TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped 457 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    The Holy Spirit has all of the Characteristics of a Person:

    Acts 13:1-4 (NWT): Now in Antioch there were prophets and teachers in the local congregation, Barnabas as well as Symeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who was educated with Herod the district ruler, and Saul. As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Of all persons set Barnabas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called them.” Then they fasted and prayed and laid their hands upon them and let them go. Accordingly these men, sent out by the holy spirit, went down to Se·leu´cia, and from there they sailed away to Cyprus.

    Notice: The Holy Spirit spoke and said that HE had called certain individuals and HE wanted them set apart FOR HIMSELF.

    Acts 5:3-4 (NWT): But Peter said: “An·a·ni´as, why has Satan emboldened you to play false to the holy spirit and to hold back secretly some of the price of the field? As long as it remained with you did it not remain yours, and after it was sold did it not continue in your control? Why was it that you purposed such a deed as this in your heart? You have played false, not to men, but to God.”

    Notice: The Holy Spirit is here referred to as God. Also, people "played false" to the Holy Spirit. The Kingdom Interlinear shows that the Greek word for "played false" means LIED TO.

    How can you LIE TO an impersonal force? That would be like me going and "lying to" a tree or "lying to" electricity or "lying to" the wind.

    1 Corinthians 12:4-11 (NWT): Now there are varieties of gifts, but there is the same spirit; and there are varieties of ministries, and yet there is the same Lord; and there are varieties of operations, and yet it is the same God who performs all the operations in all persons. ... But all these operations the one and the same spirit performs, making a distribution to each one respectively just as it wills.

    Notice: The Holy Spirit is DISTINCT from "The Lord" and "God", but notice that The Holy Spirit HAS HIS OWN WILL. An impersonal force CANNOT have its own will.

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    John 16:13-16 (NWT): However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide YOU into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own impulse, but what things he hears he will speak, and he will declare to YOU the things coming. That one will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to YOU. All the things that the Father has are mine. That is why I said he receives from what is mine and declares [it] to YOU. In a little while YOU will behold me no longer, and, again, in a little while YOU will see me.”

    Wow, if Jesus was trying to teach that the Holy Spirit was an impersonal force, He did a TERRIBLE JOB.

    Jesus here says that the Holy Spirit HEARS, SPEAKS, and HAS HIS OWN IMPULSE.

    Jesus also refers to the Holy Spirit as "HE" and "HIS."

  • djeggnog


    "Organizational answers' were from the Insight.... practically copy/pasted too


    I have no need to read these so-called "organizational answers" that you provided in your post, since I am familiar with what the Insight book and all of our publications state.

    My questions were to discern if you understand the Organization.......

    I don't feel any need to discuss my understanding of our organization with you. I'm a part of it!

    There is a definition of what our 'TRUTH' is and it isn't progressive, it is however the foundation of the Org. The 'TRUTH' is our 'good news' our 'gospel'.....

    The truth is God’s kingdom, and the Lord Jesus Christ sits and serves as king and priest thereof, being the royal heir and permanent heir of King David according to his Father's sworn oath given in affirmation of His covenant for an everlasting kingdom. It was with Jesus' first coming that the truth arrived, for this is when "this good news of the kingdom" -- the truth -- first began to be proclaimed by Jesus to the Jews. Later, the good news was proclaimed to the Samaritans, and then, by 36 AD, to the Gentiles.

    The truth is not ours alone, not the province of just Jehovah's Witnesses, but is the blessing that God promised Abraham would come to all nations by means of his seed, who is Christ, the release by ransom through Jesus' blood and forgiveness of sins according to God's undeserved kindness. (Ephesians 1:7)

    But you're totally mistaken when you say that the truth isn't progressive, for if someone were to try to open your eyes of those spiritual blind to the truth by telling them all of it all at one time, , they would pretty much have been left in a state of shock since without faith it is hard to comprehend it all. This is why Jehovah's Witnesses offer free home Bible studies with folks, so that they might take in knowledge of the truth on a gradual basis, progressively.

    Perhaps you are not aware for some reason that Jehovah has been leading His people progressively in the truth from the beginning, for since the Abrahamic Covenant, He had progressively been revealing more and more the truth about Himself and His purposes, even though understanding these truths did not first become revealed until Jesus revealed them to us. And like his Father, Jesus himself told his then-yet-unenlightened apostles how he had been holding back from telling them some things: "I have many things yet to say to you, but you are not able to bear them at present." (John 16:12)

    Jehovah reveals the truth to His servants on earth in His own time and way. As one example of the progressive nature of the truth, it was first revealed by God's spirit that circumcision was not a requirement for non-Jewish Christians. This matter was decided by the governing body in 49 AD, some 16 years after Pentecost! Here's another example: Even after the holy spirit was poured out upon Jesus' disciples at Pentecost in 33 AD, they had no idea that 144,000 would be sealed until this information was revealed to John in 96 AD! (Revelation 14:3)

    Before 1979, Jehovah's Witnesses thought that Jesus had only given to the apostle Peter two keys to the kingdom, but in 1979 we came to realize that Peter had been given three keys although the truth as to there being three keys had been right there in the Bible all along. (Matthew 16:19; Acts 8:14-17) I remember it being hard to remember that there were "three keys," because we had been teaching "two keys" for a very long time. We have since made the adjustment in what we now know to be the truth and we teach accordingly, but we were unaware of this until God's spirit progressively helped us to appreciate the truth on this scriptural matter.

    This is why it is so necessary that folks show a waiting attitude with respect to the end of this system of things and not become angry at Jehovah and his servants, such as the governing body, over their inability to tell them precisely when the end is going to arrive, because the fact is that no one knows when the end is going to arrive. But those of us that know the truth and have faith in the good news know that it is a fact that is coming.

    I want to caution you against making such doggedly incorrect statements, @yknot. I'm a brother and so it would have been better for you to have asked me a question like, "Why it was I was saying here that the truth is progressive since you had never learned that is was progressive?" than for you to have become confrontational and dogmatic in telling me that the truth isn't progressive, and that the truth is our good news (whatever this means).

    It is not for no reason that I have asked you in a previous post if you thought you were in the truth, because many of the things you have said in this thread alone suggests that you do not know the truth, but only know of it, which is why I have suggested that you consider requesting the local elders to assign someone to study the Bible with you, with the emphasis on your study conductor focusing on what things the Bible teaches, and not on the WTS.

    Timeline/[discussion]/description......again this was to see how much you discern development, it isn't covered on the DVD. (and is one of my stumbling blocks)

    I don't care about discussing such things with you, and I really think you are way off-topic, which is why I hadn't been so anxious to post a reply to this particular reply, for while it was impossible for @UnDisfellowshipped to stop you from taking over his thread, I'm pretty sure that didn't expect you to do this due to the contempt you have for those taking the lead in God's organization and especially for the governing body.

    It seems to me that it is rather easy for you to disregard lordship, but if you are able to speak abusively of glorious ones without restraint here on this forum while claiming to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then eventually I would the local elders in your congregation to become targets of your contempt, and at that time (whenever it occurs!) they will have to teach you not to despise divinely constituted authority.

    For all the Bible understanding you profess, I understand the Organization..... The Organization is what I was taught as my Elders deemed me not to be Gilead material. I profess no 'deep' understanding of the Bible, the Elders said my talents should be focused elsewhere and to trust and obey the Org on these matters......... so I guess that makes me somewhat of a Knorr type versus Freddie

    I don't care about any of your zany ideas about God's organization. I really don't. I'm not going to tell you what you don't understand about God's organization, because for all I know you have a what some might call (in some circles) a "'Type A' personality." (I don't believe there to be such a thing as a "Type A," a "Type B" or a "Type AB" personality, but maybe you do.) I also don't know how your local elders could make such a statement as to where it is they believe your talents ought to be focused, but elders are as imperfect as both you and I, and for this reason I give them a pass.

    As a Study Conductor I believe there was a letter strongly encouraging you to ... stick closely to the elementary questions of the WTStudy.

    I have no comment, but just so you know, @yknot, I will not in the future be responding to any more of these kinds of impertinent comments in this thread.


  • yknot


    You are an IMPOSTER or APOSTATE

    You called my answers to your questions on scriptures proof of me not knowing the truth......... but did so because of sexist arrogance not at all discerning that these answers were direct quotes from the INSIGHT regarding those exact scriptures,

    You have publically disagreed with the Org on 'bible truths as taught by JWs' .

    You belittle, dismiss and attack me when I asked why and declare refusal to comment anymore because of you have proven yourself foolish in your words and deeds.

    NO that is NOT the definition of the 'TRUTH'! That was a rambling diatribe of a desperate man who is struggling and seeking to vindicate his ego or create persecution to make him feel better about his opinions, opinions that are not in-step with the Org.

    Here is my faith's 'truth', 'gospel' or 'good news'...... if you are going to pretend to be a JW, at least take the time to learn the foundation!

    *** w81 5/1 p. 17 par. 3 If God Has an Organization, What Is It? ***
    3 Let the honest-hearted person compare the kind of preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom done by the religious systems of Christendom during all the centuries with that done by Jehovah’s Witnesses since the end of World War I in 1918. They are not one and the same kind. That of Jehovah’s Witnesses is really “gospel,” or “good news,” as of God’s heavenly kingdom that was established by the enthronement of his Son Jesus Christ at the end of the Gentile Times in 1914.

    You are a very lost man.

    (prayers and hugs for you to find peace and truth)



    I am sorry for hijacking your thread.........

    This DJEggnog, isn't a JW, his ramblings and interpretations are nothing more than lifted hybrids from some past association with the WTS.

    This is about his ego and desperation, somewhere else in his life he has been forsaken........ please exert kindness and patience with this very lost man.

  • djeggnog


    Therefore, when John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:10 say that JESUS is "a god" who MADE HEAVEN AND EARTH, they are declaring JESUS TO BE THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD along with The Father.

    If you come to this conclusion based on your reading of Deuteronomy 32:39 and Isaiah 44:6, then who am I to argue with you? I don't so conclude, but I'm me and you are you.

    Notice: The Holy Spirit spoke and said that HE had called certain individuals and HE wanted them set apart FOR HIMSELF.

    Paul would on many an occasion speak by means of a revelation. (1 Corinthians 14:6) We read at Galatians 2:1, 2, Paul recalling how both he and Barbabas had, some 14 years before 49 AD when this letter was written, visited with the elders of the congregation located in Antioch, Syria, that is, back in 35 AD. Paul is here referring to the revelation he received in Antioch by means of the holy spirit, after which he and Barnabas laid hands on Symeon, Lucius and Manaen before they left Antioch. (Acts 13:1-4) You want to make the holy spirit a person, I'm fine with your doing that.

    Notice: The Holy Spirit is here referred to as God. Also, people "played false" to the Holy Spirit. The Kingdom Interlinear shows that the Greek word for "played false" means LIED TO. How can you LIE TO an impersonal force? That would be like me going and "lying to" a tree or "lying to" electricity or "lying to" the wind.

    What do you mean? People swear an oath to tell the truth and yet lie to an "impersonal force" all of the time. In the courtroom, an oath is considered to be a sacred thing, but is it a person? No, an oath is not a person any more than the holy spirit is a person. You're making statements here that indicate a bit of ignorance as to what constitutes "an impersonal force."

    The statements that one makes "under oath" have more force because they are sworn statements than they do when the very same statements are made out of court. When out-of-court statements are made, they are regarded as inadmissible hearsay because they were not made under oath and have no weight until such statements are made as part of one's sworn testimony or a part of a written declaration made under penalty of perjury. God's holy spirit is also an impersonal force, a force that has weight that God uses to accomplish His will. If you do not realize this (yet), then you need to consider having a Bible study with one of Jehovah's Witnesses that is competent to explain such things to you.

    The Bible teaches us about the angelic representatives that Jehovah God uses to accomplish His will. At Genesis 18:2, "three men" visited Abraham's home and Abraham recognizes that they were angelic representatives of Jehovah, and so, at Genesis 18:3, he calls them "Jehovah," and we read at Genesis 18:13 that one of the angels is referred to as "Jehovah." Then when two of three "men" left to go to Sodom, where Abraham's nephew, Lot, was living, we find the one angel that stayed behind being referred to many times as "Jehovah." (Genesis 18:22, 26, 29, 31-33) Also, we find Lot also referring to one of the two angels that had come to rescue Lot's household as "Jehovah." (Genesis 19:18)

    At Exodus 3:2, It is "Jehovah's angel" that appears to Moses in a flame of fire in a thornbush that wasn't being consumed by the fire, and that angel is called "Jehovah" at Exodus 3:4, since it served as God's representative, and the angel even declares Himself to be God, saying at Exodus 3:6: "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob," causing Moses to conceal his face being in fear "to look at the true God."

    The reason the apostle Peter told Ananias, at Acts 5:4, that he had lied to God after telling Ananias, at Acts 5:3, that he had lied to "the holy spirit" is because it was God that had given to the Christian congregation His holy spirit, so by Ananias and his wife Sapphira lying to Peter, who was God's representative on earth, they were essentially lying to God.

    Their motives were deceptively wicked in that Ananias and Sapphira had made this pretense of having sold a property that they had owned and donating all of the proceeds from the sale to the congregation while knowing that they had retained some of the proceeds for themselves in order to gain special honor in the congregation, for in what they had schemed in seeking, not God's glory, but the glory of men, they were really playing false or lying to God to whom the holy spirit belonged.

    Notice: The Holy Spirit is DISTINCT from "The Lord" and "God", but notice that The Holy Spirit HAS HIS OWN WILL. An impersonal force CANNOT have its own will.

    As to what 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 says, I would point out to you what I stated above, namely, that God uses His holy spirit to accomplish His will.

    Wow, if Jesus was trying to teach that the Holy Spirit was an impersonal force, He did a TERRIBLE JOB. Jesus here says that the Holy Spirit HEARS, SPEAKS, and HAS HIS OWN IMPULSE. Jesus also refers to the Holy Spirit as "HE" and "HIS."

    Regarding John 16:13, 14 (btw, I realize that you had cited John 16:13-16), Jesus personifies "the spirit of the truth" just like some people personify their yachts, referring to them as "she." Doesn't B.B.King refers to his guitar personifiedly as "Lucille"? Has opportunity ever knocked on your door? Ever see lightning dance across the sky? They say time doesn't wait for anyone, but is this true? Has your last chance ever walked out of your door? Has your life passed you by? Do you recall when the Beatles records would fly right off the shelves, along with time? Have you ever referred to a prized possession of yours, like your car, as "my baby," even describing its failure to start one morning as one of those times when "she let me down"? What am I doing here? I'm assigning the qualities of a person to impersonal things (opportunity, lightning, time, last chance, life, Beatles records, baby), or to put it another way, I'm just using a figure of speech.

    That's all Jesus was doing at John 16:13, 14.


  • UnDisfellowshipped

    If Jesus Christ is God Almighty, why would He pray to Himself?

    Jesus Christ was never "praying to Himself." Christians do not teach that God the Father and Jesus are the same Person, rather they teach that God the Father and Jesus are two different Persons who share the same Nature or Essence. The belief that Jesus is the same Person as The Father is called "Modalism" or "Oneness Pentecostalism" or "Jesus-Onlyism." That is a heresy, an apostasy, not a true Bible teaching. The majority of Christians have always spoken out against this false teaching.

    The Watchtower Society is always mixing up Trinitarianism with Modalism, as if they are the same, when, in reality, they are opposite beliefs that cannot co-exist. Half of the arguments that Jehovah's Witnesses have used against the Trinity, are actually arguments against Modalism.

    Jehovah's Witnesses and other non-Trinitarians should really spend more time examining what the Trinity and the Deity of Christ really are before trying to argue against those doctrines.

    Therefore, since God the Father and Jesus are two different Persons, Jesus was praying to His Father, a distinct Person, who shares the same Nature or Deity with His Son.

    There is no contradiction in saying that Jesus is God [the Son], and Jesus was praying to God [the Father].

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    If Jesus Christ is God Almighty, why does Colossians 1:15 call Him "The Firstborn of all creation"?

    This Scripture is often used by certain religious groups and people (including Jehovah's Witnesses) to "prove" that Jesus was the first creature that God created, before God made anything else. However, these verses are actually teaching something different.

    In ancient Israel, the firstborn son received twice the inheritance and more honor and authority than the other sons, and upon the father's death, he was regarded as the head of the household. (Deuteronomy 21:17; Genesis 48:13-14; Genesis 49:3; 2nd Chronicles 21:3)

    At Psalm 89:27, God promised that He would "place" or "appoint" David (or the coming Son of David, the Messiah) into the position of "Firstborn," which meant, in this context, the "Most High of all the kings of the earth," the one who held first place. At Exodus 4:22, God declares that "Israel is My firstborn son," that is, Israel would hold first place in God's eyes among all other nations, and Israel would be the most treasured and loved nation to God.

    There was clearly a "position" or "rank" of "firstborn" in the Bible -- this was the position of being in "first place" or the "highest rank."

    At Colossians 1:15-18, the Apostle Paul taught that Jesus is the "Firstborn" of all creation because all things were created through Him and for Him, He existed before anything was ever created, and He is the Firstborn because He is the One who has "first place" in all things. Since Jesus is called "Firstborn" because He created all things and existed before all things, this shows that He is notcalled "Firstborn" because He was the first thing created.

    Paul himself, at Colossians 1:18, explains that he is referring to the position or rank of "Firstborn," because Paul says Jesus is the one who has "preeminence" or "first place" in all things. Therefore, Paul was not saying that Jesus was the first creature created by God. (Compare also Revelation 1:5)

    If Jesus Himself were part of creation, how could He exist before one thing was ever created by God? Did God create Jesus through Jesus? (See John 1:3; Colossians 1:17)

    At Hebrews 1:6, God commands all of His angels to worship The Firstborn Son, which would be idolatry if The Firstborn were a creature.

    There is also a different understanding of this Scripture on the part of some Christians. Some believe that Colossians 1:15-18 is speaking about Jesus Christ as a Human, and that, as a Man, He was indeed a creature in the sense that His Human Body was created by God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Calling Him "Firstborn" would then mean that He holds first place among all of God's creation, or that He is the First of all of God's new creation (which are those believers who have been born again and will go to heaven with immortal human bodies). I do not agree with that understanding because Colossians 1:15-17 is talking about when Jesus Christ created angels and humans, and Jesus was definitely NOT a Human at that time. But even this explanation agrees with the Scriptures better than the idea that Jesus was the first one created by God and then God used Him to create all other things.

    If you are using the New World Translation, please compare Colossians 1:15-17 in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, the American Standard Version, and any other modern translation, and you will see that the words "[other]" are not found in the Greek text. The words "[other]" were added by the translators of the New World Translation in order to support their belief that Jesus was created by God, and then He created all other things. The Watchtower Society even admits this in the "Reasoning" Book, on pages 408-409 (italics and bold added by me):

    "In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan´ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, "by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him." Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God."

    My question is, if the entire Bible clearly teaches that Jesus was created by God, then why does the New World Translation need to add words that are not in the Greek text in order to show that Jesus is "a created being, part of the creation produced by God"? Didn't God know what He was doing when He inspired His Apostles to write the Scriptures? Why does He need "help" from the Watchtower Society?

    Finally, if Paul had wanted to say that Jesus was the "First-Created One," instead of "Firstborn" there was a different Greek word specifically for that which he could have used, but did not choose to use.

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    If Jesus Christ is God Almighty, why does Revelation 3:14 call Him "The Beginning of the creation of God"?

    At first glance, this verse does look like it is teaching that Jesus was created by God. However, the Greek word "Arche," rendered "Beginning" in some translations, has various meanings depending on the context. Here is a list of the different meanings of this word:

    Thayer's Greek Dictionary Definition of "Arche":

    1) beginning, origin.

    2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader.

    3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause.

    4) the extremity of a thing.

    5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy.

    So, then, Revelation 3:14 could be saying any of the following things:

    1:) Jesus is the "Origin of the creation of God."

    2:) Jesus is the "Leader of the creation of God."

    3:) Jesus is the "Ruler of the creation of God."

    4:) Jesus is the "Beginning (or First) of the creation of God."

    So, that is why different translations render that verse differently -- some say that Jesus is the "Ruler of all creation," while others say He is the "Source" or "Origin" of all creation, while still others say that He is the "Beginning" of the creation of God.

    Since this verse has many different possible translations, it does not seem wise to interpret it in a way that contradicts the rest of Revelation and the rest of the Bible. This verse alone would definitely not prove that Jesus is a creature. Now, the question is, what do the other Scriptures in Revelation and in the rest of the Bible say about Jesus? Is He a creature or is He the Creator?

    Something else to consider is that God Almighty is referred to as "The Beginning" ("Arche") at Revelation 21:6 and 22:13. What did it mean when God Almighty was called "The Beginning"? Many Bible commentaries say that the reason God Almighty was called "The Beginning" was because He is the "Author," "Cause," and "Beginner" of all things.

    Therefore, even if the rendering "Beginning" is correct at Revelation 3:14, it could still be understood to mean that Jesus is the One who began God's creation, the One who started it.

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    If Jesus Christ is God Almighty, why does the Bible call Him "The Only-Begotten Son"?

    The Greek word rendered "Only-Begotten" in some Bibles is "Monogenes." In most modern Bible translations, this word is rendered as "Only," "One-and-Only," or "Unique." This is because the latest Biblical Greek research and scholarship has determined that this word does not mean "Only-Begotten," but rather, it means "One-of-a-Kind," "One-and-Only," or "Unique."

    Even the book "Insight on the Scriptures", Volume Two, published by the Watchtower Society in 1988, admitted this when it said the following on Page 556:

    "The Greek word mo·no·ge·nes´ is defined by lexicographers as "single of its kind, only," or "the only member of a kin or kind."(Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) [...] Jesus, is "the only-begotten Son of God." (Joh 3:18) He is the only one of his kind [...]"

    Modern translations such as the English Standard Version, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, God's Word Translation, NET Bible, World English Bible, New Century Version, New Living Translation, Contemporary English Version, and others all translate Monogenes as either "Only" or "One and Only," while the New King James Version and New American Standard Bible do still render it as "Only-Begotten."

    If it is correct that "monogenes" should be rendered as "Only" or "One and Only," then this does not, in any way, suggest that Jesus is a creature of God. Rather, it shows that God the Father and His Son have a very special, unique relationship, and that Jesus is the Son of God in a way that no one else is.

    However, there were several early church fathers who understood the word "monogenes" to mean "Only-Begotten." They still did not teach that Jesus was a creature of God. Instead, they believed that, in a somewhat mysterious and unexplainable way, God the Father is constantly "begetting" or "producing" God the Son, like the sun is constantly emitting rays of light. (Compare Hebrews 1:3 in the Greek)

    C.S. Lewis explained this belief very well in the classic book "Mere Christianity," when he showed the difference between being created by God and being begotten by God. Summing up what Lewis believed, animals only beget the same type of animal. Humans only beget other humans. God only begets God. Humans can only create something that is not human by nature (such as tools, houses, cars, machines, etc.) and God can only create things that are not God by Nature (such as angels, humans, animals, plants, etc.).

    Therefore, since Jesus was begotten by God, He must be God by Nature -- in other words, He has the same Nature or basic makeup as God does.

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    If Jesus Christ is God Almighty, why does John 1:1 (NWT) call Him "a god"?

    Nearly all modern Bible translators and Bible scholars do not agree with the rendering "The Word was a god" found at John 1:1 in the New World Translation.

    Look carefully at what the following Watchtower publications admit about the true meaning of John 1:1, and how it should be translated (bold, italics, and underlining were added by me):

    "Reasoning From the Scriptures," Pages 416-417, says the following about how John 1:1 should be translated:

    "In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos." He suggests: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’" (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87)"

    "The Watchtower" issue of June 1st, 1988, Page 17 says this about John 1:1:

    "the second the·os´ is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and without the definite article ho in Greek. In this verse, such a sentence construction points to a characteristic or quality of the subject. It highlights the nature of the Word [...]"

    "Insight on the Scriptures," Volume 2, Page 54, says the following about John 1:1:

    "Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article "the," preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that "the logos has the nature of theos." He further stated: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os´] cannot be regarded as definite." (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase: "the Word was divine."—AT; Sd; compare Mo; see NW appendix, p. 1579."

    "The Watchtower" issue of August 15th, 1984, Page 30 says this about John 1:1:

    "So professor B. F. Westcott hastens to state that the phrase rendered "the Word was God" describes "the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person." Well and good. But this true meaning of the original Greek is certainly not the thought conveyed by most Bibles. Still, some scholars, less supportive of Trinitarian ideas, have translated it "the Word was a divine being" or "the Word was divine." In the Journal of Biblical Literature (Volume 92, 1973), Philip P. Harner writes: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’" "

    "The Watchtower" issue of January 15th, 1975, Page 63, has this to say about John 1:1:

    "Then, too, in the phrase rendered "the Word was a god," the term "god" is a predicate noun that describes "the Word." Says the noted scholar Westcott, coproducer of the famous Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures: "It describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person." In view of the descriptive nature of the predicate noun for "god" in the original Greek, An American Translation renders John 1:1: "The Word was divine." "

    "The Watchtower" issue of March 15th, 1975, Page 174 says this about John 1:1:

    "The word "God" in this application to the "Word" simply calls attention to that one’s divine nature" [...]"

    "The Watchtower" issue of November 15th, 1975, Page 703 says this about John 1:1:

    "Certain scholars have pointed out that anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek may have a qualitative significance. Thatis, they may describe the nature or status of the subject. Thus some translators render John 1:1: "The Logos was divine," (Moffatt); "the Word was divine," (Goodspeed); "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God," (Barclay); "the Word was with God and shared his nature," (The Translator’s New Testament)."

    So, according to the Watchtower Society, John 1:1 should be translated this way: "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word has the same nature as God," or "the Word shares God's nature."

    Isn't that quite a bit different in meaning from the way that John 1:1 is rendered in the New World Translation? When you read "The Word was a god" in the NWT, do you think that it means The Word shares the same exact Nature that God Almighty has? Or, rather, do you think of the Word as a separate, lesser, inferior created god?

    Why would the New World Translation translate it as "a god" when their very own publications teach that it should actually be translated a different way? Why would the New World Translation choose to render John 1:1 in a way that actually promotes polytheism, the worship of more than one divine God?

    Here is a very serious question for all people who do not believe that Jesus Christ is God:

    What does it mean for the Logos ("Word") to share the same exact Nature that God Almighty has? God, in His Nature, is Eternal, Immortal, and Almighty. How can He share in that same Nature and still not be Almighty, Eternal, or Immortal?

    In addition, there are many other things to consider about the correct way of translating John 1:1, such as "Colwell's Rule." I highly recommend that you do your own research into John 1:1, examine what the Greek experts have to say, and then come to your own conclusions based on the facts, reasoning, and logic.

Share this