. 3451, Nov. 1, 1904, letters from readers.

Also, as Moffett, in his book debunking the various pyramidology theories, points out:

"if you took enough measurements and chose selectively, it would be possible to prove virtually anything." - p. 38, Secrets of the Pyramids Revealed.

I have no doubt that Taylor, Prof. Piazzi Smyth, and C. T. Russell (and thousands of others) were sincere, religious men who truly believed their interpretations of the Pyramid measurements. They were victims of statistical coincidences and multiple variables: it all honestly appeared to be mathematically precise proof - inescapably certain!

Although convinced of the accuracy of his pyramid chronology interpretations, Russell, nevertheless, considered it as merely corroborating the testimony of the Bible. It was "for a sign and a witness unto the Lord of Hosts." He wrote: "IF this, indeed, prove to be a Bible in stone; IF it be a record of the secret plans of the Great Architect of the universe, displaying his foreknowledge and wisdom; it should and will be in full accord with his written word." - pp. 317, 326, 341, Thy Kingdom Come.

Nevertheless, we must finally conclude, as with some other date interpretations, that Russell was incorrect. This does not make him a False Prophet. He was no more (or less) than what he continually proclaimed himself to be: a mere imperfect man striving (with the aid of God's Spirit) for the truth. That his imperfect flesh did not always allow him perfect accord with the Holy Spirit should come as no surprise. Otherwise we would be treating him as an Inspired Prophet and regarding his every word as "Scripture" (which, as we know, he strongly opposed). Instead, he is merely a brother, a fellow servant.

Related Article:

The Watchtower and the Great Pyramid, then and now (Pastor Russell)

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

BACK TO HOME PAGE INDEX

Saturday, June 4, 2011

Quotes From Scholars Concerning Jesus as Michael the Archangel

From early Christian writings until now there have been many who understood Michael to be the archangel who became Jesus on earth. (For much more on the subject, see the ARCHANGEL category or use the search box above.)

Early Christian scholar Origen writes:

"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." - ANF 10:321-322.
-----------------------------------

Back in the early 1800's, Bible scholar Joseph Benson stated that the description of Michael as found in the Bible "manifestly points out the Messiah."　
-----------------------------------
Nineteenth-century Lutheran E. W. Hengstenberg agreed that "Michael is no other than Christ."
-----------------------------------　

Similarly, theologian J. P. Lange, when commenting on Revelation 12:7, wrote: "We take it that Michael . . . is, from the outset, Christ in warlike array against Satan."
-----------------------------------

Clarke’s Commentary (Adam Clarke)

Jude :9

“Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host. Nor is the word devil, as applied to the great enemy of mankind, ever found in the plural; there can be but one monarch of all fallen spirits. Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders; the devil, great dragon, or Satan, is head of all the diabolic orders. When these two hosts are opposed to each other they are said to act under these two chiefs, as leaders; hence in Revelation 12:7, it is said: MICHAEL and his angels fought against the DRAGON and his angels.　 The word Michael　 lakym, seems to be compounded of ym mi, who, k ke, like, and la El, God; he who is like God; hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus.”
----------------------------------

The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Revelation

“12:7 And there was war in heaven: 14 Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

“(14) Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod….”
---------------------------------
John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 7 Chapter 5:

“1b2. Another prophecy in Daniel 12:1-3 respects the second and personal coming of Christ; for he is meant by Michael, who is "as God", as his name signifies, equal to him; the ‘great prince,’ the prince of the kings of the earth, and the head of all principalities and powers.”

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Daniel 12:1

“Ver. 1.

And at that time shall Michael stand up,.... The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ;”

And even trinitarian Bible scholar W. E. Vine (“recognized as one of the world’s foremost [Bible] Greek scholars”) tells us that this “voice of the archangel” (1 Thess. 4:16) is apparently “the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ”! - p. 64, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
--------------------------------------
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia:

“The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the “child” and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel” – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.
-------------------------------------
Protestant Reformer John Calvin said regarding "Michael" in its occurrence at Daniel 12:1:

"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
-------------------------------------

John Wesley:

Chapter XII

A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13. For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.

Wesley on Daniel 10:21: "Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it."
------------------------------------

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758):

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2, Ch. 1, “Angels”:

“II. When Lucifer rebelled and set up himself as a head in opposition to God and Christ, and drew away a great number of the angels after him, Christ, the Son of God, manifested himself as an opposite head, and appeared graciously to dissuade and restrain by his grace the elect angels from hearkening to Lucifer’s temptation, so that they were upheld and preserved from eternal destruction at this time of great danger by the free and sovereign distinguishing grace of Christ. Herein Christ was the Saviour of the elect angels, for though he did not save them as he did elect men from the ruin they had already deserved, and were condemned to, and the miserable state they were already in, yet he saved them from eternal destruction they were in great danger of, and otherwise would have fallen into with the other angels. The elect angels joined with him, the glorious Michael, as their captain, while the other angels hearkened to Lucifer and joined with him, and then was that literally true that was fulfilled afterwards figuratively.

Rev. xii. ‘When there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was there place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.’ ”
------------------------------------

William L. Alexander, Doctor of Divinity, stated:

There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--William L. Alexander, ed., A Cyclopedia Of Biblical Literature, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158.
-----------------------------------
"The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, [the Word - the Son of God] has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage." —Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel publication).
----------------------------------
Brown's Dictionary of the Bible

on the words 'Michael' and 'Angel' says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.
----------------------------------
Wood's Spiritual Dictionary

teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown's does. The former was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist.
---------------------------------

Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.
---------------------------------

Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev. xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.
--------------------------------
Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7.

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

Highly respected trinitarian Bible scholar, Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor at the Union Theological Seminary, wrote:

"The author of Hebrews ... thinks of [Jesus] as an angel, whom God had exalted above all others, investing him with his own majesty and calling him by the name of Son." - p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed.
--------------------------------------

And, again, the very trinitarian The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible tells us that at this time the Jewish expectation was that the Christ was

"a pre-existent, heavenly angelic being who, at the end of time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world [see Acts 7:55-56]." - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962.
-------------------------------------

"Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." - p. 39, Today's Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982
------------------------------------

"Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation." - p. 40, Smith's Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), Hendrickson Publ.
------------------------------------

"ANGEL OF THE LORD, ... is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman [`word'] .... In the NT [which trinitarians agree explains and amplifies the OT] there is no possibility of the angel of the Lord being confused with God. .... mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a divine being, even though in human form, and is [sometimes] addressed as God" - p. 38, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House (trinitarian), 1984 printing.
------------------------------------

"The Angel of the LORD.... Traditional [from 2nd century A. D. (at least)] Christian interpretation has held that this `angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [Jehovah] who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7 in the highly trinitarian The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan Publishing, 1985.

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

BACK TO HOME PAGE INDEX

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Translation and revision of Lev 23:21 proves that the New World Translation Bible translators DID know Hebrew

Some critics of Jehovah's Witnesses claim that the New World Translation Bible wasn't translated from the Hebrew and Greek, but was just a revision of other English Bibles such as the KJV, ASV, and Rotherham.

However, a mistranslation that occurred in the first volume of the 1953 New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures helps to demonstrate that the translators did indeed know Hebrew.

The NWT is the only Bible translation to have "Jehovah" in Lev. 23:21.

In 1953, The first volume of the NWT of the Hebrew Scriptures was published, which had Leviticus 23:21 read:

"And you must proclaim on this very day Jehovah's holy convention for yourselves."

This stood for 26 years, when it was changed to:

"And you must make a proclamation on this very day; there will be a holy convention for yourselves."

Lev. 23:21 has יהיה ("there will be") which is remarkably similar to יהוה ("Jehovah"). The translators misread יהיה as יהוה and later corrected this as noted in the 8/15/79 Watchtower's notice to it's readers on page 31:

"A Correction

In making the New World Translation of Leviticus 23:21, the Hebrew יהיה (“it will be”) was misread as יהוה (“Jehovah”). Hence, the first sentence of this verse should read: “And you must make a proclamation on this very day; there will be a holy convention for yourselves.”'

The original mistake definitely shows that the translators were either working from or comparing a Hebrew text and not simply “revising” English bibles, and the revision shows that the later revisers were also checking the Hebrew.

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

BACK TO HOME PAGE INDEX