Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	The jews thought that He claimed to be God:
    =================================================


John  10: 32

Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for      
which of those works do ye stone me?                                            

John  10: 33

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for       
blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.              
    

    Re: -.1
    
    Jesus never claimed that he was 'equal' to God at John 10:30.... in
    fact he used the same expression when praying for his disciples later
    on at John 17:21,22. Was he asking his father that his disciples would
    become one entity? I don't think so. Being 'one' meant being united in 
    thought and purpose, as Jesus and God were. The same thought is 
    expressed by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 1:10.
    
    I find it interesting that in a similar situation at John 5:18, Jesus
    defended himself against this false charge in the very next verse:
    
    	v18: "...but also calling God his father, claiming 
    	      to be equal to God."
    
    	v19: "So, Jesus replied 'Verily, verily I tell you, 
    	      the Son cannot do anything from himself unless
    	      he sees the Father do a thing; for what he does,
    	      that the Son likewise does."
    
    hardly what I would call making himself 'equal' to his father...
    
    
    -Len(your_day_shift_counterpart)

	This note has not really got off to a good start . Being respectful
	of Jehovahs Witnesses,  this note should be edifying as to their
	viewpoint . As Len as answered .1 perhaps this can now be achieved .

	Marshall,

	I will endeavour to put something together starting this evening, 
	paraphrasing from the brochure "Should You believe in the Trinity" 
	and Jehovahs Witness handbook "Reasoning from the Scriptures". As 
	the name of the book suggests, the Jehovahs Witness doctrine is 
	based on scripture so all constructive criticism will be welcomed .
	I hope to reply to any comments made but would ask that you
	Please exercise a little patience if my reply is not quick in coming .
	That is of course if no else beats me to it -).
	        
	I do however suggest that all those who are truely interested in
	the Jehovahs Witnesses doctrine obtain copies of both publications ,
	as they are relatively inexpensive , though I believe that in the
	States they now rely on donations for the material . Please contact 
	myself or any Jehovahs Witness for help in obtaining these .

	Phil.

    re .0 (RAVEN1::WATKINS)
    
    	Oh ho ... our very own note :-)  I'll try to contribute when I get
    a chance.
    
    	I agree with Phil that this note (as of reply .1) hasn't exactly
    gotten off to a good start ... how 'bout if you all give us (Witnesses)
    a chance to post something a bit more positive first?
    
    	Nice to see you here, Marshall.
    
    								-mark.

    
    
    How about making this topic supportive replies only and creating
    another topic for a comparison/contrast to the JW position from other
    positions.
    
    Jamey

>Note 93.3   RDGENG::YERKESS 
>	I will endeavour to put something together starting this evening, 
>	paraphrasing from the brochure "Should You believe in the Trinity" 
>	and Jehovahs Witness handbook "Reasoning from the Scriptures". As 
>	the name of the book suggests, the Jehovahs Witness doctrine is 
>	based on scripture so all constructive criticism will be welcomed .
>	I hope to reply to any comments made but would ask that you
>	Please exercise a little patience if my reply is not quick in coming .
>	That is of course if no else beats me to it -).

    Well, I seem to have beat you to it. I will not however try to cover the
    many aspects covered in the Trinity brocure or Reasoning book. I will 
    however mention one point now; since I think there will be many discussions
    coming from replys posted here and they'll be best handled one point at
    a time.
 
 To show that there were not always "3 persons" I would like to direct attention
 to the scripture found at Rev 3:14 "And to the angel of the congregation in
 Laodicea write: These are the things the Amen says, the faithful and true
 witness, the beginning of the creation by God."  and a second scripture at...
          ------------------------------------- 
 Col 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;"
                                                 ------------------------------
 Clearly Jesus was created by Jehovah..... discussion on these are welcomed.
 	        
>	I do however suggest that all those who are truely interested in
>	the Jehovahs Witnesses doctrine obtain copies of both publications ,
>	as they are relatively inexpensive , though I believe that in the
>	States they now rely on donations for the material . Please contact 
>	myself or any Jehovah's Witness for help in obtaining these .
>	Phil.

 I also would be happy to provide a copy of these publications to any interested
 ones. 
                  Robin
                                                                            

A question I asked a JW who came by 2 months ago:

What does it mean that Jesus is the only begotten son of God?  Does
being begotten mean that he has the nature of God, i.e. that the
same substance that makes up God makes up Jesus?

Collis

Re:  .5

  >Clearly Jesus was created by Jehovah.

(Refering Col 1:15)

Are you aware of a different interpretation of Col 1:15?

If so, why is this different interpretation obviously wrong so that you
can say it is "clear" Jesus was created?

If not, I can share a different interpretation and then it may not be
so clear after all.  :-)

Collis

      I just want to put a short comment in here.  I do not hold to the
    doctrine of the "eternally begoten" Jesus.  Jesus the man was born 
    about 2,000 years ago.  The Word is eternal, ie deity of Jesus.  The
    Word was made flesh.  I believe that is what is tought in John 1
    
    
    
                            Marshall

	Marshall,

	I believe that Jamey's suggestion in .5 is a good one and will
	help this note to move along smoothly, how do you feel about it? .
	For this note will generate much discussion .
	
	Before discussing Jesus, it wise to briefly point out that God
	is viewed as being unique, no one else shares His position . That
	His name is Jehovah Psalms 83:18 KJV "That men may know that thou,
	whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."
        Jesus himself referred to his Father as "the only true God" John 17:3
	KJV . Jesus, after his resurrection, also distinguishes himself from 
	Jehovah when he spoke to Mary Magdalene in John 20:17 KJV "Touch
	me not; for I am not ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren,
	and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to
	my God, and your God." Since Jesus had a God, his Father, he could
	not at the same time be that God . 

	The next paragraph is taken from P 209 of the book "Reasoning from
	the Scriptures" under the title of the chapter "Jesus Christ" it
	reads :-

	Definition: The only-begotten Son of God, the only Son produced by
	Jehovah alone. This Son is the firstborn of all creation . By means
	of him all other things in heaven and on earth were created . He is
	second-greatest personage in the universe. It is this whom Jehovah
	sent to the earth to give his life as a ransom for mankind, thus 
	opening the way to eternal life for those of Adam's offspring who
	would exercise faith. This same Son, restored to heavenly glory, now
	rules as King, with authority to destroy all the wicked and to carry
	out his Father's original purpose for the earth. The Hewbrew form
	of the name Jesus means "Jehovah Is Salvation"; Christ is the
	equivalent of the Hewbrew Mashi'ach (Messiah), meaning "Annointed One." 

	Marshall, I have read your reply in .9, but will need to discuss
	the "Only-begotten Son" for it will help to highlight the relationship
	between Jesus and his Father . This I will do in my next reply ,
	and I see Robin has already begun discussing "Jesus being the
	first born of creation" .  
    
        Phil.

        Hi Marshall,

	This reply is a condensed version of pages 15 and 16 of the
	"Should you believe in the Trinity" brochure under the heading
	"How the only-begotten Son?" .

	The Bible calls Jesus the "only-begotten Son" of God . (John 1:14,
	3:16,18; 1 John 4:9) . The same Greek word for "only-begotten" is
	used to describe relationship of Isaac to Abraham , Hebrews 11:17
	speaks of Isaac as Abraham's "only-begotten son."

	The Greek word for "only-begotten" used for Jesus and Isaac is 
	monogenes', from mo'nos, meaning "only" and gi'nomai, a root word
	meaning "to generate," "to become (come into being), states Strong's
	Exhaustive concordance . 

	The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard
	Kittel, says:"[monogenes'] means 'sole descent' i.e., without
	brothers or sisters." This book also states that John 1:18; 3:16,18
	and 1 John 4:9 "the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that
	of an only child to its father . It is the relation of the 
	only-begotten to the Father."

	Making a comparison with Hewbrews 11:17, Almighty God can be rightly
	called the begetter, or Father, in the same sense that an earthly
	father like Abraham, begets a son.

	But Jesus is not the only spirit son of God created in Heaven, so
	it becomes apparent why the term "only-begotten Son" was used . 
	Countless other created spirit beings,angels, are also called  
	"sons of God," in the same sense that Adam was, because their life-
	force originated with Jehovah God, the fountain, or source, of life.
	(Job 38:7; Psalm 36:9; Luke 3:88) But these were all created 'through'
	the "only-begotten Son" who was directly begotten by God .

	Re .9 You said that the Word is eternal, how does John 1:1 show
	this when it reads "In the beginning was the Word" ? .


	Phil.

	Hi Marshall,

	In my last reply I asked a question does John 1:1 show that the
	Word is eternal ? . Just to clarify, I would expect this verse 
	to start with "Before the beginning" and not "In the beginning" 
	if the Word always existed like Almighty God.

	Phil.

"In the beginning was the Word" does not show the Word is eternal,
however it does indicate that the Word already existed "in the beginning".
To determine if the Word is eternal, you need to look not only back,
but forward.  Fortunately, we have help with that (Jesus, the same yesterday,
today and forever) so that we can determine from both of these that the
Word is eternal.

Collis

Re:  .12

Tell me Phil, when was "before the beginning"?  Before the beginning of
what?  of God?

No, the Word did *not* exist "before the beginning" (of God) because:

  1)  God did not exist and
  2)  there is no such thing as "before the beginning"

The first time period that can be talked about is "in the beginning".
This is why not only John, but Genesis starts out this way.

Collis

    re .13 (XLIB::JACKSON)/Collis
    
>"In the beginning was the Word" does not show the Word is eternal,
>however it does indicate that the Word already existed "in the beginning".
    
    	Good point.  I'm glad to see that you make such a careful
    distinction.
    
>To determine if the Word is eternal, you need to look not only back,
>but forward.  Fortunately, we have help with that (Jesus, the same yesterday,
>today and forever) so that we can determine from both of these that the
>Word is eternal.
    
    	But Collis, "yesterday" is not a synonym for "forever."  Even when
    generalized to mean "some time in the past," it still doesn't mean
    "forever."  You could readily accept as a tenet that Jesus was created
    sometime long ago (in the past; "yesterday," as it were), and this
    statement would still be true, that Jesus was "the same" before Hebrews
    was written as he was at the time, and as he would be forever in the
    future.
    
    	Don't forget that the Bible says, "he who does the will of God
    abides for ever" (1John 2:17b RSV), and this applies to mere humans. 
    That one might live "forever," or "eternally" into the *future* doesn't
    mean that such a one is "eternal" in the sense of never having had a
    beginning.  Really, what you said about John 1:1 applies to the verse
    in Hebrews too, that there isn't enough direct evidence in the actually
    wording of the verse to conclude that Jesus didn't have a beginning. 
    They both only prove that Jesus was around "way back when."
    
    								-mark.

	Hi Collis

	The beginning was not before God, for Psalm 90:2 KJV reads "Before the
	mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and 
	the world, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God" . 

	From this scripture can one not say that Almighty God has always 
	existed . What I meant was before the beginning of creation and
	I will do some study on this later this evening in relation to 
	John 1:1 . 

	Phil.  
	

Re:  93.15

  >But Collis, "yesterday" is not a synonym for "forever."  Even when 
  >generalized to mean "some time in the past," it still doesn't mean 
  >"forever."  

Agreed.  I was using that verse not to look back at "yesterday", but
rather to look forward to "forever".  I don't think you understood
what I meant.

  >...that there isn't enough direct evidence in the actually wording 
  >of the verse to conclude that Jesus didn't have a beginning. 
  >They both only prove that Jesus was around "way back when."

I disagree.  There is no time *before* "in the beginning", as I discussed
in .14.  So, what was there "in the beginning" has always been there.

Collis

Re:  93.16

  >The beginning was not before God...

Agreed.

  >From this scripture can one not say that Almighty God has always existed.

I believe so.  We agree on this.

  >What I meant was before the beginning of creation...

I think this is a poor (read less likely) interpretation.  The phrase 
"in the beginning" without qualifiers lends itself most readily to the 
meaning, "at the start of *all* things" rather than simply "before 
creation".

Collis	

Collis,

re.18

;  >What I meant was before the beginning of creation...
;
;I think this is a poor (read less likely) interpretation.  The phrase 
;"in the beginning" without qualifiers lends itself most readily to the 
;meaning, "at the start of *all* things" rather than simply "before 
;creation".

This is my own interpretation, and on the main they are very poor , so
I could very likely be wrong on this one . Atleast, we are agreed that
John 1:1 does not show that the Word has always existed , though I may
have used the wrong term "before the beginning" to get to this understanding .

Phil.

Re:  .19

  >at least, we are agreed that John 1:1 does not show that the Word has
  >always existed...

I think perhaps you misunderstood me.  John 1:1 in my view does show
that the Word always existed.  What it does not show is that the Word will
always continue to exist.  In this sense, it does not claim that Jesus
is eternal.  However, there are other verses that support the claim that
Jesus will always exist.

Collis

      When I stated that I do not hold to the "eternally begotten" Jesus
    I was not saying that I do not hold to the only begotten Jesus.  I 
    do hold to the only begotten.  Jesus the man did not live before 
    he was born 2,000 years ago.  The Word did.  The Word was never
    begotten.  Therefore, Jesus is not the eternally begotten.  He is
    the ONLY begotten Son.
    
    
                               Marshall

	Hi Collis
	
	Thank you, for clarifying for me and apoligies for misrepresenting
	your words . Still I dont fully understand how this verse John 1:1
	shows that the Word always existed . For this would contradict with
	with the verses mentioned by Robin earlier, Col 1:15 RSV "Who is the
	Image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation" and Jesus's
	words to John in Rev 3:14 KJV "These things saith the Amen, the 
	faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" .
	Perhaps you can share the different interpretation as you mentioned
	in .8 .

	Phil.
	 

	Hi Marshall,

	Thank you, for your clarificatation in .21 I believe I now
	understand what you were saying . In Luke 3:38 KJV it says 
	"which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God",
	here Adam is spoken of as the son of God, with this in mind
	how would Jesus coming in the flesh explain that he was the
	only begotten Son ?. 

	Phil.

Re:  sharing other interpretations of Col 1:15

Phil,

With pleasure.  Let's deal with the short passage from 1:15-17 since
it is all related.

  "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
   For by him all things were created:  things in heaven and on earth,
   visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or
   authorities; all things were created by him and for him.  He is before
   all things, and in him all things hold together."

What verses!

First, let's deal with "firstborn over all creation".

Firstborn can mean "original bringer forth" (which is the meaning
that Erasmus gives it).  This means that Christ brought forth all of
creation.

A related meaning is the interpretation that "firstborn over all creation"
can mean to have authority and power over all creation.  This meaning
of firstborn came about the firstborn was given pre-eminent authority
in inheritance.  As Arndt, Gingrich, Bauer and Danker says, "This expression
...is also used in some instances where it is uncertain whether the force of
the element -tokos is still felt at all".  Essentially what that means
is that "first over all creation" may be considered (in some cases)
analagous.  This interpretation fits the context of verses 16 and 17
exceedingly well.

Now, it also says "by him all things were created".  The NWT translates
this as "by him all other things were created".  But, it is evident from
the Greek that the word "other" is not there.  *All* things were created
by him, whether in heaven or on earth.  This leads to the conclusion that
Jesus himself was *not* created, since He created *all things*.   (This
is also supported by John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:2.)

Genesis 1 clearly tells us the God created the heavens and the earth.
Colossians 1 clearly tells us the Jesus created the heavens and the earth.
This is one reason why I accept that Jesus is God.

We are also told that "He is before all things".  Well, we were just told
that "all *things* were created".  He is before all *things* (and he
created all things), therefore he was *not* created.

Collis

    Hi, heres is some more Scriptures that will lend themselves to this
    discussion. 
    
    Is 44:24  Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed
              thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things;
              that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth
              abroad the earth by myself;
    
    Is 44:8   Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know
              not any.
    
    Is 44:6   Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer
              the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the Last;
              and beside me there is no God.
    
    Is 48:11-13  ...and I will not give my glory unto another. Hearken
                 unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I
                 am the first, I also am the last. Mine hand also hath
                 laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand
                 hath spanned the heavens:
    
    In the previous Scriptures it is plain to see that first of all;
    There is no other God besides him; He is the first and the last; 
    He will not give his glory to another; He by himself created all
    things. Now in other Scripture we can see Christ addressed in the
    exact terms. 
    
    Titus 2:13  Looking for that blessed hope, and glorious appearing
                of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
    
    1 Cor 8:4   ......and that there is none other God but one.
    
    1 Cor 8:6   But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom
                are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ,
                by whom are all things, and we by him.
    
    Heb 1:8     But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever
                and ever:
    
    Heb 1:10    And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations
                of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine
                hands:
    
    Rev 1:8     I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending,
                saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is
                to come, the Almighty.
    
    Rev 1:17-18  ....Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he
                 that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive 
                 for evermore, Amen;
    
    Jn 20:28    Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God!
    
      
    Now from these Scriptures are we to conclude that there are two
    Almighty Gods? or two first and lasts? or two beginnings and endings?
    or that there are two who created all things??? Certainly not, that
    would be foolishness and changing the truth of God into a lie. We
    are not left in the blind about this either. God kept his promise
    to come in the flesh as is described in several different areas 
    of the Scripture. (Is 7:14, 9:6 Mic 5:2 Mt 1:23 Lk 1:32-33 Jn1:14
    1 Tim 3:16 Heb 2:9 1 Jn 1:1-2 Phil 2:5-11)
    What better way is there for God to bring us back to him then by
    actually walking, breathing, and living amongst us and by being
    tempted like us and dying like we will? What better way to show
    us how to live, and to teach us about himself and all things and
    to show us that there is life after death? In ending I leave you
    with this:
    
    1 Jn 5:7-8  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the
                Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three
                are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,
                the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these
                three agree in one.
    
    
    
                                              Love in Christ the Lord,
                                              Carlos

Re .24

	Hi Collis

	I would like to make a few comments on your last reply . Please
	note, that I have still to look up two points you made , these
	are "Firstborn can mean "original bringer forth" and how the
	NWT translates "by him all 'other' things were created". 
 
;With pleasure.  Let's deal with the short passage from 1:15-17 since
;it is all related.
;
;  "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
;   For by him all things were created:  things in heaven and on earth,
;   visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or
;   authorities; all things were created by him and for him.  He is before
;   all things, and in him all things hold together."
;
; What verses!

Which Bible version were these verses taken from ? , I only have four different
ones and none corresponded .

;But, it is evident from the Greek that the word "other" is not there. 
;*All* things were created by him, whether in heaven or on earth.  
;This leads to the conclusion that Jesus himself was *not* created, since 
;He created *all things*.   (This is also supported by John 1:3 and 
;Hebrews 1:2.)


But is this what these verses are saying that Jesus created *all things* ?.
That is leaving aside the "other" argument .

John 1:3 KJV reads "All things were made by him; and without him was
not anything made that was made". This is rendered in the RSV as "all things
were made *through* him, and without him was not anything made that was made".
And Hewbrews 1:2 KJV "Hath in these last days spoken unto us his Son, whom he 
hath appointed heir of all things, *by whom* he also made the worlds. 
Looking also at Rev 3:14 "the beginning of God's creation." and Col 1:15
correlates with the expressions uttered by the figurative "Wisdom" in the
Bible book of Proverbs: "The LORD created me at the beginning of his work,
the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before
the beginning of the earth......when he marked out the foundations of the
earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman;" 8:22-30 RSV . The
term "Wisdom" is used to personify one that God created . This is in harmony
with the above verses shows by means of this Master worker , Jesus in his
pre-human existance , Almighty God created all other things . The Bible
summarises this in 1 Cor 8:6 KJV "But to us there is but one God, the Father
of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, *by whom*
are all things, and we by him."

The next paragraph is taken from Page 14 of the "Should you believe in the
Trinity ?" brochure .

It no doubt was to this master craftsman that God said "Let us make man in our
image." (Genesis 1:26) Some have claimed that the "us" and "our" in this 
expression indicate a Trinity. But if you were to say , 'Let us make something
for ourselves,' no one would normally understand this to imply that several
persons are combined as one inside of you. You simply mean that two or more
individuals will work together on something. So, too, when God used "us" and
"our", he was simply addressing another individual, his first spirit creation,
the master craftsman, the prehuman Jesus .  


;We are also told that "He is before all things".  Well, we were just told
;that "all *things* were created".  He is before all *things* (and he
;created all things), therefore he was *not* created.

From my  reply 93.11 which was about the "only-begotten Son" and including this
one, one can see that Jehovahs Witnesses view Jesus's creation as a separate 
creation hence the term "only-begotten Son" .

Phil.

Re:  93.26

  >Which Bible version were these verses taken from ? , I only have four 
  >different ones and none corresponded .

Sorry.  NIV.  (That's the Bible I have at my desk.)

  >John 1:3 KJV reads "All things were made by him; and without him was
  >not anything made that was made". This is rendered in the RSV as "all 
  >things were made *through* him, and without him was not anything made 
  >that was made".

This doesn't change the point in the least.  All things were made both
"by" and "through" (in the sense that Jesus was the agent for God the
Father) Jesus.  This still excludes the possibility that Jesus Himself
was created since He would not have been created either "by" or "through"

  >"The LORD created me at the beginning of his work,...

NIV translates this, "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work"
Quite a difference.

  >It no doubt was to this master craftsman that God said "Let us make man in 
  >our image." (Genesis 1:26) Some have claimed that the "us" and "our" in 
  >this expression indicate a Trinity. 

I have previously expressed an opinion on this verse that this verse is
not best interpreted as supporting the Trinity, but rather the use of
the plural in a very high title (which was done in Hebrew).

Collis

    Re: -1
    
    Hello Collis:
    
    I thought you would find it interesting to know that the NWT translates
    Prov. 8:22 as "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his
    way."  That is also different when compared with either 'created' or
    'possessed.'  
    
    However, the use of the Hebrew word 'qana' in this instance can
    be translated 'create' (which is what 'produced' means in the NWT
    rendering).  It is better to translate it 'produced' because the word
    for 'create' is 'bara'  There is a slight difference in the meaning
    of 'qana' in that it refers to acquiring something which wasn't there
    originally and that distinction was made by the translators in their
    use of the word 'produced.'  'Possess' is not necessarily wrong in that
    it also can mean acquiring, but only in the sense of being brought
    forth.  A footnote on the NIV translation makes this plain when it
    renders verse 8 alternately "The Lord brought me forth."
    
    It's interesting to note that in a parallel Ugaritic (a related Semitic
    language) account, the word used means 'create.'
    
    Larry
    

    
    Hi Collis,
    
    The NWT renders Colossians 1:16 "by means of him all [other] things
    were created" . As you can see the NWT puts other in brackets on page
    1547 of the standard NWT it is explained as follows :- 
    [] Brackets enclose words inserted to complete the sense in the
    English text;  . Apoligies , if I had looked up earlier I could have
    explained straight away .
    
    
    I have been unable to verify your reply .24 re Firstborn can mean
    "Original bringer forth" , but found it interesting . But, does this
    meaning not conflict with Jesus's words in Rev 3:14 ? .
    
    Re Proverbs 8:22 which the NIV translates as "The LORD possesed me at
    the beginning of his work " this is translated in the NWT as "Jehovah 
    himself produced me as the beginning of his way" . Looking at footnote
    of my reference Bible "produced me" is taken from the Hewbrew "qana'ni"
    (taken from Targums , Aram and the septuagint - I hope I got this right)
    "possesed me" is taken from the Latin "posse'dit me" . And with the RSV
    rendering it as "The LORD created me at the beginning " I will need to
    do a bit more digging . 
    
    Phil.
     

    re my last reply
    
    This was written without reading Larry's reply in .28 . Looks like
    I need to purchase a NIV version reference Bible -) .
    
    Phil.

	Hi Marshall

	To help further give the Jehovahs Witness viewpoint one needs
	to discuss the ransom sacrifice that Jesus paid . The next three 
	paragraphs of this reply are taken from page 15 of the "Should
	You Believe in the Trinity" under the heading of "How much was
	the ransom?" . Please make any comments or questions that you have,
	for I am interested on your views on this .

	One of the main reasons why Jesus came to earth has a direct 
	bearing on the Trinity . The Bible states: "There is one God, 
	and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who 
	gave himself a corresponding ransom for all." 1 Tim 2:5,6 NWT .

	Jesus, no more and no less than a perfect human, became a ransom
	that compensated exactly for what Adam lost - the right to perfect
	human life on earth . So Jesus could be rightly called "the last
	Adam" by apostle Paul, who said in the same context: "Just as in
	Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive."
	(1 Cor 15:22,45 NWT) The perfect human life of Jesus was the
	"corresponding ransom" required by divine justice - no more, no
	less. A basic principle even of human justice is that the price 
	paid should fit the wrong committed . 

	If Jesus, however, were part of a Godhead, the ransom price would 
	have been infinitely higher than what God's own Law required. 
	(Exodus 21:23-35; Leviticus 24:19-21) It was only a perfect human,
	Adam, who sinned in Eden, not God. So the ransom, to be truly in 
	line with God's justice, had to be strictly an equivalent - a perfect
	human, "the last Adam." Thus, when God sent Jesus to earth as the 
	ransom, he made Jesus to be what would satisfy justice, not an 
	incarnation, not a god-man, but a perfect man, "lower than angels"
	(Hebrews 2:9; compare Psalm 8:5,6.) How could any part of an almighty
	Godhead - Father, Son, or holy spirit - ever be lower than angels ? .

        Phil.

    >If Jesus, however, were part of a Godhead, 
    
     He is, judge for yourself Phil,
    
    Col 2:8-9  Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and
               vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments
               of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth
               all the fullness of the of the Godhead bodily.
    
    >the ransom price would have been infinately higher than what God's 
    >own law required. (Exo 21:23-35; Lev 24:19-21)
    
    It was,
    
    Mat 5:38-42  Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an
                 eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That
                 ye resist not evil: but whoever shall smite thee on
                 thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if
                 any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy
                 coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whoever shall
                 compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to
                 him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow
                 of thee turn not thou away.
    
    
    Also to all other JWs', why no replies to .25 ???? 
    
    Carlos

    To answer the question how could a Godhead become lower than angles I
    give the following.  John 1:1ff teaches how if you hold to the KJV as 
    the word of God.  It says clearly that the Word is God and that Word
    was made flesh.  Now if you want a technical run down on how that was
    done it was not given in the KJV.  That is a great unknown.
    
    
                                     Marshall

    Re: .25
    
    Hi Carlos:
    
    The reason no one has replied to your note is because it is impossible
    to do so.  You have entered some 79 lines of mostly scripture and asked
    for a comment on them.  Unfortunately the scriptures cover more than
    one subject and that makes it difficult.  If you wish you can use
    virtually every verse in the Bible and tie it somehow to some subject,
    but that makes it difficult to comment on.
    
    Take one subject, make a comment, add a scripture and show how it
    applies to support your position.  That will make it possible to
    reply to it.  Otherwise it is simply too much to handle and it is
    difficult to know where to begin.  Hope this helps.
    
    Larry
    

    Ok, How about if I pose some questions. Are there two beginnings and
    endings? two alpha and omegas? two first and lasts? two Almightys?
    two everlasting Fathers?              
    
    Carlos

    The answer depends on what translation you believe is the word of God.
    If you want the answer I hold.  It is found in the KJV.  If you want
    to know the JW answer you have to look to those writings.  To convince
    me you would have to convince me from the KJV.  So, it is very clear
    that to get someone to change a doctrine you would have to get them
    to accept your scriptures as the word of God first.  There will be 
    an inpass as long as we hold to two different bibles.  What do you
    think?
    
    
                                Marshall

    Re: .35
    
    Carlos:
    
    I will answer yours if you will answer mine!!  How many gods are there
    if we do NOT include pagan gods?  How many Lords??  How many times does
    the expression Lord appear referring to Jesus when it translates the
    Hebrew expression 'Adho-nai' without any suffix??  How many times does
    the Hebrew 'Ha'elohim' or 'ha'el' refer to Jesus?  (Both expressions are
    rendered "the one true God" by Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, probably the most 
    authoritative Biblical Hebrew grammar ever published.)  Same question
    for the similar expression 'ha'Adhohn', "the true Lord?"  How often
    does it refer to Jesus?  You may answer the above questions with prophetic
    references to Jesus as Messiah in the Old Testament if you wish.  How
    many times do ANY of the following expressions refer to Jesus, either
    prophetically or otherwise>
    
    Almighty ('Shad-dai') 
    Ancient of Days ('At-tiq Yoh-min')
    Holy Father ('Pa-ter' [Greek])
    God of Gods or Lord of Lords
    God of Truth
    Grand God
    Happy God
    Holy God
    Indefinitely Lasting God ('El oh-lam')
    Instructor or Grand Instructor
    Jehovah of Armies
    King of Eternity (Ba-si-leus ton ai-o-non)
    King of the Nations (Melekh hag-goh-yim)
    Living God (The-os zon)
    Majesty (Me-ga-lo-sy-ne) or Majestic One
    Maker (O-seh) or Grand Maker
    Most High (el-yohn)
    Most Holy One (Qedho-shim)
    Sovereign Lord
    Supreme One
    etc.......
    
    I think you get the point.  Better try a different angle because the
    use of the same expression for Jehovah and Jesus (and sometimes others
    as well) means zip as far as proving their equality.
    
    Larry
    
    
    

    Re: .36
    
    Hi Marshall:
    
    No, the answer has nothing do to with the translation you or I use. 
    When I became one of Jehovah's Witnesses (1956) and for some years
    afterward I used the King James Version since there was at that time no 
    New World Translation nor did we expect one then.  I had the option of 
    accepting the Trinity or rejecting it based on my understanding of the 
    Bible with nothing but the KJV in hand.  A plowman can plow his field
    with a stick just like he can with a modern, multi-tine, tractor-powered
    plow.  It is just a little harder, but the result is the same.
    
    Besides, if I recall correctly, the KJV has undergone some 20,000 or so
    corrections and changes since it was first published.  Which of them do
    you hold to be the correct one??  Now we have the NEW KJV.  Why??  Was
    the old one not satisfactory?  If the answer you "hold" was based on the
    spurious verse of 1 John 5:7 which I doubt appears in the NKJV (I don't
    have one to check!!), why did it appear in the old KJV if, in fact,
    the old KJV was an inspired account as you seem to feel.  How can an
    inspired account have an error so great as to include a verse which was
    not in the original Greek???
    
    The fact is, Marshall, that only the originals were inspired by God. 
    Everything after that is a tranlation and/or a copy of one.  But like
    you, I treat the Bible as the written Word of God too.  But there is no
    sense in treating any one translation as though it were handed down
    personally by the Creator.  Some are better translations than others,
    but any decent translation should suffice as a means of learning the
    Truth that leads to everlasting life.  Don't get hung up on the
    imperfect product of men.  Basic Bible truths are threaded throughout
    the Bible and do not depend on one verse or word here or there.  Don't
    look at the trees, look at the forest!!
    
    Larry
    
    
    

RE.32

Hi Carlos

;    >If Jesus, however, were part of a Godhead,
;
;     He is, judge for yourself Phil,
;
;    Col 2:8-9  Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and
;               vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments
;               of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth
;               all the fullness of the of the Godhead bodily.

I dont understand how this scripture is showing Jesus to be part of a Godhead .
The apostle Paul was developing further the aspect that , Jesus Christ's perfect
example and teachings do not have to be supplemented by human philosophies and 
traditions . He was pointing to the fullness of divine quality that Jesus has
in him , the NWT renders Col 2:8-10 as "Look out: perhaps there may be someone
who will carry you as his prey through philosophy and empty deception according
to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and 
not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the 
divine quality dwells bodily. And so YOU are posessed of a fullness by means of 
him, who is the head of all government and authority." 

;    >the ransom price would have been infinately higher than what God's
;    >own law required. (Exo 21:23-35; Lev 24:19-21)
;
;    It was,
;
;    Mat 5:38-42  Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an
;                 eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That
;                 ye resist not evil: but whoever shall smite thee on
;                 thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if
;                 any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy
;                 coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whoever shall
;                 compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to
;                 him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow
;                 of thee turn not thou away.

Funnily enough Jehovahs Witnesses everywhere were studying this verse last
Sunday as the first part of a three part Watchtower study on the Sermon on 
the mount . It was titled "Righteousness not by oral traditions" . To
cut a long story short , Jesus introduced what sounded like statements
from the Hewbrew scriptures with the words: "It was said." on six occassions
in Matthew 5:21,27,31,33,38,43 . Why ? because he was referring to the
scriptures as interpreted in the light of Pharisaic traditions that contracted
God's commandments . This is made apparent in Jesus's sixth and last reference
in this series: "You heard that it was said, 'You must love your neighbour
and hate your enemy'" But no mosiac law said "hate your enemy." The Scribes
and pharisees said it . So what Jesus trying to bring out in Mat 5:38-42 ? .
Jesus here does not refer to a blow that is intending to do injury but an
insulting slap with the back of the hand. One should not degrade oneself by
swapping insults . In other words refuse to return evil for evil . Jesus
was not here adding or taking anything thing away from Exo 21:23-35 and 
Lev 24:19-21 , for when he had previously mentioned the Hebrew scriptures 
he had used the term "It is written" (Matt 4:4,7,10) . 


Phil.

	Hi Marshall

	Re .33	

;    To answer the question how could a Godhead become lower than angles I
;    give the following.  John 1:1ff teaches how if you hold to the KJV as
;    the word of God.  It says clearly that the Word is God and that Word
;    was made flesh.  Now if you want a technical run down on how that was
;    done it was not given in the KJV.  That is a great unknown.

	I would like to discuss John 1:1ff sometime in the future . This
	scripture has been discussed many times in old versions of the
	golf::Christian notes conference but I see no reason why it
	cannot be discussed here . But first, carrying on with showing
	the Jehovahs Witness viewpoint I would like to discuss how God
	is always shown to be superior to Jesus in the Bible . 

	Phil.	 

re Note 93.38 by GRANPA::LROSS:

>     The fact is, Marshall, that only the originals were inspired by God. 
>     Everything after that is a tranlation and/or a copy of one.  

        Of course, an alternative possibility is that they are ALL
        inspired by God -- but the conventional understanding of
        "inspiration" (God-breathing) as equivalent to dictation is
        grossly inaccurate.

        Bob

    re .36 (RAVEN1::WATKINS)/Marshall
    
    [BTW, I composed this reply for posting last night as Larry was
    composing his reply .38.  Although Larry's reply is a little bit
    different in focus, I've decided to enter this one without change,
    since it doesn't conflict with anything that Larry has said.]
    
>    The answer depends on what translation you believe is the word of God.
>    If you want the answer I hold.  It is found in the KJV.  If you want
>    to know the JW answer you have to look to those writings.  To convince
>    me you would have to convince me from the KJV.  So, it is very clear
>    that to get someone to change a doctrine you would have to get them
>    to accept your scriptures as the word of God first.  There will be 
>    an inpass as long as we hold to two different bibles.  What do you
>    think?
    
    	I think that you have taken up a position that makes it very
    difficult, if not impossible, for us (Witnesses) to come up with points
    that will make any sort of impression upon you (other than a bad one),
    since we don't believe that *any* particular translation of the Bible
    has been inspired by God.  Not even the New World Translation.  
    
    	We believe that the original writings (i.e., autograph manuscripts)
    in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were inspired, and that all original
    language copies of them are "the Word of God" insofar as they are true
    to the originals; but we don't believe that Jehovah inspired any single
    translator or group of translators to enable them to produce a
    translation which was flawless in the way it rendered the literal
    meanings and idiomatic ideas of the original-language writings into
    other languages.
    
    	Just speaking of the NT in particular, having studied the matter to
    some extent, it is my personal conviction that the English of the King
    James Version does *not* convey the true meaning of the Greek in
    certain passages (like John 1:1), and this view is shared by all of
    Jehovah's Witnesses, and even by a few published, orthodox
    (trinitarian) Bible scholars as well.  We could offer you reasons why
    we *don't* believe that the KJV, as a translation, is correct on
    certain points; but if it's your conviction that the English of the
    King James Bible was inspired by God -- regardless of the fact that in
    certain cases, what it says does not really fit the sense of the
    original language passages -- there's really no point in arguing about
    it.  My guess is that whatever we might say will only appear to you as
    excuses and rationalizations for our not revering the King James
    Version (as inspired) as you do.
    
    	This topic is supposed to be reserved for replies by Jehovah's
    Witnesses which explain both what we believe about "the deity of
    Christ" (and the trinity in general), and why we believe what we do.  A
    basic fact of the matter is that we do *not* consider the King James
    Bible to be most accurate translation of God's Word.  Since the
    phraseology of the King James Version has had a powerful impact on
    English translations which have been produced since then, we may well
    spend time explaining why we don't follow certain orthodox traditions
    or conventions of translation; but if you aren't even interested in
    explanations that cast doubt on the validity of the renderings in the
    KJV (and the like), there isn't much point in your asking us (in this
    topic) to convince you that the trinity is not to be found in the KJV,
    is there?
    
    	As something hypothetical to ponder, Marshall, could you convince
    us (Jehovah's Witnesses) that the trinity was a true Bible doctrine if
    you *couldn't* use the King James Version (or its literary
    descendants)?  If the KJV didn't exist, or if we didn't speak English,
    how would you teach us the truth about the trinity?  (Would we have to
    learn English first, so that we could read the KJV?)
    
    								-mark.

    Re:.41
    
    Hi Bob:
    
    I agree that viewing any original Bible book as having been dictated is
    certainly not what is meant by writing under 'inspiration' or however
    you translate it.  But to take the position that *all* Bible
    translations were made under inspiration is also not tenable.  Since
    some of the translations render expressions incorrectly in our modern
    English and, in fact, conflict occasionally with other translations it
    isn't reasonable to view them all as having been made under inspiration.
    
    For example, 1 Cor. 10:25 states, "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles,
    that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake."  (KJ)  Assuming that 
    the only translation you had available was the KJ and couldn't, therefore 
    look that verse up in another clearer version, how would you understand 
    that 'inspired' scripture?  (Don't invite me for dinner!)
    
    Somehow I seriously question viewing *all* translations as being made
    under any form of inspiration.  That is especially true when there are
    insertions of text such as 1 John 5:7 which doesn't appear in most new
    translations since it was clearly not in the original inspired books.
    
    Larry
    

re Note 93.43 by GRANPA::LROSS:

>     Since
>     some of the translations render expressions incorrectly in our modern
>     English and, in fact, conflict occasionally with other translations it
>     isn't reasonable to view them all as having been made under inspiration.
  
        You obviously believe that inspiration means no human-induced
        errors.  I do not believe that at all, even for the original.

        I believe that "God breathed" means God's spirit moves
        through the hearing of the word.  Any work that could even
        remotely be considered a translation of Scripture should
        still have that property.

        Bob

    To begain with there are actually only two families of Greek Text from
    which you can work with.  One is the family of text that came from 
    Alexandra, Egypt.  All modern translations come from that family.  Then
    there is the family of text that came from Antioch, the church Paul
    started.  The King James Version came from the family of text out of
    Antioch.  The Greek text from which the KJV came from agrees totally
    with the KJV.  Now if all modern translations are based on the
    Alexandra family and the KJV is based on the Antioch family you will
    find a big difference.  Now to make it very clear, I hold to the 
    Antioch family.  I therefore hold to the Old KJV translation.
    
    
    BTW:  I am not alone on this belief.  This is a doctrine of my church,
    and of many other religious leaders of today.  I have their books on the
    subject.  One even goes into great detail with the Greek text and
    manuscripts.  So please do not come at me as if I am some uneducated
    low person.  I do hold a B. A.  in religion from Gardner-Webb College.
    
    
    I will be glad to see your view, even from another bible, but that does
    not mean I will agree to it.  Sorry about this side track.  Lets get
    back to the issue at hand.
    
    
    
                                     Marshall                              

    re .44 (XANADU::FLEISCHER)/Bob
    
>        I believe that "God breathed" means God's spirit moves
>        through the hearing of the word.  Any work that could even
>        remotely be considered a translation of Scripture should
>        still have that property.
    
    	Well, there certainly are more than a few verses in the Bible which
    are so plain in any translation (meaning that there is, for the most
    part, only one way to translate them), that we can easily determine and
    grasp the fundamental ideas which God sought to convey in the original
    language.  For verses of this sort, there isn't much to quibble over,
    and thus, for all effective purposes, the translation conveys the same
    force of God's spirit as did the original language work; and thus we
    can say that even the translation (of those verses) is "God's word."
    
    	However, it's a fact that translation almost always requires the
    translator to *interpret* certain passages or verses in order to convey
    the meaning, since meanings (clear in the idiom of the original
    language) don't always survive literal word-for-word translation.  If 
    a translator has the wrong idea about the meaning of a certain passage,
    his translation of the passage *may* not convey the meaning intended by
    the original author, especially when verses which are somewhat
    ambiguous are involved (in that the grammar, and even -- to a certain
    degree -- the context, might support more than one interpretation of
    the words).  It just so happens that a handful of passages which are
    crucial to the matter of the deity of Christ fall into this catagory.
    
    	What Marshall is asserting, in effect, is that God inspired the KJ
    translators, thus insuring that they either interpretted the underlying
    Hebrew and Greek correctly, or produced wordage (in English) which was
    correct by weight of inspiration alone (regardless of what the
    underlying original languages said), which explains why spurious
    passages like the addition to 1John 5:7 are considered authentic by KJV
    supporters.
    
    	Although Jehovah's Witnesses, like a good many other religions, are
    in the business to seek out and publish interpretations of Scripture,
    we don't believe that Jehovah is directly inspiring what we publish,
    and thus insuring its infallibility.  However, that's not to say that
    an infallible theological structure is required before one can serve
    God.  Rather, one merely needs one which is improvable, and which
    adjusts to the leadings of God's spirit.  Similarly, one's translation
    need not be perfect before one can serve God, but it helps if it
    doesn't actively promote serious errors and falsehoods.
    
    								-mark.

    re .45 (RAVEN1::WATKINS)
    
>    BTW:  I am not alone on this belief.  This is a doctrine of my church,
>    and of many other religious leaders of today.  I have their books on the
>    subject.  One even goes into great detail with the Greek text and
>    manuscripts.  So please do not come at me as if I am some uneducated
>    low person.  I do hold a B. A.  in religion from Gardner-Webb College.
    
    	Perish the thought, Marshall.  But then, from God's viewpoint, 
    there's no shame in being an "uneducated low person", either, since the
    Bible says that even the apostles Peter and John were viewed as being
    "unlearned and ignorant mean" (Act 4:13 KJV).  In fact, sometimes
    institutes of "higher learning" might be more dangerous to a Christian
    than helpful, since Paul warned us to "beware lest any man spoil you
    through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after
    the rudiments of the world..." (Col 2:8 KJV); and as I'm sure you know
    from experience, college curriculums often require their students to
    absorb just what Paul warned against, namely "philosophy" and "the
    tradition of men."
    
    								-mark.
    
    p.s. I hope you don't consider me an "uneducated and low person"
    either, since I *don't* have a formal degree in religious education.

    Reply to .47
    
    My school did not teach what I believe.  I do not hold any person with 
    a degree as a lord of knowledge in the matters of God.  However, every 
    time I bring out the fact that I hold to the KJV as the word of God
    others talk to me as if I am some poor uneducated , low fool.  Most do
    not believe that an educated man can hold to the KJV as the word of
    God.  Therefore, I let them know that, yes, I have studied what they
    believe about God's word and I have studied the other side too.  I 
    therefore came to hold what I believe.  That's all.  In fact my Pastor
    has never gone to college to study the Bible.  But believe me, I have
    a long way to go to learn what he knows about God's word.
    
    
                                   Marshall
    

    re .48 (RAVEN1::WATKINS)/Marshall
    
    	Thanks for the additional clarification.  Perhaps you might
    consider opening another topic here in C-P to explain why you feel that
    the KJV is so special.  Although I've heard other people besides
    yourself express the belief that the KJV itself is an inspired work,
    and unlike any other translation, I don't feel that I've ever really
    heard *why* they believe that it is.  (Along a similar vein, do each of
    the major languages of our world today have their own translation which
    is also of equal stature to the KJV, or are only the world's English
    speakers so fortunate to have an inspired translation of God's Word?)
    
    								-mark.

	
	Hi Marshall

	This reply will show how Jesus is distinguished from God .
	It has been mentioned by others that Jesus never claimed to be
	God . Everything that he, Jesus, ever mentioned about himself 
	indicates that he did not consider himself equal to God, either 
	in power, knowledge or in age . Whether in heaven or on earth, 
	his speech and conduct reflect subordination to God . In a 
	previous reply it was mentioned that Jesus was created by God . 

	Jesus showed that he was a creature separate from God and that
	he, Jesus, had a God above him, a God whom he worshipped, a God
	whom he called "Father." In prayer to God , that is, the Father,
	Jesus Said, "You the only true God."(John 17:3) At john 20:17 KJV
	he said to Mary Magdalene: "I ascend unto my Father, and your
	Father; and to my God, and your God." At 2 Corinthians 1:3 the
	apostle Paul confirms this relationship: "Blessed be the God and
	Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Since Jesus had a God, his Father,
	he could not at the same time be that God .

	The apostle Paul had no reservations about speaking of Jesus and
	God as distinctly separate: "for us there is one God, the Father,
	.... and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ,"(1 cor 8:6 RSV) The 
	apostle shows the distinction when he mentions "In the presence
	of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels"(1 Tim 5:21 RSV)
	Just as paul speaks of Jesus and the angels being distinct from
	one another in heaven, so too are Jesus and God .

	Jesus's words at John 8:17,18 RSV are also significant . He states:"In
	your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear
	witness to myself , and the Father who sent me bears witness to me."
	Here Jesus shows that he and the Father, that is, Almighty God, must
	be two distinct entities, for how else could there truly be two
	witnesses ? .

	Jesus further showed that he was a separate being from God by saying
	"Why do you call me good ? No one is good but God alone." So Jesus
	was showing that no one is good as God is, not even Jesus himself.
	God is good in a way that separates him from Jesus .

	The above paragraphs were taken from page 17 of the "Should you belive
	in the Trinity ?" brochure under the heading " Jesus Distinguished
	From God" , though there are a few changes which have been made by 
	myself . Comments are welcomed regarding this reply .

	Phil.

	  

    Re: .45
    
    Marshall:
    
    Thank you for your comments regarding the basis for the KJ tranlation. 
    However with regard to the spurious passage  at 1 John 5:7, this
    text is not found in any of the early Greek manuscripts and
    therefore if it is included in the KJ version and some of the other
    earlier translations, it is an addition which was not in the original. 
    For that reason most recent translation omit it.
    
    Just for the record, The KJ version text of the New Testament was based 
    on a Greek copy known as the Textus Receptus which was itself taken
    from the work of Erasmus whose refined Greek master text became the
    basis for better tranlations into several Wester European languages
    including Luther's and that of William Tyndale.  To create such a
    master text requires that the author compare and collate, as it were,
    many earlier extant texts and isolate those that have scribal errors or
    deliberate insertions such as 1 John 5:7.  So while the KJ may have
    come from one 'tree' or rescension, as it were, the differences between
    the text of the Alexandrine and the other branches were not major.
    
    In any event, the excellent scholarship of Wescott and Hort have
    produced what is generally considered a text that is for all intents
    and purposes identical to the original and is used by virtually all
    modern translations.  It is the one used by the New World Translation
    committee in producing the NWT.
    
    Considering what you believe the expression 'inspired of God' to mean I
    can better understand your position.  But to follow that reasoning I
    would it difficult to accept the Bible as the Word of God if the
    original contained errors which God permitted to exist in a document 
    which contained his purposes, his standards of morality and an
    accurate history of his dealings with various peoples.  Since, as the
    Bible states, 'God cannot lie,' how is it he would permit untruths to
    appear in his 'inspired' account???  
    
    I'm sorry if I lead you to believe that I felt you were ignorant for
    accepting the KJ translation as an inspired document.  If that is what
    you wish to believe, then you should believe it.  But I cannot help but
    feel that it is not a reasonable position to take and I have given my
    reasons for my belief.  I think Mark has made clear his feelings on
    this matter and mine are coincident with his.  Neither of my degrees
    are in religion either, but I would not trade my 34 years of almost
    daily Bible study for a Doctorate in Theology under any conditions. 
    Some of the most religiously ignorant individuals I have met have
    religious degrees and titles.  Conversely some of the most insightful
    of persons I have come across during the last thirty or so years have
    no degrees at all.  The only way to develop a high level of Bible
    literacy is by doing it the 'old-fashioned way', through open-minded
    study, discussion, reasoning, meditation and prayer...and each requires 
    effort.
    
    Larry
    

re Note 93.46 by ILLUSN::SORNSON:

>     If 
>     a translator has the wrong idea about the meaning of a certain passage,
>     his translation of the passage *may* not convey the meaning intended by
>     the original author, especially when verses which are somewhat
>     ambiguous are involved (in that the grammar, and even -- to a certain
>     degree -- the context, might support more than one interpretation of
>     the words).  It just so happens that a handful of passages which are
>     crucial to the matter of the deity of Christ fall into this catagory.
  
        My much more "fundamental" assumption is that nothing of
        essence of God's message in the Scriptures would depend upon
        a limited number of "difficult" passages.  If God did indeed
        "breathe" Scripture to a state of inerrancy, it would have
        required no extra degree of intervention on God's part to
        ensure that the essential messages would not be lost in any
        translation that appeared to be reasonable (through choice of
        words, alternative ways of expression, or even the guidance
        of the development of languages!).  (If God didn't breathe
        inerrancy, then the point is rather moot, anyway.)  

        If the exact nature of the deity/lordship of Christ can be
        determined only through a limited number of "difficult"
        passages, then I truly believe that such knowledge is not
        essential to Christianity.

        Bob

    re .52 (XANADU::FLEISCHER)
    
>        If the exact nature of the deity/lordship of Christ can be
>        determined only through a limited number of "difficult"
>        passages, then I truly believe that such knowledge is not
>        essential to Christianity.
    
    Bob,
    
    	It's funny you should say that, since this is *exactly* why
    Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the trinity; the "difficult"
    passages aside, we find that the "essence of God's message in the
    Scriptures" is that Jesus is God's Son, and is a distinct person *and*
    being from God.  The Christian Bible writers repeatedly state that the
    central point of their message is that Jesus is the Christ and is also
    God's Son.  The Bible simply doesn't convey in any consistent and
    unambiguous form that Jesus is *also* God (or more specifically, "God
    the Son").
    
    	As Larry pointed out, right from the start (in the early days),
    Jehovah's Witnesses have always held to the plain (and obvious) Bible
    teaching that Jesus is God's Son -- which is stated in the KJV -- but
    have not gone beyond the true witness of the Bible and accepted the
    doctrinal additional that Jesus is also God, and that God is a trinity.
    
    	It's pretty obvious that in the first century, the doctrine of the
    trinity was not "essential to Christianity," since the Bible contains
    no record of the doctrinal debates which later arose when the trinity
    became popular.  Given that it's still controversial in our day, I
    don't find it very believable to figure that the 1st century
    Christians, the first of whom were Jews, managed to adopt and spread 
    the teaching that Jesus was God without anyone making an issue about
    it.
    
    								-mark.

Hi Marshall

In Note 197.31 of the Christian notes conference you asked the question

;  As I have read, Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
    
I have posted a reply here because I believe that this note is more appropriate.
Philippians 2:6 is often used to support the Trinity as a proof text . In the
Catholic Douay version (Dy) of 1609 (sorry dont have the KJV handy today as I 
left it at home, but I understand that the verse reads much the same ) 
Philippians 2:6 says of Jesus "Who being in the form of God, thought it not 
robbery to be equal with God" . But, this verse in other later translations of 
the Bible is rendered very differently , for example :

1869: "who being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped
at to be on an equality with God." The New Testament, by G.R. Noyes.

1968: "who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal
to God a thing to greedily make his own." La Bibbia Concordata

1985: "Who, being in the form of God , did not count equality with God
something to be grasped." The New Jerusalem Bible

By looking at the context of the surrounding verses one can see which are the
more accurate renderings. Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the
matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it "not robbery,"
but their right, "to be equal with God"? Surely not! However, they can imitate
one who "gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal
to God." NWT (compare Genesis 3:5.) Such a translation agrees with Jesus Christ
himself, who said: "The Father is greater than I." John 14:28 .

Some claim, however, that even these later more accurate renderings imply that
1) Jesus already had equality but did not want to hold on to it or that 
2) he did not want to grasp at equality because he already had it .
In this regard, Ralph Martin, in "The Epistle of Paul to the Phillippians",
says of the original Greek: "It is questionable, however, whether the sense
of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize','to snatch violently'
to that of 'to hold fast.'" The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We
cannot find any passage where [harpa'zo] or any of its derivatives has the
sense of 'holding  in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean
'seize,''snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the
true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'"

With the foregoing in mind, the Greek in Philippians 2:6, when read
objectively, shows that Jesus did not think it appropriate to be equal
to God (and this is "the mind" that Christians should have, Verse 5) .

Phil. 

 

    One needs only to study the name "Jesus".  In Hebrew it means "Jehova
    saves His people."  Jesus is Jehova.
    
    
                                  Marshall

    The meaning for Jehova that most Christian churches give is synonymous
    with Yaweh or the Lord God. 'Jehova saves His people' could as easily
    refer to the fact that Jesus is God's son.
    
    Bonnie

    re .55 (RAVEN1::WATKINS)
    
>    One needs only to study the name "Jesus".  In Hebrew it means "Jehova
>    saves His people."  Jesus is Jehova.
    
    	The Hebrew Scriptures (cf., Neh 9:27), and the book of Judges in
    particular, shows that Jehovah often raised up, or appointed, specific
    men to become "saviors" of Israel.  They called the people to
    repentance and helped them straighten out their ways (in conformance
    with their Law), and they often acted as military leaders, and
    literally "saved" their people from the threat of destruction by the
    surrounding nations.  This they did, of course, with Jehovah's help and
    backing.  Ultimately, one could say that, each time, Jehovah saved his
    people, since it was always his direction and his power which assured
    salvation; but those individual men were also rightly called "saviors"
    because they were Jehovah's visible agents, and the instruments (or
    channel) through whom salvation was effected.
    
    	Jehovah fittingly named his Son "Jesus" when he was born on earth
    because it was through Jesus that Jehovah would save his people.  In
    fact, in a number of places throughout the Gospels, after observing
    Jesus' miracles, the people said of Jesus that 'God was with him' in
    recognition that God was the source of his powers.
    
    								-mark.
    
    (John 3:2,