@TD:
Greg Stafford is the author of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended An Answer to Scholars and Critics. Robert Bowman Jr. is an Evangelical theologian currently affiliated with the Institute for Religious Research
Thanks. I've never heard of either of these men.
@TD wrote:
(I realize that sometimes proper grammar requires that the term 'God' have an uppercase 'G' even if it doesn't refer to the Supreme Being, but this seems to muddy the water when you're debating the nature of the Being the term describes.)
@djeggnog wrote:
You really should pick one position and stick with it, and not limp between two positions and this comment here does. If you want rules, then you can say that without also taking the position of one that might be opposed to the imposition of grammatical rules on this thread. My position is that we should not be imposing any such rules on anyone in order that no one should be reluctant to participate in this thread. This is, again, just my opinion, @TD.
@TD wrote:
It's not actually a problem of two different opinions, it's a problem of two different sets of rules.... Taken together, the two rules can work at cross-purposes on this particular subject. I'm not the world's best communicator, but what I was actually proposing was that people not limp between the two rules.
You don't really need to be the world's best communicator, but people really shouldn't take themselves so seriously that they are wound so tightly that they cannot laugh at themselves. Or at someone else. This rejoinder of yours was both unexpected and funny, @TD. Actually, you are one of the best communicators on this board, but, unfortunately, the "bar none" award belongs to someone else. Maybe next year. <g>
@BANE:
Are you dense or what? ... Here is ANOTHER Catholic website... Moron.
Until your post, folks were being civil to each other. I continue to be surprised over how well folks seemed to have been getting along, despite having disparate viewpoints on the Trinity doctrine. I do not know the dynamic that exists between you and @LeavingWT, but may I ask that you save the insults for another thread, for such really have no place in this one that was started by @Undisfellowshipped, as such remarks like these could take this thread -- which is now up to page eight -- off the rails, and perhaps you could contribute something to the discussion that we have to cover. Thanks.
@Think About It:
According to the doctrine of the Trinity:
(1) God is the Father, and, (2) Jesus is God. Therefore, by transitivity, according to the doctrine of the Trinity: (3) Jesus is the Father. Yet, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus is not the Father.
So, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus both is and is not the Father.
Nicely said!
@djeggnog wrote:
HEBREWS 1:5, 6
5 For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father"? And again: "I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son"? 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him."
Out of all of God's angels in heaven, to which of them did God ever declare to be his son, or to be his father. When during his second coming God next sends his Firstborn into the world, all of God's angels will also serve him even as they serve God directing their worship to God through Jesus.
HEBREWS 1:13, 14
13 But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: "Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet"? 14 Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?
To none of the other angels did God ever offer a seat at His right hand or to give to any one of them authority over earth's inhabitants, even though all of them are faithful servants of God whose role is to actively minister to the needs of God's servants on earth.
So you found my insertion of the word "other" in order to convey my understanding of the text at Hebrews 1:5 to have been dishonest in some way?
@peacedog wrote:
eggnog, you added a word that completely changes the meaning of the verse:
Pre-eggnog verse: God never said to any of the angels...
Post-eggnog verse: God never said to any of the other angels...
The pre-eggnog verse eliminates any and all angels. The post-eggnog verse does not.
This just may be a case of your not getting the point of my "commentary." I didn't change the meaning of any of the verses I quoted from Hebrews chapter 1 or in Hebrews chapter 2. Not really. I sought only to emphasize the words at Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13, respectively, "to which of the angels did he..." and "to which of the angels had he..." in my commentary. I suppose I could have written instead "to which [one] of the angels did he..." and "to which [one] of the angels had he...," in lieu of "to which of the [other] angels did he..." and "to which of the [other] angels had he...," but the context of these two Bible passages indicates, as I read the Bible text, that Jesus is a member of the group to which the apostle Paul refers called "angels."
At the Kentucky Derby each year, the question that is asked by horse racing enthusiasts and sports aficionados alike is "to which of the horses will the purse be given"? and: "to which NBA team" (if you're into basketball) or "to which NFL team" (if you're into football) "will the championship trophy be awarded"? However, if Kobe Bryant didn't play football for the Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl XLIV or if Peyton Manning didn't play basketball for the Los Angeles Lakers, a football fan would not comprehend a statement that began with the words, "If Kobe Bryant and his team wins the Super Bowl...," nor would a basketball fan comprehend a statement that began with the words, "If Peyton Manning and his team should not win the Western Conference title this year...."
I'm going to ask you to now read Hebrews 1:13 in a symbolic way similar to how a Bible scholar would read this verse, ok? I'm going to present Hebrews 1:13 in such a way that I believe you will understand what the verse means in the same way that I read and understand this verse. Now here's a short "cheat" sheet:
"God"
NBA Commissioner, David Stern
"The angels"
The Leagues' 30 NBA teams
"Rulership"
The championship trophy
[1] Hebrews 1:13
[2] Excerpt from djeggnog "commentary" on Hebrews 1:13
[3] Symbolic representation of Hebrews 1:13
[4] djeggnog "commentary" on symbolic representation of Hebrews 1:13
[1] But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: "Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet"?
[2] To none of the other angels did God ever offer a seat at His right hand.
[3] But with regard to which one of the NBA teams did David Stern award the championship trophy?
[4] To none of the other NBA teams did David Stern ever award the championship trophy.
Looking at [1], the words "which one of the angels" mean that only one angel is being singled out from all of the other angels. If the verse had said "which two ... angels," then this would indicate that two angels are being distinguished from among the rest of the angels.
Looking at [2], the words "to none of the other angels" would just be another way of making the point that while there were other angels that could have been offered a seat at the hand of power, not one of them received such an offer, for only one of them got the nod.
Looking at [3], the words "to which one of the NBA teams" mean that only one team was awarded a trophy by the Commissioner.
Looking at [4], the words "to none of the other NBA teams" would just be another way of expressing the point that while there were 30 NBA teams that vied for the trophy and could have won it, to only one of them was the trophy awarded by the Commissioner.
Food for thought: If the ORIGINAL bible verse said "God never said to any of the OTHER angels", and I went ahead and removed the word "other", changing the meaning of the verse to fit my theology, would it be dishonest of me?
If your motive for removing the word was in order that the verse might fit your theology, yes, removing the word "other" would be dishonest.
@peacedog wrote:
Your explanation reeks of the Watchtower Society and I must dismiss it for the same reason that I consider the NWT a biased, sectarian translation.
@djeggnog wrote:
Wouldn't it be somewhat surprising to discover the [doctrinal] teachings of Baptists or of Seventh-Day Adventists being discussed [and taught] in any of the publications that are published by the WTS? I don't believe it fair to [describe] that [which] I provided in my earlier post to which you are referring [to be] an "explanation" of either Hebrews 1:5 or of Hebrews 1:13, so on what basis are you saying that you found my explanation to "reek"?
@peacedog wrote:
I said it reeks of the Watchtower Society, which is to say it is exactly the sort of tactic they would use to explain a problematic verse: inserting the word "other" to change the meaning of the words biblical text. (consider Col 1:15-17)
But I didn't insert any words into the verse at Hebrews 1:13, did I? I only used the word "other" in my "commentary" on this verse.
@djeggnog wrote:
Now if you believe I did something wrong here by posting my "commentary" on the first two chapters of Hebrews based on how I understand these two chapters to be saying, please tell me what you believe I did wrong here. Before I post another message to you in this thread, I'm going to require an answer from you, because you are treating me here as if I'd done something onerous to you.
@peacedog wrote:
eggnog, you have done nothing onerous to me. I have no problem with you posting your opinion on these or any other verses. At the same time, realize that I may not agree with your opinions and I may choose to voice that disagreement. In the case of Hebrews chapter 1, I disagree with you adding the word "other" in order to change the meaning of the biblical text so that it fits with your personal theology.
What "personal theology"? I offered what amount to being an opinion as to the meaning of Hebrews chapters 1 and 2, a kind of "commentary," as it were, but I didn't add any words to the verses I quoted, not one word, because the point of a commentary is not to tamper with the Bible text at all, but to provide an explanation of the Bible text under consideration.
@djeggnog wrote:
About what exactly are you accusing me of being in denial?
@peacedog wrote:
You deny the obvious statement of Hebrews 1:5 and 1:13:
5God has never said to any of the angels, "You are my Son, because today I have become your Father!" Neither has God said to any of them, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son!"
13God never said to any of the angels, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you!"
What "obvious statement" do you mean? Evidently the meaning of the apostle Paul's statement at Hebrews 1:5 and at Hebrews 1:13 is not so "obvious," otherwise we would not be even having this discussion, correct?
You denial is evidenced by your adding the word "other" to change the meaning of the verse to fit your theology. I recommend re-reading the verses slowly, paying particular attention to the absence of the word "other".
I didn't add the word "other" either to the text of Hebrews 1:5 or to the text of Hebrews 1:13, so your complaint, so I would accordingly recommend that you take a moment to read what it was I actually wrote to which you are here positing an objection. You might then realize that what you are here accusing me of doing I never did do since I didn't tamper with the text of either of these two verses. I merely commented on them is all.
@djeggnog wrote:
Moses, for the most part, completes the book of Deuteronomy before his death in 1473 BC, 741 years before Isaiah completes the writing of his book, some 1,505 years before another God came into existence. So Jehovah's declaration through Moses at Deuteronomy 32:39 is true.
The point that I was here making is that when Jehovah made this declaration through Moses at Deuteronomy 32:39, there existed no other God like Jehovah. In the Bible, what distinguishes a real God from others gods is whether they are immortal, for Jehovah often used His angelic sons, as well as human kings, judges and prophets to convey His will, and in the Bible Satan is himself identified as being the angelic "god of this system of things" (2 Corinthians 4:4), but none of these angels or humans possessed immortality and so none of them were real Gods. That all changed some 1,505 years after Jesus' resurrection when it was then that Jesus was given immortality by Jehovah, making him a God.
@peacedog wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that Jehovah's declaration at Deut 32:39 ("THERE ARE NO GODS TOGETHER WITH ME") is true because Jesus didn't exist at that time?..........
No. While Jesus did preexist the founding of the world, the one that "laid the foundations of the earth" (Hebrews 1:10; Psalm 102:25-27), Jehovah's declaration is true because God "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). But more to the real point that I believe to be your question to me here:
John refers to Jesus at John 1:18 as "the only-begotten god," but with his resurrection, he became a "new creation," for as the apostle Paul stated at 2 Corinthians 5:17, in Christ, "new things have come into existence." In 33 AD, after his resurrection from the dead by Jehovah God, Jesus became a new creation "according to the power of an indestructible life" (Hebrews 7:16). Jesus became an immortal God! It is for this reason that Thomas knew that he could rightly exclaim, upon his realization of the fact that Jesus had been resurrected at John 20:28, what he exclaimed on that occasion: "My Lord and my God!"
I suggest you re-read John 1:1. When you do so, you will note that the verse begins "In the beginning....". To what would you consider this to be a reference? The beginning of the book of John? The beginning of the week?
I have read John's prologue many times and I understand what John 1:1 means, that Jesus existed at the beginning of Jehovah's creative works, for we read at John 1:3 concerning Jesus: "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence." Now I could just as well have quoted John here as saying --
All things came into existence through [Jesus], and apart from [Jesus] not even one thing came into existence.
-- to clarify the fact that the pronoun "him" that is used twice in this particular verse refers to Jesus, but I am not changing the verse when I do this. I am not putting a spin on the verse or pushing my own "personal theology" on anyone Whenever I do this, all I am doing is clarifying the meaning of the verse. You accused me in this last post of yours of being dishonest, you have impugned my motives in adding the word "other" in my explanation of Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13, so what I've done here, @peacedog, is presented to you my defense to what is a false accusation.
You say my explanation "reeks" of the WTS, you describe the NWT as being "a biased, sectarian translation," you accused me of employing dishonest "tactics" in changing the Bible texts to fit my "personal theology." Touché! You are certainly entitled to all of these opinions of me, the NWT and the WTS, but it is this that I opine, @peacedog: The explanations I have provided here do not 'reek' of anything having a foul-smelling odor, the NWT is not a biased Bible translation that favors the theological viewpoints of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I have no "personal theology" at all.
I know what the Bible teaches and my theology is based on the Bible. I cannot promise you eternal life, and there is absolutely nothing that I could possibly say to anyone that could guarantee that they will be among the survivors of the great tribulation survival because I cannot get my own ticket validated until after "the sign of the Son of man" becomes manifest. So whatever "personal theology" I might have now would be totally meaningless then if it should not be based on truth, if my "personal theology" should turn out to not be based on Bible truth.
But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: 'Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet'? Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?
Note that Paul says here at Hebrews 1:14 that they, including the angel that 'sits at God's right hand,' are "all [of them] spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those that are going to inherit salvation."
@djeggnog wrote:
But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: 'Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet'? Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?
Note that Paul says here at Hebrews 1:14 that they, including the angel that 'sits at God's right hand,' are "all [of them] spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those that are going to inherit salvation."
@peacedog wrote:
I hardly know where to start. This is such an obvious misinterpretation of these verses...
Ok.
What Hebrews 1:13,14 says is that God never said "sit at my right hand....." to *ANY* angel, for (because, as evidenced by) angels are merely servants of those who are going to be saved. Do you see?
No, I do not "see" this at all.
Angels are "merely servants of those who are going to be saved". One such as this would not be appointed to sit at the right hand of God.
Well, wouldn't this be a bit of conjecture on your part? Why wouldn't God appoint an angel to sit at His right hand? Is it just that you don't like the idea of God giving kingdom, rulership and power to an angel? By what authority do you make this statement, @peacedog? What is the basis on which this statement of yours rests? Are we here discussing here your own "personal theology" now, you own personal viewpoint of this matter -- what things you are willing to believe to be true and what things you are simply not willing to believe to be true -- or are we here discussing what Paul is saying at Hebrews 1:13, 14?
Why wouldn't an angel be appointed by God to sit at His right hand?
Please answer me this one question, @peacedog:
Consider the CEV rendering, which is quite clear:
God never said to any of the angels, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you!" Angels are merely spirits sent to serve people who are going to be saved.
Do you see that God never said "Sit at my right hand....." to "ANY of the angels"? For angels are merely spirits sent to serve, not to sit at the right hand of God.
Now that's unfortunate, @peacedog. Do the agreed-upon terms of this discussion/debate no longer matter to you? Do you feel you're losing ground and feel a change of strategy is now in order? Do you think making a strategic move now will change things so that they are more to your liking or what are you doing? Toward the beginning of this thread, @Undisfellowshipped wrote the following:
TRINITY Challenge using ONLY the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures -- Let us debate and reason on the Scriptures about whether God Almighty is a Trinity, or is only One Person.
And @Undisfellowshipped also wrote this:
We are agreed that this debate/discussion will be about whether the Trinity Doctrine is taught or supported in the Bible, using the New World Translation.
I agreed to these terms, but since you have introduced the Contemporary English Version (CEV) rendering of Hebrews 1:13, 14, I think we should paste in here both the NWT's and the CEV's rendering of these two verses, and I'll include the rendering of these same verses according to the KJV, the ASV and the RSV, for a total of five (5) translations, and with this one exception being made for you, I will ask that you do not again seek to abrogate the terms established at the beginning of this thread by introducing renderings of the Bible text from Bible translations other than the NWT. Otherwise, this thread could become unwieldy and unnecessarily confusing and I will have to withdraw from it once this thread has lost its focus.
Now all but the CEV render Paul's words at Hebrews 1:13, 14 in a similar manner, using the word "which" (KJV, ASV, RSV) or the words "which one" (NWT), but the CEV's rendering interprets the verse to say what you have said here: "God never said to any of the angels..." Did you write the CEV? The word "God" is not used in the original Greek text of Hebrews 1:13, 14, but the CEV puts "God" right there in the verse, right there in its rendering of Hebrews 1:13, but why?
HEBREWS 1:13, 14, NWT
13 But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: "Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet"? 14 Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?
HEBREWS 1:13, 14, CEV
13 God never said to any of the angels, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you!" 14 Angels are merely spirits sent to serve people who are going to be saved.
HEBREWS 1:13, 14, KJV
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
HEBREWS 1:13, 14, ASV
13 But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?
HEBREWS 1:13, 14, RSV
13 But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?
Do the think the translators of the CEV feel they have a duty to include their own theological understanding of what they believe the apostle Paul to be saying at Hebrews 1:13 in order to help the reader to comprehend the meaning of Paul's words? You and I might know that by his use of the word "he" at Hebrews 1:13 that the apostle is referring to God, but should the Bible translator be arranging the text in such a way that they put a word into Paul's mouth that amounts to its interpreting the text, rather than just translating it?
The readers of the CEV wouldn't have any way of knowing this, because they may not even have a Bible written in the koine Greek in which this Greek text was written because they may not possess the ability to read the Greek language copy. They would be relying upon the abilities of the CEV translators, not to interpret the Greek text, but to render the Greek text using words from a lexicon that they can comprehend, so they would expect to be reading the Greek text rendered into English, if it is English they read, or into Spanish if it is Spanish that they read, or into French if it is French that they read, and so forth.
In rendering Hebrews 1:13, 14, the CEV goes further than the other four Bible translations here in foreclosing the thought that God made a choice as implied by the word "which" or "which one," for the CEV knocks the whole idea out of the ballpark when it says, "God never said to any of the angels...." Without any qualifiers, the English language word, "which," implies choice, that a choice is being made between two or more things. By his use of the words, "the angels," Paul is clearly referring to "two or more" angels and the very implication of his use of the word, "which" in what he says at Hebrews 1:13 is that the apostle is there talking about a choice that had been made among these angels, which cannot be comprehended when one reads the CEV, but is comprehended when one reads the NWT, the KJV, the ASV and the RSV.
Above you stated that you found my explanation to 'reek' of the WTS, and you went on to describe the NWT as being "a biased, sectarian translation," while accusing me of employing dishonest "tactics" and changing Bible texts to fit my "personal theology." I'm sure you will remember saying all of these things. But clearly the CEV demonstrates a theological bias that favors comprehending Paul's words at Hebrews 1:13 differently than how someone else that reads this same text at Hebrews 1:13 would comprehend Paul's words were they to be reading them in the NWT, the KJV, the ASV or the RSV, correct? Paul never wrote, "God never said to any of the angels...," but readers of the CEV wouldn't know this, would they? Would you regard this example as being a case of theological dishonesty on the part of the CEV translators, of the CV being "a biased, sectarian translation"? Or, would you just give the CEV translators a pass?
Looking at how the same five (5) Bible translations render another verse -- Luke 24:37 -- please tell me which of the five do not faithfully render the words of the gospel writer Luke, but introduces its own theological leanings into this verse:
LUKE 24:37, NWT
37 But because they were terrified, and had become frightened, they were imagining they beheld a spirit.
LUKE 24:37, CEV
37 They were frightened and terrified because they thought they were seeing a ghost.
LUKE 24:37, KJV
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
LUKE 24:37, ASV
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit.
LUKE 24:37, RSV
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit.
Do the think the translators of the CEV feel they have a duty to include their own theological understanding of what they believed Luke to have been saying here at Luke 24:37 in order to help the reader to comprehend the meaning of Luke's words, considering that four of the five Bible translators here do not render the Greek word they rendered into English as "spirit" as "ghost"? What do you think Luke to have been saying here about these frightened, terrified people that had been gathered together in a room behind a closed door when suddenly Jesus pops into the room? I mean Jesus could have just knocked on the door and maybe someone in the room would have opened the door so that he could have entered the room in a more conventional manner, right? But the text at Luke 24:37 indicates that Jesus didn't do that; he didn't knock on the door. He suddenly materializes right before their eyes as a fully clothed man -- one would assume that Jesus wasn't naked! -- so that they became terrified and frightened over thinking that a spirit had just popped into the room, and that they were now looking at a spirit.
Now what did Luke mean? Do you even know what Luke was saying had occurred in this room on this particular occasion? Was Luke intimating that there is such a thing as ghosts, or was the CEV's use of the word "ghost" based on the CEV translator's theological leanings since nowhere in the Bible does it teach the existence of ghosts? I can only imagine someone that uses the CEV and points to Luke 24:37 in order to prove that the Bible teaches that ghosts really exist, when this is not something that the Bible teaches at all.
The CEV's use of the word "ghost" here contradicts the Bible, for in connection with the witch of Endor at 1 Samuel 28:12-14, note that only the spirit medium was able to see "Samuel," for King Saul saw nothing and he had to rely upon her spiritistic powers to tell Saul what it was she saw:
When the woman saw "Samuel" she began crying out at the top of her voice; and the woman went on to say to Saul: "Why did you trick me, when you yourself are Saul?" But the king said to her: "Do not be afraid, but what did you see?" And the woman went on to say to Saul: "A god I saw coming up out of the earth." At once he said to her: "What is his form?" to which she said: "It is an old man coming up, and he has himself covered with a sleeveless coat." At that Saul recognized that it was "Samuel," and he proceeded to bow low with his face to the earth and to prostrate himself.
You see, 1 Samuel 28:12-14 is talking about a wicked spirit -- a demon -- that only this medium was able to "see," and, of course, we know that the reason King Saul was unable to see "Samuel" is because it was after the global deluge that the ability that these wicked angels had to able to materialize as men in fleshly bodies so that they could be seen by other humans was no longer possible for them to do.
Now Luke never wrote that Jesus' disciples "thought they were seeing a ghost," but how would readers of the CEV know this? So what did Luke mean by "spirit"? What was Luke saying that Jesus' disciples thought they were beholding? Answer: An unclean spirit is what they thought was in the same room where they were and this thought of being in a locked room with a demon is something that both terrified and frightened them. Now why didn't the NWT just add the word "unclean" to the verse at Luke 24:37? Because contrary to what you choose to believe about the WTS, those that sat on the Translation Committee that produced the NWT did not feel it had some duty to include its own theological understanding of what they believed Luke to have been saying at Luke 24:37 in order to help the reader to comprehend the meaning of Luke's words. Yes, the NWT could have rendered Luke 24:37 like this --
But because they were terrified, and had become frightened, they were imagining they beheld [an unclean] spirit.
-- but the NWT faithfully translated the Greek text into English. It is for those reading the Bible to determine its meaning and not the duty of the Bible translator to impose its own theological leanings on any Bible verse. Just as when the word "Jehovah" is found in the NWT in certain places in the Greek text, such as Luke 20:42, where other Bible translations quote Jesus' words, but substitute a word like "LORD" in their rendering of Luke 20:42, we know that Jesus used the divine name "Jehovah," because he was quoting from Psalm 110:1, which psalm the ASV translates, "Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool."
The NWT does not change the words used in the original text, except where it is clear that someone else improperly tampered with the text. The Greek Septuagint Bible that Jesus and his apostles used during the first century renders Psalm 110:1 in Greek, but this rendering included the Hebrew tetragrammaton "YHWH" when rendering the psalmist's words. What the NWT does not do is change a word like "spirit" and render it as "ghost" instead as does the CEV.
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. (John 2:19-21)
Did Jesus say *HE* was going to raise his body or did he not?
As the apostle John explains at John 2:21, Jesus wasn't referring to his own physical body, but he was rather making reference there to "the temple of his body." Note how the apostle Paul's own words at 1 Corinthians 6:19 makes this point clear: "Do you not know that the body of you people is [the] temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God?" Also, Paul makes the very same point at 1 Corinthians 3:16: "Do you not know that you people are God’s temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in you?" And so when was this "temple of the holy spirit" raised up?
It was on the third day when Jesus gave life to the "lifeless corpse" of the "body" of Christians that had been gathered together in that room, for at John 20:21-23 Jesus animated that "body" when he said the following: "'Just as the Father has sent me forth, I also am sending you.' And after he said this he blew upon them and said to them: 'Receive holy spirit. If you forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if you retain those of any persons, they stand retained.'"
