22. If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, how could he: Be referred to as "he" and "him" in Jn 16:7- 8 and Jn 16:13-14; Bear witness (Jn 15:26); Feel hurt (Isa 63:10); Be blasphemed against (Mk 3:29); Say things (Ezek 3:24, Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, and Heb 10:15-17): Desire (Gal 5:17); Be outraged (Heb 10:29); Search (I Cor 2:10); Comfort (Acts 9:31); Be loved (Rom 15:30); Be lied to and be God (Acts 5:3-4)?
The spirit is God's impelling force. The demons, by the way, have an impelling force too. Jesus referred to them as unclean spirits and their thinking is the motivating spirit behind the prevailing attitudes and values of those in the world. By contrast, Jehovah's spirit is clean, holy, and as explained earlier, because it comes from God, through Christ, and accomplishes their will, it can be spoken of as a person because it represents their character and personal will. But, there are many instances in scripture where the spirit is represented as an impersonal force. For example, in the case of Samson it says: "And Jehovah's spirit became operative upon him."
That phrase suggests ownership does it not? If the spirit is a separate entity how is it that it belongs to Jehovah? Is it not obvious that the spirit is God's active force that he controls? Furthermore, many places the Bible makes reference to being led by the spirit, or walking in the spirit, or being filled with spirit. In those instances the spirit is not personified but is presented as an impelling force that emanates from God, because in reality, thats what it is.
22. What is the correct spelling of God's proper name, "Yahweh" or "Jehovah"? If Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that "Yahweh" is more proper, why do they misspell it "Jehovah"? If the name of God is so important, then should you not only pronounce it correctly, but spell it correctly too?
We can say with absolute confidence that Yahweh is not correct. The reason being that the YHWH, the so-called Tetragrammaton, was pronounced using 3 syllables and not 2 as in Yah-weh. We know this from the composition of the dozens of Hebrew names that were derived from the YHWH . For example, Jehoiakim, Jehonadab, Jehoiarib, Jehoiachin, Jehoiada, Jehoash, Jehoahaz, Jehoram, Jehoshaphat, Jehoshua, and others, are proper Hebrew names that have incorporated the first two syllables and their corresponding vowels from the divine name --- JE-HO. Other Hebrew names use the last syllable and vowel, for example: Elijah, Hezekiah, Zephaniah, and many, many, others, which indicates that the third vowel is an A. However, the Hebrews didnt have the letter J, or V, so in Hebrew it would have been Ye-ho-wah, but all Hebrew names that have been anglicized use the J for the Y, which is why we dont say Yeremiah instead of Jeremiah.
23. Jn 1:3 says that Jesus created "all things", but in Isa 44:24, God says that he "by myself created the heavens and the earth" and asks the question "Who was with me?" when the heavens and the earth were created. How can this be since if Jesus had been created by God, then he would have been with God when everything else was created?
When Jehovah posed the rhetorical question in Isaiah, we shouldnt automatically assume that the answer is catagorically--- "No one was with Jehovah." In the context of Isaiah Jehovah was stating his own superiority over the worthless idol gods of the nations, and he was asserting once again his own Godship. In effect God was stating that none of those phony idols or the gods they represented were with him in creation. But, as to who was with God in creation, surely you have read in the account where Jehovah himself said: "Let US make man in OUR image."
Surely, God wasnt talking to himself was he? Obviously there was someone with him in creation, just none of the fools' gods of the nations.24. If the soul is the body, why does Jesus make a distinction between the body and the soul in Mt 10:28?
Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach that the soul is the body. In that context the soul is the entire person and their future lifes prospects as a person. At times soul can mean the life that a person has as a living creature, but usually it is used to denote the whole person, especially their inner thoughts and personality.
25. In Col 1:15-17, the NWT inserts the word "other" 4 times even though it is not in the original Greek (See Gr- Engl Interlinear). Why is the word "other" inserted? How would these verses read if the word "other" had not been inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6.
Anyone who is bilingual or who has tried to learn a foreign language knows that there is no such thing as an exact word-for-word translation for everything. Translators of the Bible have the responsibility not to render a transliteration, but rather, to deliver the thoughts that they think the writer intended to convey into another language. All translators of the Bible, without exception, add words to try and convey the thought that they think is intended. The NWT translators adopted the device of using brackets to indicate which words they inserted in order to convey the thought of the original language. Other translations don't tell the reader that certain words were added that were not in the original. They are not as straightforward and upfront as the NWT translatorsn in that respect.
In the case of the verse in question, it is entirely appropriate that the word [other] be inserted for the reason that verse 15 says that Jesus was "the firstborn of all creation." Then it goes on to say that nothing was created except through Jesus. Obviously, though, Jesus didn't create himself, just as none of us created ourselves. So, the intention of Paul was evidently to show the unique position that Jesus occupies as the Firstborn, being the only creature that God directly created, whereas Jesus was subsequently the creative agency God employed afterwards. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for the translators to eliminate the potential confusion that might arise by inserting the word [other] to indicate that, as the context indicates, Jesus did not create himself.
26. In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word "other" even though it doesn't appear in the original Greek (See Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for inserting this word? Is the word "Jehovah" a name? See Exo 6:3, Ps 83:18, and Isa 42:8. How would the verse read if the word "other" had not been inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6. If Christians are persecuted for the sake of Jehovah's name, why did Christ tell the first Christians that they would be persecuted for the sake of his (Jesus') name, instead of Jehovah's (Mt 24:9, Mk 13:13, Lk 21:12,17, Jn 15:21, and Acts 9:16)? If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say, "There is salvation in no one else; for there is not another name [vs 10 Jesus Christ] under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must get saved"? If the teachings of the WTS are correct, would this not have been the logical place for God to have used the name "YHWH" or "Jehovah"? Since the word "Jehovah" didn't appear until at least the 12th century, and since the term "Jehovah's Witnesses" wasn't used by the WTS until the early 1930's, doesn't this mean that the first century Christians were not known as "Jehovah's Witnesses"?
Phillipians 2:9 says that God "kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend." The question we would pose: Who gave Jesus the honor that he received? Is it not God? If Jesus received something from Jehovah God, does that make him greater than God himself? Of course not, as the verse goes on to state that Jesus' becoming Lord is to the glory of God the Father. So, again, it is entirely appropriate to insert the word [other] in view of the obvious truth that the name of Jesus is above every other name, excepting that of Jehovah God. Psalm 83:18 says that the God "whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." Because God exalted Jesus and shares his glory with him does not diminish God. But, because Jesus fully represents Jehovahs sovereignty, expressed now through Christ's kingdom, and the very name of Jesus means, literally, Jehovah is salvation, for that reason those who are Jehovah's Witnesses can rightly be said to suffer persecution for Jesus name as well, since Christ himself suffered for being Jehovah's foremost witness.
27. The WTS makes the claim, "Like the Primitive Christian Community - the religious publication 'Interpretation' stated in July 1956: 'In their organization and witnessing work, they [Jehovah's Witnesses] come as close as any group to approximating the primitive Christian community..."- Jehovah's Witnesses- Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, pg 234, and on pg 677 of the same book, a caption appears titled "Like the early Christians". Do Jehovah's Witnesses pray the "Our Father" (Mt 6:9-13), break bread together (celebrate the Eucharist) frequently (1Cor 10:16-17, 1Cor 11:26-27), come together on Sunday to break bread (Acts 20:7), confirm the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:15-17, 19:5-6, Heb 6:2, 2Tim 1:6), ordain (appoint) priests (elders) through the laying on of hands (Acts 6:5-6, 13:2-3), pray to Jesus (Mt 11:28, Acts 7:59-60, 1Cor 16:22-23, Rev 22:20), anoint the sick with oil (Mk 6:12-13, Jas 5:14), often kneel down to pray (Acts 9:40, 20:36, 21:5, Lk 22:41), consider themselves to be witnesses of Christ (Acts 1:8, 10:39, 13:31), have deacons (1Tim 3:8, 10, 12), fast from than Jesus Christ (Acts 4:10-12), celebrate Pentecost (Acts 2:1, 20:16, 1Cor 16:8), have special people that look after widows and orphans (Acts 6:1-4, Jas 1:27), occaisionally drink wine (1Tim 5:23)? If not, then how can Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be like the primitive Christian community?
- Do Jehovah's Witnesses pray the "Our Father"?
- Break bread together (celebrate the Eucharist)?
- come together on Sunday to break bread? (Acts 20:7)
- Confirm the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands?
- Pray to Jesus?
- anoint the sick with oil?
- Often kneel down to pray?
- Consider themselves to be witnesses of Christ?
- Have deacons?
- celebrate Pentecost?
- have special people that look after widows and orphans?
- occaisionally drink wine?
That prayer is a model prayer and Jesus never intended it to be uttered by rote. In fact right before he gave the model he said not to say the same things over and over. There is no indication that any of the apostles ever said the "Our Father" prayer verbatim.
Annually, just like the original Passover that was replaced by the Memorial, Jehovah's Witnesses break bread.
We do not observe a weekly Sabbath but we do meet together weekly for worship.
Laying on of hands was just a formailty that symbolized that someone had been recommended for a particular office or assignment. Of, course we do that, just not using that specific custom.
Not directly, no. Jesus is our intercessor. We pray through him, however, as in the case of Stephen who was about to be killed because of his faith in Jesus, obviously it is not improper to directly address Jesus in unusual circumstances.
No. That is merely a formality to denote praying and applying Gods healing words like balm to the sufferer.
That is an individual matter. Sometimes people prostrated themselves flat out before God. Jesus at times stood up and looked up into heaven when speaking to his God. At other times he knelt. Our custom is to bow our heads and close our eyes. The main thing is to assume a respectful posture before God. What posture to you think Jonah assumed when he was being churned around in that fishes slimy gut like he was inside a washing machine in the pitch black? Yet God heard him.
Yes, we frequently refer to ourselves as Jehovahs Christian Witnesses.
Yes, our translation uses the word ministerial servants, so thats what we call them.
No, we do not celebrate Pentecost. The Jewish Christians didnt either, but they respected those occasions as having been part of Jehovahs arrangement and they used those occasions to witness to others. Like Paul said: To the Jews I became as a Jew. And though I am not under Jewish law I became as under law.
Yes, the elders do that and make arrangements for our widows to be looked after.
Thats a personal matter. Some witnesses drink wine and even hard liquor. Its a matter of conscience.
28. In Rev 14:13, how can the dead be "happy" and find "rest", if there is no conscious awareness after death?
The exception to that has to do with those anointed ones who die during the phase of Christ's presence. They do not have to sleep in death as those who died before Jesus' presence commenced, but are instantaneous resurrected into heaven in the twinkling of a eye. Paul explained that in 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, where he said, in part: "Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep in death, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet." Revelation is in harmony with that because it notes that there is a specific moment, "from this time onward," when the dead are to be considered happy.
29. Is it true that the WTS's prophecy that Armageddon will come before "the end of the generation of 1914" is no longer taught as "the Truth"? If so, then does this mean that this teaching of the WTS, which they have taught as "the Truth" for decades, was really a false teaching?
Jehovah's Witnesses have suffered from the same sort of unfulfilled expectations as did the apostles. In their irrational child-like exuberance the apostles imagined that the kingdom was going to instantly display itself. Worse, they misunderstood Jesus' comments about John, in the 21 st chapter of John, and as a result the apostles started a rumor that persisted for most of the apostolic era to the effect that Jesus would return before John died. When John penned his gospel account shortly before his death he clarified what Jesus said. Did that make the apostles false prophets?
30. If the name Jehovah is so important, then why is it never used in the entire Greek New Testament? If men edited out the proper name of God, "YHWH", when they copied the New Testament, as only the WTS claims, thereby altering God's word, then how can we have confidence in ANY of the New Testament? Should we discard the New Testament or the WTS as unreliable?
The evidence suggests that Jesus and the apostles used the name, but later copyists removed it, as they did from parts of the Hebrew text before. The fact of the matter is that many men do, undeniably, have a bias against God's name, and there has been a long sustained effort to expunge the name of God from the Bible and from men's minds. It started before the time of Christ when the superstitious Jewish priests and scribes adopted the silly notion that God's name was too holy to be spoken or written and so they started substituting the YHWH with Adonai and Elohim in certain passages of Scripture. That satanic influence carried over and apparently influenced the copying of the New Testament several hundred years after the apostles died so that copyists substituted YHWH in the NT with the Greek Kyrios and Theos. Even to the present day that prejudice is evident among the many translators that refuse to publish God's name even in the Hebrew Old Testament in their copies of the Bible, not because its too holy, but because they think it is not important. Thus, they deliberately confuse Jesus with Jehovah. Given the sort of prejudice and deliberate attempts to hide the Divine name by those very ones in a position to tamper with the Bible, it is the job of those who know and love Jehovah, namely Jehovah's Witnesses, to restore the name to its proper place. Certainly, we can be sure that of the many places where Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Hebrew or Greek Septuagint, where the Divine name existed in the form of the YHWH, that they would pronounce it and copy it faithfully. Jesus even said that he had made his Father's name known. Therefore, all the places where NT writers quoted from the OT where the YHWH is found the NWT uses the name Jehovah and justifiably so.
31. If Jesus was executed on a torture stake, with both hands together over his head, as only the WTS teaches, why does Jn 20:25 say "... unless I see in his hands the print of the nailS...", indicating that there was more than one nail used for his hands? Two nails would have been used if he was crucified on a cross.
Well, it seems to me that since both hands and both feet would have nail wounds that it is appropriate to refer to the print of the nails. Another possible explanation is that his hands were not laid over each other but that a nail was driven into each hand side-by-side, overhead. The Scriptures use the word tree and stake---not cross. Plus, there are statues, in existence from antiquity, I saw one in the Ufizzi in Florence, that depicted the ancient Roman method of execution as being upon an upright single pole. There really was no reason to go to the trouble of making an elaborate device with a cross-beam when a simple tree trunk would do the job. Besides, Moses' copper serpent on a pole symbolized the sacrificed Christ. It seems that since he was depicting the method of Christ's execution that he would have wrapped the serpent around a cross if that was to be the case.
/ You Know
Edited by - You Know on 25 June 2002 13:45:50