In The Beggining

LOL! You have just stated that the JW masters were led by the Holy Spirit to intentionally, deliberately ADD to the Scriptures. You are declaring that the Sprit of God led them to intentionally, deliberately CHANGE the word of God - That is your statement and position.
A reasonable, rational, and biblical explanation is GREATLY needed for that.


And after you're done explaining that - Please DO explain how "a force, like electricity" (which is what the JWs believe about the Holy Spirit) did such a thing. Just HOW did "a force" "LEAD" them to do that?
They didnt add to them, they clarified its meaning in simpler english. As has been done through history. The Holy spirit is the most powerful force in creation, because God is behind what it does. It has no name, it has no throne, God doesnt share things with it like he does with Jesus.
 
1 Pe 3:15 But [d]sanctify [e]the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

God inspired Peter to write this. Simply stated, you should be able to defend what you believe, and promote as truth.
I did defend it. They simplified understanding of what is being said. Maybe now you can reason why Ho Theos is God as singular. Yet your religions push a non existent trinity.
 
The point in time John is referring to is the beginning. Again it encompasses time from the first millisecond to the last millisecond.
Eimi in the Imperfect Active Indicative The imperfect tense always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.
Because it is talking about time past in the beginning . Anything else is what people add to it so it can fit what they say. It says in the beginning was the Word and not before the beginning was the Word
 
You really do not think things through Nathan. For example, you said, " It says in the beginning was the Word and not before the beginning was the Word."

Ok, fine, please tell us all here from John 1:3 whether all things came into being by Him and without Him nothing came into being that has come into being happened before or after the beginning? You just said the Word was NOT before the beginning, so who created all things at John 1:3?

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 
You really do not think things through Nathan. For example, you said, " It says in the beginning was the Word and not before the beginning was the Word."

Ok, fine, please tell us all here from John 1:3 whether all things came into being by Him and without Him nothing came into being that has come into being happened before or after the beginning? You just said the Word was NOT before the beginning, so who created all things at John 1:3?

IN GOD THE SON,
james
John 1 from the nkjv starts out from "in the beginning" and thus it is talking about only all things in the beginning that were created. Also it has been proven many times the him who is the creator at vs 4 can not be Jesus and that leaves only the Father as being the him.
 
You could not be more wrong and I can prove it using your own words. You said, "Also it has been proven many times the him who is the creator at vs 4 can not be Jesus and that leaves only the Father as being the him."

John 1:4, "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." If the "Him" is not Jesus but the Father why did Jesus say at John 14:6, "I am the way and the truth, and the life." He says He's the life.

Now, and more importantly why does John the Baptist identify Jesus Christ as the light and the life from John 1:6-18? Notice at vs15, "John bore witness of Him/Jesus Christ, and cried out saying, "This was He of whom I said, He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, (why) because He existed before me."

John was six months older than Jesus so how could Jesus exist before him? Moreover at vs18, Jesus declared God the Father so how could the "Him" be the Father in all these verses?

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 
I did defend it. They simplified understanding of what is being said. Maybe now you can reason why Ho Theos is God as singular. Yet your religions push a non existent trinity.
I am sorry, you did not.
Let's recap
  • From the forward of the online NTW
    • “However, the English language has changed during the past half century. Such change prompted current members of the New World Bible Translation Committee to initiate this comprehensive revision. Our goal has been to produce a translation that is not only faithful to the original texts but also clear and easy to read.”
    • 1961 NWT “Rendered from the Original Languages by the New World Bible Translation Committee.”
      • According to the WTS they have always remained faithful to the original ancient manuscripts.
  • Present the following from the Emphatic Diaglott 1942 edition, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publisher, Brooklyn, New York.
    • Titus 2:13 Waiting for the blessed hope, even the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ's.
    • John 1:1 In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
    • Col 1:15-16 He is the likeness of the invisible God firstborn of all creation. Because in him were created all things those in the heavens, and those on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships, world governments, or authorities, all things have been created through him and for him.
    • 2 Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a Bondservant and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained an Equally precious Faith with us by the Righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
      • WTS, Russel and Rutherford believed and taught that Jesus is God, and created all things. The deity of Christ was dropped sometime after Knorr took over.
  • NWT Revised 1961 in the Forward on page 6 it reads. "[ ] Brackets enclose words inserted to complete or clarify the sense in the English text."
    • In 1961 according to the WTS the three renderings of 'other' in Col 1:16-17 is not found in the ancient manuscripts from which the NWT was translated from, but were inserted for clarity.
      • John 1:1a in the original language reads, “In beginning was the Logos”. When translated ‘the’ is inserted for clarity. “In the beginning”. Rules of translation; words can be inserted for clarity only if they do not change the message that is being communicated. Inserting ‘other’ does not clarify anything, for nothing needed to be clarified. If the original text does not have other, it should not have been used. Why? Because, according to the original manuscripts Jesus created everything, that was created. In fact, Paul is emphatic by stating that everything created in heaven and on earth, plus by repeating that all things were created through Him. That makes Jesus the uncaused cause that brought about creation.
        • But note the contradiction within the 1961 edition of the NTW.
        • John 1:3 reads. “All things came into existence through him…” Colossians 1:16 reads. “…All [other] things have been created through him…”
    • NWT Revised 1984 the Forward does not mention anything about brackets, and the brackets are removed from 'other' in Colossians as if 'other' was translated from the ancient manuscripts.
    • John 1:3 The Word was used by God to create all other things
  • Unless the NTW Translating Committee found ancient manuscripts that contain ‘other’, the insertion of ‘other’ is dishonest, and the only defense would be an ancient manuscript. And if your explanation is the truth, then why is it not printed in the Forward as an explanation for the use of 'other' in Col and Jn.
 
Because it is talking about time past in the beginning . Anything else is what people add to it so it can fit what they say. It says in the beginning was the Word and not before the beginning was the Word
I have not added anything to it. My explanation is based on the scriptures, and the grammar.
 
John 1 from the nkjv starts out from "in the beginning" and thus it is talking about only all things in the beginning that were created.
Keeping X in isolation allows you to spin the verse. Note its not "in the beginning" but 'in the beginning was'. If it only read 'in the beginning' you might have an argument for "and thus it is talking about only all things in the beginning that were created'.
But since it reads 'in the beginning was',

'Was' is in reference to the beginning, not when John wrote his gospel.
was = in the imperfect tense. Always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.
Also it has been proven many times the him who is the creator at vs 4 can not be Jesus and that leaves only the Father as being the him.
Note the trail of pronouns. Him in vs 3 refers to Jesus through whom all things were made. Him in vs 4 can only refer to Jesus unless a new subject is introduced by name at the end of vs 3 or beginning of vs 4. There is none.
 
Last edited:
They didnt add to them, they clarified its meaning in simpler english. As has been done through history. The Holy spirit is the most powerful force in creation, because God is behind what it does. It has no name, it has no throne, God doesnt share things with it like he does with Jesus.

LOL! Your post above is pure poppycock and WORSE. Here's how and why that's true: Yes, keiw, your JW masters certainly DID add - They added the word "other" - a word that does NOT appear in ANY ancient manuscript. And they did so willfully and deliberately. And by their adding, they CHANGED the Scripture in regards to what it says about Christ. Any honest person with even a modicum of reading comprehension ability very, very easily sees this for themselves. It is glaringly obvious. Your assertion that this was done for the purpose of clarifying is nothing less than pure, 100% imagination-based, and an intentional, deliberate falsehood and attempt at deception. The fact, truth, and reality is that they willfully and deliberately added and changed the Scripture to suit themselves and their beliefs, period. All you have managed in the post above is to deny this and then post imagination-based and deliberate falsehood and attempt deception yourself with your totally bogus assertion of "clarifying". What your post does is nothing less than horrible.

And you have not explained in any way AT ALL how the Holy Spirit - which JWs say is, "an impersonal force, like electricity" - "LED" your JW masters to willfully, deliberately ADD TO and CHANGE the word of God. Go ahead - TRY to explain how an impersonal force like electricity literally led and guided people to change the wording of Scripture.

You won't do this - Because you can't. You can't defend what they did legitimately. It's not possible; and that's all there is to it.

It's an easy bet that all you'll do in your next post is either run away to another subject or post just another imagination and deliberate falsehood and attempt at deception. Because that is the recorded posting history of your posts.
 
I am sorry, you did not.
Let's recap
  • From the forward of the online NTW
    • “However, the English language has changed during the past half century. Such change prompted current members of the New World Bible Translation Committee to initiate this comprehensive revision. Our goal has been to produce a translation that is not only faithful to the original texts but also clear and easy to read.”
    • 1961 NWT “Rendered from the Original Languages by the New World Bible Translation Committee.”
      • According to the WTS they have always remained faithful to the original ancient manuscripts.
  • Present the following from the Emphatic Diaglott 1942 edition, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publisher, Brooklyn, New York.
    • Titus 2:13 Waiting for the blessed hope, even the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ's.
    • John 1:1 In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
    • Col 1:15-16 He is the likeness of the invisible God firstborn of all creation. Because in him were created all things those in the heavens, and those on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships, world governments, or authorities, all things have been created through him and for him.
    • 2 Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a Bondservant and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained an Equally precious Faith with us by the Righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
      • WTS, Russel and Rutherford believed and taught that Jesus is God, and created all things. The deity of Christ was dropped sometime after Knorr took over.
  • NWT Revised 1961 in the Forward on page 6 it reads. "[ ] Brackets enclose words inserted to complete or clarify the sense in the English text."
    • In 1961 according to the WTS the three renderings of 'other' in Col 1:16-17 is not found in the ancient manuscripts from which the NWT was translated from, but were inserted for clarity.
      • John 1:1a in the original language reads, “In beginning was the Logos”. When translated ‘the’ is inserted for clarity. “In the beginning”. Rules of translation; words can be inserted for clarity only if they do not change the message that is being communicated. Inserting ‘other’ does not clarify anything, for nothing needed to be clarified. If the original text does not have other, it should not have been used. Why? Because, according to the original manuscripts Jesus created everything, that was created. In fact, Paul is emphatic by stating that everything created in heaven and on earth, plus by repeating that all things were created through Him. That makes Jesus the uncaused cause that brought about creation.
        • But note the contradiction within the 1961 edition of the NTW.
        • John 1:3 reads. “All things came into existence through him…” Colossians 1:16 reads. “…All [other] things have been created through him…”
    • NWT Revised 1984 the Forward does not mention anything about brackets, and the brackets are removed from 'other' in Colossians as if 'other' was translated from the ancient manuscripts.
    • John 1:3 The Word was used by God to create all other things
  • Unless the NTW Translating Committee found ancient manuscripts that contain ‘other’, the insertion of ‘other’ is dishonest, and the only defense would be an ancient manuscript. And if your explanation is the truth, then why is it not printed in the Forward as an explanation for the use of 'other' in Col and Jn.
You just cant seem to understand english. Other was put there to clarify understanding of fact.
 
LOL! Your post above is pure poppycock and WORSE. Here's how and why that's true: Yes, keiw, your JW masters certainly DID add - They added the word "other" - a word that does NOT appear in ANY ancient manuscript. And they did so willfully and deliberately. And by their adding, they CHANGED the Scripture in regards to what it says about Christ. Any honest person with even a modicum of reading comprehension ability very, very easily sees this for themselves. It is glaringly obvious. Your assertion that this was done for the purpose of clarifying is nothing less than pure, 100% imagination-based, and an intentional, deliberate falsehood and attempt at deception. The fact, truth, and reality is that they willfully and deliberately added and changed the Scripture to suit themselves and their beliefs, period. All you have managed in the post above is to deny this and then post imagination-based and deliberate falsehood and attempt deception yourself with your totally bogus assertion of "clarifying". What your post does is nothing less than horrible.

And you have not explained in any way AT ALL how the Holy Spirit - which JWs say is, "an impersonal force, like electricity" - "LED" your JW masters to willfully, deliberately ADD TO and CHANGE the word of God. Go ahead - TRY to explain how an impersonal force like electricity literally led and guided people to change the wording of Scripture.

You won't do this - Because you can't. You can't defend what they did legitimately. It's not possible; and that's all there is to it.

It's an easy bet that all you'll do in your next post is either run away to another subject or post just another imagination and deliberate falsehood and attempt at deception. Because that is the recorded posting history of your posts.

Well then please show us the holy spirits personal name, Please show us where he is pictured on a throne? Please show us where God shares things with it like he does with Jesus? Oh you cant, that makes my post fact.
 
You just cant seem to understand english. Other was put there to clarify understanding of fact.
l understand English very well. What I posted is established fact. You could look it up yourself, or ask and elder to help you. In a court of law [which is the highest forum where truth is established] your personal opinion carries no weight. What I posted would stand up in a court of law to establish that "Other" clarifies nothing. That 'other' is not found in the ancient manuscripts from which the WTS claims it translated from. And the trail of evidence would establish that this was a deliberate and deceitful move to change scripture to fit the new WTS doctrine.

Now if you want to defend 'other' provide real evidence. The manuscript that has [other] recorded in it. It is that simple.
PS. Up to now no one I asked from congregational elders to regional overseers can provide it. One has to wonder why?
 
l understand English very well. What I posted is established fact. You could look it up yourself, or ask and elder to help you. In a court of law [which is the highest forum where truth is established] your personal opinion carries no weight. What I posted would stand up in a court of law to establish that "Other" clarifies nothing. That 'other' is not found in the ancient manuscripts from which the WTS claims it translated from. And the trail of evidence would establish that this was a deliberate and deceitful move to change scripture to fit the new WTS doctrine.

Now if you want to defend 'other' provide real evidence. The manuscript that has [other] recorded in it. It is that simple.
PS. Up to now no one I asked from congregational elders to regional overseers can provide it. One has to wonder why?

Gods court knows 100%-just Like there are many bibles in history with a god or was godlike or was divine in the last line at John 1:1.--They are correct and God will show the whole world they are correct. Getting on board Gods ark is the wise choice to make rather than giving support to a house divided( 40,000 trinity religions) will not stand.
 
Gods court knows 100%-just Like there are many bibles in history with a god or was godlike or was divine in the last line at John 1:1.--They are correct and God will show the whole world they are correct. Getting on board Gods ark is the wise choice to make rather than giving support to a house divided( 40,000 trinity religions) will not stand.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Personal opinions are not universal truths. The only bible that matters here is the NWT and the claims that it was translated from original text. No one pro or contra can find one manuscript that contains other.
The claim it came from a manuscript (s) and it did not would be considered a lie in God’s court.
 
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Personal opinions are not universal truths. The only bible that matters here is the NWT and the claims that it was translated from original text. No one pro or contra can find one manuscript that contains other.
The claim it came from a manuscript (s) and it did not would be considered a lie in God’s court.
Its called simplified English--You would be better to question why a capitol G God is in the last line at John 1:1 in error to mislead all into breaking Gods #1 commandment daily, which makes that one, one who works iniquity-Matt 7:22-23 and will hear these words from Jesus as judgement.
 
Well then please show us the holy spirits personal name, Please show us where he is pictured on a throne? Please show us where God shares things with it like he does with Jesus? Oh you cant, that makes my post fact.

LOL! All your post above does is run away from the challenge that has been put to you.
No surprise - That's just "the usual".
 
Its called simplified English--You would be better to question why a capitol G God is in the last line at John 1:1 in error to mislead all into breaking Gods #1 commandment daily, which makes that one, one who works iniquity-Matt 7:22-23 and will hear these words from Jesus as judgement.
There exist no such thing as simplified English. Adding other to the text does not simplify the text but changes the message of the text 180*. Paul was stating that Jesus was God, and the WTS changed it to created being.
But since you cannot produce any tangible evidence for this besides a bias view inserted into the interpretation masquerading as honest scholarship we can conclude you have nothing and move on.
As to John 1:1c it's very simple. The gospel of John is intended to be read based on the thesis which is the first 18 verses, which is anchored on the first verse. If one believes that in the first verse, Jesus is God, then one reads the gospel from that point of view, but if one believes Jesus is a created being based on the first verse, then one will read the rest of the gospel based on that point of view. Therefore, the deity of Jesus in John 1:1 should be determined by John 1:1

Dissect vs 1 into a logical argument [premise 1] In the beginning was the Word, [premise 2] and the Word was with God, [conclusion] and the Word was God [or a god.] Therefore, premise 1 and or 2 should support either “God” or “a god”.
Care to take a shot at it.
Also the WTS' 1942 publication the Diaglott reads '...and the Logos was God.'
The WTS taught that Jesus was God prior to the 180* change. What basis does the WTS have for changing the translation? Simplified English?
Care to explain?
 
There exist no such thing as simplified English. Adding other to the text does not simplify the text but changes the message of the text 180*. Paul was stating that Jesus was God, and the WTS changed it to created being.
But since you cannot produce any tangible evidence for this besides a bias view inserted into the interpretation masquerading as honest scholarship we can conclude you have nothing and move on.
As to John 1:1c it's very simple. The gospel of John is intended to be read based on the thesis which is the first 18 verses, which is anchored on the first verse. If one believes that in the first verse, Jesus is God, then one reads the gospel from that point of view, but if one believes Jesus is a created being based on the first verse, then one will read the rest of the gospel based on that point of view. Therefore, the deity of Jesus in John 1:1 should be determined by John 1:1

Dissect vs 1 into a logical argument [premise 1] In the beginning was the Word, [premise 2] and the Word was with God, [conclusion] and the Word was God [or a god.] Therefore, premise 1 and or 2 should support either “God” or “a god”.
Care to take a shot at it.
Also the WTS' 1942 publication the Diaglott reads '...and the Logos was God.'
The WTS taught that Jesus was God prior to the 180* change. What basis does the WTS have for changing the translation? Simplified English?
Care to explain?

Compared to the old english, it is assuredly simplified and easier to understand.

Fact is why they changed John 1:1-- Years of hard study by many men because up to that point only had error filled trinity translations to go by.
If capitol G was correct-Then in simple english your 2nd line reads--And God was with God= impossible, there is only 1 God-- But it takes believing Jesus-John 20:17, Rev 3:12 but every trinitarian outright refuses and believes an error over him.
 
Back
Top