A message exchange regarding the New World Trans..
AUTHOR: White, James
PUBLISHED ON: April 24, 2003


Message 4882                                  DATE/TIME: 03/20/89 18:13
To    : BC BLAD
Subject: (R) new file continued conversation
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”

Once again, Brian, why hide this stuff in uploaded files?  I have sent
to you a large number of posts – went back and forwarded a bunch of
stuff that had been sent to another JW who didn’t come back – but if we
are going to discuss this, why not discuss it out in the open?  Some
people don’t have time for downloading, unarcing (some can’t even do
that) etc.  Let’s deal with the Watchtower right out in the open –
where everyone can judge for themselves.  If the WT is the “faithful
and discreet slave” then let’s let everyone in on it!  If not…


Message 4902                                  DATE/TIME: 03/20/89 22:46
From  : JAMES WHITE                        — RECEIVED —
To    : BC BLAD
Subject: Review of .arc file
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”


Below  I am providing for everyone the contents of “JAMES2.ARC”  by
BC  BLAD.  As you will note, the entire file *could* have fit  into
one  single  post – why Brian insists on archiving a file  that  is
only  5.1K I do not know.  But, be that as it may, I give  you  his
post below.  I will also provide rebuttal to the post, and will set
off my remarks with asterisks.

James,                                          09 march 89
  to  continue with our discussion on the trinity please note  what
was said in “JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE” vol.92 1973 printed in
Philadelphia page 85 article by Philip B. Harner and I quote  “with
an  anarthrous  predicate  preceding  the  verb,are  primarily
qualitative in meaning.They indicate that the logos has the  nature
of  theos.There  is no basis for regarding the predicate  theos  as
definite.”  on  page 87 of his article he concluded”In John  1:1  I
think  that the qualitative force of the predicate is so  prominent
that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.”
    It is extremely frustrating, Brian, when the person with  whom
you are trying to speak does not even read the material you post to
him.  Your comments prove beyond question that you have  not  even
begun  to seriously deal with the material I have provided to  you. 
I am well acquainted with Harner’s work – I have the article should
you  wish  to read all of it – and in fact I addressed  the  common
misunderstanding by Jehovah’s Witnesses of his comments in my  work
on  John 1:1 which I forwarded to you two weeks ago.  Here are  the
specific comments I made:

    The  third clause of this verse has occasioned  great  debate 
and controversy,  mainly  due to the fact that the Greek  word  for 
God, theos,  does not have the definite article (“the”) before  it. 
Some  pseudo-Christian  or Arian groups have said that  this  means
that  the Word  was  a  “god”  or a god-like being  like  an  angel 
(Jehovah’s  Witnesses).  But is this the  case?  Other  Christian
scholars  have put great  weight into the idea that the term  theos
is being used  as  an adjective to describe the Logos, and that  is
why John did not put the article there.
    Actually,  the  answer  to the  whole  question  seems  fairly
obvious, even  to  a first-year Greek student.  The third clause of
1.1  is  a copulative  sentence  – that is, it follows  the  form
“The    (noun)    is  (predicate  nominative)”.  In  Greek,  one
distinguishes the subject  of a  copulative sentence by which  noun
has  an article in front  of  it.  For  example, in 1 John  4:8  we
have the last clause reading  “God  is love.”  Now, in Greek  this
is  ho  theos agape estin.  There  are  two nominative  nouns  in
this  sentence  – God (theos) and  love  (agape).  However,  the 
first  noun, God, has the article ho before  it.    This  indicates
that  “God”  is  the  subject of the sentence,  and  love  is  the
predicate  nominative.  It would be wrong, then, to  translate  1 
John 4:8  as  “Love  is  God.”  The  only  way  to  make  the  two 
nouns  interchangeable  is  to either put the  article  with  both
nouns, or  to not put the article there at all.  As long as one has
the article and the  other does not, one is definitely the  subject
and  the other  the predicate.  Hence, 1 John 4:8 does  not  teach
that all love  is  God, nor  that God and love are  interchangeable
things.  Rather, the  term “love”  tells  us  something about God –
it  functions  almost  as  an adjective, describing the noun  (God)
that it modifies.
    We  have  the same situation in 1.1c.  The  Greek  reads,  kai 
theos  en ho logos.  Notice that the term Logos has the article  ho
while  the term theos does not.  This tells us that the subject  of
the clause is the Logos.  Hence, we could not translate the  phrase
“and  God  was the Word”  for that would make the  wrong  term  the
subject  of the  clause.  Hence,  the term “God” is  the  predicate
nominative,  and it  functions just  as “love” did in 1 John 4:8  –
it  tells us something  about  the Logos  – and that is,  that  the
nature  of the Logos is the  nature  of God, just as the nature  of
God in 1 John 4:8 was that of love.  Now, John does emphasize  the
term “God” by placing it first in the  clause – this is not just  a
“divine nature” as in something like the  angels have  – rather, it
is  truly  the  nature of Deity that is in view  here  (hence  my 
translation as “Deity”).  Dr. Kenneth  Wuest,  long  time professor
of  Greek  at Moody Bible Institute rendered the phrase,  “And  the
Word  was as to His essence absolute Deity.”   
    Before  summing up the verse, then, let the reader  note  that
when  groups  such  as Jehovah’s Witnesses quote from  Dr.  Philip 
Harner’s article on the nature of anarthrous (=without the article) 
predicate  nominatives,  they  don’t  understand  what  they  are 
talking  about.  Harner    accurately  pointed  out  that  the 
anarthrous  predicate nominative  functions  as a descriptive term
rather  than  a  specific  term.    Problem  is,  the  Jehovah’s
Witnesses  make  “God”  in  John  1.1  just  as  definite  as  the
translations they attack!  The point  Harner is  making is that it
is  not  the  definite  “God” that is in view,  far  less  the  JW
translation of “a god” (both are definite) but rather the nature of
the Logos that is important.
    Hence,  1.1 tells us some immensely important things.  First, 
we see  that  the Logos is eternal, uncreated.  Secondly,  we  see 
that  there  are two Divine Persons in view in John’s  mind  –  the
Father  and the Logos.  Thirdly, there is eternal communication and 
relationship  between  the  Father and the Logos.  Finally, we  see
that  the  Logos shares the nature of God.  These items  will  be
important  for a proper understanding  of  many of  the  statements
made by our  Lord  in  this book.  It seems to me that John felt it
was vitally important that we understand  the majesty of the Person
of Jesus Christ right from  the start.  We will see these  concepts
played out through the rest of the book.

    Now, as anyone can see, I spent a good deal of space  pointing
out the proper greek structure and how this is to be understood.  I
pointed  out  what Harner said, and explained  that  the  Witnesses
misunderstand Harner – just as you did.  Translating it as “a  god”
is *just* as “definite” as translating it “God”, Brian!  The  point
Harner  is making is that “theos” is not *identifying*  the  Logos,
but  it *describing* the Logos.  The preceding clauses of John  1:1
had  already asserted that the Logos was eternal in being, and  had
eternally been in communication with the Father – the final  clause
just  simply describes the nature of the Logos – He has the  nature
of  God  (which  is  what Philippians 2:6  says).  I  would  truly
appreciate it, Brian, if you would *read* what others say – I  have
no  intention in trying to engage you on Biblical grounds when  you
won’t listen to what anyone else says.
Brian Continued:

please note the following list in which various translators of Mark
and  John have translated the singular anarthrous  predicate  nouns
occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote  the
indefinitive and qualitative status of the subject nouns:

The translations involved are:
1> NWT
2> KJV
3> NIV
4> RSV

They  will be referred to by theses numerical designations to  save

6:49  1.an apparition 2.a spirit 3. a ghost 4. a ghost
11:32 1.a prophet 2.a prophet 3.a prophet 4. a real prophet

4:19  1. a prophet 2.a prophet 3.a prophet 4. a prophet
6:70  1. a slanderer 2.a devil 3. a devil 4. a devil
8:44  1. a manslayer 2.a devil 3.a devil 4. a devil
8:44  1. a liar 2. a liar 3.a liar 4.a liar
8:48  1. a Samaritan 2. a Samaritan 3. a Samaritan 4.a Samaritan
9:17  1.a prophet 2.a prophet 3.a prophet 4.a prophet
10:1  1.a thief  2. a thief  .3.a thief 4.a thief
10:13  1.a hired man 2. an hireling 3.a hired hand 4.a hireling
10:33  1.a man  2.a man 3.a mere man 4.a man
12:6  1.a thief 2.a thief 3.a thief 4.a thief
18:37  1.a king 2.a king 3.a king 4.a king
18:37  1.a king 2.a king 3.a king 4.a king

I  include this because i gather that you are  knowledgeable  about
Greek  so  this way you can look at your source docs. and  see  how
John 1:1 was not point to the divinity of Christ.
    Brian, I have most of the modern Watchtower publications, so I
have this listing (plus more) in the appendix to the 1984 Reference
edition.  Again, each of these instances assumes that there is more
than one thief, more than one man, more than one king, etc.  There
is  not  more than one God.  It is interesting to me that  the  NWT
violates  its own rule in this regard 94% of the time – only 6%  of
the  time,  when  translating an anarthrous “theos”  does  the  NWT
render it “a god.”  For example, I point out Philippians 2:13.  In
Greek it reads:

theos gar estin ho energon…
God  for  is  the one working…

Now, in this text, the term “theos” is anarthrous, just as it is in
John  1.1c  –  that is, it does not have the article.  This  is  a
copulative  sentence just as John 1.1c – that is, the verb eimi  is
used here (in its third person singular form, estin).  The  subject
is arthrous – the participle  ho energon.  But, does the NWT follow
its  own  rule here?  Does it translate the phrase “for  a  god  is
working…”?  No, the NWT reads, “…for God is the one that,  for
the sake of [his] good pleasure, is acting within you…”  If  what
the WT says about John 1.1 is true, then they should translate this
passage as “a god”, too.
    Another example is found in 2 Corinthians 5:19 – here theos is
anarthrous, it precedes the verb (which here happens to be the same
form of eimi found in John 1.1c) and how does the NWT translate it? 
“namely,  that God was by means of Christ reconciling…”  Why  not
“a god” Brian?
    You  said you gave me this information (which I have read  and
replied  to literally years ago) because I am “knowledgeable  about
Greek…”  Yes, I am.  In fact, let’s do a little comparison  here. 
The committee that translated the NWT was headed up by Fred  Franz. 
He was the only person on the committee who had any training  what-
soever in a Biblical language – and that only in Greek.  He had two
years  of study in the subject on the undergraduate level.  So,  we
have –

    Translators of NWT —-  2 years undergraduate training

I  have  a Bachelors degree in Bible, including a  minor  in  koine
Greek.  That  requires three years of  undergraduate  training  in
Greek.  I am also only 12 weeks away from graduating with a Masters
degree in Theology, which includes three years of training in koine
Greek on the graduate level.  Now, a year at the graduate level  is
considered  to be the same as two years undergraduate.  That  means
the comparison would be like this:

    Translators of NWT —-  2 years of training total
    James              —-  9 years of training total

or,  if we wanted to do the comparison on graduate level, it  would
be  one  year for NWT verses 4.5 for myself.  I do not  include  in
these  figures my training in Hebrew, of which the NWT  translation
committee had *none.*
    Why tell you this?  Simple – the WT tells you that the NWT  is
a  “scholarly” translation.  It is not.  I would not sit  down  and
attempt  to translate the entire Bible and then put  the  resulting
work forward as being a “scholarly” translation.  And yet, you,  as
one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, believe what you are told to believe by
the  WT, including the lie that the NWT is an accurate  translation
of God’s Word.
Brian Continues:

please also look up for yourself the following scriptures  although
i have written them out for you.

  1:  1  Cor.  8:6 revised standard version “For us  there  is  one
God,the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and
one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and from whom we
all exist.”
  now  for some history john 1:1 the word in medieval times and  in
some countries today the king never spoke directly to his  subjects
he  had  a mouthpiece or lieutenant if you  will,Christ  being  the
first  thing (person) created by God was his spokesman or word  and
all  things  were created through him as all  decrees  were  issued
through  the mouthpiece. the exist part is exist as  Christians  if
you care to read the surrounding verses and gain the context of the
    I’m  not sure why you cite 1 Cor. 8:6, as it contradicts  what
you then go on to say.  This passage, in describing the Lord  Jesus
Christ,  says that it is through Him that all things are – not  all
“other” things, as your NWT tries to render Colossians 1:16ff,  but
*ALL*  things.  Jesus is the Creator.  Not only this, but Jesus  is
the Sustainer of the universe He created, for the next clause says,
“and  from  whom we all exist.”  Brian, I owe my  existence  to  my
Creator  –  Jesus Christ – not to Michael the Archangel,  which  is
what you would have us believe!
    Yes,  Jesus functions as the Logos of God.  It is in  the  Son
that  the Father has revealed Himself.  This has always been  true. 
When Yahweh walked with Abraham by the oaks of Mamre in Genesis 18,
that  was  none  other than the Lord Jesus  Christ,  there  clearly
identified as Yahweh God!  When Isaiah saw Yahweh sitting upon  His
throne in Isaiah 6, John 12:41 tells us that was Jesus Christ!  The
Father is the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) who is made known  by
the  “unique  God”, the Son, Jesus Christ (John  1:18)!  How  this
denies His deity is certainly unclear.
Brian Continues:

  2:from  the  authorized  version of the  King  James..John  20:17
“Jesus  saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended  to
my  Father: but go to my bretheren and say unto them,I ascend  unto
my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”
    One  of the normal difficulties in talking with  Witnesses  is
that they do not take the time to learn what others believe –  they
don’t *listen.*  Christians believe what the Bible says:

Have the same way of thinking which was in Christ Jesus,
who, although eternally existing in the very form of God,
did not regard that equality with God as something to be held
rather, He made Himself of no reputation by taking the form of a
being made in the likeness of men;
and, being found in appearance as a man,
He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross!
Because of this, God highly exalted Him,
and gave to Him freely the name which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow –
those in heaven and on earth and under the earth –
and every tongue will confess, saying,
“Jesus Christ is Lord”
to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:5-11, personal translation)

This passage teaches us that Jesus Christ, who eternally existed in
the  very  form of God, did not regard that equality which  He  had
with  God something to be held on to tightly, but, for the sake  of
us,  made  Himself of no reputation.  Note He was not  *made*  that
way,  as  if  by  an  outside force,  but  rather  His  action  was
completely  voluntary.  He was perfect man – the second  Adam.  He
did not cease to be what He was before – the Word became flesh, but
did not cease to be the eternal Word.  As the perfect man He  would
do all that the perfect man would be expected to do.  He prayed  to
the  Father  regularly.  He worshiped the Father.  He  called  the
Father  His God.  As the perfect man this is only proper.  So  why,
because of His great love for us in humbling Himself and becoming a
man,  do  you deny His deity?  This very passage  quotes  from  the
prophet Isaiah, where, in 45:23, we hear Yahweh say,

“I have sworn by Myself,
The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
    and will not turn back.
That to Me every knee will bow,
    every tongue will swear allegiance.”

Here,  Paul  applies  this passage from  Isaiah  to  Jesus  Christ! 
Brian,  do  you  seriously believe that the Apostle  would  take  a
passage  that is specifically about Yahweh, and apply it to a  mere
created being?  Never!  Yahweh alone is God!  There is none  beside
Him!  So  what  must  we conclude?  That  Jesus  Christ  is  here
identified as Yahweh God, surely.
    So  back  to  John  20:17.  Is  there  anything  here  that
contradicts  the  Christian  teaching  of  the  Deity  of  Christ? 
Certainly  not.  The resurrected Jesus Christ informs Mary that  He
is ascending to His Father, to His God.  This is no different  than
His words to the disciples in John 14:28.  And do remember,  Brian,
that  in only a few verses we shall hear the confession of  Thomas,
“My Lord and my God!”
Brian Continues:

  3: also from the authorized version  1 Peter 1:3 “Blessed be  the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” acknowledging that Christ
is not co-eternal he had a beginning.
    How  does  this common greeting prove that Jesus  is  not  co-
eternal?  How does it say that He had a beginning?  It says nothing
of  that  at all.  What are you getting that?  Remember  that  the
same  author  began  his second epistle with  these  words,  “Simon
Peter,  a  bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to  those  who
have  received  a  faith  of  the  same  kind  as  ours,  by  the
righteousness  of  our  God and  Savior,  Jesus  Christ…”  Peter
identifies Jesus as our “God and Savior.”  Do you?
Brian Continues:

  4:  also  from authorized..Mark 15:34  “At the ninth  hour  Jesus
cried with a loud voice, saying, Elo’i, Elo’i, la’ma sabach-tha’ni?
which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
    So?  Seems you are misrepresenting the Trinity again,  Brian. 
The  Son  is  not the Father.  The Father is not  the  Son.  Three
persons,  one  being that is God.  Here the Son cries  out  to  the
Father in the words of Psalm 22:1.  What does that have to do  with
denying the Deity of Christ?
Brian Continues:

  5: from the revised standard  John 17:1,3  “When Jesus had spoken
these  words,he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said,’Father,  the
hour  has come; glorify thy SON that the SON mat  glorify  thee.And
this  is eternal life, that they know thee THE ONLY TRUE  GOD,  and
Jesus  Christ whom thou has sent.'”( caps added) Jesus here  called
his Father the”only true God,” excluding himself from a godhead.
    Reading this entire passage, however, renders your conclusions
inadequate.  First, verse 2 says that to Christ has been given  all
authority – can a finite, created being have all authority,  Brian? 
Then,  eternal life is defined as knowing *both* the  Father  *and*
the Son.  The Father *is* the only true God – but the Father is not
the  only one who can be so described – Jesus is called  our  “only
Lord  and Master” in Jude 4 – that hardly means that the Father  is
not  our  only Lord and Master as well.  Verse 5  tells  of  Jesus’
request  to be glorified with the glory He shared with  the  Father
before  the  world was created.  Since Isaiah 48:11 tells  us  that
Yahweh does not share His glory with any others, this surely  tells
us  that the Father and Son both share the Name, and the glory  of,
Brian Continues:

  6:  revised  standard  John 1:34 ” I have seen  and  have  borne
witness that this is the Son of God.” I being John the Baptist  and
notice he bore witness..not by sitting and waiting ,but by actively
preaching the good news.
    So?  I’m leading an entire group of Christians in sharing  the
Gospel  with  the  70,000 or so who will be  attending  the  Mormon
Easter  Pageant in Mesa this week.  The Witnesses are not the  only
ones  who  go out with their message – major difference  being,  we
preach Jesus Christ, you preach the Watchtower.
Brian Continues:

  7:also  off  the subject a little,but regarding faith  and  works 
James 2:14-26 just a little food for thought.
    Have  studied  James 2 intensely – and, since it  is  off  the
point, I’ll let it stay right where it is.
Brian Concludes:

Here  are some others that I will leave you to look up (if you  are
willing to do so):

JOHN 10:36        JOHN 14:28
JOHN 5:37          JOHN 13:16; 8:42
JOHN 8:17,18      JOHN 5:19
LUKE 22:41,42      1 COR.11:3
REV. 1:1  3:14
COL 1:15,16
JOHN 1:18
ACTS 2:2-4,16,17  ACTS 1:5  ACTS 7:55,56
DAN. 7:9,13

This  should  provide enough material to  thoroughly  disprove  the
trinity so I think we should move on to some other topic don’t  you
agree? I’ll even let you pick this time as I chose first. Again let
me  emphasize  that  this  is  meant  conversationally    not
    You really can’t believe that listing some verses (a number of
which  directly  contradict your own beliefs, such  as  John  1:18,
Revelation  3:14, Colossians 1:15-16, and Matthew 28:19)  ends  the
discussion, do you?  Well, for a Witness, it might.  I have to  ask
you – are you really concerned with truth, Brian, or just winning a
battle?  Are  you  more dedicated to the WT than you  are  to  the
Bible?  I believe you are.
    I  have  forwarded to you at least 120K of material,  and  you
have  replied  with just under 10K of writing that  had  little  or
nothing  to do with the topic at hand.  I forwarded to you a  study
of John 1:1-18 – you ignored it.  I forwarded to you a paper on the
Bible’s  identification  of Jesus as Yahweh.  You  ignored  it.  I
forwarded  to  you  an entire booklet answering  just  about  every
Witness excuse about the 144,000 – no reply.

    You  asked me to pick the topic – OK, let’s see if you  are  a
Bible student or not.  Here’s the topic:


I will not accept copied pablum from WT books.  Open your Bible  to
the book of Colossians – get out your Kingdom Interlinear, too.  We
will  start with the first chapter.  I give you first shot.  Stick
with the topic, please.

    As I mentioned above, I will be leading volunteers from  Alpha
and Omega Ministries in witness to the Mormons attending the Easter
Pageant in Mesa each night this week.  This will severely limit  my
BBSing time, but I will do my best to stay current.

“For  it  is in Him that all the fulness of Deity  is  dwelling  in
bodily form…”  Colossians 2:9


Message 5017                                  DATE/TIME: 03/26/89 20:31
From  : JAMES WHITE                        — RECEIVED —
To    : BC BLAD
Subject: (R) reply to your questions
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”

Bc – you can still use your word processor without archiving your
replies – I do it all the time.  Just send “lines” rather than the
whole file at once – it works real well.  Secondly, your archive files
are filled with control codes that can drive another word processor,
like mine, crazy.  There simply is no logical reason to archive a
response that would not even fill up one single post.



Message 5194                                  DATE/TIME: 04/03/89 18:41
From  : JAMES WHITE                        — PRIVATE —    — RECEIVED — 
To    : BC BLAD
Subject: Work on Replies
Folder : A, “General Mail Folder”

    I  am encouraged that you are “doing research” in response  to
the 100K+ of material that I have forwarded to you.  I do hope that
your replies will deal with the issues on the basis of the Biblical
text  itself,  and  not simply from a  preconceived  acceptance  of
everything the WT tells you.
    As  to  the form of this discussion: if you  will  write  your
replies in straight ASCII format (non-document mode, as Sue  Miller
suggested as well) with about a 67-column line, you can then upload
the post line-by-line.  My terminal program, SmartCom II, has  this
as  an  option.  Most modern  communications  packages  have  this
capability.  Each  post on this board can have 150 lines in  it  –
about  10K according to my past experience.  It  takes  unnecessary
time to clean up your archived replies, as they are full of command
codes that drive my word-processor (Wordstar 4) crazy.  If a  reply
was  100K, I could see the use in archiving it – but  your  replies
have rarely exceeded 8 or 9K, and only when replying to Rod did you
go  longer,  and  that  only  because  you  quoted  the  Watchtower
    In  regards  to that very thing (quoting the WT):  you  surely
must realize that the pronouncements of the Governing Body have  no
weight whatsoever with anyone who has seriously examined their past
history and realizes the very human nature of that group.  Rod Bias
has  done  much original research into the WT’s writings, as  I  am
sure  you will soon discover for yourself, and has documented  many
an error and falsehood on their part.  I am sure, as well, that Rod
has a larger WT library than my own.
    I trust your recovery is going well, and I do look forward  to
a  reply  from  you  that demonstrates  that  you  are  capable  of
examining issues on a Biblical rather than religious basis.


Message 5321                                  DATE/TIME: 04/07/89 07:54
To    : BC BLAD
Subject: (R) Work on Replies
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”

First, according to the WT, Brian, Jerusalem fell in 607 B.C.E. to King
Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.  Also according to the WT, this was in
Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th regnal year.  The old “Aid to Bible
Understanding” book’s longest section was on “Chronology,” and I think
the new 2-Volume “Insight” set is pretty much the same material with
very few changes.
    The fact is, Brian, that Nebuchadnezzar did not become king until
605 B.C.E. and hence his 19th regnal year would be 587/586, not 607! 
The WT is off by about 21 years.  Raymond Franz *wrote* the
“chronology” section of the Aid book, and, since the Insight volumes
don’t change hardly anything in that section, you are reading his own
words as your source of info.  He has admitted that even after
searching the entire New York Public Library, he could find not one
shred of evidence that Jerusalem fell in 607.
    As to John 1:1, I have forwarded to you already, Brian, a full
discussion of John 1:1 – indeed, the entire Prologue of John, as well
as specific comments that demonstrate that tiu WT violates its own rule
of the “anarthrous theos” being “a god” 94% of the time, and have
provided to you examples thereof.  Did you not receive these posts?



Message 5383                                  DATE/TIME: 04/08/89 20:33
From  : JAMES WHITE                        — RECEIVED —
To    : BC BLAD
Subject: John 1:1
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”

    In  your  recent  post,  you asked what  was  wrong  with  the
Society’s  claims about John 1:1, particularly as presented in  the
“Insight  on  the  Scriptures” volumes.  As  I  mentioned,  I  have
already provided to you a good deal of information on John 1:1.  I
am going to go back and check and see if I sent to you my  article,
“Germans, JWs, and John 1:1”.  If I did, there will be a good  deal
of material there for you to look into, and if I didn’t, I’ll  look
for it and see that you get it.
    But, in direct reply to your question, I refer to “Insight  on
the  Scriptures”  volume 2, pages 52  and  following,  particularly
pages 53 and 54.
    On pages 52 and 53, the Society engages in more of its  normal
misrepresentation and illogic in denying the Deity of Christ as  so
clearly  taught in Scripture.  For example, we read “Since  Jehovah
is  eternal  and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re  15:3),  the  Word’s
being with God from “the beginning” must refer to the beginning  of
Jehovah’s  creative  works.”  This is of course  a  blatant  error,
Brian.  The text itself says that the Word *was* in the  beginning,
not  that the Word was *created* in the beginning.  The Greek  verb
“en”  found here is no way intimates creation; rather, it  directly
asserts eternal being.  The Word already “was” when “the beginning”
took  place.  Hence,  the  Society  is  here  misrepresenting  the
teaching of God’s Word.  And, to help them in their deception, they
cite a mistranslation of their own creation – they cite  Revelation
3:14  as  it  is found in the NWT – they  describe  Jesus  as  “the
beginning  of the creation by God.”  However, that is not what  the
text says – the correct translation, as any individual who is  able
to read koine Greek knows – is not “*by* God” but “*of* God.”  The
entire  phrase in Greek is “he arche tes ktiseos tou  theou.”  The
word  “arche”, like the Hebrew term “rosh”, means both  “beginning”
as  well  as things such as “ruler, origin, or source.”  Here  the
term  would refer to the same aspect of Christ’s rulership  as  the
term  “prototokos”  does in Colossians 1:15 – that  Christ  is  the
ruler,  origin,  or source of God’s creation, not that  He  is  the
creation of God.
    The Society goes on to blatantly deny a great Biblical truth –
they  have  a paragraph entitled “Not a co-Creator” in  which  they
deny  the  teaching  of John 1:3,  Colossians  1:16-17  (based,  of
course, on their own mistranslation of this passage), Hebrews  1:1-
3, Isaiah 44:24, etc.  The Biblical fact, of course, is that  Jesus
Christ  is  directly  asserted to be the Creator of  all  things  –
indeed, He is the I AM of the Universe.
    But,  you asked specifically about John 1:1, and the  comments
on  this  begin on page 53 with the question, “Why  do  some  Bible
translations  refer to Jesus as “God,” while others say he  was  “a
god”?  This is quite misleading, Brian.  99% of all  scholars  who
translate  John 1:1c say the Watchtower is blowing smoke –  indeed,
if  this  were not so, why is the WT forced to cite  at  least  two
“translations”  that came not from scholars, but  from  spiritists? 
And  also, why, Brian, does the WT have to cite scholars  who  deny
the  most basic teachings of the Society in order to  find  support
for their translation?  My article on the German scholars cited  in
the  ’84  reference  edition demonstrates  this  clearly;  and,  in
looking  at the “Insight” volume, I am intrigued to find  that  the
commentary  cited  there,  by  Haenschen,  is  not  only  from  the
mainstream  of  German  liberal  scholarship  following  Rudolph
Bultmann,  but  this particular work was translated by  Dr.  Robert
Funk  –  who  happens to be the founder and leader  of  the  “Jesus
Seminar”  who  just recently decided that Jesus didn’t say  He  was
coming  back, hence He isn’t!  These scholars the WT is  forced  to
cite  don’t believe the Bible is God’s Word, that it  is  inspired,
and,  if you dared to say “inerrant” around them they  would  laugh
you  to scorn – indeed, Funk called me “stupid” and told me to  “go
to hell” on KFYI just about three weeks ago for asserting that  the
Bible  means  what it says.  Well, Brian, if you must  cite  people
like  that  to  attempt to find scholarly  support,  you  and  your
Society is in a world of hurt.  Try finding a scholar who  actually
believes in the Bible to support your views!
    Anyway,  to  the  particulars of the  Society’s  claims  –  as
normal, the Society misrepresents the position it seeks to  attack. 
This  is standard procedure for people who don’t really have  facts
to  back up their accusations – its much easier to attack  a  straw
man  than the real thing!  They don’t deal with the fact  that  the
first  clause,  1.1a, states that the Word is eternal.  When  they
point  out,  correctly, that the second clause says  the  Word  was
*with*  God, they seemingly hope that their readers, blinded by  WT
propoganda,  won’t see how this fits perfectly with  the  Christian
teaching  of  three persons in one divine essence – that  is,  that
Christians do not believe that the Son is the Father, but that  the
Son  has eternally shared the one divine essence with  the  Father. 
This  is what 1.1b says, “and the Word was with God…” – the  term
“en” is just as eternal here as in 1.1a; there is eternal  communi-
cation and fellowship between Father and Son.
    Now, as to the Soceity’s translation of 1.1c as “the Word  was
a  god.”  I  have already pointed out to you  that  citing  Philip
Harner’s article only goes to show how little the Society  actually
knows  about  what its talking about.  If you  have  read  Harner’s
actual  article (I have, have you?) you would know that  Harner  is
not in any way suggesting that 1.1c be translated “a god.”  That is
just as “definite” as “the Word was God.”  What Harner is saying is
that the particular construction in 1.1c emphasizes the *nature* of
the  Word,  not  the *identity* of the Word.  Hence,  Dr.  Kenneth
Wuest’s  translation would agree with Harner’s work, though it  was
made over 20 years before Harner’s research – “and the Word was  as
to  His nature absolute Deity.”  If John had wished to assert  that
the Word was “a godlike one” or “divine” in a sense different  than
“deity”,  he could have used “theios” rather than “theos.”  But  he
didn’t.  Harner’s article in no way supports the  JW  translation,
and  it  continues to amaze me that they would cite it  as  support
when  anyone  who  *knows*  the  language  knows  they  are  either
completely  without knowledge of the subject or, more  likely,  are
blatantly lying about it.
    Now,  let’s  examine  the  NWT to see  if  the  Witnesses  are
consistent  in  their own translation.  According to  the  “Kingdom
Interlinear  Translation  of the Greek Scriptures” 1985  ed.,  page
1139,  John  1.1c  is translated “a god” because  “the  Greek  word
(theos)  is a singular predicate noun occuring before the verb  and
is  not preceeded by the definite article.  This is  an  anarthrous
theos.”  Let’s examine some passages from the NWT and see if the WT
follows its own rules.
    In Philippians 2:13 the Greek reads,

theos gar estin ho  energon    en humin
God  for  is  the  one working  in  you

Here  the term “theos” appears before the verb “estin.”  This is  a
singular predicate noun, appearing before the verb, and, as can  be
seen,  the noun is without the article – it is anarthrous.  Hence,
if the WT is consistent, it should translate the passage “and a god
is  working in you.”  Obviously, the NWT doesn’t say that.  Hence,
they violate their own rule.
    Let’s look at another passage – Hebrews 11:16:

theos epikaleisthai  auton
God    to call      them

“theos”  is before the verb, and it does not have the article.  Is
it  translated “a god” by the NWT?  No, it is not.  Interestingly,
in  both Philippians 2:13 as well as there, the anarthrous  “theos”
is  clearly  Jehovah God Himself.  My friend Jeff  Niell  wrote  in
reference  to these passages, “The NWT and the Jehovah’s  Witnesses
affirm  in Phil. 2:13 and Hebrews 11:16 that Jehovah God,  the  One
True  God,  is  referred  to.  Yet  according  to  the  method  of
translation  put forth in the appendix of the  Kingdom  Interlinear
and  in the 1971 reference edition of the NWT it is  clearly  seen,
even by those who are unaquainted with the Greek language, that the
translation of John 1.1c is inconsistent.”

    Now,  you may reply that since the term “theos” does not  have
the article, it does not refer to Jehovah God.  Many JWs have  made
this  claim  in my presence.  But is it true that  Jehovah  God  is
always referred to with “ho theos” rather than “theos”?  Let’s  let
the Scriptures decide:

    In  Mark  12:26 and 27, the term “theos” appears  three  times
anarthrously – that is, without the article.  Yet, in each of these
passages it is clearly Jehovah God who is under consideration.  Are
we  to  believe  that since the writer  uses  “theos”  without  the
article in these passages that he would like us to believe that  it
was “a god” who spoke to Moses from the burning bush?  Hardly!  Not
only  this, but in the prologue of John (1:1-18) the  term  “theos”
appears  8 times – only twice does it appear with the article.  Of
the six occurences of the anarthrous theos in the prologue, the NWT
translates it “a god” only twice, the other four times  translating
it “God”!  Indeed, of all the occurences of the anarthrous theos in
the  New  Testament, the NWT breaks its own rule ***94%***  of  the
time!  Really, Brian, how do you respond to that?  For example,  in
John  1:12  the  anarthrous theos appears –  if  your  teaching  is
correct,  it  *should*  be translated, “However,  as  many  as  did
receive  him,  to them he have authority to become  children  of  a
god…”  Why doesn’t the NWT follows its own rule?  Simple.  They
can’t – its a lie, a farce, a fabrication designed specifically  to
hide the truth of God’s Word.
– More – [C]ontinue, [S]top, [N]onStop? n 
    I  would  love to have a researched, honest response  to  this
material, Brian.  But the fact is, you aren’t allowed to give  one. 
The  Society tells you to believe what they say no matter how  much
it  contradicts  the Bible, truth, or fact.  My prayer,  Brian,  is
that  you  will see through the deception and allow God’s  Word  to
speak for itself.



Message 5436                                  DATE/TIME: 04/10/89 21:36
From  : JAMES WHITE                        — RECEIVED —
To    : BC BLAD
Subject: (R) recieved
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”

I see – a stalemate?  Brian, a stalemate occurs when two sides present
equally founded arguments – you haven’t provided a single fact to
substantiate your position!  You have been provided now over 100K of
written material – and you have nothing to say in reply but
“well, I can’t give you a single answer or reply, but I know I
have the truth!”  No, Brian, you are doing what every single other
Witness *must* do – you are closing your eyes, closing your mind,
refusing to look at the facts.  If you keep telling yourself you have
the truth, you hopefully will convince yourself of it.  But we both
know you don’t.  People who know the truth don’t hide behind platitudes
and self-deception.  They are willing, just as Paul was, to engage in
dialogue and to “give a reason for the hope that is within” them.  You,
like Larry Kelly before you, are unwilling to do that.  Oh, don’t get
me wrong – you are unwilling because the WT Society tells you what to
do and what to think.  My sincere prayer is that you will see the
deception for what it is.
    Don’t delude yourself, Brian.  You are totally wrong in saying that
“hey, if you are right, I’m going to heaven…”  If I am right, Brian,
then you are guilty of teaching people that the very Creator of heaven
and earth, Yahweh God in human flesh, our *only* Lord and Master, Jesus
Christ (Jude 4) is actually Michael the Archangel!  You are guilty of
denying the I AM!  You tell people that they need not be born again,
but instead can be in a “great crowd” that lives forever on paradise
earth.  You have the wrong God, the wrong Savior, and the wrong Gospel,
Brian.  You are as lost as any Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu.  You don’t
even believe that you can have a personal relationship with Jesus
Christ since He’s not deity.  No, Brian, don’t delude yourself – you
are lost, separated from God, and abiding under His wrath.  All your
struggles, all your good works, will never, ever earn you a place in
His kingdom.  Brian, I beseech you, look to Jesus, not to an
organization!  An organization can’t save you – it can only use you,
and then leave you with nothing.  Jesus Christ is not a created being,
but He is your Creator!  There is no other name under heaven given
among men by which we must be saved than the name of Jesus Christ! 
Won’t you become a witness of Jesus Christ, too?  Stop playing a game –
really think about the material I’ve provided to you.  Examine God’s
Word for what it says, not for what the WT tells you to think!  Read
the Bible, not the Watchtower!  Lay aside the teaching of men for just
long enough to see Jesus Christ as He really is!  You will never forget
the experience.
    From the last line of your message, it sounds like you are leaving
the board.  Every Witness faces that decision when God brings into
their lives a Christian to share the truth with them.  They come to a
crossroads – do they continue to really search, to really be honest? 
Or do they do as the Society tells them, and turn off their minds, turn
off their honesty, and go back to mouthing the Society’s ideas?  I pray
you have not yet made that decision.  Make sure of all things, Brian –
how can you do that if you go away and hide?



Message 5475                                  DATE/TIME: 04/12/89 22:03
From  : JAMES WHITE                        — RECEIVED —
To    : BC BLAD
Subject: The Watchtower Strikes Again
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”

    A  number  of items from your recent posts: first, I  find  it
incredible  that you would say to Larry Kelly that we  “defend  one
issue  so  strongly” because we “lack the knowledge to  broach  the
others.”  Brian, we both know that is ridiculous.  I have  brought
up  at  least  a *dozen* issues with you – to which  you  have  had
almost  no reply.  I have provided to you extensive information  on
John 1:1-14 – [no reply]; on John 8:58 and the identification there
of  Jesus Christ as the I AM of the Old Testament – [no reply];  on
the meaning of the term “prototokos” at Colossians 1:15 and how  it
does  *not* mean “created” – [no reply]; on the many New  Testament
passages  that identify Jesus as Yahweh – [no reply]; on the  error
of  the WT’s teaching on the 144,000 in Revelation 7 and 14  –  [no
reply]; on the error of the Witness teaching on the Memorial Supper
and  the  New Covenant – [no reply]; on the error  of  the  Witness
teaching about the fall of Jerusalem – [no reply]; on the folly  of
the  teaching  of 1914 – [no reply]; on the fact that  the  Society
used  to teach that Jesus returned invisibly in 1874 – [no  reply];
that  the Society has prophesied Armageddon for 1914,  1915,  1918,
1925  and  1975 – [no reply other than a bland denial  without  any
supporting  facts];  that  the Society’s Governing  Body  voted  on
changing 1914 to 1954 – [no reply]; and that the Society has  cited
spirit-mediums to support their supposed “translations” – again, no
reply.  If you can call that one issue, Brian, you are using a very
different kind of logic than I!
    Now, in reference to Message #5462 which you titled “Divinity?
not  in  English”.  Unfortunately, as normal, you have  provided  a
glistening example of an assertion I have made many times before  –
you  are  not a student of the Bible, you are a  worshiper  of  the
Watchtower Society.  Whatever they teach, you believe, whether  the
Bible  teaches it or not.  Your simplistic, and equally  erroneous,
presentation on the term “begotten” documents the false teaching of
the  Society for all who are reading this discussion.  Allow me  to
demonstrate the falseness of your assertions.
    First,  what  “begotten”  means  in  English  is,  of  course,
completely  irrelevant to the whole issue.  John, or Luke, did  not
write  in  English.  They wrote in Greek.  The list of  verses  you
gave  represents  two completely different terms in  Greek  –  Acts
13:33 refers to the Greek term “gennao” while the other verses  use
the term “monogenes.”  Now, the term “gennao” does mean “beget”  or
to “procreate.”  But the term “monogenes” does *not* mean to  beget
or to procreate.
    The  shorter edition of the Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich/Danker  Greek
Lexicon, the most modern and accurate lexicon available, gives only
two meanings for the term – “only” and “unique”.  Note, Brian, that
the  idea of “begettal” and hence creation or beginning  is  absent
from  the  term.  The reason that the  translation  “only-begotten”
arose was due to the false idea that the term “monogenes” came from
two  Greek terms – “monos” and “gennao”.  We have since  discovered
that  the  term comes from “monos” and “genes”  –  “genes”  meaning
“kind or sort.”  Hence, “monogenes” means “one of a kind – unique”. 
Indeed,  John  1:18 is translated by the NIV as “God  the  One  and
    The other term used in Acts 13:33 is a quotation of Psalm 2:7;
in  the Psalm God addresses the king on the day of his  coronation;
hence,  the “begettal” spoken of is hardly one of creation,  is  it
Brian?  Do you wish us all to believe that God created the king  of
Israel on the day the king was crowned?  Well, I guess you might.
    The  other  use of the term “monogenes” in Hebrews  shows  how
your  own view is wrong – it refers to Isaac as the “monogenes”  of
Abraham.  Now,  does  this  mean that  Isaac  was  Abraham’s  only
begotten  son?  No, Abraham also had Ishmael, didn’t he?  So  the
term  refers  to  the uniqueness of Isaac, not to  any  concept  of
birth.  Isaac was the child of promise – the covenant child.
    Now,  given that you have misrepresented the underlying  Greek
language in your presentation, will you retract those statements in
the face of scholarly evidence to the contrary?  Also, given that a
number of passages have been provided to you that demonstrate  that
Jesus  was  not  created but is instead the  Creator  (John  1:1-3,
Colossians  1:15-17, Hebrews 1:1-2, etc.), how can you continue  to
present falsehoods?
    Now, you then went on to think that quoting from a  Watchtower
publication  (you  certainly don’t get the “Classical  Journal”  do
you?  I read the same propaganda in the Awake and Watchtower  that
you  did) as to how accurate the NWT is, and actually figured  that
quoting  one  nebulous  promo  for  the  Kingdom  Interlinear  was
sufficient to rebut all the factual and scholarly material that has
been  presented  to  you.  Have you given  me  a  single  scholarly
citation to support the NWT’s translation of John 1:1?  John  8:58? 
Colossians  2:9?  Any of these disputed passages?  Not a  one.  No
replies.  No dialogue.  No defense.  Nothing.  And to what does the
JW have to turn to provide scholarly support?  Yes, the  University
of  Nebraska  is indeed the place to look for  your  leading  Greek
scholars,  that’s  for sure!    Dr.
Baird  of Grand Canyon College and Fuller Seminary has provided  to
me comments demonstrating the gross error of the NWT’s  translation
of  John 1:1.  Now, Dr. Baird’s PhD is in New Testament –  what  is
Thomas  Winter’s PhD in?  Does this man actually support the  false
translations  of passages such as John 1:1, 8:58,  Colossians  2:9,
    Now,  as to the scholarly view of the NWT, lets look  at  what
some  real,  *leading*  scholars  have  said  concerning  this

    Dr.  Julius  Mantey,  co-author  of  one  of  the  standard
intermediate  grammars used in our nation, and a recognized  leader
in  the  field  of  New  Testament  Greek,  called  the  Watchtower
translation  of  John 1:1 “A grossly misleading  translation.”  He
also  said,  “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable  to  translate
John  1:1  ‘the Word was a god.’  But of all the  scholars  in  the
world,  so  far  as we know, none have  translated  this  verse  as
Jehovah’s Witnesses have done.”

    Dr.  Bruce Manning Metzger, formerly of Princeton  Theological
Seminary, leading expert on New Testament textual criticism, world-
renowned  scholar, has written, “Far more pernicious in  this  same
verse  is  the  rendering…’and the Word was a god,’  ”  with  the
following  footnotes:  ” ‘A god,’ in contrast with ‘the  God.’  It
must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses  take
this  translation seriously, they are polytheists.  In view of  the
additional light which is available during this age of Grace,  such
a  representation  is  even  more  reprehensible  than  were  the
heathenish,  polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel  was  so
prone  to  fall.  As  a matter of  solid  fact,  however,  such  a
rendering is a frightful mistranslation.”

    Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of the translation department of  the
American  Bible  Society,  co-editor of one  of  the  newest  Greek
lexicons available today, wrote, “With regard to John 1:1 there is,
of course, a complication simply because the New World  Translation
was  apparently  done  by persons who did not  take  seriously  the
syntax of the Greek.”

    Dr.  William  Barclay,  whom  the  Watchtower  Society  has
deliberately  misrepresented  and  misquoted more  than  once,  has
written,  “The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is  seen
in  their  New  Testament translations.  John  1:1  is  translated:
‘…the  Word  was  a god’, a translation  which  is  grammatically
impossible.  It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate
the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”

    Dr.  B. F. Westcott, whose Greek text the Society uses in  its
Kingdom Interlinear as the basis of its New Testament  translation,
wrote, “The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in  4:24. 
It  is necessarily without the article…No idea of inferiority  of
nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms
the  true  Deity of the Word…in the third clause  ‘the  Word’  is
declared to be ‘God’ and so included in the unity of the Godhead.”

    Dr.  F.  F.  Bruce,  widely  renowned  Bible  scholar  and
commentator,  wrote, “Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians  of
the omission of the definite article with ‘God’ in the phrase  ‘And
the  Word  was God’.  Such an omission is common with  nouns  in  a
predicate construction.  ‘a god’ would be totally indefensible.”

As can be seen, Brian, there are quite a few renowned scholars  who
have  said  the exact same thing I have – your NWT is  wrong.  The
Society  is  forced  to either misquote leading  scholars  such  as
these  (as  they have misquoted Barclay, Mantey, and  the  greatest
like Alexander Thomas or Johannes Greber, or quote scholars who  do
not  believe  in the miraculous, or in inspiration, or  almost  any
other  Christian  tenet like the existence of a personal  God!  Of
course,  the  Society knows that 99% of its people won’t  take  the
time to really investigate what they say (as you have shown for  us
over  and  over  again),  so  they  are  safe  in  their  lies  and

    You said a while back, Brian, that you were doing research  in
reference to the very large amount of documentation I have provided
to you.  I have yet to see the fruits of your labor.  I do hope you
will really do some research on these issues.

In the name of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13),



Message 5514                                  DATE/TIME: 04/13/89 23:12
From  : JAMES WHITE                        — RECEIVED —
To    : BC BLAD
Subject: Double-think
Folder : B, “Bible Folder”

    You know, those who take all their time asserting “I’m  right,
I’m  right”  but who are seemingly incapable of even  beginning  to
enter  into  rational, logical dialogue or debate on  the  disputed
issues  don’t lead too many people to believe that they are  living
in  the  real  world.  Every person reading  this  board  with  any
regularity  recognizes that you are presented with facts,  and  you
reply with nothing but the same old assertions that “I’m right, you
are  wrong,  but  don’t  ask  me  to  provide  facts,  Biblical  or
otherwise!”  Your continued insistence on ignoring the truth is  a
glaring  advertisement for Biblical Christianity over  against  the
Watchtower’s false teachings.
    Your  comment to Larry Kelly was rather intriguing –  “I  know
that their statements are not accurat (sic) as God’s true  servants
don’t  lie  or twist facts…”  You are partly right –  God’s  true
servants  don’t  lie  or  twist facts.  And,  since  it  has  been
documented  over and over again on this board that  the  Watchtower
has  lied  and twisted facts, then the only logical  conclusion  is
that  they  (the WT) are not God’s true servants!  But  such  logic
seems too clear for you.  You remind me much of many Mormons I have
spoken to.  I remember showing a number of verses out of Isaiah  to
a  Mormon  lady one evening at the Mormon Easter Pageant  in  Mesa. 
She  looked  at the verses and said, “well, those  verses  must  be
wrong,  since  they contradict the teaching of  the  Church.”  The
possibility  never  entered into her mind that  the  Mormon  church
might  be wrong, and Isaiah right!  You are the same way,  Brian  –
when  faced with facts, you can only say, “well, the facts must  be
wrong, since I know the Watchtower is right.” 
    One  evening about three years ago I went to share the  gospel
with two Jehovah’s Witnesses.  As we got into the Bible, I sat next
to  an elderly Witness lady.  I opened up the  Kindgom  Interlinear
and  showed  her John 14:14 where the Watchtower Society  has  been
forced  to  delete a word from the Scriptures to  help  them  teach
their  doctrines.  I showed her right from  the  Watchtower’s  own
publication.  You know what she did?  She was so flustered that she
slapped me across the face for showing her the passage!



Message 5686                                  DATE/TIME: 04/20/89 06:35
From  : JAMES WHITE                        — PRIVATE — 
Subject: (R) Last Days
Folder : A, “General Mail Folder”

    I doubt that any of us on this board have lots of free time just
laying around to do what we do here.  For me, it would be far easier to
quit BBSing altogether, for there is never enough time in the day to do
all that I need to be doing.
    However, the topics discussed here are of utmost importance.  I
have challenged you and Brian to answer a direct allegation against the
Watchtower Society’s “Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures.”  I provided full and accurate information concerning the
passage (John 14:14) and the fact that the Watchtower Society has
perverted the Word of God at that verse in order to hide from its
readers Biblical teaching that contradicts the Watchtower’s doctrines. 
You have decided that such an allegation seemingly is not important
enough for you to deal with.  I guess whether someone is honest with
the Bible or not is not really important to you – believing the Society
is more important than perverting the Bible.  That is an extremely sad
commentary on the “Bible Students” is it not?
    Who is “a man of lawlessness” Larry?  Do you use that term to
describe anyone who is not a follower of a society of men called the
Watchtower?  Try to recognize that you are the one who is not willing
to deal with the Biblical text on its own merit – I have provided to
you large amounts of Biblical material to which you have had no reply. 
Does providing someone with Biblical material make them a “lawless
one”?  Or is it just that I won’t bow to the Governing Body that does
that?  I bow to Jesus Christ, not a group of elderly men who wish to
force me to believe that Jesus is an archangel, the Holy Spirit an
impersonal force, and heaven a private club for 144,000 “christs”.

Well, now we will see if Brian will accept the challenge…


Doc Viewed 5394 times

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.